Santa Claus was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 12, 2005 Good article nominee Listed August 15, 2006 Peer review Reviewed November 10, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Arctic B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArcticWikipedia:WikiProject ArcticTemplate:WikiProject ArcticArctic articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Holidays: Christmas B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Christmas task force (assessed as Top-importance). Christianity: Christmas / Saints B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Christmas task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Saints (assessed as High-importance). Template:FAOL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about Personifications of Christmas?

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

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

{{edit semi-protected}} Typo in beginning of article

Duplicate 'was' after 'figure which'

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

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

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

{{edit semi-protected}} Wrong translation for Romanian apelative.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay I realise this is an old topic, but as I am new to wikipedia I was unsure on how or where to go about discussing it. I thought we should rediscuss the positives and negatives of censoring the language used in this article in order to keep children from uncovering the truth about Santa.

IT is IMPORTANT to reconsider having the truth out there on wikipedia. While some would argue that wikipedia is an informative website, that tries to only portray the truth, should there be boundries on just how far we take this? An example I read in FAQ was something along the lines of adults might want information and it is wrong to mislead them (this is my understanding, everyone is welcome to read it themselves and may interpurt it differently) while this may be true, is informing a few adults worth distroying the magic for thousands of children?

For those who believed in Santa, remember back to when you were little, and how much Santa meant to you. In those days the average age a child found out was about ten. But this was because children didn't have computers, and couldn't access the truth with a few clicks of a mouse. Now a child of 5, or sometimes even younger could jump straight onto the computer and find out the truth. The child might not be emotionally ready for this, as they have not been able to naturally mature. Remember every child is different, and it should be up to the parents and the child when they are ready to know, not a website that does not even know the child. I would like to discuss both sides of the argument, because I believe this is an important issue that must be talked about in depth, so wikipedia can function in the most beneficial way.TheFutureGood (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)TheFutureGood[reply]