Jump to content

Talk:The Twelve Days of Christmas (song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BBC parody and notability

[edit]

The was left on my talk page:

Hello Walter Görlitz ,

first excuse me for not using the article's talk page. I cannot work out how to manage. Indeed I want to tell you about an "edit" you made on a contribution.

Yesterday 25 Nov 2020 I inserted a contribution under the section "Parodies and other versions". A few hours later you deleted my entry and asked for me not to put it back again. I am very surprised by your action and request. Indeed when one starts editing , the following statement appears :

Anyone can edit, and every improvement helps.

Thank you for helping the world discover more! So my questions are :

- who are you to delete contributions from other people ?

- I referred to the BBC website which is perfectly correct. It is not otherwise.

- Notable , referring to the Cambridge dictionary, is important and deserving attention, because of being very good or interesting. Maybe not notable for you but you are not the only person reading. Other people could have been interested and found it is a good contribution.

Your’s - William Roger (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@William Roger: to answer your question, who am I? I'm another editor. Wikipedia is built collaboratively and we have policies, guidelines and other agreed-upon processes for editing. While anyone can edit, content is frequently removed when it does not meet criteria for inclusion. It's not an article about the piece, it's the piece itself. That would be like saying that a YouTube video is notable because it's on the platform. If someone else had written about, that might have made it notable. You'll notice that most if not all of the other entries in the article meet that criteria. I've linked what Wikipedia means when we say notable, but in case you didn't see it, it's at Wikipedia:Notability. In this case, we would also refer to WP:COVERSONG to determine which cover songs we want to include. You could imagine how long the list section of the article would be if every recorded version or parody were included. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Walter Görlitz
Okay, you are another editor. But from whom do you hold your censorship authority ? It would have been more elegant if you had dropped me a line inviting me, with substantiated argumentation, to review my contribution. But NO you got hold of the censor’s scissors.
" It's not an article ….. " Relating to what you mention afterwards, and English not being my native language, I’m not sure I understand your point. Had you put it in simple wording !
I did not think that such an innocuous contribution would cause such trouble.
Yours William Roger (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the guidelines I supplied? Do you understand WP:CONSENSUS? Please stop thinking of this as censorship and start thinking of this as keeping the article in-line with guidelines. There has been no trouble either, but this parody would simply require a reliable and secondary source to show it's notable. Without that, it's just another of hundreds of parodies that are created every year. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Qte this parody would simply require a reliable and secondary source to show it's notable. Unqte
Reliable source ; as mentioned when I posted my contribution : " On Christmas 2019 the BBC News website published a parody …. " Do you mean to say that the BBC is no a reliable source ? I’d be amazed. Many people trust and rely on the BBC.
Secondary source ; On their webpage, the BBC clearly takes responsibility for the lyrics " adapted lyrics by BBC News ". The producer, is a BBC journalist. What more do you want ? So no secondary source should be required. The original and reliable source is the BBC.
Voilà ! My contribution was quite RELIABLE . I trust you will you will soon put it back. If not, I’ll do so. Thank you.William Roger (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, still not proven. Again, have you clicked through to the guidelines I have linked to above? You are using your own definitions and they do not line-up with Wikipedia's way of working.
Of course, BBC is a reliable source. If you would like to make an attribution about a football match, world politics (assuming we're not reading an opinion piece), or even culinary matters.
However, when BBC is promoting its own event, it is not a secondary source and fails to meet the threshold. So find a reliable, secondary source that discusses this parody and it would be acceptable to include. Again, if we were to include every version and parody, it would be unnecessarily long and essentially irrelevant. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of other sources. Amongst them, out there on the web which are not the BBC , so de facto they are secondary. Inter alia :
What else do you want ?
Yours William Roger (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read any of the guidelines I've posted. Three of the links you provided are exact copies of the BBC article. At best, they are simply licensed copies of the BBC article where BBC is a wire service. At worst, they are copyright violations and I'm sure you know that such violations are unusable. The fourth, shafaqna.com, did not even recognize the piece for a year, appears to be nothing more than a content aggregator, and the site does not meet the criteria for a reliable source already discussed.
Reliable news websites have a clear editorial policy and editorial board. Reliable on them sources have bylines showing who the author of the piece is, when and where it was written, and have the ability to supply comment to the editorial board that allows for retraction. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Walter Görlitz,
Considering :
1/ Anyone can edit almost every page; just find something that can be improved and make it better! You can add content (preferably with references),
2/ I have been contributing many times over the last 6 years without any rejection. So naturally I made a contribution in the section " Parodies and other versions " on the the article " The Twelve Days of Christmas (song) "
3/ without any warning, you deleted my input.
4/ We have discussed ad nauseam. It’s time to stop. Furthermore you still have not answered my question on 26 Nov as to what credentials , authority you have . "who are you to delete contributions"
Therefore I will make a fresh contribution with new wording. I hope you will have enough courtesy to respect my input.
Merry Xmas, it’s only 20 days away.William Roger (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While anyone can edit, only content that is notable will be kept. You still do not understand that basic point. You still have not answered the question as to how it's notable, but I did answer your question. Please read my response. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article is on my watchlist, it's easy to see whan you try to slip it back in there without providing a SECONDARY source or make any other attempt to support its notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Ah, Ah Ah, you have a watchlist, lucky you ! I only have a Swiss watchdog, aka cuckoo clock.

You wrote on November 30 Th : this parody would simply require a reliable and secondary source to show it's notable

I’ve addressed these two points the same day. Please refer supra.

" Secondary source ; On their webpage, the BBC ……. So no secondary source should be required. The original and reliable source is the BBC."

Since then, you have been splitting hairs. Remember, it’s Xmas in a few days. Time to relax and be cool. Come down from your watchtower, take off your blinkers, do not be so stubborn and please reinstate my contribution. William Roger (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have addressed neither point which is why I continue to revert the content. WP:RS states what a reliable source is and the sources you supplied are in themselves are not reliable. They are most certainly extant, but they are not reliable. If you have a BBC reviewer who comments on the work, that would be secondary, but this is simply presenting the piece. The Beebs is reliable when presenting news, but this, on the contrary, is a piece of entertainment. Do not conflate the two concepts. I'm sorry you're having a difficult time comprehending this. It is never the right time to relax our guidelines for content. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Walter the watchman,

if I had written somewhere in Wikipedia that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, would you have made all that fuss ? Surely not. Indeed you cannot deny that statement unless you believe that the Earth is flat and so on. It is a factual statement. So no fuss to make about it.

Coming back to my contribution that you deleted, in a rude manner, it is also a factual statement. I only said that the BBC created and put on line a parody. It’s a fact that anyone can check by going to their website. It’s a fact that I was reporting and you cannot deny it unless denying an evident fact and believing the Earth is not a globe.

On second thoughts, I can only say that from your first intervention and thereafter you have been barking up the wrong (Christmas) tree and you have been taking me through abrupt paths. Let’s make them straight again. Nothing is required regarding notability and / or secondary sources to support my contribution. FACTS, ONLY FACTS, anything else about my contribution is like discussing about the sex on angels. Completely pointless. I say it again : I look forward to your reinstatement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Roger (talk • contribs) 15:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC) sorry, I forgot to signWilliam Roger (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being impolite. We are not here to discuss facts, we are here to create an encyclopedia of notable issues. There was no rudeness in repeatedly removing content that does not belong. Youh err when you state that "Nothing is required regarding notability and / or secondary sources to support my contribution" because WP:NCOVER makes it clear that a only notable cover songs should be included. I am trying to explain what that means. The only completely pointless thing in this discussion is for you to continue to argue that you are correct to add this parody and I have no right to remove it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quote because WP:NCOVER makes it clear Unqte What is / Who is WP/NCOVER ? The link is invalid.William Roger (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My error. I meant WP:COVERSONG. I had already linked it. I believe that was an old shortcut. Again, my apologies. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly still do not understand how this works. The work is self-referential and is no more notable than a cover version that can only be sourced to a YouTube video that has been seen a few thousand times. Until it receives coverage from someone other than BBC (and is not simply a copy of the BBC page) we should not be including it here as it is not a notable cover version. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Görlitz, for your information, please be aware that I have contacted Wikipedia about my contribution and your refusal of the same.William Roger (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that t hey will tell you what I have been. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One example doesn’t count as popularity

[edit]

Several statements in the article assert that one lyrical variant or another is particularly common in North America, with a reference that starts “For example,” and then cites one book. This is not an acceptable Wikipedia citation. A claim that something is popular somewhere needs to cite a source backing up that popularity as fact, not a single example of its use. Unless someone can provide better sources for these assertions, I’d suggest removing them altogether. PacificBoy 00:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is the most common wording in North America, but your question about the way the reference is formatted is valid. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which bird for number 4?

[edit]

As a lad I understood that the "four coalley birds" (or "colly" if you prefer) were coal tits. However recent TV programs have suggested either the common blackbird or the raven. Given the raven's association with Odin that might make some sense. Does anyone have any evidence for the original intent (as against supposition)? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The illustration from the first known publication is here -- feel free to judge for yourself.

https://archive.org/details/mirth_without_mischief/page/n6/mode/1up Grover cleveland (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly more like a raven, but with that neck I'm not sure the engraver had any particular species in mind! The trouble is, no-one (I suspect) knows how old the song was in 1800. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Is thought to be of French origin"

[edit]

This claim (or words to that effect) has been in the lede for years, attributed to Opie and Opie's Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes. What Opie and Opie actually say is more equivocal:

  • "A rhyme or chant, also known in France"
  • Reference to similar chants in the Cambrésis and Languedoc
  • "whatever the ultimate origin of the chant, it seems probable that the lines which survive today both in England and France are merely an irreligious travesty"
  • [in a footnote] "If 'The partridge in the peartree' is to be taken literally it looks as if the chant comes from France, since the Red Leg partridge, which perches in trees more frequently than the common partridge, was not successfully introduced into England until about 1770".

The last point comes closest to a claim of French origin, but it is only conditional.

Since the article was giving both more confidence and more prominence to the claim of French origin than the source it cited, I've removed this statement from the lede, and added the Opies' argument about the partridge to the "Origins" section. Grover cleveland (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve Lords A-Leaping

[edit]

From the provided sources, it seems like 12 Lords is the more common order (ten sources), with Austin's 12 Drummers the sole aberration, is that correct? Shouldn't we show 12 Lords as the default? —Ashley Y 21:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I have never heard it sung with the Lords and Ladies outranked by the Pipers and Drummers. The anonymous ca.-1800 broadside to the right has them in the order in which they are normally sung. --Haruo (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Twelve_Days_of_Christmas_(song)&oldid=1202111997"