Talk:Saint Nicholas/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Saint Nicholas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081207061529/http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/oct1979/v36-3-bookreview15.htm to http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/oct1979/v36-3-bookreview15.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Age of Myra church

"Around 200 years after Nicholas's death, the St. Nicholas Church, Demre was built under the orders of Theodosius I" - that cannot be. If Theodosius (r. 379-395) indeed ordered its construction, it's plain wrong - that could only have been decades after N.'s death, not 2 centuries! Also, no source is indicated. Arminden (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Arminden: I apologize for the error. According to a sourced statement in the body of the article, the church was built less than 200 years after Nicholas's death by Theodosius II, not Theodosius I. The lead gave the wrong Emperor Theodosius. I have changed the lead to reflect the statement in the body. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Turkey

No Muslim in the world says that Santa Claus is originally from Turkey. The mentioning of Turkey in this article is not necessary and gives the impression that Saint Nicholas has historical and cultural ties to Turkish people. Compare this to Paul the Apostle who was also from modern-day Turkey but his article says nothing about Turkey.User99998 (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The article does not say or even imply that St. Nicholas was Turkish. It says he was from "the ancient Greek city of Myra in Asia Minor (modern-day Demre, Turkey)" all of which is factually correct. The article on St. Paul is irrelevant. Mediatech492 (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Use of Livius.org

Text on this article is currently cited to an article by Jona Lendering [1]. My question is: is this a reliable source? It's currently being used to argue in favor of Nicholas being present at the Council of Nicea.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Adam English also makes a credible case that Nicholas was at Nicaea. I think Livius is probably reliable, but the Wikipedia article may be giving too much weight to Lendering's positions. 208.53.226.77 (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Three dowries

The earliest surviving account of the three dowries, in Michael the Archimandrite's Life, says Nicholas delivered the second bag of gold only after the first daughter was married, and the father decided to wait (at least two "nights") for the third bag after the second daughter was married. This Wikipedia article gives the impression that the three bags were delivered on consecutive nights. Is this a violation of WP:BLP, or has everyone involved died? :-) 208.53.226.77 (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. 216.249.247.209 (talk) 05:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit war

@Félix An and MrOllie: – This is edit warring and needs to stop NOW. If and admin sees this you are both at risk of sanctions. Leave the text in the status quo ante and bring the discussion here. Note that WP:3RR refers to a 24-hour period, not a date. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion has been ongoing at Talk:Santa Claus. - MrOllie (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Martin of Sheffield, nobody has breached 3RR here, nobody has even made more than 3 reverts at all. But I agree they need to stop warring and discuss here. Elizium23 (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

additional section about Kris Kringle & Pelznickel

No sections about Saint Nicholas' other alias' Kris Kringle & Pelznickel? I was thinking of adding this in, wanted to know some peoples thoughts on this. Here is an interesting article detailing how the different name variants came to be from the Dutch. Eruditess (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Eruditess, Belznickel added to "See also". "Kris Kringle" is part of the Santa Claus page. No sections in this article because it's about the real person. Elizium23 (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Elizium23 ahh Thank you, I thought perhaps there was a reason. Thank you for clarifying. Eruditess (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Tăbăcari Church

Can be included per MOS:ALSO. I would suggest a brief annotation that explains it is under the patronage of St. Nicholas. Elizium23 (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

St Nicolas

Why Saint nicoles is called Santa Clause 103.204.132.38 (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC) probably since the santa claus story is commercial and make cocacola pretend to BE the holy priest would not have been accepted by the public.

Not sure why the story that was reported one thousand years later is given more than a very brief mention; no historian would consider such a source, given that they generally won’t even consider stories first reported 100 years later than the event these days. There is a comment elsewhere that asks why any of this is accepted, given no reports were found till hundreds of years later, and the article states exactly that; perhaps the whole thing should be labeled “lore”, and leave it at that.