Talk:A Visit from St. Nicholas

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

message: ...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)
thread_title:  Thunder and Lightning... 

message: "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)
thread_title:  I am not sure this is correct... 

message: 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)
thread_title: Private correspondence of the editor

message: 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)
thread_title:  Names of reindeer 

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

text: 1937? Are you sure about that? She served in the 1800's, IIRC. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Errmm... I think you mean 1837, no? SkinheadEscapes (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victorianisation of Christmas? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Original copies 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: This is a major sleuth problem for the poetry world, as explained here  and here . 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Authorship controversy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Meter 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What Moore had written 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Christmas Eve 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Need to have citation for the text of poem 

message: 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)
replies: text: Remove, as it is not a notable reading/recording.  The only source is that it exists, not that anyone has discussed its merits.  Scr★pIronIV 18:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celebrity reading 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Oh cool. Of course. Maybe as a later project, then! :) Segis84 (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Group Reference 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Paragraph on alterations in modern printings 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed - I've removed it. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Die Hard 

message: :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)
replies: text: A Visit from St. Nicholas →  – WP:COMMONNAME. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 18 January 2024