Talk:Uns ist ein Kind geboren, BWV 142

Reception or problems of atrribution?

I have removed the essay synthesised by Francis Schonken from primary sources. Since the work was misattributed, such a section makes no sense. Having searched for proper sources (presently used in the article), it is unacceptable for a wikipedian to cobble together outdated sources from yesteryear, as if a professional musicologist. I believe that a modern edition of this cantata is being prepared for publication (or already has been published); the introduction to such an edition might have a reliable account of the attribution and, if so, that could be summarised on wikipedia. But I cannot see how the term "reception" could be applied to a misattributed work. Mathsci (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I seem to have been the main person to add content here and put everything into the article that I found in WP:RS. I don't see what has changed since I created that content a year ago. Mathsci (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Francis Schonken has failed so far to justify his improperly sourced additions on this talk page, per WP:BRD. The style of editing that he is employing here—using outdated primary sources to concoct something he cannot find in a decent secondary source—is not acceptable. The sourcing was already discussed above and I went to great lengths to find everything available in a specialist (university) library. Since February nothing has changed. I can find no account in a reliable secondary source which contains anything approaching Francis Schonken's narrative. Mathsci (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I note that in a section above I explained (on 24 January 2017) very carefully why there were no sources on reception. Francis Schonken seemed to understand that then. Nothing has changed since then. In particular, in the year that has elapsed, I can find no new sources. Mathsci (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Sandberger's 1997 book is titled Das Bach-Bild Philipp Spittas: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Bach-Rezeption im 19. Jahrhundert (emphasis added: "Bach-Rezeption im 19. Jahrhundert" translates as "Bach-reception in the 19th century"). On pp. 188–189 of that book Sandberger describes Spitta's reception of this work (i.e. before the attribution issue arose). Sandberger, obviously a secondary source about the reception topic of this cantata, is a modern scholar obviously acknowledging that the work had a reception history which started before it was even printed by the Bach-Gesellschaft, i.e. a few decades before the attribution issue arose for the first time. If such scholarly work describes this as "reception" it is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide it is not.

To answer your question (which would read, correctly spelled: "Reception or problems of attribution?"): the attribution discussion is part of the reception history, but it is, of course, not all of it. Of course Spitta's reception of the piece was coloured by his assumption it was Bach's: that's part of what makes this interesting (at least in Sandberger's eyes): Spitta extols Bach above Telemann, even when it is more likely that he is comparing Telemann with something that is not Bach.

Also, that the piece was published in the 19th century (as already mentioned in the lead section) is of course part of this piece's history. What is summarized in the intro can, of course be further elaborated in the body of the article, with decent references (Terry is of course such a decent reference, and a secondary source too). --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

As explained above in a previous sections, there are no sources which discuss reception. I was the person who found the references by Dürr, Glockner and Schering that discuss attribution, and summarised that content. These texts can only be found in specialist libraries and my understanding is that you have no access to these sources. Even after being told about the sources, you apparently have decided that you can circumvent that. So you have invented content yourself. Listing 19th century sources in a sentence is WP:OR. The reference to Spitta is equally unhelpful as you have not located a source which discusses Spitta's misattribution of the canatata to Bach. The reference discusses Spitta's view of Bach and his unfavourable comparison of Telemann's cantatas with those of Bach. That is not at all clear from the text you have written. What you have concocted just misleads the reader. Why are you trying to mislead the reader? Mathsci (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Talle in "Bach, Graupner and their contented contemporaries" (Bach Perspectives 9) mentions Spitta's comparison of the settings by Bach and Telemann of the same Neumeister texts, but immediately qualifies BWV 142 with "regarded today as spurious". This provides context, which is vital in the case of a misattributed work. Spitta also applies the same comparison to BWV 18, where there are no problems of attribution. If you cannot find a secondary source which discusses the 19th century critiques, I will remove the first sentence. If you cannot find a source which explains more fully the misattribution by Spitta, I will remove the sentences on Spitta. If they mislead the reader by omitting context, they have no value at all. Mathsci (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Francis Schonken's edits in January and December 2017

• January 2017 edits
• December 2017 edits

The first edits In January created a "reception" section which was not acceptable for reasons explained then on this page. A year later, ignoring all that discussion, he reinstated exactly the same content. It is tendentious editing to expect to have exactly the same arguments repeated. The content was unacceptable then and is unacceptable now. The sources I found (Schering, Dürr, Glöckner) contain extensive detail on why the style of composition does not match that of Bach. I decided that it was inappropriate to include that level of technical detail in the article. It was hard to find the secondary sources (including Whittaker). If Francis Schonken does not have access to those sources, what value is there in substituting original research synthesising outdated (19th century) primary sources? Mathsci (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

When was the attribution to Bach first questioned?

Afaik the attribution to Bach was first questioned in the early 1910s, which, afaik, is not "soon" after the 1884 publication (quarter of a century earlier...). Or are there other sources that contend the attribution was questioned earlier than the 1910s? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

18 years is fairly soon. Have you looked at page 58 of Glöckner? Mathsci (talk) 12:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

1884 + 18 = 1902: is there a source which contends that the attribution of BWV 142 to Bach was first questioned in 1902? If so, which one? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Recover

As I proposed elsewhere, I'd like to

1. recover what went lost here, and,
2. restore this three-paragraph version of the text of the lead section

--Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

As this thread has no consensus or even discussion, I am going to revert that change. Softlavender (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Discussion of the proposal is very welcome. On content, it seems uncontroversial IMHO. Please indicate specific problems with the proposed content changes, if anyone sees any. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Please establish consensus before making the change. So far there is no consensus for it, and there is consensus against it (which is why it was reverted the first time around). Softlavender (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Re. "there is consensus against it" – where? when? I'm happy to follow consensus, but can see no consensus against the proposed changes. Anyhow, if there are objections regarding the content of the proposal please spell them out, I'm sure consensus can be reached with or without amending the proposal: as long as such objections are not named it is however impossible to anticipate, and if no concrete objections can be named I go from the assumption that there are none, and that the content can be restored. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I noted the consensus against it above: You BOLDLY made the edit here: [1], it was reverted here: [2], and now you need to establish WP:CONSENSUS per WP:BRD in order to reinstate your bold edit. Softlavender (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Re. "I noted the consensus against it above" – that link does not establish "consensus" either way, it is a comment by an involved party, claiming a "consensus" where there is apparently none.

Re. "You BOLDLY made the edit here: [3]", incorrect: that is not the edit I proposed in the OP of this section.

Re. "... reverted here: [4]" – that is an unexplained revert, certainly not bolstering your claims of an established consensus.

@Softlavender: thanks for the procedural explanations. Let's now proceed with finding consensus: is there any articulate objection to the changes I proposed in the OP of this section? Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Initial reversion of a bold edit means there is no consensus for it (absent talkpage consensus), and you have not gained any consensus for it. The two-part edit which you made 7 hours ago referring to this announcement is a combination of these two edits previously made by you [5] and [6], both of which had been reverted. Please gain consensus before restoring the changes. Softlavender (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Failing any objections to the content of these edits their reverts seem without effect to the consensus-seeking process which I initiated in this talk page section. So please, proceed with a discussion of the content of the proposed mainspace change: as said, the procedural aspects seem to have been clarified satisfactorily. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

No consensus means no consensus. Softlavender (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, you keep harping on that, and as said these "procedural aspects seem to have been clarified satisfactorily". Now let's start to find consensus. Could you articulate your thoughts on the proposed content? Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD: "Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting." (underscoring mine) -- Softlavender (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, what I tried to tell you all along. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

No, you restored your changes without discussing the reason for the contribution (in direct contravention of the WP:BRD I just quoted) and without establishing consensus for it. It is your responsibility to explain your reverted change on the talk page and make your case for it and to gain consensus for it. Softlavender (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The reasons for the proposed content are:

• An improved lead section
• Content and references supporting the "That attribution remained unchallenged in 19th-century Bach scholarship, ..." part which is new in the proposed improved lead section and replaces "Although attributed to Bach by the Bach-Gesellschaft..." which is less precise while that is not where the attribution originated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• At the moment, I would like to concentrate on the alternative lede of Francis Schonken. As far as I am concerned, FS's alternative lede is not an improvement. It is completely different from the first lede: it would have been more normal to make cumulative and small changes. That is not what has happened. The current lede is short and informative: it states unequivocally that the attribution of Bach is no longer accepted; and suggests that Kuhnau is the most likely composer, although without any certainty, Other details are too technical for the lede and should be relegated to more complex discussions in the main body. That includes the first manuscript from 1756 and its relation in Kuhnau's original libretto: that is discussed by Andreas Glöckner, one of the expert Bach scholars. Other manuscript sources are not relevant for the lede. Likewise that is also true the commentary on Spitta, particularly since the attribution to Bach is no longer accepted. Further technical details are discussed by Alfred Dürr, another of the expert Bach scholars. This is fine for the main body but not the lede. When so little is known about this cantata beyond guesswork and conjectures, it seems better to avoid padding out with conjecture and just give a more brief lede. Unlike Bach's genuine compositions, the dubious works cannot really be described in any detail: things in contrast are quite nebulous. In Alfred Dürr's 2006 monumental tome on Bach cantatas, that is why cantata BWV 142 is only given the briefest mention in the one-page appendix listing all dubious cantatas. Mathsci (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Re. Kuhnau: see my rewrite proposal for one of the paragraphs in the body of the article below. "Kuhnau is the most likely composer" seems like an extrapolation that is not covered by all reliable sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • After the updates to the Kuhnau-related content (see #Kuhnau below), there's even less support for "Kuhnau is the most likely composer": in mainstream Bach-scholarship Kuhnau is not regarded more likely than Bach. So, this part of the intro should go anyhow. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• The changed lede [7] was not an "improvement"; it changed the intrinsic meaning of the existing lede without explanation and also added unnecessary clutter. Softlavender (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Which clutter? Could you be so clear as to list it? Tx. For comparison, the article currently has a readable prose size of between 15,000 and 30,000 characters: according to MOS:LEADLENGTH its lead section should usually have two or three paragraphs (not one as it is currently): So if no-one can define what would be "clutter" in the three-paragraph proposal, it should be implemented while closer to guideline recommendations. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Softlavender: there's currently a {{citation needed lead}} tag in the lead section of this article, which I added here. Would you care to address that issue? The preliminary discussion is above in #When was the attribution to Bach first questioned?. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

The only thing that happens is that disruptive editors are sanctioned; and then normal editing resumes. Mathsci (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• I restored a short suggestion which I made on this talk page and which got deleted here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• I restored the above comment, which got deleted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Commentary

First version

It is now considered plausible that Johann Kuhnau, Bach's predecessor as Thomaskantor in Leipzig, may have composed the cantata, as originally suggested by Schreyer and Schering in 1912–1913. As pointed out in Glöckner (2000), possible problems with this attribution arise from differences between the surviving 1720 Leipzig libretto for Kuhnau's cantata and the text in Penzel's version; with the modernity of the opening sinfonia, which departs from Kuhnau's more conservative style; and from the absence in Penzel's version of trumpets and drums, instruments traditionally used in the two main churches of Leipzig for Christmas Day cantatas.

Second version

In the Bach-Jahrbuch of 1912 Schering writes that Kuhnau possibly composed the cantata for Christmas 1720, but Schering adds that he might want to revisit the issue. In 1918 he does so, writing that the spirit of Kuhnau lives in the Uns ist ein Kind geboren cantata published by the BG, but that it is nonetheless not identical to Kuhnau's cantata with the same name, of which the libretto had been published in the 1720 Texte zur Leipziger Kirchen-Music: Schering writes that the shortcomings of BWV 142 should not be attributed to Kuhnau, and that the immature work likely originated in the circle of Kuhnau's students. In 1996 Melvin P. Unger wrote: "This cantata was not composed by J. S. Bach. It was perhaps composed by Johann Kuhnau." In the late twentieth century the cantata was moved to Anh. II of the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis, that is the Anhang (annex) of doubtful works, without naming any likely composer for the work, and it was withdrawn from the Neue Bach Ausgabe, where it was replaced by a detailed historical commentary on authenticity and attribution by Andreas Glöckner. In his critical commentary, Glöckner wrote that problems with the attribution to Kuhnau arise from differences between the surviving 1720 Leipzig libretto for Kuhnau's cantata and the text in Penzel's version; with the modernity of the opening sinfonia, which departs from Kuhnau's more conservative style; and from the absence in Penzel's version of trumpets and drums, instruments traditionally used in the two main churches of Leipzig for Christmas Day cantatas.

Richard D. P. Jones's 2005 revision and translation of Dürr's 1992 book on Bach's cantatas does not mention any possible composer for the cantata. In the 2005 edition of his handbook on orchestral music, David Daniels writes that Kuhnau is believed to be the actual composer of the cantata. In 2009 Günther Zedler wrote that conjectures about Kuhnau as composer are supported by the format of the closing chorale. Based on this and other elements pointing in the same direction David Erler described the attribution to Kuhnau as plausible, notwithstanding the differences between the text of the cantata and that of the Leipzig libretto of 1720. The Bach Digital website lists the cantata as written by an unknown composer, without conjectures regarding who that composer might be.

Discussion

The first version is the improved version of a paragraph, supported by Softlavender and me. It is based on reliable secondary sources. The other version seems to involve a lot of original research. It feels like a personal speculative essay, not like part of an article.

• In Alfred Dürr's 2006 appendix (translated by Richard Jones), there is a raw list of spurious canatas, without comment. That cannot be used to make a subjective commentary about the cantata. See WP:OR, WP:SYNTH.

• On the other hand, Dürr, the official editor of the BGA, still remains as the principal commentary on authenticity and attribution. Those highly technical comments on the Dürr have been summarised by me. They are given for the guidance of the general reader, although it is unlikely they would be of much interest in such a speciailised topic. They are non-committal, like all spurious works.

• The 1918 content on Schering is hard to understand: what does the OP mean by "that the spirit of Kuhnau lives in the Uns ist ein Kind geboren"?

• The attempt at synthesising editorial comments by Alfred Dürr and others do not seem to be very useful or meaningful in the article. They seem like scrap books patched together from disparate sources, which do not seem to make much sense. Perhaps it is like being a detective, like Hercules Poirot. But these are spurious and neblous works, too highly specialised to be discussed in a meaningful non-technical way on wikipedia. In the context of wikipedia and its general readership, trying to speculate in this way seems WP:UNDUE. At the moment many authentic Bach cantatas are not well described. There are copious reliable secondary sources, many of which remain unwritten on wikipedia.

• I have listened to a number of recordings. In most Bach cantatas, these are never mentioned in the lede. 04:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathsci (talk • contribs)

References

• Re. "... the spirit of Kuhnau lives in ..." – literal translation of "... in ... lebt Kuhnauscher Geist." German "in" is English "in"; "lebt", from the German verb "leben", i.e. "to live", thus "lebt" translates as "lives"; "Kuhnauscher": "Kuhnau-like" or "of Kuhnau"; "Geist" translates as "ghost", "spirit". "The 1918 content on Schering is" *not* "hard to understand" imho. All very plain German. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

But that seems like machine-translation. The normal method on wikipedia applies universally: translate/paraphrase/summarise. At the moment the 1918 content seems stilted; it is quite hard to make any sense from it. If you were thinking in English terms, without looking at the german vocabulary, what would you write? Mathsci (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the context of my phrase, we would write "lives on", not "lives". For example, "The abuse of Fred West lives on in the streets of Gloucester" instead of "The abuse of Fred West lives in the streets of Gloucester". Mathsci (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

"lives on" would be "lebt weiter" in German: that's not what Schering wrote. I reject the attempt to add a layer of (Wikipedian) interpretation to Schering's interpretive claim. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

"... in ... lebt Kuhnauscher Geist" is an interpretive claim, using metaphorical language. The expression is as clear (or unclear), and as common (or uncommon) in German as it is in English. The language should neither be made less nor more florid in order to convey what Schering meant. Interpretive claims such as this one should not be rewritten: translation works excellent. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It is possible to criticise Schering (don't: at least not your personal criticisms in Wikipedia), but not, not at all, for "quite hard to make any sense from it". It is all plain, normal, interpretive commentary on compositions of the baroque era. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• "It is now considered plausible that Johann Kuhnau, Bach's predecessor as Thomaskantor in Leipzig, may have composed the cantata, as originally suggested by Schreyer and Schering in 1912–1913", is quite atrocious WP:SYNTH and WP:OR with the given references, see e.g. lack of clarity about "Schreyer"/"1913" as mentioned in the #What I have written and recorded on 1912 BJB, page 133 section above – this is reading things in the Schering 1912 and Erle[r] 2015 sources that simply aren't there, and added to that WP:RELTIME issues etc. This can be split in an ever increasing number of talk page sections essentially about the same, that will still not make this acceptable for mainspace. & still fails to spell the last name of David Erler correctly... --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it's a normal construction, quite similar to something Softlavender has written before. Please could you tone things down a notch or two? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Sorry for rejecting this for a number of reasons ranging from WP:OR to trivial spelling issues. Also, please distinguish between what fellow editors write (not WP:RS) and what Schering and Erler write (both WP:RS). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
      • As I say, it's easy to check from the talk history that what Softlavender proposed was—apart from two words—completely identical to what she wrote. (She has not commented on "trivial errors": ce's are two a penny on wikipedia.) Softlavender's comments about consensus were crystal clear and unambiguous. The majority of wikipedia users would have no difficulty following what she wrote. 11:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Could you speak for yourself, and not for others? Tx. Re. "easy to check from the talk history" – if it were that easy you'd have given a diff by now: sorry, but it is quite unclear what you're talking about. Seems like some sort of argument from authority, which should probably be rejected for that reason. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Also, I'd have to reject the rather selective quote in footnote 1 above: "... hier ..." in its first sentence refers to BWV 209 (which can not be deduced from a truncated quote), and is thus not referring to the BWV 142 cantata. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• "As pointed out in ..." (second sentence of "First version" above): this sort of phrasing is rather to be avoided per WP:SAID. "... pointed out ..." is perceived as not neutral according to the WP:SAID guideline: see WP:NPOV for Wikipedia's broader policy on neutrality. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • As far as WP:RS goes, this seems like creep wonkery. Editors discuss editorial matters on the talk page, not by some kind of automaton operating the article page. Generalising from my own wikipedia experience, which covers more than music, the same process for editing with WP:RS operates. A fairly good example is Differential geometry of surfaces. (I am familiar with that article.) The process of creating an article first requires identifying a well chosen list of reliable secondary sources (often textbooks and journal articles, some of these written in gothic script). That involves finding the sources and normally placing them in the article space as "References". Then the subject matter has to be summarised/paraphrased from the sources. That is similar to what happens in music; it's systematic and involves careful citations and notes. A German article can often require translation, e.g. articles on Friedrich Schottky: these normally are sourced to secondary sources, such as textbooks, e.g. on David Mumford. If you want any further details about that, I am quite willing to explain that to you. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Please get back on topic. Generalities seem unhelpful, and divert from the topic. This bullet point is about whether or not a phrasing used in the article conforms to WP:SAID, which is actual Wikipedia guidance, and ties with one of Wikipedia's core content policies, WP:NPOV. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) The topic here WP:RS is something you chose yourself. These are about generalities on wikipedia which apply regardless of the subject are, e.g. in music, art criticism, history, mathematics, etc. In the case of WP:RS and music, I used a reliable secandary source to translate/parphrase/summarise an article on John Butt. I probably took a week or more. But Organ concertos, Op.4 (Handel) is no different. Mathsci (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
        • ? No, the bullet point about the "... pointed out ..." phrasing is unrelated to WP:RS. I wrote that the phrasing should be avoided per the WP:SAID guidance, which is guidance which is independent of the WP:RS guidance afaics. It is not independent of neutrality-related guidance, while, precisely, it uses "neutral" as a rationale for the principle of avoiding less straightforward synonyms of "said", such as "pointed out". --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• "... Glöckner (2000) ..." – this format using the {{harvtxt}} template should be avoided per WP:CITESTYLE, "... citations within any given article should follow a consistent style": the long-established "consistent style" of references/citations for this article is footnoted (numbered) references. Mixing that with linked "author + parenthetical date" type of references is not conforming to applicable guidance. The format is not invalid as such, only it cannot be used in an article that has a different established style of references. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • These kinds of formatting issues are just optional guidelines. In this case you don't actually have access to the reference book of Andreas Glöckner, i.e. the actual WP:RS. You have seen some things about the document, but only things you copied from me in the talk page or the article. It would be gracious of you to thank me: I did all the spade work. The NBA volume is in the Anderson Room, where I photocopied it over a year ago. It is not borrowable. It is useful for discussing the sources using a reliable secondary source. I might be amenable to letting you have some transliterations from Glöckner. (I have already mentioned that before.) There might be some copyright issue. Mathsci (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia guidelines are "accepted standards", not "optional". A guideline "is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" as the {{subcat guideline}} banner on top of the page that contains the WP:CITESTYLE guidance has it. I see no common sense in mixing citation formats here (it surely does not serve the reader while rather confusing), nor is "optional" a convincing rationale for supporting an exception in this case. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

So, thus far, for the first one-and-a-half sentence of the "First version" we have two fairly major issues (content of the first sentence not sufficiently covered by the cited sources; misrepresentation of what an author said by selective quoting) and a handful of minor issues:

1. WP:RELTIME ("... now ...")
2. spelling error (annoying one while it makes the {{harvnb|Erle|2015}} tag produce a non-operational link)
3. WP:SAID ("... pointed out ...")
4. WP:CITESTYLE (mixing author-date references with numbered footnote references)
5. & others, including MOS:REPEATLINK (three strikes in the first sentence for failing to adhere to the "link on first instance only" principles of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking)

@Mathsci: are you willing to address these issues (I mean in mainspace)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

At the moment I have been asked tomorrow to transport a lot of heavy documents (mostly academic papers) to the place in Cambridge where I am living; I will be too exhausted to do anything. (As you know I was involved in a major stroke and am still in the process of recovery.) I have twice mentioned that I might be able to provide transcriptions fromg the sources in Andreas Glöckner's 2000 BGA volume. (I'm not quite sure about copyright issues.) Did you follow up on that? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

So, the answer to my question comes down to "no, not in the foreseeable future"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Re. Glöckner (2000): I replied above in #Comments on Glöckner (2000). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• I have told you what is happening, which is not something I could plan. I suppose that you were aware of all the different emergencies (30 Dec–11 Jan, 2–8 Feb, 23–24 Feb, 25–27 Feb). You have written "no, not in the foreseeable future". Why did you write that? Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for explaining. The article needs a major rewrite, and I have no intention of burdening you with it. I'll use the {{in use}} template, and do the rewrite as much as possible in small steps, leaving enough time in between these steps for intermediate comments on this talk page, if any are needed, without time pressure for anyone concerned. Please look after your health first, before anything else. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Second paragraph on History, authenticity and attribution

• The current second paragraph seems to be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The list is described by Andreas Glöckner, NBA 2000, in a reliable secondary source. It is listed under "Quellen" (i.e. sources). Four sources are listed by Glöckner. If the OP does not have access to the list of sources, why not ask another user, e.g. Mathsci? The raw data is just WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, an attempt to play detective work. Since I photocopied the document, I could easily copy it. To me that seems sensible. Attempting to avoid reading secondary sources has no positives on wikipedia.

• The other four biographies seem to be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, another attempt to play detective work. These are disparate titles chosen by a wikipedian reading lists from wikipedia articles. It is not the normal way to edit reliable secondary sources. For example, might there not be missing books in French? It's impossible to determine reliably.

Mathsci (talk) 05:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

There's no WP:OR nor WP:SYNTH in that paragraph. The current third paragraph has the problems as indicated elsewhere on this page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Delivery in Newnham on 8 March 2018

Tomorrow (8 March 2018) I am due to deliver all my personal effects from Trumpington to Newnham. That was arranged in advance. It was, however, not something I could control. I still have health problems, quite fatigued, so I would not be available on 8 March 2018. The message involved one day, which I could not predict. Francis Schonken has now stated—quite inaccurately—that I was not intending to edit, "no, not in the foreseeable future". That is not what I wrote. I wrote: "I have told you what is happening, which is not something I could plan. I suppose that you were aware of all the different emergencies (30 Dec–11 Jan, 2–8 Feb, 23–24 Feb, 25–27 Feb). You have written "no, not in the foreseeable future". Why did you write that?"

To reiterate, I just said something was going to happen tomorrow and I will be too fatigued to attend that now. He misunderstood what I wrote: what I wrote was unambiguous. I have no idea why he is conducting himself in this manner. Again he has locked his preferred version—actually I don't really what he's doing. On the talk page I asked him twice if he would like the transcription of the sources in Andreas Glöckner's 2000 BGA document; but he did not respond. I have know idea what he is doing at the moment. I am very tired. Mathsci (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• I have explained that, as anticipated during the day of 8 March 2018, there will be extensive moving of heavy effects during the day. The moving had been anticipated a long way back. On 2 February 2018 I was involved in a second emergency period in Addenbrooke's Hospital which tool place on 2–8 February. In that occasion I collapsed with syncope just after 7 pm on 2 February and was send to the A&E and cardiology wards to restore a health emergency (including extensive tests on heart, brain and lungs). That was reported on my user talk page on 9 February 2018. During that period in hospital, however, the 94 year-old old mother of my colleague died while I was in Addenbrooke's. After a private memorial ceremony for his family on 4 March 2018, my colleague had arranged for those heavy effects to be moved on 8 March 2018. That period was further complicated by my stroke, where I was spent 30 December 2017–11 January 2018; the colleague who is helping with the moving of effects is a GP from Essex who visited Addenbrooke's during my period in the acute stroke ward; he was present to advise the consultant. The two periods in December 2017–January 2018 and February 2018 have involved medical trauma. I have been supported the GP colleague, who also was affected by his death of his mother.

I hope that Francis Schonken and Fram will understand what happens in these kinds of circumstances. Could he be please more patient: there have been a number of traumatic events that could not be predicted. I hope that Francis Schonken will have the sensitivity to comprehend these traumatic events. The off-wiki accidents and incidents unfortunately cannot be timetabled by wikipedians. I apologise that there has been a delay that has been explained extensively. My ongoing health concerns have also been explained. Stroke recovery and rehabilatation are a healing process. Most doctors do not understead well how that process works—damage to the brain and the arteries—but nevertheless recovery does occur. In my case the reading and writing abilities have more or less recovered, with some blips with some problems with hypertension, etc. The recovery means that sometimes I cannot perform so rapidly and that can take more effort to iron out errors. I am still slightly impaired, but that is improving. The tiny errors in copy-edits cannot be criticized: all sorts of wikipedians make copy edits; these are just minor gnoming.

The moving operation will start this morning and continue throughout afternoon. It will be exhausted, so please be patient. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Mathsci: I asked you a question, i.e. whether you were willing to address some issues (emphasis added). You wrote a paragraph under my question, but the question was left unanswered. Then I asked you another question, whether your lack of answer to my first question could be summarized as you not willing to take action? Then you wrote more explanations, but the second question was left unanswered too. So I proceeded as explained above. Please take care of yourself. The list of issues mentioned above have been addressed by me, afaik satisfactorily, in mainspace, so that you don't need to worry about them. If, on content, something is wrong with them, then please explain here, and please not in yet another split-off of the same discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User:Francis Schonken, there has been a lengthy explanation of the antipated move this morning and duting the afternoon. Please could you respond to the detailed comments that have been made here. It might need a few minutes to work out what is going on, but please be patient and respond. Thanks for your understanding, Mathsci (talk) 07:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Please don't remove my talk page posts, like you did with the one above, and which I have now restored. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please allow me to respond instead of moving around the new comments. You are modifying my content in a way which is not helpful. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Please respond in the normal way without editorialising and making it hard to read. Are you essentially claiming that the health issues and other problems (which involve only one day) should be disregarded? I am not clear, so please explain. Please don't move around material, because it's confusing. Mathsci (talk) 07:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you wish to respond, please could you do it here. Shifting around content is hard to read. Thanks you for your patience, Mathsci (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• With all you have written here in the mean while, you could have performed the fairly simple corrections which I suggested above. It would have taken you less time. Also, please stop spreading the same topic over multiple talk page sections. Last time I checked that was against WP:TPG. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Re. Glöckner (2000): I replied above in #Comments on Glöckner (2000). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Procedural self-reversion for slow and careful discussion

As explained, I am very occupied this morning and this afternoon. I apologise for that inconvenience, but that was unfortunately unavoidable. I have explained in great detail what was going on. If Francis Schonken wishes to make any comments about the move and my health concerns, could he please do so here, without moving the content into a different section. I have found it hard to follow Francis Schonken's moves of sections into other sections. Because of my colleague's move, I will not be available at the moment. Francis Schonken can also continue making any other comments here if he wishes, but I would just request that he makes them in this section and does not try to move them to a different part of the sections. Thanks for your patience, Mathsci (talk) 07:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Repeating from above, "... please stop spreading the same topic over multiple talk page sections. Last time I checked that was against WP:TPG." These endless splits of the same talk page topic over multiple talk page sections are not only against applicable guidelines, they're pretty hard to follow too and lead to redundant repeats of the same replies (like this one) which only burden the legibility of this page further, so please don't, thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Here's a relevant part of the TPG guidance (WP:TPG#YES): "Ensure there is not already an existing section on the same topic before starting a new discussion. Duplicating the same discussion in multiple sections on a talk page ... causes confusion, erodes general awareness of points being made, and disrupts the flow of conversation on the topic." --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you could answer some of my questions, that would be kind. You are, however, under no obligation at all. I am interested why you decided to disregard the move (that will probably start in one or two hours) as well as the health concerns. Thanks again for your patience, Mathsci (talk) 08:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that copy-pasting your favourite chapters from wikipedia is helping. Why not just answer the question about the move today and the health concerns? If you don't wish to, fair enough. 08:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• I did not disregard the move (see my replies in multiple sections above); I did not disregard the health concerns (again, see multiple replies in other sections above). Re. "... slow and careful discussion" (quoted from section header): please follow WP:TPG, it outlines how careful discussions are conducted in Wikipedia, which is not by the confusing technique of splitting up the same topic across multiple talk page sections. Can we agree on that point? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Mathsci and Francis Schonken

Would the two of you please find two different articles to work on instead of constantly bickering with each other? It's a large wiki and I can't believe the type of interaction you've been having here is healthy for either of you, especially in light of comments like this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Newyorkbrad: Thanks for your suggestion. I presented my suggestion on how to proceed here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Francis, I suggest that you move on to other articles to edit. You have been shoehorning in unwarranted changes despite clear, and clearly explained, lack of consensus -- and failing to follow or even understand WP:BRD. As I've mentioned before, if this goes to ANI or ArbCom, you are likely going to be restricted from far more than the couple of articles you are currently edit-warring with Mathsci over. Softlavender (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I've been away for three weeks, but I agree with Newyorkbrad. And since Francis Schonken has neither the professional expertise, the exact scholarship, nor the references/sources that Mathsci does pertaining to this article, and he since has also lost credibility of goodwill by his failure to observe BRD, I suggest that he be the one to move on to another article, one unrelated to Mathsci. Softlavender (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Question: Mathsci, I've been away for three weeks. I notice that Francis Schonken undid my reversion of his undiscussed mass change without consensus. Has this been cleared up now? Softlavender (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I stopped watchlisting the page before reading NYB's comments. The current state is the version of Francis Schonken: I self-reverted some time back.[8] Mathsci (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)