Talk:Jingle Bells/Archive 1

Archive 1

Chorus of original version

The chorus of the original appears to sound similar to "Jolly Old Saint Nicholas". Georgia guy (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

copyright

is this song in the public domain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.52.6 (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. The copyright is from 1857, and hence beyond even the reach of Disney. Snezzy (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Parody

घंटा चोहिकडे । गंमत वाटे । घोडागाडी । घसरत जाई पुढे ।। ध्रु ।।

वेगे बर्फातून । घोडागाडीतून । शुभ्र पांढ-या बर्फामधुनि जाऊ पुढे , पुढे ।। १ ।। घण घणती । किण किणती । …… ।। ध्रु ।।

हिमपथ धवल बने । या, गाऊ गाणे । एक होऊ या गाता, गाता जाऊ पुढे, पुढे ।। २ ।। घण घणती । किण किणती । …… ।। ध्रु ।।

सँटाक्लॉज आला । करू आनंदाला । भेट देऊ या प्रीती जगाला, जाऊ पुढे, पुढे ।। ३ ।। घण घणती । किण किणती । …… ।। ध्रु ।।

Actually that is not the only parody of Jingle Bells, not by any means, there are quite a few. I think the batman smells one was inspired by "Santa Smells, robin laid an egg, etc(that I used to hear in K and 1st grade)" So it's a parody of a parody. The snare (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

जयंतकुमार त्रिभुवन —Preceding unsigned comment added by AseemTribhuvan (talk • contribs) 08:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

File:Jingle Bells Or The One Horse Open Sleigh Complete.ogg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Jingle Bells Or The One Horse Open Sleigh Complete.ogg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Jingle Bells Or The One Horse Open Sleigh Complete.ogg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the song is out of copyright, and the "performance" is not copyrightable, I've removed the tag. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"Bells on bobtail" vs "Bells on bobtails"

In the revision of 02:31, 20 September 2010 SteveStrummer moved some links about and added (perhaps accidentally) an "s" to bobtail. It's supposed to be singular, bobtail, that being a poetic truncation of "the bob-tailed horse". Making it plural, bobtails, is illogical, because the sleigh is being pulled by a single horse, not a pair.

Bobbing or docking the tail of a carriage horse was done for safety, so that the horse could not grab the reins with his tail and cause the driver to lose control.

This song contains several references to technicalities of driving that are "mere words" to most people but that have very specific meaning to those who have driven horse-drawn carriages or sleighs. As with many songs, the words that some people know are a "Mondegreen" of the proper version. Naming the horse "Bob" (Bells on Bob's tail) is once such error. Sleighbells are not hitched to the tail. Instead they are on the harness, on the sleigh itself, or atop the harness saddle. Snezzy (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that the lyrics are not "bobtails" or "Bob's tail", a citation is still needed to demonstrate whether the author intended synecdoche (as you assert) or a name ("Bobtail"). (This isn't to dispute the practice of bobbing horses' tails or why it's done, simply to speak to authorial intent.) Otherwise, bobtail "being a poetic truncation of 'the bob-tailed horse'" is original research. Etherjammer (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

WPJAzz or not?

I re-added this project and somebody else removed it. Not too concerned as I am not part of WPJazz, but I do note that the first successful single was a jazz rendition and amongst those who ahve recorded the tune are the following jazz musicians - Duke Ellington, Bing Crosby, Andrews Sisters, Louis Armstrong, Benny Goodmanm Glen Miller, and these are mentioned in this article! --Richhoncho (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed it because the song is not in any way, shape or form a jazz song. Any song can be redone in almost any style, but that doesn't make that song itself (as opposed to the specific arrangement) the proper subject for that style of music. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a very reasonable argument and I applaud it. It's ALWAYS in the arrangement and not the song. LOL. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Origin: Medford or Savannah

Apparently, the birth place of the song is not at all undisputed (as the English WP entry might suggest...) Anyone who understands German could translate and include this passage from the German article:

Savannah Gedenktafel in Savannah

Erst 1969 bezweifelte Milton Rahn,[2] ein Unitarier aus Savannah in Georgia, die Medforder Version. Als 1857 auf das Lied das Copyright vergeben wurde, arbeitete James Pierpont als Organist und Chorleiter an der unitarischen Kirche in Savannah,[3] an der sein älterer Bruder John Pierpont als Pastor tätig war. James Pierpont heiratete kurz vor der Vergabe des Copyrights seine zweite Frau, die Tochter des Bürgermeisters von Savannah, Eliza Jane Purse. Das Haus, von dem angenommen wird, dass das Lied dort komponiert wurde, befindet sich in der Nähe der Oglethorpe Street und Whitaker Street.

Es wird angenommen, dass Pierpont das Lied ursprünglich für den Gottesdienst zum Thanksgiving-Tag komponierte und an der Sonntagsschule, an der er unterrichtete, mit den Kindern einstudierte. Die etwa 40 Kinder lernten die muntere Melodie und den eingängigen Text fast augenblicklich auswendig. Das Lied wurde von der Gemeinde so gut aufgenommen, dass die vortragenden Kinder zur Weihnachtsmesse erneut gebeten wurden, das Lied zu singen – seit dieser Zeit gilt das Stück als Weihnachtslied.

1985 errichtete die Stadt Savannah eine Gedenktafel gegenüber der Kirche, und der damalige Bürgermeister John Rousakis erklärte das Lied zu einem „Savannah Song“. Zwischen Rousakis und dem Medforder Bürgermeister Michael McGlynn entspann sich 1989 ein wenig freundlicher Briefwechsel.

5.158.132.72 (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the reference used in the German Wikipedia article was a dead link, but I found another source and added the "Savannah theory" to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This German story is bogus. If the song was originally written for Thanksgiving, in the 1850's, Thanksgiving wasn't celebrated in Georgia, it was a regional New England holiday, they also can't go sleighing much in Georgia, *since it never snows there enough*. 129.133.127.244 (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Wherever he was when he wrote the song, I think there is little doubt that the composer was referring to New England. The only real question is whether he wrote it while he was there, and simply published it when he was in Savannah, or whether he wrote it while in Georgia (thinking of New England) and then published it. There evidence to support either theory is relatively thin, but the Georgia theory can't be eliminated simply because the song is about New England. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Sound files need fixing

The first one sounds like it needs a bit of fixing - the computerized singing voice falls into garbled gibberish at one point. Can someone not simply post a recording of a human voice singing the original melody? 70.72.201.229 (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Bing Crosby version

This coincides with the musician's strike of 1942-1944. Any direct links in documentation? Pittsburgh Poet (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Musical arrangements of Jingle Bells

Is providing your own arrangement of the song automatically considered spam? I ask this because of the removal of an external link to my arrangement for classical guitar. After checking the history of the article I noticed that it was removed and classified as spam. After trying to contact the user who did it I got something like a warning. I need insight in this matter please, for I don't want to be marked as a spammer. (Pedro Abreu) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.37.119.150 (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No, posting a link to your own website constitutes spam. Posting your own arrangement directly on here would constitute original research. Either way, it doesn't belong. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Get somebody to cite your song somewhere on the web then I will post it for you. Mea (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It should not be added if it's not notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Jingle Bells (Basshunter song)

Per WP:NSONGS Richhoncho (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

"Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts." - true, here don't have importance cover or no cover. Eurohunter (talk) 07:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Don't be ridiculous, the two have nothing to do with each other. BMK (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

It is the SAME song, different recording. Where does it belong? Who is being ridiculous and showing signs of WP:OWNERSHIP? --Richhoncho (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

If it's the same song, then it never should have had a separate article. Do you mean that they literally sing "Jingle Bells"? BMK (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Read the article - Same writer = same song! If you don't think it's notable, then take it to prod/AfD. Also, please read WP:NSONG, which reads, "Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions." FWIW, the only I put the merge tag is because I was busy doing something else when I spotted it. In the meantime I am re-adding the merge tag. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The article is about the recording, not the song. Solution here is to add "Basshunter" to the list of covers on iungle Bells. Adding more info about this one single would violate WP:WEIGHT, given the extraordinary number of covers of the song. BMK (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Basshunter is already on the list, so there's no need to merge. WP:NSONG is anticipating a song with a small number of additional recordings, not a case like "Jingle Bells". BMK (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Although I do not approve, I have redirected the Basshunter song to the list of, as suggested above. I daresay others will not be happy either. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

That was not my suggestion at all, and I've undone your redirect, which is a deletion by other means. What I said was that it was sufficient in terms of the Jingle Bells article and its subsidiaries that Basshunter is listed as an artist who has covered the song. The number of covers makes it impractical to include specific article-length (or even stub-length) information on each of them, so ther Basshunter article should stay as is. If it's not notable, someone can take steps to delete it, but under no circumstances should it be merged into Jingle Bells, as it would set a precedent that would make the article impossibly long. BMK (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

"taking a girl"

I edited the language in this uncited sentence (edit) to remove the problem of the implied but unstated male reader -- who is "taking a girl"? This not only removes unnecessary sexism in the implied audience; it's just better writing to not use an implied perspective, and the revised version is cleaner and more professional. The edit was reverted (reversion) by @Beyond My Ken: who noted "1950s normal" in the edit summary.

Sleigh rides were the nineteenth-century equivalent of taking a girl to a drive-in movie theatre in the 1950s and early 1960s, so there was a somewhat suggestive and scintillating aspect to the song that is often now unrecognized.

changed to

Sleigh rides were the nineteenth-century equivalent of a couple going to a drive-in movie theatre in the 1950s and early 1960s, so there was a somewhat suggestive and scintillating aspect to the song that is often now unrecognized.

I'm not satisfied with "1950s normal", for a few reasons. One, we're not in the 1950s. Two, even in the 1950s, that phrasing presumes a male audience and is therefore inappropriate for and unnecessarily ambiguous for a general-audience encyclopedia.

So, rather than edit-warring, I'd like to invite Beyond My Ken to further explain how the "taking a girl" phrasing is better for Wikipedia than the "a couple going" phrasing, and hear from any other interested parties. --Lquilter (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Because in 1950s in the United States the norm was for a boy to take a girl. Don't judge or describe other eras by the standrads of our own, accuracy is more important that political correctness. BMK (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• We don't write articles using outmoded, non-contemporary language, no matter what the subject. The Canterbury Tales is in contemporary, not middle-ages, English, and On the Road is also in contemporary English and doesn't employ 1960s Beatnik slang. It's just as accurate (actually more accurate) to describe "a boy taking a girl" to the movies as the couple going together. I'd also note that the subject of the article is in no way related to this 1950s analogy -- so this is perhaps not the most useful analogy in any case. ("Taking a girl" to the movies or going to the movies together is not scandalous to the vast majority of people reading English Wikipedia.) What else do you have? --Lquilter (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "We" write articles in whatever way serves the reader best. "We" don't warp our language to suit the political correctness trends of the moment. "We" describe things as they were when they were, and don't introduce a POV alien to the event. But mostly, "we" don't make silly reductio ad absurdum rhetorical points to win trivial arguments when we run out of anything cogent to say. BMK (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    • You've failed to address the point that the language of the couple going together is every bit as accurate and period-appropriate as the single point of sexist language from the 1950s. The reference is not "period-appropriate". "Jingle Bells" was not written in the 1950s -- there were no movie-going experiences at the time. And the article is not being read in the 1950s. So in what way is this an appropriate time period in which to write vernacular? Moreover, given that there are accurate, period-appropriate, non-sexist variants, can you explain why the less accurate, sexist, non-period-appropriate description is better? You have thus far not provided a positive explanation for why the "taking a girl" to the movies is better. It might be better for men born in the mid-20th century, but it's patently inappropriate for pretty much everyone else, and we do not write Wikipedia solely for one audience. If you can't adduce a positive explanation for why stereotyped vernacular from 60 years ago is the appropriate language, I'm going to replace the language. I think the example is useful, but there's no reason it has to be written in this outmoded way. The original song chorus doesn't talk about guys taking girls anywhere, so really this language just introduces something completely irrelevant. --Lquilter (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
      • If you think that "taking a girl..." means the same thing as "a couple goes", your brain has been melted by political correctness, and I suspect that you may be incapable of editing Wikipedia in a neutral manner, without inserting your own personal POV. BMK (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
        • You seem to be having trouble staying civil & avoiding personal commentary. "Jingle Bells" is about going on a sleigh ride. Call it scandalous, as the uncited sentence does, and analogize to something else scandalous. All that is fine (although needs a cite). There's no gender in the chorus of Jingle Bells, and no reason to introduce it in in one 60-year old outmoded expression for a time period not referenced in the song. Can you provide any positive reason for including this, other than attacking me personally? --Lquilter (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
          • • Please see WP:BRD. Your old edit was Reverted and now a Discussion is taking place. During the discussion the article stays in the status quo ante. Re-inserting the contested edit without a consensus on the talk page is edit warring, and can result in being blocked from editing. Please leave the article in the original state until there is a consensus for one version or the other. BMK (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
              • You've reverted my edit twice now, without providing a substantive response to my points. Please respond to my substantive points, above. --Lquilter (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC) ... ETA: On WP:BRD, I note that "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing." and "The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD." You've made numerous personal comments and comments verging on attacks, and the only substantive comment you've made thus far is to reiterate your subject line: "Because in 1950s in the United States the norm was for a boy to take a girl." To which I've already noted we're writing for a contemporary audience, about a 19th century song. There's no particular reason to use 1950s phrasing for this analogy, and my alternate phrasing still keeps the core of the example. So I'm not sure what your beef is, except for your various personal attacks. You can't just keep reverting (and not even trying to edit it) without providing some substantive discussion or alternate suggestions of your own. --Lquilter (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• It's been a week since BMK last posted here. BMK has yet to respond to my reasoning for the 3-word change, other than to make personal attacks, and has not yet suggested any compromise or alternative proposals. In the absence of on-going discussion, it seems that BMK has withdrawn. I'll give it another day or two for substantive responses or alternative proposals. For future discussions, though, I'd like to remind BMK about WP:CIVILITY, and that s/he does not own this article; and WP:NPA, no personal attacks. If BMK is not interested in continuing discussion, but continues to revert this edit, then we can bring it through a dispute resolution process. Hopefully we don't need to bother with that over this 3-word edit. --Lquilter (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Of course I responded. My view remains that the article should stay as it is now, since there is no legitimate reason to change it, and it is historically more accurate than your desired change. BMK (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    • The relevant historical period is the 19th century. Or today, since that's the audience reading. You haven't explained why we should use a 60-year old turn of phrase for an analogy. The analogy works just fine with my proposed edit. And you've made no counter-proposals to address the reason why I changed the phrase, which is to eliminate a presumed point of view. So far, you've basically just obstructed the change, without providing any reason beyond your original edit summary. --Lquilter (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
      • The requirement to discuss disputes is not a license for one party to insist on an absurd length of discussion because he or she doesn't like the answers coming from the other person. As far as I'm concerned, the discussion has covered the relevant points and there is no consensus, so the status quo obtains. BMK (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
        • And as far as I'm concerned, you've never responded to my substantive points, and while you've backed off in the last couple of comments from using inflammatory and personal attacks, you're still being obstructionist in refusing to respond constructively to a critique and suggested rewrite. So, let's try to get some third-party views on this, and/or dispute resolution. --Lquilter (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion to get some other eyes on this. --Lquilter (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Instead of squabbling about the phrasing of this sentence, I suggest deleting it altogether, since it's blatant WP:OR and the second half is editorializing too. All you're arguing about is personal preferences. @Lquilter: please note that the instructions at WP:3O ask for a section link and for a timestamp without a sig; also that there are HTML comments indicating where to put the request. Thanks. Stfg (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction on the WP:3O. I actually went back & corrected the unsigned sig thinking it was a typo on my part. Now I see it was a failure to read closely on my part. Oops. --Lquilter (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth I think the entire unsourced paragraph should be deleted. I could not find any source referencing the use of "Jingle Bells" as a drinking song, nor making the parallel between nineteenth-century sleigh rides and twentieth century drive-in movies under discussion here, nor remarking on the humorous double meaning of "upsot". The word "scintillating" seems like the wrong word in this context. The whole paragraph is unsourced, not encyclopedic, and awkwardly written. The paragraph was added in November 2014 and a citation was requested soon after; none has been given. S0208 (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not really a deletionist, but my attempt to clean up the language & make it more professional was met with accusations of "political correctness". However, to try to preserve the contribution, I've got a hook on a couple of cites: Christmas Music Companion Fact Book (2000) & Sleigh Rides, Jingle Bells, & Silent Nights: A Cultural History of American Christmas Songs by Ronald Lankford (2013). I'll try to get hold of these & see if they offer support for the sentences. --Lquilter (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Nothing in Lankford Sleigh Rides, Jingle Bells, & Silent Nights to support this (and in fact very little about Jingle Bells itself; more about its use as an iconic christmas song, used to conjure up christmas for parodic purposes. There is a note that speculates that the song was about young boys & girls (which is self-evident from the lyrics): "In Yorgesson's reimagining, 'Jingle Bells' is altered from a joyful sleigh ride (one that probably had been taken by young boys and girls wishing to spend time together) to a winter trial to be endured by a couple of old fogies." p.81
  • Nothing in Nobbman's The Christmas Music Companion Fact Book (2000) that supports this fact. Entry on Jingle Bells (pp.42-43) discusses its publication & writing history, original title, and that it was originally performed for Thanksgiving and doesn't mention xmas.
  • still waiting on another book, and have identified Christmas Songs Made in America / Menendez & Menendez and The Christmas Carol Reader by Studwell, and Stories Behind the Best-Loved ... by Ace Collins as additional possibilities. --Lquilter (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Nothing supporting the general point or the problematic language in Ace Collins' Stories Behind the Best-Loved Songs of Christmas (2001) supporting. Nothing at all on "Jingle Bells" in Merry Christmas Baby by Dave Marsh & Steve Propes. --Lquilter (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Nothing new in Christmas Songs Made in America / Menendez, although it did cite to some older materials in the bibliography that I might look into. --Lquilter (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
• To sum up: We're at a stand-off on the original language, because I raised a complaint about it and offered alternative language, and BMK has reversed me twice, while disagreeing with my fundamental point and therefore not offering any alternatives. Our two 3rd opinions weighed in on a question that wasn't asked. I dug into sourcing and indeed can't find any third party source, although I'm personally not persuaded this is the sort of point that really needs a source. So I guess the analogy goes. What an incredible example of Wikipedia disfunction and obstructionist editing this has been. --Lquilter (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Melody change?

The Melody section correctly observes that the melody of the chorus was different in the 1857 version from that which we commonly hear today. But it gives no clue as to when the melody was changed, or who changed it. (Or, for that matter, why it was changed...)

The change was probably done fairly early on, as the oldest recording of "Jingle Bells" with which I am familiar is an 1898 Edison cylinder recording, which already uses the melody we are familiar with today. This suggests that this melody was already reasonably well-known by that date. If anyone has further information about this change, including references to earlier published versions, it would be a fascinating addition to this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Very much so, as long as it's adequately sourced. BMK (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Redirect

I suggest adding a redirect from Jingle Bells, or the One Horse Open Sleigh, to Jingle Bells.

Reason: {{R from long name}} - 73.35.169.102 (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyone who types in the long name will see the short name in the suggestion box, so I don't think this is necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I disagree, because some users, especially those using text-only browsers which have no ECMAScript support (such as Lynx), might not see a suggestion box at all, and it is Wikipedia's policy for Wikipedia to be accessible to such users. -- 2601:602:77F:D09D:0:0:0:89C5 (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

So do it, redirects are cheap. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I can't create any page from my own Wikipedia account (to which I am not logged in), so this is why I requested here that someone else who is autoconfirmed do it. -- 2601:602:77F:D09D:0:0:0:89C5 (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

That raises two questions: (1) Why can't you create a redirect from your Wikipedia account? (2) Why are you editing not logged into your account? If done deliberately -- as appears to be the case -- that could be a violation of WP:Sockpuppetry. What's the story? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jingle Bells. 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/20081220090240/http://www.christmaslyrics.tv/jingle-bells/ to http://www.christmaslyrics.tv/jingle-bells

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 23:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

trivia only serves to clutter Wikipedia and bolster arguments of our detractors that all Wikipedia really is is a fancruft dump

I don't know what your insistence on inclusion of trivia in these song articles is, but it only serves to clutter Wikipedia and bolster arguments of our detractors that all Wikipedia really is is a fancruft dump.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, you convince the communit of that, and policy can change, but as of now, there is no consensus for wholesale deletions. If you have specific problems with specific entries, please discuss them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Your mischaracterization of my removal of a few irrelevant sentences in a section left intact is a sign of your own mischaracter. Nobody "wholesale deleted" anything.

Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information is in fact policy, whether you play WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or not.

To wit, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%22In_popular_culture%22_content#Good_and_bad_popular_culture_references

"When trying to decide if a pop culture reference is appropriate to an article, ask yourself the following:

• point 2: Have multiple reliable sources pointed out the reference?"--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

In the same section "Inclusion of more and more pop-culture details the more influential or general the topic is – A litany of innumerable novels, TV shows, and films featuring Julius Caesar, dogs, New Hampshire, World War II, wizards, or hip hop is not useful to anyone. Topics of this level of world importance or broad generality never need pop-culture bulleted lists. Lists with bullets tend to grow exponentially, to the point that they become an indiscriminate collection of trivia. If a cultural references section is present in an article on WWII, for example, it should be reserved for major, in-depth treatments of the subject that have had lasting significance. As well, it should be written in prose, in paragraph form. This "raises the bar" for contributing to the section, and makes editors less likely to add trivia."

WP:TRIVIA: "When trying to decide if a pop culture reference is appropriate to an article, ask yourself the following: *point 2: Have multiple reliable sources pointed out the reference?"

I have problems with the specific entries I took out, which is why I removed them. Also, it is bad for to remove tags while a discussion is ongoing. I know you think you're bulletproof around here. I want to be there to watch when you find out you're not.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent facts, it ill behooves you. Your editing is clearly accessible in the article history, as you well know. You have given no reason for tagging the section, and you have declined to discuss any specific problems you have, so there is no justification for the tag to be there. The section is highly sourced, and does not qualify for such a tag.

Now, please discuss -- i.e. give specific objections to specific items, not just spout non-mandatory guidelines -- and stop being disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Look, Ken, It seem to be beyond your ken that, I was not making WP:POINTy edits as you claim since there were no arguments that I was involved in regarding this article. You misrepresent the facts there, while attacking some else for misrepresenting fact here. It is accurate that it was written as a winter song per the source and that we have Wikisource for the full texted of the song. And you previously endorsed said view here at Talk:Jingle Bells#So it isn't officially a Christmas Song?.

In regards to the trivia section, it is not "highly sourced" as it has no or primary sources, those trivia items should be remove while those that have better coverage in media, ie. non-primary reliable sources should stay, but hopefully in say a history or equivalent. Spshu (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Proper link

Someone has been edit-warring to maintain a pointless awkward link to James Lord Pierpont, insisting on maintaining <nowki> James Lord Pierpont</nowiki>, which is piped to a page that then directs to the James Lord Pierpont, rather than simply having [[James Lord Pierpont]]. He is waving WP:NOTBROKEN as his reason, but if one bothers to read that, that boils down to "don't replace a redirect link with a piped link", and not at all "a piped link to a redirect link is better than just linking straight to the thing." Does anyone else have any reason why we should not have a direct link here? --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Complaint is WP:LAME. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Then why were you edit-warring to "fix" it? A direct link is clearer and more maintainable. Before you start invoking WP:LAME, you may want to ask who actually has been editing-warring - who is the one who actually did more than one edit here, who was the one who then thought it necessary to lecture folks on their talk page? And are you willing to let it go so that those who care to can improve the matter, or are you intending to carry on in this manner? --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Jingle = gingle

A gingle was a type of horse-drawn carriage, see the reference here in Irish law to "waggon, wain, gingle, jaunting car, drey, cart, car tumbler, or other carriage". Gingle is also the old way of spelling jingle. Donnacha (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Earlier song

JohnGrit (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly inserting lyrics to an earlier song that they apparently feel is a precursor to "Jingle Bells". However, no sources have been provided that link that song to this one, so trying to link the two in the Wikipedia article (even by mere inclusion here, without stating the link) is original research, which is something to be avoided on Wikipedia. Until a reliable source stating that there is a link is found, that material should be kept out of the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree, and I explained as much to JohnGrit on their talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Lyrics

There is no reason for the lyrics to be here per WP:SONG#LYRICS and WP:INAPPROPRIATE as Wikipedia is WP:NOTREPOSITORY. The lyrics are at Wikisource and the link to those lyrics are on page. --Spshu (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

(ec} This editor is attempting to remove the lyrics from the article. Per WP:BRD when there is a dispute over a WP:Bold edit, it needs to be discussed on the talk page, with the article remaining in the status quo ante. Since the lyrics have been in the article for a very long time, they are very well established as the status quo of the article.

In the case of this article, the lyrics are not inconsequential or random information, since they show the historical development of the song. Shunting them to WIKISOURCE, as the other editor insists should be done, would gut the article and dis-improve it.

I would like to see what the consensus is here regarding this editor's suggested removal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Keep all; they serve to directly illustrate the article text as they demonstrate the way in which the lyrics have changed over time. You may want to actually read WP:SONG#LYRICS before you cite it, as it doesn't say what you think it says. ‑ Iridescent 20:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep all as per BMK & Iri - The article itsself is centered around the melody and lyrics .... It's hard to explain but the article goes into more detail than any other music articleI guess,

It's also worth noting the lyrics have remained in the article since 2004 (since it's creation) so we've long sailed past the whole "THIS FAILS THIS, THIS AND THAT" bs - If it did fail all of those then they would've been removed much sooner (like nearly 15 years sooner!).

I see no valid reason to remove at this present time. –Davey2010^Talk 20:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Iridescent, you failed to read my full reason. WP:INAPPROPRIATE/WP:NOTREPOSITORY indicate the full song should not be here and that Wikisource is the appropriate website for the lyrics. Its Wikisource article is linked to in the article and can include the change.

And how long the information has been in the article is irrelevant. That what OTHERSTUFF address, just because an article has been in error on policy doesn't allow you to use it as justification on another article. Except, Davey2010, you are using the same article as justification.

If the change in the lyrics are important enough then the line or section, depending on how big the change is, could be quoted. Spshu (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Spshu, none of those WP:ALLCAPS links you're citing say what you think they say. Provided there's no copyright issue we have no policy against including full lyrics provided they're actually of encyclopedic value or discussed in the article. (If you don't like the quantity of lyrics here, you probably want to avoid State Anthem of the Soviet Union.) There is only one person being disruptive here, and it's not BMK. ‑ Iridescent 21:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they do; saying so don't not make your position true. Per WP:NOTREPOSITORY: "Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia." Spshu (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Here, as in many other articles, the text is essential to understanding the song, and is discussed in detail, so its presence is justified. OTOH, I think the Swedish lyrics have no place here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with removing the Swedish lyrics. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Gemini transcript

The link for the Gemini transcript is dead and I did not find anything with a bit of poking around. Listening to the recording, I disagree with a few words: I hear "probably in a polar orbit" and "let me try to signal him"; "climbing ratio" also seems wrong but I do not have my own candidate for those words. —Tamfang (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

So it isn't officially a Christmas Song?

But, could you say it's become one? Since that's you hear it most around Christmas time, so it wasn't written to be one, but has been incorporated into Christmas. The snare (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You hear it around Christmas time because it's a traditional winter song, Christmas falls in winter, and is a holiday where people are prone to get together and sing traditional songs. If you want the article to call it a "christmas song", find a citation from a reliable source that refers to it in that manner, and you're in like Flynn. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Christmas only falls in winter in the Northern Hemisphere, yet "Jingle Bells" and other winter songs like "Baby It's Cold Outside" and "Walking in a Winter Wonderland" are commonly played on the radio and in stores in New Zealand (and probably Australia) until December 24 as if they were Christmas songs. It's odd. --Hugh7 (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

It was actually originally written for use in a Thanksgiving pageant, and was once considered a Thanksgiving song. "Christmas" is neither mentioned in, nor referred to in the lyrics.

By the late 19th century, however, it was already so universally identified with Christmas that it had become iconic. Indeed, if you want to evoke thoughts of Christmas in a movie, play, or other performance, playing or humming the first few bars of "Jingle Bells" is pretty much guaranteed to do the trick.

I don't know of any "official" body that certifies something as a "Christmas song", but certainly Jingle Bells has been placed in that category by popular culture, as much as any of a number of other songs which also never mention nor refer to Christmas: Deck the Halls; Good King Wenceslas; Winter Wonderland; Let It Snow; Sleigh Ride; etc. 74.95.43.249 (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought it's in like FLINT? :) Ah, yeah, well it's considered a Christmas song even though it's not officially one is what I meant. The snare (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No, In Like Flint was the name of a movie, a James Bond parody, in which the main character was named "Derek Flint", but the title is a play on a much older expression, "In like Flynn", which referred to Erroll Flynn. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Batman Smells lyrics

Has anyone done any research into how old the parody version is?

I remember hearing it back in the early 1970s back when I was in elementary school. So it has to go back that far at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.0.243.130 (talk) 05:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Tom Scott has done a very thorough survey of its origins and posted his results on YouTube: [[1]] --Hugh7 (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I think we should avoid taking too much input from someone who thinks that the influential Simpsons episode when it came to Batman Smells was a 1993 episode, and not the 1989 Christmas Special that launched the whole Simpsons phenomenon. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Racist

James Lord Pierpont who was the uncle of JP Morgan, wrote "One Horse Open Sleigh" in 1857 and claimed to be a drinking song (it was always performed in blackface) It didn't become a Christmas song until decades after it was first performed on Washington Street. Pierpont, a supporter of the Confederacy, dedicated the song to John Ordway, an organizer of a minstrel blackface troupe called Ordway's Aeolians. Also during 1857, some slaves were forced to wear "Jingle Bells" in order to deter them from running for the freedom. As the lyrics go, "bells on bobtail rings" Yes, sleigh bells were slave bells not to mention the "slaying" that was taking place while they were laughing all the way. 154.27.31.248 (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@154.27.31.248 What the...? This seems more speculation than fact. Please cite your sources, or else this whole paragraph will be deleted from the article. 24.237.158.255 (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Come back with sources, otherwise this is bullshit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: information about the controversy leading to this song being banned from elementary schools in the U.S., due to its supposedly racist origins. Source 173.88.246.138 (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Subject

make a suggestion for a voice concern 2A02:C7F:2CCB:6400:E406:7092:8E9:80E7 (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Original and current chorus differ markedly - since when?

One can see that the original chorus had a different melody, and even different chords. Is there anything available about when, and by whom, the current melody was written? User:Haraldmmueller 19:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

This matter is discussed in the archive. Kostaki mou (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! User:Haraldmmueller 11:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)