Talk:An Wasserflüssen Babylon/Archive 1

Reincken/Bach stories involving "An Wasserflüssen Babylon"
Afaik there are two "stories" connecting Johann Adam Reincken, Johann Sebastian Bach and the "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" chorale:
 * 1700
 * Source:
 * Bach's copy of Reincken's "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" chorale fantasia for organ is dated 1700. Beside the date, Bach also wrote in the manuscript that at the time he was a student of Georg Böhm.
 * Currently the Wikipedia article has "When the young Johann Sebastian Bach visited Reincken in 1701 to study with him, he copied the work", which should read, more correctly according to the above source, "The young Johann Sebastian Bach copied Reincken's work when he studied with Georg Böhm in 1700".
 * (The same source also says something about a "hitherto unknown" fantasia on "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" by Johann Pachelbel – compare the four chorale preludes, three extant and one lost, mentioned in the catalogue of Perreault (2001) as Nos. 17–20, if Wikipedia's List of compositions by Johann Pachelbel is correct)
 * (The same source also says something about a "hitherto unknown" fantasia on "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" by Johann Pachelbel – compare the four chorale preludes, three extant and one lost, mentioned in the catalogue of Perreault (2001) as Nos. 17–20, if Wikipedia's List of compositions by Johann Pachelbel is correct)


 * 1722
 * Sources:
 * "Johann Sebastian Bach's Hamburg visit and improvisation" section in *
 * Bach's Nekrolog, pp. 165–166
 * According to the Nekrolog (1754) Bach visited the then very old Reincken in 1722, and improvised for half an hour on "An Wasserflüssen Babylon", in the style of the Hamburg organists like Reincken, and got a compliment from the old composer. Near the end of the account of the anecdote it is mentioned that Bach knew Reincken's setting of the chorale.
 * (The webpage of the Scroll Ensemble also mentions many other settings of "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" by various composers)
 * This is a source currently used in the article: it is however probably far from the best source for the 1722 anecdote, the veracity of which is not universally acknowledged in Bach-scholarship. At least one "error" by the authors of the Nekrolog is that in 1722 Reincken was not exactly "nearly 100 years old" as they contend: Reincken died in 1722, less than 79 years of age at time of death. Another, quite butchered version of the anecdote, referenced to a completely inadequate source (Sojourn: Jan Adams Reincken, by Timothy A. Smith) is in the third paragraph of Johann Adam Reincken.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 04:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC); updated 08:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Schütz's Op. 2
Schütz's Op. 2, Psalmen Davids (1619), is unrelated to the "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" article. In his Op. 2 Schütz uses a different German paraphrase of Psalm 137 ("An den Wassern zu Babel"), unrelated to Dachstein's text, and a setting, SWV 37, unrelated to Dachstein's hymn tune. I propose to remove inclusions and links to Psalmen Davids from this article (they rather confuse the matter). Also the author of the "An den Wassern zu Babel" hymn does not need to be mentioned in the context of Schütz's setting of "An Wasserflüssen Babylon", also rather confusing than clarifying: in the current text it almost seems as if Gerhardt composed the Cantus of Dachstein's 1525 "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" hymn – SWV 242, the setting in Schütz's Op. 5 uses both Dachstein's text of "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" and Dachstein's melody for that hymn, afaik. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Luther-Holbein-Pepys image
Do we want to keep this image (→) and its sources (↓)? IMHO this seems too far-fetched for the topic of this article. It is not even sure it is related to *any* of it (there's only a "possible" relationship to one of the persons mentioned in the article). Nor the image, nor the text in and under the image establish any relationship to Dachstein's "An Wasserflüssen Babylon". Further, there's already quite enough illustrative material in the article that more closely relates to the article topic. Further, there's a MOS:SANDWICHING-like issue (collision between the image and the tabulated verse in the next section), requiring a clear template, which, at least on the screen of my desktop computer, produces a large white gap.

With all due respect for who digitised the image and uploaded it, but it is not that if it isn't the most suitable image here that it couldn't be used elsewhere in Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)



Lead image
I prefer: above: as WP:LEADIMAGE in the infobox, primarily for legibility: the first image has a clearly readable version of the hymn tune, by modern standards, while the second is less legible for a modern readership: smaller (hymn text unreadable without magnification), less legible font, uses old terminology (cantus instead of soprano), uses soprano clef which is surely less readable to most users compared to the standard G clef. Also the height of the second image may push the infobox into the title area of the first section, which is less likely to happen with the first image. German verses are given entirely in a section elsewhere on the page, so I don't see why they should be given in illegible format in the lead image. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * file:An Wasserfluessen cantus.jpg
 * File:1628-An-Wasserflüssen-Babylon-verses-cantus-Schütz-Becker.jpg
 * There is no lede image. There is just an infobox, created by Gerda. The tiny image of the melody is unfortunately too small to read. It does not seem to be particularly helpful in this case. On the other hand, the image currently in the infobox is a high-resolution composite image. It displays the melody of the first line of the cantus along with the accompanying page of the following verses. The image serves an important educational that complements the text. (Nobody has so far attempted to make a section on the melody—it would be nice if Gerda could do that. I can certainly create the lilypond audio, which I have been told is quite well-known and popular amongst church-goers.) There are several ways in which the image can be rendered, some of which do not involve using an infobox. This particularly type of image has been created by me on many times on wikimedia commons: I could check to see how many images I have created/oploaded like that. Gerda has often asked me to upload high-resolution autogrpah manuscripts from the archive. Mathsci (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The image falls under WP:LEADIMAGE, which is the applicable guideline in this context.
 * Re. "too small to read": image size can be slightly increased for readability
 * Re. "helpful": follow sources please, Terry Chorals III, p. 101 seems to think it useful. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Again this is about an WP:INFOBOX. It's not the same as a WP:LEDE. The infobox of BWV 140 is of a similar kind and, as a favour for User:Gerda Arendt, I assisted Gerda in preparing that infobox. It was tricky. The lede in BWV 105 had a similar image, created by me. As it turns out, that image was used as the template for the Bach cantatas on fr.wikipedia. I have no way why those wikipedians chose mine, because I don't edit on fr.wikipedia ...  Mathsci (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:INFOBOX is of little relevance: its short paragraph on images, WP:INFOBOXIMAGE, is about technicalities and doesn't assume that the infobox is placed in the lead section (so doesn't have specific lead image guidance); WP:LEDE is about the text of the lead section, and not the page that contains WP:LEADIMAGE guidance: that guidance is, as I said above, the applicable guideline in this context. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * For clarity: whether or not the lead image is in an infobox, WP:LEADIMAGE applies. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Per the reasons given above, the first image has a better compliance to WP:LEADIMAGE than the second, in earnest. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Infobox
This article had an infobox after the first expansion, - please restore it, for consistency with other hymns, and for not leaving the reader with the unexplained impression of a "song without words". Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually quite like Gerda's infobox (as a hymn with text and melody, it seems appropriate). I am not quite sure what image or caption we might want. Does Gerda like the one I chose? I think the tiny image that Francis Schonken produced as a lede image was presumably some kind of joke. Mathsci (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm indifferent w.r.t. the presence or not of an infobox (so keeping an infobox would have consensus afaics). The lead image is discussed above in . Keep that discussion in one place please, thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Francis Schonken's initial proposal for the lede was of very poor quality, hard to read and of no educational purpose. The talk page was far to long to read, cf tl;dr. I very much like Gerda's Infobox. It seems like a good idea to discuss this in a communal way, per WP:consensus. I would also like to hear about Gerda's images. She seem to like many of these I create or download. Mathsci (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Gerda's version of article
This was easy to read. It was sourced later by me. The original German was slightly better written with a different order, which makes far more sense. Mathsci (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That was not "my version", just just a beginning. Thank you for sourcing and expanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand that; it was just your tentative start on 24 February 2018. Mathsci (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

New version
Per WP:BRD, I have reverted Francis Schonken recent edits. These edits seems to involve WP:OR and do not match the sources at all. Some of the content edits seem our of kilter with part of the topic, i.e. the Reformation during reforms in Strasbourg Church, circa 1524–1525. Francis should describe his ideas and why he has written prose in that way. Mathsci (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "The edition, containing a liturgical agenda and rhyming psalms, did not follow the directions of the then-time reformers in that city, as Köpphel admitted in his next kirchenampt edition."


 * This needs to be explained quite carefully above, because there seems to be no proper explanation at the moment. The edit itself seems WP:POINTY. When edits are added cumulative, it is confusing to put all the references in one paragraph; that sort of editing is not particularly helpful for the reader or other editors. Which specific page and which source is supposed to refer to this sentence? Mathsci (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The original prose was written in de.wikipedia here:


 * "Der Choral ist eine textnahe Paraphrase von Psalm 137. Er erschien zuerst 1525 in Straßburg in der heute verlorenen Schrift Das dritt theil Straßburger kirchen ampt. Das Buch enthielt, nach den Vorgaben Martin Bucers, neben einer Agende lediglich metrische Psalmen als Kirchenlieder."


 * That version is clearly written and unambiguous. At the moment the phrase "did not follow directions of the then-time reformers in that city" is obviously contrived. Page numbers and explicit sources would presumably clarify this. Mathsci (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The source is on pages 82–83 of the book I borrowed on Tocmé-Latter's "The Singing of the Strasbourg Protestants". It concerns the Strasburger Kirkenampt, which was not lost, but in the Regensberg State Library. The 1525 text was by Wolfgang Köpfel and had been corrected several times, with two prefaces, which were apparently still useful to worshippers in earlier editions. In the second preface, preachers are mentioned, in particular


 * "the servant Christ, Martin Bucer, [who] announced all innovations in Grund und Ursach which [Köpfel] printed."


 * Köpfel thus describes the Kirchenampt, with its three little books, which were corrected in later printings. Köpfel was just a printer; Bucer was one of the major reformers in Strasbourg. Mathsci (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

German Wikipedia (not a reliable source per WP:USERGENERATED): Reliable source (see above): I don't really think this needs a trip to WP:RSN, but if this attempt to place the reliability of German Wikipedia above that of modern scholarship continues we might have to. Anyhow, translated it from an unreliable source, without adding a reference: maybe ask Gerda to fix this?
 * "..., nach den Vorgaben Martin Bucers,..."
 * "... printed without the preachers' permission (...) and against their will."

Exact page numbers and explicit sources were given here, however currently deleted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I have no idea about the sources for the German, - hoped to find some later. If it's unsourced, just drop it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The source of Tocmé-Latter, despite the shortcomings mentioned in the JSTOR review, makes it quite clear that the German version was quite accurate. Francis' specific content edit does not seem accurate. In fact his edit seems to confuse a printer (Köpfel) with a major Reformation figure (Bucer). The book itself makes no confusion of that kind. Not mentioning Martin Bucer was unhelpful to all readers: the curious form of wording—"did not follow the directions of the then-time reformers in that city"—seems to have been made intentionally, i.e. to avoid any mention of Martin Bucer, a featured article after all.


 * In fact Wolfgang Capito is another important Reformation figure associated with Martin Bucer. He happens to have had the same name as Wolfgang Köpfel, which is confusing, but is clarified in the index of Tocmé-Latter. The significant Reformation figure is a relative of the printer Wolfgang Köpfel: the printer has no wikipedia page, despite the WP:REDIRECT. It was presumably WP:USERGENERATED. Mathsci (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * More WP:USERGENERATED wikipedia content, courtesy of an anonymous wikipedian. Congratulations for working out how the index works. Mathsci (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am slightly worried that Wolfgang Köpfel, Francis' brand new article, might be not be notable. He's barely 30 minutes old. Mathsci (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Unsourced, so I go with Gerda's "drop it".
 * Further, don't confuse
 * kirchenampt 152518, in three volumes, lost (and still lost), which contained "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" in its third volume (that third volume being called Das dritt theil Straßburger kirchenampt)
 * with
 * kirchenampt 152521, in one volume, available with one click, not containing "An Wasserflüssen Babylon", in the preface of which Köpfel states that his former three-volume kirchenampt (=152518) was not authorised by the Strasbourg preachers ("... printed without the preachers' permission (...) and against their will" in Trocmé-Latter's words).
 * Clue for distinguising the two publications: 152521 has "... nemlich von Jnsegu[n]g d[er] Eeleüt, vom Tauf vnd vo[n] des herre[n] nachtmal" in the title, while none of the three lost 152518 volumes has anything of the kind in its title. Trocmé-Latter also calls the three-volume one "Theütsch kirchenampt trilogy" (last two lines above footnotes on p. 82)
 * Also, Koepfel/Köphel confusion sorted (yeah, I know, Wikipedia is not reliable, I said it myself, shouldn't have trusted it). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The article Wolfgang Köpfel of Francis Schinken was just copied from de.wikisource. There is no value in trying to avoid mentioning Martin Bucer. The JSTOR review of Rebecca Oettinger's "Music as Propaganda in the German Reformation" is more reliable. This kind of gamesmanship—a ploy to avoid mentioning Martin Bucer—is not at all helpful for readers on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Questions
At present
 * the lead image is repeated in the gallery
 * a ref "Schütz 2013" is called but not defined
 * many refs with harvid are not used
 * the image of Bach's copy is not in the article (but in the DYK nom). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The first image should be the 1628 title page. My slip.
 * There will probably be another page of the autograph manuscript, for the coda of BWV 653. I have already prepared it, but it has not been uploaded on commons yet.
 * I'm not sure what you mean about the DYK nomination, but will look it up. Mathsci (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Bach's copy is there, perhaps I just overlooked it, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * #2 restored, my bad. Sorry about that, & thanks for noticing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * #3 and another one added, afaics completely unrelated to "An Wasserflüssen Babylon". --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Francis' views on images do not seem to be in agreement with WP:consensus at the moment. Since none of the users are aware yet what is going to be written (hence the tentative gallery), nobody can tell which images are appropriate. It is guess work at the moment.  Mathsci (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nor do you know what others are going to write. So, when introducing a reference, or an image, please write the accompanying text that makes clear why it belongs in the article without delay. Others are as free to add, reposition, reformat or remove images, references and text, depending on how relevant these components may be to the article's topic and its over-all structure, balance and coherence. Currently it is all quite incoherent, e.g. the 1720 visit of Bach to Hamburg is told twice, the second time as if Geck is the only one to recount it: the article has a under construction aspect all over it, so I'll be re-adding that tag to explain the incomplete state of the article to the unsuspecting reader, showing that people are working on it to sort it out. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "So, when introducing a reference, or an image, please write the accompanying text that makes clear why it belongs in the article without delay." In Gerda's case, it seems she decides her own timetable. If Gerda suggests I create an image—e.g. an autograph manuscript by Bach—then I do it when I feel like it, sometimes perhaps not at all. Have you ever created a high-resolution image from the Bach digital archive on commons? Mathsci (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As for the title page of the 1628 Becker Psalter: no, we already have an image from the same publication that is much more relevant to the "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" topic, and too little text in the body of the article (as in: no text at all) that explains why this title page would have any relevance to that topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Schütz
Current article text:"Heinrich Schütz published a four-part setting of 'An Wasserflüssen Babylon', SWV 242, in his Becker Psalter, Op. 5, 1628."

Images:

External link:

Seems disproportionate if you ask me. could you perhaps help out here, especially as the images were apparently created on your request? Either the body of the article is failing in transmitting the significance of Schütz's setting of "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" (in that case: please expand the text in the body of the article, using available and/or additional references), or the amount of images, references (most of them unused) and the external link create an overrating impression of importance for this setting, disproportionate to the relative weight this setting gets in reliable sources on Dachstein's hymn. I'm impartial as to what might be the case, but the "" tag added in the body of the article to the single sentence about this setting rather suggests the latter may be the case: if that is so, I'd remove unused references, and retain only the most relevant of the two images (see also above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the title page of the Becker Psalter is not good for here, where the focus should be on the hymn. Unused references should not have a harv id, could be commented out until used, or go to Further reading. (I have my not yet used references in my sandbox.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Copyright of Reincken's collected works
These were marked with a copyright for 1974 in the edition of Breifkopf & Härtel. No prior edition seems to exist as far as I am aware. At the moment this seems to be a WP:COPYVIO. Stinson quotes the coda of the same version of the 1974 edition: the identical ornamentation was made by the arranger in 1974 so seems not to be within the public domain. I was interested in using a musical quote from Reincken's coda, but that does not seem to be possible given the WP:COPYVIO. I would like to ask User:Moonriddengirl for clarification, as she os one of the ex[erts. It is an unusual problem and slightly hard to deal with. Most editions of Breifkopf & Härtel from the 19th century are easily found. At the moment I don't even know how to produce a lilypond version of excerpts: I would have to create a normal score of the tablature version and then invent my own ornamentation in lilypond. Mathsci (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC) Beckmann's edition is under copyright and is marked 1974. Another edition was produced by C. F. Peters in 2002. There is also Willi Apel's edition from A-R editions marked with a copyright notice of 1967 (Armen Carapetyan). I also saw that a 2013 dissertation gives quotes from Reincken's fantasia from Oregon. If there is ambiguity here, the best approach is to ask User:Moonriddengirl. She can help out. Mathsci (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * commons:File:An Wasser Flussen Babylon.gif is in the public domain. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is impossible to verify on commons without a proper source. User:Moonriddengirl is the expert on this kind of problem and she can explain that more carefully. I have seen a source "Hochschule der Künste Berlin, Hochschulbibliothek", but I don't know what that means. Any ornamentation or transcription from tablature notation is not clearly described. I should point out that I have thought about this for a few days in the context of Stinson's summary. Mathsci (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * For clarity,
 * Reincken's music is not under copyright, it is to all extents and purposes in the public domain;
 * There is definitely no copyright infringement w.r.t. the 1974 Breifkopf & Härtel edition (the GIF is not a "facsimile" of that edition: the editorial choices made by whoever made the GIF and placed it in the public domain are completely different from those in the 1974 Breifkopf & Härtel edition).
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The GIF is not a photocopy or facsimile of the Peters edition. There is no ambiguity: the GIF poses no copyright problem w.r.t. any printed edition of the work (it is an image generated by a computer application). Commons published the GIF as being in the Public Domain and there is no reason to suspect that that publication as PD would be questionable, so the image can be used without reservations in en:Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Brief discussion of 2016 Beißwenger's chapter
I am preparing a short summary that hopefully will be available tomorrow. Mathsci (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion is still ongoing. My view is that for such a long chapter, it cannot be discussed in a hasty way. The omission of Johann Christoph Bach has been reinstated. I am not quite sure why it was removed, Tomorrow I will check out the 2006 Bärenreiter Facsimile (it is in the reference section and cannot be borrowed). Mathsci (talk) 08:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Wolfgang Dachstein and de.wikipedia article
This article was originally a translation of the de.wikipedia article (see the attribution). There seems to be useful content there:


 * "Dachstein used his poetical and musical ability in the service of the Reformation. He was involved in the formulation of the Agenda and provided German Psalms, such as the melodies for the "Teutschen Kirchenampt 1525", an early hymnbook. His paraphrase of Psalm 137, "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" (By the Rivers of Babylon), which appeared both in the "Teutschen Kirchenampt 1525" and in Luther's "Babstschem Gesangbuch" of 1545, is well known".

Of course "wikipedia is not a source", but there are huge amounts of reliable secondary sources. It seems like valuable content which can easily be sourced. I am quite happy to expand on the theme of The Reformation in Strasbourg—it's quite topical!—which provides context not yet provided in the article. As a caveat, some late nineteenth sources are out of date and often in Gothic font: given the wealth of material on "The Reformation", I would prefer something written in English. Any comments are welcome, particular for those knowledgeable on the 1525 reforms in Strasbourg. Mathsci (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See above,
 * 
 * 
 * Why would we need yet another talk page section about the same? Can we keep the discussion together? Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This reads like some kind of bureaucracy run amok. Please see WP:IDONTHEARTHAT and WP:IAR. Mathsci (talk) 09:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not impressed. Repeating a question every few days is not likely to yield a different result this time. Yeah, like you said, that's what's called WP:IDONTHEARTHAT: you've been given plenty of answers to variants of the same question, so please stop acting as if you didn't hear these answers. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Gerda quite liked how I wrote on pietism, another aspect of The Reformation related to a Lutheran hymn. She has encouraged me to help edit this article. À chacun son goût. Mathsci (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Anyway, there is no apparent context problem for the history section, at least none has been demonstrated that would warrant a banner tag about this in mainspace. The history section gives way more context than most introductions on the "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" hymn in secondary sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Peter Williams' Bach: A Musical Biography
I will be thinking about the second paragraph of the lead for a few days, using the sources of Maul & Wollny, Beisswenger and Williams as well as previous suggestions from other users: I will try to produce a new version. Probably it will be best to use citations in the lead. I intend to start using Peter Williams' "Bach: A Musical Biography". I have the online version from the Cambridge University Press core, which has a lot of information. Mathsci (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I partially reverted the rewrite, for including too much detail without much connection to the topic of the article E.g., "... "Nun freut euch, lieben Christen g’mein," BuxWV 210 by Dietrich Buxtehude ..." – what does that have to do with Dachstein's hymn? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC) comment moved to above, while a continuation of that earlier discussion --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You did far more than that. You have not given any reasonable rationale, beyond WP:OWN. See below. Mathsci (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You have not given a rational reason. There was one parenthetical comment about Buxtehude. It was phrased in that way because of a fragment of the tablature which probably dates back to 1698. The content was carefully written. Please read the last paragraph about the new lead below, instead of just edit-warring. The last section explains about the new lead; please can you read it more carefully? TOne of the problems is with your DYK hook—you have still made it into a "train wreck". Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Please also stop playing around with archiving. It is quite confusing. I am trying to write substantial and useful content (very little of which is related to your edits). Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Completely new lead (two days ago)
The new lead has been written. These involve five carefully written sentences, compatible with other edits and other users. They are compatible with the current DYK hook: Gerda checked the new lead and thanked me for my help. Per WP:consensus, other users can discuss the new lead. Francis Schonken's sentences did not summarise the content well, so his edits have been replaced by far more carefully written content. There have also been other improvements:


 * 1) the new image for the infobox from the 1541 Straßburger Gesandbuch: that took a lot of work.
 * 2) the title page of the 1541 Straßburger Gesandbuch.
 * 3) a new significant and substantial amount of content concerning Dachstein and Greiter was added to solve the problem of "context". It was carefully edited from impeccable reliable secondary sources.

Per WP:consensus, User:Softlavender recommended that, given my own known experience as an editor, I should just improve the previous effort at producing a lead. That is what I have done. Francis Schonken should now discuss per WP:consensus. Mathsci (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Request. Could I please ask that user:Francis Schonken avoids making any self-referential links to other parts of this talk page. Every time he does that, it causes confusion. In the DYK hook, he produced a "train wreck": that was not helpful for readers and served no educational purpose for this encyclopedia. Mathsci (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is the new paragraph for reference. It has five sentences which relate to different periods and different working places during the life and work of Bach. Each of them is informative and informal for general wikipedia readers: it recounts a number of colourful stories starting with early youth and ending with old age. There is a parenthetic comment on Buxtehude which could be modified (the usual pattern).


 * Mathsci (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead section (text)
Some issues with the current lead section were signalled here. Not sure what we're talking about: could someone please explain? Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That part is very poorly written. It was written hastily without due care. It was also inaccurate, with no attempt to gain WP:consensus. Several edits by Gerda Arendt, Thoughtfortheday and me were just bulldozed. Mathsci (talk) 10:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is tagged for original research (WP:OR): which WP:OR? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Mostly the misleading chronology, which made it very hard to read. In one of my edit summaries I explained that four different strands needed to be explained that would help the general reader. I'll try to dig it up. Mathsci (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Re. "... made ..." – past tense seems to indicate the problem (if any) is no longer present. I see no chronology issues, and certainly not misleading ones, so please be more precise. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I have had the opportunity to read the 2007 Bärenreiter Facsimile in the Anderson Room, MR472.a.200.51, in the University Library, Cambridge. It requires authorisation and the librarians have to be supervised (those are the regulations). Photocopying is not permitted. The format is a box containing one softcover score and four folders for facsimiles. There is a German commentary by Maul & Wollny followed by an English translation. The commentary indicates that the text is provisional, i.e. more research is expected, and gives biographical details of Bach that are relevant to the tablature and its context. I have seen four facsimiles of the tablatures: the detail is less than could be seen on digitised manuscripts on the Bach archive in Leipzig. I have seen the five pieces of Buxtehude, Reincken and Pachelbel. Although not in the documents offered as "extras" in Bärenreiter's catalogue, I can see the colophon of Reincken, which is dated 1700. However, there is also the fragment of Buxtehude which experts believe probably dates from 1698. The commentary discusses various possibilities and interpretations, which are left as open-ended and often conjectural.


 * Kirsten Beißwenger was the late wife of Kobayashi, who collaborated with both of them on Alfred Dürr. All three are (or were) experienced Bach scholars with an international reputation. The commentaries of Beißwenger complement those of Maul & Wollny. The pattern of writing and methodology is described in detail by Robin Leaver and Christoph Wolff in the 2017 monumental and encyclopaedic tome "The Routledge Reseach Companion to Johann Sebastian Bach". It seems to be an authoritative work, similar to the same scholarship available on Grove Music Online.  The same pattern of discussion can be found in Peter Williams' "Bach: A Musical Biography". In David Yearsley's chapter on "Keyboard Music" in the "Research Companion", Williams uses the same methodology which often involves raising inconvenient questions about the life and work of Bach.


 * The book of Peter Williams is a very good source for summarising the whole period of Bach from his early years, to his maturity and old age, starting with the "moonlight episode" and ending with the meditative and melancholic chorale prelude BWV 653. I do not see any particular reason to mention the 1700 colophon, without providing sufficient context. Mail & Wollny, Beißwenger and Williams give nuanced and open-ended discussions, almost all involving conjecture.


 * The second half of Francis Schonken's lead is poorly written, makes misleading statements (about the 1700 colophon) and distorts the chronology. Bach scholars agree that the autograph manuscript of BWV 653 was written between 1740–1750, in his late maturity. There were earlier versions, one of which was probably composed in Weimar. But the events involve (a) Reincken's freely composed chorale prelude, composed in Hamburg in the late seventeenth century (b) the anecdotal moonlight compositions of Bach while only ten years old (c) the rediscovery of the tablatures of Buxtehude, Pachelbel and Reincken dating from 1698–1700 (d) the performance of 1720 when Bach extemporised for about half an hour on the chorale prelude "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" and (e) the later chorale prelude of Bach written after 1740, possibly intended as a tribute to Reincken. The other description about Schein and Schütz's four-part harmonisations seem undue in the lede.


 * Gerda's DYK hook, possibly in a somewhat more elaborate version, seems fine. Francis Schonken's has ignored the works of Pachelbel (in the same tablature!) and Bach's older cousin. I think it is reasonable for Gerda, Thoughfortheday and me to rework Gerda's first version of the second paragraph so that the general reader of wikipedia has an informative, colourful and informal account of Bach's history of "An Wasserflüssen Babylon," from his infancy to his old age, from the cradle to the grave. Mathsci (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Re. 4th bullet, chronology (a) to (e): the two involved sentences in the current version of the intro read: Johann Adam Reincken wrote an extensive organ piece based on the hymn. Johann Sebastian Bach, who owned a copy of Reincken's composition in 1700, and twenty years later was commended by Reincken for improvising on the organ on "An Wasserflüssen Babylon", composed a chorale prelude on the hymn as part of his Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes.
 * Compared to the scheme you propose:


 * So chronology-wise there's no difference between what is listed above and what is currently in the lead section. There's a difference in amount of detail, and what is proposed above has imho too much detail for a lead section, compared to these two sentences in the current lead. Also, this is not an article about Bach, it is about a hymn by Dachstein: so if we speak about Pachelbel in the lead, it should be about Pachelbel in his own right, i.e. composing several organ pieces on "An Wasserflüssen Babylon", not only about the single one Bach likely knew (and which has comparatively little literature covering it). For comparison: this one was recorded a few times, and there's scholarly literature available about this one and the other ones composed by Pachelbel and known long before the 21st-century discovery of the until then unknown one.
 * Imho Beißwenger, edited by Leaver, is a better source than Williams's last book: scholarship written by one scholar and edited by another seems preferable over a book for which we seem to have only an author's name. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Re. "Reincken's ... chorale prelude, composed ... in the late seventeenth century" (my emphasis) – not really: likely composed in 1663 according to . --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed new second paragraph of lead
Given the WP:consensus, I will be thinking about this for a day or two, using the sources mentioned above and previous suggestions from other users: I will try to produce a new version. Probably it will be best to use citations in the lead. Mathsci (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Re. "Given the WP:consensus ..." – which consensus? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose you mean this consensus. I'd be looking forward to a variant proposal for the lead, which would, however, not have acquired "consensus" before it is written. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not what I meant. Mathsci (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, however, that leaves the "which consensus?" question unanswered. At least, don't insert subsection titles claiming a consensus that doesn't exist. See WP:TPG: don't reformat someone else's talk page contribution to something it didn't say by inserting a spurious subsection title. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * please discontinue your efforts to claim consensus where there is none. It is disruptive, and against the WP:CONSENSUS policy. It does not make it easier to come to a consensus, on the contrary, it hampers making that possible. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * please don't remove comments already replied to: don't modify any of it unless when following the WP:REDACT rules. I restored them. To the one above I replied in above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Per the discussions in the section below above there is no consensus on the above statement, nor is there any "consensus" that could be claimed in the statement. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC) updated 16:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I intend to start using Peter Williams' "Bach:a Musical Biography" now. I have the online version from the Cambridge University Press core. Mathsci (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC) I find it very useful. Mathsci (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't move my comments around, per WP:TPG. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * again, please don't move comments around, it is against WP:TPG. Also, when changing your comments after they have been replied to, like you did above, use the techniques as explained in WP:REDACT. Your behaviour on this talk page prevents a consensus to form, instead of helping it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * did you now again remove one of my comments and claim illness in order to re-add a tag for which the deleted discussion had established that there was no consensus to add it? And that within 20 minutes of claiming to have been too ill to add content? I wanted to empathise with your illness as I showed here, but not for you to abuse process and proceed, again, with an unexplained revert for which you failed to establish consensus on this talk page and tried to delete the discussion that illustrated that? There is no OR problem in the current lead section, there is no inadequacy in the current lead section, so the tags indicate fake problems and should be removed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I partially reverted the rewrite resulting from the OPs of this subsection and that of the section below, for including too much detail without much connection to the topic of the article E.g., "... "Nun freut euch, lieben Christen g’mein," BuxWV 210 by Dietrich Buxtehude ..." – what does that have to do with Dachstein's hymn? (updated version of what I wrote below: I oppose splitting this discussion and will reply here about this topic)  --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Re. "... which relate to different periods and different working places during the life and work of Bach ..." (somewhere else on this page in yet another split out of this same discussion) – the topic of this article is "An Wasserflüssen Babylon", Dachstein's hymn: elaborate excursions on Bach (five sentences!) are hardly appropriate in the lead section of this article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:FORK : An Wasserflüssen Babylon (Reincken)
The fork by User:Francis Schonken seems to have been deliberately created by the content in this article. That kind of editing is WP:disruptive and a way of "gaming the system". Counting the reverts, it seems that Francis Schonken is trying to edit-war content into a fork without WP:consensus. Mathsci (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Discussion opened at 22:51, at Talk:An Wasserflüssen Babylon (Reincken). Please discuss there, not here, in order to avoid fragmentation of the discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The article, much of it created by me, seems to be in a stable state. The lead was slightly amplified as explained above. As far I as can tell, the content on BWV 653 and Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes has no relation whatsoever with An Wasserflüssen Babylon (Reincken). Beyond a marginal comment, there seems to be no relation at all. Francis Schonken should explain directly why he has copy-pasted one cherry-picked extract about BWV 653, taken out of context and modified by him, into irrelevant content (the forked content of Francis Schonken). In the present article on the Lutheran hymn, it makes complete sense; but moving it around like this makes no sense at all. At the moment Francis Schonken's proposed fork article appears to be almost empty with very few sentences at all, sometimes just empty sections with only images. Mathsci (talk) 06:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Although I could imagine creating a reasonable version of An Wasserflüssen Babylon (Reincken) with almost no overlap—no serious attempt to write substantial content about the chorale fantasia has so far been made—I cannot see any prospect of that happening soon. My feeling is that the appropriate response is to propose an AfD with a recommendation of userfication. There is no assurannce of what would happen; I certainly don't have a clue. That will give some time for users to produce something substantial. As far as I'm concerned, one sentence describing the chorale fantasia is adequate: the current attempt has not been successful. Mathsci (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Straßburger Gesangbuch
I believe these were first published in 1541. I don't know what the problem is. Mathsci (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The Straßburger Gesangbuch is available on google books. Not in a facsimile but in a digitised image of the actual document. The google "id" is ZFkJAQAAMAAJ, unless I've made some error. All very straightforward. Mathsci (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The code is
 * http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZFkJAQAAMAAJ&dq=gesangbuch+1541&source=gbs_navlinks_s
 * It works for me using my laptop. Mathsci (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

de.wikipedia translation
This English tarnsaltion was written initially by Gerda Arendt, copied from the article on de.wikipedia. That text was not properly sourced and I have meticulously added those sources. Gerda's truncated translation, however, did not contain a lot of extra content from the de.wikipedia. That material made it hard for readers to work out what was going on in the article. I am now in the process of amplifying the text to improve that. Other users can help there; at the moment the sources for Martin Bucer—a featured article on en.wikipedia–can be used for summarising and tweaking the content, again carefully checking on the secondary sources (which I have unearthed). Mathsci (talk) 10:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This source:
 * does not mention "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" once, nor the hymn's author, Wolfgang Dachstein. There are enough reliable sources relating to "An Wasserflüssen Babylon", without needing to take recourse to WP:COATRACK-like content based on sources that make no link to the topic of this article. Re. "just history of the Reformation - standard featured content – "history of the Reformation" is not the topic of this article: please follow sources, that is sources on the topic of this article, and follow their lead on how much to summarize from the historical context. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It also doesn't matter whether Martin Bucer is a featured article: the article doesn't mention "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" nor Dachstein, and as a source for another Wikipedia article it fails WP:USERGENERATED. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * For clarity:
 * The Greschat 2004 source does not mention "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" in the context of Bucer
 * The Leahy 2011 source does not mention Bucer in the context of "An Wasserflüssen Babylon"
 * Content mixed from both sources to intimate a link between Bucer and "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" should be removed: only if a reliable (external!) source makes that link is it possible to talk about such connection in the Wikipedia article, subject to consensus on whether such possible or unproven connection carries enough weight to be mentioned in an article which has plenty of reliable sources that don't mention such connection. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The section here on "history and context" has been written in "summary style". It was intended as an "introductory passage" to provide context. It obviously concerns the Reformation. The content has been written to help readers: it has an educational purpose. The partial translation of the de.wikipedia article did not provide that context and made it very hard to read: it was unclearly explained. In this case, this kind of standard content is anodyne and neutral. It seems completely straightforward. Assuming WP:AGF, of course. Mathsci (talk) 11:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This does not address my objections. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion about content of the first paragraph, an introductory passage aiming to provide context for a general readership. It describes in generality how Lutheran worship and services—including hymns and psalms—were conducted in Strasbourg, during the reforms that came about in 1524–1525. Those hymns or psalms refer to what became established Lutheran practice in services at the time. The relevant pages are contained in the masterly book of Martin Greschat (translated into English). In describing the reforms in Strasbourg, there is no reason why the particular hymn/psalm "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" has to be mentioned at the outset of the section. That method of writing fg articles follows a well-trodden path. It is simlar to that of "Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan". There the hymn is discussed in a discursive way, providing context. In that case pietism provided a general context. The same applies to "Aus tiefer Not schrei ich zu dir", "Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland", "Schmücke dich, o liebe Seele", "O Mensch, bewein dein Sünde groß", and so on. Mathsci (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Really, my concerns are different, and remain without reply. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no particular reason the first paragraph of the "history" section has from the outset to concern specifically one psalm or hymn ("An Wasserflüssen Babylon"). In this case a short introduction serves a useful educational purpose: it might still need some work (e.g. the source material from "The Singing of the Strasbourg Protestants, 1523-1541"), but it can be developed. Mathsci (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said, this is not my concern. Please read what I wrote above: replying to something I didn't write nor suggest leaves me without an answer to my real concern in this matter. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said, this is not my concern. Please read what I wrote above: replying to something I didn't write nor suggest leaves me without an answer to my real concern in this matter. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I currently have the hard-book version of Daniel Trocmé-Latter's lengthy book on loan in the UL. Unless they were already familiar with the topic, I cannot see how any wikipedia user could absorb that content without some great effort, thought and private notes; to me, even for a brief summary, it would need a few days, not necessarily consecutive.
 * The reason why Bucer isn't mentioned in introductions to "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" in reliable sources seems simple: it can not be demonstrated he had anything to do with it. The hymn was published, melody and all, before any interaction between Bucer and Dachstein, leave alone influence, can be documented: I've read the relevant chapters in Greschat 2004, in Trocmé-Latter 2016 (see e.g. its pp. 82–83) and in Oliphant Old 2002 (see e.g. p. 43 of that last one): none of them implies that Bucer had anything to do with publications containing music until after "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" had been printed for the first time.
 * Also the text as currently in the article—e.g. "... Bucer ... aided by the pastor Matthias Zell ..." which seems to be a reversion of roles of what Greschat writes about the period when "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" was written (see p. 55: Bucer "unofficial chaplain" of Zell)—seems a too interpretive rendering of the sources. The fact that currently references of the Greschat and the Trocmé-Latter sources are to wide page ranges obfuscates that the content in the current version of that paragraph is not actually supported by these sources. Synthesis of sources that say different things & adding a layer of interpretation that kind of says the opposite of what the sources say... not OK. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Apparently the UL makes electronic resources available within the library and it might be a little easier for me to read those there (the typescript can be enlarged if needed; there are also search options for a PC that is physically in the library). I have started reading Daniel's fascinating book, which seems to be a Ph.D., perhaps submitted through the Department in Education at Homerton College. I would like to update my summary by carefully reading the introduction, first two chapters and copious appendices from Daniel's book. Mathsci (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * re. "... I would like to update my summary ...": please propose your updates on this talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * For small changes, like this brief paragraph, that is normally made cumulatively in the main space of the article. I feel that I need to think about some sources more carefully (yesterday I read about Oettinger's "Music as Propaganda in the German Reformation" which was well-reviewed on JSTOR; the review I read on JSTOR of Trocmé-Latter's dissertation/book made a number of criticisms). Gerda Arendt has been one of the the main contributors to the article. The shortened translation of the de.wikipedia article was more of a stub than an article. Gerda's first attempt was reasonable, but initially needed tweaking and copy-editing for English. In addition most of the de.wikipedia content did not match up with sources on en.wikipedia. On her user talk page, Gerda asked me yesterday to help out with BWV 56, mentioning a personal loss. I will do my best to help Gerda. Mathsci (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A statement in the article (History and context), initially created by Gerda, has been restored. It was originally unsourced and was created from a translation in de.wikipedia. It seems to be a disconnected sentence without context, which is why that section is now tagged. Mathsci (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * what did you mean by "look at the diff"? Your removal of the failed verification tag did not solve the problem it indicated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The introduction (and elsewhere) in the book by Trocmé-Latte explains that Martin Bucer was the principal German preacher making reforms to the Strasbourg Church; those reforms to worship concerned the so-called "Agenda" and the congregational singing of psalms in German verse. This source seems to be standard undergraduate material on the Reformation and theology. This feels a little like the Argument Sketch. Mathsci (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The the source changed, hence the edit. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Doesn't change that failed verification still applies. After this series of edits the same now also applies to the preceding sentence. Please use this talk page for proposing alternatives that might be verifiable to reliable sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I verified it without any difficulty with the source. It is what Tokmé-Latter states in a rather unambiguous way in his book on "Bucer", the "agenda" and the "use of psalms". It can even be read in Trocmé-Latter's intro. Are you worried about the page numbers? Mathsci (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The wide page range currently indicated in the article (which is problematic, see above) doesn't cover it. Above I gave a narrower page range which contradicts it. So, please propose updated versions here, on this talk page, and use exact page numbers instead of unsatisfactory broad ranges. The tinkering in mainspace has made it worse (see diff above), so, as written currently it will have to be removed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, the tinkering in mainspace (like this series of edits) doesn't seem to solve anything, so please use this talk page to propose updates: as currently written in mainspace, the content is WP:OR, contradicted by the sources it quotes (see above), and will have to be removed. Pages 3 and 11, now indicated, don't mention Das dritt theil Straßburger kirchenampt so are completely unhelpful to support the contentions about the service now in the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyhow, the basic problem remains:
 * Despite there being plenty of elaborate reliable sources about "An Wasserflüssen Babylon", not one has been found that mentions Bucer
 * Despite there being plenty of elaborate reliable sources about Bucer, not one has been found that mentions "An Wasserflüssen Babylon"
 * Why should Wikipedia mention Bucer in an introduction to "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" when the mainstream in much more detailed introductions of much more reliable sources is to not do that? In essence this remains WP:SYNTH. Context of "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" can be given without WP:COATRACKing Bucer in the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Removal of refimprove tag from History section
here you removed the refimprove tag from the History section, while at that point the sentence "The book contained, as instructed by the reformer Martin Bucer, a liturgical agenda and metric psalms as hymns.", in that section, had no reference. Later, references were added to that sentence, but none of these references cover that sentence. As far as I know, basing myself on the sources mentioned above, it can not be referenced to a reliable source. Thus I removed it (i.e. some later version of the sentence, equally unverifiable to the indicated sources). I see no other possibility than to keep that sentence out. Let that not stop you or anyone else from proposing a viable & verifiable alternative. Please also never again remove a refimprove tag before the problems indicated by the tag are properly handled (it only causes bigger problems like the ones we are having now). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That was 2 weeks ago, and I am sorry. I thought you (two) were already in the process of sourcing, and the tag would not attract sources from others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It has been sourced. The original de.wikipedia version seems find but your English translation did need a little bot of tweaking/edit-copying. I don't see any problem at the moment. (If Gerda wants help on images of BWV 56, I am quite happy to help her.) Mathsci (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether or not anyone was in the process of sourcing at the time is irrelevant: the sentence is afaik impossible to verify to a reliable source and will have to be removed. Apology accepted, but indeed try to avoid such unwarranted removal of valid tags in the future, while it causes more problems than it solves. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Bucer revisited
re. the Straßburger Gesangbuch was only written in 1541 : no, it was a re-issue of the 1537 edition. That information can be found in one of the references you deleted. As far as the "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" hymn goes there's nothing specifically noteworthy about the 1541 edition: it contained the hymn like its predecessors and successors. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please look at the links below (at the very bottom of the paragraph). Try to be more careful in the future. Even the University Library, Cambridge gives the facsimile for the Evangelischen Verlagswerk, 1953, Stüttgart with UL ref MR250.a.95.1 In this case Chapter 5 reads "The 1541 Gesangbuch and Strasbourg's External Influence". Mathsci (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The Genfer Psalter in "Wer ist wer im Gesangbuch?", page 108–109, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (2001) describes the Straßburger Gesangbuch in Andrea Marti's section. They give the later "improved" edition of 1545. Mathsci (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * File:Straßburger Gesangbuch 1541 Vom Himmel hoch (Isny).jpg is something you've already seen. Mathsci (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is a repetition of what I wrote below: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZFkJAQAAMAAJ&dq=gesangbuch+1541&source=gbs_navlinks_s
 * Mathsci (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)