Talk:Mass for the Dresden court (Bach)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Missa, BWV 232a)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Classical music
WikiProject icon Mass for the Dresden court (Bach) is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
WikiProject Germany  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


The article contains text from Sophienkirche.

When I added that in 2013 I didn't know how to properly attribute that, and didn't sign. Today, that passage will be expanded, no more copy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


Whoever blanked and redirected this article did so inappropriately and without discussion or consensus. This should not have happened and I have restored the work. Montanabw(talk) 23:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion is now at Talk:Bach's church music in Latin#‎Content of article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
That discussion is still there, but I have restored this talk page, having restored the article to the pre-redirect state. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


What about renaming this to Mass for the court at Dresden (Bach), seems the most consistent name across the sources I've read on this? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Good for a redirect, but very long, and very English. Missa of 1733 (Bach)? Butt has (unfortunately on page 7 which is not shown online, but it's in the TOC): The Missa of 1733. I think Missa is better than Mass, which suggests a complete mass, while several readers may understand Missa = Kyrie and Gloria, see Missa brevis (this ambiguous term). Our concert poster for 1 February will say Missa 1733, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  1. Rules for article titling see WP:AT, in particular the summary in WP:CRITERIA on that policy page. In what follows I use "recognizability", "naturalness" and "conciseness" in their meaning as "criteria" per the policy.
  2. "Missa of 1733" (even when the (Bach) disambiguator is added) misses basic recognisability, only one source apparently. "for the court at Dresden" is consistent throughout almost any source (I mean those I know, but I would be surprised this is not mentioned elsewhere too when this composition is discussed).
  3. Missa/Mass: also, would prefer the more recognisable English word, but might be persuaded if it can be shown "Missa" is used more often in reliable sources.
  4. Re. conciseness: I'd prefer the recognisability and naturalness of "for the court at Dresden" over the conciseness of "of 1733" in this case. Could live with Mass for the Dresden court (Bach), a little bit more concise. Note that "Mass" is also one letter more concise than "Missa". --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Recognizability made me choose the present title because it associates with the Mass in B minor more than the alternatives. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
"Missa" is the Latin word for "Mass" (who knows Missa may have a special meaning in this context? - which is all in all unproven too, the Mass in B minor is a "Missa in B minor" too). So lacks recognizability. Or to be more precise, fails WP:SMALLDETAILS.
Is a fast agreement on this possible? If not, I'd go to WP:RM without much further ado. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why this work should be treated differently from others (Piano Sonata, Requiem). "Mass for the court at Dresden" is a description, not a title. Mass suggests a complete mass, - I find it misleading for this one. If we go the description way: Kyrie and Gloria in B minor (Bach)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Missa (Latin word for "Mass") is on the front page of the manuscript. Same for BWV 232.
Descriptive titles are OK, many on Bach compositions have them, specifically as in this case there's no official BWV number (so no "official" name in the BWV catalogue that could be depended upon).
Missa in B minor is not the recognizability for this specific composition. It raises doubts again why this should have a separate page. The recognizability of this specific article, which is about the (short in text but large in dimensions) Mass Bach wrote for the Dresden court in 1733, not about the Kyrie and Gloria (of the Mass) in B minor, which are treated extensively in other pages. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if it matters to our considerations that Bach himself simply wrote Missa on the title page for Kyrie and Gloria. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
In Wikipedia article titling it is customary to look at the orginal name given by the original creator to the creation (in any case when there's no obvious commonly used name). I don't say that would necessarily be the most determining factor in the name chosen at Wikipedia, but, for instance, for articles on operas that usually leads to the article title being the name in the original language. Re. "Kyrie and Gloria" article title: no, not customary to indicate this composition, not in Bach's time, not in the later pieces written about it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
In the complete mass, the title page is not a title page for the complete work, but only for the first of the four books which contains Kyrie and Gloria: No. 1 Missa. The second is Symbolum Nicenum. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:RM. The procedure is explained on the page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I know how the procedure works, or rather: not works. Der Fliegende Holländer, A Boy was Born, long arguments, and finally the name by the composer still not taken. - Do you have a source for Missa ever been used in English for the complete Mass in B minor? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Really? WP:RM works fine. I have initiated dozens, participated in many, many more and have no complaints. Maybe different for those who see Wikipedia as a battleground? This is about the 1733 composition for the Dresden court not about "(what)ever (name that would have) been used in English for the complete Mass in B minor". If you think Missa in B minor (Bach) should not be a disambiguation page, take it up at Talk:Missa in B minor (Bach). --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Francis, it appears to me that if you depart from Bach's actual titles, you are engaging in WP:OR or [{WP:SYNTH]]. If you "have no complaints" that is irrelevant; you are either correct or you are incorrect, adn if you are incorrect, it is irrelevant if WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because verifiability is one of the WP pillars and trumps your opinions. I fail to see any benefit to what you are doing, particularly when it appears that you are making things up, or at best, stretching the scholarahip. Montanabw(talk) 23:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Missa in B minor for the 1733 mass for the Dresden court is WP:OR. It is in none of the sources I have seen on the work (maybe I haven't seen them all, but thus far I see nobody bring one here either). The descriptive title Mass for the Dresden court is confirmed by all the sources that discuss it. So, unless someone can explain what the exact problem would be with that, I'm not convinced there would be any. WP:RM *is* the Wikipedia procedure to follow when one can't agree about an article titling issue. Personal likes or dislikes of the procedure (or good/bad experiences with it) are completely and utterly irrelevant. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
(The RM I will not forget and had in mind was to get "Moonlight Sonata" back to a serious name, took two weeks.) "Missa" for the work in question is not OR, but the term that Bach himself wrote on the title page. I would like to see it in our title also. There are VERY feW works (compared to his output) for which Bach made a title page. We can't say Missa (Bach), because he wrote five of them. The normal next disambiguation for compositions is by key, that made me add "in B minor". I added "(Bach)" also, for clarity, as you, Francis, added "(Schubert)" to piano sonatas, - but here it is not even needed, because there is no other. Next suggestions therefore Missa for the court in Dresden and Missa in B minor, to be discussed in peace. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Gerda's "In the complete mass, the title page is not a title page for the complete work, but only for the first of the four books which contains Kyrie and Gloria..." [1] *is* OR. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
It is not. Kindly look at the autograph score (first link in Sources): No. 1 Missa, No. 2 Symbolum Nicenum etc. - (If it was for the complete mass, Bach would have missed the double chorus of No. 4, for example, which he listed on No. 4 Osanna ...: "... 2 Soprani / 2 Alti ...".) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
*Still* textbook OR. I've read diverse interpretations on how and why Bach assembled his Hohe Messe (BWV 232), never this one. Unless a RS can be shown that favours this interpretation: OR.
And, futile discussion. If there's no real objection to the current article title we need not go into a discussion of a possible article title that, whatever way one turns it, has some ambiguity and would certainly have WP:SMALLDETAILS issues. Equals battleground behaviour from where I'm standing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it is not futile to consider to use the name the composer used. The four parts with four title pages but none for the complete work are described like that in the German Wikipedia, sourced to "Blankenburg: Einführung in Bachs h-moll-Messe. 1996, S. 12f.", and in our general article, Mass in B minor#Title. - Bach didn't give a title to the complete work, but to this part of it: Missa. Why you suggest RM instead of simply moving to Missa for the court in Dresden I don't understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
The issue is OR while we don't know whether or not Bach would have accepted the name "Missa" for the Hohe Messe (BWV 232) as a whole (and that's what you're contending). We don't know it. No commentators indicate Bach would have been averse to the notion. Interpreting Missa (latin for Mass) cannot refer to the whole composition is the OR.
When I said "futile" above I didn't refer to that. I referred to the fact that we don't need a WP:RM or whatever continuation of the naming discussion of Mass for the Dresden court when that name is unproblematic. I think it is. However much I try I see no real objection to that.
Re. "moving to Missa for the court in Dresden": Missa for the court at Dresden is used too. And Missa translates to Mass in English (see WP:USEENGLISH). Reasonable arguments in a WP:RM — on the other hand I see your invitation to continue moving this page around without WP:RM or consensus ("Why you suggest RM instead of simply moving..." [2]) as a continuation of your disruptive battleground behaviour in this matter (see [3]) --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I thought we were looking for the best possible title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
[4] --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


WP:RM when you can't agree with what I see as the best possible solution. I have my arguments. You have yours. Let's see what others think, via a usual and non-disruptive channel. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

...and Philippe Herreweghe calling the entire BWV 232 a "Missa" [5] --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Unimpressed. A recording label, perhaps after looking superficially at the autograph, and/or trying to be different, - relevant? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, back to square one. Take to WP:RM if you think you have a viable alternative article title that could replace the current one. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
& please stop complaining about the WP:RM procedure. I'll repeat and expand my objections there if needed. The complaints about RM (now dragging in Beethoven's piano composition) are completely and utterly irrelevant, as I said. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


Smith, Tim. "Assembly of the Mass" (PDF). London Bach Society. Retrieved 29 October 2014. 

I have my doubts about this ref:

  • How is Tim Smith and/or the "Assembly of the Mass" pdf related to the London Bach Society? All indicators seem to point to a US-based source (,, — apparently some of these are even blacklisted, can't make them show up as clickable links?)
  • At first glance I don't see a Wikipedia:Reliable source, more like an essay that would maybe pass at school, I'm not too sure about its scholarly level (even when picked from a university website):
    • "The first hint of what we now call the "Mass in B Minor" came in 1733." What about the 1724 Sanctus, mentioned in almost all sources?
    • "The KYRIE may have been written to lament the King's death, and the GLORIA to celebrate the accession of his son." seems like an exceptional claim needing a stronger source in Wikipedia context, see WP:EXCEPTIONAL.
Is there any additional info on the author and/or on peer review of this source?

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I am in the process to find sources for things I didn't bring in myself, the "lament" thing was copied from the church where a long sentence comes with two offline sources. I found this Smith. Thanks for pointing out that I missed changing the publisher when I copied from another source, sorry about that. The publishing site is linked to from the Oregon Bach Festival [6]. - One approach is to drop the "possible lament" thing, another to find a better source. - I disagree that the Sanctus of 1724 would be a "hint" of a mass, - I think it was a piece for Christmas, not meant for a larger context. - I will look for at least one more source for the unneeded claim, and drop it if I don't find one fast. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
dropped --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Cuius regio, eius religio[edit]

Maybe somewhat of the Cuius regio, eius religio should be explained to clarify why in this case Bach wrote a Mass that formally was as well a Lutheran Missa in the region where he lived (and that was non-compromising on Catholics) as a Catholic Missa brevis for the ruler he sent the composition to. This is also the background of why the dimensions of the mass were far beyond what a usual Missa brevis would be in those days. I've read that explanation somewhere (including the cuius regio, eius religio quote), and will see whether I can find it again to bolster up the article.

A general consideration regarding the raison d'être of the Mass for the Dresden court being a topic that deserves separate treatment in Wikipedia: it's all about the specifics for this composition. The key to that, as far as I can see, is the dedication to the ruler at Dresden, well documented (e.g. in the letter Bach wrote in 1733). The other info is rather "tangent" to the core of this article (e.g. how it got incorporated in BWV 232, how it was "maybe" performed in the Sophienkirche, etc...). These "tangent" topics have their own articles. The dedication to August had lost its value by the time Bach incorporated the piece in the larger Mass composition at the end of its life, so a "tangent" topic for that article, but "specific" for the 1733 Missa. I see the current excellent updates by Gerda going in that direction, just trying to clarify what for me is the criterion on why we should have a separate article on this composition (that otherwise was fully absorbed in the Mass in B minor). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Religio: go ahead, use it, add it, perhaps in the "Latin" article because it is relevant to many of those pieces, used in Leipzig liturgy. Butt has something on Catholic Dresden also concentrating on Kyrie and Gloria, which is about the opposite. He has may details on usage of Latin in Leipzig (p 4 and around), explaining for example why Sanctus was separated from Osanna. Those details would also make sense in the general article, putting the pieces more in perspective. I believe that the Missa and the Mass are different crucial points in Bach's history, as the settings of Magnificat. Bach's reach for Dresden (away from Leipzig) is worth mentioning in an article related to him, not only on a church or elector. - I will get more details from Butt and the Carus publishing, but it will take time that I don't have today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Some of the details are of course also tangent to this article, but central to the Johann Sebastian Bach biographical article, e.g. that Bach eventually, several years later, received the recognition from the Dresden court he was petitioning with his 1733 letter and composition: part and parcel of the biography, tangential to the composition (while it isn't even very clear whether the composition was instrumental to that recognition), however best to mention in this article too I think.
As far as I know the cuius regio, eius religio played most demonstrably for the Mass for the Dresden court. If I remember well, whether or not it played for other compositions like the BWV 233-236 Missa's and the eventual BWV 232 Mass (or even the Magnificat versions) is more a matter of speculation. At least some of that speculation can be traced back to some sort of posthumous Catholic zeal to incorporate protestant Bach('s music) in the Catholic canon without scruples. Oecumenism can only be attributed to Bach retro-actively, the concept had no traction (at least not for what we understand by it post-Vatican II) at the time, while the only apparent rule then was the cuius regio, eius religio, which composers generally abided to without voicing their opinion on the matter openly (that's why so much on that is speculation for Bach). If I remember well the 1733 dedication letter he sent to Dresden is the most remarkable of the less covert exceptions to that, so yes, quite specific to this article, more tangential to the others. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Good thoughts, will consider, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


BTW, is there any source that discusses this work separately, I mean, not in the narrative of the genesis of BWV 232? --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Plan of Dresden[edit]

This excerpt of a 1828 plan of Dresden shows the location of the court (opera) theatre that in the 1660s was built at the Taschenberg adjacent to the Elector's palace as designed by Wolf Caspar von Klengel, then in 1708 transformed into the Catholic Hofkirche, and by the time this plan was drawn, after building among others the Katholische Kirche (1739-1751), transformed into an archive (indicated as "Archiv" in the middle of this picture), until its demolition in 1888. The location of the Sophienkirche is shown in the lower part of this plan excerpt.

This is a great plan, thank you, Francis! I believe that it would help readers to have the German names and their translations together, to understand better that the plan was made after what Bach knew at the time the piece was composed.

  • Archiv (Archive), formerly Opernhaus am Taschenberg (Opera house at the Taschenberg, completed 1667), then Hofkapelle (Court chapel, from 1708), place of a intended performance, not to be confused with
  • Katholische Kirche (Catholic church), Hofkirche, Dresden (completed 1755)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Note the ambiguity of Kapelle/Chapel:
Hofkapelle can mean either the building, or the group of court musicians
Regarding what happened to the Opernhaus am Taschenberg in 1708:
  • converted to Hofkirche according to most sources (e.g. Stockigt 2013)
  • sometimes also Hofkapelle, e.g. Ermisch 1888
The difference being Kapelle/chapel would indicate private use for courtiers only, Kirche/church would indicate it is open to the general public. With its capacity for 2000 people, and being open to the general public, the Opernhaus was converted into a Kirche/church. Although in a certain sense it was also a Kapelle/chapel attached to the Royal Palace, while Catholicism was not the religion of the region in the cuius regio, eius religio sense and only confined to the court.
The author of gets confused: "...the court had no dedicated chapel for worship until 1708, in which year the former court theatre was redesigned as a chapel in accordance with his own taste and design. The first public Catholic church in the city was opened in the same year..." - in fact it was the same building, the same chapel/Kapelle/church/Kirche, see e.g. Musical chronicle of the city of Dresden factsheet and Exploring Bach's B-minor Mass page 27
So let's not add to the "Kapelle"-related confusions... --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, if Hofkirche is confusing with the later building (currently cathedral), see Hofkirche#Dresden - in fact there were three separate buildings that were at least for some time called "Hofkirche" in Dresden. In 1733, however, there was only one, the one in the former "Klengelsches Opernhaus". --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
See also this footnote I had added to take away the confusion: Mass_for_the_Dresden_court_(Bach)#cite_note-18 --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
How do you suggest then to distinguish the building that served as Hofkirche in 1733 (the former opera house, called Opernhaus am Taschenberg in the German Wikipedia, converted to a church around 1708) and the building known as the Hofkirche today, built from 1737 to 1755 (which Bach could hardly "know" when he composed the piece this article is about, and which nobody I know calls Dresden Cathedral, see de:Katholische Hofkirche)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Again, Mass_for_the_Dresden_court_(Bach)#cite_note-18 deals with it (click the link) --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
The footnote is good. I missed it so far and am afraid that might happen to others. Would you mind to have it with the first mentioning of Hofkirche in both text and image caption, right after the word, not the sentence? And if you find Hofkapelle confusing, why do you use it at all when speaking of the building? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I was planning on a WP:REFGROUP for the explanatory notes above the list of source-citing references, once I've finished reading File:Ermisch Das alte Archivgebäude am Taschenberge in Dresden.pdf (I'm halfway through it, but the 19th century German isn't too easy, e.g. took me some time before I found out what he meant by Risse). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Fine! I enjoy what you do here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


Re. [7]:

  1. for this page discuss here;
  2. for the general problem: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox#Issue 1: visibility of infoboxes in generated PDF

--Francis Schonken (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I think non-inclusion in the generated PDF is a good reason (a good reason suffises for infobox removal, per MoS). The image of the frontispiece of the manuscript score, including the caption content, is an essential part of the article. If it goes missing in the PDF version such PDF version is an incomplete rendering of the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I separated WP:LEADIMAGE (&caption) from remainder of the infobox (which I kept) [8], as a temporary workaround until this discussion is concluded.
I don't think an infobox without image under a PDF-able lead image + caption is a very elegant solution visually, and I would remove the infobox under the image, unless someone can suggest a more optimal solution. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think non-inclusion in a generated pdf is a completely insufficient reason to remove an infobox. If this should be a MoS issue, you need to cite the guideline that supports your assertion. Despite your claims, printing an article includes the infobox, so there is no problem there. Every single one of the 2.5 million infoboxes on Wikipedia is omitted from generated pdfs - are you suggesting that is sufficient reason to remove all of them? If there is any demand for infoboxes to be included in generated pdfs - and I'm unaware of any - then the solution is to change how pdfs are generated, not to remove infoboxes. --RexxS (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree that separating the lead image from the infobox is inelegant and I will restore the infox in full, pending any proof that anybody is inconvenienced by the lack of the infobox in a pdf version of the article. --RexxS (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
There's no claim "printing" is the problem.
MoS quotation: "I defer to WP:STYLEVAR, which states: "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." (quoted from here) --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
You claimed printing is the problem (see your recent edit: "apparently the image isn't printed/PDF-ed when enclosed in a navbox"- have you forgotten that so soon? (Actually printing is the solution to the problem). The style and formatting of the article was Mos-compliant before you removed the infobox for spurious reasons. Infoboxes have always been allowed by MoS and you need consensus to remove one. --RexxS (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm inconvenienced by it. Proof. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Then simply use the browser print option to print to a pdf file. That's your inconvenience removed at a stroke. --RexxS (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I prefer the two-column layout of the generated PDF, which is easier for reading on paper too.
And that is not the point: I don't want incomplete versions of an article to which I collaborated heavily to get it right to be spread in an incomplete version so easily. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
And others will prefer a single column, which is actually easier for reading on paper. It is exactly the point: you don't own these articles no matter how much you've collaborated on them and your preference is no more than a single editor's preference: you don't have consensus to remove the infobox under such nebulous pretences. --RexxS (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The point is that no one owns an article so what one wants cannot be an issue. Problems with printing hard copy versions of this encyclopedia are not solved by removing something in the online version. I'm sorry to say but that sounds like an excuse to remove the infobox rather than a solution to problem one has when printing. This is an online encyclopedia; how that online and the master version reads has to be considered first. There is no good reason given to remove this infobox.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC))

The point is I'm entitled to my own opinion, for the reasons I have given.
Confusing having my opinion, founded in the reasons I have given, with claiming ownership is missing the point. I don't claim ownership and defer to consensus.
But then, claiming my reasons "no good" in an absolute sense is not what's going to convince me to change my point of view (neither citing a false allegation about "ownership" and the like), so this kind of mongering is not conducing to an approach of consensus. I'm open to reasonable arguments and unless they are given I don't see a consensus approaching here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
At no time did i suggest you could not have an opinion; and I have no desire to change your or anyone's opinion or point of view. In fact, I honour your and every editor's right to have an opinion. I have concerns with you using those opinions and POVs to make the kinds of edits you are suggesting on this article. You do not give a reason per WP to remove or adjust infoboxes to suit printing needs. While I can understand the frustration, you must understand that the reasons you are using here if applied further would mean an editor could remove any info box because of the claim that one can't print the article page in an accurate way. How does that make any sense? What makes sense is to maintain the integrity of the online article while looking for ways to print as accurately as possible. We cater to online readers not the possibility that a page will not be printed the way we as editors would like to see it printed. If you are following consensus then seems there is no support for your changes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Re. "You do not give a reason per WP": I did. Read. Fishing for me to repeat myself is not an honest argument.
Re. "frustration": further mongering, there's no frustration.
Re. Wider discussion: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox#Issue 1: visibility of infoboxes in generated PDF. The current discussion is only about the current article. About the general issues I said none of the things you contend. So, if you want to reply to what I actually said, take part in the general discussion as linked, not give replies here on general issues regarding points I didn't make.
Re. "If you are following consensus then seems there is no support for your changes", again you are implying that my "one" opinion in the matter is negligeable against "two" other opinions, and in general you're not interested in finding consensus by sanity of arguments, but by weight of numbers you assume invariable. Please then, !vote and spare us the arguments, if you say for yourself you can't be convinced by a sound argument. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose retaining infobox for this article, for the reasons given above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Francis.These are strawmen arguments. If you want to start an RfC I'm sure you will get votes on the issue.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC))
I think the choice is yours, either you believe a good argument can convince another contributor, or you continue on a path of belittleing as a replacement for argumentation, then for your own sake just have the !vote, it will carry more weight than the non-argumentation on content matters. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Late to this, Francis, I have simple question. If I understand you right (I am not at all sure) you want to have the infobox removed because in a certain printout it doesn't appear?? It doesn't appear if it's in the the article or not, your print result is the same, no? Why then do you want it removed? An infobox should only contain information from the body of the article anyway, and will serve some readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said above, please familiarize yourself with what I said, before making unrelated comments. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I will not read more, I have no time for it and learned a bit about letting go what's less important. I don't have to repeat that I am for keeping the infobox, any infobox, it's known well enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Sounds somewhat like a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT argument to me. Anyway, for the time being,
--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)