Talk:O Come, All Ye Faithful

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs 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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong

Christian music High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christian music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christian music 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.Christian musicWikipedia:WikiProject Christian musicTemplate:WikiProject Christian musicChristian music
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity: Christmas Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Christmas task force (assessed as Top-importance).

On 29 December 2019, it was proposed that this article be moved from O Come, All Ye Faithful to Adeste fideles. The result of the discussion was not moved.

WS

I removed the Move to WS template as it is already on WS--BirgitteSB 16:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

What's WS? Maikel (talk) 10:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oakeley

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)[reply]

Hatted trolling

Hatting this per WP:DONTFEED. If people are still responding to it 8 years after it was posted, it's time to just suppress it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Adeste fideles = come, faithful

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Jacobites

A British academic has written that the song may somehow be related to the Catholic Jacobite uprisings of the early 18th century. [1] 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)[reply]

Origin

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)[reply]

That would certainly account for the Latin lyrics. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was written for the Lats. More accurately. the Roman Catholic liturgy and specifically the mass remained in Latin until the 1960s,[2][3] 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)[reply]

The article should make more explicit the inconsistency between attributing the authority to John Francis Wade, born in 1711, and the existence of two earlier manuscripts dated from 1640 found at Vila Viçosa, in the same vein as purported to the supposedly authorship of Marcos António da Fonseca, also known as Marcos de Portugal. --Wcris (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC) .[reply]

I see no verifiable references to the manuscripts in the reference "Neves, José Maria (1998). Música Sacra em Minas Gerais no século XVIII, ISSN nº 1676-7748 – nº 25". I have read through this document and the author claims that the King is the author with no reference to manuscripts or anything else. Unless someone can come up with a reference for this I suggest removing the "King John IV" section completely and leave a note saying the the authorship has been disputed with a reference to the text by José Maria Neves. --Paulo Casanova 12:28, 21 May 2014

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why are we waiting

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)[reply]

Quantative claims should be supported by data

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)[reply]

Invisible image with automatic download

This was near the top of the page:

[[File:Adeste Fideles sheet music sample.svg|thumb|330px|Start of "Adeste fideles" {{audio|Lilypond-screenshot-adeste.mid|Play}}]]

I don't see any image here - so it is really out of place. Clicking it gives you an automatic download, which is not something I expect. Clicking on the download starts a program on my Mac, which is something i really don't like. Before putting it in again, would somebody explain what this is and why we want it in this article? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a problem with your computer. This image was added by consensus, and it would take a consensus decision to reverse it. I do happen to know that Mac computers can sometimes present problems like this one, but that's hardly a reason to revert the change. I am therefore reverting this unless you can come up with a reliable source proving it is out of place or detrimental to the page. Please do not revert back without a consensus decision supporting it. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus? Do you actually see anything in the picture? or just a blank box? If it is downloading automatically for other people, it could be viewed as a menace. You need to explain what this is and why it has the bizarre behavior. I'll revert it until I see an explanation. If you'd like, please suggest a forum to discuss this - but until I see an explanation, it is out. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Smallbones, I took the liberty to show the Wiki code of the box up in your post). The image, File:Adeste Fideles sheet music sample.svg, shows the first 4 bars of the song. Embedded in the caption is a link to the MIDI file File:Lilypond-screenshot-adeste.mid which will play via the encapsulating template {{Audio}}. All that works here as expected on my Windows systems. If the image doesn't show on your PC, there's a serious problem with your browser. MIDI file are a different matter these days; many devices are no longer properly equipped to play them, but attempting to do so will not "take over your computer", as you put it, if properly configured. Please restore the box with the image & sound. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are telling me that everybody except me will see a picture in the box at the top of this section? Really? Why does the music not play, downloading instead? Is it intended to download? If so, I think the word "download" should be in there rather than "play". If midi files don't play anymore, don't you think we should let our readers know? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about

[[File:Adeste Fideles sheet music sample.svg|thumb|300px|Start of "Adeste fideles" {{audio|Lilypond-screenshot-adeste.mid|Download Midi file}}]]

300 px is the largest size that I can see, and if a download is required people should know about that ahead of time. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that everybody else will see that picture. Images larger than 300px are quite common; all 5 images at Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven) are. Can you see them? As I wrote before, how MIDI files are played depends on the user's configuration. Once upon a time, they would play automatically within a browser. Then browser add-ons were needed. Then they were treated like other exotic file extensions, like .DWG, .PS, &c, which require special programs to open them. With dedication, this behaviour can be simplified and automated. If your system behaves in a way you don't like, don't click on such files (the filename should be visible when hovering above the sound icon).

A different approach: do you have access to a different browser, a different computer, a different operating system, or a mobile device? How do they behave? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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.

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) 06:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest version?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

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)[reply]

I have reverted the cut-and-paste move that changed the title of this article today. Please review WP:BEFOREMOVING and use a requested move discussion if you would like to change the page's title. Cut-and-paste moves are deprecated and the move in question was not uncontroversial. Dekimasuよ! 16:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 December 2019

It was proposed in this section that O Come, All Ye Faithful be renamed and moved to Adeste fideles.

The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment.

Links: current log • target log

This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

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)[reply]

O Come, All Ye Faithful → Adeste fideles – 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)[reply]

Oppose move. The current title is far more familiar in the English-speaking world. O.N.R. ^(talk) 07:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the common name is clearly the English. I'd say something else if the Latin was traditional and historical, but it's a strange 18th-century production, see de:Adeste fideles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Common name in English. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is en.wiki. Very few, if any, English speakers know it as "Adeste fideles", or anything else. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose = "O Come, All Ye Faithful" is very clearly the WP:COMMONNAME (unsurprisingly, it is also the version most commonly sung by English choirs...) 107.190.33.254 (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose current title is the common name. Lepricavark (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose For the reasons cited in prior comments. This policy should be the very clear indicator on what is to be done here. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If possible to recall this request, I do, as I acknowledge the "COMMONNAME policy", which I didnt know before. LennBr (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2020 (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.

It's ok, LennBr, all these established editors now feel joyful and triumphant. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Wade fled for France?

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)[reply]

John Francis Wade is not General George Wade AJFitzpatrick (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"King of Angels" and Catholic tradition

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)[reply]

Variants of tune & notable arrangements

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)[reply]