Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 3

message: Seriously, what??
They're not my words, but those of Peter Williams in his biography of Bach. The lead of an article should paint the big picture; in a composer article, there's scope to provide a broad characterisation of the musical style of some composers, particularly major ones such as Bach. I can't think of another Baroque composer whose music could be described thus. Tony 01:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "forceful suavity" 

message: Pardon me for saying this, but the Partita, BWV 1013, played by a flute, on this page, isn't very good. The flutist hasn't isn't skilled enough to play the Partita. I suggest it be removed.
Agreed. Tony 10:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partita, BWV 1013 

message: How far, exactly, does the use of British English extend in this article?  For instance, the Schweitzer book clearly says "J. S. Bach", but it's not listed that way in the "further reading" section.  I feel that we should draw a distinction between normal use of JS Bach in the article and "J. S. Bach" when it is listed that way in a quote or a book title.  --Sesquialtera II 18:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English clearly makes exceptions for quotations and for proper names (which would include book titles). Feel free to correct.  —Wahoofive (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The Old Style and New Style dates article is not very good.  Although it implies what you say, the implication is wrong. Markyour words 12:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Markalexander. Protestant countries outside the British Empire (including Germany) adopted the calendar change in 1700, whereas the Brits waited until 1752. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  British English: references 

message: hi everyone!!! I enjoyed reading the article, but it can be a little more organized and and have a little more infomation. -69.3.26.27 01:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  anon. comment 

message: "He was invited to inspect and give the inaugural recital on the new organ at St Boniface’s Church in Arnstadt. The Bach family had close connections with this oldest town in Thuringia, about 180 km to the southwest of Weimar at the edge of the great forest."
Compare that to the 40 km according to this map.
Since I don't know whether the cities themselves are correct, I'm just leaving it as it is. Someone who knows more about Bach should take a look at this. Michaël 09:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distance Arnstadt-Weimar seems to be wrong! 

message: I have no doubt that BWV565 is by Bach, on stylistic grounds. This is supported by Wolff and other authoritative texts. Can people comment on whether the reference to it should remain excised?
On JC Bach's birth date of 1735 vis a vis Maria Barbara's death in 1720, weren't there two JC Bach's?
Tony 23:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we have a whole section on this in the article about BWV 565. See Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565#Authorship controversy and Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565#Violin. So since there is some controversy regarding the authorship and since the exact year of composition is unknown, I think EldKatt was right to do the edit. Jashiin 07:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jashiin pretty much said it all, but, as the person who made the edit, I'd like to throw in my own comments, too. Personally, on stylistic grounds again, I have little doubt that BWV 565 is not an authentic organ work by Bach, but, honestly, neither of our personal opinions matter here. What we can say for sure is that there is some considerable controversy regarding the authorship. Wikipedia should reflect that objectively, of course. I'm not proposing that we should remove all references to the work from the article—but we shouldn't use it as an example of an Arnstadt work when we really don't know when it was written (or by whom, which is also somewhat important in this matter). (It is usually assumed that it's an early work, but that's just because it's so crudely written, if you pardon my sincerity. Besides that, there is nothing to go on in dating it.) EldKatt (Talk) 11:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice to have some reference to 565, since it's so famous, but without prejudging the authenticity issue.   On the sons issue, Tony, are you saying there were two Johann Christians, or one Johann Christian and another JC?  Bach had a uncle called Johann Christoff, and a son called Johann Christoff Friedrich, but both Johann Christoff Friedrich and Johann Christian were Anna Magdalena's sons (according to Bach family). HenryFlower 12:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent edits 

message: The Good article nomination for  has failed
:(While this is quite a good article I failed it on a number of points. There are a number of POV statements such as "he enriched the prevailing German style with a robust and dazzling contrapuntal technique" and "Bach's forceful suavity and vast output have earned him wide acknowledgment" both of which are just in the intro. The section on Style is severely lacking and I noted it is listed on this page in the to-do list. There are links to main articles which are red. This article should summarize these articles. How can it summarize that which doesn't exist? This article could use a stay on peer review.
 *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has poor old mediocre GA now become as exacting and demanding as FA.  I've not contributed one word to this page, I just chanced by, to look something up, and saw this had failed.  Sorry Ganymead I normally agree with most of your actions, but here I cannot, if this is not "good article" what on earth do most wikipedia pages become - "speedy deletes" I should think. Now Ganymead, go and have a re-think - please Giano | talk 18:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good Article]] [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|nomination]] has failed 

message: I'm trying to start an article on one of Bach's song. However, what is it called?
Spinoza1111 03:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might have phrased that rather more diplomatically ... --Quadalpha 03:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's called Air and it is the second movement from from Orchestral Suite No. 3 in D major, BWV 1068.  --RobertG ♬ talk 07:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just "Air"? Oh, I did find this now:  --Brazucs (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - I believe the title "Air on the G-string" is a relatively modern confection. :-)  --RobertG ♬ talk 11:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its origins lie in a transcription for violin and piano by August Wilhelmj, who transposed it so that it could be played on the G string alone. Using that title when talking about Bach's original setting would be patently incorrect. EldKatt (Talk) 15:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would probably be best to start with Orchestra Suite No. 3 (Bach) rather than with articles on individual movements. HenryFlower 15:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On on whose string? 

message: I wonder whether this article should be protected from continual vandalism via ban on anon users' editing it?
Tony 14:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is getting a bit old, isn't it?  I wonder why Bach is such a popular target for vandals.  Anyway, I would support such a ban on anonymous editry.  Adso de Fimnu 03:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, go with my blessing. --Quadalpha 04:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This has recently been hit by a spate of vandalism. Please semi-protect to prevent the anonymous vandals preventing useful work from being done. Thank you.  --Moreschi 21:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not enough vandalism to semi-protect. 3 in the last 24 hours aren't enough. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, how many in the past 24 hours is enough? Is there a policy, or is this just  your call? I'd like to amend Moreschi's text above: The Bach article is regularly vandalised by anon users, probably teenage boys who are 'researching' school assignments for their music class. While the vandalism occurs less frequently than several times a day, it has been regular for many months and typically comprises odious sexual references. Apart from the unpleasantness of reverting the vandalism, we suspect that that page is visited by many young people, and wish to avoid the embarrassment of their reading these sexual references in an article on one of the great musicians of the millenium. Functional anon edits seldom occur, and there are no disputes or edit wars among the contributors. Tony 10:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism 

message: Where has this latest nomination been discussed on the talk page? Tony 10:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus about GA nomination? 

message: The previous text was stubby and failed to say much about Bach's particular style. I've pasted in an attempt at a more comprehensive explanation; possibly it could be shortened, and people may have useful ideas for improving it. Tony 02:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its more complex than that, there were many different types of chorale preludes (bicinium, several kinds of cantus firmus settings, the Pachelbel model, chorale fughettas, etc.). Bach did compose in most (if not all), but I reckon his major contribution was the type he invented in Orgelbuchlein; unfortunately I don't know if he did make significant contributions to the already existing models. Jashiin 12:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style section 

message: It has been noted that this article is well written and informative. It was nominated last year as a Featured Article, and the concerns raised then appear to have been addressed. It has twice been nominated recently as a Good Article, failing originally on very minor grounds. It was felt at the time that the rejection of the original Good Article nomination was rather harsh. I have passed it through as a Good Article as it appears that concerns about the article are minor in comparison to its overwhelming achievements. It would appear to me that with some assistance that this article could be put forward again for nomination as a Featured Article. SilkTork 14:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Peer review]] 

message: I was under the impression that it was orthodox to put sound files at the end of the article.  Is it absolutely necessary to put the Christmas Oratorio and Brandenburg Concerto files after the sections? I think it disrupts the article a little. Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 03:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sound file placement 

message: Random paragraph that caught my eye.
Bach's gift for creating lovely music must also be recognized, especially under the brilliant light of his technical accomplishments. 
The building blocks of Baroque composition, for example counterpoint or basso profundo, are so massive that in lesser hands their proper use often seems to constitute composition. But Bach's work reveals an imagination for beautiful melody and rich harmony nearly unmatched and often transcending its musical style, when other composers were merely competent.
The rest of the section has a similar tone.
Most of this simply isn't verifiable. How does one ascertain that his "imagination for beautiful melody and rich harmony" was "nearly unmatched and often transcending its musical style"? What exactly is transcending a musical style? Can our readers look this up somewhere? Do we need to emphasize that Bach was great by calling "other composers" "merely competent"?
Don't get me wrong. I adore Bach and I'll happily agree with anyone who says he was a musical genius, but paragraphs like the above are not good style for a reference work. I might accept them from a notable expert on the subject, as his or her professional opinion, but Wikipedia itself cannot serve as such an expert, by proxy or otherwise. If you want to insert colorful language like the above, you should let other, well-respected voices do the talking for you. That's what being a secondary source is all about. Wikipedia should not try to be a critic, not even a critic paraphrasing the most common opinions.
To remind: it's not about whether what we've described is true, in the sense that it's widely acknowledged by others. Any praise of Bach is probably true :-), and we definitely need to make clear why he's held in such high regard. I'm pretty sure we can find dozens of sources that will sing Bach's praises explicitly, on any aspect of his style that you care to mention. We should quote these and summarize them accurately, not write our own essay.
It's not exactly an issue of missing references either. I highly doubt that the statements as they are now admit direct references at all (although nothing would please me more than to be proven wrong). Yet on the other hand, phrases like "Bach's devout, personal relationship with the Lutheran God" practically cry out for external references, because readers will want to look up how we know he had such a relationship. (The subject of Bach and religion could probably fill an article on its own, but that's another matter.)
No criticism of the original contributors is intended (heaven knows I haven't contributed anything to it); I just wanted to make clear that being well-written (like the section undoubtedly is) isn't enough. If we're striving to get this to a featured article (which is no less than Bach deserves, after all) we'll need to try harder. 82.92.119.11 18:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style of "style" 

message: Are they necessary? Given that the article is already longer than recommended, why not refer to them by their surname alone, unless there's a reason to distinguish them from others of the same name? Tony 12:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent additon of Froberger's first and middle names 

message: The Style section is POV and contains undocumented assertions about Bach's piety. It also contains language, which in striving to make "Bach" beyond critique and an implicit rebuke to music made by subaltern peoples, which belongs in a children's book for racist homeschoolers.
We simply do not know whether Bach "cherished" his role as a teacher. He may have begrudged the time.
Is simple Lutheran piety evident in BWV 4? In BWV 140? Many real Protestants of Bach's time, who disliked emotion in divine services, would have found the setting of "der Wurger kann uns nicht mehr Schaden" far too Italian. BWV 140's first "movement" is more about the Sinfonia, which seems to get Bach's full attention as opposed to the words.
Now, the above is just speculation and POV. But so is the assumption that Bach was single of heart and of purpose.
His performers may have resented his complexity and his insistence on his text and may have accused him of Popery.
I have for this reason balanced the section with Adorno's and Glenn Gould's readings of Bach.
:I found this section to be very unhelpful and rather offensive.  This poorly written and judgemental section, which is polluted with academic jargon like "self-identical" and "resentment-listener" should be removed, since it disrupts the flow of information about Bach's work and life and inserts raw and ugly bias. I had to read it several times to understand what the section was about, because it disrupted the flow of the article so badly. The discussion of the name of "Air for the G string" is especially silly and not appropriate for an article on Bach.  It is extraordinarily ironic that someone felt it appropriate to deliver a lecture to readers about listening to Bach with tolerance and respect, and then immediately displayed a complete lack of tolerance and respect by judging Bach listeners to be racist and close-minded (see the remark about the listener being at odds with "a world of music that is today no longer written by white European males".)  This comes across as very hypocritical and amateurish. All of this section should be removed, it is not relevant to this article and detracts from the article's quality.BryanC 20:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you, or anyone else, would like to remove the last five paragraphs of the "style" section, it's fine with me.  I just read them through, and find they add little, aside from a dose of some of the roll-your-eyes trendy academic jargon I was happy to discard once I was out the grad school door many years ago.  Any other opinions on this?  I for one would be happy to see this part excised. Antandrus  (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If your primary approach to J.S. Bach is that he's a "dead white male", and if your primary interaction style is the rant such as the one above, I strongly suggest that you take your own advice and cease to work on this article.  Much appreciated, Antandrus  (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Spinoza1111|Spinoza1111]] 03:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Bach rescued from his devotees 

message: Why is it there? What does it add to the text? Who invented it? Where's the reference?
I'm removing it soon (again) if these questions can't be answered. Tony 23:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sleeve of some recording I no longer have here (possibly Savall and Koopman's recording of gamba sonatas, on the Alia Vox label, but I am not sure) contained that cross, handwritten in what looks to me like Bach's hand. Therefore I am rather sure that it has some significance, but I have no idea where the manuscript is from, nor have I been able to find any references to the cross online. I have a scan of the autograph cross itself on my computer, if anyone is interested. The sleeves of Suzuki's cantata recordings on BIS (at least the ones I own) contain a printed version of the cross, but that's about the only other place where I have seen it. EldKatt (Talk) 08:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think it adds anything to the text? I mean, if we knew for certain that there was an interesting story behind it, maybe. But I'm inclined to exclude it, since the article already has plenty of images, and there are tons more that could be added. Tony 09:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As it stands, I would agree that it doesn't add anything to the text; or rather, the text doesn't provide anything for it to add to. If the text managed to explain anything about where it's from or why it's significant, though, this would make a helpful addition: I recall my own disappointment upon, after seeing it in one of the above-mentioned CD sleeves, being unable to find any informative references to it. If we can't find out anything about it, though, and it stays unexplained, I agree that it might be best to remove it. EldKatt (Talk) 07:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of the Bach cross 

message: Who added the link to this fascinating lecture? It's excellent—musicology at its best. Tony 12:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christoph Wolff video stream 

message: I listed it for sprotection a few months ago, and was knocked back. Don't know how it was managed this time, but I like it. Let's hope that it's permanent. Tony 01:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: semiprotected

message: I have doubts Perlman is a highly influential interpreter of Bach's violin music. When other violinist think of Bach recordings that influenced them, I doubt Perlman's Bach recordings would come up.  Some of the people listed need a short justification. For example, Ton Koopman's organ playing actually isn't well received by reviewers in Fanfare or the American Record Guide. Maybe he is influential as a teacher? -- 66.171.76.139 07:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have doubts about listing "influential" performers at all, because it's always going to be highly subjective. I agree that Perlman probably shouldn't be there. Tony 09:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Highly influential

message: Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and subject content. Currently it would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 02:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are free to feel that way and even voluntarily de-list the article if you wish. The value of a GA tag is only as high as the quality of the articles that it is attached to. Hence the purpose of this review. Agne 06:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: I can see that this will be a cause of trouble. What about removing it altogether? Tony 12:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  That these performers are renowned for playing Bach is noteworthy in articles about them, but it is not information about Bach nor his music.  --RobertG ♬ talk 12:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree as well. Invites spam and does not impart much useful information pertinent to Bach the man. Eusebeus 13:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yup: let's take it out.  These kinds of sections always grow like weed patches, and add little to the articles.  Antandrus  (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing the section on notable performers 

message: Bibliography, these digital days, is an-art-not-a-science so no offense intended if I've stepped on anyone's toes, but I tried finding a few of these entries in libraries and had some trouble, so I thought I'd flesh out full names and standardize formats a bit. And ISBNs are becoming a mess, now, with the new ISBN-13's coming in on January 1, but I've tried at least to indicate several numbers where available: ISBNs often are the easiest tools for clearing up multiple-edition confusions, also for distinguishing & identifying UK/US editions or reprintings of the same work. What is Wikipedia going to do about the new ISBN-13's, I wonder?...
I don't find the following item, in WorldCat or a couple of other bibliographic resources: so I have put in Terry's version instead --
* Forkel, Johann Nicolaus; On Johann Sebastian Bach's Life, Genius, and Works, (1802), translated by A. C. F. Kollmann (1820)
--Kessler 23:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography details 

message: The style section needs a lot of work; it is currently unreferenced and very messy. I wish I could contribute in this sense, but I don't know nearly enough about Bach. Would anyone be willing to take this up? -- Cielomobile minor7♭5 04:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style section 

message: There was a hip-hop song made on top of the song "Air" by this composer. Does anyone know who the artist of this mix is, and what the track's name is? I think it would be notable under a trivia section or so, but if not, I still want to know who did that remix thing of Air. Thanks. --Adriaan90 20:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm... ok... Anyhoo, I finally found that hip hop remix, it was Everything's Gonna Be Alright by Sweetbox... thanks anyway for all of you who read my first comment lol... --Adriaan90 21:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hip-hop 

message: I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information.  I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list.  Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article.  Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here.  Regards, Durova 15:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cultural depictions of Johann Sebastian Bach]] 

message: It seems to me that the intro paragraph has major pov problems. I think he's a great composer but I also think that we're suppose to explain him, not praise him. Words like robust, and sacred seem like blatant pov and things like "He is arguably the greatest composer of his time, and one of the greatest composers of all time" are too. He may have been a great composer but that doesn't make him an exception to the NPOV wiki policy. Mighty Draco 22:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sacred" is a technical term, not a term of praise here. I don't see the opening in POV terms. The claims are couched in much evidence presented throughout the article. The lead is meant to prepare the reader for the greater level of detail in the body of the article. Tony 09:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tweaked it again; I think some of the previous wording (going back a couple days) was better.  The north German style was already contrapuntal (think of Buxtehude, Scheidemann, Scheidt, Schein, and all the others going all the way back to their Venetian School models); "sacred" indeed has a precise meaning, opposed to "secular".  Someone will probably want a cite on that "triumvirate" but it shouldn't be hard to find, since those three names often get said in the same breath.  Antandrus  (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro paragraph 

message: The external links reported a jungle of sites which were irrelevant, not found (reporting 404 errors), spam sites and two redundant links. I putted some order in there (I hope). Please do not add sites with poor contents, with one or two music files or with a only brief text. I have however added a website with an huge selection of midis where it is possible to download them (I wasn't able to download from the suggested classicalmidiconnection!?!) Alegreen 04:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I don't like some of the recent changes, particularly in the lead; I intend to at least partically revert them. In particular, where are the two recordings that I painstakingly arranged copyright for? Tony 12:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: I noticed this was talked about a bit in the discussion archive, but the Prelude and Fugue in A Minor has a horrible clicking through parts of it, like it was ripped from a scratched CD or something. I suggest it be removed.--20.139.226.50 03:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Tony 11:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sound File Quality 

message: no mention of Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565, despite being one of his most famous works?
:There was, but authorship was disputed. Tony 03:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is interesting. Cheers!__Seadog ♪ 04:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, it's definitely in his style, although immature. But I was howled down. Tony 04:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes it does definitely in Bach's syle, I never knew that it was ever disputed. I will try to read up on it.__Seadog ♪ 04:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also not to be vague but has any body looked at the style part of the article. To me it seems very out of tune from the rest of the article (IMO the article is great). I say this because it is very large and has 0 references, does anybody have any ideas to trim it up and work on it. An image would be very nice but I have no honest clue as to what image.__Seadog ♪ 04:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote the style section as a start, about ?a year ago, since there was hardly anything on Bach's style in the article. It has been changed since, and yes, you're right, it probably needs trimming and referencing. Tony 08:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I applaud you that you started it since I do remember about a year ago there was nothing. But I believe if we can work on that maybe (that is a big maybe) then it might have a chance at the FA. I have noticed that you are very good when it comes to your criteria for rfa, since you have certain criteria it would be a great help if you could help. I believe that we actually have interacted little before...I believe it was at the Hinduism FA which no census was achieved. You gave some very good constructive criticism and was a large help. Thanks.__Seadog ♪ 12:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BVW565 

message: I propose that "Bach" go directly to the Bach disambiguation page, rather than redirecting to Johann Sebastian.  Bach's sons are very important, as we all know, and coming directly here could confuse some novices.  It also is potentially passing up the opportunity to educate those who know of only one Bach.  Perhaps someone should create a "Bach family" article, even if it is no more than a paragraph of text and a list.
Vaux 00:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: Surely the Well-Tempered Clavier should have a mention in the introductory paragraph?  Being one of the great works of keyboard literature it should be one of the first works associated with the composer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.179.145.187 (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a limit to the number of individual works that can be named at the opening. We already have the Goldberg Variations and the keyboard suites and partiitas. I guess I don't care all that much if you really want to add the Well Tempered Clavier, but it's mentioned in the article already, and the sentence is long already. Tony 00:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: If it's not good, I'd rather not have it at all. Currently, the dates of birth and death are repeated. The article starts with them, so why repeat in the box? We have "composer, pianist", but the piano didn't exist then. And it's kind of compartmentalising. He was a teacher and a conductor too. Tony 01:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also dislike it; indeed I don't like infoboxes on "classical" music articles at all.  It's dangerously oversimplifying to compartmentalise people, pieces, trends, and so forth this way:  maybe it's better with current popular music styles, but I'm not expert there.  If the infobox has to stay by consensus, pianist should be replaced with "organist", but jamming Bach into "occupation:  composer, organist" just makes my skin crawl.  Sorry.  Antandrus  (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: ummm, aesthetic considerations aside, infoboxes are a part of the fabric of Wikipedia, and their use is explicitly mentioned in the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system. I think the burden is on those who wish to throw aside the apparent consensus opinion of the Wikipedia community to justify swimming against the tide. The infobox has problems? . --Ling.Nut 14:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've pointed out the problems above; they are major ones, in my view. I couldn't care less about that silly Version 1.0 project—fatuous, with no cogent explanation as to why it exists. Their preferences have no official status on WP, and where is this consensus about infoboxes? Tony 14:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: We've lost them on featured articles before, as they create a lot of useless clutter.  Sandy (Talk) 14:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I am sick of seeing this same argument popping up all over Wikipedia.  There is no consensus at all to use or not to use info boxes.  While there might just possibly be a slight excuse for them on scientific pages there is absolutely no need for them at all on biographies.  Where all relevant information in contained in the lead (as it should be) to repeat it again in an ugly box is unnecessary.  Tony is a competent and experienced editor, if he feels this page does not need an info box, then it does not need it. Editors suddenly arriving and plonking these unsightly box on pages on which they have previously had little input is in my view almost trolling for trouble.  If people want to see just how much time can be wasted on this matter they should look at the many sections following   where the info box discussion on a very similar page to this  goes on and on becoming more and more bitter - all to achieve what? At the end of the day nothing. Giano 15:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll add to the swell of voices here and paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "Mr. Gorbachev, remove this infobox!" It's unsightly, repeats the same info in the lead and adds nothing to the article. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox is gone, and  does not mention the word "infobox" anymore. Kusma (討論) 15:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox 

message: This article is being reviewed at WP:GA/R for possible delisting of its Good article status. --Ling.Nut 21:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be excellent. GA status is a worthless badge, IMV; there's no rigorous assessment system. Take it away NOW, please. Tony 14:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yikes, and a time waster for experienced editors.  Someone put an entire series of my articles up for GA (when I knew they weren't ready) - I solved that problem by removing them myself. Sandy (Talk) 14:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure your experience will help you notice that this article has almost no cites at all. Maybe I'm biased; I'm a PhD student in Linguistics. If I tried to push a paper off on my professor (or on a journal) with no cites on it, I'd have it handed back to me, smoking. Moreover, what about WP:V? Even Jimmy Wales is behind the push for better verification. Really, arguing in favor of better referencing is far far far from a time-waster. Worrying about infoboxes is a waste of time; work on the cites instead to do something actually and truly useful. --Ling.Nut 15:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The referencing does need to be improved, and I will concern myself with the infobox. Tony 15:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the referencing needs to be improved, but as far as WP:GA status goes, that is neither here nor there, since it means nothing.  It's not helpful to tell a very busy and productive editor like Tony how to spend his time. Sandy (Talk) 15:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You misunderstand - it's not about editors, it's about the lack merit of GA status.  Since anyone can confer it, it means little, and anyone should be able to take it away without fuss.  Sandy (Talk) 16:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GA status has changed a lot since it was introduced, and it means a lot more than it used to. When it was first introduced, there was no formal review or nomination structure, and anyone could grant ot take away good article status at any time. Now there is a formal method and formal criteria, and the people at WP:GA take their check of the article against the criteria quite seriously, and usually help by identifying areas where improvement is necessary. If you don't like the peer review provided by this system, you are free to ignore it - it does not interfere with article editing at all. Kusma (討論) 17:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support ignoring it and writing a good article. The review consists of a handful of editors complaining that there are only six footnotes; one of them hasn't read the article. (I except Homestarmy's criticism, which is substantive if misguided.) None of the rest of them is even addressing the article, or what needs to be cited in it. I fail to see how that means anything at all.   Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GA/R|Good article Review]] of GA status 

message: This image is included in the article with the caption "Places in which Bach resided throughout his life".  What do the lines between the towns represent, if anything?  I can't make any sense of them, especially since the article states "At the age of 14, Johann Sebastian was awarded a choral scholarship, with his older school friend, Georg Erdmann, to study at the prestigious St Michael’s School in Lüneburg, not far from the largest city in Germany...", yet the town of Lüneburg on the diagram is shown with a question mark.  Perhaps if the diagram adds useful content, it would be more useful if the towns were superimposed over a map of Germany, since people like me don't know where many of those towns are.  Neil916 (Talk) 20:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image question

message: I think the following comments by Neil916 at the GA review are worth considering, not so much because they are valid (although some of them are; no article is perfect), but because  articles should be as clear as the content will allow to someone who knows nothing of the content - and reviews by such a person are hard to come by.  (Arabic numbers refer to WP:WIAGA; the Roman numerals will be explained afterwards) I shall be responding to them in detail. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neil's comments

message: This Bach cross image: we removed it a while ago (twice). Why is it back? There's no historical justification for it. Sure, as Andrantus points out, if you read it clockwise, you get BACH, but ... so what? Bach didn't use it himself, or if he did, there's not record of this. Who did invent it? 
I think it should be removed. Tony 09:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  oh no, it's back again