Talk:Veit Bach
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Tsuka in topic Not properly sourced, and the listed "references" contradict the article
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Not properly sourced, and the listed "references" contradict the article
editThis article states that Veit Bach died around 1619. However, the second reference ("V is for Veit Bach") is very specific that the Veit who died in 1619 is a completely different Veit, in the very first sentence: "Veit Bach (d. before 1578) was Johann Sebastian Bach's great-great-grandfather and the founder of the Bachs as a musical dynasty; he is often confused with another Veit (d 1619) of whom little is known and who may have been a son or nephew." I think I'll edit the article right now in order to make it somewhat congruent with the listed references. Tsuka (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- That BBC article is simplifying things. Almost all other sources call Vitus/Veit Bach (the Younger, died 1619 in Wechmar) JSB's great-great-grandfather; Veit Bach the Elder (died before 1578) was his father. Christoph Wolff developed the theory that Veit the Younger is a son or brother or nephew of Veit the Elder, and not the father of Johannes (1550–1626), but Veit the Elder is. This theory is not universal, and all Wikipedia articles concerned with the Bach family, inlcuding the German one, take a different position. I'm going to revert the article to the previous, consistent version. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Then should the BBC source not be removed? This article does not list any sources stating Veit Bach died around 1619. It does, however, list a source stating he died before 1578. An article ought to be congruent with its sources, surely? So either the article ought to say 1578, or the sources should be changed. As it stands, the article is basically saying, "our sources say he died before 1578, but we think he died 1619 anyway". I presented sources for my edit (the ones in the article itself), but the reversal simply refers to "most people" (who?). Until someone adds some proper sources, I do not see how anyone can object to me adding a "citation needed". Tsuka (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)