Thank you for your effort to improve the article, but rather drastic changes need a source. Best discuss planned major changes on the article talk page, with a source provided. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
Same thing for Jesu, meine Freude: thank you for adding to the fugue, but it needs a source! Being true is not enough for Wikipedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hi. You apparently deleted some passages of BWV 680 without reading the sources of either the 1st or 2nd editions of the standard reference by Peter Williams on The Organ Music of J.S. Bach. I checked the paper books on my bookshelf, both of them reliable sources. The 2nd edition is also available online through Cambridge University Press. Today I also used David Yearsley's idiosyncratic CUP book Bach's Feet (online) for updating content on Clavier-Übung III. Yearsley's book was written in 2012, 2 years after the bulk of the content on CÜ3 was created. I have played this repertoire amongst other things. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Luther's Catechism: please don't say (ever) "illustration on the right" because what's on the right for you may show different with different user settings. We use hymn rather than chorale, the latter being reserved for choral settings of hymns. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
At this point, as shown by the original German-language version, Spitta is referring to the Roman Catholic mass. The English translation by Bell/Fuller-Maitland is misleading. WillisBodine (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
- The administrator user:Johnuniq might be better placed than me to explain wikipedia's policy of using reliable sources. Similarly he might explain why altering the actual quotation of an English version of Philip Spitta's book on Bach is not strictly allowed.
- I have so far received two unsolicited emails from WillisBodine using the rubric "Email this user". That's not normal.
- Discussions of edits normally occur on article talk pages, not on user talk pages or off-wiki. Pages 175–186 of Williams (1980) mentions "Missa Brevis" in a vague way on Page 177 with discussions of the French Mass and the Leipzig hymnbook of Volpolius. Page 390 of Williams (2003) gives a much more concise and condensed account: "Though perhaps only by chance do the twenty-one chorales recall twenty-one movements of a French Mass, the collecting together of Mass and Catechism settings represents the two main religious observances on a Leipzig Sunday: the Main Service and the afternoon Catechism. In the Leipzig hymnbook of G. Vopelius, the Missa or Kyrie plus Gloria is in the section ‘of the Holy Trinity’, and Clavierübung III has many threes." Since, in the second edition, "missa brevis" is not mentioned, it would be completely WP:UNDUE to make it appear prominently in bold as a sub-header (it's comparable to shouting). Top quality WP:RS must be treated with proper respect. Mathsci (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
They [square brackets] are simply used to add contextual clarity where the meaning is unclear. This is not only in quotes, but that's their most common usage: Original: "I returned there yesterday, 2 hours after it happened" Quote: The criminal admitted: "I returned [to the crime scene] yesterday, 2 hours after [the murder] happened"
Square brackets are not ONLY used in quotes. They are used often in translation. For example, the bible. Although not all bibles do this, one notable bible that did do this was "The Geneva Bible." The Geneva Bible translators gave particular attention to retaining the flavor and sense of the original Hebrew. Words that the translators considered to be necessary additions were shown in italics, and text that had been added for grammatical clarity appeared in square brackets. Example: Daniel 1:7 And to them the principal court official went assigning names. So he assigned to Daniel [the name of] Bel‧te‧shaz′zar; and to Han‧a‧ni′ah, Sha′drach; and to Mish′a‧el, Me′shach; and to Az‧a‧ri′ah, A‧bed′ne‧go.
Square brackets, whether part of a quote or just in text simply mean: "Added for contextual accuracy" WillisBodine (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
- @WillisBodine: This talk page section shows requests for proper sourcing in April 2016, April 2020 and October 2021. I don't know what your 8 November 2021 comment refers to but it does not seem to follow from the earlier comments. If it refers to a disagreement at an article, please start a new section on the talk page of the article and give some context (not just "At this point" but mention at least the date of a particular edit in question because discussions are supposed to make sense for other editors now and in the future). There has been a lot of disruption at Clavier-Übung III in the past and that article is still on my watchlist although I haven't paid much attention since the editor responsible for many of the problems was indefinitely blocked. I will watch what is happening now and ensure that proper procedures are followed. That includes the need to collaborate with others and the need to stick to what sources say.@Mathsci: If any problems arise, please write a brief explanation mentioning the edit and the issue. Do that on article talk and if you ping me I'll have a look. Johnuniq (talk) 08:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
