Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:02, 5 October 2015

Template:Vital article

view · edit Frequently asked questions Why does this article say Bach's birthday was March 31, when many other sources say it was March 21? Due to the change from the Julian calendar ("Old Style") to the Gregorian calendar ("New Style"), both dates are valid: March 21 in Old Style dates, March 31 in New Style. Misplaced Pages uses New Style dates, but also includes the Old Style in small print – hence the "(OS 21 March)" notation. See Old Style and New Style dates for more details.

	Johann Sebastian Bach was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 23, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 9, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed May 28, 2006 Good article nominee Listed May 30, 2006 Peer review Reviewed December 29, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted May 25, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed March 16, 2012 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Musicians / Core This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Top-importance). This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Composers This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Composers, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!ComposersWikipedia:WikiProject ComposersTemplate:WikiProject ComposersComposers Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Germany Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Pipe organ (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pipe organ, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Pipe organWikipedia:WikiProject Pipe organTemplate:WikiProject Pipe organPipe organ Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Lutheranism High‑importance Johann Sebastian Bach is part of WikiProject Lutheranism, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lutheranism on Misplaced Pages. This includes but is not limited to Lutheran churches, Lutheran theology and worship, and biographies of notable Lutherans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.LutheranismWikipedia:WikiProject LutheranismTemplate:WikiProject LutheranismLutheranism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Lutheranism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Lutheranism (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Former countries: Prussia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country This article is within the scope of WikiProject Prussia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive. Template:WP1.0 This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 3 December 2009. Further details are available here.

Template:Find sources notice

Passions, oratorios, Magnificat?

This is a strange heading in a biography article, listing the works in the supposed order of duration. How about Magnificat, Passions, oratorios? A bit of development, from the relatively early Magnificat 1723, St John Passion 1724, Easter Oratorio 1725, St Matthew Passion 1727, Christmas Oratorio 1734, to the Ascension Oratorio 1735. - Or group differently: Passions and oratorios vs. Church music in Latin? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the Magnificat would be more comfortable grammatically in that list. I don't much care about the order, since several methods could be used. Much of the Ascension Oratorio was drawn from earlier works; the Magnificat was revised in ?1728—does the chronological really work? Tony (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not grammar as much as the sorting, as you seem to agree: why not place the Magnificat with Church music in Latin, as in the List of compositions. To suggest that Bach wrote first Passions, then Magnificat, seems wrong to me. Magnificat was rather early in Leipzig, Passions later, most Leipzig cantatas later, 1724 Sanctus (the one that made it to the Mass in B minor) later. - As for a 1728 revision of the Magnificat, do you have different sources? Then please add. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Bach's religious convictions

Apologies if this has been dealt with before, but the article seems light on Bach's actual relationship with the religious music he created. Sources agree that the Lutheran Church was far more than a generous client, he remained a deeply committed orthodox Lutheran at a time when new ways of worship were starting to prevail.Rumiton (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to know what really went on in his mind about religion. In that sociopolitical setting, Lutheranism was just part of the furniture—there was little psychological choice. Certainly Bach injected a great deal of irony into his word-setting in his two passions, on a micro-scale; but I'm not sure that proves anything about his internal belief system. Whether it was the Lutheran church or the state who were the generous employers at Leipzig, Arnstadt, and Mülhausen is ambiguous. The state paid the salaries. If injecting more into the relationship between religion and his music, what would be your priorities, given the rationing of space? Tony (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Bach was not employed by "the church", but by courts and finally the city of Leipzig, see Thomaskantor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to help start missing related articles

Anybody interested in Bach and related biographies and musical groups please help expand and start the missing entries from the Bach Cantatas website at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Classical music/Missing articles:Bach Cantatas site.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

what the ...?

It's disappointing to see gender unnecessarily elevated to inform categories. Why is this distinction being made? Tony (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Cause(s) of death

For a few reasons I think this topic does not belong in the Lead. It seems not relevant to the essence of Bach as a composer. There is a section about the death. The lead has a statement as fact, "modern historians believe" the death was caused by a combination of pneumonia and stroke. In the section, this is called speculation. I think we should not speculate about an event over 250 years ago. Spitta's biography, vol. 3, p. 274, gives some details. Spitta confirms that Bach had "apoplexy", a stroke. He does not mention any lung disease. He confirms a statement attributed to a contemporary newspaper that "Medical treatment associated with the operation had such bad effects that his health, hitherto unfailing, was severely shaken" and he was left totally blind. Medical sources confirm that stroke is often associated with high fever (half of hospitalized stroke cases) and that might have led to the pneumonia speculation? What I propose to do in short is to remove any details of Bach's death (other than the date) from the Lead, and revise the section, referring to Spitta as indicated, Marlindale (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree that cause-of-death info should be removed from the lede as an insignificant biographical detail. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

"Royal court composer" to King August III of Poland, in Dresden

As far as I can tell from Spitta and from the article itself, Leipzig period, this position, granted in 1736, was more or less an honorary one, a "title and style," far from a full-time position. Spitta says Bach visited Dresden only four times between 1723 and his death in 1750, but his main position remained in Leipzig. The article says that by getting this honor, Bach hoped to gain leverage with the Leipzig authorities. I think it is too complicated to explain this in the Lead, where as now stated it gives a misleading impression, so I propose to delete it from there, while possibly supplementing the text about it in the Leipzig period with material from Spitta. Marlindale (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, - I tried. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Inserting "the title of" seems a simple, concise solution, thank you. Marlindale (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Composer sons

JSB had I believe three: Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Johann Christian Bach, and Wilhelm Friedemann Bach.. They might be mentioned in the Lead and/or under Legacy? The statement "Bach is the father, we are the children" was made about CPE Bach by Haydn or Mozart according to different sources I've seen? JC Bach contributed to the origin of the classical "galant" style of Haydn and Mozart I think.. As of now CPE is mentioned as co-author of an obituary of JSB, not highlighted that I saw. Various details need checking, but does the concept seem reasonable? Marlindale (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

There was at least one more composer son, Johann Christoph Friedrich Bach, making four. This one and WF Bach might not be mentioned in the Lead? The statement about CPE Bach being the father was made by Mozart to Gottfried van Swieten according to a few sources. One in The Guardian said in the second half of the 18th cent., the name "Bach" in musical circles was almost entirely used about CPE not JSB. Marlindale (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Google for `Bach's sons' gave a header Johann Sebastian Bach > sons and a listing of 11 of them. The four composer sons mentioned above are the first four sons on the list. None of the other sons seems to have composed. . JC Bach was the 11th and youngest son. Marlindale (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

He did, however have a grandson who was a very good composer. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Wilhelm Friedrich Ernst Bach is said to be "the only grandson of JSB 'to have gained fame as a composer" Marlindale (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC) In the WP article on him as of now there is a discography with just one recording. Searching a compendious source (original research) I was unable to find any (other) recordings.

CPE Bach is now mentioned in the Lead and JC Bach in the Leipzig period when he was born. I have no current plan to mention the other two son composers WF and JCF Bach, or the grandson WFE, as they seem less distinguished than CPE and JC. Marlindale (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought I mentioned the two sons in proportion to their importance as composers in their times, which really was not equal between the sons, and that these two were more important than Wilhelm Friedemann or JCF. So I don't see how this was "inconsistent." Buxtehude reverted the mentions, Of course I'm disappointed, but it would not be right for me to revert.. Marlindale (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I did note the rationale behind your edit. It is probably generally accepted that Carl Philipp Emanuel was the most important as a composer, but any ranking of all four of his composer sons would be rather subjective. Furthermore, I don't think text about the career of Bach's sons should be placed in either the lead or in the middle of a section about Bach's own life. Buxtehude (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It would have been better and more collegial to look at and make a comment in this Talk section before making the edit that brusquely cancelled out its previous result. There was also an interchange between Gerda Arendt and me on my own Talk page which others could not be expected to have seen (but could now if they like). As a result of that I decided to say nothing about composer sons other than CPE and JC. I suggested there grounds for the importance of JC, second to CPE. If a composer son is going to be mentioned, I think something about career is needed to indicate why the son is notable. For this to be done in the Legacy section would be fine with me. I think the fact that the famous Bach in 1750-1800 or so was CPE is interesting in relation to JSB's late recognition as the great composer he was.

For an example of the process working well I hope, see the previous Talk topic on "Royal Court Composer" in Dresden (myself and Gerda Arendt). Marlindale (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't object to more information on Bach's composer sons per se. Any text should however be well-placed, well-sourced and in balance with the rest of the article. Have a look at the structure of the German Misplaced Pages-article on Bach as an example (use Google translate if needed). Buxtehude (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I have ben looking for sources on the sons, beyond the references in the individual articles. I looked at the Oxford Companion to Music. It does not have articles on the individual sons but rather an article on the Bach family which mentions all four composer sons. On CPE Bach I think omission of Beethoven's admiration is disappointing, but there are other sources for that. The article has many more lines about each of JC and CPE than about WF or JCF. For now I plan to insert a reference to the Bach familly article in the JC Bach article, where it can confirm a statement in the Legacy section of that about Mozart's appreciation which has lacked a reference up to now. Marlindale (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC).

A isource I plan to use, as previously on CPEB, is Guy Dammann in The Guardian 24 February 2011. Guy Dammann iis said to be also music critic for the Times Literary Supplement and to teach at the Guildhall School of Music.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlindale (talk • contribs) 20:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Preservation of most of Bach's compositions, 1750-1850.

Bach died in 1750, and systematic publication of his music by the Bach-Gesellschaft began about 1850. In the intervening century some fraction of Bach's music is thought to have been lost including some 100 cantatas and a St. Mark Passion. For the music preserved, who preserved it? CPE Bach, JSB's second son, was the last of his 11 sons to die, in 1788. Johann Christian B., the last born, died earlier, in 1782, and also probably had not carriied many of his father's manuscripts to England. Do the Bach-Gesellschaft volumes, 1850-1900, give indications of where the works had been located? Marlindale (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe they don't. Tony (talk) 12:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent move of a lot to archive

It seemed rather a drastic action, but as I did not have any reason myself to revert any of it, I did not. Marlindale (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Mizlerischer Bücherverlag

There seems to be some misunderstanding in this article about German grammar when referring to the "Mizlerischer Bücherverlag". "Mizlerischer" is an adjective and subject to declination in German; for detail, see e.g. wikt:lustig#Declension. The salient bit is that the nominative in strong declension (without article) or in mixed declension (with indefinite article) is "Mizlerischer Bücherverlag". The form "Mizlerischen Bücherverlag" only occurs in genitive, dative and accusative cases (except singular dative where it's "Mizlerischerem"). The confusion probably arose from reading citations in German of the form "… im Mizlerischen Bücherverlag" or in prose "Gründung des Mizlerischen Bücherverlag" – those are declensions (dative, genitive). Please restore the nominative "Mizlerischer Bücherverlag". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You should adress this useful lecture directly to User talk:Buxtehude since he doesn't seem to understand the rules of declination in German. Hartenhof (talk) 07:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Done, restore name, as found here also. We look silly in the eyes of the world often enough, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the corrections and clear explanation; sorry for the inconvenience this caused. Buxtehude (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add ...

• Bach On Bach, by Peter Bach jr. the international Johann Sebastian Bach Project

... as this is the largest German and largest international Bach website created by a family member of this family of musicians: largest collections of tributes, genealogy, stamps, Bach places and much more.

BachUeberBach (talk) 08:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: Need a reliable secondary source that shows the importance of this particular website in relation to Bach. Cannolis (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cannolis, all for us "is new" as we are new in the community, both Wiki and Bach: this is our apology if the answer might be too long. We didn't expect your answer so fast and didn't check and discover your answer out until today. Sorry. Thanks for requesting more proof. BachUeberBach is the largest German and International Bach website and in many themes there is way more information beyond Misplaced Pages. This website is the new reference in Bach genealogy all over the world. Same with stamps, tributes, Bach places, societies, choirs, orchestras and many more themes. Many Bach institutions worldwide link to it. We correspond with Bach Institutions like Bach archive, Bach House in Eisenach, St. Thomas Church, Officials in Arnstadt, Wechmar and Dornheim plus video on the bottom of this page). I am related to JSB and we found dozens of relatives of Bach with a new tool. "BachueberBach", respectively "Bach On Bach" is no. 1 on many ( 35 languages ) foreign Google searches in their native language, even in India (जोहान सेबेस्टियन बाख; put this in Google) and China (约 翰·塞巴斯蒂安·巴赫 国际 项目+视频; put this in Google). We are the last and currently important genealogists regarding Bach earlier than Veit. The reliable second sources: Director Dr. Hansen Bach House Eisenach, thee Bach City # 1 together with Leipzig; Paragraph 27 as first recommendation on the net: Paragraph 27 as first recommendation on the net! Next Bach.de: (Pos. 6) , thee authority for decades: Bach-Cantatas with some 40 Links for instance Links in General Pos. 7) plus Bach in Arts Ulm Cathedral (Must see my pictures, Cannolis: , Bach Cantatas ( there is a link to Bach-Cantatas on your Wiki page) is thee reference as a Bach website in the world. Check Misplaced Pages "Bach On Stamps" we have 120 more. Misplaced Pages Bach Choirs: we have dozens more. Important Bach Cities Ohrdruf ; Position 6) Arnstadt ; last article hint to a new website ) and Muehlhausen ; No. 1, whole article + 3 links !!! link to us. Please add our site to your page please as it's a total of more than 3 years of work with thousands of hours travel, taking photos, writing and researching. Best regards and thanks for reading that much and reconsidering, Peter --BachUeberBach (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Done. I think that website fully satifies #3 at WP:ELYES. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

German?

How can he have been a German although Germany was only founded 121 years after his death? We might call him Saxon, but not German. And don't mention ethnicity because how would a dubious "German" ethnic group be defined? -- Orthographicus (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a great deal of prior knowledge of this question, but I took a look at the Germans article. I'll approach this from the point of view of an etymology nerd. The section on the medieval period says that the word tiutscher, the ancestor of modern Deutscher, has been used since the 12th century. The word German itself has been used since Roman times, for instance by the historian Tacitus. So, the concept of Germanness, however defined, has existed since long before the founding of the German Empire in 1871. Presumably, given this fact, Sebastian Bach would call himself Deutscher, so we're allowed to call him one. Perhaps someone else can explain what qualifies a person to be German, but for a start there's the fact that Bach and his ancestors spoke a member of a group of languages called German and lived in German-speaking territory for a long time. — Eru·tuon 04:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

re. "Perhaps someone else can explain what qualifies a person to be German" – The last thing we need is editors giving their interpretations and reasonings about Germanness and the like. We simply look at sources, e.g. Bach's first biography, translated in the 20th century, p. 18 ():

Bach was an equally finished player, ... the young German...

(bolding added) – that's of course not the only reliable source calling Bach a German. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It is true that a sense of "Germanness" existed in Central Europe from the Middle Ages onwards, but "German" in this sense does not have anything to do with being German in our modern sense. At that time, the Swiss and the Dutch called themselves teutsch/duytsch, too, so according to this logic, all Swiss people and Dutchmen would have to be called "Germans" in their respective articles. Misplaced Pages shouldn't use such ambiguous categories nobody can define. Germans in the modern sense of the word and as a clearly defined group of people have existed since 1871. This entire "German" problem concerns all articles about so-called "Germans" who had lived before that year, not just Bach of course. Misplaced Pages should really reconsider its policy concerning this "national stuff". -- Orthographicus (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yet everyone calls Bach "German". Likewise Martin Luther, who's two centuries older still. Unless you can find some reliable sources that state otherwise, this is WP:FRINGE. Rwessel (talk) 07:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

German not in the sense of nationality, of course. He spoke German. Like Verdi Italian, although where he was born was French at the time of his birth. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Re. "but (whatever) in this sense does not have anything to do with being (whatever) in our modern sense" – indeed, beware us of WP:PRESENTISM. Afaik in Bach's time one of the titles of the Holy Roman Emperor was "King in Germany", which was probably an anachronism, the Kingdom of Germany having evaporated in the Holy Roman Empire. But sufficient for people in Bach's time to know they were "German" (apart from speaking the language).

Afaik the borders of the duchies and electorates (and other types of subdivisions of the Holy Roman Empire) changed often, and the places Bach lived were certainly not always "Saxony", as Gerda already pointed out. I'm not completely certain about Lüneburg, where Bach lived for some time, but seems to have been outside the Duchy/Electorate of Saxony when he lived there, etc.

Re. "nationality", of course not, afaik "nationality" is a 19th century invention. Passports didn't exist. If you moved somewhere you lived exclusively by the rules that were applicable in that region without an embassy or consulate handing out rights connected with your previous country.

Re. "Misplaced Pages shouldn't use ... ambiguous categories nobody can define" – again, Misplaced Pages uses the categories as apparent from reliable sources, not those resulting from the WP:OR of Wikipedians wielding righteousness of sorts. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

If this is such a problem, why just Bach? Why not the thousands upon thousands of other historical figures on WP with the same "problem"? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, it actually does concern all of them, Melodia. And to Francis Schonken: then, why are Joseph Haydn and Desiderius Erasmus, f.ex., not called "German" in their respective article although they lived in the "Kingdom of Germany" and called themselves "German" during their lifetime. It doesn't make sense to turn an 18th-century Saxon into a German while excluding an 18th-century Austrian or a 16th-century Dutchman who referred to himself as a German (although he also called himself a Frenchman and, cosmopolite that he was, didn't pay much value to questions of "nationality" in general). The entire "nationality policy" of Misplaced Pages doesn't make much sense to be honest. Bach was as "German" as Erasmus and Haydn. It would be much better to omit this ominous category "German" for those who weren't citizens of the German nation state founded in 1871 altogether. -- Orthographicus (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Regrettably, on Misplaced Pages we must follow what reliable sources say, and they call Bach a German. Saying Germanness is incorrect because it only applies to Bach, not to Erasmus or Haydn, is original research and cannot be used on Misplaced Pages. Anyway, Bach is German under either definition, the wider one (including the Netherlands, part of Belgium, and Austria) or the narrower (including only the area of modern Germany). But this isn't a place for arguing over whether Germanness is a rigorous concept; the appropriate place would be on the talk page of the Germans article. Please go there. — Eru·tuon 17:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Haydn, seriously? The Austrian composer? —Wahoofive (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't this a subject of discussion recently (bey which I mean since at leat 2011) on the Mozart talk page? For example, ]? Surely reading through some of the reams of deathless prose in those discussions might forestall endless repetition here?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I see and recognize that this obviously isn't the forum to discuss this, and that, for the time being, Bach remains a "German". But I have to reply to Wahoofive nonetheless, saying: Bach, seriously? The Saxon composer? Bach and Haydn were equally "German". -- Orthographicus (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, yes, in the sense of nationality although obviously not citizenship... but the clearer way to express it is "ethnicity", you're right. — LlywelynII 11:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

How can he have been a German although Germany was only founded 121 years after his death? We might call him Saxon, but not German. And don't mention ethnicity because how would a dubious "German" ethnic group be defined?

The same as any other ethnic group: by accepted self-identification or by recognition of a person's participation in a cultural or language group. As you're very well aware, Germany has been a nation of people long before it was politically unified and "nation" is a 12th-century concept, not a 19th-century one. I'm sorry you've miseducated yourself but, while you're welcome to carry on a crusade for your preferred usages for terms and categories elsewhere, this is WP:NOTAFORUM for WP:FRINGE restrictions on people's WP:COMMONly-accepted ENGLISH ethnicities. — LlywelynII 11:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Biographies

don't need a separate section carved out of the bibliography section, which should only list the works being used by the page's citations. They should go into a #Further reading section if they're not being used... but (a) Further Reading sections are generally terrible unless they're being lovingly curated by a specialist or are carefully listing what the actual value of each inclusion is and (b) there's no need for it here: there's an entire article on Bach's biographies so we shouldn't do a half-arsed partial list here.

These two were unused. Kindly reinclude them in the #Bibliography section once they're being used to verify some point in the text that isn't covered by one of the other works:

• Gardiner, John Eliot (2013a). Bach: Music in the Castle of Heaven. New York: Alfred O. Knopf. ISBN 978-0-375-41529-6.
• Gardiner, John Eliot (2013b). Music in the Castle of Heaven: A Portrait of Johann Sebastian Bach. London: Allen Lane. ISBN 978-0-7139-9662-3.

 — LlywelynII 11:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't agree with your approach, so I'm going to revert for now, until if and when a consensus shows otherwise. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no actual rationale in there. How do you think it is beneficial to include 2 unused sources and a partial biography list when we have an entire linked article on Bach's biographies? — LlywelynII 11:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd keep Gardiner, it's the most recent new extended biography.

So it should be easy to use it for something. Otherwise, kindly keep it here or, at the very least, make some reference to its status in the article and use that as an excuse for its inclusion.

Your re-arrangements are more problematic than whether or not to include the Gardiner biography though. The separate article is about biographical writings on the composer, not on all the rest of Bach scholarship. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Struck my comment while broken by someone else. Francis Schonken (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

That isn't problematic. It's a {{see also}}, not a {{main}}, and even if we did call it {{main}} there's nothing wrong with it being the main article for only part of the section it heads. (If there's a separate article on J.S. Bach scholarship, by all means link to that also.) — LlywelynII 11:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I find the approach problematic, and see no consensus emerging on it (unless one person talking to himself is seen as a consensus). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's 3rr I've bumped up against but you're quite right that you're not a consensus. I'll go ahead and try to get some outside opinions. — LlywelynII 12:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: Biographies History and geography Media, the arts, and architecture Misplaced Pages style and naming When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The current formatting of this page

• cuts the #References section in half instead of keeping it together, for no apparent reason, and
• cuts the #Bibliography section in half instead of keeping it together, in order to
• create a partial separate list of biographies, some of which are used in this article, some of which aren't, but which
• doesn't include the full treatment already provided by Biographies of J.S. Bach, which has an entire article all to itself on the subject.

Anyone apart from this page's current over-protective curator think that's a good idea? I don't, but I'm bumping up against WP:3RR at this point. (My own proposed formatting is here, but I'm open to third options that don't treat the #Bibliography section like a #Further Reading one.) — LlywelynII 12:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Rfc's should be worded neutrally

Don't comment out the RFC, attempting to avoid new opinions you were just pretending to request. If you have a more neutral phrasing you'd prefer, add it. Don't ever edit my talk page comments: WP:TPO. — LlywelynII 12:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:TPO. This is not your page. DO NOT EDIT talk page comments, particularly as a means to avoid outside opinions. If you have more neutral phrasing, employ it. If mine is too biased, let them come and share their thoughts on that subject. — LlywelynII 12:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, RfC's should be worded neutrally. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Apart from the repeated policy violations w/r/t editing my talk page comments, you've now hit the bright line WP:3RR. Kindly cease and desist so I don't have to go through the trouble of having you frozen out of a page I'm sure you're usually quite helpful in curating. The extent of the non-neutral wording in the description (that you're overprotective) is now obviously a neutral assessment of the edit warring you've engaged in. Present your case and allow other editors to come by and comment on the original issue. — LlywelynII 14:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources for future article expansion

Apart from Mr Schonken's WP:OWNERy approach to the current misguided bibliography section (presumably he'll push me up against WP:3RR so, fellow editors, please do eventually fix that mistake), this is a very well curated and cared for article. As such, I won't put these two old sources in for now: but here are the EB9 and EB11 articles on Bach, both of which are pretty thorough for their era, and might be used for future article expansion:

• Hueffer, Francis (1878), "Johann-Sebastian Bach" , Encyclopædia Britannica, 9th ed., Vol. III, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, pp. 194–196.
• Tovey, Donald Francis (1911), "Johann Sebastian Bach" , Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th ed., Vol. III, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 124–130.

Kindly use these rather than the EB template, which lacks most of this info and makes it look as though Hugh Chisholm wrote the entire encyclopædia. — LlywelynII 11:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

? don't think we need these. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

If they're not being used at the moment, you absolutely don't. I've included them here so people have them available and can include them if they're helpful for sourcing some minor point or period information. — LlywelynII 12:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

English pronunciation

needs sourcing. Wiktionary isn't authoritative at all, but it doesn't agree with this article. Word Reference's discussion isn't a WP:RS but it shows some people use the pronunciation but others don't and even need to have the sound explained to them (the ch from "loch"). No idea how these guys came up with "bark" but possibly it's a British tinged thing. So... sourcing and possibly dialectical variants are in order. — LlywelynII 12:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delisted good articles
• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (musicians) articles
• Top-importance biography (musicians) articles
• Musicians work group articles
• B-Class biography (core) articles
• Core biography articles
• Top-importance biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Composers articles
• WikiProject Composers articles
• B-Class Germany articles
• Top-importance Germany articles
• WikiProject Germany articles
• B-Class Lutheranism articles
• High-importance Lutheranism articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• WikiProject Lutheranism articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• Top-importance Lutheranism articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class former country articles
• WikiProject Former countries articles
• Misplaced Pages articles as assignments
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment