Talk:Uns ist ein Kind geboren, BWV 142/Archive 1

Archive 1

References

The main reference (in English) for Bach cantatas is the 2006 OUP book of Dürr (translated by Jones). In that book the cantata is not analysed but simply listed in the appendix as "spurious", with a question mark next to a possible composer (i.e. Kuhnau was not suggested by Dürr in the book). Dürr provides his 1977 article as the main source disqualifying it as a work by Bach. I have no idea why the article is using sources from the late 19th century as WP:RS, when in this case they are quite clearly not reliable. The cantata might be discussed in detail in Whittaker's book (Whittaker died during WWII). Chronology and authenticity questions for the cantatas were addressed by Dürr in his 1951 dissertation. Equally well using the web as a source (instead of scholarly texts or journal articles) is not a good idea. It is quite unreliable. Mathsci (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I think this article is quite misleading. Already when BWV 142 was ascribed to Bach in the 19th century by the Bach Gesellschaft, the Bach scholar Arnold Schering questioned the attribution. In 1951 the Bach scholar Alfred Dürr gave a more precise chronology of the early cantatas in his dissertation, subsequently enlarged and published in 1977. With Kobayashi, Dürr became one of the principal editors of the Neue Bach-Gesellschaft Ausgabe, which removed BWV 142 as a spurious work. I have not consulted the 1977 book, but it is referred to in the Appendix on page 926 of Dürr's comprehensive book on all the cantatas, for which the English translation was published by OUP in 2006. The summary states, "The following cantatas have been excluded from consideration here on the grounds that they are spurious (for a reference to the evidence that led to this conclusion, see the literature column; in the era of modern scholarship BWV 217–22 have never been seriously considered as works by Bach)."

Other works on the cantatas such as Cantagrel (in French) and Zedler (pages 297–298, in German) also record that the work is regarded as spurious. [Zedler gives plausibility grounds for Kuhnau as composer (based on the form of the closing chorale).] Breitkopf has changed the author to "Anonymus" in their current edition. The German wikipedia has no entry for this cantata. My suggestion is that the history section, which is not properly sourced and misleading, should be removed; the spurious status of the cantata should be made clear in the lede (I do not believe there is any controversy); and the article should be reduced to a stub. If editors wish to provide a dating and possible alternative author, that should be sourced to a book or published journal article (e.g. Andreas Glöckner's Critical Commentary for the Varia, NBA 1/41, published by Bärenreiter in 2000). That might involve going to a library to look at the 1977 book of Dürr. The Bach cantatas site or CD liners are not reliable sources in this particular case. The wikipedia article on BWV 53, another spurious cantata, seems better written and sourced to me. It cites pages in the 1981 edition of Dürr's book on the cantatas. Mathsci (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Updated re Zedler. Mathsci (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC) And Schering/Spitta. Mathsci (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the history section needs (either of) a major rewrite or a complete blanking. I have looked at the sources that are referenced in it - the 1892 book is probably not relevant anymore. BaroqueMusic.org doesn't directly state whether Bach composed the piece or not, but does say it dates from Weimar (which doesn't seem to agree with other sources which say it dates from +- 1720). The last two pages (no. 5 and 6) provide interesting information about Neumeister and Kuhnau, but little else that relates directly to this cantata. The other sources you mentioned I'll have to look at - what remains sure is that the page is in need of some major action - I can't help for the Durr book as I don't read German that well. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

My own suggestion is to blank the section on "composer" (nothing there is accurate, properly sourced or relevant); rewrite the lede to state the work is spurious, but might possibly be by Kuhnau; leave the section on the libretto as it is; and reduce the musical description simply to a bare list. No website is useful for writing content on something as specialised as this: deciding on questions of authenticity can only be done by experts. Obviously if Dürr has already given a definitive discussion in his book, no other Bach scholar is going to repeat that discussion if they have nothing new to add. Somebody might have summarised his findings in a book or elsewhere. George Buelow's account of Kuhnau in Grove is fine and has been reasonably summarised in the wikipedia article on Kuhnai. It does not mention this question. As I have written above, BWV 142 is discussed in the 2000 Bärenreiter volume NBA 1/41 edited by Andreas Glöckner. Looking at the Bach archive entry for BWV 142,[1] it more or less confirms what I have written. They write that the composer is unknown. (Dürr St 2 is the 1977 book; the NBA volume is mentioned for commentary [page 177], and a Bach Jahrbuch discussion by Schering from 1912 is also mentioned.) Mathsci (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Done for the lead. Can't find the 1912 edition of the BJ here, so that remains a dead end. The article now looks almost like it was in this 2015 revision [2] 69.165.196.103 (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 22 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED 69.165.196.103 (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Uns ist ein Kind geboren, BWV 142 → Uns ist ein Kind geboren – Given that this composition has been established by scholars not to be by Bach, and that similar pages of cantatas formerly attributed to Bach do not have the BWV number in the title (ex Ich weiß, daß mein Erlöser lebt); I think the page name should be changed. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support As proposer. 69.165.196.103 (talk)
• Oppose A pointless suggestion. Other works have been identified as works by other composers (in the above case to Telemann, with its own TWV number). BWV 15 has been attributed to Bach's cousin. The only reason this music is known is that it was formerly attributed to Bach. The same applies to all spurious or dubious works by Bach, where there is no certainty about the actual composer, like BWV 53 and BWV 189. In addition readers of wikipedia might want to know about the status of BWV 142. It appears in various list articles (where its spurious status is described). Mathsci (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

There already is a redirect page; BWV 142, it wouldn't cause any trouble - the redirect page would simply have to be edited in consequence. Also, while we're talking about it, this page should be added to Template:Bach spurious; the template should similarly be added on this page (working on it). To support my point; the others cantatas listed in that template do not have their BWV in the title. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I am perplexed that you have not suggested any sourced information to put into the article. Your current editing—page moves and templates—seems very similar to that of Francis Schonken. Mathsci (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't try discrediting my proposal by implying that I might be another editor - I'm not. And this request is not about the article content (or sources). 69.165.196.103 (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Your approach seems hasty; and I see no benefit for the reader. In this case there is the Kuhnau project.[3] Michael Maul, David Erler, etc. Mathsci (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see how that page is relevant to this discussion - we're not even talking about Kuhnau - and the fact that musicologists which have been involved with the work of Bach are working on that project does not mean anything. Answer my argument - what would be wrong about changing the title? This would conform with other examples, from the Template:Bach spurious; example BWV 15 which actually links to Denn du wirst meine Seele nicht in der Hölle lassen. The fact that the work is not in the catalogue of works by another composer (since it hasn't definitively been attributed to any) is irrelevant to the fact. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You have written some statements in the lede without having proper sources to back them up. I cannot verify the sentence about Kuhnau. I do know that Michael Maul, one of those responsible for the Kuhnau Project, is an expert. A lot is known about Johann Ludwig Bach and his cantatas: there is a considerable literature (some of which is mentioned in BWV 39). In the case of this cantata and Kuhnau, there is almost nothing, There are two references which you have not seen (Dürr and NBA 1/41). Why not concentrate on improving this article? The sentences "Recent research has put that assertion in doubt and the identity of the composer remains unknown. Among other candidates, it is thought that his predecessor Johann Kuhnau may have composed the piece." are inaccurate and misleading. It has been suspected since Spitta that BWV 142 is not by Bach. The research confirming that is not recent but dates from the late 1940s and early 1950s (Dürr's dissertation). There is no list of candidates for the unknown composer as far as I know. And no reliable source has been produced so far which has extensive content arguing that Kuhnau might be the composer. It is original research at the moment. More effort has to go into checking these facts. I think it is important to concentrate on getting this stub into a properly sourced and accurate state. There is a long article on Kuhnau's sacred works by Evangeline Rimbach in "Thine the Amen" (2005), pages 83-110[4]; she does not mention BWV 142. Mathsci (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

From your comment above "My own suggestion is to blank the section on "composer" (nothing there is accurate, properly sourced or relevant); rewrite the lede to state the work is spurious, but might possibly be by Kuhnau". I thought we had consensus on that. Will rewrite "recent research" part so that it is more accurate. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Now back to the actual subject - the page move. Has your position changed or not? 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• No. The article is not properly written yet and that is the main problem at present.

The changes require looking for and at sources. That could mean going to a library. I would not expect something as specialised as the Bach Jahrbuch to have been uploaded to de.wikisource. (It has been digitised, and I have seen snippets of the text in gothic script.) Some effort has to be made. I have replaced two sources from the Bach cantatas website with the two textbooks from which the text was drawn. That is the kind of editing I have in mind. You added two sentences to the lede which at present involve unsourced original research (you used the Bach Archive link as a source: it does summarise the NBA's conclusions on this anomalous work).

Above I indicated activity among Bach scholars (the Kuhnau Project) and hinted that it was likely that had produced some new sources or summaries. In fact one of the other activities centres on concerts in the Predigerkirche in Basel. The musicologists involved, many of them leading Bach scholars, are listed here: [5] The programme for the Abendmusiken of 13 December 2015 was devoted to Kuhnau and involved BWV 142.[6] The long programme notes were written by the counter-tenor David Erler, who is involved as editor of the cantatas published in the Kuhnau project.[7] That contains a reasonable summary of the current state of knowledge. On pages 8–9 he presents the arguments for authorship by Kuhnau. David Erler writes:

“ Die Kantate Uns ist ein Kind geboren galt lange als Werk Johann Sebastian Bachs, da dieser Autorenvermerk auf der einzigen Quelle, einer Partiturabschrift aus dem Jahr 1756, zu finden ist. Als BWV 142 ins Bachwerkeverzeichnis aufgenommen, findet sich jedoch dort bereits der Hinweis auf Zweifel an der Echtheit des Werkes. Mittlerweile wird die Kantate gemeinhin Johann Kuhnau zugeschrieben, und in der Tat gibt es Gründe für diese Zuschreibung. Einer der wichtigsten dürfte ein Textdruck sein: Texte zur Leipziger Kirchen Music, Auf die Heiligen Wehynachts-Feyertage, und den Sonntag darauf, 1720. [...].

Hierin findet sich „Auf den 1. Weyhnachts-Feyertag“ eine Kantate desselben Titels und mit anfänglich identischem Text (siehe Abb.). Allerdings weicht dieses Textheft im Altrezitativ deutlich von der Partiturabschrift ab, für die nachfolgende Altarie sind im Textdruck zwei „Strophen“ enthalten, und als Beschluss ist zudem ein anderer Choraltext vermerkt sowie ein Hinweis auf die Wiederholung des Dictums vom Beginn. Nichtsdestotrotz stimmen weite Teile des – von Erdmann Neumeister stammenden – Textes überein; da das Textheft aus der Amtszeit Johann Kuhnaus stammt, enthält es mit Sicherheit vor allem Texte, die dieser selbst vertont hat. Insofern ist diese weitgehende Übereinstimmung (neben dem Fakt, dass Kuhnau nachweislich mehrere Texte Neumeisters in Musik gesetzt hat) ein starkes Indiz. Daneben sprechen aber auch stilistische Details für Kuhnau als tatsächlichen Komponisten, zwei Beispiele mögen stellvertretend erwähnt sein. Die Form Eingangschor – Solo – Tuttisatz usw. begegnet und bereits in der eingangs gehörten Kantate. Der abschließende Choral wird von unisono spielenden Melodieinstrumenten mit absteigenden Sechzehntelketten begleitet, die zum einen erneut eine direkte musikalische Ausdeutung der Menschwerdung Christi darstellen, zum anderen in dieser Form noch in mehreren weiteren Kantaten Johann Kuhnaus zu finden sind: ein schlichter, vierstimmiger Choralsatz wird von zwar sehr virtuosen, aber im Grunde doch simplen Sechzehntelfiguren bzw. -läufen der Violinen begleitet und illustriert. Diese und weitere Details sprechen letztlich für die Plausibilität der tatsächlichen Urheberschaft Kuhnaus.

”

I could not see any indications of copyright. The text refers to commentary on other cantatas of Kuhnau performed in the same concert. Mathsci (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong - the last sentence tells, in English "These and other details speak ultimately in favor of the autorship of the work by Kuhnau." And, earlier, "und in der Tat gibt es Gründe für diese Zuschreibung." - "there are grounds for this attribution". Also, on page 16: "fälschlich Johann Sebastian zugeschrieben (BWV 142)". So that means that the work is not by Bach - and that there is sufficient scholarly consensus that the work may have been composed by Kuhnau - which is sufficient criteria for removing the "BWV" from the title, as can be seen in other cantatas formerly attributed to Bach, see those listed in Template:Bach spurious. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Since its first publication, commentators have doubted that this work was by Bach. That is recorded in published texts (see above). I do not know about scholarly consensus for Kuhnau. David Erler simply presents stylistic and circumstantial documentary evidence in an extended and carefully written commentary without footnotes or references. Your translation of the last line is not quite right: Erler uses the cautious word "plausibility". Authorship by Kuhnau is plausible according to Erler. The above text can be used for rewriting the article, but does not affect removing the BWV number from the title. Mathsci (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:MUSICSERIES: all other BWV Anh. II cantatas (e.g. BWV 53, BWV 189, BWV 217, BWV 220, BWV 221) follow the article title format convened for the Bach cantatas, i.e. including the BWV number. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose pointless and user-unfriendly and contrary to Project MOS. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Alfred Dürr

As far as I am aware, Alfred Dürr's chronology of the early cantatas is the only published source that discusses BWV 142 in detail, beyond the summary in NBA I/41. That was stated in the article. Francis Schonken reverted that edit with an unhelpful edit summary. All his edits seemed of no use at all to the reader, so I have reverted them. Dürr's 1977 book is used as a reference. There is an ongoing discussion at WP:ANI about Francis Schonken's disruptive editing. Mathsci (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

If Francis Schonken wants to go to a library to take out Dürr's book and summarise the content for wikipedia with his knowledge of German, he is welcome to do so. However there is no literature on the reception of this cantata. NONE. Francis Schonken might want to write an essay surveying 19th century texts as if a trained scholar on baroque music, writing his own commentary. But that is WP:OR and would be totally unreliable. There is no usable information on this cantata beyond what is summarised in the article, which I hope will be reduced to a stub. (The section describing the movements is unsourced at present. I have mentioned Whittaker as a possible source, although have not consulted it for this cantata.) Mathsci (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I have removed he unsourced descriptions of the movements. As mentioned above and in my edit summary, there probably is a description in one of the volumes of William G. Whittaker. Mathsci (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Re. "there is no literature on the reception of this cantata" – incorrect: Sandberger, Wolfgang. Das Bach-Bild Philipp Spittas: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Bach-Rezeption im 19. Jahrhundert. Vol. 39 of Beihefte zum Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, ISSN 0570-6769. Franz Steiner Verlag, 1997. ISBN 9783515070089 (in German), pp.188–9. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

No, the book FS mentions is about Spitta's image of Bach as part of Bach reception in the 19th century (as the title says). It discusses Spitta's generally unfavourable comparison of Telemann with Bach (there are many cantatas set to the same text). Although it was unknown at the time, this cantata is not by Bach, so that material is completely WP:UNDUE here. That general content—Spitta's comparison of Bach with Telemann on all cantata known at the time that were written to common texts—might be useful in the article on Spitta: that is after all what that part of Sandberger's book is about. In this long book, BWV 142 is mentioned only once en passant, where it listed with 5 other cantatas and no further comment except for a footnote mentioning that it is no longer attributed to Bach.

Content directly relevant to and specifically about this cantata is contained in two texts in extended passages: (a) the 1977 book of Alfred Dürr and (b) the 2000 commentary in NBA I/41 by Andreas Glöckner. Including commentary about what commentators thought about this cantata when it was wrongly attributed to Bach does not help the reader in any way. Spitta's name was briefly erroneously included in the lede while the article/stub was being being knowcked into shape—that presumably gave the FS the idea of adding this irrelevant content to create a contradiction between the lede and the bod of the article—but Spitta is irrelevant to this cantata. In the English version of his book on the cantatas, Alfred Dürr cautions about commentaries written before 1957, regarding chronology, attribution and authenticity. That is worth bearing in mind, particularIly in the case of canatas like this (probably written by Kuhnau). I am quite willing to listen to sensible suggestions, but this one has no merit at all for the article and more importantly for the reader. Mathsci (talk) 07:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Re. "... as part of Bach reception in the 19th century ..." – The 19-century publications about the cantata were all, afaik, part of the Bach reception. It would be a disservice to the reader to go in denial about that. The lead section has "... formerly attributed to Johann Sebastian Bach": a section on reception can expand on that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

No. I wrote "sensible suggestions". What FS is suggesting distorts what is in the book: there is nothing that is usable here, as explained above. It does not help the reader in any way at all. In this anomalous case, Spitta 's view of Bach is irrelevant; Spitta thought the work was by Bach, but it was not. FS has been told about the statement in Dürr's 2006 book warning against pre-1957 commentaries because of problems of chronology and authenticity. He apparently wants to ignore that, which is obviously disruptive. I will look at what Glöckner, Dürr and Schering have written; and Whittaker's book. Nineteenth century commentaries might have been discussed by Glöckner, Dürr and Schering, but FS has no idea about that. I suspect that their commentaries, which concern attribution and authenticity, might be too technical for inclusion on wikipedia. I might also look to see what is written in Laaber's very recent two volume book on the Cantatas edited by Sven Hiemke (perhaps BWV 142 has been omitted from the volumes, I don't know). My own feeling is that if anything has been written, it will have been mentioned by these experts. If FS had any concern for the reader, he would go to a university library and look at the main references (those mentioned above), because that is the only place they can be found. So writing "disservice to the reader" is disingenuous. Is he possibly just trolling here, to see how far he can push things? Mathsci (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)If he

Re. "... the statement in Dürr's 2006 book warning against pre-1957 commentaries because of problems of chronology and authenticity": incorrect, and that on several levels. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Note the subthread at WP:ANI was archived prematurely, two hours afer a comment was made about the editing here by FS by Johnuniq.[8] He wrote: "Francis Schonken has turned on the charm here and has probably been successful in deflecting examination of the underlying issue. However I have reviewed some of the back-and-forth and am alarmed by FS's above assertion that "There's no bitterness". That was in response to my "This may be your first bitter dispute...". I regard the "no bitterness" assertion as totally disingenuous but per Wikpedia's broken procedures we are supposed to believe that FS happily flits about the encyclopedia coincidentally arriving at an article where Mathsci is active in order to fix Mathsci's text, totally forgetting prior bitter interactions. The IP ruled themselves out of being considered seriously with their premature and repetitive commentary at Talk:Orgelbüchlein#Issues as of January 2017." That seems absolutely correct. The "following around" by FS is described in WP:HOUND. Mathsci (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop the WP:PA. If you disagree make a polite argument as above. Stating that you are the only one who can edit the article because you have (in your own POV) the 2 sole references on the matter is also against WP:OWN. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

As User:Johnuniq and USer:Softlavender noted some time back at WP:ANI, a question mark hangs over all your editing. They told me to ignore you if you attempted to repeat your conduct (described by Softlavender as "playing silly buggers" and "attempting to get under my skin"). That was the advice of two seasoned wikipedia editors. Your comments about the references are against wikipedia policy. Here you try to dismiss the main references about authenticity , attribution, etc, made by the principal editors of the NBA. You make a claim WP:OWN which is supposed to relate to those sources. Softlavender's description seems to cover those comments, which are unreasonable, border on the absurd and show a complete misunderstanding of wikipedia (both how it is edited and for whom it is intended). I am sorry, but given your comments about the sources, you seem to be here just to create havoc. Mathsci (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't attack you (certainly not this time, at least); stop the WP:PA. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Others made those comments—Softlavender and Johnuniq—so please complain to them, not me. Using the word WP:OWN was inappropriate. The principal references for this spurious cantata are described below. Do you have access to any of them? The 1912 Bach-Jahrbuch seems to have been a special purchase by the University Library as it was differently bound from the rest of the series. Mathsci (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Main sources: Dürr, Glöckner, Whittaker

I copied these in the library. Arnold Schering's two articles in the 1912 Bach-Jahrbuch summarised the activities of Bach's predecessors as Thomaskantor and very briefly Johann Schreyer's analysis of the style of BWV 142 and his doubting of its echtheit. He suggests Kuhnau as a possible composer. Dürr, however, in a much more detailed analysis of BWV 142 (4 pages in his 1977 book) finds some movements that he finds atypical of Kuhnau. Glöckner gives a full one page summary of authorship issues. Whittaker agrees with the non-attribution to Bach and describes the whole cantata in 2 pages. Dürr's only reference to Spitta is for his dating of the text of Erdmann Neumeister. The Laaber volumes do not discuss cantatas which are no longer attributed to Bach. The same is true for Dürr's book on the cantatas. Mathsci (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

There's some literature about the text variants of the libretto for this cantata; also I think it would be best to mention which of Neumeister's libretto cycles contained his Uns ist ein Kind geboren cantata text. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Retracted, see below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Andreas Glöckner lists the precise source in NBA I/41 KB. He gives the precise date of the libretto and then adds a comment in parentheses (page 117, line 26). If Francis Schonken has no access to this source (it is a very slim volume usually in the reference sections of specialist libraries), why is he even trying to add content like this? I think the section on text could easily be removed or reduced to two sentences. Mathsci (talk) 08:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Retracted my comment above: it was not intended as a reply to the "Main sources" post and was misconstrued as such. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It was not misconstrued as such. The section in the article was rewritten quite a while back. Mathsci (talk) 07:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

The second paragraph of the "History, ..." section appears to be close paraphrased from the Swack source. It isn't even a summary of Swack's passing remark, but renders its content entirely, including that of the complementary footnote in Swack's piece. Further, the origin of the close paraphrased paragraph is left unclear in the article: it is partially attributed to Sandberger whose approach is somewhat different (and nothing of what Sandberger mentions specifically in this context is currently summarized in the article). The BWV 142 article is also not about Telemann, nor about BWV 160: imho the close paraphrased paragraph, taken from Telemann scholarship, shifts the focus too much away from BWV 142. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

It is an accurate paraphrase, not a close paraphrase. There are quotes (when Swack's highy coloured views are expressed), context is provided, and relevant parts are summarised. For example where Swack uses the word "laudatory", I write praise, etc.

Given your comments above, which read like ill-informed guesswork, my own feeling is that you have no access to the article of Swack. Could you confirm that please? Could you also explain whether you have any access to the articles of Dürr (1977), Schering (1912), Schreyer (1913), Glöckner (2000), etc? If you have no such access, why then are you commenting? You seem to be engaged in tendentious editing: disruption for disruption's sake. Mathsci (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Until you explain whether you have access to any of these articles, I will remove any disruptive templates that you add. I don't think you have access to jstor or any sources in specialist university libraries. So far you have given no indication to the contrary. Mathsci (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

What would be a WP:COPYVIO would be me reproducing Swack's text here. I am aware that your intention here is just to be disriptive. Mathsci (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Just as an indication of good faith—it would not infringe copyright—could you please reproduce here the first sentence from Swack that I have summarised and/or quoted? Please could you do so promptly? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Francis Schonken, please reply here. Reproduce the sentence and explain your claim. Mathsci (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC (i have the whole article).

The first page of Swack is visible without access to jstor. Noting my caveat above, Swack's first sentence reads,

"Spitta's infamous comparison of what he thought were settings of Neumeister cantata libretti by Bach and Telemann exemplifies the ways in which the prestige invoked by a composer's name can summon preconceived notions of excellence deficiency in composition."

I write:

As described in Swack (1992), in 1873, before questions of authenticity had been raised, Spitta made an "infamous comparison" in his biography of Bach between what he presumed were settings by Bach and Telemann of the same texts by Neumeister. According to Swack, his commentary "exemplifies the way in which the prestige invoked by a composer's name can summon preconceived notions of excellence or deficiency in composition."

Apart from using the word "settings", the proper nouns (Bach, Telemann, Neumeister and Spitta) and the direct quotes, [all completely within wikipedia policy] there is nothing in common here. So please explain what you are talking about. Thanks in advance. Mathsci (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

In the next sentence I quote Swack's adjective "condescending" and then reproduce the text of Spitta, which is also permissible, as the translation is outside copyright. The last sentence is a careful paraphrase, with only proper nouns and titles of compositions in common. I have no idea what objections there can be. Mathsci (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Francis Schonken, please could you respond here, if you are interested in improving the article for the reader. Also if you don't understand about how to create context, I can explain that to you. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Please familiarise yourself with the Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing guidance. I already linked to it above. It is quite necessary to understand that guidance when participating in this discussion. Paraphrasing "laudatory" as "praised" is still a paraphrase, and as it happens a close one. Compare the "... unsuccessful ..."/"... failed ..." example in the guidance
• It is close paraphrasing while nothing is summarized. Swack wrote two sentences about Spitta's 1873 "presumed Bach"/"presumed Telemann" comments in her "post 1975" Telemann Research article. The entire content of these two sentences is rendered in Wikipedia, partially quoted, partially paraphrased. But nothing is summarized. Thus it is close paraphrasing.
• It is also close paraphrasing while attributing Swack's opinions partially to Sandberger, which creates an unclear attribution of the closely paraphrased text, and makes it for that reason unacceptable too. Sandberger's account of the same facts carries different opinions: the current presentation is as if Sandberger shares Swack's opinions.
• On a related note: presenting only Swack's opinions on this matter, while there are at least four (Swack, Sandberger, Talle, also Zedler p. 294) accounts about the same facts (with non-matching opinions), is also a POV issue: for that reason I'd remove all opinions about this matter, and render only the facts. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

"Paraphrasing "laudatory" as "praised" is still a paraphrase, and as it happens a close one." No, that is completely incorrect. I do not even follow the sentence structure. The content has been expanded now and summarises what can be found in Swack, Talle and Sandberger. Zedler's short account of BWV 142 does not mention Spitta. As far as WP:NPOV is concerned, you have expressed your personal opinions in wikipedia's voice in the unsourced essay Spitta's Johann Sebastian Bach. When you created that content from thin air, you did not show due dilligence in seeking out secondary sources that appraise Spitta's scholarship with authority. They exist (e.g. Christoph Wolff) but you apparently made no effort to look for them. Instead what you have written is original research and as such does not adhere to any wikipedia guidelines. Mathsci (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Zedler – as I mentioned above: p. 294, which is not the "short account of BWV 142" pp. 297–298.

And no, things are not all right yet: as it is now, the section needs a {{POV}} tag for overemphasising some sharp author opinions, and leaving out the more equilibrated accounts. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

You jump from one spurious criticism to another. The short reference in Zedler is less complete than two of the other sources and adds nothing. But meanwhile the text has changed. All comments in quotes are attributed. Telemann scholarship is what it is. Why not use your "little grey cells" to locate at least one reasonable secondary source for Spitta's Johann Sebastian Bach? Mathsci (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I have not finished editing the renamed section. Your conduct in ignoring the {{under-construction}} was disruptive. Please just contribute here in a calm way. Mathsci (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• The close paraphrasing of the two Swack sentences is still not resolved;
• Pushing the opinions of Swack, by rendering them unabridged, and not even mentioning those of Sandberger (they are not even summarized, leave alone "close paraphrased") is still not resolved, and is a POV issue;
• Shifting focus of the actual topic of this article (the cantata known as BWV 142) towards Telemann (with no other connection to this article than Spitta's questionable analysis) is still not resolved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

You should not edit the section while the {{under-construction}} is up.bThat is fairly easy to understand and is wikipedia policy. Swack is an acknowledged Telemann scholar. Her views are attributed. I have not invented or misrepresented what she wrote. Please calm down. I am actively editing that section: kindly respect that. Mathsci (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

? The text of the {{under construction}} tag has "This article or section is in the process of an expansion or major restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well." (my emphasis). This has been pointed out to you before if I remember correctly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Please address the close paraphrasing, POV problems and loss of focus issues. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah I meant the {{in-use}} tag. Sorry for that mistake (which I haven't made before as far as I remember). I envisage spending the next 24 hours or more thinking about the section, calmy and quietly. I will not require your help before that time.

I do not see a paraphrasing or POV problem at the moment. Swack is an established musicologist, an expert on baroque music and in particular Telemann. Other sources describe anti-Telemann criticism in the nineteenth century, e.g. George Buelow's A History of Baroque Music, Indiana University Press.

I see no loss of focus. Perhaps I will add more detail from Glöckner. Which bits of Glöckner do you think would be useful? You presumably have that source in front of you. Mathsci (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, as such Telemann is unrelated to this cantata. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Really? I will just remind Francis Schonken (FS) of his edits in January and December 2017 (see above). Barely 24 hours ago FS added the sentence:

"Spitta compares the cantata with TVWV 1450, a cantata by Telemann on the same libretto by Neumeister: he is fairly dismissive about the Telemann composition ("...probably written in half-an-hour..." etc.), only finding a few places where Telemann's composition compares favourably to the composition he attributes to Bach."

This seems to be almost entirely about Telemann. (FS wrote "Telemann" three times.) It does not mention what Spitta actually wrote about BWV 142. On the other hand my content spends time giving part of Spitta's appraisal of BWV 142. FS's edits gave no context; that context is now there. I am aware that FS will change his views from one day to another, one hour to another. That is part of his disruptive editing. Meanwhile could he tell me which bits of Glöckner he thinks might be be useful? He must have his copy of Glöckner handy. Mathsci (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

... which summarized one and a half paragraph by Sandberger (and 5 pages by Spitta) into one sentence. Now we have four Telemann-related sentences, including the opinions of a Telemann-scholar (but not those of the modern Bach-scholar) and a sentence about a Telemann-cantata which has no relation to BWV 142. Again, please see WP:Close paraphrasing: the basic task for a Wikipedia editor is to summarize – if what Swack has to say on the topic of BWV 142 is too short to further condense into a summary (as said she only mentioned BWV 142 in passing: the topic of her article is post-1975 Telemann research), then it should probably not be in this article at all. Sandberger's one-and-a-half paragraph can easily be condensed in a single sentence (including a short quote from Spitta), so that would probably work best. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

FS's inaccurate summary only mentioned criticism of Telemann in any detail. It was sketchily written (not a proper summary) and lacked context. It was essentially all about Telemann, no matter how much he twists things. There was scarcely no mention of what Spitta wrote about BWV 142. FS mentioned Telemann three times.

The same is true in my current version. The longest sentence (from Sandberger) directly quotes Spitta's comments on Bach's version: he writes that Bach "adhered throughout the cantata to the subdued minor key, which offers so singular a contrast to the bright joyfulness of Christmas. It gives a tone as of melancholy reminiscences of the pure Christmas joys of our childhood, as they float before our 'mind's eye,' in a tender and changeful glow; in contrast to this Telemann's eternal C major is often unutterably shallow and flat." Both of the direct Spitta quotes could possibly be shortened.

Until FS creates a properly sourced version of Spitta's Johann Sebastian Bach, he does not seem to be in a very good position to instruct other editors on how to create content. That article is very unbalanced, presumably reflecting FS's personal point of view on Spitta, so WP:OR and of no value on wikipedia.

Perhaps it is worth bearing in mind what the paragraph is about. It about the 18 page section of Spitta's book which compares canatata settings of the same text by Bach and Telemann, in particular Uns ist ein Kind geboren. The first two sentences and the last one address the content in a general way. The misattribution of works prevades the whole paragraph (indeed the whole article). The other two sentence comprise two quotes from Spitta that apply to BWV 142/TVWV 1:1451. They could be shortened.

FS's statements about Swack as a source seem negative and irrational. The 18 page segment of Spitta's book is devoted to a Bach-Telemann comparison. That is what the sources say, whether we like it or not. Because of the attribution problems, these are probably the parts of Spitta's book which have been superseded most radically by later musicological research. That is why Spitta's book is a primary source and cannot be used directly for writing wikipedia content.

Meanwhile could FS please tell me which bits of Glöckner he thinks might be be useful? He must have his copy of Glöckner handy. Mathsci (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the BWV 142 cantata. The BWV 142–TWV 1:1451 comparison takes 5 pages in Spitta (not 18). Please focus. This article is not about the general topic of comparisons of settings of Erdmeister cantatas in Spitta. The only context that needs to be given for Spitta's treatment of the BWV 142 cantata is that it is part of a comparison with a cantata on the same text (and of course the identification of that cantata). Not other comparisons between other cantatas on other pages in Spitta, whether or not these cantatas are on an Erdmeister text. Swack, with her remark in passing, should not get more bandwidth in this article than what Sandberger has to say on the topic. But as said, I'd leave out individual opinions of these scholars: a short summary of the facts they describe regarding Spitta's treatment of BWV 142 suffices (and the fact they agree upon is that it is a comparison with a Telemann cantata with the same text). The "... half an hour ..." quote is given by Swack, Sandberger and Zedler (it is the only phrase quoted by all three). There's nothing irrational about that: NPOV is not irrational. Staying on topic is not irrational. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

All three of them, Swack, Sandberger and Zedler, see preconceptions in Spitta's analysis of BWV 142 (mind you, all three on different grounds): but that is here nor there regarding the reception trajectory of BWV 142 in the period from 1873 to the 1990s, so it should be dealt with later in the reception history narrative. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

It would appear that FS has no access to the main references which discuss attribution and authenticity, most importantly Glöckner; I will probably be adding a small amount of extra content on that in the next few hours. I have also found several other academic articles making exactly the same point as Swack (Spitta's use of Telemann as a mediocre foil to contrast with the exceptional Bach).

In response to FS's suggestions on sourcing, I would just note that in creating content on wikipedia, editors go with the union of what can be found in reliable sources, not the intersection, as he is suggesting. FS went to the furthest extreme in Spitta's Johann Sebastian Bach by using no sources at all for most of the content. Here he is suggesting a mild variation on that. But in the end that misreading of wikipedia policy amounts to disruptive editing and is not not how scholarship or wikipedia functions. Even if FS has chosen to edit in ways contrary to wikipedia policy, he should not try to force that on others. Mathsci (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Coatrack

Now "According to scholars of Telemann, Spitta treated him as a lacklustre foil to highlight Bach's brilliance" has appeared in the article. This is of course WP:COATRACK 1.0, and should be removed. This article is not about Telemann; probably not even about a Bach composition. General opinions about Spitta's Telemann-reception should go elsewhere (Wikipedia has more than enough pages where this content is appropriate): this article about a cantata by an unknown composer should not be used as a coat rack for modern Telemann-scholarship where BWV 142 is mentioned in passing at most. None of these scholars seem to have written anything substantial about the BWV 142 cantata, so what are they doing in this article? True, also Hilgenfeldt, Bitter and Lane Poole only mentioned the cantata in passing: but that was before its publication and documents the reception trail of the cantata between 1756 and 1884. For the period after 1990 there are far more significant sources about BWV 142 / Anh. II 23‑> than Telemann-scholars commenting on Spitta, without saying anything more specific about this cantata than what had already been said by Spitta over a century earlier. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Rejigged now, so that the first two sentences are linked into one.

I do not understand why FS is militating about "coatrack". In which article would this belong and what is his precise objection to it? It is uncontroversial, informative and properly sourced.

Also FS apparently would like to insert a statement of his own creation linking four arbitrarily chosen 19th century primary sources. That is just WP:OR. Content cannot be created directly from primary sources. The content has to come from a reliable secondary source. That is fairly straightforward wikipedia policy. FS has been repeatedly told about that by other editors.

A year ago I tried to gather all available sources on BWV 142 from a specialist library, in particular Glöckner (which I will be using later today). My understanding is that FS does not have access to that source. Could FS please confirm that? Mathsci (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

In relation to comments on Telemann, I will again just remind FS of his edits in January and December 2017 (see above). Barely 36 hours ago FS added the sentence:

"Spitta compares the cantata with TVWV 1450, a cantata by Telemann on the same libretto by Neumeister: he is fairly dismissive about the Telemann composition ("...probably written in half-an-hour..." etc.), only finding a few places where Telemann's composition compares favourably to the composition he attributes to Bach.

What FS wrote was almost exclusively about Telemann and hardly at all about the cantata BWV 142, or what Spitta had to say about it. Mathsci (talk) 09:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Please see the COATRACK guidance, I linked to it above. Spitta's Johann Sebastian Bach § Critical reassessment seems excellent to post such duly referenced material about a critical reassessment of Spitta from the late 20th century. Or start an article on Uns ist ein Kind geboren, TWV 1:1451, and there are other possibilities.

Please see WP:PRIMARY: Hilgenfeldt, Bitter and Lane Poole are not "primary sources" in the context of this article. I offered to help you acquire a better understanding of the related Wikipedia guidance a long time ago. That offer still stands. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Those are primary sources. FS is suggesting that he can conduct original research by synthesising an arbitrary collection of outdated and unverified books. FS should remember that he is not Christoph Wolff, i.e.. a trained musicologist. His statements about Telemann and coatrack seem completely unreasonable and irrational. They are not supported by wikipedia policy. This seems like disruption for disruption's sake.

Spitta's Johann Sebastian Bach is a sub-standard article full of unsourced original research by FS. The mostly unsourced text can best be described as a worthless set of incoherent rambling comments. It is written in wikipedia's voice without further qualification. Christoph Wolff has written about Spitta, but I could see no sign of that in the essay of FS. So on the one hand FS is quite comfortable rejecting or ignoring secondary sources when he creates content; and on the other hand FS is highly disruptive when other editors produce anodyne and relevant content using excellent secondary sources. Mathsci (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Re. "Spitta's Johann Sebastian Bach is a sub-standard article ..." – WP:SOFIXIT, I gave you an excellent suggestion that might help there. This talk page is however not the place to discuss the general merits or deficiencies of that article: that's what we have Talk:Spitta's Johann Sebastian Bach for.

Again, Hilgenfeldt, Bitter and Lane Poole are not "primary sources" in the context of this article: they were 19th-century historians writing about 18th-century music, which gives a distance of about a century between the actual primary source(s) and the historians writing about them. On the topic of this cantata, they offer no new insights compared to what had already been written in the previous century. They offer no novel opinion on the work, as opposed to Spitta who adds his own novel opinions to what is already known about the cantata before his 1873 book. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

FS inserted unsourced rubbishy content, written in wikipedia's voice, into Spitta's Johann Sebastian Bach, and even seems proud of it. Now FS is proposing to to do the same here. No matter how many times FS insists, Hilgenfeldt, Bitter and Lane Poole are "primary sources". Per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, wikipedia editors cannot invent content that they are unable to locate in any reliable secondary source. In this case FS, with no obvious aptitude as a musicologist, would like to take a set of outdated primary sources that he has randomly drummed together and from them create "fake content". Trying to force other experienced editors to agree with that procedure by constant and repetitious nagging] is just disruptive.

Nevertheless editing of the article goes on using reliable sources, to which quite clearly FS has no access. But designating himself as a source is no substitute. He is not Christoph Wolff; he is not Andreas Glöckner; and he is not Alfred Dürr. Constantly wikilawyering on this page looks like an attempt to prevent content being created. Given the circumstances, it is something of a miracle that I was able to download the new image from the Bach archive. Mathsci (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Intro update

Now that it is established in the body of the Wikipedia article what the oldest known attribution of the work to Bach is, I'd suggest that the lead section of the article would be updated accordingly: it is not so much the BGA's authorship attribution which was later contested (suggested by the "Although ..." sentence in the lead section), as Penzel's. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Again that is WP:OR and is again your own editorialising. That is not what the sources say. You do not have access to Glöckner or Dürr (1977), so are just inventing things. Not good. Mathsci (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

FS's error now is that he is behaving as if an editor of the Bach Gesellschaft. Deciding what was authentic Bach was done by that institution. The sources that are currently known are described in Glöckner. Given the misattribution, there is no point speculating on how the Bach Gesellschaft reached their decision in 1884 or how the cantata was transmitted prior to that. That is just idle speculation and a complete waste of time. Does FS not have anything better to do with his time? Mathsci (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"Although attributed to Bach by the Bach-Gesellschaft when they first published it in the late nineteenth century, that attribution was questioned within twenty years and is no longer accepted" is not acceptable per WP:EDITORIAL, please familiarize yourself with that guidance. I do not suggest a similar connection between Penzel and the later attribution discussion (which would be worse), only that such phrasing as currently in the lead doesn't pass Wikipedia's guidance.

Re. "Deciding what was authentic Bach was done by [the Bach Gesellschaft]": WP:OR, and wrong for that matter – many other instances (e.g. the publishing house Peters) and persons (foremost Spitta, but also others such as Bitter) were involved, often making incompatible authentication decisions in the 19th century. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

If FS doesn't have the modern references, why is making any comments? The commentary of Dürr from 1977 discusses the attribution and how it was first questioned by musicologists. I think by now it is known that FS does not have a copy of Dürr (1977). Perhaps his frustration at not having a copy is why he is making these wild accusations. How can he guess what is written in the detailed commentaries? And what value does such guessing have? Mathsci (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Cantata trail between 1756 and BGA

I suggest we mention the Werner manuscript of 1843 (SBB's Mus.ms. Bach P 464, Fascicle 1) in the article, it is another link between the single 18th-century manuscript and the BA edition, ascertained in scholarship (e.g. Waldersee's introduction to the BGA edition, and it is surely one of the two dated manuscripts mentioned by Glöckner). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

If FS doesn't have the source (Glöckner), he should stop making these suggestions. He is just being a nuisance, dreaming up things he would like to be in the source. Waldersee's 1884 introduction is oudated by Glöckner and his own misattribution. FS would like to edit the article but he doesn't have the correct sources. That is just too bad. Any attempt to use a tainted source like Waldersee will result in that content being reverted. This mad urge to create fake content is a net negative. I can summarise what I think is relevant from Glöckner, but FS cannot, because he doesn't have the source. Mathsci (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding: "cantata trail" is not a suggested wording for the article. What happened with the cantata between 1756 and 1873/1884 is discussed by multiple sources, sorry for calling that "trail", was just a short word to avoid a long explanatory sentence. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Which "multiple sources" is FS talking about? I am unaware of any. I have already mentioned tainted 19th century sources, which cannot be used. Besides which the sources I am using (Glöckner or Dürr) also have their own sets of references (not many). That would suggest that FS's claim of "multiple sources" is untrue. As explained below I do not see the point of discussing how content could be created with an editor who has no access to the main sources. Mathsci (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Editing this article without access to relevant sources

I would like FS to explain how that is possible. I cannot have a "constructive dialogue" with an editor who doesn't have the sources and that's it. If FS really wanted to contribute to this article constructively he would have acquired the sources somehow. That cannot be so hard in Ghent, which is a world centre for baroque music. Mathsci (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Now Francis Schonken is vandalising the article. He has no access to the sources, yet is forcing his own personal opinion into the lede in wikipedia's voice. If he doesn't have access to the sources and has made no attempt to get hold of them, he should not be acting in the article in such a disruptive way. Mathsci (talk) 10:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Could he also please spell out what the neutrality flag meant. If he is questioning statements from Buelow's book, which replace earlier prose, he should say so here, instead of editing in this disruptive manner. Failure to discussed altered content is a net negative. What does Francis Schonken consider now to be non-neutral? There is new content but he seems to be ignoring that. Mathsci (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality issues were pointed out above; most of it is still valid. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

No, Francis Schonken made those comments before the text was altered to a paraphrase of a section from Buelow's book on baroque music. There are no issues of neutrality. Perhpas he should ask on WP:RSN about Bach vs. Telemann criticism and whether it is properly reported on in Buelow. That seems like a good idea to me.

Otherwise I still cannot see how Francis Schonken can have a clue about the contents of the articles of Glöckner, Dürr or Schering. He might try to guess what's in them, but what's the point of bluffing—it's counter to wikipedia guidelines. He has claimed that there are multiple other secondary sources that have not been used so far, but that seems not to be the case. Perhaps he could explain why he is trying to edit the article without having the crucial sources? Mathsci (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Please answer all the questions. This spray of comments is unreadable. Mathsci (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The above is an unreadable spray, so I have collapsed it. Francis Schonken could you please answer the question about you editing without having the crucial sources. Then we can treat your other complaints if they have any merit. Not having the sources is such a serious problem. It means that you don't have a leg to stand on when discussing this article. That is what this section is about, in case you had missed the header. Please explain why you are editing without access to the articles of Glöckner, Dürr and Schering. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

This is my reply to the "There are no issues of neutrality" remark above:

A few days ago we had

• "... according to scholars of Telemann, Spitta treated him in that section as a lacklustre foil to highlight Bach's brilliance."

attributed to Hirschmann, Payne and Swack. Now that phrase is replaced by:

• "Spitta's commentary—praising Bach's music while denigrating Telemann's—was typical of musical criticism in the late nineteenth century."

attributed to Buelow, Talle, Hirschmann, Payne and Swack (last three references unmodified).

Did Hirschmann, Payne and Swack retroactively have a change of heart in how to qualify Spitta's assessment of Telemann ("treated him ... as a lacklustre foil to highlight Bach's brilliance" vs. "typical of musical criticism in the late nineteenth century" makes quite some difference) or is this just a Wikipedia editor picking an opinion from one of the assorted sources, and then giving it more weight by pretending it is shared by three or five sources?

This was my criticism as voiced above, at a time when the previous phrasing in that exact spot was still a close paraphrase of Swack (omitting all the other opinions: "typical of musical criticism in the late nineteenth century" is certainly not supported by Swack).

As said, all these contradictory "modern" opinions about Spitta's Telemann-reception have no place in this article (the cantata which is the topic of this article was never attributed to Telemann): picking one author's opinion (according to the editor's POV), omitting all other relevant ones, is a POV problem – attributing such opinion, not shared by all cited authors, to the lot of them, is POV and SYNTH. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 14:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The text has changed as you have been told multiple times. the main source is now Buelow and you have not mentioned that content, or discussed that source. That is why the above was a meaningless spray. Please answer the questions in the sections below. The question about why you are are editing without access to the main sources is the most urgent. Without access to the sources, any edits you make to the article can only be vandalism. I do not see how anyone can edit such a specialist article without those specialist sources. Mathsci (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Could FS please answer the questions in the section below? Then some sense can made of what his objections are at the moment. No need to tag bomb the article, if he doesn't have the sources. He is hardly in a position to make any judgement on content or any edits to the section without access to the sources. Even the tagging is vandalism in that case. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• It would appear that Francis Schonken's complaint was just about the placing of references in one sentence. Without any change to the text, the allocation of references has been changed to avoid any confusion. I still would like him to answer my questions below. Mathsci (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

there are other issues too, let's take them one by one. Also, still, as said above, I feel that all these opinionated views on Spitta's Telemann-reception don't belong in this article, while too far from the subject of this article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Please give your objections in the section below, not here. You refer to "opinionated views on Spitta's Telemann's reception". The book of Buelow is scholarly and balanced. The discussion should be continued below where you can justify your own point of view that the section sourced from Buelow is "opinionated". Find some sources which support that and explain there. Why not ask at WP:RSN if you feel that Buelow's book is bigoted and prejudiced. Perhaps you could have it blacklisted on wikipedia. At the moment I view Buelow's book as a perfectly good secondary source. Mathsci (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed the section entirely: section headers should not steer for excluding others to participate in an article talk page discussion. If the section was addressed at me, and at me only, then: noted. The questions are still elsewhere on this talk page, I'll answer them if, when and where appropriate. As an open suggestion: maybe some less over-reacting, and try to understand what I mean before starting yet another section which only repeats opinions which are already loud and clear without being very germane to this page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

How can you edit without having access to the sources Dürr, Glöckner and Schering? Please could you answer that simple question now. It is the title of this section and applies to you in particular. That is all I want to know at the moment. So please tell me. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• I am currently editing the first paragraph of the History, authenticity and attribution using page 118 of Glöckner. Could Francis Schonken please not interrupt my editing or try to conduct original research on the title page that I have unearthed using a footnote in Glöckner? I am summarising the content written by Andreas Glöckner am not interested in Original research by Francis Schonken. His interruption of my editing resulted in the loss of a significant amount of text, which I am now recreating. Mathsci (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Original research in caption

In this edit[9] Francis Schonken read the 1720 image and created his own caption. Please could he stop this kind of original research? That is not how wikipedia is edited. Perhaps he can explain here why he did that and why he is snapping at my heels in this way while I am crafting content from a source (that he does not have). I used one of Glöckner's footnotes to unearth the image, which was quite difficult. All information on the image is either in what Glöckner writes or is recorded on the source page of the Stadtgeschichtliches Museum, Leipzig. Francis Schonken can privately feel proud that he could make inferences from the image, but he should keep that to himself. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Glöckner

The cantata BWV 39 contains a lot of rich musical analysis; by comparison technical aspects about sources have no relevance for wikipedia and the general readership. Andreas Glöckner's annotations of BWV 142 and his sources are not useful for the critical commentary (too technical and no meaningful explanation and/or context). More seriously the "Quellen" of Glöckner's commentary do not correspond to what has been written (page 117). They have therefore been removed. Mathsci (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Removal of five secondary sources

Please see WP:RSN#Buelow's A History of Baroque Music. Please answer the questions there, not here, just to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 10:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Archived at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 235#Buelow's A History of Baroque Music. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • A stroke occurred between 29/30 December 2017 and 11 January 2018 at Addenbrookes Hospital, during when I had no communication. Perhaps archiving in this way was an unkind and inappropriate thing to do. Mathsci (talk) 08:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Sorry to hear about the stroke, and hope you're doing well. Best wishes for the New Year. The section was archived by an automated process. I'm sure no unkindness or inappropriateness was involved, not by the bot nor by anyone else, if that eases your mind. Better not jump to conclusions I'd say. If you'd still have anything to add to that conversation, I suppose there would be no technical nor procedural impediment to unarchive it to the noticeboard. However, as the reliability of the sources mentioned in that section seems to not have been at issue (apart from this one), I doubt whether it would be worth the trouble. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
      • I have already given a private message to Doug Weller. I am sorry, but you have behaved in an aggressive and unproportionate way. Instead of reporting what can be read on careful references in the Cambridge University Library—why be so evasive about those straightforward references?—you have tried to find outdated 19th century prose that have no worth at all: you have been too lazy—possibly also complacent—to find up-to-date references. The content you have written on Spitta's Johann Sebastian Bach was original research, just stream of consciousness. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Re. "... five secondary sources" – could someone list the five intended sources, so that they can be discussed without uncertainty what we're talking about? Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • When you can find the articles about Schering, Dürr and Glöckner, somebody might pay some attention to you. The South Room and the Anderson Room in the Cambridge University Library are easy to find. I have copied the reference already in January 2017, a year ago.

At the moment I am currently recuperating at my college.

Softlavender wrote: "Francis Schonken, my general observation is that your extensive editing on Uns ist ein Kind geboren BWV 142, and your extensive posts on its talk page, for the past 10 days (that is, since 21 December 2017 UTC) have been disruptive, largely uninformed or insufficiently informed, and WP:BATTLEGROUNDish and a continuation of your harassment of, and vendetta against, Mathsci. I suggest that you drop the stick and move on to editing unrelated articles." The stroke incident is just another WP:IDHT part of that disruption. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Nor the Schering source, nor the Dürr source, nor the Glöckner source were removed. These are also three sources, not five. So please could someone clarify what "Removal of five secondary sources", as mentioned in the section title, refers to: which five sources? What removal? --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• @Doug Weller: (edit summary)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Francis Schonken is apparently adamant on adding two sources from Andreas Glöckner, which I have summarised in the "quellen", page 117, and which have no relevance for BWV 142. Francis Schonken does not have Glöckner's transcript. In addition the outdated, anachronistic and arbitrary 19th century commentary of Francis Schonken have no value at all. The same kind of train of consciousness was produced from Spitta's Johann Sebastian Bach: but Francis Schonken's turgid prose is just original research. He might think he is a brilliant musicologist and baroque scholar, but it is just original research, of no value at all.

On the other hand I have written carefully sourced articles with quite a lot of experience; it is hard to understand why every new article is made into torture by Francis Schonken. He is withering about contemporary secondary sources (which I write) while boasting about outdated primary sources (which Francis Schonken writes). I have a stroke, which is a handicap, but I still know how to edit quite well with quite a lot of experience. Francis Schonken ignores that experience, as if each new article is a tabula rasa. It becomes quite tiring when Francis Schonken adopts that attitude, day after day, week after week.

I am scoring through Francis Schonken's "commentaries", because unfortunately he has continued to be disruptive. That stroke continues; it probably will improve, but is a distraction when this kind of disruption is occurring. Even my laptop is just a temporary keyboard, because of consequences of the stroke. User:Softlavender was been quite accurate that Francis Schonken's has been involved in a vendetta. Unabated he has continued, as if nothing had happened.

I will ask User:Doug Weller to intervene since Francis Schonken has completely failed to understand the seriousness of a stroke. Mathsci (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, I rejected Doug Weller's seemingly prejudiced attempt at negotiation. @Mathsci: please disengage here, according to Doug Weller "...it simply isn’t important enough" compared to your health issues. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller is just trying to help. I have also asked User:Newyorkbrad to help. At the moment, Francis Schonken, there will not be any editing at the moment and I have scored out your comments. Mathsci (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Re. "I am scoring through Francis Schonken's "commentaries",..." – undone per WP:TPO: "Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request", which didn't happen here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS

It has been explained to User:Francis Schonken by User:Softlavender that he should respect WP:CONSENSUS. He has not done so. Per WP:BRD I have reverted his edits.

Francis Schonken has not had access to three crucial sources. The documents on BWV 142 are described by Andreas Glöckner in 2000. I have a partial summary of that, but it is not accessible except to librarians. Francis Schonken tried to summarise what I have written, but it is inaccurate. Without access to the main scholar Alfred Dürr (1977), he has relied on what I have written in summary. But he is not able to verify WP:VS.

In a nebulous cases of authenticity, spurious cases (like BWV 142) are not discussed in any detail, quite the opposite. Mathsci (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Transcript of Arnold Schering, 1912 Bach-Jahrbuch, pages 132–133

This is out of copyright, so I will make my transcription from the gothic. Mathsci (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

As explained, I have the 1912 Bach-Jahrbuch. You apparently you do not have a copy. I also mentioned a minor change I made: I added Schreyer to Schering (1912). During 2–8 February, all I had at A&E/cardio was the Bach-Jahrbuch which I borrowed from UL just before becoming unconscious. I did not look at the last paragraph, which I will transcribe. Mathsci (talk) 05:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Suggesting this page as a possible place where to post this transcript. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Softlavender has carefully explained how consensus functions. Francis Schonken has not taken any notice of that, ignoring consensus.

For 11 days (24 February-6 March) Francis Schonken placed a tag in List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach printed during his lifetime preventing any other users from editing, with a notice {{in-use}}. Today on BWV 142 he created a similar {{in-use}} notice.

I checked my article (one of the three that is important concerning attribution for spurious cantatas).

The article excerpted from Cambridge University Library (1912, BJB, Arnold Schering, 132-133) reads:

"Argumente endlich, denen man Berechtigung nicht versagen wird, die man sogar noch um eninge wird vermehren dürfen, werden gegen die Kantaten Nr. 141, 142, 144, 146, 188 unddie beiden italienischen "Amore traditore" und "non sa che sia dolore" vorgebracht. "Amore traditore" ist sicherlich ein Stück wertvoller Musik, aber nicht von Bach; das "non sa" weist aus italienischen Ursprung, da kein Grund für die Annahme vorliegt, Bach habe absichtlich seine Tonsprache verleugnet, um in italienischem Dialekt zu reden. Ausnahmsweise hat Schreyer hier seine Quintenmethode verlassen und ausschliesslich innere Widersprüche geltend gemacht. Ich kann ihm nur Recht geben und glaube sogar, für die Kantate Nr. 142 "uns ist ein Kind geboren" Kuhnau als Verfasser in Anspruch nehmen zu dürfen (für den 1. Weinachtsfeirtag 1720). (Gelgentlich hoffe ich daraus zurückzukommen) Selbst en der Echtheit der von Schreyer nicht angesochtenen Kantate Nr. 150 "Nach dir, Herr, verlanget mich" wird zu zweifeln sein, weniger aus inhaltlichen , als äusserlich formellen Ursachen."

As Softlavender wrote, all of Francis Schonken edits have been of poor quality: it was just tendentious editing. Francis Schonken had no knowledge of most of the sources. I assume he will pretend that he knew all along about it. But then that spoils the account he has given so far. I know about the sources and have been very cautious in this technical subject. There are very few reliable sources available. Only a handful. A spurious cantata, where the authorship is hard to determine. is tricky.

At the moment, Francis Schonken has been breaking consensus, edit-warring and trying to prevent other users editing. He has also spent a lot of time misrepresenting high quality reliable sources. He has tried to take advantage of my illness.

Francis Schonken has disregarded advice from administrators; he has taken no notice of User:Doug Weller, User:Drmies. Mathsci (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that Francis Schonken should be either topic banned or given a lengthy block. He is out of control. He has been told about proper sources and then disregards those reliable secondary sources. In this case, he hasI am main editor able to find proper reliable sources (mostly in the UL). He's been told about the consensus. At the moment Francis Schonken is unreliable and poor quality.

Softlavender describes it well: "Francis Schonken, my general observation is that your extensive editing on Uns ist ein Kind geboren BWV 142, and your extensive posts on its talk page, for the past 10 days (that is, since 21 December 2017 UTC) have been disruptive, largely uninformed or insufficiently informed, and WP:BATTLEGROUNDish and a continuation of your harassment of, and vendetta against, Mathsci. I suggest that you drop the stick and move on to editing unrelated articles." Mathsci (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mathsci: could you, if possible, check your transcription, e.g. "... eninge ..." and "... unddie ..." (first sentence), "...Gelgentlich ..." (parenthesis preceding last sentence), and "... en ..." (second word of last sentence) seem a bit odd, although I'm not excluding that the original source may contain typos. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

In this case, Francis Schonken is being quite disruptive/. He is being dishonest about consensus; he is now threatening other editors to silence them; and then he is trying to appropriate other editors with their own work. Francis Schonken known about the rules concerning WP:OWN. He knows about the rules for WP:CONSENSUS. He knows the rules for WP:VS. If he is trying to misattribute my hard work by silencing me, that is just harassment. Please could User:Doug Weller or User:Drmies tell me what's going on. I'm tired of Francis Schonken's "stunts"? It's all he does. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what all's going on, Mathsci--I have a day job and life is short, too short to read over all of this. What I can say is that everyone else is tired of this, and at some point someone is going to lay down some metaphorical hammer--like a topic ban or a block. In the plural, possibly: waar er twee vechten hebben er twee schuld. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • True. I've self-reverted a bit and struck some of the more explicit language in my contributions above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

What I have written and recorded on 1912 BJB, page 133

What I wrote:

Ich kann ihm nur Recht geben und glaube sogar, für die Kantate Nr. 142 "uns ist ein Kind geboren" Kuhnau als Verfasser in Anspruch nehmen zu dürfen (für den 1. Weinachtsfeirtag 1720). (Gelgentlich hoffe ich daraus zurückzukommen)

In 1912 agrees with Schering and Shreyer that the proposal that Kuhnua is the likely commposer of cantata BWV 142 is reasonable.

Francis Schonken has tried to stop me writing that. Perhaps he wants to write it himself. But without WP:VS, he is in a quite precarious state. He knows who the source is, namely me. It's here on wikipedia and it's what I have written there. Mathsci (talk) 10:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Does Schering mention which publication by Schreyer he is referring to? Above on this talk page I find "... Schreyer (1913) ...": did Schering have access to a publication before it was published, or did the nominal publication year of the 1912 Bach-Jahrbuch perhaps not correspond with its actual publication year? Or is Schering referring to a different writing by Schreyer? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't seem to have access to:

1. The account of Andreas Glöckner from the NBA.
2. The commentary of Alfred Dürr (1977).
3. The accounts of Schreyer contain about 4 years of research. That is summarised in Schering's aerticle, of which you don't have access.

Your ideas on Schreyer, however, seem very interesting. Have you ever thought of writing a book on it? Mathsci (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

In the 1912 Bach-Jahrbuch Schering mentions an (earlier) analysis by Schreyer: does Schering give a reference for that analysis by Schreyer? Anyhow, if the paragraph transcribed above is the only time Schering mentions Kuhnau in the 1912 Bach-Jahrbuch, you can't deduce from it that Schreyer launched the Kuhnau idea before the publication of the 1912 Bach-Jahrbuch (that's not what Schering writes – your summary above, "In 1912 agrees with Schering and S[c]hreyer..." etc, does not really seem to hit it). So, if I want to find the Schreyer publication that is relevant to the BWV 142 article it would help tremendously if knowing which one I'd be looking for: before 1912? 1912? after 1912? Title of the publication? etc. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Kuhnau

Current fifth paragraph of the "History, ..." section:

It is now considered plausible that Johann Kuhnau, Bach's predecessor as Thomaskantor in Leipzig, may have composed the cantata, as originally suggested by Schering (1912). As pointed out in Glöckner (2000), possible problems with this attribution arise from differences between the surviving 1720 Leipzig libretto for Kuhnau's cantata and the text in Penzel's version; with the modernity of the opening sinfonia, which departs from Kuhnau's more conservative style; and from the absence in Penzel's version of trumpets and drums, instruments traditionally used in the two main churches of Leipzig for Christmas Day cantatas.

The third word of that version ("... now ...") is better avoided per WP:RELTIME. Likewise, "... pointed out ...", as in the second sentence of this version, is better avoided per WP:CLAIM. Johann Kuhnau is already mentioned and linked higher up in the article, thus a full name with link seems excessive here.

Proposed rewrite:

In 1912 Schering suggested Kuhnau as the possible composer of the cantata. In 2000 Glöckner wrote that problems with this attribution arise from differences between the surviving 1720 Leipzig libretto for Kuhnau's cantata and the text in Penzel's version; with the modernity of the opening sinfonia, which departs from Kuhnau's more conservative style; and from the absence in Penzel's version of trumpets and drums, instruments traditionally used in the two main churches of Leipzig for Christmas Day cantatas. Richard D. P. Jones's 2005 revision and translation of Dürr's 1992 book on Bach's cantatas does not mention any possible composer for the cantata. In 2009 Günther Zedler wrote that conjectures about Kuhnau as composer are supported by the format of the closing chorale. Based on this and other elements pointing in the same direction David Erler described the attribution to Kuhnau as plausible, notwithstanding the differences between the text of the cantata and that of the Leipzig libretto of 1720. The Bach Digital website lists the cantata as written by an unknown composer, without conjectures regarding who that composer might be.

Chronological account, respecting the different views of the different authors/sources (adding twothree).

notes, references, sources

References Dürr, Alfred (2006), "Appendix: doubtful and spurious cantatas", The cantatas of J. S. Bach, translated by Richard Douglas P. Jones, Oxford University Press, p. 926, ISBN 0-19-929776-2 Erler, David (2015), "Johann Kuhnau" (PDF), Abendmusiken in der Predigerkirche, pp. 8–9, retrieved 23 January 2017 Glöckner, Andreas (2000), Johann Sebastian Bach, Varia: Kantaten, Quodlibet, Einzelsätze, Bearbeitungen. Critical commentary, Neue Ausgabe sämtlicher Werke (NBA) (in German), vol. I/41, Bärenreiter, pp. 117–118 {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Schering, Arnold (1912), "Beiträge zur Bachkritik", Bach-Jahrbuch (in German), 9: 124–133 Zedler, Günther (2009), Die erhaltenen Kantaten Johann Sebastian Bachs (Spätere Sakrale- und Weltliche Werke): Besprechungen in Form von Analysen - Erklärungen - Deutungen (in German), Perfect Paperback, pp. 297–298, ISBN 383913773X

--Francis Schonken (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC) (updated 11:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)) Proposal updated as a consequence of what is discussed below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC) self-reverted on my 12:03, 3 March 2018 update, after all "In 1912 Schering suggested Kuhnau as the possible composer of the cantata", which can be referenced to Schering (1912) pp. 132–133 per the transcript in the #Transcript of Arnold Schering, 1912 Bach-Jahrbuch, pages 132–133 section below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Based on misunderstanding, see #Transcript of Arnold Schering, 1912 Bach-Jahrbuch, pages 132–133 and subsequent sections below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, It is now considered plausible that Johann Kuhnau, Bach's predecessor as Thomaskantor in Leipzig, may have composed the cantata, as originally suggested by Schering (1912). ...was introduced into this article by Mathsci in January 2017; seems now that the same user contends that the information is incorrect, at least the ", as originally suggested by Schering (1912)" part, which was mentioned somewhere else. I propose to discuss the issue here without casting blame of who introduced it into mainspace: if the information is incorrect it has to go. notes, references, sources References Schering, Arnold (1912), "Über die Kirchenkantaten vorbachischer Thomaskantoren", Bach-Jahrbuch (in German), 9: 86–123 --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC) The source is there is in the Cambridge University Library, P409.c.131.9, the 1912 Bach-Jahrbuch, pages 124–133, Arnold Schering. I borrowed it on 2 February just about one hour after I lost consciousness and was sent to A&E and the cardiology ward, where I remained for 2–8 February 2018. In the article there is no mention at all about Kuhnau. In that case WP:VS—the verification of sources—has not been of any help. Could Francis Schonken explain how this happened? Has this happened elsewhere? Mathsci (talk) 12:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Re. "... WP:VS—the verification of sources ..." – "WP:VS" does not explain "the verification of sources": not sure what you're trying to say here? Re. "Could Francis Schonken explain how this happened?" – sounds like you're asking me to explain how it happened that you made errors and I corrected them? As said above: I'd steer away from the blame game: I can't explain your errors. Re. "Has this happened elsewhere?" – yes, Mathsci making errors and me correcting them has happened elsewhere. But as said, can we stop the blame game now? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC) For clarity: WP:VS links to Wikipedia:Visiting Scholars ("VS" not being an abbreviation of "verification of sources" in this context) WP:V links to Wikipedia:Verifiability (policy containing an over-all explanation of Wikipedia's verification system) WP:RS links to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (guideline regarding the selection of sources based on their reliability) WP:CS links to Wikipedia:Citing sources (guideline explaining practical systems for citations and references and how to use them in Wikipedia) ... Above something is assessed as "has not been of any help", could it be clarified exactly what is experienced as not having been of any help? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC) It is unfortunate that Francis Schonken had no access to this document (the article from the 1912 Bach-Jahrbuch). There is no mention of Kuhnau in the article in question. The process of checking sources, i.e. WP:VS, is not by wiklawyering. Anybody with a valid Cambridge University Library card has access to these documents, rare or not. I certainly have not been lying about these documents in the Cambridge University Library. Why would I? In this particular circumstance, a volunteer at WMF works at a divison of the UL. He knows me from that division (and also from Cambridge). BWV 142 is an anomalous spurious cantata, hardly discussed, so it is not a surprise to find that only a handful of articles can be unearthed in dusty corners of Cambridge University Library. Mathsci (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Again, "WP:VS" is not "the process of checking sources". "WP:VS" relates to something else, i.e. "Visiting Scholars". Click the "WP:VS" link and check for yourself. So, I don't know what this is about, but presently it does not seem helpful, at all. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Also, it is unfortunate that Mathsci *had* access to the document (the article from the 1912 Bach-Jahrbuch), and chose to misrepresent its content in Wikipedia's mainspace. So, Mathsci, please stop playing the blame game: your actions were much more unfortunate than whatever you think unfortunate about me. Stop naming me frivolously like this, in a context where you're the only one to blame. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Still anything else about my proposed rewrite? I defended it on content: apart from Mathsci's error, which has now been removed from mainspace and from the proposed rewrite, there are no issues with it afaics, after a month.--Francis Schonken (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) User:Francis Schonken made an error about Schering's article. The normal thing to do here is to apologise to me for wasting my time; he should then strike out the statement he made about his misleading claim (as he has apparently now done but not in a very gracious way). I have made no statements about Schering's article in the wikipedia article. The WMF volunteer I mentioned is a former arbitrator, Charles Matthews, who has been given an administrative desk in the Moore Library, Cambridge. I also now have doubts about almost all Francis Schonken has claimed. He has relied on two crucial sources of Glöckner (2000) and Dürr (1977) which he has not been able to read. That is not good. User:Softlavender has mentioned FS's "rewrite". From what she has written, it does not appear to have any WP:consensus and is not an improvement, quite the opposite. I agree with Softlavender. Mathsci (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Again, please stop the blame game: Mathsci is to blame for the error, nobody else. As much as Mathsci would like to shift the blame to someone else, Mathsci is the only one to blame in the whole matter. That's why it has been proposed *to stop the blame game* a long time ago, because continuing it only casts further doubts about Mathsci's editorial behaviour. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Why are you trying to obliterate what I've written here? I edit in an anodyne and neutral way. That is the norm. I am in the process of updating a new long document by John Butt. It takes a lot of effort. I spend my time editing in the normal way using reliable secondary sources. Mathsci (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC) And here Mathsci reintroduced the nonsense that "... Johann Kuhnau, Bach's predecessor as Thomaskantor in Leipzig, may have composed the cantata, as originally suggested by Schering (1912)." (emphasis added) – I've reverted it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC) (updated 16:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC))

• Edition Breitkopf publishes the cantata as composed by "Anonymus" (anonymous), adding in small print on the front page of their No. 7142 "früher Johann Sebastian Bach zugeschrieben" (formerly attributed to Johann Sebastian Bach). No Kuhnau in sight afaics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Commentary on 1912 Bach-Jahrbuch

In a good-faith contribution, I spent quite a lot of time researching an off-line document, a short article in gothic script. I looked at the article first in January 2017, making a mental note at that time (which was only a brief mention); I do not remember whether I photocopied the pages on page 125 and 133 at that stage. In this particular article, I realised previously that the de.wikisource for the source in the Bach-Handbuch was marked missing or lost: there was a gap. The physical document was available in the South Reading Room of the Cambridge University Library (UL) and was easy to locate in the new class mark P409.c.138.9.

A year later I found the physical handbook at 6 pm on 2 February in the UL. In the aftermath of my stroke a month before that, after one hour I unfortunately collapsed twice with syncope, sent by emergency services and the cardiology ward to restore my health; that took 2–8 February.

In March 2018, I then transliterated part of that document and gave an English translation of the content. That transliteration and translation on the talk page was then copied by another editor into the corresponding article (Francis Schonken). (Why did he copy my material without attribution?[10] That doesn't seem to be a particularly reasonable thing to do, having disabled editing by others.) I also discovered an archived 1912 version from the University of Lyon, which is available as a snippet on google books and now marked on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Origin of attribution to Bach

The current version of the article fails to mention where and when, according to known sources, the cantata was first attributed to Bach. This is a basic fact which is mentioned numerous times in relevant scholarship, and far more germane to the topic of this article than Spitta-reception by Telemann-scholars. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Please state which sources, as I know of none: see the section above on Whittaker, Dürr (1977) and Glöckner. These are the main sources and, contrary to what FS suggests, that exhausts "relevant scholarship". All that editors can do is include what is in secondary sources, such as Glöckner and Dürr . (Apparently FS does not have access to either source.) Mathsci (talk) 08:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps FS could continue the discussion by going through Dürr (1977) page by page. Then FS could work through Glöckner page by page. That seems like the sensible thing to do. If FS knows of any other similar sources, he should please explain that here. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Dürr (1977)

I will give here a brief outline of what is in this source (it is somewhat dry and technical). It would be kind and helpful if FS could declare whether he has a copy of this source or not. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Glöckner (2000)

The commentary is in standardised form. It lists four sources with the headers of all transcribed (with dates for 2 of them). Then it has a one-line section on the text, i.e. libretto. Then a one-line section on the BG 1884 publication, naming the editor. The fourth and final section is on the author of the composition, a detailed discussion, partly historical citing Schering and Dürr, which does not come to any definite conclusion. Glöckner gives supplementary reasons, based on performance practise in the two main churches in Leipzig, why the composer might not have been either Kuhnau or Bach. Mathsci (talk) 11:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary:

• You probably meant "..., which does not come to any definite conclusion" (my suggested addition emphasised)
• Re. "It lists four sources with the headers of all transcribed (with dates for 2 of them)": the transcribed header of the oldest dated one (Mus.ms. Bach P 1042 of the Berlin State Library) would normally end on "... di I S. Bach." (... which translates as "... by J S. Bach"). Maybe it is best to give the entire caption of that manuscript in the Wikipedia article, with a translation, which we often do for such manuscripts. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

If FS doesn't have access to Glöckner, which is apparently the case, could he please stop dreaming up what content might be there. Mathsci (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Adding the front page of that manuscript, and mentioning its autorship claims in the body of the article is even better, thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'd appreciate more summaries from Glöckner (2000), but please avoid WP:COPYVIO, which includes potential WP:CLOP issues. This section would be ideal to present such summaries, I'd discourage off-site proceedings in this matter. Sorry for my late reply. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)