# Talk:Gott ist mein König, BWV 71

{{Infobox Bach composition
| image                 = BWV 71 - Autograph Title Page.png
| caption               = Autograph title page of the cantata
| title                 = {{lang|de|Gott ist mein König}}
| bwv                   = 71
| type                  = [[List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function|church cantata]]
| occasion              = {{lang|de|Ratswechsel}} (inauguration of new town council)
| performed             = {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|1708|02|14|df=y}}|location={{nowrap|Marienkirche, [[Mühlhausen]]}}}}
| movements             = 7
| text_poet             = anonymous
| chorale               = by [[Johann Heermann]]
| vocal                 = [[SATB|{{abbr|SATB|soprano, alto, tenor and bass}}]] choir and solo
| instrumental          = {{Collapsible list|title= 
|3 [[trumpet]]s
|[[timpani]]
|2 [[recorder (musical instrument)|recorder]]s
|2 [[oboe]]s
|[[bassoon]]
|[[organ (music)|organ]] 
|2 [[violin]]s
|[[viola]]
|[[viola da gamba]]
|[[basso continuo]]
}}
}}

"Ordinarily, making a change (that isn't a revert) to an article doesn't require prior discussion. I take it the essence here is that Gerda Arendt has added infoboxes to specific articles on which she knew or should have known they would be controversial, and should have discussed first in those instances? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)"
As described in this comment, I added an infobox to the article which I expected (!) not to be controversial, because

the template {{infobox Bach composition}} was developed by project classical music (as {{infobox orchestra}} was developed by the project)
it serves the reader to see a similar display for articles of a topic
some authors don't like any infobox, I try to respect that (in an effort to place personal relationship above site consistency), but Thoughtfortheday, the main contributor to this article is not one of them.
The infobox was reverted with no reason given. My attempt at a compromise by showing prominently that the German title - probably meaningless for many readers - is a composition by Bach, was also reverted. Of the possibilities (infobox, "title box", image) I consider the infobox as most helpful for the reader. The infobox shown was edited by Nikkimaria also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

So while this article has real problems, namely a woeful lack of proper sources (not even Dürr was mentioned as a reference!), we sit upon the ground and talk of infoboxes. Well, so be it. I suspect that, once the current arbcom case is resolved, the matter of infoboxes on musical composition articles will be raised at WP:CM in light of the findings that have been adduced by the case and consensus will again be solicited. Pending that discussion, it is inappropriate to add infoboxes. My specific objections to the infobox here are based on those that I have raised elsewhere (at WP:CM), namely that it encourages mis/disinformation and is redundant to the lede. However, I look forward to hearing from others. Meanwhile, I suggest that editors who seek to make a positive contribution to this article assist in bringing better sources to bear upon the content. Eusebeus (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
My view is that the matter of infoboxes on biographies in classical music needs to be examined, whereas templates on orchestras and compositions were developed in 2013, to be used. - Please note that BWV 103 (with an infobox) was approved as GA by Smerus, and this infobox edited by Nikkimaria, both no declared friends of infoboxes. You may want to look at the GA review. - The information about text and scoring in Bach cantatas is not redundant to the lede, and even if it was, it is an objective of any infobox to present information from the lede in structured form. - Thank you for starting to improve the content of the article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Had my say. BWV 103 has a very appropriate title for the current larger debate! Anyway, it is also lacking - at first glance - proper citations and references. I'll do a pass-by cleanup if I have time after I deal with the mess here. Koenntest Du bitte meine Uebersetzung auf dem Deutsch - de:Marienkirche (Mühlhausen) - ueberblicken. Oder je besser - daran weiterarbeiten :-)... Eusebeus (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
My chosen title for the case is BWV 35. (The other one's title was dedicated to a missed user. Sad: several of my articles were dedicated to missed users.) Little time, sad about that also. Thanks for starting the church! Did you see the prayer on top of my talk? (DYK 444) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gott ist mein König, BWV 71/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Yash! (talk · contribs) 16:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I will give my comments by tomorrow. Best, Yash! 16:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


### Lead
"He composed it in Mühlhausen for the inauguration of a new town council on 4 February 1708." - mentioning the date here goes off topic. Additionally, the same is mentioned in the third paragraph of the lead. I would suggest rather to include when it was composed which according to the prose is between 1707-08.
Why go unprecise when we - for a change! compare all the other early cantatas - know exactly. It's a standardfor the Bach cantatas to mention the date as precisely as we know in the first paragraph. --GA
"...and free poetry by an unknown poet of Bach's time connects to the political occasion" -> "...and free poetry by an unknown poet of Bach's time which relates to the political occasion"
good, thank you --GA
The quote sounds odd in the current sentence. Also, much better if it is written out in your own words.
you are right, but if I'd say "four separate instrumental choirs" it would by close paraphrasing, no? --GA
"only this one time" -> "only for this particular event"
"Stylistically it shares features with Bach's other early cantatas." - in "Music" and "Importance" it is mentioned that it is different from early works. Perhaps this lead sentence needs to be revisited.
It shares much more than what differs, --GA
Include a summary of "Importance" in the lead. Isn't the "printing" importance enough? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


### History and words
Ref for the first paragraph?
doubled (sorry,missed that when splitting the paragraph) --GA
"the organist of one of" -> "the organist at one of" - 'of' repetition makes it sound off. ;)
yes ;)
"BWV 131" -> "Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir, BWV 131" - since that is how BWV 150 is written and is better to write the full name.
yes --GA
"speculated" by?
"thought" by?
both questions: I didn't write that, Thoughtfortheday did (who just made the cantata mentioned above a GA yesterday). We could say that Alfred Dürr reports that it has been speculated, but Werner Neumann thought that ..., - but after the result (one sentence later) is open: is it necessary to make it more complicated? --GA
"in other words" - best to not mention that.
tried --GA
"but it is lost" -> "which was lost".
somehow seems not strong enough for the disappointing fact that half of Bach's cantatas printed during his lifetime was lost --GA


#### Theme
Ref for the first paragraph and the text in bullets?
First paragraph: let's ask Thoughtfortheday. The bulleted text is the biblical text is the cantata text, - no source needed, I'd think. --GA
"and thus" -> "thus".
yes ::GA
The translated text is in two different paragraphs which looks odd. Perhaps have the first translation after a "-". For example: "Verse 12: "Gott ist mein König von Alters her, der alle Hülffe thut, so auf Erden geschicht." - God is my Sovereign since ancient days, who all salvation brings which on earth may be found (ASV: Yet God is my King of old, Working salvation in the midst of the earth).
I tried it differently, please look, --GA
"have been seen" by whom? Perhaps could be rephrased.
I removed the sentence entirely, and boldly moved the two refs to where they were missing at the beginning of the paragraph. --GA
"suggested" by?
"The importance of "borders" may be an allusion to Charles XII's invasion of Saxony in 1706, and who, in 1708, represented a threat to Mühlhausen." - ref?
probably another one for Thoughtfortheday, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
The full stop should not be inside the quotation if I am not mistaken.
moved --GA


### Structure and scoring
Why is it disputed? Do explain in the article.
We don't do that even in Featured articles. We just have to mention that it is not sure that we see Bach. --GA
Can we have the duration?
will search, - Dürr book is offline for those pages,- could look at recordings --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


### Music
"A model for such "theatrical splendour" we oratorios" - not sure why there is a "we" in this sentence.
fixed typo --GA
"the psalm" -> "Psalm 74" - or am I missing something?
no,-do you think it needs to be repeated? --GA
"Another psalm verse" - shouldn't "p" be in capitals?
no, Psalm 74, but the psalms, a psalm verse, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


### Importance
Ref for the first paragraph?
made it one,and dropped some repetition, - it's more a summary than something new --GA
Link Leipzig.
not again ;) (hesitate to link to present-day Leipzig in Bach articles anyway)
"fifteen" -> "15"
no longer there
"for not more than one repeat performance" -> "solely for one performance" or "for only one performance" or anything else that you'd like.
not sure, - I read that one repeat was planned, which would make it two, - not sure because again, I didn't write it,and perhaps you understand better what was meant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


### References
Ref #2 - needs proper formatting.
[http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Pic-Rec-BIG/Gardiner-P03c[sdg141_gb].pdf] Can you fix those []? I forgot which code helps it. --GA
Ref #5 - same as above.
What do you mean? --GA
Ref #14 - same.
What do you mean? --GA
Also, the above mentioned three are dead.
#2 looks dead because of the problem in the url, #5 is offline, #14 works for me? --GA
That would be all. Gerda Arendt, Happy Holi BTW! :) Yash! 18:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Easter was so great that I missed this on my watchlist, sorry ;) - 28k+ views for a Bach cantata in one month is new! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I have got involved with a few points.  As to the question of how many performances there were, I'd say probably 2, but as we are not sure perhaps we could skirt around this issue. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I would like to apologize for not getting around soon enough. I am happy with the article - it is a good read. Thank you for all your efforts. Best, Yash! 18:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

There was a satirical article in The Onion that referenced "Gott ist mein König." Might this have a place in the article under a new section (e.g., "Trivia," "Influence," "Parody," etc.)? Msoul13 (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)