Open main menu

Contents

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)

About Santa ClausEdit

NO
In this RfC, there is consensus that the lead section should be clear that Santa Claus does not exist. Editors cite the WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:NPOV, and WP:V policies in support of the majority opinion.

Although the RfC statement does not ask whether any specific language would be appropriate, some editors commented on the terms legendary and fictional:

  • Legendary: Most editors who expressed an opinion on the term legendary believe it is appropriate in the lead section, regardless of whether they !voted "yes" or "no" on the main question. There is disagreement on whether legendary is sufficient to indicate that Santa Claus does not exist. Some editors argued that the term is ambiguous, because it can mean a revered figure who is not necessarily associated with a legend. Other editors thought that legendary clearly refers to a mythical figure in the context of this article.
  • Fictional: Editors who !voted "no" on the main question and believed that legendary is an insufficient description of Santa Claus's mythical nature suggest fictional as a term that is less ambiguous than legendary.

Further discussion may be necessary to determine the exact wording that should be used to reflect the consensus in this RfC. The final wording should not take into account the minority viewpoint that Santa Claus's mythical nature should be hidden from unaware readers, as this position is not supported by our policies. — Newslinger talk 04:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the introduction to the article be "agnostic" about the existence of the modern Santa Claus, or should it say that Santa Claus is not a real, currently living person? 03:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Should the introduction to the article be "agnostic" about the existence of the modern Santa Claus?
Yes, the lead should be agnostic. No, the lead should be clear that Santa Claus does not exist.

The introduction should not make claims (either way) 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.

The introduction does not need to remain silent about the literal existence of Santa Claus. Readers who are unfamiliar or uncertain should learn that Santa Claus is not actually a real, currently living person.

The editors at this article are looking for general information about the overall feel for the introduction to the article, rather than help deciding for or against a specific proposal. If it's easier for you to think of it in these terms, then just imagine us all next December, when someone wants to add either "Santa is real" or "Santa is not real" content to the first paragraph, and we're trying to convince them that the community really thinks their changes aren't a good approach, except that we've got no evidence to back up what we claim you think. So, please make our December happier by telling us what you think now. :-)

Note that the outcome of this discussion does not need to result in any drastic or ham-fisted change, like adding "Santa isn't real, he doesn't have flying reindeer, and he's not bringing you any presents!" to the article. Instead, it could result in no change (we've identified the general direction, and we're satisfied with what we've got for now). However, it could also result in some smaller changes. For example, if editors decide that the introduction should provide direct information about Santa Claus' non-existence, then we could (for example) add information about why parents maintain this tradition, or the age at which children stop believing in Santa Claus (which is usually around age 8, for anyone who's curious). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  • No - The article should be clear that Santa doesn't exist. The fact that he doesn't is important to the article and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. --MrClog (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes I find the present lead very well worded and respectful of those who long before they are 8 will be surfing the web, and Wikipedia. It mentions that Santa is "legendary", which is a clear enough word, used in other, well-respected encyclopedias, which maintain a neutral and not secularist point of view. I don't think we should play parent and tell children that Santa doesn't really exist. The truth is that legends exist for good reasons, and they have their place in the life of children. Rather than a choice of "agnostic" or "not exist" I would say that by leaving it at "legendary" we preserve the values in the legend; we are being precise and respectful of the whole truth in the matter. Jzsj (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Jzsj, Given that the word 'legendary' is already included, which immediately makes it clear he is not a real person, I wonder if you meant to say 'No'.MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
      • If one reads the whole intro to this debate, those who vote "No" are authorizing an editor to make more explicit that Santa does not exist. Note this also in the "No" responses. Jzsj (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I also like the "legendary" language. I think it is justifiable as a factual statement (i.e., there actually is a legend), and I hope that we'll keep that term, even if people decide to make other changes in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No It should be clear that he is a folklore character, just like Moses and Daniel. And I am not certain why an 8-year-old would believe in Santa Claus anyway. My parents were kind enough to explain to me when I was 6 that "Santa" is just another name for Saint Nicholas, the patron saint of my hometown. And that he has been dead for 16 centuries.Dimadick (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No, of course not. As I argued above, to be "agnostic" on a topic where reliable sources are in clear agreement would make a mockery of WP:NPOV and WP:V. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    • It's unfortunate that the "Yes" option was worded in what I see as a prejudicial way. Agnosticism is a philosophical system, and not the best way to describe omission of information for a good reason. I am not an agnostic, but I don't like the "No" option. Jzsj (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No for the reasons stated by other editors above, although I would add that I think that "legendary" is fine as a description, as legends are generally understood to be less than real. signed, Rosguill talk 23:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No, I am firmly in agreement with the above editors. While I understand the sentiment behind wanting the article to remain agnostic, doing so would be entirely antithetical to the goals of Wikipedia. Plus, if we were worried about what an eight-year-old might accidentally discover while browsing Wikipedia, this would probably be the least of our concerns. --Drevolt (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes dont tell kids that santa doesnt exist. This will open a can o' worms where all articles relating to mythology can be edited so that eg. Muhammad doesnt exist, Jesus doesnt exist, the Buddha doesnt exist, Alexander the Great and his man eating demon horse didnt exist, unicorns don't exist etc. I would advocate for making it extremely subtle if included. 175.36.91.0 (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC) sock of Unicornblood2018 (talk · contribs) SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No - no-brainer afaiac. This is an encyclopedia, presenting facts as they are, not as a sub-set of children in a few parts of the world (perhaps) wish they were. --bonadea contributions talk 08:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No, article must be clear.--Never Forget 2701 (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes I like the lede now, though I would take out the link to "legend" and just say "a figure in Western culture" because I believe in using as few adjectives as possible to help build a NPOV. "Figure in Western culture" describe Santa Claus accurately. Whether he is real is not significant or debatable enough to mention in the intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloilo Wanderer (talkcontribs) 08:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Question for WhatamIdoing: How would you classify the current state of the intro in terms of "agnostic" vs. "clear that Santa Claus does not exist". Does describing him as a "legendary figure" in the first sentence make it clear that he doesn't exist? Colin M (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No - but be gentle about it. The current wording which describes him as "legendary" is OK. Having a sentence explicitly claiming his non-existence or anything of the sort would be distasteful and wouldn't contribute to the article. There are some people who consider unacceptable any attempt to deceive children by telling them about Santa Claus of the Tooth Fairy or whatever, and go out of their way to make their nonexistence clear, but I hope the editors of Wikipedia don't subscribe to the same views. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No It's hard to think that this merits a RFC. But we don't need to state in a stand-alone sentence that "Santa is not real". The present wording "a legendary figure ... who is said to bring gifts" makes the point clearly and encyclopedically, and is perfectly good as it stands. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    • If you read the whole intro and previous "No" responses then I believe you want to vote "Yes". Jzsj (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I don't think that's correct, but I do agree with you that the question is poorly-stated and that the word 'agnostic' does not help at all. It would be better to ask "Is the existing 'legendary figure' wording acceptable?" My answer to that would be 'yes'. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Agreed. Jzsj (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Jzsj and MichaelMaggs, the question is meant to cover more than just the words in the first sentence. For example, we have sources saying that most children stop believing in Santa Claus by age 8. Would you object to including that in the lead? (The "agnostic" wording comes from an editor who opposed the addition of anything that might lead to children discovering that Santa isn't real. It is a bit of a metaphor.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
      • WhatamIdoing, I wouldn't favour that, because the date at which children stop believing is not a sufficiently important attribute of the character that it merits being included in the lead. It reads like a sentence pushed in just to make a point. To me, 'legendary' is perfectly clear, but for those who worry that the word could imply that he was an important but now-dead person, I'd be equally happy with "fictional" or "In traditional festive legend, Santa Claus is a character..." following the example of Santa Claus's reindeer. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Another option would be "Folkloric character". MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I would agree. (And the "metaphorical" use of terminology may have vitiated this whole Rfc: there are 875 Wikipedians who categorize themselves as "agnostic": it has real-life import.)Jzsj (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No, we do not need to explicitly say that 'Good Nick' isn't real. - If that is the question. 'Legendary figure' adequately covers his status.
    • Whatever next? Will we be stating the obvious that Hamlet isn't real? Pincrete (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Note that this would require a Yes vote, even though that seems to turn us into agnostics (which is a philosophical category). I think that the question was worded in a prejudicial way, whether this was intended or not. Jzsj (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Both statement are partially true, but using 'legendary' makes suficiently clear that this is not an actual, real, human persom, there is no need to state it more explicitly which appears to be the underlying question! Pincrete (talk) 08:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Pincrete, I'm not sure that's necessarily clear.  These articles:  WBGX, John Wren, Trailanga, Alexander Argüelles, Françoise Rosay, Igor Protti, Michael Schenker, and Jan Potocki either use or quote the phrase "legendary figure" to describe actual, real, human people, several of whom are still living. I don't think that we can assume that "legendary figure" means "made-up story".
          I also want to take a moment to say thanks to all the editors who have shared their own views candidly. I know it can be hard, especially when other editors disagree with you. And I welcome all comments: the more, the merrier, and the more certain we can be about getting an accurate understanding of how the whole community feels about this. :-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I only looked at a couple of these examples, in both cases, the use (after intro statement), was "who became a legendary figure in Italian sport/French cinema etc.". The difference between that use and "is a legendary figure in X culture" in intro is unambiguous IMO. Pincrete (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Given the examples cited by WhatamIdoing, "Legendary" no longer seems quite as acceptable as I thought it was. "Agnostic" wording surely would violate site policy (V, NPOV), so that's out. I would support "fictional" to fully dispel any uncertainty that clings to legendary. Sorry, Virginia. DonFB (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The lead should mention/acknowledge that Santa is fictional or legendary. -sche (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I note that of about 15 editors responding, only 5 come out clear for the "No" option ("say that Santa Claus is not a real, currently living person"), if left to the two options given. The other 10 would have to settle for more or less "agnostic", not in favor of the "No" option which would make explicit that Santa is not real. Much of the discussion here is over whether expressions like "legendary" or "fictional" make it clear enough that Santa doesn't exist. I am not opposed to these two terms, only to making it explicit, which I think is the clearest interpretation of the "No" option. Jzsj (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    I count at least eleven editors who have unambiguously said "no". —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • With such a loaded question from the start it is hard to find unambiguous answers, if you read what follows the "Nos". You're making all those who disagree with "No" to call themselves agnostics! The Rfc should have read explicit "Not exist" or leave implicit as "legendary" or "fictional". I prefer the "legendary" myself, since the legend that has grown goes back to a real character and has only grown fantastic in the past two centuries. And yet for theists there remain elements of belief in another world, and it matters whether you are "naughty or nice". Jzsj (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not making anyone call themselves anything (and neither is the editor who started the RFC). I'm just pointing out that your "5" number doesn't correctly reflect the responses to the RFC. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Maybe the source of confusion has to do with the word "agnostic". In addition to the narrow religious sense, the word "agnostic" also has a more general sense meaning "uncertain or having no position on a given issue". See wikt:agnostic. (By the way, the word "agnostic" here was introduced by a user who believes Santa's nonexistence should not be made clear in the lead—see #Lead above.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I realize that not everyone reads things the same way, but... That red box up there says "No, the lead should be clear that Santa Claus does not exist." It goes on to provide an explanation that says, in part, "Readers...should learn that Santa Claus is not actually a real, currently living person." I do think that we can safely assume that anyone saying "No" actually means "No, the lead should be clear that Santa Claus does not exist" unless we have very clear evidence otherwise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No: given that this RFC is not about adding "Santa's not real kids" but, in the wording of the RFC, trying to make sure there is a consensus that editors should have the possibility to "add information about why parents maintain this tradition, or the age at which children stop believing in Santa Claus" there should be no necessity for the lede to stay "agnostic". If editors find that relevant information from the body of the article is not represented in the lede then they should be free to add it. The wording of the RFC means that even if you don't think it should be explicitly stated "Santa is not real" or "...is a fictional character" but are open to the addition of information that may imply or convey Santa's non-existence for the purposes of encyclopedic completeness then the answer must be no and given WP:NOTCENSORED I think there is a strong argument that this article should not remain by necessity agnostic for WP policy reasons. Alduin2000 (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes keep lede agnostic, no need to ruin xmas Atlantic306 (talk)
@Atlantic306: Why not? WP:NOTCENSORED is a policy even if it runs Christmas. Also any kids old enough to check wiki probably knows 🎅 is false. So we are not spoiling anything. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes - I don't really see any negatives in keeping it agnostic (are kids not trusting Wikipedia because they think it omitted key knowledge in their youth) Nosebagbear (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes keep lead agnostic. --PRDM__9 (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • YES keep the agnostic lead. It’s not appropriate to shove agendas or make positions outside of the topic or ignoring RS WEIGHT, so seems not really a good thing to mandate solely on a WP rfc that as written would require intro must say Santa does not exist. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
The wording of the rfc is the complete opposite of how you characterise it:
Note that the outcome of this discussion does not need to result in any drastic or ham-fisted change, like adding "Santa isn't real, he doesn't have flying reindeer, and he's not bringing you any presents!" to the article. Instead, it could result in no change (we've identified the general direction, and we're satisfied with what we've got for now). However, it could also result in some smaller changes. For example, if editors decide that the introduction should provide direct information about Santa Claus' non-existence, then we could (for example) add information about why parents maintain this tradition, or the age at which children stop believing in Santa Claus
Alduin2000 (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Do you really want to get into the deeper spiritual reasons "why parents maintain this tradition" and allow children to believe in a world beyond the visible world? Treating the childlike belief in the unfathomable Santa Claus as pure ignorance would make more sense to those who have decided there can be no being beyond our comprehension. Jzsj (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. Present lead is neutral. Borsoka (talk) 06:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Santa Claus is a character, a character with a huge tradition around it and believed to be real by some, but he's still a character, and for me it should be treated as such and made clear in Wikipedia for a more effective and less divided approach on the treatment of topics such as his relation with Christmas or his relation with children. Apolo234 (talk)
  • Yes. The current lead is fine as written. I'd like to echo the other comments that the RFC is confusingly-worded, though. Gimubrc (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm adding some highlighting to the table that may help. (I'm not sure that very many little children read Wikipedia articles, but it's truly charming and sweet to see so many editors thinking about them.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I undid your changes in the alternatives. They should appear as they did when all these editors voted on them, confusing statements and all. Anything else would deny the confusion that exists in many editors' responses. It's too late now to try to clarify through highlighting. Jzsj (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No - RFC bot led me here. However, I don't think it should be omitted for the same reason that we do not omit spoilers from movie articles. Wikipedia articles are meant to convey factual information, not to comfort some parents by omitting information. We shouldn't throw the manual of style out of the window; we wouldn't omit something factual and WP:DUE in other articles...why would we omit it here? Per WP:CENSORED, "I don't want children to know things" is not the way Wikipedia articles should be framed. Ever. - Aoidh (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No - the lead should be clear that Santa Claus does not exist. Santa is an imaginary person. As we grow up, we don't look for Santa at Christmas. I think it doesn't care of "agnostic". Won96 (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    Santa Claus is a man-made character. It's just a traditional belief, but it doesn't mean it's true.--Won96 (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No Wikipedia is not censored to shield kids' feelings from the facts. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No clearly has a stronger basis in Wikipedia principles and policy. ―Mandruss  04:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes per Borsoka. "But you go ahead Henry, you do it your way. You go on back in there and tell them that you rule there is no Santy Claus. Go on. But if you do, remember this: you can count on getting just two votes, your own and that district attorney's out there." - the campaign manager. (Summoned by bot) Chris Troutman (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No The relevant content guideline is Wikipedia:Spoiler, which makes clear that we do not protect our readers from the truth. "Agnostic" is a quasi-religious term that should not be applied to Wikipedia content. If reliable sources disagree, then we draw no conclusions in Wikipedia's voice. But there is not a single solitary reliable source that claims that Santa exists. Santa is fiction, myth, folklore, and fable. The attempt to portray him as real is understandable deception by parents that should not be aided or abetted by this Wikipedia article. There can be no ambiguity about this. Santa Claus is fictional and the lead paragraph must make that clear, although not in a hamhanded way. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    "Agnostic" has a more general sense, as seen in the dictionary entry (adjective sense 2). A similar example is "schizophrenic": a technical definition, and one used more loosely in everyday conversation—again, per the dictionary. I had no problem understanding the intent, but perhaps we should have accommodated editors who might. And I write this only because it has come up several times in prior discussion here. ―Mandruss  07:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • You know that "spoiler warning" template we used to put above plot summaries back in like, 2006? Bring it back and then no. I can't have it? OK then, no, per WP:Notcensored. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes - I agree completely with Jzsj above: "I find the present lead very well worded and respectful..." It is neutral. Keep as is. Gerntrash (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No - It should be clear that Santa is a fantasy figure, just like the tooth fairy. M.Bitton (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No, we need to abide to a real-world point of view where appropriate. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 04:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

DemographicsEdit

As there have been several comments that assume young children (i.e., those who still believe in Santa Claus; it's a developmental thing) will read this article, I thought I'd spend a while sorting out whether that's plausible. Bottom line up front: It's not.

The current lead for this article is written at a Reading level that is suitable for university students. Depending upon the model you prefer, it's either undergraduate or graduate levels. For example, the Flesch–Kincaid readability tests' "reading ease" test gives it a score around 45, and a US grade level of 15, which is equivalent to the third year of university.

The median age at which children stop believing that Santa Claus is a real, living person is age 8. That means that they're usually capable of reading material with an FK score around 110 and a US grade level of 2. I seriously doubt whether anyone who believes in Santa Claus is going to be able to read this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

  • So leave it as "legend" and these university students will know what is meant. Jzsj (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Return to "Santa Claus" page.