Talk:The Summons (hymn)

Article issues
There are a number of factual inaccuracies and misinterpretations of sources that, despite being pointed out as part of the DYK review, have not been fixed, or have been made worse. Since they are either misleading or completely wrong, I've just now removed them. Here are my reasons: I've also done some copy editing. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * History section:
 * Third sentence: the claim that this hymn differs from Bell's others because it's Celtic Christian (and, presumably, the rest of his output isn't) is unsupported in the source. Indeed, the new source lists several hymns by Bell, this one included, that are Celtic Christian. The sentence is being deleted.
 * Fourth sentence: the assertion that it's a prophetic Christian hymn because of the uncommon words is a conflation of two statements in the source that don't go together, and as troubling as the previous version of the sentence was that said it was a radical Christian hymn for those reasons. The second clause is being deleted, and the remainder moved to the Composition and usage section, since this is not germane to its history. (I'm not entirely sure why C. Michael Hawn is worth naming, but I'll leave him, though not "Professor", which is padding.)
 * Fifth sentence: the "21 hymn books beyond the Iona Community and the United Kingdom" is based on a search of a Hymnary.org database of some kind, but the 21 hits are not all hymn books (one is the "Scripture Song Database"), nor are they beyond the United Kingdom (e.g., Church Hymnary is UK). They also include multiple editions of the same hymn book (i.e., the three Gather editions). I've changed "21" to "many".
 * Composition and usage:
 * Fourth sentence: While I couldn't check the 2010 edition (page 51 wasn't part of the preview), the fact that the 2014 edition, which mentions the hymn, but not as a possible recessional (much less a clear one), renders the sentence dubious in my view. Hymns can be used at all sorts of places in the liturgy, and to categorize it as a recessional hymn based on a single source that later only suggests another usage entirely is not okay.
 * Final sentence: the source is clearly talking about a series of workshops planned for the Anglican-Methodist covenant in 2002–03, specifically in the context of its possible use during the first workshop while the attendees are praying or worshipping together, rather than during actual church services—I'm doubtful that this usage is notable. The sentence, even after several iterations, continues to give the impression that its use is for general worship in services, which is clearly not supported by the source, and under the circumstances cannot remain.