Talk:Edward Elgar

Wiki Education assignment: Applying History VA World War I Questionnaires

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2025 and 3 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nile112741 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Nile112741 (talk) 02:23, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

This is a Featured Article: please discuss here any substantial alterations or additions you would like to make before changing the article. Tim riley talk 10:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Blatant Mischaracterization?

The claims that Elgar disliked folk music in any way is patently absurd when one considers he was an inaugural part of London's Folk Song Society per Elgar O.M. by Percy Young 1955. His criticisms of older British works were what were widely considered at the time to be high art classics, and nearly all of his influences in the Romantic era were engaged in studies of folk music. He spent most of his career pre-fame engaged in what were essentially festivals of folk music. If we're going to cede the term folk to Woody Guthrie and Bob Dylan forever, we need to go back and clarify the terms in the 19th century otherwise it's going to blatantly mislead people. Lramsey0328 (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

See the source: Kennedy, p. 10. Tim riley talk 20:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Young says Elgar's enthusiasm for folk-music was "limited". He attended the first meeting of the folk-song society (there were addresses by Hubert Parry and Alexander Mackenzie, whom he admired) and no more. Kennedy writes, "Elgar was contemptuous of folk music". Another commentator writes, "He derided the folk song collectors in England and around the world". According to another, "He had no interest in English folk music, once telling a woman rash enough to ask if he incorporated folk tunes in his music: "Madam, I write the folk songs of England". Tim riley talk 12:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Apparent error in this article

There is a statement in the section entitled, "Last Years" that Elgar 'even patented the "Elgar Sulphuretted Hydrogen Apparatus" in 1908.' However, despite lengthy searches, I have been unable to locate any such patent. ChatGPT suggests that this is an error resulting from a mis-reading of the official patent indexes, and that this error has simply been repeated in the various cited references. I tried to edit the article today, but my changes have simply been discarded. I leave it up to someone else to rectify this. Duddles66 (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Duddles66 I reverted your edit (and explained why in my edit summary). You need to be able to cite a reliable source which affirms that no such patent was granted to Elgar. Otherwise, it counts as your (or ChatGPT's!) original research. -- JMC (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I concur with Jmc that original research like this is contrary to Wikipedia's policies. I suppose we would have to take notice if a piece of OR incontrovertibly proved the published sources wrong, but we have not, above, been provided with any evidence that Elgar did not patent his process. The most one could honestly say in that direction is that one researcher has failed to discover evidence that the composer did so. On the other hand, having combed through all the published sources I can lay hands on I find various differing takes on the matter:

• Some sources say Elgar patented the apparatus in 1908. (Chemistry World, June 2010)
• Others that he patented it but do not specify in which year (Moore 1972, p. 60)
• Other sources say that he invented the process and hoped [my italics] to patent it. (Kennedy 2004, p. 107)
• Alternatively, "his machine for producing sulphurated hydrogen was patented and produced as the Elgar S. H. Apparatus" – which does not say that he patented it. (Mundy, p. 77)
• Or "in November 1908 he was writing to his friends of 'Elgar's Sulphuretted Hydrogen Machine' which he hoped to patent" (Moore 1999, p. 544)
• Or "He had his own laboratory and hoped to patent the 'Elgar Sulphuretted Hydrogen Machine'." (The Cambridge Companion to Elgar, p. 186

From these and other sources, ranging from biographies of the composer to learned journals published by the Royal Society of Chemistry, it seems to me that there is no consensus that Elgar himself did or did not patent the process, or indeed that it was ever patented. I suggest, therefore, that we change "He even patented the "Elgar Sulphuretted Hydrogen Apparatus" in 1908" to "He invented the "Elgar Sulphuretted Hydrogen Apparatus" and decided to seek a patent for it", which I think is an unassailable statement. What do other editors think? Tim riley talk 08:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

That seems a good way to be cautious about the matter and still give credit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@Tim riley Many thanks for your in-depth combing of sources. I'd place weight upon Moore 1999, Kennedy 2004 and The Cambridge Companion with their cautious "hoped" and consequently concur with your proposed judicious amendment to "He invented the "Elgar Sulphuretted Hydrogen Apparatus" and decided to seek a patent for it". -- JMC (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Done. Tim riley talk 06:47, 22 May 2026 (UTC)