Talk:The Twelve Days of Christmas (song)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
An {{Infobox Single}}, {{Infobox Song}} or {{Infobox Standard}} has been requested for this article. Please select the appropriate infobox and format it according to the guidelines.


How about this approach. A link is added direct to a .pdf version of the sheet music, by-passing my web site index page. (This was my original intent, since I didn't want a user to have to search Wikipedia for the sheet music, and then search my index page yet again for the same thing -- just go direct to the music.)

For example:

Easy piano arrangement of Twelve Days of Christmas at [link]

link = http://www.easybyte.org/twelvedays/twelvedays4c.pdf


There are already numerous instances of Wikipedia links pointing to other sites with good data, as well as links to commercial sites that just sell stuff. So forgive me if I feel like I am being singled out when gross violations of the spamming policy are happening everywhere else.

As far as the philosophy of Wikipedia, I find the links in an article often times more interesting then the article itself. If Wikipedia discourages links, it just becomes less useful to everyone.

User of Wikipedia are interested in data, not the fine print of Wikipedia policy and philosophy. If they search on "Twelve Days of Christmas", they are probably interested in the sheet music and a sound file too. That is what my visitor logs at easybyte.org show.

I'm gratified that so many people around the world find my arrangements useful, and that is where I want to focus my attention, on the actual music.

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.182.98.237 (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


I want to write a parody for this article. may i ? if so where, on talk or article ? if no, then you just made me very sad.TusharN 15:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Neither. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a humor site. Fan-1967 15:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
How about mentioning the Bob and Doug McKenzie parody instead? --Bentonia School 17:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
may I recommend www.uncyclopedia.com ?--CallmeNiel 08:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Table of gifts

Table of Presents received
Gift Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Day 9 Day 10 Day 11 Day 12 Total
Partridge in a pear tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12
Turtle Doves 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 22
French Hens 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 30
Calling Birds 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 36
Golden Rings 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 40
Geese a-laying 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 42
Swans a-swimming 7 7 7 7 7 7 42
Maids a-milking 8 8 8 8 8 40
Ladies dancing 9 9 9 9 36
Lords a-leaping 10 10 10 30
Pipers piping 11 11 22
Drummers drumming 12 12
Total 1 3 6 10 15 21 28 36 45 55 66 78 364

[edit] Hidden meanings??

I strongly suspect that all of this section is either OR or completely unverifiable (see WP:NOR and WP:V if I am speaking nonsense to you). I deleted one paragraph of it which was really blatant, but I left the rest of it -- will remove the rest in a day or two if there are no objections. Faithfully, Deltopia 23:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to the above comment, see http://www.appleseeds.org/12_days-christmas.htm. This also provides its documentation on the bottom. I apologize if it wasn't written to some hightened standard to which I am unfamiliar (working under the impression that this was a user created and edited format). However, if you want some citations, just ask. Don't erase it because you don't like it. It took me two seconds to find reference for it. If you tried a bit too, I'm sure you could find some references as well. But respectfully, don't just erase the entries; try working it out first. Nihonkurisu (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse the intrusion, but I have to say: everything on the website Nihonkurisu refers to, and whatever sources it's compiled from, seems pretty silly to me. 1) I don't see very much doctrine there that isn't accepted by Protestants, so I don't get what this has to do with the persecution of Catholics. 2) The items named in the song don't appear to correspond in any meaningful way to the things listed here - what have the gospels got to do with colly birds? How could this verse of the song help the hypothetical beleaguered Catholics "remember" the gospels? 3) Even the numerical correspondence is totally undermined by number 11 - no Christian ever speaks of "eleven apostles excluding Judas". There's twelve apostles; that's why there's twelve articles to the creed. After his betrayal, Judas was replaced, so the number stayed at twelve. Basically, these are just trumped-up parallels; I could do this to show how the song is about Thomas Pynchon, since there's clearly an example of each of the numbers 1-12 in any large enough corpus. Ajcounter (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Snopes says that the secret Catholic origins are an urban legend. http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/12days.asp ----PunDawg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.254.35 (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common to Parody

Maybe there should be something about how this is a common Christmas Song to Parody, such as in The 12 Pains of Christmas, etc.--71.240.68.185 00:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I think a citation is need for the origins of the song

While many websites out there post this same information, nobody backs it up with proof. This is actually discussed at [1]Snopes.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.240.198 (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The article states that the song "was used in European and Scandinavian traditions as early as the 16th century". First of all, I'm not sure what is meant by a song being "used" in a "tradition". Secondly, is there any record whatsoever of either the music or the lyrics of this song predating the 18th century? (For that matter, is the 1780 source quoted here accurate? I would have thought that the song was written later, probably 19th century. Perhaps a citation would be helpful to clear this up.) And finally, is it true that this song is commonly sung anywhere outside the English-speaking world, for example in Scandinavia (or in any other European country besides the UK and Ireland)? I think it's important to maintain the distinction between this particular (English) Christmas carol and the simple observance of twelve days of Christmas from December 25 to January 6, which is a far older and more widespread practice. Mardiste (talk) 14:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked up this song wanting to understand the symbolism behind the gifts (there must be some, but I don't believe the Cathecism story), and jumped high when I read the claim that it went back to 16th century Scandinavia. I'm a Swede currently living in Denmark with many Norwegian friends. No one I know has ever heard a Scandinavian version of this song, only American. Most in fact have never heard the song at all. We have lots of traditional Christmas songs, but none of them sound, or have lyrics, like this. I've also grown up in Netherlands and Belgium, and there was nothing like that there either. This certainly needs a citation. 83.94.222.113 (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British -> American

When I did the notation for this song, being an American, I simply put the lyrics as I knew them, not realizing that there was a difference elsewhere. I don't want to ruffle any feathers, so I came here to apologize for changing the emphasis from the British usage of the lyrics to the American. It certainly wasn't intentional, but it is a bit of a pain in the butt to change it back, so I hope you understand. —  MusicMaker5376 18:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A part of a juniper tree?

According to this reference:

to Cooper and Sullivan (1994), and also some websites, the date is [[October 10]. Cooper and Sullivan refer to some other customs surrounding Old Michaelmas, such as Old Michaelmas fairs. ACEOREVIVED 19:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Reference:

Cooper, Q. & Sullivan, P. (1994). "Maypoles, Martyrs and Mayhem". London: Bloomsbury. ISBN: 0 7475 18070

the first line of the never song never actually referred to "A partridge in a pear tree". The authors of this book claim that this line is actually a corruption of the original lyric, which was "a part of a juniper tree". Should this go in this article? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] copyvio

I just reverted an edit that, while it referenced the http://www.hymnsandcarolsofchristmas.com site, it directly lifted identical wording without using quotes. If that's not copyright violation, then someone else please revert me.--Vidkun (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just put that edit in, after a week of research. And I did reference this site, it was clearly in the reference box at the bottom as well. However, the text I included was not an entire verbatum copy of the original as you suggest, I selected bits and pieces of it which I thought were relevant, reworded, expanded, and restructured in some cases. Such as the song lyrics; these can't be copyright as it is a traditional song of uncertain origins.

I'm sorry, but I'm new to editing in Wikipedia, so I apologise if I have done something wrong. I just felt that this article did not give me what I wanted to know when I visited it a week ago. Hence my research and desire to share my results. Please let me know what I have done wrong. For instance, what do you actually mean by "without using quotes", when I did reference this site properly, and with a direct link? (And besides there was already a request to provide more references. The old article does also contain material from this site-such as the lyrics. If no single wording can be re-used in Wikipedia, even with a reference to the source, then it would not exist at all...) Also, nowhere I can find on the site I referenced does it say that it is copyrighted.

Please let me know in detail what would be needed to revert.

Brgds

Dbjorck (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding whether or not the site you got the wording from says it's copyrighted, it's assumed to have copyright unless it says otherwise. From WP:COPY All works are copyrighted unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed. You cited your reference, but, when the exact same wording is used, it's a quote, and should be within quotes. If you didn't write the wording you used, it needs to be in quotes, for example, the difference between Douglas Brice notes that it has always been such a favourite with the French and "Douglas Brice notes that it has always been such a favourite with the French" and where you got that wording. The snatch of melody that accompanies the enumeration is another portion. I'm not trying to be a dick, but let me be blunt: did you come up with the wording of those sections? If not, it's a quote, and has to be specifically shown as a quote, which is why we use quotation marks.--Vidkun (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I get your point, and I will see how I can edit it to more clearly show that it comes from these other sites. However, as it includes whole paragraphs, such as the whole lyrics, I'm guessing using a QUOTE tag would be more appropriate than quotation marks? I'm afraid then that it will harm the readability as it will be all over the place, and each quote must be accompanied with source according to the rules. And how do I handle spelling fixes (I remember for instance in one place it said 'needes' where it obviously meant 'needed', I fixed that in my copy, which means it is no longer a verbatum quote)? And how do I handle where I've omitted material; should I split it into two quotes? This would really look messy.
Dbjorck (talk) 09:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The optimal situation would be not to quote so extensively. Instead of using the exact wording of your source, rearrange things. You shouldn't have to quote unless the source says something rather important. —  MusicMaker5376 16:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MAJOR revision

Let me apologise in advance if I have done wrong in any way, as it is my first attempt at editing in Wikipedia. I have spent the best part of a week researching this song, literally reading every page that is available on the net; and the past couple of days critically collating and writing an abridged version of the information I've collected from these sites. I only kept tidbits that seemed recurring, otherwise well-founded, or compelling towards the theory of this oral tradition. As references I have included the most complete sources.

Out of respect to the previous author/s, I have mostly kept their text intact, although in some cases moved it around for better structure. There are however a couple of things I removed: 1) I replaced that it was a most popular Christmas song in "America and Europe" with "in English speaking countries", as there is no evidence that it is sung traditionally in any other countries. In Europe it is known outside UK merely because of watching UK and US TV. 2) The reference to it being a Scandinavian song. I am a "Scandinavian" and no one here knows this other than from US or UK TV shows. There is no supporting evidence on the web that it came from Scandinavia; except for one of the songs that could have been a precursor to it. However that statement was also way to sweeping, claiming "...originally from Scandinavia or Germany" and without references, so I took it out, especially since it wasn't even relating to this actual song. Dbjorck (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)