Jump to content

Talk:It Is Well with My Soul

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

Lyrics

[edit]

I continually correct the last word of the third line of the lyrics. The original manuscript is referenced and available online. Why must this correction be made over and over? Please help keep the integrity of the article and respect the hymn and it's author by not posting the wrong lyrics. 24.23.82.3 (talk) 05:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously "know" was changed to "say" to rhyme with "way" at the end of the first line. But the first and third lines were never meant to rhyme, as indicated by the following stanzas. DL77 (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter that the listed lyrics do not match the songwriter's original work but are attributed to the songwriter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.50.114.125 (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Independent of the above discussion, but still on the subject of lyrics, I would propose that someone add Spafford's two stanzas on the back of the original manuscript to the article. I just added a link to the LOC images in higher resolution, including the verses on the back. Frank Rabinovitch (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content removed

[edit]

As far back as February 2008, this article starts off citing the death of the son, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=It_Is_Well_with_My_Soul&diff=189945435&oldid=28420651 Then, in October 2012 [who edits sporadically] comes along and removes it with no explanation, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=It_Is_Well_with_My_Soul&diff=517745052&oldid=513404271 Does anyone have any information on this son and his death? There is mention of another son who died much later - is there any confusion between the two and if so, is the editor who removed the information correct? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rui

Thanks for getting in touch.

The reason I changed the article is that I decided to look up the original records of the Spafford family on the Ancestry website (I was doing a talk which drew on the Spafford's tragic tale and Mr Spafford's great hymn). I was surprised to find that the truth was not exactly as stated in the original article. The truth is perhaps even sadder and is as I explained in the amended article.

You will find a family tree that features the documents I located here: http://trees.ancestry.co.uk/tree/15966720/person/328092630?ssrc= You would actually need to be a member of the site to access it though.

A summary of the family with birth and death dates is here:

Family Members Parents Horatio Gates Spafford 1778 – 1832

Elizabeth Clark Hewett 1790 – 1840

Show siblings Spouse

Anna Larsen 1842 – 1923

Children Anna "Annie" Spafford 1862 – 1873


Margaret Lee "Maggie" Spafford 1864 – 1873


Elizabeth "Bessie Spafford 1868 – 1873


Tanetta Spafford 1871 – 1873

Horatio Gates Spafford 1876 – 1880

Bertha H. Spafford 1878 –

Grace Spafford 1881 -

I hope this helps to clarify the amendment to the article.

Alistair — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commune31 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with It Is Well With My Soul (Hillsong song)

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge content from It Is Well With My Soul (Hillsong song). Despite claims that the two songs were different, the Hillsong article clearly stated that it was a "special version of the traditional hymn" with a link back here. The text copied from that article makes it clear that a new bridge was added. The practice of merging different versions of articles is common on Wikipedia, even when the style is radically different. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same song Richhoncho (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree - the Hillsong version has diffenrent genre and feel to the original classic version as penned by Spafford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.133.13 (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should read WP guidance on the subject, which reads, "Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions." I would have thought the difference between the two versions was the important part, not that they are covered in two articles. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't support the merge. The two songs are very different. Hillsong's version is inspired by and based off of the original, but they added lyrics and words to it, making it a different song entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.77.130.73 (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this. The Hillsong version is clearly derivative of the original, and it should be merged with the article on the original song. RHWoodman (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not support the merge. To include the Hillsong version dilutes the objectivity of the article. The song originates from a different era and religious culture than the Hillsong version. I strongly object. Gsaari43 (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOT SUPPORTED: While I enjoy and respect the version by Hillsong, I DO NOT support the merger of the two because this is the original and while it is well know, the history of this song is not. The History makes it that much more meaningful to the the reader. While it is typical to include covers, the first purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information. I feel that merging the two will dilute the history due to Hillsong's popularity and consequently provide less not more informative value. I would suggest a link to Hillsong's version with is as mentioned before. The differences in words and veiled reflection of this original they are two decidedly different songs that are not easily interchanged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kip Carter (talk • contribs) 11:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not support this merge either. It is a completely different song. Quile78 (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For editors who claim it's a completely different song, either you don't know the original song or you're lying. I've performed the song and listened to it again, but analysis of the lyrics alone at http://www.metrolyrics.com/it-is-well-with-my-soul-live-lyrics-hillsong-chapel.html show the structure is Verse 1, Verse 4, Chorus, Chorus, a new Bridge that incorporates elements of the chorus, Chorus, Bridge, Bridge. The melody of the verse and chorus is identical to the hymn. Even the copyright and credits show it's copied from here https://www.praisecharts.com/songs/details/23390/it-is-well-with-my-soul-sheet-music/ . So I'm preparing to merge the content unless those who left comments previously can show how it's different. To that end: @197.88.133.13: @174.77.130.73: @Gsaari43: @Quile78:, please defend your positions. That the genre is different does not mean that the song is different. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has been nearly two weeks waiting for those who opposed to show that they are different songs so I will conclude there is little continued opposition.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on It Is Well with My Soul. 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: 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) 22:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion to On a Hymnsong of Phillip Bliss

[edit]

Should we create an Article or a section in this article, about On a Hymnsong of Phillip Bliss since that is the American translated version of It Is well Quile78 (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the Mormon Tabernacle Christmas Narrative

[edit]

I don't understand the removal of the Mormon Tabernacle Christmas Narrative. It explains the story of the song's origin much better than the article. The Mormon Tabernacle version is also the traditional rendering of the song. The Hillsong version is notable because it got to #87 on the Australian Pop Chart? The Hillsong version is barely recognizable as the song Spafford wrote.Scottca075 (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COVERSONG explains why. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is YOUR opinion, and your opinion alone that seems to have made that determination. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir's weekly broadcast goes out on over 1,000 stations worldwide and more than 600 stations in the U.S. and Canada. The weekly broadcast is the longest continuous radio program in the U.S. at almost 92 years. I would say it is more notable than Hillsong. I'd also dispute the use of the word "cover" to describe recordings of a century old hymn.Scottca075 (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the entry because the source did not show their that their version met the criteria in ::::::. I'm not sure how this can be equated with an opinion.
Feel free to add it back with sources that show how it meets the criteria listed in COVERSONG. Notice, of course, that being in a single radio program is not one of the criteria. In fact, it's the antithesis of criteria one (the rendition is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song). The Hillsong version meets criteria two (the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS) in that it charted.
Be fully aware that I or any other editor can remove the entry if it their version does not meet the criteria in COVERSONG.
The criteria are not subjective, they are quite clear. So if you'd like to state or provide sources to show how either criteria are met, I'd be glad to discuss this further. I am convinced, however, that their rendition is not discussed in an independent reliable source, and it most certainly did not chart on any national chart. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is subjective to chose the criteria. I would not call the YouTube video a "cover" nor a "notable" recording. It is a narrative that adds more to the understanding of the song and its origin. The article is less informative without the video referenced. As near as I can tell you are the only editor looking at this and you are not working to get consensus on improving the article.Scottca075 (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You do understand that the criteria is not my choice but the choice of the community, correct? I do not need to get consensus from you and you alone on improving the article because the addition is in no describable way an improvement and the community has created guidelines for what should be included and what should not. There are no recognized experts behind the work and so it's of as much encyclopedic value as a blogger. As a cover song, it's not notable. As a narrative, it's self-serving and WP:LINKSPAM. As near as I can tell, you are the only editor wanting to SPAM us with this link. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Near as I can tell, having read the WP:LINKSPAM link, the link to the YouTube video doesn't fit any category of SPAM. I am not sure how the link is self-serving, since I can't figure who would be benefiting, other than the reader of the article and viewer of the video.Scottca075 (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Near as I can tell, it does not elevate the version to the level required for inclusion. Find a secondary source that discusses it and helps us to understand how it meets COVERSONG. The reference does not help in any way and so it's SPAM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:It_Is_Well_with_My_Soul&oldid=1211962460"