Talk:Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus

Her Little Friends
In this article it says there is a dispute over whether or not Virginia acutally wrote the letter to the editor, simply becuase they don't believe Virginia would say something like "my little friends". I completey disagree, you see, Virginia had the spirit of christmas, and she believed in Santa Clause, but her "little friends" (small-minded, in her view), shot her down and told her there was no santa clause. Virginia was talking about how lame she thought her friends were for saying that, not how old they were...come on, of course Virginia wrote that, and yes, Virginia looks down upon her little friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.254.238 (talk • contribs) 25 December 2006

I own all of the 1893 issues of the children's magazine "Wide Awake." In the Post Office section readers' letters were published. Children would write "I am a little girl of eleven," or "I had a party and invited my little friends." It seems to have been a common practice for girls who were not yet in their teenage years to refer to themselves and their same-age friends as little girls or little friends.

After reading those Wide Awake letters it makes sense that Virginia would tell the Sun what her little friends had to say about Santa Clause. That's the way "little girls" used to express themselves. Karenthewriter (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

For those who question that a young person could write such a letter, just read nearly anything published for children of the time to read. Once you have, I think you'll realize that children of that time are a WHOLE LOT MORE LITERATE than children of today. As such, I have no problem with "Virginia" being the author of the letter. 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Team-B-Vital Improvement Drive
Hello all!

This article has been chosen as this week's effort for WP:Discord's #team-b-vital channel, a collaborate effort to bring Vital articles up to a B class if possible, similar to WP:Articles for Improvement. This effort will run for up to seven days, ending early if the article is felt to be at B-class or impossible to further improve. Articles are chosen by a quick vote among interested chatters, with the goal of working together on interesting Vital articles that need improving.

This is a special Christmas selection and double article week: Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus + Ebenezer Scrooge

Thank you! -- ferret (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Plaque
@Randy Kryn, Could you elaborate on how you determined that the plaque is encyclopedically relevant to the article? The HuffPost source is an article by the president of The Studio School and readtheplaque is simply a picture of it. I think to merit inclusion it would need a reliable secondary source talking about it. There's one new york times column mentioning that they planned to add it but that's all I could find. I think including this substantial of a mention is somewhat excessively promoting The Studio School given the abject lack of secondary coverage. Plaques such as this really arent that difficult to put up and don't mean all that much IMO. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd be OK reducing the mention to a sentence, perhaps as a compromise? I just think it's currently given too much prominence Eddie891 Talk Work 14:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Historical plaques are touchstones about important moments in the past, often a surprise for people who wander by them. And the ceremony means a lot to those who attend who knew the individual personally. In England Blue plaques mark the spot of an event and are welcomed in a neighborhood. Before I saw your note here was going to leave a note on your talk page and got into reading your interesting user page. I see you're going for the Good standard on this article, nice work and a nice subject to improve. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Synopsis
For GA breadth purposes, shouldn't the article contain a synopsis of the Santa Claus article itself? czar 02:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Good point, . My thinking to date had been that most people could get the gist simply from reading the famous line "yes, virginia, there is a santa claus", but it can't hurt to have a summery. Added. The film MOS plot guideline suggests that summaries be 400-700 words-- could we not simply include the editorials whole text? Eddie891 Talk Work 17:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the source is in the public domain, it wouldn't be a copyright issue to include it, but editorially, I don't think that's for the best. What did the sources summarize about its content/flourishes? Those are the parts worth noting in any summary for a general audience. czar  00:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The Church picture
A question, is this page planned to be featured this Christmas season? If so then I won't ask that the Church image be replaced for now, or until the deletion discussion is completed if it's not complete by the time of the feature page (and please alert this talk page to the deletion discussion). The photo is likely from 1868, anyone who would have a claim of copyright is gone, it is now a historical photo which exists in the public domain, per its upload page. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there are plans to nominate this for this Christmas, but I doubt it would happen this year -- FAC's rarely run less than 15-20 days, and most take longer than that. Re the publication date, I'm not an image expert, but in the image discussions I've seen at FAC the approach has been that the first evidence of publication has to be taken as the date for copyright purposes.  It's entirely possible nobody plucked this picture from this private collection until recently. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , I certainly have no plans to nominate for TFA this year, I’m too realistic wrt the promotion times, but the fac cannot materially progress towards closure with an image of dubious copyright status., copyright as Mike says above isn’t based upon when the image was taken, but its first verifiable publication date, in this case the image’s upload. This isn’t a standard case of BRD, because we cannot assume an image is in the PD without proof— and copyright violation can’t remain in an article. It’s frustrating for encyclopedic purposes, but we do have to respect the US’s frustrating and frankly absurd copyright laws. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And I'm sorry to seem so Bah Humbuggy in the Christmas season, but it would be nice to get this article through FAC while my motivation lasts this December for a potential featuring next year Eddie891 Talk Work 23:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Next year will be fine, and this will pass feature status at that point, so for this Christmas let's put the photo back until the discussion at the nomination page is complete. Published or not published, the legal wording is: "Under the copyright law, the creator of the original expression in a work is its author. The author is also the owner of copyright unless there is a written agreement by which the author assigns the copyright to another person or entity, such as a publisher." The photographer who took the photo in 1868 is the copyright holder according to law. There is no indication that the photographer is doing much complaining that Wikipedia has used the image worldwide since 2006. Erring on the side of caution while engaged in a feature nomination is prudent, but this situation falls outside of that, as there is really no feasible copyright concern. Please add back the image to the page for, yes Eddie891, there is a Santa Claus (and he seems kind of irritated that one of his champions has been masked on Wikipedia, and has been seen loading up his sleigh with coal). Randy Kryn (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for withdrawing the nomination because of the pre-publishing before 1902 status. Christmas wishes and many gifts of plenty to you! Randy Kryn (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

TFA blurb/ article lead
Hi, , , and (FA reviewers), and. I revised the lead a bit recently and was wondering if anyone had any feedback on it. I think it flows better now. Those changes have not been made to the blurb that will be on the main page (at Today's featured article/December 24), so any suggestions about whether to tweak that one would also be appreciated. I honestly have been thinking the first sentence in the blurb is really long and maybe shouldn't mention the title of the editorial until later on, for readability? Eddie891 Talk Work 16:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the reader needs to know the title in the blurb at all if the space can be better use. Also his middle name. Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping to . Gog the Mild (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The blurb seems fine and contains needed information and relevant links, and of course the title should be the first thing mentioned as it is a well-known iconic wording (and the title of the feature article). Church's middle name is prominent in his descriptor and article as his common name. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly don't think the title is that relevant to the lead (Randy, the title is not "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus", which is the well-known wording.) Eddie891 Talk Work 14:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I thought you meant move the common name further down in the blurb. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "the editorial was initially published anonymously". Maybe 'uncredited', or similar rewording? "anonymously" sounds as if Church was deliberately trying to hide himself, rather than this being normal practice for editorials. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, done Eddie891 Talk Work 14:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we might be able to change "has been cited as the most reprinted newspaper editorial in the English language" to "is the most reprinted" in the TFA blurb to avoid two passive voices in a row. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. But the original and proper name of the editorial probably should be in the first paragraph (EDIT: or start of the second paragraph, where I've moved it). Please don't make too many large changes to the lead, this went through the feature process and if changes are going to be made like this then let's add back the image of Church which was a major talking point during the discussion and "removed" as a compromise to get the article passed as a feature. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If something was removed in order "to get the article passed as a feature", it should not be added back. The place to have had that debate was at FAC. If consensus has been reached, it should stand. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I'm saying. The page was passed as a feature which, for example, included Church's full name and the formal name of the editorial high in the lead. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the revised phrasing works fine. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure if they have seen this, but courtesy ping to -- what do you think about the tweaked lead? Could the blurb be tweaked a bit too? Eddie891 Talk Work 21:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because something has to be added or retained to get it featured does not mean we have to include it in the blurb. We have limited and set space and have to make editorial judgments that are different from what goes on at FAC. And yes, deletion or shortening to an initial of a middle name is just the sort of thing that goes on here to save spaces. That's what blurb writers do, they're saving a bit here and a bit there to get it under 1025. I don't have an opinion as to whether there should be a change in the blurb. Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Have just re-read the blurb and it's just about perfect. The author's full name per direct link (and the name used in most of the sources and on his tombstone) is important per accuracy and encyclopedically crediting the author of the iconic and historically important editorial. The first line in the blurb: ""Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" is a line from an editorial by Francis Pharcellus Church", says it all very well. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm just seeing this now, coming from the TFA blurb. But I think we really ought to include a sentence summarizing what the editorial actually says, since right now that's absent, and it's left to the reader to infer from the title (which doesn't alone make clear whether it's arguing that Santa is physically real, or just the Santa spirit is real, or something else). &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

US-Centric?
It could be just me, but here in the UK I have never heard of this item that is "widely reprinted during the holiday season". Does "reprinted" mean "reprinted in the US"? Also, statements such as "soon appeared in other papers", "other newspapers began to republish the editorial", "often appears in newspaper editorial sections during the Christmas and holiday season" -- do these refer only or primarily to the US, or do they also apply to other English-speaking countries? It seems to me that this item might be a piece of primarily US culture, but the article wording does not fully make this clear, beyond describing its origins. On the other hand, if very many people from other English-speaking countries are familiar with it and have seen it reprinted locally then fair enough. 2A00:23C8:7B09:FA01:E1B9:CFD4:BE54:6FEB (talk) 17:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's certainly generally unknown in Britain. I think it's purely a US thing. Is it known in Canada? --Ef80 (talk) 14:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, and added "The editorial is widely reprinted in the United States" in the lead. Other statements seem pretty unambiguous to me, particularly because sourcing doesn't really make clear in my memory of it. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Miracle on 34th Street
When I think of an early Santa film, the first film that comes to mind is Miracle on 34th Street. It deals with the reality question surrounding Santa Claus. I was actually surprised that it was not mentioned in the "Yes, Virginia…" article. Santa belief has been a regular mention by some skeptics and atheists regarding the "Is there a God?" question, and regarding religious belief or "faith" in general. Misty MH (talk) 05:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Misty MH (talk) 05:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that there are a lot of similarities between the two, but haven't seen any sources discussing them together. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)