Talk:George Frideric Handel/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

George Frideric Handel + Georg Friedrich Händel

When you read the article it seems that Georg Friedrich Händel changed his name to George Frideric Handel. Is this correct? I think his name was Georg Friedrich Händel his whole life. The name George Frideric Handel was just the english way of saying/mention his name. Therefore I think that the article should begin with "George Frideric Handel or Georg Friedrich Händel (23 February 1685 – 14 April 1759) was an..." (PS: I know that Georg Friedrich Händel is mentioned later in the introduction). Fanoftheworld (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I assume it is documented that he used the name 'George Frideric Handel'. Does anyone have details? --Kleinzach 00:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a reference, in the biography by Paul Henry Lang: [1]. See the note at the bottom of p. 538. He began signing his name as "George Frideric Handel" as early as 1715. Antandrus (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protect.

I think it's nearing the stage of getting some semi-protection for this page. Anyone know a sympathetic admin?  HWV258  02:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is semi-protection needed? Equazcion •✗/C • 03:02, 6 Mar 2009 (UTC)

(When I say "this" page, of course I mean Handel.) It is becoming obvious that a concerted attack is now being launched by the previous eight different anonymous editors. Each of their thirteen edits has been quickly reverted. The odd similar edit happens from time to time, but it looks like the word is out now. Perhaps a couple of days of protection would help to calm things.  HWV258  03:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see an amount of vandalism here that warrants protection. I see 8 hits yesterday, which doesn't seem that bad to me, and that seems to be the worst day so far. Articles that get protected have usually gotten it much worse than that. But if you want to request it anyway, you can try WP:RPP, or ask User:Antandrus, the admin who's been reverting this article. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:22, 6 Mar 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The only reasons I have not semiprotected it myself are these: 1) some of the anon edits are done in good faith, if naive and misguided (e.g. 68.47's change of "Frideric" to "Frederick"); 2) some are good edits (85.85's spelling corrections); and most important of all, I have taken a position on a content dispute with our German friend 91.62: it would be a serious policy violation, as I read policy, to semi-protect the page in the middle of a content-dispute discussion, even if he is outnumbered and behaving rather badly. If there is a surge in vandalism and I'm around I will semiprotect briefly to put it to an end. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(sorry about the edit conflicts...must use preview must use preview must use preview...) Equazcion •✗/C • 03:30, 6 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks.  HWV258  03:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at today's history [2] I think semi-protection would be justified. If Antandrus feels he shouldn't do it as an involved party, perhaps we should ask someone else? Any good faith IP editors are welcome to put their case here, and indeed to sign on and join the project, but we don't need the disruption. --Kleinzach 07:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protect Handel to keep him British (see above), excuse me: English? Poor England. We are not the German Wikipedia, where nearly everything is semi-protected. --UPH (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No, semi-protect to encourage genuine would-be contributors to sign on and go through a proper editorial procedure instead of merely delivering 20-second point attacks on article. (PS UPH: please indent.) --Kleinzach 05:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Too hasty

For reference sake, here is an exchange that happened at User_talk:Kleinzach today:

Hi. Could you please undo the edit you just made here.
That discussion was only 11 days ago, and the issue is still relevant.
There is no need to save space on the talk page, and there is no need
to rush the archive of that discussion. Thanks.  HWV258  03:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


  Pls post this to the relevant talk page.
  You can always reopen a topic. --Kleinzach 04:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


    You decided to move the discussion to an archive, so I'm asking you why.
    What are your criteria for archiving discussions?  HWV258  04:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This exchange was then deleted by Kleinzach with this edit. The original reason for the deletion of the section from this page therefore remains unanswered.
My post here is to warn the Handelian community to now be vigilant against the unilateral actions by this editor. Archiving threads from a short page such as this after only eleven days—for Heaven's sake, what is going on? Do we really have to be that neat and tidy? Perhaps if we kept some of these threads longer, we'd provide other editors with reasons not to repeat the types of edits that plague this page.
 HWV258  05:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The name again

In a recent German publication (Sandberger, W. Der erste große Europäer. DAMALS Vol. 41, 4/2009, p. 74) it is said that Handel adopted the name of "George Frederic Handel" upon naturalisation, which would concur with the frequently used spelling of Frederick. There has already been a discussion on the name here (see Archive 1), so I wonder if this new source would justify a page move? De728631 (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't know precisely what their evidence is, but the form used in the Act of parliament naturalising him was definitely Frideric, viz http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_publications_and_archives/parliamentary_archives/handel_and_naturalisation.cfm David Underdown (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, great find. I suppose that says it all. De728631 (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't hard to find - it was already being used as a reference in the article here... David Underdown (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Handel works navbox

I've removed this from the top right corner (for the second time). Navboxes are never put in the main position on biographies. Template:Handel is for operas title articles (now oratorios and cantatas as well). It's overkill to put it here, especially as It doesn't represent the whole of Handel's production. Thank you for your understanding. --Kleinzach 06:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

New files

Recently the files below were uploaded and they appear to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think they would be a useful addition, please feel free to include any of them.

• 
  By Balthasar Denner, 1726-1728
• 
  By Francis Kyte, 1742
• 
  By Thomas Hudson, 1756
• 
  By unknown author, 1740s

Dcoetzee 13:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The first one is used (unattributed) in Template:Handel. --Kleinzach 05:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so I see. No need for attribution. :-) Dcoetzee 05:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Händel wasn't English - he was a German working in England

Otherwise would all the British/American painters/writers working in France during the late 19th century be French!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.11.165 (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the Swedish wikipedia he's German! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.11.165 (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

"The major opera composer in England in the early 18th century, however, was not an Englishman but a German" http://student.britannica.com/comptons/article-205944/opera —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.11.165 (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The existing formulation is fine. Handel was born a German and became a Briton. On the logic above, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Allbright are all various types of Europeans, not Americans. They too took a nationality different to that of their birth. So did GFH.

--Cardicam (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Many of these sorts of cases are fairly tricky, but since Handel apparently moved to England permanently and, according to the article, "[became] a naturalized subject of the British crown", his case seems clear enough: he was in some sense English. TheScotch (talk) 09:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"How Handel played the markets"

I just noticed this link: How Handel played the markets. It's an aspect of his life that's not very well known, and a couple of sentences might be in order in the article. I guess more references might be nice. Anyhow, I put the link here as a record (and for an interesting read). Cheers.  HWV258  04:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"Did lead poisoning affect his music?"

The Science Show on ABC radio recently broadcast a program entitled George Frideric Handel - did lead poisoning affect his music?. Perhaps something from there could make it into the main article at some stage. Another interesting listen if nothing else.  HWV258  04:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Handel's Duel"

Handel was in a duel in 1704. Why is this not mentioned?? Research and report immediately.

76.110.13.87 (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Tina

Sorry my report wasn't quite immediate, but some information on the "duel" is located at Johann Mattheson. I agree that the information should make it's way onto Handel's page. I guess the problem is that the current article is fairly woeful and there are many parts that need rewriting and completing. Where to start?  HWV258  03:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Handel's reputation, relevance and music in current or popular culture?

Could a new section be added or the Legacy section extended to include the music, influence and reputation of George Frideric Handel today?

I came to this article to find out more about his music, relevance and reputation in modern culture.

His music is becoming more popular with many new recordings and performance. Also his work (arias/cantatas) feature well in popular classical compilations.

Stanley Kubrick used Handel's "Sarabande" from the Suite in D minor HWV 437 in various arrangements for his classic movie "Barry Lyndon".

Also Tuva Semmingsen sings Lascia Ch'Io Pianga (Rinaldo 1711 Opera) during the prologue of the film "Antichrist" by Lars von Trier and it is now becoming a popular download on iTunes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmollo (talk • contribs) 21:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Open to suggestions, however this article is about Handel himself, and probably shouldn't include a list of works detailing "relevance and reputation in modern culture". Perhaps a separate article for that information? Note that the popular use of the Sarabande is mentioned under HWV 437's article.  HWV258  22:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Maybe not a list or a separate article but more a short piece or sentence on how he and his music are perceived in modern/popular culture? I do not have the knowledge but it seems that his reputation is growing ever greater and it would be good to show that he is still relevant and important as is shown by the examples above. Could it read;

Handel's reputation is growing ever greater with his music appearing in major films such as Stanley Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" (1975) and Lars von Trier's "Antichrist" (2009) and classical music compilations by artists such as Sarah Brightman, Magdalena Kozena and Danielle de Niese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmollo (talk • contribs) 13:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, you could always be bold and insert your suggestion, but I suspect you might encounter resistance in adding Sarah Brightman's name to the article. The trouble is that using words such as "major" to describe the films you mention will be seen as subjective. Perhaps the way to approach this is to add the required references to the individual works, and then bring them out in an over-riding article (which could be referenced from the main article). If you send me a list of the references you feel are important, I will start to add them to the individual work articles (creating the articles if necessary). (Please remember to add your signature by placing the ~~~~ characters at the end of your post.)  HWV258  22:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes Sarah Brightman is going a little too far but the objective was to show Handel's continued popularity. Not sure how to proceed from here. I have yet to make any edits to articles myself. I normally make my point and hope someone will see fit to include it. Thank you all the same. Nmollo (talk) 09:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Some support

I dunno, but I've noticed that articles for classical composers are beginning to have each of their respective signatures. Whoever is doing this, I just want to say thanks, cause it adds something more to the article. Once again, thanks for your hard work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borninbronx10 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

--Kleinzach 23:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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.

• I added up to now one third (or seven references) in the article. I dont feel guilty, spoiling this article with my knowledge.Taksen (talk) 09:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

unsubscribe.  HWV258.  09:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'll consider it.  HWV258.  21:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"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)

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)

Can you please log in? Registration takes about two minutes. Tony (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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).

My "Who is adding this stuff?" was rhetorical. Tony (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"One day..."? As opposed to the time when Handel played and it wasn't on "a day"?  HWV258.  22:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

One can't help being shocked when living in "Sidney". (And that's from a "geographer"!)  HWV258.  20:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Agree with not referencing "Nazi Germany" in an article about Handel. Adjusted the caption accordingly.  HWV258.  08:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

There is this [3]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Is it still true or have things changed since 1972?Taksen (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

That discussion will eventually be archived here. Graham87 15:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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 [4] It is obvious he does not like me. Taksen (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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)

(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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

I arrived here via GF Handel's contribs list. The comments above seem very sensible. Tony (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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

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)

See: O. Deutsch, p. 818.Taksen (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

If anyone is interested, £20,000 in 1759 would be worth about £1,495,800 today.([5]) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

If not, I'll remove the category.  HWV258.  06:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

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)