Talk:Santa Claus in Northern American culture

Dutch Claims

This page seems to suggest that Father Christmas / St. Nicholas is a Dutch invention, rather than a Western European celebration which is also celebrated by the Dutch, amongst many others. No sources are provided for the claims. I think it's factual inaccuracy placed by somebody with a pro-Sinterklaas agenda.212.64.98.189 14:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed With Spoiler Warning

To all those that argue with me on this...I believe that there is something messed up with you that you don't think someone that is real is real. There needs to be a spoiler warning added the the beginning of this whole damn article! I mean, why spoil Santa for eyes that wander on to this page! I am 15 years old and still believe in Santa Claus and ALWAYS will, but I really think that this article could ruin Christmas for some if they read the article. Please put a spoiler warning on this article...we do it for movie plots...why not here?

Dss971 05:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this

Edenane 12:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Well-intentioned, I think, but I'm not sure how to do it. If you put a "spoiler" warning on the page, wouldn't that itself give away the game? I mean, if Santa is real, what spoilers could there be? If you believe he exists, and you see that there are spoilers about him, what on earth could that mean? (Keep in mind: spoiler warnings exist basically for creative works; that's what you'd be implying Santa is.)

Removed text

I took the libety of removing the line "although he does not exist". While it is a factual statement, there are other ways we can say this without being blatant. --Imp88 06:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Santa Claus calculations

I removed the section "Santa Claus calculations." It is a completely useless section as it is. It was originally posted by the user Cabledude, whose only contribution to Wikipedia was this section of vandalism for this article. If this is one of the most frequently vandalized articles, don't you think this section applies as a mean joke, i.e. vandalism? Now, if someone were to determine if any of the user's calculations were correct, and do it in a way that is more encyclopedic, perhaps something could be added back. However, this is an encyclopedic article that does not need to give reasons as to why Santa Claus does not exist. This page does not pretend that Santa Claus exists. It presents actual facts and myths associated with the legend of Santa Claus and its historical roots. The deleted section spoke in a way that presents Santa Claus as a real being, though in a very mocking and derogatory tone, which is not how anything on this page should be presented.

Originally, this section was a sub section to "Christian opposition to Santa Claus." I don't think this was a mistake. Examine this line: "However, since Santa does not visit children of the Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or Buddhist (except maybe in Japan) religions, this reduces the workload for Christmas night to 15% of the total (or 378 million according to the population reference bureau)." I think this was originally being derogatory, at least in the way it was being presented, to Christians. In addition, what is the "population reference bureau." I assume something else made up? I think the person just went from there mixing up all sorts of things in physics with their own creativity to make things sound plausible, at least to a point. The ending is the real giveaway.

The original section included a sentence that ended like this: "instantly crushing his bones and organs and reducing him to a quivering blob of pink goo." It had since been cleaned up to "instantly crushing his bones and organs," but seriously, do you think the person who originally posted the section really did the proper research? For emphasis once again, "pink goo," anyone here think that belongs there? It was a crafty, long winded piece of vandalism that was just creative enough to last two full months on this page. I surely hope that it doesn't get added back in.

Honestly, do you think this is a good article with this section in there? On the top of this talk page it states: "Santa Claus has been listed as a good article; it adheres to certain quality standards." Don't make this read as a joke. - 152.163.100.135 09:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Jack Frost

Why is it that there is nothing said about jack frost...as is he not the one whome looks in the windows to make sure that the kids are being good...before christmas...and he then tells Santa whome has been good and whome has been bad? Something should be said about him as well.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.191.69.149 (talk • contribs) .

What? What do you mean. United States citizens have never heard of that.

Baba Chaghaloo

The intro mentions that this name for Santa Claus is used in Afghanistan. Can a reference be provided for this claim? Ordinary Person 02:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hungary

"In Hungary, Father Christmas ("Télapó") is a different figure from St. Nicholas (Mikulás)." -- no, he isn't. What sources did the user who put this in the article use? "Télapó" actually means "Father Winter" (or "Daddy Winter", since it's an affectionate term) and this name was mostly used for Santa during Communist times when the names of most holidays were secularized (e.g. Christmas became fenyőünnep, "pine tree holiday", etc.) Since the early 1990s the terms Mikulás and Télapó are used as synonyms. – Alensha 寫 词 21:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

also, in Hungary he has nothing to do with Christmas, he arrives on December 6 and brings sweets; the Christmas presents are brought by Jesus. – Alensha 寫 词 21:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Czech your mistakes!

Umm, the Czech equivalent for Father Christmas is given as 'Ježíšek' which means 'little Jesus.' I don't want to remove it because he is somehow pertinent to the matter at hand. Saint Nicholas comes at the beginning of December, accompanied by both an angel and a devil and dispenses children coal or goodies. I will try to find the Czech equivalent and enter it in here when I figure out what it is.

Top Picture

Wouldn't it be better to have a picture of a person dressed up as Santa for the picture at the top of the article? When I first looked at the picture, I thought that something was really wrong with this person's appearance until I realized that it wasn't really a picture of a person, but really some decorative item. Also, this picture doesn't have Santa's traditional hat on--it doesn't seem like a very common portrayal as the picture's caption would suggest. --Brandon Dilbeck 04:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Top Picture 2

Agree with other user, the top picture should be replaced with a better one.

Spoiler Warning?

I think it would be a plausible choice. Opinions?

I'd hate to spoil it for little kids, but I don't understand how we would do it. "Don't read this article if you believe Santa Claus is real" I mean, there's no plausible way to do it. No.--CountCrazy007 21:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say we could remove all real acknowlegement that Santa is their parents, referring to it as a "legend" without specifically saying kids are "made to believe that Santa is real". The article on "Santa Claus rituals" could have a section with a warming something along the lines of "Warning: This section contains spoilers that may disappoint young children". --TexasDex 21:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The vandals are funny, this is not, dont be stupidOwwmykneecap 02:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no real way of preventing this article from spoiling childrens fantasies. But, note that most children can only use the internet by themselves by the age of maybe 7, and most children stop believing by the time they're 8, so that leaves about one year of children who this article will dissapoint. Personally, I was relieved when I found out Santa Clause was fake, the thought of a fat old man watching me at all times, like while I was in the shower, was rather frightening.

A 'this article is not meant for young children' or a 'spoiler warning' will encourage children to read this article

IMO there is no reason why it should not be possible to present all the content and variety of viewpoints you would expect from a good wikipedia article without dashing any child's firmly cherished beliefs. For instance the article in its current version acknowledges that Santa Claus is supposed to do things that are physically extraordinary and then says that magic is often given as an explanation. The information is there, but judgement upon it is left to the reader. I don't think it is necessarily a problem for young children to find out that conceptions of Father Christmas throughout the world sometimes appear to clash with each other. That's magic too. Ireneshusband 20:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Santa's real. I was given a picture. It really ticks me off when you people say he isn't real.

Cheddar Cheesia 22:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Santa Claus is very real

- I don't understand you people. Not to be rude. Santa isn't real, he just isn't! He may be in our hearts but let's be mature people; adults saying Santa is real are naive and living a lie here. There is no such thing as Santa Claus, but I am all for making children believe in it. I can't stand when people tell me that Santa Claus is real, especially adults. You put your children's presents under the tree every christmas and do you see any Santa??? No. Hello; your forging it yourself and yet lying to yourself that Santa really exists. Were all adults here; we know the truth; don't go trying to preserve are tainted beliefs.

Ahhhh... and yet no one answers...

Stop trying to make everyone think you know everything. Just accept the fact that Santa's real.

Cheddar Cheesia 23:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"Anglo-Saxon"

In the "Ho Ho Ho" section I have replaced "Anglo-Saxon" with "English speaking". I'm not sure if this is what the earlier author meant by "Anglo-Saxon" so it would be good if someone could do some fact checking here. Does Santa/Father Christmas say "Ho Ho Ho" in Barbados, or in Ireland?

"Anglo-Saxon" is almost never used in contemporary British English to refer to any modern-day English speakers except when reference is specifically being made to U.S. ethnic politics. In the U.S. the term is both poorly defined and highly politically charged. See the Anglo-Saxon article for more about this. Ireneshusband 19:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization of Santa's various names

There's gotta be a better way to organize Santa's various names in various countries. Any suggestions? 199.126.137.209 00:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It's getting ridiculously long, and I haven't even added his Taiwanese name. A-giau 05:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Santa smoking

I noticed that the doll in the photo at the top of the page shows Santa smoking a pipe... now I know that many years ago this was a common site 70,or 80 years ago, but now I think this is a BAD message to send to our kids, and I believe the photo should be deleted, and put with a photo of a more acuarate photo of Santa Claus.

"More accurate"??? ... I'll leave that aside for the moment, but "the stump of a pipe he held tight in his teeth, while the smoke, it encircled his head like a wreath" -- As long as that poem is read to children, Santa smokes a pipe. Let's not be PC to "protect the kiddies" -- I doubt the image drove legions of Victorian kids to start smoking in emulation of Father Christmas. Unless he's depicted as bing indoors in California, then it's just wrong. --Scix 01:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Does the thought of a somewhat eccentric man climbing on people's rooftops and entering their homes in the middle of the night send a good message to children? Morganfitzp 06:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What!? No it is not! Let the kids enjoy this jolly man. Let them have fun! bobsmith319.

Merge with Origins of Santa Claus

Each of these articles is lacking the other's information. Morganfitzp 06:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't exactly understand what you mean... please explain in more detail about what you mean and then we can talk. bobsmith319.

Reasons for GA Delisting

This article's GA status has been revoked because it fails criterion 2. b. of 'What is a Good Article?', which states;

(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific guideline on citation, as well as some other editors — see talk page).

LuciferMorgan 21:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Lying? Whaaa?

Lying about Santa? Parents don't lie about Santa. Why does the article mention parents lying about him? That makes no sence.

Cheddar Cheesia 22:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comic Bill Dana as Jose Jiminez as Santa instructor

In one skit, probably on the Ed Sullivan show, Dana stood in front of a blackboard wearing a Santa suit and introduced himself with "My name is Jose Jiminez, and I am teaching the Santas for how to laugh." On the blackboad was written "Jo Jo Jo". Pretty funny back then. --CliffC 19:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Insertion of "fictional"

User Jigsawkramer inserted "fictional" in the opening paragraph. I'm not comfortable with this, as I am sure many youngsters will be looking at the page in the upcoming season. As you read the page a "mature" reader can work out whether Santa is real or not, and I would rather it stayed that way. I know we present facts, and the old version presented facts in an intelligent way - if you think about it you can work out the correct conclusion. To my mind that is better for a child than just being told "because that's how it is", which is the current approach. To avoid a 3RR I've not reverted, what do the rest of you think? LeeG 13:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's not necessary because it's blatantly obvious to those who aren't already pre-disposed to believe in him, and for those who are, why shatter their belief in the name of objectivity? Seeing as how it is a brand-new edit and thus has no long-standing presence giving it weight, and with two positive votes and no negatives, I'm going to revert it. Discuss if you want to re-add, but I'm erring on the side of maintaining innocence until the discussion is over. Nerrolken 07:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with these points; other fictional characters, such as the Easter Bunny, are marked as fictional in the opening paragraph. In addition, as mentioned above, Wikipedia has much more dramatic, adult-themed, and (very debatably) 'damaging' articles that shouldn't be viewed by children - and it is not our job to police them. Wikipedia is not a site provided for (or censored on behalf of) minor children. Parents who do not observe their children's internet usage will likely be surprised to find their children know a LOT more about the world than 'Santa is fake.' Tuviya 03:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Replacement for the NORAD Picture?

Surely, on the Information Superhighway and in the whole wide world, there is a better picture for the header of the Santa Claus article than the plastic- and awkward-looking CGI Santa provided by the North American Aerospace Defense Command? That guy looks weird and silly, not at all as comforting and jolly as the man should. I'd suggest the sketch from lower in the article, but it would be best to have his whole body. Anyone care to offer up a better picture, in the name of all that is good and jolly in this world? Nerrolken 08:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree.... that Santa Claus is horrible! --189.135.61.75 08:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

IS A FICTIONAL CHARACTER

I LIKE HOW THIS IS THE ONLY WIKIPEDIA PAGE ABOUT A FICTIONAL CHARACTER THAT DOESNT SAY ITS A FICTIONAL CHARACTER —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.195.132.253 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Wow, man... The discussion about this is about an inch and a half above your post... Good thing you made a new section, otherwise people might not have found it... And the ALL CAPS really helped, too... Nerrolken 19:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

nonexistant people?

I feel this link should be removed as it does not say he is nonexistant in the artical (Because he is real*) I feel it should be removed so as children dont get the wrong idea.

• To presserve many a joyus childhood.

Brandon ha —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.93.96.99 (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Gold and Cookies?

Refering to Saint Nicholas

This man was going to give them over to a life of prostitution; however, St Nicholas provided them with gold and COOKIES, enabling them to retain their virginal virtues and marry.

That cookies thing is some kind of joke, right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.70.3.194 (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

I think cookies is kind of charming. But it looks like a joke added by an anonymous author of November 8, and I don't find any corroboration elsewhere, so I've removed it. If there is some authority for cookies, I apologize. Fitzaubrey 16:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture

The picture here is horrible! A computer image?! Replace it with a real-life person dressed as Santa, with a caption saying "A man dressed as Santa Claus" or something. Tamajared 14:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is this article in the "non-existent people" category?

I was shocked and appauled to see that this article is in that category. That's the problem with the world today. You people have no faith.

Merry Christmas

the_farmer_who_wants_a_wife —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.214.180.245 (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Think about the children!!!!

You guys don't think about who can read this. I mean what if some 4 year old kid waltzes on to this site and reads santa's fake. They would be like: "OOOHHH.. I'm gonnawrite in "santa." WHAT!? He's no-no real?WWWWWWWHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!" SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS, CHANGE THE ARCTICLE!!!!!!!--SkeletonLego 21:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course they "thought" about that, which is why the article specifically calls Santa a "figure" in the introduction. Plus, what kid who doesn't know about Santa is going to know about Wikipedia, much less visit this article, much less understand it? There's no censorship on Wikipedia, sorry. -Boss1000 22:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• For one thing, Wikipedia is NOT censored for minors, for number two, they could be looking at this very talk page, and number three, how many people do you know that still believe in Santa and know about wikipedia, much less type all the stuff to get to this article? Roron Corobb 13:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait, Santa's not real? WHAAAAAAAAAAAAT!?!?!?! No, I'm just kidding. He has a point, but as said before, Wikipedia is not censored for minors, so there's nothing we can really do. RememberMe? 05:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Intro Paragraph 2

The article is semi-protected at the moment, but the following reads as an anti-American, anti-American English rant, to be honest.:

"Father Christmas is a well-loved figure in many countries and predates the "Santa Claus" character. "Father Christmas" is similar in many ways, though the two have quite different origins. Using "Santa" in places that predominantly call him "Father Christmas" is often viewed as an Americanism and is quite rare, although they are generally regarded as the same character."

Its unsourced and its self-contradictory. 129.234.4.10 19:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The Santa Claus Article

Type in 'Santa Claus' in the search bar on Wikipedia. Read the overview of the article. Then close it and read my comment.

Seriously, what do you think of this article??? "Santa Claus is a mythical character" NO. he's NOT. I don't know who wrote this; I don't care if you're some kind of genious scientist, you've got to BELIEVE. I don't care if you say to me, "There's no proof he's real." Well, I've seen him flying right outside my window (Rudolph is real, too), and it was NOT a dream, I can guarantee you that. There's no proof he isn't real, either. Haven't you ever heard of the spirit of Christmas? Proof isn't everything, you know!!! Didn't you ever see the Polar Express?

I quote:

"Sometimes the most real things in the world are the things we CAN'T see."

And that's exactly right! Seeing isn't always believing. Can we see God? No. But we know he's there, watching over us each and every day. Can we see the Devil? No. But we know he's there, trying to make us sin each and every day. Can we see emotions? No. But we know they're there, being used by us each and every day. Some people are trying to find out what stimulates our emotions and how to prevent sadness. That's baloney!!! Who cares what stimulates our emotions; God put them there for a reason: To help us learn from our mistakes and live our life to the fullest amount!!! He obviously meant for us to have sadness, anger, dislike, boredom, but he also meant for us to have happiness, excitement, humor, joy!!! Joy!! That's what Christmas is all about!!! The JOY. The celebration of His birth. The beginning of a new year. The belief, that sweet belief, in the jolly old man who comes and brings us presents and reminds us of the true meaning of Christmas!!! That wonderful person filled with the Magic of Christmas!!!

Whoever wrote that article needs to start believing. Merry Christmas to you all, and the most important word of the season is:

B E L I E V E

Many of you may have a little Christmas miracle this year. Watch for them. Believe in them. They happen each and every day--we just take them for granted. :) 69.115.74.121 21:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• All true, but our work here is trapped in the confines of writing an encyclopedia. SteveHopson 21:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry I greatly respect your statement that you have to believe but I will repeat what I said earlier on the talk page for this article, Wikipedia is NOT censored for minors, even when it come to Santa Claus being real. When I was 12 I hid behind the couch to see Santa and was greatly disappointed by the fact that I saw my dad putting the presents under the tree and drinking the milk and eating the cookies. I stayed the whole night waiting for him, but he never came. Sorry, but Wikipedia has to stay with all of its articles having the entire truth, whether you like it or not. Roron Corobb 23:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Santa Claus is FAKE!!!

Swedish tradition

Santa does not live in Dalecarlia in Sweden according to swedish tradition. Santa lives in the North Pole, not even the swedish wiki says anything about Dalecarlia. Can anyone confirm that Santa lives in the North Pole according to swedish tradition?

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus

DEAR EDITOR: I am 8 years old.
Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus.
Papa says, "If you see it in THE SUN it's so."
Please tell me the truth; is there a Santa Claus?

VIRGINIA O'HANLON.
115 WEST NINETY-FIFTH STREET.

VIRGINIA, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, VIRGINIA, there is a Santa Claus. He exists certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! How dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus! It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

You tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest man that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, VIRGINIA, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding. No Santa Claus! Thank GOD! He lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood. john k 16:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an inspirational forum to get kids to believe in Santa Claus. Roron Corobb 04:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ireland

Er..."Ireland ("Daidí na Nollaig")"? The predominant term used in Ireland and the predominant term used in the Irish language are not even slightly the same thing. john k 19:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Protect the children from this book and part of Wikipedia!

The stories of st. nick are far deeper than ever there are so many versions that it isn't even funny. There is a book that i think should be an adult book called the adventures of nickolas. This book is about santa. In this book the mother goes to give the 80 yr old santa a gift of holly and finds him dead on his bed. Then the villagers are stumped on how they can tell the children so they bury him in the pine grove and put on a big red rabbit skin suit and try to be a fat jolly santa!This book is obviously not a kids' book and ruins the children's view of christmas. I know this story in my head and am looking at this article and saying, "wow your really breaking some kid's heart down there." This should be banned from wikipedia or blocked to children or something. This is the computer age people children go on chat rooms and forums all the time. It is not that hard to just block it. To conclude my reason of this I do beleive in santa not as a figure but a saint. Giving hope to the poor and helping those in need. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Poseidon01 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Yes, Poseidon01, there is a Santa Claus.Sonic Hog 19:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no Niñito Dios in Mexico

It's "El Niño Dios" Pontricacio Contricanis (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

lovely truth telling

hi i am masterlauryn and i am 15.my mom told me that SHE is santa claus.is that true or a lie because i dont recieve gifts anymore from him,cause' i know now that santa is a fake.IS IT TRUE THAT SANTA IS YOUR PARENS???DONT LIE BECAUSE GOD IS WATCHING YOU !!! PLEASE SEND ME A MESSAGE BACK!!--Masterlauryn 01:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)masterlauryn

There is proof that he exists child

When I was a child like you the other kids said that there was no santa. I didn't beleive them so I looked myself. There is physical proof he does exist. Acording to the christan scrolls st. nickolas was from somewhere up north not at the north pole thats fake so are the elves. St nick was placed as a saint in the roman catholic church as the giver of gifts but was persicuted and thrown out of the records. St nickolas still did his duties untill later on when he was killed by the roman catholic priests [supposidly]. But eventually he vanished after a mob tried to kill him. He was never seen agian The story of him was tweaked here never was elves there never was a workshop besides his cottage, and the point of proving that santa exists is as if proving that god exists. we can't prove god exists but the people beleive so he is real. The true santa is not the department store santa. He's fake. But the people make santa real so your parents just want to prove that santa dosen't exist to save a buck. The world is greedy. And people are trying every way to get money or save it so don't beleive that your parents are santa. they aren't santa does exist. DO YOU HEAR ME HE DOES EXIST. there is just the people who are to selfish so they ruin your life. This is my opininon only.

• Santa was a real person but now isn't. *sighs* I never knew there were so many people that could edit wikipedia but cant accept Santa isn't real. *oh my* Roron Corobb 04:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, but this is just referring to the legend of Saint Nicholas. They're effectively right. 86.138.130.116 13:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Christian Opposition

There's a part of this article that seems biased and assumes a groups motives without any backing. The third paragraph under Christian opposition states: "A worry that some of these have is that their children, eventually realizing that Santa is a deception, might draw the same conclusion about the existence of God." I would suggest that this statement be removed as it does not follow the NPOV stand that Wikipedia has set out. There is no reference on this point.

Agreed and removed NickCharbuski 20:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"For the Children"

• I just want to point out that any young child who is using the internet unsupervised is probalby mature enough to know that Santa is real. Bredd13 05:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean "is probalby mature enough to know that Santa is NOT real"Roger jg 03:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Odin and Santa

Connections between Odin and Santa Claus are tricky to find if you don't know how to look. The Church has gone to great lengths to destroy any evidence of the pre-christian european religion. If you do a search on the name Jolnir, which is one of Odins many names you will find the connection, whether you believe them or not is up to you.

Gangleri67 02:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Locking Page

I recommend locking this page from edits... Apparently vandals are still registering accounts simply to vandalize this page. It's current status would allow any new member to contribute, encouraging vandalism. --KCMODevin 17:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, we should clean up this talk page, this has several innapropriate subjects/content for a Wikipedia article and should be cleaned up to constructive discussions. --KCMODevin 18:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

IS SANTA REAL?

Then you do not understand the history Santa Claus. Go and read the entire article. Because, those who fail to understand history .... Val42 03:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Santa was real in about 1600's but im probobly wrong on that but he lived in Germany and gave out gifts to people he had no magic he was a giveing person that was noticed and that changed real cristmas[[Tridentdc24 16:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)tridentdc24Tridentdc24 16:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)]]

Headline text

SANTA IS RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes he is, and he's actually a Wikipedia editor, User:Santa on Sleigh. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Santa is Real - Prove otherwise!

Hi all

I'm sorry but I don't buy this 'Santa is not Real' conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theory is that Santa is just some kind of commercial marketing tool and that parents simply tell their young kids that he is real in order to give them some fantasy and happiness in their childhood.

I've heard all this before - First it was JFK and the CIA, then NASA never went to the Moon, then Princess Di was bumped off by the English Secret Service and now its parents and Santa. I'm sorry _ I just don't buy it.

Wikipedia definition of a conspiacy theory states

A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social, or historical events) as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful or influential people or organizations. Many conspiracy theories claim that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes.

In this case the conspirators are the parents.

also

Testing the validity of conspiracy theories

Perhaps the most contentious aspect of a conspiracy theory is the problem of settling a particular theory's truth to the satisfaction of both its proponents and its opponents. Particular accusations of conspiracy vary widely in their plausibility, but some common standards for assessing their likely truth value may be applied in each case:

Occam's razor - is the alternative story more, or less, probable than the mainstream story? Rules of thumb here include the multiplication of entities test. Methodology - are the "proofs" offered for the argument well constructed, i.e., using sound methodology? Is there any clear standard to determine what evidence would prove or disprove the theory? Whistleblowers - how many people—and what kind—have to be loyal conspirators?

To date those that have argued that Santa does not exist have offered little proof to suport their wild claims. I suggest that until firm proof that Santa does not exist is ascertained (eg by an systemic audit of everyone on the planet or a search of the North POle) that the existence of Santa be notated as 'disputed'.

I also draw your attention to a recent NASA bulletin in which NASA refers to assistance it is giving to Santa. NASA is a public organisation and one that would never lie - any claim that Santa does not exist amounts to an argument that there is a NASA conspiracy and it all begins to sound much like the 'We Never Went To The Moon' argument again. Heck even Walter Shirra saw Santa Claus in orbit!

Seriously though...

I think it fairly indisputable that long ago there was once a guy called St Nicholas (Santa) in Turkey who gave gifts. Ok he my be dead now but if you believe as a christian in life after death then he is up there somewhere in Heavan - so as absurd as it may sound he really does exist, just not here and not in the quaint European/American fashion we have come to iconise Santa.

Have a Merry Christmas from Peter

Pberrett 12:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not fair to the smaller kids!

You need to change it just a little bit. What if a little kid wanders on this site and never believes in Santa? Thats one of the great things about being a kid. Dont take it away so early! It is just not fair! You should keep the picture of Santa on there, but say something like, Santa is so real! And mabye a fake Santa address like.

9543 Snowy Dr. Frozen Lake NP North Pole 67543

That would do something nice to the site. I can change it for you. WE ARE ALOUD JUST TO LET YOU KNOW!!!! And I can if I want to. Its not like the site belongs to you or something. If you could, mabye put a little more info about Santa. Like other names he is called in other countries, and more pictures of him. Mabye even what he looks like in Turkey and the other countries. That might be nice. But my point is CHANGE THE PAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :( --Neofun 16:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Easter Bunny/Tooth Fairy

I agree with the "Wikipedia is not censored" argument, but given the controversy here, it seems gratuitous (not to mention Eurocentric) to slam the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny while we're at it. For the moment I'll remove that sentence. Andersem

Again, please lock this talk page and the main page

There is too much vandalism going on, we need to lock this thread to long-time registered members instead of allowing all registered members (including new accounts). --KCMODevin 19:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

NORAD

Since there's a "Norad" section in the article, should updates be given about where "Santa" is, according to this? Or should it be left out of the article because of "possible fiction", "non-notability", and "breaking news"? AstroHurricane001 21:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia and Wikinews have some overlap, but typically Wikipedia doesn't do minute by minute parroting of this sort of stuff. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

~unown~ santa maybe real. we don't know the truth thow!!! he could really be out there!!

Santa and nasa cooperation section should be removed

The section about sant and working with nasa to assist him in his world wide gift giving obviously fiction. It's a cute idea, but it does not belong on wikipedia.

I would disagree. Maybe the heading needs to change - perhaps it should be included in a section about government agencies acknowledging the belief in Santa Claus through public relations. But it's citable, notable, and interesting to some. Bugmuncher 04:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, NASA?

I object to the section that begins like this:

NASA has recently begun providing specialised technical assistance to Santa on Christmas eve in order to help Santa deliver presents across Earth. According to a NASA press bulletin

The Debris Imaging Radar System, used during the night launch of NASA's space shuttle mission STS-116, is a new system at Kennedy Space Center in Florida that will now be made available to Santa Claus on Christmas Eve.

While I understand the sentiment in protecting the ideas of children or whatnot, Wikipedia is neither aimed toward minors, nor censored for them. This should be more encyclopedic, if not removed entirely as cruft. Tuviya 03:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I have cut off the copy /paste from the Nasa website wich in all case goes against Wiki policy. If someone wants to sum up this crank in his/her own word, feel free Roger jg 04:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

6th, not the 5th -- and there is no »celebration«

"Sinterklaas, the subject of a major celebration in the Netherlands and Belgium, Germany (where his believed date of death, December 6, is celebrated the evening before on December 5), which in turn inspired both the myth and the name of Santa Claus."

This is not true in the case of germany. In germany, the 6. is celebrated as »Nikolaus« or »Nikolaus-Tag« (Day of Nikolaus) and not on the 5th. Strictly speaking, it is not really »celebrated«. The evening before, children are asked by their parents to place a boot (or a plate) outside of their door (or at a window). They would then tell their children that Nikolaus would fill it with sweets, candy, nuts and clementine. On the next morning, the kids would find their boot or plate filled with such little gifts. It is also usual, that relatives would give the children little presents (often some bucks or candy) on the 6th. There are also fabric-made red boots, parents or relatives can fill with little gifts to give away. However, this happens on the 6th of december not on the 5th and it does not replace christmas eve or christmas.

Also, for germany. On the evening of the 24. which is called »Heillig Abend« (holy evening), a Santa Claus alike character called »Weihnachtsmann« but in some regions also mixed with »Christkind« (litterally »Christian Child«) is coming to town. This evening is used to meet with the family, eat and celebrate. After that, the gifts, which were already placed under the christmas tree are handed out to everyone. This is called »Bescherung« (handing out presents). The two following days, 25th and 26th are both christmas days (known as first and second christmas day). Both are holidays and are usually used to meet relatives, see the family etc. It should be noted, that the whole christmas Christkind, Weihnachtsmann, Santa Claus as well as remnants of pagan celebrations or christian belief are strongly mixed (story of Jesus birth still appears, nearby christkind and mostly the Weihnachtsmann or Santa Claus (both appear to be similar).

Some Germans also conflate Nikolaus and Santa. Some of my German friends refer to "Santa" coming on December 6 and being accompanied by Knecht Ruprecht Sigurdrífa (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

American Santa?

This article describes an Usonian Santa, not all Santas go through the chimney or have flying reindeer. -Lapinmies 01:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the title has been changed, good. -Lapinmies 19:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No censorhip for minors, intro, etc.

Calling Santa a "symbolic man" is merely confusing. That either means he is a man who symbolizes something, or that he's a kind of man-like symbol. Either one might be defensible but only on the grounds of lots of contentious folklorism and psychology. Here's a simple solution:

In North American folklore, Santa Claus is a jolly old man who delivers presents to children on Christmas.

This is perfectly true; and calling something folklore doesn't imply that it's false. Similarly, if someone prefers, we could go with "According to many stories" ". . . to tradition" or ". . . to legend"; or "In N.A. Santa is a legendary figure". All these suggest he might be mysterious, that lots of people might wonder about him, but, they don't out-and-out claim that he's not real.

Furthermore, this is exactly in line with all the other articles on Figures in myth, folklore, and legend. None of them feel the need to claim so-and-so doesn't exist, they just give the appropriate context for the claims that he does exist: According to Greek myth; according to the bible; accoding to Finno-Mongolian folklore, etc.

Even if, per impossibile, Santa doesn't exist, I further conjecture that Wikpedia is no more in the business of saying so (as matters stand) than it is of saying that God doesn't exist.

This is interesting though: is it ok to say that as many people grow up they cease believing in Santa? (And then cease getting presents from him, unless you're lucky, like me.)

Dutch colonial era

There is no contemporary documentation of a St. Nicholas Christmas cult in the Dutch colonial era of America. If there is, please cite it — historians have been looking for any. — Walloon 09:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

just a note from the land of no chimneys, when there's no way in but the front door, we without fireplaces are in agreement that santa gets in with a magic key. i knew one family that told the kids that they made a spare set for santa, sans magic. and about him being real or not, and wikipedia ruining it for the little ones, any good parent of a kid that little wouldnt let the kid play on the computer. (what with anatomically correct articles and such, i'd call wikipedia rated PG at least) in my world (chicagoland suburbs) kids figure it out or are told no later than age 7ish. then around 8 or 9 they get their own email address. go ahead and say he's make-believe. put that burden of proof (of reality) on parents that dont stuff stockings at midnight but still wake up with socks full of toys. then surely something miraculous is happening. otherwise it aint. :) 76.203.22.9 (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

MERGE! North American Santa, not Santa generally...

This article makes no sense. Why have a separate "Santa in North America" article, and then spend over half the article talking about Santa Clause else where, or where Santa originates from. All that information should be in the Santa article, not this one. I'm going to start moving and deleting, unless anyone objects. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the reasoning behind describing the different national variations on the story is that the American Santa developed from the 'gift-giving spirit' traditions of a large number of cultures. They're all relevant to the article because they all informed the American take on the tale. Some pruning is in order (I don't think there needs to be nearly so much of it in the intro), but I think the content in the 'origins' section in particular is helpful. -- Vary | Talk 17:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the "gift givers from around the world" can be moved and would be a good addition to the main Santa article. It's all a bit moot as we are in lockdown over there. --David Shankbone 17:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Damn, I didn't even notice that bit; you're right, that doesn't belong here. -- Vary | Talk 17:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This should be edited to focus more directly on the North American traditions, and other stuff should be moved to the Santa Claus article or discarded. Applejuicefool (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SantaClausConquersMartians.jpg

Image:SantaClausConquersMartians.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Image replaced by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Santa_martians.JPG (better quality image of poster).Johnmc (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

This section is almost identical to the Santa Claus on film article. I only noticed this while doing FUR's for some of the article images, so I have no interest either way. But there is no need for two identical articles - or sections of articles - dealing with the same subject.Johnmc (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bad Santa film.jpg

The image Image:Bad Santa film.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Article is nothing but a "cut and paste" job from other WP articles

This article needs to be seriously merged in the Santa Claus article. There's nothing new here about "North America" that isn't found elsewhere. Does an article about "SC in NA culture" need a lengthy regurgitation about Santa's origins in Germanic culture? Wouldn't a redirect to the Santa Claus article be appropriate? Are we next going to see articles about "SC in African culture", "SC in European culture", "SC in South American culture", "SC in Asian culture", etc. etc.? Why? What's the point? Can the few differences from one continent to the next be handled adequately in the Santa Claus article? I am going to merge some of this stuff if I don't see a reasonable argument against doding so in 24 hours. Thanks. ReverendLogos (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to say agree with you. After keeping a steady eye on you I came across this discussion (surprised your using it) and I agree with what your saying 100%. Everything here is akready in the Santa Claus page to start with so you are correct in my eyes in this situation. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I kind of agree. I actually think a separate article for the evolution of Santa in North America over the last 200 years would likely require its own "daughter" page to the main Santa article, but this page is basically just a re-hash of that article (including the origins/history of Saint Nicholas, Sinterklaas, Father Christmas, etc, from Europe before North America's "re-imagining" of the character). I'm actually surprised to see this page was once rated a GA article. I know pages can go through major changes over time, but I honestly don't know how this ever got to GA status unless it was a completely different article that subsequently had all relevant "North American culture" info removed and replaced with the duplicate info from the main Santa article. I wouldn't be so quick to suggest a merge, but I would say the page needs major cleanup (removal of duplicate info about the evolution of the character in Europe) and expansion of the article with regards to Santa in North American culture over the last 200-or-so years. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 13:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually Santa Claus was the good article. This is the orginal Santa Claus article, just renamed. A history merge would be in order if the 2 articles were merged again. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)