Talk:How Great Thou Art

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

English versions slower than Swedish?[edit]

I deleted the line "Notably, all English versions (a Johnny Cash live performance excluded) are in a slow, partly almost reciting manner, totally different from the uptempo style of the Swedish original." No source given for this. I listened to several Swedish versions which sound like the same tempo as the English versions, and the slowest English version that sounds much like a spoken recitation is by Johnny Cash on Youtube. Marfinan (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

The sentence "One cannot sing this majestic hymn of praise and adoration without realizing anew the omnipotence of the Creator who did it all" is unspeakably POV. As such, I am removing it. GenericGabriel 22:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced and erroneous paragraphs[edit]

Unless someone else beats me to it (I can’t afford the time right now to do a good job), I intend to fix the follow issues in the “Erik Routley“ section:

  1. The Swedish Wikipedia page cited does not credit increased popularity to Elvis Presley’s recording.
  2. The second and third paragraphs in that section have nothing to do with Erik Routley and so should be placed somewhere else.

I agree that another Wikipedia page is not a good reference but I don't have anything else to put there. Should the sentence instead be removed? 伟思礼 (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Swedish Wikipedia page cited does not credit increased popularity to Elvis Presley’s recording, but a deleted page (https://web.archive.org/web/20110209000931/http://blog.christianhistory.net/2009/01/how_great_thou_art_the_100year.html) does suggest that.  However, there are also sources that say it became popular in Sweden as a result of Shea’s singing in Billy Graham meetings.  I have removed the paragraph, because either way, it has nothing to do with Routley.  When I can figure out which of the two stories is more likely true, I will edit the paragraph and put it in a more appropriate place in the article. 伟思礼 (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After an hour of web search, I could not find (again) the credit to Shea and Graham that I had seen before.  But I did find a better citation for the Presley credit.  So I changed the citation and put the paragraph under "noted performers." 伟思礼 (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, ChatGPT says "While the hymn has been popular in Sweden since its creation, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly when it became widely known or popularized in the country." -- Jmc (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

As far as I know Manna Music continues to claim copyright in the English version, while failing to acknowledge their trespass on Boberg's rights as author of the original. Boberg's words (1885) are now in the public domain in the US (not sure if this is true in Sweden), but I suspect that when Manna/Hines first copyrighted the thing (© 1951?) they were infringing on a copyright. --Haruo 17:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Swedish Wikipedia article on Carl Boberg, "Bobergs texter blir fria för publicering 2010" (Boberg's works enter the public domain in 2010), the 70th year after Boberg's death. In the meantime claims such as the following, from a generally accurate source, have not been unusual: Hines' "poem retains only a few phrases literally translated from the Russian text or contained in Boberg's original. It is practically an original poem" {Forrest Mason McCann, (1997), Hymns and History: An Annotated Survey of Sources (Abilene, TX: ACU Press) ISBN 0-89112-058-0, p. 225}. Nonetheless, the lyrics migrated through four languages, retained the same Swedish tune (O STORE GUD), and bear unaccidental resemblance to Boberg's original, clearly the causa sine qua non. The differences between Boberg's original Swedish and the ultimate English version are hardly more than the result of routine dilemmas translators encounter in conveying essence from one grammatical and cultural platform to another, especially within the constraints of poetry bound to a metrical form. Richard David Ramsey 15:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British-added verses[edit]

So are the two verses said to appear in British hymnals also Hine's work, and if not, who translated them? --Haruo (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which verses you refer to, but according to the article, Hines added two verses in Russian and later translated those himself into English. 伟思礼 (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Hine translated those two verses. The British copyright © 1953 is owned by Thank You Music, Post Office Box 75, Eastbourne, East Sussex, BN23 6NW. Richard David Ramsey 02:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What?[edit]

What is "transcendental sentimentality"? There are links to the separate terms, but that doesn't answer the question. InFairness (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "transcendental sentimentality" and the "[clarification needed]" are now gone. Please see whether the revision is better. Rammer (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Elvis How Great Thou art.jpg[edit]

The image File:Elvis How Great Thou art.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous source?[edit]

The article says this: "Eight verses appeared with the music in the 1890 Sions Harpan"—however, I found a scanned copy of the source and examined it. It includes nine verses and no music. I guess it's possible that there's another Sion's Harpan published in 1910 that contains 'O store Gud' and music. Let me know if you find one. Here's the link. 174.52.129.22 (talk) 07:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lutheran Hymn?[edit]

How is this hymn connected to Lutheranism? I know it appears in the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod's hymnal, but that cannot be a rationale for including it in the bottom section of "Lutheran Hymnody." The article states that the author was a Baptist (i.e. "'...when the Baptists and Mission Friends were persecuted.'") I'll give it a week. If no one can provide a legitimate rationale for the connection of this hymn to Lutheranism, I will delete the link at the bottom of the page. If one insists that it must be there, I will add loads of non-Lutheran hymns to that section (e.g. "Amazing Grace," "On Eagle's Wings," etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.19 (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaint is valid, but does not merit a threat of vandalism. 伟思礼 (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear content in "Other Verses"[edit]

That verse----with thunder, storms, lightning (which springs out of the sky like sparks from the sharp rasping blade of a saw), cold rain, showers, wind, and the rainbow of promise----is impressive for its use of concrete expressions but presses hard on sentimental references to climatic phenomena, bears significant redundance with other statements in the poem, and rarely if ever finds a translated home in post-modern English hymnody, which is less prone than 19-century Swedish to dwell on the stark freshness of nature. Nonetheless it may be the verse which most concretely describes Boberg's plodding damp walk home from church in 1885.

Would someone please edit this. "That verse" is which verse?? do they mean one of the immediately preceding Swedish verses or verse one (from "commonly used English lyrics") that includes "I see the stars, I hear the mighty thunder"?? The following clause "is impressive for its use of concrete expressions but presses hard on sentimental references to climatic phenomena, bears significant redundance with other statements in the poem, is incredibly cumbersome. Should it read more like "has poignant lyrics, especially around nature, but is discordant with the sentiments elsewhere in the song. As a result..."? This paragraph really needs attention. I would also question it's place in the article. Should this description appear at the beginning of the section that best fits what is being discussed? 90.193.233.44 (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Yes, agree it should have been a multi move but I think this is a clear case of WP:SNOW. Andrewa (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How Great Thou Art (hymn) → How Great Thou Art – The three albums listed at How Great Thou Art are all named for the hymn, and came after its existence. Given that they are derived from the hymn and not vice versa, and given the page hits for the hymn vs. the albums, it's pretty clear that the hymn is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and should be moved to that title. (Of course, the dab page would have to be moved to How Great Thou Art (disambiguation), but I can never get the multi-move template to work right. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support move since the hymn is the primary topic. StAnselm (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the primary topic. STATic message me! 03:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: As clear a case of a primary topic as we are likely to come across. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clear primary topic. bd2412 T 17:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the primary topic. Tomas e (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Missing section?[edit]

This article seems to be missing a section, since no mention is made of its popularity for funerals, or the history behind that usage, or really anything about its context in social history. Could an established editor who is an expert in the subject help out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.202.245 (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on How Great Thou Art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on How Great Thou Art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on How Great Thou Art. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on How Great Thou Art. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

French translation[edit]

I'm well aware of having sung the French translation several times in my younger days. This should be added to the relevant section. DFH (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Next would be Spanish, Swedish etc. - Please keep simple. If there is no article on the hymn in French, try an external link with the French translation, but please don't load the article with text most our readers will not understand. This would be different, of course, if this was a hymn originally in French, - then the original text would be worth knowing, because all translations, especially when metred and rhymed, deviate from the original. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that there is an article in French, - try over there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@David Haslam: Your signature is confusing, fwiw Before considering adding it to the French article do make sure the copyright status is OK: I don't see any attribution at the given page, and given that the hymn was first composed at the end of the 19th century, the translation, which is surely more recent, might not be PD. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think such lyrics would be best as an external link, provided you can find a source that isn't copyrighted to link to. The shortcut WP:NOTHYMNAL doesn't exist, but it's probably up there with the other WP:NOTs. Unless there's something substantially different with the translation, I don't think having all of the lyrics in all languages adds a whole lot. Wonderful hymn, but it's not really best for the article to add bloated lists of lyrics. Hog Farm (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said I was talking specifically of adding the lyrics to the article on French WP. As I have already done on other articles, versions in other languages than the original and English (if different) should be removed. Also, regarding the shortcut:  Done since I was thinking of "NOTHYMNBOOK" earlier today but yeah, NOTHYMNAL is the same thing so I've created that with a link to the proper place. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:How_Great_Thou_Art&oldid=1207652354"