Talk:The Twelve Days of Christmas (song)/Archive 1

Pipes or Flutes?

Yes Virginia there is a difference, I never heared of a Flautist being called a "Piper" with "Pipes" bagpipes being understandably a much older instrument in terms of origin and in design, with its use being very common with minsterals of the 16th-17th century and in numerous biblical and historical references from the Middle east to ancient Rome. One must also not assume the instrument being referred to in the song is the GHB or Great Highland Bagpipe since so many types have existed in Europes history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.166.126 (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Furthermore, I am aware of only two kinds of bands that include only drums and pipes: bagpipes and drums, and flutes/piccolo and drums. However, only the former is commonly called a "pipe and drum band"; the latter is commonly called a "fife and drum band" (and the players of these instruments are called "fifers"). So, I corrected the wikilink for "11 Pipers Piping" to point to the generic "bagpipes" article, instead of the "pipe (instrument)" article. Johnson487682 (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What is your source for "Pipers" being specifically bagpipers? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I never said "pipers" must be "bagpipers". I was agreeing with 66.216.166.126, who pointed out that when musicians speak of "pipers", they are speaking of someone who plays bagpipes. My assertion is that this song is referring to a group of musicians composed of only drums and some type of pipe, and the only such groups I know of use either bagpipes or fifes, not the simple "perforated wind instrument" that had been pictured in the Wiki page previously linked. Johnson487682 (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

One should also observe the origins of the Carol in question are Western European where even non musicians are more likey to differentiate between a "piper" and a "flautist". Most do since nearly every Euorpean country has a version of thier own particular "pipe" or bagpipe in everything from the Bomba (France) to the Doodlesack (Germany) Uilliean (presumed Ireland not sure),smallpipe,GHB (Scotland, U.K.). For additional early examples I suggest looking up a Master piper Mr. Sean Folsom or a celtic heritage musican and open piper Mr. Barnaby Brown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.166.126 (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

External link to sheet music

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)

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
Colly Birds				4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	36
Gold 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

the previous table was added without being signed

This assumes that once a gift is given, it is also given on all subsequent days. If it's not, there are only a total of 78 gift items given (79 if the partridge and the pear tree are counted separately). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

See Green grow the rushes, O, specifically the "11 for the eleven who went to Heaven". Eleven is always associated with the Apostles post-Judas in Christian tradition. 69.250.35.71 (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why the completely spurious invention of purported hidden references to Catholic persecution in the "Twelve Days of Christmas" has to be give so much undue weight in this article. It is the ridiculous equivalent of seeing an image of the Virgin Mary in a piece of toast.Mballen (talk) 07:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Two paragraphs and a bulleted list isn't that much space.

The main reason is that it is addressed every year and what better place than an Encyclopedia than to dispel the myth. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

The "parodies" segment of the main article does not list (as far as I can see) the Chad Mitchell Trio treatment of the subject/genre ... I saw this live, onstage (I was in college) and that was LONG ago ... searching other sources, Wiki itself lists that musical number as having been released in 1962 ... I do not consider this a glaring omission, but since other parodies are listed, I think it should also include the CMT offering. (Keyboard for my Pad does not seem to want to "sign" the tildes for me ... consider it done.) O the Umanity (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC) AHA!!! O the Umanity (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source to support this, then it may be added. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

I just discovered this song, and I don't know which version inspired the other, but it is indeed very reminiscent of a traditional French song called "La Perdriole", which doesn't list the gifts the singer's true love gave to him on each of the twelve days of Christmas, but the gifts the singer will give to his true love on each month of the year. One recent recording can be heard there, and the lyrics there, but there are indeed other version, including one by Malicorne which only references seven days of... May. It's apparently also know in Quebec. Although I never associated this song with Christmas or Christian traditions, I just found this page which says it was sung traditionally on New years's day in Burgundy. Unautreadrien (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Mathematics!

Due to the accumulative nature of the presents, the song lends itself well to Christmas-themed mathematical activities in schools. The most common example is as an introduction to Pascal's Triangle.

However, once that's been mastered, there are alternatives. I haven't yet found a web resource, but I remember when I was at school completing a worksheet which, after asking for the total presents given, went on to questions such as "How many birds?" and "How many legs?" (a trick question - 1 maid a milking uses 9 legs - 2 on the maid (we hope!), 4 on the cow (bit difficult to milk a cow with less legs!) and 3 on the milking stool (this was written before the days of milking machines!)). Mittfh (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Meaning

I just removed the following text from the section on "Lyrics: Origin":

From 1558 until 1829, Roman Catholics in England were not permitted to practice their faith openly. Someone during that era wrote this carol as a catechism song for young Catholics. It has two levels of meaning: the surface meaning plus a hidden meaning known only to members of their church. Each element in the carol has a code word for a religious reality, which the children could remember.

The partridge in a pear tree was Jesus Christ. Two turtledoves were the Old and New Testaments. Three French hens stood for faith, hope and love. The four calling birds were the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John. The five golden rings recalled the Torah or Law, the first five books of the Old Testament. The six geese a-laying stood for the six days of creation. Seven swans a-swimming represented the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Spirit: Prophesy, Serving, Teaching, Exhortation, Contribution, Leadership, and Mercy. The eight maids a-milking were the eight beatitudes. Nine ladies dancing were the nine fruits of the Holy Spirit: Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, and Self Control. The ten lords a-leaping were the Ten Commandments. The eleven pipers piping stood for the eleven faithful disciples. The twelve drummers drumming symbolized the twelve points of belief in The Apostles' Creed.

This particular thread ("catechism song") is discussed (with references) in the section on "Meaning," and does not belong in the section on "Lyrics." PlaysInPeoria (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I just copy-edited the "Meaning" section and moved the "catechism song" interpretation to the "Notes" section for purposes of consistency. As noted in 2008 (above), "This particular thread ('catechism song') is discussed (with references)" in the "Meaning" section. If the interpretations list belongs in the article at all, it works best as a (foot)note.

Much of the language removed in 2008 (above) reads better than the language moved to the "Notes" section, but I did not have the time or the inclination to copy-edit this thread further this morning. PlaysInPeoria (talk) 08:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Needs updating

Perhaps this atrtice needs to be updated per the information revealed in QI recently - namely that the "Five Goooold Rings" was a variation to the original "Five Gold rings" (no prolonged Gold), and that the prolonged Gold variation is still in copyright. I know WP doesn't use itself as a source, but this sums up the point nicely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_QI_episodes_(F_series)#Episode_2_.22Fire_.26_Freezing.22_.28Christmas_Special.29 I shall try and find a non-WP source myself. 84.70.51.168 (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The introduction seemed very repetitive of content further explained in the body of the article. I trimmed it down some.--Eddylyons (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Order of Entries in "Parodies and burlesques"

It occurs to me that, as the number of entries in the "Parodies and burlesques" section grows, the section becomes increasingly difficult to read. I am considering reorganizing this section in chronological order. Any thoughts on this idea?

PlaysInPeoria (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Jewish music influence?

This carol exhibits a significant structural resemblance to one jewish hymn for the passover known

as "אחד מי יודע" (Echad Mi Yodea) (from the passover haggada) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.68.40 (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

cf Chad Gadya Tomer^talk 08:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Has any reliable authority spotted this similarity and is there any evidence of a causal link.--Sabrebd (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea...I was just providing a link relevant to what the anon posted... This would probably have been an even better link. :-p Tomer^talk 16:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

seems to me a fairly common song structure--209.181.16.93 (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Days?

This article defines the twelve days of christmas as 26dec-6jan and the article on the actual 12 days of christmas defines them as 25dec - 5jan why is there a discrepency?--209.181.16.93 (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia article on Twelve Days of Christmas, there is no authoritative tradition which twelve days of the calendar those are. Twelfth Night is always January 5, but the Twelfth Day can be considered either the 5th or the 6th. Consistency with the rest of the Christian calendar suggests that the first day of Christmastide should be Christmas itself, with epiphany a separate day, but in reality it depends on local tradition and is observed differently in different places. 66.75.228.244 (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

No need for a hatnote disambiguation

Per our hatnote guidelines, there is no need for a hatnote to disambiguate this page. And if a reader is interested in the Twelve Days of Christmas, they are clearly guided there by a link in the first paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.32 (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

How Does One Cite a Significant Fact that Apparently Was Not Published Elsewhere

An "original research?" tag was added to the following paragraph:

In fact, variations in lyrics provide evidence against the "catechism song" origin. For example, the four Gospels often are described as the "four calling birds," when in fact the phrase "calling birds" is a modern (probably 20th century) phonetic misunderstanding of "colly birds" (blackbirds).

The use of "calling birds" does not appear in several 20th century versions of the song, and in none of the pre-20th century versions of the song that I have examined. However, I had not yet found a published source that speaks to this important point. (The search goes on.)

This is not "original research," per se, any more than many of the conclusions based on observation that appear in Wikipedia. Nonetheless, how does one cite such facts in Wikipedia—short of citing as many published / recorded version of the song as one can find in relation to whether the lyric is "colly birds" or "calling birds"?

PlaysInPeoria (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Parodies and burlesques

In response to the "list" tag:

The apparent purpose of this section ("Parodies and burlesques") is to demonstrate the cultural signficance and importance of the song. In the context of Wikipedia, how many examples are too many examples? Is it possible to have too many examples in a scholarly work such as Wikipedia?

I believe that the very nature of Wikipedia lends itself to comprehensiveness and inclusiveness rather than limitations and exclusionary practices, though I recognize that a goodly number of Wikipedians seem to abhor lists, albeit for reasons not clear to me. PlaysInPeoria (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply: a mere list of the appearances does nothing to ___actually explain__ the cultural significance of the song. its a mere random list. If you start brining in third party sources that actually discuss the cultural impact of the song and its many iterations, THEN you have an encyclopedic section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.140.33 (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Erikjanjonkers, 17 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Math

If you wonder how many of a certain item is collected in the end, the following parabolic function can be used:

y = -x^2 + 12x + x (where 0 < x < 13)

Example: If you would like to know how many golden rings (5) there are after the twelve days;

-25 + 60 + 5 = 40 golden rings after 12 days!

Erikjanjonkers (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Cute! But I'm afraid Wikipedia is not the place for this per the policy on original research, unless you can cite a reliable source that gives this equation. There may be an alternative outlet that would be suitable. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I've seen sources years ago that did that arithmetic. However, the initial assumption may be false, in that it assumes the singer's "true love" re-presented all the gifts through each day, which doesn't really make logical sense. It makes more sense to give each gift only once, hence the total gifts would be 12 + 11 + 10, etc. I count 78 individual items overall, the formula being X = (n * (n+1)) / 2 ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Echomanhce, 20 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} To the section, Parodies and Other Versions, under heading, 2010, add list item:

On December 19, 2010, independent recording artist Adam Morris released a parody, The Twelve Days of Zombies, inspired by zombie video games like Left4Dead.

References: http://adammorrismusic.blogspot.com/2010/12/twelve-days-of-zombies.html, http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004GUACOO/ref=dm_sp_alb?ie=UTF8&qid=1292866880&sr=8-1

Echomanhce (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Non-notable musician. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 82.34.11.116, 22 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} 4 calling birds

82.34.11.116 (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean instead of 4 Colly Birds? Its colly birds in the version cited.--SabreBD (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Quoting from the article: "The fourth day's gift is often stated as four "calling" birds but originally was four "colly" birds, using another word for a blackbird." Untranscluding edit request because it appears clear to me that this isn't a typo :) sonia♫ 05:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, this discrepancy is explained clearly in the "Variations" section, including both "colly" and "calling" phrases, so I don't see any need to change anything. Johnson487682 (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Oxford "calling birds"?

Does the Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes really say "calling birds"? If so, is it proper to call that lyric a "mistaken version"? 108.1.68.139 (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've heard that song in the USA since I was a kid, and nobody here says "Colly Birds", it's always "Calling birds", which makes at least slightly more sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Apart from my not having the same experience here in the U.S. (I have heard "colly birds"), my real question is about the content of the Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes, supposedly the "traditional version", quoted in the article as "calling birds" — is this is, or is this ain't quoted correctly?? 108.1.68.139 (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Snopes goes into great detail about the supposed (and mythical) "meaning" of this song, and matter-of-factly states "calling birds". "Colly birds" is pretty obscure, but I guess they wanted a two-syllable word rather than dragging out "Bla-ack", although that doesn't explain "Go-old" vs. "Gol-den". I went looking for that dictionary online, but apparently you have to pay to see the whole thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; at any rate, the major part of this article characterizes "colly birds" as the "traditional" form of the lyric, which was my understanding; yet the Oxford quote seems to stand as contradictory. (And your superscripted username leads me to ask, "What 'sup', Doc?") 108.1.68.139 (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit puzzled by this discussion. The ODN uses Colly Birds and that is reflected in the version used here. So there is no contradiction. If there is a place where the opposite has been implied then I cannot find it.--SabreBD (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The ODN quote shown in the article, under "Variations", says "calling birds". 108.1.68.139 (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks for that. I expect someone not used to it changed it. It happens quite a lot. I have restored the original.--SabreBD (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

( GASP!! ) 108.1.68.139 (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

In the United States the true love "gave" the gifts to the singer.

Not necessarily (or even usually, in my experience). Kostaki mou (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The earliest attested version (which has already been successfully argued should be used) uses the word 'sent'. I think the main lyrics section should reflect this. Catphish (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 December 2011

Hi everyone. I noticed that there was a citation needed for this paragraph: "The song was imported to the United States in 1910 by Emily Brown, of the Downer Teacher's College in Milwaukee, WI, who had encountered the song in an English music store sometime before. She needed the song for the school Christmas pageant, an annual extravaganza that she was known for organizing."

I found a source that seems credible to back it up. It's listed on a university website and cites some original newspaper articles about it. Here's the link: http://www.lawrence.edu/about/trads/partridge.shtml

What do you think? Does that seem credible?

Barbaricyawps (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Article is not protected. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Christmas Comes but/But Once a Year

This is a real mess. The link is redirected to "Christmas Comes But Once a Year" (a film) and says that the song is available under "Christmas Comes but Once a Year" but this link is just a redirect back to the same (film) article. Is there really an article about the song, and if so can someone please reverse the redirects so that we can actually see it? 75.246.39.48 (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right. It is a mess. The second song has nothing to do with the subject here so I removed the statement. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Change of tempo

One of the key features of this song is that one of the gifts is always sung at a slower tempo. I can't find clear mention of this in the article. Kdammers (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That's because it's not at a different tempo. As you're coming down to five gold rings, you have a mix of quarter notes and eight notes. When you reach the rings, you sing a half note and then two quarter notes and a whole note. The whole note may have a formata. The tempo itself does not change, it only feels like it changes. http://www.8notes.com/scores/1568.asp is an example of this. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Use of sic on colley birds

The use of sic next to the quotation does not mean it is wrong. Sic merely means it is literally what is in the original text. It is useful here in limiting changes to this text, which the history will reveal are very common. As a side note, there is no need to remind me of 3RR issues when I have undertaken 2 reverts, incidentally the same number that applies to the editor who reverted my edits.--SabreBD (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Can I get a response to this please?--SabreBD (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

What sort of response would you like? I reminded you that you were close to a third revert. That was courtesy. WP:BRD states that we're following the correct procedure now.

And I fully understand that sic means that what's written is correctly transcribed but it appears incorrect. However what is written is correct and it does not appear incorrect. The fact that we currently use "calling birds" does not affect the section any more than the current use of "golden rings", which also isn't marked with a sic. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to limit changes, simply add a comment, <!-- -->, around some text to explain that the usage is correct and no changes are required. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 December 2011

Joe Dolce is an American born, Australian singer songwriter. His Wikipedia article is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Dolce

Oldphart4 (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the request?--SabreBD (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done - I removed reference to Dolce's nationality and added citation request. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 December 2011

I'd like to add information about the 2008 Boston Pops recording "12 Days of Christmas", arranged by David Chase, and includes the following references A partridge in a pear tree - traditional French carol Two turtle doves - Donald Yetter Gardner: "All I Want For Christmas (Is My Two Front Teeth)" Three french hens - Rev. John Henry Hopkins: "We Three Kings of Orient Are" Four calling birds - Rudolph Friml and Oscar Hammerstein: "Indian Love Call" from "Rose-Marie" Five golden rings - Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphony No. 5 Six geese a-laying - Richard Rodgers & Oscar Hammerstein: "Oklahoma!" and "Surrey With The Fringe On Top" from "Oklahoma!" Seven swans a-swimming - Camille Saint-Saens: "The Swan" from "Carinval of the Animals" and Piotr Illyich Tchaikovsky: "Swan Lake" Eight maids a-milking - Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein: "My Favorite Things" from "The Sound of Music" Nine ladies dancing - Jacques Offenbach: "Infernal Galop", i.e., Can Can from "Orpheus in the Underworld" Ten lords a-leaping - Piotr Illyich Tchaikovsky: "Trepak" from "The Nutcracker" Eleven pipers piping - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: "The Magic Flute" Bridge - Freddie Mercury of Queen: "Bohemian Rhapsody" from "A Night at the Opera" Twelve drummers drumming - Edwin Eugene Bagley: "The National Emblem March" Finale - George Frideric Handel: "Chorus (Hallelujah)" "The Messiah"

http://www.bso.org/Merchandise/Detail/38270

Bkozuma (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Bkozuma (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Page is no longer protected. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Uses of "original," "authoritative," "traditional," etc.

Speaking as a folklorist, I don't care for the phrase "authoritative traditional version," and the many uses of "original" in the article. There can be an earliest attested version (and according to "The Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes" p141 the 1780 children's book "Mirth without Mischief" is the earliest attestation), but if it is a folk song, variation is a natural and expected part of the tradition. That sort of variation includes the order of gifts, the different sorts of gifts in Scottish and French versions, and the colly/calling problem. "Calling birds" should be considered not an error, but a folk re-analysis of the lyrics to make sense to those singing them. Scholarly re-analysis can restore the lyrics to the earliest attested version, but rather than "correct" and "incorrect," it makes more sense to speak of the "calling birds" (of which the Opies in "The Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes" seem unaware) as an American variation, just as the "partridge in a pear tree" can be an English variation of an earlier French lyric without being "wrong." I've tweaked the text to reflect this, I hope without introducing academic jargon or making the article less readable. 66.75.228.244 (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a Wikipedian, I appreciate your changes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

cumulative values removed

I don't understand why you removed the cumulative values for the song. Your note says as explained below, but I couldn't find any explanation. Kdammers (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The explanation was above, right where you added the material, but it will need an actual reference. Sorry. I was short on time. The addition you had even further below, the one that relies on your original addition, isn't particularly accurate. There's nothing religious about the song although some have tried to impose it. I don't think that any support can be be made for the coincidence of having 364 objects using your method of counting gifts. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"Gold rings" = birds?

While the theory that the "gold rings" are actually pheasants is a nice one, in that it makes the first seven gifts birds in approximately increasing order of size, it also sets off my BS detector. The only reference I can find for this theory is a Snopes page that, while it does have a list of references at the bottom, doesn't reveal the source of this specific insight. What's more I was unable to find any other source for the phrase "gold ring" referring to a bird, either inside or outside the context of this song. And all the early discussions of the lyrics that I was able to dig up take the "gold rings" literally as referring to jewelry. I want this to be true, but I've learned to be suspicious of explanations that fit too neatly. Does anyone have more sources for this? Grover cleveland (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to ask for a citation on this and will probably remove shortly Catphish (talk)

I cannot find anything in the usual major sources like the Opies about this, so the guess about this being BS may be right. I will keep looking for a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabrebd (talk • contribs) 09:44:40 2012-03-30

The issue should be addressed in the prose section, not the list of articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. In the Variations section, there is a citation to the Snopes article. It would just be good to have more authoritative confirmation. If we start having references in the list it will make things very complex and difficult to follow.--SabreBD (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. The reason for my comment was this edit, which I reverted because it's in the wrongs section and this discussion will see to it that the issue is resolved. I too believe that this is most likely WP:OR, or a myth at best and should be removed, but until then, we can leave it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but much to my surprise I managed to trace this as far back as W. S. Baring-Gould and C. Baring Gould, The Annotated Mother Goose (Bramhall House, 1962), ISBN 0-517-029596, p. 197, which states in a footnote that "The presents sent on the first Seven days were all birds-the "Five gold rings" were not actually gold rings but refer to the five golden rings of the ringed pheasant." No further evidence is given. I am not sure what to do with this. Perhaps we should use this ref to state that this is a theory: I am not sure it is any more than that.--SabreBD (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Call it a theory and reference the theory to that source. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, that is done.--SabreBD (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks very good. Thanks! --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but please can we remove the link from the Lyrics section? I believe its presence presents the myth as a fact. The link is correctly present in the discussion under variations. Catphish (talk)

The link in the lyrics section should stay now that we have a source. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. This source is evidence of a very interesting theory worthy of discussion on the page, however I do not think it sufficient. I feel the link subtly leads readers to believe that this less common interpretation is a fact. I would appreciate further input from SabreBD and others. Catphish (talk)

Thanks for your disagreement. Add a note and be done with it. Linking it to ring would be WP:OVERLINK. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is a site with a picture of a Chinese golden pheasant -- the male of which is marked by conspicuous rings around the neck. http://www.avianweb.com/goldenpheasants.html The linked article says that George Washington reportedly owned some of these birds, which would make it right for our period and lends plausibility to Barring-Gould's suggestion.Mballen (talk) 14:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

http://www.gbwf.org/pheasants/golden.html Another site. These birds were introduced into North America before the Indian Ringnecked pheasant, now common. Feral populations of Goldens were successfully established in Britain but not in the Western Hemisphere.Mballen (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

request for edit 12 December 2012

Hello, I would like to submit an edit request for the "parodies and other versions" section - which will require a new entry for 2012. It should say "on a triumphant visit to Bury on 8 December, Leyton Orient fans adapted the song to include the name of their club's star striker, and scorer of both goals that day - Kevin Lisbie" Kojo Nyamekye (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source or any indication that this even is notable?--SabreBD (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is video footage of this event, around 100 people were involved, and it has been the subject of social media conversation since (i.e. there is recorded evidence).Kojo Nyamekye (talk) 10:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

A video of the live performance is not a reliable source, it merely indicates that it happened. A secondary source discussing the event will indicate that it as reliable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

thank you Walter - would an exchange between a number of users on Twitter be enough? If so, who needs to see it? Kojo Nyamekye (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that a Twitter exchange would be adequate. Please see WP:RS.

Who needs to see it? Potentially everyone who reads the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Meaning for the third time

While the fact that this is not a catechism song as some have assumed, including it is important in showing why it's wrong. You can't do that any other way. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The most recent edit is much better as the table was unappealing. I have no objections to the recent edit, except the accusatory tone, as it's much better edit. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Should Five Gold rings link to Common Pheasant or to Gold#Symbolism and Ring (jewellery)

The article states that the fifth verse refers to actual gold rings. This is the meaning taken in almost all illustrations of the song. The article adds that a minority see this as referring to the Common (ringed) Pheasant which is a minor variant. At the moment the link for gold rings is to Common Pheasant which I find strange. I propose that the 5th verse links to Gold#Symbolism and Ring (jewellery) which is the most commonly accepted meaning. The note concerning the minority view meaning Common Pheasant should remain elsewhere in the article. Any comments? Lumos3 (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

But the rings as jewellery is explained elsewhere and it's not a minority view historically speaking. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Italian wedding song is in the same tradition or not

Wrong occasion to start with. Second, it only shares a partridge (sans pear tree) and possibly two turtle doves (we don't have the Italian text for that) and somehow a bride and true love are equated. The remainder differ both in quantity (10 vs 12) and nature (we seem to be dealing with domesticated animals and not game birds and items that signify nobility). What we need is a musicologist equating the two traditions, not just a reference to the Italian text. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

And if it should be the consensus to keep it, it needs to be one level further out: at the same level as the listed nations around it not at the same level as the "Variations" heading. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it has more in common with this song than the article's subject. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

What we need is not a musicologist but a folklorist and there happens to be one, see below. As it happens, the rule for an item to be considered the same in folklore is there have to be at least three identical elements. In addition to genre (the cumulative song). Here we have 1) gifts (of foodstuffs), 2) to the truelove (bride) they are the same, IMO; and 3) the birds, partridge and turtle dove in first and second place respectively in virtually all the songs in this group. Capon (a chicken) corresponds to the three French hens, which in this song occur in fourth rather than third place. Partridge and turtle doves are game birds, BTW. It is true that we don't have the number twelve in this particular version. It may be incomplete, fragmentary, or the singers may have forgotten some of the verses. As far as the purported "nobility" of game birds, as opposed to domestic birds hmm. Where did that come from? Could it be OR? The fact is that in pre-modern Europe, any kind of meat, or protein for that matter was a highly prized food item.

Contrary to what Walter Görlitz asserts, we do have the lyrics to the Ligurian version -- they are printed in the song notes to the Italian Treasury Liguria album cited both in Ligurian and English translation which I have in front of me. These notes are by distinguished academic musicologists. Furthermore, this kind of song belongs to a very ancient category that is pan-European: namely that of the cumulative "Twelve Meals" song family, which occurs widely in many traditions throughout Europe. All of the songs in this category, as it happens, begin with the partridge and turtle dove. Interestingly, the song also occurs in Jewish folk tradition: see the article by Jose Manuel Pedrosa, "The Twelve Meals: A Sephardic Passover Song and its Spanish and European Counterparts," in Jewish Folklore and Ethnology Review, Volumes 12-15, 1990, pp. 71-73.. Pedrosa explicitly classes "The Twelve Days of Christmas" in this ancient group (see notes p. 73). He also says that in Spain the song is ritually connected to weddings (as it was in the Genoa version) Görlitz reverted.

http://books.google.com/books?id=vGnYAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA73&dq=cumulative+songs+Twelve+Days+of+Christmas&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xYjsUOqsMqaO0QHG64EY&sqi=2&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=cumulative%20songs%20Twelve%20Days%20of%20Christmas&f=false Mballen (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The linked "La cena della sposa" from Bari (in Southern Italy) is said to be the one that was set to music by Jacob Obrecht in 1480.

The song text is in dialect. Italian summary reads:

La cena della sposa – Che cosa daremo da mangiare alla sposa la prima sera? – Un piatto di maccheroni – E la sposa rimane digiuna. – Un piatto di baccalà – Vedi la sposa dove sta. – Un piatto di confetti – E la sposa zittisce. – Tre colombe belle “scagliande” (?) – Una vacca farcita e una pecora arrostita. – Che cosa daremo alla sposa la seconda sera? – Tre colombe che volano – Quattro pesci che nuotano, – Un piatto di maccheroni – E la sposa digiuna. – Un piatto di baccalà — E la sposa dove sta? – Un piatto di confetti – E la sposa zittisce. – Tre colombe belle “scagliande” ecc. ecc…

Translation: "The bride's banquet" - What shall we give the bride to eat on the first night? - A plate of maccaroni. - And the bride remains fasting. - A plate of dried codfish - See where the bride is. - A plate of candy. - And the bride is a maiden. - Three doves well "scagliande" (?) - A stuffed cown and a roast sheep. - What will we give the bride on the second night? - Three flying doves - Four swimming fish - A plate of maccaroni - And the bride is fasting. - A plate of dried codfish - And where is the bride? - A plate of candy - And the bride is a maiden - Three doves well "scagliande", etc., etc.

La canzone iterativa è stata accorciata per non portarla troppo per le lunghe. Fu musicata per la prima volta dall’olandese J. Obrect intorno al 1480 e fu accolta con molto favore. Essa è menzionata in codici cortonesi, fiorentini, parigini e bolognesi del 500. Popolarissima in più parti d’Italia, a Bari ancora oggi è cantata in periferia dai vecchi popolani più umili. Fino a poco tempo fa il canto veniva accompagnato dal suono dell’organetto, chitarra, triangolo e tamburello. Qualche vecchio facchino, nelle pause di lavoro, o nelle soste, in qualche cantina, l’attacca per primo per trascinare la brigata a seguirlo in coro.

Translation: The cumulative song was shortened in the interest of brevity. It was set to music for the first time by the Dutchman J. Obrecht around 1480 and was very well received. It is mentioned in codexes from Cortona, Florence, Paris, and Bologna of the 1500s. Extremely popular in all parts of Italy, in the backwaters of Bari it is sung to this day by old people of humble status. Until recently the song was accompanied by accordion, guitar, triangle, and tambourine. An elderly porter, perhaps, taking a break from work, or while resting in some wine shop will start it off and soon has the company singing along in chorus.

It is true that this song from Bari has less in common with "The twelve days of Christmas" than the one from Liguria quoted above. It does appear to fit in with the twelve meals song group identified by Pedrosa, however. I should have said that all the ones he quotes begin with one partridge and two turtledoves. Mballen (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Mballen (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

And by the way, if you study folklore, there is nothing at all unusual about songs and customs migrating from one holiday occasion to another. Greensleves was originally a New Years song. "Good King Wenceslas" was a Spring carol. The fact is that the carolers went from house to house singing these ritual songs on virtually all the holidays of the calendar year. They would be rewarded by gifts of food, usually protein, such as eggs or meat, which they sometimes explicitly asked for and which were in short supply in the daily diet. This is clear from the Italian treasury series which includes recordings of many such songs, for Christmas, Easter, and Saint Anthony's day, for example. This occurred throughout Europe and the British Isles and there is a pretty extensive scholarly literature on the subject. Mballen (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The song from Bari (in dialect) apparently was collected in modern times and may have strayed quite far from the other Twelve Meals songs quoted by Pedrosa (all with partridge and turtledoves). Bari is quite far away from France and from Liguria, where Obrecht is said to have resided, which is practically in France, i.e., Provence, to be exact. The wikipedia article on Obrecht calls him a Franco-Belgian. There is no way to tell if the Bari song is identical with the one (as implied, perhaps misleadingly) given a musical arrangement by Obrecht in 1480, or just in that same song "family". Note, that to this day there is a custom in Provence to have 12 desserts (one for each of the Apostles) or thirteen desserts (for the Apostles and Christ) on Christmas. However, connection of the twelve meals with the twelve (or thirteen) desserts is just speculation on my part.Mballen (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

So it appears we have a detailed discussion of the Italian wedding song and your WP:OR that these are in the same tradition as the subject of this article. What we need is a WP:RS that associates the two just as we have for the other four variations. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Görlitz,

I have supplied a reference to an article in an academic journal by Jose Manuel Pedrosa, a scholar, who asserts that the "Twelve Days of Christmas" belongs to the venerable PAN EUROPEAN TWELVE MEALS song-family (not necessarily connected with Christmas) and gives many many examples and who additionally cites Stith Thompson, the font and source and virtually the tutelary god of comparative folklore, as well as other renowned experts. Pedrosa also says that The Twelve Meals Tradition also manifests itself as a wedding song and as a Jewish song. What part of that don't you understand? At the very least the article ought to state this. Almost certainly in the very first paragraph. Please take the trouble to read what I have written, and also Mr. Pedrosa's fascinating article. This is not original research.Mballen (talk)

The Google books link indicates "this cumulative song" is related to "The Twelve Days of Christmas", but it appears that they are discussing the Spanish-language Passover song, which in turn is related to another Spanish wedding song, and not the Italian song (pp.321-324 in the downloaded PDF version of the "book"). They don't state that "The Twelve Days of Christmas" is part of any song family. Perhaps the Italian song is better suited to Cumulative song, which also links back to this article. This is not a generic article on the subject and there is currently no support that the Italian wedding song is related to "The Twelve Days of Christmas". . --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes, edited by Iona and Peter Opie, entry 100, “Christmas” is devoted to the "Twelve Days of Christmas". The Opies then goe on to quote a French song about twelve gifts. They say that the song must be French because only French Red-Leg partridges nest in trees. Attempts to introduce this bird into England were unsuccessful. Note 9 of Pedroso’s article refers to this and the editor of the journal adds, somewhat superfluously, “This song is related to the Twelve Days of Christmas.”Mballen (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Pedrosa writes the following (emphases mine):

Iona and Peter Opie, while documenting the song in the English repertory [i.e., entry 100, “The Twelve Days of Christmas”], compared it with some French versions I reproduce the final stanza of an especially interesting one:

Le douzième mois del ‘an

Que donner à ma mie

Douz’bo larrons,

Onze bons jambons … (etc.) [trans. The twelfth month of the year/ what to give to my sweetheart? 12 good “larrons” (bacon?)/ 11 good hams, (etc.) – Iona and Peter expect the reader to know French]

The family of internationally diffused versions confirms the antiquity of this song, also reinforced by such indications as the allusions in some French versions to the twelve months of the year or to the first twelve days of any month of the year, which may be related to ancient agrarian rites of annual weather prediction based on the observation of weather during the first twelve days of any month. In general, the allusions to the products of the field and to animals present in every tradition of the song may be considered a sign of its possible ritual use for propitiation of fecundity in ancient times. The Spanish association of the song with wedding rituals is a logical one: in villages such as Lagartera (Toledo), weddings were celebrated with “fifty rams, twelve pigs, twelve cows and fifty hens, together with barrels and barrels of wine. [10] The existence of versions not only in Spanish but in French, English and other languages as well, complicates our analysis of the sources of the Sephardic song.. . The circumstances of the migration of the Spanish and European song to the Sephardic repertoire remains a mystery.

This says to me that 1) The English version is "The Twelve Days of Christmas" (per Opie). 2) The song occurs in Spanish and other European languages (and also French). 3) It occurs as a wedding song and 4) The Sephardic Passover version and other Jewish cumulative songs most probably derive from the European tradition and not the other way around. Pedrosa's article quotes several Spanish Christian versions in addition to the Sephardic Jewish one and all feature one partridge, two turtledoves, and three other birds, and so on. It is true that Pedrosa doesn't specifically mention the "Cena della Sposa" (as it was called in a version published in 1480 by a Franco-Flemish composer), but that song fits into the category of "other European languages". Ligurian (and indeed all norther Italy) is in any case, very influenced by French and the Italian Province of Liguria is contiguous with what is now France.173.77.12.59 (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Elsewhere Pedrosa says that it [the Passover song]:

belongs to a type of internationally diffused cumulative song that refers to twelve sorts of meals. … The one considered typical by Antti Aarne and Stith Thompson contains references to one partridge, two turtledoves, three wood-pigeons, four ducks, five rabbits, six hares, seven hounds, eight sheep, nine oxen, ten turkeys, eleven hams and twelve cheeses.

Mballen (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Crickets from Mr.Görlitz??? Mballen (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Another wedding song (not cumulative but having to do with a list of gifts, including poultry):

CHICKENS IN THE GARDEN

Well once there lived a farmer,

A grand old soul was he,

He used to own a little farm,

Way down the country

He had an only daughter

And her I chanced to wed.

And when I asked him for her hand

"Was this to me he said.

chorus: "Oh treat me daughter kindly,

And say you'll do no harm.

And when I die I'll leave you both,

My little tiny farm.

My cow, my pigs, my sheep, my goats,

My stock, my field and barn.

And all the little chickens in the garden."

Well at last we two are wed

So pleasing to me mind,

And I did prove true to her,

So she's proved true in kind.

We have three children, grown up now

And now that we are married

And settled down for life,

I often think upon the words

Her father used to say,

O' treat me daughter kindly

And keep her from all harm,

And when I die I'll will to you

My little house and farm,

My horse my dog my cow

My bonny sheep and farm

And all the little chickens in the garden

This was sung at my cousin's wedding. Mballen (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding. I have a life and right now, I don't have time for this frivolous discussion. Allow other editors who have an interest discuss this. In the meanwhile, you might want to add your material to the cumulative song article and I'll be paring this article back to avoid similarly tenuous connections from interfering with the subject of the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I intend to add that The Twelve Days of Christmas song belongs to a an international group of songs identified in Antti Aarne and Stith Thompson's folktale motif index as a cumulative type featuring twelve meals (not necessarily associated with Christmas), and typically beginning with a one partridge and two turtle doves which is found all over Europe, Scandinavia, and the British Isles and includes a cumulative Jewish Passover song and Spanish and Italian wedding songs. However, I too have a life and will do it when I have time. Mballen (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"family of internationally diffused versions" = equals "song family". Mr. Pedrosa is not a native speaker of English, having sought help from folklorist Judith R. Cohen in writing in English. He does not explicitly mention that "The Twelve Days of Christmas" is a member of this family (not being an English speaker, it would not be significant for him) but he does identify the same song the Opies identify as a possible source of "The Twelve Days" as belonging to this family. The editors of the folklore journal then add that the French song is related to the "Twelve Days of Christmas". Logically, if the "Twelve Days of Christmas" is related or descended from the French song mentioned in the Opies' entry on "The Twelve Days of Christmas" (quoted by Pedrosa), that is another way of saying that it is in the same family. The AT (Aarne and Thomps) Folk Motif index gives you a formula or criteria for identifying folk tales and song families, and "Twelve Days of Christmas" conforms to this formula. This is not original research on my part but research on the part of Aarne and Thompson and Mr/ Pedrosa, not to mention R. Cohen, Ph.D., who is an expert in medieval and traditional music, including Balkan, Portuguese, Yiddish, and French Canadian, pan-European balladry,and songs from Crypto-Jewish regions of the Portuguese-Spanish border.Mballen (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"family of internationally diffused versions" = cumulative song article. Not all cumulative songs are part of this song just because they're cumulative songs. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, not all cumulative songs are "part of this song". There are many cumulative songs, it is a genre. But there are sub-genres, called "song families". There is a sub genre of cumulative songs about gifts and eating that bear some resemblance to the "Twelve Days of Christmas". When songs have several remarkable similarities they said to have a "family resemblance " and are referred to as belonging to "song families". If your way of looking at it, that there can be only one "correct version", were accepted, then you would have to delete the examples of analogous songs given by the main reference in this article, Peter and Iona Opie's Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes (entry 1000, which lists a song that is sung in Languedoc (Provence) on first fifteen days of the month of May. "A Langudoc chant is similar," they write, "but the gifts are made on the first fifteen days of May. A partridge that flies is followed by two doves, three white pigeons, four ducks flying in the air, five rabbits, six hares, seven hunting dogs, eight white horses, nine horned oxen, ten bleating sheep, eleven soldier coming from war, twelve maidens , thirteen white nosegays, fourteen white loves, fifteen casks of wine."

The Opies reject the suggestion that the gifts in these songs have religious significance (unlike the case with many other older cumulative songs). Although they concede that the number twelve has long been endowed with religous and magic significance, for divining the weather, for example.

"Nevertheless, whatever the ultimate origin of the chant, it seems probable that the lines which survive today both in England and in France are merely an irreligious travesty, possibly of a chant like "Dic mihi quid unus" ("Tell me what my 'one' is") or of of a carole like that in the Sloane manuscript 1593, and of Wrights MS... of the fifteenth century:

The first day of yule we have in mind,

How God was man born of our own kynd .. (etc.) (Opie, p. 123.

Not only would you have to "revert" the Opies, respected scholars, but also Mrs. Goome, who described how it was played as a forfeit game, and Cecil Sharp, who also collected variants of it.

Then please create an article about this particular song family. This is about the song, not cumulative songs nor song families. Delete the rest of the songs to shut you up. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Görlitz, the Opies' entry is also about this song and not cumulative songs in general!! And what they say is germane to this wikipedia article and ought to be included in it. Your attitude is unjustifiable.Mballen (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

However this article is not about cumulative songs in general. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

In short. This article will not become a Wikipedia:Coatrack for every cumulative song that mentions partridges, pear trees, or any of the other dozen items listed here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Snopes

Snopes does not meet wikipedia's criteria for a verifiable source and references to it should be removed forthwith, IMO, if anyone wants to do it. There is no reason the article should devote so much space to that and lack, for example, a decent bibliography. It would make better sense to clarify relation of the Twelve Days to the widespread and very ancient, according to folklorists, closely related chain-song traditions listed by Thompson: the Twelve Meals and the Twelve Gifts. If the opinion, held by more than a few folklorists, that the first seven gifts originally all referred to gifts of edible fowl, then that would tie the song more closely to the Twelve Meals tradition. Also, it is a mere quibble, but I am not sure that singing "golden" instead of "gold" rises to the level of a variation.Mballen (talk)

What? You've completely lost all credibility when you say that Snopes does not meet WP:V or WP:RS. However, if you feel that way, bring it up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Be sure to list the question here. Or you could save yourself some time and see what happened when others listed it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears we disagree. I looked up the link you provided and it does not appear to be a reliable source to me. Though some say it may be somewhat more reliable that a lot of other junk and possibly qualifies as "notable" rather than "reliable". Do you have any other evidence of the purported reliability of Snopes? I notice that you routinely delete comments from your talk page and also have deleted much or your history (unless you have been banned and it has been deleted for you, which I suspect from the tone of your remarks). I want to put on the written record that I consider deleting a sourced paragraph of an entry "just to shut another editor up" vandalism rather than a good faith effort to improve the article.23:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

If you think it's unreliable, feel free to ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard then.

As for my talk page, please see Help:Archiving a talk page.

I'm sorry you feel like I'm trying to shut you up. My intention is not to do so. I would rather that you become a productive editor rather than the tendentious one you appear to me to be and your behaviour grates on my nerves. You refuse to understand how Wikipedia works and instead try to impose your opinions and understanding of how you think Wikipedia should work onto this article and my talk page. I am not your mentor. I have no desire to show you the ropes. Perhaps Wikipedia:Mentorship would be appropriate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Walter, I am ignoring your latest condescension. It is not what I feel, it is the unacceptable nature of what you have said and also done. I see by the record of your archived talk page that you have been previously banned at least once for edit warring. This is not a game. I am warning you that you are asking to be banned again. I repeat that I consider your deletion of an unimpeachably sourced section motivated by spite and not a good faith effort to improve the article and therefore as constituting vandalism. If the Opies consider La Perdriole to be essentially the same song as "Twelve Days of Christmas" then their judgement trumps yours. Mballen (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been blocked, not banned, for edit warring. It seems that you think that because of that that I don't know a reliable source when I see one.

Feel free to bring up your concern for the source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and stop talking about me.

This discussion is not about your poor interpretation about how an Italian wedding song is in the same family of songs as this song, it's about Snopes. The other discussion is above. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked -- banned. Editors who are abusive and who regularly abuse wikipedia as you are doing do end up being banned. As far as Snopes, the link you yourself supply confirms that Snopes is not considered a reliable source on a par with reputable scholars, such as the Opies or Baring-Gould, or Pedrosa for that matter, contrary to what you erroneously assert. 04:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Editors who edit as much as I do will get blocked. If they don't learn from their blocks, they get banned. I have helped ban several editors in the past by reporting their behaviour. An editor without any credibility, which is what you claim I am, would not be able to do that. The rest of your ad hominem attack is as logical as your other discussions here have been. I will not debate this other topic here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Request posted at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Snopes.com again. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Walter, I have never been blocked or banned and I have no desire to quarrel with you. It seems to me that your whole motivation to write on this topic is prompted by your wish to include in the article the fake Christian symbolism list invented by two modern clergymen; and you appear to have scant genuine interest in folklore or Christmas carols at all. This is POV and violates wikipedia's policies. Your statement that "many Christians of all denominations" accept this symbolism is simply unsustainable. (Unless it is in the sense of many Christians of all denominations exist who see Jesus in an oil blot). Who are these many Christians of all denominations who see The Twelve Days of Christmas as a devotional song referring to the Catechism? Can you provide examples? I'm sure there are many people of all denominations who even more interested in the real history and scholarship of the song and of Christmas carols and cumulative songs in general and they include most of the readers of wikipedia. A compromise would be to include a brief nod to the number song category, because many of them are indeed both of great antiquity and also devotional and perhaps mention the modern Canadians in a footnote. Though I have never seen them mentioned anywhere unless it is to debunk them.17:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Please don't speculate on me or my motives for editing. You'll be much safer commenting on content, not on the contributor. If you have a problem with content in the article you can be bold and remove it or you can (probably safely) tag the material as needing a reference. I just edited the material and tried to keep some of what a previous editor had added while removing some of what you objected to. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Some notes on the history of the song

The song was first included in a collection of christmas carols, in the book, Christmas Carols Ancient and Modern by William Henry Husk, Librarian to the Sacred Harmonic Society, in 1868. In the introduction to this book, Husk quotes liberally from Sir Walter Scott's 1808 poem Marmion,

England was merry England, when

Old Christmas brought his sports again.

‘Twas Christmas broach’d the mightiest ale;

‘Twas Christmas told the merriest tale;

A Christmas gambol oft could cheer

The poor man’s heart through half the year.

For Scott, Christmas, and "merry England" see here (For Scott the Twelve Days of Christmas vindicate the importance of poetry and music in the secular sphere, since that was the time, in Arthurian romance, when minstrels like himself were most active.)

Husk's book is divided into religious and festive Christmas songs, and he places "The Twelve Days of Christmas" among the festive, or secular songs. Husk states that the song had previously been sold for 40 years in broadside form [without music] as a Christmas carol, but in his opinion, was more suited as a forfeit game.

The song and tune were included in the 1882 folk song collection, Northumbrian Minstrelsy, where it was described as "One of the quaintest of carols, now relegated to nursery as a forfeit game" and the melody is described being "the same in all the repetitions" (unlike in the modern composed version we all know).

There is a some agreement among folklorists that the first seven verses all originally referred to birds, which would tie the song more closely to its French parallels (which ought to be restored to the article) and other European 12-gift-song tradition. Only our modern composed tune dramatically highlights the supposed difference between the birds and the "gold rings" of the fifth verse.

The reader can see from this history how much the modern Christmas carol was really a nineteenth and twentieth century development, spurred by the Romantic Medievalism kicked off by Sir Walter Scott. Mballen (talk) 07:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Mballen (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Irregular meter

The irregular meter does not speak to the song's origin as folk song. On the contrary, the irregularity was introduced by the tune's twentieth century arranger, Frederic Austin, as the article indicates elsewhere. The Northumbrian Minstrelsy, one of the first printed collections to include a tune apparently, specifies that the tune was sung the same way for all the verses. Mballen (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Irregularity of meter occurs in songs sung solo -- like lullabyes or field hollers, not choral songs, obviously. In any case, "five gold rings" is not a properly an irregularity, but rather a calculated deceleration preceding acceleration (which is not uncommon in choral folksong). Not the same as irregularity at all. I think someone mentioned this above.18:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

The version of this song by Straight No Chaser is by far the most popular version on YouTube. That video launched the professional career of SNC. I think this SNC version of the song deserves mention in the Popular Culture section, perhaps more so than any of the other listed references. --Westwind273 (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

If that can be confirmed with a secondary source, by all means! Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Type of song

Is there a name for this type of song, where successive verses are extended? If so, it would be worth including in the intro, since this is one of the best known examples. Indeed, I resorted to checking this article when trying to determine what such a term might be after a search engine query turned up nothing. --Belg4mit (talk)

Ah, I see that this is buried under Lyrics. --Belg4mit (talk)

"The list"

Why must we constantly go through this? The list is out there. Snopes printed the list on its site. I couldn't find any source that meets your high standards that says Christians have accepted this list of meanings, but the newspaper columnist I selected comes the closest. I can't recall now whether it's the man who does it now or a classic column. And he didn't print the entire list, which was inconsiderate of him.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The Snopes article, http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/music/12days.asp, states that the idea that there some sort of hidden meaning behind the song is false so, no there's no need to go through this every time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

We're not talking about the hidden meaning from when the song was written. We're talking about the hidden meaning now. Like it or not, Christians today have decided the meanings do exist whether or not the story was true in the past.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no hidden meaning now or ever. It's all made-up. If you want to write that it's a hoax, then that's different. When Christians post this "meaning" to Facebook, blogs, or other locations, they always indicate that it's an ancient meaning and so we must do our best, as an encyclopedia, to dispel the nation that this was or is an accurate representation of the items discussed in the song. As a Christian, I will not perpetuate the lie here or anywhere else I encounter it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The references you provided were the Snopes article that state this history is discredited and " What we do know" has nothing to do with what Christians currently believe. http://www.journalnow.com/news/ask_sam/article_4d6f5544-9894-51de-b531-a1dfb2ecb6b7.html doesn't discuss the current understanding but rather "What’s the story behind the 12 days of Christmas song" implying the "history" of the meaning of the items and then it goes on to discuss the discredited story but claims that "over thousands of years". Yikes! So don't confuse matters by claiming that you added something about the hidden meaning now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

But the source mentions that the meaning has been given to the gifts by today's Christians, even if the history is incorrect. Okay, it does make sense to not include it when I'm having a hard time finding a source that actually states that "While the story of the origin is incorrect, the meaning is one accepted by Christians today." I'm not trying to say that those who accept that meaning try to claim the story of the origin is true.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I still don't see why the list of hidden meanings can't be in the article. Even if the claim that today's Christians give the gifts these meanings (even the ones that don't accept the origin story) has yet to be proven.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

By giving the details here you are giving undue weight to a hoax.--SabreBD (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm not claiming I believe the hoax. What I'm having trouble finding is the proof that Christians today accept these meanings, without necessarily believing the origin story. The source I gave sort of says this, but the problem is it doesn't clearly state this. I'm having trouble finding a source that clearly states that certain Christians (okay, no one has said how many) are saying these can be the meanings.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I just realized I misread my source. So it doesn't actually support anything about Christians today adding the meaning.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

We all agree that among Catholics, articles and parish bulletins list the religiously connected meanings to this song each year. Some also impute to them a 16th or 17th century origin. The important thing for this article to recognize is that their first documented appearance is in 1979 and Hugh McKellar, its author, did not make a claim of 16th century origin based on a written record of them. Later writers, Stockert and Gilhooley made the claim of 16th century origin but neither identified the document which one or both of them presumably personally read which could verify the claim. The Wikipedia article is correct to label them as claims without evidence. patsw (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's not just Catholics. I first tried to include the meanings in the article when they were listed in my church bulletin, and I am United Methodist. I don't know where I read it and I wish I had made a note at the time (and I don't go to unfmailiar sites at home), but Stockert said the document was lost in a flood. As for Gilhooley's article, I have been sent an unreadable copy along with the citation information. Hopefully the microfilm printer can be fixed or replaced so I can be sent a good one later.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The fact that some people, regardless of denomination, would like to find meaning in the song does not mean that it actually has that meaning. If people claim that there is coded meaning in the Amercian dollar bill, does it mean that it was intended? If people find hidden meaning in the Apocalypse of John, does it mean that it was intended? To state that the meanings that are passed on in congregations is intended is wrong. To state that it happens, if sourced reliably, is acceptable. That's what the article does now in the Meaning section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but I haven't seen in a reliable source what really is done. And if it is done and is significant, I say the hidden meanings ought to be included, regardless of origin, because this practice appears to be widespread.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The Gilhooley letter to the New York Times which I cited contained an odd reference: There is speculation (October 1987 clergy report of the Archdiocese of New York) that the carol was composed as a catechism in code for persecuted Roman Catholics in 16th-century England. It is likely that Gilhooley was merely aware of, and repeated the Stockert claims to 16th Century origin. As for "October 1987 clergy report of the Archdiocese of New York", my guess is that is was an informal newsletter rather than an actual publication. Unless Stockert comes forward with evidence to back his claim, Snopes and others who label the 16th century origin story a hoax will continues to do so. The only "list" pre-existing Stockert's alleged 16th century list is McKellar's own 20th century list, and by an amazing coincidence they match, and even match on "11" - the number of the surviving apostles. No amount of 20th or 21st century repetition is going find for the Wikipedia a 16th century source. patsw (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

"None" of the gifts?

The 5 Golden Rings are episcopal rings (rings worn by Bishops bearing coats of arms or other symbols of the Dioceses) of the 5 major Patriarchs. These are the respective Archbishops of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch. Granted the other 4 Patriarchs (apart from Rome) are Eastern Orthodox, but the overall concept still distinguishes Catholics--both Roman and Eastern Orthodox--from Reformed/Protestants. Even Anglicans (not quite Protestants strictly speaking, not Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide) would give no acknowledgement to any of these major Archbishops.

Even if everything else in the song fails to set Catholics apart from Protestants, this does so quite well. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

That's the first I've heard of this interpretation. Not even the story started in the 70s states that the five rings are the five books of the Pentateuch. You'll need a reliable source to support this claim and it must predate the earlier story and ideally originate from the English reformation period. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Cultural references

There are two more cultural items I think nontrivial:

• An idiomatic use of the phrase "and a partridge in a pear tree" in the meaning "and whats not". An example at hand is here, but there are more.
• An "image recognition" puzzle (unfortunately I don't know its English name, a kind of "I spy"): in a line art of a tree some branches form a silhouette of a partridge, and a kid has to find it.

Can anyone say something wikipedible in the subjects? -M.Altenmann >t 02:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Real Origination

There are some claims that there is a Catholic originated hidden message in the song, but in actual fact it is extremely likely that the "12 days" came about after the eventual introduction in England of the Gregorian Calendar in 1752, which in effect moved Christmas foreword 12 days, and which also had the consequence of making Christmas a little warmer and less likely to be snow covered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.0.7 (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hawaiian "12 Days"

The NZ version, "A Pukeko in a Ponga Tree," is mentioned. How about the Hawaiian version, "Numbah One Day of Christmas," written in 1959? ("Numbah one day of Christmas, my tutu gave to me, one mynah bird in one papaya tree.") http://www.staradvertiser.com/features/20101219_12_days_hawaiian_style_song_still_fun_after_50_years.html?id=112144954 24.61.4.237 (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2015

The Copper family from Rottingdean in Sussex can trace their family tradition as singers back over 200 years and have their own variant of "The Twelve Days of Christmas" which Jim copper wrote down in his book of songs (as "Christmas Presents") in 1936.

The variations from the "standard version" are:

Day 4: Four canary birds Day 8: Eight deers (sic) a-running Day 9: Nine lads a-leaping Day 10: Ten ladies skipping Day 11: Eleven bears a-baiting Day 12: Twelve parsons preaching.

Source http://www.thecopperfamily.com/songs/coppersongs/twelve.html Larryharryh (talk) 09:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. How is this notable? sst✈^discuss 10:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I would even say not done because it's a primary source. A musicologist should be the source here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Order of items

This varies somewhat in the higher numbers. No need to "correct" anyone. Just note that this is the case. Kostaki mou (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Twelve Days of Christmas (song). 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5hFf8iFDu to http://www.irishcharts.ie/search/placement

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 07:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Illustration of numbers of gifts

@Walter Görlitz: reverted my addition of an illustration to show the numbers of gifts received each day with the comment "Not how the song actually works." Can Walter please explain how the song actually works, if not according to the illustration? Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 22:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It's discussed in the section. The accountants calculating the price index assume that the "true love" gives each of the previous day's gifts on each subsequent day. However, it could be that a day's events are given only once, hence there would only be a total of 2 turtledoves at the end of the song rather than 22 as is suggested by the image. By supplying the image, it entrenches a single interpretation of how the gifts are distributed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Doogie Howser M.D.

In season 1 episode 13 ("Doogie the Rednosed Reindeer") sings the hospital staff a funny version of the song. It in, the gifts are "medical terms". Only seven days are mentioned:

7 Giant Colons 6 Small Intestines 5 Prolapsed Hemorrhoids 4 Gastric Ulcers 3 Yellow Gallstones 2 Fatty Livers And an asthmatic in the E.R.

Maybe it worth to add this to the article.

Source: http://www.tv.com/shows/doogie-howser-md/trivia/season-1/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.243.48.52 (talk) 08:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Calling/Colly Birds

The article presently seems to contradict itself regarding the use of "calling" and "colly" birds - the majority of the sources quoted on the page seem to use variations on "colly birds", whilst the text of the song is listed as "calling birds", apparently based on a single 20th Century source. I don't see "calling" as definitive (it's a late misinterpretation of "colly" after all), and "colly" appears to be the original version that's still widely used (at least where I live) so I'd say that there's a strong argument to remove "calling" and replace it with "colly". There does seem to be some defensiveness by a small minority over this issue, despite the contradictory references - is it worth talking about this issue further ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.246.201.248 (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Not really contradictory. The majority of the versions does not mean the majority in current use. I would be surprised if any modern performance or recording used colly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

And for the record, the change you made yesterday was clearly in a section that states that "the lyrics given here are from Frederic Austin's 1909 publication that first established the current form of the carol". Notice that the lyrics are both from a specific version and that they are the first published version of the "current form". The confusion is all yours. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like you're getting rather hot under the collar there, Walter. Settle down and have some eggnog. I see your point on Austin's version , but to pick up on one of your assertions, be surprised, modern performances regularly use "colly birds", and I've never mentioned being "confused" about it. For discussion, Google's Ngram viewer tracks the instance of colly/calling birds in its published sources, and the pattern suggests that the 1909 use of "calling birds" in Austin's work remained a minority opinion (even in Austin's time) until the 1940s/1950s, and that "colly birds" is again on the rise in modern times. Check it out at : https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=four+colly+birds%2C+four+calling+birds&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cfour%20colly%20birds%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cfour%20calling%20birds%3B%2Cc0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.246.201.248 (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry it seems like I'm getting hot under the collar, I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that you're wrong. The ngram is not important since the s cion you're editing is discussing Auston's version. And the ngram is similarly misleading as it shows all mentions in print, not in music. Not in recorded versions. For all we know, it's scholars or other writers mentioning it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Total numbers of gifts

After 12 days there should be a total number of gifts:

• 1x12 = 12 Drummers drumming
• 2x11 = 22 Pipers piping
• 3x10 = 30 Lords-a-leaping
• 4x 9 = 36 Ladies dancing
• 5x 8 = 40 Maids-a-milking
• 6x 7 = 42 Swans-a-swimming
• 7x 6 = 42 Geese-a-laying
• 8x 5 = 40 Gold rings
• 9x 4 = 36 Calling birds
• 10x 3 = 30 French hens
• 11x 2 = 22 Turtle doves
• 12x 1 = 12 Partridges in pear trees

Is that correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.225.57.27 (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Only if you assume that the previously mentioned gifts are given on subsequent days. That is not necessarily the case. The song could simply be recollecting or remembering the gifts given on the previous days. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Your totals are correct, according to the words of the song. There’s an old black and white (Eastern European perhaps, not by Tope) short film that well illustrates this (which I can’t locate). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.164.104 (talk) 11:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Five Gold Rings -- Novello Copyright

If you Google for "five gold rings novello copyright", you'll find multiple blogs and articles asserting that the now standard prolongation of "Five gold rings" appeared in an arrangement by Frederic Austin, which is owned by Novello, i.e. the standard arrangement is still under copyright. Other comments suggest that this is probably invalid. Anybody know for sure? --Farry (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

We acknowledge Austin's version, but American copyright law until 1976 states that a works may be copyrighted for a period of 28 years from the date of publication. In the UK an amendment was applied in 1911 allowing copyright for the lifetime of the author plus 50 years after. However, I ran you search and the top hit was a forum. However, this song is in the public domain. I'm not sure whether Austin copyrighted the lyrics or simply compiled them. As the lyrics clearly predated Austin's publication it would be hard to apply a copyright to them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Twelve Days of Christmas (song). 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/20111216120117/http://povonline.com/sherman/Sherman01.htm to http://www.povonline.com/sherman/Sherman01.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 23:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Material from this source could be added

• "Forfeit Songs; Cumulative Songs; Songs of Marvels and of Magical Animals", Cecil J. Sharp, A. G. Gilchrist and Lucy E. Broadwood, Journal of the Folk-Song Society, Vol. 5, No. 20 (Nov., 1916), pp. 277-296 (21 pages).
  • available online here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4434032?read-now=1&refreqid=excelsior%3A02a3c0523f8dd0bc0d5aa822f6eafea6&seq=1 (free registration required): — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grover cleveland (talk • contribs) 19:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

McKellar states he makes the Catholic catechism claim without evidence

The citation includes this quote from McKellar:

In any case, really evocative symbols do not allow of [sic] definitive explication, exhausting all possibilities. I can at most report what this song's symbols have suggested to me in the course of four decades, hoping thereby to start you on your own quest.

McKellar, Hugh D. (October 1994). "The Twelve Days of Christmas". The Hymn. 45, 4.

The text that has been in the article for years is "McKellar offered no evidence for his claim and subsequently admitted that the purported associations were his own invention." A more recent ThoughtCo article updated in 2018 states the same in similar words:

However it came about, Stockert and McKellar published virtually identical interpretations of "The Twelve Days of Christmas." Only the latter admitted how personal, even speculative, the process was. "I can at most report what this song's symbols have suggested to me in the course of four decades," McKellar wrote in 1994.

Emery, David (July 18, 2018). "Does "The Twelve Days of Christmas" Have a Hidden Meaning?". ThoughtCo. Retrieved 2018-11-23.

If you want Emery's take on McKellar's admission that no historical evidence supports his claim in the article, I can add it. The inclusion of McKellar is important since there's a consensus that he's the origin of the story. It's just as important to mention that it is a specific historical claim made without evidence. patsw (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The text that has been in the article for years is fine. It was your addition of "McKellar offered no evidence for his claim and subsequently admitted that the purported associations were his own invention" and stating that it was sourced in that reference that was a problem. I did not see it in the reference. The Snopes sentences that follow refute it, and I have no doubt that it's spurious. That McKellar retracted the story does need a reference. And it seems McKellar never claimed it was his his "own invention" as Emery writes McKellar claimed it was as a result of discussion with others. That entire phrase needs to be removed immediately. Feel free to expand it with an accurate interpretation of what Emery wrote., but only after Snopes. If you want to add Emery's finding that it did not originate with McKeller, that is supported by Emery as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what position you are taking here.

1. McKellar asserted that the song was a coded Catechism recited to him by others which he did not name or describe beyond "elderly people who had moved to Canada from the north of England". Can that be labelled "historical evidence"? (In spite of the failure of anyone to find corroboration since 1979 for it, and the internal implausibility of it all.)
2. McKellar never stated that the song as coded Catechism had historical evidence and that it came from his imagination.

Regarding the Emery article which I found, did you read the same article? Emery wrote:

It was first proposed by Canadian English teacher and part-time hymnologist Hugh D. McKellar in an article entitled "How to Decode the Twelve Days of Christmas," published in 1979. McKellar expanded on the idea in a monograph for the scholarly journal The Hymn in 1994.

So Emery wrote it originated with McKellar: There's nothing before McKellar. Apparently the 1979 McKellar article contained a more direct claim to historical evidence. The 1994 article backs off from 1979 with " I can at most report what this song's symbols have suggested to me". Unfortunately for us, U.S. Catholic doesn't have an archive going back to that year, and as far as I can determine there's no library with an archive of the U.S. Catholic for 1979.

The article needs to be clear that McKellar's "Twelve Days" as coded Catechism originated in his imagination. patsw (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

My position is that you added text, "McKellar … subsequently admitted that the purported associations were his own invention", that was not supported in the reference. It was never an issue to me that it was added without evidence, which was the first clause in the text that you added. That was obvious to anyone who read that earlier content. That was supported by the Snopes article as well. I do not care about what gets added to the article aside from what is sourced. I misread the article. It stated that Stockert "came from personal conversations with elderly Canadians with roots in northern England".

Back to your point, without a clear source that states that it "came from his imagination" we should not use that wording. The best we can do, by using your new source, is state that there is no evidence of any sourcing from the claim. That's what Snopes already does.

In short, I strongly oppose your use of wording that the hidden catechism theory came from McKellar's imagination without a source that states exactly that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

When I have some time I will enter some compromise wording. I just to reaffirm that "[McKellar] can at most report what this song's symbols have suggested to [him] in the course of four decades" can only be interpreted an admission his thesis is speculation and not evidence-based. patsw (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

No hatnote is needed

A hatnote to the Twelve Days of Christmas is not needed because

1. there is a link in the first sentence
2. MOS:HATNOTE makes it clear that readers "may have arrived at the article containing the hatnote because" the "sought article uses a more specific, disambiguated title", but this article is already disambiguated and the other one is not.

Your sole argument is that when you search for the term "the Twelve Days of Christmas", this was the Wikipedia article that was provided. If that's the case, we should be having a move discussion as Google clearly feels that this song is the primary topic, and not the festival, not whether a hatnote should be included. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Colly birds

I felt sure that the text had "4 colly birds" because there was a big comment next to it, which we usually do to prevent people from "helpfully" changing it to the "obvious" version. Sorry I had a bit of an edit-war with people who were correcting it. Elizium23 (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Partridge(en) = Perdrix(fr) ?= "pear tree"

Discuss adding some of these:

• en:Partridge
• fr:Perdrix
• en:Pear tree
• en:Perdix (mythology)
• 12 Facts About ‘The 12 Days of Christmas - Smithsonian (magazine)
• “Five gooooold rings” comes from English composer, Frederic Austin, in 1909, and since he died in 1952, this line is still protected by copyright. It is currently owned by Novello & Co.
• The History of 'The Twelve Days of Christmas' - Fr. Calvin Goodwin, FSSP, Nebraska, from Catholic Tradition.
• Les douze jours après Noël
• ‘Five golden rings, four colly birds . . .’ Wait, colly birds? What’s a colly bird?
• Is it “Four Calling Birds” or “Four Colly Birds”? A “Twelve Days of Christmas” Debate. December 21, 2016 by Peter Armenti, The Library of Congress
• 12 Things You Might Not Know About "The Twelve Days of Christmas"
  • Some evidence suggests that the lyric, “partridge in a pear tree,” is actually an Anglicization of what would have begun as a French word for partridge: perdrix.
• Making Sense of the “12 Days of Christmas”
  • There are three known French carols that are exceptionally similar to the Twelve Days of Christmas and pre-date it by a good margin, with versions possibly going all the way back to the 8th century, but this isn’t fully clear.
• Edward Phinney
  • Edward Phinney, a professor of classics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, put the first publication at 1868, but it also shows up, in slightly altered forms, in Mirth without Mischief, which was published around 1780, and James Orchard Halliwell's The Nursery Rhymes of England, which was published in 1842.
  • https://dbcs.rutgers.edu/all-scholars/9024-phinney-edward-sterl-jr
  • https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/gazettenet/obituary.aspx?n=mary-phinney&pid=188496770
  • Phinney, a professor of classics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, has researched the origin of the song

24.7.104.84 (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

“Five gooooold rings” comes from English composer, Frederic Austin, in 1909, and since he died in 1952, this line is still protected by copyright. It is currently owned by Novello & Co.

Not in the USA (which is what matters from the point of view of Wikipedia). Anything published before 1923 is public domain.

Some evidence suggests that the lyric, “partridge in a pear tree,” is actually an Anglicization of what would have begun as a French word for partridge: perdrix.

This idea is already covered in the article. Is there specific material you want to add?

Grover cleveland (talk) 10:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Andy WIlliams version notable

Clancy, Ronald (2006), Best-Loved Christmas Carols: The Stories Behind Twenty-Five Yuletide Favorites, Sterling Publishing Co., Inc., ISBN 1-4027-4187-1

I can't very well use this source without being able to see it. I will admit to WP:OR because I also used a lyrics web site and another Wikipedia article to draw conclusions, but I knew I couldn't use the sources that made it possible to draw my conclusions. Nevertheless, I would say the Andy Williams version is notable because a national network of radio stations plays it. The only thing missing is the press coverage, which probably was there in the 1960s. I hope your only problem is the sourcing. Not that I can solve that myself.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:COVERSONG is the criteria we should rely on. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)