Talk:Santa Claus

The Tooth fairy needs your help.

If any of Santas helpers have time, would they please consider assisting The tooth fairy. Her article is not all it could be. Penyulap _talk 11:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean - her????--Jack Upland (talk) 09:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

north pole

It shouldnt say he just lives at the north pole with no qualifiers, i have most commonly heard lappland as being a stupid ugly fat hobo butt the place he lives — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.174.58.161 (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• In the USA it's "North Pole" - What country are you from?
• WhisperToMe (talk) 05:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The North Pole, maybe.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I always heard that it was magnetic north but over hundreds of years that has changed to a random point in the middle of the ocean.90.200.103.155 (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly not true north.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This belief is not only held in the USA. Chances are if you ask anyone from the continent of North America where Santa Claus lives, they will answer with "North Pole". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone please source the claim that Norwegians think Santa lives in Drøbak ? Growing up over there, I never once heard that. It was always "at the north pole" or "in Greenland". 76.113.27.172 (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Everyone knows he lives in Lapland. The north pole is just an american thing. Due to American media the idea of the north pole is spreading these days however it is usually just merging with lapland and so people think finland is further north than it actually is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.174.58.161 (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I've heard some people think he doesn't exist.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

More Source Material

I'm just noting here, for those who may want to expand the origins section of this article, a book that attempts to trace Santa farther back in time:

Phyllis Siefker, Santa Claus, Last of the Wild Men: The Origins and Evolution of Saint Nicholas, Spanning 50,000 Years (McFarland & Company, 1997) ISBN 0-7864-0246-6

Here's an excerpt from the Introduction, to give a suggestion of the book's scope:

Our Santa is one of the last descendants of a long line of dark, sooty, hair-covered men, the remnant of a pre-Christian god of awesome power. Our pipe-smoking "jolly old elf" is only one offshoot of this old, old god; throughout the millennia this figure evolved in many ways and in many lands, adapting to new roles as society changed, until today there are remnants of the Wild Man from Russia to Britain to Japan to Greece, in ballet and movies, in Christian churches and in shopping malls. No other being has had such a far-reaching influence on our modern culture. He has shaped our core mythologies in the guise of common legendary characters in mythology, plays, and literature: Santa, Adonis, Harlequin, Robin Hood, Robin Goodfellow, Peter Pan, Satan, the Piped Piper, the court fool, Merlin.

These commonplace figures have a single root in one powerful being — a priest to some, a god to others, and the personification of evil to still others. Originally a beast-god who reminded people of the cyclical nature of the world, of death and rebirth, this Wild Man was part of fertility performances throughout Europe. He was a godhead so strong, so universally worshiped by "pagans," that Christianity found him the major impediment to its goal of European salvation. In Europe, Christianity and the old god clashed in anger and violence. To undermine his grip on the people, Christianity labeled his worship evil, and called his followers devilish. In the seventh century, Pope Gregory tapped this creature for the physical form of evil, Satan.

The fact is that Santa and Satan are alter egos, brothers; they have the same origin. In our era, it is difficult to see a relationship between the two. Santa Claus is our Christmas symbol, after all — the representative of generosity, goodwill, and material blessings. And Satan: he may not be an integral part of most Americans' cosmology today, but he definitely is the antithesis of all things bright and beautiful. He is lewdness, temptation, and destruction.

On the surface, the two figures are polar opposites, but underneath they share the same parent, and both retain many of the old symbols associated with their "father." And therein lies the tale.

Tfmisc (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Santa-Satan that is nonsense, the name "Santa" has nothing to to with "Satan", but everything with "Saint". "Santa" is just a bastardization of "Saint Nicholas", any resemblance between the names is incidental. You are right in that Santa is derived from Saint Nicholas, (Sinterklaas), and that there are many theories which claim he was a Christianization of an earlier pre-christian "holy man", possibly a Shaman.Mahjongg (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Deceiving children subsection

Someone revamp the "deceiving children" subsection, to make it both scientifically credible and at the same time linguistically obfuscated for children reading, and give it a more skeptical tone for young readers, so that these claims seemed as if they came from the coldest of skeptics, and not from true believers. A selective tone affecting only younger readers, if possible.

No credible scientist would take pride in openly writing about these facts in such a nature without the willing intent to emotionally affect children, so why should Wikipedia editors?

You may later delete this talk and only keep said information. I know children do resent finding out about said "deception" when they're still children, and this is not psychologically acceptable.

AFOH 22:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

If a child is looking up "Santa Claus" in an encyclopedia, then he or she is not likely to be irreparably damaged by reading such an article. Does Encyclopaedia Britannica "obfuscate" their language for the protection of children? Powers ^T 13:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Encylopaedia Britannica offers two distinct versions of the article for two different age groups, omitting crucial, perhaps 'sensitive' information for the younger ones -- sensitive in the sense that it may have a negative psychological impact, as opposed to being presented sensitively by repeating one's personal sensibilities several times, as in this section, overemphasizing Santa Claus as a lie, which is, following research, prone to cause emotional damage on children who come across this information before they a certain age[1], with possible damage depending on the manner on which they do -e.g. from their parents, or by reading an online encyclopedia-, for which Wikipedia, according to Google, is the most popular website for Santa Claus related searches, including questions of whether he is real, which one may assume, are more prone to be asked by children than they are by adults. Henceforth, offering protection to children seems rather important when presenting children with information, especially when neutrality and reliability can be both preserved, by only modifying the type of lexicon employed to a more scientific one, and with this, bolster this article's credibility.

Reference:

"At 4 to 6 years old, children may begin questioning whether Santa Claus is a real person. It is not until kids are about 6 to 8 that they may be ready to understand that Santa Claus is real, but not in a concrete sense. Their ability to think abstractly begins developing at this time and continues on until they are about 14 years old."

Douglas Kramer, MD, child and adolescent psychiatrist; University of Wisconsin Medical School.

AFOH 05:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFOH (talk • contribs)

Your claims are odd to say the least. Britannica does indeed maintain a Children's Encyclopedia and a Student Encyclopedia which address topics in simpler language. But I see no evidence of your claim that the Children's Encyclopedia's "Santa Claus" article soft-pedals the nature of Santa Claus. Both it and the "Santa Claus" article from the standard Britannica have the word "legendary" in the very first sentence. In addition, you may have noticed that there is no version of Wikipedia explicitly for children; were we to start such a project, then I'm sure you might get some support for your ideas to protect the delicate sensibilities of children. But Wikipedia is for all ages, and we do not censor it for the protection of minors. The relevant example is the Standard Britannica edition, not their Children's Encyclopedia. Powers ^T 15:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I ought to note you had initially asked whether Encyclopaedia Britannica "obfuscated" their language for the protection of children. The answer was that they employ a distinct, simpler lexicon for younger readers. The reason for you to ask this rather daft question is only of your concern, and I considered this very irrelevant. Also, I'm not particularly sure what is it you mean by stating, and I cite "WE do not censor [Wikipedia] for the protection of minors", as if excluding Wikipedia editors to only those without concern for content quality or content relevance, like yourself, implying these proposed changes as censorship.

In any scenario, there is substantial evidence that, for children to find out about Santa Claus before a given age, could result in psychological damage depending on the form in which they gather this knowledge. In this regard, I suggest modifying this section for content refinement and prevention of unnecessary harm, for anyone interested. Thanks.

AFOH 23:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You have provided no evidence of your claim that children suffer psychological damage from learning about Santa Claus. It's an absurd claim and you need to find some solid sources if you expect anyone to give it any credence. As for EB, they rewrite some of their articles for use in encyclopedias targeted at children. They do not obfuscate the nature of Santa Claus, however; they are quite clear even in the children's version that he is a legendary figure based on a number of historical and mythical personages.

You are asking Wikipedia to remove factual information in the interests of protecting children. I pointed out that other encyclopedias do not do this. We do not have a children's encyclopedia in which we can rewrite articles in a child-friendly tone. And even if we did, if it was created along the lines of EB's children's encyclopedia, then we still wouldn't hide the fact that Santa Claus is legendary.

If you have specific wording you'd like to see changed or removed, please specify what it is. Otherwise, stop wasting everyone's time.

-- Powers ^T 17:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

If someone could provide more references backing this type of emotional damage, please do so. Else, modify the section whilst adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines, without suppressing information, for the reasons above. Otherwise, you may ignore this. AFOH 04:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the specific phrasing I suggest to be modified is the constant use of textual emphasis on Santa Claus as a deceptive tradition, as sorted in saying that "it is perhaps "kinship with the adult world" that causes children not to be angry that they were _lied_ to for so long", and that "the criticism about this deception is not that it is a simple _lie_, but a complicated series of very large _lies_", and finally that "the objections to the _lie_ are that it is unethical for parents to _lie_ to children without good cause". This unnecessary over-emphasis on the verb "lie" seems rather pretentious and does not provide any further improvements to the topic, other than being a probable factor for resentment for any potential younger readers, prone to damage them emotionally where the rest of the information wouldn't. I do not possess enough time time to argue for these specific changes any longer, provided I have other issues to address. I recommend for anyone who may possess more references and veritable knowledge of the topic to provide them in order not to cause unnecessary harm, in a way compatible with Wikipedia's rules, and to improve upon the poor use of lexicon in the section as per quality control.

AFOH 04:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

3rd Opinion

There is no damage caused to children because they read an informative article: most importantly we are not going to censor our articles to prevent damage to our audience.Curb Chain (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

There is indeed, as at least one reference suggests, strong potential for emotional damage caused by resentment from reading a sensitive, ill-emphasized and poorly written delivery of information, for which kids before a certain age might not be prepared to learn in this particular mode; I understand you perhaps require a couple of hundreds of years to reach these conclusions for yourselves, yet meanwhile you could improve upon this article's writing style. This is not a suggestion for censorship, but for content improvement. If it is truly the case that Wikipedia's rules do not allow for content improvement based exclusively on unfounded censorship fears, then perhaps it is time to update the rules themselves, provided that these notions are withholding valuable refinements Wikipedia requires. AFOH 03:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

What reference suggests any such thing? Surely you don't mean the Kramer quotation. Powers ^T 20:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to propose such changes on the the policy's talk page. Also, please sign your posts properly.Curb Chain (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Page ratings?

Bunch of Scrooges must have been submitting ratings! This was a fun read, and if there is some inaccuracy or lack of documentation, is that going to stop the world from turning? Or even diminish the value of Wikipedia? To whoever is responsible, thanks for the several smiles and the one Ho Ho Ho. (and to the Wikipedia official, sorry for any violation of the guidelines here) Merry Christmas! Anewcharliega (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)