User talk:Applejuicefool/discussion archive

I would like some feedback from some users other than myself and Mr. Shankbone regarding the tenor or this discussion. I feel that Mr. Shankbone has acted in bad faith.

I understand many of you do not agree with my views on this subject. I was doing my best to work through the problem on the discussion page. Mr. Shankbone grew increasingly more and more dismissive of my arguments. I was arguing for removing the word "mythological" from the lead of the article because mythological is a synonym for "legendary", and the two were both used. Mr. Shankbone changed mythological to fictional. I made an argument that "fictional" was inappropriate and removed it, and Mr. Shankbone re-added it and then the page was locked. I would like to point out that the edit I mention in this paragraph is the single edit I have ever made to the Santa Claus article.

This is really astounding behavior, especially since I'm not asking for the moon. I don't even mind if the article contains, somewhere, the "information" that Santa Claus is not real, since that is the majority view. All I'm asking is that the lead contain no reference to his alleged falsity. After all, as I pointed out with references, a sizable minority in the United States (yes, mostly children - are they not people?!?) believe Santa Claus is real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Applejuicefool (talk • contribs)

Anyway, I'm not arguing my point in this post - I'm asking for comments about Mr. Shankbone (and my, if you wish) conduct during this discussion. Thank you, and Merry Christmas!

What you were asking violates WP:LEAD, and for no good reason. This section here violates WP:TALK. This is not the place for a discussion of editor behavior. --David Shankbone 22:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments about Mr. Shankbone do not belong here. Corvus cornix_talk 22:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments as to how the discussion on the page have been carried out most certainly do belong here. You, Applejuicefool, have conducted yourself with dignity and according to Wikipedia principles. It is unfortunate that you are in the minority as far as that is concerned. I feel this discussion has been conducted with a lot of unnecessary incivility and acrimony on the part of those who feel (rightly or wrongly) that they have the sole claim on the appropriate POV for this article. It's been an eye opening experience, to say the least. Jeffpw (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've never had to call an RfC on an editor before. If it doesn't belong here, where does it belong? I'll move it there. Applejuicefool (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RFC#Request_comment_on_users. I request you remove this section, per WP:TALK, since it doesn't have anything to do with the article. --David Shankbone 22:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It has everything to do with your conduct editing on this article; as such it seems appropriately placed to me. If you'd like, though, a Rfc can also be opened. Jeffpw (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. Everything I have done is concurrent with policy and guideline. --David Shankbone 22:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as a point of information, I was the one who changed the lead sentence from "legendary character" to "fictional folklore character," because I believe that best reflects consensus, before the Bishonen locked the page, not David Shankbone. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

He gets the blame because he's inserted the word there twice already today. It should be changed back, in my opinion, as Santa is more legendary than fictional. The Grinch, while wholely fictional, seems to be becoming real. htom (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Why David would want to ruin Santa for other's children I won't guess (my belief survived both coals and sticks in my sock, when they arrived my mother was shocked that we were upset -- she'd gotten big lumps of hard coal for us to grow crystals on, and yardsticks to measure things with, a simpler time.) I think he's an important teaching tool for children, as well: that things are not always as they seem, even though they are very good. Teaches healthy skepticism, as well as the joys of sharing, helping, and cooperating. htom (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur. He's behaving like a zealot and it's very discouraging. Whether he has policy on his side or not, he's behaving like a horse's ass. Jeffpw (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I dissent. both of you are acting inappropriately in this discussion. Shankbone is not "trying to to ruin Christmas for other's children". That you would even consider something so ludicrous (or concur, Jeffpw - shame on you) is bad faith of the lowest possible order. He suggests that Wikipedia is not a substitute for good parenting. If you don't want kids to see the entry on Wikipedia, block the word from being searched on Wikipedia. It isn't that hard, and its part of being a parent.

I don't mind if you chaps disagree with how Santa is presented in the article, and think you should file an RfC in the matter to get some independent input. I do mind you attacking other editors who are enforcing policy. He didn't write the rules - he's just enforcing them, and had warned you repeatedly about trying to game the system. Now, because some people refused to finish the debate and decided that they knew what was better for the article, it's locked. And it's locked saying that Santa is fictional. That is unacceptable, and I hold the buggering nonsense edits offered to try and wheedle some kid's version out of it to blame. At least the prior version in place only alluded to it without outright saying it.

Now that I've voiced my utter displeasure at how you three have been acting, perhaps I can ask that you approach the article discussion? Unless we find a consensus that follows WP policy, the article is going to stay locked, and Santa will remain fictional. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, I have read the diffs from the Santa talk page. Given your comments on the talk page of the article ("short bus kid", "ass-clowns", etc), you have no moral highground as far as civility or NPA are concerned, so don't play that card here. We 3 are actively participating in the discussion on that page. You don't need to extend the discord from there to here. Jeffpw (talk) 09:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I never claimed to have the moral high ground here. I see people disrupting Wikipedia and I give them hell for it. Now, if you are excusing your behavior by arguing about mine, well, that sorta confirms my suspicions. If you want to accept the criticisms as valid (despite the edginess to them) then good for you. When i am wrong, i apologize. Maybe you feel that your "defense" of the article and the spirit of Christmas doesn't require apology. Do you really feel that way? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel I have anything to apologize for, Arcayne. I never asked for or edited the article to reflect a "Santa is real" POV. My only edits were to include the fact that not only children but also a significant percentage of adults believed in him, and included a source. My concern in this entire debacle has been Shankbone's lack of civility and WP:OWN issues relating to it. It is possible to make one's case without injuring the feelings of others who hold different perspectives on how an article should be edited. The fact that I suggested this to him caused him to construct a false premise that I wish to sabotage Wikipedia in order to present a legend as fact. his actions have engendered an enormous amount of bad feeling on my part. Feel free to check the diffs if you do not believe me. Jeffpw (talk) 12:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's probably best if I continue this on your talk page, and not clutter up Apple's page anymore (though of course, he is willing to address my comments there). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, do I understand correctly that you are opposed to having "fictional" in the lead? Because the only edit to the article I ever made was to remove that very word when Shankbone changed "mythological" to "fictional". Was that a "buggering nonsense edit"? I am not trying to game the system. I honestly, personally, believe in Santa Claus, and yet I'm *not* asking for the lead to read "Santa Claus is the jolly elf living at the North Pole who delivers toys to good boys and girls each Christmas Eve." All I want is legendary as opposed to any mention of fictional or mythological in the lead. That's it! Why is that so wrong? Applejuicefool (talk) 13:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)You understand me correctly. I think 'fictional' is too limited, and is better covered by the trio of descriptors I noted: historical: legendary and mythical, for the reasons I described in the page. I will recap mythological, as you considered it on par with fictional (btw, try not to use wiktionary, as it isn't the most reliable). Legends are tall tales, like Paul Bunyan. mythology is not just about gods and pantheons, but stories that get told over and over so many times that they take on a scale not covered by legendary feats or folk. It is a constantly developing thing, like the development of Rudolph, or the willingness of news agents around the world to surrender to the fallacy that santa is tracked by NORAD, and whatnot, That is a sign of a mythology. You don't see that same willingness to maintain the fallacy for the easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Santa alone gets that attention, and is part of an evolving mythology, at least in the West (although i do know that in Japan and Hong Kong - where I lived for a time - they do track Santa on radar for kids).

And honestly, i am coming around to the idea that neither you nor Jeff are trying to game the system. However, others were, and Shankbone warned those folk pushing the santa is real stuff that gaming the system could be done both ways. the article was locked while his and other edits denoting santa as fictional were locked in place. There was a responsibility by everyone concerned not to edit-war over the descriptors and continue talking until it was squared away - one way or the other. the greatest part of my ire was inspired by that sort of stupid arrogance. And yes, while Shankbone was showing a bit more aggro than necessary, I do believe he was trying to angle the edit back to neutral. He got carried away, as did a lot of people (myself included). What's best now is for us to stop pointing fingers and find a solution that fits within the rules and works for the majority of us. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you said. It doesn't matter what i don't agree with; what I do agree with is the legendary, historical and mythical parts, and your logic for it. The wikilinks make it clear how the words are being used. Jeffpw (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While I will suppose there are people who believe that there is a fat man with flying raindeer who lives in a toy factory at the North Pole ... I'm not one of them. My Santa has a different kind of realness (like that of Calvin's Hobbes, or the Velveteen Rabbit, made "real" through love.) I suspect that the most accurate description would be that he is a "shared fable", a creature (now) of fantasy and myth, derived from legends. The Grinch is fictional, made up by Dr. Seuss. Some people, maybe even a majority, don't want to share in the fable, and they are certainly allowed not to. I don't think that they should be allowed to spoil the fable for those who do by proclaiming that Santa is a lie in the opening paragraph. htom (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I get that, Htom, but surely you get that your view isn't very encyclopedic, right? We aren't trying to Grinch the article, we are keeping it encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not censored for kids or anyone. If you have issue with this, you might want to consider suggesting a change in policy. The article is not the place to do it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware that it was policy to put spoilers in leads. htom (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect, we don't use spoilers anymore. (See WP:SPOILER). As for policy, see WP:NOT- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Arcayne, what I find so disheartening and oppressive about this discussion is that so many editors are simply dismissive of belief in Santa. Do you have know of any scholarly sources that flat out state that Santa does not exist? As was pointed out in the article, many media outlets have stories every Christmas agreeing that Santa *does* exist. A US government agency has a website that claims to track him. As Miracle on 34th Street pointed out, the Post Office delivers letters to Santa. Where is the counter-evidence proving that he doesn't exist? Look, I respect the opinions of non-believers in Santa, but mine - and that of millions of children - should be respected too. Applejuicefool (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

/sighs/ Arcayne, one can write encyclopedic articles without calling those with opposed or minority viewpoints liars in the opening paragraph of the lead, which was done, and should probably considered to be a more serious complaint than saying that the lead contained spoilers. It's needlessly harsh language. I have no serious objections to describing Santa as legendary, folklore, fantasy, myth, or historicly derived (and there are doubtless other adjectives I would agree with, although fictional isn't one of those.) (Joke demonstration of the non-fictional status of Santa: no copyright lawsuits or royalty claims for his use, while there have been for the Grinch.) To me, to demonstrate NPOV Wikipedia should refrain from saying that it believes in Santa and it should refrain from saying that it doesn't. I'll take the apparent statement that I was trying to "game" Wikipedia as a compliment; I don't know enough about the rules to know when I'm breaking them yet! htom (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Applejuicefool, I think that the decline in Santa is one of those unimagined consequences of the much smaller and much more mobile family. When you don't have, or have few, siblings to carry on the pretend, and are constantly losing playmates and their "Does X Know?" status, it becomes much more difficult to carry it on. It was a good way of teaching a number of good values, and it's essentially gone. I think that our society will be the poorer for the loss, greed just isn't a good substitute. What's left for me is a happy memory of all of those young smiles. (rings doorbell) "It's Santa!" (Jody answers door, looks about) "You're not Santa!" "Yes, Jody, I am not Santa (long face), I'm a Marine (happy face), and I get to help Santa tonight!" (displays bag) "Wow!" (Did you know that children's grins can be bigger than their heads?) Oh, and there's these urges to eat cookies and milk on Christmas Eve, and to blow kisses to Mommies. htom (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)