Jump to content

Talk:George Frideric Handel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) at 09:31, 14 June 2013 (→‎Mini-infobox: o). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeGeorge Frideric Handel was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 21, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed

Educational assignment

This article is about to be edited as part of an educational assignment by Union University (of Jackson, Tennessee). This is being discussed here. --Kleinzach 05:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Settlement in London, England

The 'eductional assignment' has already begun. I see in the lead " . . . he settled in England in 1712, . . .." has been changed to " . . . he settled in London, England in 1723" (unreferenced).

According to the opera Grove, Handel first stayed in England from the autumn of 1710 until the summer of 1711. He returned at the end of 1712 and (apparently remained in England more or less continuously until after his naturalization in 1727. I can't find any specific event in 1723 (buying a condo somewhere?) that indicates 'settling down'. Any ideas? (I'm putting a 'fact' tag on the date in the article). --Kleinzach 00:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From my talk page:
Well, that's the only date I could confirm when I looked in the source. You may be right and I may be wrong but it IS sighted at the end of the sentence and in that book (I have a copy in my possession) that is what I found. I am just trying to fulfill my requirements for class. It's due Thursday and then after that it's all yours (well, it may take a few days before he gets to look through it so a week tops)! So if you could just give me time to finish this project and not change anything I do that would great. I would love to hear your feedback, but I may just have to go with what I already have!
Thanks for understanding! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaddieRhea (talk • contribs) 22:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Kleinzach 23:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I have restored the fact tag on Handel's settlement in England in 1723. This must remain until a citation — and a full explanation here — is provided. If the information is wrong, and the original text giving the date 1712 is correct, then that text must go back in. The present reference (to the Act of Parliament of 20th Febrary 1727) mentions that Handel moved into Lower Brook Street in 1723, it doesn't say he 'settled in (sic) London, England' in 1723.
Second, we are here to serve the reader not a college class assignment. If you don't want your work corrected then don't put it in a public space. --Kleinzach 23:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, once again the fact tag has been removed by MaddieRhea. Can he/she please read this. --Kleinzach 23:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality (again)

We keep having these nationality issues. I propose the following text in the first sentence:

...was an English composer of German birth[1]...

The reference would be: <ref>{{NewGrove2001|Handel, George Frideric|Anthony Hicks|x|747}}</ref>. Yes, that's the way The New Grove 2001 edition describes the situation, so at least there's a citation that might stop these continual battles (or at least make people think twice about changing the text). If we want to be exactly the same as Grove for these words, then we'll have to shift our "Baroque" adjective, but that won't be too much of a drama. Anyhow, let's have some supports or opposes and try to end this issue once and for all (or at least for a little while).  HWV258.  03:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just Mathematics 42 years of German nationality (even at that tiome, it didn't exist any German nationality vs 32 years of British nationality)
  • Support—as nominator of the proposal.  HWV258.  22:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - just as W. H. Auden did not become American when he moved to the United States, when Handel, at 27 years of age, moved to Britain he did not become English/British. It seems some British contributors want it both ways. German-English seems like a more than fair compromise. 109.76.210.47 (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Handel was naturalised in 1727 when he was 42, as discussed in Handel House Museum and its sources. So possibly "German-born composer who later acquired British (or English) nationality" might be more accurate. Other equivalent wordings for the second part are possible (eg "who became naturalised after settling in England"). Mathsci (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Händel was a German composer who lived a great part of his life in England. He never spoke English, all his writing was in German, and official language at the royal court was French. So no one can seriously call him a British composer. --93.232.220.215 (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for contributing (to a discussion that was considered closed almost two years ago). The language at court is irrelevant for this discussion, and I have no idea where you got "he never spoke English" because on the contrary, Handel was fluent in German, French and English (see Letters and writings of George Frideric Handel). By the way, he was made a British subject (by the king on 20 February 1727) and lived the final two-thirds of his life in England. He even dropped the umlaut when writing his own name. No one is attempting to solely call him a "British composer", and the community has comfortably settled on the wording in the lede: "...was a German-British Baroque composer". The original proposal of this section (which I raised) is no longer relevant and should be considered closed. GFHandel ♬  22:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considered closed by whom? Whilst our friend above is in error about certain things, your assertion that "the community has comfortably settled" on the wording at the beginning of the article is utter rubbish. Who is 'the community'? The two or so people here who offer a 'support'? Handel clearly settled in England because he was favoured by wealthy patrons who happened to be in England, which makes it an economic decision. He carried on business with a range of German and Swiss partners and made frequent trips back to Germany. Taking naturalisation must have obviously smoothed his path, it doesn't confirm his transformation from one nationality to another. Living in a place other than where you were born and have lived to adulthood does not change your nationality (even when naturalised, which is generally something done for legal reasons).

It is wordier, yet much more truthful to describe Handel as a German composer and then to clarify his long activity in England in the body of the article.Marcvanderloo (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite?

What has happened to the Handel article? Poor English, over-linking, trite section headings, opinions, and minimal details are just some of the problems. I know people will feel like responding with "well, go ahead and fix it", however I feel it is a big job and has to be planned. Along those lines, here are our main sections:

  • Early years
  • From Halle to Italy
  • The move to London
  • Later years
  • Works
  • Legacy

Here are the sections used in the 2001 edition of Grove:

  1. Halle
  2. Hamburg
  3. Italy
  4. Hanover, Düsseldorf and London
  5. Cannons
  6. The Royal Academy of Music
  7. The Second Academy
  8. Opera at Covent Garden
  9. From opera to oratorio
  10. Oratorios and musical dramas
  11. The later oratorios
  12. Last years
  13. Personality
  14. Style and technique
  15. Borrowing
  16. Keyboard music
  17. Instrumental chamber music
  18. Orchestral music
  19. Minor vocal works
  20. Church music
  21. Operas
  22. Oratorio forms
  23. Handel and posterity
  24. Sources and editions

While I'm not necessarily suggesting we slavishly follow these (although we could do worse), I am in favour of many more sections than the current article contains. More sections would allow us to accurately target the placement of information within the article (as an example of the current problem, see the wide range of information contained in the "The move to London" section). More sections would also allow the rewrite work to be divided amongst editors (at least for initial draft) As a start, could we find consensus on the section headings we should work towards?
Is it worth rewriting the sections in non-article space (and swapping them in when we are happy with them)?
 HWV258.  21:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although further proof was unnecessary, on cue, another rash of poorly written edits flood the page. Yep, we now have the "sentence": "Because of the death of George I and Handel becoming a citizin Riccardo Primo was rewritten". That sentence has nothing to do with the paragraph in which it sits, nor does it have anything to do with the (sub!) section heading under which it has been placed. The facts are also dubious. Did I mention the spelling and punctuation? I know I can change it, but the point is that under the current article structure, such rubbish is inevitable.
Further, I don't believe that the Handel article should be a dumping ground for every major work he wrote (complete with a sea of blue links). Perhaps a new section structure will help to alleviate the problem?
Geez; where to start?
 HWV258.  20:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this needs fixing. It's pretty terrible. I have Hogwood's biography of Handel as well as Grove, so will be more than happy to chip in, particularly on his early years in Italy and Academy operas, where I'm probably strongest. I'm just about to start a biggish Purcell project, but if you want to use a Wikipedia:Workpage to get something going here, that would be great. Moreschi (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article leaves a lot to be desired. The history is inadequate (even the anecdote about the clavichord in the attic is poorly told). I don't like the way his works are discussed; having prepared the articles on the Handel organ concertos, I am a little disappointed in the discussion of concertos (Op.3, 4, 6 and 7) – at least Bach has an article devoted to works published during his lifetime. I don't know which bright spark has systematically decided the Cuckoo and the Nightingale is ranked higher than Op.4 No.1 for example or the other Concertos in Alexander's Feast. Also really there should be whole sections devoted to a summary of his output in Operas and Oratorios, using the three books of Winton Dean as a guide (one on Oratorios & Masques, two on Operas). I intend at some stage to write full articles on the Op.6 and later the Op.3 concerti grossi. The published chamber music (Sonatas Op.1 and Trio Sonatas Op.2 and Op.5) could also have separate articles. I probably will do Op.6 later next year (along with Bach organ trio sonatas BWV 525–530). Mathsci (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the following structure on the highest level, which we could work on in stages:
  1. Early years
  2. Italy
  3. Hanover, Düsseldorf
  4. London
  5. Last years
  6. Style and technique
  7. Legacy

Tony (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Tony1. How about the following refinement?:

  • Early years
    • Halle
    • Hamburg
  • Italy
  • Hanover and Düsseldorf
  • London
    • Canons
    • The Royal Academy of Music
    • The Second Academy
    • Opera at Covent Garden
    • Travels
  • Last years
  • Style and technique
  • Legacy
  • Works
    • Opera
    • Oratorio
    • Orchestral
    • Chamber
    • Keyboard
    • Other

I feel the "Works" section is important as it will obviate the need for the indiscriminate scattering of works throughout the main article sections. I spent one minute considering the subsections for Works, so I'm more than expecting the howls of outrage (and hopefully refinements in that area). I'm also aware that the subsections for the London section need work.
The current article doesn't make clear Handel's continual efforts as a businessman (in terms of forming companies, organising productions and singers, producing events, failing, succeeding, etc.). I believe that needs to be brought out as it is a large part of what Handel was—someone who relied on "bums on seats" for his livelihood.
 HWV258.  06:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks

Hello HWV, why did you come up with index? Because the article looked more like an essay. Why is everybody so angry on the overlinking? I learned a lot in the past few days by linking the article to other articles. In my point of view the article did not use all the information gathered by other people on operas and singers. No wonder the article was declassified.

  • Because the section on London became to long, I made a subsection. I considered to make three sections, but the content of the latter two would have been poor.
  • I dont like your introduction of a subsection Travels and I dont like the Legacy-section as it is now. Some information could be moved to other sections.
  • The article should not become too long. I personally think people loose interest when the article is too long. It should mention his most important works and invite people to listen to his works.
  • Most of my knowledge comes from Dean and Knapp or Dean, and I don't like to mention the books twenty times. Sorry.
unsubscribe.  HWV258.  09:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please Taksen, I'm begging that you make no further edits such as this and this. What you are adding is ungrammatical, off-topic, poorly sourced, and over-linked. I'm happy that you want to improve your English, but the Handel article is not the place to practice.  HWV258.  22:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider

It would be very unusual to discuss every detail before adding it. I dont have the time to discuss every detail twice. Please improve my English, or leave it to some else if it does not suit you. My English might be poor, but the wording of the article was not very strong either and the article was declassified a few months ago, if I remember well. Let us invite him to give his opinion. (The message has been archived I suppose.) The oratoria section still is not very good and rather unusual. Prepare yourself for more information and references, I certainly need more time. Greetings from Amsterdam.Taksen (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This post was in response to my ill-mannered post. Please understand that my exasperation is driven from the certain knowledge that we cannot continue to tip bucket after bucket onto the rotting pile that is the current article. If you can help with the structural request above, then I would be pleased to welcome your contributions.  HWV258.  22:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a witch and your wording a rotten pile is very strange; I hope it is an overstatement from downunder. I will change the sentence on Riccardo Primo tomorrow morning, because it is late. Thanks for your consideration. Taksen (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Taksen (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HWV258, did you refer to this article as a "rotten pile"? If so, I agree. It's an embarrassment in the writing and paucity of refs. Tony (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be honest I wrote "rotting" (which implies that it isn't too late). I think my surly mood today was caused by a paucity of decent Christmas presents.  HWV258.  04:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taksen, I have just reverted your massive edits, which were preceded by no warnings here, and looked to be debatable in many respects. I wonder whether we could organise the rewrite here first, or at least not allow the article to become unstable. HWV258, will you consider removing that annoying flashing from the full-stop at the end of your sig? Tony (talk) 10:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll consider it.  HWV258.  21:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Handel as a boy"

The image: who says it's Handel? Comes from this commercial site], without documentation or details. That partly solves the clutter problem at the top, but when the lead and the first section are twice as long, the images will fit even better. Tony (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who says any of the images are what they claim to be? Also, what clutter problem? 81.165.225.249 (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please log in? Registration takes about two minutes. Tony (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

recent edits

"One day Handel attracted with his playing the attention of Johann Adolf I". I noticed that this word order is unidiomatic. "One day Handel's playing attracted the attention of Johann Adolf I"? Tony (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The opera with a libretto from cardinal Vincenzo Grimani ran for an unprecedented 27 performances." The absence of commas changes the meaning. Who is adding this stuff? Tony (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr Tony1, I am very surprised you didn´t notice or haven't recognized I´m the one who is adding this "stuff". I´m also surprised it seems to be an effort to change the wording or place comma´s. No wonder this article became a rotten pile. I was hoping an expert on Handel would immediately know, what I'm trying to tell and improve my English. I guess it is too hot in Australia, you prefer sit on the beach or on your balcony. I'm not suffering from the cold, but here, there is a lot of snow. Taksen (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
My "Who is adding this stuff?" was rhetorical. Tony (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"One day..."? As opposed to the time when Handel played and it wasn't on "a day"?  HWV258.  22:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Academy of Music (1719)

Hello Zadok the priest, I'm not impressed with your knowledge. You pretend not to know what the Royal Academy of Music (1719) is, and find it does not belong here, though this Academy was founded by Mr Hendel himself. Im very little interested in discussions with you because you make a childish impression on me: not only unsatisfied during Santa Claus. Taksen (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you have missed the point, but I "pretended" not to know what "oyal Academy of Music (1719)" was (which adorned the Handel page following an edit of yours). Your lack of attention to detail is well known to all who watch this page, however that edit of yours (not to mention the baffling edit above) seals the deal. By the way, my user name is HWV258.  HWV258.  09:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To the matter at hand: you created the Royal Academy of Music (1719) article within the previous 24 hours, so let's see where it goes before "promoting" it to the status of a "main" article linked directly under a section heading on the Handel page. To tell you the truth, your article lacks focus and I'm having great trouble seeing how it would even warrant a link from the Handel page. Is your article about a company, a set of operas, Handel's travels, the travels of others, the King's Theatre, unrelated opera's, unrelated singers, etc.? Heavens; and you want to feature it as a "main" link from the Handel page? Not before significant rework and discussion.  HWV258.  09:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Highpriest, you are overacting as usual. Your objections seem personal, but most of all you dont like to pull out a finger. May be it still too hot down there? Taksen (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is, what disturbs me the most about your post is your stubborn (and continual) refusal to adhere to any sort of WP convention (such as indenting). Of only minor annoyance is the fact that you created a rambling article within the previous 24 hours, had the arrogance to link it as a "main" article from the Handel page, and then claim that my objections "seem personal". Sheesh!  HWV258.  09:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taksen, are you aware of the WP:CIVILITY policy? There is a bulletted list on that page. Please take note of it. Tony (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard an article should be completed within one day and I invited other people to improve. As there are not many specialists left or stay away for some reason I have to work on it myself. The main reason I started this new article is because of the size of the article on Handel and I would like more room for information on the Handel's Oratorios, which is a very poor section. Agree?

Dear Zadok, one of your first reactions was to unsubscribe, which was mean. I guess you did not like me from the beginning. I suppose you are happy I deleted some information, which I copied and added in the new article. Why do you only suggest me to find a way of working the "Royal_Academy_of_Music_(1719)" link into the text (like all other links)? Handel is not an easy subject because there are so many issues involved. Some people told me it was not too bad what I added. Nobody made an effort to create a new article and many links went to Royal Academy of Music, which was founded in 1822. Don't complaint, and try to be happy with what I do. I guess you notice I own a few interesting books and I saw many of Handels operas. As the article on Handel was declassified a few months ago I have little confidence in the editors authority and others who worked on it in the past found other - probably more satisfying - subjects.Taksen (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please listen Taksen: my username is not "highpriest" or "Zadok"; it is "HWV258". Got it?
It's not that I don't like you (I don't know you); it's that I don't like the majority of your edits on WP. I didn't suggest that "an article should be completed within one day"; instead, I suggested that an article that has been started within the previous 24 hours (and a rambling article at that) should not be linked as a main article from the Handel page.
The size of the Handel article is not a problem—please note that the articles on Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven are all quite a bit larger. What do you mean you "would like more room"? Simply compose your text and put it into the article in the appropriate section.
As a positive suggestion, why don't you carefully read through the Johann Sebastian Bach article in an attempt to improve your writing style? When you do, please pay particular attention to the following:
  • The use of paragraphs and topic sentences (not the rambling unrelated "facts" that constitute the Handel article).
  • The paucity of links (which allow the high-value links to shine).
  • The well-thought-out flow of sections and paragraphs.
  • Most of all, note the academic (unemotional) style and contrast that with the current state of the Handel article (which now resembles a schoolboy's project).
While you are at it, why don't you read through as many featured articles as you can? Doing that will also help to improve your understanding of what is expected at WP.
I have been busy adding other articles to do with Handel, but in due course I will get around to helping to fix the Handel article. A good start has been made in determining the sections (see above), and I'm gathering sources. When you have a better appreciation of what is expected, I (and I'm sure others) would welcome your assistance in improving the Handel article.
 HWV258.  21:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latest reverts

Dear Sirs, probably both living in Sidney and not in Arnhem Land. First, I suppose I dont like that anthem HVW 258, it is too noisy. I prefer Thou shall break them with a rod of iron just before the Hallelujah choir or Revenge, Thimoteus cries from Alexander's Feast (Handel). Second, I never knew Handel had a halfbrother who was a valet for the duke. By writing the article and find more interesting information which is puzzling or need to be brought under attention in my point of view or compared with other sources. I dont expect Mainwaring wrote down the only truth, which is impossible, but the information is from him. At first I thought someone was mixing up the father and the brother as a valet, but it seems they were both in service of the Duke. Why don't you get a copy of Deutsch and Dean, so you can check my references. Then you dont have to be shocked every day.Taksen (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A composer like Handel can very well have a link to sheet music or opera. I did not read the articles, but if they are bad they need to be improved by a musicologist. I can't, it is not my specialty. Taksen (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not whether those link-targets are good or bad: it's whether they are sufficiently useful and focused for the reader of this article. I judged that this is not the case. Please note the WP:OVERLINK guideline, and the likelihood that readers rarely click on links. We need to ration them to the most important.
More generally, could you take a more positive attitude towards your fellow editors, and be aware that off-the-cuff remarks might cause unintended offence. Tony (talk) 06:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One can't help being shocked when living in "Sidney". (And that's from a "geographer"!)  HWV258.  20:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, this article has about 30 to 60.000 readers each month. Not everybody is interested in the same kind of details. I am a historian/geographer and lover of baroque and pay atttention to different details than a musicologist or a musician. It should be possible to improve this article, within a few weeks and to supply the reader with as better information on Handel. For superficial articles, with details on his father, and without mentioning any details of his less famous operas or oratorios there is plenty of choice. Why should I repeat what most people know already about Handel? I dont believe in overlinking in case it is not a year, a city, or a country. Taksen (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just compromised by restoring the links on opera and sheet music|score. Since the paragraph after the lead has the link on Duchy of Magdeburg and explanation, I deleted the mention of the Duchy of Magdeburg in the lead, leaving the simple "Germany" in the preceding sentence to stand alone. I have to agree with one of Taksen's points above: people come to encyclopedia articles from different backgrounds and interests, need different things explaining, are interested in different things . . . links are a convenience, especially those at the start of a long article (I am not suggesting "opera" should be linked later in the article), not an order to the reader to click. (Also some of us mouse over them when we come across something odd and where the link goes is often enough to disambiguate a term. That may well be the case with second-language readers on "scores.")
Re: flippant remarks, off the cuff or not - sniping at people for not having perfect English isn't as effective as fixing whatever's annoying. Saying "whoever you are" when talking about an edit is unnecessary and no more polite than anything else that's brushed anyone the wrong way here recently. We're all more or less anonymous. Moving an over-long section of a long article out to make a new article and then replacing it with a summary with a "main article" header is a normal and I believe recommended process. But I'm no expert in musicology, nor in article length, so can't judge the underlying disagreement over whether the article is/was too long or over what details should be done how. I suggest that the two in disagreement and anyone else who feels competent to do so, should continue revising back and forth, rather than either - or anyone - feeling they are uniquely qualified to shape the article. But I know I am not qualified, so I'm now going to go look at the English again. No prejudice towards any of you - work together and we'll have a clearer and better article. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Postage stamp

This postage stamp does not belong here. It attracts discussions that do not have to do with Handel. Handel has/had nothing to do with Nazi-Germany. He was a cosmopolitan and probably gay, two things not much appreciated by the Nazis. There must be plenty of other pictures. Taksen (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with not referencing "Nazi Germany" in an article about Handel. Adjusted the caption accordingly.  HWV258.  08:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I agree too. Is there a UK stamp that is not a copyright problem?'
Could everyone be vigilant about back-references ("he", "this", etc.) that are unclear? This has been a continuing issue. Tony (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is this [1]. But I'm not sure it's correct to banish any mention of Nazi Germany - the Nazi Party obviously were keen to "re-adopt" a famous German national who had actually "become British"? But maybe this topic would be more appropriate in the Nazi Germany article. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physician or barber-surgeon, category

Georg Händel, the court-surgeon

According the German Wikipedia George Handel was born in 1622. As he young man he had to stop with grammar school when his father died (1636) und give up his aspirations to become a lawyer. Therefor it is very unlikely he succeeded in finishing a medical study. Without a degree he was not allowed to call himself a physician. He did have a license to sell whine in his "pub" The yellow Deer and owned vinyard outside Halle. He married Dorothea Taust (1651-1730) in 1683. Taksen (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The category People from Hanover looks like nonsense to me. One could also mention Hamburg, where he lived for three years. Taksen (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link audit required

It's mostly blue in a few places, like "Royal Academy of Music (1719–34)". The wikilinking loses all effect when this happens. I suggest that it be pruned back ("Mayfair", for example—is that article really useful in this context? Who would click on it?). Tony (talk) 10:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.  HWV258.  10:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. More people may have heard of Mayfair than of Brook Street. I will move the link to the picture though.Taksen (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When a reader clicks on "Brook Street", the most specific, guess what link they are presented with. Such redundancy is called "chain-linking" and should be avoided as unnecessary dilution of high-value links. I don't think you're aware of how seldom readers click on links. This is not WP.du or WP.fr, where they link everything in sight without thought to how it ruins the professional look of the text and undermines the wikilinking system itself. Rationing is required; indeed, it is our service to the readers to constrain links in this way. Tony (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Converting to the new list-defined referencing system

I suggest that we seriously consider removing the enormous amount of clutter facing users in edit-mode, including visitors and newbies, caused by the cite book template, even though it's vertical. Does anyone object? I also have a query about the use of page ranges within the superscript numerical citations inline. Most readers won't know what they mean (I initially wondered whether they were multiple references); and they're cluttery. To my mind, short inline, long at the bottom is the way to go on references, in both display and edit modes. Tony (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the lead, it is much better now, but I dont understand the above, it sounds like algebra to me.Taksen (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glee?

The [[Category:Glee composers]] has been added to the article. Could someone provide an example of Handel's glee music?  HWV258.  22:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If not, I'll remove the category.  HWV258.  06:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the category "Glee composers" since no examples of Handel's glee music have been forthcoming. His English songs are all scored for a single voice, but happy to discuss things if examples can be found. GFHandel ♬  22:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help with identifying a sound file on Wikipedia, probably by Handel

Any assistance at this reference desk query would be appreciated. Thanks. Graham87 14:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion will eventually be archived here. Graham87 15:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just received a reply from David Schrader about the mislabelled sound file that I mentioned in that query on the reference desk. He said that "the "movement in question was improvised on the spot, something that we know that Mr. Handel did frequently. I added it as a bit of an entremet, as it were, in order to underline the spontaneity of the Handel concertos". I'm going to ask for it to be renamed to File:Organ improvisation by David Schrader.ogg, and for the other files to be renamed. Graham87 04:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject saints ?

Umm, since when was Handel a saint ? Sounds like a bit of hoaxy woaxy. 81.134.137.34 (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is, I understand, along with Bach and a few other musicians commemorated on the Lutheran calendar of saints. While not quite the same as the formal process of canonisation in the RC Church, for project purposes it's treated as being broadly equivalent. David Underdown (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oratorio

The following sentence is from Larsen. It seems a curious stroke of fate that Handel is now remembered by most people only as a composer of oratorios.[1] Is it still true or have things changed since 1972?Taksen (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you quote an exact sentence in the Handel article without giving a reference? Just because something appears in a 38-year-old "academic" work doesn't mean we have to reproduce it without thought. Do you have any other source to support claims such as "most people"? Who would "most" be? "Most" of the billions of people on this Earth? "Most" of the people who have heard of Handel? "Most of the people who listen to the radio or buy CDs? "Most" of the friends of the author? We have to aim to impart the facts to the readers of WP. The word "most" should immediately ring alarm bells with you.  HWV258.  06:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Early years inquiry

I dunno, I didn't correct this, but the sentence, In 1698 Handel played for Frederick I of Prussia and met Giovanni Battista Bononcini in Berlin, in 1701 Georg Philipp Telemann went to Halle to listen to the promising young man., seems out of place to me. Don't forget that Telemann was 4 years older than Handel, so they are just about in the same age group. So why say that Telemann is going to see a promising young man, as if he was much, much older than him. Just an opinion. Borninbronx10 (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In 1701 Handel was 16, thus a young man, compared to Telemann who was 20. In my experience those age groups don't mix very well, but ... they stayed friends, or in contact, the rest of their life. I could change promising in important, because this is what the German source says. Thx for your concern.Taksen (talk) 06:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Estate

If worth £20,000 in 1759, contemporary monetary value could usefully be added. But is there a source for this claim? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See: O. Deutsch, p. 818.Taksen (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying that. Without a copy of Deutsch (1955) to hand, can we assume that source covers that whole sentence? Is there an easy fromula/template for coverting to modern monetary value? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The link to Handel's will is far more elegant and useful, but some idea of the total value, and a conversion into todsy's value, would still be enlightening. The Will article itself seems to have niether? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The will article does have a Bequest column that can be totalled by the reader (but adding a total to the article would have to be a carefully determined—guess). The problem is that the will (exactingly reproduced in the article) does not give the total of his estate, and many of the bequests are not cash amounts. Feel free to update the will article (with referenced material of course).  GFHandel.   20:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, estimating those non-cash bequests and producing a total sounds suspiciosuly like WP:OR. Oh dear, are we back to square one, i.e. a reliable source with the figure of £20,000? Better pass me that copy of Deustch (1955) after all? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was alluding to OR (and why we have to be careful to avoid it). I'm curious about your edit comment "at least he didn't use Guineas", because if you look near the end of the list on the will page you will see that he did.  GFHandel.   21:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed, thanks, my mistake. In my haste to tot up a rough figure I had missed those. Although very common in the purchase of land and goods, I had always thought that pounds were the preferred denominaton for the last will and testament, even in the 1700s. I suppose using guineas was an easy way to show that an certain bequest was considered special - more special than pounds. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone is interested, £20,000 in 1759 would be worth about £1,495,800 today.([2]) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Handel's collection of paintings

I need some support. I made a list this morning of painters under George Frideric Handel. Handel owned quit a few paintings which were sold in 1760 after his death. I was very surprised to see so many names I had never heard of. I am not aware if Bach, Mozart or Beethoven owned any paintings, but it tells something about his taste. It does not list his collection of paintings, because that would be impossible to finish. Now there is someone from Sidney who likes Handel but obviously he is not interested in paintings and reverted it. Can someone give his opinion? Taksen (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taksen, I see what is going on. I agree with you that it is a fascinating list, and I think it does, in fact, add to the general body of knowledge on Handel - I had no idea he was an art collector, and if he had a Rembrandt and a Titian, not to mention the rest of the list, then the collection deserves a page of its own. On the other hand, as you have typed it in now, the reader has no idea what kind of stuff he was collecting, whereas some of these paintings and/or prints are probably out there on Commons today. My advice would be to do one of two things; 1) Create a page entitled List of artworks owned by George Frideric Handel (see an example at Abraham Blooteling), strip the current list of names down to the top three or four, and put a dablink on top
Main article: List of artworks owned by George Frideric Handel
or 2) Create the list in the form you found it on Wikisource under the English "Handel as author" page (or archive source or whoever made the list) and link to it from there. Hope it helps! Jane (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's all very interesting, but were I you, I think I would just say: "Handel was a great patron of the arts, and owned a large and extensive art collection which included works by Canaletto and Carracci and other great masters." The long list of names can be distracting from where the emphasis of the page should lie. There is no reason why Wikipedia can't have a page George Frideric Handel's art collection which could be very comprehensive and generously illustrated as the works will be long out of copyright. I'm sorry, I suspect this may not be the answer you were seeking, but that is how I see it.  Giacomo  13:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it look like I have to start a new article pretty soon.Taksen (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked for a view. I have to say I agree pretty much with Giacomo. The list should be separated from the article, and as such could be an interesting offbeat addition to the encyclopedia. Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is exceptionally sparse on details on Handel's private life, and a brief paragraph on the subject, for which there seem to be good sources, seems to be justified. But a long list of artists, presumably based on the auction attributions after his death, and some of which may be just prints, is less useful. As it stands one can't really be sure if Handel was "a great patron of the arts" or not. Unfortunately very few of the paintings dispersed by sale are likely to be tracable now, though no doubt the refs mention those that are. It might be more useful to concentrate on paintings that Handel commissioned himself, and individual important works. The subject is probably worth a seperate article too. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
About lists. Two kinds of lists are useful, complete lists and weighted lists. A complete list of all the artists mentioned in connection with the paintings in Handel's 1760 sale catalogue, not omitting any, no matter how obscure, would be one useful list: we'd understand that there could be further paintings known to have been owned by Handel, that did not appear in the catalogue. An incomplete list of paintings once owned by Handel identified in modern collections would be another useful one: it could be extended as further paintings were identified. A list of some of the more familiar artists' names associated with paintings in Handel's collection, according to anonymous attributions made in the 18th century is not a useful list.--Wetman (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everybody, thanks for your advice. In the meantime I started a new lemma George Frideric Handel's art collection. It might look like namedropping, but this list with quit a few painters I have never heard of, interests me. I will see how much I can add with the two sources I have. The list is in alphabatical order; there were 67 lots.Taksen (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedian, who uses the name of the composer, which is a sort of strange, again tries to hide my article, as he did with Royal Academy of Music (company), so nobody will pay attention to it. He acts likes he is the boss here, allthough I added quit a lot here, more than he did, see [3] It is obvious he does not like me. Taksen (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on user's talk page.  GFHandel.   21:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The move of The Move to London

I object to the wholesale removal of The Move to London information. The article was not too big (and no bigger than the articles of other major composers). Why should a reader who wants an over-view of Handel's life not be able to get the information on one page? If that information is taken away, why not take the information in other sections away? If the removal policy is taken to its natural conclusion, we would be left with an article that is little more than a switchboard or table of contents. Wouldn't it be better to discuss major changes like this first?  GFHandel.   22:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. I can see an argument for The Will and the collection of paintings to be separate articles, but certainly not an essential part of the chronology. Is this not contrary to WP:MoS? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed that, because the section is blank except for a {{main}} link. The main Handel article isn't large enough to warrant such ejected content, and the London article is half the size again. So size is not an issue. They should be re-merged for easier maintenance, and to avoid creation of a POV fork. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forking a period of Handel’s life to Handel in London is the sort of thing that is unusual on Wikipedia for a reason: it’s a bad practice in a biography of this nature. Should we now split off the portion of Einstein’s life in the U.S. to a stand-alone article called Einstein in the U.S.? Interestingly, our Einstein article is currently 133,720 bytes. The George Frideric Handel article—before some editor ran off to fork a piece of it—was only vs. 49,762 bytes.

I don’t want to get into an edit war on a subject on which I am far from expert, but I fully support any editor who specializes in all-things-Handel to simply revert the edit (copy the text back). The simplest solution to the new article, which never should have been created in the first place, would be to blank it and simply make a redirect back to here. The editor responsible for that stunt should be advised that WP:BOLD does not mean “run off and do unwise things.” Greg L (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I arrived here via GF Handel's contribs list. The comments above seem very sensible. Tony (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, what the heck. The London-period of Handel’s life should never have been forked to a new article. I copied it back myself. I’ll leave it to others to figure out what to do with the forked article, which I didn’t blank. Greg L (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hideous contortions of Handel in the audio files

I've removed a few, and will no doubt remove more in the coming days. Many of them will cause readers never to listen to the music of Handel again. Tony (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(FWIW, Tony has a Ph.D. in music and taught college classes on the subject. His assessment of “hideous” is no-doubt spot-on and is at least as meritorious as the opinions of some of the novices who have clearly had a hand over the last few months in getting this article to its current sad state.) Greg L (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-edits

(A version of this article was copyedited by lfstevens, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on January 14, 2011.)

Enjoy. Lfstevens (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Come back soon.  GFHandel.   01:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Is the name not Händel, with an umlaut over the "a"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abenr (talk • contribs) 01:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The English version of his name does not have the umlaut. See:
  • Sadie, Stanley; Tyrrell, John, eds. (2001). The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  • Handel's own signature in his Template:PDFlink.
 GFHandel.   21:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How very odd. Does that mean it's pronounced as "handle" instead of the proper "hendel"? 80.203.79.79 (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the "a" in "handle" pronounced as the "a" in "band"? This a is similar to the German ä. Not sure why you think "Hendel" is correct. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 16:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:George Frideric Handel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 08:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starting first read-through today. Preliminary comment is that the lead is very short, and I doubt if I shall find that it summarises all aspects of the article. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 08:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First batch of comments

  • General
    • Spelling – is a mixture of English and American: "naturalised", "analysed", "favourite", "travelled", "paralysed" etc in UK spellings and "skillful", "traveled", "rumored" etc in American. You need to standardise on one or the other (preferably British for an article about a naturalised Briton, I'd say).
  • Lead
  • Early years
    • Remove italics from quotation – see Manual of Style (main MoS points are not mandatory for GA, but it's as well to comply with them)
    • "According to legend…" – citation missing
    • "…to listen to the important young man" – odd wording, and needs a citation in any event
  • From Halle to Italy
    • "There he met Johann Mattheson, Christoph Graupner and Reinhard Keiser." You can't expect your readers to click on each blue link just to find out who these luminaries were – you should say something like "the composers Johann…." etc.
    • "1703/1704" – Wikipedia style is an en-dash for date ranges
    • "Ferdinando had made Florence Italy's musical capital" – who says so?
    • "He had a rumored love affair" – ambiguous: does it refer to Handel or Salvi?
    • "from this era.:[24, 26]" – unusual referencing style here – unclear why
    • "Palace of Cardinals Pietro Ottoboni, Benedetto Pamphili and Carlo Colonna" – one palace between the three of them or one each?
    • "The opera … ran for an unprecedented 27 performances"- citation lacking
    • "It showed remarkable maturity and established Handel's reputation as a composer of opera" – two statements lacking citations
  • Move to London
    • "Handel enjoyed great success, 'but it is difficult…'" You ought, I think, to attribute this quotation within the text.
    • "one of Handel's favourite arias, Cara sposa, amante cara" – do you mean one of the arias that Handel liked best or one of his arias that is a popular favourite? Citation needed either way.
    • "For him Handel wrote Amadigi di Gaula…" – already tagged (and I don't disagree with the tag); and why upper case for "Damsel"? This paragraph lacks citations throughout.
    • "….such as Anne Vaughan, the Duchess of Bolton, Countess Godolphin, Countess of Darlington and the Earl of Orkney." – Does this list of guests add anything of value to the sentence?
    • "…used the tides of the river". To do what, and why does it matter here?

More to come. There is a lot to be done to raise the article to GA level, but I'll press on with my list before putting the review on hold if necessary. Tim riley (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As nobody seems interested in responding to this first batch of comments, I propose to fail the article in the next day or so. Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have been working on it (in my own slow way). I just haven't spoken here. Herr Beethoven (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Second batch of comments follows.
  • Cannons
    • "Romain Rolland stated" – citation needed
  • Royal Academy of Music
    • "newly–built opera" – seems to be an en-dash where a hyphen is wanted
    • "engaged the cast for the Royal Academy of Music" – second blue link for this within a few lines – needed?
    • "Giulio Cesare, Tamerlano and Rodelinda" – itals needed
    • "Winton Dean acclaimed this" – citation lacking
    • "from which we have the regimental slow march" – unsuitable first person phrasing
    • "has been played at every British coronation ceremony since" – citation needed
    • "The Beggar's Opera" – italics needed
    • "the longest run in theatre history up to that time" – citation needed
    • "The Queen's Theatre in Haymarket" – The Haymarket always has a definite article
    • "Esther and Deborah" – itals needed
    • "Acis and Galathea" – spelling? No 'h' at earlier mentions. And needs italicising
    • "Parnasso in Festa" – itals
  • Opera at Covent Garden (1734–41)
    • "renowned for his spectacular productions: he suggested" – the colon implies some connection between the first and second halves of the sentence that is not clear.
    • "Terpsichore" – itals needed
    • "Ariodante" – ditto
    • "John Beard (tenor)" – looks as though the usual piping is missing here.
    • "Deidamia" – itals needed
    • "Having lost a fortune in operatic management" – someone else has already tagged this with "citation needed"" – rightly so
    • Last three sentences of this section are also uncited.
  • Oratorio
    • Citations needed for the first two sentences.
    • "in which the anthem character is very clear" – it is not clear what this means" – the lay person reading it might be glad of an explanation
    • "Unfortunately" – the MoS discourages such editorialising words
    • "Another twelve years had passed" – the MoS would have us use figures for numbers over 10.
    • "Next came Deborah" – two separate statements in this sentence require citations.
    • "Obviously Handel" – unless you are quoting, this is another editorialising word.
    • "It is evident how much he learnt" – citations needed for all three statements in this sentence
    • "…for the rest of his life" – the rest of whose life, Beard's or Handel's?
    • "Israel in Egypt consists of little else but choruses, borrowing…" – citation needed
    • "…has a rather diverting character; the work is light and fresh." – citation needed
    • "…the 3rd Duke of Devonshire" – you haven't given the Earl of Essex his succession number, earlier; why give the Duke of Devonshire's?
    • "Handel secured a balance" – citation needed
    • Last paragraph – citations needed for first two sentences.
  • Later years
    • First para – five sentences make statements that lack citations
    • "In 1751 one eye started to fail." – this and the next three sentences are uncited.
    • "More than three thousand mourners attended his funeral, which was given full state honours" – both statements need citations

More to come. (Incidentally, while I was reviewing these sections, another editor moved the images around, causing large gaps of white space throughout the article. I have reverted these changes.) Tim riley (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: since I last looked, the lead section has changed from inadequate to dreadful. Several of the sentences are in very poor English, but that is easily fixed. Much more serious is what the lead now includes and omits. The lead – and this is a condition of GA – should touch on all the most important points that follow in the main text and should not contain anything of substance that isn't in the body of the text. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. I suggest you leave it for now, and return to it at the end of this review, when the main text has been finalised. Tim riley (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On hold

I shall be away from 4th to 11th October, with limited access to the internet. I'll put the review on hold, and resume on my return, by when with any luck we shall have had some more progress. Tim riley (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any progress with this review? Not many of the concerns mentioned above have been dealt with. Tim riley (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last orders, please

If there is no progress on this article and in responses to outstanding comments within 48 hours I propose to fail it. Tim riley (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There being no further progress, I am now failing this candidacy for GA. There are multiple problems with the prose and with missing citations. There is much excellent stuff in the article, and I hope the nominator or someone else will take it in hand and bring it up to GA level on both counts. Tim riley (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just can't find the time to put the work into it. Herr Beethoven (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A more relevant picture

Recently user:Taksen added two pictures to the article that I reverted with an edit comment of Removed images not relevant to the article. Teatro Argentina was inaugurated 22 years after Handel left Italy, and Handel never went to Český Krumlov. Taksen then reverted my edit with an edit comment of The Handelian police is busy again. Some issues to consider in this issue:

  • None of Taksen's edits are accompanied with reasoning as to why the pictures he has selected should be in the article.
  • We have a duty not to mislead our readers. Taksen's generic Baroque theatre picture shows almost nothing of a Baroque theatre, and instead demonstrates a curtain painting (which may, or may not be original). The theatre in question in the original image is not even in a country that Handel visited (much less produced work for). Handel never produced work for, or even stepped foot in the Teatro Argentina (it was inaugurated decades after he left Italy).
  • I have replaced the two pictures with a picture that is a much better choice for the article. The replacement picture demonstrates a scene at a theatre at which Handel was active at the time of the painting. Handel also produced works very similar to the action displayed in the image (masques).
  • Taksen: please have a read of WP:Civility and try to appreciate why personalising the issue ("Handelian police") is abhorrent at WP. If you cannot act civilly, and cannot provide reasons for your edits (a constructive edit summary for all of your edits would help other editors), then you should probably not be editing at WP.

Instead of simply reverting, could you now explain to the community why the pictures you selected do a better job of illustrating the article than the one I selected? Failing appropriate opposing reasoning, I propose that the current picture replaces the previous two images in the article. Thank you. GFHandel ♬  22:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO there are too many images in this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opening section

This section is poorly written/organised and needs careful redoing.

Quarrel with the King?

The Move to London section says: "In July 1717 Handel's Water Music was performed more than three times on the Thames for the King and his guests. It is said the compositions spurred reconciliation between the King and Handel,"

But there's nothing about any previous quarrel. Paul Magnussen (talk)

Grammar

The article (as of December 2012) has various "sentences" that aren't sentences, and is poorly written in general. (I'm a professional writer/editor.) In the past, when I've fixed such ungrammatical passages in other Wikipedia articles, some ignorant illiterate came along soon after and reverted them, so I'm not going to bother. Perhaps someone else will... but I doubt it.

So why bother saying anything at all? Wikipedia is currently at close to 4 million articles in the English version alone. Are all of them perfect? Of course not. We need people like you to be involved, to help maintain quality standards. And we need you to stay positive. Yes, wou will find errors of all possible kinds, and more, take that as a given. Yes, the texts of articles constantly change, that's how this project works. It's good that so many people want to contribute in ways great and small (it couldn't possibly work if it was written by a small band of elite "experts"). Naturally, not all of their contributions will be of the same standard. But as long as the overall trend is upwards towards better quality, that's the main thing. One of the joys of editing is finding things to fix, and fixing them. It's not like being some kind of auditor.
It is possible to read an article from start to finish and find that it is exactly as you would ideally have written it, and it needs not one single comma to be changed. Possible, but very unlikely, so there will always be work to be done.
We need to be less frustrated by the little irritations and challenges, but to step back and see the bigger picture at work here, in all its glory.
PS. Please sign and date your talk page posts by adding 4 tildes (~) at the end. Someone who comes here to say something anonymously doesn't tend to have any cred as far as most other editors are concerned. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rv vandalism

I just reverted a long series of consecutive edits by the same user, all of which were vandalism. However, I'm still new (9 months, 1800 edits) so this was my first time reverting multiple consecutive edits. I followed the instructions on Help, but would feel better if a more experienced editor would double-check to make sure I did it right. Zyxwv99 (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portraits of Handel

The picture said to be by Denner which appears in the article is - to the best of my knowledge - thought unlikely actually to be of Handel and possibly not by Denner. The posture of the sitter and general appearance of the subject is similar to a picture which appears on the "haendelhaus" web site and said to date between 1725 to 1730. That picture is thought unlikely to be a portrait of Handel. Why not use the Denner portrait from approximately the same period (see "haendelhaus" again) which is generally considered to be a genuine portrait of Handel - and has the advantage of looking like him... Handelist (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date

Is the birth date given for Handel in the Gregorian or Julian calendar? Jc3s5h (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing the Gregorian calendar (but I'm curious what led to your question)? The date of birth matches Grove, and I'm pretty sure that they would have used the Gregorian (which was introduced 103 years before Handel's birth). Cheers. GFHandel ♬  21:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many articles and books, both Wikipedia and outside sources, will use the Julian calendar if the event being described occurred in a place where that calendar was in force. Since Handel was born in what is now Germany, and the Gregorian calendar was adopted in various parts of present-day Germany at various times ranging from 1583 to 1700, I don't know which calendar was used. Then again, whoever inserted that date might have thought of Handel as primarily a British composer, and used the British adoption date of 1753. I came across this because I have been fixing misuses of the template {{Death date}}, which is only supposed to be used with the Gregorian calendar. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Balance

Could this article be written with balance for those wishing to acquaint themselves with Handel's music. The legacy section reads as a puff pastry piece: what are the objective good and bad points of his music, why do some people detest him so, is this just fashion or snobbery? I would like to know so I can form my own informed opinion!188.31.136.29 (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retconning nationalities is a bad idea

The discussion of Händel being German vs. British is retconning (making retroactive continuity) of historical figures as described using contemporary categories. Händel cannot be "German" because Germany did not exist; born in 1685 in Halle, Duchy of Magdeburg means he was Prussian (or Prussian-born). It's like saying he "become British" or that he was "British" after his naturalization. This is not true because Händel was not a "citizen" of Germany or the UK, he was a subject under the lord of the land. After being naturalized he become a subject of the King/Queen of England (and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland). Enric (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mini-infobox

George Frideric Handel
Portrait of George Frideric Handel
by Thomas Hudson, 1749
Born(1685-02-23)23 February 1685
Halle
Died14 April 1759(1759-04-14) (aged 74)
London
Wikipedia Book
Signature

I suggest to combine the two pictures shown in the upper right corner by a mini-infobox, as suggested by Voceditenore for Bach. More information is available in the Book on him and the navbox, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments to oppose above:
  • Please try to see the difference this edit made.
  • In case a reader is unfamiliar with the article subject, the locations of birth and death give him an idea of the biography in a nutshell.
  • The idea actually came from Voceditenore, a leading voice of project opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment below concerning the misleading way you have proposed this infobox here. It is not remotely my suggestion to add it here or in Bach. Furthermore, I am not a "leading voice" at the Opera Project. No one is. That is a very inappropriate argument to use under any circumstances but especially when you are misleadingly implying that I suggest adding such a box here or anywhere else. Voceditenore (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I myself don't see the referred to "persondata" above, as I don't think it is readily visible for the average user (such as myself). The Infobox is usually a good summary tool where all the person's relevant information is immediately visible in an easily understandable graphic format. warshytalk 15:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another aspect: what we tell the reader instead, is at present "George Frideric Handel, born in the same year as Johann Sebastian Bach and Domenico Scarlatti." I think that it is of interest (only) to people who are already familiar with those names. I believe that we should also serve readers who come and know nothing about the topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, in fact, that is one of the most convincing arguments for infoboxes, in my view. They give consistency across wikipedia for those who need "basic facts at a glance." Montanabw(talk) 19:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Gerda, what you wrote at the top of this proposal is very misleading. It makes it appear that I was one who proposed that a "Mini-infobox" be added to Bach. I did not. I'm perfectly fine with no infobox at all and would never propose adding any kind of infobox there or here. You proposed adding an infobox to Bach, just as you seem to be doing at multiple composer articles. My comment was to the effect that I was opposed to adding one unless it contained only the minimal fields as above, i.e. a glorified photo caption. It was the lesser of two evils, given the monstrosity of what you were proposing at Bach [4]. That is not the same thing. Voceditenore (talk) 06:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that I obviously misunderstood, see my talk also. I thought you made a suggestion at Bach that was a promising solution, so brought it here. "The idea came from you", I didn't have it myself. I believe that composers are part of several projects. (It doesn't belong here, but answering where you mentioned it: I did not yet propose an infobox to composers articles other than Stoepel, Bach and Handel. For articles that I wrote, I simply add one.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of restricting an infobox to minimal fields is not remotely "my idea". It has always been an option with any infobox and is a proposal that has been made many times in the past by many editors when they are faced with attempts to rewrite an article in an oversimplified and misleading way and then cram it into a vertical box. Voceditenore (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see the option until you mentioned it, and I didn't say it was your idea. - I am sorry that, because I missed the discussions in the past, I may repeat things, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
George Frideric Handel
List of compositions
by George Frideric Handel
    • Do I get it right that you mainly oppose the mentioning of the book? I copied it from {{Handel operas}}, which appears on most if not all of his works. Suggestions for improvements welcome, for example a link to his compositions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are simply no good reasons to have an infobox that repeats the same information. We could add places of birth and date in parenthesis next to dates of birth and death. "Books" are meaningless for most people; if they want more information, then they can borrow/buy books listed in the references section below. The only reason you want to have it is the fact that it provides quick information to the readers, but the lead does the same.--Tomcat (7) 09:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per warshy's points. I don't think any more information is necessary as it's much easier to talk about in prose rather than point form, but I believe this amount of information is quite reasonable. I think achieving a cohesive look and standard across the board of biographical articles (living people or otherwise) is important and encyclopedic, and infoboxes help to achieve this. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your contribution, but canvassed votes will obviously be weighted less. Furthermore, The concept of a cohesive standard across articles has been soundly rejected by the community (compare citevar, engvar, etc). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Canvassed? Because Gerda mentioned this discussion on my talkpage? You seem to be misinterpreting the policy you are referring to - Gerda did not ask me to give my opinion in opposition or assent of the discussion, merely a mention in reference to another discussion we were having about infoboxes. This is not canvassing. I'm really surprised that you've made that accusation, frankly. My "vote" (I wasn't aware we were voting, I thought this was a conversation) does not need to be "weighted" (this is not a discussion with any sort of time limit or closing period), and I don't quite understand who it will be "weighted" by. In any case it will be judged on its own merits and not based on how I heard about the conversation. Your comment is incredibly patronising - "thank you for your contribution"? Really? You're welcome, I guess. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Canvassed? May the educated reader judge if this conversation mentioning my salad days was canvassing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • When one person specifically voices approval for infoboxes and is then provided with a link, yes, that is canvassing because their opinion can be expected to be in favour. Complaints have been raised regarding canvassing in these types of discussion previously, so it's only fair to point out potential issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do not specifically voice approval for infoboxes at any point in that conversation: "I wasn't sure about the infoboxes at the start but I think it makes the articles look more cohesive" is hardly a resounding endorsement, and as you'll see at the WikiProject talkpage I linked on your talk, I see more points against infoboxes than for. The conversation was open and neutral and was merely discussed in a general way - "hey, this is a discussion that's happening", not "hey, this is a discussion that I have an opinion on, and you kinda seem to think the same way, wanna tell everyone how much you agree with me"? I am not a naïve new user who will be swayed by a casual expression of opinion. I still find your accusation patronising and insulting, but I do not have any desire to engage further on this page as it will detract from the actual purpose of this discussion. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The facts shown in the infobox are indisputable and relevant. Those editors arguing that the infobox is "redundant", are once again invited to start an RfC for their removal - all 1 million plus - from Wikipedia. Claims of consensus "on WP Opera page" are irrelevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Think the benefits outweigh any drawbacks. (Why should this box mean we "get infoboxes for all the cantatas"?)Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understood that the "Book" has selected cantatas, the commemt mentions "articles on all these cantatas". - I suggested a link to the list of compositions instead of the book, is that clear enough? - The book is in templates of all his works with an article, without complaints, btw. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. That seems perfectly fair. If the infobox stays "mini" somehow, that's ok, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Larsen, J.P. (1972) Handels Messiah. A distinguished authority on Handel discusses the origins, composition, and sources of one the great choral works of western civilization, p. 15.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Frideric_Handel&oldid=559849357"