Template:Did you know nominations/Nun saget Dank und lobt den Herren
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 06:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Nun saget Dank und lobt den Herren
... that "Nun saget Dank und lobt den Herren" is a hymn paraphrasing Psalm 118, first in French with the melody, then in German by Ambrosius Lobwasser, and finished in 1951?Source: [1]
- Reviewed: Miguelina Acosta Cárdenas
- Comment: thinking of Yoninah
Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 22:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC).
- The article needs significant copy-editing (as does the hook). There isn't any other major issue as far as sourcing, content or eligibility are concerned. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- I tried, please check again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hook reworded:
- ALT1: ... that "Nun saget Dank und lobt den Herren" is a hymn paraphrasing Psalm 118 in German, derived by Ambrosius Lobwasser from the French Genevan Psalter, keeping its melody, and tightened in 1951?
- I wonder if the hook could be tightened up by removing some of the descriptive details that aren't all that hooky. Maybe:
- ALT2: ... that "Nun saget Dank und lobt den Herren" is a 16th century German hymn that was tightened in the 20th century to be used in a hymnal of the Swiss Reformed Church? 20:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the offer, but without mentioning Psalm 118, the hook is pointless (to me at least), because all these people making efforts were concerned about it. - The focus on one church seems not the right thing to say about this song which is beloved in many denominations. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- ALT2: ... that "Nun saget Dank und lobt den Herren" is a 16th century German hymn that was tightened in the 20th century to be used in a hymnal of the Swiss Reformed Church? 20:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- I wonder if the hook could be tightened up by removing some of the descriptive details that aren't all that hooky. Maybe:
- Perhaps ALT3 ... that "Nun saget Dank und lobt den Herren", a 16th century German hymn based on Psalm 118, was tightened in the 20th century to be used in a hymnal of the Swiss Reformed Church? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the offer, but please include Psalm 118 somehow, in memory of Yoninah.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)- Please re-read the hook, ALT3 already mentions Psalm 118. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am sorry to have overlooked that there was already a new version. I don't like the focus on the Reformed Church while this hymn is now common to other Protestants and Catholics, but will not fight. It's not wrong. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Please re-read the hook, ALT3 already mentions Psalm 118. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps ALT3 ... that "Nun saget Dank und lobt den Herren", a 16th century German hymn based on Psalm 118, was tightened in the 20th century to be used in a hymnal of the Swiss Reformed Church? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- The article needs significant copy-editing (as does the hook). There isn't any other major issue as far as sourcing, content or eligibility are concerned. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think "rewritten" (or "rewritten and shortened") is a better term than "tightened" (since the hymn was indeed rewritten, keeping only the beginning and the end of the original translation and adding mostly new material in the middle). As I said, there's no major issue with the article. There's that one section which is only based on a primary source. Feel free to give the {{DYKtick}} in my stead if this takes more than a short time to fix, I'm busy with other stuff IRL (University trimester beginning shortly...). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Taking "rewritten and shortened" for the article, but for a hook it seems too long, and "rewritten" alone seems too unprecise for a rather drastic shortening (to me). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Proposing ALT4, which does use "rewritten and shortened" but compensates by condensing that last phrase in other ways:
- ALT4 ... that "Nun saget Dank und lobt den Herren", a 16th-century German hymn based on Psalm 118, was rewritten and shortened in the 20th century for a hymnal of the Swiss Reformed Church? —BlueMoonset (talk) 05:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, but if we really don't want to mention the first author and that the early melody is still used today (two things worth knowing about his hymn) why mention the Swiss Reformed Church? We could stop after "20th century" or mention the numbers of verses. It's really sung in many denominations in German-speaking countries. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Proposing ALT4, which does use "rewritten and shortened" but compensates by condensing that last phrase in other ways:
- Taking "rewritten and shortened" for the article, but for a hook it seems too long, and "rewritten" alone seems too unprecise for a rather drastic shortening (to me). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think "rewritten" (or "rewritten and shortened") is a better term than "tightened" (since the hymn was indeed rewritten, keeping only the beginning and the end of the original translation and adding mostly new material in the middle). As I said, there's no major issue with the article. There's that one section which is only based on a primary source. Feel free to give the {{DYKtick}} in my stead if this takes more than a short time to fix, I'm busy with other stuff IRL (University trimester beginning shortly...). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see what's wrong with mentioning the Swiss Reformed Church given that the article does state that the shortened version was written for it, regardless of the hymn later being sung by other denominations (it should be noted that it being used by non-SRC denominations is not mentioned in the article). It's just giving a fact that's mentioned and cited in the article. One issue with ALT4 is that the exact shortening hook fact sentence needs to have a footnote, as opposed to just the end of the paragraph. Plus the article currently has a "clarification needed" tag that needs to be agreed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Giving this a full review. The article was new enough and long enough at the time of the nomination, no close paraphrasing was found, and a QPQ has been done. ALT4 appears to be the best option proposed so far, although the issues I mentioned yesterday still need to be resolved before promotion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review. I copied the ref to the previous sentence. Please clarify what needs to be clarified regarding its inclusion in songbooks. The ref lists
- Gemeinsame Kirchenlieder - Gesänge der deutschsprachigen Christenheit" (Common church songs - Chants of German-speaking Christianity)
- Kumbaya - Ökumenisches Jugendgesangbuch (Ecumenical hymnal for young people)
- Morgenlob - Dich preist am Morgen unser Lied (Morning praise - You are praised by our song in the morning)
- Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied - Choräle und Motetten durch das Kirchenjahr (Sing a new song unto the Lord - Chorales and motets through the liturgical year)
- None of these has an article, even in German, but together, they show how much this song is used ecumenically and for young people, not restricted to one official hymnal of one denomination. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review. I copied the ref to the previous sentence. Please clarify what needs to be clarified regarding its inclusion in songbooks. The ref lists
- There seems to be some language barrier here since the issue wasn't it also being used by non-Swiss Reformed Church members. No one was ever questioning that. But the facts that it was rewritten for an SRC hymnal and that it has been used by non-SRC denominations aren't mutually-exclusive. Something may be created for one purpose and still used for another, and there's nothing wrong with mentioning that if it's a fact. If you want, you can add a sentence or two to the article mentioning that despite its origins, it's also used by other denominations. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't say it's wrong that it was shortened for one specific hymnal/denomination, but I think not to mention that specific one in the hook would be less misleading. - I still don't know what exactly you want "clarified" in "songbooks". Mention characteristics of those books? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what's misleading about mentioning in the hook that it was written for the SRC, it is a fact (mentioned in the article) that it was how it was originally written, and it doesn't contradict the fact that other denominations use it. It's not misleading to discuss the origin in the hook if that's what really happened. As for your other concern, I wasn't the editor who added the clarification needed tag to the article, it was RandomCanadian, so if you have concerns about that you may want to ask them. Their comment did say
"several hymnals" and "many denominations" could use being less vague about it
so maybe that's what needs to be resolved here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)- It helped to know that the cn meant the whole sentence, and wasn't from you. Sorry about not noticing myself. I tried to be more specific. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, it was a substantial improvement, and I've added my two cents on the matter to make it even better. All ok as far as that is concerned. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- It helped to know that the cn meant the whole sentence, and wasn't from you. Sorry about not noticing myself. I tried to be more specific. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what's misleading about mentioning in the hook that it was written for the SRC, it is a fact (mentioned in the article) that it was how it was originally written, and it doesn't contradict the fact that other denominations use it. It's not misleading to discuss the origin in the hook if that's what really happened. As for your other concern, I wasn't the editor who added the clarification needed tag to the article, it was RandomCanadian, so if you have concerns about that you may want to ask them. Their comment did say
- I didn't say it's wrong that it was shortened for one specific hymnal/denomination, but I think not to mention that specific one in the hook would be less misleading. - I still don't know what exactly you want "clarified" in "songbooks". Mention characteristics of those books? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- There seems to be some language barrier here since the issue wasn't it also being used by non-Swiss Reformed Church members. No one was ever questioning that. But the facts that it was rewritten for an SRC hymnal and that it has been used by non-SRC denominations aren't mutually-exclusive. Something may be created for one purpose and still used for another, and there's nothing wrong with mentioning that if it's a fact. If you want, you can add a sentence or two to the article mentioning that despite its origins, it's also used by other denominations. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comments. This is almost good to go, the only concern remaining is that the 1543 composition year needs a direct footnote to support the hook. Once this is done I will approve ALT4. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- I gave the melody its extra ref, but more important, duplicated a ref for the text which defines this hymn. (The melody was used for others also, before and after this one. If it had gotten a later melody, it would still be a 16th-century song.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Gerda. GTG. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
