Talk:George Frideric Handel/Archive 4

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: 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 &#9836; 22:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.


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

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)

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)

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)

Birth date
Is the birth date given for Handel in the Gregorian or Julian calendar? Jc3s5h (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 &#9836; 21:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)

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)

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)

Mini-infobox
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)


 * Oppose The only things that are needed are the signature and the picture. It repeats the information from the lead. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 22:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Infoboxes are a great way to introduce basic information about anyone, particularly to the casual reader.   Montanabw (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as redundant - the relevant information is in the lead of the article and the relevant metadata is largely provided by persondata (although that template does need improvement). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Follow the disussion on WP Opera page, where consensus, for opera articles, would appear to agree with my view. Viva-Verdi (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

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)
 * 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)


 * 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 . That is not the same thing. Voceditenore (talk) 06:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Oppose – The proposal lacks a compelling rationale; "combine two pictures"? RLY? Also: that infobox is a massive fail. These boxes are meant to be navigational aides; this one overwhelms the reader with more than 150 works. It's always harder to present information in a concise meaningful way; that's why these sausage factory-made infoboxes so often fail. We already have list of compositions by George Frideric Handel and Category:Compositions by George Frideric Handel. What happens to this infobox when we get articles on all his cantatas? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Support per '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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Canvassed? May the educated reader judge if this conversation mentioning my salad days was canvassing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Oppose Per similar Robert Stoepel, Peter Planyavsky, Johann Sebastian Bach and Richard Wagner debates. I am not against infoboxes per se, only biographical boxes, which act as trivia magnets, distorting the information they are supposed to be summarising. Instead of making boxes, let's make an encyclopedia! Hey ho, drum roll and exits. -- Klein zach  07:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I repeat my invitation for you to create a centralised RfC on the prohibition of biographical infoboxes, and the removal of the many tens of thousands currently used across Wikipedia with with community consensus. Otherwise, I note that this discussion page is for the discussion of the single related article, not infoboxes in general, albeit that they are part of the encyclopedia.. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, nothing in this infobox that is not just as easily or more easily taken in from the lead sentence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Dubious statements in lead
The lead currently states about Handel's operas : "the public came to hear the vocal bravura of the soloists rather than the music". Maybe some of them did, maybe some people still go to the opera for that reason, but it cannot be proven that every single person who went to Handel's Italian operas did not go to hear the music, in fact there are many contemporary references and comments in diaries etc about how wonderful the music of Handel's operas were. I am removing that clause. Also it says "In 1737 he had a physical breakdown, changed direction creatively and addressed the middle class." In fact, there being no copyright in those days, an unauthorized performance of the 1718 English language masque "Esther" was put on in 1731 and when Handel saw that it was very popular, he revised the work into an oratorio and when he saw that there was a large audience for such works he composed more of them. I don't think he consciously "addressed the middle class" and that statement needs some sort of citation from the composer himself (I am sure there isn't one). Also I think making a link between a health crisis, a change of direction and "addressing the middle class" is extremely dubious, however I will not change that right now and see if anyone else comments.Smeat75 (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody has commented for months so I am going to remove that sentence. I don't think there is any connection between his health problems in 1737 and composing more choral works instead of operas and I don't think he consciously "changed direction creatively and addressed the middle class" either. Those highly dubious statements would need to be backed up by reliable sources. I don't like this sentence in the lead either " Handel was only partly successful with his performances of English oratorio on mythical and biblical themes, but when he arranged a performance of Messiah to benefit London's Foundling Hospital (1750) the criticism ended". What does it mean, only partly successful? Not every piece was a huge hit, no, but he produced a string of masterpieces which were performed as commercial ventures and made him extremely wealthy. What is the "criticism" referred to that "ceased" with the benefits for the Foundling Hospital? I am removing that sentence also.Smeat75 (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Handel's New Style Birthday
His New Style birthday would be March 5th. Please don't object to this. Cancina5645 (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Well, two editors objected to my edits, and they are common sense edits. You people do not have common sense. I will stop promoting my edits unless as many as four other editors object to it, not just two. Cancina5645 (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

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)
 * The English version of his name does not have the umlaut. See:
 * Handel's own signature in his (779 KB]).
 * GFHandel . 21:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * GFHandel . 21:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Why can you give an answer without knowing German? In German Händel is pronounced the same as Hendel. German Ä is [ɛ], the sound sound in the English word "head". There is not different between ä and short e in German. "Band" is pronounced [æ], this sound doesn't exist in German. --2.245.90.48 (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Handel's birthday

 * Well, after "Antandrus", "Hegvald", and "GraemeLeggett", and now me who agrees with them, we have a consensus of four editors who agree with the interpretation of 23 February per The Grove Dictionary of Opera, the standard reference work on opera. I have added that reference to the article.
 * User talk: Carcana5645 needs to be aware of the THREE REVERT RULE if he/she reverts again today, since his/her revert edits have been made at 8:47, 12:17, and 13:10 on 22 November 2014. Viva-Verdi (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * See Edit warring.

Cancina, please read the advice Opus33, DoctorJoeE, and I have given to you in this section on the Haydn talk page a few months ago. It's not just the birthdate, which contradicts just about every published source, it's the complete lack of references. You're making summary judgments and adding them to the end of paragraphs -- the kinds of statements that would be good in an essay on the topic, if you backed them up with references -- but they're inappropriate for Wikipedia. Please read WP:V and WP:RS and WP:OR before editing. This is critical. You state on your userpage rather baldly that original research is okay -- and by community consensus, which is how we operate here, it's not (except off of Wikipedia, where you are encouraged to do as much as you like). Antandrus (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Birthday again
Oh joy. Now someone has added an infobox, and the correct birthday, 23 February, was used. Then someone added the New Style Gregorian equivalent, 5 March. The same editor then changed the DoB in the infobox and in Persondata to that date, 5 March. My attempts to preserve the Gregorian date but show 23 February as his birthday in infobox and Persondata were then reverted. The rest of the world commemorates GFH's birthday on 23 February 1685 (even there), but his main article says it should be 5 March (and that article, correctly, doesn't). I'm going to wash my hair now. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to revert to your version, Michael. Note that Manual of Style/Dates and numbers uses the term "normally", not "must" for presenting the Gregorian date first and in fact states "Dates of events in countries using the Gregorian calendar at that time are given in the Gregorian calendar". Since presumably it was not in use where Handel was born, there's no reason to use the Gregorian date first. Like all recommendations, it needs to be treated with common sense, which clearly has not been the case here. Omnipaedista's insistence on using a date presentation which is contrary to all major reference works and is seriously misleading and confusing to the reader is inappropriate and against the consensus on this talk page. Handel's birthday is universally celebrated on 23 February. Voceditenore (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is clear consensus for the "Julian day first" version, so I withdraw my suggestion. By the way, should not the infobox be removed per WikiProject Composers? --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder why this never applies to Russian dates. They didn't convert to Gregorian till 1918 (!), but we always show pre-1918 Russian dates in Gregorian first, with Julian in brackets or whatever.  For example, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky was born on 25 April 1840 (Julian; = 7 May Gregorian), but we always give pride of place to 7 May.  Not so for English and German dates prior to their change-overs.  Why?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  02:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox again

 * Consensus also seems to be in favor of an infobox template. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikiprojects don't get to override the Manual of Style without a project-wide consensus. No such consensus exists in the case of infoboxes and the guidance at Manual of Style/Infoboxes applies:
 * The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.
 * Please feel free to have the discussion, but please read first to avoid repeating generic arguments. --RexxS (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:INFOBOXUSE says "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." If the consensus among the editors of this article is to have an infobox template, I consider the matter settled. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus here either way. resulted in 6–5 opposing/supporting. Why that is read as "Support" eludes me. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * An infobox was added in the meantime and, besides me, no one removed it. This is something like de facto consensus in favor of it. We could open a new thread and rediscuss it though. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Source for Handel's birthday?
All of this has confused me quite a bit. Can I ask what the source is for 23rd Feb being an old style, Julian calendar date? Handel was born in Saxony in 1685 and some but not all of Germany had been using the Gregorian calendar already (see here: http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/julian-gregorian-switch.html) so if 23rd February has traditionally been given as his date it may well be a new style date unless Handel's region had not yet adopted the new calendar or the date was given based on the British use of the Julian calendar. 31.205.1.103 (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The table at the link you mention is quite incomplete. Gregorian calendar and de:Gregorianischer Kalender show that the Gregorian Calendar was introduced in 1700 in the German Protestant states, which Halle was, be it as part of Brandenburg, or Prussia, or most immediately, the Archbishopric and Duchy of Magdeburg. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Still, what source are we using that gives 23rd February as his birthday in Old Style? 31.205.1.103 (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Look at the article and you'll see ref #3. It is Grove. Viva-Verdi (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see that, but I'd like to be able to read it for myself and "Hicks, in Grove 1998, p. 614" doesn't provide me enough info to know how to access it. 31.205.1.103 (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * . Subscription required to read full article, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Standardly formatted in Grove, we have:
 * "Handel,[with two alternative spellings of that name] George Frideric (b Halle, 23 Feb 1685; d London, 14 April 1759).

That's it. Viva-Verdi (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

infobox
I have been looking at famous composers, Bach, Vivaldi, Mozart, Beethoven ect.

and Handel is the only one to get an infobox

Guidelines: WikiProject_Composers

I am not saying the infobox needs to go, but it might be an idea for consistency (Fdsdh1 (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC))


 * Have you looked at the discussions for Beethoven amd Bach? If consistency is important, look at Michelangelo and Palladio, Peter Planyavsky and Philip Glass. Perhaps engage in a more general discussion at Reversions regarding the guideline from 2010. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Before swallowing what is said at those non-binding "guidelines", please see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS; and note that this article is of interest to six WikiProjects, not one of which has sole custody of it. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

well I'd be just as happy with all composers getting an infobox I was just saying it seemed a little strange (Fdsdh1 (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC))

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:. 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) 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 &#9836; 22:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 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).

• Handel was made a British subject. Surely if we call Lully a French composer (despite being Italian by birth and then made a French subject in his 30s) then we ought regard Handel as a German-born British composer at least. And sorry for being a Johnny-come-lately in this dscussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.71.233 (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Händel wasn't an English composer. He didn't even speak the language. All his notes were in German. He was a German composer who spent most of his life in Britain, that's all. --2003:70:CF42:9D78:C56D:226:AB28:1C31 (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Umlaut
I see that a bot in the Commons automatically changes the Handel category to Händel. I know in German his name is with an umlaut, but not in English. So is this right? -- kosboot (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Which Handel category is that? I don't see any umlaut here. Do you somehow mean his father? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is the history of one of the files I uploaded yesterday: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ACover_of_Drexel_5856.jpg&type=revision&diff=183378794&oldid=183359182 - the bot changed George Frideric Handel to Georg Friedrich Händel'. - kosboot (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. That's a question for Commons - they have their own Cats over there. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

NOT a British composer!
Sorry folks, but Händel wasn't a British composer, he was a German composer who spent a long time of his life in Britain. Or would you say that Gioachino Rossini - who spent most of his life in Paris - was a French composer? --2003:70:EE49:C230:4C50:AA69:A4FC:CA05 (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't care about nationalities, in general, even less so for historic people who didn't live in today's nations. There was no Germany when Handel lived, and no Italy when Rossini lived. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah there was a Germany. The place were the German people reside is Germany, always has been. Also Händel was purely German ethnically and absolutely NOT british. 178.24.247.13 (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * So far as I know Rossini was never naturalised as a French subject, so your comparison is invalid. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  16:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Date of birth on tomb at Westminster Abbey
An IP added this sentence: "Handel's grave contains a typo, stating he was born in 1684 instead of 1685". As the website for Westminster Abbey says: "His gravestone in the south transept reads:"GEORGE FREDERIC HANDEL BORN YE 23 FEBRUARY 1684 DIED YE 14 OF APRIL 1759"...The date of his birth inscribed on the stone is not a mistake but is due to the fact that the new year in England at this period did not begin on 1 January but on 25 March (Lady Day). Therefore, to the contemporary Englishman, Handel was born in February 1684, as the year 1685 would not have begun until 25 March." So I have removed the sentence added by the IP.Smeat75 (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * But he wasn't born in England. Did Sachsen (I guess his city of birth was Halle, which today is located in the German country Sachsen-Anhalt) use the same calendar ? Boeing720 (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Correct birth date is 23. Februar 1685 (Julian Calender, which according to German Wikipedia still was in use in Halle during this year. In the Gregorian Calendar does that date correspond to 5. March 1685 (also according to https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Friedrich_H%C3%A4ndel#Leben ) Boeing720 (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Confirmed by Grove Music Online: "b Halle, 23 Feb 1685". We could mention this confusion in the Later years section. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Our global perspective
This great composer is widely around the word known by the name Georg Friedrich Händel, the name he also was babtised to. The "Britification" of his name is close to sacrilege, even though he moved to London ! The used soures are poor and bias. And his grave stone was hardly written by himself, was it ? It's also incorrect to label him as German. Germany didn't exist before 1871. "Native speaker of the German language is better". But I have only changed the name (and frankly don't know how to change the article name). Boeing720 (talk) 03:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of articles on Handel (category) so a formal discussion on changing the name would be desirable before making some changes (diff). The reference on the current text has some explanatory notes that make a good case. Also see archive4, and there are earlier archives. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I can agree to the latter. I got upset. Sorry. But I've got two old LP's with "Händel" stated on, and I've never seen "Handel" (and it's wrong spelling also in English. The "Ä"-letter in German (and Swedish) is pronounced much more close to an "E" (as "e" in e mphatic or e xtra) than an "A", atleast in the case of Händel. And perhaps the Dano-Norwegian counterpart to the Ä-letter actually reveal it's pronounciation better - "Æ" (which also has status as a letter in the Latin alphabet). I suggest we change the article name as he was babtised to, and then add that in England his name was just as you spell it (including his stone in Westninster Abbey) Boeing720 (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The article in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, (a preeminent reference work in this field) has the title  Handel [Händel, Hendel], George Frideric [Georg Friederich] . This confirms that the usual English spelling is "George Frideric Handel". Also, Germany did exist before 1871, see History of Germany. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The History of Germany article which opens with the line "The concept of Germany as a distinct region in central Europe can be traced to Roman commander Julius Caesar ..." ...? I believe he was active several months before 1871. T85.166.160.7 (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you mentally ill? There were no Germans? Of course there were Germans, it's an ethnic group not bound to a piece of paper. We are not americans or brits. 178.24.247.13 (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Frideric Handel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140726104139/http://www.handelhouse.org/discover/george-frideric-handel/opera-synopses/arianna-in-creta to http://www.handelhouse.org/discover/george-frideric-handel/opera-synopses/arianna-in-creta

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

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)


 * I have put in a short explanation (the whole story is not backed by any evidence).Smeat75 (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on George Frideric Handel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090130044046/http://gfhandel.org/composition.htm to http://gfhandel.org/composition.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130924012912/http://gfhandel.org/43to100.html to http://www.gfhandel.org/43to100.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Revival of his Operas
I don't think the article says nearly enough about the modern revival of Handel's operas. I will give the picture as it seems to me, but I realise that it is inadequate and very doubtfully accurate, and hope that somebody with more accurate knowledge and good technical musical knowledge will add a better account to the article.

Up till about 1960 it was very rarely that one of his operas was performed anywhere in the world. Hardly anybody ever seemed to have heard one, including the authors of histories of music etc. By the anniversary year of 2009, however, the BBC was able to broadcast pretty well all of them, and they are now fairly frequently performed in Britain and elsewhere. I believe that much of the credit for this should go to the Handel Opera Society, operating against the background of the revived interest in old music. The development of the counter-tenor voice, as a substitute for castrati, was important; also the revival of the practice of ornamentation, which gave interest to otherwise boring passages of da capo reprises. (I have known music lovers bored by Isobel Baillie singing Messiah without ornaments.) Thus people everywhere realised what marvellous music and drama these works provided.

Incidentally, I think one reason why he gave up opera was the Bishop of London forbidding their performance. Seadowns (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The articles on the individual operas discuss modern revivals to a limited extent, perhaps more could be included here. The Bishop of London forbade stories from the Bible being staged, which led to the creation of Handel's dramatic oratorios, but operas were never forbidden.Smeat75 (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I just fixed typo "nave" to "have" in Talk. Good luck to somebody editing any part of this document. It seems to me that what is the cause of the problems are time-line based and are usually because the original data itself was bad. How do the editors suggest that can be improved? Thanks for the hard work people. I know much more than I used to know. hhhobbit (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Frideric Handel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205130722/http://www.haendelhaus.de/en/ to http://www.haendelhaus.de/en

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Quality of English
Portions of this article look as if they have not been written by a native English speaker. The spelling of Handel's name is inconsistent: Handel or Händel? The spelling is also inconsistent (British / American). Given that this is a topic related to Great Britain, the article should be written with British spelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.48.80 (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Religion
It seems quite important to Handel's works. Curious as to why it hasn't been included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.215.193 (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Possible because the Anglican Church is default in England? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Halle-upon-Saale
I suggest we just say he was born in Halle, with a link to Halle (Saale). With a link, there's no confusion about which Halle is meant, while Halle-upon-Saale suggest something in England. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Would it have been called "Halle an der Saale" when he was born? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The Halle in question is by far the largest so named city or town in Germany, and quite well known. It dates from the Ninth Century and has a population of 230,000. Sca (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

'Frideric'
Since when is George Frederick Handel known in English as "George Frideric Handel" – and why? – Sca (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty often actually, since say the last 20-30 years. Blame the bloody Germans (and Dutch), international record companies and political correctness. Our bio is George Frideric Handel. Eg, I'm looking at a random vinyl from 1982 that uses it (Phillips). It is how he signed, at least in England, though his birth register says Friedrich, which the Germans use. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I've been listening to classical music for decades and never encountered this Eng.-lang. spelling before. Since the given name was the German Friedrich, the standard English equivalent of which is Frederick (as in Frederick Barbarossa, Frederick the Great, Frederick Nietzsche, etc.), 'Frideric' - unlike Frederick, not a common Eng.-lang. name – seems quite illogical and and counter-intuitive. – Sca (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a bit late to point that out to him. But there are lots of contemporary pop singers you might try to lobby in similar terms. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Still waiting to hear the rationale or reason for "Frideric," virtually unknown in English. Sca (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "Frideric" is standard. That's the way the New Grove renders it. So does Britannica. We go with what standard music reference works use. There are other spellings, but "Frideric" predominates in the scholarly literature (as a quick search of JSTOR confirms) Antandrus (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Now, the standard here in Wikipedia seems to be something else: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Ludwig van Beethoven, Franz Schubert, Johann Sebastian Bach, Joseph Haydn, Robert Schumann, Richard Wagner, Johannes Brahms ... Only Händel has an anglicized fake name in Wikipedia. --Clibenfoart (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * How would you fakely anglicize Joseph Haydn, Robert Schumann, Richard Wagner? Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Something like "Robert Shoeman" or "John Haydn" would come to my mind. --Clibenfoart (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And every other international Wikipedia page also spells him Georg Friedrich Händel or Georg Friedrich Haendel. --Clibenfoart (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Presumably because that's what he's called in those countries. This Wikipedia uses what he's called in the English-speaking world. Simple. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would point out that the Commons:Category:Georg Friedrich Händel (and all sub-categories there) use Georg Friedrich Händel and not George Frideric Handel. Whichever is decided, please could someone synchronise the Commons category name with the article? It's terribly confusing. Thanks. Cnbrb (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? (We have many people who had different names in there life, - why not show?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Consistency. People having different names is best discussed and explained in an article. Varying names across Wiki projects and in different articles and categories is confusing to the reader.Cnbrb (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * In any case, I suggest the commenters, er, read the Wikipedia article, in particular the footnote in the very first sentence, which explains that GFH had several variant spellings of his name, depending on which country he was in; "From the time he arrived in England, however, he consistently signed his name as George Frideric Handel". Also, the image of Handel's signature - again, right at the start of the article - clearly shows Frideric. Sometimes the answers are right in front of you. Cnbrb (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

In English law, a person's legal name is the name he or she consistently uses. Since Handel was a (naturalised) British citizen, and lived in England for most of his life, and consistently used "George Frideric Handel" as his name, I cannot see any case for calling him anything else in an English-language article.

Many Germans insist that under German law, a birth name cannot be changed; I have no idea whether or not that is so or on what grounds they consider that a British citizen living in England was subject to German law. Sayitclearly (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Additionally, The first line is misleading - it should say German (and later //also// British) he had dual nationality, he was not British exclusively later on. He did not relinquish his German citizenship and spent time there throughout his life and was there even shortly before his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.205.58.146 (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Referene for that? Nationality wasn't the same then as now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Germany did not exist as a state at the time of Handel's birth. There were several independent German-speaking states (Prussia, Saxony, Bavaria, etc). There was no such thing as "German citizenship" at that time. Sayitclearly (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

changed direction creatively and addressed the middle class
Opera in the Italian language was written for the nobility. no doubt, not for the middle or lower class. Equality did not play a role. Please don't try to put your political correct views in the lead.Taksen (talk) 13:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It is you who is being 'politically correct'. Opera was enjoyed by the rising London middle classes as well as by the nobility. Perhaps you should imporve your understanding of English history, as well as that of the English language, before you seek to preach on English Wikipedia. Also try to undestand that statements in WP articles require sources, and that items in the lead should reflect the information in the article, not introduce additional material. Best, --Smerus (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

... changed direction creatively and addressed the middle class, comes from Christopher Hogwood. Taksen (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

In 1737 he had a physical breakdown, changed direction creatively, and addressed the middle class and made a transition to English choral works.

Year of birth
His baptismal registration (Marienbibliothek in Halle) was in 1685. There are no doubts about this year. The stone cutter in the Abbey made a mistake.Taksen (talk) 08:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen a facsimile, but the registration is described at www.haendelhaus.de, which says "in all probability 23 Feb 1685" (based on a symbol (♂ perhaps?) for Tuesday, the day before the 24th of the record, a Wednesday). This is the Julian calendar date, common to Britain and pre-1700 Halle, but the reckoning of New Year varied. Handel gave his age as 63 in the summer of 1748 (Solomon & Susanna) and would have been not yet a year old in summer 1685.  In Britain, this would have been just after the year's beginning, March 25, so it's debatable whether the stone cutters were mistaken. Sparafucil (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Changed the lead, having a bad chronology and of typical Wikipedian quality, too many repitition and too much detail. Besides his nationality is playing an exaggerated role. This is 21th century, not the 19th!Taksen (talk) 08:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion to block
Please block 71.209.218.218. He is not a registered Wikipedian and could be crazy.Taksen (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The appropriate place to express concern about someone else's state of mind would be User talk:71.209.218.218 rather than here, but please bear in mind WP:Assume good faith. If you take Old Style debates to WP:BLOCKREQUESTS they might not necessarily reach the correct decision about which of you is crazy.Sparafucil (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)