Talk:Cecilian Movement

Maintenance tags and article issues

I placed maintenance tags, "multiple issues" with "References", "Citations", and "External links", on this article. I placed the "References section into a "General references" section because there are no proper inline citations. The references and citation tags were removed, and the "General references reverted back to "References", with the edit summary, "cites five sources, has nine inline citations; changed "General references" back to "References", since these are the cited sources, not uncited ones". With no page numbers, they are actually not properly citing the sources.

Issues:

• 1)- There are problems with the source citation style. There are references that do not provide Text–source integrity for reliable sources. This is covered at Wikipedia:Citing sources "A citation, also called a reference, uniquely identifies a source of information, e.g.: Ritter, R. M. (2002). The Oxford Style Manual. Oxford University Press. p. 1." (please note the page number). There is also Wikipedia:Inline citation and even Help:Referencing for beginners. The "References" tag, which does actually mean "no references", was not really proper.
• 2)- Because there are no "proper" inline citations there are concerns that the "External links" is being improperly used so the reason for that tag.
• 3)- This article was created in 2006, has had recent edits, and these obvious issues have apparently gone unnoticed. That is a reason for maintenance tags. Try to edit using "Provelt" and the result is No references found.
• 4)- There is a "Further reading" section (related reading) that has become an indiscriminate collection of information with as much or more content than the actual prose of the article. This needs severe trimming. By the time the embedded list is included the article is more a "list" with content than an article with a list.

I will be adding a "citation style" and "no footnotes" tags because of the "Text–source integrity issue".

I have explained, in detail, the valid reasoning for my edits and will make corrections. This is where some dialog to correct the issues, or just corrections would be appropriate, and then removal of relevant tags. Thank you, -- Otr500 (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, this is the place to discuss these issue. I will leave aside for the moment your third and fourth points—the "Further reading" section may well be overpopulated, as you say, but that is not the most urgent issue. To your points 1 and 2 (which are actually aimed at the same thing), why do you think that parenthetical referencing is not "proper"? The Wikipedia guidelines clearly disagree with you (see WP:Citing sources, WP:parenthetical referencing, and WP:CITEVAR). Specific to point 1, each of the citations does in fact "uniquely identify a source", in exactly the form you cite, with is by author and year of publication. The full bibliographical entry corresponding to each inline citation is found in the list of References (and indeed, links to those entries are also provided from each inline citation). Page numbers are not required for citations to dictionary or encyclopedia article, which are arranged alphabetically in the source publication, in case you are thinking of the citations to Gmeinwieser's and Haberl's articles in the New Grove Dictionary. The references to Hoffmann 1814 and Witt 1865 are to their books in their entirety. I have been watching this page for quite some time now, and I resent your claim that there are any obvious issues at all, let alone that they have gone "unnoticed". I suggest, on the contrary, that your familiarity with Wikipedia citation styles is less comprehensive than it might be, and that you need to learn about alternative formats preferred by other editors, with which you may merely be unfamiliar.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I will assume you are not just being combative when it appears you are attempting to impune my integrity concerning policies and guidelines. I will just consider you are not considering all areas in question. I have a policy of not edit warring as I may have undone a "revert" a couple of times and usually it is because of vandalism or other clear mal-intent. If an issue is important to me, and a dialog is not conducive to improvements, I usually just go another route. I generally run into something like this on a better class article with issue(s) and "guardian" editor(s). Please note: There is nothing wrong with Guardian editors and in fact are an important aspect of Wikipedia, but I have run into a few that seem to have ownership issues. I am not implying that is the case here either.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a "General references" section. While attempting to "spank me" you admit that "The references to Hoffmann 1814 and Witt 1865 are to their books in their entirety.", and this is the very definition of "General references". This means that you could have, instead of appearing to try to pick a fight, simply moved the other references back to a "References" section with either an edit summary or an edit summary and a note here, leaving the two in place. The idea of article improvements, by simple edits, BRD, or however, does not have to be a battle or war. If there is no current activity on a page, and lacking a new style self-attached "Page guardian" template", or maybe a wounded editor attached "Warning: this page protect by ______", or even "Warning: Crusty editor alert", then the other side of assuming good faith is also appropriate.

The point of "uniquely identify a source" is moot if there are no page numbers on specific inline citations especially if there are multiple pages involved. There are even tags, {{page numbers needed}} and {{page numbers improve}} to cover this. I touched on this above in #1 of "Issues" with "(please note the page number)", so am perplexed that you state the guidelines clearly disagree with me, more especially when there were/are these "general references" masquerading as "References" with no page numbers. Identifying them as the above mentioned general references clearly define this and avoids potential issues. I would think if a general references section just grows wild hairs on the body that an added "(general reference)" would suffice. I sure hope you can now see what I perceive as issues? As far as "Gmeinwieser's and Haberl's articles in the New Grove Dictionary.", I did not specifically consider these although I seem to recall that a dictionary entry is not normally a reliable source for content (I haven't looked) but certainly not for notability.

Many times I have run into an article referenced by books, or other than web-found sources, can't readily check things and something just doesn't look right, so I have to work in the time to explore acquiring one of the listed sources just to find that original research or synthesis has crept into the article. NOTE, WARNING, RED ALERT: I am not in the slightest implying or otherwise insinuating this is the case here; if you were grabbing for the "44".

I glanced at your user page and can not try to dream that I have the qualifications to even do more than token discussions on the areas of your expertise and I have been a musician for over 45 years. Your credentials are admirable, your travels extensive (lower '48, Canada, Mexico, and Germany here), but a lack of a paper pedigree(s) does not mean I am unintelligent.

The other "issue": When the combined embedded "Timeline" list section and "Further reading" section appear to be more than the prose of the rest of an article I see this as an issue. You state "...the "Further reading" section may well be overpopulated...", and that is argumentative only in that "may well be" could be substituted with "is", and it would not be inappropriate to place a {{further reading cleanup}} tag on the article.

Now, if we can get past petty word-sparing, and can agree there are at least a couple of issues and possible solutions, I can go about my proverbial rat-killing with confidence improvements are in future plans. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Leaving aside for the moment a lot of other important issues, do I understand you correctly to be saying that the New Grove is not a reliable source for an article on music? As I understand things, Dictionaries and Encyclopedias are excellent sources, so long as they come from respectable publishers, and there are few sources for music topics that are more relied upon than New Grove. If we really are at odds over such a fundamental point, then I suggest we had better deal with this first, because the rest scarcely matters by comparison.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

LOL---Nope, I said that a dictionary entry is not normally a reliable source but we are actually talking about an encyclopedia just with the name "dictionary". I would venture there is likely not a more prominent or important vehicle for all things music. Otr500 (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank goodness for that! The oft-quoted warning about dictionaries is, I think, a cautioned aimed at beginners. No source is reliable outside of its competence, but a respected dictionary is usually regarded as the best source for lexicographical matters, such as variant spellings, multiple senses, and etymology. On the other hand, an expert scholarly study of the literary works of Chaucer would hardly be suitable as a source on the pharmacological properties of atropine.

I am willing to accept that you are no more a beginner at referencing than I am, so I think we can skip the "advice to beginner" guidelines, wouldn't you agree?

So, we can move on, I think. Are we in agreement or not that dictionary encyclopedia articles are adequately cited by author and title alone? I have on rare occasion found Wikipedia editors who object that page numbers are also needed and, when they do, I go out and find them (though citing page numbers for, say, New Grove does not help when using the online version). There are a few NG items long enough to justify citing a location within the article (Harold Powers's essay on "Mode", for example), but here I find that section numbers are more useful than page numbers. Neither of the NG articles cited in the present article are more than a couple of pages long, though, so I would assume (and have done, up to now) that location cites are unnecessary in those cases. I submit therefore that there is no text-source-integrity problem with the article as it stands.

Then there is the question of identifying a book as a thing in itself, as opposed to a source about something. This is a problem I have often come up against on Wikipedia, though never anywhere else. As far as I can see, there are only two ways of making clear that the object is not being "used as a source for itself", while at the same time explaining what it is. The first is to name the book (article, painting) in full in the text; the second is to have a "Bibliography" section separate from the list of "References", otherwise treating the inline citation in the same way. That way, the link to the appropriate section makes the distinction. This has two obvious drawbacks: first, it is rather complicated, and the casual ready is not likely to appreciate the effort being made; second, if that source is cited elsewhere as a source (complete with page citation), then the item must appear in both the "Bibliography" and the "References" section, with different anchors, for use according to function.

This should do to be getting on with. Tell me what you think should be done.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

More information is necessary

This needs to be developed further, as this article doesn't actually specify what the reformations to church music repertoire looked like nor what they the reformations were attempting to achieve, other than to dislodge and reinstate traditionality at the hands of the 19th-century Enlightenment. The steps took to reinstate pre-Enlightenment practice extended past chant and more had to do with a full paradigm shift. This is not hinted at nor provided in any compact or protracted manner. Donotcontactme (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. 'The deficiencies of the official version of the Gradual and Antiphonal, the Medicean edition of 1614, had become evident by the beginning of the 19th century.' Please explain what these deficiencies were.Sdgard (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)