Open main menu

Contents

Improvement for the greek origin of Santa ClausEdit

NikoloCh (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)NikoloCh

In order to clarify the validity of section 1.1 of this article, I suggest the improvement by changing Saint Nicholas to Basil of Caesarea, redirecting to this [1]. At the orthodox tradition, he was the well-known for his charities and merciful actions, that's why we are parallelizing his figure to the modern Santa Claus. If you notice in the Commemoration Section of my ref, you would understand the contradiction. Maybe we have to add something like this "For Greeks and others in the Orthodox tradition, St Basil is the saint associated with Santa Claus as opposed to the western tradition of St Nicholas." cited correctly in the ref page. I would be happy to translate in Greek also and further clarify the references.

@NikoloCh: The only relevant content in the target article is, "For Greeks and others in the Orthodox tradition, St Basil is the saint associated with Santa Claus as opposed to the western tradition of St Nicholas." which is unsourced. Note also the bolded part - Basil as a precursor to Santa Claus is a minority view. --NeilN talk to me 00:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

NikoloCh (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC) I see that sources must be inserted like this "http://www.cafebabel.co.uk/athens/article/st-nicolas-santa-claus-or-st-basil.html", maybe you think this is a minority view, but you can't think there are no facts certifying my edit. Moreover, wikipedia is an encyclopedia not your view.

@NikoloCh: That site consists of user generated content and so is not considered a reliable source. You're right that Wikipedia content does not consist of my views. It consists of what reliable sources say. Find sources that support your change and contradict sources in Santa Claus, Sinterklaas, and Saint Nicholas and then we can discuss. --NeilN talk to me 15:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Santa Claus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

OriginsEdit

In Germany, St. Nikolaus brings gifts to children on December 6. He is not considered to be the same person as the "Christmas Man" (Weihnachtsmann) on Christmas. St. Nikolaus did really exist, and traditional legend has it that he actually helped poor and endangered children. Happy St. Nikolaus day, everyone! 2003:C8:BBCD:4639:9481:C954:5280:FAA3 (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

LeadEdit

User:Crumpled Fire, I'd be happy to talk to you about the allegedly controversial changes that you reverted twice, if I could figure out which changes were actually controversial. I've been assuming that it's not changing "fourth-century" to "4th-century" (i.e., in compliance with the WP:MOS), but maybe you could either restore the changes that you don't object to, or you could maybe just tell me which ones you object to, and maybe even why? Otherwise, I don't actually know how to have this conversation, because you haven't told me what your actual objection is, even though I did ask in the edit summary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The edit looks good to me. I don't know what's controversial about making the lead better reflect the body of the article. It would be nice if Crumpled Fire could clarify their objections to the edit. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
The controversial item in question is the bit at the bottom, one tiny sentence all isolated on its own, about kids learning "the truth" about Santa around age 8. First of all this is subjective, we don't say Christians learn the truth about God when they talk to an atheist, and there's about as much evidence for God as Santa, and like God many millions of people genuinely believe in him. It's especially problematic adding this a mere days before Christmas, without attaining consensus, in a very visible portion of the article. Many discussions have been had about saying "fictional character" in the lead before, and consensus was to use "legendary", thereby making the article's POV about Santa's existence generally agnostic in the lead, just as it is for gods who many adults believe in, despite many other adults telling them it isn't real.— Crumpled Firecontribs 00:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I also object to the edits, although for different reasons. It is inaccurate to say that "combines multiple Christian and non-Christian traditions" when many scholars state that Santa Claus is derived chiefly from the Christian traditions surrounding Saint Nicholas. I hope this helps. AnupamTalk 00:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Anupam, I understand that the *modern* Santa Claus combines multiple traditions, some of which are Christian (e.g., St Nick's name) and some of which are not (e.g., reindeer flying through the sky). Do you believe that there are no significant non-Christian traditions in the *modern* Santa Claus? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
The article doesn't take an "agnostic" point of view, and indeed a point of view like that would be totally inappropriate when reliable sources are very clear that Santa Claus is not a real person. (The same can't be said of the Christian god, a figure about whom reliable sources disagree or indicate controversy.) The fact that Christmas is later this month is basically irrelevant to the discussion. The number of people who believe in the literal existence of a given figure is also mostly irrelevant—what's relevant is what reliable sources say. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
The sentence about learning the truth is uncited and probably cannot be cited. I don't know that anyone has ever done research on when children cease to believe in Santa. I have known younger children who did not believe and older children who did. --Khajidha (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Khajidha, I think you'll find that this information is already cited in the body of the article. But if you'd like more, then please see:
WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
This New York Times article says that the age of discernment has been stable for decades (85% of five year olds believe that Santa is real, and 75% of eight year olds don't), but that it might be falling, at least in Australia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Interesting! I'd say it's worth mentioning the findings from the Australian study in the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
One of the surveys said that about a third of adults wish that they still believed in Santa Claus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Crumpled Fire, Granger, Anupam, Khajidha, let's get back to this. I think the first question is: Should this article take an "agnostic" view of whether Santa Claus exists/flies through the sky in a magic sleigh/delivers presents to all the children? What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I assume that's a rhetorical question. Taking an agnostic view on the literal existence of Santa Claus would make a mockery of WP:V and WP:NPOV. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
No, it's a serious question. User:Crumpled Fire's first comment above indicates that "making the article's POV about Santa's existence generally agnostic in the lead" (but not necessarily in the body of the article?) was the approach editors had settled on in the past. Boldly contravening that decision didn't work, so I think we should be talking about it. I don't want to do that, and you apparently don't want to do that, but what do others think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to be certain that this is fully settled, so that there can be no doubt about the community's view on how to handle this page. I'm thinking about an WP:RFC, like this, and I'd love to have help from anyone in getting short, fair descriptions of the pros and cons in it.
Should the introduction to the article be "agnostic" about the existence of the modern Santa Claus?
Yes, it should be agnostic. No, the lead should be clear that Santa Claus does not exist.
  • Kids might read the article, and some of them (and their parents) might be upset if we say that the modern Santa Claus is fictional character, and that all the grown-ups know that Santa doesn't exist.
  • Anyone, including kids, who reads the introduction to this article should be told that Santa Claus is not actually a real, currently living person.
Note that this isn't a proposal to go over the top with this. I would like a well-written intro, which does not mean harping repeatedly on the non-existence of a guy who has a flying sled and magic reindeer and goes down chimneys to deliver toys built by magic elves in the North Pole. But I'd like to be clear about whether "preserving the magic" for the <1% of readers who are young enough to think that Santa is "real" is a goal, non-goal, or anti-goal for the intro. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd say it's better for the RFC text to focus on what the article should include rather than the pros and cons behind it. So, don't ask people to decide whether readers "might be upset", just ask them whether the lead should indicate whether or not Santa Claus exists. (Of course people being upset might be part of some participants' reasoning.) I might suggest wording more like this:
Should the introduction to the article be "agnostic" about the existence of the modern Santa Claus?
Yes, it should be agnostic. No, the lead should be clear that Santa Claus does not exist.
  • The lead should not make claims about the literal existence of Santa Claus; readers who are unfamiliar or uncertain should not be told whether or not he is actually a real, currently living person.
  • Anyone who reads the introduction to this article should be told that Santa Claus is not actually a real, currently living person.
It might even be better to have an RFC on specific text, as it can be easier to get agreement on that than on general principles. That said, I'm not sure an RFC is necessary at all. It seems to me that Crumpled Fire is the only person in this discussion who objects to clarifying Santa Claus's literal existence. Khajidha's sourcing concern has been addressed, and Anupam's concern is about an unrelated issue. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I like that. What do you think about giving some specific examples of possible changes after the table? In other words, the specific examples are not the main focus, but there might be less confusion about what's intended in terms of near-term practicalities. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Tacked on and completely unrelated informationEdit

This sentence...

"The flying reindeer could symbolize the use of fly agaric by Sámi shamans.[28] "

appears to be someone's afterthought and lends nothing useful to the main article. There could just as well be a sentence saying, "the chimney through which Santa descends could symbolize shamanistic phallic worship".....In other words it's stupid and pure conjecture and doesn't belong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.252.183.253 (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Santa Claus" page.