An Wasserflüssen Babylon

Copy of Reincken's work by Bach

• ... that the hymn "An Wasserflüssen Babylon", a paraphrase of Psalm 137, was the basis of a chorale fantasia by Johann Adam Reincken which Bach copied as a boy (copy pictured)? Source: [1] and others

• Reviewed: to come Hans Klumbach
• Comment: ..., which is one of two of his oldest manuscripts, found again in 2005/06[2] - there's plenty of news. We don't see a thing on the image but is RARE ;) - We just had Innocent Victims where we also didn't see a thing.

Converted from a redirect by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 15:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC).

• Most everything looks good (long enough, timing fits, no copyvio, neutral, interesting hook--and cool image to go with!), just needs a QPQ and then(ETA: done!) ideally an update of the references in the entry to confirm the hook? Given image, it seems like they almost certainly exist; but at the moment that specific sentence has a "not in citation given" flag that's probably worth reconciling before moving the DYK forward. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It took me a while to read the article ;) - When I nominated, it was a short little thing. I managed to review. What's not in the citation seems to be the exact year, but "as a boy" should be sourced. Perhaps you can tell the two experts what you like and what not, better than I could? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look Gerda Arendt! Indeed this is well outside my own expertise; I just clicked through to the link to check, and as best I can tell, I don't see the bit about copying the manuscript in those Programme Notes? I mean obviously he did or you wouldn't have an image of it, but would you mind either pointing out to me the part that says that, which I'm just misunderstanding/overlooking (highly likely), or suggest a different source we can use as the reference, just so we can remove that flag? I wouldn't be concerned except for it being the hook. Thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I found this but don't know what the experts will think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I've just found a book ref as well. Mathsci and Francis Schonken, does one or both of these seem reliable to you? Any other comments before the DYK goes forward? Thanks for having a look! Innisfree987 (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• the article is unstable, and needs considerable work. The issue mentioned above was addressed by me on the talk page, Talk:An Wasserflüssen Babylon#Reincken/Bach stories involving "An Wasserflüssen Babylon", "1700" topic. Seems nor Gerda, nor anyone else, took the time to even look at it. All in all the article is a hack job (translated from German Wikipedia without adding proper references). The German Wikipedia article no longer carries "nach den Vorgaben Martin Bucers" (while unprovable by reliable sources) yet that phrase is still adopted in the English version without a source in sight that confirms it. Etc. – I could still go on for considerable time, but prefer to devote that to improving the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback; yes by all means, focus on the entry as you wish! WP:VOLUNTEER and whatnot. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Francis Schonken's decision to remove any mention of Gerda's DYK hook in the lead was not helpful. Mathsci (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, the hook doesn't have to be in the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It was not in the main body. I have all the source material in the reference. Mathsci (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Re. "It was not in the main body" – incorrect, it has always been in the main body, in every version I've seen. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Re. "... Francis Schonken's decision to remove any mention of Gerda's DYK hook in the lead ..." – incorrect, I didn't remove any mention of the hook from the lead. I take offence of Gerda Arendt's "Never mind" in their response to the false accusation: sort of shows they didn't check, though their "the hook doesn't have to be in the lead" is of course correct. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The source proposed above for the hook (www.thescrollensemble.com) doesn't really cover the hook. I discussed a better source on the article's talk page. For me, this confirms once more that people write here without really checking. Over-all the situation has hardly improved. Again, I could write a lot about aspects where the current version of the article fails, but prefer to improve rather than to write reams of text here. As for this DYK, with all these problems: hardly a good idea, so I continue to oppose until problems are really addressed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Noted and agreed again that spending your time improving the entry sounds like a wise choice. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The suggestions here seem to be purely procedural. Consensus so far indicates that the article is fair at the moment. There will always be new perspectives on the content: since the topic concerns the Reformation—a very wide-ranging topic—that will always be the case. Looking at other Lutheran Hymns, the article here seems to be in a much better state than most articles of this kind. Vater unser im Himmelreich is comparable. Only a few articles on Lutheran articles to have been created at the moment to judge by Category:Lutheran_hymns. Mathsci (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Anyhow, with the new Beißwenger content ([3]), the hook as written can not be maintained. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The DYK hook still seems to be going smoothly, despite recent edits. On articles like Lutheran hymns, things go slowly by consensus. For example I created the "Hymn tune" on Vorbis-lilypond, choosing my own tempo and a cor anglais as instrument. I used that because soft reeds are usual registrations for this type of piece (as mentioned by organists like Stinson). It's not perfect, but OK for the moment. Mathsci (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, "... which Bach copied as a boy ..." in the current hook proposal can not be said in Wikipedia's voice while at least one prominent Bach scholar (Beißwenger) doubts the contention (considers it at least unproven): what can not be said in Wikipedia's voice is unsuitable for a DYK hook (i.e. intended to be published on Wikipedia's mainspace). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that there are serious difficulties for two of the sources. Several Bach scholars, including some cited in reliable secondary sources, have given an informal description of the recent discoveries of Maul & Wollny. They certainly have given a reasonable informal account for a general readership. On the other hand the Bärenreiter Facsimile of 2006 and the encyclopedic tome "The Routledge Research Companion to Johann Sebastian Bach" by 2017 are intended for specialists, way beyond the competence of wikipedia: the first reference—which is only viewable in a non-borrowable music reference library—is at a graduate level; and the same is true of the Research Companion, "aimed at masters and doctoral students" and featuring a galaxy of specially chosen Bach scholars from all over the world. That level of expertise—e.g. deciding whether the handwriting of a relative can be identified with certainty—seems too technical for both sources; where something is too subtle, too ambiguous or just undecidable, only an informal "general readership" description can be given.

What Gerda suggested in the hook—perhaps with "youth" instead of "boy"—is appropriate. If a wikipedia article tries to be too technical, it cannot reasonably speak in "wikipedia's voice", whether the language is that of German, American/British or Esperanto (one of the three options for "An Wasserflüssen Babylon") Mathsci (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I meant something different when I said "in Wikipedia's voice": I meant something that doesn't need WP:in-text attribution. If Kirsten Beißwenger, a leading Bach scholar, says something isn't proven, you can't take a stance as Wikipedia implying that it is proven. You can only quote the leading Bach scholars, such as Peter Wollny, who say that it is proven, with an in-text attribution to such scholars. And then quote the opposing view, with an in-text attribution to a leading scholar that says that it isn't proven (to keep within WP:NPOV). All of that is less suitable for a hook on the main page, and anyhow requires the current hook proposal to be rewritten. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

There has been borderline edit-warring by Francis Schonken as he edit-wars in his preferred version of the lede. That does not represent "wikipedia's voice". Bach scholars have ascertained that BWV 653 was written in the period 1740–1750, in Bach's late maturity. That chronology conflicts with Francis Schonken's preferred lede: it is quite misleading for general readers. As a comic touch, in this edit[4] Francis Schonken wrote the edit summary Still incoherent, see talk. Those comments, however, were all written dictée by Francis Schonken. On this rare occasion, he seems to have been accurate. Mathsci (talk) 07:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Isn't this what is normally called "know all"?[5] Mathsci (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Remains to be done:

• Address the issues of two banner tags in the article (lead section; history & context section)
• Address the issues of seven in-line tags in the musical settings section (unless such minor tags are less a problem to go to the next phase of DYK)
• Update DYK proposal (ALT text proposal; indicate correct source(s); update proposed image caption)
• (don't know whether there are still other things to do)

I'd invite Gerda Arendt to take, if possible, an active role in sorting these last issues; at least, if their time is limited, indicate a direction for how to address the two banner issues at the article talk page (I fear neither is going to fall off the page automatically, and already spent more time than I should have in trying to get these issues sorted). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. User:Innisfree987 is an appropriate evaluator for the DYK and I would like to thank him for his comments which seem fair. I would also like to thank Gerda for initiating the DYK and for her offer to help me on the article. Gerda did that unprompted and it was kind of her to do so.

The hook seems fine. There is a problem, however, for the DYK image. The high resolution image from commons was uploaded a number of years back (2015), but the source is no longer available: it returns an error and I have been unable to locate the link. It is possible to give some kind of documentation for the source, but not necessarily on-line. The official documentation of Michael Maul and Peter Wollny, which needs to be verified, is a reference section available in a music library (in that case I used the Anderson Room in the University Library, Cambridge) but is not available on-line. The bare link to the 2006 publication of Bärenreiter Verlag is available, but that does not seem to be enough at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 06:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, both. I suggest that we focus on the hymn and its creation, and mention only what is certain about Reincken and Bach? We need to work on the Bucer thing then, but can move details on Reincken to his bio, and details on Bach to Orgelbüchlein? Sorry that I was not more helpful, but in March, I focus on women, Passion and Easter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Gerda. Bucer is not relevant here, nor any wikipedia "hack work", nor any of the original organ works by Bach, such as Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes (BWV 653 from "An Wasserflüssen Babylon"). Only the copying of Reincken's chorale prelude when Bach was a teenager are important for this DYK hook. The image, however, has not been properly sourced on Commons: I know how to rectify that but it will take a day or so. Mathsci (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, that all sounds completely appropriate to me, and the effort is much appreciated! Just drop me a ping when I should have another look. Thank you all! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I have found a properly sourced image on Commons now available on Bärenreiter Verlag. The image was in the "extras" section of the facsimile. See File:ReinckenAnWasser.jpg for the links there. Mathsci (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

In the hook, perhaps we should say "young man" or "teenager", instead of boy? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

"young musician" seems like the best description, given the context. Mathsci (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• As mentioned on the user talk page of Gerda Arendt, the current lead follows the same spirit as Gerda's DYK hook. One of the sentence is essentially adapted from Gerda, with some tweaks by several other users:

"The arrangements of "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" by Reincken and Pachelbel—along with the chorale prelude "Nun freut euch, lieben Christen g’mein," BuxWV 210 by Dietrich Buxtehude—comprise 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."

Gerda seemed happy with that and wrote "Thank you!" Mathsci (talk) 06:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• This has been stalled for far too long. Since "youth" has been suggested as a replacement from "boy" (and I've just replaced "has" with "was" in the above article sentence) and fits a Bach of 15 (or soon-to-be 15), here is ALT1 with just that change:

• ALT1: ... that the hymn "An Wasserflüssen Babylon", a paraphrase of Psalm 137, was the basis of a chorale fantasia by Johann Adam Reincken which Bach copied as a youth (copy pictured)?

Reviewer needed to confirm that ALT1 is adequately sourced, and given the extensive changes since the original review, should probably recheck to be sure that the "within policy" criteria such as neutrality and close paraphrasing are still met. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you BlueMoonset, I'm afraid the delay (from my POV as previous reviewer) is largely based on debate about whether or not this hook is accurate (see the last paragraph of in the entry, just above "Further reading"). Suggestions for hooks on other topics from the entry would be welcome if that might help resolve this nom faster! Innisfree987 (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

We could say anything from just "a paraphrase of Psalm 137 which inspired Baroque composers", but Bach's early copy seems the most unusual fact. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I am comfortable with the alternative of User:BlueMoonset. Mathsci (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• To address the debate, how about this version:

• ALT2: ... that the hymn "An Wasserflüssen Babylon", a paraphrase of Psalm 137, was the basis of a chorale fantasia by Johann Adam Reincken which some scholars believe Bach copied as a youth (copy pictured)?

Although I'm not sure how effective it would be as a non-lead hook, and "some scholars believe" may be too far in the weasel-wording direction. Still, I offer it up as a possibility. If it isn't acceptable, then someone needs to propose a new hook very soon; the nomination is over two months old. (However, the one about a paraphrase that inspired Baroque composers is pretty uninteresting, in my view, and I like Baroque music.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

That version seems inaccurate and misleading. A slight variant of the current lead is, "Reincken's chorale fantasia on "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" forms part of the earliest extant transcription of Bach, copied in colophon in 1700 in Lüneburg when he was still a youth; remarkably, they were only unearthed in Weimar in 2005." So for example this would be accurate:

• ALT3 ... that Johann Adam Reincken's baroque organ fantasia on the hymn "An Wasserflüssen Babylon", a paraphrase of Psalm 137, was copied by Bach in 1700 when still a youth (copy pictured)? Mathsci (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Still looking for a reviewer! Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The article still has multiple cleanup banners (as well as many harv linking errors). It is not currently in shape for DYK, two weeks after you wrote this, three weeks after the disruption above, and over three months after the date for which it was originally nominated. At some point you have to say enough is enough. But mostly I'm just writing here because I think "Super flum, baby!" should be the new hip expression of how cool something is. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

User:David Eppstein, the issue of Gerda's DYK hook is just a spin-off of discussions concerning arbitration: please see in particular User talk:Newyorkbrad#Comments and some of the preceding comments on NYB's user talk page.

As explained on my own user talk page, I have been seriously ill—most recently in A&E/isolation ward on 18–27 May 2018. (You also know me as a wikipedia mathematician: in RL, I am a friend and colleague of User:R.e.b.) I am still due to have two follow-up hospital appointments: stroke tomorrow and cardiology in a fortnight; I am still unwell and being treated in hospital, in conjunction with my GP. Mathsci (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Please get well soon, and tell R.e.b. we miss him. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Best wishes for your health. I wonder a bit if we could just get a much shorter article in shape for simple DYK, and then return for GA or even FA. Compare Nun danket all, - much more could be said, but for DYK, it's enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I think ALT3 is still fine. Baroque music ... Johann Sebastian Bach ... sounds like a wonderful idea. Wan't it originally your idea, Gerda? Mathsci (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)