Talk:Santa Claus/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Santa Claus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

== Headline text ==sa santa is a myth is it real

santa is not real hes a myth I would appreciate admin participation in these dicussions. There is dispute as to whether the term "mythological" used in the introduction of the article is absolutely necessary to the article's integrity, and whether or not having the sentence state that Santa Claus is a "legendary and historical character" is any less legitimate than claiming that he is a "legendary, historical, and mythological character". I also request that User:David_Shankbone be explicitly forbidden from participating in this RFC as he has already make his position quite clear in the above discussions.Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

“

From WP:LEAD: The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.

”

• First, to not include it would violate the WP:LEAD guideline. This request comes from the above discussions where some editors don't want us to say Santa is not real out of Christmas spirit. We are an encyclopedia and we are not here to support myths. We exist for truth. It goes against everything we do on here, which is to present the world as it is, not as children believe it to be. It is also against WP:NPOV. Simply put: Wikipedia is not, under any circumstance, the place to hide truth. "Legendary" and "historical" do not show that Santa is a fable, a myth. A real person can be "legendary". A real person can be "historical." Neither of those terms make clear, as the Easter Bunny article does, that Santa is a myth. --David Shankbone 21:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So, you don't think Shankbone should be allowed to participate bc he has already expressed his opinions? Does that mean you cannot, either? After all, you've expressed your POV, having it reverted twice. If he cannot participate, then neither can you. Hint - you might want to revise your RfC so as to remove the petty crap like that, or it gets ignored. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that neither I nor Shankbone should participate. I would like the opinions of some third-party administrators. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, i would like a summer with Natalie Portman or Diane Lane. I'm not bloody likely to get that either. Anyone contributing to the article/article discussion gets to weigh in (as per, y'know, that whole, "encyclopedia that anyone can edit"). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Rhythmnation2004 is also operating under the erroneous assumption that being an admin on here carries with it some sort of significance, when it does not. Admins have more tools; they don't have more say. --David Shankbone 15:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

David is right about this. I'm a staunch opponent of admin worship. And since I'm an admin, you should listen to me. (Kidding, but honestly, we're not traveling judges.) Cool Hand Luke 01:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Include - Mythological should be included because he is a mythological character. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Include - sorry, but the move to disinclude mythological is a cynical attempt to manipulate the article so that kids don't accidentally discover the truth. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a parent. We are neutral, not Scrooges. So, fo all the reasons listed throughout all the talk section above, we need to include it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Include - The resolution to this problem is not to compromise Wikipedia's integrity, but for parents to use their Internet monitoring software to block all instances of "Santa Claus" since we aren't the only place discussing the myth, even on the first page of Santa hits. Based upon WP:LEAD, the opening should be expanded. --David Shankbone 14:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Remove. I originally planned to not give my input and remain neutral in this section, but since Shankbone has blatantly decided to ignore my request to make a point, I will go ahead and state that I believe stating that he is a "children's character" is sufficient enough to maintain that he is a myth. I provided the example of the Tooth fairy article, and Shankbone, instead of acknowledging that the opening would be sufficient without use of the word "mythological", simply stated that the Tooth fairy article should be changed. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think he had sufficiently made his point without bothering to take that point outside this article. Clearly, he doesn't think it's sufficient without it (I certainly don't think so). With respect, perhaps you can point out how singling out a specific editor like Shankbone for personal attacks is very admin-y. Had Shankbone not pointed it out, I would never have thought you one fromt he way you have been acting. Perhaps ease up on the aggro. You've cast your vote, which you are entitled to do (just like David), so now, sit back and relax. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that I like that wording as it should go over the heads of most children who find this page. Kudos to whoever came up with that and please don't change it. 24.215.162.119 (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Shankbone, for taking the time to congratulate yourself without logging in. (Applauds). And I am not an admin by the way. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I never said you were an admin. I also did not leave that comment, I moved it from here. The IP is in Atlanta; I'm in New York. --David Shankbone 17:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Include Frankly, I think it's kind of silly that we're even having this discussion. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• On further consideration, perhaps mythological is not the correct word to use, since I'm not sure it's technically accurate. Fictional might be better. Regardless, whether or not the word mythological is used, there should be some assertion that the character, as commonly depicted, is not real. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The article used to use fictional. I don't know who changed it; I did not come up with the current wording, I have only been active in opposing Wikipedia being used to say Santa Claus is real (or hide that he is a fiction). RhythmNation's RfC here is just another effort in that. --David Shankbone 18:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Include Mythological is a perfectly appropriate word. Folkloric also works, IMO. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My concern about the word mythological was that a myth is a story about how things came to be. So, Prometheus is a mythological character (origin of fire), but Santa doesn't really have that aspect. Perhaps that is an overly technical analysis of the word, but I just think that fictional is much more straight forward. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Remove Look at the God article. It doesn't say in the lead for that article that God is mythological, yet there is no rational basis beyond faith that He exists. I say Santa Claus literally exists. How is belief in God different than the millions upon millions of people who literally believe in Santa Claus? Applejuicefool (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Remove Legend and myth are not necessarily the same thing. I'm thinking that Santa Claus is actually a legend and/or folklore. Santa Claus as a "myth" doesn't exactly explain anything (not why winter happens, why it snows, why the world came into being, etc....) and therefore qualifies as a cultural narrative or tale. Phyesalis (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Remove Legend and folklore are much more accurate. No one who reads the article is going to suggest that we are trying to present Santa Claus as real (though that he leaves physical evidence is more evidence than most religious characters). It isn't censorship to not blast out his (alleged) falsity in the first sentence. GOOD WRITING CAN SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. Edit warring will not. And might I suggest that David Shankbone and Ohnotit'sJamie settle down a little bit and stop owning the page? The community can handle editing and improving the article without aggressive vigilance. Take a step back, cool down, walk away from a few days. Doin' it for the shorties (talk) 03:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Aggressive vigilance? Is that better than deceptive edit summaries? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not owning the page; I've actually made very few edits to it. But what I have an issue with is that some people on here seem to have forgotten why we exist, which is not to act as a child's parents; which is not to reinforce myths, fictions or lies that parents tell children, but to be a place people feel they can turn to for some reliable information. We fall short, often. But this is one area where it is quite clear that there is no magic man and his elves who fly around and bring presents to good boys and girls. Even if one finds newspaper articles that--wink, wink, nudge, nudge--say Santa is real, it doesn't matter. We're not the cutesy, impish defenders of religious, political, cultural or whatever beliefs that have no basis in demonstrable fact. This is simply not the role Wikipedia is to play, and to those who want it to play that role, they don't think there are other people, say those who believe in biblical inerrancy, who could make the same arguments for other issues and beliefs. This is why we have Grinchy policies to prevent people overwhelmed by Christmas spirit to make harmful edits to the project. Sorry. It's that simple. --David Shankbone 05:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• "...this is one area where it is quite clear that there is no magic man and his elves who fly around and bring presents to good boys and girls." You have some evidence of this? Some reference that contradicts the millions of believers around the world? Or are we supposed to just take your word for it? Applejuicefool (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Er, are you serious? You need us to disprove this? And these millions of believers, Applejuice - would any of them happen to be over the age of 10? Wait - (no offense intended here) are you over 10?- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am 38, as I stated above. I have no statistics about the age of Santa believers, though I would imagine most of them are children, which makes their beliefs no less valid than those of adults. Sure, why shouldn't you disprove it? I have personal experience behind my belief. When I was young, I heard reindeer and sleigh bells on the roof. I heard some suspicious "Ho ho ho-ing" in the other room late at night on Christmas Eve. I left cookies and egg nog for Santa, and they were gone the next morning. And most of all, wonderful toys appeared in my stocking and around my tree out of nowhere overnight. I believe these phenomena to be caused by Santa Claus. You may not personally have similar evidence of Santa's existence, but millions of children, no matter their age, do. How can you discount such evidence? The fact that SOME Santa presents are left by parents is not proof that all are.Applejuicefool (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but your personal experience is original research and I also think you have some WP:WEIGHT problems to contend with. I don't think this issue needs to be addressed further, so I'm stepping out of it. --David Shankbone 20:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I didn't post my personal experience in the article. Look, I'm not asking for much. I'm not saying the article should say definitively that Santa literally exists. I'm aware that my belief is a minority. I'm just asking that instead of using the words "mythological" or "fictional", the article be a little sensitive and instead use "legendary," "historic", or "folkloric," as many of the other users have done. Those words don't necessarily imply that Santa is a big fat fake, like the present ones do. On the "weight" question, I respectfully submit that Santa believers (and their counterparts throughout the world) are not a "tiny minority". Applejuicefool (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:WEIGHT what you ask is a violation of policy. It's that simple. Sorry. --David Shankbone 21:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I would think a science teacher would not bumble into a host of logical fallacies, including Negative proof, Argumentum ad populum, argumentum a silentio, et. al. The burden is not on me to prove something does not exist; however, you are welcome to use your Google (here's a good discussion at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution where a columnist frets about the deceit and about taking away from the, you know, real meaning of Christmas). Heaven forbid kids should think those gifts are the product of their parent's love, and not a ruse to "reward" their good behavior at the behest of a magic man. I guess if the argument is "but you haven't seen the looks in their eyes!" then the ruse is more designed to be entertainment for the parents, than the kids (who probably would appreciate the gifts regardless of who they come from). --David Shankbone 15:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And I would think an accredited, approved, etc., reporter for Wikinews would know better than to prioritize logic and rationality over faith and belief. It makes no sense to use logic as a weapon against something that is inherently illogical. Just because belief in Santa is illogical and irrational doesn't mean that those who believe are "wrong" in that belief. I was under the impression that Wikipedia was an encylopedia for the people of the world, not just the cynical, coldly rational segment of those people. Here's an analogy - I am a Christian - I believe in the Jehovah, the Judeo-Christian God. Yet I am opposed to an article on Hindu deities referring to them as "mythological" or "fictional". Obviously you don't believe in Santa Claus, yet millions of people do. Why do you insist on insulting their beliefs by labeling Santa mythological or fictional? Applejuicefool (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly logical: parents tell kids to believe a magic man brings them the gifts they in fact buy for them. At a certain age, parents tell the kids its a lie. This isn't "faith and belief" but a ruse. Millions of people (children) are lied to, and then the lie is exposed at a certain age. There is hardly any relationship to this ruse and the belief systems in religion. The only comparison is The Wizard in the Wizard of Oz, who eventually gets exposed. But if you think Wikipedia is the place for logic and rationality to take a back seat to faith and belief, then you are on the wrong site. Try Uncyclopedia or Conservapedia. --David Shankbone 17:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're adding a step. My parents never told me Santa Claus is a lie, because my parents didn't lie to me; neither when they fostered my belief in Santa Claus, nor by "informing" me that Santa is a ruse. Because he's not. Santa exists. I didn't say there was a religion based on Santa Claus. I like your analogy to the Wizard of Oz (even though I recognize that whole scenario as fictional - it's a novel). If we step into the novel enough to make the analogy, then the wizard turned out to actually BE a wizard, just as Santa really exists. He used his magic to provide brains for Scarecrow, heart for Tin Man, and courage for Lion. His magic was in recognizing and finding those qualities already extant in them, but it was an act of wizardry nonetheless. In fact, this fictional story is an excellent analogy to the way Santa works, in real life. BTW, I'm not suggesting that logic and rationality "take a back seat to faith and belief"; I'm just suggesting that the opposite is equally undesirable. Applejuicefool (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect, but is Appljuice seriously putting Santa Claus on the same level as a deity? I mean, back in my old D&D days, we ran stats for Santa, and he turned out to be a demigod, but I haven't actually heard of any Church of Santa in the Real World, though I tend to skip the crackpot, cult-y churches. Am I missing some key component of his argument? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

See, you're putting words in my mouth. Santa is clearly not a deity. I'm simply using the way people think about deities as an analogy to the way people think about Santa. Both are irrational, yet people believe in them. Applejuicefool (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The only comparison is the Wizard of Oz? Oh good grief. The Genie of Aladdin's Lamp, parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, there must be some like figures in Grimm's Fairy and in Hans Christian Anderson ... even government programs have been compared to Santa's gifts. htom (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I was being a bit too harsh, Applejuicefool, I can see that now. unfortunately, while I can see your point, Wikipedia doesn't allow us to bend the way that you are submitting that we should. I think you should suggest this at the Village Pump, because what you are really asking for is a change in policy. We cannot do that here.I wish you good luck there, though. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Include - For truth's sake. Removing it would be grounds for writing a whole swack of other myths as truth. Wikidsoup _[talk] 22:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Include - I won't bother re-stating what several other people have said better than I could already; It's simply clear that this is the appropriate term to use, and as such it must be if this is to be considered an accurate document. Krinberry (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Some definitions that might help:
Mythology: "a body of myths/stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity"
Folklore: "the body of expressive culture, including tales, music, dance, legends, oral history, proverbs, jokes, popular beliefs, customs, and so forth within a particular population comprising the traditions (including oral traditions) of that culture"
Legend: "a narrative of human actions that are perceived both by teller and listeners to take place within human history and to possess certain qualities that give the tale verisimilitude"
"Folklore" seems closest to the mark. Also, shouldn't we remain neutral about perpetuating or removing any belief in Santa? Itheodore (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Administrative note: I've moved this back to talk from the /Archive 4 because it's still a live RfC. If this discussion has really concluded, feel free to remove the RfC tag, but looking at the archive, I was not convinced. Cool Hand Luke 02:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Is it really necessary? The Wikipedia community has repeatedly addressed instances like this and repeatedly concluded that such qualifiers are superfluous. The "let the facts speak for themselves" wiki-meme and the Paranormal ArbCom case are but two of the myriad examples of this community scrutiny. I don't see the need to explicitly mention Santa as "myth" and I agree with some of the comments about the inaccuracy of such a label. Vassyana (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• The truth is Santa is real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahwoo (talk • contribs) 19:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Include For the love of God (!!) this is an issue for kids and not something that merits an RfC. Santa Claus is a mythological character and the article should say so. This is an encyclopaedia, and sometimes an encyclopaedia will have to send many kids crying themselves to sleep. Ekantik ^talk 22:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Remove Santa is real- THAT is the truth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thylacinus cynocephalus (talk • contribs) 03:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Per request, the article is now semiprotected. Bishonen | talk 19:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

thanks for that,Bishonen. :) I have just replaced the agreed-upon Lead, but could someone check that the references have been replaced accurately. I cannot seem to find the one about the flying reindeer and whatnot. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've watched "Santa Claus" by Clement Clark C Moore. It is really a good story and it also shows that one of elves walked away because he was apparently he did trouble at Santa's factory. It is about the toy production that makes toys faster than usual ending up the toys not doing good and he invented a machine that is powered by the food of the reindeer that makes the reindeer fly. The elf had 2 kids join him on a trip to North Pole but the car powered by the reindeer food malfunctioned and Santa Claus eventually found out what happened and went to their rescue.

I just want to know if we have it in our database this show. It was shown around the 80's or 90's

Awatanabe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.95.64.254 (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because the page was briefly locked due to a dispute over one word, doesn't mean the entire lead is set in stone. This edit[1] violates WP:CREEP. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You're good at WP:Wikilawyering but in the end, your changes are unhelpful, go against consensus, are not in the spirit of the WP:LEAD guideline, and generally look ridiculous. --David Shankbone 20:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's still instruction creep. I don't believe there's an actual pressing need to exempt the lead from the standard WP:BRD cycle. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe respect the fact that we are concerned about it, and respect it. If my instructions get people to discuss their edits rather than edit-warring, then the article is served, and jolly good for me. If you disagreed with the article discussion, you had ample opportunity to speak up then. And yet, once the article is unlocked, you voice your displeasure by tagging the parts of the lead that we've spend the last 10 sections discussing. I'm trying real hard to assume good faith here, but these seem to be the actions of someone willing to defer to consensus. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I do appreciate that, but at no point was there any discussion above implying some special rule was going to commented into the article to bypass the WP:BRD cycle. We still have all the standard tools to prevent edit warring at our disposal. -- Kendrick7^talk 14:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that, Kendrik7, and support your removal of it. That edit speaks volumes about the WP:OWN issues here. Jeffpw (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, sunshine, perhaps you can be show a bit more AGF and not go about accusing folk of OWNership. It's widely considered uncivil, especially when it is noted repeatedly. As for the assertion that WP:CREEP applies, utilizing WP:BRD as a defense, I find a few flaws with the argument for applying them. First, if the instruction points to a problem that is recurrent, then it isn't gratuitous. If failure to follow the instruction is also likely to cause edit-warring (specifically, the edit-warring that resulted in the article being locked), then the instruction serves to help solve or avoid the problem. Also, BRD is more often applied to situations where normal dispute resolution had failed. As has been seen here, the major problems concerning many of the issues in the article resolved the problem. The instruction serves to prevent further disruptions from occurring within the article, directing them to here for discussion instead. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are suffering from tunnel vision if you honestly think the dispute over the lead here warrants special instructions overruling our normal editing process. It certainly looks like WP:OWNership when you aren't even bothering to obey your own instructions.[2][3] Did you discuss the need for the fact tag first? Nope. One set of rules for you and one for the rest of us? No thanks. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit confused as to the diffs you provided, Kendrick. One notes the reversion of the addition of 'Santy Claus' and 'Santy' back to the agreed-upon lead terms. I would submit that using either one of the reverted (and uncited) terms would seem to be undue weight. As well, the secind diff you provided replaced the term of a fairly well described reference to 'Finland' being replaced with 'Lapland'. I am not instructing that which I am not willing to follow myself. In both instances, discussion to confirm the use of Santay Claus or Lapland seemed constructive. No differing sets of rules, though i am sorry you see it as such. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What Kendrik was referring to was your insistance that issues be discussed here first for your approval, but you feel the right to simply make any changes you wish. The talk page exists for a reason. I would also ask you to stop harping on everybody else's civility when you don't seem to adhere to WP:CIV yourself, either in your comments or edit summaries. Jeffpw (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, i think that perhaps you might be accusing folk of OWNership again, jeff. It doesn't have to meet with my approval, but - as has been stated quite a few times before (I wonder how you managed to miss it) - rather, consensus approval. With articles that have been especially contentious, editing from a position of seeking to avoid a recurrence seems to be the more effective way to proceed. You will note that I have not advocated the inclusion of any material since the instruction was added, but instead asked for citation or clarification, or inviting discussion for terms or arguments that seem recurrent.

And, as for my 'harping' on your incivility, I would suggest that if you don't want to have it addressed, you might wish to avoid being uncivil and making personal attacks. While my comments are admittedly rather pointed, understand that they are often such when responding to personal attacks. As for my edit summaries, I think they have been significantly more pleasant than yours seem to have been recently. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Could somebody please point me to the talk page section where it was agreed that all changes to the lead must be discussed first? I just looked through this page as well as the archive and can't seem to find anything that could be interpreted as "As per Discussion Page consensus, do not alter this Lead without discussing (not just posting) your change in the Disccussion page FIRST. Any edits that ignore this request will likely be reverted". Thanks in advance. Jeffpw (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It is typical and desirable that when edit-warring over a section leads to full page protection, and a consensus version is created over that section (in this case, the lead) that allows the page to be un-protected, major changes should be discussed to prevent further edit-warring, and out of common courtesy and respect for the consensus version. Is it a rule? No. It's more how Wikipedia works, and how the consensus process works, or else there is no point to build consensus. It was because a consensus version was created that the page was unprotected, and only for that reason. --David Shankbone 21:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Gosh, probably the same part that talks about how to avoid edit-warring. Are you suggesting that you remember differently the circumstances that led to the article being locked? As it is significant that you didn't actually address my post, I must therefore conclude that you could not rebut it. perhaps you might wish to actually discuss matters instead of wikilawyering as to why you don't feel the need to discuss your edits at all. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Gee, Arcayne, that sure seems like WP:ABF to me. After all, I haven't touched the lead since it was unlocked. Or are you suggesting I need to discuss any change I wish to make in this article with you before implementing it? Jeffpw (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Golly, jeff, if it looks like a WP:DUCK, and walks like a duck, then it might not be a rabbit. Your comments here and elsewhere outright accusing other editors here of WP:OWN make it seem prudent to assume that your are acting with a chip on your shoulder. Agreed, though you haven't touched the Lead since it was unlocked, you were certainly part of the reason it was locked, and your editing behavior since, while mostly helpful, didntt seem to seek a consensus with all of us. While I am flattered that you feel that I am the man to get approval from, i am not. All of us - yourself included - comprise the group of editors that need to find a consensus. I wouldn't dream oif insisting you seek my approval of edits. I would insist that you seek approval from all of us for edits which you - in your relative experience in Wikipedia - can be reasonably sure is going to cause yet another kerfuffle. If you find that seeking approval for your edits from the group a bit chafing, consider the alternative. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Pleqse feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the page protected due to the dispute about Santa being fictional or not? Those three terms, "historical, legendary, mythological" plus the back and forth on fictional? Because I never made a single edit to the lead regarding that. My only edits were to the fact that Santa was believed by adults as well as children, and I had a source to back that up. That problem was solved rather elegantly, and after that I made no further revisions to the disputed section. So please don't blame me for the page protection. Oh, and by the way, last I heard it took more than one editor to edit war. So trying to make the dispute into some bad guys vs. good guys seems ill considered at best. Jeffpw (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but last I heard, it was pretty hard to edit-war if only one person is participating. there were better ways to approach and handle the issue. Your method wasn't among them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There was never any consensus for this special instruction. Y'all are making mountains out of molehills to contend the edit war here was all that bad. I've seen plenty worse -- regarding, you know, real life and death type topics -- where everything has gotten along fine without WP:CREEPy instructions needed. Maybe this is typical in your corner of wikipedia but I've never seen this before and simply can't approve. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That I have seen worse is true. We both have. Wouldn't it be splendid, though, if folk sought out a consensus for their edits instead of assuming their edit was correct? I simply think that the no-wiki instruction was a helpful signpost to help avoid from what was an ugly little situation from getting worse. It was borne out of the consensus that the nonsense edit-warring needed to stop. Starting it right back up again in another section arguing the whole Santa thing is real is the same Lead argument writ elsewhere. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Where has anybody edited to say Santa is real? Did I miss something? please provide diffs. That editor should be warned. Jeffpw (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It was born out the talk page arguments that we can't say on the page that Santa is a myth because he is believed to be real, and then subsequent removal of that language in the lead, instituted by RhythmNation (I believe you warned me about my tone when I reverted her) and Applejuicefool (who I belive you awarded a barnstar for his "defense of Santa"). Just to, um, refresh your memory. Yes, please, warn away. --David Shankbone 22:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of the past history. But Arcayne's point was that it has happened yet again, after the protection was lifted. I didn't see it and would like to see those diffs. Jeffpw (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(←dent)Sorry, just referring to jeff's bad behavior.
If there appears to be no substantial edit-warring by, say the 25th, I'll remove it myself. If it returns, so does the instruction. that seems fair. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this again. I am hopeful you'll agree your perceived crisis here has now passed. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Y'all need to provide more sources if you are going to make glaring generalizations like are going on in the fourth paragraph. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll just tag this until this is sorted out. There's no point in hiding certain facts, like that criticism began with 16th century protestant groups; that's exactly what the article goes on to say. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

First, style issues are not NPOV issues, so you have mis-tagged the page and there are AWW templates. I suggest you remove the NPOV template. Second, there is a consensus version of this lead that you are edit-warring against. Third, WP:AWW refers to the body of the article, where as the WP:LEAD discusses what is a broad overview of the article, not the specifics. Everything else in the lead is not specific, there are no sources for the legends, or what they say, or who says they say that. I have already alerted Bishonen about your edit-warring an incorrect arguments (against consensus); if you do not remove the improper template then I will bring it up to the admin board. --David Shankbone 21:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, are you like this every time you have a content dispute? I added AWW templates, and you reverted them. My problem is the paragraph is overgeneralizing beyond what the rest of the article says. In the first sentence, it takes no more typing to explain that the article contains information about post-16th century Protestant groups, rather than to say "some Christians for a long time." The next two sentences using one person's opinion on about.com to make sweeping generalizations not even expanded upon in the article. I suppose upon review the sentence about commercialization could stand as it is though; my apologies there. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If you had a problem with this, you should have brought it up LOOOONG before this. It isn't weren't presented multiple opportunities to make suggestions. We came to consensus about what version was to go in. Did you comment? No. Instead, you wait until the article is unlocked - on my word that the issues were resolved (as you hadn't bothered to pipe up) and then start tagging things. You made me look like a liar, so if it sounds like I'm a tad pissed at you, then you are interpreting my mood precisely. It is your responsibility to voice your issues and seek a consensus for your opinion. If you don't get a consensus, you defer to the consensus that is in place. Ifd you think the consensus is in defiance of rules or guidelines, you file an RfC. You do not disrupt the article to make your displeasure known. Most incredibly uncool, Kendrick. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't paying that much attention. I had thought the article was locked because of a dispute over the first sentence, which I'm happy to leave alone. I didn't realize what was actually occurring was some attempt by you and David to WP:OWN the entire lead. I simply think the fourth paragraph needs work. I hope we can reach some common ground here. -- Kendrick7^talk 14:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring your clumsy personal attack, Kendrick, you might have missed that the article was locked for the destabilizing edit-warring in the article (of which you were a part). You might have seen the resulting tag at the top, noting that the article was locked until 'disputes had been resolved'. This means, when the article is unlocked, you don't return to the same behavior that prompted the article being locked to begin with..

This isn't my article, or Shankbone's or yours or anyone else's. Its our article. Which means it should be a community effort that follows the confines of wiki policy. Considering how sharply divided we are on some of the issues, its seems clear (to me at least) that editing by consensus seems to be the way to go. It seemed to work really well for the resolution of the 'historical, legendary and mythical' descriptors, and for other issues as well that had been fought over for months. I am firmly convinced that using the discussion page as a tool to iron out a consensus edit is the best way to go where notable contention exists.

If you have an issue that you think is going to be contentious (to others), please afford us the opportunity to either confirm that for you, or to note that it isn't an argued point. That is what helps us find the common ground you seek. I don't think that that is too much to ask of you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) You are again wrong Kendrick. The lead version is not one that Arcayne and I came up with, it's one that was created through a consensus of editors on both sides of the fence. To try to change it now that the page is unlocked, when you didn't participate in a discussion that you knew to be on-going, is, frankly, is evidence of bad faith on your part. --David Shankbone 21:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Take it as evidence that I'm lazy, and didn't expect the result of those discussions to be set in stone, which if that was ever implied I missed it. What's the old saying? If you don't want people to re-edit your work, don't write it on a wiki. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That adage has little baring on consensus versions. There are also pages where consensus has come up with 1RR rules for blocking an editor for changing after one revert; and those consensus changes in the rules for that page are enforced. The point is, consensus dictates more than "old adages" and it's your own problem if you are lazy. That doesn't mean you get to disregard consensus. It means the onus is on you to re-build it in your favor, which you have yet to even attempt to do. --David Shankbone 22:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This is suported by two siple facts he can be tracked and he is definaly real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.90.251 (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Saint Nicholas is a real person. Nicholas of Myra, a saint and Bishop, was born during the third century in the village of Patara. He did much to aid the poor, presumably bringing gifts and food to those who otherwise would have had nothing.

Certainly, as the legends surrounding this person and his history grew, details inevitably were distorted. For instance, the claim that he had secretly paid the cost of the weddings of three daughters of a poor but pious man initially said that he had thrown a sack of gold through an open window. From there, we get another version, claiming that the first two dowries were paid in this manner but, as the father was watchfully attempting to determine the identity of this anonymous benefactor, old Saint Nick outsmarted him by dropping the third bag of gold not through a window but down a chimney. Centuries pass, the legend is retold, at every step another chance for the details to be changed, exaggerated or distorted in some manner - whether by chance or design. Eventually, we're being told that Saint Nick himself is supposed to fit down the chimney unnoticed with a huge sled parked on the roof - even though at the same time the depictions of an ever-larger and ever-fatter Santa figure make such a feat increasingly improbable.

Sure, some have twisted the legends and turned them to their own ends. The parent who sees the threat of a stockingful of coal as something to use to manipulate and control an unruly child, the spoiled hellion who sees this as just another chance to demand more more more, the greedy merchant who sees in this a character who will endorse whatever wares they have for sale no matter how useless, how cheaply made and how overpriced they may be. All of this leads us only further from the true purpose which Saint Nicholas of Myra set out to accomplish; to ensure that even the poorest could avoid the misfortune of getting nothing at all.

Certainly the meaning of Christmas has been endlessly distorted if not lost, going from a pagan Yule fest to a Christian religious holiday to a secular feast or even just another marketing opportunity. Indeed, this is unfortunate. Nonetheless, to say that Saint Nicholas was never born, never lived or never set out to ensure that even the most humble and needy would get something is dishonest. Yes, there is a Saint Nick, just don't believe everything you've been told about him. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not Christmas spirit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.174.190 (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged this with a NPOV tag, as it only presents one side of the discussion. It does not address the fact that some feel it is not a lie, and others who may feel it is, but feel that there is a positive aspect to telling the Santa story to kids. Please address these concerns before the tag is removed. Thanks in advance, Jeffpw (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Please consider this post a request to structure your edit summaries a bit less attack-y. You're a grown-up; please act as such. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought the summary was simply accurate, Arcayne. The para was originally ref'd, the ref was lost in the now infamous Santa edit wars, and instead of looking for the ref yourself in the history or finding a new one you simply slapped a cite tag on the section. What would you call that? Jeffpw (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd call it 'someone not having the time to find the cite, but knowing one is needed'. Perhaps you saw it as inconsequential. I've pointed the reasoning out on your User Talk page, but you blanked it; maybe you simply forgot. Focus on the article, not the editor. Really, you don't want to get all uncivil; that would only end poorly for you. Cheers! - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Lie isn't quite the correct word here; the section title seems to be making a moral judgement. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The section is about why critics oppose Santa, and this section is because people say it's a lie. This isn't about moral judgment, it's about plainly stating what critics state, and we have enough citation to back that up (including on the counter-arguments). --David Shankbone 21:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The title is taking a position though. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the word "lie" with the word "myth". The section should be a statement of fact, not a soapbox for those who would morally judge, so why use a word that infers judgement or attack on another's ideas. Those who choose to believe should be free to do so, and those who choose not to believe likewise. Merry Christmas. --carlb (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong on this point, again, per the statement I just made. We aren't defining the critics arguments through the lens of those who disagree with them, we are stating the critics arguments as they state it. The critics don't say that parents are "misleading" their children, or anything else. Their central objection, as provided in the citations in that section, is that parents are lying to their children. Plain and simple. This is NPOV, because the section is about what critics say. And the issue of "choice" is irrelevant to this article, and certainly not a choice a child has to make. --David Shankbone 22:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are devoting so much space to merely "stating the critics arguments as they state it", that does bias this piece toward the position that children should not believe in Santa. I do not believe that inflammatory terms like "this is a lie" help to balance the treatment of the topic any more than "misleading" or "myth" or any other concept - if anything, quite the opposite. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The section hardly takes much space at all on the page, especially in relation to the rest of the article; and it took less but a section refuting what the critics say--and we are here to present their argument, not to re-word it to conform to our own POV--was expanded to refute the critics. --David Shankbone 22:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

a grown-up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahwoo (talk • contribs) 20:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The part about Dutch folklore says "Zwarte Piet" is called "Pieter Baas" in Belgium, but as a Belgian, I have never heard him called by that name, everyone here just calls him "Zwarte Piet" as well afaik. Since the page is locked I can't edit it, but if someone can please do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.194.123.18 (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed. Jeffpw (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've actually heard him referred to as Pieterbaas in Groningen (where I grew up, north-eastern part of The Netherlands), and searching for Pieterbaas will find you quite a few results. So I think you're right in calling out that it's not a Belgian vs. Dutch thing. Perhaps it should just be listed as an alias or a rhyming nickname (pardon the pun)? Mozjag (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph stating that Father Christmas is often depicted wearing a green suit in the UK is utter nonsense and about 200 years out of date. It needs to be changed but cannot due to this page being protected. Please update this and get rid of that paragraph ASAP as it is completely wrong. The school article IS true but not the fact that he is often depicted wearing green in the UK. 77.96.187.124 (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The sentence has been corrected, and a reference added. Thanks for pointint that out. Jeffpw (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Also of note is the style of the costume. The traditional Father Christmas wore a long, hooded green ROBE, not a suit. After the Americans (pre-Coke-ad) started depicting Santa in a red suit 150-odd years ago, this depiction quickly took off in Britain (e.g. JRR Tolkien's Father Christmas Letters - the first was written in 1920, predating the Coke ads, and shows him in an American-style red suit): BUT there was also an alternative, quite popular depiction, in a red robe - the old garment in the new colour. Pere Noel in France used to be depicted in a white robe. A green SUIT is something I've not seen in any traditional depiction, though a few modern ones trying to be different have tried it.

Changed, too, to reflect the reference. Jeffpw (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

About 90% of the material in Santa Claus in North America has nothing to do with the article name, and was probably originally here. I'm considering merging and resplitting the material into subarticles (e.g. Santa Claus in popular culture). Any thoughts? -- Kendrick7^talk 21:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think what can happen is moving the worldwide stuff off the North American article and then leaving the articles as they are. Otherwise it turns into "whose popular culture?" --David Shankbone 21:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, I'm just thinking the end result could be kinda long. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What the real issue should be is why does the Santa Claus in North America article talk just as much about how Santa is depicted in Europe? Even the intro talks about how Santa is depicted in the UK. I'm no geography expert, but I'm pretty sure that the UK does not count as North America. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Since this is Christmas and all and a lot of people are going to visit Wikipedia for the first time via this article would it be possible for the parties in this dispute to accept their responsibility as Wikipedians and keep the reverting and the worst of the snarky remarks to a minimum. Santa is mighty unhappy that the nice Wikipedians can't get along so I'm sure that would make him very happy as well. Merry Christmas everybody and remember that Christmas is about more than editing Wikipedia!! EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[4] works fine for me, FYI. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Works fine for me as well. Loads faster than the article itself does, lol. Ariel♥Gold 19:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for checking it. It was working fine for me, as well. Perhaps Arcayne has a bug up his browser. I must say I am confused about the policy he cited, though. WP:V, which he used to remove the link, contained no info I could see regarding this. The link page did have this to say about dead links, though: Dead links of online newspaper articles can be converted to references to off-line sources. Do not simply remove dead links; they often contain valuable information. WP:CITE had this to say: When a link in the References section or Notes section "goes dead", it should be repaired or replaced if possible, but not deleted. I guess this editing thing is a learning curve for all of us. Jeffpw (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it didn't load earlier. it does now. It was purged because it had just been uploaded and appeared defective. Good job squaring it away, jeff. No learning curve involved, really; I wasn't really sure you were providing a valid reference, as per your previous unpleasant behavior. I am glad that I was incorrect. :) Again, thanks to rectifying the problem. Happy holidays. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

But there was no problem except for the one you created in your mind, Arcayne. It was just more WP:ABF on your part. In the future, maybe you could read wiki policies a bit more thoroughly. Not only do you seem to not understand WP:AGF, but you also seemed to think the solution to this imaginary problem was to remove a link that didn't work for you. That damages the project, and you quoted policy in spite of clear policy directing you to do otherwise. That is the learning curve I was referring to. Jeffpw (talk) 09:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There has been a lot of bad faith spread all around here lately (FYI, I play poker with Elvis on Fridays) and I don't understand where it is coming from. Let's all please chill out a bit OK? -- Kendrick7^talk 09:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Kendrick. I have been rude, and it is totally out of place on Wikipedia, and especially at this time of year. My apologies to one and all. Merry Christmas. Jeffpw (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology, Jeff; without it, your behavior would have had to be reported. I appreciate that you can admit when you are wrong. I guess I should forgive others' apologies for bad and snippy behavior. Please accept mine for being perhaps too harsh. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Saint Nicholas is also represented as a bearded bishop in the Czech Republic (besides the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, and Austria). Can someone add that to the entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.41.175 (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Include reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrygian_cap —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.54.189.11 (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

There are three new sections added to this article without any references at all, and with no discussion on this page. I have tagged the sections as unreferenced, but refs would be preferable to ugly tags. Could somebody please find the refs, or remove the section? Jeffpw (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because something does not have a ref does not mean it gets deleted, or more than half of the information on Wikipedia would be removed. Typically, if something is controversial without a ref it will be deleted (I believe that is also the guideline/policy). If you dispute information, then by all means, ref it or delete it. But this information has existed for a long time on the North America article, so I see no reason to remove what seems like valuable information. To be honest, I could care less if it is deleted or not; but in principle, I disagree with what you write. I will leave it to the rest of you to source it or delete it, but just so you are clear there is no policy or guideline that says "Anything without a ref or cite gets removed." --David Shankbone 20:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I am familiar with the guideline. I also know I was told to find a ref for Santa's reindeer, and one of my refs was deleted because it didn't open for a user. This article is controversial enough, without it seeming like some editors have to jump through hoops while others can add what they want when they want to. I would like to see refs for a section which is completely uncited and also quite long. I don't think that's asking a lot. I didn't add the material, so I won't be searching for them myself. I do think, however, that the section needs to remain tagged until refs are put in place. And my apologies for adding 3 ref tags. I didn't see the section overview when I was editing. Jeffpw (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I won't be adding them myself, as I have enough to do and since I personally could care less if we tell other people what Santa Claus is called in other cultures; however, it is not a new section, it is a moved section. I have no problem with the tag being there, and I don't know what you are referring to about the other ref, but I don't think reindeer needs a citation. I think all sides should refrain from being pedantic, whether it be in pushing to have the lead mention that only in Czech Republic is Santa controversial for infringing on local traditions (thus requiring more cites to broaden the scope) or for finding cites for common knowledge. I think everyone needs to be resigned that this article requires no "special considerations" because of the holiday and that if we all treat it like any other article, be it Young Earth creationism, the Tooth Fairy or Drew Barrymore, we will realize that it is not so difficult to write and no reindeer games need be played. --David Shankbone 21:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The previously questioned quote does approximately appear in the book; I'll type it in much later this week, and we can then decide what part of it to add to the article (if any.) htom (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not forgotten this, it's just not getting done. htom (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Still not forgotten, just undone. htom (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that whether to describe me as 'fictional' has become somewhat contentious, perhaps editors might like to consider adding this article to Category:Living people. I have rights, you know.--Santa (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

How about adding a photograph of Santa Claus onto this article? Noahwoo (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey did you know that Norad tracks santa go to noradsanta.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

And how do you suppose Norad tracks someone who can visit all the houses of the world in one night? Surely this feat would require travel at nearly the speed of light. - Redmess (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, because it's norad, they have nice radar. :P --72.139.35.107 (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In Europe (more precisely the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and Germany) he is still portrayed as a bearded bishop in canonical robes.

In Europe (more precisely the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Germany) he is still portrayed as a bearded bishop in canonical robes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.124.133 (talk) 03:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I was watching some Christmas thing about Santa and it said Santa may have originated from the viking god Odin (whom would deliver toys on his sleigh). Why isn't this mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.232.249 (talk) 08:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Because there isn't a single reference to Odin driving a sleigh or delivering toys? That Santa has part of his origins in some pagan figure of winter makes good sense: but the connection to Odin appears to be that a guy with a white beard and a team of flying reindeer must be derived from a guy with a grey beard and one flying horse. That's ridiculously tenuous. If they really said Odin delivered toys on a sleigh, they're just making stuff up to fit their arguments.

The following text under "Influence of Germanic paganism and folklore" implies that kids don't place their shoes/boots near the chimney anymore:

According to Phyllis Siefker, children would place their boots, filled with carrots, straw or sugar, near the chimney for Odin's flying horse, Sleipnir, to eat. Odin would then reward those children for their kindness by replacing Sleipnir's food with gifts or candy [14]. This practice survived in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands after the adoption of Christianity and became associated with Saint Nicholas as a result of the process of Christianization and can be still seen in the modern practice of the hanging of stockings at the chimney in some homes.

As far as I know Dutch kids still do, so how about something like: "This practice has survived till the present day in Germany, ... process of Christianization. It is also reflected in the hanging of Christmas stockings at the chimney." The formulation could probably use some work, I'll leave that to the word smiths.

Mozjag (talk) 11:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

In the section of the article comparing Sinterklaas to Odin, Odin's horse, Sleipnir, is described as a white steed. In actuality, Sleipnir is gray. I'm not sure about Sinterklaas's horse. Could this be remedied?

Ozarker (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please insert this small edit under the Commercialism section and Footnote 30? Name of author is Carol-Jean Swanson. Hyphen is incorrect in current version and is showing up incorrectly in other internet articles. I can't figure out how to navigate this to do it myself. Thanks. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cboevers (talk • contribs) 06:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that true? Or just something made up... I have no citacion. I just remember it from somewhere. Zelphi (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)0

You're thinking of a line from The Simpsons (specifically from Homer's Phobia), and I'm pretty sure that it's not true. :) --DearPrudence (talk) 07:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Er, no. It's a recurring character from Futurama called Robot Santa. It's made up, has no real citation and doesn't really belong here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but it was also in a line from The Simpsons. (Do a search for "moon" on this page and you'll find it.) Besides, I don't think anyone was actually going to add it to the article. --DearPrudence (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I know, I know, Wikipedia deals in secondary sources only... but I'd still like to know, what are Siefker's primary citations for Odin as gift-giver?

This is still very vague. Can't we have some mention of when the first known citation for St Nicholas as annual gift-giver dates from, and when St Nicholas was first identified with Father Christmas?

Father Christmas himself is first mentioned by that name in 1658, and it's easy enough to trace him back to Ben Jonson's Masque of Christmas in 1616 (Jonson effectively created him, although older "Lord of Misrule" figures such as the Abbot of Unreason were probable influences): but in the 1790s Coleridge still thought the German habit of giving presents at Christmas was worth remarking on, as something apparently alien to British tradition.

Whoever added "No!" and "Santa is fake!" to the above paragraphs, I'd just like to clarify that they aren't part of what I originally wrote. I've removed them now. If you have anything to add, please put it on a new line so that it's clear that it's not part of the original note.

I found this Image:Santa usairforce.jpg in a userbox. Seems like a better representation of the modern-day santa than what there is. I'd add it myself, but the page is locked.190.74.108.43 (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC) But that image may very well be copywritten, and likely is not available. As both recognizably represent the same person and the image currently in image is in the public domain, I suggest we retain it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a FAQ for the talkpage. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 01:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)