Talk:O Come, All Ye Faithful

message: I removed the Move to WS template as it is already on WS--BirgitteSB 16:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What's WS? Maikel (talk) 10:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WS

message: Shouldn't a separate stub article be created for Frederick Oakeley, rather than having him redirect here. (This would enable his categorization as a person rather than a song!) Dsp13 15:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oakeley

message: The television series "Sex and the City" ist totally blasphemous! Please remove immediately the reference from this article about a holy christian song - Janina-  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.187.54.202 (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK if we leave the reference to Twisted Sister in?  Or maybe we need to get clearance from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith first? Maikel (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Even if the series is "blasphemous" (which is completely unproven) there is no basis for removing material from Wikipedia on the basis of an irrational emotional outburst of this kind. We can be thankful that "Janina" did no see fit to to vandalize the article.
Poihths (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatted trolling 

message: How can we make clear that "Come all you faithful" (or more simply "come, believers") is the English translation of the Latin "ADESTE FIDELES"?  This doesn't come out clearly enough in the article, in my opinion. Maikel (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be useful to discuss the complexities of translation, but simply equating "adeste" to "come" does not cover the issue. The verb appears to mean something more like "Be present" or "Attend" ("be in this place and pay attention") rather than "Come" ("move in my direction"). I hope someone with expertise in Latin can comment.
Poihths (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Adeste fideles = come, faithful

message: A British academic has written that the song may somehow be related to the Catholic Jacobite uprisings of the early 18th century.  It would be interesting if anybody could back this up with more solid sources. 69.157.229.14 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Jacobites

message: I remember reading that this is originally an old Latin church song. Haven't been able to confirm it though.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.172.113 (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would certainly account for the Latin lyrics. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was written for the Lats. More accurately. the Roman Catholic liturgy and specifically the mass remained in Latin until the 1960s, so it's somewhat likely that a Roman Catholic hymn writer would write in Latin in  1743. .  dave souza, talk 00:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Thank you very much for your effort. The cited source by Stephan (1947) makes a convincing argument in debunking any Portuguese authorship, be it Marcos Portugal (Fonseca) or King John IV. I agree with your proposal to remove the reference to Neves' side remark in his paper. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll remove the John IV references, since the Neves reference gives no foundation for its claims of authorship 100 years before the conventional origin. editeur24 (talk) 01:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin

message: Why_Are_We_Waiting redirects here. Is that because it is the same tune. In Britain, this tune is spontaneously sung by a group when they are kept waiting by another. The article should include an explanation of this redirect. --90.218.44.26 (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are we waiting 

message: The statement that the Oakley translation is "the most used version today" is completely unsupported by any data, probably for the simple reason that no such data exists; nobody keep count of what songs are sung by whom and how often other than on the radio, which is not what we're talking about here. I suggest this sort of unsupported quantitative statement be removed unless it can be demonstrated to be true in some fashion.
Poihths (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantative claims should be supported by data 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on O Come, All Ye Faithful. 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/20151227093520/http://www.ryanglab.com/category/lists/ to http://www.ryanglab.com/category/lists/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The first paragraph states that the hymn "has been attributed to ... King John IV of Portugal (1604–1656), with the earliest manuscript of the hymn bearing his name, located in the library of the Ducal Palace of Vila Viçosa." while the last sentence of the lead says "An original manuscript of the oldest known version, dating from 1751, is held by Stonyhurst College in Lancashire". This seems contradictory. Does this second note refer specifically to an English language version? --Khajidha (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: A fair assumption, but not clarified in that source. The Stonyhurst version is by John Francis Wade (1711–1786). Other possible writers include John Reading (c. 1645–1692), who predates Wade, and Thomas Arne (1710–1778), whom Wade knew. But there's no mention of whether manuscripts of their versions still exist (presumably not). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earliest version? 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Adeste fideles which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 15:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Not moved; request rescinded by nominator after WP:SNOW oppose (non-admin closure).   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: O Come, All Ye Faithful →  – A reason to move this article is that "Oh come, all ye faithful" is not the original titel of the song. Look at other wiki-language sections (spanish, german, french etc. pp.). the most of them named it "adeste fideles" although they have their translations (titles) for it aswell: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q356486#sitelinks-wikipedia. In my opinion the title doesnt correspond perfectly to the content of the article, as this article informs about a song, that was translated into different versions. If the article informs mainly about the english version, then the title is correct; but there are multiple language versions that derived from "Adeste fideles" - so maybe the title should correspond to this matter. LennBr (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
It's ok, LennBr, all these established editors now feel joyful and triumphant. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 29 December 2019 

message: The article, in the Jacobite section, claims that General Wade fled for France. Spending just a few minutes online (as I was quite perplexed by this comment) I have found nothing to support this claim. I have an OK general knowledge of the 1745 uprising - I've never heard this claim before. I've read through a tome by the National Museum of Scotland on Bonnie Prince Charlie as they had a large exhibition on him a few years ago, and despite its detailed coverage of all major aspects of the Uprising of '45, I do not ever recall such a claim being made or hinted at. It would have stuck in my mind given how crucial General Wade was in the British army's suppression of the uprising. Does anyone have any source to support this claim? I'm utterly perplexed! Many thanks
--EcheveriaJ (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wade fled for France? 

message: I'm not familiar with Catholic usage and traditions. In Adeste Fideles, there is a prominent mention of "Regem angelorum", i.e. "King of (the) angels". Was this exact phrase already a commonly-used well-known way of referring to Jesus, even before Wade's hymn appeared? For example, "King of Kings" is an ancient and familiar phrase, but "King of Angels" is certainly less frequent. Could Wade have been the originator of this particular phrase? Or is there circumstantial evidence that he had likely heard the exact phrase "King of (the) angels"/"Regem angelorum" many times? TooManyFingers (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "King of Angels" and Catholic tradition 

message: More of a note to self:
J. N. Vitasek: Hymnus Pastoralis In G Major - Postcommunio
Liszt transcription
Samuel Webbe the Younger: variations for string quartet
Footpathandstile (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variants of tune & notable arrangements