Template:Did you know nominations/Nahe wollt der Herr uns sein
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Nahe wollt der Herr uns sein
Huub Oosterhuis in 1969
- ... that "Nahe wollt der Herr uns sein", first written in Dutch by Huub Oosterhuis (pictured) in 1964, was included in the German hymnal Gotteslob of 1975, but removed from the common section in the next edition? Source: several
- Reviewed:
to come
- Reviewed:
Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 21:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC).
will review once QPQ has been done! Kingoflettuce (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Kingoflettuce, thank you for the offer. I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Khairunnisa Ash'ari. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if the hook fact is directly supported in the article, nor can I confirm it for myself. The body currently reads, "Intentions to ban songs by Osterhuis from the 2013 edition"--intentions vs decisions? Why not just used the language used in the hook ("removed"). Right now it's ambiguous if the intentions were followed through or not Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm no sure that I understand the question. Trying more concise
- ALT1: ... that "Nahe wollt der Herr uns sein", first written in Dutch by Huub Oosterhuis (pictured) in 1964, was removed from the German Catholic hymnal's common section in 2013? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Kingoflettuce, thank you for the offer. I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Khairunnisa Ash'ari. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- The body doesn't say if the text was actually removed, just that there were "intentions" that were protested. Perhaps you could reword that bit, rather than the hook, to make it sound less awkward/ambiguous. Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- How can I say it was removed when it appears in the same book's regional section? (of some dioceses, - in others it was removed altogether) It was removed from the common section, and that's what the hook says. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not even getting that from the article itself. Indeed, the word "removed" isn't even there! You may have to rework it so that it's clearer Kingoflettuce (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- In a nutshell, why couldn't it just read, "X was removed from the common section (and explain a little about what a common section is) although it still appeared in some dioceses' sections)" rather than what's presented in the article at the moment? Kingoflettuce (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- I tried to expand, did you see that? What's still unclear? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Just feel that syntax-wise, "intentions ..." is ambiguous (possible that because of the protests, the final decision was different) and that it'd be better for the hook to match exactly what is said in the article. Kingoflettuce (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not good at 1am, so just briefly: the (majority of the) bishops planned to eliminate his works completely, but the churchgoers demanded to keep them. Some were kept, others - like this specific one - were "degraded" (removed from the common section), and only some stubborn dioceses kept them. My English is not good enough to get that into encyclopedic English, and even less in a hook. Help welcome. - We could try a different hook idea, but this was kind of wanted for the last such case (forgot the title, and tired). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
hmm I suppose it's fine actually, let's see if the promoter concurs or not. AGF on German sources. Kingoflettuce (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not good at 1am, so just briefly: the (majority of the) bishops planned to eliminate his works completely, but the churchgoers demanded to keep them. Some were kept, others - like this specific one - were "degraded" (removed from the common section), and only some stubborn dioceses kept them. My English is not good enough to get that into encyclopedic English, and even less in a hook. Help welcome. - We could try a different hook idea, but this was kind of wanted for the last such case (forgot the title, and tired). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Just feel that syntax-wise, "intentions ..." is ambiguous (possible that because of the protests, the final decision was different) and that it'd be better for the hook to match exactly what is said in the article. Kingoflettuce (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- I tried to expand, did you see that? What's still unclear? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- In a nutshell, why couldn't it just read, "X was removed from the common section (and explain a little about what a common section is) although it still appeared in some dioceses' sections)" rather than what's presented in the article at the moment? Kingoflettuce (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not even getting that from the article itself. Indeed, the word "removed" isn't even there! You may have to rework it so that it's clearer Kingoflettuce (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- How can I say it was removed when it appears in the same book's regional section? (of some dioceses, - in others it was removed altogether) It was removed from the common section, and that's what the hook says. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- The body doesn't say if the text was actually removed, just that there were "intentions" that were protested. Perhaps you could reword that bit, rather than the hook, to make it sound less awkward/ambiguous. Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt and Kingoflettuce: I'm guessing probably not, but how about something like: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- ALT2: ... that "Nahe wollt der Herr uns sein" was removed from the common section of the Gotteslob after its author and his parish left the Catholic Church?
- I'm guessing probably not. I wrote this on the birthday of a friend who had died (years ago), about a song written in response of the Second Vatican Council. He was a generous man, and would not want to put the weight on that the spirit (of closeness between God and people - which the title has but only in German) is in danger, but rather point at the spirit. Do you understand? The article is about the song, and the hook should be about the song, not 3/4 about the reason to degrade it. I'd love the image of the author at the time of writing which says more than words. It doesn't go well with a 2013 decision. The song is pretty alive in our parish, where actually the "regional" songs are preferred.
- ALT0a: ... that "Nahe wollt der Herr uns sein" (The Lord wanted to be close to us), first written in Dutch by Huub Oosterhuis (pictured) in 1964, was included in the German hymnal Gotteslob of 1975?
- ALT2a: ... that "Nahe wollt der Herr uns sein" (The Lord wanted to be close to us), first written in Dutch by Huub Oosterhuis (pictured) in 1964, was removed from the common section of the 2013 Gotteslob? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Promoting ALT0a to Prep 6 – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)