Talk:Anthem of Europe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject European Union (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Europe (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

The European anthem deserves an article. Pvosta 22:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


No lyrics[edit]

According to the article "the anthem is purely instrumental and the German lyrics have no official status. [...] A suggestion for Latin lyrics to the anthem has been written by the Austrian composer Peter Roland, but the lyrics has not been accorded official status, and is not used by the EU." So why was there a section entitled "lyrics" added? This definitely gives the wrong impression that there are lyrics. Not being a native speaker of any of the languages listed but English I can't comment on them, but the English ones don't even fit the tune! I gather they could be translations of the Latin lyrics, but I don't believe they deserve a place on this page (there's a link to them in the reference section) due to the confusion it would cause, and people believing those are the official lyrics (of which there are none, as has been proven). --Canuckguy 07:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


I agree, but for know I only put word "unofficial" into the lyrics section title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.141.217 (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the inclusion of the German lyrics make sense even though they have no official status because they are used sporadically even on official occasions. Just check out youtube. I remember that a choir sung the German lyrics in Dublin when the accession of several new member states was celebrated in 2004. Bulgarian National tv used a choir version of the anthem on New Year's Eve 2007 to celebrate EU membership. So, it's not offical, but not forbidden either and sporadically used. The inclusion of the Latin text doesn't make any sense. I don't think it's in the reperatoire of any choir and I've never heard it on any occasion - and Romano Prodi is long gone as President of the Commission. 91.57.39.184 (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Final movement?[edit]

Isn't that from the fourth movement? The ninth symphony has 5 parts and atleast the media clips they have at europa.eu are from the end of the fourth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.239.133.167 (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Latin lyrics[edit]

Populorum = of the people, not for the people ! 68.100.15.18 (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Also I'm changing the english lyrics, because the latin subjunctives have been miss translated in several cases, such as "shall". 86.6.128.39 (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant lyrics? Copyvio?[edit]

I think that the Latin lyrics are not appropriated on the "European anthem" page, since they were never officially considered for use (see ref. 5 in the article: "There are no plans for these lyrics to be used for the EU anthem." -- European Commission). There are many unofficial lyric proposals out there in various languages, and none were ever officially considered. I think the full text of one specific proposal has no reason to be copied in this article. This text might be included in a separate page "Unofficial lyric proposals for the European Union anthem" or similar.

Apart from that, I think that the fact of copying the full Latin lyrics (and even a English translation) is a copyright infringement. An short excerpt could be quoted, but not the full text. Jérôme (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the irrelevant "Latin Lyrics" are just a kind of product placement by the author Peter Roland. 8 ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.124.115 (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Tend to agree with the above. But so long as the Latin version and literal English translation remains there, I thought I'd point out that patria does mean fatherland, rather than homeland. Why be shy about it? I'll change it. Twilde (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the proposed Latin lyrics (and their translation) from the article. The lyrics are "© Peter Roland, Peter Diem" as stated right below them at the author's referenced website www.hymnus-europae.at. Blahma (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Anthem of Europe[edit]

The title of this article is simple unambiguous propaganda. The last movement of Beethoven's 9th is not "Europe's" anthem. It is the official anthem of the Council of Europe, an intergovernmental organization of which few Europeans have (alas) heard, and it has been proposed as the official anthem of the European Union, which proposition has been serially rejected since 2005, again and again and again, by everyone from lowly electorates to lofty sherpas, and currently the EU does not have an official anthem - and even if it did, it would be The Anthem of the EU, not the Anthem of Europe. This is important stuff. The European Union is what it is today entirely because of such misdescription and mission creep. (See the Monnet Method.) So I'm going to rename this article. I'll do it at the weekend (if I remember). Futile arguments against the renaming may be lodged below. Vinny Burgoo (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I recall a case (possibly apocryphal) of a poor stablehand who sold a donkey to a rich man. The donkey promptly died. The poor man was taken to court by the rich man and his lawyers questioned the poor man severely. The poor man was gravely upset. However, the poor man won the case because a few weeks previously, the exact same thing happened to another stablehand and a mule, and the court had already ruled caveat emptor. The reason for this anecdote is that a similar argument has already been played out very recently regarding the "...of Europe" construction. I would deduce from that argument that you have little chance of gaining consensus for your proposed move. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes this is exactly the same discussion as we had with the Flag of Europe. Vinny Burgoo isn't using any new arguments, so the outcome this time will most likely be the same. And by the way, no one has a mandate to be bold and rename this article. And requesting or provoking protection doesn't solve anything. - SSJ  06:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Anameofmyveryown. Current title is fine. —Nightstallion 08:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Changing the title from "of Europe" to "of the Council of Europe and the European Union", though perhaps more accurate, is too long-winded and not a good title. The article makes it clear which bodies use this piece of music. Opera hat (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, as the links in the article seem to suggest that both the Council of Europe and the European Union refer to the piece as the "European Anthem", that ought to be the title of the article. Opera hat (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
What I do disagree with is the use of the word "Anthem" at all. An anthem is defined as a choral work (coming ultimately from the Greek anti in return and phōnē voice, according to my Chambers Dictionary) and to describe a wordless piece as an anthem, though widespread in the case of so-called national anthems, is inaccurate. This applies equally to the Spanish Marcha Real, which would be better described as a "national march". Opera hat (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The way I see it, "European Anthem" is just an unnecessary ordering of "Anthem of Europe". "Anthem of x" and "Flag of x" is the standard on wikipedia. - SSJ  15:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Maintain as Anthem of Europe, per Anameofmyveryown and Ssolbergj.- J Logan t: 17:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Gennarous doesn't care about talk pages or consensus (see article history). We must mention 3RR to him and see if he stops. - SSJ  17:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that there are three choices. The article's title can reflect plebeian usage ("EU anthem" and variants, at least in the UK, where we have never heard of the Council of Europe) or "technical" usage ("AOTCOEAOTEU") or propagandistic usage ("European anthem" or "Anthem of Europe"). Which is more Wikipedic? I have no idea. All I know is that I would be very disappointed to learn that Wikipedia's rules favour unashamedly political names over factual and everyday alternatives. Vinny Burgoo (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you think "Anthem of the European Union and the Council of Europe" is the everyday alternative? - SSJ  22:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
No, that's the "technical" - i.e. factual - one. Vinny Burgoo (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
By the way, why did you move my comment, SSJ? I placed it where I did because I was responding to the comment immediately before it (Opera Hat's note about sticking to sources). There's a lot of sharp practice around here. Votepacking, selective blindness to procedure, other stuff I can't quite remember at the moment - it's almost as bad as the European Parliamentclimate change Wikisphere. Vinny Burgoo (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
On the above note, I think you're being a bit paranoid. It is just a bit of over-zealous organisation believing you placed it in the wrong place by accident as it is more common to respond right at the bottom regardless.
But on a more general note, I think it is a bit pov to call it "propaganda", "or Europe" really isn't that misleading and if someone were to be confused then the article clearly explains its precise nature. I do not believe anyone could be mislead simply on the basis of this article and the attempt to mess with them is merely a witch hunt by the insecure.- J Logan t: 09:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I give up on this. You lot are too patient, persistent and well-organised. Also, I don't want to be associated with the renaming ping-pong that erupted mid-week. Nothing to do with me, guv. Some parting comments about the opening para, though: 1) Wasn't the ode's title An die Freude, not Ode an die Freude? 2) It's true that the Commission and other official EU bodies occasionally call this Wikipedically taxonomized "Anthem of Europe" the "European anthem", and they may even sometimes call it an "Anthem of Europe", but officially (in the Constutional Treaty, for example) the anthem is the "Anthem of the Union". 3) Punctuation- and logic-wise, the whole para is a disaster. Vinny Burgoo (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
1) Yes I thought so. 2) The EU or the CoE don't have any legally binding text related to the anthem. Nothing's that official. We need a name that suits both organisations; and luckily both of them do refer to it as the European Anthem/Anthem of Europe. - SSJ  00:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


1)Yes, the original title is "An die Freude". I am going to change that. See [1] for reference. a.buchhorn (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

link of mine removed Markthemac (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Schiller[edit]

It looks like I'm going to be signing the minority report on the article's title. Perhaps I'll have more luck with this. Mr Solberg doesn't like my minor - and wholly uncontroversial - expansion of the Origin section. He thinks it is vandalism and has removed it twice, using as an excuse what he claims to be non-functioning references. One of them was indeed faulty the first time I made the edit (though that's no excuse for deletion) but both of them worked at this end after the second edit and both of them are working now after the third.

I have a whole host of references here to back up the edit, all from reputable sources, none with an axe to grind. Schiller wrote the Ode in the form of a bourgeois masculine drinking song celebrating universal masculine bourgeois brotherhood; it was set to music even before it had been published and quickly became very popular as a masculine bourgeois drinking song; and, in later life, Schiller was very sniffy about both the Ode and its popularity. What's the problem? Knowing the history of the Ode in no way spoils my enjoyment of Beethovens's Ninth. (The only thing that spoils that is its cheapening by the EU.) Why should mentioning it here constitute vandalism? It's interesting and totally harmless background info.Vinny Burgoo (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This is just one of very many settings to this poem. And the way it's worded now, it sounds like the poem was just a drinking song. That is pov, in spite of factual references. - SSJ  00:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
So improve the wording without flushing the facts down the toilet! Please. But don't get too wordy. This is brief background info. Regards, Vinny Burgoo (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I get suspicious when a euroskeptic inserts a sentence claiming that the European anthem's origin was a drinking song, and backs it up with a dead link. Can't help it. - SSJ  00:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Fair do's. And no wonder. And - why not? - In varietate concordia. Vinny Burgoo (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm changing the english lyrics, because the latin subjunctives have been miss translated in several cases, such as "shall". 86.6.128.39 (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous English Poetic Translation[edit]

The article currently includes a version of Schiller's Ode under the heading above. I wonder if this is a mistake? In fairness the version given under that heading presumably is Anonymous and is certainly in English, but to call it Poetic seems to be pushing things too far. Some bits make no sense and "drunken under fire" sounds like something from a courtmartial charge sheet! The claim that this is a Translation seems doubtful too. If it is a translation, it is a very loose one indeed, crucially introducing terms such a "nation" which don't appear in the original. Might I suggest that we consign this version to the oblivion from which it should never have emerged? Twilde (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC) I found another, perhaps more poetic English translation: "Praise to Joy, the God-descended Daughter of Elysium! Ray of mirth and rapture blended, Goddess, to thy shrine we come. By thy magic is united What stern Custom parted wide, All mankind are brothers plighted Where thy gentle wings abide." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.155.56.53 (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"Fitted English Translation"[edit]

I think we should get rid of the "Fitted English Translation set to the music, reworded by Daniel Wright". a) it is unsingable to the tune, the meter is all wrong. b) what relevance has it? Even the Latin lyrics by Peter Roland are unofficial, and nobody is going to sing English lyrics to this anthem. --Neitram (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - This was the reason why I looked at this Discussion page in the first place. YewBowman (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

First broadcast[edit]

If the anthem was first broadcasted at the 2010 Ryder Cup, why is the CIS national football team listed as using it during the UEFA Euro 1992 in Sweden? Or wasn't the Ryder Cup-broadcast the first one? Tøndemageren (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/cgi-bin/neubutton.cgi?pfad=/diglib/aufkl/thalia/069861&seite=00000002.TIF