Template:Did you know nominations/Herr, unser Herr, wie bist du zugegen
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Herr, unser Herr, wie bist du zugegen
Huub Oosterhuis in 1969
... that "Herr, unser Herr, wie bist du zugegen" is a German hymn translating a Dutch "Lied van Gods aanwezigheid" (song of God's presence)" written in 1965 by Huub Oosterhuis (pictured)?Source: [1], [2]
- Reviewed: Frances C. Fairman
Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 22:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC).
- This is only a comment, but perhaps a hook based on the proposal to ban the song from the 2013 edition of the hymnal that had it would be more interesting than it saying that it is a German translation of another song? The efforts to ban it and subsequent pushback sound more eye-catching to be honest. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Go ahead, I was tired when I wrote it, and have work waiting. The especially quirky thing is that the Dutch author received a German sermon prize only a few years after the "ban" discussion, but I couldn't get it all in. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Reading through the article, I'm confused as to who was the one who left the Catholic Church: was it Oosterhuis or Huijbers? The article wording makes it ambiguous. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- I repeated Oosterhuis, but don't think that a composer's turning away would have caused the same conflict. Also, the composer didn't head a church. For a hook, I'm reluctant to say too much about the author - vs. the text of this hymn which is the subject. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- ALT1 ... that a proposal to remove "Herr, unser Herr, wie bist du zugegen" and other hymns from a 2013 hymnal because their
composerwriter (pictured) had left Catholicism was met with backlash from German parishes?
- ALT1 ... that a proposal to remove "Herr, unser Herr, wie bist du zugegen" and other hymns from a 2013 hymnal because their
- How does this sound? Unfortunately, mentioning Oosterhuis by name would have meant the hook would go beyond 200 characters so I had to leave it out and include a piped link instead. As for the award angle, that sounds good, but it appears that he received that award for his work in general as opposed to for this hymn specifically. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Good try, but he was the author, not the composer, it couldn't be removed from the 2013 edition which didn't exist yet, and the same - not only this hymn - could be said against it. How is this: I write about another of his works, and then we try the approach? For this hymn, I'd really like the "God's presence" meaning, in memory of a friend. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- I repeated Oosterhuis, but don't think that a composer's turning away would have caused the same conflict. Also, the composer didn't head a church. For a hook, I'm reluctant to say too much about the author - vs. the text of this hymn which is the subject. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Reading through the article, I'm confused as to who was the one who left the Catholic Church: was it Oosterhuis or Huijbers? The article wording makes it ambiguous. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- This is only a comment, but perhaps a hook based on the proposal to ban the song from the 2013 edition of the hymnal that had it would be more interesting than it saying that it is a German translation of another song? The efforts to ban it and subsequent pushback sound more eye-catching to be honest. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Full review needed, during which the reviewer can request or suggest additional hooks. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem clear from the article if "Herr" was one of the songs that were planned to be removed from the 2013 edition, so clarification on this information is needed if the angle is to be used. If it wasn't, then this angle could probably be dropped and a different direction be used. As for the "it couldn't be removed from the 2013 edition" part, as I understand from the article, the proposal was to remove his songs from the revision planned for publication in 2013. Was this indeed the case? If so, I don't understand how "remove from a 2013 hymnal" is inaccurate, because it was still discussing about a proposal related to the 2013 version. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- The original hook avoids all this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- Even if ALT1 or a variant thereof isn't used, it remains an article concern that would need to be addressed if the nomination is to be approved, regardless of what hook is ultimately promoted. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- That hook is too straightforward and "DYK that X is a Y" hooks have been discouraged in the past, at least from experience. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- Then how about an exception? The German-Dutch thing is not usual. I wrote in memory of a friend who picked it for the last service he held. I don't need anything spectacular or quirky. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- If the nomination was written in memory of a friend then perhaps any hook about the subject could suffice rather than a specific wording, if the goal was to have the hymn featured on DYK. I understand that you want the "God's presence" wording highlighted, but it appears difficult to write a hook focusing on that angle. Also asking for a hook that isn't quirky goes against the spirit of DYK, which aims to entice broad readership to read an article and not just appeal to only its nominator. In any case, if some variant of ALT0 is to be used, then it would need to be rewritten as the current version is rather dry. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think you don't understand me, probably my fault. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- Waiving the interestingness criterion per IAR, especially if it's for a personal reason, may not be the best option since it could be seen as unfair to other editors who do try to meet it in their hooks. The other criteria (such as expansion times and nomination dates) have tended to be waived under understandable circumstances, but the interestingness criterion is something I have never seen being waived (while there have been disputes in the past about if a hook is interesting or not, I cannot recall cases where the criterion itself was ignored). I understand it's due to a desire to serve as a tribute for a deceased friend, but perhaps there's still a way to do this while still meeting DYK guidelines? As for the original hook, I've had to strike it as I just can't see a path forward for the current wording, although the possibility of a revised hook focusing on the "Dutch-translated-to-German" angle remains there. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think you don't understand me, probably my fault. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- If the nomination was written in memory of a friend then perhaps any hook about the subject could suffice rather than a specific wording, if the goal was to have the hymn featured on DYK. I understand that you want the "God's presence" wording highlighted, but it appears difficult to write a hook focusing on that angle. Also asking for a hook that isn't quirky goes against the spirit of DYK, which aims to entice broad readership to read an article and not just appeal to only its nominator. In any case, if some variant of ALT0 is to be used, then it would need to be rewritten as the current version is rather dry. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- Then how about an exception? The German-Dutch thing is not usual. I wrote in memory of a friend who picked it for the last service he held. I don't need anything spectacular or quirky. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- The original hook avoids all this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem clear from the article if "Herr" was one of the songs that were planned to be removed from the 2013 edition, so clarification on this information is needed if the angle is to be used. If it wasn't, then this angle could probably be dropped and a different direction be used. As for the "it couldn't be removed from the 2013 edition" part, as I understand from the article, the proposal was to remove his songs from the revision planned for publication in 2013. Was this indeed the case? If so, I don't understand how "remove from a 2013 hymnal" is inaccurate, because it was still discussing about a proposal related to the 2013 version. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
obliging, but having to break one of my rules, which is to begin with the bolded term:
- ALT2: ... that a 1965 Dutch song by Huub Oosterhuis (pictured), titled for the presence of God's, is still part of the 2013 Catholic German hymnal as "Herr, unser Herr, wie bist du zugegen"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I removed above what should have remained private. What's interesting to one is not always interesting to another, and reducing to what will be interesting to most reduces our possibilities and options for something away from mainstream. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- Full review still needed, per my previous post eleven days ago. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
- I am not sure that either ALT1ALT0 or ALT2 is all that interesting. I think using the cancellation angle would be more interesting to readers who aren't hymn enthusiasts.
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
(t · c) buidhe 00:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- buidhe, thank you for the review. While the cancellation angle is interesting, it firstly didn't happen in the end, and secondly wasn't only for this particular hymn. I said above I'm willing to focus on that angle for a different hymn. For this one, I'd like to supply some understanding of the first line, and to do that via the Dutch theme seems shorter than a translation in brackets which would leave even less room for the "cancellation". I have been told again and again to not cram too much into one hook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- The reviewer already suggested that the hymn translation angle is not working out so that idea may have to be dropped unfortunately. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Regardless of what a reviewer says, we can't leave the poor reader with a long phrase in German of which they may understand nothing. I hope we have room enough for the 2 words "God's presence". - Something Dutch still present in something German some 50 years later is unusual enough, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Would just using the English translation as the bolded link with a pipelink to the German title be an option? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- If there was an official English translation, instead of not just my attempt, I'd say yes, but really, would it be so bad to just accomodate the two words "God's presence", the rather unquestionable translation of the Dutch original title? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Buidhe has already suggested that the translation angle isn't going to work out as a hook, so sadly it seems likely that the "God's presence" angle will have to be dropped. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree. When we have a foreign-language title, we should try to provide an idea of what it means, not for hookiness but for information. The hook is that something originally Dutch survived in German for 50 years. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- ALT3: ... that a Song of God's presence, written in 1965 in Dutch by Huub Oosterhuis (pictured), is still part of the common German Catholic hymnal? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- buidhe, how is this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- Buidhe has already suggested that the translation angle isn't going to work out as a hook, so sadly it seems likely that the "God's presence" angle will have to be dropped. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- If there was an official English translation, instead of not just my attempt, I'd say yes, but really, would it be so bad to just accomodate the two words "God's presence", the rather unquestionable translation of the Dutch original title? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Would just using the English translation as the bolded link with a pipelink to the German title be an option? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Regardless of what a reviewer says, we can't leave the poor reader with a long phrase in German of which they may understand nothing. I hope we have room enough for the 2 words "God's presence". - Something Dutch still present in something German some 50 years later is unusual enough, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- The reviewer already suggested that the hymn translation angle is not working out so that idea may have to be dropped unfortunately. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I am not convinced that this is an interesting or exceptional factoid for the general reader. (t · c) buidhe 05:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- My mind is on writing an obit for Yoninah for the Signpost, and FAC reviewing, - I have not really time for expanding the "rejected" angle. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- At this point something has to be done to the article as the translation angle doesn't seem to be working out and the nomination could be rejected if no other suitable hook can be proposed. @Buidhe: With regards to the cancellation angle, does the article still need any improvements or clarifications on that end? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- (If I may still say something: this hook will attract 600 people. If we add something more sensational it will attract 800 people. Is it really worth wasting more time? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC))
- If there is no other path for the nomination to proceed and the article can't be expanded to a state that would satisfy reviewers then withdrawal is always an option, if only as a last resort. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 17:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- Or a different reviewer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: Would you be willing to ask for a second opinion regarding hook interest? For transparency's sake I would have to agree with her that the "efforts to ban the hymn" fact is a more interesting one than the translation; had the "efforts to ban" part not been in the article, perhaps then the translation angle could have worked, but that's just my personal opinion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 17:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- To Gerda: just as a hypothetical, if a new reviewer also commented that they also prefer a different hook angle other than the translation one, will you be able to suggest a new hook based on that and make the necessary expansions? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 17:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- (ec) ALT4: ... that a Song of God's presence, written in 1965 in Dutch by Huub Oosterhuis (pictured), became part of the first common German Catholic hymnal, and was retained in the second on public demand? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- Or a different reviewer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- If there is no other path for the nomination to proceed and the article can't be expanded to a state that would satisfy reviewers then withdrawal is always an option, if only as a last resort. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 17:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- (If I may still say something: this hook will attract 600 people. If we add something more sensational it will attract 800 people. Is it really worth wasting more time? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC))
- At this point something has to be done to the article as the translation angle doesn't seem to be working out and the nomination could be rejected if no other suitable hook can be proposed. @Buidhe: With regards to the cancellation angle, does the article still need any improvements or clarifications on that end? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Good to go with ALT4. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)