Talk:Santa Claus/Archive 4

message: Under the heading "Dutch folklore" we find this sentence:
With the influx of immigrants to the Netherlands starting in the late 1950's, this story is felt by some to be racial.
Shouldn't that be "racist", not "racial"?  I know it's a trend to use the word "racial" for "racist", but this is erroneous.  "Racial" just means "having to do with race", it could be good or bad.  195.159.217.98 (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tagged it with a citation tag. If it isn't addressed in a timely fashion, it goes bye-bye. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be "racist". The "Zwarte Piet" though originates from the Moors, so maybe Muslims should feel more attacked than people from Surinam? Bokkie (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Racial" 

message: Due to semi-protection, I could not add an external link that I think is relevant, santatelevision.com, which is the "Santa Claus’ official Internet television in Lapland in Finland". CNN, BBC & others have done their Christmas specials from the theme park in Northern Finland where Santa TV broadcasts are done. Also, their broadcast was featured in the global Millennium celebration TV broadcast in 2000. In other words, I think the site should be added to the external links list by someone who has access to editing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.203.240 (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Santa Television to external links

message: Shouldnt there be something about what santa does?  the article mentions that he brings toys, but doesnt really explain that the toys are for nice kids, and naughty ones get coal.  or that if a family doesnt have a chimney, he uses the front door with a "magic key"--at least that's been the concensus in my part of the world, among the chimneyless.  some kids just get stocking stuffers (silly putty, yoyos, coloring books, candy) while others get extra presents wrapped under the tree in addition to the ones from mom and dad.  kids leave cookies for him, contributing to his weight, he says "hohoho", he and his doplegangers work at malls and take requests, a huge list is maintained of who deserves what, kids mail letters to him that end up in the dead letter department at the post office.  if i werent american, this article wouldnt reveal too much about america's version of santa.  tons about the origins tho, just not a lot about the modern american details. 76.203.22.9 (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I cannot speak for anyone else, but that seems like a pretty nifty idea. Anyone else? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Now to find someone who can be bothered actually doing it...Veggieburgerfish (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Internal links to other Santa articles

message: the recent addition of an 'unreferenced' tag clearly shows the need for this matter to be addressed, considering the traffic the article is liklely to be getting now that the holiday is upon us. I will wait until Sunday before removing the unreferenced section to the Discussion page for citation work. I certainly hope that inspires some hardy soul to add the required reliably citation. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reworked this section in an attempt to give it a more solid foundation. What really needs to be done in this section, however, is to make some out and out citations citing direct comments and by whom. Right now we have a little skeleton and much more could be applied here to flesh it out. I will see what I can do over time. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your efforts - but I'm not sure in how far the one book quoted is a reliable source. Is it scientific or rather popular writing? I'm so curious because I never have heard of that Odin theory before. Perhaps it should be labeled as a theory in the article? -- 790 (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, "theory" is a little too flattering. It's a hypothesis - an interesting one, but nothing more.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.221.148 (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, there's plenty of comparisons to this and plenty can be dug up backing it up since there's a lot of scholarly speculation ont he subject going far back. In its current state, it needs a lot of work. I just converted what was already there to kill the reference request tag above it. More citations are definitely needed, it's just a matter of time. Right now I have a lot going on here on Wikipedia and since Christmas is soon coming I am trying to skim through some areas of Christmas tradition that needed or need some Christmas ham and Yule log. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, Bloodfox. I made the statement I did to make sure something was done on it, and since you are going to get around to it, we can set the deadline for, say next Sunday. I am going to be keenly aware if anyone tries to forego citation work until after Christmas (not suggesting that to be the case here; I'm just voicing a concern). The article deserves to be good, and good it will be. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, I like your spirit! :) Check the progress I've made on the articles I mentioned in my previous post since that time - you may be interested. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I have continued editing the article and I think the current state is good enough for the Sunday deadline. It does need more work though and I will dig up some more references when I have the time. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Germanic folklore section going bye-bye soon

message: ::::Thank you for your reduction in harshness :) Respectfully, I would ask which policies my request my request would violate. WP:WEIGHT has two provisions that I can see: 1) Tiny minorities should possibly be given no weight. I respectfully submit that Santa believers don't quite fit "tiny" minoritiy, especially in the countries where Santa (and Santa counterparts) are active. True, many of these believers are children, but they are still people. 2) Significant minorities should not be given undue weight. I would peg Santa believers as a significant minority. Is removing the words "mythological" and "fictional" from the lead of this article and replacing them with more appropriate terms like legendary and folkloric really undue weight? It's not even a false change from YOUR point of view, just a slight moderation. Would you like me to find statistics on numbers of Santa believers? Are there other policies this request would violate? Applejuicefool (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Applejuice, I already raised this issue on the Admin noticeboard, and virtually all admins agreed any attempt to whitewash, hide the truth that Santa is a fiction or whatever else you are proposing would, in the words of User:Prodego, "violate a whole load of policies."  At this point, I am going to disengage from the conversation, but if I see that the lead wording is changed to hide the fictional or mythical reality of Santa Claus, I will raise it as an admin issue.  Lastly, there is no consensus for such a change found here; the only issue is whether to say fictional or mythical.  I'm fine with either.  Happy Holidays!  --David Shankbone 23:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both points of view should be presented per WP:YESPOV if they can be sourced per WP:RS. -- Kendrick7talk  —Preceding comment was added at 23:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree; however, it is already represented in the "primarily believed by children" language.  Any desire to expand upon that language will need to be met by the dominant view with wording to the effect of, "Parents typically tell children that Santa brings them gifts, but in reality parents buy the gifts and eventually tell children the truth."  Attempting to WP:GAME Wikipedia policies can also work against your hopes.  The current wording has the most consensus.  If you want to expand the article with an "Is Santa Real" section, be my guest.  But be prepared for consequences you may not desire.  --David Shankbone 23:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as I'm concerned, David is welcome to edit, even though he seems to think that there can be a Grinch without a Santa. htom (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I still would like to know what policies of Wikipedia would be violated if "Mythological" and "Fictional" were changed to "Legendary" and "Folkloric", and references to Santa's alleged falsity are simply removed from the *lead* of the article. I have already addressed the WP:WEIGHT claim with no rebuttal. I have been told there is a "whole load" of policies that would be violated, but nobody can enumerate these policies for me. User:Prodego, can you shed some light on what policies you refer to? I don't see how policies can be violated when no change to the content of the article is being requested, just a very slight change to the order of that content. Applejuicefool (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: A quick statistic: According to this Washington Post Story , 86% of Americans "believed in Santa as a child." According to Wikipedia's own Demographics of the United States article, 24.7% of Americans are aged 0-19 - 42,667,761 males and 40,328,895 females, a total of 82,996,656 children living in the US. Ok, so 18 and 19 year olds are not technically children. I'll go ahead and round it down to an even 75 million children in the US, for argument's sake. So 86% of 75 million is 64,500,000. According to the same article, US population hit the 300 million mark in 2006. Therefore, 21.5% (approximately, I'll allow) of US citizens - NOT INCLUDING adult believers, which are not non-existant - believe in Santa Claus. This is hardly an insignificant minority and should be given appropriate weight when making this decision.  Applejuicefool (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you begin a "belief in Santa Claus" section.  Don't worry, I will help you write it once you start it.  Until then, I'm working on expanding the Opposition to Santa Claus section.  Ho ho ho.  --David Shankbone 18:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The math above is almost comically incorrect.  It's 86 percent of children believed until a median age of 8.  So of those 64,500,000 a median age of 8 would give only about 21,000,000 who believe.  Of that 21,000,000, many are babies and toddlers who can't even speak.  So you're actually talking at most 2-3 percent of Americans capable of expressing belief in Santa Clause, none of whom continue to believe after the belief is challenged.  By this token we must also count as real the Easter Bunny, the tooth fairy, under-the-bed monsters, the bogeyman, imaginary friends, Martians, talking frogs, unicorns, dragons, wizards, flying hippos.  We'd have to add a section about storks to the article on pregancy.  LOL! --JayHenry (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Convenience break

message: We should have a template put at the top of the page reading "Do Not Request A "Santa for Kids" Page, as Wikipedia is Not Censored, and This Article Will Not Be Created." MalwareSmarts (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be put for it.  It would be good to mention that it violates WP:NPOV and WP:V.  Anything that efforts to lie, hide the truth, or whitewash it is a violation of many of our core policies, regardless of the good faith intentions, and hurts our credibility (which is the last thing we need).  Could you imagine the blogosphere getting hold of us trying to say Santa is real?  Or Colbert?  --David Shankbone 20:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the last time: of course Colbert is real; it's Stephen Colbert that isn't real. -- Kendrick7talk 01:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: So what should the template look like? I think it should be at the top of the talk page, in big, terrifying print. MalwareSmarts (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just full protect the article from say, the 14th (when great gobs of American schoolkids begin their Christmas holiday) until after the New Year? That seems a lot better than a template. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that won't stop people from going to the talk page and saying "Let's make a Santa For Kids page so kids won't be disappointed." But full protection would be a good idea, because the page would never be either replaced with "Hey Kids, Santa Ain't Real! Ha-Ha!" or with some rewritten nonsense about Santa being real, and by Santa, I mean the fat old man who comes through chimneys (heaven only knows how he gets through mine), and not Saint Nicholas, the historical figure. We could leave the proposed template at the top year round. Would adding a hidden message in the article only editors can see contradict WP:BEANS, or would it be a good idea? MalwareSmarts (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think protection would be warranted if we start to see a bunch of "Santa is real" messages.  If the silly arguments raised on this page start to gain any steam, I will put up a notice on the admin board since any chance this page purports Santa to be real violates core policies.  --David Shankbone 21:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The proposed template was for the talk page. You do have a point, though. MalwareSmarts (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal (Please read) 

message: David has reverted me twice on the lead sentence, and has now inserted "(and a small number of adults)". The ref provided clearly shows, even in the headline, that the stastical analysis proves 30% of Canadian adults believe that Santa exists. David's continued revision is both misleading and smacks of WP:OWN. I will not edit war over it, but any objective person editing this article can see the lead is now distorted to support one editor's point of view. This is NOT how Wikipedia works. Jeffpw (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have two major papers, The New York Times (American) and the Evening Standard (UK) stating that this is a belief that is primarily fostered in children.  You have one poll that shows 300 Canadian adults believe in Santa Claus (whereas 70% know he does not exist).  The problem is your POV, not mine, which is sourced and cited with two major international papers.  You've got some minor Canadian poll, which is reflected accurately in the wording.  Minority opinions are NOT how Wikipedia works, Jeff.  See WP:LEAD, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT.  --David Shankbone 16:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I was saying, could somebody objective look into this? Jeffpw (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll tell you what; I will ask some of the admins from the admin discussion to take a look at it.  --David Shankbone 16:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Provide every major viewpoint and qualify the statements with their sources. This is how NPOV is done. Include all the significant facts weighted by their significance and make it very clear who is saying what. 1 != 2 16:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So should we say "a small number of Canadian adults"?  --David Shankbone 16:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Just say "According to a study by... out of a group of 300 Canadians asked, 30%...", say just what the source says and attribute it to the source. If two sources of similar significance contradict each other then make it clear who the sources are and how they disagree. The trick is to stick with what is published and not let one's opinion enter into it. 1 != 2 16:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Canadian poll was conducted by reputable pollster Ipsos Reid, and the poll makes it clear that the results can be generalized to the Canadian population: These are the findings of an Ipsos Reid survey fielded from December 12th to December 14th 2006. For the survey, a representative randomly selected sample of 1,000 adult Canadians were interviewed by telephone. With a sample of this size, the aggregate results are considered accurate to within ± 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, of what they would have been had the entire adult Canadian population been polled. The margin of error will be larger within each sub-grouping of the survey population. These data were weighted to ensure the sample's regional and age/sex composition reflects that of the actual Canadian population according to Census data. Terjen (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless there is a reliable source attesting to the ability for the poll to be generalized, then it would be best to let the reader make their own judgment and just present the published facts. 1 != 2 17:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This poll is better for Santa Claus in Northern American culture and not for an article dedicated to a worldwide view.  I think what should be crafted is a section on the belief in Santa, however, which is perplexing overlooked in the article.  --David Shankbone 17:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Valid point, unless we are to include every country. However it may still be worth mentioning if it directly contradicts another claim by another source. 1 != 2 17:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I originally had "primarily by children" in the lead, but "primarily" was considered a "weasel word" and taken out, even though that statement is factual, as evidenced by the Canadian poll. --David Shankbone 17:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: A vast improvement.  --David Shankbone 18:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Would somebody please check the revisions

message: Lather, rinse, repeat. According to Wiktionary, "Fictional" means 1. Invented, as opposed to real. This is the only definition given. This certainly doesn't apply to Santa Claus. St. Nicholas is a real, historical figure. Santa Claus wasn't invented - his legend started with St. Nicholas and grew from there. Just because many of the legends attributed to him these days are a bit fanciful, doesn't mean that he's invented - or fictional. And please stop acting in bad faith, re: . Applejuicefool (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Santa Claus is a fiction, Saint Nicholas is real.  That is why there are two articles - one discussing the real person, the other discussing the fictional character.  --David Shankbone 21:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict, redundant now, but it seems like it may need to be emphasized)  Saint Nicholas is the 4th Century Bishop witha reputation for gift giving. Santa Claus is the fictional folklore character who flies around the world giving presents to good little boys and girls. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but Santa Claus is St. Nicholas. They are the same person. Just like the real King Arthur is the same person as the legendary King Arthur. Applejuicefool (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or rather, Santa Claus grew out of St. Nicholas, rather than being invented.Applejuicefool (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being based on something real doesn't make him less fictional.  A Law & Order episodes that was "ripped from the headlines" is still fictional, despite being based on real life events. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's not "based" on something real, he *is* something real around whom stories have sprung up. Look at Daniel Boone...just because he supposedly killed him a bar when he was only 3 doesn't make him a fictional character, it makes him a legendary figure. Santa is legendary, not fictional. Applejuicefool (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Santa Claus was never a real person.  Saint Nicholas was a real person.  The character of Santa Claus is entirely fictional. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure, but that doesn't make him fictional. Renaissance depictions of Christ probably bear little resemblance to the real Christ, but that doesn't make Christ a fictional character. Applejuicefool (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. And I would like to add that calling Santa fictional is about as NPOV as calling Jesus or any other biblical character fictional. "historical, legendary and mythological" is spot on. Why this obsession with calling Santa fictional? What did he ever do to you? EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fictional" 

message: I moved them to my talk page. I am not going to call for an official RfC at this time as I feel it would be counterproductive. I just want to fix the article. Applejuicefool (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments re: This Discussion moved 

message: Please add the  template to this article. It has been locked in a disputed state. -- Kendrick7talk 21:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be ridiculous.--Docg 21:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That's one of the silliest requests I have ever seen.  --David Shankbone 22:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do understand that the current version represents your point of view, but I don't think this request is ridiculous. The addition should be permitted per Wikipedia:NPOVD#What is an NPOV_dispute?-- Kendrick7talk 22:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article definitely needs the NPOV tag. This is a classic content dispute regarding two very different points of view. The two editors above may disparage those with the differing POV if they wish (it seems civility is not really necessary when you have the truth on your side), but the fact is there are two opposing  points of view. This will definitely end up on Lamest edit wars, if it is not already there. Jeffpw (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: What exactly are the two opposing points of view?  Can somebody please spell it out for me? If not for me, then for the admin? --David Shankbone 22:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should consider trying Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy and trying to explain what you think the the position of the other side is here. -- Kendrick7talk 22:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: But some of us do! :) Applejuicefool (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Your problem, Doc, is in believing some personification of "wikipedia" should have or could have a certain POV on the topic. -- Kendrick7talk 22:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Until through discussion has occurred, it would be inappropriate for anyone to change the exact text that is the cause of the dispute. I think any the NPOV issues can be resolved in the same discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All my experience at wikipedia suggests that without some sort of tag, the side with the current version will have no motivation to engage in any sort of discussion, and will simply wait the protection out. At the very least, the  tag should be there. -- Kendrick7talk 23:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And a quick scan of this talk page will show that the supporters of the current version were pushing for protection of this version just a day or so ago. I haven't a doubt that discussion will be tabled until after the holidays, as long as the article does not get tagged POV. Jeffpw (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a protection template at the top of the page, which I agree may help encourage people to resolve the matter promptly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd be fine going back to the version that said "fictional, historical and legendary character" since the character could span all of those. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See, though, the whole point of this discussion (for me) boils down to this: Santa Claus is not some character that some author dreamed up some day. He is *not* fictional, because he was not created for fiction (which is a literary term). Sure, he's appeared in a whole lot of fiction, but then so have several U.S. presidents. That doesn't make them any less real. Shoot, some people say George Washington didn't chop down the cherry tree after all. That story exists - does that make George Washington a fictional character? No, like Santa, he's a real person (yes, Santa and St. Nick are the same person) around whom legends have sprung up. That's why I favor the use of the word "Legendary" and am adamant that fictional or any synonym thereof is clearly wrong and uncalled for. Applejuicefool (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, we have a separate article for the real person of Saint Nicholas.  This article isn't about him.  It's about the fictional construct based on him.  Because he is based on a real person, I'm fine including "historical" as one of the descriptors, but not without clearly stating that this character is fictional.  -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chunky, if Santa Claus is not St. Nicholas, then why is the Santa Claus article part of the category WikiProject_Saints articles?  See the link at the bottom of this page. Applejuicefool (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Who is the very special, short-bus individual who changed the "legendary, fictional and mythological" descriptors to "fictional folklore character?" And who the hell changed it in the middle of a discussion about it? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you look at the history or this talk page, you'll see that it's the contribution of several different editors.  I get the honor of being the last one.  I have to say, though, that whatever the merit of my actions, your statement clearly crosses the line of WP:NPA. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you are right - maybe it was just my temper flaring at folk who decided that they just didn't think they needed to wait until a consensus was found in the discussion before edit-warring their opinion onto the article. Accept my apology for flaring up at the arrogance and stunted nature of folk doing so. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your continuing insults don't really help improve the situation. -Chunky Rice (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay ChunkyRice. Explain to me how your actions helped to improve the article. I am all ears as to how my characterizations were inaccurate. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think my single edit to the article was unhelpful or detrimental, I'll concede that.  It was, perhaps, poorly conceived.  However, calling me arrogant or "stunted" isn't a comment on my edit, it's a personal attack.  Please discuss the article and not other editors.  -Chunky Rice (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Now, what do you plan to do to get us out of this mess? You're an admin. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only way out that I'm aware of is to continue to discuss the article until we can arrive at some sort of consensus.  I've been trying to do that.  If you'll look above, my last proposal was to go back to the "fictional, historical and legendary" version, which Applejuicefool strongly objected to.  As far as being an admin, I'm not going to edit a protected article until a clear consensus emerges.  I'd be happy to unprotect the article, but only if people agree to not edit the lead until we have that consensus.  -Chunky Rice (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay. Let's try something like this: - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: :::::I like 'myth,' too, but I was just thinking that saying it twice in a row (it's in previous line, too) might not be the most brilliant pose ever. I don't hate it, but I'm also okay with replacing one instance or the other with legend/story/tale.  Anyway, my current working version:
:::::There has long been some opposition and criticism of the tradition of teaching children to believe in Santa Clause. Some Christians feel the Santa myth  takes focus from the religious aspects of Christmas.  Other critics say that the (story/legend/myth again) amounts to an elaborate lie, and that it is thus unethical for parents to teach it to their children. Others oppose Santa Claus as a symbol of the commercialization of the Christmas holiday, or as an intrusion upon their own national traditions.
:::::Still not loving the first line, though. -- Vary | Talk 19:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole thing violates WP:Avoid weasel words every two words or so. Doesn't say for how long, who the critics are, who the "some" Christians are, who the "other critics" are, or who the other other opposition is. -- Kendrick7talk 19:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't.  You are mis-reading that section.  We don't need to name critics, or how long they have been saying something.  That is irrelevant, etc.  But you are welcome to attempt a re-write.  Have at it.  I also note your supposition is very weasely based upon your language.  Supposed by whom?  For how long?  In the end, we are making progress and we are not going to satisfy everyone, so I think Vary and I are on the way to forming something that we can vote on to get consensus.  --David Shankbone 19:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You shouldn't just dismiss our WP:STYLE guidelines as irrelevant. -- Kendrick7talk 20:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: What about There has long been opposition to teaching children to believe in Santa Claus. Some Christians say the Santa tradition detracts from the religious origins and purpose of Christmas. Other critics feel that the tradition is an elaborate lie, and that it is unethical for parents to teach their children to believe in it. Still others oppose Santa Claus as a symbol of the commercialization of the Christmas holiday, or as an intrusion upon their own national traditions.
Applejuicefool (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I was just re-reading and not liking the repetition of "tradition" myself. I like this latest version. Applejuicefool (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm okay with it as well.  --David Shankbone 20:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vary's latest working version

message: Perhaps we could WP:WFTE and simply put forth the first sentence as a mere supposition, in short:
"Santa Claus is supposed to be an immortal man with magic powers who is believed in some Western cultures to deliver presents on Christmas Day."
Thus we acknowledge the belief, without stating one point of view or the other as a matter of demonstrable fact. And, readers who don't believe in such a thing as immortality and magic powers would be immediately clued in without the list of debatable adjectives which are only trying to accomplish this same thing. Wouldn't that make everyone happy? -- Kendrick7talk 17:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me, but I bet someone will object that not everybody "supposes" he is. Applejuicefool (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suppositions aren't universal like that, just the opposite. Not to put too fine a point on it, but modern science uses a similar idea of the thought experiment. I think we all can agree that someone somewhere supposes this to be true. -- Kendrick7talk 17:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to climb the Reichstag, baby. "Immortal man with magic powers", indeed. :| - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, that's the general contention, isn't it? -- Kendrick7talk 19:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Bollocks.  And you are misinformed if you think Santa Claus the Christmas gift-giver predates rational thought.  --David Shankbone 20:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm saying he predates Rene Descartes and his way of objectifying reality. That's why I'm suggesting a fall back to the language of the slightly earlier philosophy of supposition theory, typified by William Ockham. The modern Cartesian way of thinking about the world inspired the scientific revolution and has been an overall boon for civilization, but simply falls short when talking about Santa. -- Kendrick7talk 20:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bollocks again.  Most of your arguments seem more academic exercises in pseudo-intellectualism, and do not add much to the discussion to hammer out the wording of the article.  Regardless, we can certainly discuss the Stone Age rationally, there's no reason why a tradition that started in the mid- to late- 1800s can't be described using modern methods of communication and thought.  --David Shankbone 20:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe my compromise wording is somehow unmodern. I just believe the idea that Santa Claus does not think, therefore he is not is the wrong philosophical starting point for presenting this topic. -- Kendrick7talk 21:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?!  What are you talking about?  --David Shankbone 21:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You maybe unfamiliar with Descartes proposition that "I think, therefore I am." The argument is over whether Santa is or is not, isn't it? And how do we compromise on some verbiage in between these two possible states of being and non-being? The latest rendition is using "Santa is ... presented as" (i.e. Santa is proposed to be) in lieu of "Santa is supposed to be." I think that's gets the verbiage of existence wrong (as Santa Claus is not a testable proposition under the scientific method), but as long as we are writing by committee, it's the best I'll hope for. -- Kendrick7talk 21:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supposition? 

message: Ok, I think we're in agreement about the content of the lead thus far, but I would like to advance one more suggestion. I know this is going to meet some controversy, but I ask that you read and consider my reasoning before you dismiss it. I think we should move the third paragraph out of the lead (winces at the outcry). Here's my reasoning: The third paragraph talks about criticism of topics that haven't been presented to the readers yet. I apologize, I didn't even think about this until I went back to type up everything we have assembled. I would favor replacing the criticism paragraph in the lead with one detailing some of the more popular Santa traditions - toys for good boys and girls, flying reindeer, naughty/nice list, chimneys, etc. That way, when we do get into the criticism (which could be in the next graf if we want to stretch the lead that long) it will have some context. Applejuicefool (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not, for all reasons already discussed.  Please read WP:LEAD We can certainly describe what Santa is said to do, but we can't remove the criticism section out of the lead.  We can expand the lead to four paragraphs, or we can improve the middle one. --David Shankbone 21:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WP:LEAD, "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points...". If the lead talks about criticism of something without  describing that thing, it cannot stand alone as a concise overview of the article, it does not establish context, and it does not summarize the most important points. It is my opinion that flying reindeer and chimneys are more important to a concise understanding of Santa Claus than are the various criticisms of his existence. Just to explain my post above, which seems to have gotten muddled as I thought it as I wrote it: I favor putting the traditions ahead of the criticisms in the lead. If this makes the lead too long, I feel it is the criticism that should be bumped elsewhere, not the traditions. Applejuicefool (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with summarizing succinctly what Santa Claus does.  It doesn't require a lot of space.  Criticisms have to stay.  --David Shankbone 21:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I will type up a combined lead incorporating what we've done so far, and adding in some of the more relevant Santa traditions. I plan to prune some on the second graf. I'll post it here when I finish, for discussion. Applejuicefool (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict(again!))A third paragraph, about the modern Santa's reported activities, would provide examples for the critisms in the fourth (and allowable) paragraph. He is very exploited by many people selling things with his image. htom (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead some more. 

message: Hey just a thought, there arent actually any  photographs on here of a modern depiction of Santa. Thoughts?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.101.218 (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Some one should take their own non-copyrighted picture of a Santa at a mall and upload it to the article. 24.126.179.169 (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: David would know quite a bit about this, as I am unsure whether a release is needed for Santa's helper (and anyone else in the pic). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos of modern Santa

message: It would be nice if a balanced rebuttal to this section could be added, since there are psychologists as well as writers like Terry Prachett who believe the "Santa lie" is beneficial to children.  I've no particular feeling about it myself but this section seemed a bit unbalanced as it did not provide an opposite view.
Sample:
Some psychiatrists, including Dr. Linda Breen and Dr. Mark Salter, believe that Santa Claus nurtures both social and cognitive behavior in children.  The realization of Santa Claus as a fictional (mythological, legendary, whatever) character provides a rite of passage from childhood to adulthood and is considered a developmental milestone.  Santa Claus may provide a positive role model, as well exemplifying traits of generosity and good-will.  Many letters to Santa Claus that have been studied have shown wishes for someone else, including the sick and the poor.  Santa Claus may represent a needed social-cognitive period of symbolic play that is required for creative thought as an adult.  (References: Breen, Linda.  "What if Santa Died?"  Psychiatric Bulletin (2004), 28, 455-456 and Salter, Mark.  "What if Santa Died: An Invited Response.  Psychiatric Bulletin (2004), 28, 457.)  The novelist Terry Prachett writes that the belief in things that there is no evidence for, like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, are an introduction to belief in more difficult concepts like Justice and Hope (reference: Wikipedia article on the "Hogfather".)
Avin river (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would favor that. Applejuicefool (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is kinda interesting; the psychological impact of the idea of Santa Claus. What do others think?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 15:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely worth adding.  We need tighter sourcing for the Pratchett bit, though; we can't cite Wikipedia articles, and I don't see a source for it in the Hogfather article that we could use here.  I know I have a copy of the book somewhere, and that phrase does ring a bell. -- Vary | Talk 15:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase itself seems to be from Aaron's Commentary on this page http://members.aol.com/tishede/pratchett2.htm but it may well be in the book (how'd I miss that one?) htom (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like I may have been confused by the movie version.  IMDB's quotes page has an exchange between Susan and Death about believing in 'little lies' and 'big lies.' I'm not sure now if any of that is in the book or not.  -- Vary | Talk 21:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: WeirdJohn, you make some great points here. While I don't agree with everything you say, your main point (complete honesty during the process of raising children is not always desirable) is well taken. Children don't always need to hear the truth, especially in circumstances where that truth would be harmful or dangerous to them. Unfortunately, this is the place to discuss the article, not to debate the philosophies contained in them. The "Santa is a lie" schtick, despite its relative merits or lack thereof, is a common criticism of Santa and the traditions surrounding him. I would love to see a bit of rebuttal in there, though. Maybe when school lets out for Christmas and I can think again, I'll try to research and write some (assuming the article is unlocked by then, which looks doubtful). Applejuicefool (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that rebuttal the psychological effects is merited.  --David Shankbone 19:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Santa is a lie told to children - Possible addition of a rebuttal? 

message: I am curious as to whether we should apply for page unprotection, based on the resolution of the edit-warring issues that destabilized the article. As I reckon, we have resolved the following:
:* issue 1: the descriptors noting Santa as "historic, legendary and mythical";
:* issue 2: other Lead statements
If there were other issues, please forgive their non-inclusion, but do note them. If any other seemingly insoluble matters remain, bring them up now. Otherwise, we should unprotect the article, make the noted changes and move on from there. I am still thinking we should re-lock it after these changes are made, as the article is going to be heavily vandalized in the days before and after Christmas, but that is my own, personal assessment of human nature. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the source for "mythical"? I think the Encyclopedia Britannica has him as a legend. Phyesalis (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Phyesalis, we hashed all that out above. I personally favored using just the one adjective "legendary", but other editors wanted either mythological or fictional, neither of which are appropriate. We finally compromised on the three descriptors Arcayne listed here. Applejuicefool (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true, and yet it still has not been changed in the article. "Fictional folklore" is inappropriate in my opinion, and should be changed immediately. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think an agreed up version of the lead should be drawn up below, and request an admin make the change, but keep protected until other issues are sort out re: psychological aspects, how to make it more worldview-oriented, etc.  I am in Israel for Wikinews until the 23rd, so my time is limited; however, I have full faith, judging by the current tone of the Talk page, that the current editors could sort it out before then.  --David Shankbone 21:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing Page-Protection

message: 1: clothes: this article at present refers to the conventional (pre-Nast) British representation of Father Christmas in a floor-length green robe, and contrasts this with the American (now pretty much worldwide) representation of Santa Claus in a red suit. I think it would be worth mentioning that, although it appears to have largely given place to the suit now, there are a lot of British depictions between Nast's time and the present in which he wears the conventional long robe, but in red, not green - a compromise, perhaps, between the two traditions. (I believe the French Pere Noel was conventionally depicted wearing white, but I could be wrong on that. He was also a lot thinner than the Anglo-American version.)
2: While there's vague stuff about St Nicholas and Odin, there's absolutely nothing here about the earliest known citations for belief in a midwinter gift-giver - surely a vital piece of information. Over at the Father Christmas article the 1616 citation for the earliest known example of a personification of Christmas in England: we need similar concrete examples for the Continental St Nick or equivalents. And with Christmas coming, I'd say we need them fast.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.221.148 (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two points - clothes and date of origins

message: There is no link to latin page: Pater Natalis that is
::There's no such article, at least with that spelling. Applejuicefool (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to latin

message: I was gonnna edit it, but the page is protected. Oh well, not that important.Friendly Guy Hooked On Crack (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you could say what you felt needed editing. the article is currently protected, as there were some disputes that led to edit-warring and general wackyness ensuing, but it seems to have calmed down somewhat, and a request has been sent to unlock the page. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any reason this article is protected?