This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I added the Weasel Words tag on the top of this article as there seems to be so many weasel word violations that the article would be hard to read with all the ^[who?], ^{[by whom?]} and ^[which?] tags all over it. Perhaps it could use some clean up pertaining to that issue. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 19:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this section (Scientific Opposition) OR? Shouldn't this be documented as per all other oppositions on the page or be removed as per Wiki policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.41.8 (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Problems with Scientific Opposition has not been addressed. The citations used are not scientific opposition, but show a volume of the work. This is misrepresented by this wiki article, therefore is not appropriate. Further some of the claims are not covered in the articles and constitute original research. This section should be removed if there is no reliable and concuring sources can be found thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.41.8 (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed. Copied here if anyone wants to improve the section. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Scientists have pointed to the scope of Santa's task as evidence of the preposterousness of the Santa legend. Taking advantage of the Earth's rotation and the resulting time zones, Santa would have 31 hours to complete visits along a nearly 212,030,000 miles (341,230,000 km) long route which equates a speed of 6,650,000 miles per hour (10,700,000 km/h) or approximately 3,000 times the speed of sound (nearly 200 times the speed of the Voyager 1 spacecraft, the fastest man made object). Assuming each child receives a single gift weighing an average of two pounds each, the payload would be 321,300 tons. Reindeer are capable pulling an average of 300 pounds (140 kg) each, making Santa's team of nine reindeer over 2.1 million reindeer short. 700 exajoules of energy would be required to move this payload, the equivalent of 11.7 million atomic bombs the size of the one which exploded over Hiroshima.^[1][2]

I'm not entirely sure that this paragraph was added to the article in good faith to begin with. But I'll assume that Mr. Scrooge was busy doing something else when it was written. Anyway, neither of the two "sources" contains the words "scientist" or "science"; the first "source" (walesonline) does not even appear to verify a single statement made in the entire paragraph. And the second "source" (telegraph) is satire, the author of which is pretending that Santa's journey should be the subject of some serious mathematical analysis. And there is no more "scientific opposition" to Santa Claus than there is to Tinkerbell. Scientists are not going around, testing and refuting the hypothesis that a big-bellied fellow at the tip-top of the planet magically makes the whole world merry each December 25th. This section makes scientists look far more "preposterous" than it makes Santa look. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The "American Variations" section contradicts itself:

First it is called an "urban legend . . . that Santa wears red and white because they are the colors used to promote the Coca-Cola brand."

Then it is admitted that "the Coca-Cola advertising campaign had the effect of popularising the depiction of Santa as wearing red and white, in contrast to the variety of colours he wore prior to that campaign."

If Santa wears red and white because of Coca Cola's marketing campaign, how is that an urban legend? Are we supposed to believe it is only by pure coincidence that the Coca Cola Company decided to depict Santa in red and white? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.110.15 (talk) 07:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The urban legend is that Coca-Cola chose the color red for Santa Claus because it matched their corporate color identity. Powers ^T 18:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's precisely my point: Coca Cola did choose the color red for Santa because it matched their corporate color identity. How is that an urban legend if it is in fact exactly what happened? Coca Cola didn't stumble upon red by chance; they picked red because it matched their logo. It would be quite a stretch to call that pure coincidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.110.15 (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/heritage/cokelore_santa.html - It's not like Santa was never depicted in red before the Coke campaign. In fact, according to the New York Times (via Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/santa/cocacola.asp ) the red outfit was standard-issue for New York City department-store Santas even before Coke's campaign. A happy coincidence for Coke that Santa's red matched their own, but that's all it is. Powers ^T 13:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

santa clause was once real but today your parents act a santa clause and put the presents supposobly from santa under the tree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.120.226 (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article.

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

I noticed there's been a flurry of changes recently that are verging on an edit war (see recent history). The issue at hand is whether "Father Christmas" is used as a name for Santa Claus in Australia. The term Father Christmas has perhaps become less common, but it has by no means fallen out of use. To point to a few examples: ( 1 ), ( 2 ), ( 3 ), ( 4 ) Katherine (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you should include Krampusz, in Hungary and I think in some other countries, they have Krampusz. See this Wiki page.. maybe make a link with a reference to that page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krampus Thank You. Happy Holidays.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.175.24 (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The article currently includes the unsourced statement The American version of Santa Claus says that he lives at his house on the North Pole, while Father Christmas is often said to reside in the mountains of Korvatunturi in Lapland Province, Finland. It seems misleading to me, though; in the UK Father Christmas has long been described as living at the North Pole--see here and here and here as well as the wonderful Father Christmas Letters that J.R.R. Tolkien wrote to his children in the 1920s and 1930s. 206.208.105.129 (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

((edit semi-protected)) Please change "Brazil: Papai Noel (Father Christmas); Os Três Reis Magos ("The Three Mage Kings"); Bom Velhinho ("Good Old Man")" to "Brazil: Papai Noel (Father Christmas); Bom Velhinho ("Good Old Man")", because Santa Claus is not known as "Os Três Reis Magos" ("The Three Mage Kings") in any part of Brazil.

T.percino (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Done -Atmoz (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

In the Netherlands "Sinterklaas" is celebrated on the 5th of december, also called pakjesavond (which translates to presents (gifts) evening). In all other countries it is celebrated on the nameday of Sint (Saint) Nicolaas, which is the 6th of december. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PieterKroon (talk • contribs) 11:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I quote from the first paragraph: "Santa Claus, also known as Saint Nicholas,[1] Sinterklaas".

This is like writing the VR Troopers are also known as the Power Rangers. They're not. Santa Claus and the VR Troopers are are merely based on Sinterklaas and the Power Rangers.

Belligerent Dove (talk) 10:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes indeed, in fact Santa Claus is in the netherlands independently known from Sinterklaas, and is called "de kerstman" (literally the "Christmas man"). Adults know that Santa Claus is simply the "american version", but it doesn't spoil the fun for kids who do not "connect the dots". If the kids are younger they only celebrate sinterklaas not Santa, although christmas day is celebrated as well. Families with older children that know sinterklaas isn't real tend to tone down the sinterklaas festivities, first by making "surprises" (surprise presents) for each other, sometimes with humorously ingeniously or nasty results, (like packing a small present in a box filled with cotton wool mixed with apple syrup). Families with still older (or no) kids tend to concentrate more on giving christmas gifts only to avoid having two gift giving celebrations in short succession. So saying that sinterklaas is another name for santa claus is indeed erroneous. Mahjongg (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I propose removing "Sinterklaas" from the lede. If you want to add the Dutch name for "Santa claus", then its not "Sinterklaas", it would be "Kerstman"! Santa claus is simply not known as "Sinterklaas" in the Netherlands, nor anywhere else in the world. he is simply a different figure all together! Even though it is a fact that santa claus creation was in fact inspired by sinterklaas, that does not mean that sinterklaas is simply another name for santa claus. Mahjongg (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The list of names at Santa Claus: Christmas gift-bringers around the world and Father Christmas: Names in various countries should be merged due to significant overlap. In addition, they should probably be split into a new article (e.g., List of Christmas gift bringers) since a number of the "gift bringers" are only marginally related to Santa Claus. Please discuss. — AjaxSmack 22:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Though really, Father Christmas and Santa Claus should be merged. (Though good luck on deciding what the name of that article should be : )

And speaking of article names, is there some other term besides "Christmas gift bringers"? For one thing, it could apply to the Three Kings. (Which I note have made their way on to this list already in some places.) And for another, AFAIK, not all versions of this individual is a gift bringer. - jc37 23:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

How about Personifications of Christmas?

This would be similar to Category:National personifications, in which Uncle Sam (another in the stable of Thomas Nast) is grouped.

Also, it may be worth noting that the variants (including Father Christmas) are under Category:Santa Claus. - jc37 23:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

((edit semi-protected)) Typo in beginning of article

Duplicate 'was' after 'figure which'

Santa Claus, also known as Saint Nicholas, Father Christmas, Kris Kringle, or simply "Santa", is a figure which was was derived from the Dutch fig

Nathan.pepper (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. - jc37 22:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

((edit semi-protected)) Wrong translation for Romanian apelative.

Current : Romania, Moldova: Moș Crăciun ("Father Christmas"); Moș Nicolae ("Father Nicholas"); Moș Gerilă ("Father Frost").

Actual translation of the word "Mos" is "ancestor", "forefather" or "old man".

Please edit to : Romania, Moldova: Moș Crăciun ("Old Man Christmas"); Moș Nicolae ("Old Man Nicholas"); Moș Gerilă ("Old Man Frost")

Sources : http://dictionare.com/phpdic/roen40.php?field0=mos

DanielFlamaropol (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done Mahjongg (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a reference to Phyllis Siefker, who was supposed to claim in chapter 9 of her book Santa Claus, Last of the Wild Men: The Origins and Evolution of Saint Nicholas, Spanning 50,000 Years that children would place their boots, filled with carrots, straw, or sugar, near the chimney for Odin's flying horse, Sleipnir, to eat. Odin would then reward those children for their kindness by replacing Sleipnir's food with gifts or candy. This practice, she claims, survived in Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands after the adoption of Christianity and became associated with Sinterklaas as a result of the process of Christianization.

But I read the hole chapter 9 (in Google Books) and there is nothing about this topic in it. That chapter deals with the origin of elves in connection to Santa Claus. I did a search on key words in the rest of the book: also nothing referring to placing boots and the Odin connection.

I would suggest to place a remark that this might be folk etymology from the 19th century. I know from my literature studies that in the 19th century under the influence of Romanticism traditions and fairytales were dated way older than they in fact were.

About placing the boot At Sinterklaas in the Netherlands and Belgium and the Christmas stocking that evolved out of that, I read in the article the Dutch Wikipedia however, that placing the boots dates back to the 15th century, when poor people placing their shoe in the Sint Nicolaas Kerk in Amsterdam, since Sint Nicolaas is the patron saint of the poor. Still today traditional candy to receive in the shoe is chocolate money. The fire place and Odin don't make much sense in this context.--Andre Kloer (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

[edit] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andre Kloer (talk • contribs) 10:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I am going to take issue with the usage of the term 'mythological', as someone does every single year. 'Legendary' is enough to communicate the point that he's as real as the Geico Gecko or Paul Bunyan or whatnot. And yeah, I read the "FAQ"; it's utter tripe. I've seen this article go through this same nonsense every single year, and every single time, the word 'mythological' has editors and contributors wanting it gone. Yes, I am aware of all the NOT arguments; IAR is also a rule, and seeing that we actually live in a world where children can actually use computers - often more intelligently and cleverly than their guardians - I think the Wiki doesn't take too disastrous a hit by the removal of one word that overdescribes a subject. The article is not lessened by its removal. If some enterprising youth wants to explore all the links to learn that Santa isn't real, more power to them. We don't have to be DICKs about it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"According to Phyllis Siefker, children would place their boots, filled with carrots, straw, or sugar, near the chimney for Odin's flying horse, Sleipnir, to eat" How could children put sugar on their boots on pre-cristian Germany if sugar was only introduced in europe after the discoverys? Ana Frade —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.140.125.172 (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You make an excellent point, anon188. In fact, it is such an interesting point that you should do a ton of research, sit down at the computer, write a treatment for a non-fiction book, get it published in major bookstores where it can become an instant Christmas bestseller.

At that point, we can cite that. Until then, your deductions about the various Christmas traditions cannot be used. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The page on sugar mentions introduction to europe since the 10th century, but as far as I know - and this is comom knoledge - it didnt become widly spread until the 17th century, after european countrys began growing their onw crops of sugar cane in the new world. Is this untrue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.140.119.225 (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not common knowledge; the mere fact that you had to refer to the page on sugar implicitly suggests that it is knowledge not within the realm of everyday conversation. You should read up on Wikipedia's rules about synthesis. I am not arguing that you are incorrect; for all I know, you might be right. That said, we cannt use your say-so to add it to the article. See the previous post about reliable sourcing. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm portuguese and we are forced to learn a good deal about the discoverys. we had to learn by heart the name of the gold mines explored in Africa and the most significant economical activitys in the colonial empire in general. We are all told that sugar cane plantations - and the ones in Madeira are always mentioned because they are the first ones in what today is still portuguese territory - took some time to develop in the new world because they were dependent of slave work. In europe - we are told - only in the 17 th century did sugar and outher spices become part of the diet. A good exemple of this "sugar boom" is the "doçaria conventual", the industry of sweets produced by convents that is still quite popular today, with several fairs being held in the country. The use of sugar is a trademark of 17th century cuisine, so much soo that even salty things, such as smoked sausseges, took great amounts of it. And this is why I say it is commom knoledge - it is the commom knoledge that we have here - every time we go to a "doçaria conventual" fair we hear this, every time we find in a cockery book a recipe full of sugar and spices it's from this period. Sugar and spices could exist in europe before, but they were listed as exotic drugs, not even being perceived as food yet, but mostly as medication. The "hipocraz" wine,developed by Taillevent in the 14th century, is the last survivour of these medieval tonics made of wine and spices.

Thats why I don't believe that children in pre-christian Germany could put sugar in their boots, specially for a horse, because the idea of treating a horse with sugar lumps implys a wide use of sugar, only true in the 19th century. Mrs Andre Kloer - Odin topic - could find no references to this tradition either, which only sugests that this quote of Phyllis Siefker must be incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.195.129 (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, your personal knowledge - however extensive it may be - is not of sufficient notability for us to us in this particular encyclopedia. In short, we cannot take your word for it. You should seek out a reference which calls into question the assertion about sugar you wish to chllenge. Without the citation from a verifiable, reliable source, it cannot go into the article.

Btw, I love your country; it is my favorite destination after Amsterdam. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, 89.214.195.129, when you say "this quote of Phyllis Siefker must be incorrect" you are right. The information that is said to come from her book does not. She is not directly quoted, but the citation says "chap. 9, esp. 171-173". Well, I checked the book and she does not say anything about children placing "their boots, filled with carrots, straw, or sugar, near the chimney for Odin's flying horse, Sleipnir, to eat." In fact, I checked an electronic version of the book and neither the words "carrots" nor "sugar" appear anywhere in her book. The only occurrences of "straw" and "boots" are in completely different contexts. So it seems we have here a source offered to support the claim that, in fact, does not.142.68.44.87 (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, you should likely check the actual book. I am presuming that the online content you sought from the book was GoogleBooks, right? Well, maybe you missed that pages 173-187 were absent from the free preview. The book is unavailable through my library, but maybe you can verify it through a college interlibrary loan or some such. I'm disinclined to remove the info, but I will remove the citation and add a cn tag to it for now. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

When I said "I checked the book" I meant I checked the actual print book. The info in not there. When I said "I checked an electronic version of the book" I meant the version in Google books. I did notice that pages from that version of the book are missing, but the missing pages still can be searched. If you ask to search for a word (like "horse") it tells you that the word appears 11 times - including page 81 which it will let you view and page 149 which it will not. But even for page 149 Google shows the sentence the word was used in. ("The groom struck the floor and tugged on the horse's reins to revive the beast.") Try searching for "sugar" and you get 1 occurrence on page 3 ("While visions of sugar-plumbs danced in their heads") and search for "carrot" and you get that it is not found.

So my manual search of the print book finding nothing is backed up by the electronic search using Google books - which would have shown if the word "carrot" appears and if "sugar" appeared somewhere other than in the poem, even if only on unviewable pages. The cn tag is not a bad idea for now, since the information might well come from some other source that someone else might find. But there is no need to check Santa Claus, Last of the Wild Men: The Origins and Evolution of Saint Nicholas, Spanning 50,000 Years further. It ain't in there.99.192.65.51 (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC) (= 142.68.44.87)

About the use of sugar in europe, I found a reference in Carlo M. Cipolla - "Before the industrial revolution" - page 264 (in the portuguese edition)chapter IX. Cipolla, and the wikipedia pages "doçaria conventual" and "Historia da Madeira", mention the 15th century as turning point in production, but what he hear in school is that 17th century is when sugar becomes an every-day (altought expensive) product. Just today, there was a cover on TV about a "doçaria conventual" recipe for christmas, where the cook mentions how expensive a kilo of sugar would be in those days... I recomend Mr.Jack Sebastian to visit one of these "doçaria conventual" fairs the next time he visits, where he can not only hear about the history of sugar by himself but actually taste it :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.69.115.111 (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Somebody should write more about this. Does Islam or any other religion allow or ban everything related to Santa. Here we have only (part of) Bosnia as an example, but I (and readers) would found very interesting few lines about Santa in China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, India, African states, etc. -- Bojan  Talk  10:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to know more about this, so perhaps you should seek out some reliably-sourced information, and add it. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel the introduction is mixing things up, which were just cleared, and are now put back by Jack Sebastian. Santa Claus (the main subject) as far as I know does not bring presents on the 6th of December, Saint Nicholas does. That Santa Claus is also known as Saint Nicholas, does not make him one and the same person. Just click the inter-wiki links: fr:Pere Noel, de:Weihnachtsmann, nl:Kerstman, nothing to do with the feast of Saint Nicholas or 6th of december. I feel the references to Sinterklaas and Saint Nicholas should be delt with in the origins part, as they belong there; they are two seperate persons, lets keep it that way! (please let us resolve this before Christmas....) Joost 99 (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

We have addressed this before; St. Nick is synonymous - in a great many places where English is spoken - with Santa. (the traditional Christmas song, "Jolly Old St. Nicholas" immediately springs to mind). Well, maybe 'synonymous' is a strong world - 'blurred' might be better, especially when we talk about all the different versions of Santa, from the Christian saint to the Krampus and Father Christmas and (as yet undecidedly) perhaps even Odin. It's a hodge-podge (and that isn't hard to cite at all). For most people, these personages are just the same person known by different names in different parts of the world.

If I made an error whilst reverting out a massive Scooby-Doo change by another user, please feel free to reinsert it. However, I think that while its important to point out the Feast of Dt. Nicholas is different than traditional Christmas, even the article on the saint doesn't sharply define the relationship between the two, or the celebrations of both.

What do others think? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, partly Joost is right, Santa doesn't bring presents on the 6'th of december, because the 6th of December is Saint Nicholas "birthday", and santa is not saint nicholas, even though "santa claus" is a bastardization of "sinter klaas". That is what I tried to make clear in my edits. I think the reversal of Jack Sebastian is a good thing, because the edits that "the scooby-doo editor" made, made it impervious to clan up the lede as well, as it no longer made any sense.

The simple fact is that Santa Claus isn't simply another name for saint nicholas, its a whole different "persona", with a completely different "legend". Its not Santa that has a "historical background" in saint nicholas, its "sinterklaas" who has. Santa (seems to be) a mixture of "sinterklaas", and the "christmas man", with a generous dose of "political correctness" when borrowing for both (elves, instead of little black "zwarte piet" boys, a clear severing of connections from any religious base) and its own legends, some of which have some connection to Dutch sinterklaas legends (a sleigh drawn by reindeers instead of a horse, both entering through a chimney to deliver presents). So the historical connections (IMHO) are these: Pre-christian traditions (Odin, sleipnir), and the mid-winter traditions of yule-logging, and lighted tree branches of the winter-man (the predecessor of "father christmas", a man riding on a horse with a branch of evergreen, announcing the "end of winter"). lead (after Christinisation) to the "legend" of a specific saint for the occasion (mid-winter festivities), called "saint nicholas", which in time, in the low-lands lead to the tradition of "sinterklaas", a tradition that through new-Amsterdam/New-York came to North-America where together with the (British) custom of "father Christmas" morphed to something new.

The point is, Santa was a "new invention" with new traditions and stories that are very different from traditions and stories of Saint Nicholas, or Father Christmas, from both of which Santa "borrowed some inspiration". Mahjongg (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are saying, Mahjongg, but I think that there are bunches of cited material connecting St, Nicholas to Santa - I repeat, cited, easily verifiable examples of the rather redundant connections between the two. You are saying they aren't. Guess who's going to win that argument in Wikipedia? Now, are they actually the same "person"? Probably no more than Tea Party members are related to Tea Bagging (though I have my suspicions ;) ).

I must humbly (but firmly) disagree that most people outside the Catholic faith distinguish between St Nicholas and Santa Claus, or Sinterklaas or whatever. There is ample, obvious and popular connections betwen the two. Whether they are actually, factually connected is besides the point - the litmus for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth." - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What really counts is not the number of reliable sources that say one thing or the other, but what the best available sources say. It appears to me that that's more likely to be something like what Mahjongg describes than a complete conflation of everything, with no distinctions. Hans Adler 06:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Really, how many people in the "claus sphere" even know "sinterklaas"? Let alone immediately connect him as "the same person" as santa"? Claiming in this article that "Sinterklaas" is just another name for "Santa Claus" is simply ridiculous, and also offends Dutch people. Mahjongg (talk) 11:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

@Sebastian: The piece of information you provide from Saint Nicholas, is the uncommon case of celebrations of both feast days in english speaking countries, where the name Saint Nicholas can be confusing. I presume that for most children Saint Nick is Santa Claus (and not the other way around). As far as I know for non English speaking nations, this problem does not occure and as Mahjongg states they are two very different figures. Just interwiki a bit. He might be a transformation of Saint Nicholas, Father Christmas and the Christkind, he changed to Santa Claus 200 years ago, and went his own way in my opinion.

For now, I removed the sentence of 6th december. Anyone can can add a source stating Santa Claus brings gifts on the 6th. I also removed the Sinterklaas Tabard part, irrelevant information, as it has little to do with the creation of the image of Santa Claus. The site http://www.stnicholascenter.org even doubts the Dutch Sinterklaas origin… Joost 99 (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

In the first paragraph of the Origin section, several country names are hyperlinked to their wiki page. Except for the Netherlands, it is linked to Sinterklaas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.196.183 (talk) 08:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

What caused it to be placed on the naughty list? 198.203.175.175 (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

All the debate this article has caused.TheFutureGood (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There is an article about Santa Claus in the Catalan Wikipedia ( http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus ). Can anyone add the url in this article? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.237.224 (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Added an interwiki link to ca:Pare Noel. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  21:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The Image of santa claus i.e of a plump old guy with a long white beard has been created for and used as a advertisement campaign of popular soft drink company Coca cola . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.24.134 (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah? And? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

"Santa Claus, also known as Saint Nicholas, Father Christmas, Kris Kringle, or simply "Santa", is a figure with legendary, historical and folkloric figure who..." Can someone with permissions for this article fix this? Ethan Mitchell (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, while I'm here....the section titled "Pedagogical debate about lying to children" is, I'm aware, the outcome of endless controversy about whether or not Wikipedia should say that Santa is real or not. All the same, it has a lot of problems. The lead-in quotation isn't cited, and the first paragraph makes no sense...it doesn't explain who Wooley is, or lay out pro and con arguments as a naive reader might expect to find in a "debate". Moreover, the whole section is written in an apologistic tone. If the only scholarship available is apologist, that's fine, but the text should at least mention what they are apologizing for. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 04:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right on both counts, Ethan. The firt mistake is mine, and I've corrected it. I happen to concur with your assessment of the second issue; it likely was mangled during successive edits. I'll purge it, and allow someone to come on back and fix it later. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I propose for the creation of a new section that debates whether Santa Claus exists or not. There are ample references to this topic, and as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should provide information about this. If no one opposes this idea, then I shall begin writing it up around 2nd January. Kdpssps (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It just depends on any individuals preferential definition of "exists", so it seems a hopeless debate to me.Mahjongg (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, therefore each of the most popular "exists" (spiritual existence, physical existence, past existence, etc.) must be discussed. I am asking for the creation of a new section, not an entire article. There is an entire article on the existence of God, which can also be classified as a hopeless debate due to all the different ideologies. Kdpssps (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I oppose the idea. Wikipedia doesn't take sides on the issue, and frankly, it isn't as if there are mobs in the street tearing down cities in the debate. Seriously, this seems a personal preference to pull us into a debate we have no place being involved in. If there are citations explicitly noting the "huge" debate sparked by the pro-Santa versus the anti-Santa brigades, I'd be delighted to see links to them. Until then, this seems like Kdpssp's time might be better spent on other topics. That's my opinion; our mileage may vary. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Kdpssps, I think if you look in the article you'll see that there is a referenced discussion (imperfect thought it is) about varying opinions on how to present the reality of Santa Claus to children. This seems like the target of your interest. Since (I believe) no one sane above the age of 10 or 11 believes that Santa Claus exists as a mundane natural entity, I don't see a need for a larger ontological debate on this page. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe in Santa, and like Ethan, think he's neither mundane nor natural (although he has mundane natural helpers.) The desired discussion or debate would be (IMAO) meaningless, as well as unsourceable. htom (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but we do have users - and responsible ones at that - who are quite young. Questioning their sanity or laughing at them seems just plain unfriendly and a tad uncivil. If they choose to believe (or not), simply leave them be. Personal beliefs are irrelevant; only cited, encyclopedic material is needed and wanted here. We need to foster that understanding, not kicking in the slats of those whose understanding is somewhat imperfect on these matters. We need to be firm about our policies, but we needn't be unpleasant about it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a kindergarten for child impersonators who claim to believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Editors who don't like the way we deal with religious beliefs need to say so directly. Trying to undermine it by applying the principle to cases in which it becomes transparently absurd to everybody is an example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. And that's the only legitimate motivation I can think of. Hans Adler 07:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hans, you need to go out to an ATM, withdraw some money, and buy yourself some Good Faith with a side order of civility. If the only thing you can assume is the worst case scenario, you might need to have a nice sit down and a cup of tea. We assume good faith here. We endeavor to stay polite. Those who cannot or won't don't get much done, and likely themselves shown the door. Period.

And I am saying, point-blank, that we will tolerate others' beliefs. That tolerance fades if someone begins proselytizing, but until then, we keep a civil tongue in our head and a happy thought in our hearts. If you don't want to believe me, ask a few admins; you might want to check before acting on that negative view. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be uncivil. However, I've been in four or five long debates about the pedagogical / parenting aspects of Santa Claus. In every case, the debate becomes swamped with people who allege that they are (1) adults, (2) sane, (3) believe that Santa Claus exists, and (4) believe that Santa Claus exists more or less in the same way that children do: that is, they are not talking about a "spirit of Christmas" or a metaphor or a role that one can enact, they are talking about a magical dude at the North Pole. I'm going to call these folks Clausists. There is no way for anyone to know if the Clausists are sincere in their convictions, and so it is only civil to presume that they are. But I have only ever seen this point of view being referenced as a way to derail conversations. The upshot is that we waste a lot of time and space discussing a viewpoint that is either held by a tiny minority of eccentrics, or (more likely) not even held by them. 68.142.52.121 (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And in this case the silly section was started by an editor who has had an account since summer 2009 and has had a very unconvincing edit history since then [1], just as you would expect from someone who has come here via Uncyclopedia. Hans Adler 17:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Understood, but time is something Wikipedia has plenty of; we are not in a hurry. As for derailment, I like to think we are smarter than that (not that I am sometimes guilty of letting an unpleasant or agenda-ridden editor rile me up sometimes). By simply not rising to the bait left by a contentious/system-gaming editor, we bleed off any heat their argument is crafted to generate. By responding to ass-clownery, we foster it.

In any case, this article tends to hibernate for most of the year anyway, so maybe the debate will fall by the wayside. Until next year, of course. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

In any case it's sufficiently clear now that there is no consensus for the section proposed by the OP. Hans Adler 19:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

OP? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Original Poster: The person who begins the selected thread in that particular forum. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

there is some information on the tradition carried out in the basque country in spain. it is available in wiki url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olentzero if possible link it to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.62.67 (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Y Done --Enric Naval (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The information in the section (Turkey: Noel Baba ("Father Christmas") Although Turks are mainly Islamic, many homes carry the tradition of "Noel Baba" and a Christmas (or New Year) tree.) conflicts with the information on page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Christmas (Turkey – "Noel Baba" (Note: In Turkey Noel Baba is related with New Year's Eve instead of Christmas.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.190.147.186 (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay I realise this is an old topic, but as I am new to wikipedia I was unsure on how or where to go about discussing it.

I thought we should rediscuss the positives and negatives of censoring the language used in this article in order to keep children from uncovering the truth about Santa.

IT is IMPORTANT to reconsider having the truth out there on wikipedia. While some would argue that wikipedia is an informative website, that tries to only portray the truth, should there be boundries on just how far we take this?

An example I read in FAQ was something along the lines of adults might want information and it is wrong to mislead them (this is my understanding, everyone is welcome to read it themselves and may interpurt it differently) while this may be true, is informing a few adults worth distroying the magic for thousands of children?

For those who believed in Santa, remember back to when you were little, and how much Santa meant to you. In those days the average age a child found out was about ten. But this was because children didn't have computers, and couldn't access the truth with a few clicks of a mouse. Now a child of 5, or sometimes even younger could jump straight onto the computer and find out the truth. The child might not be emotionally ready for this, as they have not been able to naturally mature. Remember every child is different, and it should be up to the parents and the child when they are ready to know, not a website that does not even know the child.

I would like to discuss both sides of the argument, because I believe this is an important issue that must be talked about in depth, so wikipedia can function in the most beneficial way.TheFutureGood (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)TheFutureGood

Allow me to address this, TFG - though I am sure that others will speak up as well. I think that we have gone as far as possible in describing Santa as a historical and legendary figure; it used to also describe him as "mythological"m a term that swerves our neutrality into oncoming traffic. I think that allows us to treat Santa - who contains actual historical figures as components - as a special case enough to bend ever so slightly in this regards.

But no further. You ask how far we take this. My answer - gleaned from tens of thousands of edits and many years' watching the wiki evolve - is simple: we take it as far as we need to. We issue cited facts (please take careful note that I said "facts" and not "truth", for Wikipedia doesn't give a rat's ass about truth. It cares only about what can be cited - the litmus for inclusion is verifiability, not truth), and nothing more. Our personal opinions, entreaties and calls to protect the children largely go unanswered, for they cannot be cited.

Lastly - and I am positive I am not the first person to say this - if a kid is competent enough to navigate to Wikipedia and type the words Santa Claus, I submit that we aren't telling them anything that they cannot find with a simple Google (24.9 million results) or Bing (14.3 million results) search. You put too much weight on Wikipedia's shoulders. It's like blaming the weather man for inclement conditions. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The last few paragraphs of this writting are the MOST important, so be sure to read them!!) You make some valid points, but you can say that other websites reveal the truth, and that we shouldn't put too much weight on wikipedia's sholders. But I would like to remind everyone that when a google search on 'Santa Claws' is performed wikipedia's article is the first result, and therefore the most likely that the child will read.

I would also like to point out that after reading various other sites about Santa Claws, or which discuss whether or not he is real, you find almost only to types of sites: ones that ONLY say that santa is real, and ones that a person both sides (that is that he is and isn't real)

Wikipedia, as you will notice does not fit under either of these catergories. It stands as one of the few websites that plainly state that Santa Claws is NOT real. Is this fair on children, to have one of the worst sites they can read, at the top of their google search and the most likely site they will read?? And is it fair on the parents who can't supervise their child on the computer all the time?

It's not like those who are wanting this censorship over wikipedia are putting weight on wikipedia's sholders, wikipedia did this by itself. It took on the responsibility of becoming one of the most used online encyclopedias of all time, and it should consider it's responsibilities to respect the rights of the wishes of parents, and respect child innocence.

An argument against the censorship, might be that if a child is searching for the truth about Santa Claws, then they are old enough to know the truth. But this is not always true, a child might only be searching this due to, for example, another child telling them that Santa is not real, and this child wanted to prove that he was. Then suddenly they come accross wikipedia and their childhood fantasies are shattered. And even children who doubt santa's exsistence still might not be ready to know.

And then there would be children who just wanted to know more about Santa, and had not even considered that he might not be real. It would come as quite a shock to them.

Okay, so maybe wikipedia needs to compromise with us. Maybe we could use words like legendary (which doesn't state that santa is not real, read definition of legendary on wikipedia, because some legends may be true) and cut out words like mythological, which definately state that santa is not real.

Jack Sebastian, You say that wikipedia only runs on facts, and things that can be cited, not truth. Well isn't then wikipedia going against it's own code, because while it may be truth that Santa is not real, no one can ever or has ever proved it, therefore it can not be cited, and cannot be classified as fact. So wikipedia, should not be allowed to say for sure whether he is real or not, because it hasn't been proved.

Therefore the article is NOT written in a neutral point of view and violates wikipedia's guidelines!!! Now I believe that wikipedia MUST change the wording in the article, NOT only to protect children, but because it violates it's guidelines!!! TheFutureGood (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You make a spirited argument, TFG. I would submit that you need to make these points in anotehr area, such as The Village Pump, wherein you can seek community consensus that Wikipedia is violating its own guidelines and policies. I think you will have some trouble doing so, because the information contained within reliable sources of reference does not have to be factual. Either way, this is swiftly moving outside my wheelhouse, as you are seeking to change matters on a Project-wide scale. I am only concerned with this article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I am also only concerned with this article. TheFutureGood (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No, you are seeking to alter how Wikipedia rules apply to this article. Different animals altogether. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This comes up every year here and at similar articles (e.g., Easter bunny. The consensus has not changed. Don't waste your time. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If people shouldn't waste their time providing input, then the consensus will not ever change. If the consensus has not changed, people shouldn't waste their time… Adrignola (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#The_problem_with_in-universe_perspective, also known as WP:INUNIVERSE. Also note that wikipedia is not censored; material is not removed just because someone finds it objectionable. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You idiot, ever since I first heard of Santa when I was 4 years old I NEVER believed he was real. Any kid who is SMART AND LOGICAL would never believe it either. My parents never gave me stupid delusions of it either. I used to go around my 2nd-grade class and say Santa wasn't real and the teacher told me to stop but I didn't. You are preventing children from developing their logical thinking skills if you tell them it's possible to travel to every household in Christendom in a single night. Considering in TV and movies Santa spends at least a few minutes inside a house delivering presents and eating cookies. The time doesn't add up. Those were my exact thoughts at 4 years old and that's how I deduced he couldn't be real. If your kid doesn't think like that he's retarded and you're not helping him by saying that's possible.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.131.13 (talk • contribs)

Your tone (the name-calling and SHOUTING) is inappropriate. Apart from that, while you do have a point about children and logic, I think you are drawing the wrong conclusions: Children are intrigued by Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, and I think that's not because they absolutely believe they are real, but rather for the following and similar reasons:

• It's a tradition/ritual that very obviously exists only for the children. Obviously they like being in the centre of this attention. At other times they get individual attention from their parents or others, but here they get it from society as a whole, which is cooperating to stage-manage this.
• There are incidental benefits (gifts! chocolate!).
• They observe how their parents and other adults are transparently lying to them. It makes them more aware of the fact that, rationally, they should not believe everything they are taught. (The brighter children will connect this with other dubious information coming from their parents, e.g. concerning religion.) On the other hand, it encourages them to pretend to believe even claims that defy logic, simply because it is to their benefit. This may actually be the mechanism by which unlikely religious dogmas are implanted. Hans Adler 09:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hans, you're an experienced enough editor to know that - no matter how cogent your arguments are presented (like here) - they aren't going to be enough to sway someone who's firmly got their feet planted on one side of a subject. I would have deleted the post as a disruptive attack (again, as the anon has been trolling the Snta Claus page since before Christmas and was blocked for it), but won't because you replied to it. Your heart is in the right place, but I think you've wasted your time replying to the anon. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

i've twice removed material that was either completely uncited or original research. When the material was edited back in with a snarky little remark ("No, it means that if you are worried about reliable sources, you add a fact tag, or use a Dutch-English dictionary, not bluntly delete the text"), they were kind enough to add a few citations. Unfortunately, of the two the user chose to add, only one was reliable. You do not add information to an encyclopedia which you cannot immediately identify and cite; that's one of the first rules of wiki editing. And adding fact tags instead of searching out some citation isn't a very good alternative. Neither is the tone.
As well, another editor added quite a bit of information under the 'American variations' section, expanding the detail of Baum's stories that involved Santa. I reverted those good faith edits because they seem less on point with the subject of this article, and more in line with an article about the stories themselves. especially since they have little bearing on how Americans perceive and relate the image and story of Santa Claus.
Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If anyone is bold, its you. You are removing material that wasn't written by me, but by many other contributors, material any Dutch person knows is a tradition, so it is very easy to verify? Its you who is bold to bluntly remove easily verifiable material, and you did it without discussing your motives, nor did you discussed on the talk page that you wanted to remove it because you personally thought it was "Original research".

Why?

Why did you remove this passage, and a reliable reference:

Tradition holds that Saint Nicholas and his aides arrive each year by steam boat from Spain in mid November carrying a book that contains notes on all children that indicate whether the child has been good or naughty during the year and gifts, chocolate letters and spice nuts to be handed to the well-behaved children. During the subsequent three weeks, Saint Nicholas is believed to ride a white-grey horse over the rooftops at night, delivering gifts through the chimney to the well-behaved children, while the naughty children risk being caught by Saint Nicholas' aides that carry jute bags and willow canes for that purpose. ^[3]

Its well known, that the following is true (per tradition):

• Sint Nikolaas, and his "pieten" arrive per steamboat somewhere in mid November, is a well televised event.
• Sinterklaas carries with him a book that contains the names of all children, and whether they have been naughty or nice.
• Where Sint comes his "pieten" hand out "peppernuts" and other candies to kids and grown-ups
• Sint normally rides a white horse, even on rooftops.

all this belongs to Dutch tradition, and I could find hundreds or even thousands of references for these traditional beliefs in Dutch. I made an effort to find some in English, (even though Dutch references are also acceptable) so who are you to say that "one source is unreliable", even if there was truth to that claim, with a reliable source left you still re-deleted the material.

Another thing is that "Donder" is indeed the Dutch word for "Thunder", and "Bliksem" is the word for lightening, (the German word however is "Blitz", as in "Blitzkrieg", not "blitzen"), so what is wrong with writing "which derive from the Dutch words "donder" (thunder) and "bliksem" (lightning)", its simply true. as you can easily verify with an English-Dutch dictionary. Note that I did not originally write this material either.

so Im putting all this material back, you removed without a valid reason, and if must be ill add as many other reliable sources as is needed. Mahjongg (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mahjongg. First of all, the point of this page is to discuss changes or reverts made int he article so as to avoid edit-warring as well as to foster an environment of collaborative editing. Simply stating your case here and reverting without getting feedback is both counter to the BRD process and it simply slows the article's progression down; until there is consensus for the disputed changes, it will simply bounce back and forth.

As noted before, the material was removed because it was largely uncited, or poorly cited by only two separate users, of which you were one.. Allow me to address the points you brought up, so you know that I am listening to what you are saying and responding without simply being contrary.

• "material any Dutch person knows is a tradition, so it is very easy to verify" - The problem here is that what you think is a tradition is a catch-all phrase for that which isn't being cited. You will note that elsewhere in this article, everything is being cited. The Dutch bits are no different. What one Dutch person thinks is tradition might be utter and complete blasphemy to another Dutch person. It's a subjective statement.
• "Its you who is bold to bluntly remove easily verifiable material.." - as per WP:BRD, when material is boldly added, and then reverted, discussion should ensue. More below.
• "..and you did it without discussing your motives, nor did you discussed on the talk page that you wanted to remove it because you personally thought it was "Original research"." - I have no motives, Mahjongg. try to AGF. When reverted, head tot eh discussion page and open a discussion. I removed it because it was uncited, and made some rather specific claims. They have be cited. Uncited info can easily be mistaken for OR or speculation. Lastly, if it is very easy to verify, why didn't you add the info with a citable reference?
• "Why did you remove this passage, and a reliable reference" - because 'frontporch.com' is not a cite that demonstrates any editorial oversight (as per WP:CITE and others); any good could put together a website that says - again, with no more referenced sources than frontporch - that Santa is actually a thief and a molester; are we to use that too? The source wasn't reliable, Mahjongg.
• "Its well known, that the following is true (per tradition)" - note my earlier comments about the terms "well-known" or "as per tradition" as incapable as serving as a substitute for citable references. Find a reference - even one in Dutch (someone will eventually check) - and we're good. Just make sure that the Dutch reference meets our criteria of reliability, etc.

The other stuff, such as translations - if they are direct word for word translations - are okay to include, because language is something of an exception from the WP:NOR rule. If you are interpreting the translation, you need a citation to support that interpretation. It's one thing to say that 'Donder' means 'thunder'; its quite another to suggest (no matter how obvious it might seem to you) that 'Donner' is the same as 'Donder', or 'Blitzen' was originally 'Bliksem'. For that, you need citation making that claim.

Lastly, it doesn't matter if you are the one who originally added the material; when you add it back in, you take responsibility for it. I will look at the successive edits you have made; if they fail to meet the criteria we have discussed here, I will remove it again. If you ant to talk more before reverting, i am open to that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is about referencing, but I would argue it should be more about relevance. The steamboat and modern day celebrating have no relevance to Santa Claus. Logically the part about dutch folklore should especially contain material that found it's way into the Santa Claus traditions. For further information there is a whole page on Sinterklaas. People interested can read it there. Joost 99 (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least this clears up some misunderstandings, let me say this. I was of the impression (because of its basic nature) that the material I restored had been part of the article for a long time (and so seen/redacted by many other people). I now realize after looking at the history that the material was very recently added, so I made that mistake, which cause me to react in this way, which is indeed against AGF. For this I do indeed apologize. Still, I am unimpressed by the arguments used by Jack Sebastian, and why he thought that without discussion about it the material it had to be removed. Its like insisting to remove from an article about Santa Claus that he rides a sled pulled by reindeer, that he has elves as assistance, Elves that also make the presents in a workshop, and a few other some such basic "Santa facts" . How would you feel if someone would come along and removed that material from the Santa Claus article without any discussion. Even the fact that the removal was triggered by its placement is hardly reason enough. As a Dutch person myself I found such behavior quite baffling. As for "referencing" the material, I think I did my best to provide it. I'm truly disappointed that Jack still thought he could remove the material again, even with the reference I gave (and he did it without giving a reason except for "again: no cited evidence to accompany that expansion = we cannot use it.", it would have at least be more understandably if he had claimed the reference was unreliable, and why). Perhaps the reference wasn't enough to convince Jack because in my zeal to find an English language source I chose one written for Dutch emigrants in the US. Also there was no way for me to know that this particular site (frontporch.com) was considered to be "not a reliable source", or I wouldn't have chosen it, but used one of the many others available. I knew that Blogs and other such sites are not considered reliable, but it didn't occur to me that this site was such a cite, also it wasn't blacklisted as some other cites are. However, the new reference I used should be sufficient for even the most skeptical reader,. And if not, as I said I can find many others.

I now also better understand Jacks objections about the sentence "which derive from the Dutch words "donder" (thunder) and "bliksem" (lightning)", although I think his argument is weak, still I guessed as much as he said here, so I did not restore the sentence, but converted it not to make any such claims. I simply add from the Dutch words for thunder and Lightning, "Donder" and "Bliksem". I also gave tried to find some reliable sources making the same claim on this seemingly obvious conclusion. Also I guessed it likely that "in the olden days" "blixem" could be an alternative spelling for "bliksem", and indeed a Google search delivered proof for my assumption. I think these reliable sources should convince most people that the obvious conclusion is indeed true.

As for Joosts argument about relevance, they are slightly more convincing, but I counter argue that the two sentences we are talking about carry the essence of how (Dutch) kids experience the Sinterklaas festivities. Surely even for the Dutch folklore passage this should have relevance. Maybe apart from the steamboat passage, the beliefs (traditions) expressed in the two sentence do directly translate to current American beliefs (traditions). If anything the passage should be redacted, not removed entirely. Mahjongg (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I am glad you took the time to read my objections to the material, Mahjongg; hopefully you now realize that I am not some frenzied Deletionist in love with the 'undo' button. You have also hopefully taken note of the fact that while I said I was going to remove the material after my post, I did not. I wanted to give you the opportunity to respond and recognize the validity and usefulness of both my suggestions and in the simple value of reasoned discussion.

The reason the material was removed twice is that there were largely uncited claims in the article bits being introduced, and claims need to be cited (this is an encyclopedia, after all). Since this particular article has seen its share of just plain weird edits, its best to err on the side of caution, and not allow anything that isn't cited - this is a basic defense against the guy/gal who wants to add uncited material about how Santa is really Satan in disguise - everything must be cited to be included. Its the same sort of reasoning that has certain article permanently semi-protected. Maybe this should be one of them.

Joost makes the point that the article should be about relevance, and while they are correct, reference must also play its point. My Santa Claus is not your Santa Claus; however, they both derive from the same root Santa Claus that this article is supposed to be about. Explaining the variations is excellent, but the very fact that there are variations means everything must be cited. This also means that it is synthesis to turn the foreign word "blixem" (or "bliksem") into Blitzen. We need to have a source wherein the evolution from the former to the latter is detailed. It is not a "weak" argument: it is the crux of who we are as Wikipedia editors. We do not connect the dots. We are not history detectives. We write about those that do and those who are.

If you have Dutch references that meet our criteria for inclusion, add them. Most folk can use Google Page Translate to read the page anyway. Just make sure when translating, you are not interpreting - we want the original source's intent, not your take on it.

Hope that explains things better. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the referencing on reindeer, Mahjongg, this reference this is a Dutch translation of the English Wikipedia Santa Claus's reindeer... so that would become self-referencing. I also removed the reference to Vondel, (as Jack stated, that is synthesis, it doesn't prove any reindeer naming). This reference does, and should suffice, imo.

As for Dutch tradition, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability that doesn't need referencing, because only "challenged or likely to be challenged" should be sourced, and one may assume a well known and public display is not to be questioned. I understand the cautious approach, but I feel that the fact there are people claiming Santa is Satan (is he??), can not be a reason to delete all uncited material. I don't really see the part that something that is a "variation" should therefore be referenced. More if it was an exception.

As for the Dutch folklore part, I still feel the modern Sinterklaas is to elaborate. Dutch Folklore imo should be about the way Sinterklaas was celebrated (presents, chimney, appearance etc) and how this influenced Santa. Joost 99 (talk) 11:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I knew the wordlingo text was an automated translation of some kind (and quite a bad one at that), but I had no idea that its origin was a Wikipedia text. I agree it isn't useable because of that.

I used the Vondel reference only to prove that "blixem" was indeed an old Dutch word meaning lightening, (the current word is "bliksem") nothing else. Please explain why that is "Synthesis"?

I shared your opinion about the lack of need to reference well know Dutch tradition, still I also understand Jack's hesitations, he's not Dutch, (although he seems to be some kind of a polyglot) so how is he to know I'm not restoring complete nonsense. If he was Dutch he would probably be just as upset as me about removing a text describing the core of Dutch Sinterklaas traditions.

I also agree to your opinion that the text should best describe "the way Sinterklaas was celebrated (presents, chimney, appearance etc) and how this influenced Santa". That is why I said one could probably leave out the part about arriving per steamboat, in the past it was probably a sailboat instead, and his means of arrival doesn't seem to have been carried over to Santa in any way, except if one argues that the boat was transformed to a flying sled, coming from the north-pole instead of a boat coming from Spain. Mahjongg (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That Vondel used the word Blixem in 1656, doesn't prove that the Blixem in the 1823 poem was of Dutch origin (and if that was not what you wanted to prove, it is of no use here). I will stop calling out the Sinterklaas part should be more to the point, and try to change that myself (after a library visit), and hope I haven't diverted your discussion with Jack to much. I removed two (redundant) sources, one with a number of mistakes (frontporchnews), the other a humorous speech - although spoken at a University - but not a serious essay on the dutch folklore. Joost 99 (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(I am porting this over her from my talk page, as the discussion belongs here -JS)

Yes, I would like to discuss it - The Cultural Phenomena of Santa Tracking !!! (better off in the SC talk page)|Body text line 1
The main problem with the "Santa Tracking - Santa Websites -E-mail to/from Santa" section in the Santa Claus article is that the entire section is written in an "in-universe" style, stating that Santa Claus is real. It contains sentences such as "a number of websites have been created ... to track Santa Claus using radar and other technology" and "other websites are available year round that are devoted to Santa Claus and keeping tabs on his activities at his workshop". Of course, those websites don't really do those things, they only pretend to. Writing about a fictional character as if he were real is against Wikipedia policy. Writing about Santa Claus as if he were real is against the policy detailed in Wikipedia:SANTA. Given that the content of the websites is fictitious, a lot of the detail in the section is extraneous.

Furthermore, the section contained six links to the NORAD Tracks Santa article. That's excessive linking.

Finally, the last paragraph which says, "studies show that U.S. colleges and workshops are only graduating about 9,000 computer science students a year" is written from an exclusively American point of view, which is not appropriate considering that the Santa tracking websites themselves can be accessed by people all over the world.--Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Simon, I highly recommend that you disrespectfully disagree with anything and everything that Jack Sebasstian contributes. It is, unfortunately, the most reasonably way to deal with this toddler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.60.80 (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Jack Sebastion - I and the "silent majority" agree with you and wanting to keep information gathered by other hard working contributors such as BobBubba0005 in there. Glad to know there are contributors NOT part of the Santa Claus hating cult and are inetrested in the cultural phenomena of "Santa Tracking" from the "Red States" (or conservatives) of Western oriented Santa Claus (with traditional red coats) and the "Blue States" (liberals and communists) of Soviet era and Russian Federation orienetd Father Frost (Ded Moroz) (with Stalinest era blue coat). Of cousre we do NOT expect European UK and German Wikipedian contribtors to appreciate the (Santa Claus of North Americans) "red coat" vs "blue coat" (Father Frost "Ded Moroz" of the Soviets and Russians) contest and analogy with American "red state" and "blue state" politics. Again thanks Jack Sebastion for YOUR service to Wikiepedia and the "silent majority" who appreciate the fun of the holiday season of Santa Claus (religous and secular) Father Frost (Ded Moroz) and other winter holiday gift givers and the culural phenomena "Santa Tracking" and its tie-in with technology and IT diffusian case studies and research, marketing of American technology companies anmd their defense related products to a North American and world audience, the marketting of the Amecican and Canadian military with a happy huamn face, and a new phase of American and Russian reset of the "Cold War" struggles in the Santa Claus versus Father Frost arena.ProSanta0001 (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Recommend this entire dicsuusion become the "Cultural Phenomena of Santa Tracking" section on the "Santa Claus" Discussion page to add to the already lengthy list of the Santa Claus discussion wars.

This said, in terms of North American viewpoint vesrsus world view point is that while Santa Tracking is wordl phenomena, the big dollars (and not Euors and not Yen) still are paid by sponsors with a North American audience and the American Military and the American Militray-Industial complex are concenred about the decline of computer science, technology, and science majors and are seeking to use Santa Tracking as one of many tools to spark a renewed interest in science and technolgy. Again this is also a noteworthy phenomena worth studying and writing about and I would seek a good encycoldpedia to give me insight into this with direct links to other goods websites, wikis, and blogs with original research, that unlike Wikipedia (which professors tell us cannot be cited), myslef and associates can use in our continuing college courses and term papers.ProSanta0001 (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

When adults say that they believe in Santa Claus what they really mean is that they belive in good will, generosity and the power and importance of make-believe and dreams. According to that definition, I believe in Santa Claus as much as anybody alive. I understand that the entire section is written with tongue firmly in cheek. I know that no contributors here really believe that a man in a red coat called Santa Claus lives at the Noth Pole. I know that nobody here really believes that anyone uses radar or other technology to track him, however much they might protest otherwise. I know that the whole section was written in a spirit of festive fun and that's the problem.

Wikipedia is not the place for even jokingly suggesting that fictional, legendary and mythical characters are real. Wikipedia is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia not a loose connection of fan pages. I love a bit of festive fun but Wikipedia is not the place for it. There are plenty of other sites, and indeed other wikis, that you can go to for that.

To suggest that a British person has no right to edit any part of this article goes against the "anyone can join in" nature of Wikipedia. To suggest that a German has no right to edit any part of the article makes no sense at all. Central Europe was on the cultural frontline of the Cold War, with many countries and regions switching between their traditional legendary Christmas gift-givers and the Communist approved Ded Moroz several times during the last seventy years.

The same university lecturers who do not accept Wikipedia as a reference are not going to accept blogs or other wikis as references either. Furthermore, if any students were to write dissertations or doctoral theses about NORAD Tracks Santa they would have to write those from a real world perspective, not an "in-universe" one, too.--Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Simon, forgive me, but you are operating from an incorrect assumption. The "Santa tracking" stuff is actually a thing. It does happen, and has happened in the past. Is it tongue in cheek? Of course it is, but that's besides the point. We have citations in regards to the Santa-tracking, and the sources are reliable, verifiable and pertinent; blogs and other wikis cannot remain in the article for that very reason.

That said, your personal viewpoints as to the validity/pretense/etc. of tracking Santa is utterly besides the point. I am not personally convinced that university lecturers come here to seek out info in regards to Santa Claus (and if they are, some students better start asking for their damn money back), and find the importation of the old saw that we have to kick in the slats of Santa Claus to make ourselves be respectable to be an exercise in sophistry. No one is arguing that Santa is real or not, and no one should. We stay neutral on the topic. We avoid committing to either side of the argument, avoiding absolutist terms like "mythological" and whatnot where legendary serves the same purpose; St. Nicholas actually did exist, and the legends that have extended from the actual person's life are - to coin a term - 'the stuff of legend'. The add-ons over time are an interesting phenomena, not a target for debunking. I refuse to believe that we are not so unskilled that we cannot write an article without staying out of the debate. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

What you are trying to do here is totally unacceptable: Everybody capable of editing Wikipedia knows that the "Santa tracking" reporting is entirely fictional. (Unless they come from a very different culture, have never heard of him, and might be very much confused by the in-universe spam that is currently in the article.) We don't have to stay "neutral" on whether Santa Claus exists. Policies exist for reasonable application in situations in which they make sense, not for wikilawyering to create absurd outcomes.

There is a strong project-wide consensus against in-universe style writing, see WP:WAF#Real-world perspective. If you want to change this, go to WT:WAF and make a proposal. If you want an exception for this article, explain why that should be done and try to get a consensus for it. But don't pretend to believe in Santa Claus in order to get around established writing standards. Hans Adler 10:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that the consensus you speak of is that clear, Hans.I'll let other people chime in before commenting, though. I will additionally point out that arbitrarily turning the clock back to your favored version is not only non-conducive (because it's always going to get reverted) but not really in keeping with the idea of collaborative editing. When you remove a lot of contributions, you are saying that their contributions aren't important. But lets get some input from others. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I know it's not a valid content argument, but let me note anyway that the editor who added the section in question has been blocked for multiple socking. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/BillJohnson0003/Archive.

Now to the content itself: You may not have been fully aware of all the details of what you reverted back in. The editor hijacked the section on letters and email to Santa Claus and turned it into advertising for a military public relations project that targets children. I know that the incredibly poor taste of the combination Christmas/children/military recruiting is not grounds to keep the topic out of the encyclopedia. However, I am not going to allow that this topic gets significantly more weight than it has in the real world and in reliable sources. A sentence mentioning that it exists makes sense; giving the topic almost a fifth of the article (marginalising, among other problems, the vastly more relevant letters to Santa and painting them as if they got their relevance from NORAD) and three images does not. This is precisely the same kind of over-enthusiastic spamming that this cluster of accounts engaged in last year on other articles, and which produced a lot of completely unnecessary drama then. You are the first unrelated editor who appears to defend this.

You have not addressed the problem that part of this spam is written in an in-universe perspective, either. If I understand you correctly, and you insist on treating this topic as if certain people were really "tracking" a real "Santa", just because reliable sources write as if that was the case, then we can continue this discussion on ANI. It is simply not acceptable to support a spammer in this way and create absurd obstacles for the clean-up work. If I misunderstood you, please clarify. Hans Adler 00:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The consensus was made at Talk:NORAD_Tracks_Santa, when all in-universe stuff was removed. It has now been copied to this article (stuff like "oh, my god, we can see Santa in the radar screen, quick let's send our F-15 to scort him. Look, we even have pictures to proof that he was actually flying up there, see? Wow."). This stuff was added by several socks, probably someone attached to NORAD, judging by the shameless promotion.

Per WP:INUNIVERSE, I would like to trim and change the tone of all that NORAD stuff. Also, restoring a slightly older lead that was more clearly written from an in-universe perspective. Basically, I would like to rescue the NORAD changes that were reverted in 20 December[2]. I only want to repeat the removal of NORAD-related in-universe fluff, near the end of that diff. I am not interested in the rest of changes made in that diff. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I second this. The section is obviously written in in-universe style, and ought to be changed ASAP. Just because Google and NORAD want to dress up like Santa's helpers doesn't mean that Wikipedia is obliged to do so, as well. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 04:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

WHile I would not oppose some clean-up of the material to make it less in-universe, I would vehemently oppose its outright removal. There are cited sources supporting each of the statements made, and citations beat the living snot out of anything but citations directly' opposing it. We are not supporting NORAD's behavior or opinions (any more than we would support the TeaBag Party or racism by having articles noting the views of each); we are doing what we are specifically tasked to do - we report that which is reliably sourced. Period. Anything else is superfluous. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove the whole section and wouldn't try to. I am not disputing that those websites exist and I have no doubt about their notability, there should be a section about them in this article. (I've got nothing against them either,I actually think that they are really fun entertainment but that's beside the point). I didn't contardict the sources either, I just said that those websites "claim to track Santa" instead of saying that they "track Santa". I didn't add a POV, I removed a non-neutral POV.

The fact that Wikipedia has an article about something doesn't mean that it supports it, of course not, but the article should always be written from a neutral point of view, which is what I always strive towards. The article about the Flat Earth Society does not state that the Earth is flat. The article about the Ku Klux Klan does not endorse the Klan's point of view. Yet for months the NORAD Tracks Santa article was written solely according to the "truth" as stated on the programme's official website, with no indication that it was all tongue in cheek. Along with other editors, I spent a long time cleaning that article up.

I will point out that User:ProSanta0001 who praised Jack Sebastian for reverting my edit is the same person as User:BobBubba0005 who wrote the section in the first place, vote stacking and not for the first time. He is also the same person who under two different usernames single-handedly rewrote the "NORAD Tracks Santa" article, changing it into a fansite that took weeks of editing to clean up.

I still stand by everything I wrote in my comment at the top of this ection. I'd also like to point out that adding a lot of text does not alwys improve an encyclopedia article. Sometimes an article (or a section) is best improved by making it shorter.--Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

- -

Associated Press article of December 24, 2010 with Gerry Bowler’s (a North American published academic authority on Santa Claus and Christmas) remarks on Santa Tracking:

According to Gerry Bowler, a history professor at the University of Manitoba and the author of Santa Claus: A Biography, of The World Encyclopedia of Christmas and webinar host at the University of Manitoba on Christmas and Santa Claus, the NORAD Tracks Santa program and the various Santa Tracking efforts are "one of the few modern additions to the centuries-old Santa Claus story that have stuck. . . NORAD (and others) . . ., take(s) an essential element of the Santa Claus story - his travels on Christmas Eve – and looks at it through a technological lens. It brought Santa into the 20th century." And into the 21st century as well. ^[4]

- -

From: Gerry Bowler

Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 12:58 PM

To: Patric.Covey

Subject: Re: Please Verify Quote Attributed to Gerry Bowler - 2 Jan 2011

Howdy Patric. Thanks for your enquiry about the accuracy of the NORAD quotes in recent Associated Press stories. I can affirm that I was correctly quoted.

Happy New Year, Gerry

- -

I do not know about the past controversies. All I am trying to do is follow Jack Sebastion’s dictum of having verifiable stuff that will beat the snot out of comments that are not backed up by a verifiable source. Based on Gerry Bowler’s academic credentials and published work on the subjects of Santa Claus and Christmas he seems to know a number of things about the subject !!! Patric.covey (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

References

Well, Santa's Reindeer are said to fly but is that really possible? I have done a lot of research and I have decided that it is NOT possible for reindeer to fly. So that also means that somehow the reindeer pull the sleigh on the ground. That brings us to another question: How does Santa go around the world in one night? Well I have determined that there is mor than one Santa. "Santa" is called many different things around the world and I have decided that all of those different names are actually different "santa's". This explains many unsolved questions many little children all the way up to very old people have. Hope this information was helpful to all of you people out there!!!! -Emma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.250.171.194 (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Emma. Actually, Santa Claus is not real. Someone else - your parents or other family, most likely - comes and puts presents out for you while you are asleep, and tells you it was Santa Claus who did it. In the United States, there's a tradition where children leave cookies and milk out for Santa Claus, and in the morning his existence is "confirmed" for the children when they find the milk is gone and a bite has been taken out of a cookie (or perhaps they're all eaten). Simple enough, Emma - your parents ate the cookies and drank the milk. You're correct about the reindeer, though: they do not fly. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This belongs to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous..... --Enric Naval (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right Enric, but I figured it was easier to answer her question here than move it. (note for this page's resident censor: your POV may be that lying to children is necessary, but mine is just the opposite; I am not breaking any laws or WP rules, but you actually are by removing what I've said) --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Make another personal attack, Node. Make it easy. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Jack, please see censorship. You have deleted what I said twice, calling you a censor is not a personal attack, it's the truth. I have been a Wikipedian since 2001, I've been the victim of real personal attacks before (even Jimbo got involved in the case against the other editor), this is not one and I'm actually laughing at your threats. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 07:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I am sorry - was this the page for talking to me about your problems? Nope. That's your user-talk page. Focus on topics without attacking other users. It's bad faith, uncivil and a personal attack.. Full stop. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You're a laugh and a haugh. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

First off, the UK is in Europe so "In the United Kingdom and Europe, he is often depicted in a manner identical to the American Santa Claus" is unnecessary.

Secondly, in Germany, Austria, Belgium etc. Santa Claus is COMPLETELY different to St. Nicholas see here http://www.bbc.co.uk/languages/christmas/german/ St. Nicholas' day.

Thirdly, the first sentence is wrong. Santa Claus isn't known by most Europeans as St. Nicholas, we should know, he was European. Kris Kringle (aka Ježíšek, Christkin etcd) isn't Santa Claus either. Kris Kringle (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christkind ) is supposed to be the baby Jesus (or an angel depending on who you are) and therefore not Santa, who is supposed to be a jolly old man — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adi19956 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's get this one straight. Santa Claus, a character who supposedly lives at the North Pole, is European? The bishop St. Nicholas was bishop of an Asian town. Much of the modern Santa Claus legend was thought up by Americans. "Sinterklass" might be Low Country European, but it seems to me that Santa Claus is hardly "European". And if Santa Claus is completely different from St. Nick, how come they appear to have the same name in Germany ("Nikolaus")? 68.36.120.7 (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This all sounds like an excellent opportunity to do some roll-up-the-sleeves research, you two. Dig in. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

They don't have the same name in Germany. St Nicholas is [Sankt] Nikolaus in German, and Santa Claus is Weihnachtsmann. According to a German web source of unclear reliability [3], the story goes as follows, so far as Germany is concerned: Sankt Nikolaus used to bring gifts on 6 December. Martin Luther replaced him by the Christkind (a different character), which, however, in the long run became more popular among Catholics than among Protestants. Later, Santa Claus bringing Christmas gifts was imported to Germany from the English-speaking world. Under the name Weihnachtsmann he mostly replaced the Christkind and now exists in parallel with Sankt Nikolaus. Nikolaus and Weihnachtsmann are clearly connected historically and the same chocolate figures are used for both, but they are not identical.

What we need for a proper treatment of this complicated situation is high-quality scholarly sources dealing with these cultural phenomena. No doubt they exist, but they are hard to find between all the usual Christmas stuff.Hans Adler 16:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hence the 'roll-up-the-sleeves' comment, Hans. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone tried these on-line sources on Christmas in Germany and the German equivalents to Santa Claus ??? Johntoshiba (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Crump - "The Christmas Encyclopedia – Germany” as a pdf

Bowler - "The World Encyclopedia of Christmas – Germany” as a pdf

Try these sources below for a start. Also, Gerry Bowler at the University of Manitoba is a top-notch North American academic expert on Santa Claus and Christmas. Patric.covey (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography