text:
Talk:List of Pakistanis

Heads of State Section
This section should be split into List of Governors General, List of Prime Ministers, and List of Presidents. ASM 09:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree The list is segregated into far too many levels already. Further dividing sections would just clutter up everything. Heads of State is pretty straightforward. If we segregate it any further, then there'd be a list for Nazims, then Taluka counsellors, then local government authorities, then school teachers. How far would one be willing to go? :) Arun Reginald (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Foreign Ministers

 * Sir Chaudhry Muhammad Zafarullah Khan Sahib (6 February 1893 - 1 September 1985) was a Pakistani diplomat, Pakistan’s first foreign minister

Sunnis
Why are non-Sunni personalities being prejudiced against? Most Sunni scientists, diplomats, politicians, military generals are thieves, traitors, dictators, looters, foreign agents, morally/sexually corrupt anyways. Why are they being prominently mentioned here over non-Sunnis? Fayselaslam (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC) I believe the language being used by Fayselaslam is highly improper. It amounts to slander which is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. I would request the above outburst is deleted. Abikan(talk) 13:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan. No scientist!
Anyone who thinks Dr Qadeer is a scientist, please provide credentials. How many scientific papers has he written in reputable journals? No one becomes a scientist just because a lot of paindoos say he is. Read wiki article on him, especially "Interview of Dr.Samar Mubarak-Head of Pakistan Missile Program in WMDs & Missiles" and also Dutch Ex-Prime Minister's interview that they (Dutch) twice wanted to apprehend him but CIA stopped him. He was working with CIA’s knowledge. Why isn’t US making so much fuss over Pakistan’s real nuclear weapons as it is doing on other countries’ nuclear programmes who are no where near making a nuclear weapon? Yes you guessed it, its all with US agreement. Fayselaslam (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed wrongly pointing link from Abid Ali
I have removed the link from Abid Ali (Film/TV Actor), it was wrongly pointing to Syed Abid Ali, and Indian Cricketer. Fayselaslam (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Some important guidelines/suggestions
Your suggestions are welcome. Please discuss how we can make this article better.

Wrongly pointing links even when articles exists Please make sure that links provided point to their respective articles. For instance, I saw an article pointing to I. I. Chundrigar. I know that is the common name he is known by but on Wikipedia we use complete names rendering the same to be Ibrahim Ismail Chundrigar. Make sure that articles do exist for the name you are contributing toward the list. I see all the list of the Qaris. It's hardly likely that they might have their own articles. What do you reckon? Arun Reginald (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Red link chaos Please do so that the links to existing articles appear on top and then all the red links should come underneath. If red links exceed a number of six for a sub-section, make sure you add the rest of the red links in the main list page for that particular section. For instance, for Models sub-section, there is a main list article named List of Pakistani models. Arun Reginald (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA for inclusion of any name(s) onthis page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.161.32 (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Red links
Hello. I went through and did a lot of work with the red links. I referenced the ones that I could find a decent source for, removed some when I was unable to find one, and converted several to blue links. For the ones I sourced, I was not always able to find a good source for, most only mentioned the subject in passing. So, while this helped verify them, a lot of them probably aren't notable, but I'll leave that to someone else's judgment. There were a lot in which I was unable to reference, but there may be sources that I was unable to find, so here's the list of names I removed, I'll leave a note explaining why I removed some, for others it was because I was unable to find a reliable source.

 * Dr. Mohammad Irfan - (1934-2008) - Psychiatrist Former Medical Superintendent Government General & Mental Hospital Dadar, Director Irfan Neuropsychiatric & General Hospital Mansehra
 * Dr. Kabir
 * Dr. Shaha Arif Malik - (Dentist)
 * Dr. Naveed Irfan - Neurophysician / Psychiatrist
 * Dr. GK Khatri - (Dentist)
 * Dr. Saeed Irfan - Psychiatrist
 * Dr. Habib Jadoon
 * Professor Syed Babar Ali, MBA, ACMA, CIA, CISA, FRM, Regional Director-GARP Backlink to deleted article
 * Hammad Yousuf (1977)Scholar,Philosopher, Founder of New School of Thought in Philosophy Backlink to deleted article
 * Engr. HR Chatrani (Power Engineer)
 * Robert Ilf Founder
 * Shehzad Asif Javed Chairman, The Club Group Backlink to deleted article
 * Mehr Muhammad Amin CEO, Amin Textile Concern, A famous indenting firm of Pakistan A few first party references, but I was unable to find any reliable or third party references
 * Qari Muhammad Farooq (Radio Pakistan,Ptv) Backlink to deleted article
 * Qari Hafiz Asim Manzoor Meo
 * DR. Hafiz Yasar Dilshad
 * John Alia
 * Raees Amrohvi Backlink to deleted article
 * Khawar Naeem Hashmi Already listed under journalists
 * Tanweer Jamshed
 * Cybil Backlink to deleted article
 * Muhammad Farooq Journalist working for Daily Pakistan Founder Editor Daily Evening Special Quetta,Ex Joint Executive Editor Mashriq Backlink to deleted article
 * Javed Aziz Khan,working for [[The News] Backlink to deleted article
 * Kashif Mardani, Geo News
 * Mahtab Aziz,Freelance Journalist Backlink to deleted article
 * Syed Asim Mahmood,Journalist and writer,working for Daily Express
 * Asif Khan a.k.a Aay Khan Backlink to deleted article
 * The Banned The article with the same name is about a band from New York
 * Usman Shaikh Backlink to deleted article
 * Sheikh Awais Ahmad

Sorry to clog up the talk page, if anyone more familiar with these subjects can find a source, please reinsert it. Thanks! Apparition11|Complaints/ Mistakes 21:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Qari Muhammad Farooq
This name (and variations of it) keeps getting reinserted into the article, and I have removed it several times. My reasoning is that WP:Stand-alone lists states that Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future). Articles about this person have been A7 speedy deleted 6 times under 2 different variations with one of them getting WP:SALTed. I have tried to discuss it with the editor inserting it at User talk:Shaistakausar.pk, but have not received a response. Does anyone know there is something I'm missing and it should be included? Apparition11 Complaints/ Mistakes 03:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, the article has been written again and certainly doesn't appear to be a CSD candidate this time. Barring deletion, this eases all my worries about it (of course). Cheers! Apparition11 Complaints/ Mistakes 16:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Pakistanis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080421080346/http://www.britishcouncil.org/goingglobal2-speakers-biographies-atta-ur-rahman.htm to http://www.britishcouncil.org/goingglobal2-speakers-biographies-atta-ur-rahman.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120820024623/http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=109179 to http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=109179

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Pakistanis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090819100455/http://www.ias-worldwide.org/profiles/prof47.htm to http://www.ias-worldwide.org/profiles/prof47.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060723044944/http://www.governorsindh.gov.pk/pressrelease/news.asp?id=1338 to http://www.governorsindh.gov.pk/pressrelease/news.asp?id=1338

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2021
Dr Ishrat Bano International UNESCO-L'Oreal Fellow, Asian Women of Achievement Award winner should be added in the list of academia. 82.3.142.134 (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The person needs to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of Pakistanis


text:
User:NeKo

Umm... hi. I'm NeKo. You can call me neko. or you could not call me. no one calls me. I have a blog. it's Purple Antelope. It's kind of a diary and somewhat boring, yet ironic. I realy don't do much on here. i'm usualy hanging out at the Sandbox. I did add the article for Brockian Ultra-Cricket, though...

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:NeKo


text:
Tales of the Velvet Comet

Tales of the Velvet Comet is a series of four science-fiction novels by Mike Resnick. The Velvet Comet, one of the many leisure and entertainment enterprises owned by the galaxy-spanning Vainmill Corporation, is a barbell-shaped space station that serves as the galaxy's most exclusive bordello to the rich and (in-)famous.

The four novels which comprise the series look in on four periods of the Velvet Comet's lifespan, from early on in the Comet's life (Eros Ascending) to a period after the Comet's decommissioning (Eros at Nadir).

 * Eros Ascending (1984)
 * Eros at Zenith (1984)
 * Eros Descending (1985)
 * Eros at Nadir (1986)

title: Tales of the Velvet Comet


text:
Talk:U.S. presidential election, 2008/Archive 2

Others
Pat Roberts and Micheal Bloomberg for the republicans; Gary Locke for the democrats.

Candidate list out of control
The candidate lists are deeply bloated at this point. I mean, Richie Daley is a potential presidential candidate? Perhaps we should try to have some criteria here based on people actually being mentioned as potential presidential candidates in the media. I'd add that many of the people listed here are much more widely touted as VP prospects, or as future gubernatorial or senatorial contestants. john k 07:46, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Well I think some of your deletions were warranted, but I disagree on others. For example, I disagree with you on the removal of Rice and Quayle as possible candidates. I personally think old Dan might make a forbidable candidate in the nomination process, and maybe the general election. In any case, I think people will talk about him as a possible (unless you have information I don't have about this). Likewise my buddies who listen to Limbaugh salivate at Rice as a possible nominee. They love her, or at least use to. The scuttlebutt will certainly there for a run. Mind you, I'm neither advocating these candidates, nor saying they could get the nomination, or even win any primaries. But the list is about possible candidates is it not? I think it will certainly be quite large. Overall, it seems you are making judgements about electability, rather than who might simply run. Would you have removed Kucinich or then-obscure Howard Dean from such a list four years ago? -- Decumanus 07:53, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

Well, a list of anybody who might possibly run would be completely useless. In theory, any senator, governor, congressman, former senator, former governor, former congressman, big city mayor, cabinet level appointee, vice president, former vice president, &c &c &c might possibly run. Our criteria should be people who have actually been discussed as nominees. I will agree with you that Rice should probably be on there, although I think she's an utterly ridiculous candidate - an unmarried middle-aged black woman who has never held elective office, has been arguably utterly incompetent at the appointive job she has held for the last four years and is absolutely terrible in her public appearances is supposed to be able to win the Republican primaries? Or even to think she might possibly win the Republican primaries? But, yeah, people talk about her, so she should probably go back. I'm pretty dubious about Quayle, though. Has anybody even seen him in the last four years? At any rate, shouldn't we list people who already have been discussed as possible candidates, rather than people who might be so discussed in the future? john k 08:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * All in all, I agree with you on principle. But I've certainly heard Quayle's name come up. Don't ask me where: I don't keep track of such things. But I'm not surprised, all in all. I personally think he'd be the instant favorite of the evangelical contingent. They love him. And the Democrats would vastly underestimate him. -- Decumanus 08:14, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)
 * Re: Quayle, he announced his candidacy in 2000 (after no one had seen him since 1992) but then dropped out. I would be surprised if he didn't at least explore a run in 2008. -- Jord 21:18 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alright, I'll add him back as well. Did you have any other specific disagreements? I think most of my other removals were pretty sound. A lot of these people, also, are really more discussed as VP candidates - maybe we should clarify that. john k 08:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Personally I thought most of your removals were good. I was going to remove Salazar myself, for example. -- Decumanus 08:19, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

this early a large (but preferably not endless) list of possibles seems appropriate. right now it looks wide open and likely to draw lots of candidates on both sides. perhaps there should be two categories: likely or widely considered candidates and a separate section for other "possibles" mentioned by contributors here. later (maybe by June 2005) it may be possible to narrow to say top 10-15 likely candidates on each side based on activity and buzz between now and then. http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm has initial poll results on 7-10 candidates on each side polling at least 1% now. but it would be too soon to trim the lists down to these yet. by early 2006 some polling level, 1%, 2% or perhaps higher, would be a reasonable type of list cutoff criteria. by spring/summer 2007 the criteria could be become that the possible candidate must have started an official exploratory committee to be listed. (from a reader)

Well, clearly the view that Rice has done poorly at her job as National Security Advisor is opinion, to say the least. I have no reason to think that someone who is African-America, a woman, or unmarried couldn't get the Republican nomination or win the general election. I think the Quayle listing is as silly as he is. He's run already, and went nowhere (in 2000). I don't think he'd go anywhere in 2008, especially if John Ashcroft or Rick Santorum ran. Those are just two vastly more realistic candidates who are beloved by the evangelical right.--Xinoph 22:26, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * But, then, somebody deleted Santorum as unrealistic a while back, and I think Ashcroft may have suffered the same. Samaritan 01:49, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think that odds of Rice, Quayle, Sanatorium and Ashcroft getting the nomination are about as likely as me being named undisputed ruler of the universe later this afternoon. But that is not the point!  The list is of likely canidates not of likely nominees.  Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich are both likely Democratic candidates but highly unlikely nominees. - Jord 17:54, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Candidate deletions out of control
The new spate of deletions is further out of control than the candidate lists.

There are some universally obvious names to include - Edwards for the Democrats; I'd have been sure McCain for the Republicans until he was deleted (!); there are some who'd hold some elemental possibility but it would be nearly universally acceptable not to include at this point. (Ressurect Carter or Bush 41!)

In such cases - as the ones where we get the edit fights - where we arrive at no clear consensus, NPOV suggests very strongly that we take a broadly inclusive view of those who could reasonably, at least, find some reasonable support and attention if they ran for the nomination.

If we'd been doing a 2004 page as late as early 2002 with the subjective and individualistic standards deletionists seem to be applying now, Howard Dean (obscure, pacifist, too liberal, too pro-gun...) would have been widely deleted. Bob Graham and Gary Hart, who attracted some heat and with a different course of events might have stayed into the primaries, would be too old; Edwards too young and inexperienced. (Lets' not even get into George W. Bush's controversial personal history before the 2000 race.)

That the Democratic list, as I write, includes Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich - as well it should - but not the party's House and Senate leaders - that some of us have had to fight to keep possible frontrunner McCain and the widely mooted Condi Rice on the Republican list - is insanity.

If you have a short list of the very likeliest nominated candidates for President by your personal determination, please put it on your blog or Talk page or Usenet or somewhere else. I certainly will.

The best we can do with this page is either a broadly inclusive list of individuals with some of the basic prerequisite attributes to be notable candidates for a nomination - or a ridiculous three year tug-of-war over subjective personal opinion. As Wikipedians, I believe our charge is clear. 64.229.33.197 22:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed Bob Dole from the list.After 30 years of losing in presidential election,Today he's a loser.His chance is less than even John Ashcroft!FInally thanks for removing and cleaning the lists, I think if we don't do this we have to write down here all member of U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives as potenitial nominees!!--Sina 08:02, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The point is not to accurately predict who might be a candidate. The point is to note those names that are actually being talked about. I've acknowledged I was wrong about Rice (although I still think she's less likely to be the Republican nominee in 2008 than, I dunno, George W. Bush), and that she should be on the list, much as it pains me to see the ridiculousness, because she's been talked about. But that doesn't mean we should include random elected officials. The key should be whether they are being mooted about in the media. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, for instance, have never been mentioned as possible presidential candidates. I have every doubt that they ever will be. Just because they hold a position that theoretically makes them look likely (although no House party leader has ever won a nomination, and only a few - Champ Clark, John Nance Garner - have actually tried) to run for president does not mean that they are actually under discussion. john k 15:04, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dick Gephardt certainly ran for the 04 nomination. A several-years-early page for the 96 or even 2000 elections would have been lacking without Newt Gingrich. And as for media zeitgeist, most of the stories about the Democrats now go 'Who will lead and represent this tattered party and where will they take it? Nancy Pelosi is the House leader and says blah blah; Harry Reid, just elected Senate leader, blah blah blah." If they haven't connected these memes, it's only been a couple days since Reid's leadership victory, less than a week since the general election. They will.

And the reasons you stated in your edit summary for going ahead and deleting both were basically POV punditry. Reid is pro-life: well, he's neither the only pro-life Democrat nor the only dissonant voice on abortion in party leadership or presidential contention (see Giuliani, Pataki...) Pelosi is a 'liberal woman from San Franciso' - well, besides her recent talk of co-operation with the President, the 04 candidate was a limousine liberal ex-war-resister from Boston (and got 48%!), and a putative 08 frontrunner is a liberal woman from New York who I am sure scores much higher negatives than Pelosi. 64.229.33.197 00:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Look, here's the bottom line: Everyone talked about Gephardt long before 04 (further, he wasn't Dem leader when he ran, but that's neither here nor there). All you need to do is cite some source that mentions these people as possible candidates for the nomination. Then I will withdraw any objection to their listing here. You have still not cited that. Until that happens, it is just my POV against yours. john k 02:20, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sure, if and when we reach a consensus that every entry on the Democratic and Republican lists has to cite a source. Samaritan 03:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) (64.229.* newly registered)

There is already a consensus on this. It's called "no original research." Our own speculation would qualify in this case as original research. The point of the article is to discuss what is generally said about the 08 race at the present time, not to present what we think about the 08 race at the present time, which is worthless. I'd add that a source doesn't need to be cited for every individual. Anyone defending an individual whose place on the list is challenged should be able to cite a source, however. john k 22:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * With due respect, at this early juncture, I would say that Pelosi and Reid ought to be on the list simply because they will be the key elected Democratic spokespeople from now until the mid-term elections and therefore have an inherent advantage in name recognition should the offer for the nominaition. -- Jord 01:38 16 Nov 04 (UTC)

 * I've restored them both again. *sigh.* I'm purely neutral on the inclusion of Gavin Newsom - with such information as I have now I'll neither add nor delete him myself. john k, remember that the mandate of the list is now extended to Vice Presidents (IIRC you made that edit yourself?) so the bar is set lower. Samaritan 01:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tom Brokaw
User:172.173.7.221 posted the entry below for Tom Brokaw under "Other parties and independents." Not that it doesn't have a place somewhere on the web, but it's obviously advocacy, wildly disproportionate to anybody else's entry, and would not last as such within the context of an encyclopedic article on the 2008 election. I bring it here to ask what we should do about Tom Brokaw himself, though. CNN did list him in a medium-short list of 04 Dem VP possibities before the selection of Edwards. (On the other hand, so did Dick Morris ...) Samaritan 21:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

user: i guess moving it here is better than nothing. perhaps the full entry didnt belong on the mainlist so i restored just his name and occupation comparable to the others. i added the detail under his own wiki entry and i hope it can also stay there. i am not an advocate of tom brokaw. i was just thinking outside the box at a possible unconventional candidate. i wrote the paragraph to explain the rationale for his running since he isnt an obvious candidate. he could help the democrats win iowa, nevada, new mexico, maybe even ohio. let others think about it. later i found this, showing he was mentioned as a possible vp also in the wall street journal. but he denied interest in being a candidate. http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/entertainment/8143518.htm?1c but a past denial is common and doesnt preclude considering in the future.

Hey, I see where you're coming from, and I have my own issues with deletionism too (eg. see above). Questions, though: Should he be listed in "Other parties and independents" if he's only been discussed otherwise as a potential Democratic candidate? Is the connection there too tenuous? Listing him in three places or creating a category for interesting curveballs with no clear party identification would seem like overkill, though. Samaritan 01:17, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC), who won't use the main article to spread my personal curveball meme: Bruce Springsteen for the Democrats.

Original entry for Tom Brokaw:
 * Tom Brokaw soon to retire as NBC anchorman. Has never run for office but would have strong name identification  and favorable ratings.  The theory of considering him as a candidate is that he might a rare individual who might not add to the deeping division of the country and could possibly help bring it a little more together. Probably knows more about the reality and diversity of the American people than a typical American politician for President.  Born in South Dakota, he is a Midwesterner who has lived most of his adult life in New York and Washington D.C. but still remembers and respects the America outside the big city.  Has a ranch in Montana. Passes the "moral values are important" test.  Wrote The Greatest Generation to honor those that fought and won World War II.  Covered the White House and all the issues facing the federal government. Knows as much or more about the world as a typical American politician for President.    Would be 68 in 2008 but is healthy, active and bright.  Could probably be competitive as a Republican, Democrat or Independent.  Party identification has been kept private. Familiarity with business and political elites could help him raise money and attract talented advisors.  Has shown interest in environmental issues.   Ability to communicate on TV is a key test for presidential candidates and a key job skill of Presidents.  Like or dislike his voice, most would say he is smooth and credible as a speaker.  The lack of a  voting record means he would not have built-in opponents of certain hot issues, might be able to finesse giving very specific answers on those vote-losing topics and he would have the flexibility to tailor a campaign platform to appeal to a broad audience and to the politics of the moment.  Would probably have to be drafted, but he is a competitive guy and might be tempted for a career capper and to show he could do as well or better as the Presidents he covered.  The precedents of Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger winning Governor's races would suggest a willingness of voters to consider non-career politicians for high office.  Probably wouldnt consider it until he has satisified his taste for travel and adventure for awhile after his retirement from the anchordesk at the end of 2004.  Recently signed to produce documentary specials on part-time basis for NBC thru 2014.

Senator and Governor-elect
Please don't add any Senator-elect or Governor-elect in the article before any discussions here.Wikipedia is not a political forum.--Sina 15:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pelosi
Seriously, please cite someone somewhere who has suggested that Nancy Pelosi is a potential candidate/vp nominee. (Also, you seem perfectly happy for Dennis Hastert/ Tom DeLay not to be on the list - what's the deal?) john k 16:15, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * See Jord's response below. Others would add Pelosi even if I wasn't here. As for Hastert (or DeLay), I'm purely neutral on their inclusion - as with Newsom, above, I won't delete them (as I have deleted what I'm confidently sure are patent impossibilities like Craig Benson), but I don't think highly enough of my predictive abilities to actively delete them if they are added. But Pelosi is not Craig Benson. Can you accept that the consensus would see her as, at the very least, a tough enough call that we should err on the side of inclusion? (Especially since the scope of the list now includes floated VP possibilities.) Samaritan 20:32, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Further: Did anyone in 1992 say that Bob Michel was a potential presidential candidate for 96? In 88 did people mention Michel, Jim Wright, or Tom Foley? Was Tip O'Neill under consideration after 84? or 80? Was John Rhodes a potential candidate after 1976? Was Gerald Ford ever seen by anybody as a potential candidate before Nixon needed someone who would easily be confirmed by Congress? As far as I am aware, Dick Gephardt and Newt Gingrich are the only House leaders in recent times to have seriously been considered for national office. (And Gephardt, it should be noted, made his first run for the presidency before he became Majority Leader, while Gingrich was the idol of the right as a back bench bomb thrower before he became Bob Michel's whip in 1989.). I'm vaguely willing to compromise on Harry Reid if you'll quit the nonsense about Pelosi. john k 16:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Alas, this isn't a two-person disagreement between us: other users would add Pelosi even if I wasn't here. See Jord below. As well, for all you know, I may think as you do that Pelosi would be a highly flawed presidential candidate. Many people thought the same of Dean, Bush in 2000, etc, to say nothing of some of the people still listed. Samaritan 20:32, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Pelosi was mused as possible female presidential candidate before she became leader by a feminist group, is that a good enough source for you? I think that Pelosi is a far more likely candidate than Reid, but that is not our job here - our job is to list people who have been talked about or may be talked about.  At the end of the day, Pelosi, Reid and the chairman of the DNC are going to be the most frequently seen federal Democrats throughout 2005 and most of 2006, they'll obviously get a following and obviously be talked about as candidates. -- Jord 20:00 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, if you have an actual source mentioning Pelosi, that's fine, put her (and Reid, I guess) back. My point was that the mere fact of her being a congressional leader is not sufficient to say that they're a presidential possibility. I was more willing to give way on Reid because Senate leader does seem to be a position that, in recent years at least, has created some presumption of the possbility, at least, of presidential ambitions (Daschle was certainly discussed, Dole was a nominee, Howard Baker ran at some point, I think, Frist is currently discussed - on the other hand, Trent Lott, George Mitchell, Robert Byrd, Mike Mansfield, and Hugh Scott, so far as I am aware, were never seriously considered as national candidates). But, yeah, an actual reference is fine. I'd add that the DNC chair certainly will not "obviously be talked about" as a candidate. Remember the Terry McAuliffe boomlet in 03? Or when Jim Nicholson was being talked up on Free Republic? Yeah, neither do I. Because the party chair is, as often as not, a faceless fundraising functionary. It looks likely this time around that we'll get a top-tier politician in the office (Vilsack or Dean), but they're on the list because they're already seen as possible pres candidates. If anything, being DNC chair makes them much less likely to be candidates, since the DNC chair's job is to be evenhanded between the various candidates, not to use the job to run themselves. That said, I don't think we disagree too much here, except that I'd suggest that it's not our job to list people who "may be talked about." Our job is to list people who have been talked about. Period. Anyone may be talked about - it's completely POV to list people because they may at some point be talked about. john k 22:58, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I never, ever suggested that "the DNC chair (would be) 'obviously be talked about' as a candidate", I stated, rightly, "Pelosi, Reid and the chairman of the DNC are going to be the most frequently seen federal Democrats throughout 2005 and most of 2006" (emphasis added). Also, there is a longer tradition of Senate leaders being candidates than you suggest.  You forget Lyndon Johnson and Robert Taft.  Also, Robert Byrd did run in either 1972 or 1976.  Finally, in the future, I would ask that you drop the critical sarcasm from your arguments, it doesn't help your argument and risks starting a flame war. -- Jord 23:33 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Robert Byrd was not a real candidate - he was a favorite son in 1976, and never seriously aimed at the nomination. And he didn't become leader until 1977, in any event. Bob Taft only became official Republican leader in 1953, after his last run for the presidency (although he was unofficial Republican leader from about the death of McNary in 44, or so). But yes, LBJ was a candidate. Everett Dirksen was not. I seem to vaguely recall William Knowland as a possible candidate, but I may be imagining that. McNary, Joseph Robinson, Alben Barkley, and Charles Curtis were all VP nominees. But, at any rate, you did say that the DNC chair will obviously be talked about as a candidate. I quote, "[Reid, Pelosi, and the DNC chair will] obviously get a following and obviously be talked about as candidates." At least, "Reid, Pelosi, and the DNC Chair" seems to be the antecedent for "they" in that sentence, since the previous part is "At the end of the day, Pelosi, Reid and the chairman of the DNC are going to be the most frequently seen federal Democrats throughout 2005 and most of 2006". But perhaps you didn't mean to include the DNC chair. At any rate, I don't take kindly to people telling me how to make my arguments. If I want to be "critically sarcastic," I will be, and it's really none of your business so long as I am not making personal attacks (which I do not believe that I have) or been obscene (which I certainly haven't). In this case, however, we don't seem to have any further disagreements. john k 00:26, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * On second reading, I can see how you might have misinterpreted my remarks, but by they I did mean Pelosi and Reid. On the other hand, this time around the DNC chair may be seen in that light as Vilsack and Dean seem to be the most talked about options for that post.  In response to "I don't take kindly to people telling me how to make my arguments", I didn' tell you too, I asked you to, politely.  To quote, I said "I would ask that you drop the critical sarcasm from your arguments, it ... risks starting a flame war" (emphasis added).  It is of course up to you how to make arguments and you may do as you wish, however, for the hope of maintaining civility, I asked that you do something.  Should you choose not to follow my advice, that is, of course, your call, but I would hope that you don't take offence as you seem to infer above.  Regards.  -- Jord 01:00 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From what I looked out so far, the only time Rep. Pelosi's name was mentioned for being president is at. -- Zscout370  21:07 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * And here, see above ;) - Jord 21:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ron Paul
I think that it is very unlikely that he would be a Republican candidate for president, as he is only a Republican for ballot and committee purposes. I could see him being a possible Libertarian candidate, I suggest we remove him from the Republican list but leave him on the Libertarian list. Objections? -- Jord 23:03 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * He coooooouuuullld do run for the Republican nomination for attention, then back to the Libertarians. But that's too speculative. [See john k? We do have standards too. :)] No objection here. Samaritan 23:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Formal versions of names
I see someone has put in a lot of work to do this to all of the candidates. Is this necessary/helpful? -- Jord 23:05 18 Nov 04 (UTC)

 * Oh, dear. Like the inclusion of Alfred E. Neuman, I don't have the heart to remove it, at least at first blush. Although the more I look at it, the more it seems potentially distracting and cluttery... I gave every candidate the brief bio lines, with links to states etc., in the first place as assistance to those less familiar with American politics, so that they could easily compare (what is Illinois as opposed to Indiana? etc.); links to "B. Evans "Evan" Bayh III" and so on down don't seem to serve any like purpose. Samaritan 23:58, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Someone (anonymous :S) has removed the long name links, I don't know whether to revert or not? By the lack of response to my original question about it, I presume no one cares!  Samaritan you seemed to indicate that the formal names are unnecessary and I tend to agree so I'll leave it as it now is. -- Jord 19:46 23 Nov 04 (UTC)

 * I agree. Samaritan 23:20, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


text:
Gustav Winckler

Gustav Frands Wilzeck Winckler (13 October 1925 – 20 January 1979) was a popular Danish singer, composer and music publisher. He grew up in the Nørrebro district of Copenhagen and started his career as a decorator.

In 1948 as a young man he won a talent competition at National Scala Theatre in Copenhagen, as well as many others in Copenhagen. He was often compared to Bing Crosby.

He finally broke through in 1950 with engagements, regular appearances on Danmarks Radio and his first professional recording. Through the 1950s he recorded and toured in Denmark, Germany (under the name Gunnar Winkler) and England (under the name Sam Payne).

In 1957 after qualifying in the Dansk Melodi Grand Prix to represent Denmark at the Eurovision Song Contest, he participated in Eurovision Song Contest 1957, where he sang "Skibet skal sejle i nat" ("The ship is leaving tonight") with Birthe Wilke. They ranked number 3, and stunned television audiences with a 11-second-long kiss at the end of their performance.

He participated in the Danish Melodi Grand Prix twice afterwards, in 1964 with "Ugler i mosen" and then in 1966 with "Salami".

He died in a car crash in 1979.

His brother Jørgen Winckler also recorded songs in the 1950s and early 1960s.

Literature

 * Laursen, Carsten Michael (1999). Top-Pop: Navne i dansk pop 1950-2000''"' ("Top-Pop: Names in Danish Pop 1950-2000"). L&R Fakta. ISBN 87-614-0086-6.

title: Gustav Winckler


text:
Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1

Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern ('How beautifully the morning star shines'), BWV 1, is a church cantata for Annunciation by Johann Sebastian Bach. In 1725, when the cantata was composed, the feast of the Annunciation (25 March) coincided with Palm Sunday. Based on Philipp Nicolai's hymn "Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern" (1599), it is one of Bach's chorale cantatas. Bach composed it in his second year as Thomaskantor (cantor at St. Thomas) in Leipzig, where the Marian feast was the only occasion during Lent when music of this kind was permitted. The theme of the hymn suits both the Annunciation and Palm Sunday occasions, in a spirit of longing expectation of an arrival. As usual for Bach's chorale cantata cycle, the hymn was paraphrased by a contemporary poet who retained the hymn's first and last stanzas unchanged, but transformed the themes of the inner stanzas into a sequence of alternating recitatives and arias.

Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern is the last chorale cantata of Bach's second cantata cycle, possibly because the librettist who provided the paraphrases for the middle movements of these cantatas was no longer available. Bach scored the work for three vocal soloists, a four-part choir and a Baroque instrumental ensemble of two horns, two oboes da caccia, two solo violins, strings and continuo. The chorale melody of Nicolai's hymn appears in the opening and closing choral movements of the cantata. All instruments play in the opening festive chorale fantasia, in which the soprano sings the hymn tune, and the two solo concertante violins represent the morning star. An oboe da caccia accompanies the vocal soloist in the first aria. The strings, including the solo violins, return in the second aria. An independent horn part crowns the closing chorale.

The original performance parts of the cantata, partly written by the composer, are conserved in Leipzig. Commentators writing about the cantata, such as Carl von Winterfeld in the 19th century and W. Gillies Whittaker in the 20th century, were particularly impressed by its opening chorus. The Bach-Gesellschaft published the cantata in 1851 as first work in the first volume of their complete edition of Bach's works. From then on known as Bach's Cantata No. 1, it retained that number in the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis, published in 1950, and its recording appeared, in 1971, as first work of the first album of Teldec's complete Bach cantata recordings by Harnoncourt and Leonhardt.

Background
In 1723, Bach was appointed as Thomaskantor and director musices in Leipzig, which made him responsible for the music at four churches. He provided church music for the two main churches, St. Thomas and St. Nicholas, and occasionally also for two others, the New Church and St. Peter. Bach took office in the middle of the liturgical year, on the first Sunday after Trinity.

In Leipzig, cantata music was expected on Sundays and on feast days, except during the tempus clausum ("silent periods") of Advent and Lent. Lutheran Leipzig observed several Marian feasts, including Annunciation on 25 March, nine months before Christmas. In 1725, the feast fell on Palm Sunday. Annunciation was the only occasion for festive music during Lent. The prescribed readings were, as the epistle, Isaiah's prophecy of the birth of the Messiah (Isaiah 7:10–16), and from the Gospel of Luke, the angel Gabriel announcing the birth of Jesus (Luke 1:26–38).

Cantata cycles
In his first twelve months in office, Bach decided to compose new works for almost all liturgical occasions. These works became known as his first cantata cycle. In his second year in office, Bach composed a cycle of chorale cantatas, with each cantata based on one Lutheran hymn, for the liturgical occasions. The choice of hymn for each of the cantatas was probably made according to the wishes of a local minister, who based the choices upon the prescribed readings and his plans for sermons. Compared to the first cycle, the music has less emphasis on biblical texts, but more on the use of chorale text and melody.

Bach's earliest extant chorale cantata, Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4, written more than a decade before arriving in Leipzig, followed the per omnes versus principle, that is, it adopted the text of all stanzas of the hymn without modification, the hymn's melody being used throughout. Most of the chorale cantatas Bach wrote in his second year in Leipzig, including Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, were formatted differently. In this structure, the outer stanzas of the hymn, and its melody, were retained in the outer movements of the cantata: typically the first stanza was set as an opening chorale fantasia, and the last as a closing four-part chorale. The inner stanzas of the hymn were rephrased into recitatives and arias for the cantata's inner movements, their setting mostly not based on the hymn tune.

Hymn
Bach's cantata Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern is based on Philipp Nicolai's hymn with the same name. Nicolai wrote the hymn when he was pastor in Unna and faced an outbreak of the plague, intending it to project a view of a heavenly world as counterpoint to pain and suffering in the real world. Nicolai published the hymn in 1599 as part of a collection titled Frewdenspiegel deß ewigen Lebens ('Mirror of the joys of eternal life') in 1599. The hymn tune with which Nicolai published his text, Zahn No. 8359, is reminiscent of a 1538 melody published in the Strasbourg Psalter in 1539 with the song "Jauchzet dem Herren alle Land", possibly by Jakob Dachser, Zahn No. 1705.

The image of the morning star is taken from Revelation 22:16 ("I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."). In its title, Nicolai indicated the hymn as Brautlied ('Bridal song') of the soul addressing Jesus as its heavenly bridegroom, which refers to Psalm 45, described as a bridal song in the Luther Bible, and to the Song of Songs. Nicolai did not write a paraphrase of the biblical texts, but used elements from them for the seven stanzas of his hymn. He also alludes to the nativity.

The hymn was associated with Epiphany but also with the Annunciation. Expressing the longing for the arrival of the Saviour, it can be connected to the reading about Jesus' birth being announced to Mary. The theme of arrival was also fitting for Palm Sunday, when the arrival of Jesus in Jerusalem is celebrated.

Libretto and first performance
A librettist retained the first and last stanzas of the hymn and paraphrased the other stanzas, using the second stanza for the first recitative, the third stanza for the first aria, the fourth stanza and part of the fifth for the second recitative, and the sixth stanza for the second aria. Bach scholar Alfred Dürr wrote: "The librettist must be credited with the empathy he shows for that fervour which characterises Nicolai's poem and which has made his hymns into an enduring possession of the Protestant Church." While the identity of the librettist, a "poetically and theologically competent specialist", is not certain, scholars have suggested Andreas Stübel, a Leipzig intellectual who held controversial theological views.

For the first performance of the cantata, on 25 March 1725, Bach helped copy out his composition score for the musicians participating in the premiere. Johann Andreas Kuhnau, a main copyist of Bach at the time, produced most of this performance material, that is, all performance parts, except the figured bass part (partly written by the composer) and one of the oboe da caccia parts (written by the composer's son Wilhelm Friedemann).

Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern was to be the last newly-composed chorale cantata of Bach's second cantata cycle. If Stübel was the librettist, his death in January 1725 would explain the end of the chorale cantatas in the second cycle, because Bach lost a competent collaborator and source of inspiration. Bach returned to other texts for the remaining liturgical times of Easter, Pentecost and Trinity. The completion of the cycle of chorale cantatas was so important to him that he included the early chorale cantata for Easter, Christ lag in Todes Banden, in 1725, and over the following decade added a few chorale cantatas for some missing occasions.

Music
The title page of the extant 18th-century set of performance parts of BWV 1, written around 1750 by an unknown scribe, mentions the occasion (Annunciation), the cantata's title (incipit) and scoring, and its composer.

Scoring and structure
Bach structured the cantata in six movements. Both text and tune of the hymn are retained in the outer choral movements, a chorale fantasia and a four-part closing chorale, which frame a sequence of alternating recitatives and arias. Bach scored the work for three vocal soloists (soprano (S), tenor (T) and bass (B)), a four-part choir, and a Baroque instrumental ensemble of two horns (Co), two oboes da caccia (Oc), two solo violins (Vs), strings consisting of two violin parts (Vl) and one viola part (Va), and basso continuo. A festive scoring like this, including brass, was usually employed on holidays. The duration of the cantata is given as 25 minutes.

In the following table of the movements, the scoring, keys and time signatures are taken from Dürr. The continuo, which plays throughout, is not shown.

Movements
Bach provided a rich orchestration. The sparkle of the morning star is illustrated by two solo violins, first in the first chorus, and reappearing with the other strings in the second aria. The sound of the oboe da caccia, first heard in the opening chorus, returns in the first aria. In the closing chorale, the four-part harmony setting of the hymn tune, performed by choir and colla parte instruments, is complemented by a counter-melody played by the second horn. The scoring is reminiscent of Sie werden aus Saba alle kommen, BWV 65, written for Epiphany 1724. Bach would later use the pair of horns in Part IV of his Christmas Oratorio, dealing with the naming of Jesus as announced to Mary.

1
The first movement, "Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern" ('How beautifully the morning star shines'), is a stately, richly coloured chorale fantasia for the chorus. The cantus firmus of the chorale melody is sung in long notes of dotted minims by the sopranos. A substantial orchestral 12-bar ritornello or sinfonia begins the movement, with the solo instruments in the foreground; its wide harmonic range contrasts with the chorale, which remains mostly in the tonic key of F major. Bach achieves "unusual animation" by setting the hymn not in common time but. The scintillating semiquaver passagework of two solo concertante violins illustrate the sparkle of the morning star. A baroque pastoral imagery is established by the addition of two other pairs of solo instruments which play pronouncedly below the range of the higher solo violin bariolage, resulting in a transparent multilayered musical texture: the two pairs of horns and oboes da caccia, all associated with the hunt and nature, evoking a bucolic landscape.

The text of the hymn is reflected in the music iconography: the horn calls signify the majesty of the king, while the virtuosic concertante violin passagework signifies the morning star and joy in the universe. Musical analysis of the chorale fantasia makes specific references to the 10 lines of the hymn text; an English metrical translation is given here as an ad hoc composite, combining two early 18th-century sources, the Lyra Davidica and the Psalmodia Germanica, as well as a late 19th-century translation by M. Woolsey Stryker.

The 12-bar sinfonia is based on themes that are derived directly from the cantus firmus (notated here in the soprano clef); in particular the leap of a fifth in the opening theme and the recurring triads. Thus, as conductor John Eliot Gardiner notes, the movement begins intimately with a phrase of the second solo violin, with an orchestral tutti as response. The phrase is reprised a fifth higher by the first solo violin, again answered by the full orchestra. An inversion of the last three quavers in the first theme provides a second theme, which is heard amongst the three different solo instrumental groups—horns, oboes da caccia and violins—and is echoed individually, before an orchestral tutti on a cadence, heralding the entrance of the soprano. The sinfonia is similar in structure to a concerto grosso where different pairs of solo instruments compete against each other.

After the sinfonia, the first line of the soprano cantus firmus is countered by the lower voices with a version of the first theme, doubled by instruments. Throughout the fantasia, whenever the cantus firmus is exposed, it is doubled by the horn. The other nine lines are punctuated by instrumental episodes of differing lengths. Some are quite short, where other pairs of instruments briefly play the first theme. For line 2, the tenor, followed by the alto, sing the cantus firmus in diminution, i.e. sung at twice the speed, with dotted crotchets instead of minims. Line 5 is similar, but this time the alto is followed by the tenor. In the episode between lines 2 and 3, the second themes are heard. Between lines 3 and 4 there is a recurrence of the sinfonia with different solo instruments allocated to the parts. Between lines 4 and 5, there is a two bar episode with the first theme; and between lines 5 and 6, the second theme is heard again. The vocal lines 4–6 are a repetition of lines 1–3, reflecting the over-arching bar form of the movement.

The extended instrumental passage between lines 6 and 7 features a duet between the two concertante violins, with the first theme countering the semiquaver bariolage. In line 7 the word "lieblich" ('lovely') is sung to plain chords in the choir, punctuated by one bar of the first theme; in line 8 the same happens for the word "freundlich" ('kindly'). After a two-bar episode similar to the violin duet, the whole orchestra and chorus are heard in line 9, with rolling quavers, in contrary motion. A 4-bar episode for the concertante violins leads to fugal entries in the lower voices and the climactic tenth line: with animated accompaniment from the entire orchestra and lower voices, the sopranos sing a descending scale to the words "Hoch und sehr prächtig erhaben" ('high and most sublime in splendour'). The orchestral ritornello closes the movement.

Dürr and Richard Jones write that the chorale fantasia is "a movement of jubilant splendour, colourful profusion, and Advent joy". W. Gillies Whittaker describes the long movement as "one of the most unforgettable pictures in musical art" with "kaleidoscopic changes of the fascinating material".

2
The tenor expresses in secco recitative the belief "Du wahrer Gottes und Marien Sohn" ('You, very son of God and Mary'). The text is crafted paraphrasing the second stanza of the hymn, and also alludes to the annunciation from the Gospel reading.

3
In the first aria, the soprano renders "Erfüllet, ihr himmlischen göttlichen Flammen" ('Fill utterly, you divine celestial flames'), accompanied by an obbligato oboe da caccia, an instrument in alto range. The instruments illustrate the celestial flames in coloraturas. Two oboe parts exist for the obbligato instrument, one in the normal clef for an oboe da caccia, the other in a "fingering notation". Ulrich Leisinger, editor of a publication by Carus, noted that it is unclear if the latter was meant to help a player not experienced in the instrument, or if actually two players alternated, which would make breathing easier.

4
In another secco recitative, "Ein irdscher Glanz, ein leiblich Licht rührt meine Seele nicht" ('No earthly gloss, no fleshly light could ever stir my soul'), the bass contrasts earthly light with heavenly light. The terms "Freudenschein" ('joyful radiance') and "Erquickung" ('refreshment') are emphasised by a melisma. Editor Leisinger summarised: "Nothing worldly pleases the soul, only that semblance of joy which is sent by God alone (for which the morning star can evidently serve as an image)".

5
The text of the fifth movement, "Unser Mund und Ton der Saiten" ('Our mouths and the tones of strings'), paraphrases the stanza "Zwingt die Saiten in Cythara" ('Pluck the strings of the cittern'). The aria is sung by the tenor who, following the text, is accompanied by strings only, including the two solo violins from the first movement. An expression of thanks and praise, it is intensified by a dance-like motion, described as "graceful minuet pulse" by Bach scholar Klaus Hofmann. The soloist sings coloraturas on the repeated word "Gesang" ('singing').

6
The closing chorale, "Wie bin ich doch so herzlich froh" ('How heartily glad I am indeed'), is complemented by an independent part of the second horn, while the other instruments play colla parte with the four-part chorale sung by the choir. Thus, the last chorale cantata in the second cantata cycle reaches an "air of baroque festive splendour".

Reception
When the composer died in 1750, the autograph composition scores of the chorale cantata cycle presumably went with Friedemann, Bach's eldest son, to Halle, where they were later sold: most of these manuscripts, including that of Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, went lost without further trace. Bundles of original performance parts of the chorale cantatas, including Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, were briefly owned by the composer's widow, Anna Magdalena, who sold them to the St. Thomas School. Apart from Bach's motets, these chorale cantatas were the only works of the composer which were performed with some continuity in Leipzig between the composer's death and the 19th-century Bach Revival. Over a century later, the St. Thomas School deposited the original performance part manuscripts of the chorale cantata cycle in the Bach Archive in Leipzig, for conservation.

Carl von Winterfeld's description of the cantata, published in 1847, focuses mostly on the composition's opening movement. Writing in the second half of the 19th century, Philipp Spitta listed 35 Bach chorale cantatas in alphabetical order in the second volume of his biography Johann Sebastian Bach, but assumed that all these works were composed late in Bach's career. He wrote: "In these thirty-five cantatas a series of the most beautiful and the best known Protestant chorales of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is subjected to elaborate treatment." He noted that in Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, the chorale, which was not originally written for the occasion of the Annunciation, had to be connected by expanded poetry to the topic of the feast. Building on Spitta's educated guesswork about the time of origin of Bach's church cantatas—which was later proven to be largely mistaken—Reginald Lane Poole listed the cantata as the last one composed by Bach, thus ranging it as a very mature work.

In the 1906 Bach-Jahrbuch, the third yearbook of the Neue Bachgesellschaft, Woldemar Voigt wrote about the cantata:

The same Bach-Jahrbuch volume presents an overview of performances of Bach's works between late 1904 and early 1907: two are listed for Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, one in Leipzig, and one at the Bethlehem Bach Festival in Pennsylvania. Albert Schweitzer, in his book J. S. Bach, published in 1908 and translated in 1911, still dated the chorale cantatas to 1734 and later. Schweitzer wrote in a short passage about the first movement of Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern that Bach's "music converts the text into an expression of mystical exuberance. In the orchestral accompaniment the themes of the separate hues of the chorale are largely employed as motives."

In 1950, the cantata was listed as BWV1 in the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis. Dürr's comprehensive study of the chronology of Bach's cantatas was first published in the late 1950s: in it, the cantata's time of origin was fixed to Bach's second year in Leipzig. In preparation of the 2018 Bachfest Leipzig, three Bach experts were asked to name their favourites among Bach's cantatas: Gardiner, Michael Maul (then the festival's new director), and Peter Wollny, the director of the Bach Archive. 15 cantatas appeared in the lists of all three, including Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern.

Publication

The Bach-Gesellschaft chose Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern as first composition in the first volume of the Bach-Gesellschaft Ausgabe (BGA). Robert Schumann, the publisher of the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik, Thomaskantor Moritz Hauptmann and philologist Otto Jahn had initiated this first complete edition of Bach's works a century after the composer's death. Its first volume was published in 1851, edited by Hauptmann. Leisinger mentioned three reasons why the Gesellschaft's choice to open their edition with this cantata made sense:
 * The text of the cantata consisted of words and thoughtful paraphrases of a traditional chorale, countering mid-19th-century views that "wretched" late Baroque lyrics were an obstacle for reviving Bach's vocal music.
 * The cantata's designation for a Marian feast could make it attractive for a Catholic audience too, thus helping to establish the nation-wide importance of the BGA edition.
 * Choosing a particularly well-crafted and mature composition, like this cantata, would add to the prestige of its composer, confirming the perception he had composed nothing but masterpieces.

Gustav Rösler prepared a vocal score for a publication by Edition Peters in Leipzig in 1875. Breitkopf & Härtel, the publisher of the BGA, began a series of vocal scores of Bach's cantatas, titled Joh. Seb. Bachs Kirchenkantaten, with this cantata appearing around 1890. They published another version in the same series around 1932, with an English text by Mevanwy Roberts, All glorious doth the day-star shine, a French text by Henriette Fuchs, Brillante étoile du matin, and a piano reduction by Günter Raphael. Possibly in 1928, a score of the cantata was published in the series Eulenburgs kleine Partitur-Ausgabe by Eulenburg in Leipzig; Arnold Schering had revised the BGA, based on the original vocal parts.

An English version was published in London as a vocal score, as part of Novello's Original Octavo Edition, possibly in 1927. The translation, titled How Brightly Shines yon Star of Morn was made by Paul England, and the piano reduction prepared by John E. West. In the U.S., a vocal score appeared in Philadelphia around 1947, titled How Bright and Fair the Morning Star, as No. 88 of the Choral Series of the Association of American Choruses. The New Bach Edition (Neue Bach-Ausgabe, NBA) published the work in 1995, edited by Matthias Wendt, with critical commentary added the same year. Carus published a critical edition in German and English as part of its Stuttgarter Bach-Ausgaben in 1998, edited by Reinhold Kubik. In the 21st century, Bach Digital published high-resolution facsimile images of the manuscript parts from the first quarter of the 18th century.

Recordings
The conductor Fritz Lehmann recorded Bach's cantatas with the Berliner Motettenchor and the Berliner Philharmoniker with Deutsche Grammophon in the early 1950s. The recordings of nine cantatas, including Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, were reissued in 2018. Fritz Werner recorded around 50 of Bach's church cantatas with the Heinrich-Schütz-Chor Heilbronn and the Pforzheim Chamber Orchestra, mostly in the 1960s, including Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern.

In 1971, Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern was the first cantata recorded for the Teldec series—a project aiming to record all church cantatas by Bach on period instruments in historically informed performances, conducted by Nikolaus Harnoncourt and Gustav Leonhardt. All vocalists were male singers, as during Bach's tenure in Leipzig. Harnoncourt conducted the first four cantatas (BWV 1 to 4), with the Wiener Sängerknaben and the Concentus Musicus Wien, with a soprano soloist from the boys' choir and a countertenor for the alto part. Helmuth Rilling, who began a recording of all Bach cantatas in 1969 and completed it in 1985, recorded Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern in 1980, with the Gächinger Kantorei and Bach-Collegium Stuttgart.

Pieter Jan Leusink conducted all Bach church cantatas with the Holland Boys Choir and the Netherlands Bach Collegium in historically informed performance, but with women for the solo soprano parts. Gardiner, who in 2000 conducted the Bach Cantata Pilgrimage with the Monteverdi Choir, performing and recording Bach's church cantatas on the occasion for which they written, recorded Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern at St Peter's Church, Walpole St Peter. Masaaki Suzuki, who studied historically informed practice in Europe, began recording Bach's church cantatas with the Bach Collegium Japan in 1999, at first not aiming at a complete cycle, but completing all in 2017. They released Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern in 2007.

Cited sources
By title

By author
 * 8133493 at jpc.
 * 8133493 at jpc.
 * 8133493 at jpc.
 * 8133493 at jpc.
 * 8133493 at jpc.
 * 8133493 at jpc.
 * 8133493 at jpc.
 * 8133493 at jpc.
 * 8133493 at jpc.
 * 8133493 at jpc.
 * 8133493 at jpc.
 * 8133493 at jpc.
 * 8133493 at jpc.
 * 8133493 at jpc.
 * 8133493 at jpc.
 * 8133493 at jpc.
 * 8133493 at jpc.
 * 8133493 at jpc.
 * 8133493 at jpc.