Talk:Santa Claus

I think that we should make it clearer in the opening section that Santa does not exist.

The top section of this page abuses the dual meaning of "legendary" to claim that Santa Claus exists: https://www.emailsanta.com/Santa-Claus-FAQ/is-santa-real.asp If the word "fictional" is used, it is made clear to younger readers that Santa Claus does not exist. Keep in mind Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED
It was agreed upon on this talk page in the past that the lead section of the article should make it clear that Santa Claus does not exist, and I think that this will make it clearer that he does not exist.
Cutekids100 (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Mt.FijiBoiz: Could you please discuss your unexplained revert? —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

It really isn't that simple, since Santa Claus is partly based on Saint Nicholas, who was a historical figure, as the body of the article explains. - MrOllie (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

But this might mislead children, and it was agreed upon in the past that this article is supposed to tell the truth about Santa Claus. Why are you also reverting my edits on other Santa Claus-related pages? Cutekids100 (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Félix An, even Wikipedia:Custom signatures need to have a link to your actual username somewhere.

Research shows that most kids figure out that Santa isn't "real" by age 8. Readability tests on the lead to this article suggest that almost no kids will be able to understand it anyway. And, as User:MrOllie says, Santa is technically a Legend, as there is a connection to an actual historical person.

Agreed. "Legendary" is certainly more appropriate than "fictional". Jenny Jankel (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

If I were going to emphasize the fictional nature of Santa, I probably wouldn't have added {{infobox person}} to the top of the article. {{Infobox character}} might be more appropriate if you want to push the modern story rather than the historical connection. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Uninvolved administrator note: I have upgraded to full-protection, since at least one autoconfirmed account has chosen to join as an edit-war rather than discussion. DMacks (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

DMacks, could you maybe change "fictional" back to "legendary" since only one user is arguing for "fictional"? Jenny Jankel (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:WRONGVERSION. I went back just prior to the latest editor joining without discussion, and will happily re-evaluate this discussion here periodically to see if it has petered out. DMacks (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I changed my name recently from Cutekids100 to Félix An. Félix An (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC) But what is the best way to make sure that children read this in a way that they understand the word "legend" as "a folk tale" rather than "a famous person"? According to the dictionary, both are valid meanings. I think that "fictional" is clearer, as it simply means that Santa is not a living person right now. When I was 8 years old, I read this article thinking that "legendary" meant "famous" rather than "from a folk tale," as that is one valid definition of "legendary." I read this article fine when I was 8 years old, although I used dictionary.com for some words. My literacy skills were actually above average for the time, as I frequently read many other Wikipedia articles when I was 8. However, I kept believing Santa was real until I was 13 or 14 (currently, I am 16), all because of NORAD Tracks Santa's claims, among other things. I don't want any more "smart kids" like me at the time to fall into the same trap, because even then, I knew that the word "legendary" in "Wayne Gretzky was a legendary person" and "Antigone was a legendary person" meant different meanings. If you Google "legendary people," you get lists of famous, REAL historical figures like Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela. I don't kids to put Santa Claus in the same category as those people. Also, the word "legendary" is usually used when the existence of a historical person can be debated. However, there is no question that Santa Claus does not exist. Félix An (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Forgot to say, it already says that the article is in the categories "FICTIONAL Christian saints" and "FICTIONAL toymakers and toy inventors" at the bottom of the page. (I wasn't the one who added the article to those categories. Félix An (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

This is personal for you. We have no obligation to make this an article for children. Jenny Jankel (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I never said that changing that word makes it for children. It's also clearer for adults, and it already is categorized as fictional at the bottom of the page. Why not put the same word at the top? Félix An (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

See the arguments above. Jenny Jankel (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

You (Redacted) have added false information regarding Santa Claus as a fictional; this is not true, he is officially a legendary figure, it's just Mrs. Claus that is fictional because she was created by the authors! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gugaantony (talk • contribs) 13:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked this editor for a few days due to repeated WP:NPA, but will leave the comment (with the PA elided) because it is on-topic to the discussion. DMacks (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)=

Did any of you read the RfC that was once on this talk page? Talk:Santa_Claus/Archive_11#About_Santa_Claus Félix An (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
How about we use both words, since they have a slightly different meaning? Félix An (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

No. You are the only editor arguing to use the word "fictional". "Legendary" is sufficient. Jenny Jankel (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

But you are the only one who is actively debating with me as well. Also, did you even read the old RfC that I linked to? Félix An (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The consensus of this discussion is clear. People don't have to repeat themselves daily. - MrOllie (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Why do you say that "legendary" is "sufficient"? The old RfC said, "The final wording should not take into account the minority viewpoint that Santa Claus's mythical nature should be hidden from unaware readers, as this position is not supported by our policies." Since my link to emailsanta.com at the top abuses the dual meanings of "legendary" to try to prove that Santa Claus is real, this shows that "legendary" is not clear enough, as the meaning could be confused with "very famous," as in "Wayne Gretzky was a legendary hockey player." The lead section should immediately cause readers to know that Santa does not exist and not cause them to wonder, "Does he mean legendary as in very famous or as in it's only a fairy tale?" The word "fictional" would be better for accomplishing this. Also Mr. Ollie, please do not try to rudely close my discussion, as I am still trying to express myself clear enough to try to explain why "fictional" would be more suitable a word for the lead section than "legendary." Félix An (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

No one closed anything. What are you talking about? - MrOllie (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I thought you were trying to abruptly conclude my discussion. I wanted to tell you that I still had more things to say. I didn't mean to be rude. Félix An (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

What have you not yet said? Jenny Jankel (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

My point is that the consensus from the old RfC was that the lead section has to be as clear as possible that Santa does not exist. The word "legendary" is ambiguous. The word "fictional" is not. Félix An (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Shall we have another vote? Félix An (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The RFC close explicitly does not take a position on 'legendary' vs 'fictional'. Also, see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. - MrOllie (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I support "fictional", as now stated in the Introduction. I agree that "legendary" is subject to multiple interpretations. A suggested alternative to fictional could be "imaginary". DonFB (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding what I mean, DonFB! Félix An (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

"Imaginary" is an interesting idea. Clearer and more straightforward than either "fictional" or "legendary", it seems to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Good idea! I think we should use "imaginary" then. Félix An (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

An IP just switched it to 'mythical' (and was swiftly reverted by Félix An, despite no real consensus on this talk page). This seems like a good compromise between 'fictional' and 'legendary' to me. Thoughts? - MrOllie (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I think "imaginary" is a better alternative to "fictional". What do you all think? Félix An (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Just as with 'fictional' it is the wrong word because Saint Nicholas of Myra was a historical person. - MrOllie (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know St. Nicholas was a real historical person. We learned that in religion class. However, the modern portrayal of Santa Claus with the red suit, ho-ho-ho, and nine reindeer is fictional, and that's what THIS article refers to. There is a separate article regarding the real-life St. Nicholas. Félix An (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I changed the link at the top of the page to mention how St. Nick was the real-life person who Santa Claus was based on. Félix An (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I think what it is now is good. Shall we keep it this way? Félix An (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

🎅🏻 Perhaps a better approach would be to change "This article is about the imaginary character..." to "This article is about Santa Claus..." and thus side-step the issue. An article should be neutral so as to let the reader make up their own mind based upon the information provided.

The key is to let the child figure the mystery out on their own in a supportive environment. For those that read it carefully, this is the approach taken in https://www.emailsanta.com/santa-claus-faq/is-santa-real.asp. Specifically: "What you believe now, you may not believe tomorrow, or you may believe again in the future. The most important thing is that you keep the spirit of Santa in your heart. Just like you keep your love for those who are special to you in your heart. So long as he is in your heart, he will exist in the most important place of all!". It is also the approach in the famous "Yes Virginia" reply Full disclosure: I am the individual behind the emailSanta.com website. I have worked with many professionals, including child psychologists and religious leaders to name a few, in developing the website and the specific response to the question of whether Santa is real.

Two additional points that there is more at issue here than some might realize:

1. Today, more than ever, the ability to discern fact from fiction, whether from political, media or other figures, is critical. The world is sadly now full of "Dezinformatsiya". Figuring out the truth by one's own self & when one is ready to make that step for themselves about Santa is so important for children's development. The need for individuals to be able to think critically for themselves has never been more urgent. Again, solving the mystery behind the (intentionally) fantastical story of Santa is an important step for kids to do on their own. We should be delicately "guiding them" to that decision in this article but letting them make the realization on their own, just as Félix An did back in Dec 2013 when he emailed me 3 times. BTW, we also have to be considerate of older autistic individuals who can be devastated when told flatly about Santa.

2. Santa shares a very special bond with children. They tell him things they would never tell another person, including their parents. Between three to five percent of the emails I receive are from children seeking help from Santa. These run the gamut from "my pet goldfish died" to being sexually or physically abused, dying from cancer or other horrible things I won't mention. emailSanta replies to these children so that they can get the help they need (often referring them to a children's help line listed on the site). In severe cases and where possible, I work with police departments or others to help the children. See https://calgarysun.com/news/local-news/calgary-santa-receives-wishes-and-cries-for-help-in-emails-from-around-the-world/. There are many, many more examples of children reaching out to Santa. If we break that bond for children in this article, we are taking away a very important resource for these children dealing with dire circumstances. Because this is part of the "dark side" of being Santa, it is not an argument you will often see. It may however be one of the most important reasons for letting children believe in Santa for as long as they need to believe in him. Kringle Claus (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC) e.g. ref.:

References

Your commentary is obviously in good faith, but your newness to Wikipedia--at least as an editor--shows a certain lack of understanding about how this website operates. To pick one noticeable example, you said: We should be delicately "guiding them" to that decision in this article but letting them make the realization on their own. Wikipedia does not try to "guide" people, including children, to a pre-ordained "decision" or "realization". A fundamental principle of the site is Neutral Point of View. Editors here will have their personal points of view about all manner of subjects, but in writing and editing articles, we leave such personal opinions at the doorstep (or chimney) and confine ourselves, in accordance with site policy, to describing pre-existing information. We do this by using Reliable Sources of previously published material that is Verifiable (the sources actually exist and can be accessed by non-extraordinary means). Other policies are intended to keep the content of articles in proper balance by careful use of Due emphasis, and avoidance of Undue emphasis on aspects of an article's content. The site is also not Censored to protect people's/children's feelings. And we do not engage in Original Research. The site also has a Conflict of Interest policy, which might--or might not--be relevant to you. So, thanks for your observations, and I encourage you to have a look at the rules I've linked, if you have not previously, and feel free to respond to anything I've mentioned. DonFB (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

🎅🏻 Merry Christmas DonFB and thank you for the kind comments and patience with me. "Guide" was certainly a poor choice of words on my part (it implies something "active") and undercuts my earlier comments about article neutrality and letting children figure out the mystery on their own. I appreciate that Santa can be a sensitive topic (I deal with it regularly ;), which is evident from some previous posts here.

The main point I was getting at was to simply drop the adjective "imaginary" or the other proposed adjectives from the first few lines. The adjective(s) seem to be a bone of contention with a simple, neutral and balanced solution: don't use one (insight from years of writing government Reasons for Decision, sigh)

I'll definitely go over your suggested reading.

Thank you again and Merry Christmas! Kringle Claus (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The choice of adjective has been contentious, but "imaginary" has been stable and garnered consensus for some time now. Full disclosure: it was my suggestion to use "imaginary" instead of "legendary" or "fictional/fictitious" (or "mythical"). It seems to me that omitting any descriptor would, by definition, subtract essential encyclopedic knowledge from the article, and for what reason? Well, I know you've offered a rationale, ("letting children figure out the mystery on their own") but, remember, it is not in keeping with Wikipedia's rules to try to shield children or adults from reliably sourced knowledge about this, or any, topic. DonFB (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

🎅🏻 Merry Christmas again DonFB!

I'm unsure what you mean by "'imaginary' has been stable and garnered consensus for some time now". After all, the appropriate adjective still seems to be a hot topic for discussion on this page :-).

Perhaps a more accurate and acceptable adjective is "folkloric" . From dictionary.com, words related to folkloric include: whimsical, storied, allegorical, mythic, unreal, fictitious, fabled, legendary, fanciful, imaginary, chimerical, fabulous, fantasy, made-up, nonexistent, pretended, traditional, untrue, visionary, fictive. This list of words seems to cover all of the suggested adjectives I've seen here.

Folklore is also defined as:
• the traditional beliefs, legends, customs, etc., of a people; lore of a people.
• a body of widely held but false or unsubstantiated beliefs.
Folkloric also does not have a double meaning like "legendary". As well, I doubt it could be viewed as shielding any one given the definition. It may not be my first choice for the adjective but something I could live with I suppose.

Props to Gugaantony btw for giving me the folkloric idea with his comment about "Santa Claus is a character from folklore..."

On a housekeeping matter, the word "imaginary" is duplicated in the first few lines of the article:
"This article is about the imaginary character. For the real-life fourth-century Christian saint which Santa Claus was based on, see Saint Nicholas. For other uses, see Santa Claus (disambiguation).
Santa Claus, also known as Father Christmas, Saint Nicholas, Saint Nick, Kris Kringle, or simply Santa, is an imaginary figure originating in..."

As an aside, I offered two rationales as to the sensitivity of choosing the adjective carefully. The second one was that children in very dire circumstances (sexual, physical abuse, domestic violence etc. etc.) often reach out to Santa for help. I have assisted 12 and 13 year olds, for example.

Stay healthy and safe! Merry Christmas! Kringle Claus (talk) 06:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The definitions of "folklore" tend to refer to it as "unwritten" or "orally" transmitted beliefs, legends, myths, etc. The article can include information about children's relationship to the notional Santa Claus, but their feelings or emotions or needs cannot properly be a controlling aspect of this article's initial description of Santa Claus. On the housekeeping matter, the duplication of "imaginary" does not occur within the beginning of the article itself; the word's appearance in the disambiguating hatnote is not to be construed as any kind of defect or problem. DonFB (talk) 04:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

🎅🏻 Feliz Navidad DonFB,

I agree that "folklore" refers to an oral history. This is exactly why "folkloric" is so apt a description for Santa Claus. After all, Santa came from the Dutch-American oral history of Sinterklaas (anglicised to Santa Claus).
I also understand and, while I have reservations regarding potential impacts upon children's health & safety, do not wish to debate here whether children's "feelings or emotions or needs cannot properly be a controlling aspect of this article...".
My point is that the adjective "imaginary" is not as concrete (in terms of the seven Cs) as possible. Here are some examples to hopefully illustrate my point:
• A Minotaur is an imaginary creature vs. A Minotaur is a mythical creature.
• An imaginary person, Noah, built the ark vs. A biblical person, Noah, built the ark.
I'm not married to "folkloric"; it is just the most appropriate adjective I can think of to date that satisfies Wikipedia's criteria.
I can also see there being thorny issues regarding using consistent terminology between other articles if "imaginary" is added to the mix.
I've appreciated your comments and patience. Kringle Claus (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm just afraid that since there is a potential conflict of interest, as DonFB mentioned, you (Kringle Claus) might be planning to use "folkloric" in a certain way to argue that Santa Claus is real on emailsanta.com. I would be fine with anything here as long as the meaning is not distorted to argue that Santa Claus supposedly exists. It would be somewhat better if there was a disclaimer on emailsanta.com somewhere (probably hidden in the terms in fine print or something), stating that "this website is for entertainment purposes only"; this way it wouldn't matter what language is used, because it is made clear to the user that the content is for entertainment only. (Also somewhat unrelated, but I never gave you permission to share my middle name here on Wikipedia. Your own privacy policy said you wouldn't. [no offence intended] It's too late now, because it's permanently embedded into the edit history of the page.) Félix An (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

And wikipedia's terms-of-service also forbid WP:OUTING personal details from sites other than WP itself (Kringle Claus, you can be blocked here for that!). But Félix An, I think you'll find it's not visible in the general history anymore. DMacks (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks DMacks! May you please also remove all traces of my information removal help request from the Help Desk please? Félix An (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The actual detail is totally invisible here or there now, even in history, and I removed the request there altogether (as a simple edit, still in history...no policy for doing anything deeper). Administratively, I think we need to keep at least the warning somewhat visible for future reference regarding Kringle Claus's behavior, so I don't know what other specific content can be removed here, but am open to ideas. DMacks (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

🎅🏻 Joyeux Noel Felix et al,

Felix, I am very glad that the adjective "folkloric" is acceptable to you. I am hopeful it is acceptable to DonFB as well. I don't believe anyone else has raised concerns about replacing "imaginary" with "folkloric". So, if DonFB signs off, I believe we'll have consensus for the change.

May I suggest we leave a brief pinned explanation in this Talk (or wherever would be most appropriate – I'm unfamiliar with the intricacies of Wikipedia) for using the term "folkloric". I can take a first stab at it. The intent isn't to write "folkloric" into stone, but to advance any future conversations without having to rehash the considerable ground we've already covered.

I do apologize for including your middle name Felix. Thank you to DMacks for pointing out the Outing policy. It certainly was not my intent or understanding that I was "outing" Felix, especially as he had already posted his name and age here. Regardless though, my apologies and lesson learned.

A gentle suggestion here for Felix: if you are concerned about your online privacy (which I applaud & support), you may wish to change your moniker on Wikipedia and elsewhere on the internet (YouTube etc.) from the highly identifiable "Félix An" to something else. You will note that almost no one else in this discussion is using their real name. It is also not a good idea to broadcast one's age in public forums.

Now unfortunately I must address an unpleasant matter. Felix, I object in the strongest possible terms to your extremely serious accusation that I share my site's users' personal information without permission. I go to great lengths to protect my users' information. Let me be perfectly clear: I do not divulge users' personal information to anyone (except to police in very specific circumstances as per the site's privacy policy). Indeed, to my knowledge, you have never used your full middle name on my site or in previous communications with me. However, your middle name was easily available online. I use the past tense here because I noticed that your middle name has been removed from the websites where it once appeared.

Again, I refute in the strongest possible terms that I share my site's users' personal information without permission. Baseless allegations can have extremely serious consequences for all concerned. Felix, you need to be far more careful in your assumptions and accusations online. I request that you remove this portion of your comment immediately.

Felix, as someone mentioned earlier, this is personal for you. However, this is not the place for such discussions. I do hope that you will reach out to me if you wish to discuss any non-editorial matters further. BTW, your concern about "legendary" being ambiguous is well taken.

I look forward to DonFB's and anyone else's thoughts on using "folkloric" to describe Santa.

Merry Christmas! Kringle Claus (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Kringle Claus. Let me first address the main question:

For the record, I do not support the use of the world "folkloric." I'm afraid it could be used in a sentence like this and have its meaning distorted yet again: "Santa is real! Not only is he real, famous folkloric tales talk about him and are passed from generation to generation, so he's GOT to he real!" Using the word "imaginary," it is very hard to bend the meaning, and even young children would mock the doublethink in the sentence: "Santa is real! He can be imaginary and real at the same time!" This way, there is no way the meaning in this article can be distorted to claim that Santa Claus supposedly exists.

On the topic regarding the privacy of my name, please see the reply to my 7-year-old email, sent to head_elf [at] emailsanta [dot] com. There, you will see that I did indeed use my middle name. Since I used it in my correspondence with you, I wasn't particularly happy about my middle name being shared by you. I'm fine sharing it myself, but I feel very embarrassed when other people share it. I am aware I registered a few accounts using this name. The reason for this is because I already have quite some public presence, as I was interviewed on CTV and CBC before. I don't mind posting with my real name or face, because I carefully review what I post, so I present myself in a good light to my future employer, because I know they will scour the Internet to see everything I have ever said. I never share information like my address, phone number, ID numbers, etc., and I keep my friends anonymous, unless I have permission from them. I also have a designated "public" email that I post online for people to contact me with.

Keep in mind that adults and kids alike come to Wikipedia to get quality, uncensored, unbiased information. We should write the article as clear and true as possible. I don't have anything against your website being used for entertainment purposes, but I still want kids to easily learn from the go-to online encyclopedia the truth that Santa Claus does not exist, and it should be written in the most straightforward way possible. Stay safe, Félix An (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

We don't have consensus support for 'imaginary', either. It is just plain wrong because Santa is partly based on a historical figure. Folkloric seems to have better support, and has the bonus of being factually correct, so I switched to that for now. I suppose our other option would be to go back to the longer standing 'legendary' which we had before Felix changed it a few months ago. - MrOllie (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I think "imaginary" is clearer than "folkloric". —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you as well, Granger. MrOllie, I would like you to please note the conflict of interest, as DonFB mentioned. Kringle Claus is the owner of emailSanta.com (he disclosed this on the talk page), the website that originally bent the meaning of the ambiguous word "legendary" to make it mean "very famous," as in the context of "the legendary Pierre Trudeau" or "the legendary Steve Jobs," not "the legendary Antigone." It is still there (click the link at the top of this discussion to see it). If we listen to him and use "folkloric," he potentially has a plan in mind already to somehow bend the meaning of "folkloric," probably saying something like, "Santa's real! Look, he was a folkloric figure that so many famous folk tales mentioned, so he's GOT TO BE real!" This way, it would defeat the article's purpose (and WP's purpose in general) of delivering quality, uncensored information to kids and adults alike. Due to the conflict of interest, I will revert back to "imaginary" for now, as I can't see any way the meaning in "imaginary" can be bent to favour the existence of Santa Claus (or at least it would need extreme doublethink. Félix An (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

We should not use incorrect terminology because of some fear of what someone may or may not do on some other website. That really would be censoring ourselves. Also, reverting my edit due to someone else's potential conflict of interest doesn't make any sense, unless you are claiming that *I* have some sort of conflict. - MrOllie (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

But if we are using words that don't communicate the right meaning to readers (i.e. the truth that Santa Claus does not exist), it would defeat the purpose of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. The meaning communicated to the readers has to be right, and I think "imaginary" conveys the meaning more strongly and clearly compared to "legendary" or "folkloric". Félix An (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree that we should use words that communicate the right meaning to readers. Now how do we communicate that Saint Nicholas is an exaggerated version of a historical person, and not something that was made up ('imagined') out of whole cloth? A good parallel would be someone like Johnny Appleseed, who is called a legend in his article. - MrOllie (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The article does mention - in detail - that Santa is based on Saint Nicholas under the first heading. The lead section should summarize the most important ideas to the reader right off the bat and let them understand right away, instead of having them scroll down and read carefully to learn crucial information (i.e. the fact that Santa doesn't exist). The choice of the words needs to make ALL readers think, "Santa is not a real, living person" right away, not "Hmm... he might be living, but I'm not too sure," because at that point, younger readers will go with their instict and think that he is real, although older readers might bother to scroll down and read carefully. Félix An (talk) 03:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

So you want us to knowingly use an incorrect term in the lead sentence for fear that 1) Readers won't know what the word 'legend' means, even if we link it and 2) readers won't continue onto the second sentence of the lead, which makes clear that Santa is based on a fourth century historical figure? - MrOllie (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• sigh* No, not incorrect. "Legend" might actually be more incorrect, as it is ambiguous and might be interpreted by believers in Santa Claus as a famous historical person, like Sir John A. MacDonald or René Lévesque, rather than a myth. This would then make the article not 100% accurate. Félix An (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand. Santa Claus is an exaggerated version of a historical person, Saint Nicholas. You accept that is true, correct? - MrOllie (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes! Of course I know that! I've known that since forever! Félix An (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Then what exactly is the problem with a reader interpreting that Santa Claus is based on a 'famous historical person'? - MrOllie (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The article has to clearly differentiate between the historical St. Nicholas, who was real, and Santa Claus (with the red suit, ho-ho-ho, chimneys, etc.), who is not real. Félix An (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree. But the article has to do that without falsely implying that there is no historical basis at all in the opening sentence. - MrOllie (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The opening already describes Santa as an "imaginary figure originating in Western Christian culture." If the "originating in Western Christian Culture" part is not clear enough, we can further clarify it, while still keeping the word "imaginary" to describe Santa Claus. I just realized that the next sentence clarifies it, saying, "The modern Santa Claus grew out of traditions surrounding the historical Saint Nicholas..." so the opening already clarifies that the imaginary character was based on a historical person. Félix An (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the opening claims that Santa is imaginary and nearly immediately it contradicts itself. You have summarized the problem, now how can we fix that in a way that you won't revert? - MrOllie (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The current lead gives the impression that Santa Claus is an imaginary figure indirectly based on a historical saint as well as other figures. Is that not accurate? —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Another possibility: how about changing "an imaginary figure" to "a figure in Western folklore"? Would that work as a compromise? —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. Folklore is inclusive enough to cover cases where there is some element of historical basis, but the majority of the story is made up, which is what we have here. - MrOllie (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

How about an "imaginary figure in Western folklore..."? The words "imaginary" and "folkloric" have different connotations to them, so I wouldn't think it would be redundant to have both. It's more likely for people to interpret it correctly this way. Félix An (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Imaginary isn't the correct term, so I rather think it is more likely they would interpret it incorrectly that way. Felix, could you perhaps suggest some phrasing that would be acceptable to you that does not contain the word 'imaginary'? That's the sticking point for me. - MrOllie (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps as a way to bridge the gap: "a figure in Western folklore" with a link to the definition I referenced above. That definition, from https://www.dictionary.com/browse/folklore, states plainly that folklore pertains to "false or unsubstantiated beliefs". For ease of reference, I've repeated the pertinent parts of the definition from https://www.dictionary.com/browse/folklore here:

• the traditional beliefs, legends, customs, etc., of a people; lore of a people.
• a body of widely held but false or unsubstantiated beliefs.
Kringle Claus (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kringle Claus (talk • contribs) 19:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

How about "mythical"? The dictionary definition for "mythical" tells readers that it is from folklore and that it is imaginary. Félix An (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Mythical sounds good to me. - MrOllie (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Alright then. I did add this critical piece of information to the lead section a few days ago, so I think that makes up for it:

"Typically, after the children have fallen asleep, parents play the role of Santa Claus and leave their gifts under the Christmas tree. Tags on gifts for children are sometimes signed by their parents "From Santa Claus" before the gifts are laid beneath the tree." Félix An (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I also mentioned "folklore" and "myths" a few extra times throughout the article so it's clearer that he doesn't exist. Now, we should ensure the rest of the article is written objectively, that it is written based on the fact that Santa doesn't exist. Félix An (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think "mythical" works. Read the lead of the Myth article. Santa Claus doesn't seem to fit. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm really lost now. Should we switch back to "legendary"? Félix An (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, I agree that "mythical" is not quite the right term. A centaur is mythical; Santa evolved from historical roots over hundreds of years. Legendary is a sub-optimal choice because, as Felix has rightly pointed out, it can be misinterpreted. If legendary is acceptable to everyone else though... . Felix, you have not stated an objection to using folklore (other than asserting that I would do something nefarious with it). "Folklore" is the most accurate description to date. I have no problem supporting a different phrase if a better one can be found, regardless of who suggests it.

Felix, I am also removing your additional wording until there is some consensus here. Let's avoid an edit war and discuss this on the Talk page in a positive, productive fashion. Both you and I have a potential conflict of interest. Kringle Claus (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I do oppose the use of the world "folkloric." I have a feeling that the meaning can still be bent somehow to argue that Santa Claus exists. Félix An (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any reason other than "a feeling" or "bent somehow"? Please understand that this is in no way meant as an attack on you. I'm just trying to get us to the best possible description. As an aside (and definitely irrelevant to the selection of which phrase to use), I suspect that a phrase like "folkloric" would cause anyone who is seeking the truth about Santa to search for the definition of that phrase. Then they would discover that he is based on "false or unsubstantiated beliefs". This would probably be less likely to happen with more commonplace phrases like "mythical", "legendary"" or perhaps even plain "folklore". Again though, completely irrelevant to our consideration here. Kringle Claus (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I insist on keeping the paragraph (it's just copied from down below) regarding the fact that parents play Santa Claus, because it's an important fact that readers need to know RIGHT AWAY without scrolling down. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Félix An (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

If it is just copied from down below, then why duplicate it? If it still exists on the page then how is removing the duplicate censorship? "because it's an important fact that readers need to know RIGHT AWAY"? Remember, "Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers above personal concerns." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kringle Claus (talk • contribs) 22:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

For the love of Christmas, just go back to LEGENDARY. It is the correct word. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:F42A:4F40:7281:322C (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I know, Kringle Claus, I am making the readers of the article my top concern. I want to make it as clear as possible the truth about Santa Claus. It was agreed upon in the past on this talk page (see the archives) that the opening of the article should be clear that Santa does not exist. To the anonymous IP address above, we agreed that "legendary" is too ambiguous. Félix An (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

To repeat: If it is just copied from down below, then why duplicate it? If it still exists on the page then how is removing the duplicate censorship? "because it's an important fact that readers need to know RIGHT AWAY"? Remember, "Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers above personal concerns." Are you suggesting that duplicating content in an article is now acceptable? It would also appear that you are placing your personal opinion over the readers' interests: note your comment "readers need to know RIGHT AWAY". There are three categories of readers of this article: those who no longer believe in Santa; those who want to find out the truth; and, those who want to believe in Santa. Again, I invite you to discuss this matter here in a positive, productive fashion.
Regarding the descriptive adjective, I'll ask my questions again: "Do you have any reason other than "a feeling" or "bent somehow"?" Please understand that this is in no way meant as an attack on you. I'm just trying to get us to the best possible description. Kringle Claus (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any opinions on the words to use in the lead section? I would like to hear from some others, please. Félix An (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Legendary is fine, and was the consensus for many years. I don't see a strong enough consensus to change it here, and many have even agreed that legendary is acceptable. Established consensus should remain until a new consensus is formed.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 23:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. If people don't know what the simple word "legendary" means, they can look it up. It is exactly the right word. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:4CC0:7718:DE43:F165 (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It is not the right word, because the more common meaning of "legendary" today is "very famous" (both definitions are in the dictionary), and the reader might understand it as such, as when one Googles "legendary people", there are people such as Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Donald Trump, etc., and obviously, Santa Claus should not be categorised as such. Therefore, the use of the word "imaginary" is better, and there are many WP:RS that use the word. I cited a few. Félix An (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

So you've said, several times. And the inadequacies of 'imaginary' have been pointed out to you several times. It is time for you to propose some new wording or stop beating the dead horse. - MrOllie (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I seem to be the only one but I wholeheartedly agree the opening section's use of "Legendary" is not the best choice of wording. We'd like our children to open up an encyclopedia and figure straight out he's not a real person. A fictional character that's modeled after some deeds of an actual historical figure does not disqualify the fictional character itself from being termed fictional. And no it's not just children, I read Wikipedia 5-10 hours a day and understand English but millions and millions of us are not a native academic English speaker and I think we must be taken into account to by not using heavily complex wording that needs research to figure out the true intent of. I immediately searched up legendary when I saw it and said, uh, doesn't "Legendary" also mean he can be a real legendary person? And some (highly respected dictionaries) seem to agree so. Thus, I believe we can bridge the gap by saying a Santa Claus is a fictional character based on a historical figure Saint Nicholas, or something of that nature. No one would object that right? Yet I am no Wikipedia editor or English master to be able to say so. So you tell me. I suggest a fictional character based on a historical/legendary Saint Nicholas. It's 100% factually correct, isn't it? More simple and way clearer than the current status of legendary which has a double meaning, especially for those of us not as versed as you guys in English terminology, and of course children. Dr.EbrahimSaadawi (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

References

"🧑‍🎄" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 🧑‍🎄. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 3#🧑‍🎄 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 15:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

Mr. Claus 2A02:C7F:D603:D800:31C2:569A:698F:A7B8 (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi anon, would you like Mr. Claus to redirect to this article? I have done that for you just now. Félix An (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2020

2806:107E:F:45F9:7D17:92C9:58FD:6B18 (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

santaclaus, originaly Nicholas paradise willirex se callo y se suicido

•  Not done - it's not clear what changes you would like to be made. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 17:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it was an attempt at a disruptive edit by a new user. When I put it in Google Translate (Spanish to English), it said, "santaclaus, originaly Nicholas paradise willirex fell silent and committed suicide". Félix An (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2020

The last paragraph before the section ‘Criticism’ has a full-stop instead of a comma next to the word ‘geography’. 71.178.41.80 (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)