![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of A Visit from St. Nicholas was copied or moved into Clement Clarke Moore with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 23, 2004, December 23, 2005, December 23, 2006, December 23, 2007, December 23, 2008, December 23, 2009, December 23, 2010, December 23, 2014, and December 23, 2015. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 18 January 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to The Night Before Christmas. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
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)
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)
...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)
"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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
This was 1823.
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Greg Lovern ( talk) 23:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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!"
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)
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of A Visit from St. Nicholas was copied or moved into Clement Clarke Moore with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 23, 2004, December 23, 2005, December 23, 2006, December 23, 2007, December 23, 2008, December 23, 2009, December 23, 2010, December 23, 2014, and December 23, 2015. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 18 January 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to The Night Before Christmas. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
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)
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)
...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)
"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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
This was 1823.
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Greg Lovern ( talk) 23:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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!"
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)