Wikipedia

Talk:Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53/Archive 2

< Talk:Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Nikkimaria in topic Bartlett
Archive 1Archive 2

Recordings section

Latest comment: 3 years ago60 comments3 people in discussion

Suggestions for the recordings section:

already transferred to mainspace
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

References

  1. ^ Solo Kantaten der Bach Familie at Muziekweb website
  2. ^ Johann Sebastian Bach: Kantaten – Cantatas BWV 53 – 82 – 170 – 200 at Muziekweb website
  3. ^ German 17th-Century Church Music at Muziekweb website
  4. ^ Bach: Arias & Cantatas at Muziekweb website
  5. ^ Elste, Martin [in German] (2016). Meilensteine der Bach-Interpretation 1750-2000: Eine Werkgeschichte im Wandel (in German). Springer. pp. 154–155. ISBN 9783476037923.
  6. ^ The Art Of Emmi Leisner at ArkivMusic website.
  7. ^ Darrell, R. D. (1936). The Gramophone Shop Encyclopedia Of Recorded Music. New York City: The Gramophone Shop. p. 34.
  8. ^ Disques Lumen (PDF) (in French). Paris: Disques Lumen. 1950. p. 7.
  9. ^ Decca UK 78rpm Discography 1929-1951. 2020. p. 216.
  10. ^ Elste, Martin [in German] (2016). Meilensteine der Bach-Interpretation 1750-2000: Eine Werkgeschichte im Wandel (in German). Springer. pp. 154. ISBN 9783476037923.
  11. ^ OCLC 79148798
  12. ^ BnF 37860702k
  13. ^ Ristenpart, Karl at CHARM website
  14. ^ Helen Watts - Songs For Courtiers And Cavaliers at jpc website.
  15. ^ Songs for courtiers and cavaliers / Helen Watts, Desmond Dupre, Thurston Dart at Trove website.
  16. ^ De aeternitate at Muziekweb website
  17. ^ Cantatas: BWV 198 "Trauerode", BWV 106 "Actus tragicus", BWV 196, BWV 53 at Muziekweb website
  18. ^ J. S. Bach: Sacred Cantatas for Alto at Muziekweb website
  19. ^ Bach: Arias with piccolo cello at Muziekweb website
  20. ^ Schlage doch gewünschte Stunde at Muziekweb website
  21. ^ Cantata : Yet can I hear... at Muziekweb website

--Francis Schonken (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC) – 12:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any better sources for these suggestions? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
(ec) Muziekweb is, afaik, a non-commercial source ("The CDR has no commercial objective; ... CDR has transformed ... to the national 'music library of the Netherlands': Muziekweb"); and, afaik, one of the best, so, don't understand what you could mean by "better"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
There are many recordings that could potentially be included, but some have sourcing to support their significance rather than mere existence. That is what I mean by "better". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
For a mere listing, this makes no difference. One is not "better" than the other in that context: both types are reliable sources, and whichever of such reliable sources has the information occurring in the list is as good as another reliable source holding the same information. It would make a difference when giving somewhat more context on recordings (that is apart from a mere listing of the recordings), but I have not seen any intention (yet) to enrich the article in that sense, apart from what I added about the very first recording of BWV 53. Rejecting the claim that "better" sources are needed, apart from WP:RS standards, for a mere listing, as not supported by Wikipedia policy or guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately not nonsense, in either case. Your proposal, given how you've defined "official" and the sourcing you propose, would allow any recording that had ever appeared in a library catalogue and been sold on Amazon to be included - which is effectively every recording. If that is not the meaning you intended, I would suggest clarifying your proposed criteria, particularly with regards to acceptable sourcing. And given the size of the article, 30+ recordings would qualify as "extensive". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Still, nonsense. According to WP:RSP#Amazon, Amazon is considered a "generally unreliable" source, so definitely "less reliable than AllMusic" and according to what I proposed "any source less reliable than AllMusic should not, not under any condition, be considered an acceptable source". So, no, you're still deforming my proposal, amounting to nonsense. Re. "given the size of the article" – I'd say WP:SOFIXIT, but since you've been, thus far, no major content contributor to the article (only a major content deleter), that would mean you'd have to make a complete change in your MO. I don't think that your "en masse" content deletions make you seem honest when you now assert that the article is too small for a normally developed Discography section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Amazon meets your definition of "official" for "official international commercial distribution chain", and then a catalogue like Worldcat qualifies under your definition of appropriate sourcing. If this isn't your intention I can only again suggest you amend your criteria. As has been pointed out to you elsewhere on the page, 30+ recordings is well in excess of what is included in a "normally developed" Discography section. The appropriate solution here is not to wildly expand the page, but to adopt a more selective approach to the discography (and/or split the unselective discography to a separate page as already mentioned). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Nikkimaria. The list of recordings is excessive and indiscriminate, with too many fussy edits that are at best parenthetic footnotes. On bach-cantatas, there is a forum where informed amateurs can document and discuss different recordings of BWV 53. The discussion there results from love of the music; might be slightly obsessive—the collector's instinct; but is conducted with courtesy and decorum. Wikipedia, however, serves a different purpose. The 30+ recordings are an {{example farm}}. There is no WP:consensus for indiscriminate list/lists, divided into subsections and then WP:POV-pushed into the article. As for BWV 1, BWV 4, BWV 54, BWV 56, BWV 82, BWV 140, BWV 170, etc, discographies are selective and decided by WP:consensus. Not observing consensus can result in a WP:CFORK. I endorse having a short selective discography. Having a separate discography is a different issue: it should not, however, interfere with the editing of this article. Mathsci (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

arbitrary break

  • (ec) Indiscriminate use of Muziekweb is not a great idea. The use of period instruments is another criterion that is worth thinking about. Of course BWV 53 is now (usually) excluded from any complete collection of Bach cantatas. But top countertenors/altos/mezzo-sopranos like singing it; and there is an appetite for the solo cantata repertoire "beyond JSB". Andreas Scholl has won prizes: awards like that are criteria for choosing between different recordings. Changing the subject a little, it's easier to judge the quality of countertenors/altos/contraltos by listening to something more substantial (e.g. arias from Handel operas or oratorios, which are not dissimilar). Unfortunately there are very few female singers who match up to the likes of Lorraine Hunt in the solo Bach repertoire. Mathsci (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • When you say use of period instruments is a criterion, do you mean you would want to limit the list to those that use them, or just that you would want it presented in the display? Agree that prizes would also be useful in determining significance. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Yes, I mentioned "original instruments". For this particular piece there are very few that are satisfactory. But generalt the recordings are in a like-minded album: cantatas that go "beyond JSB" are for example "Ach, das ich Wasser's g'nug hätte" by J. C. Bach, which is widely recorded, e.g. here on YouTube Mathsci (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
No, the criteria for standalone lists are not the same as the criteria for embedded. As indicated at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Lists_of_works_and_timelines, embedded lists are subject to UNDUE. For that reason a more selective approach is appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
... and back to wikilawyering: the description of what a criterion is, is the same for both types of lists. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Table?

Table format could reduce screen size, e.g.:

Recordings of Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde
Date Singer Voice type Instrumental Conductor Time
Jan. 2001 Humphries countertenor Kontrabande Humphries 6:17[1][2]
2015 Blaze alto Bach Collegium Japan Suzuki 7:09[3][4]

References

  1. ^ Music of Bach at Charles Humphries website.
  2. ^ Billinge, Dave (14 October 2014). "Review: CLAUDIO CR5154-2". MusicWeb International.
  3. ^ Trauerode (Secular Cantatas Vol. 6) at Muziekweb website
  4. ^ Stancliffe, David (1 April 2016). "Bach: 'Trauerode'". Early Music Review.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Making it a table versus a plain list does not absolve us of the need to be more selective in what recordings to include. I also agree with Mathsci below that things like timings do not warrant inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Holding on to the performance time, for the ones where it is documented, seems more than warranted, because these times are so wide apart (from around five minutes to nearly double that time), but all of them under ten minutes (which is the performance time given in one of the score editions – apparently missing the mark). So, no, the performance time of this piece is not straightforward, and it is thus best to include different approaches, i.e. WP:NPOV-style.--Francis Schonken (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Disagree, and at the moment consensus seems to be against you on this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
You disagree with the NPOV approach? Nah, not acceptable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I disagree that including or not including times has anything to do with NPOV. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Timings are unwarranted and not usual for cantata articles. However, the full name of the singer should be reported (it's done for other solo cantatas); the record label should be included (ditto); and the colour code for "period instruments" should be indicated. Anybody is free to improve tables like this. At the moment there is no WP:consensus for three separate tables or 30+ entries (i.e. an {{example farm}}). Mathsci (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: You have again added timings, which as per the above you do not have consensus to do. You are also using primary sources for recordings, without having reached consensus above about appropriate sourcing standards. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Per above, I'm going to say something about performance time of the work, thus, per above, the timings make sense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Per above, nobody agrees with you that saying something about performance time is warranted. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Consensus?

So far no WP:consensus has been sought for changes to the section on "Recordings" and their possible format. @Nikkimaria: and I were in agreement that the total of possible recordings as far too much—30 or more recordings. I know of no cantatas which give timings for minutes and seconds. That is an arbitrary choice (not available on an LP) so presumably was taken from a spotify list.

For male singers, alto and countertenor are interchangeable (e.g. René Jacobs for example). For female singers, it should be alto, contralto and mezzo-soprano.

At the moment, there is no consensus of how to select recordings: the presentation should follow those of baroque cantatas, especcially those of JSB. For JSB cantatas, the discography is selective. The featured article BWV 4 has a selected list of 18 recordings, Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4 discography which has no minute/second timings. That is to be expected. For BWV 140, there are 16 recordings. If one takes a solo cantata like Johann Christoph Bach's Lamento, "Ach dass ich wassers gnug hätte", it's nowhere to be found on wikipedia, no hint of Magdalena Kozena's recording. For BWV 54, there are 12 recordings: no micro-timings. For BWV 170, there are 7 recordings. And one of them is called "Lamento"—the one with Reinhard Goebel and Magdalena Kozena. In compiling lists/tables of recordings, the music should not be forgotten. Here, with only a short aria, there is no scope for writing lengthy tables. Articles on JSB cantatas almost always give information, which is accessible and helpful for readers. For BWV 53, with a spurious cantata and questions about the composer and librettist, even more care is required to keep things clear.

Looking at some of the recordings, it's not clear how useful older recordings are. Although Thurston Dart is acknowledged as a pioneer, performance practice on "period instruments" has evolved since the tinkling spinet (George Malcolm): the recording by Dart and Helen Watts is possibly not something that could be recommended. It is available on spotify, but probably should not be used for timing soft-boiled eggs ... I prefer Frau Rattle. Mathsci (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mathsci: What are your thoughts on the list below? Anything missing, anything you would propose removing? (Obviously formatting to be cleaned up and instrumentation added). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your question. Unfortunately the list mixes a list 3 tables. The countertenors Lesne and Mehta should be there (Kowalski and Ledroit probably not). Definitely Marianne Beate Kielland, who is one of the best. Leisner omits the da capo repeat and has a portamento singing style which is a negative. When there are spotify options, I would reccomend listening. But in general the contraltos in the list are much slower and do not conform to historic performance. Another criterion is the pitch of the bells; personally those one octave below sound better. (I made a similar check for recordings of BWV 1039 using spotify to make a list of selected recordings. There were more listed recordings, so it took longer to select them.) Mathsci (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Mathsci, could you propose a list of your own here? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Yes, if I'm given sufficient time to listen. Mathsci (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: The current edits have no consensus as far as I can tell. Mathsci (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I initiated a broader related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Recordings lists in articles on individual compositions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Performance time

Content about performance time added; images of singers normal size; intro of recordings section expanded; table simplified — thanks for your patience. Suggesting to take this up at the WikiProject talk page (as indicated in #Related WikiProject discussion above) if the principles of the foregoing would be unclear. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

You're of course welcome to seek additional input there if you like. However, the onus is on you to do so. You've readded content that has been objected to here, and that so far no one but you has supported including. The content in the latest series of edits also poses a number of concerns with regards to policies/guidelines including but not limited to verifiability and original research, as well as extensive use of primary sources, not to mention repetition of content. Accordingly I have undone several of the latest series of edits, pending further discussion here in the hopes of reaching a consensus on the proposed changes. As a reminder, "more content" does not equate to "better article", which is why WP:NOCON does not say that in cases of dispute we should keep whichever version has more content, but rather: in the case of a dispute, a lack of consensus results in retaining the prior version. In the interest of resolving some of the disputes above I am opening a formal RfC (below) on inclusion criteria for the list of recordings; once we have sorted out what to include we can further discuss the issue of how to present it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
This edit summary is incorrect. As noted above, the previous edit reverted disputed changes, making this edit a restoration of same without engaging in discussion (not in accordance with BRD). Also the reversion was explained ↑ - if something is unclear I'm happy to elaborate. But continuing to restore this disputed content, stonewalling discussion rather than engaging in resolving concerns or building consensus, is not appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Your replies show an increasing degree of WP:POINT behaviour. See your talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Bartlett

Latest comment: 3 years ago19 comments2 people in discussion

@Francis Schonken: As above: if you want to add content that is disputed, the onus is on you to get consensus for it. Failing that as per WP:NOCON the previous version is retained. In this edit you changed a citation from a web source that supports the content, to a {{cite AV media}} which does not. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The content, in itself, is not disputed. Format it whatever way you want, but without deleting content. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I restored the appropriate citation, and you reverted me. Are you saying you will not do so again? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
There are three external links:
None of them have actually been discussed content-wise thus far. Layout has been used as a lame excuse to attack this content. That is not a content discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
You replaced a citation that supported a particular quote, with one that did not. The question of sourcing standards for the Recordings section is under discussion above - where there has been opposition to the use of Muziekweb in particular and mere listings in general. So both the change in citation and the added cite in this edit warrant reversion, unless of course you obtain consensus for either. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Re. "... opposition to the use of Muziekweb in particular and mere listings in general" – none of which applies to https://www.muziekweb.nl/en/Link/DBX10344 (listing of the Scholl recording was never disputed). As for your question about Muziekweb (which you changed while I was typing my answer): my answer to the question was not disputed. It's not because a question has been asked, a decent answer provided, without retorts, that a permanent state of "opposition" or "dispute" can be imagined. At least the https://www.muziekweb.nl/en/Link/DBX10344 content has nowhere been put in dispute. Not a single content argument raised against it. If that does not settle the case for you, please take to WP:RSN – since Muziekweb has all external characteristics of a reliable source I don't see why we should lose any more time on this. Over-all I'm trying to figure what you're aiming at: above you write that a "user trying to add a new source" should not be met with all kinds of complexities and impediments: I've tried to add a new source ultra-simple way, then full blown, then something in between, and I see nobody putting up impediments to using that source here, but you... So please stop that MO, propose a format you can live with, and we'll take it from there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I have resolved the Bartlett citation. The issue of sourcing in the recordings list in general should be addressed above. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Rewrite not accepted: it was still, in part, an unexplained content deletion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Your rewrite is also not accepted, and therefore as per WP:NOCON unless and until you get consensus for it the previous stable version should be retained. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
The difference is the unexplained content deletions. Removing germane content "for the heck of it," as you apparently do, is quite disturbing behaviour. I've commented on your talk page on the behavioural aspect (which is not a topic for this talk page). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Complementary, I'd like to draw your attention to this extract of the "consensus can change" (CCC) policy: "... Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor (or, if you do use such terse explanations, it is helpful to also include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed)." – I consider the edit summary of this edit such type of terse explanation, not compensated by a precise link to a place where a consensus on the removal of 9000b of content was formed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
It's not "for the heck of it"; I've mentioned some specific concerns above, and as mentioned there I'm happy to elaborate on that if needed. As to "consensus can change" - certainly it can, but so far there is no indication that it has. Regarding the edit summary, edit summaries are not the place for extended discussion; directing to the talk page is appropriate in that case. The talk page is "such a big place now", in your words, because you've made a large number of changes, many of which have been objected to, and many of which you have restored without waiting for a consensus for them to form. And as already mentioned, the onus is on you to get consensus for your proposed 9000b of content, and at the moment you don't have it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Other example of an unexplained content deletion

With this edit I changed

...[1][2]

References

  1. ^ BnF 378636606; CANTATES Nos 170 (Vergügte Ruh') ; Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde ; Widerstehe doch / Johann Sebastian BACH available at Gallica[full citation needed]
  2. ^ OCLC 919784157; OCLC 4941250[full citation needed]

to

...[1]

References

  1. ^ Rössel-Majdan, Hilde; Scherchen, Hermann; Vienna State Opera Orchestra (1952). Cantates Nos. 170, 53, 54 (LP). Ducretet Thomson. 320CW086. BnF 378636606, available at Gallica; also OCLC 4941250 and 919784157. {{cite AV media}}: External link in |postscript= (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)

addressing the "full citation needed" tags (which BTW were not placed correctly according to the {{full}} template documentation). With this edit the latter was changed to

...[1]

References

  1. ^ Rössel-Majdan, Hilde; Scherchen, Hermann; Vienna State Opera Orchestra (1952). Cantates Nos. 170, 53, 54 (LP). Ducretet Thomson. 320CW086.

which deleted part of the content. For clarity: BnF/Gallica has afaik not been mentioned on this talk page before, and BnF is afaik unproblematic (a double BNF link present in the {{authority control}} box at the bottom of the page remained untouched throughout the aforementioned edits). OCLC links occur in all sorts of citation templates: when expanding {{oclc}} formatted links to a "full" citation (per the request in the "full citation needed" tag), then the OCLC links, are, of course, preserved. Thus I reverted as an unexplained content deletion, which was reverted again – again deleting part of the content, including the links to reliable sources. There were dozens of such content deletions, amounting to "massive unexplained content deletions" in Nikkimaria's last two major edits to this article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This demonstrates the principle that more is not always better. The purpose of a citation is to uniquely identify a specific source. The amended citation from my edit meets that requirement. The preceding version does not, as it indicates multiple sources - the citation is not the place to list all the versions of the source that may exist. Additionally the preceding version misuses the citation template, in order to jam in details that are not intended or required to be there. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
You're misquoting the guideline you link to, see the WP:WHYCITE section of that guideline. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Expanding on the WP:WHYCITE guidance (as it is), the first paragraph of that guidance reads

By citing sources for Wikipedia content, you enable users to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the credibility of Wikipedia while showing that the content is not original research. You also help users find additional information on the subject; and by giving attribution you avoid plagiarising the source of your words or ideas.

Splitting the aspects of that guidance,

  1. By citing sources for Wikipedia content, you enable users to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the credibility of Wikipedia while showing that the content is not original research.
  2. You also help users find additional information on the subject;
  3. ... by giving attribution you avoid plagiarising the source of your words or ideas.

I now propose an improved version of the Rössel-Majdan reference:

Rössel-Majdan, Hilde; Scherchen, Hermann; Vienna State Opera Orchestra (1955). J.S. Bach: Cantates Nos. 170 "Vergnügte Ruh" – 53 "Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde" – 54 "Widerstehe doch" (LP). Ducretet Thomson. 320 CW 086. BnF 378636606 (audio samples available at Gallica). Also issued by Westminster, as LP (OCLC 4941250) and as CD (OCLC 919784157). {{cite AV media}}: External link in |postscript= (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)

Which has five external links. The table below has an analysis of these links for the above-mentioned aspects "a" and "b" ("c" does not apply to the case):

Conformance of external links in Rössel-Majdan citation to WHYCITE
url unique for "a" "b"
https://img.cdandlp.com/2017/08/imgL/118888960.jpg correct rendering of title of source  
https://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb378636606.public publication date of source  
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k8843644t audio sample of the recording  
OCLC 4941250 performance time  *  *
other LP edition of same recording  
OCLC 919784157 recording date  
CD edition of same recording  
* "a" if the information is contained in the body of the article; "b" if not

Note that the Westminster re-issues are likely more easy to find in North America, while the Ducretet Thomson release is rather European. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

This is an interpretation of WHYCITE which is not consistent with our practices, nor with the correct usage of the templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Dozens of other content deletions

Nikkimaria has not given precise reasons for dozens of other content deletions. They have been wikilawyering with guidelines of which they obviously don't even grasp the intent (such as WP:CITE), and other quite disturbing proceedings. I propose to ignore their WP:POINTy behaviour for the time being, and concentrate on content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I have given reasons above, and have offered to elaborate on any that may be unclear to you. To summarize:
  • The series of edits included a number of changes that had previously been objected to and had not received support. Thus it was known ahead of time that there was no consensus to make those changes.
  • The edits made extensive use of primary sources. Wikipedia articles are meant to be based on reliable secondary sources.
  • The edits included original research based on interpretation of primary sources to draw conclusions not present in secondary sources, or at least none that were provided.
  • It introduced extensive duplication of information, particularly in a section that comments here had already expressed was unduly long.
  • It created citations that failed to uniquely identify sources, that were not appropriate according to the documentation of the templates in use, and did not match the existing citation style.
As to the suggestion that these objections should simply be ignored: as per WP:ONUS it is the person wanting to add the content who must gain consensus for its inclusion, not the other way around. If you don't agree with the above concerns, that does not mean that they may be freely ignored; it means discussions should continue towards building consensus on the proposed additions, perhaps with additional perspectives being solicited. Personalizing the discussion is not helpful towards that end; let's remain focused on the content. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Schlage_doch,_gewünschte_Stunde,_BWV_53/Archive_2&oldid=1022906678"