Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Josquin des Prez/archive1

Article stats

FAC Nominator User:Turangalila

Authorship stats

1. Antandrus 60.5%
2. Kahhe 6%
3. Jerome Kohl 4%
4. Aza24 3.6%

Top editor stats

1. Antandrus · 246 (59.9%)
2. Jerome Kohl · 53 (12.9%)
3. Sshin02143 · 20 (4.9%)
4. Toccata quarta · 18 (4.4%)
5. Aza24 · 16 (3.9%)

Stats extracted on 2022-01-21, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Article stats at FAR close

Authorship stats

1. Aza24 77%
2. Antandrus 9.3%
3. Kahhe 5.1%
4. John 3.4%

Top editor stats

1. Aza24 · 412 (41.8%)
2. Antandrus · 275 (27.9%)
3. John · 92 (9.3%)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award nominations

Please set up separate sections for each nomination.

FASA nomination Aza24

I nominate Aza24 for a Featured article save award for improvements to Josquin des Prez during its FAR that allowed it to retain its Featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion Aza24

1. Support, for long and grueling work to restore this article, Aza24 should proudly display this star in userspace! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
2. Support, got to see the polishing happen first-hand. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
3. Support Smerus (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
4. Support. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

FASA nomination Antandrus

I nominate Antandrus for a Featured article save award for improvements to Josquin des Prez during its FAR that allowed it to retain its Featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion Antandrus

1. Support, thanks for pitching in, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
2. Support Smerus (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
3. Support. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

FASA nomination Kahhe

I nominate Kahhe for a Featured article save award for improvements to Josquin des Prez during its FAR that allowed it to retain its Featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion Kahhe

1. Support, thx for the help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
2. Support Smerus (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
3. Support. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

FASA nomination John

I nominate John for a Featured article save award for improvements to Josquin des Prez during its FAR that allowed it to retain its Featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion John

1. Support, thanks for the fine tuning and help ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
2. Support Smerus (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
3. Support. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

FASA nomination SandyGeorgia

I support all the above, but reckon SandyGeorgia must also deserve for kicking off improvements to Josquin des Prez during FAR--Smerus (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but as you can see at the WP:FASA main page, I have declined to accept recognition for my work at FAR (and I really did almost nothing here). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia comments

HarvRef errors:

• Fallows, David (2000). "Afterword: Thoughts for the Future". In Sherr, Richard (ed.). The Josquin Companion. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 569–578. ISBN 978-0-19-816335-0. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFFallows2000.
• Matthews, Lora; Merkley, Paul (Autumn 1994). "Josquin Desprez and His Milanese Patrons". The Journal of Musicology. 12 (4): 434–463. doi:10.2307/763971. JSTOR 763971. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFMatthewsMerkley1994.
• Pietschmann, Klaus (2021). "Ein Graffito von Josquin Desprez auf der Cantoria der Sixtinischen Kapelle". Die Musikforschung (in German). 52 (2): 204–207. doi:10.52412/mf.1999.H2.887. JSTOR 41123290. S2CID 140790222. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFPietschmann2021.

Do you want to move those to Further reading, or remove them entirely? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, two of the Further reading items are actually used as Sources; they should be moved to that section to avoid HarvRef errors. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Removed two and incorporated one. Aza24 (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Removed the other two sources from article use. Aza24 (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

There are multiple column widths in use in the various appendices for sources, citations, and further reading, which is visually jarring. See Joan of Arc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Made all into divisions of 3 Aza24 (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Run through to check for overuse of however and User:John/however. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Addressed, hopefully in a satisfactory manner. Aza24 (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

This punctuation seems off:

• Much of Josquin's biography is riddled with uncertainty, and has been continuously revised by modern scholarship. His early years are mostly unknown, though he may have been an altar boy, associated with Cambrai Cathedral or studied with Ockeghem.

I can't tell what's what. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

• "... was possibly employed" ... can we simplify to "may have been employed"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I used "possibly" because "may have" was used earlier in that paragraph. I assumed using it twice would be redundant, but I may been overthinking this. Aza24 (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Aza24 the basic basics are in good shape, but once we get further along, we might have John examine the prose. But first, as I know nothing of music, we should have content area editors go through. I see Toccata quarta is scarcely editing; who else might go through to check the content and sourcing before we start tweaking prose? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

We scarcely have any other active early music editors besides myself. I can certainly ask Antandrus, who has already been most generous with his council throughout my rewrite, to take a look. If it is an assurance, Kahhe has already gone through a few times and corrected (or brought up with me) issues on content related matters. Aza24 (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

If you could look at the nitpicks above, and then maybe ping in Antandrus when you're ready, I will hold off for now on asking John to look at prose, and then hold off after that for my read-through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Will do. Aza24 (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I think you're better off not using three set columns in the appendices, as different browsers/devices will not handle three as well ... see Joan of Arc appendices on how to use 32em. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Good to know—now in two columns Aza24 (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Have just now messaged Antandrus on his talk page. Aza24 (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm reviewing it now, mainly for content, but obviously I'll fix anything else I see. It's very, very good. Hope to finish reviewing in the next few days, as I get time. Aza, which psalm numbering version did you prefer? I am used to the Masoretic numbering, e.g. Psalm 130, De profundis, is 129 in the Vulgate. But you always have to check the link. We should all double-check to make sure these are right; it's easy to be off by one. -- There are surprises for me; lots of Josquin scholarship since I wrote the original article! This is beyond the scope of this review but I'm really curious to know if we can come up with some more reliable information for his time in Hungary. That's a research trip and a paper for an enterprising scholar. Anyway will get back to this in a bit. Antandrus (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words! I was mostly using the Masoretic numbering; any inconsistencies in the article regarding that are probably either a mistake, or not by me.

I've heard that Fallow's theory about Hungary is somewhat controversial, though I'm sure that period is confusing enough where no scholar could dismiss is completely. In this respect, Grove mentions it as well, and seem to accept it as one of many possibilities. I'm guessing its mentioned in Barbier 2010, but have no idea; no one seems to have the guts to disagree completely with Fallows on that matter, or perhaps the theory is not certain enough to properly agree or disagree with. Aza24 (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Continuing the review. I've done everything but legacy and reputation so far. I haven't found any specific content issues; excellent work. Prose can still use some tweaking for flow. Writing vivid prose on this topic, accessible to a non-specialist but yet not sacrificing precision, in a way that draws a reader in, is so damn hard; I remember struggling with that back when I wrote all the Renaissance composer articles in 2004-2006 or so. But you're on it. -- Don't you just want that Da Vinci painting to be Josquin? If only there were one better bit of evidence. Look at him. He would have been about 30. Proud, a little brittle. Someone who could tell a duke or even a king he didn't want to do a thing, at least without haggling a better price. He knew his worth. I wish I could ask Alejandro Planchart about it, but he died a couple years ago; like one of those times I bumped into him at his favorite bakery, or coming down the stairs as I was going up, into the library. He would have gone on and on and given me three or four leads. -- And hey, you made me crack my Reese for the first time in years. I disturbed a lot of spiders.

Excellent work, Aza. Really. Will look at the rest later. Antandrus (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes I would agree the prose is sometimes a bit bland, though in the legacy section (the last section I wrote) I was much more cautious about this. Actually, I'll be interested to hear your thoughts on that section, which I put off for so long due to its lengthy scope (originally, I made it twice the size it is now!).

I do terribly wish the painting could be more convincingly argued as Josquin! I think Clercx-Lejeune's words/notes identification are somewhat nonsense, and don't really help her case... but both you and Fallows are right about the perfect circumstances! I would have loved to meet Planchart; I've been considering emailing Fallows to thank him for his research that added so much to the article, but am not sure. When I wrote the Portrait of a Musician article, I was given particularly helpful advice from Kemp via email... these academics can be so generous with their time! Aza24 (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

When you two say the word, I'll ping John to ask if he'd like to run through the prose; he did a fine job on Joan of Arc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Ps, Ceoil also is good at making artsy prose sing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Both of them are wonderful writers; yes.

You could start that part any time. I will read through the last two sections this evening (barring "rolling blackouts" which are threatened on my overheated coast).

Aza, just one other thing - probably unanswerable - I wish we knew more of Josquin's personality. You did the most important anecdote, the Ferrara letter. Why would someone so talented, so extraordinarily opulent in display of technique, be attracted to Savonarola, to the point that he hid the infelix ego inside of his setting of the Miserere? I realize this may not be answerable, but for me personally that is the most maddening question in the biography. Savonarola wanted to simplify everything. In most ways, except for their astonishing intellect, they were opposites. - Anyway you've got me thinking about this fun stuff again. :) Antandrus (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I almost made a 'character' section, but besides the Ferrara letter, everything else is surely just pure speculation (and perhaps interpreting the letter is too). I've heard some strange theories over the years, such as that Josquin must have had a good sense of humor, evidenced by nothing but El Grillo's existence. Coclico has some interesting, though hard to authenticate, quotes on Josquin's teaching style in Grove if you didn't see, which I found interesting. I also recall Aleandro had a quote or two in Fallows, but alas, all fragmentary pieces of dubious authenticity! The El Grillo = humorous composer rationale will have to suffice :) Aza24 (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

We still have one HarvRef error:

• Osthoff, Helmuth (1962–1965). Josquin Desprez (in German). Tutzing: Hans Schneider. Harv error: linked from CITEREFOsthoff1962–1965.

... because it's listed in Further reading, but used in citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

What is intended with this slash?

• first major monograph on Josquin by Helmuth Osthoff (1962/1965),

If it means 1962 to 1965 it should be an WP:ENDASH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I removed Osthoff, because his monograph is covered by Higgins at the end of the sentence; the ref was just there for reference to the publication. I'd rather not move him to the sources, since his monograph did not directly impact the article (it's too outdated), so would be better in further reading. The slash is because his monograph was two volumes—is there a better way to note this perhaps? Aza24 (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Would it be ok as something like (Vol 1 1962/Vol 2 1965)? Or ... first major two-volume monograph (1962 and 1965)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Both excellent suggestions; I've adopted the former. Aza24 (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Ceoil work on this article has progressed to the point of fine tuning the prose; have you any interest? Pls let me know, as I will ping John in next if you don't have time. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, would love to, but am "time-limited" as the kids say: herself is hopefully back in IRL for a bit next week, and still have H.D. to complete, and want to get Corp Naomh close to nominating. The pressure! (haha). Ceoil (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

ps, didn't realise Aza24 was involved till just now. I'll pick here and there in the following days, but it wont be anywhere near top to bottom. Ceoil (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thx Ceoil ... just wanted to check with you first ... also, John has indicated needing a break after Joan of Arc, so I'll wait a few days before pinging him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks as always Ceoil! Your prose fixes are most welcome. Aza24 (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

SG continuing

As a singer, Josquin's compositions are chiefly vocal, and include masses, motets and a variety of secular chansons. His compositions are singers? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

This was Ceoil's change :) I've adjusted to "A singer himself". Aza24 (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Josquin's full name is 'Josquin Lebloitte dit des Prez', a fact unknown to scholars until the late 20th century,[3] and comes from a pair of 1483 documents found in Condé-sur-l'Escaut, his name comes from documents? Or it came from his parents and is found in documents? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Aza24 (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Scholarly opinion differs on whether his surname should be written as one word ("Desprez") or two ("des Prez"), with publications from continental Europe preferring the former and English publications ... missing words ... the latter ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Added Aza24 (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

SG continuing again

Lead

• The lead needs to be accessible to everyone, and we shouldn't have to click out for a definition. I have to look up the words polyphony, melismatic and apotheosized.
  • Have tried to elaborate the first two in text and changed the third to "elevated"
• Link Ferrera in the lead.
  • Done
• Hyphen ? During the 20th century early music revival, --> 20th-century ??
  • Definitely
    • Those were helpful changes; Sparafucil please engage on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Given a standard word polyphony, defined as "simultaneous lines of independent melody", how could it be desirable to replace it with the circumlocution "polyphonic movement between independent voices" ? The point of the sentence is the emphasis on imitative technique. Sparafucil (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not a standard word to the average layreader; leads have to be digestible to the average intelligent 14-year-old. Do you have an alternate way of describing it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh Wikipedia, the only place you can be reverted for altering a sentence you yourself wrote in the first place... Aza24 (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Is there a shortcut for WP:Average intelligent 14-year-old? ;-) I sympathize with you Aza24, but was it really a successful dumbing down? I blush at 'expressive movement' 'between' and 'independent' (isn't imitation rather dependent?) If "polyphony" really can't be used in the lede of a composer article, the featured Johann Sebastian Bach seems to get away with counterpoint. So, "Building on the work of his predecessors Guillaume Du Fay and Johannes Ockeghem, he developed a complex and expressive style often relying on imitative counterpoint." Sparafucil (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The words can be used; some context for them, so an average reader can get the gist without having to click a link or look up a definition, is all that is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

PS, MOS:INTRO might be that link :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Continuing on; we can return to the lead later if needed. (I now find it understandable to the layreader.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• and he may have been an altar boy and have been educated at the Cambrai Cathedral, or under Ockeghem. Ambiguous: he may have been an altar boy under Ockeghem, or he may have been educated under Ockeghem ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Clarified

Name

• Josquin's full name, 'Josquin Lebloitte dit des Prez', ... His first name 'Josquin' ... and throughout ... why do we need single quotes around his name ?
  • See below
    • Still confused: Documents from Condé, where he lived for the last years of his life, refer to him as "Maistre Josse Desprez". These include a letter written by the chapter of Notre-Dame of Condé to Margaret of Austria where he is named as "Josquin Desprez".[10] In what circumstances are quotes used on names and why ? I am unclear why these are needed. Similar later at based on a mistaken association with Jushinus de Kessalia, recorded in documents as "Judocus de Picardia". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
      • I am interpreting these as essentially quoted information as they are all spellings/labels from primary sources (as indicated by their context). Aza24 (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Birth and background

• that he was born in around 1440, --> born around 1440 ?
  • Indeed
• Can a way to avoid later ... later be found ? "Despite his association with Condé in his later years, later in life Josquin indicated that he was not born there."
  • Changed to "Josquin's own testimony indicates that he was not born there"
• meaning ... meaning ... meaning "Black Water".[11][14] The meaning of this has puzzled scholars,
  • Fixed, I believe
• Encountering confusing switches between quotes and single quotes that seem inconsistent and dont' make sense to me. From the way I read MOS:SINGLE, this one should be a single quote (which Josquin described being born beyond Noir Eauwe, meaning "Black Water"), while I can't decipher a reason for quotes on this one (and there was a village named 'Prez' there,). Extending from the similar questions about single quotes in the lead, a standardization check might be needed.
  • See below
    • My understanding of MOS:SINGLE is that this should be a single quote: evidence for his birthplace is a later legal document in which Josquin described being born beyond Noir Eauwe, meaning "Black Water". Also, if Noir Eauwe is a place (proper noun), it should not be italicized. Italics are used on foreign phrases unless they are proper nouns. See MOS:BADITALICS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
      • Interesting, now changed.

Youth

• Another instance of single quotes around a person's name, why? "Fallows associates him with 'Goseequin de Condent', "
  • See below

Milan and elsewhere

Here we have came into the service of cardinal Ascanio Sforza, but earlier in the article we have in the 1480s Josquin traveled Italy with the Cardinal Ascanio Sforza; I am not up on whether cardinal should be upper or lower case in this construct; pls check ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Standardized. As I understand, its capitalized before a name but lowercased when a proper noun.

France

• Another quoted named ... they refer to a servant 'Juschino'
  • See below

Stopping there for now as I appear to be mightily confused on single and double quotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• I went through the biography and attempted to standardize ([2]). I'm not sure what my rationale was for the discontinuity, but I edited so the only time quotation marks are used is for quotes, translations and references from documents/text (e.g. there is a "des Prez" among the cathedral's musicians listed) which I believe is sound? Aza24 (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  Sounds good; I'll continue once we're sure these changes will stick. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Ferrera

• but his earlier connections with Ercole and the general uncertainty of his career suggest he may have done; grammar ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Fixed, I think?
• Comma ? Around three months later Josquin was chosen; SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Fixed, if you mean after "later"?

Conde

• Josquin? Josquin's composed many of his most admired works in his later years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Fixed
• This seems to be one of those dangling participles John refers to: On his deathbed, Josquin left an endowment for the performance of his work, Pater noster, at all general processions in the town when they passed his house, stopping to place a wafer on the marketplace altar to the Holy Virgin. Who stopped to place the wafer ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I think it makes sense now

Music

• Why a single quote ? These 'motivic cells' were short,
  • Now double

Masses

• Have these been linked, should they all be linked or re-linked here ? the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus and Agnus Dei SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
  • All linked—could have sworn I had done so before!

Influence

• MOS:BLOCKQUOTE suggests that quotes more than 40 words long should be blockquoted.
  • Adjusted. Aza24 (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• I believe everything has been addressed/responded to. Aza24 (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers comments

I'm working backward through the sections. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC) Overall

• Need some consistency on use of Oxford comma. Looks like it'll be more convenient to remove any that are present. I mainly remember seeing them in the lead. I'll zap any I come across. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Would agree that removal is probably the way to go at this point. Aza24 (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Influence

• "profoundly influential on 16th century [Western] music" is a Milsom quote presented as if it's Elders. The [Western] seems unwarranted. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Tried to clarify the second is from Milsom. Would be hesitant to remove "Western". Wikipedia has a long tradition of being careful not to over-inflate the reputations of Western composers (Bach: "generally regarded as one of the greatest composers in the history of Western music"; Beethoven: "remains one of the most admired composers in the history of Western music", etc.). Would be lovely if the Ming dynasty knew of Josquin, but I fear this is not the case. Aza24 (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's long tradition is one I support here. But I don't think we can say that's what Milsom meant. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

In this context, Milsom refers to the Renaissance in the same sentence, and since that period was European phenomena, I think the assumption is a safe bet (I've changed it to "[European]"). Aza24 (talk) 05:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure you're understating your case, but "the assumption is a safe bet" doesn't clear the bar for breaking the "principle of minimal change" at MOS:QUOTE. To sidestep the issue, how would you feel about pulling a different part of Milsom: "The towering composer of the Renaissance"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Good idea, particularly since the next line talks about influence anyways, so having both may have been repetitive to begin with. Aza24 (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Birth and background

• "Nothing is known of Josquin's mother, who is absent from surviving documents, suggesting that she was either not considered Josquin's legitimate mother, or that she died soon after, or during, his birth." In what sense could Josquin's mother not be considered his "legitimate mother"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)