Talk:A Visit from St. Nicholas

The reindeer aren't flying

I notice that this article says the reindeer fly onto the roof. But they don't. If you actually read the poem, you'll note that the "clatter" arises "on the lawn," not in the sky. And it makes reference to "objects below," not in the sky. And the reindeer, like dry leaves, "meet with an obstacle" and "mount to the sky," in other words, they arrive at the house and leap lightly from the ground, "to the top of the roof, to the top of the wall." And at the end, when it says "away they all flew," it's not a literal reference to actual flight, any more than the father literally flies when he says, at the beginning of the poem, "away to the window I flew like a flash." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlmorgan (talk • contribs) 20:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's ambiguous, and maybe intentionally. But he was already understood to fly before that poem. About 14 years earlier in 1809, Washington Irving wrote, in A History of New York:

"...St. Nicholas came riding over the tops of the trees..." Greg Lovern (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Older discussion

A Visit from Saint Nicholas, surely? Quill 00:25, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The label for the Snopes link (here and on Clement Clarke Moore) is misleading; they talk about the dispute, but do not actually refute Moore's authorship: Whether Moore or Livingston wrote "A Visit from Saint Nicholas," one of them melded elements of Scandinavian mythology with the emerging Dutch-American version of Santa Claus... 61.51.67.145 17:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thunder and Lightning...

...translates to Donner and Blitz. As far as I remember, the poem mentions a reindeer named "Donner", but not "Donder" as it mentions in the article. Blitzen would be the infinitive form of the verb "to lightning" (though that doesn't really exist in English). Anyone care to clear this up? --Jemiller226 23:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure: you're thinking that the words in the poem are German, but they're Dutch.

As Donner means thunder in German and nothing in Dutch, these names might be German. Blixem means nothing in either language and Blitzen means flash or lightnings and Blitz means lightning in German and nothing in Dutch. I used Babelfish.69.122.62.231 (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure this is correct...

"more proof links the poem to Moore than" If there is proof of Moore's authorship, then there is no dispute. Even if re-worded as "more evidence links the poem to Moore" then even this, I think would be POV as it isn't wikipedia's place to assess the merits of evidence. It would perhaps be better to say that the poem had been attributed to Clement Moore and later to Henry Livingston although no proof exists of authorship. DavidFarmbrough 15 Sep 05

If there is more evidence there is more evidence. That is merely stating a fact. MrBucket 03:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Private correspondence of the editor

We need a source for this, I've taken it out for now. Having read Foster's work it seems largely convincing. Rich Farmbrough 21:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Names of reindeer

I removed the full list of the names of the reindeer. I would be nice, however, to have the several versions of the poem in Wikisource. -Acjelen 23:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to point out that on snopes it quotes the poem and it mentions Dunder and Blixem. http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/donner.asp Feral Mutant 20:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please put back all the raindeer names. It is an important cultural detail, and does not take up much room. Many children memorize these names. 69.87.193.238 21:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Include entire poem?

Do you think we could just print the complete original poem in the article? Other articles have full songs and poems in them and the poem is in the public domain. What do you think? Meyow 17:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should. --Chancemichaels 18:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

The original version, of course, but who knows which that might be? MrBucket 03:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure WP has a policy of including the text of a poem in its article. As long as there is a link to Wikisource, I don't see a real need to include the text. Perhaps the Wikisource link could be moved to the top of the article. -Acjelen 16:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I vote for including the text of the entire original poem. It is not that long, there are no copyright issues, and this poem has great cultural significance. It would also be good to have a prominent direct link to an actual image of the original December 23, 1823 publication. Ideally, there would be a thumbnail illustration in the article, that would link to an enlargement. 69.87.193.238 21:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Google books can be searched, but I can't find an original -- this 1856 image is the earliest I can find: 69.87.193.238 22:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The Poets and Poetry of America - Page 82[1]

1856 - 622 pages

A VISIT FROM ST. NICHOLAS. ...

INCLUDE THE WHOLE POEM!!! It's on GenealogyBank.com, copied exactly from the Troy Sentinel of the month before: Date: January 05, 1824 Location: Massachusetts Paper: Essex Register Article type: Poetry -Barry (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitely, it should be included. This article reads like a "can't see the forest for the trees" description in that it attempts a long analysis of the plot of a short poem which is in the public domain and could have been trivially included. Worse yet, it sends readers to external links (such as storyresources.com/twas_the_night_before_christmas-felt_story_board.php, which just returns a big fat 404 error) trying to find the poem itself. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I added a template that I found on the article for The Raven by Edgar Allen Poe; the template has been intact on that article for quite a while. I copied the poem from Wikisource. 98.166.137.88 (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Dasher,Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Donner and Blitzen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shagana Thavarajah (talk • contribs) 10:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Victorianisation of Christmas?

This was 1823.

Perhaps. Victoria's principal contribution to Christmas was the Christmas tree. Visit certainly presents a very domestic and children-centered Christmas compared to even the Christmas in Dickens' writing, which is much more public. The wholesomeness is also very ironic: home invasion, but by a saint; reverse burglary; the sly conspiracy with the father. -Acjelen 14:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Actually burglary is a more accurate term than robbery in this case. The home-invader's intent was to avoid an encounter with the "victim", which is not the case in a robbery.--Appraiser 16:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've never heard that nuance. I suppose that makes Bilbo Baggins a burglar after all. -Acjelen 00:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite - Victoria wasn;t crowned until 1937. I find it unlikely there was any grat "Victorianisation" going on in 1823. I must say though, it surprises me this poem ws written so early. It does seem very Victorian to me. It seems more likely it helped shape what became the Victorian Christmasn than that it satirized it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orlando098 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

1937? Are you sure about that? She served in the 1800's, IIRC. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Errmm... I think you mean 1837, no? SkinheadEscapes (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Original copies

How does one have an "original copy" of a poem that first appeared anonymously in a newspaper? Are they newspaper clippings? -Acjelen 14:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the author would have had a copy that he wrote, to send into the newspaper. From the context, I presume this term has been extended to include any copy that Moore wrote out himself. SixFourThree (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

Authorship controversy

This section seems to be a whole lot of nothing. Moore took credit for the work, and during his lifetime it was published in an anthology of his works. Seems to me that we ought to touch on the controversy, specifically citing those historians who hold a different opinion, but a blow-by-blow of rampant speculation about who knew whom, who might have been exposed at one point in his lifetime to what, and comparing styles seems to add more weight than the "controversy" deserves. At the very least, these lists ought to be replaced by a brief summary. SixFourThree (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

I disagree. For a work as well-known as this one, authorship is significant, especially since is appears that credit for the work was stolen from the author. If anything, that section should be expanded.--Appraiser (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If there was any "there" there, I'd agree. But all we have is speculation, and some is silly at best. These lists don't provide any clarity. How can we determine if credit was "stolen" since no other author ever stepped forward to claim credit, either before Moore did or after to challenge his claim? Livingston never made any claim to the poem. Seems to me that this article is lending weight to a controversy that doesn't really exist in any substantive form. SixFourThree (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

This is a major sleuth problem for the poetry world, as explained here [2] and here [3]. I agree that the lists don't adequately cover the topic, but to me that is a call for expansion, not deletion. Maybe I should add it to my todo list.--Appraiser (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

A "major sleuth problem"? According to both your links, the theory is being advanced by one man. That should be the subject of the "Authorship Controversy" section. I agree that the subject deserves to be covered, but the article shouldn't imply (or outright state) that this is some sort of Shakespeare/Bacon thing going on. SixFourThree (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

The lead sentence currently states that "A Visit from St. Nicholas ... is a poem written by Henry Livingston Jr. and rewritten by Clement Clarke Moore, first published anonymously in 1823." I do not believe that the controversy section is anywhere near enough to claim Livingston as the original author. Also there is nothing in the article about Moore having rewritten the poem.

Unless someone objects violently then before Christmas eve (i.e., tomorrow morning) I'm going to change that sentence to: ""A Visit from St. Nicholas ... is a poem first published anonymously in 1823 and thought to be written by Clement Clarke Moore". Do you think I should also include a paranthetical phase like "(although at least one scholar thinks that Henry Livingston Jr. was the original author)"? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I was just getting ready to do the same thing! I suggest: "A Visit from St. Nicholas ... is a poem first published anonymously in 1823 and generally credited to Clement Clarke Moore (but see 'Authorship Controversy' below)". Having just read up on this a bit, I have some sympathy with the (anonymous) supporter of the Livingston claim, but it is just that - an unsubstantiated (if credible) claim for which any firm evidence has been long lost. It seems that the original anonymous publication was submitted without the knowledge of either putative author, and that Livingston probably died (in 1828) unaware that it had ever been published - so his failure to lay claim to the work is not surprising. On the other hand, Moore's explicit assertion of authorship (when including the poem in his 1844 anthology) is gross plagiarism if he was not the author. FredV (talk) 13:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently neither one received any money for the 1823 publication in the Sentinal. I'm not sure whether Moore got any money for the 1844 anthology or had any say about what went into that work. Obviously A Visit could not have been copyrighted. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 09:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ted Mann was just the reporter for Scarsdale Magizine. I corrected the attribution to Seth Kaller. I also corrected the spelling of Kaller's name. In addition, I added and updated many citations to Mann's article on Kaller. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

About my recent edits; for those offended by the presumption of Moore's authorship (as this article had done before then), I was trying to be more even-handed -- replacing certain instances of Moore's name with "the poem" if it referred to the text and its influence. To jump to the conclusion that it was Moore's work merely because he took credit for it (which, if he didn't write it, is gross plagiarism) is ridiculously hasty for a Wikipedia article. Until someone objects, I'm reverting to my edits; let's have a decent discussion about this. Stolengood (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you've got this completely backwards. The poem is attributed to Moore who, after not wanting to, acknowledged his authorship. That's who the poem is credited to 99.9% of the time. An academic has challenged that attribution, and it's a valid challenge based on proven methods, but it hasn't been enough to overcome the standard attribution. It may accumulate enough evidence in the future to do so, or it may never, but that's neither here nor there. We acknowledge the challenge throughout the article, even in the lede, and give good coverage to the theory. The report is even-handed and fair. But the standard attribution remains to Moore, and WP:WEIGHT prevents us from taking sides and acting as if the challenge has been proven, since it has not been. It's a theory, a damn good theory, a theory with good evidence, but a theory nonetheless, and giving it full credit by knocking Moore's name off the poem or by adding Livingstone's name to the attribution (outside of the context of the controversy), goes too far. The article as it is has good balance, your edits unbalanced it.

By the concept of WP:BRD, I have reverted your restorationof your edits: you were Bold, then you were Reverted by me, then we Discuss. There's not another reversion in that process so that your edits stay in the article while it's under discussion; the article returns to its status quo while the discussion of your Bold edits goes on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, then; I humbly acquiesce. Could my spelling corrections, however, be kept in the article? I think a couple of my edits were solely devoted to that... Stolengood (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I guess I didn't see them when I looked at your edits, or I would have put them back in myself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Meter

The article doesn't mention the meter of the poem. AnswerBag states that the poem is Anapestic tetrameter, which in turn is made up of Anapaests. The three articles don't link to each other, and I think such links would be of value. (If someone creates a transcludable template for poems, the meter would be an important property.) -- SpareSimian (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Structure

I'm a stickler for order. Could the bulleted lists be either chronological or reverse? Some of the items do not have a date or a reference. I also would like to see the inclusion of the original poem. LizMarr (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

What Moore had written

The handwritten copy of Moore clearly shows he used the words Donder and Blitzen, based on the Dutch words Donder en Bliksem. So it is Donder, only later commonly changed to Donner. And Blitzen, not Bliksem, because he probably needed a rhyming word to Vixen. --Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Christmas Eve

Giving credit to Moore for having St. Nick visit on Christmas Eve vs. Christmas Day seems out of place as the the 1821 Gilley poem (referenced already with regard to the reindeer) also has Santeclaus arriving on Christmas Eve.

"Old Santeclause with much delight

His reindeer drives this frosty night,

O'er chimney tops,and tracks of snow,

to bring his yearly gifts to you.

The steady friend of virtuous youth,

The friend of duty, and of truth,

Each Christmas eve he joys to come

Where love and peace have made their home."

Full Text from Gilley Dspark76 (talk) 07:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A Visit from St. 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/20051215085702/http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poem/1312.html to http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poem/1312.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://geocities.com/kornispeachy_99/Discography/xmassong.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Need to have citation for the text of poem

If we are going to have the text of the poem in the article, it would be nice to have a citation to the version we are using. It would be even better to have an external link to the version we are using so that readers can see for themselves that the text we are using is the earliest, or original, or most authentic, etc. version. I would prefer that there is an explicitly stated reason for our choices of spelling and phrasing available to the users of Wikipedia, rather than relying on a consensus of editors reverting and undoing the frequent "fixes". Acjelen (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Celebrity reading

Nelly1974 put a celebrity reading from 2016 in the article as its own section. I removed it because I thought it looked promotional, and gave it undue weight. Nelly1974 restored it, though. What do the rest of you think? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Remove, as it is not a notable reading/recording. The only source is that it exists, not that anyone has discussed its merits. Scr★pIron^IV 18:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Real Group Reference

I added the point that the Real Group have paraphrased the poem in their song "The World For Christmas", but this was removed. I think this is rather interesting, as this original poem isn't mentioned anywhere in the score. Is there a better place in the article where this information would fit in? Segis84 (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the good faith edit, and Happy New Year. There have been so many references to this poem thoughout the arts and society that picking one out of the mix for mentioning probably seemed like favoritism from the editor who reverted. Some pages have an 'In popular culture' section, yet if one were added here it'd probably have to include a couple of dozen entries at its creation, just to give a good overview. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh cool. Of course. Maybe as a later project, then! :) Segis84 (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

MacDonald P. Jackson's book about the authorship controversy

The section on the authorship controversy goes into a lot of detail but doesn't even list the new arguments made by MacDonald P. Jackson in his book, Who Wrote "The Night Before Christmas"?: Analyzing the Clement Clarke Moore vs. Henry Livingston Question. The section would be improved by a summary of Jackson's points, as well as a summary of the extensive rebuttals of Jackson's points by Scott Norsworthy in his blog posts, and of Jackson's counter-rebuttal.

I'm going to start summarizing them here. It may take me a while to get through it all. First, Jackson's book:

• In chapter 1, Jackson introduces the authorship controversy and explains that this book will analyse it using both traditional and newly developed methods. This will include literary critical analysis, and data-driven methods, such as rates of use of words. Jackson explains that these latter methods are well established in the authorship attribution field, but have never before been applied to this poem. Jackson explains that he will then apply a new method, the analysis of sounds of words used. Jackson explains that he will then scrutinize the contending stories from the two camps.
• In chapter 2, Jackson explains that external evidence supports Moore's authorship; key early publishers clearly believed Moore was the author, and only Moore published it as his own. Moore's family and at least some friends believed he was the author. Livingston always published anonymously or under a pseudonym. But internal evidence, Jackson says, favors Livingston's authorship. In tone and style, Visit is very much like much of Livingston's other work, but very unlike anything else by Moore. Jackson gives examples, including Moore's poem From Saint Nicholas, in which a little girl -- Moore's daughter -- is told she will not get Christmas presents this year because she cries too much. Jackson contrasts this curmudgeonly tone in Moore with the "verve, imagination, humor, whimsy, and sheer joyous inventiveness" in poems by Livingston, giving examples.
• In chapter 3, Jackson shifts to "objective and quantitative measures". For example, he notes that wishing someone a "Happy Christmas", as Saint Nick does in Visit, was unusual then as now, but that Livingston did so in an early letter to the woman he later married. Jackson then extensively discusses the forms of the names of two of the reindeer in the first published version, "Dunder and Blixem", which are correct (then) Dutch for thunder and lightning. Livingston was 3/4 Dutch and lived in a mostly Dutch community, where "Dunder and Blixem!" was a common oath. When Moore later published Visit under his own name, he "corrected" the names to "Donder and Blitzen", making them German. By the time he did so, Jackson shows, it had become common in American popular fiction for Dutch characters to say the oath in German. Jackson also notes that Livingston very often rhymed "m" and "n", as in Blixem and Vixen, while Moore never did. But in case the reader wonders whether these anomalies can be explained by a heavy-handed editor when Visit was first published, Jackson shows that the archaic spelling "jirk" (for jerk) was very uncommon by 1823, and would likely have been the first candidate for editorial correction if any had been made. Jackson shows that several other changes made by Moore when he published Visit under his name changed subtle details that were similar to Livingston's other work to make them more similar to his own.
• In chapter 4, Jackson says that the Moore camp claims that Visit could not have been written as early as the Livingston camp says it was (1808) because the part where St. Nicholas puts his finger on the side of his nose is taken (they say) from the 1812 edition of a story by Washington Irving. But Jackson finds that this gesture was very common in American fiction then and going at least as far back as 1751, and that one such example is in Lawrence Sterne's 1760 novel Tristram Shandy, which Livingston praises in a poem dated 1787. Jackson also finds that Washington Irving used the same gesture in another story published in 1807. Jackson further notes that other imagery that Visit has in common with Irving's 1812 story was available in the culture before 1808.
• In chapter 5, Jackson shows that Visit shows a high level of skill in fitting words naturally to the metrical rhythm, so that syllables are not unnaturally stressed or unnaturally unstressed. Jackson shows that Livingston's other work displays this high level of skill while Moore's does not, including a poem Moore wrote about a decade after Visit was published. Next Jackson addresses the point made by the Moore camp that only Moore, not Livingston, is known to have written any other children's ballad with magical elements. Jackson counters that the example by Moore used to support this claim is "magical" only in the sense that it is in the tradition of Aesopian fable, with animals talking among themselves. Jackson further points out that Moore's "sneering poem has never, and never could have, delighted the world's children, as has Visit".
• In chapter 6, Jackson introduces the statistical methods that are used in the following chapters. He notes that "literary people" are often suspicious of statistical methods of authorship attribution analysis. But he explains that these methods merely quantify the very kinds of comparisons that are otherwise done more informally, and that this quantification simply applies more rigor to those comparisons. Jackson then gives a simple introduction to the statistical concepts of standard deviation, normal distribution, the t-test, and the chi-square test. Jackson illustrates this using as an example the two poets' use of the word "that", which Moore uses almost twice as frequently as Livingston.
• In chapter 7, Jackson notes that a distinguishing feature of Visit is that it has relatively few adjective-plus-noun combinations. He then compares how often the two poets precede a noun with a modifier, and shows that Livingston uses far fewer than Moore. Jackson explains that this test shows that Visit is much more like Livingston's work than Moore's -- 1 in 73 poems of similar length by Livingston can be expected to have a rate of nouns preceded by a modifier similar to that of Visit, while the same can be said of only 1 in 5,376 poems of similar length by Moore. Further, no other poem written by Moore comes anywhere close to the infrequency of nouns preceded by modifiers found in Visit.
• In chapter 8, Jackson compares how many rhymes in Visit occur elsewhere in Moore & Livingston's work. While the quantity of rhymes found are similar, half of the rhymes found in Livingston's work were published by other poets much less frequently than the rhymes found in Moore's work (and the other half of the Livingston rhymes), which were all commonplace. Jackson explains that this reflects the fact that Moore generally relied on more commonly used rhymes while Livingston's rhymes were more often unusual. Jackson further notes that a high percentage of the rhyming words in Visit are nouns, which fits squarely within Livingston's work while Moore never elsewhere used such a high proportion of nouns in his rhymes.
• In chapter 9, Jackson compares how closely each poet is associated to Visit by trigrams -- sequences of at least three words -- and other parallels. Jackson finds that the number of trigrams linking each poet to Visit is similar, but that the examples linking Livingston are much less common than those linking Moore. Jackson goes on to discuss other parallels, such as the image of the moon turning night as bright as day, which is common in Livingston but absent in Moore. Another example is the British idiom of putting the word "right" before an adjective, as in "right jolly old elf". Jackson notes that a commentator in the Moore camp wrote that some of these reflect a very well read author and so must be given to Moore. But Jackson counters that Livingston was "extraordinarily well read" as well as a "true polymath", and gives many examples as evidence. Jackson finishes the chapter with Visit's final line, noting that not only is "Happy Christmas" unique and linked only to Livingston, but also the chiasmic structure of "Happy Christmas TO ALL, and TO ALL a good night" is common in Livingston but absent in Moore.
  • Regarding Livingston's usage of the British idiom "right (adjective)", not mentioned by Jackson is the fact that Livingston grew up as a British citizen while Moore grew up as an American. Livingston was already in his late 20s when the Revolutionary War began, while Moore was born during the war and was only 4 when it ended. After the war was a concerted effort to modify American culture to make it distinct from British culture. Livingston was among the youngest Americans to grow up as a British citizen, while Moore was among the oldest to grow up as an American citizen. A British idiom like "right jolly" would have been natural for an American of Livingston's age but not for one of Moore's age.
• Chapter 10 begins a 3-chapter section on phoneme pairs. Phonemes are the units of sound in a given language that distinguish one word from another. Jackson starts with the observation that "Livingston's verses trip off the tongue, whereas Moore's often trip up the tongue". The point of these phoneme tests will be to quantify why that is so, and by how much. For these chapters, Livingston's and Moore's poems were first translated into Arpabet, a phonetic transcription code for general American English that represents phonemes. Jackson gives the examples S-T-AA-K-IH-NG-Z and EY-T, for stockings and eight. (to be continued)
• (To be continued; the book has 23 chapters)

Greg Lovern (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

References

WHAT section about the authorship controversy? And if someone thinks it doesn't belong most of Henry Livingston Jr. needs to go as well. You can't have it both ways. Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Apparently the article's section on the authorship controversy was removed sometime after I entered these notes here on the Talk page in December 2018, and has since been replaced.

Who's suggesting anything "doesn't belong"? Not me. I have no idea what you mean by having it both ways. I have never made any changes to the article. Greg Lovern (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Authorship?

Why was all mention of the authorship controversy deleted. It appeared to be sourced, and as there are frequently news articles in December discussing it, it would appear to be notable, even if a particular editor doesn't agree. Mannanan51 (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I restored the deleted section, but it could use additional citations. Dimadick (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

As of November 15, 2022, the Authorship Controversy section needs a much more neutral voice. Whoever has re-written it has clearly sided with the Moore authorship camp. The section listing the arguments in favor of Livingston are immediately rebutted by the Wikipedian(s) who wrote it, while the rebuttals against Moore are rather scant. Either way, it's not the job of Wikipedia to rebut or not rebut - just lay out the arguments made in the various books for each of the two claimed authors, and leave it at that. It breaks Wikipedia's rule of providing a Neutral Point Of View (NPOV). With academic scholarship in favor of each author, and with no consensus on the matter, neither argument should be dismissed in the way it is currently presented in this article. Further to that, many of the arguments made are uncited, but seem to be the Wikipedian(s)' analysis of the works they read. Mayor of awesometown (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree--the Authorship Controversy section is a train wreck. It does no real justice to the Livingston side; not even mentioning any of the best points in Livingston's favor. It's really a screed for the Moore side. The final paragraph is helpful for those who proceed to read MacDonald P. Jackson's book, but doesn't go into any of his specific points.

The "Evidence in favor of Moore" subsection is fine; clearly laying out all the points in Moore's favor. But the "Evidence in favor of Livingston" needs a complete rewrite, featuring primarily MacDonald P. Jackson's points. I'm not sure a discussion of Seth Foster's points in favor of Livingston is even needed, as they are trivial next to MacDonald P. Jackson's points.

It's been 6½ years since MacDonald P. Jackson's book was published showing deep internal evidence in Livingston's favor. Has there been any effort at a rebuttal by the Moore camp? Greg Lovern (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Paragraph on alterations in modern printings

This paragraph had to be removed from the article due to lack of citations. But it's still worthwhile here in the Talk section for the information it provides:

Modern printings frequently incorporate alterations that reflect changing linguistic and cultural sensibilities. For example, breast in "The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow" is frequently bowdlerized to crest; the archaic ere in "But I heard him exclaim ere he drove out of sight" is frequently replaced with as. This change implies that Santa Claus made his exclamation during the moment that he disappeared from view, while the exclamation came before his disappearance in the original. "Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-night" is frequently rendered with the traditional English locution "Merry Christmas"

I would just add that changing the original's "Happy Christmas to all" to "Merry Christmas to all", does not "reflect changing linguistic and cultural sensibilities". Rather, "Merry Christmas" was popular then as now, while "Happy Christmas" was not. "Happy Christmas" was a quirk of Major Henry Livingston Jr., found in his other works. Greg Lovern (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Die Hard

The idiotic debate over Die Hard being a Christmas movie should have no place in an encyclopedia. The surreptitious inclusion of it as a Christmas movie in the last section should be removed. Alexandermoir (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed - I've removed it. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Adaptation into "nonsense verse"

I don't know the opinions of others, but I do believe it is of note that there is a phonetic transliteration of this poem and that it should be included:

Tweeze denied beef worker isthmus, winnow Trudy how's,

Snot agreed juries during, gnaw Tiffany moss. This talking swear unbided Gemini wit cairn Hint opus scenic (alas!) sinewy dare. Unjelled runner nozzle tools smuggling deer butts Well fissions unshoe kerplunks thence endear huts. Anemometer cur chiffon dyeing mayhap, Adjust subtle warp reins fairy loin winger snap. Winnow taunted launderer roast sachet glitter Ice brine bromide bet deucey woodwinds schemata. Await Tudor widower blue lacking flesh, Door roping tier shatters untrue hump these ash. Demonian depressed often knew felines know Gaffe cholesterol metier due abjects elope. Wane wood tummy wandering ice ****tah pear, Vital men etchers lay mandate tidy Rainier. Whittle it whole dolt river salival equipt, Sinewy mom aunt isthmus bee-stain nicked. Mere rabbit-torn evils whose gorses became Any weaseled end shuttered, uncool tomboy maim. "Node azure! No Dunce era! No France urine fixing! Uncommit! And cubit! Andante ran vexing! Toady tipoff deport chew detypify well! Gnaw dish aweigh, dish aweigh, dish aweigh awl!" Asked relieves dot beef forty whiled hurry queen fry, Wind emit wooden apse stickle, mountie-desk eye, Sew-up two-deep how stop duck horsers dubloon, Witty slave fallow toils, ascend nickel loss due. Ant tending at weakling - why hurt honor roof? A brain sinning Boeing effete shiney huff. Aside ruin mayhap untwist darning neuron Bounding gym knee-scent knick (alas!) game winning pound. Iwis tressed woolen furze promise etuis food, Anus closed whorled varnished wood asses in suits. Abound olived oils (egad!) flunk honor speck, Any luck lockup addler chest (hope?) nimbus peck. Assai Saudi twin calloused temples amore! Exchequer lachryosis, whizz snows locket jury. Estrual litter mouse wash thrown applique beau, Amdahl biered honest Genesis weight hostess know. Distempered ape pie pea yelled tiding is steed, Undies mocha answer cul de sac lackey reed. Egad! Abroad fastener litter hound bully Achoo! quaintly left, lacking bull feeling jolly. Iwis champion blimp -- arrayed chilly wool delve, Any left whinney sow hymn, enspied off Moselle. An oink office sigh unto whist office hood Swoon gamey tonneau ahead knitting two tread. Ease poke naught award, Beduoin strayed duets orc, Infield eldest tuggings; interned witty chert, End lioness fanger a sight office gnus, Ant gibbon unknot, upon chimpanzee rows. Hasp Rangoon is lay, due esteem guava wistful, Ending weight day elf loo, lacking town ova tassle; Buddy herding explain air hedge rowboat design,

"Hopping rich musty woolen due awl incondite!"

References

Requested move 18 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

---

A Visit from St. Nicholas → The Night Before Christmas – WP:COMMONNAME. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support only because the poem was first published under a different name ("Account of a Visit from St. Nicholas", which I would support as the page's name), so the shortened name and the common name can fight it out under the tree and the common[Edit: slightly shortened original] name should emerge with the milk and cookies. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Now Strong Oppose per below and further history examination. The present title contains the original name, and its place in the history of the creation of the modern Santa Claus and how modern society celebrates the Christmas holiday is unmistakable and profound. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. OP has provided no evidence that the proposed title is the common name. 162 etc. (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  162 etc., ...and all through the house Randy Kryn (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Although, come to think of it, The Night Before Christmas also means Christmas Eve, which should be hatnoted if the name changes although the disamb page catches it way down at the bottom. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, the phrase "The Night Before Christmas" can be used in many contexts, which means that the above-cited graph may contain a number of false positives. 162 etc. (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Struck my support, the Nicholas name is a very common usage and is closer to the original name. Redirects pick up the variants. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  You both realize that the variants with the title "The Night Before Christmas" are ... based on this poem, right? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, it is a line from the poem, but even though that line is well known and used as a stand-alone title, "A Visit from St. Nicholas" is equally well-known and has the added feature of being the original name reflecting the author's intent of highlighting St. Nicholas - the original template for Santa Claus. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  What the WP:OFFICIALNAME is isn't really relevant; the only thing we should be looking at is which is the most common name. The fact that adaptations of the poem almost always use the "alternative" title is a massive hint to that question. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  The explanatory page that you've linked describes titles not commonly known under their original name. This title is, so the RM comes down to an "either-or" situation. Neither of the two options is wrong or little-known, and both have support points. Long-term historical significance would go to "A Visit from St. Nicholas" as an historical artifact of the creation and shaping of both the Santa Claus legend and how modern society celebrates the holiday. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support I think this is the common name. Just by comparison, I looked at Scots Wha Hae, the title uses what is now the common name, although it was originally published as "Robert Bruce's March to Bannockburn". PatGallacher (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose We shouldn't be changing titles based on a mere assertion, without evidence, that some other term is the most common one. Thats's akin to an WP:ILIKEIT argument. WP:COMMONNAME states that when there is no single, obvious name that is "demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic", WP:CRITERIA should be used. The existing title works well according to those criteria, and we should expect a well-reasoned case to be made out by any proponent of change. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.