Talk:Santa Claus/Archive 2

Error for date of Nikolaus

I just noted an error in the page: "Nikolaus" is not celebrated on December 5th, but on December 6th. I can only tell that for sure for Germany, but I am pretty sure, that other European Countries celebrate on Dec 6th as well. The Kids are placing a bootie outside their room at the evening of December 5th, cause it they believe, that the "Nikolaus" (or "St. Nikolaus", but "St." is not used in general) comes during the night. In the morning of Dec 6th, the kids find their boots filled with stuff (chocolate, maybe cookies and sometimes a small present). Though the boots are placed on Dec 5th, the "Nikolaus" day is on Dec 6th. 85.177.209.78 13:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Error for date of Nikolaus

Well, in the Netherlands it is celebrated on December the 5th (called: pakjesavond / presents (packages) evening). In all other countries it is celebrated on the nameday of Saint Nicolaas, which is the 6th of december. So the 5th of December is also correct.

What's his address?

Can someone add a section with his address? There's a big debate among my friends. I claim he is from the North Pole, but someone else claims he is from Iceland, and yet another person says he has an actual home in Norway. I mean... Norway??

North Pole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.103.84 (talk) 09:25, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Hi. According to this site, Santa Claus lives in Santa Claus Village, Rovaniemi, Finland. I'm not sure if that's good enough to go into the article though, because many places claim to be Santa's home. Hope this helps. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Claus is an amalgam of myths so there exist not such a thing as "correct address". Every version may have a different address... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.166.43.64 (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Claus is an eminent character in the hearts and minds of millions of children and adults around the world who believe in him.

I find that statement to be really ugly. --Taraborn 11:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If children were reading this article, they might loose faith, and I for one believe in Santa

I think this article should be handled much like the article on God. The fact is that some people believe in him and others do not, and this article should be written in a way so as not to offend either sensibility. Right now, this article is a complete mess. --DDG 21:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some people believe all sorts and there has to be a limit to our sensitivity. The article on the Queen of England does not mention the possibility that she is a lizard for instance. The vast majority of Santa Claus believers are under the age of 10 and they could find far worse on the internet than a truthful Santa Claus article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.38.7.224 (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I agree. This is an encyclopedia. It is not our job to protect children's fantasies, and no sources must be cited to say that Santa does not exist because of the common knowledge policy. We should no more be vague as to the existence of Santa than we should be as to the existence of unicorns. Zelmerszoetrop 09:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it never hurts to employ a little tact. Barbarossa359 14:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with barberossa. Replacing "fictional" with "mythological"/"legendary" and other small changes would avoid upsetting young kids without affecting the accuracy of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spoofer25 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biography of Living Persons???

Why on *earth* is that caveat at the top of the talk page? Santa is, as mentioned in the article, a mythical figure, not a living person. I will point out that that is not on the pages of Mrs. Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, or even God (the latter of which I do beleive in, and do believe is real, and even I'd complain if the biography of living persons template were on the God page). If I remember, I'll remove it soon unless it's explained why it's there?? --Canuckguy 02:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, the real problem with it is that Santa's not a living person. He's a living elf. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if you believe in santa he's a living person. it's pov to say there's no santa and thuis not a living person. LOL! Christmasgirl

You're all taking this far too seriously. we need to attach 'Living person' because, should small children see this article, we shoul not ruin their beleif in this myth.

I would say YOU (and other Santa apologists) are taking this far too seriously! It's an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia should not be adulterated to protect the sensitivities of anyone who *might* take offense, and certainly not children. If your child believes in Santa and is reading Wikipedia, do you really think he/she is not encountering similar material online elsewhere? 75.62.1.179 18:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a living person he is not and i doubt this should reflect the idea that he is a living person XXLegendXx 17:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Helloooooo....this is an encyclopedia. Looking into an encyclopedia is where I go to for 'hopefully' the full truth of a matter. If you do not want your child to know 'Santa' is not real then do not let them read encyclopedias. Because they all say the same thing. I would be completely upset and insulted if I were to, say do a paper on the origin of "Christmas" and couldn't find the information due to some believing it will upset the children. For those of you out there who do not tell your children Santa is not real, there are many more who choose to celebrate but do not believe in telling lies to their children. Whatever you choose has no bearing on whether or not an encyclopedia should tell the truth or not. An encyclopedia is where most of us go to find the correct information. Though they are always evolving, we hope most of the information is correct or why bother.

To publish the correct information on a matter should not offend anyone. It is what it is. Tell your child what you want and let us keep our encyclopedias filled with information we can use, not full of half truths and sweet stories to satisfy the offended. By the way, why should anyone be offended about the truth? And by the way, how do you think all those good little children in this country, (USA) and other countries who are poor or live in dysfunctional and/or abusive families feel about Santa? What would you say to one of them when they tell you Santa did not come down their chiminey? They tell you they were good all year but they did not get any presents. Getting offended by Wikipedia writing "Santa" is not real is your right. Taking the truth out of Wikipedia is not your right. Your opinion on the matter is not the only one. Therefore let the encyclopedias publish the truth and we all can go from there with whatever each belief is.

P.S. Unless you have an Einstein on your hands, (who would probably have figured it all out anyway) by the time your child is old enough to go online and look up "Santa Claus" on Wikipedia and read it on his/her own, I would think that by then they would be old enough to have realized what is real or not?

Perhaps you were missing the little bit of the encyclopedic discussion where it dates the stale discussion you were replying to as August 20 - over three months ago. And perhaps you might want to dial down all the angry somewhat; I cannot speak for anyone else, but sarcasm is wit for low-rent minds. the conversation and issue is working its way out just fine without your caustic little two-pence. So take a deep breath and be nice. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, can we change the image please?

Um, has anyone else noticed that that main picture of Santa looks, um, psychotic? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice, in my opinion. Or do you like a painted one? Appleworm 16:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intro adjectives

Y'all seriously spend time on this, don't you? Have you thought of running for Congress? Just askin'...Rudolph! On the paper! On the paper!!! PJHere 02:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"traditional mythological holiday character" That's three adjectives. Way too wordy.

The article makes mythological clear by diving straigt into a discussion of origins in folk takes. I've removed mythological but that is being removed by a sysop that is reverting everything I do. Removing the word isn't censorship that Santa is a folk take. It is simply more readable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doin' it for the shorties (talk • contribs)

First of all, I haven't reverted "everything" you do; I've reverted edits that violate policy, mostly edits that violate Wikipedia's policy on censorship. "Mythological" implies "traditional"; if you want to limit the adjectives, "mythological" is more succinct. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed "traditional" back to "fictional," as fictional is more accurate; it's also commonly used in media; see [1]. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple listings at dictionary.com refer to him as "legendary" which is more succinct and accurate than fictional (which could imply that the figure arose from literature). "Legendary" is more accurate than "traditional." Once again, Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. If you're allowing your young child to read Wikipedia, they're going to learn (and see) a lot more than just Santa Claus. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It now says "legendary." The wikilink for this word says in the intro "includes no happenings that are outside the realm of 'possibility'". Santa Claus, living at the North Pole with his elves and flying reindeer and their glowing noses, who goes around giving gifts to hundreds of millions of children globally within a few hours of darkness is not within the realm of possibility. Santa is not real and no rational person believes he is real - though the traditional legend around St Nicholas is real, that is an origination for this unreal character.

I am changing it back to traditional, with a link to tradition. That page has a better description befitting Santa, "beliefs or customs taught by one generation to the next" "set of customs or practices. For example, we can speak of Christmas traditions" "tradition is a story or a custom that is memorized and passed down from generation to generation"

Santa is a traditional story told to children, not a potentially true legend of the past.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Doin' it for the shorties (talk • contribs)

Your edit history makes it pretty clear that your primary motivation is to "protect" children who might read these pages. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors or for any other reason. "Santa" is not a custom; Santa Claus is a legendary/fictional/mythological figure, period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not prescribe motives. I am not censoring anything. You aren't nice.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doin' it for the shorties (talk • contribs).

Request for third opinion

I've posted a request for a third opinion at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements.

Statement Shortly after creating an account, Doin' it for the shorties (talk · contribs) began what I believe is a campaign to censor the opening paragraph of various articles related to mythical characters (i.e., Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and Easter Bunny. Note that user also created a redirect of Shorties to Child, one slang meaning of that word. Specifically, Doin' it for the shorties (talk · contribs) has changed adjectives such as "mythological," "fictional," or "legendary" to "traditional." It's my belief that such changes amount to censorship, and that "legendary" or "mythological" is more succinct and accurate. Discussion on talk pages for the articles has failed to reach a consensus. Third-party opinions are requested. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to the WP:3O request: Doin' it for the shorties' edit history, that bit about the redirect to the article Child, combined with the user name make it clear, that this editor is pushing an agenda and I will have to agree with OhNoitsJamie's censorship concerns. I'd like to add that repeated, uncivil edit summaries and talk page comments on Doin' it for the shorties' part did little to make me consider an alternating view of the situation.

My two cents on the wording discussion in general: I'd consider choosing "mythological" over "legendary" as the latter can also also be applied to real-life people and occurrences (along the lines of "awe-inspiring"). - Cyrus XIII 17:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may be a bit confused on something but, what is wrong with calling him legendary, fictional and in some part also mention his standing in a history of traditions? I mean you can debate over fictional or legendary but both mean different things. Legendary hardly covers him as a whole because he is also fictional. XXLegendXx 17:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of the costume?

The article currently claims that:

The most common depiction (red with white sleeves, collar, and belt) originated in Finland, and became the more popular image in the United States in the mid-to-late 19th century [1].

However, the article being referenced here does not support this claim. The article merely points out that the character of Santa Claus existed before Coca Cola's Santa Claus, but doesn't actually give an origin to the red-and-white colors of the costume. Unless someone can give a better source, I don't see any evidence to suggest that the red-and-white costume has anything to do with Finland (apart from Haddon Sundblom's ancestry), and I think this comment should be removed. 80.222.51.49 23:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to this Danish page http://www.julidannevang.dk/julehistorie/julemanden2.shtml Santa is in some ways originated from Odin - including the read suit, which was worn by the chiefs in the Aorsi people near Ukrain, where Odin has his origin (/AC acs (at) inducks . org) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.243.101 (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems unconvincing given that Odin himself is usually described as wearing grey or blue, and the red suit certainly can't be traced any further back than the mid 19th century. (It might be derived from the bishop's robes St Nicholas wears in much of continental Europe. If so, nothing to do with Odin. If not, then there's a thousand year gap to fill in. Either way, it doesn't look promising.)

Restored previous version

Newest one was vandalized.195.169.201.127 11:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main photo

Since this comment that I posted on the talk page of the photo has been ignored there, I am reposting here:

Are we sure the license on this is right? I can't check the website because it requires a password, and the mere fact that information on the site is public domain doesn't mean that everything there is... if this photo was used from some stock photo service then it's not in the public domain at all. Something about it seems like it's not a US Air Force photo, and there's no way to check and confirm either way thanks to the password issue. DreamGuy 11:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Santa a Communist?

Many speculate that Santa Claus is in fact a member of the communist party with reasons such as Russian claims to the north pole, Santa's symbolic red clothes, and the fact that he gives toys out for free instead of capitalizing on the obvious holiday rush of the season.

(Note: I am not the above poster) Never heard of that controversy. Is this a joke? MalwareSmarts 14:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

I don't know about this one picture, titled "Santa parading with a Santa Christmas ornament." It looks like one Santa doing another Santa. 70.49.242.70 22:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

Both sides of the debate concerning Santa Claus's existence should be presented equally and fairly, unlike the current, shamelessly biased version. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.197.187.43 (talk) 12:34, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Yo. Shut-up. I believe

I happen 2 believe in Santa, 'n' i don't care what u guyz say about him. 'N' if u adults say he's a fantasy, then what da heck. I'm a 14 year old kid, let me hav fantasys. Dang. --Mr. Comedian 14:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are allowed to. Enjoy them while its okay to have them. happy holidays. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

believing in santa claus is like believing in Superman or Underdog or even Scooby doo is aint real Mcanmoocanu 16:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't he give presents to jews?

I know several jewish children who don't get presents from Santa. They believe in him due to being surounded by christians. And don't say because the jews get presents from family. Santa gives you any present you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.211.13 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is because Jews don't celebrate Christmas, because Christmas, religiously speaking, is a Christian holiday. And because of that, they don't celebrate it. I hope that answer is satisfying! MalwareSmarts 14:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Alternate History: Santa, Shamans, and Amanita Muscaria

Yes, they're entirely serious, and they may well be on to something. (If not actually on something.) Has this theory simply been overlooked, or were certain aspects considered too controvercial for incluson? [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.219.111 (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence/Hoaxes

Should it stay? Though it seems uncredible, the context was cited properly and really there is no arguing against it. However, some may think it seems to use too much commercialality in the sourcing because the websites provided feature context from a video that can be bought online. Honestly though, if its cited and the info is taken from web pages, theres really nothing we can do about it, just because we don't agree with it. Its not like its a new page or anything, in which case we could just AFD it down, but what are your thoughts on this issue? post it here. --EveryDayJoe45 01:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"All proper citations" are a single site with something to sell. QED. --Kbh3^rd talk 02:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, it doesn't matter if they are all fromt he same site. Your second argument, however, may hold some water. I personally like the new section and think it gives some jazz to the world-wide belief, that Santa is simply a fairytale. I of course do not believe in Santa, but I still find some conspiracy theorism a little interesting. So if you think the section is simple being used to sell a video, you may be right, so not now, but when I have more time, I will see what I can do to find some more info to back up the claims. Your response? --EveryDayJoe45 22:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does matter that it's a single site. I could put up a site saying whatever I want about any subject, but that does not make it a reliable source. A single non-primary source is only acceptable if it is known reliable and/or can be widely corroborated. That is especially true for anything controversial or contraindicated by reason.

Secondly, Wikipedia is not interested in "jazz". All core policies fail to mention "jazz" as a goal or a criterion for inclusion. An individual's predeliction for conspiracy is irrelevant.

The site is a commercial! Click on "About" and it says Electro Magnetic Entertainment. Based on WP:RS I am again deleting that section. Bah! Humbug!! --Kbh3^rd talk 00:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I ahev to say I am totally opposed to the proposal to merge Sinterklaas into Santa Claus. These are totally different holiday traditions. If there must be a merger than it should be the the other way around, after all Santa Claus is based on Sinterklaas! Jvhertum 14:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose it as well, in fact there is no reasoning given for it so it is bascially just spam on the article. I suggest the merger proposal be withdrawn from the page if no reasoning is given promptly. --Stalfur 15:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the merger proposal has now been removed, see Talk:Sinterklaas. Jvhertum 20:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The merger proposal currently appears to be back, and I would like to add that I, too, am vehemently opposed to a merger, they are truly completely different figures. I'm not entirely sure why there is this long a section on Sinterklaas in the Santa Claus article, though, I could see it being a much shorter one plus a link. But definitely they need separate artticles. (Speaking from .nl) 194.109.254.26 14:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it from the Dutch folklore section and replaced it with a see template to give: "Further information: Sinterklaas and Saint Nicholas". -Wikianon 21:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Coca Cola Make Santa Red

Santa claus was geen until coca cola drew him red so he would look good for them, his should be added to the article - Gao

Both Saint Nicolaus and Odin's suits were read - so the red color doesn't necessarily come from the red ion Colca Cola - but the reintroduction of the red color might come from it, yes. (I added that link above for the danish site setting norse God Odin in connectiion with certain parts of the Santa myth. (ACSIVE - 9-11-2007)

Actually, the red comes from the bloodstains of all the bad little boys and girls, who santa slaughters and paints himself with their blood - coz that't the only way to get the flying mojo working (why doyou think they call it a sleigh?) ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation, please, for Odin's red suit! Every reference I've seen has Odin wearing grey. Tolkien's Father Christmas Letters depicted the red suit in 1920, which I'm pretty sure predates the Coke ads; I always thought the red suit derived from Nast's drawings? Anyway, the conventional (pre-Nast) British depiction of Father Christmas was in a green robe, but how much that has to do with Continental St Nicholas or American Santa is debateable. Was Santa ever shown in green in the US?