Talk:Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus/Archive 1

Archive 1

External Link

Why was the source text replaced with an external link?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gareth Owen (talk • contribs) 05:13, 17 April 2002‎ (UTC)

Because source text posted directly into wikipedia is editable, which casts doubt on the reliability of the source text even if it hasn't been noticeably edited. Plus, souce material isn't something that's supposed to be in an encyclopedia, encyclopedias are about this sort of thing rather than containing this sort of thing. Bryan Derksen, Wednesday, April 17, 2002

Fair enough. I can see your concerns, but I'm not sure I agree with them. Since everything here is edittable, I could go and amend Wales, to read "a small island off the coast of Spain", and it wouldn't be a compelling reason to define Wales using an external link. If we treat any alteration of "historical" source as vandalism, is there a compelling reason to omit them? As to your second concern, well m:Wiki is not paper. I've no desire to duplicate Project Gutenberg, but I think (short) texts like this and A Modest Proposal are valuable here. I'm going to ask about general policy on such matters on the Wikipedia mailing list and see what the consensus is.-- User:GWO

Well, there is a significant difference between editing what the Wikipedia article on Wales says and what some quoted source material says. In the case of a Wikipedia article, there's an implied "The various random yahoos who edit Wikipedia say" at the beginning, whereas at the beginning of (for example) A Modest Proposal there's an explicit "Jonathan Swift himself, and Jonathan Swift alone, said." It's a lot worse if the latter gets modified than the former, since for the former it's expected as a normal part of how Wikipedia works but for the latter it turns the article into an outright lie. There's already been a fair amount of discussion on this matter, see Talk:WikiBiblion, Talk:William Shakespeare, Talk:The Origin of Species, Talk:Rambouillet Agreement Bryan Derksen, Wednesday, April 17, 2002

I must agree with Bryan here; without comment and/or annotation source material is just about useless in a wiki. Better to have a link to some static text -- then, at least, the reader can be reasonably sure that the text hasn't been changed. Of course, if wikipedia obtains the ability to display static non-wiki editable text then that will be a different story (I submitted a wikipedia feature request for this some time ago). --maveric149

There's nothing wrong with having an article which is entirely about some short saying. But I would like the title to be shorter than the entire text of the saying. Perhaps There is a Santa Claus for the old Sun's response to the little girl's letter: "Papa says if you see it in The Sun, it's so." Ed Poor

I have never heard this piece identified without the first two words. Better we should move it to "Yes, Virginia", or better yet, leave it where it is. - Montréalais

Better idea, why not put the source text INSIDE a template, and make it protected? The only thing someone could do is remove it...which could be obviously noticed and easily reverted. like maybe {{yesthereisasantaclaus}} ViperSnake151 16:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

how about just replacing the current photo of the original article with a higher resolution image that's easier to read? 69.248.248.11 (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this true?

"While this TV special very loosely based on the facts has been largely forgotten and has not attained the legendary status of Backus' Mister Magoo's Christmas Carol, it is still seen as one of the rare gems of television that can touch a viewer's heart."

Is this true? This is the first time I have ever heard of "Mister Magoo's Christmas Carol", but here in Australia, the "Yes, Virginia" animated TV special is broadcast regularly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.33.215 (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2004‎ (UTC)

First I've heard of it, too. Methinks it's a joke.--Cmdroverbite 16:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I changed the opening line. The headline above the original editorial read simply "Is There A Santa Claus", not "Yes, Virginia, There Is A Santa Claus" as was previously posted. That famous catchphrase was in the editorial itself, not in the the headline. Subsequent reprintings have often used that phrase in the headline, but the original did not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.106.94.3 (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Virginia

Does anyone know what happened to Virginia during the rest of her life? That would be a good addition to the article. Academic Challenger 01:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Recent vandalism (replacement of the name Virginia with "Vagina" throughout the article) has been removed.

Unfortunately I am unable to edit the article at this time, so I cannot correct the section pertaining to her accident that now reads: "...to her Virginia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.142.173 (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

References in popular culture

You talked about the 'appearance' of the line 'Yes Virginia,there is a Santa Claus' in popular culture,but you forgot the movie 'Santa's Slay'(horror).In the beginning of the movie Virginia(played by Fran Drescher)says:-"Santa?!" 'Santa'(played by Bill Goldberg)responds with the line:-"Yes Virginia,there IS a Santa Clause!"

°Someone from Belgium° —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.175.175 (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In the M*A*S*H episode "Your Retention Please", the phrase is parodied when Hawkeye shouts "Yes, Virginia, there IS an escape clause!" to Klinger when he learns Klinger has not yet sworn the loyalty oath. Does anyone think this should be included? 82.33.206.117 (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Original letter...

"The original is now in the possession of a great-grandson, James Temple, who lives in Tucson, Arizona.[citation needed]"

Probably best to strike this entire statement: James Temple isn't Virginia's great-grandson, he's her grandson, he doesn't live in Tucson, Arizona, and he isn't the one in possession of the letter. RSBartlett 00:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of the whereabouts of the original letter, I think it might be interesting to include a reference to this episode of Antiques Roadshow: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/archive/199704A43.html 137.254.4.8 (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism.

It appears that someone chose to name their party after this. as sign in this quote.

On 12/5/08, Justin Nielsen dubs his 2008 Christmas Party "Yes, Virginia, There Is A Christmas Party", confusing many of the invitees with his reference to a random New York Sun article from 1897. Up next, Justin's Fourth of July party named after a passage from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Coming from an unknown IP. It appears to be a piece of Vandalism so I reverted it. If it's actually of noteworthy importance at the very least link Justin Nielsen's name to something to explain why it's crucial enough. --Kinglink (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Editorial

Shouldn't the newspaper editorial be put on this page? It would be nice, and we would be able to see the "my little friends" part. Alpheta (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be on Wikisource, here it would just be about the article. Yossiea ^(talk) 18:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Deliberate falsehood in newspapers??

Am I the only one that thinks that the Sun text is horribly wrong in so many ways and that we should not hoax kids? --93.223.47.94 (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The cited sources indicate this happened and is not a hoax. This is Wikipedia. What an editor thinks doesn't effect what's included in an article. Citable sources do. If you find reliable sources that support the position that this is a hoax, you can expand the article using them. Lentower (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand; I don't think the IP user means to imply it is a hoax that Church wrote the editorial, or wrote it in response to a real girl named Virginia; but is simply expressing his opinion about the belief in Santa Claus itself. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

To the IP user: No, you are not the only one to oppose spreading belief in Santa Claus; your view is adequately represented elsewhere in Wikipedia. However:

• These positions seem to be in the minority in the part of the world where the belief is taught;
• You perhaps fail to appreciate the philosophical points Church addressed (as pointed out in the article), and that he wasn't simply trying to con a child?
• There is really no need to taint this article with a criticism section; (How many criticisms can be verified as having been addressed specifically to Church's piece?)
• As it says at the top of this talk page, it exists to discuss improving the article, and is not a blog to discuss the subject itself (here limited to Church's piece, as opposed to the general issue of Santa Claus). JustinTime55 (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Only if we also call them out for insisting that love, generosity and devotion are "real" things. 108.34.151.139 (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

No summary

Am I the only who realizes that this article has no actual summary of the editorial's content?    DKqwerty    04:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

On the CBS Page

This article has a link on the official website for Yes, Virginia, the 2009 CBS special. Dalekusa (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Santa Claus/Clause

In the article, Santa Claus is spelled two different ways, Claus and Clause. I will fix this. 68.62.177.33 (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Tweedle20