Talk:Wär Gott nicht mit uns diese Zeit, BWV 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Classical music / Compositions 
WikiProject icon Wär Gott nicht mit uns diese Zeit, BWV 14 is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Compositions task force.
WikiProject Germany (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wär Gott nicht mit uns diese Zeit, BWV 14/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iadmc (talk · contribs) 14:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

First, why Luther not JS Bach in the image? This article is about the setting not the Hymn (which is dealt with elsewhere). That was my first impression: so, until that is sorted all else is irrelevent, IMHO... Thanks!

We have only one image of Bach on the commons. He is about 25 years too old for this composition. It would be the same for all his compositions, so doesn't give the reader any clue. Most of them will have seen it anyway. For the chorale cantatas, we often have the image of the hymnwriter. Best images are Bach's handwritings, next best gospel scene in a contemporary image, but those two options are not available here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Alternatively, WP:lead images are not compulsory according to the relevant guidance. I researched Commons yesterday to see whether I could find an image that "illustrate[s] the topic [of the article] specifically" (emphasis added), as the relevant guidance has it, but could find none. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Repeating: for the chorale cantatas, we often have the image of the hymnwriter, - a reader of several cantatas almost knows it's a chorale cantata by seeing the face of a hymn writer. Also: the hymn is mentioned in the lead as the basis for the cantata. Restoring the stable version. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I heard you the first time. Idiosyncratic habits don't supersede relevant guidance, as you have been told before. That's why I quoted guidance, not the habits that determined what happened on other articles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Since this review began, Francis Schonken changed the article to his liking, finally this. Close please, and please restore the stable version. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Multiple edits without discussion[edit]

Please discuss each edit. Unilateral edits on an article at GA review level without discussion on a supposedly collaborative project seems a little high handed. Discuss please.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC))

The GAN initiator has withdrawn. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Discuss your changes, please..(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC))
Unproblematic changes do not need to be discussed. "at GA review level" (which it is not, by the way) does not make edits problematic. State your precise objections, please, if you have any. Just changing Wikipedia's rules that "every edit needs to be discussed" is not going to fly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Your changes were unilateral and challenged therefore not unproblematic; this means you discuss. This is not about what you are changing but how. Discussion in a civl way is a best approach given Wikipedia's collaborative community.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC))
Francis, It is important where there is a ArbCom decision requiring infobox changes to be discussed, and on a case-by-case basis, that goodwill be strictly adhered to. In this case, the article is at GAN, no question there, and the nominator has a clear track record of successful GAN that suggests that the nomination is of a quality likely to succeed. In this case, given the parties involved and past history, there is a concern of WP:HOUNDING here and WP:POINTy behavior. Montanabw(talk) 19:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree that unproblematic changes certainly do not need to be discussed beforehand, but your edits are far from unproblematic and the general way in which we edit is that once your changes have been challenged by reversion, you make the case for your changes on the talkpage, not plow ahead regardless of multiple other editors' objections.
Your unilateral removal of the infobox is a problematic edit because of the benefits the infobox brings to this article.
Your change of an infobox specific to a Bach composition into a general one is problematic because you added no key information, and duplicated some information – it's obvious that a "Chorale cantata" is a "Cantata", for example. Adding fields like "Related" need discussion: in my opinion, a link to the article Chorale cantata cycle is not a key piece of information for this infobox. Please bear in mind WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE: "however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content."
The question of the date in the source needs discussion. The editor who added that source obviously believed that the version they were referring to when they wrote the text was dated 1995. It is, however, perfectly possible that a newer version of the notes has replaced the original on that website. The pdf itself is downloadable and shows that it was created on 31 May 2011 and last updated on 20 January 2013. If you wish to substitute a different source,, then please discuss your reasons for the substitution.
On the whole, this article has been relatively stable from around 2013 until February of this year, when Gerda nominated it for GA. Your 20+ edits in a single day, accompanied by edit-warring, cause problems for the other editors of this article and for any potential GA reviewer. I'm asking you now, politely, to slow down, please, and cooperate particularly with Gerda, who is the principal editor of this article by a considerable margin. --RexxS (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

References and external links[edit]

Suggestions regarding references and external links:

  1. The article currently contains a WP:ELNEVER link, which I removed, and was reverted back in (tagged with {{Copyvio link}})
  2. The same source talks about a composition that was rediscovered in 2005, yet the date of the source is currently given as "1995" [sic]. I corrected it with a link to the correct date: both link and correct date have been reverted to the erroneous date. (now tagged as {{Failed verification}})
  3. For unexplained reasons the "Neuendorf" source has been removed, hence tagged with {{refimprove}} (which also applies in a more general sense, e.g. one of the sections has no source whatsoever)
  4. I removed the Bischof source from the EL section: that source is in German (with a few musical terms in Italian), it doesn't add anything to what is linked from and/or covered in the article, and makes the EL section bulky without apparent reason – hence {{External links}} tag: I'd avoid excessive external links.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Consider thoughts, asking "Can we agree", and proposals. You seem not to agree? - I don't know about the removed source, but think it may have been an accident. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: the source you introduced here has a wrong date. I have no clue where you got that date. It are liner notes to 21st-century recordings, including the recording of a composition that was rediscovered in 2005. How can the date of these liner notes be "1995"? Also, the title of that reference is quoted wrong ("The Cantatas ofthe Picander early 1730s" is even grammatically erroneous), and its url is a copyvio link. I sorted it, but got reverted: now you please take responsibility for this detrimental edit. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I restored the good ref that you found. I don't know where I got a wrong date from in 2012, most likely by copying from a different cantata and forgetting to change. Sorry. - I take responsibility only for edits I made. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I recommend that you make changes in single steps, each with an edit summary, to avoid that a revert hits also things in the same edit that are good. Don't expect sifting please. - Nobody is against edits that improve article qualitity, and nobody asks for all edits being discussed before being made. But when reverted, such as the bolding of the BWV number which I prefer, then please discuss instead of reverting again. - I confess that the removal of the infobox looked like a declaration of war to me, given that the topic is often described as a battleground. It's not constructive. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Re. "single steps, each with an edit summary" – Such as this one? Don't find fault where there is none. The reverts (which reverted multiple single steps, without any precision in the edit summaries) were at fault. Where I find fault too is with edits such as this one and this one – it invites to wholesale reverts that are not properly explained in edit summaries. So sure, you have a responsibility in sailing too close to the wind of what goes against WP:CANVASS (again). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
You do single steps, no doubt about that, but this wasn't, also it made changes I'd have preferred in January when I nominated the article for GA, not now when I almost forgot about it and have no time for it. That's why I asked to close the GA review. Can we look forward, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Re. "have no time for it" — You found time to revert a couple of my edits to this page. You found time to go spamming about this to several pages in the past few days since the GAN was activated (there are more than the two diffs I mentioned above), mostly overtly or covertly "complaining" about my edits (while, just before the GAN was activated, I recommended you complain less). So, take responsibility for these edits: if you had time to make such questionable edits on half a dozen pages I don't think "I don't have time to follow through" is an acceptable excuse. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
You misunderstood me, again. I had not really time for a review of an "old" article" at this time, which has nothing to do with you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Nah, I didn't misunderstand you: when you requested the GAN closure you didn't mention lack of time, but you did include some ad hominem complaining ("Francis Schonken changed the article to his liking, finally this"). So really, you should have asked to close the GAN for lack of time, not with an invitation to undo some of my edits. If you play it thus, spamming my edits across multiple pages, then take responsibility for that spamming. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: If you're simply going to take a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, then you'll find yourself topic-banned from these sort of articles. Wikipedia can't afford to have editors who are unable to collaborate with others. You have changed the article substantially in a very short period. What's the rush? Why do you find it so difficult to work with someone who has provided over two-thirds of the article's content?
As for your specific points, it is obvious that you're on a mission to remove the Bach Cantatas website from articles under the mistaken impression that it is not a reliable source. I disagree and I will revert your removals unless they are replacing the source with a better one that clearly offers an improvement to the content of the article. In other words, simply substituting source B (that you like) for source A (that you dislike) is not acceptable without improving the content at the same time.
You have now tag bombed this article in a fit of pique because you can't have your own way. I want you to explicitly state here what content is unverified, and exactly which external links you believe violate WP:EL. If you don't, then I'll remove the tags and start preparing an ANI case. --RexxS (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@RexxS: please stay on topic: if Gerda assumes no indirect responsibility whatsoever for issues #3 and #4 above, then the responsibility for causing them rests solely with the editor who caused them, which is you. So please repair the damage in the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
The topic, Francis, is the damage you do to articles such as this by your refusal to work with other editors such as Gerda, who provided most of the content and sources for this article. If you feel that is a better source than for the same content, then make a case for it, rather than simply insisting that your sources are better than someone else's. There is no place for such arrogance on Wikipedia. I disagree that the source you prefer is any improvement, and my revert is my affirmation of my opinion. Similarly, I disagree with your contention that is not a useful external link, and I therefore restored it. I'm sure you read German as well as I do, and I find it helpful and interesting to have a reference to the original German text. You don't get to impose your own personal preferences on articles, especially not by making two dozen major changes in a day, many of them multiple changes that would demand a massive effort on the part of the regular editors of the article to ascertain whether each one improves the article or not. I've told you before: slow down and discuss your proposed changes. You won't get your own way by trying to bludgeon your preferences into an article. Your tag bombing is demonstrably baseless and you have provided no justification for the tags beyond a vague "which also applies in a more general sense, e.g. one of the sections has no source whatsoever". You know very well that requesting citation improvements requires naming specific content that you are challenging: please don't misuse the {{refimprove}} template again. --RexxS (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Nah, the topic here are not behavioural issues, on which you are wrong BTW (Gerda refused, explicitly, to work with me prior to submitting a GAN on a chorale [cantata] article, after a FA coordinator had suggested such collaboration to her).
The topic here is getting agreement about changes:
  • #1 and #2 are settled, which means that the copyright-infringing pdf of the Koopman recording is no longer linked from the article. No need to bring up again something on which the consensus is clearly that you were wrong.
  • On #3: there's no excuse for removal of that source.
  • #4 should probably best be taken to WP:ELN now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
No matter how many times you try to talk your way out of it, your attempts to impose your own preferences on this article remain the problem. Work with others, or you'll find your editing privileges won't last long. There is no agreement to your unilateral changes.
  • #1 and #2 are rejected by me and by others, so are a long way from settled. The link is not ELNEVER. That is for WP:External links and you're confusing them with WP:References; just because you don't like the Bach Cantatas site doesn't make the source a copyvio. You did not correct the date of the source, but simply replaced it, and are using the date as an excuse to impose your own preferred source.
  • On #3: There's no excuse for adding that source in place of the source which has been accepted for much of the life of this article. I've asked you to make the case that using your source in place of the long-standing source improves the article. You have failed to do so, so the status quo applies until such time as you are able to find consensus to change it.
  • I'll be happy to hear other opinions on your removal of a perfectly good external link. Feel free to raise it at WP:ELN.
I'm also more than happy to hear other opinions on your editing of this article. There are behavioural issues on your part which have (1) made mass changes in brief period to a previously stable article; (2) removed good sources and external links; and (3) caused a GA reviewer of this article to withdraw from the process. --RexxS (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well, you can't have it both ways: declaring the entire field of references and external links problematic for this article, and at the same time keep removing the standard tags to indicate such unresolved issues from mainspace. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The only person who thinks that the references and external links are problematic is you. The reference that you complain about has been in the article since at least January 2012, and the external link was in the "Sources" section in 2009. I can't see how you can claim that a web site used to write the article can be dismissed as "it doesn't add anything to what is linked from and/or covered in the article, and makes the EL section bulky without apparent reason". If it's relevant enough to be used as a source for several years, it's relevant enough to appear as an external link, even when no longer directly cited. Those sites have been accepted in the article for years and I don't agree with your reasons for removing them. If you want a third opinion, I'll ping @Gerda: as the principal author of the article for her views on the issue. --RexxS (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree with Rexx here. Francis you made multiple unilateral changes in a short time which made it hard to discuss the changes. Your tone is bullying as here,"I heard you the first time. Idiosyncratic habits don't supersede relevant guidance..."Rexx is right. If you have an incorrect date fix it. Using an incorrect date as a reason to remove a source/link isn't appropriate and perhaps less than fair or even honest. I've looked at the external sources. Please identify your concerns. Tagging the article because you have a concern with a link is overkill and as you probably know will prevent a GA review since it makes the article look as if it isn't stable. Since the article has been stable for along time your tag action given the links and the easy changes looks vindictive. Please consider these points and those of other editors here; the article may need a few changes but should not be viewed as unstable.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC))
I disagree with both of you, on all points. I suppose you underestimate the challenges of keeping an article such as this one in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, e.g. WP:ELNEVER: transgressing that policy (e.g. by re-introducing the copyvio link to the Koopman pdf hosted on the Bach Cantatas Website) brings Wikipedia in disrepute (read the policy, please). Arguing that such a link has been here "for a long time" does not reflect badly on the one finally addressing the situation, but it does reflect badly on those reverting it back in more than once. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what to do with "...are a long way from settled" vs. the contention that it's all "unproblematic"; nor what to do with the contention that I would have removed a source for a wrong date (I didn't: I corrected the date – after which it got reverted to the wrong date multiple times); etc. etc. Please check before making such extraordinary claims. The purpose of this talk page is to improve the article, not to make far-fetched claims impeding the work of those who are here to improve the encyclopedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Francis. Your behaviour doesn't support the idea that you are here to improve the article but rather suggests me that you are here to thwart another editor. An article that was ready to be reviewed could have been adjusted for the review instead you tag bombed the article which usually signals a lack of stability. If you are here to improve the article for those who did the work on it perhaps you ought to treat Gerda better and help her instead of putting obstacles in the way as you did with a tag bomb. You also made many unilateral edits which were challenged and frankly your tone was pretty darn nasty. This crated a battle ground were none was needed. No I didn't work on this article but I am sick to death of the WP manipulations. It would have been so easy to just fix the problems, help prepare the article for a successful review and do it in a way that was collaborative and supportive.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC))
(point #4 in my original list above, and later suggestions to take it to WP:ELN): ELN processed, see Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 19#Hobby site in Bach cantata articles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
You point to anoter archived discussion. You said something, one user agreed. the rest of the world was not interested: that does not create a consensus to ban the site. When I met the topic of Bach's cantatas, these links were used, and I find them useful: no other site I know (not even Dürr/Jones) shows that clearly which voice(s) and instrument(s) are heard in a specific movement. It's also harmless and factual, without any added opinion (other from Mincham). I suggest to use it as external link, for those who profit from it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Step by step[edit]

  • Taking this step by step: can we re-introduce the Neuendorf source (per #3 above)? And if not, why not? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Added, please use it.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wär Gott nicht mit uns diese Zeit, BWV 14/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll check this over soon. JAGUAR 19:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

  • "focusing on the thought that our life depends on God's help and is lost without it" - focusing, and I can't help but feel that 'our life' sounds too informal and personal somehow. Do you think it should be replaced with something like 'humankind'?
I think "humankind" is too many ;) - how about something like "believers'" or "believer's"? Other suggestions welcome. --GA
  • "Bach seems to have desired to fill this void and complete his cycle of chorale cantatas" - wrong tense. Probably best to remove this
We need that he filled some of the voids later, but not all, and over a long time. What do you suggest? --GA
  • "For the Bach scholar Christoph Wolff it is evident that Bach" - how about Bach scholar Christoph Wolff found it evident that Bach
taken --GA
  • "The theme of the chorale is connected to the gospel in a general way: our life depends on God's help and is lost without it" - again, I feel that 'our life' feels a bit wrong here and could be generalised to something like "humankind". If you disagree I wouldn't mind keeping it, but it seems a bit personal for encyclopedic language
as above: how about "believer"? --GA
  • "the text of the first and the last stanza" - the second 'the' is redundant
changed to "the outer stanzas" --GA
  • "while an unknown librettist paraphrased the inner stanzas" - I've never heard of this word before. Can it be linked to Libretto?
done --GA

Good work. Could find very little wrong with this one! I'll place this on hold until the minor issues are clarified. Good article on hold JAGUAR 19:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Tell me if "believer" would be an acceptable term? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Gerda. "Believers" sounds more accurate, and I think keeping the "seems to have" part will suffice. I don't have any more concerns so I'll be happy to promote this, seeing as it's a nice and compact article. Well done! Good article JAGUAR 00:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)