![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Afaik there are two "stories" connecting Johann Adam Reincken, Johann Sebastian Bach and the "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" chorale:
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 04:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC); updated 08:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Schütz's Op. 2, Psalmen Davids (1619), is unrelated to the " An Wasserflüssen Babylon" article. In his Op. 2 Schütz uses a different German paraphrase of Psalm 137 ("An den Wassern zu Babel"), unrelated to Dachstein's text, and a setting, SWV 37, unrelated to Dachstein's hymn tune. I propose to remove inclusions and links to Psalmen Davids from this article (they rather confuse the matter). Also the author of the "An den Wassern zu Babel" hymn does not need to be mentioned in the context of Schütz's setting of "An Wasserflüssen Babylon", also rather confusing than clarifying: in the current text it almost seems as if Gerhardt composed the Cantus of Dachstein's 1525 "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" hymn – SWV 242, the setting in Schütz's Op. 5 uses both Dachstein's text of "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" and Dachstein's melody for that hymn, afaik. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 13:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Do we want to keep this image (→) and its sources (↓)? IMHO this seems too far-fetched for the topic of this article. It is not even sure it is related to *any* of it (there's only a "possible" relationship to one of the persons mentioned in the article). Nor the image, nor the text in and under the image establish any relationship to Dachstein's "An Wasserflüssen Babylon". Further, there's already quite enough illustrative material in the article that more closely relates to the article topic. Further, there's a MOS:SANDWICHING-like issue (collision between the image and the tabulated verse in the next section), requiring a {{ clear}} template, which, at least on the screen of my desktop computer, produces a large white gap.
With all due respect for who digitised the image and uploaded it, but it is not that if it isn't the most suitable image here that it couldn't be used elsewhere in Wikipedia. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 04:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
notes, references, sources
|
---|
References
|
I prefer:
above:
as WP:LEADIMAGE in the infobox, primarily for legibility: the first image has a clearly readable version of the hymn tune, by modern standards, while the second is less legible for a modern readership: smaller (hymn text unreadable without magnification), less legible font, uses old terminology (cantus instead of soprano), uses soprano clef which is surely less readable to most users compared to the standard G clef. Also the height of the second image may push the infobox into the title area of the first section, which is less likely to happen with the first image. German verses are given entirely in a section elsewhere on the page, so I don't see why they should be given in illegible format in the lead image. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
This article had an infobox after the first expansion, - please restore it, for consistency with other hymns, and for not leaving the reader with the unexplained impression of a "song without words". ---- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
This was easy to read. [1] It was sourced later by me. The original German was slightly better written with a different order, which makes far more sense. Mathsci ( talk) 12:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, I have reverted Francis Schonken recent edits. These edits seems to involve WP:OR and do not match the sources at all. Some of the content edits seem our of kilter with part of the topic, i.e. the Reformation during reforms in Strasbourg Church, circa 1524–1525. Francis should describe his ideas and why he has written prose in that way. Mathsci ( talk) 18:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
German Wikipedia (not a reliable source per WP:USERGENERATED):
Reliable source (see above):
I don't really think this needs a trip to WP:RSN, but if this attempt to place the reliability of German Wikipedia above that of modern scholarship continues we might have to. Anyhow, Gerda Arendt translated it from an unreliable source, without adding a reference: maybe ask Gerda to fix this?
Exact page numbers and explicit sources were given here, however currently deleted. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 19:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
At present
Current article text:
Heinrich Schütz published a four-part setting of "An Wasserflüssen Babylon", SWV 242, in his Becker Psalter, Op. 5, 1628. [1] [2] citation needed
Two images, six references (four unused), one external link
|
---|
Images:
References
External link: |
Seems disproportionate if you ask me. @ Gerda Arendt: could you perhaps help out here, especially as the images were apparently created on your request? Either the body of the article is failing in transmitting the significance of Schütz's setting of "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" (in that case: please expand the text in the body of the article, using available and/or additional references), or the amount of images, references (most of them unused) and the external link create an overrating impression of importance for this setting, disproportionate to the relative weight this setting gets in reliable sources on Dachstein's hymn. I'm impartial as to what might be the case, but the " citation needed" tag added in the body of the article to the single sentence about this setting rather suggests the latter may be the case: if that is so, I'd remove unused references, and retain only the most relevant of the two images (see also above). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
These were marked with a copyright for 1974 in the edition of Breifkopf & Härtel. No prior edition seems to exist as far as I am aware. At the moment this seems to be a WP:COPYVIO. Stinson quotes the coda of the same version of the 1974 edition: the identical ornamentation was made by the arranger in 1974 so seems not to be within the public domain. I was interested in using a musical quote from Reincken's coda, but that does not seem to be possible given the WP:COPYVIO. I would like to ask User:Moonriddengirl for clarification, as she os one of the ex[erts. It is an unusual problem and slightly hard to deal with. Most editions of Breifkopf & Härtel from the 19th century are easily found. At the moment I don't even know how to produce a lilypond version of excerpts: I would have to create a normal score of the tablature version and then invent my own ornamentation in lilypond. Mathsci ( talk) 12:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Beckmann's edition is under copyright and is marked 1974. Another edition was produced by C. F. Peters in 2002. There is also Willi Apel's edition from A-R editions marked with a copyright notice of 1967 (Armen Carapetyan). I also saw that a 2013 dissertation gives quotes from Reincken's fantasia from Oregon. If there is ambiguity here, the best approach is to ask User:Moonriddengirl. She can help out. Mathsci ( talk) 13:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I am preparing a short summary that hopefully will be available tomorrow. Mathsci ( talk) 23:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
This article was originally a translation of the de.wikipedia article (see the attribution). There seems to be useful content there:
Of course "wikipedia is not a source", but there are huge amounts of reliable secondary sources. It seems like valuable content which can easily be sourced. I am quite happy to expand on the theme of The Reformation in Strasbourg—it's quite topical!—which provides context not yet provided in the article. As a caveat, some late nineteenth sources are out of date and often in Gothic font: given the wealth of material on "The Reformation", I would prefer something written in English. Any comments are welcome, particular for those knowledgeable on the 1525 reforms in Strasbourg. Mathsci ( talk) 09:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I will be thinking about the second paragraph of the lead for a few days, using the sources of Maul & Wollny, Beisswenger and Williams as well as previous suggestions from other users: I will try to produce a new version. Probably it will be best to use citations in the lead. I intend to start using Peter Williams' "Bach: A Musical Biography". I have the online version from the Cambridge University Press core, which has a lot of information. Mathsci ( talk) 16:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
The new lead has been written. These involve five carefully written sentences, compatible with other edits and other users. They are compatible with the current DYK hook: Gerda checked the new lead and thanked me for my help. Per WP:consensus, other users can discuss the new lead. Francis Schonken's sentences did not summarise the content well, so his edits have been replaced by far more carefully written content. There have also been other improvements:
Per WP:consensus, User:Softlavender recommended that, given my own known experience as an editor, I should just improve the previous effort at producing a lead. That is what I have done. Francis Schonken should now discuss per WP:consensus. Mathsci ( talk) 13:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Several vocal and organ settings of the hymn "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" have been composed in the 17th and 18th century, including 4-part harmonisations by Johann Schein, Heinrich Schütz and Johann Sebastian Bach. In the second half of the 17th century, Johann Pachelbel, Johann Adam Reincken and Bach's cousin, Johann Christoph, arranged settings for chorale preludes.
The arrangements of "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" by Reincken and Pachelbel form the earliest extant transcriptions of Bach, copied on a 1700 organ tablature in Lüneberg when he has still a youth; remarkably, they were only unearthed in Weimar in 2005.
In 1720, in a celebrated organ concert at Hamburg, Bach extemporised a chorale setting of "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" in the presence of Reincken, two years before his death. Bach also composed three versions of the chorale prelude "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" as part of the Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes, the last dating from 1740–1750 in Leipzig, possibly as a tribute to Reincken's well-known chorale fantasia.
Some issues with the current lead section were signalled here. Not sure what we're talking about: could someone please explain? Thanks. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Johann Adam Reincken wrote an extensive organ piece based on the hymn. Johann Sebastian Bach, who owned a copy of Reincken's composition in 1700, and twenty years later was commended by Reincken for improvising on the organ on "An Wasserflüssen Babylon", composed a chorale prelude on the hymn as part of his Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes.
Proposal above | Current lead | |
---|---|---|
(a) | Reincken's freely composed chorale prelude, composed in Hamburg in the late seventeenth century | Johann Adam Reincken wrote an extensive organ piece based on the hymn. |
(b) | the anecdotal moonlight compositions of Bach while only ten years old | Johann Sebastian Bach, ... |
(c) | the rediscovery of the tablatures of Buxtehude, Pachelbel and Reincken dating from 1698–1700 | ... who owned a copy of Reincken's composition in 1700, ... |
(d) | the performance of 1720 when Bach extemporised for about half an hour on the chorale prelude "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" and | ... and twenty years later was commended by Reincken for improvising on the organ on "An Wasserflüssen Babylon", ... |
(e) | the later chorale prelude of Bach written after 1740, possibly intended as a tribute to Reincken. | composed a chorale prelude on the hymn as part of his Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes. |
Given the WP:consensus, I will be thinking about this for a day or two, using the sources mentioned above and previous suggestions from other users: I will try to produce a new version. Probably it will be best to use citations in the lead. Mathsci ( talk) 13:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
The fork by User:Francis Schonken seems to have been deliberately created by the content in this article. That kind of editing is WP:disruptive and a way of "gaming the system". Counting the reverts, it seems that Francis Schonken is trying to edit-war content into a fork without WP:consensus. Mathsci ( talk) 22:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I believe these were first published in 1541. I don't know what the problem is. Mathsci ( talk) 00:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
This English tarnsaltion was written initially by Gerda Arendt, copied from the article on de.wikipedia. That text was not properly sourced and I have meticulously added those sources. Gerda's truncated translation, however, did not contain a lot of extra content from the de.wikipedia. That material made it hard for readers to work out what was going on in the article. I am now in the process of amplifying the text to improve that. Other users can help there; at the moment the sources for Martin Bucer—a featured article on en.wikipedia–can be used for summarising and tweaking the content, again carefully checking on the secondary sources (which I have unearthed). Mathsci ( talk) 10:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I currently have the hard-book version of Daniel Trocmé-Latter's lengthy book on loan in the UL. Unless they were already familiar with the topic, I cannot see how any wikipedia user could absorb that content without some great effort, thought and private notes; to me, even for a brief summary, it would need a few days, not necessarily consecutive.
Apparently the UL makes electronic resources available within the library and it might be a little easier for me to read those there (the typescript can be enlarged if needed; there are also search options for a PC that is physically in the library). I have started reading Daniel's fascinating book, which seems to be a Ph.D., perhaps submitted through the Department in Education at Homerton College. I would like to update my summary by carefully reading the introduction, first two chapters and copious appendices from Daniel's book. Mathsci ( talk) 10:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
The introduction (and elsewhere) in the book by Trocmé-Latte explains that Martin Bucer was the principal German preacher making reforms to the Strasbourg Church; those reforms to worship concerned the so-called "Agenda" and the congregational singing of psalms in German verse. This source seems to be standard undergraduate material on the Reformation and theology. This feels a little like the Argument Sketch. Mathsci ( talk) 15:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Gerda Arendt: here you removed the {{ refimprove}} tag from the History section, while at that point the sentence "The book contained, as instructed by the reformer Martin Bucer, a liturgical agenda and metric psalms as hymns.", in that section, had no reference. Later, references were added to that sentence, but none of these references cover that sentence. As far as I know, basing myself on the sources mentioned above, it can not be referenced to a reliable source. Thus I removed it (i.e. some later version of the sentence, equally unverifiable to the indicated sources). I see no other possibility than to keep that sentence out. Let that not stop you or anyone else from proposing a viable & verifiable alternative. Please also never again remove a refimprove tag before the problems indicated by the tag are properly handled (it only causes bigger problems like the ones we are having now). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Mathsci: re. the Straßburger Gesangbuch was only written in 1541 ( [3]): no, it was a re-issue of the 1537 edition. That information can be found in one of the references you deleted. As far as the "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" hymn goes there's nothing specifically noteworthy about the 1541 edition: it contained the hymn like its predecessors and successors. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 00:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Afaik there are two "stories" connecting Johann Adam Reincken, Johann Sebastian Bach and the "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" chorale:
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 04:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC); updated 08:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Schütz's Op. 2, Psalmen Davids (1619), is unrelated to the " An Wasserflüssen Babylon" article. In his Op. 2 Schütz uses a different German paraphrase of Psalm 137 ("An den Wassern zu Babel"), unrelated to Dachstein's text, and a setting, SWV 37, unrelated to Dachstein's hymn tune. I propose to remove inclusions and links to Psalmen Davids from this article (they rather confuse the matter). Also the author of the "An den Wassern zu Babel" hymn does not need to be mentioned in the context of Schütz's setting of "An Wasserflüssen Babylon", also rather confusing than clarifying: in the current text it almost seems as if Gerhardt composed the Cantus of Dachstein's 1525 "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" hymn – SWV 242, the setting in Schütz's Op. 5 uses both Dachstein's text of "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" and Dachstein's melody for that hymn, afaik. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 13:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Do we want to keep this image (→) and its sources (↓)? IMHO this seems too far-fetched for the topic of this article. It is not even sure it is related to *any* of it (there's only a "possible" relationship to one of the persons mentioned in the article). Nor the image, nor the text in and under the image establish any relationship to Dachstein's "An Wasserflüssen Babylon". Further, there's already quite enough illustrative material in the article that more closely relates to the article topic. Further, there's a MOS:SANDWICHING-like issue (collision between the image and the tabulated verse in the next section), requiring a {{ clear}} template, which, at least on the screen of my desktop computer, produces a large white gap.
With all due respect for who digitised the image and uploaded it, but it is not that if it isn't the most suitable image here that it couldn't be used elsewhere in Wikipedia. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 04:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
notes, references, sources
|
---|
References
|
I prefer:
above:
as WP:LEADIMAGE in the infobox, primarily for legibility: the first image has a clearly readable version of the hymn tune, by modern standards, while the second is less legible for a modern readership: smaller (hymn text unreadable without magnification), less legible font, uses old terminology (cantus instead of soprano), uses soprano clef which is surely less readable to most users compared to the standard G clef. Also the height of the second image may push the infobox into the title area of the first section, which is less likely to happen with the first image. German verses are given entirely in a section elsewhere on the page, so I don't see why they should be given in illegible format in the lead image. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
This article had an infobox after the first expansion, - please restore it, for consistency with other hymns, and for not leaving the reader with the unexplained impression of a "song without words". ---- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
This was easy to read. [1] It was sourced later by me. The original German was slightly better written with a different order, which makes far more sense. Mathsci ( talk) 12:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, I have reverted Francis Schonken recent edits. These edits seems to involve WP:OR and do not match the sources at all. Some of the content edits seem our of kilter with part of the topic, i.e. the Reformation during reforms in Strasbourg Church, circa 1524–1525. Francis should describe his ideas and why he has written prose in that way. Mathsci ( talk) 18:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
German Wikipedia (not a reliable source per WP:USERGENERATED):
Reliable source (see above):
I don't really think this needs a trip to WP:RSN, but if this attempt to place the reliability of German Wikipedia above that of modern scholarship continues we might have to. Anyhow, Gerda Arendt translated it from an unreliable source, without adding a reference: maybe ask Gerda to fix this?
Exact page numbers and explicit sources were given here, however currently deleted. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 19:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
At present
Current article text:
Heinrich Schütz published a four-part setting of "An Wasserflüssen Babylon", SWV 242, in his Becker Psalter, Op. 5, 1628. [1] [2] citation needed
Two images, six references (four unused), one external link
|
---|
Images:
References
External link: |
Seems disproportionate if you ask me. @ Gerda Arendt: could you perhaps help out here, especially as the images were apparently created on your request? Either the body of the article is failing in transmitting the significance of Schütz's setting of "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" (in that case: please expand the text in the body of the article, using available and/or additional references), or the amount of images, references (most of them unused) and the external link create an overrating impression of importance for this setting, disproportionate to the relative weight this setting gets in reliable sources on Dachstein's hymn. I'm impartial as to what might be the case, but the " citation needed" tag added in the body of the article to the single sentence about this setting rather suggests the latter may be the case: if that is so, I'd remove unused references, and retain only the most relevant of the two images (see also above). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
These were marked with a copyright for 1974 in the edition of Breifkopf & Härtel. No prior edition seems to exist as far as I am aware. At the moment this seems to be a WP:COPYVIO. Stinson quotes the coda of the same version of the 1974 edition: the identical ornamentation was made by the arranger in 1974 so seems not to be within the public domain. I was interested in using a musical quote from Reincken's coda, but that does not seem to be possible given the WP:COPYVIO. I would like to ask User:Moonriddengirl for clarification, as she os one of the ex[erts. It is an unusual problem and slightly hard to deal with. Most editions of Breifkopf & Härtel from the 19th century are easily found. At the moment I don't even know how to produce a lilypond version of excerpts: I would have to create a normal score of the tablature version and then invent my own ornamentation in lilypond. Mathsci ( talk) 12:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Beckmann's edition is under copyright and is marked 1974. Another edition was produced by C. F. Peters in 2002. There is also Willi Apel's edition from A-R editions marked with a copyright notice of 1967 (Armen Carapetyan). I also saw that a 2013 dissertation gives quotes from Reincken's fantasia from Oregon. If there is ambiguity here, the best approach is to ask User:Moonriddengirl. She can help out. Mathsci ( talk) 13:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I am preparing a short summary that hopefully will be available tomorrow. Mathsci ( talk) 23:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
This article was originally a translation of the de.wikipedia article (see the attribution). There seems to be useful content there:
Of course "wikipedia is not a source", but there are huge amounts of reliable secondary sources. It seems like valuable content which can easily be sourced. I am quite happy to expand on the theme of The Reformation in Strasbourg—it's quite topical!—which provides context not yet provided in the article. As a caveat, some late nineteenth sources are out of date and often in Gothic font: given the wealth of material on "The Reformation", I would prefer something written in English. Any comments are welcome, particular for those knowledgeable on the 1525 reforms in Strasbourg. Mathsci ( talk) 09:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I will be thinking about the second paragraph of the lead for a few days, using the sources of Maul & Wollny, Beisswenger and Williams as well as previous suggestions from other users: I will try to produce a new version. Probably it will be best to use citations in the lead. I intend to start using Peter Williams' "Bach: A Musical Biography". I have the online version from the Cambridge University Press core, which has a lot of information. Mathsci ( talk) 16:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
The new lead has been written. These involve five carefully written sentences, compatible with other edits and other users. They are compatible with the current DYK hook: Gerda checked the new lead and thanked me for my help. Per WP:consensus, other users can discuss the new lead. Francis Schonken's sentences did not summarise the content well, so his edits have been replaced by far more carefully written content. There have also been other improvements:
Per WP:consensus, User:Softlavender recommended that, given my own known experience as an editor, I should just improve the previous effort at producing a lead. That is what I have done. Francis Schonken should now discuss per WP:consensus. Mathsci ( talk) 13:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Several vocal and organ settings of the hymn "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" have been composed in the 17th and 18th century, including 4-part harmonisations by Johann Schein, Heinrich Schütz and Johann Sebastian Bach. In the second half of the 17th century, Johann Pachelbel, Johann Adam Reincken and Bach's cousin, Johann Christoph, arranged settings for chorale preludes.
The arrangements of "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" by Reincken and Pachelbel form the earliest extant transcriptions of Bach, copied on a 1700 organ tablature in Lüneberg when he has still a youth; remarkably, they were only unearthed in Weimar in 2005.
In 1720, in a celebrated organ concert at Hamburg, Bach extemporised a chorale setting of "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" in the presence of Reincken, two years before his death. Bach also composed three versions of the chorale prelude "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" as part of the Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes, the last dating from 1740–1750 in Leipzig, possibly as a tribute to Reincken's well-known chorale fantasia.
Some issues with the current lead section were signalled here. Not sure what we're talking about: could someone please explain? Thanks. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Johann Adam Reincken wrote an extensive organ piece based on the hymn. Johann Sebastian Bach, who owned a copy of Reincken's composition in 1700, and twenty years later was commended by Reincken for improvising on the organ on "An Wasserflüssen Babylon", composed a chorale prelude on the hymn as part of his Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes.
Proposal above | Current lead | |
---|---|---|
(a) | Reincken's freely composed chorale prelude, composed in Hamburg in the late seventeenth century | Johann Adam Reincken wrote an extensive organ piece based on the hymn. |
(b) | the anecdotal moonlight compositions of Bach while only ten years old | Johann Sebastian Bach, ... |
(c) | the rediscovery of the tablatures of Buxtehude, Pachelbel and Reincken dating from 1698–1700 | ... who owned a copy of Reincken's composition in 1700, ... |
(d) | the performance of 1720 when Bach extemporised for about half an hour on the chorale prelude "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" and | ... and twenty years later was commended by Reincken for improvising on the organ on "An Wasserflüssen Babylon", ... |
(e) | the later chorale prelude of Bach written after 1740, possibly intended as a tribute to Reincken. | composed a chorale prelude on the hymn as part of his Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes. |
Given the WP:consensus, I will be thinking about this for a day or two, using the sources mentioned above and previous suggestions from other users: I will try to produce a new version. Probably it will be best to use citations in the lead. Mathsci ( talk) 13:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
The fork by User:Francis Schonken seems to have been deliberately created by the content in this article. That kind of editing is WP:disruptive and a way of "gaming the system". Counting the reverts, it seems that Francis Schonken is trying to edit-war content into a fork without WP:consensus. Mathsci ( talk) 22:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I believe these were first published in 1541. I don't know what the problem is. Mathsci ( talk) 00:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
This English tarnsaltion was written initially by Gerda Arendt, copied from the article on de.wikipedia. That text was not properly sourced and I have meticulously added those sources. Gerda's truncated translation, however, did not contain a lot of extra content from the de.wikipedia. That material made it hard for readers to work out what was going on in the article. I am now in the process of amplifying the text to improve that. Other users can help there; at the moment the sources for Martin Bucer—a featured article on en.wikipedia–can be used for summarising and tweaking the content, again carefully checking on the secondary sources (which I have unearthed). Mathsci ( talk) 10:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I currently have the hard-book version of Daniel Trocmé-Latter's lengthy book on loan in the UL. Unless they were already familiar with the topic, I cannot see how any wikipedia user could absorb that content without some great effort, thought and private notes; to me, even for a brief summary, it would need a few days, not necessarily consecutive.
Apparently the UL makes electronic resources available within the library and it might be a little easier for me to read those there (the typescript can be enlarged if needed; there are also search options for a PC that is physically in the library). I have started reading Daniel's fascinating book, which seems to be a Ph.D., perhaps submitted through the Department in Education at Homerton College. I would like to update my summary by carefully reading the introduction, first two chapters and copious appendices from Daniel's book. Mathsci ( talk) 10:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
The introduction (and elsewhere) in the book by Trocmé-Latte explains that Martin Bucer was the principal German preacher making reforms to the Strasbourg Church; those reforms to worship concerned the so-called "Agenda" and the congregational singing of psalms in German verse. This source seems to be standard undergraduate material on the Reformation and theology. This feels a little like the Argument Sketch. Mathsci ( talk) 15:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Gerda Arendt: here you removed the {{ refimprove}} tag from the History section, while at that point the sentence "The book contained, as instructed by the reformer Martin Bucer, a liturgical agenda and metric psalms as hymns.", in that section, had no reference. Later, references were added to that sentence, but none of these references cover that sentence. As far as I know, basing myself on the sources mentioned above, it can not be referenced to a reliable source. Thus I removed it (i.e. some later version of the sentence, equally unverifiable to the indicated sources). I see no other possibility than to keep that sentence out. Let that not stop you or anyone else from proposing a viable & verifiable alternative. Please also never again remove a refimprove tag before the problems indicated by the tag are properly handled (it only causes bigger problems like the ones we are having now). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Mathsci: re. the Straßburger Gesangbuch was only written in 1541 ( [3]): no, it was a re-issue of the 1537 edition. That information can be found in one of the references you deleted. As far as the "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" hymn goes there's nothing specifically noteworthy about the 1541 edition: it contained the hymn like its predecessors and successors. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 00:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)