Talk:Santa Claus/Archive 9

Lying isn't a neutral observation

Twice now, I've had to revert a single user's edit reintroducing a non-neutral titling into the article (1, 2). After the user's first revert, I took into consideration the user's comments and offered an altered section title that was both more accurate and more neutral of 'Belief in Santa Claus', as the discussion was actually about that, and not the "Pedagogical debate about lying to children". They reverted it yet again, this time complaining of OWNership on the part of yours truly. I thought I'd initiate a discussion on the matter (since the other user hasn't) and get some feedback from others. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Jack, I've reintroduced it multiple times but I am not the first one; I believe Hans Adler reintroduced it before me. Obviously, the person who wrote it in the first place (not sure who and don't feel like checking) thought it should be that way, so as far as I can see that's already 3 against 1. That is what I meant by "consensus". Looking through the talkpage archives here, it's clear you've been around for quite awhile trying to make everybody else submit to your ridiculous idea that we shouldn't "ruin" Santa for children. Well, lots of people believe children shouldn't know about sex, but we have Penis, anal sex, etc. Some cultures believe children shouldn't see owls, but we have Owl. So again, we're not going to change the article just because you're afraid about making kids cry (it's their parents' fault for lying in the first place, not ours for telling the truth), and hiding behind NPOV (preposterous, as everybody but you has agreed by this point - Santa is not a real person and I am pretty confident that you are just pretending to believe he is in violation of WP:POINT) is just a waste of everybody else's time. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't have to be neutral on the existence or otherwise of Santa Claus. It's not remotely an open question, it's not remotely a matter of POV. There is a tradition that parents lie to their children about this. So what? They know that they are lying. What's your problem? Hans Adler 21:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The word "lie" is indeed a neutral word when it is used precisely. The word "lie" means to say something you believe to be false with the intention of making the person you say it to believe that it is true. That is exactly what a lie is and it is also exactly what parents (and others) do when they tell children that Santa Claus exists. There is a dispute about whether or not it is acceptable for parents (and others) to lie to children about the existence of Santa Claus, but it is beyond dispute that the word "lie" precisely describes what most adults are doing when they tell children that Santa exists. The header including the word "lie" is not problematic. 142 and 99 (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd hope we can come up with a title better than "Pedagogical debate about lying to children," but "Debate regarding Santa's existence" and "Belief in Santa Claus" are simply inaccurate descriptions of the section. Have there been better titles in the past? Can we start by agreeing that the section title should actually describe the section? --Ronz (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Added 18:41, 22 March 2010 unless there's some reverts that I missed. --Ronz (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind removing the word "pedagogical". It does not add anything to the section title. Off hand I cannot think of a shorter title that is not either less accurate are too vague. But suggestions from others are welcome. 142 and 99 (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: Pretending isn't lying. Actors aren't lying to you when they play a part are they?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

BH, actors do say things they believe to be false, but they do not do so with the intention of making the person they say it to believe that it is true. Actors expect that audiences know that they are acting, thus they are not lying. Adults who tell kids that Santa Claus is real are not just "pretending" the way actors are. 142 and 99 (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I would note that your example is flawed, 142/99, but let's sidestep that. The use of the word "lying" has negative connotations, period. However the entire body of text in the section explicitly points out that there is no backlash against the 'pretense of Santa'a visitation' from children, who instead feel, upon learning, that they know something that the "little" kids do not.

Hmmm, how about "Pretense of Santa's visitation"? It is accurate, and avoids the negative connotations not present in the text. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No. That sounds like doublespeak. Lie is a one-syllable word, it is exactly what parents do, no matter how good their intentions are. My own mother told me Santa existed (though she didn't celebrate christmas as a child, my father did) and I was actually sad to find out he did not, I don't think she wanted anything other than to make me happy, and that lie did certainly give me more happiness over the years than grief. I don't harbor any resentment or feel any kind of anger towards her for having lied to me about that. That doesn't change the fact that it was a lie. When you pass your own personal beliefs on to a child, that is not a lie because you believe it to be true yourself. When you tell you children that there is a fat man in a red suit who brings them presents when you're actually giving the gifts yourself, you obviously know it's not true, and you intend to make them believe that it is, therefore you are lying. Negative connotation, perhaps, but there is no way around it.

The section is not about the "pretense of santa's visitation", it is about the debate among pedagogy experts regarding the wisdom (or lack thereof) of lying to children about Santa Claus, which is exactly what they are doing. Does it make them horrible people? No. Is it intrinsically bad? I'd say no. That doesn't stop it from being a lie, though, and for most people in many western countries is just one of many lies they tell their children with the excuse of "protecting them from the real world" (some parents tell their children that sexual intercourse is actually just hugging, or that babies are made by kissing or just by falling in love; the easter bunny and tooth fairy are also obviously not real but children are also told they exist). What word do you use for good-intentioned lies? I don't think there's another word for it; if there is, I'm not aware of it. Lies and deception are lies and deception; our job is not to make parents feel good about themselves or keep kids from finding out the truth (on the contrary, we should be promoting truth). --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of addressing your childhood, I think you are bringing in some personal baggage that we don't have room for here, Node. "Lie is a one-syllable word, it is exactly what parents do" Really? We also tell our kids that everything is going to be all right, that the good guys win in the end and that if they eat their veg, they will grow up to be big and strong. None of that is true, do we call that a lie as well?

Iget that you personally have strong feelings about this, but the article cannot afford to address your apparent resentments. The litmus for inclusion is verifiability, not truth; we don't promote truth here, and never have. We reproduce cited information, gelled together to give our readers an overview of a topic. We do not evaluate claims, we do not judge the veracity of them (except to ensure we aren't giving them undue weight) and we don't use the wiki articles (or discussion) to soapbox. The section being retitled to something approximating "Pretense of Santa's visitation" actually encompasses all the cited material in the section. The section title you are advocating isn't supported by the text currently in the section which, as has been pointed out, has undergone considerable revision since its initial use in March of last year. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha, if you reread my post you'll notice I mentioned that I hold no resentment towards my mother for lying to me. It was one of those sweet lies people tell their children that make the world seem a more magical place, if only for a little while. Being lied to about Santa didn't screw me up and I am not of the opinion that it has screwed anybody up - maybe disappointed some kids, but is that really the end of the world? I think the main problem with it is that for most parents, it's not an isolated lie, it's part of a greater attitude that kids need to be coddled and lied to because they can't comprehend, which in my own personal observations of my age-peers results in sheltered younger adults who are not prepared to deal with the real world (in which people do engage in premarital sex, Santa does not exist, and people lie and steal and murder every day just so they can buy themselves another car or another house on an island). Anyhow, regardless of my opinion of the whole Santa thing, even many people who are advocates of lying to children about Santa (my mom, for instance) readily admit that it is lying and don't see anything wrong with that, since it is "lying to make kids happy". --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You state it is about verifiability, not truth. But there are numerous commentaries, articles and blogs (blogs not as source, but just as telling) covering the lying (a quick search yields:[1] [2][3], [4]). It is excactly the lying part that makes it such a controversy and discussion.
I personally am for a neutral heading if it is available and covers the subject (why force another heading just for the sake of it), but I fear "the Santa Lie" is hard to avoid. Joost 99 (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the idea that "lie" is not a neutral word is wrong. There are a great many cases where lying is not only acceptable, but even praiseworthy. It all depends on who you are lying to and why. When planning a surprise party, many people might have to tell many lies to the surprisee to pull it off, all of which we say are perfectly ok. Jack wrote, "We also tell our kids that everything is going to be all right, that the good guys win in the end and that if they eat their veg, they will grow up to be big and strong. None of that is true, do we call that a lie as well?" The answer is of course we do! That is because they all are lies - lies of the sort that we count as good lies.

Secondly, it is interesting that the word "lie" is already used seven times in the section we are discussing, yet it is only the section header that is being objected to. Other words used are "duping" and "deception". Furthermore, the sources cited that support lying to children about Santa Claus use words like "lie", "dupe" and "mislead", yet they have no difficulty making it clear that these are all things they advocate. In fact, one NY Times article cited begins with this paragraph: "The truths we tell our children are punctuated with lies. We insist that their drawings are beautiful or that we are not really upset. We tell them lies to protect them or to protect ourselves. And we deceive them about Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy so that we can enjoy their childhood a little more." Clearly the words "lie" and "deceive" here are not indicators of something bad, but something good.

The most precise description and the simplest word to use in the header is the one used already seven times in the section. It is also the word used quite freely by advocates of telling children that Santa Claus is real. That word is "lie". 142 and 99 (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's face it, "Pedagogical debate on lying to children" is just crap. Lousy writing. Pedagogical ==> of, relating to, or befitting a teacher or education...bad word choice. From Merriam's:

"lie, prevaricate, equivocate, palter, fib mean to tell an untruth. lie is the blunt term, imputing dishonesty <lied about where he had been>. prevaricate softens the bluntness of lie by implying quibbling or confusing the issue <during the hearings the witness did his best to prevaricate>. equivocate implies using words having more than one sense so as to seem to say one thing but intend another <equivocated endlessly in an attempt to mislead her inquisitors>. palter implies making unreliable statements of fact or intention or insincere promises <a swindler paltering with his investors>. fib applies to a telling of a trivial untruth <fibbed about the price of the new suit>." 1

Lying is incorrect. It clearly isn't neutral and promotes a negative connotation. Other words are available.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

BH, I notice you skipped right past the definitions offered by Merriam-Webster to the synonyms. M-H offers two definitions which are: "1. to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive" and "2. to create a false or misleading impression". Well, those definitions quite precisely define what adults do when telling children that Santa is real. It is an untrue statement and the intent is to deceive - ("to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid"). It also is to create a false impression. The definition fits perfectly.

If we look at the list of synonyms, we find that some don't fit because they are inaccurate for this context (like "equivocate" and "prevaricate" - there is no avoidance of commitment one way or the other when adults say that Santa Claus exists.) Some are just obscure (like "palter", which also is inaccurate for this case). But others sound just right. "To tell an untruth" - Yes, that is what adults are doing. "Dishonesty" - Well, since "honest" means " free from deception" and saying that Santa is real is a deception, then it is dishonest to say he exists.

You assert that using the word "lie" promotes a negative connotation, but the word "lie" is used all the time in cases where we do not view the lie as a bad thing at all. Like I said, even the proponents of lying to children about Santa Claus cited in the article use the word "lie" in describing what is being done. To call something a "lie" is not to suggest that it is wrong. It is just to precisely describe it as a statement contrary to what is believed for the purpose of causing others to believe that it is true. Some lies are good, some are bad, and some are controversial. This is a case of the last category. 142 and 99 (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

PS - BH, I already agreed with you that the word "pedagogical" can go. It does not add anything to the section title. "Debate about lying to children" is the best idea I have seen so far. It most precisely describes what the controversy is. 142 and 99 (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Er, I 've read the section four different times now, and I'm still having trouble seeing the 'controversy' or 'debate' bit. Each one of the cited references notes no controversy, no adverse effect on kids, and no real debate on the issue. So, if there is no debate of controversy, why are we as editors calling it such? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Really Jack? Try reading again the four sentences after the first quotation and the first sentence of the next paragraph. The second of those sentences reads: "The objections to the lie are that it is unethical for parents to lie to children without good cause, and that it discourages healthy skepticism in children." It seems to pretty clearly state that there is a view out there that the lie is wrong, thus that there is a controversy. Also, the article cited twice in the next paragraph (called How to deal with the 'is Santa real?') discussed the view that "It was unfair to trick children and leave 'evidence' such as empty glasses of milk." There are flaws in how the section is written, but there is no question that there is some controversy over the practice of lying to children about Santa Claus. 142 and 99 (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Look at what you ported over, 142/91; the flaws in the editor-paraphrased writing are apparent from word go: "The objections to the lie are that it is unethical for parents to lie to children without good cause, and that it discourages healthy skepticism in children" - an evaluative statement if ever there was one. Author Cline (a staunch atheist) notes a great many reasons why the Santa thing is wrong (discouraging healthy skepticism being fourth in ten reasons offered). The writing is suggestive, and lends undue weight to a "controversy" which is considered such by a very selective few. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, let's be clear about what the subject of discussion is here. The question was whether or not the word "lie" is acceptable to use in describing the telling of children that Santa Claus exists by adults who know that he does not exist and who tell children this in the hope that children will believe that Santa Claus exists. On that issue, there can be no question that "lie" is the correct word and does not imply that the lie is wrong. Secondly, you raised the issue of whether or not there really is a controversy at all. The section clearly says that there is one. The sources cited all are discussing the issue because there is an actual issue to discuss. If you google "santa claus lie to children" you get 2,400,000 hits, including a lot of citable sources that all discuss the issue as a live one. There can be no doubt that there really is a controversy. Finally, if you want to take issue with any details of how the section is worded that is fine. I have already said I think it is not well written. But let us be clear on the points already under discussion first: 1. It is a lie for adults to tell children that Santa Claus exists. 2. There is a controversy about whether or not it is an acceptable lie to tell. Any concerns about the section beyond that should either be raised in a new section on this page or should be put on hold until it is clear that we have concluded these two issues. 142 and 99 (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It is clearly lying. This has been established, consensus has been reached (note: one person disagreeing doesn't change a vast consensus). --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I point out the obvious - that children who are still of an age to believe in Santa Clause are not likely to have full access to the internet, and not likely to have the reading skills needed to get through an article of this length. Since there are no pictures of (say) Santa Claus being burned in effigy by angry mobs, I think we can safely conclude that no children are harmed by the writing of this article.

That being said, we might consider a Santa Clause (myth) article that lays out a child-accessible and child-centric view of the topic, just to give parents something nice to show their kids. Probably not entirely consistent with the purposes of the encyclopedia, but there's no sense being a wiki-scrooge. --Ludwigs2 16:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, call me a scrooge but that is against policy. Wikipedia is not censored, which also means that we will not create forks of articles for different subsets of the population who may be more sensitive to one thing or another. See pages such as Mohammed (there is no Mohammed (version for Muslims) without images), Penis (there is no Penis (for children)), Sex (there is no When a mommy and a daddy love each other very much, a stork comes and gives them a baby). So no, there is not and there should never be a version of this page that is "child-centric". --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Eh, it was just a thought. However, I dare you to start the article Penis (for children), just so we can watch the deletion discussion. Let me know before you do; I'll need to make popcorn. --Ludwigs2 01:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(ಠ_^ಠ) ...and I double-dog dare ya.

Seriously, how about a compromise. Drop pedagogical and I'll be satisfied. I do think lying is a bit harsh but then again the little beasts are vandalizing the wiki on a daily basis...Berean may tell those that he shot Rudolph and has him mounted on his wall.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll second that, BH. Let's change it to "Controversy about lying to children". 142 and 99 (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I third that. As far as creating Penis (for children), I'll have to get around to that when I have more time so I can make sure it's well-sourced and full of images that are appropriate for children. I'll change it now. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the text, but yield to consensus, as it happens to be a strict interpretation of policy, and I'm pretty strict about that sort of thing anyway. I imagine that the consensus will likely change right around December of next year. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I am sensing that there is a growing number of folk who think that the use of 'lying' versus a more leavening, neutral word, like 'deceiving' (1). I think that - considering that the intent of the title is remaining essentially the same, that this seems like a middle ground, and still remains within policy and guidelines. The point of collaborative editing is that the middle ground is the best place to be for not just us bt for the reader as well. This all or nothing crap isn't effective, and guarantees that consensus will change, further destabilizing the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I see no problem with deceiving. It's more precise and descriptive for what's really going on, since the deception involves deeds as well as words. I don't understand why anyone who rejects lie would accept deceive, but that's not my problem. Hans Adler 15:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hans, I was just considering how to word my response when you posted yours and said exactly what I was thinking! That change is fine with me as well. 142 and 99 (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

And I've reverted it back to 'deceiving' based upon your replies here. It is a more descriptive term, and that's what is sought here, as opposed to a non-neutral one. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(I have been following the debate, but I haven't commented until now) Yes, "deceiving" is more accurate than "lying". I say this with the 1987 version of Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary in front of me: "deceive (...) 1. If you deceive someone, you make them believe something that is not true, usually in order to get some advantage for yourself. (...)". --Enric Naval (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

How is that "more accurate"? The definition of lie is "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive". Therefore, if anything, "lying" is more precise and therefore more accurate. If someone is crying, we can say they're "excreting bodily fluid", because really that is what they're doing, but by saying they're "crying" we exclude the possible misinterpretations of other activities (urinating, ejaculating, nose-blowing, bleeding, drooling, etc). Similarly, "lying" is more accurate than "deceiving" -- parents are telling their children that Santa Claus exists when the truth is that he does not; they are not exaggerating (another type of deception) or making an understatement, nor are they making an ambiguous or indirect statement. If you go to Deception, you'll see there are 5 subtypes, of which lying is only one. Why not use the more precise term? I know Jack's motivation seems to have been to keep children from knowing the truth since he initially got involved on this page. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

the problem with the word 'lying' is that it is a strong word that implies malicious intent. I lie to you when I don't want you to know something because it works to my advantage that you don't know it. 'deceive' is a milder word that includes simple (even unintentional) misrepresentations. casting the continuation of a cultural myth as a lie is cynical and heavy-handed, on a par with asserting that marriage is just a socially legitimate form of prostitution. Parents are simply following a cultural norm when they tell their children about SC; there is no particular gain to them in it, so 'lying' is a misrepresentation of the act. --Ludwigs2 00:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, Ludwigs2 - You are dead wrong when you claim that "lie" implies malicious intent. It is not a part of the definition of the word "lie". Webster's says that "lie" means "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive" or "to create a false or misleading impression". It says nothing about the purpose of the person lying. People lie for many different reasons. Some of them are very positive ones. Jack listed some examples above. There are cases where when a person doesn't lie we would criticize them. The word "lie" is a neutral word.

Secondly, Node ue - I understand your concern that there are forms of deception that do not apply here (like exaggeration or understatement), but I agree with Hans that the the things adults do to create a false impression that Santa Claus exists is more than just lying. Yes, lying is central to the issue, but there are other kinds of deception that are also a part of creating the false impression that Santa is real. Besides, as I noted many comments ago, the body of the section in question uses the word "lie" six times in the first paragraph alone and seven times total in the section. It makes it quite clear that lying is the central type of deception here. But those who think that it is wrong to lie to kids about Santa would not be likely to think it any less controversial if they were only asked to deceive children in non-lying ways.

So in sum, (1) Both "lie" and "deceive" are neutral, descriptive terms. Thinking one is better than the other on grounds of neutrality makes no sense. (2) "Deceive" is probably better than "lie" because adults deceive both by making false claims and by other things they say and do that are not lies. (3) But it does not really matter to me either way whether the word "lie" or "deceive" is used in the section header. 142 and 99 (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Ludwigs2's assessment. Despite Node's rather novel approach to mind-reading, I'm not necessarily here to protect the kids (if I actually were, that would conversely mean that you were here to hurt them, and not even I think that of you); I'm here to keep the article neutral and enjoyable for the reader. Period. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

142, I sense that you are using the dictionary definitions in a literal way in order to avoid the common sense connotations of the two words. I hope that's not true, because that would make me unhappy. At any rate, do think we have a general consensus for the word deceiving, and since you claim not to have a real preference I'm going to change it back to that wording. If you object, I'm happy to open an RfC so that we can get a broader opinion on the matter. --Ludwigs2 05:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Parents use several methods to deceive children. Direct lies are only one method. There is also: pretending that the milk and cookies were eaten by Santa, bringing them to Christmas cabalgades, letting them watch films where Santa is depicted and not telling them that it's all fiction, etc. "lying" is too restrictive in scope. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

honestly, even 'deceive' is too strong, but there's no better word in common English for it. In sociological-speak it would just be the replication of a cultural practice, no different then 'deceiving' men into believing that it's important to wear ties or women that makeup and high heels are necessary accoutrements, or everyone that it's somehow obligatory to go to church on Sunday. None of those are lies, exactly, they're just cultural conventions that people get unwittingly coerced into obeying. Same with the whole Christmas thing: our culture makes such a hoorah about all the Christmas iconography that you actually have to go out of your way and be kind of a pug-nosed rebellious cad to insist that your child not believe the Santa thing. Neighbors will disapprove, store clerks will look at you with sullen resentment, your daycare provider or kindergarden teacher will write you off as a mean parent and try to teach your child about Santa behind your back... --Ludwigs2 09:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess the real issue is that some extremely religious people in the US feel that their religion forbids them lying under all circumstances, except perhaps to save lives. People who submit themselves to impractical rules such as this tend to become very good at splitting hairs: "I didn't lie, I just deceived." But we should not write our articles for hypocrites. The technical difference between lying and deceiving is that deceiving includes acts while lying is only about words. Disguising yourself with a funny coat and a fake beard is deceiving, not lying. The same is true for recruiting someone thus disguised for visiting your children. The actual lies are just part of a more general deception.

Lying and deceiving are of course words with negative connotations. That's because of the "usually in order to get some advantage for yourself" part of the dictionary definition quoted by Enric. Except for some religious zealots, the words are not necessarily negative, and I am not aware of any natural synonym without negative connotations. (Any such synonym would be used as a euphemism until it would have acquired precisely the same negative connotations.) And the negative connotations are also appropriate because they explain why there is a debate in the first place. Hans Adler 11:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think (and hope) we are about at an end to this discussion. Let me try to summarize. Here are the most recent stated positions of those who have been involved in the discussion here:

Ludwigs2 - supports "Controversy about deceiving children"

Enric Naval - supports "Controversy about deceiving children"

Jack Sebastian - supports "Controversy about deceiving children"

Hans Adler - supports both "Controversy about lying to children" and "Controversy about deceiving children"

142 and 99 (me) - supports both "Controversy about lying to children" and "Controversy about deceiving children"

node ue - supports "Controversy about lying to children"

Berean–Hunter - supports "Controversy about lying to children" (but said that it's "a bit harsh" and has not commented since "deceiving" was suggested)

Joost 99 - supports "Controversy about lying to children" (but has not commented since "deceiving" was suggested)

Ronz - No clearly stated preference, other than to object to "Debate regarding Santa's existence" and "Belief in Santa Claus" and to express the hope that we could do better than "Pedagogical debate about lying to children".

I'd suggest that unless node ue, Berean–Hunter, Joost 99, Ronz, or someone else not currently party to the discussion comments with a new objection to "deceiving" that we consider the issue settled. 142 and 99 (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"Deceiving" is fine with me. (re to Hans) Religion has nothing to do with it. People from all walks of life have created our vocabulary to reflect varying meanings to better illustrate what they have to say. We wouldn't have synonyms and adjectives that show various degrees of lying if this weren't so. "Fibbing" reflects those litte white lies...not using Wiki as a source but our page on Fib states "A form of lying that is usually forgiven because it is not intended to deceive" which is interesting in light of this discussion. When people want to illustrate an egregious lie, it is ofen called "bald-faced". It isn't splitting hairs but rather an attempt to more accurately convey the severity of circumstances.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, are people serious about this? Then if you wish to keep a section about such a "controversy", you should see to it that there are quotable sources to base it on, not just some urls you googled. Seriously, this article has more serious problems than such a non-issue inflated out of proportion by wikidrama. The same goes for the Bosnia thing. Please. "Some school director in the Balkans said he didn't like Santa", quick we need a h3 section about this on Wikipedia's Santa article.

There is a kernel of serious material in there, but it probably would need to be treated by an editor who knows what he is doing. I.e. a section on Santa Claus (or any "gift-bringer" figure) and child psychology, not based on an approach of "lies, all lies!! controversy!! about.com and stuff.co.nz said so!!". You can use the Condry study as a beginning. Then you will need to turn to academic works on child psychology, and lose all the journalistic crap. --dab (𒁳) 14:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Bosnia issue is undue weight. It should be removed.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I find myself in complete agreement with Dbachmann on this; I've been bothered by the trivial nature of the Bosnia bit, specifically the odiferous hint of anti-Islam sentiment running through it. And of course, I completely agree on the level of import being given to the "controversy" of the deception of children thing. Both are - at best - minority opinions, and I myself am partly to blame for allowing myself to get distracted by the inappropriate behavior of a few others to see that. I'll be more vigilant moving forward. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break 2

(1) I'm glad to see that BH supports using "deceiving" in the section header. That issue does seem to be settled now. (2) Let me be the fourth to say that removing the Bosnia section looks fine to me. I'd say that it should be done right away and if anyone else out there objects they can make a case here (preferably in a new section on this talk page) for keeping it. (3) I agree with Dbachmann (to some extent) about the concern about how well written the "Controversy about deceiving children" is. I noted previously that I thought it was not well written and I think the edits Dbachmann has made to the section do improve it. I also agree that it could be even better and encourage anyone who wants to work on it to do so. I would suggest, however, that discussions of how to make those improvements go to a new section on this page (which is why I put the arbitrary break in here). 142 and 99 (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Has Anyone Thought of Going to Expert Sources and Scholarly Experts ??

Been reading this fine book while "The Debate" above raged -

• Bowler, Gerry. (2007) “Santa Claus: A Biography”, Toronto: McClelland & Stewart Limited. ISBN 978-0-7710-1668-4 (0-7710-1668-9)

Gerry Bowleris a history professor at the University of Manitoba and the author of Santa Claus: A Biography, of The World Encyclopedia of Christmas, and webinar host at the University of Manitoba on Christmas and Santa Claus, as pointed out elsewhere in this discussion page.

Chapter 7 "Does Santa Have a Future ?" of Bowler's “Santa Claus: A Biography”, "trod" or "went over" the same ground as covered in the recent "Debate" -

Bowler - "Santa Claus: A Biography” - Table of Contents - Chapter 7 - Does Santa Have a Future ? as a pdf

Has anyone read the Gerry Bowler's 2007 “Santa Claus: A Biography” and Chapter 7 "Does Santa Have a Future ?" and the supporting notes starting at page 268 ??

Bowler - "Santa Claus: A Biography” - Notes to Chapter 7 - Does Santa Have a Future ? as a pdf

Being a new editor, my initial understanding is that on Wikipedia a high school student editor or college drop-out editor is the equal of scholarly experts in the field (or am I wrong on that count ??) I also heard that "Jimbo" is supposedly seeking scholarly and other subject matter experts to tackle the backlog of incomplete Wikipedia articles (or is that incorrect too ??) Wikipedia:Expert_editors (after another read of the quote "Greater involvement by scientists would lead to a "multiplier effect", says Wales. Most entries are edited by enthusiasts, and the addition of a researcher can boost article quality hugely. 'Experts can help write specifics in a nuanced way,' he says", it seems the idea of having "expert editors" is against Wikipedia norms of having "enthusiastic people" (regardless of their background) as editors.)

Has this group ever considered reaching out to Dr. Gerry Bowler at the University of Manitoba at e-mail: gerrybowler@shaw.ca and telephone of (204) 474-9830 for help and assistance from a scholarly expert on Santa Claus, or as his website states in "research interests" - "the intersection of religion and popular culture, especially Christmas."

Again, I do NOT have a "dog in this fight" (I am "indifferent" in view and opinion on how the content actually turns out on "deceiving" or "lying" or otherwise in regards to Santa and kids), so either consider or NOT consider checking expert sources and in engaging scholarly experts; you can as a "Santa Article" community just spend more time in "debate" rather than seek expert sources.

Try these sources below for a start. Johntoshiba (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography

• Bowler, Gerry. Editor (2004) “The World Encyclopedia of Christmas”, Toronto: McClelland & Stewart Limited. ISBN 978-0-7710-1535-9 (0-7710-1535-6)
• Bowler, Gerry. (2007) “Santa Claus: A Biography”, Toronto: McClelland & Stewart Limited. ISBN 978-0-7710-1668-4 (0-7710-1668-9)
• Crump, William D. Editor (2006) The Christmas Encyclopedia, 2nd edition”, Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, ISBN 978-0-7864-2293-7

Undue weight claims

Hello again,

It seems that consensus is close to being established that the section on opposition to Santa Claus in Bosnia lends undue weight among other problems with that section; I for one would have to agree.

However, Jack Sebastian has asserted in addition that the section on "debate about deceiving children" also lends undue weight. I'm not sure how that is the case, many parents in certain circles grapple with the issue of whether or not to lie to their children about Santa Claus; if anything, that section is too small. What about the children whose parents were honest, but who then "ruined Christmas" for their classmates by letting them in on the secret of Santa's non-existence? This is far from an open-and-shut issue; just because the majority (or so it would appear - I don't have numbers) of US parents tell their children that Santa Claus is real does not mean that there is no debate, or that the debate is not significant enough to have a place in this article. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It's like 4-5 paragraphs worth of text in this long article. And inside a "criticism" section instead of being a natural part of the history of santa claus (how and when parents started deceiving children, when it became controversial, etc.). --Enric Naval (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree the Bosnian part is out of place: either a (small) piece on general islamic opposition or non at all imo.

I don't see the deceiving/lie part being undue weight, certainly not after above discussion showed enough cultural references. But in the meantime Dbachmann has changed the text extensively added sentences as "Outside of rhetorical editorials, there does not appear to be any debate on the question" (OR especially because after that sentence there are quotes from a psychologist and a university research) The sentence "An article in The Huffington Post in December 2010 was dedicated to "The Santa Claus Lie" is totally undue weight to me. So I will change that back to the original. Bringing it in line with the flow of the text does sound good.

I don't agree with the off topic, because lots of aspects of the different Saint Nicholas figures and traditions made their way into the modern Santa Claus, so for me that is on-topic. I do think it could be a lot shorter and to the point (but that was not the tag given). Joost 99 (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the view that there is no "undue weight" issue about having a section on lying to children. As for concerns about the most recent changes to the section, I agree that the revision has problems, but the section as it currently stands is also pretty poorly put together. I agree that "the children whose parents were honest, but who then 'ruined Christmas' for their classmates by letting them in on the secret of Santa's non-existence" could be an aspect of the controversy.

Two other subtle aspects of criticism about the lie is not just the basic question of whether or not it is ok to lie in the first place, but further questions of the extent of the lie. A 1999 WebMD article that CNN re-posted here: [5] quotes Glen Elliott, Ph.D., director of the department of child and adolescent psychology at the University of California, San Francisco saying that it is not problematic initially to lie to children about the existence of Santa Claus, but it is important to not "prolong the fantasy for your own enjoyment when [kids] may be ready to give it up." Similarly, a 2007 LiveScience article re-posted on MSNBC here: [6] quotes child psychologist Bruce Henderson of Western Carolina University also saying that there is nothing problematic merely about the fact that parents lie to their children about Santa Claus, but that "forcing an elaborate Santa Claus story on children serves no good purpose for child or parent." These psychological experts express concerns about the extent and duration of lying to children that show that there is more to the issue than just the "yes/no" question of whether or not it is ok to lie about Santa Claus at all. These concerns have a place in the section as well. 142 and 99 (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

See, that's what I am looking for, citations - not extemporization about how "many parents in certain circles grapple with the issue of whether or not to lie to their children about Santa Claus; if anything, that section is too small"; yeah, no agenda there at all, right? The very reason I raised the point of UNDUE is that all the hullabaloo here in discussion was sparked by one contributor insisting on putting the worst possible slant on what virtually every psychological study - including those presented immediately above by 142/99 - was innocent fibbery, so long as it isn't carried too far or for too long.

Long story short, we don;t need to hear about your childhood, or personal views on the Santa fibbery. Bring citations to back up what you are saying or stay home. I think that's best. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not about me or my childhood, if I mention my childhood it is to make an article-related point, not to give you additional fodder. I really don't care much what you're looking for, I'm here to help write an encyclopedia, not serve you. You might want to note that I am not the person who originally inserted the section title "Pedagogical controversy about lying to children" (I wouldn'tve used the word "pedagogical", for what it's worth), so you might want to stop acting like that was me. I merely reverted your removal of that section (it didn't escape me that you made that change on, I believe, December 24th), and then again later I reverted your changes to the section name because I thought the previous version was a more accurate descriptor for the contents of that section than what you came up with. I don't much care what you think is best; plenty of citations have already been brought by plenty of people, this is a relatively controversial subject and everybody here seems to agree on that, you being the only exception. Even the sources all seem to agree that it is controversial for modern parents. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, we aren't talking about you; stop adding to the wiki-drama. Focus on the message, Node: back up what you are arguing for with reliable citations, or stay out of the way of those who are. No other commentary is necessary. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"We aren't talking about you" - that's essentially what I just said. You're free to ignore any parts of my message you find distracting. Happy editing. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

(Once more time, without the die order of wikidrama) The very reason I raised the point of UNDUE is that all the hullabaloo here in discussion was sparked by the addition of a title putting the worst possible slant on what virtually every psychological study - including those presented immediately above by 142/99 - was innocent fibbery, so long as it isn't carried too far or for too long. Please bring more citations that consider what seems innocent to virtually every person cited within the article section to warrant the UNDUE emphasis presented by the section title. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"...the UNDUE emphasis presented by the section title." We have had a lengthy discussion of the section header. That issue was decided by a clear consensus that the current header is fine. Eight different editors supported that header (or the alternative suggestion that uses "lying" in the header). You were the only editor that did not agree. Unless you can present a new argument that persuades others, the issue of the header would seem to be settled. 142 and 99 (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the most persuasive argument is that which is the obvious. The text doesn't speak of any controversy, Indeed, there are few enough examples in the section itself that the question of undue weight arrives out of reading the section and saying 'huh? what controversy are they talking about?'. I am saying, find more sources and text that point to a measurable, definable controversy. If you cannot find it, the section title is misleading, and undue weight in that it seems to endorse a point of view that isn't supported by the text. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Nobody would've done studies on it if it wasn't controversial. If everybody believed there was nothing wrong with it, why would psychologists question that assumption? It seems that consensus has been established that this particular section does not give undue weight to any kind of fringe POV, and the only person who seems to disagree is User:Jack Sebastian, so I think the issue can be safely put to rest now and the page left on the consensus version. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Put in brief Wikijargon, the entire question here is: do we have substantial WP:RS to establish that the "lying to children" thing is WP:DUE wrt the topic of Santa Claus as a whole?

So far, the answer is a resonding no. "Santa Claus" is a major topic, 21M google hits, 300k google books hits, lots of monographs, etc. This sad "controversy" so far leans upon

• two NYT op-ed pieces from 1991 and 2006
• a handful of googled blogs and websites (stuff.co.nz, about.com, quotesstar.com, flowcastingbook.com)
• a recent article from The Huffington Post, a notable blog, but still a blog.

In other words, assorted google results and incidential journalistic column-writing. This isn't enough, not within several orders of magnitude, to establish any sort of notability relative to the article topic. This isn't about "fringe povs", it is about WP:DUE pure and simple.

Again, I suggest you change your approach and instead of styling this as a "controversy" in newspaper columns and blogs, turn it into a section about "Santa Claus and child psychology" based on academic sources. --dab (𒁳) 11:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Dbachmann, first, it should be noted that you have raised a different concern here that goes beyond the issue of what the section header should be. You are questioning whether the section should exist at all. But I don't see what the issue here is. Here's why:

(1) The section has existed in the article in one form or another for over three years. In that time there have been many discussions and disagreements about edits to it and the headers used for it (the original header when the section was first created was "Santa is a lie told to children"). In all those discussions about how the section should be written or titled, it has not been argued that the section should be eliminated for reasons of undue weight. So there is a long history of editors who see no undue weight problem - even when they don't like the header for the section or want to remove content to keep the article from potentially telling kids who might come to the page that Santa is not real. Sure, 50,000,000 Elvis fans can be wrong, but given the history of the section it seems surprising that there might be a concern that the entire thing is undue weight.

(2) You suggest replacing the section with one that could be called "Santa Claus and child psychology" and you say here and have said before that the section needs to rely on evidence of psychologists. These comments, I think, show a misunderstanding of what the section is actually about. To say that there is a controversy about whether or not adults should lie to children about Santa Claus is not to say that it is a controversy among psychologists. It can be controversial among the general public independently of whether psychologists disagree about it. For example, one reason some people think it is wrong is for what they see as the moral reason that it is wrong to lie to children. This is an issue that is separate from concerns about psychological development. Also, a google search on the terms "santa claus lie to children" returns 21,000,000 hits, so the idea that there is an issue that a lot of people are talking about is not wrong, thus the section is not undue weight. 21,000,000 Internet users can't be wrong.

(3) Even if you still insist that the issue is only a controversy if experts (psychological or otherwise) say it is, then that, too, is clearly the case. The same Bruce Henderson, child psychologist at Western Carolina University who I referred to a few comments up who says it's ok to tell kids that Santa is real, but that it is problematic if the lie is overly elaborate, also says this about expert opinion on lying about Santa Claus: "At one extreme are those who suggest that any kind of deception is wrong. On the other extreme are those who consider most any fantasy to be valuable for stretching the child's imagination." So there you have evidence that experts do disagree.

All this (plus the concerns I noted above that have been discussed about the issue of prolonginh or elaborating too much on the lie) makes it clear that even if the section as presently written is in need of improvement, there really is an issue here that is not undue weight to note. 142 and 99 (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Dbachmann, I think it's a bit preposterous to suggest that because we only have a dozen reliable sources about this controversy linked from this page when there are supposedly 21M google hits, the controversy is not notable. Let's take another example - throughout recent history, there have been many textbook controversies throughout the world. However, I can assure you that there are many millions more textbooks in the world than there are sources dealing with textbook controversies. Does this mean that the controversies don't have a place in Wikipedia? (Japanese history textbook controversies, California textbook controversy over Hindu history, Pakistani textbooks controversy, Kanawha County textbook controversy among others) So again, just because there are lots of pages discussing Santa Claus (many, if not most, of which are likely fictional accounts of his existence intended for young readers), and comparatively few pages discussing this controversy, does not mean that it is not notable or that it's been given undue weight in this article. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Two items.

First, the controversy section still has the cold-opening problem that it had last month. It begins with a quotation, and the following paragraph makes no sense. It feels as though a large chunk of text has been removed and no repair work done. Someone, please work on that. If we're going to kill millions of pixels arguing about the section here on the talk page, we should at least make it halfway readable on the article page.

Second, I have just browsed through the various arguments about the title of the section, and I just want to put in my vote for Controversy / Deception. I think a lot of the debate here on Talk focuses on whether or not we feel like the actions of parents are lies or deception or whatnot. But that isn't relevant to the piece. A controversy has to be described in its own, local terms. Wikipedia has an article on the Global Warming Controversy, which is a good and descriptive name, even though many people don't believe in global warming.Ethan Mitchell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC).

Ethan, I was waiting to see if the dust had fully settled on the debate on this page about the legitimacy of the existence of the section before trying to fix it. It does seem that that issue is now settled, so I plan to take a shot at a revision, but probably won't get to it until the weekend. I have already tracked down a couple of earlier versions of the section which will help solve the problem of the opening. So a revision is coming ... soon. 142 and 99 (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Coca Cola

I believe the Coca Cola myth needs to be confronted more squarely in the article. It is just going to crop up again and again, because it is a good story and because it confirms people's feelings about the dominance of advertising. The best disproof I know is that JRR Tolkein was drawing Father Christmas in a red suit from the 1920s in the Father Christmas Letters, but he was obviously drawing on popular culture and there must be evidence of this.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

At Commons, we have earlier works that show him in red.

• 1911 File:Workshop 02.jpg
• 1868 File:Santa-Sugar Plums 1868.jpg

Also, a search at the Library of Congress reveals quite a number of Santas illustrated at the beginning of the 20th century. This 1902 rendition is a good example.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Good. This needs to be in the article. The problem is it will be tagged as original research.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? If you place the image with a caption that states "Santa portrayed in a 1911 Christmas card", the reader can figure it out. As for a source that reveals the Coke myth...here's one...I'm sure more can be found at Google books. Actually, some of the Puck magazine illustrations circa 1902-1904 show Santa's image firmed up twenty years before Dean states (1920s). Still, they say a picture is worth a 1000 words...they can do the job without having a deduction within the captions.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Santa Claus on the 1902 cover of Puck magazine

Santa Claus on the 1904 cover of Puck magazine

Santa Claus on the 1905 cover of Puck magazine

I've added these to Commons so they can be used in the article...hehe, Santa seems quite the ladies' man.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Jonathan G Meath portrays Santa Claus.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Jonathan G Meath portrays Santa Claus.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Odin/Woden

I think the pagan aspect is being given undue weight. Belief in Odin/Woden died out a thousand years before Santa Claus emerged, and there are plenty of examples of benevolent old men with beards, unnatural flight, and gift-giving in world culture - they don't all have to be connected with Christmas.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Odin continued to be known in folklore in some Germanic regions until well into the 19th century and beyond, and his connection to Yule is pretty hard to argue against (i.e. Old Norse names equating to Odin as the "long-bearded Yule-figure"). Chunks of the section could certainly use better referencing, however. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, Odin's still known today, but that's not evidence of the survival of a belief as indicated in the article. The picture of Odin given is a product of nineteenth-century Romanticism and historical research, not existing folklore. The fact that he had a beard seems to be taken as evidence that he is Santa's ancestor, which is extremely tenuous. And as I said there's a thousand years of history in there which seems to have left no evidence at all.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is a problem with the section. It may not be technically original synthesis, but the only sources putting the two topics together are from the early 20th century, a time when people wrote a lot of nonsense about such claimed cultural continuities. For me the claim raises a red flag because of the centuries that appear to lie between Odin and Santa Claus with no apparent connecting figure. Early 20th century sources are not of the required high quality for such an exceptional claim.

That doesn't necessarily mean that Odin cannot be mentioned at all, but he should get less space, and the connection should not be put forth in the voice of the article, but instead framed appropriately as an idea from the 19th/early 20th century. Or whatever later, more reliable sources say. Hans Adler 22:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The jump between Santa claus and Odin might be a bit more understandable if one doesn't take that jump, but instead considers the connection to be between the pre-germanic folklore of the Dutch, (a germanic country) and in this case the figure of sinterklaas (or rather Saint Nicholas), and the older germanic folklore's like the Wild Hunt. Remember that christianity in that area and era often "borrowed" popular pre-christian customs, and "christianized" them. Obviously making such an observation in earlier times would have been taboo, so its not surprising that it was only made (or rather discussed in the open) when the time was ripe for such a thing. But its telling that in earlier time Sinterklaas was already under fire for being "too pagan". After the Dutch Revolt (1906) many calvinist preachers tried to abolish the Saint Nicholas celebration for this reason. Mahjongg (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This has occurred to me as well, but it would require good sources, not the usual early 20th century crap. Hans Adler 22:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Mahjongg is correct here; there's no jump to make. Although our currently-poor Odin article does not properly reflect it, belief in Odin (and other Germanic gods) continued right into industrialization in Germanic Europe, as folklore attests, and those Old Norse names give some rather hard evidence that it was nothing new; the "long-bearded Yule-figure" out for a Yule-tide Wild Hunt appears to be strikingly reflected in our distilled Sinterklaas. Further, I may need to point out that Yule is itself a blatantly pagan Germanic survival, itself similarly attested in Old Norse Yule-tide traditions in Germanic Europe, and what is now "Christmas"/Yule remains full of heathen survivals. That said, these matters don't get much attention nowadays in modern academia, but that's the case with Germanic philology in general, unfortunately. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"belief in Odin (and other Germanic gods) continued right into industrialization in Germanic Europe" – That's a surprising claim and would require good sources. Hans Adler 22:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Not particularly well known, sure, but Odin appears fairly frequently in Scandinavian folklore, for example, and Grimm cites examples of folk belief involving Odin in 19th century Germany. And he's not alone; there are, for example, recorded examples of persisting belief in (if not continued outright veneration of) Njörðr in Norway in the 18th century and belief in not only Thor but also Freyja as figures in folklore from other Scandinavian sources. The Wild Hunt is also widely attested. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

With regard to the chronology, this argument seems to have it both ways: talking about nineteenth-century folklore, but also citing Old Norse. Cherrypicking "evidence" over a millenium is not sound historical research. My initial comment still stands: there are plenty of men with beards. The statement that "the 'long-bearded Yule-figure' out for a Yule-tide Wild Hunt appears to be strikingly reflected in our distilled Sinterklaas" is highly imaginative speculation. There are so many differences between the two pieces of folklore. And there is no missing link, no half-Odin, half-Santa figure.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, lets really look at what we are talking about here, so that we can form a clear idea just what can be said for or against the arguments expressed here, I think it's safe to say that we are actually talking about the evolution of a meme here. Its clear that each step in the evolution was introduced by an outside event. The last of such "steps" was the transformation from "Sinterklaas" into "Santa Claus", and we can see that the "main event" that triggered it was the relocation from the old world to the new world, and from a German/Dutch background to an English language background. You can see that in the new culture Sinterklaas is transformed into Santa. It happened a relatively short time ago, and much of it was documented. I assume you have no trouble accepting this "evolutionary step". Secondly the "evolutionary step" that created "Sinterklaas" is also relatively well documented, although because it didn't happen in the new world it's documentation can more easily been found in the Netherlands, and other European countries. The "step" I mean is the step leading from the calendar of saint name-day festivities for the Christian saint of Saint Nicholas to the much more popular folk festivities of Sinterklaas. I assume that this step is also relatively indisputable. I assume that the disputed step is therefore the step that lead from pre-christian beliefs to the "Christian replacement belief" of a saint that covered the same sets of beliefs as its pre-christian precursor. It must be said that there obviously is (as the printing press wasn't invented yet) little written evidence for this step, although there is some, mainly from written latin sources. What we do know with a certain level of certainty is that the Christian church has had a well known reputation for taking Pagan customs, and integrating/changing them into Christian symbols. I agree that probably more research and references are called for describing the various aspects of the transformation of this meme at that and earlier stages. Mahjongg (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's safe to assume anything. The article has a lot of speculation, and a lot of information that may not be relevant. If we are unable to find any evidence of the history of Santa, it would be better to say that it's lost in the mists of time, rather than say that the festival of a minor saint from Asia Minor became linked with a presumed cult of the ancient god Odin a thousand years ago, and emerged as a major motif (or meme if you prefer) in American popular culture in the nineteenth and twentieth century. We need evidence. And the beard is pretty thin.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Reducing the parallels between Odin and Santa Claus to a beard is not exactly honest; here we have a figure who is known to fly through the sky during winter (Wild Hunt), directly connected with Yule (over which "Christmas" was pasted) and riding a flying (!) eight-legged horse while sporting a famously long beard. The general idea of Yule and modern Christmas also seems to be the same; a time to receive gifts during a barren season (in the case of Yule, apparently pork and alcohol). Perhaps I should again highlight that there is written evidence of veneration and/or acknowledgement of Germanic deities into the 19th century (examples above), so continuum is hardly out of the question.

That said, I recently read an article by Hilda Ellis Davidson partially addressing this, in which she concludes that further research needs to be made in the area (Scandinavian Folklore in Britain, 1970), and indeed these subjects are oddly almost never touched by scholars in Germanic philology. Unfortunately Davidson does not pick up on the Old Norse Jólnir reference, and if she had she may have had more to say on the subject. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, I am using shorthand by referring to the beard, but the argument about the beard is the same as the argument against the other parallels. Supernatural flight is pretty common in folklore, and a horse is not a reindeer. A hunt is not the same as gift delivery.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's easy to argue away parallels by themselves, but when they all come together with a direct association with Yule and the North, the likelihood of the various parallels between Santa Claus and Odin being just a matter of chance becomes mathematically dubious indeed. From the factors I've so far seen, Occam's razor would dictate a simple holdover influence stemming from paganism. Anyway, as I said, I'd like to see more scholarship in the area. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The association of Santa with flying (sleigh etc.) does not have a long pedigree. It was invented in the 19th century by American writers. They may have been influenced by the popularity of Nordic myths, or may have simply had good imaginations. AFAIK there is no tradition in Germany or Holland that Sinter Klaas flies anywhere.Dmottram (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue of the survival of Nordic mythology seems to have been neglected in scholarship. Ostensibly paganism was suppressed one and a half thousand years ago, but we still seem to hear distorted echoes today. What's going on? I'm not sure. But this doesn't establish that Santa is Odin. No one on Wednesday prays to Odin, do they?

In terms of maths and myths, I think in we have a lot of white-bearded men (Odin, Santa, Old Father Time, various wizards), a lot of supernatural aircraft (horses, sleighs, carpets, ships, broomsticks), and a lot of ceremonial gift-giving. None of this establishes a historical connection between anything and anything else. Let's deal with evidence!--Jack Upland (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

As well as being derived from saint nicholas, Santa appears to also be based on father Christmas - he is a very similar character but with very different origins, very pagan. There appear to be references on the Father Christmas page - maybe the two different original characters are the source of the confusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.166.171.72 (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 December 2011

Christmas Eve rituals

In the United States and Canada, children traditionally leave Santa a glass of milk and a plate of cookies; in Britain and Australia, he is sometimes given sherry and mince pies instead. In Sweden

and Norway

, children leave rice porridge. In Ireland it is popular to give him Guinness or milk, along with Christmas pudding or mince pies.

I added "and Norway" to the Christmas ritual of putting out rice porridge, as that is a very common tradition in Norway too. It is often combined with "christmas parties" (where the guests (children) shouts for Santa - who after some yelling, show up and gives out candy as a pre-christmas gift), but is very common for individuals too. We put out a small serving of porridge the night before Christmas. Here's a source written in Norwegian; http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/hedmark_og_oppland/1.6920984. 94.173.15.178 (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Hei! I've added it like you wrote it. Velkommen til Wikipedia! jonkerz♠ 01:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

More sources

• "How Coca-Cola helped shape the modern-day Santa." CNN. December 15, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The Real Santa Claus

The history of Saint Nicolas should be included with the history of Saint Nicolas because they are the one and same. In time, they blend into one another. The way that I kept my faith with my children was to show them that Santa Claus was real in an encyclopedia. The Americana Encyclopedia discussed how Saint Nicolas became Santa Claus. Today, Google will give parents the same information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.170.200 (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 December 2011

In reading about celebrations around the world held during this time of year, I came across references to Befana, with many of the traditions and beliefs about her very similar to Santa Claus. I found there is also a Wikipedia article on Befana, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Befana

Please consider adding a link to her on the Santa Claus page under "8.2 Related figures in folklore", here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus#Related_figures_in_folklore

Thank you.

Kind regards, Wrenae Wrenae (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrenae (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The Real Santa Claus

The history of Santa Claus should be included with the history of Saint Nicolas because they are the one and same. In time, they blend into one another. The way that I kept my faith with my children was to show them that Santa Claus was real in an encyclopedia. The Americana Encyclopedia discussed how Saint Nicolas became Santa Claus. Today, Google will give parents the same information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.170.200 (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Close but not completely true, as Santa is not a continuation but a branch-off from the main. The main (historical) line of the legend of the man riding a flying animal, who has black helper(s) who listen at chimneys and tell the man who has been bad, so the man can either reward or punish people, ends with its manifestation in Sinterklaas and Zwarte piet, not in Santa Claus. Also during the branching off many original aspects were left out when Sinterklaas morphed into Santa, the main one is that its helpers which traditionally were black are no longer so. Mahjongg (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixing Format Under History

I tried fixing the quote box under history, 19th century, and I can't get it not to overlap the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderMelton (talk • contribs) 21:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Chimney Tradition - edit request

Traditional chimneys in European places where high snowfall is common during the winter months used to be much larger than current chimney design, the whole house being centred around a large smoking-room/fire room, which was used for heating the whole household. Examples of these chimneys are still in use in various parts of France File:Http://www.franche-comte.org/medias/gastronomie/salaisons/ferme-comtoise.jpg and File:Http://www.maisons-comtoises.com/img/datas/cerneux-ete.jpg These chimneys have a closeable two-sided "roof" and a ladder inside, facilitating access when the building was covered to the lower roof by snow. It is conceivable that there was a custom amongst northern countries, of traders travelling from house to house during the winter months, using reindeer-led sleds, and just like Inuit cultures, dressed in fur-lined clothes. [citation needed]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.48.53 (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"and does exist"

Why is it advertised that Santa Claus "is real and does exist" in the very sentence. This is entirely unlike Wikipedia and it sounds to me like someone just wants kids to be entirely convinced that he truly does exist. I mean, personally, I believe he exists but not in the traditional way. Why would we say that he exists with nothing else in the entire article supporting that along with no references. I find this strange. Jpech95 21:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Disreguard The phrase in question was removed from the encyclopedia. Let's hope it stays that way. Jpech95 21:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Current Event

The article is tagged with notes about this being a current event. Is this someone just having a laugh? I'm removing it for now. Wilybadger (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand...

I've read this entire article... Is he real or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.236.216 (talk) 06:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not take sides in controversies.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no "controversy". Santa Claus is not a real person. It is a lie told to children. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It's unfair to label it a lie. Santa Claus isn't meant to be a person really. He represents human kindness, compassion and generosity, particularly at Christmas time. As long as those traits exist, so does he. And no, before you attack me for saying this, I'm not suggesting we incorporate this into the article, I'm just pointing out what Santa Claus represents in today's society. Bonzostar (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Bonzostar I will reiterate: Santa Claus is not a real person. It is a lie told to children, like the tooth fairy or the easter bunny. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That source

This edit has these sources:

• Charles J. Jones, parent, pers. comm., 23 December 1967

• This looks like it was extracted from a reliable source, but which one?

• ”Three Stages of a Man’s Life in Regards to Santa Claus Belief”

• anonymous quote from a quote website

• ”Insights from the North Pole”, Jeff Harrop, December 3, 2008.

• the same anonymous quote, from a retail chain website

I think that we should strive for high-quality scholar sources. Not sure what to make with these. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the first one is the writer's father. It's a joke!--Jack Upland (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Two versions for the entry?

Regarding the issue of Christian Children's beliefs and spoilers in the entry: I think it can be considered whether instead of choosing between "lying"/"censoring" and "ruining Christmas", Wikipedia can avoid both by asking the users to self-identify as children, or allowing them to choose a "family-friendly" version of the entry. The "family-friendly" and the regular versions of the page will be called something along the lines of Santa_Claus (simplified) and Santa_Claus (unabridged), respectively. The latter entry will explicitly state that it is overruling the former. It's not censorship when a movie critique warns the reader of a spoiler that's yet to come in the next paragraph. It's just a matter of consideration of people who don't want to know some things yet, and it's not hard to do. I'm sure Wikipedia can find a solution that will satisfy everyone's needs. Sometimes things don't have to be "either-or". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.145.153 (talk) 07:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Out of scope for this project. Articles here have all the encyclopedic information for a topic, including the offensive information. See if you can convince someone to start "wikipedia for children" or an equivalent project. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You might want to give Wikipedia:Spoiler a read.

It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality [...]

WP:NPOV is not accommodating of readers who don't want to know some things. Extra credit reading: Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

How dare u

How dare you say that santa is Legendary and not real. Please be reasonable .. some children's parents want them to grow up believing this .. my child just found out santa is not real .. and it is christmas eve .. im a digusted !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki trus (talk • contribs) 09:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The articles are supposed to give a neutral encyclopedic coverage of a topic. They are not dumbed down for kids. Wikipedia does not remove material just because someone finds it objectionable.

I don't know of any wikipedia-like project that is edited for kids, I'm sorry. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Santa is the embodiment of the spirit of Christmas, which is real, so he therefore is real as well. He does not exist as a physical being. Looking back, I think my parents were trying to explain the concept of Santa as a spirit to me for nearly my entire childhood, but to avoid disappointing me they didn't use black-and-white terms like "real" or "unreal". As a result, I was not as disappointed as most children would be when I discovered the nonexistence of Santa Claus. The point is, Wikipedia articles are meant to be neutral, there is nothing directly stating that Santa does not exist, but at the same time nothing stating that he does exist either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Misleading

I think this article is misleading : "who, in many western cultures, is said to bring gifts to the homes of the good children". Is said? That's how you would talk if westerners really believed in Santa. That's one example, the article contains many misleading sentences. 70.83.117.35 (talk) 07:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Many westerners do believe in Santa; they're called little kids. Powers ^T 20:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

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 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

He a real.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)