Talk:Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan

Errors and omissions

The fundamental error in this article is that there are two versions of this hymn in the autograph manuscript of Orgelbüchlein. The earlier one has a different second line. It was written c 1620 by Michael Altenburg and is not described in this article. The creator should do a little bit more homework. In addition the use of websites as secondary sources is poor practice. User:Gerda Arendt is the expert on how to create articles on Lutheran hymns. Vague statements about cantatas or chorale preludes by Bach are of no use at all to the reader. The creator should add the standard book, published in 2006 by O.U.P. on the canatas as a reference and list the cantatas by BWV number and name. There is another standard book published in 2003 by C.U.P. on the organ works of Bach including a discussion of all the chorale preludes. There is also the well-known 1920 book by Terry for the translation into English. This requires a little bit more thought, common sense and effort. Herr Jesu Christ, dich zu uns wend is a recent example of how to source an article like this. Mathsci (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't add a book which I don't have - and this page is not for discussion of the organ prelude, either (otherwise, it would be titled "BWV 1116 ...". "Vague statements about cantatas or chorale preludes by Bach are of no use at all to the reader." - added a link to the list of Bach Cantatas. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Please look at how other articles on Lutheran hymns are written for a guide as to how this article should be written. Surely when you wrote the sentences on "Palchelbel" [sic] and Bach, you were looking at a web page. The information was undoubtedly there. Please find out which chorale preludes and cantatas are involved (sometimes only containing the chorale as a movement, like BWV 144) and add wikilinks. That cannot be too hard for you to do. As I wrote, the original hymn was written c 1620 by Michael Altenburg (a ref is given in that wikipedia article). Articles on Lutheran hymns are generally intended for use as wikilinks elsewhere. At the moment this article is unusable, because the information is inaccurate. That is partly due to your own unwillingness to use reliable sources. I recommend that you spend some time looking for proper sources. I don't understand why you attempted to write this kind of article if you don't have access to the sources. That seems quite a strange thing to do. You can access Terry's book on archive.org since it's outside copyright. (You have already made edits today related to Terry, which contains the translation by Winkworth that you mention.) The other books are available on google if you don't have them, e.g. [1] or [2], etc, etc. Mathsci (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The source you mention below says (if the translation I have is correct - I'm not very good in German...) that the first line (corrected - line not verse) was inspired by the hymn from Altenburg. Also, the text of the 2 hymns is clearly different (the 2nd line is different to begin with), and the source says that the work strikingly differs in other aspects, like in the rhymes and the meter. The "works by Bach and Palchelbel" are from - here - which cites NBA, vols. III/2.1 & 2.2 as sources and has a comprehensive list of every use of the chorale by Bach (and uses by other composers). I decided against linking every one of them as that would be a bit too much links for one little page, so I summarized "several cantatas by Bach" - now I've added links to the 3 cantatas who share the title with the hymn. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I assume it must be quite to hard to write accurate comment having decided not to use any published sources except if somebody else spoonfeeds the pages to you from google books. That is a very odd way to edit wikipedia. But let me point a number of quite stupid things that you have done. Until you learn how to edit accurately, please don't remove accuracy tags yourself. I am not going to make these edits myself, since you havve been so rude on another article, YOu will have to make rthem yourself and adopt a less negative attitude to WP:RS.

1. The hymn text by the composer Michael Altenburg, written to his own melody, comprised one verse and is distinguished by addint the second line. That happens in the soirce below. Altenburg's hymn was known to Bach as he entered it as a title in one of the empty pages of the autograph manuscript of Orgelbüchlein. The next empty page has the first to line of the later hymn. Until that is corrected here, no wikilink is possible from Orgelbüchlein. as the reader will just find the inconsistent nonsense you have written. Nowhere is it stated that the later hymn with the same title was derived from the former, so there is no need to imply it in wikipedia's voice.
2. The source below contains a deathbed story about the later. That can certainly be summarised with the same caveats in the source.
3. The chorale to this text is used in several cantatas (69a, 75, 144, 250, etc). That is something listed in the sources, e.g. Williams' 2003 book on Bach's organ music, Dǔrr's 2006 book on the cantatas and as a footnote in the German text below. You should list all those occurrences in the text, explaining that some are chorales in a cantata of a different name.
4. The words Neumeister Collection with the BWV number of the chorale (BWV 1116) should appear in the text. The work is described on pages x and x + 1 of Williams' book. You should pull you socks up and find out the value of x and include this information in the text.
5. The Bach cantatas site has some approximation to this, but is not 100% reliable as it is the work of amateurs and sometimes omits things. In the source below a cantata of Pachelbel is mentioned that has a setting of the later hymn is mentioned. That should appear in the article.
6. The Bach cantatas website is not always reliable; it is well-intentioned but written by amateurs. It does provide a list of works by other composers to ths hymn and that can be summarised and checked. The work was set by Liszt. The two settings by Reger are given with the number and opus number. These are the same as in the wikipedia article Herr Jesu Christ, dich zu uns wend and can be referred to in this article in exactly the same way.
7. Some image of the hymn and/or the hymn melody could be found in one of the gesangbuch's that have been digitised in one of the German librariries (Berlin, Cologne, Muchich, Gottingen, Dresden). That would be a useful inclusion in the article. Perhaps the Bach archive has an autograph manuscript of a title page of an eponymous cantata.
8. The use of bare lists as wikilinks is hopeless. It does not help the reader. In the article it appears for Bach cantatas and the Neumeister collection. Please stop doing that as it is extremely poor writing. If you have a section on the use of the hymn by other composers, it is your task to prepare the content in a readable way, instead of presenting it as some kind of puzzle.
9. Some articles on Lutheran hymns have the hymn melody encoded in lilypond in he text. That could be done here, if necessary by adapting the code in one of those hymn articles. I will give an example of this later.

Mathsci (talk) 08:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

1. That is not the hymn I'm talking about here; if it was known to Bach and he planned to write 2 different preludes, then clearly they were 2 different hymns. They share the first line - ok, I added that the hymn by Rodigast was influenced by the text of Altenburg's, as per the WP:RS source you mentioned below.

2. Yes, eventually; because it isn't included doesn't mean the article is inaccurate

3. See my previous answer; linking all of them would not be helpful (per your point 8). So I didn't include all of them - I believe my current wording avoids overlinking while remaining on point.

4. Ok, I'll change the link from "in one of his chorale preludes"(as it is right now) to "in a choral prelude from the Neumeister Collection". I DON'T HAVE WILLIAM'S BOOK - and this is not about the chorale prelude - if you have the book and know where page x is, then feel free to add a reference.

5. and 6. I'm not using BCW for some complex analysis - I used it, as I said, for some simple facts (Rodigast is the hymn's writer,...) and the list of other works (which I will not enumerate one by one in the article, this shouldn't be a list...).

7. I can't upload images to wiki, you know that - see also edit summary for this

8. How is section "Melody and use" just a collection of bare links???

9. Ok, I'll go find one and I'll adapt it for this.

"quite stupid things" - stop the WP:PA. If you have arguments, like the list presented above, then do present them and don't attack me. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, I won't have much time tonight to edit - please be patient and let me get around to it - Rome wasn't built in one day and Wikipedia won't, either. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

If you don't have any experience editing, please try to learn from someone who has had more experience than you. I have edited several of these hymn articles.

• The reference to Reger is not acceptable: the use of the wikilink "List of works by Max Reger" is uninformative and unhelpful to the reader. Please read what I have written above and find the number and opus number of the two chorale preludes. The same collections of chorale preludes occur in Herr Jesu Christ, dich zu uns wend.

• You say this article is not about the Altenburg hymn, but having chosen the title, that is not quite right as I have explained. You could move the title to Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan (Rodigast) and create a disambiguation page, but at the moment what you have written is full of factual errors and unusable as a wikilink. My best advice is to include the first two lines of the hymn by the composer Michael Altenburg or indeed the whole strophe or verse. What you have written contradicts what I can read in the German source below. Why do you not mention the deathbed story? I don't understand your excuses for excluding this content. There is an explanation in the German text below and, for Altenburg, there is a reference to another WP:RS in the wikipedia article Michael Altenburg.

• I do not know why you cannot upload images: you haven't told me. I could guess here that it might be because you don't have a registered account. You haven't said that but I would guess that is what you mean. Why not register an account on Commons?

• You have been given the wikilink above to a high resolution google jpeg image of the first of the two pages from Duerr's book. Williams' book is also available on google books in Canada.[3] This page was accessible to you. It lists the BWV numbers of cantatas that use this hymn. Here you shout back at me about Williams' book (that is what bold capital letters mean on wikipedia). But there is nothing that prevents you from using google books. Lots of people on wikipedia do that. The information about the BWV numbers of cantatas that use this hymn is also given in the website on Bach cantatas. It's easy enough for you to list those that use the chorale within cantatas and write an explanation.

• I don't know why you use the words "complex analysis". Is somebody you know undergoing some kind of psychiatric analysis at the moment and it's not going well? Or did you mean something else?

• A relevant article containing "live" lilypond code is this one Wer nur den lieben Gott läßt walten. I see that you have found another article Vom Himmel hoch, o Engel, kommt and copy-pasted the code (originally on de.wikipedia), with my choice of instrumentation, the English horn. The code in the article I edited is more sophisticated as I added code to remove the metronome marks ("\set Score.tempoHideNote = ##t"). Please hide the tempo marking. The reader will be confused why you chose BWV 12 as you haven't mentioned it before. It also has another disadvantage: the lyrics cannot be attached because Bach sets the sixth verse not the first verse. Probably the best idea is to write the melody in C major, as it appears in the page from Williams' book above, adding the lyrics (adapting the code in Wer nur den lieben Gott läßt walten). Please change the key to C major and add the lyrics.

• It is probably a good idea to create at least one wikilink to Catherine Winkworth in the article. At the moment the reader is given no information about who she is.

Mathsci (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Why did you tag my last edit "(Tag: Newer user possibly adding unreferenced or improperly referenced material)"? Shall I construe it as some kind of WP:PA? Now point by point:

1. The link is actually to the correct opus, List of works by Max Reger#67, if you're unable to read wiki-code

2. If you want to write an article about that hymn, feel free to do so. It is my understanding that this hymn is much more commonly referred to when somebody speaks of "Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan" than the other one, especially given the fact this one appears in the title of 3 Bach cantatas...

3. -

4. [Wieder, es ist nicht uber das Choralvorspiele!] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help). Also, as you said above, "The use of bare lists as wikilinks is hopeless. It does not help the reader." (emphasis mine)

5. Musical analysis, come on...

6. And Vom Himmel hoch, o Engel, kommt is "not" relevant? Why write a whole paragraph about it - just WP:FIXIT

7. Will be done.

Could you also from now on spare me your generally critical and impolite tone? If you have valid issues, point them out, don't attack me. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Ahem, several hours ago I corrected the lilypond code for Vom Himmel hoch, o Engel, kommt, because you left an anguished edit summary saying you did not know how to hide metronome marks. In this article you copied the code I suggested on this page[4] and used there (and in the other hymn I mentioned). In Vom Himmel hoch you made some basic mistakes with lilypond which I corrected (e.g. in the lyrics).

Here I showed you that the book of Williams was available to you on google books, even giving the direct external link to a png image of the relevant page. The text in Williams' book reads, "The anon MELODY, 1690 (Example 291), appears in BWV 250 (Wedding), Cantatas 12 and 98 (B flat), 69a, 99, 144, 75 and 100 (G), the last in six movements." That is easy enough to summarise and it's easy to give a reference. But so far most of that information is not in the article.

I have tried not to make any edits to the article myself, since this seems to be your first article and you should be given the chance to learn. I have given some hints on how to improve things, sometimes by giving references. You took one reference that I provided here but you have slightly misrepresented it with regard to Michael Altenburg. Two sentences on him and his hymn would suffice. Equally well there are far more settings than you have given. Pachelbel also set it as a cantata; and so too did Bach's predecessor Kuhnau. Later Liszt set it. You have access to almost all of that information, since most of the settings are listed on the Bach cantatas site. That site also lists the two Reger settings by Op. no and number in the collection. The pieces in one of those collections are not listed on wikipedia (Op. 135a), so a wikilink to List of works by Max Reger is not really of any use there. But why use a wikilink, when you can write Op.67 No.44 (1902) or Op.135a No.26 (1914) with the short form of the title of each collection? Apart from these composers, it seems useful to mention the organ or vocal settings of Telemann, Walther, Krebs, Kirnberger, Kellner, Liszt and Guilmant. All of them have wikipedia articles. Mathsci (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

This is not a list. If you want' I'll add a section named "Musical settings" (give me time, it's 1030 PM here...) and I'll make the list - as I said my opinion is that listing all of them is not necessary (this isn't a list...) but since you seem to want to impose your POV I'll let it go. Other "issues" are clearly a) not issues anymore or b) fall under this so I won't comment on them. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree the article is not a list. Nor is the above. I have no POV, beyond being aware how to find reliable sources and how to use them to write accurate and informative content. Please don't remove the accuracy tag yourself. You have had no experience writing articles. Mathsci (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

References

• Liederkunde zum Evangelischen Gesangbuch, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011, Issue 16 edited by Wolfgang Herbst and Ilsabe Seibt, article by Andreas Marti. [5][6][7][8][9][10][11] (one page missing) Mathsci (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

1690 version of hymn

The 1690 version of the hymn is the one commonly mentioned in almost all the sources I have seen. The image of the 1690 Nürnbergische Gesangbuch is now in the article. The IP explained that they could not upload any images. I therefore went ahead and created this composite image having spent some time tracking down where it could be found in German digital libraries. I have spelled out the repeats in lilypond to match the words and enable the midi file to be played with repeats. I have not sees any fermatas in any of the scores of 1690 version. Bach uses fermata in some settings but not in others; on the other hand this article is only secondarily about Bach's compositions. So far I have been the only contributor who has added any precision about Bach's use of the hymn. Mathsci (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Note that other hymn articles have two versions of the hymn melody and that could be done here. That happens for example in Wer nur den lieben Gott läßt walten and that approach could be copied here. BWV 12 uses the words of the last stanza and that text could be added here. I have provided the code for spelling out repeats so that they are played in Vorbis. Mathsci (talk)

In Germany many Lutheran hymns have been included in Catholic hymnody. User:Gerda Arendt is the best person to explain what normal practise is; and I would defer to her expertise on this. She has translated/created a lot of articles on these hymns, most of which are Lutheran. The 1690 Gesangbuch is Lutheran as far as I can tell. Apart from the first section, the article is gradually starting to look like other hymn articles. Mathsci (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

In the current Catholic hymnal, it's GL 424 416. - I will get to this article, but not now. Thank you for your improvements. As you will know, Bach's fermatas have been interpreted as signs where to breath, not necessarily to hold longer than noted, - and many conductors I know do that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

That would be very helpful. I would like to include details from the references immediately above about the sickbed narrative concerning Gastorius if possible. Could you check those pages please? I am also trying to prepare brief content on Michael Altenburg; the best sources might be in German. Fermatas also appear in chorale preludes like BWV 622. Thanks for your promise of help, Mathsci (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I added fermatas to indicate where musical phrases ended (for example: Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan /fermata es bleibt gerecht sein Wille /fermata ... I am well aware that fermatas in Bach are generally interpreted as signs where to breath (i.e. the end of phrases) and that's what I meant to add them for. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Altenburg hymn

As explained in Terry's 1921 book, Altenburg's hymn is number 2524 in the catalogue of Johannes Zahn. Here is an image of the hymn.[12] As stated there and in Terry, it appears in the 1648 Cantionale Gotha. I shall try to get the 17th century image from the digitised version of that hymnbook[13] in the same database of the Bavarian State Library. Mathsci (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The 7-verse hymn is described here in the section on Michael Altenburg in Das Deutsche evangelische Kirchenlied des siebzehnten Jahrhunderts by Albert Fischer and Wilhelm Tümpel. The version of the hymn in the 1648 Cantionale Gotha is herehere and here. The hymn was published in Nordhausen in 1635 by the printer Johannes Erasmus Hynitzsch (described here). Mathsci (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Make another article ("Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan (Altenburg), it's clearly 2 different hymns - with different melodies and texts, as discussed above - the text for that one goes Was Gott tut das ist wohlgetan, fein einig Mensch ihn tabeln fann, ihn soll man allzeit ehren. (the f's could be s's as well, I'm not sure). A reader of this article is very unlikely (given the other hymn being used by Bach and still being used today in churches) to be looking for the hymn by Altenburg. Adding, "for the hymn by Micheal Altenburg, Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan (Altenburg)" (or similar phrasing - and creating that other article) at the top of the article would be much better. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You do not know how I am going to make further improvements to this article (all I have mentioned is an image). There is still inaccurate content in the section on the text, but I know how to correct one part of it without much effort. The main material absent from the text section at the moment concerns the sickbed story, which appears in several sources. Gerda Arendt is one of the main creators/translators of these articles on hymns and she has the great advantage of being a native German speaker. I value her views. Having spent a long time looking through sources, I see no justification for creating a WP:FORK article of any kind. Mathsci (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Why are you switching subjects? Are we talking about the Altenburg hymn or the general content of the article? Also, I fail to see how an article on a clearly different hymn would fall under WP:FORK. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The final statement says everything. To be honest, I found it very hard to understand what you wrote particularly "fein einig Mensch ihn tabeln fan". Having looked at a number of sources, in German and English, all detailed accounts of the Rodigast hymn mention the Altenburg hymn as a precursor. The two hymns were listed by J. S. Bach on consecutive pages of the autograph manuscript of Orgelbüchlein. So this particular article has to mention the Altenburg hymn with proper context. On wikipedia there is no harm in spelling things out in a clear way for the reader.

The difficulty with this article at the moment, however, mainly centres on the Gastorius Krankenbett story (mentioned in many sources) and doubts about his authorship of the melody. The tune of the first line has been identified as a melody by Fabricius. Bach scholars like Peter Williams give the authorship as "anonymous". C.S. Terry also raises questions of authorship, stating that the melody is marked as anonymous in late 17th century editions (one example is in the lede image, another is in the 1694 printing of Praxis Pietatis Melica). Mathsci (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

C major and primary sources

This is the key signature given in Williams (2003) [a link to a png image of the page in google books has already been given above], Vol. II of Terry and in the 1690 primary source, illustrated in the lede image. Changing the key to G major was WP:OR and contradicts the secondary sources.

Using the autograph manuscript as a source for the second musical example was not a good idea.[14] This is a primary source and unusable for this purpose. (The melody in the second line is scored in the soprano clef with ink splotches over various notes.) A published edition is adequate, Urtext or otherwise. If needed at all in this case, adequate references are the first Bach-Gesellschaft edition on archive.org or IMSLP or the vocal score [15]. [Looking at the vocal score of BWV 12, I had forgotten that I had practised a fuller version for organ of the opening sinfonia with a quite tricky double pedal part.] Mathsci (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Figuring out the piece is in G major (all F's are clearly sharp and the piece clearly ends on a G) is like figuring out 1+1=2. That is, it falls under WP:CALC (it's not exactly mathematics, but I believe the spirit of the rule is that "if it's very very obvious") and it's ok. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

That is WP:OR. All the sources contradict what you say, the book of Williams, the book of Terry and the NBA which is cited in the Bach Cantatas website. I don't know why you mention mathematics. It seems a very silly thing to write as this is an article about baroque music. In this case Peter Williams is a trained musicologist; likewise Charles Sanford Terry. They are both experts. The 1690 Nuernberger Gesangbuch source is scored in C major with one accidental F sharp. Within your view of the 17th century world of hymn writers, why do you think that Konrad Feuerlein and Johann Saubert adopted those conventions and why did Terry, Williams and the editors of the NBA follow them? Might it be that baroque conventions—often involving modes—were different? Whatever your personal opinions, wikipedia editing follows the (secondary) sources, even when they adopt old-fashioned notation.Mathsci (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

In use tag

The IP has been asked on his talk page not to edit while the in-use tag is up. He is not doing so. All edits he makes while the "in use" is up, will be reverted. He has been told that a lot of detailed editing is being added at the moment, but is ignoring that information. He will be reported at WP:ANI if he continues with this disruptive editing. A lot of detailed corrections are being made. Already his adding a quote to a harvtxt entry removed all references to the quote. If he doesn't understand harvtxt or harvnb, could he please stop "correcting" my uses of them? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a very poor reason to undo my constructive edits 69.165.196.103 (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Well let's look at what the IP's "improved code" does (the IP deliberately chose to edit the same section I was intensively editing).

The errors are obvious. Tails point the wrong way. Ugh. The IP also wrote in an edit summary about my code "that version of the chorale is actually in g major (if you have any knowledge of musical theory)." As pointed out here (and borne out by the references) all published versions adopt the same conventions as me, i.e. of early music. The idea that I could create complex lilypond files/audio files such as those in BWV 39, BWV 1017 and BWV 1019 without a knowledge of musical theory is untenable. Mathsci (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The IP has now corrected their code (which does not change the rendering). The error was present in the previous version; that is from where the code above comes.[16] Mathsci (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, I didn't "mess up" the quote. I moved from the body of the text to the reference tag (i.e. "|quote=..."). Also, stop insulting me! 69.165.196.103 (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Please don't edit throught the in use tag. It's easy to read and you are being very disruptive by not repsecting it. You can see I am making a lot of edits. So stop editing like this because you are creating EDIT CONFLICTS. I have told you I am busy editing, so please stay away from the article while I am making these changes. You can read the in-use tag perfectly well. So please respect that. At the moment your edits are very disruptive. I have asked you you politely to respect the tag. the fact that you are not complying means that you are editing tendentiously. Please control yourself. The edits concerning the melody require careful use of sources and calm thinking. So please, please, please respect that. Mathsci (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

If you don't have a registered account and blank a request on the IP talk page, the only way to communicate with you is in edit summaries. You are not being defamed. Your moving of the quotes was unhelpful as it completely hid the German quote. I am currently trying to work out what content to add on a 1679 Jena source. It is quite tricky, so please allow me to think about it in peace. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

jstor

Checked on jstor, so no more to do for me. Note that two of the references added by me on Gastorius were already in the Gastorius article (but without the jstor links). I found the references by a different, quite indirect route.

@Gerda Arendt:: just in case you don't have access to the jstor article, I have sent you a copy. Thanks again for agreeing to help with this article. Mathsci (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Here is copy of the transcription from the Nordhausen Gesangbuch in the article in the Jahrbuch für Liturgik und Hymnologie.

By now Gerda will have received the whole article (which, unlike this segment, is under copyright). Mathsci (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I am sure it's a printer's error. I found one 19th century source, the Anthologie christlicher Gesänge aus allen Jahrhunderten der Kirche, Vol 3,[17] with the correct spelling suggested by Gerda.[18]

Of course it could have also been a printer's error in the original; but then I would expect to see [sic]. Mathsci (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I have not seen the 1687 printing, but it is correct in the 1695 printing.[19] The 1695 printing, however, is not the one mentioned. Mathsci (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I received the jstor and understand as follows: the author is sure that many sources for Gastorius were lost in World War II. He mentions as extant two poems honouring deceased persons, and several compositions for funerals (described in some detail). He then mentions a 1697 collection of hymns Andächtige Elends-Stimme, with poems by Christoph Klesch, a brother of Daniel Klesch who was Rektor of the Gymnasium where Gastorius worked. 44 songs have music, 38 of which composed by Gastorius and Johann Hancken. While most of these melodies remained unknown, and we don't know who wrote which, no XV (15) has the melody of "Was Gott tut...", with the text "Brich an, verlangtes Morgenlicht", the first print of that melody! (Exclamation mark from the article) The same year, Daniel Klesch published Christmas carols, referring for "Der Tag der ist so freudenreich" to "Im Thon / Was GOtt thut / das ist etc." - which proves that this melody was already known. Follows the famous deathbed narration, which the author trusts (reasons given). Hope that helps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that and sorry not to have seen your reply sooner. I hadn't noticed the comment on WWII and Jena, but am not surprised. Not very different from Weimar. Mathsci (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Attribution

I have given the attribution to Geck because it is an aprocryphal story which has been placed in doubt, because the passage (including the Latin quote) is a direct paraphrase of the material from Geck's book and because the translation is a direct quote from Geck. Similarly descriptions of the hymn are given with attribution (EB).

The fact that the thumnbail sketch has been copied many times does not indicate that is true. Indeed that is what the main sources, written by four different theologians, discuss and indeed the content of this article. Martin Geck is also one of the Bach scholars who has taken an interest in theological aspects of Bach's works. Commentaries on the hymn are given among the references/ In the case of Johannes Zahn, they track how the hymn was copied in different hymnbooks. As stated in the references, prior to 1963, Gastorius' authorship was discounted, because either the melody was labelled as anonymous or as "bekannt". That is the case in Zahn's catalogue. Only in 1963, with the discovery of the Klesch hymnbook, was that view changed. I am certainly willing to discuss the jstor articles in detail with other editors that have access to them. The references mention that one of the Klesch brothers taught at the same institution as Gastorius in Jena; they provide documentary evidence of his career as a teacher. This is not a well documented subject: the musicologist Markus Rathey has also written on Gastorius. But I don't believe that this material is easy to find or common knowledge. Quite the contrary. The information on websites is often unreliable and/or false. Mathsci (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The IP has ignored these comments and has removed the attribution from the article. The quotes in the text are from Geck and that is why there is attribution. Has the IP looked in the book of Geck? Does he understand why there are quote marks around the translation? Mathsci (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The only quote is "at his front door ... to make it better known." The source is properly given in the references that just follow it (id est, ). As such, there is no need to attribute a quote twice. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Not true. The whole passage is a paraphrase from Geck's book, hence the attribution. Geck uses the phrase "seriously ill" in his scholarly interpretation of the 1687 passage, a primary source. (User:Gerda Arendt has used a similar phrase in her DYK submission.) Adding the attribution seems normal to me, the type of thing I have done many, many times. Does the IP have access to any of the sources and in particular Geck's book? The IP's comments about Geck's book are inaccurate and indicate that he hasn't read the book. This is not the first time this kind of thing has happened. It's quite easy to check sources: that is how wikipedia works.

I am also perplexed as to why the IP is so interested in this all of a sudden. Above I asked him multiple times to add some content on the "krankenbett" narrative and to give a more accurate and properly sourced account of the history of the hymn. He refused several times, not just once. I am the only editor to have added any content of that kind so far (as the editing history of the article shows).

If the IP wants to be taken seriously, I suggest that he gains access to a copy of Geck's book, reads what Geck wrote and sees how I paraphrased it. Mathsci (talk) 08:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Try to help

I made some changes, being asked to help, but was reverted and don't know if by edit conflict or intentionally.

I therefore list things I suggest, without touching the article:

• Fixed image sizes are not a good idea, because they don't reflect a reader's preferences.
• Pictures should be one side, not left and right with text squeezed between them.
• I suggest to narrate chronologically: first school friendship, then "deathbed".
• I think the images of Spener and Klesch don't help understanding the hymn and should better go to articles about the authors.
• I would place text and translation next to each other, helping those who don't read German.
• The German hymnals don't belong in the melody section. What do you think of a structure: History / Precursor / Text / Melody / Publication / Settings / Translation?
• Details later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I have rejigged the order in the article. The image of Spener, like images of Luther for the Reformation, serves the educational purpose of underlining what pietism is. I think that helps non-German readers in the new "History" section and later in the "Musical settings" section, when pietism is mentioned in connection with BWV 75. The Klesch songbook was the key new piece of information found in the 1960s which provided confirmation that Gastorius was the composer. Mathsci (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Images of one of the most important figures of a topic (such as Luther in the Reformation) is not that same as an image of a merely related figure. That does not discount the image you put in by itself. However, we must be careful not to overload the article with too much images. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

re. "...not to overload the article with too much images" – my rule of thumb is that around one third of the surface of the body of an article goes to primary sources (i.e. non-paraphrased text, music examples, images, etc.). If one puts all images to the right (as Gerda seems to suggests) and sets the screen resolution so that the text is two thirds of the width then succeeding images on the right (the succession of images being interrupted where text is directly quoted and where musical examples are aligned to the left) stop around where the references start. Of course this should not be applied too mechanistically (it's only a rule of thumb), but by my experience this leads easily to acceptable results. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC); 07:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I didn't say "all on the right", only: when one is left, there shouldn't be a right one just opposite, see MOS:SANDWICHING. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The article has a lead image. As usual, the lead image is on the right side. So "Pictures should be one side" means, in practice, all pictures on the right side in this case (I'd discourage a lead image on the left side). But I suppose we both mean the same: after the lead, continue placing images on the right side unless collisions, sandwiching, excessive whitespace (e.g. when using a {{clear}} instruction) etc are avoided (i.e. in all cases: also when using a lower resolution screen, or when making a paper print of the article). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow. The lead image is right, the 1695 is left on the same level (on my screen: sandwiching). It should be right for that reason, and see elsewhere, because it needs explanation, is not self-evident. I'd prefer readers to read the text, but with the left placement they will first read the image caption. - Below, the Bach manuscript image sandwiches the Liszt, but not the whole length, so I would accept that, wanting it rather large. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Whether one "sees" the potential collision/sandwiching/whitespace/etc issues depends on many factors (e.g. when I open https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Was_Gott_tut,_das_ist_wohlgetan on my computer there are other sandwiching problems than the ones I see in Wikipedia's standard layout). On a computer, most of these problems can however be visualised by displaying the page with various magnification rates in a browser (alternatively, without changing the magnification rate, change the size of the browser window). Two points: (1) be aware that a webpage layout can present itself quite differently depending on many factors; (2) the guidance on avoiding sandwiching can be taken pretty literally whether or not one sees the problem.

Sorry if I tried to give my rationale for it, but I support Gerda's "Pictures should be one side" (which, for this page starting with a lead image aligned to the right, is synonymous to "all images to the right"). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

A quick look at the featured article Joan of Arc shows how these guidelines have been interpreted. In the trial section of that article, there are images on the right and left, but (as here) not directly opposite. Of course, it all depends on the text in the article: the images are to help the reader understand the text. As far as high quality lede images are concerned, I have provided them for articles on cantatas when Gerda has asked me. (The image in this article could in principle be used for BWV 98.) I have written some articles on art history, where there are far more problems to solve with images. Mathsci (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Each image in the article is justified educationally and is a very useful supplement to the text (pietism, Jena, use in royal funerals, use by Bach, use by Liszt, etc). I substituted the high resolution 1650 image of Jena for the new image of Klesch (now on de.wikipedia), since most of the discourse concerns Jena. The whole article has been changed since User:Gerda Arendt made her comments above and she has used the thank button for several changes. Gerda shows a very positive attitude. As the moment she is presenting this article as a candidate for DYK. As in other articles, she shows clear appreciation of the considerable effort that has gone into creating the content (several hundred edits by me). I took many of her views into account in reshaping the article and part of her point about the images. Two images appear on the left. The "account" could easily be a quote box, but since Francis Schonken tagged the article because of one letter misprinted in the article of Fornaçon (this is standard disruptive conduct by Francis Schonken), I thought the quote from the 1695 hymnal was better (the 1687 hymnal seems unavailable). The same content in a different format. Gerda obviously likes it because she has included it in the DYK submission. The Liszt quotation need not be a thumbnail just a file in the text (that happens in other articles where musical quotations appear). In the original book on Late Liszt, only one line is quoted, but to me the whole page is relevant. I don't mind adding

{{clear}}. The use of images in the article Joan of Arc is a fairly good guideline which trumps personal anecdote. The article uses "clear" there to cope with images. I've added images to Richard III. I added three images on the right, but others have seen fit to add images on the left.

Here high quality content has been created by me with careful sourcing and carefully selected images. This hymn is one which has resulted in more literature than most, mainly amongst theologians. That is because of the problems in piecing together the history in Jena. In my experience of editing articles on hymns and theological matters (which includes the early Christian hymn A solis ortus cardine), this hymn is somewhat special. The Encyclopedia Britannica entry makes that rather clear. Francis Schonken's comments seems to be derived from personal opinions/prejudices and not from editing experience. Mathsci (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Text and translation should go together, otherwise all else I agree. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

10 February

We look now on this version, and I thank for several improvements. To be considered:

• A reader who may not even know what a Lutheran hymn is, has to swallow the image of something in German right under the header History, - that doesn't provide background. I'd still consider to first introduce both Rodigast and Severius, and THEN meet them at his bed. That specific left image is a problem, but with more lead (desired for such a complex theme, and the history of the people and their friendship upfront (instead of retrospect after one almost died), it might not be.
• I'd move the image of Spener to where pietism is covered in detail, and could do without any view of Jena. Better have it in Jena, and link Jena to that section, - I always hesitate linking Leipzig and Weimar to the present day towns, - just haven't gotten to perhaps writing Leipzig at Bach's time. Francis, how about you?
• I think the transposed melody (BWV 12) doesn't add much, - just say to what key. Those who read music can imagine, for the (many) others it's of no use.
• In such a detailed article, I see no reason to exclude the other stanzas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the melody; the version first on the page was the one from BWV 12. Mathsci suggested we should take the melody from the original hymnal - so we have two versions. In hymns were there are substantial differences between versions (ex. Ein feste Burg...) this could be helpful. However, in this case, I agree we probably should remove one of the two. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Gerda. I agree with your third and fourth points. I would also like to find a usable translation of Michael Altenburg's hymn (first verse). So far I have not found one.

As for the images and linking names of towns, that is a personal point. Most English-speaking readers will not know about Jena and certainly not seventeenth century Jena.

You already suggested the 1695 image of the hymn text for DYK and the main page of wikipedia, so I cannot follow your argument about that image. If you compare the image with the original (blow it up to 200%), you will see that it was rotated slightly and that the lettering of the two biographical entries before and after was removed by a series of overlays. Creating images like this is not something that should be taken for granted.

I can imagine writing a supplementary short summary of the start of the history section, but think that the main narrative should centre on the composition of the hymn and therefore the krankenbett story, gradually filling in the details as they are needed. That is how it is done in Geck's book, which is quite well written and was used as the source (certainly wikipedians providing their own translation of the biographical entry—a primary source if ever there was one—is not permissible). The detailed history of the hymn has been a detective story carried out by theologians and is not yet conclusive.

The history of figures like Rodigast and Gastorius is sketchy and mostly derives from the apocryphal story. That seems to be true of the wikipedia articles Samuel Rodigast and Severus Gastorius, the second of which leaves a lot to be desired and both of which are poorly sourced. The Gastorius article contains phrases about a dedication by Rodigast which somehow no sources mention. That article was translated from the article on the Swedish wikipedia with the same dubious phrase and no sources to back it up.

The content on pietism and its connection with the hymn and historical personages is there in the sources: in the Encylopedia Britannica, Geck and the history/theology articles. I don't find this surprising with such a popular "spiritualist hymn" (Geck's words). That content is relevant here; the historical personages and the hymn are minor points that would not figure in a general article about pietism. I have been led by the sources, not by preconceptions of what I would expect to find in an article like this. The rough form of other hymn articles has influenced the format. I don't quite know why there is no parallel article on de.wikipedia. I think de:Samuel Rodigast contains a section on the hymn. Mathsci (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I vote for the original, because it has the text, and because it is singable for people with untrained voices, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Mathsci, would you please keep the comments chronological? As for the melody, I'll just go ahead and change it. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

No, If the comments are addrssed to me, | will reply where I wish not where you decide my comments should be. That is how talk page work. IO w9ish that you showed more dilligence as a content creator. Mathsci (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Mathsci, regarding the 1695 image, you misunderstood me. I like the image, but I just don't like it as the first thing in the article, because it needs commentary. I understand that you want to tell a detective story as Geck did - something I would not do, I believe that I can be faithful to a source without keeping the sequence of the narration - but please don't start it with a riddle of an image on the left directly below a header. That kind of placement was frowned upon until not long ago, and I confess I still try to avoid it. - I don't follow how that image of Jena helps understand the hymn which could have been composed anywhere, but you decide. I have my own work, so look here only sporadically, - good luck! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

ps: I agree that both bios of the authors are in a pityful state, and bet that with your sources you could improve them.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The main protagonists-Rodigast, Gastorius, Klesch-were all active in Jena and knew each other through the institutions there. That is how Marti suggests the various hymns to the same melody came to be written so close together in time. Jena like Halle was a major university town where Lutheranism flourished. That is presumably why Johannes Wallmann wrote an article about Pietism in Jena. Jena was special. Berlin, Leipzig and Weimar were also quite special. And Bach scholars do include images of Leipzig or Berlin in their books, images of the Thomaskirche, etc. It is the normal way that history is written. In this case the sources describe the circumstances (including religious movements) behind the writing of the hymn and not a tightly defined "history of the hymn": too little is known to establish that. Mathsci (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The question remains - is that an appropriate comparison. As I stated above, a central figure/location in a topic (such, as for the life of Bach, Leipzig or the Thomaskirche) certainly should be included. However, whether Jena and Spener should be included in this article about a very specific hymn (id est, not about Pietism in general) is not a question that I would answer with yes - unless you can show a balance of sources including significant discussion of those subjects with relation to this particular hymn (not just merely stating "it might have been written there"). 69.165.196.103 (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

All the activities concerning the creation and re-use of the hymn took place in Jena through two of its main academic institutions. The Encyclopedia Britannica in the section on Hymn/Pietism singles out this hymn for special mention amongst all pietistic hymns. Pietism and Jena are important and significant in the history of the hymn. These images emphasise those two important aspects of the hymn: that it was composed in Jena; and that it is regarded as one of the most beautiful and earliest of pietist hymns, The images help explain that to the reader. That is how wikipedia is written. King Richard III grew up in Middleham. That is why there is an image of Middleham in that article. It helps the reader. I don't know what it tells the reader about Richard III, but it enlivens the text and draws the reader in.

What are you trying to do here that helps the reader? You added highly inaccurate content to the article; and, despite being asked repeatedly, refused to add any reference at all to the sick bed story. Nothing at all. But here you are, a week later, acting as if none of that had happened. Can you explain here why you refused to add any reference to the sick bed story and any mention of Jena? Was that for educational reasons? Mathsci (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Jena: I would agree to an image of one the institutions they worked at, but think the image of a distant town in landscape that could be any town at the time doesn't help understanding a religious movement. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mathsci: I did not add references to the sick-bed story because I didn't write it... Do not WP:PA. Discussion is how this will get better - by having arguments about what is good/bad/better/worse we will eventually come to an agreement on what is the best way to do it.
@Gerda Arendt: Maybe this? File:Collegium_Jenense.jpg (taken from University of Jena) 69.165.196.103 (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good, should go to the bios also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Done (the bios too). 69.165.196.103 (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Benjamin Schmolck

There are further hymns with this title, the most significant being the s-verse harvest-time Lutheran hymn by Benjamin Schmolck, written in 1720.

0
Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan!
So denken Gottes Kinder,
Er siehet sie oft sauer an
Und liebt sie doch nicht minder.
Er zieht ihr Herz
Nur himmelwärts,
Wenn er sie läßt auf Erden
Ein Ziel der Plagen werden.

It was translated by Henry Williams Baker in his Hymns ancient and modern (1861); Baker designated it as a hymn for "deficiency in the crops".

What our Father does is well;
Blessèd truth His children tell!
Though He send, for plenty, want,
Though the harvest-store be scant,
Yet we rest upon His love,
Seeking better things above.

Mathsci (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The translation doesn't match the melody ;) - nor the meaning. Here's more literally:

What God does, that is done well!
So think God's children.
He often looks at them sourly,
but doesn't love them less.
He draws their heart
only towards Heaven,
when he lets them on Earth
be a target of plagues (or inflictions).

I suggest we only mention that poem and translation exist, + authors and dates. The "translation" by Baker is very kind ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

In fact it is a nine-verse hymn. You would have to look at the actual hymns as they appear in scores to see how they correspond. The point is that the hymns exist, nothing more. Mathsci (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I see 8 lines in the German, 5 and 6 very short (as in Rodigast's), first lines cross-rhymed, and I see six without any shorter ones, all pair-rhymed, - doesn't match in rhythm, no matter how many additional stanzas. (I use "verse" for Bible, especially psalms.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Altenburg translated

Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan,
Kein einig Mensch in tadeln kann,
Ihn soll man allzeit ehren.
Wir mach'n mit unser Ungedult
Nur immer größer unser Schuld
Dass sich die (Straßen ??) Strafen mehren.

Was God does, that is done well,
No single person can rebuke him,
He should always be honoured.
We, by our impatience,
only increase our fault,
increasing punishments.

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

From the manuscript

Line 2. "Kein einig Mensch ihn tadeln kann

Line 6. "Dass sich die Straſſen mehren" - so that's Straßen.

(corrected in the article) - Shall I add the translation as well? 69.165.196.103 (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

"Straffen" could still be old for Strafen, punishments, while Straßen, streets, makes no sense. - I don't know whom the translation would help, just added it for our elucidation (as here) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so "Strafen" it will be - I admit that even with my very basic knowledge of German, I was puzzled at "Strassen"... 69.165.196.103 (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Just your German lesson: it's Straßen, - only in Switzerland it's Strassen ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Ja, ich weisse, aber habe keine Esszett (auch, kein Umlaut) ueber meine Tastatur. (if I didn't make a mistake there...) :) 69.165.196.103 (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Death bed story, places in Jena and Liszt

The death bed story was mentioned to the IP on 1 February, almost as soon as the article was moved to mainspace. I talked about that for three days with no reaction from the IP. He had sources which mentioned the story, but did not see fit to include anything. I find that hard to understand and he has not given a clear explanation. There were several other inaccuracies in what the IP wrote. What he wrote had missed the point and was not really of of much help to the reader. (The reader would have been quite confused if he had followed either of the wikilinks Severus Gastorius or Samuel Rodigast.) With no sign that IP was going to add that content or make corrections himself, I myself added the content to the article. It took a careful search for sources and quite a lot of edits to knock the article into shape.

The image I chose for Jena was roughly contemporary with the death bed narrative. In fact I uploaded an image onto commons, before discovering that there were already three other versions of the same image on commons. The one I used was the one of best quality, with exceptionally high resolution. The events took place in Jena, not the university, which is nevertheless clearly visible on the picture. (There are similar images of late seventeenth century Weimar where different palaces can be picked out on the image.) I have had some trouble determining where the Ratsschule appears in the picture. That was the working place of Gastorius (deputing for the main cantor) and Daniel Klesch. It is known that Gastorius was buried in the Johanniskirche cemetery, outside the town walls. There are accounts of the history of the Ratsschule and I assume that its location can be determined. Funny things happened in the DDR, but the accounts predate that period.

Incidentally my computer broke down yesterday and so I had to use an emergency mothballed laptop which was also defective. However, all is fine now. That might explain why I have not been able to respond with the rapidity that some might have desired. However, I see no urgency in changing this article. It is not full of inaccuracies despite the clamour. The IP should not make dummy edits to the article to communicate with me. As I have written, there is no rush and the article seems to be in a fairly stable state now modulo very minor cosmetic changes.

I have changed the way the Liszt quote is displayed. In the original Late Liszt book there is only one line, but I think the whole page is quite informative. I could cut it down, as has happened elsewhere with quotations from Buxtehude, but I think the extreme dynamical markings illustrate the text of this article very well. Nevertheless I think it could be reduced, indeed parts of it could be reconfigured to appear on one line. Mathsci (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Please don't split the discussions into different sections - this really goes above where we were talking of the picture. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, the reason why I didn't add the story: I didn't have enough time - writing a simply Lilypond melody or correcting typos, that's ok, but I don't have unlimited time at my disposal to make changes to Wiki - and I've got other things to do besides Wiki, as well. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I can add things wherever I like on this talk page. Just as I added content to the article. I tried to do that in a calm way and indeed I prefer things to be conducted in a calm way. Three days was a lot of time for you to correct one or two sentences (they can even be found in a primitive form on wikipedia), so I'm afraid I don't find your excuse particularly credible, even when written in bold case. Sorry about that. Instead I remember how you removed the in use tag after half an hour when I was in the thick of editing and how you ignored my requests for you to respect that tag. I asked you several times and you disregarded my requests.

At the moment I am busy retrieving a new WP:RS that I found a few days ago. It is related to part of what I wrote above. Mathsci ([talk:Mathsci|talk]) 19:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Writing 2 sentences isn't hard. The problem is actually figuring out how best to summarize the thing - that takes time, which I didn't deem I had, since we can't just outright copy material from other sources. I removed the in use tag for you have a history of not always removing them once you are actually done editing ([20] [21] [22]). 69.165.196.103 (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

It was easy to summarise the death bed story, because it was very well described in a secondary source by an expert (Geck's book).

You removed the in use tag when it was clear that I had not finished editing. You did it after a gap in editing of half an hour.

I pleaded with you on your talk page, writing "please, please, please", yet you persisted. You were conducting yourself in a highly disruptive way.

I have no idea why you are mentioning Orgelbüchlein here: it has no relevance at all(beyond the occurrence of the two hymn titles in the autograph manuscript). This is a short article; the other is a very complex article. No need to mention it. Mathsci (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:NORUSH is the answer to the first question. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I did not ask a question. Mathsci (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, not question, first issue you raised. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Update I have had some unexpected success in chasing up the source I was looking for.History of the Old Gymnasium, Jena, Part IHistory of the Old Gymnasium, Jena, Part II Mathsci (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Indsicriminate tagging of article

If Francis Schonken (FS for brevity) does not understand something in an article, he has been advised elsewhere by User:Softlavender that he should not tag that article. He seems to have forgotten that. Instead of tagging this article three times, please could he raise his concerns here?

The article has very specific sources, and FS's first step should be to look at those sources. If FS hasn't got access to those sources, then perhaps he should not be editing those parts of the article which rely on sources unavailable to him. An example is the statement about the attribution in the Klesch hymnbook, which was a simple paraphrase (count for Graf and the name of a monarch suppressed). I don't remember which of the references I used; perhaps it was the 2011 article with individual pages on google books wikilinked in the References section above (apart from page 49 which is available elsewhere).

Does Francis Schonken have access to the sources? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

No it is the second reference (the 1963 article of Fornaçon on jstor). My paraphrase seems fine. I didn't misread "Die übrigen 38 Meln. seien auf Kleschs Wunsch ... " Mathsci (talk) 08:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

There are 44 hymn melodies in the Klesch hymnal:

1. 4 known melodies
2. 1 composed by a king
3. 1 by a count
4. 38—without further precision—as being written by Severus Gastorius and Johann Hancken

Is it known—from any reliable source—to which of these categories the Zahn No. 5629 hymn tune belongs? Or is the reader supposed to deduce that from content elsewhere on the page? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

This response shows that FS does not have access to the source. I used roughly the same sentence structure as the original author, Siegfried Fornaçon. FS seems to be complaining about his writing style. If Fornaçon didn't write it, I cannot add it. Could he please try to get hold of the source if he thinks this matter is so important and I have misrepresented the source (which is not the case). At the moment FS seems to be trying to waste my time in whatever frivolous way he can dream up. Mathsci (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Francis, unless you want to be hauled back to ANI and receive a block or a 0RR editing restriction or a topic ban, I urge you to stop this nonsense now. You've been warned several times. Softlavender (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Dubious

Kellner: scores:Was Gott tut das ist wohlgetan (Kellner, Johann Peter) (chorale prelude, not a choral setting), included in scores:Choralvorspiele alter Meister (Straube, Karl) (*published* in 1907, over a century after its composition)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Gerda made a slight mistake. Johann Peter Kellner was already mentioned in the section in the sentence starting "Amongst Bach's students". Mathsci (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, and sorry, - should his article perhaps show more clearly that 1907 is not the composition date? For quick readers such as myself? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Kellner's article differentiates Organ and Chorale, which made me think of Bach's four-part chorale settings. Should Chorale better be a subheader there? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

(to Gerda) I think it is unnecessary to enter into any level of detail for Kellner in this article. On the other hand, I have added a further late composition by Max Reger. I have condensed Anderson's phrase "obvious display of Teutonic patriotism" in the original source down to "patriotically". Thank you for finding a wikilink for the second chorale. Mathsci (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

(more to Gerda) "Was Gott tut" refers to resignaton to God's will. That is what the source says; and unsurprisingly ties in with the rest of the article. Mathsci (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry that I read the end of the sentence ("a commentary on the sacrifice of war in a Job-like perspective") which seemed to refer to "Was Gott tut" at the end, - sorry about a wrong conclusion. - If possible please leave references to me not being careful enough (although sadly true) to this talk, generally avoiding comments about people in edit summaries that will be read forever.

Chorale preludes (for organ...) can be indicated as chorale settings (setting of a chorale tune). A choral setting (setting for a choir) is not a synonym (although, of course, many compositions for choir are also chorale settings). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Examples:

• Samuel Barber's Agnus Dei is a choral setting of his Adagio for Strings (no chorale tune implied)
• BWV 1116 is a chorale setting included in the Neumeister Collection (no choir implied).

--Francis Schonken (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

(sorry for one more comment Kellner) I know the difference, wrote the Barber Agnus Dei article myself. I just took from "Chorale settings" opposed to "Organ" in Kellner's article, that it was "not for organ", - wrong, as we know now, so I find it misleading there, and made a solution to change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

refs and their order

Picky reviewers of quality articles see to refs (if more than one to a fact) appearing in ascending order, which means that all known by name come first, - at least if they were introduced where they appear first. What I do and suggest to do here, as many refs are cited more than once: define all by name in the References section, - I find the prose much more readable in edit mode when I don't have to struggle with bypassing the long references, + someone wanting to edit just a ref knows where to find it: in the References section. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Gerda, you have made a number of quite strange edits to this article which indicate that you have not been looking at the references. That applies in particular to the books of Stinson and Williams. Not checking references can lead to serious errors. For example the hymn Was Gott tut is a pious acceptance of God's will; Lobe den Herren is a hymn of rejoicing. That was in the source. You suggested this was completely wrong in one of your edits. Mathsci (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

This comment would make more sense further up, where I explained that I made the mistake of only looking at the end of the sentence. I also said (even further up) that I have little time for this, - of course I can't look at the sources. Even further up I said I would not touch the article, - will do that again from now on. Happy Valentine's Day ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Replying to your question here (I wrote the previous message after birthday celebrations), I think the IP initiated this method of adding the references. I normally add the references in an alphabetic list and have notes pointing to them. I agree with you that the standard format is much better. I have personally found it quite hard editing with a mass of references embedded in the text.

Following your suggestion, I will convert the article to the standard format, separating out weblinks. There will be an in-use tag on the article while I make those changes because I cannot make those modifications section by section. Mathsci (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Commons

I always include a link to the commons, because new images may be added. I also always call authoritycontrol, even if nothing shows now, - it may later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Some would probably most easily recognise a melody by seeing notes on a staff. Others would probably most easily recognise a melody by hearing it. The score in Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan#Melody can be rendered in audible format in many browsers, however not in all browsers. commons:Category:Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan contains commons:File:EG372.mid, which allows to hear the melody in browsers that don't present the score in Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan#Melody in an audible format. I suppose that for that reason it is useful for some users to have the {{Commons category}} link in the external links section (even before anything else is inserted in that category). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The audio file that Francis Schonken mentions is not a rendering of the melody in the article (annotated in lilypond by me). There is already a rendering of the melody in the article that comes for free with the lilypond code. I find what Francis Schonken has written makes no sense at all. Mathsci (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

EG 372 is mentioned in the article. Commons:File:EG372.mid contains a rendering of that melody. If it is different from the melody in Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan#Melody then it is better to provide a link to the EG 372 variant. Thus this rather reinforces the rationale in favour of the {{Commons category}} link.

Re. "I find what Francis Schonken has written makes no sense at all" – please be more specific: whatever would be unclear about the rationale I gave can be further explained, just ask the question. Anyhow—whether the rationale is clear to all or not—like Gerda I am a proponent to include the {{Commons category}} link. Let's see whether others have other opinions: otherwise, in a few days, I suppose this can be decided by majority. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

There is one musical score in the article. It is already realised in an audio file. Arbitrary harmonisations that are not discussed or illustrated in the article are irrelevant. There seem to be no circumstances that the audio files that FS mentions would ever be included in this article. Mathsci (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The EG (and GL) are mentioned in the article; they are not just arbitrary harmonizations of the piece. Please set aside your personal feelings and stick to the facts. You can't say that links to other version of a song are irrelevant to an article on that song. Also, that would be similar to other hymns which happen to have many versions, see Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott has a quite different history. Written by Martin Luther, it is the central hymn of the Reformation. It is quite unlike this spiritual hymn, which is described in the Encyclopedia Britannica as "pietist". Apart from the two low quality midi files, the Commons category being discussed here is empty. Mathsci (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

(Watch out, you added too much indents..) Yet, it still provides other versions of the piece which do not appear directly in the article. Removing it doesn't improve the article in any way. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Bach's cantatas

I just reread the section, and am afraid it's long sentences which an uninitiated person might not be able to sort. Can we decide how to organize? Three cantatas carry the name, BWv 76 is significant as Bach's statement when he took up the job of Thomaskantor. Chronology might be a different approach, or at least dates in brackets, to help orientation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'd prefer chronological:
  • Organ:
    • c.1701 BWV 1116
    • c.1714 reserved spaces in the Orgelbüchlein
  • Figural music:
    • Weimar 1714: BWV 12/7
    • Leipzig, first cycle (1723–24):
      • 30 May 1723 BWV 75/7 = BWV 75/14 (!!! not "BWv 76")
      • 15 August 1723 BWV 69a/6
      • 6 February 1724 BWV 144/3
    • Leipzig, second cycle, 17 September 1724: BWV 99 (in Bach's chorale cantata format)
    • Leipzig, third cycle, 10 November 1726: BWV 98/1
    • Later Leipzig figural music, not associated with an occasion of the liturgical year:
      • 1732–35: BWV 100 (per omnes versus chorale cantata)
      • 1734–38: BWV 250 (first of Three Wedding Chorales BWV 250–2)

I suppose the chronological approach (at least for the figural music) is supported by chronological books on cantatas (Dürr?). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)