Wikipedia talk:Why Santa Is Important

Response
Grinch. Comet Tuttle (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, there's an article for that.  WurmWoode  T   22:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2018
typo:

change "they should joins their brothers"

to "they should join their brothers" 2604:6000:1403:131:6D42:C8E3:773B:DFEF (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  14:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Can someone take this page down?
This does not pass WP:NPOV. Mr. Deer guy (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an essay which is for an editor to express his opinion regarding Wikipedia policies, similar to the purpose of talk pages. It is not an article. Félix An (talk) 04:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Another perspective
Those interested in this page might also find this off-wiki essay of mine interesting. Andrewa (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * @Andrewa, that's a very well-written essay, and I do agree that the tale of Santa Claus does spread the values of the gospel and reflects the true meaning of Christmas! In my opinion, I think that it's healthy for kids to play imaginatively with Santa, knowing that he is not real but still playing along for fun, but it is mentally unhealthy for kids to be lied to and told that he is a real person, as kids may put all their hope in him, like he is some sort of god, and be heartbroken when they find out that he doesn't exist. Félix An (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It can be very tricky.
 * There is a question of what is age-appropriate and culturally appropriate. There is much insanity in our society, and it is just not possible to shield people of any age from it. Which is particularly tragic and challenging in the case of children.
 * I'm glad you enjoyed my essay. Perhaps then you will enjoy my page on sanity and then the far less important one that applies these principles to Universities.
 * I was raised by very progressive and intelligent parents. But that had its downside. When my teachers said that they cared for learning and effort, not just results, I believed them and so did my parents. Unfortunately with a few wonderful exceptions these teachers were not telling the truth. Some of them believed the lies and some did not, but they almost all repeated them. The exceptions said nothing.
 * Those who did honestly and consistently reward effort and achievement were notably (and again with a few unfortunate exceptions) those who had become teachers after successful careers in other professions. Those who had been teachers all of their lives were generally pawns of the insane and abusive system, as were those who had gone to teaching because they had failed at their chosen careers. I'm sorry if that's harsh, but I did suffer greatly at school, and students such as myself still do.
 * The rot runs deep.
 * But it is much easier for Wikipedia. We do not need to say in Wikipedia's voice whether or not Santa exists, any more than we need to say whether God does. We just cite sources and give them due weight. It is still not easy, because we all tend to think of our own opinions as being NPOV. Just easier, and that is the key to it. Andrewa (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Some people feel...
Re:

"Some people feel that God created the Earth in only six 24-hour days and interpret the days in the Genesis creation narrative as literal 24-hour days as opposed to longer periods of time."

I think this should be replaced with

"Some people believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days roughly 10,000 years ago."

or perhaps

"Some people believe that God created the Earth roughly 10,000 years ago."

I think "believe" is better than "feel". Their position is not "I feel that X is true but others feel that Y is true" but rather more like "I can prove that X is true and Y is false". (The fact that nobody else accepts their "proof" doesn't matter to them, They they freely admit that they get their truth from the Bible, and thus any scientific evidence that contradicts their interpretaion of the Bible must be in error.)

I also don't like the "as opposed to". Yes Young Earth creationism beliefs are indeed "opposed to" Old Earth creationism, but they are even more "opposed to" pretty much everything in our History of Earth article. Also, it is the 10,000 years that they are best known for, not the 24-hour days. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion! What I wanted to imply was that there are some people who believe God created the world through scientifically accepted methods, and you could say these people believe in theistic evolution (which I will admit I believe in), and I and other people who hold this belief would accept everything mentioned in the History of Earth article, while also believing in God. The original sentence by User:David Shankbone stated that some people believe God created the Earth in only 6 days, and it would be fine if these people believed the days were metaphorical for the events that took place in the History of Earth article. I assume David was only criticizing those who believe in the literal interpretation. Félix An (talk) 03:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The paragraphs that follow are really off-topic for an essay about Santa (I still think that "Some people believe that God created the Earth roughly 10,000 years ago." says everything we need to say in this essay and implicitly excludes theistic evolution) but I can't resist discussing such an interesting philosophical/theological issue.


 * Theistic evolution nicely sums up my thoughts on this. While theistic evolution is far less silly than old earth creationism (Seriously? Every star is less than 10,000 light years away? Or the speed of light isn't constant?), why bother adding in a supernatural cause when natural processes provide a perfectly good explanation?


 * I must admit that the version where God designed the universe and the laws of physics at the time of the big bang in order to get the result he wanted and has let it run without further intervention ever since is especially appealing. That version not only agrees with all of non-theistic science but also requires a God who is much more skilled and capable than creationists typically assume. Alas, no evidence. Just another nonfalsifiable theory, just like the theory that God created everything 10 minutes ago with evidence (everything from fossils to our memories) of a past that never happened in place.


 * And of course clearly shows that the people who believe that God created the Earth roughly 10,000 years ago completely reject any form of theistic evolution, so "Some people believe that God created the Earth roughly 10,000 years ago." seems to me to cover all the bases from the casual reader to the atheist to the believers in the various theistic theories. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)