Talk:Santa Claus

Making it clear that Santa Claus is fictional

I'm sure that this suggestion will be controversial, but I think that it should be made absolutely clear in the introduction that Santa Claus is not real. When I read the introduction, I get the sense that words like "legendary" and "mythical" are used to say without saying that this character is a work of fiction, i.e., that any curious children who find the article will either not know what these words mean, or will be reassured by parents that plenty of legendary, mythical people are in fact real.

I can't claim to possess moral certainty on this point; indeed, the section of this article which covers the morality of "lying to children" articulates quite potently the various arguments on all sides of this issue; but at the very least, it must be remembered that the first and foremost duty of Wikipedia is to tell the truth. With that in mind, I'm hardly demanding that phrases like "fictional character" or "not real" be plastered in the introduction, but I don't feel I'd be doing my duty as a reader of Wikipedia if I didn't at least suggest for consideration the possibility that the truth of this subject should be stated plainly and unequivocally in its introduction.

2602:306:BC58:5910:ADF4:8E86:6FDC:7099 (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I've added "fantasy" per what we have in Tooth fairy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Santa is not real? WWEUndertakerfan (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I deeply disagree with this change. Santa Claus is not "fantasy" - Bah humbug to this awful change. The article on God on wikipedia does not say 'fantasy'. And has only one paragraph on atheism compared to a good section in here on the controversy about deceiving children. Telling the truth (if such a truth exists) is not the primary aim of Wikipedia.

One of the five pillars is to write from a neutral point of view. Well to be clear I don't believe Santa Claus to be fantasy and many others agree with me. I believe. Fantasy is the wrong word.

See WP:FRINGE. If you don't think Santa is a fantasy figure then you are clearly in a tiny minority of people over the age of ~10. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Based on what evidence, what citation? This is the whole problem with how you have approached the word "fantasy" - http://voices.yahoo.com/new-survey-shows-more-people-believe-10340427.html - Based on this poll, more people believe in Santa than God. This poll showed a majority of people believe in Santa Claus when asked http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/11/poll-most-believe-santa-claus-is-real-a-democrat/ - My objection is to the word fantasy - the word mythical is far better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.150.38 (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect. Please read your sources better. 1) "The results of the survey showed that 80 percent of people said that given a choice, they would choose Santa Claus as being more credible than God." Putting aside that Yahoo Contributor's Network is not a WP:RS the survey makes no mention if the participants believe in either. 2) "New polling out this week reveals that most voters believe Santa Claus is a Democrat." Nothing about if they believe Santa is real. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the adjective to mythical per your suggestion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

With clear evidence it is not a fringe theory, I suggest you follow your own policy that you have quoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.150.38 (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Another option may be to make it clear, that though Santa Claus is regarded as fantasy, there are many who believe Santa to be real - something along those lines. And you have poll evidence to reference - A few more articles to support that concept - http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com/2013/12/11/poll-fewer-nyers-believe-santa/ http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/23474/20131212/hundreds-of-adults-say-they-believe-in-santa - http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/12/santa-real-we-google-for-the-truth-but-a-poll-says-we-believe.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.150.38 (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

And 46% of Americans believe that God created humans within the last 10,000 years. Doesn't mean creationism isn't treated as a fringe theory. Wikipedia doesn't rely on polls of random Americans to decide what is fringe. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The creationism article on wikipedia makes no such "fantasy" claim, it comments on the criticisms of creationism but does not land in favor one way or another. Also the God article makes no such "fantasy" claim, with almost no mention of the fact that their is no evidence God exists. Clearly I am not going to shift your position, but I find it full of hypocrisy. Wikipedia editors are happy to dismiss childhood hopes within a sentence, protecting themselves with policies. And yet would never dare to do the same thing on articles of God or even creationism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.150.38 (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Have thought more about this and want to suggest another problem with the word fantasy. Santa Claus is not fictional, and is not by definition fantasy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy - There is no author, there is no fictional book which created Santa Claus. Even if we are to accept Santa Claus is not real, he is also certainly not fiction, mythical and legendary (previous descriptions) were still more accurate than the current article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.88.122 (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I see the fantasy word has been removed. I want to thank you and wish you a Merry Christmas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.88.122 (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Off topic: "Making it clear that Santa Claus is fictional." I think I can see the Fox News headlines now. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Who cares if Santa is real or not? At least we know he WAS real. I believe that he is real... in our hearts and minds. Of course, I go along with it all just for a bit of fun... practice in imagination. :P 186.92.45.178 (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Getting back on topic here, I have added "fictitious" to the opening sentence for the following reasons:

1. We all know that Santa Claus in his current incarnation is fake, arguing his existence based on the predecessors from who he was inspired by is equal to calling Norman Bates real because he was loosely based off of Ed Gein.
2. Going along with the God argument, the simple answer is that Santa Claus can be proved to be fictitious, researchers and explorers who have visited the Earth's North Pole have found no evidence of flying reindeer, no matter your personal beliefs, science has found no way to deny or prove the existence of an Abrahamic God.
3. Wikipedia isn't censored

felt_friend 22:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the word fictitious should be used so early in the article, especially because searching for Santa Claus in Google displays it as the first result. Wikipedia may not be censored, but it may not be the best idea for it to be visible without even directly accessing the article. (The word mythical also fits better when talking about cultural tradition) 99.107.199.30 (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why placing the word anywhere else in the article would make any kind of difference. felt_friend 03:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I feel Wikipedia has lost all sense of neutrality. Mythical is a perfectly acceptable word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiction - Fictitious is not particularly useful, as there is no author. Instead a small quantity of editors on Wikipedia are determined to not find the right balance, but instead make it very clear that there is no such thing as Santa. Whether there is or not, does not matter. However, the selection of the right words is crucial.

Mythical is the right word, fiction/fantasy is not. This is not based on a belief of Santa or not, but by the definition of the words. Wikipedia editors are distorting definition and then claiming that Wikipedia is not censored. Well given the article is protected and words are being deliberately selected for effect rather than meaning, one might suggest Wikipedia is being censored; by the very editors who are keep quoting Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.150.38 (talk) 08:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I would advise you to review your opposition to the phrasing. Additionally, saying, "Instead a small quantity of editors on Wikipedia are determined to not find the right balance, but instead make it very clear that there is no such thing as Santa" would be entirely correct seeing as the title of this discussion is "Making it clear that Santa Claus is fictional". Claiming "Whether there is or not, does not matter" is totally inaccurate seeing as Wikipedia exists to document verifiable information, additionally the promotion of such a figure would go against WP:HOAX. Finally, your statement "Well given the article is protected and words are being deliberately selected for effect rather than meaning, one might suggest Wikipedia is being censored; by the very editors who are keep quoting Wikipedia policy." is also inaccurate for a multitude of reasons, mainly the fact that the article is only semi-protected and thus you still could edit it given you make 10 edits from a four-day-old registered account (but then again the purpose of having an account is not to manage a single page). felt_friend 17:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say that Santa Claus is a mythical figure, which started as a myth. Over the years, a lot of fictional accounts have been added over the years. For example Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. I would rather remove "fictional" because Santa Claus himself is mythical, not fictitious. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

How is Santa Claus not fictitious? felt_friend 20:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

How is it that you are to be considered real and not fictional? Like the Velveteen Rabit, other's beliefs. Obviously not yours. htom (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

As per WP:VERIFY, at least two sources in the article already establish that Santa Claus is non-existent (while about.com is arguably refutable, I don't think there should be any debate over the reliability of the NYT). felt_friend 22:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The most printed editorial of all time, and thus has more references than probably anything on Wikipedia is the following article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes,_Virginia,_there_is_a_Santa_Claus - confirming that Santa exists. So not sure we should rely just on sources for this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.150.38 (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Editorials aren't reliable sources though as per WP:NEWSORG. felt_friend 00:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Given the history of Santa Claus, "fictitious" is the best fit. Wikipedia is not censored, and that is the only consideration I can think of for not including this word. Inanygivenhole (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: Seeing as we seem to be going in circles, I have opened up a discussion at WP:DRN in hopes of finally resolving this debate. I referenced several major parties involved here as well. felt_friend 04:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

semantics: There seems to be some objection to use of the word "fictitious" based on a mistaken understanding of what the word means. Some have assumed it requires the object described to be the product of one or several published works of fiction. It doesn't. It simply describes the object as not real. "fictional" is more likely to relate to written works, but this is not a requirement. The words concerned are all very similar. Anyone wanting to strike down one or another choice had better grab a proper dictionary. I am of the opinion that mythical, fictional, fictitious and "totally not even a little bit real" are all adequate to describe the topic as not being real. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 18:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

There is an open dispute on this, but I suggest you take your own advice of looking at a dictionary. Both the Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries go beyond 'not real' to terms like invented. And the root word fiction is very clear, a book or story that is written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.150.38 (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Santa Claus is a significant force in our culture. What could be debated is whether he is a human-form being who lives at the North Pole, or whether perhaps he is more along the lines of a concept that many people cherish and use to guide certain behaviors. Anyway, whatever the result of this discussion, the identical treatment should be applied to articles on gods and such, since the availability of physical evidence and the cultural effects are identical.72.208.148.85 (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2013

I would like to request an edit for the page Santa Claus on Wikepidia.org because some information in the article is no longer accurate. Flowerpower571 (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.. What change do you want made? RudolfRed (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2013

fi:Joulupukki Finiklassanta (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done, on account of it not being clear what should be done. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2013

1.23.171.241 (talk) 06:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done, request empty. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sarcy paragraph in 'Letter Writing to Santa'

I was reading through the article when I came across this in a paragraph under the section 'Letter writing to Santa': "In Britain it was traditional for some to burn the Christmas letters on the fire so that they would be magically transported by the wind to the North Pole. However this has been found to be less efficient than the use of the normal postal service, and this tradition is dying out in modern times, especially with few homes having open fires".

Undeniably amusing, and I suppose technically correct, but maybe should be worded slightly less tongue-in-cheek?