Talk:Silent Night/Archive 1

Stille Nacht
Shouldn't this page be moved to Stille Nacht, its original title? -leigh (&#966;&#952;&#8057;&#947;&#947;&#959;&#962;) 19:51, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. But I have just created a redirect page so whoever is looking for the song under its German title will find it.  20:24, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

languages
Why are there Portuguese lyrics? English, okay, it's the English Wikipedia. German, okay, it was originally written in German. But the article says it is sung in 300 languages... why do we show Portuguese over any of the other 297? I'd say just leave the English and German lyrics. Acheron 18:29, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

English Lyrics
Given we already have the lyrics in wikisource, do we still need to keep the English lyrics in the article? Would it be redundent? --Hurricane111 23:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Because they are relatively short, and people looking up this article would most likely expect to see the lyrics?
 * What Wikisource does or does not contain is not a consequential factor in determining the appropriate content for an encyclopaedia article.
 * zoney &#09827; talk 21:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

When were the English lyrics written?

Rev. John Freeman Young (1820-1885) translated three verses of "Stille Nacht" when he was assistant rector at Trinity Church (Episcopal) in New York City (1860-67). His version of the 1st, 6th, and 2nd verses of Joseph Mohr's original text first appeared in 1863 when it was published in "The Sunday-School Service and Tune Book." These are the same three verses that are used today in English-language hymnals. Rev. Young later became the second Episcopal Bishop of Florida (1867-85). His grave is in the Old City Cemetery in Jacksonville, Florida.

Alternate German lyrics
The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, whose member were German speakers in the 19th century, had a different set of lyrics, which are used today in some of their churches even though services are in English. They were printed in a Youth Hymnal in the 1890s. I believe all the verses were different, but remember only the first one, which goes "Stille nacht, heilege nacht, alles schlaft, Einsam wacht, nur das Heilege Eltern Paar, das im Stalle zu Bethlehem war, bei dem himmlischen Kind, bei dem himmlischen kind." How did it happen that those Germans brought a variant version over to the U.S. in the 19th century? Edison 21:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

reverts
When I load this page, the "History" section begins with, "Sarah has been with her hottiesThe carol..." I went to edit it, but there, the text is clean. Someone with technical skill, please look into it.


 * Hi, I was the one who reverted that edit as vandalism - and you must have been looking at it about the same time I was taking that out. Cricket02 14:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics in other languages (Japanese, French, etc.)
What are the lyrics to Silent Night in Japanese, French, etc.? Angie Y. 22:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.visit-salzburg.net/travel/silentnightlyrics.htm

Kiyoshi kono yoru hoshi wa hikari sukui nomiko wa mabune no naka ni nemuri tamo-o. itoyasuku.

Kiyoshi kono yoru mitsuge ukeshi makibitotachi wa miko no mimae ni nukazukinu, kashikomite.

Kiyoshi kono yoru miko no emi ni, megumi no miyo no ashita no hikari kagayakeri, hogarakani.

Origins of English version
Is it true that the English version first became popular/was first created during the First World War, when German troops were singing the German version in the trenches, and the British troops heard it and translated it into English, or is this just an urban myth? TomPhil (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It may or may not be true. SOme sources say Silent Night wasn't popular in the US until after the First World War, where US troops heard the Germans sing it. IronCrow 05:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivia
Not only do I agree that the recordings section be removed as it is woefully incomplete and ridiculously selective, but I would also query why a reference to a Damien Rice cover "With modified lyrics" is in the Trivia section and yet a reference to the Simon and Garfunkel cover -- with the original lyrics but backing from the news -- was apparently removed some time back. In all honesty, who the hell cares about Damien Rice? What makes him better than anyone else who has ever recorded the song that he be mentioned in the trivia section...?

"The song was sung simultaneously in English and German by troops during the Christmas truce of 1914, as it was one of the few carols that soldiers on both sides of the front line knew." - This may be more urban myth than fact. Rifleman Graham Williams quoted in Brown and Seaton's book, Christmas Truce, says of the Germans singing Stille Nacht: 'This was actually the first time I heard this carol, which was not then so popular in this country as it has since become'. He says O Come All Ye Faithful was the hymn which both sides started singing together and our own research of soldiers' letters reprinted in UK papers (www.christmastruce.co.uk) suggests Home Sweet Home was the song that mellowed the troops most - as it apparently did 50 years earlier during the American Civil War! - Alan Cleaver —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.209.19.200 (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first guy... The Trivia section is pointless, and the last statement has been taken out by me because it's just ridiculous. Every Christmas carol has mondegreens. Not only that, but the Damien Rice cover isn't really notable. IronCrow 04:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's gone. The information has been incorporated into other sections.  (Or discarded - LBJ liking the song is really irrelevant.) Torc2 (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring section on recordings
Will it be better that perhaps we can amend the structure of the recordings section? I think it might make sense to have the recordings listed in different groups. We should have them listed under artist and album, and yet we should sort them into English recordings, German recordings and recordings in other languages (including multilingual renditions). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yip1982 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Recordings
I suggest the section be removed. It's not feasible to list the thousands of recordings of this tune. The main use of this list is probably for spam and self-promotion. Wake 20:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've tagged this section and plan to take a razor to in a couple weeks. We should only list recordings that are somehow notable, not just every time somebody records the song. Torc2 (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made amendments to some of the recordings I've listed and deleted some that might not be notable enough for this article. Will it be better that we tracked down the names of the albums from where these recordings came from? It might show people that we have been researching. Yip1982 (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is just me being a stickler, but can we put them in chronlogical order please! I'll do a few, but I'm only on here for about 3 minutes.Dragon909 (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'll read before I edit in future, but in chronological order seems to make more sense than Alphabetical
 * Sorry, I really disagree with this, for two reasons:
 * Chronology hasn't affected the song itself at all. It's a somewhat meaningless metric.
 * Some recording dates might be unknown, or imprecise. Sometimes we'll only have years instead of dates of recording, or dates of release instead of dates of recording. Dates also require citations, whereas alphabetical only requires an ability to alphabetize.
 * Torc2 (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The section is not relevant to the article.Yaki-gaijin (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, but there's probably certain recording that are worth being mentioned if they meet objective criteria, such as selling a certain number of copies or appearing on a Billboard or other international music chart. Torc2 (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Languages to include
OK, we include the German version because it was the original. We include the English because it's the English Wiki. Why do we have Dutch and Gaelic? Torc2 (talk) 08:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

How about the Jingle Cats version? Isn't that one important enough to belong here too!? Asteriks (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Original melody
"The version of the melody that is generally sung today differs slightly (particularly in the final strain) from Gruber's original." Is the original meoldy included on the site, or just the more familiar version? --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

*An arrangement for Guitar, Flute and Violin for free use in services
I am curious as to what is wrong with this link that it keeps getting removed. It's obviously not spam, considering it is a valid link and is in reference to the article. But what's wrong with posting a link to your own website? For example, let's say I discover a new type of frog, and I want to write a wiki abut it. I would most likely list my own website as an external link so people could read about the frog's discovery. Bob the Wikipedian, a WikiDragon (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's already not allowed. :) But I understand the general point. There is an inherent conflict of interest between the desire to help readers of the encyclopedia find what they are interested in (good) and to use the encyclopedia as a way of getting people interested in/using your own site (bad).  Suppose you write an article about frogs and it's published in Nature: well, you shouldn't add refs to your own work, so you'll just have to wait for someone else to do it.  And if that's true for Nature, then it's certainly true for your own website. (And if it's an open wiki, then it's generally not allowed as an external link at all, except in quite limited circumstances).  If the material isn't original research, and is verifiable, then the thing to do is not to link to it, but to make it a part of the encyclopedia directly.  In this case, the editor interested in the files is going to work on uploading them to Wikimedia commons, and then add the links in to the articles, which is unquestionably the ideal thing all round. Tb (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Point taken. So as you have expanded this topic to references, you're saying that a researcher may not post to Wikipedia, only to their own websites? Bob the Wikipedian, a WikiDragon (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection
... would be great if you look through the history. --84.153.110.246 (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

First known publication of John Freeman Young translation, "Silent Night, Holy Night."
The first known publication of John Freeman Young translation, "Silent Night, Holy Night" was in 1859, not 1863 are previously believed.

On December 28, 2006 I obtained an interlibrary loan of "Carols for Christmas Tide," edited by the Rev. J. Freeman Young, published in New York by Daniel Dana, Jr. in 1859. The first of the seven carols in this 16-page collection was Young's "Silent Night! Holy Night!" This is, to the best of my knowledge, the earliest publication of this classic translation of "Stille Nacht! Heilige Nacht!" As I understand the history of this carol, it was earlier thought that the first publication was in 1863.

The other six carols in this publication include: "Earth Today Rejoices," "Good Christian Men Rejoice," "Here Is Joy For Every Age," "Earthly Friends Will Change And Falter," "Royal Day That Chasest Gloom," and "Good King Wenceslas."

This information was posted to the Christmas International Group at Yahoo on Dec. 29, 2006 (Message 6253), and subsequently to the Silent Night Group at Yahoo.

The sheet music (and cover) have been scanned and can be seen at: http://www.hymnsandcarolsofchristmas.com/Hymns_and_Carols/silent_night_holy_night-1.htm

Both low and high resolution scans are available.

Notes concerning the carol are at: http://www.hymnsandcarolsofchristmas.com/Hymns_and_Carols/Notes_On_Carols/silent_night_holy_night_notes.htm

Young's Biography is at: http://www.hymnsandcarolsofchristmas.com/Hymns_and_Carols/Biographies/john_freeman_young.htm

XmasHistoryGuy (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

24 or 25th of December?
At last, what's the exact date? The article says 24th of December, it is not mentioned on December 24 but on December 25 and it was mentioned equally on the Main Page's On this day... for the 24 and 25 of December... - geraki T L 16:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The 24th is correct. I corrected the entries at December 24 and December 25. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Taylor Swift
Taylor Swift did a cover of it for her EP Sounds of the Season: The Taylor Swift Holiday Collection.Can We PLEASE add it?--BellaFan262 (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Done.Thank you--BellaFan262 (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Recorded versions by popular artists section
Two issues Should we restrict the list? If so, how? It would be good to restrict recent entries to those where both the artist and album have articles. This would confirm notability of both individually. Although it doesn't guarantee the popularity of either.
 * 1) It's getting rather large.
 * 2) I don't know why it is formatted "Artist from album name" (bold mine).

As for the second issue, the artist is not from the album, the artist recorded the song and released it on the album. It would be better formatted "Artist on album name" (bold mine). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Notability of an album does not equate to notability of a particular track on it. It might not even have been released on an album - your suggestion would preclude listing of such recordings.  In either case, one might know of a recording of Silent Night by a given popular music artist (e.g. on a compilation) but have no idea from what album (if any) it originated.  On this basis, what reasonable criteria can we use to determine whether a given version is notable enough to be worthy of inclusion? — Smjg (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, my suggestion could preclude the inclusion of some entries, but not many.
 * I'm not sure that we need to confirm the notability down the song level, but if that's the best way, then determining if the single charted would be the correct way of determining that. Quite often, the song is simply included in an album and not released as a single though so this would drastically reduce the number of entries. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Not the original version
If you are going to talk about the history of Stille Nacht (Silent Night), then you should also have a copy of the original song version with all six verses included instead of jumping from verse 1 to verse 6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kargandarr  (talk • contribs)  00:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There aren't six versed in common English versions, and the original lyrics are better suited to wikisource. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Audio
I've swapped out File:Gruber - Schumann-Heink - Stille Nacht.ogg for File:Festliches Konzert - Bekannte Weihnachtslieder Stille Nacht.ogg. The presentation of Silent Night in a symphonic choral version just seems ... right, especially for the German version. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * They're both in German. The new version uses unconventional harmonies and should be removed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That version is beautiful! But after listening to a few seconds from the (English) U.S. Army one, I realized you're right - beautiful or not, they aren't the harmonies we normally associate with the song.  I removed it from the page. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there's room for all three versions on this page. The American version is not wholly traditional either and has some slightly daring harmonies – nothing wrong with daring. The Schumann-Heink version is the version least easy to most ears; I wouldn't mind if it were removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I too think there's room for three versions on the page, so why do you insist on removing the second? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So we're all agreed, then? Putting the third one back. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek: On the point of the Schumann-Heink version, I agree that it's not so great, but it's not so bad that I'd remove it if all three will work. Now that I've had some time to consider, it is good that we have a solo performance in addition to the choral ones. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 12:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Annie Lennox sung it - WOW!
The "history" of the song must be closed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.128.71 (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

So did Sinead O'Connor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.85.148.232 (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

German Lyrics
Why has nobody noticed that the presented German lyrics are riddled with error? Referring to the German page Stille Nacht, a German Hymnal, and my own knowledge of the German Song, this presentation is obviously wrong. I don't know whether this is some sort of original text or if the writer was writing it incorrectly from memory, but something needs to be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.110.120 (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean - the text is almost the same as the one currently in the German article. The only differences are some spelling variations, (because the German article clings closer to the original spelling) and the difference between "Gnade" (grace) and "Gnaden" (its plural), which is both possible in German.


 * That said - do we really need the original 6 verse version? There are several problems with it:
 * The English one is not a direct translation of that version; placing them side by side will mislead some readers into thinking it is.
 * Because the original German version is twice as long, the layout will never be perfect. An anonymous editor just aligned the English version to the top, which is a matter of taste, but it does increase the impression that the German version corresponded verse by verse with the English one.
 * Since we can always point to the German page, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better to remove the German version altogether. &mdash; Sebastian 17:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I trimmed the anonymous & rarely-seen fourth verse from the English version, to leave the three aligned German & English verses. —Patrug (talk) 08:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Gruber's original ... was a sprightly, dance-like tune
Is there a source for this? The 1820-1825 autograph (Mohr) is marked largo; the 1860 autograph (Gruber) reproduced in the article is marked moderato. 37.205.58.146 (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Good catch, thanks. I've replaced "sprightly, dance-like" with "moderato". —Patrug (talk) 08:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

on the history of the musical text
http://www.henle.de/blog/en/2012/12/24/%e2%80%98silent-night%e2%80%99-revisited/ Double sharp (talk) 10:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the text in the original autograph (given below in the article) and the first edition (which I added) are probably worth mentioning in the article, since they probably had the composer's involvement; but not other variations. Double sharp (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Sound illustrations
This article has four sound illustrations. Why is it categorized in Category:Song articles missing an audio sample? --Bensin (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The category appears to have been added when the infobox was added in this edit. How remove category but keep infobox? --Bensin (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Christmas truce of 1914
I've removed this newly added paragraph from the History section as lacking complete accuracy or relevance:

There's no evidence anywhere that this one carol prompted the Christmas Truce, and the title of the book, while obviously an echo title, refers to the fact that there was no shooting over Christmas, rather than referring only or specifically to this carol. Softlavender (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Categories
Just to get this on the record this song has been sung by thousands if not millions of people over the years. Per WP:CATDEF it is not a "defining characteristic" of any of their careers. Thus, a specific singer's category (even Enya's Gaelic version which I enjoy) does not belong with this article. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree fully with the above comment. There are some editors here on Wikipedia that claim that if any prominent singer puts out a version of this song, that version should be included on that page. But I also know that in the studies I have done about religious Christmas hymns, the general consensus has to be putting a limit on what versions are featured on such sections and that this should be regulated. I share that feeling completely. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Remove lyrics
A few problems with the lyrics. First, there are only three verses of each. The original German version has six verses and the John Freeman Young has four verses. Second, the German version doesn't really help much for the majority of users on the English project. Without a direct translation of the six verses, it's incomprehensible to most readers. Finally, the lyrics are in wikisource. I propose removing them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see any of those things as a problem, and I enjoy having the German lyrics here. Many English speakers are interested in the German lyrics and many in fact know them a bit and sing them from time to time, and many English-language recording artists often include the German version on their Christmas albums. The same goes for "O Tannenbaum". I personally oppose removing the lyrics. Softlavender (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But both sets of lyrics are incomplete. Four verses, different translations and six in German, with English translation which are different than the German version we have. There have been many instances of removing content, particularly lyrics, if they are in Wikisource. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there some reason that the section on the lyrics can't be improved rather than removed? I would also note that there isn't any mention of the four verse version in the article at the moment. There is sourced info about the six verse version and it mentions that the three verses are the "most frequently sung" ones. As to their being on wikisource that is not a reason for there removal from this article per WP:OSE among others. I too oppose their removal but would fully support any improvements to the lyrics section as well as added info about the various versions. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OSE doen't apply in this case. This is a wikisource issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see that Wikisource has anything to do with this article one way or another, except possibly as a reference/citation/EL. There's no reason to remove any information/text/lyrics from this article simply because it exists, in part or in whole or in a different or more complete form, on Wikisource. The two projects are different and separate, the same way Commons and Wikidata are. Softlavender (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * a) As others have pointed out, the German lyrics are regularly used in the English-speaking world, so they ought to be kept. b) Only the three German verses shown overleaf are used in Germany; the original verses 3 to 5 are broadly unknown. c) How is the text at stillenacht.at (which is now twice in the article's "External links" section) different from the one here? If you're referring to the awkward melisma on "traute heilige Paar" – that's not how it's sung in Germany today, but "traute hochheilige Paar" for its better flow. d) I can't comment on whether a 4-verse version is used much in English. If it is, it ought to added. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't comment on whether a 4-verse version is used much in English. If it is, it ought to added. I've noticed that, for whatever reason, for the past several decades only three verses of any given Christmas carol are published in collections. I'm not sure why this is (it used to annoy me greatly), but there it is. It's also the case that vocalists only sing three verses of any given Christmas carol on their albums. Maybe "Silent Night" is an exception to this since the verses are so short, but looking at the fourth verse now, I can confirm that (in my opinion at least) it's pretty rarely heard/sung. As to whether the fourth English verse should be included in the article, that's a matter for consensus to determine, I think. Softlavender (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have seen contents of lyrics and other short pieces removed because they are in Wikisource, but I don't see a policy or guideline to support it. As for current German lyrics, the orginal traute heilige Paar is now usually traute hochheilige Paar, where they elevate holy' to high holy or most holy''. I suppose we can leave it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: In terms of traute heilige Paar versus traute hochheilige Paar, right now the wiki article reads hochheilige, so if we are going to retain that we need to change the header (which now says "Mohr's [original] German lyrics") to indicate that we are quoting modern lyrics instead. Softlavender (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of my favorite recorded versions include the fourth verse. Of course, those versions are several decades old themselves. --Khajidha (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * To further comment here, it makes sense to have equal numbers of verses in both German and English. As Michael Bednarek has pointed out, two of the original five German verses are unknown and unused; and as I have pointed out, only three verses are normally sung in English. Moreover, right now the verses in the wiki article match up perfectly in terms of translation, so that's another reason not to change anything. Softlavender (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the heading "Mohr's German lyrics" is inappropriate (the interested reader can find them at the linked German Wikisource entry). The article de:Stille Nacht, heilige Nacht cites the Evangelisches Gesangbuch for the version now commonly used. We could do the same and simply use "German lyrics" as the heading, or omit a heading as it's obvious. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Recently an IP changed "Mohr's German lyrics" to "Modern German lyrics", and I knee-jerk reverted them because I didn't read the edit summary. Anyway, can you make whatever edit you deem necessary to make the heading accurate? Softlavender (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikisource has the "modern" lyrics. I don't see why we need them in the article (and I don't see why we need them in the article at all). I did see lyrics removed from other Christmas carol articles for this very reason over the past week. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Asked and answered, Walter. The consensus is to retain them; in order to remove any form of German lyrics from this article you'll have to gain a consensus. We use the modern lyrics in the article because there's no reason to have lyrics that are not currently in use while omitting the widely used lyrics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Softlavender (talk • contribs) 19:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please be sure to sign your comments.
 * I didn't actually ask anything so. I was responding to the question as to whether we should go with the modern lyrics or original. I stated my opinion. I was not the editor who removed the lyrics and I suspect that when that editor stumbles onto this article, it will happen here as well.
 * As far as an encyclopedic value of the modern lyrics versus the original, WP:NOTLYRICS addresses it pretty well and so the local consensus is now against community consensus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Nazi version
Should the altered Nazi version of "Silent Night" wehich makes no mention to anything religious be included or at least mentioned? --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 22:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There was?
 * Or are you talking about Hohe Nacht der klaren Sterne, which indeed intended to replace Silent Night, but was not a version but an entirely different song?
 * I'd have thought the Nazis were smart enough not to try to tamper with the lyrics of Silent Night... at least not before the Final Victory.--2001:A61:260C:C01:91EA:BCEF:611B:6FAE (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Legends
To which extent should we report the legends around this carol? See. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this link . It is interesting that the info at this link states that the organ was playable which contradicts what the IP is trying to add. It also mentions that the first time that hungry mouse damage is mentioned comes from Hertha Pauli in 1954. That could be worth a mention and would help to offset any editors who want to state it as fact. The info about Mohr's skull is also interesting but probably not relevant to this article. I look forward to reading what other editors think. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I understood the IP as also wanting to add that the legend exists. Let's get closer to Christmas ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You could be right Gerda but the legend wasn't mentioned in the source they provided. As to whether something that did not exist until 1954 can be considered a legend I suspect that will be interpreted differently by each editor/reader. I know this article is on a few active editors watchlists so hopefully they will add their thoughts. As you point out we might get more input as Christmas approaches. If not we could make a request at the wikiprojects that are attached to the page. Regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether the organ was kaputt, as the source that was recently added claims, or not, the net effect of the recent edits is that a very weak statement was added, "It has been claimed that that Mohr wanted to give the population of Oberndorf a simple song in German with guitar accompaniment." This is so banal and based on an obscure source, it should be removed. As for the source given by Gerda, it could be the basis for a whole new section or spin-off article, although I suspect that most of it is of very limited interest to English-language readers. Even the DE article mentions them only summarily in passing. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input . I appreciate your time in looking at things. Please feel free to remove it. I only tried to paraphrase what was in the source as Google Translate presented it. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Silent Night's 200th anniversary is on December 24th
Hi all. "Silent Night" was first performed on Christmas Eve in 1818, and consequently will appear on the Main page in the "On this day" section on December 24th, so I figured editors here might be interested in improving it before then. There are no major issues with it that I can see, but it's also rather short and I feel certain it could be significantly expanded if interested editors had a go at it. I'd be happy to help out, of course, but as this isn't remotely my field I fear I have very little to contribute. Any takers? (PS. Cross-posting this to WP:CM and WP:SONGS as the most relevant Wikiprojects with recent activity.) --Xover (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Charting covers
Makes perfect sense per WP:COVERSONG. However, the tables might be overkill, but otherwise, they should remain in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Limiting the table of contents is helpful. Walter Görlitz (talk)

[Copied from WT:WikiProject Songs/Archive 24]:

MOS:TABLES advises that tables "should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a table may be better presented as prose paragraphs or as an embedded list" and MOS:NO-TABLES includes "If a list is simple, it is generally better to use one of the standard Wikipedia list formats instead of a table. Lists are easier to maintain than tables, and are often easier to read." With these in mind:... For Silent Night, why are nine separate chart tables with one or two entries a better way to present the info than a simple bulleted list as in the preceding "In film" section? The artists aren't even linked (although one doesn't have a WP article). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. The tables are likely there because there are table-based templates, that have the details and reference embedded, but the details could be represented in prose, but should not be blanked entirely. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Propose to implement as follows if there are no objections.

—Ojorojo (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Transcription of original needed
Quickest (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)The two lines of music headed "First edition" are in fact identical to the second (with a few minor differences of musical orthography). Could someone undertake to transcribe from the original manuscript as imaged here, showing the penultimate line a third lower, and the repeated last line? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quickest (talk • contribs) 00:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)