Talk:An Wasserflüssen Babylon/Archive 2

Edit-warring
Per WP:BRD, Francis Schonken should discuss these matters carefully. He should also follow WP:consensus. The sources are carefully and clearly sourced. It appears, however, that Francis Schonken is just objecting to some matters concerning the Reformation. On many cases he has been edit-warring on en.wikipedia and de.wikipedia. His edits do not reasonable or circumspect. Mathsci (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * At the moment, Francis Schonken has just insisted on his version of matters. All I can see is that he used the Zahn numbes and didn't actually bothering checking anything about Tocmé-Latter's references, which list all occurrences in an Appendix A. That was not helpful and dies not match up with what the Zahn entries. Likewise he has not explained in any way anything about inline citations. He should explain that more carefully, without using some kind of cryptic code or semaphore to relay his comments to remote parts of the the talk page. Mathsci (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with his reversion per WP:BRD. Francis Schonken has just made some blanket statements about Zahn numbers which seem not to have much detail at all. In contrast I have checked checking Appendix A of Tocmé-Latter, with go into huge great detail about particular instances of hymns in Appendix A. The tagging of in-line citations makes no sense. It could be that as on occasion, Francis Schonken is just irritated by any mention of Martin Bucer and the Reformation. He has not explained. I shall make a procedural revert and then amend the content. Mathsci (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) So the main changes involve a reversion of one sentence by Francis Schonken. As I have written, the edits of Appendix A of Tocmé-Latter were ignored; Zahn's comments (1526 on title and brief mention of 16th century) have no detail (except for listing psalms); by contrast there was considerable detail in Appendix A, which involved carefully studying each on ten pages. The summary of the early career was mostly sourced on Herbst (the entries of Weber and Brusniak) with other details concerning other German theologians. It is standard material and actually istreated without any references on wikipedia. Apart from trying to revert one sentence, Francis Schonken has given no further details. Could he please explain that more carefully. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

First paragraph of "History and context" section
Currently:"'An Wasserflüssen Babylon' is a Lutheran hymn written in 1525 and attributed to Wolfgang Dachstein, organist at St Thomas' Church, Strasbourg. The hymn is a closely paraphrased versification of Psalm 137, 'By the rivers of Babylon', a lamentation for Jerusalem, exiled in Babylon. Its text and melody, Zahn number 7663, first appeared in Strasbourg in 1525 in Wolf Köpphel's Das dritt theil Straßburger kirchenampt. This Strasbourg tract, which comprised the third part of the Lutheran service, is now lost. Despite the lost tract from 1525, the Strasbourg hymn appeared in print in 1526 in Psalmen, Gebett und Kirchenordnung wie sie zu Straßburg gehalten werden and later."

Proposed rewrite:"'An Wasserflüssen Babylon' is a Lutheran hymn by Wolfgang Dachstein who was an organist at St Thomas' Church, Strasbourg. The hymn is a closely paraphrased versification of Psalm 137, 'By the rivers of Babylon', a lamentation for Jerusalem, exiled in Babylon. Its text and melody, Zahn number 7663, first appeared in Strasbourg in 1525 in Wolf Köpphel's Das dritt theil Straßburger kirchenampt, that is, the last volume of a lost German church order trilogy. All Straßburger Gesangbuch (Strasbourg hymnal) editions of the 16th century, starting from a 1526 version titled Psalmen, Gebett und Kirchenordnung wie sie zu Straßburg gehalten werden, contained the 'An Wasserflüssen Babylon' hymn."



Better phrasing (e.g. "now", "despite", as in the current version, are avoided per Manual of Style/Words to watch), and makes it clearer which content derives from which source. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, precision in the references is a tool to not deviate from what they say: e.g. "tract" seems a Wikipedia editor's invention: none of the sources seem to refer to Das dritt theil Straßburger kirchenampt (or the three-volume publication as a whole) as a "tract", which seems an incorrect denomination of that volume. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Commment Please read WP:IAR, WP:BRD and WP:consensus. Repeating myself—as demanded by Francis Schonken—the main changes involve a reversion of one sentence by Francis Schonken. As I have written, the edits of Appendix A of Tocmé-Latter have been ignored; Zahn's comments (1526 on title and brief mention of 16th century) are not detailed. One can verify the psalms numbers for 1526, including 137, but nowhere else. By contrast there was considerable detail in Tocmé-Latter's Appendix A. It involved carefully studying each of the 10 pages in my hardback copy in the University Library. Francis Schonken has attempted to use edit-warring to put pressure on his preferred content. It is not very different from wthe current account, except that it takes no account of the detailed comments on Appendix A of Tocmé-Latter. That is all this is all that is involved, despite Francis Sconnken's tl;dr comments. The edits here


 * http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZFkJAQAAMAAJ&dq=gesangbuch+1541&source=gbs_navlinks_s


 * should have involved some kind of thanks to me. It was ungracious not to have done so. Mathsci (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ? of course I checked Trocmé-Latter (not "Tocmé-Latter", which is just a misspelling), it even led to a slight rephrasing in the proposal above. So, on content, there's no problem with the proposed rewrite, and it has the advantages as indicated above.
 * I already linked to "Appendix A" pages of Trocmé-Latter 21:47, 18 March. So, please cut the self-aggrandising. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Returning to Appendix A:
 * 1) 1524: there are 8 items if I'm counting properly
 * 2) 1525: 8 items
 * 3) 1526: 4 items
 * 4) 1527: 3 items
 * 5) 1529: 1 item
 * 6) 1530: 2 items
 * 7) 1533: 1 item
 * 8) 1534: 2 items
 * 9) 1535: 3 items
 * 10) 1536: 2 items
 * 11) 1537: 4 items
 * 12) 1538: 2 items
 * 13) 1539: 2 items
 * 14) 1541: 2 items, including the Straßburger Gesangbuch

It's hard to tell how many of these things involve the particular hymn. In one case that I checked, it didn't. Daniel T-L seems to have been fairly careful at looking at sources (including digital records). Mathsci (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes this 1538 item drew a blank. Right printer but the register did not contain the psalm. Mathsci (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Similarly here for 5-part voicebooks, no joy. Mathsci (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Second & third paragraph of "History and context" section
These paragraphs currently both present a problem described as "list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations", hence should be tagged more footnotes until the problem is resolved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * For clarity, both paragraphs use exactly the same list of references (currently footnote 8):
 * See:
 * So, the unresolved issue applies to both paragraphs. It might additionally be a Citation overkill issue in one case, but for both paragraphs it is a "list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations" problem. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please reply in the lower subsections. The second paragraph is self-explanatory and you should follow what I wrote there. If you dont do so, please explain why. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Re. "Please reply in the lower subsections" – Why? The problem is the same for both paragraphs, so this is where this problem, shared by both paragraphs, can be explained, if further clarifications are necessary, until the problem is resolved. Also, please stop to hide my contributions below: I might address talk page disruptions with further detail, so that topic is not necessarily closed, and should also not be closed by someone potentially exposed as causing the disruption. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The citations lists have changed. Mathsci (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The current citation lists have been changed. The article itself is fine (modulo the major changes needed for the first paragraph) but the diverts, re-diverts, pre-diverts, post-diverts and post-pre-re-diverts in the article talk page have become incomprehensible. Mathsci (talk) 07:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So, the unresolved issue applies to both paragraphs. It might additionally be a Citation overkill issue in one case, but for both paragraphs it is a "list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations" problem. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please reply in the lower subsections. The second paragraph is self-explanatory and you should follow what I wrote there. If you dont do so, please explain why. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Re. "Please reply in the lower subsections" – Why? The problem is the same for both paragraphs, so this is where this problem, shared by both paragraphs, can be explained, if further clarifications are necessary, until the problem is resolved. Also, please stop to hide my contributions below: I might address talk page disruptions with further detail, so that topic is not necessarily closed, and should also not be closed by someone potentially exposed as causing the disruption. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The citations lists have changed. Mathsci (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The current citation lists have been changed. The article itself is fine (modulo the major changes needed for the first paragraph) but the diverts, re-diverts, pre-diverts, post-diverts and post-pre-re-diverts in the article talk page have become incomprehensible. Mathsci (talk) 07:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The citations lists have changed. Mathsci (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The current citation lists have been changed. The article itself is fine (modulo the major changes needed for the first paragraph) but the diverts, re-diverts, pre-diverts, post-diverts and post-pre-re-diverts in the article talk page have become incomprehensible. Mathsci (talk) 07:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I have decided to change the format in the article. I have decided to make two different lists for citations. If you read the subsections I have written, you should be able to work out what I wrote. For example, if you want to follow wrote look here.

"The main references were those of Weber and Brusniak in a standard theological German encyclopedia with some cross-checks for other theological references mentioned elsewhere (e.g. dates). The most references have been in 'Wer ist wer im Gesangbuch?' (ed in Wolfgang Herbst). I have also used the items of Müller and Fornaçon, as well as Andrea Marti (also from Herbst)."


 * Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Second paragraph of "History and context" section:
These paragraphs currently both present a problem described as "list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations", hence should be tagged more footnotes until the problem is resolved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC) Withdrawing disruptively WP:REFACTORed comment, while misrepresenting OP's original intentions. 14:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This kind of description of early careers is routine. The main references were those of Weber and Brusniak in a standard theological German encyclopedia with some cross-checks for other theological references mentioned elsewhere (e.g. dates). The most references have been in "Wer ist wer im Gesangbuch?" (ed in Wolfgang Herbst). I have also used the items of Müller and Fornaçon, as well as Andrea Marti (also from Herbst). These are all standard material. Mathsci (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Francis Schonken, please see WP:IAR. Good anodyne and neutral content has been created by my edits. So again, please read WP:AIR. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Third paragraph of "History and context" section
These paragraphs currently both present a problem described as "list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations", hence should be tagged more footnotes until the problem is resolved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC) Withdrawing disruptively WP:REFACTORed comment, while misrepresenting OP's original intentions. 14:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The content here is more involved but the same sourcing has been used. I understand that Francis Schonken dislikes all content concerning Martin Bucer. He has deleted content in this article where that name appears; and he has similarly tried to delete content in the corresponding article of de.wikipedia. The content in the "context" section was created to explain to general wikipedia readers about the important period in Strasbourg concerning the Protestantism and Catholicism.


 * The content here is also from the same theological sources, with some contributions from Grove Music Online (on Dachstein and Greiter). All of the content is sourced. I intend to add a relevant image between the conflicts of the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation to make the content feel more like "living history", not the numbers of dusty hymn boards! That has an important educational purpose and helps understanding the important and topical theme of the Reformation in an article like this. Almost images have been carefully chosen, almost exclusively by me. I am not aware of any other users who have made that kind of effort. It blends history, theology, music and the visual arts. Mathsci (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am now going to continue with the topic of the Reformation. Mathsci (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Images
I would like to make some comments on images here—why were some of these were created and which new ones could be used. I will think about this for a while. Mathsci (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The images in the history and context have so far involved two "break throughs". The first was finding high resolution images of Argentina, i.e. early modern Strasbourg. There I was helped by the University Library who showed images (unfortunately unusable) from the Nuremberg Chronicles. These are amazing and breathtaking images. And it was clear that the purpose was educational, the furtherance of scholarship and knowledge. The UL mentioned how the librarians had accessed the images. That involved high-resolution digital photography at the Morse Library in Belvoir College. By some care I could glue two sheets together to create a high quality image, with the same tiny charming accompanying images (like puppets from the Canterbury Tales). I liked the almost three-dimensional image which made it easy to see the difference between the Cathedral (Münster) and St Thomas (the second most important church in Strasbourg). That set the clock ticking for peopling the images: Greiter and Dachstein just fell into place, looking at the standard German theological encyclopedias. Mathsci (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Major changes to history section
I have noticed that the whole first paragraph of the section of "History and context" seems to have major problems. The main statement about the kirchenampt (i.e. that it is lost) is incorrect: that is explained in one of the main 2015 references. The whole of the kirchenampt is readable. Another basic problem is that the kirchenampt and the only comprehensive version of the Straßburger Gesangbuch (1541) are all intimately related to the writing of Martin Bucer: images of documents by Bucer, Greiter and the printer are easy to find and instructive. In addition the references of Zahn are out of date. They have been superseded by these new versions, "Das Deutsche Kirchenlied. Kritische Gesamtausgabe der Melodien III/1,1" (1993) edited by Joachim Stalmann, Karl-Günther Hartmann and Hans-Otto Korth. The University Library, Cambridge has copies available at M259.b.6.1 in the Anderson Room. I am going to use several new images to modify the page using reliable secondary sources.

The other in-line citations seem fine at the moment: it is probably worth archiving that now. If any user has any reasonable questions about later paragraphs, they should explain it in a short and concise way. The source of Tocmé-Latter has been invaluable: it has unearthed documents—sometimes cryptic electronic links—that have been hard to find. It seems I am the only person to have used those on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * List of 22 psalms from 1525/1526 in Das Deutsche Kirchenlied, Bärenreiter, BA 8357 (1999), pages 92–93, Eb17.


 * 1) O Gott lob
 * 2) JCh harret ds Herren
 * 3) JVchtzet dem Herrer alle land
 * 4) GOtt warumm
 * 5) MEin seel nun lob
 * 6) SJch wie fein und
 * 7) HErr Gott
 * 8) EJn kindelin
 * 9) O Herr ein schöpfer
 * 10) DEr Herr is mein liecht
 * 11) HErr icht erheb mein seel
 * 12) DEr torrecht spricht
 * 13) JN meinem Hertzen
 * 14) DJe thoren im hertzen sprechen
 * 15) GOt in der gemain Gottes stat
 * 16) GOt schweig doch nit
 * 17) HErr Gott vnser züflicht du bist
 * 18) WEr vndterm schirm sitzt
 * 19) KVmpt her laßt vns dem Herrn all
 * 20) DEr Herr ist Künig
 * 21) BEdenck Herr an Dauid mir fleyß
 * 22) AN Wasserflüssen Babylon


 * Mathsci (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

"Discussion"?

 * Comment. user:Francis Schonken seems to be trying to avoid any proper discussion here. The forked article An Wasserflüssen Babylon (Reincken) seems amateurish, an attempt to appropriate content and images to this article to the forked article. The current forked article—not appropriate for merging in any way—seems incoherent and unreadable: the attempts to write on "Musical analysis" are just WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, a "how not to write wikipedia", see WP:COMPETENCE and WP:POINT. His conduct appears be more like WP:BATTLE with indiscriminate edit-warring with no attempts by him to enter careful discussions either here or in the talk page the forked article. There is an ongoing WP:AfD. Mathsci (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources for Vocal settings
I am going to handle these one at a time to resolve sourcing problems. Two of the main problems will be discussed later. The first concerns how to identify the key of a hymn, printed in text, such as Schemmeli's 1736 "Musikalisches Gesang-Buch." The second concerns a cantata-type movement omitted in the section. I will start with the first problematic source. Mathsci (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) Lupus Hellinck, SATB (1544), Newe deudsche geistliche Gesenge (Grove Music Online, Bonnie J. Blackburn)
 * 2) Georg Rhau, SATB (1544), Wittembergisch deudsch geistlich Gesangbüchlein (GMO, Victor H. Mattfield)
 * 3) Benedictus Ducis, several in 3 and 4 parts (1541–1544) (GMO, Klaus Thomayer)
 * 4) Sigmund Hemmel, SATB (1569), Der gantz Psalter Davids, wie derselbig in teutsche Gesang verfasse (GMO, Wilfried Brennecke)
 * 5) Hans Leo Hassler, SATB (1608) (GMO, Walter Blankenburg and Vincent J. Panetta)
 * 6) Johann Hermann Schein, SS with bc (1618) and SATB [with bc] (1627) (GMO, Kerala J. Snyder and Gregory J. Johnston)
 * 7) Heinrich Schütz, SWV 242, SATB with bc (1628), Psalmen Davids, hiebevorn in teutzsche Reimen gebracht, durch D. Cornelium Beckern, und an jetzo mit ein hundert und drey eigenen Melodeyen … gestellet, op.5 (GMO, Joshua Rifkin, Eva Linfield, Derek McCulloch and Stephen Baron)
 * 8) Samuel Scheidt, SSWV 505 and SSWV 570, soprano and organ (GMO, Kerala J. Snyder and Douglas Bush)
 * 9) Franz Tunder, soprano and strings [with bc] (GMO, Kerala J. Snyder)
 * 10) Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 267, SATB, Chorales from "Joh. Seb. Bachs vierstimmige Choral-gesänge," ed. J.P. Kirnberger and C.P.E. Bach, (Leipzig, 1784–7) (GMO, Christoph Wolff and Walter Emery)
 * 11) Otto Nicolai, 4 Songs, op.17, c. 1832 (GMO, Ulrich Konrad)

Mathsci (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The first problem is that users have so far only written about 5 composers involved in the "Vocal settings". In fact there are 11 composers. These have been mentioned in a well-known informal Bach cantata website; they have also been mentioned in the first source that will be discussed below. That kind of informal content is useful for finding hints on how to create sourced content, but the actual sources need to be verified using reliable secondary sources. In this case, Grove Music Online seems to cover almost everything (although it's impossible to be certain!). Mathsci (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The second problem involves WP:original research on the key of hymn texts. As Robin Leaver explains in his 2014 JSTOR secondary source, "This paper examines some of the ways in which musical matters are addressed in text-only German hymnals, especially the phenomenon of indicating pitch and key by letter codes, and Bach's knowledge and use of such coding in the Schemelli Gesangbuch (1736)." Mathsci (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Robin Leaver is one of the foremost scholars on Bach: he is editor-in-chief of the Routledge Research Companion to Johann Sebastian Bach. Specialising in musicology and theology at Princeton University, he is also an Anglican minister and organist. In the 1990s, Anne Leahy met Leaver in Princeton, when she was studying at University College, Dublin. Leahy shared the same interests and passions as Leaver, and he became one of her mentors; in 2002 he served as part of the jury for her Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Utrecht. His Netherlandish supervisor in Utrecht predeceased her in 2006; Leahy herself died in 2007, leaving her project for a book on the Leipzig chorales incomplete, particularly the unwritten concluding chapter. Leaver assisted in preparing a 2011 edition, including a long obituary and a newly written introduction. As explained by Leaver (and in David Yearsley's 2008 review of Leaver's Festschrift), the book was not in a wholly satisfactory state vis-a-vis the balance between music and theology.

Leahy's interest in the particular article was an off-shoot of Leaver's specialty. Basing himself on Lutheran hymnbooks centred mostly around Erfurt, Leaver explains how hymn sheets or hymn books could be used as codes for keys and pitch in Thuringian congregations, allowing the most popular hymn tunes, melodia suavissima, to be easily recognised. The left hand side allows the key to be found from the hymn text (or an incipit); on the right hand side, if needed the organist can check the pitch (this involves the standard baroque method of transposition). Leaver explains these is a number of examples, most notably in the 1736 Schemelli "Gesangbuch", printed and published with Bach's aid. In this example, page 401, No. 587, of the "Gesangbuch" is used for the key of D in "An Wasserflüssen Babylon"; in page 60, No. 56, the incipit is used for the same melody but a different text in the key of G. Mathsci (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Brief summary. Robin Leaver explains how to determine the key from the hymn text of the incipit. An example of Leaver's method is given from the 1736 Schemelli "Gesangbuch," taking "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" as the incipit. The keys in this case (and others) are G and D. Mathsci (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Source 1. Referred to as "Scroll". This is a self-published source which links directly to en.wikipedia (as well as de.wikipedia). It uses for example Wolfgang Dachstein as a source: but unfortunately wikipedia is not a source. It is also links to all sorts of external links, such as BachonBach (another Peter Bach) and possibly the Bach cantata website. All of these are fine as external links, but not for any WP:RS. Gerda Arendt used these as a first step in creating the article, but Grove Music Online is probably the only reliable secondary source for this kind. (Other subsidiary English translations can also be helpful in the body of article.) Mathsci (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Source 2. BWV 267 on www.bach-chorales.com, a self-published website run by the musician and academic Luke Dahn. Cutting to the chase, Dahn credits the hymn melody to Matthias Greiter, which contradicts all reliable secondary sources: accordingly in this case, because of this error or oversight, that particular page is not reliable, i.e. it fails WP:RS. It is obviously a very useful educational external link. Analysing 4-part harmony, like realising a figured bass, is what music academics spend their time teaching. On the other hand, it's easy to get a Riemenschneider paperback of the chorale harmonisations or one from the 19th century. Mathsci (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Source 3. Carus Verlag full score, for purchase at €3,3. The pdf document is a perusal score. It looks like a continuo realisation for positive organ, transposed in the usual baroque way (i.e. down a tone). It is under copyright, given the continuo realisation, and the copyright notice is visible. Mathsci (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Source 4. This appears to be a primary source digitised in an early seventeenth century hymnal. It is not a reliable secondary source. Mathsci (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Source 5. A "hidden" wikilink: p. 706 of Vopelius's Neu Leipziger Gesangbuch. This was first Neu Leipziger Gesangbuch. That became a redirect to another wikipedia page, part of a list concerning Gottfried Vopelius, not properly sourced. Here again, wikipedia is not a source. Mathsci (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Source 6. : this source is a reliable secondary source (see, however, the previous caveats in the hidden section). In page 38 of Leahy's text, she writes,
 * "An Wasserflüssen Babylon was normally transmitted in F or G. In BWV 653, the setting is in G. Several seventeenth-century hymnbooks (such as Schein 1617 and Vopelius 1682) present a chromatic inflection in the chorale's second phrase and its repetition. Bach uses this version in BWV 653, thereby increasing the resemblance between this hymn and the opening phrases of Komm heiliger Geist, Herre Gott [BWV 652]."
 * There seems to be no relation between Leahy's sentences and what has been written in the section of the article. Mathsci (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Source 7.This is a link to google books from Vopelius (1682). It is a digitisation of a late seventeenth century hymn book, a primary source. Mathsci (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Source 8. This reference to this page in "A Heinrich Schütz Reader" (Oxford University Press) is fine. The Grove Music Online record for Heinrich Schütz would be the main reference. Mathsci (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Source 9. A "hidden" wikilink: Dietel manuscript is a redirect to List of chorale harmonisations by Johann Sebastian Bach, a list article which is not properly discussed. It is found in the last listing "Dietel manuscript", a raw page from the Bach archive in Leipzig. The page gives a raw list containing the main copyist (Johann Ludwig Dietel) and one cantata (BWV 14): the use of the raw list, with no further context, is original research and synthesis. Mathsci (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – you put a lot of work in this, which deserves respect. I didn't give a comment yet, as I wanted to see where this was going, and didn't want to disturb while you were compiling. The practical use for this in mainspace seems limited, as this is based on several misapprehensions. I offered you, multiple times, help on how Wikipedia deals with sources, per its policies etc. I extend that offer, again. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Conclusions. Firstly, the Grove Music Online with its large number of specialist scholars is the first recourse for creating the content of this section. That is still ongoing. Secondly the discussion of keys has been solved. Indeed in Robin Leaver's chapter on Chorales in the Routledge Research Companion, page 371, he already gave the examples for "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" and the 1736 Schemelli Gesangbuch. Items on Tomita and Leaver cover almost all that is needed here for Bach's Chorales, including details of the principal copyists; Tomita refers to Dürr Chr and Dürr Chr 2, which are the standard references for chronology. Hans-Joachim Schulze also covers this in Bach Perspectives 2 (1996)—see page 40. Lastly the large number of missing entries in the section has to be corrected. I will give more details of this, but I certainly will not be rushed into things. Mathsci (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * These conclusions seem still misguided. For clarity: no consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * As far as reliable secondary sources on Bach's four-part chorales are concerned, there are a vast amount of such sources. These have been added to the references, starting with Alfred Dürr, Hans-Joachim Schulze, etc. The 2006 book of Melamed and Marrissen is another good source. In those circumstances, a raw list from the Bach archive cannot be justified. Mathsci (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Partially disagree, will explain in detail when I find the time for it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * For clarity, thanked me for this edit. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Not at the moment thank you. Please do not interrupt me at the moment. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also please look at this. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ...and --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Unsigned. Mathsci (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ... and a new one --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Could User:Francis Schonken please stop interrupting my edits. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Then please stop refactoring my comments, tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And another one --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: It is impossible for there to be an edit war with only one editor. That is, if Mathsci is edit warring, then so are you. There is a simple solution for any edit war on this article and its talk page—find something else to do until Mathsci has finished his current work. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Edit-warring while the "in-use" tag is in operation: Mathsci (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No major edits are going on at the moment (that seems to be the case). Please discuss any problems here on the talk page. A lot of edits have been made by me with a lot of effort. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources
In the Routledge Research Companion to JSB (2017), Yo Tomita and others have explained in great detail how Alfred Dürr determined the chronology of Bach's vocal works. The references are to Dürr Chr and Dürr Chr 2. These are very famous references which have stood up to all later checks. In the Routledge Research Companion, those iconic references are the first to appear. Mathsci (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Francis Schonken, please explain the problem concerning Alfred Dürr. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The second reference is a book on how to establish the chronology of Bach Cantatas. It is quite surprising that Francis Schonken is making these kinds of edit. Mathsci (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * , re. Which page do you want to look at? – why, the one that confirms in whole or in part "Although considered to have been lost by Philipp Spitta, Dietel's manuscript (R.18), containing one hundred and fifty chorales, was discovered recently in the Musikbibliothek der Stadt, Leipzig" of course, that's the sentence to which these references are appended. If it's just WP:OVERREF (two of six (!) references appended to that sentence), I don't see why these two refs should be kept: there are enough other refs remaining.
 * Of course, that's still only one of many problematic aspects of this sentence and its refs... trying to take this step by step. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems very straightforward to me. Mathsci (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the account by Francis Schonken. It is unsourced. Four experts describe the 4-part chorales. Hans-Joachim Schulze was in charge of the Bach archive before Christoph Wolff: he describes the contents of the chorales. Tomita and Dirst explain who the principal copyist was (sometimes referred to as Hauptkopist F). Leaver explains where the manuscript was found. Mathsci (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Which one is a reference for "... —containing one hundred and fifty chorales— ..."?
 * Re. "I have looked at the account by Francis Schonken" – I don't understand what you mean. Which account? Unsourced? Don't understand what you mean, could you explain? Everything is sourced to reliable sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is in the source including the page number. Mathsci (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Which source? What page number? Most of them include a page number. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Which one is a reference for "... discovered recently ..." (emphasis added)? Note that "recently" is against WP:RELTIME and should better be avoided anyhow. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Which one is a reference for "... considered to have been lost by Philipp Spitta ..."? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Which one is a source for "R.18" (I mean: why the point between "R" and "18"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Francis Schonken seems not to have found the page or the footnotes. Mathsci (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, can't make anything of what you're trying to say. Can you explain? --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Why has Francis Schonken been posting this on wikipedia?

Mathsci (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Unrelated, it is a reference I used on another page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any speculation. I have written about 11 different composers in detail. For Bach, the content involves (a) how the manuscript was unearthed in Leipzig and (b) how keys can be determined using incipits written in the region and period of Bach. Both are interesting but not riveting. A diversion. The attempt to use raw Bach archive material to create wikipedia content is just misleading and confusing for general readers of wikipedia. In all these cases, proper scholarship is easy to identify from reliable secondary sources: that is the way to write content. Why mislead and confuse the reader? Mathsci (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see Leaver, Page 359, one of the 3 references cited by me in the wikipedia article. Mathsci (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but not relevant for this article. Leaver p. 359 does not mention BWV 276, nor any other setting of "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" or its tune (which is still the topic of An Wasserflüssen Babylon section, and nothing else). As an identification of the Dietel manuscript it is rather inadequate (doesn't even mention the name Dietel). Also, Leaver uses a 1966 article as oldest reference (the same article is BTW also used as a reference on the Bach Digital source page), which completely disqualifies the "recently". The entire sentence should go: Spitta making a wrong assumption (an assumption that did not even involve the hymn) about a manuscript he had never seen... is quite irrelevant for an article on Dachstein's "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" hymn. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is part of the collection of 4-part chorales which includes BWV 276. Robin Leaver, who is an eminent musicologist and theologian, writes quite clearly, "The manuscript of 150 four-part chorales, which Spitta thought lost, has been identified as Ms. R.18 in the Musikbibliothek der Stadt Leipzig, but the manuscript Vollständiges Choralbuch containing 240 melodies with figured bass has not been located." This is all standard. Similarly the footnotes describe this well. Are you sure you have been reading the same book? Mathsci (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Standard, yes; interesting, yes; shedding a light on Dachstein's "An Wasserflüssen Babylon", no. Bach's four-part chorale on the hymn tune of "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" (BWV 276) had been published already three times (in two different keys) a century before Spitta was making his speculations about the "150 chorales in 4 parts" manuscript. Spitta didn't speculate about the time of origin of a manuscript he only knew from a catalogue published after Bach's death. He didn't speculate on whether or not it contained the setting we now know as BWV 276. The only reason for mentioning the Dietel manuscript is because it is the oldest source for that setting. 19th-century misguided speculations, so-called "recent" discoveries from half a century ago, and whatnot, is just clutter diverting from the topic of this article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:OR
Moving to the first sentence of the paragraph: it contains "... composed a number of four-part chorale harmonisations around 1735, including one setting of "An Wasserflüssen Babylon", BWV 276 ...", which is WP:OR. For most of the chorale harmonisations in the Dietel collection it is not known when Bach composed them: it contains a few from cantatas and other larger works that have a precise date, but for most of them, including BWV 276, it is not known when they were composed – c. 1735 is no more than a terminus ante quem for these settings, because that's the date of Dietel's copy. Bach may well have composed it ten or more years earlier. That's what the reliable sources say, so the WP:OR should go. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Seems to be unrelated to the article or the sources. No cantatas are mentioned.


 * 1) Bach also composed a number of four-part chorale harmonisations around 1735, including one setting of "An Wasserflüssen Babylon", BWV 276. Standard summary of Schulze, etc
 * 2) The main copyist was Johann Ludwig Dietel, one of Bach's pupils from the Thomasschule zu Leipzig. Standard summary of Dirst, Tomita.
 * 3) Although considered to have been lost by Philipp Spitta, Dietel's manuscript (R.18)—containing one hundred and fifty chorales—was discovered recently in the Musikbibliothek der Stadt, Leipzig. Standard summary of Leaver.


 * This is routine content, andyne and neutral. There seems to be no relation to the content and Francis Schonken's extraordinary comments. Odd conduct. Mathsci (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * #1 in your list is WP:OR: it is not in Schulze. Schulze does mention the Dietel manuscript (p. 40), and on p. 37 that it (and its later copy Am.B 48) contains works in the range from BWV 2 to 436. Nowhere does the Schulze source say that Bach "composed a number of four-part chorale harmonisations around 1735, including one setting of "An Wasserflüssen Babylon", BWV 276" – the BWV 276 setting is not mentioned anywhere in the Schulze reference, not by its "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" name, nor by its BWV number, nor is it mentioned, not even in the vaguest terms, when Bach would have composed chorales (the article is about the transmission of works, in a period starting 11 years after the composer's death). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * #2 also contains OR: no source says Dietel was the "main" copyist: he was the only copyist (Johann Gottlob Immanuel Breitkopf wrote the title page, but was as such not a copyist).
 * The OR in #3, i.e. "recently", is detailed above, but also "containing one hundred and fifty chorales" is OR: the used sources refer to its catalogue entry and title page (...150...), the Dietel manuscript does however not "contain" 150 chorales, but one less. See reliable sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The text you wrote for the Bach segment was like this two days ago:

It involved the manipulation of the primary source from the entry in the Bach archive. The way of using the raw list as a source for the article is just original research and synthesis. The fact that Luke Dahn's self-published document erroneously lists Matthias Greiter as the originator of the hymn tune has been ignored by Francis Schonken: it shows that Dahn is not a reliable secondary source. The best idea is to modify the first sentence to remove everything written by Francis Schonken. The creation of the link/article Dietel manuscript seems to have been created by Francis Schonken as some kind of trophy war. No normal wikipedian would have created that type of misleading link or article. Is this not just grudge or revenge editing? The pattern has been repeated many times: standard editing of the article continues for a period until Francis Schonken decides to put a spanner in the works, as some new ploy.

But I don't know how this is going to be handled by the arbitration committee. It's a bit similar to the "Echigo mole" problem, which involved five years of trolling 2009–2013. There has also been harassment off-wiki, which has been mentioned by a former administrator (again it concerns the arbitration committee). It's all the same kind of thing. Mathsci (talk) 07:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * re. "It's a bit similar to the "Echigo mole" problem, which involved five years of trolling 2009–2013. There has also been harassment off-wiki, which has been mentioned by a former administrator" – if its unrelated to the OP, and if it involves WP:ARBR&I (as you assert in this edit summary), then what does this do on this talk page? It doesn't seem helpful in any dimension... Just changing topic without replying to the comment to which it poses as a reply afaics. Please reply to what I wrote above: afaik you didn't do that yet. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Updated proposal
I propose to replace:"moved below, see 'entire paragraph, current (with references)'" currently the first half of the fifth paragraph of An Wasserflüssen Babylon, containing original research as detailed above, and veering off-topic w.r.t. the topic of this article (Dachstein's "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" hymn), also as explained above, by:"moved below, see 'entire paragraph, proposed (with references)'" For clarity: The above sums up the most apparent advantages enough, I suppose, to proceed with such replacement. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC); updated, see full paragraph proposal below 10:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no original research (WP:NOR) in the proposed replacement.
 * I added a few references compared to what was there before; these references complement, and are added for enhanced accessibility, which eases verifiability (WP:V).
 * avoided overreferencing (WP:OVERREF), to vaguely related works.
 * A non-starter. What is under discussion is the full paragraph.


 * I would modify the first sentence to match more closely with the source. All the rest is fine, reliable secondary sourcing. Mathsci (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Entire paragraph, current (with references): Bach also composed a number of four-part chorale harmonisations around 1735, including one setting of "An Wasserflüssen Babylon", BWV 276. The main copyist was Johann Ludwig Dietel, one of Bach's pupils from the Thomasschule zu Leipzig. Although considered to have been lost by Philipp Spitta, Dietel's manuscript (R.18)—containing one hundred and fifty chorales—was discovered recently in the Musikbibliothek der Stadt, Leipzig. Robin Leaver, the musicologist and theologian, has explained how to determine the key of a hymn tune from the text of an incipit: these apply to Bach's period and region. An example of Leaver's method is given from the 1736 Schemelli "Gesangbuch," taking "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" as the incipit: the key of G occurs 7 times and D once. Entire paragraph, proposed (with references):"Bach also composed a chorale harmonisation, BWV 267, which appeared around 1735 in the Dietel manuscript. That harmonisation is found as well in G major and in A-flat major in 18th-century chorale collections, both as 'An Wasserflüssen Babylon' and as 'Ein Lämmlein geht und trägt die Schuld'. For instance, its publication in the Breitkopf edition of the 1780s has it as No. 5 in G major under the former title and as No. 308 in A-flat major under the latter title. In Schemelli's 1736 hymnal, to which Bach collaborated, the key of the 'An Wasserflüssen Babylon' hymn, No. 587, is given as 'D', and that of seven other hymns sung to the same melody, including 'Ein Lämmlein geht und trägt die Schuld', No. 259, as 'G'."



This would be the entire paragraph, as suggested. Same reasoning as above; plus, phrasing somewhat clearer for the second half. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem to be tenable at the moment. The "Dietel manuscript" is just a way of disguising primary content. The misleading use of "vanity" wikilinks is not a proper way of creating content: wikipedia articles are not sources. The first sentence needs to be more carefully written using the ideas of the Bach scholar Hans-Joachim Schulze. Mathsci (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Replaced per above, replicating the replaced content here: Bach also composed a number of four-part chorale harmonisations around 1735, including one setting of "An Wasserflüssen Babylon", BWV 267. The main copyist was Johann Ludwig Dietel, one of Bach's pupils from the Thomasschule zu Leipzig. Although considered to have been lost by Philipp Spitta, Dietel's manuscript (R.18)—containing one hundred and fifty chorales—was discovered recently in the Musikbibliothek der Stadt, Leipzig.

Robin Leaver, the musicologist and theologian, has explained how to determine the key of a hymn tune from the text of an incipit: these apply to Bach's period and region. An example of Leaver's method is given from the 1736 Schemelli "Gesangbuch," taking "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" as the incipit: the key of G occurs 7 times and D once.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)