Talk:In the Bleak Midwinter

message: It always seems to me that the first line of the second verse beginning with 'Our God' doesn't scan and so it is much easier to sing this line without these first two words. Almost all the published versions include these two words but very occasionally they are dropped. It may have worked when Christina wrote the poem, but since Holst came up with a tune there seems there has been no significant move to make a the words fit. JMcC (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Second verse

message: The article says Sarah McLachlan recorded the Holst tune,  Her recording on Wintersong sounds more like the Darke tune to me.  RogRev RogRev (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sarah McLachlan tune

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on In the Bleak Midwinter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110724042624/http://www.robert-walker.net/catalogue.php to http://www.robert-walker.net/catalogue.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, It seems to me that there should be a reference to the netflix serie the Peaky Blinders, where this line is being said when a Peaky Blinder dies.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.97.247.59 (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide one from a reliable source? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peaky Blinders 

message: Do we really need the whole text of the poem here? It takes up more space than the rest of the article. Also, we have a lovely illustration of the poem as it first appeared in Harper's with the full text clearly visible. We also have links to the poem. I suggest removing the text from the article as it is superfluous and makes the article look ugly imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ficaia (talk • contribs) 15:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Text of Poem in the Article 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As deletion seems uncontestable, I have now replaced this with a 29-second extract under fair use. I hope this resolves the issue. Cnbrb (talk) 09:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It has not. The arrangement itself is still under copyright. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! So what's the solution? Cnbrb (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not to upload any renditions of this version of the work until after the copyright expires (and assuming that copyright cannot be extended). It will simply be deleted at the source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just realized that if the article makes a detailed analysis of Darke's composition, including a recording of it might be considered fair use. However, since it is less popular than Holst's version, that would be out-of-place unless the same were done to its setting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you actually look at the media data, you'll see that I've uploaded it under fair use terms and tagged it exhaustively in line with WP:NFCCEG. Cnbrb (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I looked at the application of FUR and I don't care if you applied it or not, but the nominator does. I wish I had the time to explain FUR to you, but I don't. You'll just have to read what I wrote again (the "detailed analysis" part) and then ask somewhere how FUR can apply for a song like this where an arrangement is still under copyright. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm sorry the read that you are too pressed for time to offer anything genuinely constructive. I've been doing this for years and I don't need FUR "explained" to me, thank you. If you have actual suggestions for how the rationale can be  improved, I will gladly discuss with you, but just responding to a good faith contribution with "don't upload it" is not in the spirit of a collaborative editing environment. I put a lot of effort into sorting out a suitable replacement for this article. Cnbrb (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Genuinely constructive? I'm soft-selling the plain and obvious fact that no recording of this composer's rendition will be acceptable on Wikipedia. If you have the grace to accept that, fine. If not, stop blaming me for the copyright laws in England and Wikipedia's policy to honour such laws. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The quote from Ian Bradley that questions the poem's theology addresses two ideas of Rosetti's text both of which actually directly resonate with portions of scripture. In this light, it does seem a rather spurious criticism by Bradley. Could a rebuttal be included in the article here by citing biblical verses? Or is it necessary in Wikipedia to find an external source that has identified the bible texts as a rebuttal?
For suggested bible texts, see:
I Kings 8.27;
Psalm 102:25-27; 
Matthew 24: 35; 
Hebrews 1:10-12 (directly quoting the text from Psalm 102:25-27);
II Peter 3. 10-11;
Revelation 20: 11. Christoooj (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It would require citing a reliable source that rebuts Bradley; simply quoting Bible passages would amount to original research. It's not Wikipedia's job to provide rebuttals, only to reflect what others have written. Cnbrb (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - thanks for outlining the correct approach ... I'll look to see if anything turns up. Christoooj (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Who knows, maybe you'll find something. I think it would be interesting for the article to present both views too. Good luck. Cnbrb (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis - biblical refutation of Bradley criticism