Template:Did you know nominations/Hallelujah Chorus


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Vanamonde (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hallelujah Chorus

 * ... that Handel said he saw God when he wrote the "Hallelujah Chorus" (sound) to commemorate the Resurrection of Jesus? Source: Christianity.com


 * ALT1:... that people traditionally stand during the performance of the Easter chorus "Hallelujah Chorus" (sound) because King George II reportedly did at the London premiere? Source: University of Chicago
 * Reviewed: Jean-Nicolas Corvisart
 * Comment: for 16 April (Easter Day) and I'd like to request we use the sound.

Converted from a redirect by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 10:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg - Length, Date, Cite, QPQ, and Earwigs check for both hooks. Mifter Public (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I have pulled this from prep not only because the promoted (ALT1) hook is problematic, but because in addition to the two templates I added earlier, both caused by misunderstanding or misrepresenting the sources in the material, the article gets too many facts wrong. For example, the claim that it took a full week to write the chorus. The source says it took nine days for Handel to write Part II of Messiah, yet the final chorus took seven of those nine days? Not only is that improbable, but the source (christianity.com, which strikes me as somewhat dubious) doesn't even make the one-week claim. The Ross source is talking about Messiah in general, not the Hallelujah Chorus in particular. And so on. I do have doubts about the original hook as well, in part because of the source of that claim. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have made the alterations and removed some of the contentious claims. Can you please restore the tick?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 07:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid the edits to the article have done nothing to address my objections, and if it weren't well past my bedtime I'd replace both templates right now; you're still misrepresenting the Ross source, and the sentence about oratorio and chorus still does not make sense. You also haven't addressed whether christianity.com is a RS. If you make further edits, I'll certainly look at them, but I won't be returning for many hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have removed the line. I have made further alterations to explain that hymns are sung with people standing. As for Christianity.com, it is run by Salem Media Group which has editorial oversight.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 08:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If we have to have yet another fork of Messiah (Handel) (main article --> Messiah Part II --> H.Chorus), can we at least try to make the newest one line up with the featured article at the top of the tree? To quote that: "The custom of standing for the "Hallelujah" chorus originates from a belief that, at the London premiere, King George II did so, which would have obliged all to stand. There is no convincing evidence that the king was present, or that he attended any subsequent performance of Messiah; the first reference to the practice of standing appears in a letter dated 1756, three years prior to Handel's death.[52][53]"  I'm tempted to slap a merge template on this article, because there's nothing useful in it that couldn't be added to one of the other articles about the Messiah, or (indeed) isn't already said there in better ways. BencherliteTalk 10:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge template now added. A lot of the material currently in the article was just copied word-for-word, or paraphrased, from other Messiah-related articles anyway. BencherliteTalk 11:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, The C of E, but there is no chance that this will be able to run for Easter. Even aside from the merge discussion, Duplication Detector shows 1170 prose characters copied from Messiah Part II, which would require a minimum of 5850 prose characters for this article, well more than the 4305 it currently contains. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not an expansion nomination, this is a creation from redirect nomination therefore the 5x rule does not apply here. All that applies here is that the part from Messiah is discounted in the character count, which will still take it over the 1,500 threshold.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 21:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The C of E, read WP:DYKSG, which is quite clear: you have copied material from a pre-existing Wikipedia article into this one, and it therefore must be 5x expanded. You should also read Copying within Wikipedia, because you failed to acknowledge the copying when creating the article, which is a violation of Wikipedia's rules about attribution, something you need to fix. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Very well, I have now brought it up and over that character count so it can now be promoted back now.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 08:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The C of E, this nomination isn't going anywhere until the merge discussion has concluded (which will require a closure by someone uninvolved in the discussion). As I said earlier, I don't see any possibility of this happening prior to Easter: seven days from the opening, the absolute minimum for a discussion like this, is April 17, the day after Easter. I BlueMoonset (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I have just closed the merger discussion in favor of a merger. Unfortunately, this means this nomination cannot go forward, so I am closing it. Vanamonde (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)