This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Peter Warlock is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the ancient Celts and the modern day Celtic nations.
If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.CeltsWikipedia:WikiProject CeltsTemplate:WikiProject CeltsCelts articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Composers, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!ComposersWikipedia:WikiProject ComposersTemplate:WikiProject ComposersComposers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
I added a sentence aboout Warlock's rediscovery of the works of Thomas Whythorne, although, as I am not an expert on this topic, my addition probably appears hamfisted. Feel free to better work it into the article. --Roisterer09:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A commentator (I don't recall who) put it this way: His suicide was almost a musician's wish fulfillment: A composer (Warlock) murdering a music critic (Heseltine).Saxophobia00:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page has several images of warlock, and a photo would nicely enhance the wikipedia article. Clearly, the photographs are old; but have they passed into the public domain yet? I read on Wikipedia:Finding_images_tutorial that photos before 1923 are in the public domain, and since warlock died in 1930 there are obviously going to be some of these out there. --Starwed13:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The recent extension of this article by Brianboulton is marvellous.
For those whose English vocabulary doesn't cover the more obscure terms, would it be possible to work a wikilink to warlock into the lead, or into the name's 1st mention?
This is a brilliantly written and researched article, so good that it really makes me want to write something of similar quality (but I expect I shall fall short!)
I note Hestletine was born on 30th October, which has not been scheduled yet for Today's Featured Article. Would this be a suitable candidate Brian? (I know some FA writers don't really like having articles put on the front page). Rob (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Abbey Theatre in the photo in this article is NOT the Abbey Theatre that existed during Warlock's lifetime. The theatre company has moved at least once, maybe twice, since 1930, and the building in the photo is jarringly out of synch with everything else on the page. It would be great if someone could replace the current photo with one of the Abbey Theatre of the 1920s (I'd do it myself, but I don't know how to). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.110.216.193 (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I considered tinkering with the added infobox to remove the irrelevant information included in it. However, on further consideration I believe that, as this article obtained FA status (the highest classification possible for a WP article), no infbox should be added without a formal justification and evdience that it improves the article. In the present case I believe that it in fact diminished the article, not least because it was an assorted ragbag of information which distracted rather than informed; the relevant information it contained is all in the initial sentences of the lead. I cannot personally conceive how any infobox can in any way improve this excellent article. I have therefore reverted it.--Smerus (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Smerus is *not* bullshitting - unlike you, Andy, he has given cogent reasons for his edit, and to his credit he did 'try on' the infobox and so confirmed that it has no legitimate place here. Alfietucker (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, the only one I can see bullshitting here is you. Worse - while Smerus has explained his objection, you are imposing the infobox for no stated reason whatsoever. I agree with Smerus, as the infobox format - clearly a handy reference tool for such as rock groups and vital statistics of bombs - is almost useless for someone as multifaceted as Philip Heseltine/Peter Warlock. As it is, the one you've insisted on imposing on the article is full of quotidian irrelevances such as place of birth and place of burial, rather than germane information. Even the one really useful piece of information it contains (ie approaching a summary of who he was) - "Composer and Music Critic" - does far less than justice to the range of his activities (journal editor? music editor?). The rest is nerdish junk which tells us nothing about his essence or his importance to English music.
Edit conflicts have delayed me posting this, and I see Gerda Arendt has since posted. Maybe either Arendt or you can give cogent justification for the infobox, or - better - demonstrate how it can be improved and made both more genuinely informative and less (quoting Smerus) "an assorted ragbag of information which distracted rather than informed". Unless that happens I shall have no hesitation in removing it. Alfietucker (talk) 10:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, you are either being obtuse or disingenuous. a) Why else would be you bang on about Smerus's typo and 'sic'-ing it, as if it were relevant to your point; b) Smerus quite clearly said "I believe", and clearly wasn't referring to an "official policy". You appear to be raising a strawman - I would be more impressed if you actually took the time to reply to Smerus's and my points against the infobox rather than resort to such diversionary tactics. Alfietucker (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please leave the level of edit war and POV, look at the proposed infobox and talk about its flaws and merits? My comments: I don't think we need the years of birth and death of his children, nor the names of his parents (with no article), and dropped those, also switched to European date format. I believe that the infobox helps a reader who meets this article by chance to find out if he is interested in reading further. - I would be curious. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to put a fine point on it, Pigsonthewing/Andy is edit-warring, and if there's any further instances of this I shall have no hesitation in reporting it.
Meanwhile, can anyone explain why we need Warlock's final resting place in the infobox - how is this germane to his career? Ditto, that his "alma mater" was University College London, given that his studies there had nothing to do with his subsequent career. And can anyone explain how the infobox might be fixed to address the points I've raised above? Alfietucker (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can talk about parameters, but please keep in mind that the infobox is not the place to summarize "him", but only (modestly) "facts". I would be interested in his university, even if the studies were not related to his career. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, you may personally be interested in Warlock's university, but presumably this is meant to be an encyclopedic article, and if we are going to have a 'crib card' such as the infobox we should be prioritizing much more germane information: i.e. what is Warlock noteworthy for? Alfietucker (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I may speak for a reader in general. "Known for" is a debatable subjective matter, while where he studied (which also shows that he studied) is a fact. I don't know what a crib card is (every now and then I need to say that English is not my first language), but know that I regard an infobox as something like a title page for a book. Imagine a reader who has no idea of the subject. The data on birth and death, nicely together, show him at a glance that we deal with a person born in England in the 19th century. It takes the article a while to even get to the word "Anglo". Just an example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, the fact he 'studied' is of some interest, of course, but in Warlock's case it's hardly germane in that he didn't study music there so I don't think it actually belongs in the infobox. As to the article getting to the word "Anglo", it does so in the first sentence, doesn't it? (This is not to dispute, of course, that we should have his place of birth and death in the infobox if we're to have one.) Alfietucker (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it looks like no more than dolled-up birth and death dates/places/causes, none of which is really germane to who Warlock was. Let's start from basics - why do you think we need an info box? What purpose does it serve? Alfietucker (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, I've read your "general thoughts", and the argument seems to boil down to a) info boxes are a desirable part of Wikipedia's identity: i.e. they're to be a 'generic' and expected feature of Wikipedia articles; b) they enable a reader to 'compare and contrast'. It seems weird, then, that one of the arguments you present (has having swayed you) suggested the infobox shouldn't include Beethoven's 'period', since that surely is one area we can 'compare and contrast' (forgive my paraphrasing - I know that's not what is literally being said). I see that the article on Peter Paul Rubens (to take an artist's article) does precisely that, as well as listing artists who influenced him and whom he influenced. Do you think this should perhaps apply to composers as well, rather than the mostly useless quotidian information that was being proposed for Warlock's infobox?
In short, I guess I'm not against infoboxes in principle, provided a) they are demonstrably appropriate and informative, and not just there because they 'have' to be there (otherwise they become at best generic 'space fillers' and at worst idiotic irrelevances); b) there is sufficient consensus among editors involved in the relevant pages to introduce them. Certainly, I am wary of any 'global' policy which might impose infoboxes without at least some sensitive adaptation to the subject-matter of each entry, which IMO should be by those editors who have more than passing knowledge of the subject. Alfietucker (talk) 13:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know that the parameters on "influence" were just removed from {{infobox person}}? (I had voted "keep".) DYK ... that I stop asking for an infobox if a principal author doesn't like it? (See Benjamin Britten FAC.) DYK ... that this series of reverts had been more convincing if the principal author had been part of it? - The basic infobox I suggested here is a starting point. If we (whoever that is) agree on these parameters we can talk about adding others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "principle author" in the Warlock case. What I object to is that Pigsonthewing/Andy is clearly in breach of WP:BRD by reverting twice and failing to discuss anything, instead attempting to smear Smerus's position as 'bullshitting' (which hardly suggests goodwill on Andy's part). I'm glad to know you're not taking an unbending party line, but still, as far as I'm concerned the box had better be demonstrably useful and accepted by consensus of editors here before it is imposed. Alfietucker (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In an FA, the principal author is easy to find out by looking at the talk page and look who proposed it for FA, in this case Brianboulton. It's less clear in other cases. The question if the one should have special "rights" is a different one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to have respect for people who have done a deal to improve an article, but I'm not into ownership - I tend to take ideas/improvements on their own merits, regardless of their provenance. Alfietucker (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"clearly in breach of WP:BRD"? Go and report me for that, then - but do read it first. The bad will is in the bullshitting, and the associated behaviour, not the highlighting of it. And in the use of pejorative phrases like "imposed". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits16:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, we might get somewhere, and with a bit more goodwill, if you'd try to engage in discussion (ie answer points raised about the article and the infobox) rather than hurling insults and accusations at fellow editors. And yes, I read WP:BRD quite some time ago: you were in breach of it when you made a second revert of the same material without engaging in discussion. Alfietucker (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you've breached BRD, as I've also indicated in this thread you've started here. I really suggest you stop digging and start collaborating with your fellow editors. Alfietucker (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Returning to Gerda's request for a discussion of the "flaws and merits" of the proposed infobox, the difficulty lies in matching the general purpose of infoboxes to this specific type of subject. An infobox is supposed to contain the key facts about a subject, for the convenience of casual readers and for those who it is believed may be persuaded to read further. I have no particular quarrel with that as a general aim. The difficulty is that the "key facts" about Warlock (and other composers, for that matter), apart from bare information on dates, birthplace and nationality, tend not to fit the formulaic presentation required in an infobox. Broadly, the most important information about Warlock is that he was a British composer who used a pseudonym, that he was almost entirely self-taught as a composer and as a musicologist, that he was influenced at times by, among others, Delius, Van Dieren and Elizabethans such as Dowling (though he came to reject Delius in time, and the extent of some of the other influences is debatable), that he fashioned an individualistic musical style from these influences, almost exclusively with small-scale works, that he made a significant scholarly contribution to the study of early English music, and perhaps that he led a notably dissolute private life and probably committed suicide. Most of these details are not of a kind that can be fitted into an infobox without misleading simplifications. So we are left with the basic stuff, or with unimportant trivia (such as his "alma mater", what a joke!). It is hard to see how such a minimalist box could be of much help to this much trumpeted "casual reader", who would get a much better snapshot of the subject by turning his/her eyes left and reading the lead. Brianboulton (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To my understanding, the infobox is not supposed to contain "the key facts" about a subject, but only "key facts", - a little difference with consequences. I have compared an infobox to a title page of a book which also can't possibly contain "the key facts" about its content. I think the basic infobox shown would serve that purpose. I reader coming to the article by chance can see at a glance the time and location of the topic, as in an opera he would be told where and when the action takes place. Here he would see in addition a pseudonym and early death, raising curiosity. For me, that would be enough reasons to have it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The WP infobox project wording is: "a quick and convenient summary of the key facts about a subject" (emphasis added). Your basic infoboxes shown give bare factual information, some of it far from "key". It is not key information that he was born in a hotel, or that he was buried in Godalming (as are both my parents, incidentally). The "alma mater" information is wholly misleading; he dropped out of Oxford after a year, and left UCL after a single term. Neither of these student periods had any relevance to his musical career. Even the "cause of death" misses the most significant aspect: that the poisoning may have been self-inflicted. What we're left with is his name, pseudonym, dates and places of birth and death (London in each case). You get a lot more than that from reading the short first paragraph of the lead.
The problem, Gerda, is that in articles such as this, beyond the bare essentials of dates etc the "key facts" are not susceptible to summarisation in the constrained infobox format. However hard you try by inventing new parameters, you will end up adding trivia, or information that is either half-baked or misleading. It is not your fault that "one size doesn't fit all", but there it is. What you're left with is the argument that articles should have infoboxes because they "look right", even if they contain minimal information. I don't actually think this is a bad argument; there is something to be said for uniformity in article presentation, and we insist on it in other aspects of formatting. So I would not object in principle to a Warlock infobox that was limited to name, pseudonym, dates and places of birth and death, his nationality, profession and nothing else. It wouldn't be particularly useful, but it would fulfil the uniformity criterion. However, would it be allowed to remain like that? Isn't it likely that before we knew where we were, editors would be adding any snippets of information they could, including coordinates for his grave probably? Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You managed to amuse me, thank you! (I needed it, badly.) I suggest we try it, reverting is easy if the coordinates of his grave show up ;) - You could replace the Hotel by City of Westminster. - You do it, please, I don't enjoy the "disruption" label, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pleased to have amused you, but it would be premature to add the minimal infobox at this moment. Let us defer any experiment until times are a little less volatile. Also, I want to try something else out: watch this space over the next couple of days. Brianboulton (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understand ;) - A "key aspect" of the subject's being was introduce, not by me: "male". I don't believe we have to show it in a symbol in this case where it seems pretty obvious from the picture. I hope there is a way to have it but not show it, and if not, let's find a way. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why was Heseltine exempt from military service? As far as I can tell, the first mention of his exemption in the article is, "In February 1916 Heseltine returned to London, ostensibly to clarify his exemption from military service," which suggests that the fact of the exemption was already explained. Neelix (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A fair enough point. The wording has been altered (not by me) to "ostensibly to argue for exemption from military service", which I think is a decent summary. The government's conscription bill was going through parliament at the time, which provided a plausible reason for Heseltine to return to London, although the real reason was to get away from Lawrence and his circle. Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This will probably have been fixed by the time I've typed this, but there is an "and and" in the New friends and acquaintances section. It's a quote, so perhaps it's in the original, but I can't check.
143.117.198.147 (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have no information as to who "Nigel Jackson" is, or whether he has published his idea
The use of the name "Peter Warlock" and the given description appear in the book "A Charming Fellow" (1876),by Frances Eleanor Trollope, as can be seen here
Yes I agree, I see a Nigel Jackson has commented on some Warlock-related sites, but this doesn't appear to be from a published article/journal/book as far as I can see, so as this is an FA I have removed this. Rob (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Peter Warlock. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Nikkimaria Significance? A film was made of his life. That is more than significant; it's notable. There are literally hundreds of articles on subjects that list films (or portrayals in media) in a Popular Culture Section : Parker [1], Warhol [2], Liberace [3], Lewis [4], Hepburn [5], etc, etc, etc. This is standard practice at WP. What isn't standard practice is blindly reverting a source content with an edit summary not backed by WP policy: "significance?". Bring it to the Talk Page if you have a question; not the edit summary. It is a significant inclusion as supported by a previous editor's inclusion under External links: Voices at IMDb. I am reinstating. Do not revert unless you gain consensus here. Maineartists (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is usually unwise to add a whole section to a Featured Article without first securing consensus to do so on the article talk page. I'd support deleting the addition. This 1969 film was known about when the article was promoted to FA but no reviewer thought it worthwhile mentioning. The film itself has no Wikipedia article - a distinction achieved mainly by films of the utmost unimportance. It was never shown in the cinema, according to the cited sources, but only on American television, and the cited source mentions its "ludicrous misrepresentations" and dismisses it as a laughable travesty. The answer to Nikkimaria's question "Significance?" is plainly "zero", in my view. I do not think we would be doing our readers any favours by mentioning this film. Tim riley talk07:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley I couldn't disagree with you more on all grounds. Simply because the film has no WP article, does not disqualify its significance or reason for inclusion. WP works on sources, not wikilinks. Furthermore, your defense to delete is strictly personal based on what you deem to be "quality". What you are actually describing is what would make up a reception section - very common. WP does not base inclusion on praise by critics only. Lastly WP does not work on personal preference or "thinking" as to what a reader would like or not like. WP is not in the business of selling newspapers with content that appeals to customers' likes and dislikes. The examples given, which are endlessly found across WP, are not included based on personal preference, quality, critical praise, etc; but because this is an encyclopedia and they are fact. Plain and simple. But in keeping with your view of how content should be added: the above editor removed the link to "Find a Grave" under External Links; something that is commonly found across the board in WP articles for BPs. No reason. Just removal. However, there is an image under Death that shows an unmarked grave plot: "Foreground. The unmarked grave plot, Nightingale cemetery Godalming". If we are to use your method for inclusion, and the editor's reasoning for removal, this is also: "zero". To include: "Philip Heseltine was buried alongside his father at Godalming cemetery on 20 December 1930" and find it "significant" and not a film made about his life, is to compare apples to apples. In keeping, what is the "significance" for including Warlock's own epitaph: " Here lies Warlock the composer. Who lived next door to Munn the grocer. He died of drink and copulation, A sad discredit to the nation"? One might say this is mere "filler" and certainly "trivial". No "significance". But that's not how an encyclopedia works. If you do not think the film mentioned merits its own section, then place it somewhere else within the article: legacy. In my estimation, this entire article is undue weight focused on praise only for a composer hardly anyone knows or plays anymore. But that is no reason to not have an article on him. Maineartists (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The main author of this article, the late Brian Boulton, had more than 100 featured articles to his credit, Nikkimaria has been a key contributor to countless FAC reviews and I have taken more than 40 articles to FAC. We are not unacquainted with or clueless about quality articles. You are of course entitled to contrary views, but I don't think it is necessary to lecture us at length, as you do above. I suggest we leave the thread open for a few days lest a consensus build up to keep the new section, failing which it can safely be deleted, I'd say. Tim riley talk14:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether or not a "popular culture" section is appropriate, it is certainly not appropriate to create a brand new section for a single item, particularly on a heavily vetted FA. Notice my emphasis of "single"; the item would be more fitting in the "legacy" section, if anywhere. However, since the film itself does not have a WP article, I find myself leaning towards total exclusion. Aza24 (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gor1995 since the discussion on my talk page I have now been to Nightingale Cemetery and taken a series of photos of the surroundings of the grave and detailed ones of it. I hope to upload them to commons in the next week. If a future photographer wanted to take clearer images of the inscriptions it might help to take water to wet them.SovalValtos (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
