Talk:Santa Claus/Archive 3

Santa or Satan

There appears a great many christian organizations who believe that Santa is in fact a manipulation of the religious event surrounding Christ; a corruption of it. Santa or Satan The reference to Saint Nicholas, has been replaced with a word that appears a manipulation ? Saint or Santo, is not Santa, or is this mere co-incidence ? There are however many who believe this was an intended corruption....Yahoo Search of Sites 1 There may be some truth to this that should be considered for inclusion... Bottom line there is good and bad in all things; nothing is perfect and so let us appreciate the truth of this... ! Even if the representation was designed to be perfect it can, it may, it is corruptible... --Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In a related yet equally nonsensical story, dressmakers have been up in arms for years with the revelation about how Santa is actually a misspelling of Satin, and that it is actually this magical fabric that - wackily enough - splits itself into a great many swatches and delivers toys to children all over the world in one 24 hour period. Usually, the dressmakers are laughed out of the room; they have considered forming a church to argue how Santa Claus is ruining Christmas by not paying homage to the real Spirit of Christmas - the making of unwanted clothing for children. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Addition

In many regions of Austria and former Austro-Hungarian Italy (Friuli, city of Trieste) children are given sweets and gift Saint Nicholas's Day (San Niccolò in Italian), in accordance with the Catholic calendar, December the 6th."

This is true to most of Hungary as well, and many regions in other countries in central-eastern europe too. Couldn't add this, as the page is protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbhsbh (talk • contribs) 10:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Santa Claus image

Are all the regular images of Santa Claus copywritten? I ask, as none appear in the article. i don;t mind doing the heavy lifting an adding one, but if its already been discussed to death, maybe its a topic worth revisiting. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As no one voiced an objection, I uploaded an image of Thomas Nast's 1881 illustration of Santa for Harper's Weekly. I would have prefered to upload one of the more cherubic, heavily red images by the 'fellers who done made' the images of Santa associated with the Coca-cola image campaign of the 1930's (Haddon Sundblom's image from The Saturday Evening Post here and an commemorative plate image here). The main problem I found with either of these two images is that the images are 79 years old and not yet in the public domain and that I am unsure of the usage of one image to sell a product (WP:NOT).

If someone familiar iwth images could take a look at my image and make sure it is bullet-proof, i would really appreciate it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"fictional, mythological, nonexsistant", etc

Hi. I'd say that the introduction should not make an extremely clear point that Santa isn't real. This can be considered POV, and it is the point of view that Santa is not real and should never, ever be regarded as such. If you use strong wording like this, it can be POV (or weasel words?). So, please try to back off on the use of wording, eg. one adjective suggesting he might not be real, "legendary", is enough. An arrangement of adjectives like "Santa Claus is a nonexsistant fictional legendary mythological allegorical character that does not exsist and it not real" should not be used. This is not about censorship, this is about NPOV. Strong wording like that will defy NPOV. One simple adjective is enough to get the point accross. Besides, some people may argue that "Santa Claus is not real" is a significant, non-obvious, and, some people may consider, doubtful statement. Thus, it needs a {{fact}} tag, to provide a citation as the article has not given any proof that Santa is not real, and not something that everyone knows. So, please try to not overrun the number of adjectives. After all, where's our proof that Santa isn't real? How do we know that even myths don't have some truth behind them? Please only use mild wording, as overdescriptive wording is POV and unnesecary. Thank you. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, what's with "Category:Wikipedians Who Like The Big Guy In The Red Suit"? That defineately does not belong there. This is a talkpage, not a userpage. Besides, that category doesn't even exist. Can someone remove that? I can't seem to find the part on the talkpage where the editable portion of the category is. Can someone find and remove it? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if someone is able to get rid of it, please tell me how they found the darn thing. I went a-looking, without success. As far as the descriptives int he Lead goes, I've arranged them in alphabetical order. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It was the userbox. (Metros beat me to it.) Good trick for finding miscategorization like that is editing each section and previewing until you find the one with a category. —Cryptic 16:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I went with the "look at a random set of diffs until I can find where/when the category was introduced" approach. Either of these methods can reach the end goal. Metros (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was a devilishly clever thing. Thanks for catching it. I am glad I posted the issue to AN/I! - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to an article from The New York Sun, there is a Santa Claus. The Sun is a perfectly reliable newspaper, and therefore its reliability should be considered in the point of view of this article. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Well, the New York Sun isn't the only newspaper. The local newspaper I get (not to expose too many details or you'll find out where I live) also states Santa is real. It talks about an interview with Santa, how he says, "let the children believe". It talks about Santa saying how many people dressed as Santa and don't look like him fill in for him, and how he and a hockey player would impersonate each other. Well, is the article from the Sun too similar to that story, "Yes, Virginis, there is a Santa Claus"? I can't source the newspaper article I had because it would reveal where I live, and also because it has long since been thrown into the recycle bin. Are those newspapers not reliable? Why isn't anyone else discussing this? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No, they are not reliable because they constitute a tiny minority view and violate NPOV, per WP:UNDUE ("Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth doesn't mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.") --David Shankbone 23:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you have some kind of reference that Santa-believers are a minority? I mean, I believe in Santa and I'm 38 years old! Applejuicefool (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Kids read this!

I think the fact that lots of children read this, especially around Christmas, should be considered.
Some of the content can be heart-breaking... XD375 (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, every little boy or girl is going to choose read an encyclopedia around Christmas-time. I remember, as a child, poring over air traffic corridor maps and geo-stationary weather satellites, plotting out where best to calculate the speed/weight ratio of Santa's sleigh in a high atmosphere trajectory. As well, me and my younger sisters debated endlessly over the slipstream design of reindeer in mid-flight, usually ending in frying pans as weapons, crying and copious amounts of coal.

Which was okay, since we were living in a cold-water hovel in the 19th century, and coal allowed us to stay alive until Spring.

There's heart-breaking, and there's illuminating. If parents don't want their young-uns to learn the truth about Santa, Republicans or what a pee-pee or hoo-hoo looks like, there are enough parental controls out there to block access to Wikipedia until the little tykes start sprouting chin hair and make appearances on the Jerry Springer Show. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia is not censored, but please refrain from using more than 3 words suggesting Santa's nonexsistence. For example, "a legendary, historical person" is okay, "a legendary, mythological character" is also okay, but "a fake, legendary, mythological, nonexsistant, fictional character" is not. Besides, you never answered my question: where's our reliable source that Santa isn't real? It's not obvious to everyone, is a significant statement, and can cause controversies. Besides, too many words either indicating Santa's possible (non)exsistance is not NPOV. I mean, who would think that a sentence like "Santa Claus is a make-believe, legendary, historical, mythological, traditional, nonexsistant character whom millions believe in" would be NPOV? It may support both sides, but is nevertheless not NPOV. Why don't we balance them? How about maximum 2 words indicating possible exsistance, maximum 3 words indicating possible nonexsistance, and makimum 2 more words that support neither side? You might not expect to find many kids reading an encyclopedia, but there are exceptions. For example, I was interested in encyclopedias since I was like, three. People as young as 7 or 8 edit wikipedia constructively (sorry no reference), and no doubt some wikipedia editors still believe in Santa. I'm not saying to make the article say that Santa is real and everyone should believe in him. If we did, we should make a juvenile.wikipedia.org. Actually, that might be a good idea, but who has the time anyway? The thing is, I'd think more children will be searcing for Santa Claus than something like "Penis" or "Vagina", but I'm not saying to censor this article either. Shouldn't we at least indicate that millions of people actually believe in him? If we keep arguing, we'll have an edit war. Why don't we use as neutral wording as possibly existingly possible, and make it stable enough so people won't keep changing it? If nothing else works, why don't we remove the adjectives altogether, or keep just one that is completely neutral? PS. oops, I included uncensored wording in a section called "kids read this". Ah well. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I could live with 'legendary and historical figure'. As well, I strongly recommend that the article be semi- or full-locked right after Thanksgiving (US) so as to help prevent the 3rd annual Trashing of the Santa Article™. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternate Santa page?

I just noticed while searching for pre-existing Santa images (no sense in reinventing the wheel if someone else had already uploaded the image - which hadn't been done) an article entitled Santa_Claus_in_Northern_American_culture. It seems a fairly close approximation fo this article. I am not sure if it needs to merged, as it seems like a content fork. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 11:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The information in these articles used to be in this article. It was decided that Santa Claus was so different in North America that it deserved its own article. You should be able to find this discussion somewhere in this talk section or in the archives. — Val42 (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be spiffy to quicklink it at the top of this article? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Santa Page for Children would be Better

I Honestly Feel that a new page of Santa Claus should be started for Chidren so that they do not lose Christmas Spirit by finding Out the Truth abaout Santa Claus. --Christian Cardozo (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2007

Wikipedia doesn't deal in deliberate misinformation. Such a page would belong at http://uncyclopedia.org/ Carewolf 15:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Who's saying it would be misinformation? Santa is real! Applejuicefool (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.70.219 (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Santa is REAL! I don't care what anybody or the kids at school say! Loolylolly1997 (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Bounce this offa you

Currently, in the Santa Claus discussion page, someone has suggested (though I'm sure it isn't for the first time) that we craft another Santa article for kids so as to not screw up Christmas and all that. I asked anotehr editor about this, and he pretty much said there's nothing we can do, but I am opening the question up to a wider audience here.

I am not a parent, but I am an uncle, and I know how internet savvy my nephews and niece are. I also know how they, being well under age nine, are still blissfully unaware of where Santa's presents really come from. I think that preserving a little bit of magic is important to children, and not expect them be miniature versions of adults. Call me an old softie, but there has to be something we can do.

With that in mind, I wonder if it is possible to redirect the words 'Santa Claus' to the dab page. At that dab, we could have amongst the secondary choices the following (bold text for emphasis only):

• Santa Claus (children) is a gift-giving figure in various cultures who distributes presents on Christmas Eve (this would be a children-oriented article, preserving the myth of Santa)
• Santa Claus refers to the historical, legendary and mythological figure

I am sure we could cull text from the article to create subpage of the main that would serve the purpose well. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been quite astonished over the last hour or so to see how much controversy has arisen around the issue of revealing the truth about Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and the Easter Bunny to children (i.e., that they don't exist, and are only fictional/mythological, etc.). It's even given rise to quite intense edit wars and rather heated language in the various Talk pages. Apparently, to some people, it makes a huge difference whether you describe these figures as fictional, or only mythological.

There seems to be a feeling, if not a policy, that part of Wikipedia's job is not to withhold information in order to shield children from things deemed unsuitable for them. But even if we grant that Wikipedia should in this case shield information, such as on Santa Claus, from children, I don't see how this proposal would do it. If this split were made, and a "suitable-for-children" article made, what would there be to ensure children followed only the link pointing to the children's version? I just don't see how this would achieve the desired goal: if children got to see any links to Santa Claus pages, it seems to me they'd be just about as likely to follow one link as another. M.J.E. (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I am in agreement with your conclusions, though not in your patronizing delivery. I agree that there really isn't way to deal with it, and that we cannot act as pseudo-parents, and doing so even to preserve a bit o' childhood innocence is pretty contrary to Wikipedia's main ideas. Sorry Virginia, I guess there isn't a Santa Claus. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Patronizing? In what way were my comments patronizing? Exactly which ones?

My apologies if something I've said appears so, because it certainly was not intended. I thought my point was a reasonable one, as you seem to agree too, and I don't really see anything wrong with saying that I was astonished at the controversy that has arisen over this - because I was astonished. I see nothing patronizing about that - but I'm sorry if it struck you that way. M.J.E. (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I was a bit more defensive than I needed to be. I think that perhaps I took umbrage a little bit at Santa being compared to the tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. Santa is a metaphor for cheerfulness and giving, I think, whereas the Easter Bunny is some freakish, LSD-addled idea of Easter (an anthropomorphic rabbit hiding chocolate or purple chicken eggs - dude someone was clearly high when they made that), and don't even get me started into the creepy nature of some house-invading magical fairy hell-bent on taking the teeth of children - that's just wrong.

As Santa is a fairly straight-up sort of myth - leaving gifts for children all over the world, I didn;t think it was so weird that folk would want to preserve the mystery for kids. That's all. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I see - never mind - different point of view. I certainly didn't think that deeply into the differences between Santa Claus and the others, and I tend to be very literal-minded and analytical, not all that well tuned into the subtle meaning of myths of any kind; so I just tend to lump them all together. Certainly didn't intend to offend anyone. I am single and childless, too, so I lack the perspective you allude to: wanting to keep the mystery intact for kids, and so on.

Must say, though, that, when I was a kid and young enough to believe, I would probably have been more likely to see Father Christmas (as he was known in my parts) as a symbol for receiving, not giving. Wanting to receive probably comes naturally to everyone; but it probably takes a lot of effort to inculcate in children (and probably many adults too) the desire to give. M.J.E. (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, me too. I think it is incumbent upon parents to highlight how gift-giving is just as rewarding as gift-receiving. Again, this is what is flawed about the idea of altering the article for children - we aren't their parents. and smart ones can block specific pages on their computers, if they wish to do so.

I am actually a little embarrassed in that I believed in Santa until I was almost 13 - my parents were that good at extravagantly pulling the wool over my eyes. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that this article is rather neutral, save for the use of the word "mythological". If it reads that he is a legendary and historical character, this is accurate, because a character does not mean a real person. For example, if the article for Mickey Mouse said that "Mickey Mouse is a legendary and historical character", this would not be an issue. I think removing the term "mythological" would make this article suitable for children. And yes, children do read Wikipedia, and especially those who are wondering about the existence of Santa Claus will find their way here. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect, it is the job of the parent to either let their kid in on the mystery or to prevent them from seeing the article. Mythological is accurate. However, if you have proof that he is a real dude living in the Melting Great White North, over 400 years old, rides magical flying reindeer and visits all the homes in Christendom to deliver toys made in his workshop by elves, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the best venue in which to discuss these concerns. Until proven otherwise, Santa is mythological. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

But the use of the word "mythological" is unnecessary when the word "character" is used. If he were real, the term "person" could be used in lieu of "character". "Historical, legendary character" is an accurate and less Grinch-ish description, and it should be used in this article. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If the basis of your argument is that children may learn that Santa is a myth, then you don't have an argument. Call Wikipedia a Grinch, or call it what it is: an encyclopedia not responsible for reinforcing myths. --David Shankbone 02:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The Tooth fairy article simply states that the Tooth fairy is a "traditional children's character". Why is that same wording not accepted in this article instead of the word "mythological"? Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

We aren't on the tooth fairy article, we are on the Santa Claus article; I'm not going to widen this discussion to all mythological and fantastical beings found on Wikipedia. Each page deals with itself. But to answer you anyway: the tooth fairy article should change, not the Santa article. That would put it in line with the Easter Bunny article. --David Shankbone 03:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Santa, part two

First off, Saying Santa Clause is not real is not POV, anymore than any other factional claim in Wikipedia. There is no legitimate opinion that Santa Clause exists. No rational being beliefs there is a Santa. Is claiming that Niel Armstrong landed on the moon POV? No, it's not, because it is a proven fact.
Secondly, why do you people think there is some sort of harm in childern being exposed to truth? Is it somehow fun to trick gullible impressionable minds into believing some crap that isn't true? People act like it's a tragety when I go to the Santas in malls and tell the kids Santa isn't real, when the real tragety is these malelovent parents lieing to children telling them someone is watching them, and they will be rewarded for good behavior & punished for bad.
Third, why should this even be a consideration. Wikipedia articles should not be censored because some dumb child might look up Santa and...heaven forbid, find truth. XM (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, cool your jets, sport. I appreciate that you might wish to voice an opinion, difficult as it is to glean through the spelling and whatnot. Wikipedia currently supports the view that we are not here to censor Wikipedia and act as pseudo-parents to kids using the internet. WP information is offered neutrally, and there are fail-safes in place (like you, I and the other thousands of users who contribute) to make sure that remains the case.

To that end, Santa is stated as being historical, legendary and mythological; until consensus changes drastically from what it has been thus far, it should remain such. Using that set of descriptors seems to balance the encyclopedic value of the entry and all have the benefit of being true. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel that saying Santa Claus is not real IS POV. Many, many people in the world literally believe in Santa Claus, even a few adults here and there. While it may be irrational to believe in a legendary gift-giver living at the North Pole, rationality all the time is a little bit obtuse. There are many things that happen all the time that are irrational. Irrationality is a well-entrenched and established facet of life. Learning to embrace irrationality from time to time is a sign of wisdom, not mental illness. Santa Claus definitely exists. He delivers toys to good boys and girls all over the world. You should watch "Miracle on 34th Street" sometime.Applejuicefool (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Germanic origin

I am missing an article on the german tradition with "Sankt Nikolaus" which sounds a bit more like the origin of the term "Santa Claus". At least it sounds more like it, doesn´t it?! I think it should be called germanic origin instead of just "dutch" OR "german"?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.86.166.203 (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

German pronunciation of Sankt Nikolaus is in no way similar to Santa Claus (American pronunciation). On the other hand, the Dutch word Sinterklaas is. Add to that the Dutch influence on American culture/folklore and numerous sources tracing Santa back to Sinterklaas. Kweniston (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The German pronunciation of Sankt Nikolaus does by far not sound like Santa Claus. The Dutch Sinterklaas does almost sound exactly as Santa Clause. One thing I do not find clearly explained in this article is that why Santa Claus is associated with Christmas Day and not with Saint Nicolas Day. (Or: what went wrong!?) Bokkie (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this vandalism(I think)

“ Saint Nicholas became revered by many as the patron saint of seamen, merchants, archers, children, prostitutes, pharmacists, lawyers, pawnbrokers, prisoners, the city of Amsterdam, and of Russia ”

For some reason I don't think the guy they based Santa Claus of is the Patron saint of prostitutes, pharmacists,lawyers,pawnbokers and prisoners. Well maybe some of them but I think I don't need to list the ones that really need a citition before being put in the article.--71.164.185.120 (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I pulled the noting of prostitutes as well as the uncited reference of a similar figure elsewhere (pls feel free to reverse with citation connecting the two), and added 'cn' to the rest. Patron saints are wacky things - there are some for boils and the clap, so it seems likely that lawyers would get their own saint as well (Lord knows they need them). Please do not remove the tags without reliable citation.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

He was the patron saint of prostitutes along with many other professions. But I don't see any reason to single them out. It's strange enough that he's the patron saint of lawyers. See http://www.stnicholascenter.org/Brix?pageID=45. Fitzaubrey 07:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent source! Thanks, Fitzaubrey. I think we'll do an Gilligan's Isle and simply note that a lot fo different groups claim him as a patron saint, and provide the source. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I Still Believe a Santa Page for Children Would be Better

Think About it. If we had an alternative Santa page, and a Nine year Old Happened to Search Google for Santa Claus (Though they may Still have chances of Finding the Current link, stating the Truth about him), there may be a chance that they find the link to the Children's page. By doing this, who Knows how many Children will find the Link stating his that he Does exist and not ruin (Or at least Dramatically Diminish) their Christmas Spirit? Whoever is Reading this and Agrees with it, why not Start the Santa Page for Children. Be Creative, and Remember not to Expose the Truth ! (Please make sure to post the Link here so that I can see it and Contribute to it) --Christian Cardozo (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Period. It's a parent's duty to monitor what a child watches on TV/looks at on the Internet. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, we are an encyclopedia and we are not here to support myths. We exist for truth. Just like we can't have a page for Christian Zionist children confirming for them that the Earth is 6,000 years old; just like we can't have an Easter Bunny page; or a page for Shinto children reconfirming their myths; we can't have a Santa Claus page that makes it seem like this non-existent entity exists. It goes against everything we do on here, which is to present the world as it is, not as children believe it to be, or not because we want to reinforce a lie told to kids out of "Christmas Spirit." Additionally, as this page shows, Santa Claus is controversial. Many Christians think it robs the holiday from Jesus Christ (you know, it's the dude's birthday) and some people think it supports the commercialism and consumerism in western culture. Others think children should be told the truth: that those gifts are tokens of their parents love, and not some Magic Man and his minion elves. Simply put: Wikipedia is not, under any circumstance, the place to tell lies as truth. I will be the one nominating for speedy deletion any Santa Claus for Kids page. --David Shankbone 01:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Nicely put, David. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

He's like that. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Except that Wiki's place is not to claim that peoples beliefs are wrong or unproven either. Even if those people are children. Just as wikipedia doesn't state that Christ did or did not exist, it shouldn't state that Santa Claus doesn or doesn't exist. It should state that many children believe that he leaves them presents or candy around this time of year.Kairos (talk) 06:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia's place is to report truth and what is empirically shown to be true and false. It is certainly not to say, "But some people believe it to be true, so therefore who is to say?" Some children believe that monsters live in their closets. We aren't going to start the Monsters in your closet article to say, "Although there is no proof that these monsters exist, you believe they do so who is to say?" Comparing Santa to Christ goes beyond any reasonable argument, so I won't bother to address it. --David Shankbone 16:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I found this through David's contribution history. You mean Santa doesn't exist!?! Now I am terrified to go look at the Superman article. And don't even start on the Easter Bunny. Jeffpw (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, stay away from the Chupacabra article, too - the jury is still apparently "out" on that one. --David Shankbone 16:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about y'all, but I now have a great idea to pitch to Hollywood once the strike is over. "Jesus & the Fat Man" would be a big hit. A bearded Middle-Eastern Jew and a fat Caucasion team up as cops to fight crime in....Detroit...yeah, Detroit. And they ride in this totally bitchin' Cadillac driven by a drunk (hence the red nose) named Rudy. Eat your heart out, Starsky and Hutch!

At least its better than Cavemen or Hex:) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So it would be kind of like Rush Hour, but with Jesus and Santa? Me thinks you have found a gold mine! --David Shankbone 18:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Political Correctness

Should we mention that some "civil rights" groups are trying to change the image of Santa because he supposedly encourages obesity in children, or that they are trying to change "Ho Ho Ho" to "Ha Ha Ha" so it's not degrading to women.

Personally I believe the ACLU is a load of crap, but it might be notable. Crazycarolina (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite get where the ACLU came into this. From what I understand, they don't really care much about obesity... While some organisations have campaigned against the image of a fat Santa Claus I don't think the ACLU is one of them. As for the ho ho ho thing, the only thing I came across is one agency in Australia (i.e. not the USA) apparently instructed the people they hired to say ha ha ha. However it appears the primary reason is because they feel ho ho ho can be frightening to children, with the degrotary to women thing secondary thing probably mentioned off the cuff if at all (the fact that ho is AFAIK fairly uncommon in Australia makes me wonder if this was made up by someone looking for a story) which was blown out of proportion [1]. N.B. Regardless whether or not either of these are silly doesn't change the fact the ACLU doesn't appear to be involved and that the ho ho ho thing apparently has little to do with it being potentially degrading to women Nil Einne 06:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if there are any women who were actually offended by Ho Ho Ho, and that they started that Ha Ha Ha nonsense. As for encouraging obesity in children, I believe that is also nonsense. MalwareSmarts —Preceding comment was added at 18:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)