Talk:Hallelujah Chorus

Christmas
The source says": The iconic “Hallelujah” chorus does not celebrate the birth of Christ as so many believe, but instead occurs at the end of the second part, as a celebration of the Resurrection and ascension."

The article says: "The "Hallelujah Chorus" is predominately performed at Easter and Christmas. It is performed at Christmas because of an erroneous belief it is about the Nativity of Jesus when it was intended to celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus and the Ascension of Jesus."

I doubt that we know enough about what Handel intended. The text of the Hallelujah chorus is general, has nothing particular to do with Christmas, Easter or Ascension. It concludes Part II, so after all these events (of which only Christmas has been narrated in New Testament wording), but not related to one in particular. I see nothing wrong ("erronous") with performing it around Christmas, or Easter, or any other time. - As far as I know, it is often performed around Christmas, because Part I has a less impressive conclusion, and the beloved chorus is added to Part I, almost like an encore. There is nothing "erroneous" about it, afaik. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary fork
This article unnecessarily duplicates the existing articles about the Messiah, adding nothing of value. The first paragraph of the "Composition" section is the same, word for word, as the description of the HC in Messiah Part II. The second paragraph adds nothing of value to Messiah (Handel) (a featured article). There's then a couple of sentences about whether this is a Christmas or an Easter piece, which are hardly exciting or informative. The story about the origin of standing is contradicted by the (better-sourced) Messiah (Handel), and then we're told that some conductors like it and some don't, which isn't terribly informative. Then some trivia (some of which is poorly sourced) about the tune of the HC being used by football fans and the like or by massed groups. So the grand total is a couple of sentences about when to perform it, support or opposition to the standing tradition, and some trivia. Merge anything worth saving and turn this back into a redirect. BencherliteTalk 10:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Is this the merge discussion? - Please see Talk:Messiah Part II, where a separate section on the Chorus was requested in 2012. I was happy to drop trivia in the other article, and not looking forward to merging in even more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is the merge discussion I've started. A separate article about the HC may have been requested in 2012, but all that we have as I've stated above, not the rather more substantial article than someone back in 2012 wanted to be written. Trivia should be removed, not merged - I entirely agree. I'm not sure that there's much if anything worth saving, but I thought I should at least open a discussion rather than restore the long-standing redirect off my own bat. BencherliteTalk 11:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose For a number of reasons. First of all this discussion was already had on the Messiah Part II talkpage where they agreed that Hallelujah Chorus should have its own page. Indeed at the redirect's creation, it said it was "of significance to create unique page". Furthermore, it would violate WP:UNDUE to merge everything in here into the Messiah article as Messiah is more than the Hallelujah Chorus and to do that would just make it all about the Chorus with the level of detail that is included here, especially given the Messiah article doesn't mention the traditions and Handel's experiences which would be out of place there. Also, the Hallelujah Chorus is more well known than Messiah.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 21:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing editor: The C of E (talk • contribs) is the creator of Hallelujah Chorus that is the subject of this merge proposal. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support the concerns of adding nothing new are well-founded. Is this subject of a DYK by any chance?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * of course it is … —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, per Bencherlite's rationale. – The Bounder (talk) 04:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Aside of the fact that this includes new information and has more information on it than Messiah Part II, where it would heavily weight Messiah Part II if it was merged into it and being the most well known example of Handel's music which fulfils GNG to have its own article?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 06:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read that bit above too. Much of the "new information" is too trivial to merge, and most of the encyclopaedic information is already in the 'target article. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note I am going to ping and  as they both expressed opinions on this when this was still a redirect.  The C of E  God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 08:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I like the Part II article as it is, without reference to standing (which was there before) and other surrounding facts. I don't think the detailed music should be (or have been) copied in an extra article on the chorus, - a link to the other section could do that. I am neutral on whether an extra article is there or not, seeing a slight advantage of keeping the other two articles free from information about a wrestler using the music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you think it might be better if we remove the copied part and leave the rest of this article separate? I realise now it was an error on my part to do that as I believe that precipitated this whole unfortunate situation.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 09:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought I said that --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry. I misread it. I have now removed the copied part.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 09:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I think we ought to note that the duplicated information has been removed thus the comments may need re-reviews or updating.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 09:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the information that led to this discussion has now been removed, I would assume that this discussion is now moot as the !votes are all based on outdated information. If I don't hear any comments to the contrary within the next few days, I will assume agreement that this should be closed and the tags removed.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 22:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that this should be closed or the tags removed, and certainly not by The C of E in any event. The complaint has been that the information beyond the material taken from the other article was that it added little of value or was basically trivia. Now that the meat of the article, which had been copied, is now removed, what is left is basically not terribly informative or trivia, and the prior arguments would seem to stand, perhaps with even more cogency. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is defiantly not trivia, it is informative information that is not covered elsewhere and would not be better served being elsewhere. This article is a vessel for information about probably the most famous piece of classical music in the world and should be left as it is.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 20:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge - the Hallelujah Chorus has taken on a life of its own, as evidenced by the "Outside Messiah" section. That would be totally inappropriate for the Messiah Part II article. (Was notified at WikiProject Christianity). StAnselm (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - There are quite a few arias from Messiah that might lay claim to notability. I've just looked for "Unto us a child is born" - no entry, "How beautiful are the feet" - no entry, "He was despised" - redirect to Messiah Part II.  Three taken at random (but all famous as stand aolne pieces) and none have a separate article.  I suggest merging all HC information into Messiah Part II and leaving a redirect here. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * But if this is the first, it could be the first of many. I'm sure those other pieces will have enough sources on them around so that we could use this as a starting example and then create individual articles on the others. No sense in completely shutting the door on it as this proposal would do.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 22:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support merging all content into Messiah (Handel) provided all referenced content here is merged into the other article. Other arias in no way reach the notoriety of this chorus. Granted, there is more significant content here than most entire composition articles. My sole reason for merging is to prevent duplication of content. If there's a way to include that in both locations without it drifting, I would be in favour of that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I oppose having it all in Messiah, - when that was made a FAC, even the music was deemed to be to much, and therefore put separately in Messiah structure and three articles on the parts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you tell me which sections are duplicated as the section that did duplicate another was removed?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 06:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support merge – per Bencherlite's reasoning. Pure trivia – the ones worth keeping (if any) can easily be reincorporated into the main article.  Appears to be one of a series of forks (i.e. Tomahawk chop, Wrigley Field ivy, Executive Order 11111) churned out simply for DYK credits.  Shameful. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Which "Main article"? See just above: I oppose merging any trivia in both Messiah and Messiah Part II. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Post-closure discussion

 * On the contrary, when people made support comments, there were responses which they could not adequately answer. Without responding to the scrutiny, it stands to reason that the !vote is not a solid foundation. Not to mention the WP:MAJORITY !votes and the WP:ATTP/WP:IDL one at the end.  The C of E  God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 14:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If more information becomes available, then we can consider this suitable for restoration.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 14:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The C of E, I feel sure that Vanamonde took all of the arguments into consideration, and while you may not consider those support comments adequately answered, they were deemed satisfactory by the closing admin. A generic "more information" would certainly not cut it as suitable; it would need to have clear encyclopedic value, which had not been a characteristic before this was closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I came across this completely by chance, as this is not an area where I edit at all. But I just want to be clear on something: a three-heading, well-sourced article about the most famous chorus in all of western music has been redirected to a single paragraph that gives no indication that it's any different to the rest of the oratorio? A place where any even marginally adequate discussion of its wider place in music history and culture would be hugely unbalancing to an already lengthy article? Is this not exactly what separate articles are for?? What a farce. Frickeg (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Frickeg, this is not the place to say so, because I may be the only one to have this watched. Go to classical music, perhaps. And perhaps avoid terms such as "farce". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)