This is an archive of past discussions about Fanny Mendelssohn. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Her reputation has also been advanced by those researching female musical creativity, of which she is one of the relatively few noteworthy exemplars in the early 19th century for having relations with more than one-hundred people. What kind of relations? How does that relate to musical creativity? Mark111:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've just come across an edit which replaced "Fanny did not benefit from the same musical education and upbringing as her brother Felix. Felix enjoyed the opportunity of great music tutors, such as Carl Friedrich Zelter. Felix received much encouragement to compose, and make a career from music. Fanny, however, learned mostly on her own." with "Fanny shared the early musical education and upbringing of her younger brother Felix, including tuition from Carl Friedrich Zelter."
Possibly the latter is correct, but I don't think such a radical change should be done without a citation from a reputable source, let alone no citation whatsoever. Could one be provided, please? Alfietucker (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The latter is definitely correct and I will provide a citation.--Smerus 18:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Done--Smerus 19:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
first name
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Regarding Fanny's famous brother, the article reads "but not before completing his String Quartet No. 6 in F minor, written in memory of his sister." Is there a source for this statement? No doubt his grief for his sister guided his writing hand; but did he intentionally set out to write this quartet to honor his sister, or was there another reason, such as to fulfill a commission? Was the quartet dedicated to any other person? I think this article should have a clarification.
Perhaps the statement should read "but not before completing his String Quartet No. 6 in F minor, written while grieving for his sister."
Hrm. According to Todd, if I'm reading right and not missing anything (Google Preview plus index, but there may be something I should consult the full (Felix Mendelssohn - A Life In Music, 2003) for)- that he could not compose after learning of her death until he had taken a break with his family and then to the Resort (old meaning) at Baden-Baden, starting composing, sketching, again with some works in June. The composition of the quartet took him, according to Todd, from about July 9 1847 or so (when he began drafting the strident scherzo of a quartet in F minor? something like that.) - then put aside to finish several late choral works and begin some never-completed projects - then resumed and finished early in September 1847 (though not published until 1850.) So he began composing the quartet less than two months after Fanny died - I don't know when he learned of her death?... Schissel | Sound the Note!01:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Academic research on Fanny Hensel is to a good part in German. There seems to be no doubt in Germany that Fanny Hensel was first and foremost a composer. See e.g. the German Wikipage, where she is called a composer and is not called a pianist. In the section about her skills as a pianist the main evidence given is the complexity and difficulty of her own compositions for piano. It is also mentioned that she rarely played the piano in public. In the German Wiki bibliography there are a good number of recent academic works about the composer Fanny Hensel, but not one about the pianist Fanny Hensel. In line with this, a google search for "the composer fanny mendelssohn" yields 1260 results, a google search for "the pianist fanny mendelssohn" yields no results. --Flosfa (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
This is not imo a very meaningful issue. She neither performed in public or published much. Originally she was noted as a pianist - in her early years, a much better pianist than her brother. In her lifetime she was better known as a pianist than a composer, only publishing in 1846 near the end of her life. As she at no time earned a living as a professional musician it is appropriate to call her a 'pianist and composer' (or 'composer and pianist') - she was not (in her time) "first and foremost" either of these, I would say, although of course at present she is known as a composer.--Smerus (talk) 08:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
"Gender norms"
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An editor has written in the lead that FM "broke with gender norms" by publishing her own works in 1846. That is a highly loaded, and I think unjustifiable statment. It is not supported by any facts in the article, or anywhere else that I can see. Many other women had published music by that time - Clara Schumann is just one example. Louise Bertin's opera Esmeralda had been performed in Paris in 1836 and published. These examples (and there are very many others in the previous century) indicate that the statement in the article that 'Prevailing gender attitudes in Europe during the 1800s created a general expectation for women to limit their displays of musical skill to private settings, like parlors' is contentious, to say the least; in fact I would say it is just not true. It may have been so in wealthy families, but many women from other social classes were having careers in music as singers, pianists, instrumentalists, etc. And in Fanny's case, as the quote from Chorley shows, considerations of her social class were also relevant to her family's reluctance to profile her as a 'professional musician', either as soloist or composer. More specifically, there is no evidence of which I am aware that Fanny Mendelssohn had any intention or agenda of 'breaking gender norms' when she published - that is an WP:OR "woke" interpretation. She just wanted to see her work in print, as did (and do) many other non-commercial composers, both male and female. I've therefore rewritten this part of the lead, which, as per WP:CREATELEAD, and specificallyits section on NPOV, should not seek to promote any specific interpretation. And I've also added to the article, and cited, the very relevant letter from Felix, and Fanny's response to it, after publication of her op. 1. --Smerus (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
'private settings, like parlors'
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
@Ben Novotny: you write "Prevailing gender attitudes in Europe during the 1800s created a general expectation for women to limit their displays of musical skill to private settings, like parlors." I have asked for clarification on this sentence because it is just not true. It may be true of women of the bourgeois or rich classes, but as pointed out above, European society was already familiar, and had been familiar for some hundreds of years, with female opera singers and instrumentalists, who did not only perform in 'parlours'. I don't have access to the work you cite to support this statment but I would be very glad if you could quote here on the talk page the text which you are advancing to support this statement - if the text does say anything like the sentence it supports, it must I think be very unreliable. With thanks, --Smerus (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I will do my best to respond to each of your arguments.
You state, "there is no evidence of which I am aware that Fanny Mendelssohn had any intention or agenda of 'breaking gender norms' when she published - that is an WP:OR "woke" interpretation." I feel there is a misunderstanding here. The sentence I wrote states, "in 1846, she broke with gender norms and published a collection of songs as her Opus 1." The verbiage here does not indicate that Mendelssohn set out to break gender norms. It simply reflects that she did break the gender norms of the time through her action of publication. For example, if I had wrote, "Mendelssohn set out to break gender norms..." then it would indicate an agenda and even original research. However, in the original sentence, "gender norms" does not refer to any political agenda, though I can see how it would be easy for some to project their own political views to the term. That said, there is sufficient evidence to show gender expectations at the time discouraged (not restricted) female musicians and composers from publishing (regardless of their class).
"The Enjoyment of Music: Essential Listening Edition with Total Access, Twelfth Edition," while discussing women in the nineteenth century society, states, "social assumptions about women long discouraged them from composing (and limited their public performances)" (Forney et al. 275). The Library of Congress's biography of Fanny Mendelssohn Hensel states, "societal constraints at the time precluded women from pursuing musical professions." This indicates that women of all classes were subjected to societal constraints. It also adds that, after her [Fanny's] marriage, she "subsequently settled into the "acceptable" domestic roles prescribed by society of the time..." Since the Library of Congress corroborates the textbook, I think it is safe to say the consensus among experts is that gender expectations of the time discouraged (though not restricted) women from public performances and publication. It is true that some female musicians published at the time (like Clara Schumann as you indicate), but that does not automatically mean that most people in society approved of women in the public sphere.
You also argue that gender expectations could only influence bourgeois or the rich classes, citing Conway's conclusion that Henry Chorley's quote supports the argument. However, this does not negate the existence of gender expectations. "The Enjoyment of Music" text indicates that Fanny "was strongly advised by her father and brother to exhibit [her] skills only in the private world of the parlor... Such was the burden of upper-class women: societal expectations were rigid, and few challenged these attitudes" (Forney et al. 276). It seems this evidence shows that gender expectations for all women as well as additional expectations for upper-class women were factors. Perhaps the lead sentence could be rewritten to reflect the factor of class and the existence of gender expectations. For example, "In 1846, despite the expectations for her gender, especially in her wealthy class, she published a collection of songs as her Opus 1." Any suggestions?
I am glad that this article is now receiving new attention and discussion. Collaboration and civil discussion is what improves articles like this one.
Dear Ben, I am afraid that we still have some way to go in this discussion. Not a single citation given by you above supports the words that FM 'broke gender norms' in publishing. There is in any case a large weight of factual evidence to show that this is not the case that FM broke any norms here, including, as I have mentioned, the publications of Clara Schumann in the 1830s and many other women composers in the preceding period. Singling out FM here as ‘breaking norms’ gives the very misleading impression that she was a pioneer or leader in women composers publishing. In fact if you go into her biography in proper detail, you will see that her decision to publish came after she was urged to do so by Berlin (male) publishers, not from any pioneering intention.(see below)
So the use of the words ‘broke gender norms’ is clearly an example of WP:OR on your part and it should be removed. Please read WP:OR carefully, and understand its implications: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Please note here 'directly support' - what you write in the article has to mean and convey exactly what is in the citation.
As to your other citations above:
The ‘Enjoyment of Music’ quotation speaks of composing and limiting public performances. As a citation that simply does not support the sentence in the article “Prevailing gender attitudes in Europe during the 1800s created a general expectation for women to limit their displays of musical skill to private settings, like parlors.” Please rewrite this sentence, or maybe better simply quote from the book “Social assumptions about women long discouraged them from composing (and limited their public performances)”. I am going to edit the article by using this quote, for your consideration.
I am astonished by the Library of Congress quote “societal constraints at the time precluded women from pursuing musical professions”. This is quite simply totally untrue – I have mentioned opera singers, and there were innumerable female instrumentalists for the 18th century onwards. I see that this article is unsigned, and I am not surprised – whoever wrote it should be ashamed of themselves for making such a very misleading statement. I will be writing to the Library of Congress to avert them of this serious error. Not even the most ardent supporter of upgradng the reputation of women as musicians (and I count myself amongst such supporters) has ever made such an absurd and unjustified assertion.
Your suggestion to rewrite a sentence in the article as "In 1846, despite the expectations for her gender, especially in her wealthy class, she published a collection of songs as her Opus 1." is overthrown by the fact that publishers sought her work. See Hensel 1884, vol, 2 p. 325: “Two rival publishers of Berlin had made her such brilliant offers that she resolved on selecting a few of her compositions for this purpose.” Therefore to suggest or imply that in any way her decision to publish was an act of rebellion, or against the wishes or expectations of society, is completely unjustified. It would on the other hand be correct to introduce in the article the fact that her publication was in reponse to a commercial proposition, and I will edit the article accordingly
It is certainly gratifying that this article is receiving attention. I have been meaning to take a further look at it for some time, following the work I did with others in bringing Felix Mendelssohn to featured article status some years ago, and your attention is very valuable. But please in writing on WP try to stick (as I try to stick) with WP norms. Notably, when a writer who you cite is expressing their opinion or interpretation, (particularly when that opinion may not represent academic consensus) that must also be made clear. If you want to write a book or journal article about FM expressing your beliefs about her intentions or objectives, you are free to do so. But you should not introduce your own speculations or interpretations, or unduly favour citations which reflect them, in WP articles – that is not what WP is about.
With best regards, --Smerus (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I see now from your disagreement with the Library of Congress how the original statement needed to be altered. I approve of your changes and would like to thank you for taking the time to discuss the matter with me. I feel that it was to the article's benefit. Best, Ben Novotny (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Infobox
Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion
Info box was added by an editor who is doing major work on this article. His prerogative. He does not need consensus to add an inbox but consensus is needed to remove it. It is disingenuous for an editor not involved to that point to suggest that infobox appeared suddenly. The infobox appeared as part of the article development. If there is consensus to remove it so be it, but it should not be pulled out with a misleading edit summary. Per WP:BLD I have replaced the infobox and expect to see consensus for its removal. Since I have not been involved in writing this article beyond replacing the edit to its stable pre contested position I won't take part in this discussion. Littleolive oil (talk) 05:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. I formally propose removal of the infobox per the reasoning given at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Composers#Biographical_infoboxes. Ironically, perhaps, point 3 of that position statement says that infoboxes "can ... become over-complex and thus vague, confused, or misleading, ... setting forth haphazard lists of individual works, or highlighting the subject's trivial secondary or non-musical occupations." This infobox, on the contrary, is misleading in that it lists her as a professional composer and pianist, neither of which she was. A very talented pianist and composer, yes, but these were not her "occupations"—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
It may be my lack of English, but for me, "occupation" doesn't imply "professional", and what would a "professional composer" be? Her works were published, and keep being played today, that would make me think she was a composer. If that's saying too much, the parameter could be dropped, but the others would clarify her names and relations to people more clearly than the lead. Not without irony: if she isn't a composer she doesn't even fall under the mentioned 10-year-old and not binding guideline ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it is your lack of English, Gerda. "Occupation"W suggests what someone does for a living, their profession. The in0plicaton of the infobox as it stands is that his is what FM did professionally - and it wasn't.--Smerus (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Point taken, and no "occupations" in my suggestion, but I wonder how the guidelines "trivial secondary or non-musical occupations" should be understod then, - if for a living, how could it be trivial. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
This is precisely why I used the word "ironically", Gerda. In retrospect, her amateur activities are precisely what makes her notable. The issue of retrospectively applying a present-day attitude has already been raised on this talk page. It is important to recognise that societal attitudes were considerably different in past eras, but in doing so we must acknowledge that our current viewpoint is inevitably a distortion of history. There are many "talented amateurs" in history, both men and women, and many of their accomplishments were acknowledged during their lifetimes. Our present-day attitude that what one does for a living is a primary factor in establishing notability is a prejudice that is built in to the inbox. This is just one more example of why an inbox for Fanny Mendelssohn-Bartholdy Hensel is unsuitable.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I support removal as per proposal of Jerome Kohl above. The only 'essential' information which the infobox carries is in the first sentence of the lead. The other stuff is not o finportance to the reader, and it is in fact misleading to highlihght that she was biorn in Hamburg when her childhood and indeed maturity were spent in Berlin.- -Smerus (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I thank User:Ben Novotny for his attention to the article. I took his design and made some changes, assuming we will eventually name her Fanny Hensel (omitting the image+caption here). I believe that there will be readers for whom the structured display may be helpful, and it doesn't take away from the prose. So, I support an infobox, and we can discuss the parameters. Presenting places of birth and death is standard for biographical encyclopedias, and while it's fine not to mention them in the prose, they are not regarded as "misleading" for other people. Here, Berlin is even mentioned, as Vienna is for Beethoven who left Bonn as a young man. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
For myself, I do not see how this variation overcomes the issue I raised of unnecessary duplication of information. Actually it is even more misleading as it suggests that Felix is her only noteworthy relative; whereas if you weere to add all her noteworthy relatives it would become completely bloated.--Smerus (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Support infobox, as it organizes standard information in a standard fashion, making it easier to find. Occupation as a composer is quite appropriate, while casting shade on Gerda's command of the language is not. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/occupation says
Definition of occupation
1a: an activity in which one engages
Pursuing pleasure has been his major occupation.
b: the principal business of one's life : VOCATION
Teaching was her occupation.
Birthplace is also not misleading, as it is, in fact, the place where one is born, it is not implied that one spends all of one's time there henceforth. --GRuban (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Support infobox as it provides the usual biographical pieces of information (birth and death dates and places, what the subject was known for, spouse, etc.) in the standardised "at-a-glance" format that our readers have come to expect from millions of other articles that use infoboxes. It has the benefit of also presenting the information in a structured way and of emitting microformats, both of which make the information quickly available to a wide range of third-party re-users of our content, a not insignificant group of consumers of our content. I would normally defer to the main author of an article, in this case, Smerus, but the infobox was added by a relatively new editor, Ben Novotny, who has recently made very significant contributions to the article, and I think we owe it to him to try to explain the differing opinions on the value of an infobox in the article. I am really pleased to see a student editor growing into a regular editor, and we should do everything we can to encourage the next generation of editors into the fold. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Museum link
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This is very likely a German expression. I have translated literally as "Berlin Bach"; perhaps "Bach tradition in Berlin" would be better. Comments welcome. Jmar67 (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
I'm missing something in the article, but since I'm no expert on the topic, nor having read much of the scholarly literature yet, I'm probably not too well-placed to try amend it in mainspace. Afaik, one of the major significant points of FM is her place in history. That place was "close to her brother Felix". That closeness lead to an elaborate correspondence between the siblings. No other relative or other relation was even close to elicit, both as receiver and as writer (also including diaries etc), such a vast amount of documentation of the composer's life. That is so automatically understood in any biography of Felix or other work about their circles, popular as well as scholarly, that it barely needs mentioning (kind of WP:BLUE), so I don't know where to best find a reference for it. Neither the other sibling (Rebecka, about whom there is a separate Wikipedia article, but who isn't even mentioned in Fanny's article, apart from in a navbox), nor Felix's wife, nor his apparent lover, nor any other distant or close relative or acquaintance, played, in this department, a role even remotely comparable to Fanny's.
It is mentioned, sideways, in the second paragraph of the "Legacy" section, but there only in the context of her husbandson's book about the entire family. As if there aren't many more biographies written about Felix than about the family as a whole or any of its other members, and all of these biographical works vastly rely on the corpus of letters and diaries written by, or addressed to, Fanny. I think it is maybe feared to elaborate on this while it may be seen as threatening her status as composer, but I don't see why that should be: she can excel in the one as well as the other, and I think the article should let her shine on the other aspect as well. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Francis, as you will see, I'm working to develop this aspect in the article, slowly but surely. Where we have to be careful is that there it could be said that there are two aspects of FMH's life of importance to music history: her relationship with Felix, and her individual musical achievements. Historically the former was the main area of academic interest, today it is the latter. But both should be represented in the article I think to acheive a proper NPOV. Btw the book was by Fanny's son, not her husband. Best, --Smerus (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Oops, sorry about the typo, corrected. The phrasing of the start of that paragraph may be made a bit clearer, as to not misunderstand (as I did). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I think the relocation is justifiable, but I've adjusted your rewrite, partly because it was incorrect (Hensel's book is about the whole family, and is not based only on his mother's letters and writings) and partly because the modern musicologists who have expressed their views should be named so as to make it clear there is disagreement, and so as to present a neutral view.--Smerus (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
& "role model" aspect
Imho, the legacy should treat also a third topic. Her music, and the body of written primary sources she left behind would be, afaik, the two main topics of the "Legacy" section: both of these aspects were already well-established in the 19th-century. An, I suppose, more recent aspect of her legacy is that she's highlighted as a role model, for instance on the "Women You Should Know" website, which I linked to above. This may be in part unjustified (I don't know), she was maybe more conforming to her time than role-model-proponents may want to admit. This aspect must anyhow be kept out of the biographical first section, and the "works" related second section of the article, as it is a "Legacy"/"Reception"-related topic exclusively.
Again, I'm not sure where to look best for sources on this, and feel not confident enough to insert content on this aspect in the current prose. Any ideas? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Imo that's in fact adequately covered by the sentence in the article 'From the 1980s onwards she has been the subject of many academic books and articles.' She may be in addition touted about on websites for all I know (or care), but I don't see how they can qualify as suitable sources for citation. The 'gender and class limitations' section of the 'Life' in the article cover these issues in the chrononlogical context of hwer career, again appropriately and adequately imo. Academic debate centres on whether she was in fact in her aspirations a feminist role-model, or whether, lacking such aspirations, she was satisfied with her lot. (It seems to me, for what it is worth, that following her example would be submitting without complaint to bourgeois paternalism). I can't see how you could avoid a WP:ESSAY problem if you wanted to start debating in the article as to whether she was any sort of role model for today..--Smerus (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Citron, Marcia J.Kimber, Marian Wilson (2004). "Felix and Fanny: Gender, Biography and History", in The Cambridge Companion to Mendelssohn ed. Peter Mercer-Taylor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN9780521533423 (listed & used as source in article, however with a wrong author name: written by Kimber, not Citron)
Well, i've made some addition to the article. If you or anyone else wants to work up something on these lines I'll be glad to take a look at it, but to me it deosn't seem worthwhile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smerus (talk • contribs)
Latest comment: 4 years ago31 comments10 people in discussion
among feminist musicologists who study women composers, "fanny hensel" has become her "usual" name. she wrote most of her 452 works after she became "fanny hensel", and her husband "wilhelm hensel" was very supportive of her composing (which is more than we can say about her father or brother).
On the contrary, Fanny's father and brother were both VERY supportive throughout her life of her composing. What they did not support was her publishing her compositions, nor her performing in public. In this, they were very much people of their time and social status. It is easy to criticize her family using the standards of today. At the time, however, as their correspondence makes clear, they were acting in what they thought was her and the family's best interests. 2006-11-25.
according to google, there are: 71400 entries for "fanny hensel" -"fanny hensel mendelssohn", 13900 entries for "fanny hensel mendelssohn", 71500 entries for "fanny mendelssohn" -"fanny mendelssohn hensel", 47500 entries for "fanny mendelssohn hensel".
in the library of congress catalog, her music is filed under H for "hensel", not M for "mendelssohn". Beth14:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Please don't move this page without obtaining consensus first- it's very disruptive. I'm afraid I've been unable to replicate your Google results: I get 120,000 for "fanny mendelssohn" and 85,300 for "fanny hensel". Markyour words17:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
i'm afraid that "consensus" is on my side. if you look her up in grove's dictionary of music, worldcat database, or the library catalog of any major university, you will find her listed under H for "hensel". Beth17:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
You're clearly having trouble understanding this. If you obtain a consensus among users of Wikipedia then the page should be moved. Not before. Markyour words19:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I am in favour of keeping Fanny Mendelssohn as the main article heading, with redirects from Fanny Hensel and Fanny Hensel Mendelssohn. (I also take issue with the comments about Felix's and Abraham's attitudes to Fanny's composition, which were not at all as dismissive as implied by Beth). NB Wikipedia encourages writing according to standard practices - can whoever is creating the list of works please use standard capitalisation? --Smerus21:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I also agree that Fanny Mendelssohn is best used, although with reservations. To refute User:Bethchen, Grove does not list Fanny under Hensel - she is listed under "Mendelssohn, Fanny", with a small entry at "Hensel, Fanny" stating See Mendelssohn, Fanny.
My reservations are that it is likely more scholarly accurate to title the article "Fanny Hensel", because she did write much of her music with that name, and we would also likely not think twice about moving Clara Schumann to Clara Wieck. However, since New Grove uses "Mendelssohn", and that is what most people know, I think the current article title is fine. —Sesquialtera II (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I think the article should use the name with which she died - Hensel. Furthermore, there are many books that refer to her as 'Hensel', eg.
The letters of Fanny Hensel to Felix Mendelssohn / collected, edited, and translated with introductory essays and notes by Marcia J. Citron.
The life and works of Fanny Mendelssohn Hensel / by Victoria Ressmeyer Sirota
Women creating music 1750-1850 : Marianne Martinez, Maria Theresia Von Paradis, Fanny Mendelssohn Hensel, and Clara Wieck Schumann / by Laura Gordy.
Fanny Hensel, geb. Mendelssohn Bartholdy : das Werk / Martina Helmig (Hg.)
Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy : a guide to reseach [sic] : with an introduction to research concerning Fanny Hensel / John Michael Cooper.
As someone who works on women writers, all I can say is that any researcher on a woman (even a contemporary one!) will probably need to check all surnames. My favourite example is a German Romantic writer called Caroline Michaelis Bohme Schlegel Schelling (she married 3 times.) Finding references to her is, of course, a nightmare! I am for keeping Fanny under 'Mendelssohn' just as Clara comes for most people comes most obviously under 'Schumann': it has less to do with the name under which they produced most of their creative output, but, alas, with the famous men around them. If Fanny had become a famous painter, maybe Hensel would be the more obvious choice, but one great advantage of using the Famous Man name is that those doing research Mr Famous might, oh just might, notice that there was a creative woman lurking in the wings there, too! Laura — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.57.99 (talk • contribs)
@Francis Schonken: I certainly agree that anyone who wants to change the title should start a discussion on this talk page. I myself as it happens am marginally in favour of 'Fanny Hensel' but I'm not losing any sleep over it.--Smerus (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I am also for Fanny Hensel, and not wanting to loose sleep. For 3 reasons: publications under that name, ease of naming her in the article, and no need for her to "profit" from famous relatives. Can we just conduct a little informal discussion, testing the waters, before entering a RM procedure? If consensus develops, perhaps avoid a RM? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Sure, testing the waters, so, for clarity, no from me, for reasons explained above. A page move would normally be less conforming to policy and other guidance (as detailed above), so the recommendation would remain to conduct a RM if one wants to establish a consensus otherwise. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm now inclining more to 'Hensel', as I see this is the listing used by Grove/Oxford Music Online, which in the past has been used as a model for WP article titles in discussions. I think an issue here is that the 'common format' may change with time. Unitl recently (e.g. the last print version of Grove)academics thought of her as FM - but the trend is now definitiely to FH. As she still remains (for better or worse) relatively little known outside academic or professional circles, the case for FH seems strong.--Smerus (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out Library of Congress, Francis, (Fanny Mendelssohn Hensel), and Bretikopf & Härtel (Fanny Hensel), these do indeed seem to be further strong pointers towards Hensel. Though I rather think that Classic FM's claim that she was "She was one of the 19th century’s most brilliant composers" might meet with some scepticism, and instil doubt as to whether it is an authoritative source in this matter. You are absolutely right, I should look further, who knows what I may turn up? So far, for me, the Hensel option seems a rising stock. - --Smerus (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Your "she still remains (...) relatively little known outside academic or professional circles" was absolute crap, which you don't seem to want to admit yet afaics. That you find nonsense about her on popular websites proves you're wrong. Hundreds of recordings, Youtube bootlegs without end, etc all prove you're wrong. Sources from "academic or professional circles" maybe rather call her Hensel, but there are truckloads of other reliable sources (not Youtube and the like of course) who call her Mendelssohn. Apparently still more reliable sources with a title only "Mendelssohn" than with a title only "Hensel". I didn't mention "Bretikopf & Härtel" (nor the same correctly spelled). I mentioned The Guardian. So if you don't want to see what's in front of you, but only selectively what you wanna see, sorry, only one solution: WP:RM. I hope the comments are more in the line of a reasonable conversation then. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Perhaps a compromise: "Fanny Hensel (née Mendelssohn)", patterned on the German (Helmig above). Provided that doesn't violate policy. Jmar67 (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Gerda. The article title should be one or the other. It doesn't matter to me which it is, since of course there will be redirects, whatever the final destination is decided to be.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Presumably also not "Fanny Mendelssohn Hensel" or "Fanny (Mendelssohn) Hensel". But it does seem that both names should appear, considering the controversy. Just MHO. Jmar67 (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Right, no. We have Clara Schumann, not Clara Wieck Schumann, because that was - afaik - not her name at any time, - while there are women who legally carry their maiden name in combination when they marry, - a different case. We should not invent names ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
It is common in the U.S. at least to use the form "first maiden last", regardless of whether it is a legal name. There are a couple of refs above to FMH, which is my choice. In the case of Schumann, that name is sufficient, but Hensel does not appear to be, to judge from the discussion. Jmar67 (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Until a few decades after her death she was rather called "Fanny Hensel" than "Fanny Mendelssohn"
From the late 19th century until the early 20th century both names (FH and FM) were more or less in equal use
From the early 20th to the early 21st century she has more or less consistently been called rather "Fanny Mendelssohn" than "Fanny Hensel"
"Fanny Mendelssohn Hensel" was not really used before the 1960s, but the usage of that name always stayed well below the two other variants of her name
No reliable ngram data after the first decade of the 21st century, but it seems unlikely that in that period "Fanny Mendelssohn Hensel" would have become a real competitor for the two other names.
Some generalities about article titling:
Parenthetical additions to article titles are more or less reserved for WP:DISAMBIGUATION: this excludes an article title like "Fanny Hensel (née Mendelssohn)", which without the "parenthetical disambiguator" is already unambiguous, thus the parenthetical part would be discarded as unnecessary.
The central guideline for the article title is in this case WP:NCP (which, for clarity, was initiated, and mostly written, by me). That guideline heavily relies on the WP:COMMONNAME principle of the WP:AT policy. Hence, the ngram comparison explained above makes sense, and would, at this point, still be a clear "keep" for the current article title, "Fanny Mendelssohn".
Apart from the topic-specific guideline there are the general principles of the WP:AT policy, which are summarized in WP:CRITERIA, and which can trump topic-specific naming convention guidelines any time. Going through these five CRITERIA:
Recognizability: rather favours FM (see ngram)
Naturalness: — (no difference: FM and FH are equally natural)
Precision: — (no difference: FM and FH are equally precise)
Conciseness: advantage for FH (shorter than FM)
Consistency: defined by the WP:NCP guideline, which currently seems to favour FM (see above)
The reason why I recommend a WP:RM is that we don't really know what happened in the last decade (see ngram above): FH may have become more common than FM – difficult to prove either way, so a WP:RM seems the logical choice for a next step, for those who want to test whether the current article title is still the optimal choice. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for that analysis, Francis. Jmar67 (above): what is common in today's U.S. should not simply be transferred to a woman of 19th-century Berlin, I think. - I still favour FH, because that's what she called herself, and - rather than following trends in later naming - we as Wikipedia could set a trend. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Re. "we as Wikipedia could set a trend", no: not allowed per Wikipedia's core content policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV), which (for clarity) also apply to article titles. If you want to set a trend, that should be done outside of Wikipedia: if enough reliable sources pick up that trend, we might need to revisit the title of this article, but anyhow, the setting of a trend should never, under no circumstance, be deliberately initiated in Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I think I was not clear. If a name is a good name, as the name under which she published, Wikipedia doesn't need to listen to trends of people thinking other names are better. The German Wikipedia has created her article in 2004, Fanny Hensel, nèe ..., and I like it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
After ploughing through all the above I could be inclined to go for "Fanny Mendelssohn Hensel" as the article title, which is accurate, recognizable and natural. The entries in the article can then be adjusted to refer to her as FM or FH as appropriate. Just saying.
Interesting to note by the way that when her op. 1 was published in her lifetime her name was given as, in large letters, 'Fanny Hensel' and then in smaller letters 'geb. [i.e. née] Mendelssohn-Bartholdy'. So the form 'Fanny Hensel' has her imprimatur, if you were going to choose between FM and FH.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smerus (talk • contribs)
I initiated this as comment because I can't argue for either FH or FM, which is what the current policies seem to dictate. My mention of naming in the U.S. was also intended just as a remark and not a supporting argument. The WP policy here is unnecessarily restrictive (including limiting parentheticals to dab). FMH is to me the most logical solution and has precedent even if it is not an ngram leader. Jmar67 (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, defensible stance, no problem with that. This ngram shows that in the first decade of the 21st century FH and FM came closer to one another than the more "smoothed" long-term ngram linked above shows. When two competitor names are difficult to distinguish as to which one is most common, it has happened before that a third "compromise" name was used as article title (Fixed-wing aircraft comes to mind, to get out of the airplane vs aeroplane conundrum). In the FMH case the proposed compromise would have the advantage of de facto uniting both more common alternatives. Such cases that deviate from a straightforward application of current guidance can however only be decided convincingly via WP:RM. Let me let you in on a public secret regarding the writing of naming conventions guidelines: they follow whatever WP:RMs result in, so you should have no qualms about launching a WP:RM that doesn't follow current guidance. Mostly, if WP:RM results show a new trend consistently, guidance is accordingly updated. Or unexpected WP:RM results are seen as too exceptional for needing a guidance rewrite. Case in point: Sarah Jane Brown – I think we had over a dozen WP:RMs to try and get this article title in line with policies and guidelines, all failed. So, there should be no impediment whatsoever for you to initiate a WP:RM for a proposed change to Fanny Mendelssohn Hensel. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Meh! and again meh!! not to say double meh!!! Leave the title as it is per WP:TITLECHANGES. Why on earth does this ever matter? I know her best as Fanny Mendelssohn; others know her best as Fanny Hensel. Both names are valid – unlike some suggestions for titles in this thread, which violate assorted bits of WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE and WP:OR. There are dozens and hundreds of unwritten and untranslated and unexpanded translated articles relating to classical music; go work on some of those instead rather than waste time and effort on this triviality. Narky Blert (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Choice of article title
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In response to a request from Gerda Arendt on Women in Red: There have been many arguments in favour of either Mendelssohn or Hensel over the past 13 years, some contradictory, but I would opt for Fanny Hensel, as in the German wiki and in line with recent research. I don't know if there's any clear justification that her birth name was Fanny Zippora Mendelssohn. See [1] (a useful source for further work on the article). Whatever the case, this should perhaps be mentioned somewhere. The change to Hensel should also be made in Wikidata and Commons which have probably led to many of the Fanny Mendelssohns in other language versions. Maybe it would also be useful to add a section to the article on the controversy regarding her name. I see the article has been significantly improved since 8 April. Is it a candidate for GA? Looks as if it is moving in the right direction.--Ipigott (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ipigott:Thanks for this. I have never seen a shred of evidence that Fanny was ever called 'Fanny Zipporah', and I don't think this should be included in the text unless a reliable citation can be found. I don't think the article is anywhere near GA yet. As it stands, it is the consequence of improvements launched by a Wiki Education Foundation initiative, so all credit to User:Ben Novotny for undertaking these - they led to some further onslaughts by myself and others. But there is a wealth more of biographical information to be added, and there is as yet no real discussion of the music in itself.
Latest comment: 4 years ago47 comments16 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Reliable sources are inconclusive on the matter, while "Fanny Mendelssohn" appears to be more common in terms of recognizability. "Fanny Mendelssohn Hensel" has received significant support in this discussion but not enough to declare a consensus in that direction. Anyone who wishes to do so may immediately start a new RM proposing that change, which can also discuss whether a hypthen should be used between the surnames. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC) Adjusted close to reemphasize the fact that this is not a consensus in favor of the current title. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠13:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose, for reasons given at #Article title, and which I'll repeat here if necessary. The OP's statement "The subject's name is typically given in modern sources as 'Fanny Hensel'" is incorrect, and proven so in the #Article title section above. So, based on this deformed argumentation: no, strong oppose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
This is the list given by Francis Schonken (so that people don't have to jiggle about):
The direction in WP:COMMONNAME is : ""Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources". So we can discount for a start the references from the Netherlands. The reference given by this classical radio station given by Francis Schonken in fact uses the form "Fanny Mendlesshon Hensel" ( a piece of deformed argumentation here, I am afraid, from Francis). I don't see how the "Women You Should Know" website can count as a "reliable source". Please therefore compare and contrast the few remaining sources which are or might be considered reliable on Francis's list with: R. Larry Todd, Marcia Citron, Angela Mace, IMSLP and Oxford Music Online, "Fanny Hensel: A Research and Information Guide" by Laura K. T. Stokes (Routledge 2019, ISBN 9781315299815).......--Smerus (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The list above, copied by Smerus, was given in response to someone contending that Fanny Mendelssohn was "relatively little known outside academic or professional circles" (in which context also the Dutch-language library website, listing 624 recordings of her work, etc., make, of course, perfect sense). If it had been intended to illustrate that Fanny Mendelssohn was likewise known under that name in reliable sources I'd leave a few out, but would include, for instance:
doi:10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.18387, Grove Music Online (2001 or later): has "Mendelssohn(-Bartholdy) [Hensel], Fanny (Cäcilie)" as article title – the first time she is mentioned by name in the prose of the article it is "Fanny Mendelssohn".
Also reliable sources using "Fanny Mendelssohn Hensel" (e.g. Library of Congress) or "Fanny Mendelssohn-Hensel" (e.g. cpo), neither of which she ever used, can hardly be used as an argument against the last name "Mendelssohn" in the article title. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
For clarity, my second choice, per Jmar67's suggestion, would be "Fanny Mendelssohn Hensel", which can be referenced to her Library of Congress article. However, I don't see very well how a quite cluttered lead sentence can in that case be avoided, e.g.:
Fanny Mendelssohn Hensel[1] (14 November 1805 – 14 May 1847),[2] born Fanny Mendelssohn, baptized Fanny Cäcilie Mendelssohn Bartholdy (1816), and, after marriage (1829), Fanny Hensel, was a German composer and pianist from the Romantic era.[3] She grew up...
Stokes, Laura K. T. (2019). Fanny Hensel: A Research and Information Guide. Routledge. ISBN9781138237407.
... and, also for clarity, I don't think a separate section on the naming issue would make much sense, certainly not if that means that any of the four name variants (i.e. now including "Fanny Mendelssohn Hensel" after LoC) would no longer be in the lead sentence. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Support. While I understand WP:Commonname for things, I think for persons the way they called themselves should be considered more. Her Opus 1 was published as by Fanny Hensel, geb. Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, with Fanny Hensel in bigger letters. The alternative, Fanny Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, seems unpopular in English. More arguments (recent scientific studies, announcements of performances, recordings) above, avoiding repetition. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: a quick trawl through the recordings currently listed on a well-known retailer's site shows that most use "Fanny Mendelssohn", many use "Fanny Mendelssohn-Hensel" and only a few use "Fanny Hensel". Given that all three forms are commonly used, though, I would suggest that the most unprejudiced approach would be to move the article to "Fanny Mendelssohn-Hensel" as this encompasses both the other common forms. --188.31.164.98 (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
There are two main problems with this contribution. One is that the form 'Mendelssohn-Hensel' (or 'Mendelssohn Hensel') was never used by the subject herself or her contemporaries, or indeed anyone else until the late 20th century when it seems to have become a 'halfway house' adopted by some wings of academe and woke journalism. The other is that a 'retailer's site' cannot qualify , as required by WP:COMMONNAME, as a 'reliable source'.--Smerus (talk) 08:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Afaics 188.31.164.98 was referring to *recordings* on retailers' sites. Albums with an English-language title, of which the printed text on the album cover can be checked, certainly when they're fairly recent and/or have decent liner notes (which could be used as reliable source in Wikipedia, see {{Cite AV media notes}}), can of course be considered in the naming issue, whether they are made available ...
I am not impressed with any recordings sources. They play little role in this article, and they may use Menselssohn simply because Mendelssohn sells better than Hensel. Discogs particularly is not accepted as a reliable source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I accept that a retailer's website isn't a formally reliable source, but it does give a good indication of current usage. I looked more closely at the recordings listed as currently available, and my count is that 18 use "Fanny Mendelssohn", 16 use "Fanny Hensel", 22 use "Fanny Mendelssohn-Hensel", and 1 uses "Fanny Hensel-Mendelssohn". Again this is original research, but I think it confirms that the three main forms of her name are all in common use. In a sense, the name we choose seems less important than the necessity to state clearly at the head of the article that there is no uniformly accepted form of her name. I think the question of record companies (and by extension concert promoters) using the name that sells best is not really relevant. We should reflect common usage rather than judge the reasons for that usage. Similarly, I don't think we should be too swayed by evidence of which form of her name she preferred. If we did that we certainly wouldn't be calling Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart by that name. --188.31.164.98 (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
We won't need any more explanation than saying in the lead Fanny Hensel née Mendelssohn, which explains that she would be called Fanny Mendelssohn at least until her marriage, as there was a famous pianist named Clara Wieck, until she married Schumann. I'd support to go away from Wolfgang Amadeus any time ;) - The Salzburg Festival says W. A. Mozart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
So on this basis, 38 out of a total of 57 recordings use the surname Hensel. Seems pretty conclusively in favour of the change.--Smerus (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
A follow-up regarding the "Dutch-language library website", a.k.a. "references from the Netherlands", which is now fully operational in English too. So I created a template for linking to that website's English-language pages, e.g.:
The template is named {{Muziekweb}}. The point is that "... we can discount for a start the references from the Netherlands" no longer applies for this website. For clarity, the website uses "Fanny Mendelssohn-Bartholdy" as title for the English-language page about the composer, adding, on that page: "Also known as: Fanny Hensel, Fanny Hensel-Mendelssohn, Fanny Mendelssohn, Fanny Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, Fanny Mendelssohn Hensel, Fanny Mendelssohn-Hensel" --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Support. It seems to me, rightly or wrongly, that Fanny Mendelssohn is used in some cases (e.g. by record companies and journalists) to emphasize her relationship with her brother for publicity and/or recognition purposes. This should not be our concern, particularly as Fanny Hensel seems to be the name she preferred herself. Furthermore, while preference should perhaps be given to English sources, I think it is telling that Deutsche Bibliotek (German National Library) gives her name as "Hensel, Fanny" or "Fanny Hensel". To keep everyone happy, it might be useful to add a section in the article on Hensel vs. Mendelssohn, or at least a footnote.--Ipigott (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree there should be something in the article on this, but perhaps it had better await the outcome of this discussion :-) ----Smerus (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Support a compromise As I suggested in the previous thread, it would be simpler to recognize the controversial nature of this discussion and steer toward a double name: "Fanny Mendelssohn Hensel" (preferably without a hyphen). Think of it as IAR. Ignore what sources or Fanny use(d) in the interest of clarity and recognizability. Jmar67 (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I think the difference is established usage. I don't think many sources refer to Clara Wieck-Schumann in that way, whereas very many sources do refer to Fanny Mendelssohn-Hensel as such. --188.31.164.98 (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Support. Respectable arguments can be made for the proposal and for the status quo, but clearly the RS arguments are not conclusive either way, expecially when discounting the value of references that are essentially about Felix and Fanny as siblings, which is not why she has this article - she is primarily notable for her achievements as a composer and performer, rather than as Felix's musical adviser. As the lion's share of that achievement came after she was married, and Hensel was the name she and others used at that time, that tips the balance for me. Davidships (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Support It would be so much easier if people would stick to one name duing their life. If there is no clear winner accourding to WP:MAIDEN then her current (or last) name is preferable. Here her notable work is linked with the latter anyway. Sidenote WP:MAIDEN speaks against artificial constructs linking the various names together. Agathoclea (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose If this was a Fanny Hensel page, up for a name change, then I wouldn't have cared as I have't heard of her. Whereas I have heard of Fanny Mendelsson. Others may think that we should use the name, she used, or the name she died with.... great ideas BUT that isnt the rule that Wikipedia uses. We use the name she is most commonly known as. Victuallers (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
But isn't this reasoning really a sort of cousin of WP:IDONTLIKE? If you were to enter 'Fanny Mendelssohn' (but remember the h!) you would in any case be automatically redirected to 'Fanny Hensel' - you would not have suffered, and will instantly have learned something new! The rule that Wikipedia uses, to restate it, is that "it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources." Such sources, including recording companies who intend to sell her stuff to those who have heard of Fanny Hensel and are therefore presumably a commercial market, are indicated above. Best - --Smerus (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC).
Note: the Nash Ensemble's new recording of Clara Schumann and Fanny Mendelssohn uses the established name. The note by Natasha Loges, a respected writer on music, makes a mention of the name Hensel, but otherwise consistently calls her Fanny Mendelssohn or just Mendelssohn. This recording has just been released this month, so the claim in the initial request that "modern recordings use Fanny Hensel or the form Fanny Mendelssohn Hensel" is not entirely correct. --188.30.36.94 (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Strongly Support a compromise Like @Jmar67:, I support a compromise of "Fanny Mendelssohn Hensel." (Or "Fanny Mendelssohn-Hensel") I believe this addresses a couple of points:
Referring to Fanny as just "Fanny Mendelssohn" wouldn't make sense as explained by the support above and reffering to her as just "Fanny Hensel" doesn't seem to either according to those who say they would know a "Fanny Mendelssohn" but not a "Fanny Hensel" per WP:COMMONNAME, so this solves both issues.
The idea that this compromise wouldn't make sense since Clara Schumann and Cosima Wagner are not referred to as "Clara Wieck Schumann" and "Cosima Liszt von Bülow Wagner" doesn't exactly make sense. Neither of these 2 woman have ever commonly been referred to as anything except "Cosima Wagner" "Clara Schumann." Additionally, they both have never (to the best of my knowledge) faced a disparity between what name they are commonly referred to my regular people and academic sources, where as Fanny seemingly has. Aza24 (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
Comment (procedural) – I'd like to remind both Smerus and Gerda Arendt of the WP:BLUDGEON guidance. I see weak points in some of the supporters' statements. I see weak points in all of your comments posted in replies to opponents (and yes, every opponent has received a reply from either of you, or both of you). It's not because I see these weak points that I'm tempted to reply to every position that doesn't align with mine. While that would be the kind of bludgeoning the WP:BLUDGEON guidance advises against. I'd suggest you moderate your urge to reply to each and every dissenting opinion. Especially when such response is rather a paraphrase or repeat of a point already made elsewhere in the RM, or a reply mainly consisting of self-invented guidance to points made by others in accordance with Wikipedia's guidance. For clarity, this is not because I would have run out of arguments, but because I'd prefer contributors to the above RM would not be deterred from voicing their opinion freely because of being intimidated by what seems to be going on. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
This comment makes me unwatch the discussion. The accusation of intimidating is not exactly what I swallow easily these days. I am rather sure I only said things once in this discussion (the "testing of the waters above" is a different story) but if not I apologize. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Dear Francis, I hope I have only commented on issues I find with different arguments. Of course all these arguments are I think put forward in good faith, and I am seeking to put them in the context of the question as a whole. As you will know from WP:RMCI, "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions." I have no intention or ambition of changing anyone's vote. I genuinely do not perceive that either Gerda or I have sought to 'intimidate or overwhelm others.' (which is the main issue under WP:BLUDGEON). I note that when recently you and I were on the same side (re Grosse Fuge) and Gerda was on the other, you did not refrain from making several comments on her postings.
It rather seems to me, in fact, that in these circumstances it could be construed as ungentlemanly for you to seek to name and shame your two interlocutors in a subsection like this, but I will pass that by. So far, on this thread, apart from my original proposal, I make it that I have made four comments disagreeing with other editors (including this), two of them disagreeing with you, and one each to the other two editors who have oppposed to date; and you Francis, apart from your original 'Oppose' have made three (including this), all of them disagreeing with me. But I am happy at this stage to withdraw from any further discussion on this topic if my presence upsets you or anyone else. All best ---Smerus (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I was one of the opposers whose comment received replies from both Smerus and Gerda. I have to say I didn't feel bludgeoned - I thought their replies were healthy and (I hope) good-humoured contributions to the debate. Let's remain civilised about this - the truth of the matter is there is no single version of this composer's name that has majority usage, so to some extent whatever decision we make is going to be arbitrary in its choice of Mendelssohn, Hensel, or Mendelssohn-Hensel, and that's before we start on whether or not we include Bartholdy, Cäcilie or Zippora in her name. And am I right in thinking that Grove has two articles about her, written by different authors, under "Mendelssohn" and under "Hensel"? I'm not a subscriber, but from the brief introductions I can see it looks that way. --188.31.164.98 (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Dear 188.31.164.98 - just as information, (and to that extent withdrawing my withdrawal above), there is one article in the old (print) version of Grove and early online Grove (as "Mendelssohn(-Bartholdy) [Hensel], Fanny (Cäcilie)") by Marcia Citron (2001), which has been superseded (2018) by a different article in the online version ("Hensel [Née Mendelssohn (-Bartholdy)], Fanny Cäcilie") by Angela Mace Christian. Citron's version is still avaiable on line for reference. Best, --Smerus (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: Francis I notice with amusement that your imprecations against Gerda and I adding to the discussion don't seem to apply to you, given your extensive ongoing additions to the comments in the debate. Do you have a unique dispensation? - or do Gerda and I have your kind permission to re-engage, should we wish to, without your making terrible threats? Best ---Smerus (talk) 09:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
So that's it. You are allowed to add to the discussion, but because the comments come from you , they cannot count as WP:BLUDGEON. Whereas if they come from myself or Gerda, they do. I challenge you therefore to make a formal complaint against me on the grounds of WP:BLUDGEON. If you do not, I will draw the appropriate conclusions.--Smerus (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
It's OK, I get it. You made a pointless threat in the hope of giving yourself a better opportunity to dominate the discussion. Readers will draw their own conclusions. Best, --Smerus (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
My WP:BLUDGEON comment was neither "pointless", nor a "threat", nor whatever WP:POINTy riposte you've been churning out (instead of just taking the suggestion at heart – which I had already been doing from before I posted the WP:BLUDGEON comment). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
