Talk:Santa Claus

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The eventual debate

I know what talk pages are like here, and sooner or later we are going to get into a debate about how acceptable Santa is - does he detract from the celebration of Christ's birth, influence of pagan imagery, undermining future faith in christ by giving children a myth they will have to outgrow, and so on. So, before any of that starts... please, before anyone starts debating, lets at least get the page into a good condition on the non-contriversial bits! Once the history is detailed, the links in, the details done (I want to see a list of Santa movies), then is the time for debate. NewCrusader 19:40, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Santa doesn't exist. --JESUSCHRIST 20:08, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
I didn't mean that debate - that's an easy one. I just know that a significent number of Christians have 'issues' with Santa, for various reasons theological. NewCrusader 19:14, 24 September 2008 (EDT)


Is Santa Claus really an American tradition? I know that Americans have a specific take on Santa, but I believe that he is celebrated widely outside of America. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StevenTramp (talk)

I think the lead section should make it clear that Santa Claus does not exist.

I have also made similar edits on Wikipedia and other wikis. (username removed) 12:54, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

I'm okay with that, but I suspect some might be opposed to it. This is intended to be a child-safe/family-friendly site, but perpetuating a fairy tale doesn't seem to me like something we need to do. If we can have dozens of articles on sexual perversion (some is gruesome detail), this doesn't seem like a stretch. --DavidB4 (TALK) 13:13, 15 July 2020 (EDT)
I understand, but any kind of encyclopedia (conservative or otherwise) is supposed to give facts. For some topics, it is debatable what is considered as a fact, but there is no doubt that Santa Claus is not living, and many reliable (and conservative, if you wish) sources mention it. I don't intend to get involved in the more controversial articles of this site, but I do believe that this article should make it clear that Santa Claus does not exist. If kids are able to understand the difference between conservatism and liberalism (and other political viewpoints) and find this wiki, then they are mature enough and should learn that Santa Claus does not exist. Also, this and the corresponding Wikipedia article are at a high enough reading level that little kids would not find the article and read it. (username removed) 17:40, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
There is a certain, little magic in the air at the sight of little kids getting up early on a Christmas morning, sneaking out of their bedrooms so mom and dad doesn't wake up, and seeing a pile of gifts under the tree meant for them...and they are thinking that a friendly jolly fat man did it all. Eventually as time goes by and the kids grow up, they in turn will have their own kids who will experience the same thing.
You're missing the point here. We have little kids coming here. And these little kids have just one, and only one, childhood in their lives, and it has to be the best childhood, period. As an encyclopedia, yes, we have to present the facts, but we are not going to have a dumbed-down article with overkill on the use of the word "imaginary" within a summary that you think should be mandatory because Wikipedia does it. Karajou (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
Actually, Wikipedia doesn't really welcome my use of "imaginary" either. I am still discussing with the other editors (see Talk:Santa_Claus), which seem to mostly support the use of the word "legendary" or "folkloric" so far (although consensus hasn't been reached there yet). I thought maybe the people here at CP would think differently, since this wiki is written from a Christian and conservative point of view, and I would assume such people emphasize Jesus more than Santa Claus on Christmas. It's alright, though. I don't want to get too involved on issues here, as I primarily edit Wikipedia and prefer editing it to Conservapedia, but I sometimes contribute less controversial stuff I wrote on WP to here as well.
Also (this is just my personal opinion, nothing to do with the editing), this website is pretty niche. I don't think a lot of little kids would come here, as Wikipedia is popular as a starting point for research in schools (though it is not a Reliable Source that can be cited) and is mentioned when kids first learn to use the Internet. Schools wouldn't recommend sites that explicitly mention that they are politically biased, such as Conservapedia. Or I'm curious: are there any schools that block Wikipedia and teach their students to use Conservapedia, or parents that do that? (username removed) 23:01, 21 July 2020 (EDT)

When you made your first edits to this article, you had to insist three times within the first two paragraphs that Santa wasn't real, when a single use of the word "folklore" had already established that. Secondly, the sources you used describing the presents laid under the tree were all from liberal sources, two of which were completely negative, and one of which the reader cannot see unless he's got a subscription to the New York Times. So please explain why you feel those edits are so critical - your words - that they have to be here. Karajou (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

I think "imaginary" is a clearer and simpler word. It would make the article accessible to more people without having to look it up in the dictionary. (username removed) 17:40, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
You are going to explain why you think your edits are so critical. Karajou (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

The edits are critical because the lead section of an article needs to summarize all the important information that a reader needs to know immediately. This is an important fact that everyone needs to know about Santa Claus. (username removed) 19:11, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

And who says that such a summary needs to exist here? The lead paragraph needs to introduce the article, not summarize it. This site is not Wikipedia. Karajou (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
Sorry, that is what I meant. Also, being a Christian myself, and this website being written from a Christian point of view, I think that the article should be clear that Santa does not exist, as Christmas is historically centred around the birth of Jesus. (username removed) 14:39, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
In the first sentence includes the phrase "figure of modern folklore", which should specify the context clearly. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Tuesday, 14:42, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
I could go either way on this, but Merriam-Webster defines folklore as "traditional customs, tales, sayings, dances, or art forms preserved among a people; an often unsupported notion, story, or saying that is widely circulated" It sounds like this word implies, but does not definitively state, that it refers to something untrue. People generally recognize that most folklore tends to be exaggerated, inaccurate, or just made-up, but that is not always true. In this case it is a modern lie, but based on heavily exaggerated and distorted fact. So yes, it can accurately be called folklore, but that label does not definitively mean that it is false. (Perhaps that is why we are using it?) --DavidB4 (TALK) 15:20, 21 July 2020 (EDT)