[go: nahoru, domu]
Wikipedia

Talk:Frédéric Chopin/Archive 24

< Talk:Frédéric Chopin
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Mathsci in topic Szopen spelling
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26

"Sexuality of Frédéric Chopin" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sexuality of Frédéric Chopin. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 23#Sexuality of Frédéric Chopin until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Smerus (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Bisson's Photograph of Chopin (1849)

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

I've created an enhanced version of Bisson's photograph of Chopin (1849) with state-of-the-art technology and uploaded it to Wikimedia. It features highly improved textures and details as well as a slight colorization.

> Please investigate and discuss the potential usage in Chopin's article.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Chopin_1849.jpg

TheClassicalMusicGuy (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Nice that you have done this, but in general it's better to use actual evidence and materials, not people's versions of it. The original is appropriate for the article; this is an FA article so we need to stick to the actuality afap. (also see previous discussion here). I've corrected your description on WikiCommons as this is not the only photograph of Chopin (there is a poor quality earlier daguerotype) and to make it clear that this is a recoloured version, not the original.--Smerus (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oy! - Lord, no. SPECIFICO talk 21:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Cool idea, but recolorized photos are too new and not trusted enough to be put in an FA. If this was done by a professional recolorization company, I'd be more inclined to consider it, but even then, we are yet to see how much actual trust people are going to put in recolorized photos, past a "that's cool!" sentiment. Aza24 (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Schenker apart

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Hi SPECIFICO. I am no Schenkerian, certainly; and Kallberg's notion about this doesn't have to be in the article by any means. But question of the of the revaluation of some of Chopin's music in the 20th century by dint of performances including those of Rubinstein might I think be reasonably touched on here - I am not sure I appreciate why you think this should not be so. It's not about Rubinstein's reminiscences, as you seem to imply; Kallman cites Rubinstein as an example of the way in which Chopin's nocturnes re-entered the virtuoso repertoire. If you have other sources giving others who drove this revaluation, buy all means add and cite them. Best, --Smerus (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I previously mentioned Anton Rubinstein's championing more full-fledged Chopin playing. With all respect to Artur, whom I heard and met on several occasions in his late prime, he was not of that stature. I wonder whether his performances were cited because he and those performances are better know to us and our contemporaries. I don't mean this as OR, but as verifiable context. There are documented recordings and concert reviews relating to the generation before A.R. More OR: most of th aristocrat piano-after-dinner pianist ladies probably couldn't muster the technique for half the Chopin nocturnes, so the played the shorter sweeter ones and in the unfortunate manner that persisted in amateur performance well int the 20th century. Just my 2 zlotys. SPECIFICO talk 22:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, the idea of effeminacy is vastly different, and largely depricated, vs. Even the late 20th century. And of course many aknowledgedly gay composers and performers' music is not considered effeminate by any standard. It all seems meaningless to me. Liszt referred to the nocturnes alongside larger works here SPECIFICO talk 22:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Proposed reference I like this bit from Charles Rosen, duly cited by RS.

    In perhaps the most interesting section of his book Rosen shows that Chopin – routinely thought of as a swooning, ‘inspired’, small-scale salon composer whose music is basically ‘effeminate’ – is in fact an ingenious contrapuntalist of the most extreme sort, a musician whose affecting surfaces conceal a discipline in planning, polyphony and sheer harmonic creativity, a composer whose only real rival in the end was someone as different and as grand as Wagner.

  • Specifico, I checked first the Edward Said review that you linked, and then reread Rosen's three chapters on Chopin in 'The Romantic Generation' seeking the comments Said mentions (good stuff, but a bit intense, i am now recovering). In fact although Rosen does indeed convincingly and powerfully demonstrate Chopin's achievements and innovations in counterpoint, harmony, etc., he doesn't have anything (except by inference) of Said's comments "routinely thought of as a swooning, ‘inspired’, small-scale salon composer whose music is basically ‘effeminate’ ". So I will seek a way of efficiently combining both these authorities in a pithy sentence or two.--Smerus (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Thanks for your effort Smerus. I think my underlying concern is that Artur Rubinstein, like the few other first-order 20th century artists who were fortunate enough to be signed and promoted by global recording companies, is exaggerated in the consciousness of living persons due to that exposure and promotion. These public careers were not undeserved, but AR like others in similar circumstances was not unaware of his reputation, public persona, and opportunities to promote and steer both in favorable directions. That does not elevate him to the level of analysis or scholarship of Rosen, who strikes me as a possible authority on the matter of popular shifts in our understanding of Chopin over the past 200 years. There are others, Ohlssohn, and yes Busoni, who speak from intellectual and analytic observation rather than personal reminiscence and public reputation. I do think the phenomenon of careless or incompetent public performance of salon pieces is worth note -- we just need to find the proper breadth of authority to establish a solid view. We've all know the phenomenon. Some thougthful musician must have put it in a nutshell. I think a lot of the shorter works of Chopin are deceptively simple-looking. Maybe the mazurkas even more than the nocturnes, which are not all that simple even on a superficial basis. SPECIFICO talk 13:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I am very wary of using most performers as authorities on any one composer. Just like Wikimedia projects, they also have a COI: they are in the business of trying to promote their own performances/recordings as being superior to everyone else who is therefore inferior. I would much rather use musicologists or even *notable* critics to achieve what you're trying to say here. I just had a look at Grove's 1879 edition. The article (by Edward Dannreuther) mentions that Liszt 's characterization of the composer (apparently as a playful amateur) was wrong and that Chopin was a serious performer and composer (interesting to note that in 1879 they gave equal weight to his being a performer). The closest I can find to a judgement is the passage: "The emotional materials he embodies are not of the very highest; his moral nature was not cast in a sublime mould, and his intellect was not of the profoundest; his bias was romantic and sentimental rather than heroic or naive—but he his material ever so exotic, he invariably makes amends by the exquisite refinement of his diction." https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31970001387718&view=1up&seq=361&size=125&q1=chopin]. I've read a number of critiques of Chopin from various parts of the 20th century and I don't recall anyone charactizing him in a "feminine" manner. If Rosen makes that accusation, perhaps it should be supported with proof. - kosboot (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Rosen is rebutting, not supporting that characterization. Rosen was a notable scholar, in fact more than a performer. Your skepticism about performers is however consistent with my reluctance to use Artur Rubinstein's opinion. Frankly, there are few musicologists who are worth their salt and almost no critics, excepting those like Harold C. Schonberg and others who also did credible primary research backed by recognized expert judgment. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I think Rosen would be accepted by most as a notable commentator as well as a performer. His book "The Romantic Generation" from which I give citations in support, is based on the Charles Eliot Norton Lectures which Rosen gave at Harvard, and I believe that must make it worthy as a source. The carefully constructed and highly technical analyses which Rosen gives of works of Chopin, Liszt, Berlioz and others in the book transcends any suggestion of WP:PROMOTION-style stuff :-) (although I must say that I profoundly disagree with his characterization of Mendelsshon as the "inventor of religious kitsch", but that's another story).--Smerus (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Chopin's nationality

Latest comment: 10 years ago59 comments17 people in discussion
Clear majority voted for Option A, by a wide margin as seen below. GRUcrule (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Should we mention Chopin's nationality as Polish or Polish-French? A debate on this has been simmering on for sometime now.

Prior discussions

1. Nationality
2. Talk:Frédéric_Chopin/Archive_2#Nationality (second discussion)
3. Nationality (third discussion)
4. Nationality standards?
5. LEAD: Polish, French or Polish-French?
6. Nationality (one more time)

Solutions considered

As consensus has and will always change, here are some solutions which are being considered for proposal:

  • Solution A - Describe Chopin as Polish in the lead
  • Solution B - Describe Chopin as a Polish-French in the lead
  • Solution C - Describe Chopin as Polish and French in the lead
  • Solution D - Describe Chopin as Polish, French-naturalized in the lead
  • Solution E - Do not describe his nationality in the lead. Discuss it in the body of the article.

Please weigh-in, indicating the solution(s) you support using the example format below. Include a brief explanation of your rationale. Or, alternatively, if you have some idea which hasn't previously been put forward, please let us know!

Example format

  • Support A - He is clearly a Polish. - Example 1 (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2257 (UTC)
  • Support C - He is of Polish and French Nationality - Example 2 (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2257 (UTC)
  • Support E - It is too tough of an issue to deal with. Let's not mention it. - Example 3 (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2257 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the suggestions/comments/opinions in advance!

Please note that this RfC should not be construed as a vote rather than an attempt to measure consensus. As always let's keep the conversations at a civilized level and focus completely on content, not contributors or their motives.

Discussion

How many times do I have to refer you to WP:GHITS and WP:NPOV? It's a factor of much less than 10, because (And I've pointed this out to you repeatedly) adding words greatly decreases the number of Google search results. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 14:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support D to indicate that he composed and achieved fame while living in France. Also, all that discussion about his nationality and how he always considered himself Polish should be moved from the first paragraph of the lead into a later paragraph. The first paragraph should be about why he is notable, it should be concerned with his music and his work. FurrySings (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Much as I disagree with some of the POV-pushing here, primary sources usually should not be used for determining nationality. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The POV you and the other members of your tag team are pushing is nationalist propaganda, the POV I am 'pushing' is neutral. Read policies before making hypocritical personal attacks. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 18:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  1. I'm not Polish, nor am I aware of having Polish ancestors.
  2. "You are engaging in POV-pushing" is not a personal attack; "you are a(n) [expletive]" is. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Where did I say that? 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 18:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Say what? You accused me of "pushing ... nationalist propaganda", and you deemed "POV-pushing"—a concept to which you have also referred—a personal attack. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Just because I prefer a neutral POV to your completely biased one, it doesn't mean I'm a POV pusher. And where did I say "you are a(n) [expletive]"? 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 18:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
You didn't say that; after all, I never accused you of making a personal attack. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support A - mainly because I'm in agreement with Toccata quarta in regards to how reliable sources state him. Plus, I believe this column from the La Jolla Music Society is an informative read on the very topic. GRUcrule (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support A- as per Dale Tucker (1998). Frederic Chopin. Alfred Music Publishing. p. 5. ISBN 978-1-4574-0134-3. - though French should be mentioned in the article as it is now - all is fine -- Moxy (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)#
It isn't mentioned, because it was removed and then the page was protected to the wrong version 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 19:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Current version says in the lead "Although Chopin's father was a Polonized Frenchman and Chopin himself was exiled in France from the age of 20 until his death, the composer always regarded himself as a Pole rather than a Frenchman" then outside the lead in the first section we say "Chopin's father, Nicolas Chopin, was a Frenchman from Lorraine who had emigrated to Poland in 1787 at the age of sixteen" - thus we can all imply hes of French heritage because of his fathers. This is how most bio confront the situation as we do here - V. K. Subramanian (2004). The Great Ones. Abhinav Publications. p. 225. ISBN 978-81-7017-421-9.. -- Moxy (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
By 'most bios' are you referring to the number of Google hits or the sources provided (which is 5 v 4)? And the article mentions that he was not French. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 19:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
General statement - out of all the "book sources" (dont care about Google hits of non scholarly websites or news papers) I can find only one small bio that mentions both Polish-French at William J. Roberts (2004). France: A Reference Guide from the Renaissance to the Present. Infobase Publishing. p. 214. ISBN 978-0-8160-4473-3. -- Moxy (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
But did you search for Polish-French? And are you sure Encyclopedia Britannica is non-scholarly? 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 20:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
We are only here to regurgitate what the majority of sources say and in the manner they say it. We have lots of space here thus we have more then enough room to explain the situation and not just a small bio trying to jam all in a few paragraphs. We have done this in the article pretty well I think (first time here today). Even non scholarly articles like this new paper confront the situation. So from what I am reading all over they refer to his "nationally" as Polish and in the same breath say he was "ethnically" half-French. -- Moxy (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
And by 'majority' do you mean 5 vs 4? Or are you talking about 5 vs 0 because the 4 supporting the fact that he was Polish-French removed by a biased POV pusher? 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 20:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes Britannica and the book France : a reference guide from the Renaissance to the present say this - in the case of Britannica they are trying to get you to read on with a subscription....thus both are very small bios trying to say a lot in a confined space. The book Jacqueline Dineen (1998). Frederic Chopin. Lerner Publications. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-57505-248-9. does not say this in the copy I can read. - as in his "nationality" was French. As for Northern light : the Skagen painter I cant see it but why a panting book as a source? So from what I can see in the majority of source that I have found today that cover the topic in-depth say his "nationally" is Polish with a French background - as we explain in this article. I see no problem in expanding the section "Nationality" but to add this contentions point in the lead as if it was fact without explanation as we do later is not serving our readers well. -- Moxy (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Given that last point you should change it to Support E. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 12:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support E. Came here via RFC, so not involved. I like the way NPR cut the cake. It is ok to not put the nationality of people front and center and then give full details late. Say he was Polish-Born in the lead, then have the nationality section down below really go into it. That is informative while not distracting from the guy's works and life. I know the issue is important, but I think being broad in the lead and having a good nationality section could make for a much improved article. Best of luck. AbstractIllusions (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Sources are not unreliable just because they oppose your view. And Wikipedia is not a reliable source, see WP:NOTRS. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 16:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Encyclopaedia Britannica's expression, "Polish-French", is sloppy. What on earth does it mean?
Does it refer to a given individual's birthplace, ethnicity, sense of national identity, or citizenship, or to some combination of these?
Or does the expression refer to these characteristics in relation to the individual's parents?
Perhaps a mathematician could calculate for us the doubtless large number of possible combinations of characteristics that can lurk behind the vague expression, "Polish-French"? Nihil novi (talk) 10:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
The expression "Polish" is even more vague. It could refer to all of those, plus the fact that they polish things. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 12:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support A, or (less-preferred, because not really relevant in the lead, but acceptable) D. At the time when I was active editing WP, (and was hoping to bring this article up to GA quality) I gave a lot of thought to this issue. All reliable musical dictionaries, critics and biographers regard Chopin as Polish. And he regarded himself as Polish. There is no problem providing citations for all this. The fact that he took French nationality (which was a convenience for him) made him legally French, I suppose, but this is trivial in the context of his music, which did not draw on French sources, as I hope the maturing article will point out when it starts being edited properly once again. I don't see in Wikipedia, e.g., Winston Churchill being described as American , even though his mother was an American and he himself received honorary American citizenship. Incidentally the cluster of notes in the first two sentences of the lead section should surely be removed, according to WP:MOS. The right place to explain in cited detail about squabbles of this sort is in the text, not the lead. I also believe the second sentence of the lead belongs in the body of the article as being WP:UNDUE in this section; later in the lead in the second paragraph Chopin's residence in France is quite adequately described, and the 'after age of 20' doesn't need to be anticipated in the first paragraph. Best, --Smerus (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Agree completely with Smerus. The sentence "Although Chopin's father was a Polonized Frenchman and Chopin himself was exiled in France from the age of 20 until his death, the composer always regarded himself as a Pole rather than a Frenchman." should be removed from the lead altogether - all this polemic over his nationality is not nearly as important as his impact on piano technique and composition, as well as his importance in the emerging "star" culture surrounding great solo performers (especially pianists) - points which, in fact, are undercovered in the article itself. Ravpapa (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Further my post supporting A: From Moritz Karasowski, Frederic Chopin: His Life and Letters (1906), volume II, page 368: "When [Chopin's] remains were lowered into the grave, Polish earth was scattered on the coffin. It was the same that Chopin had brought from the village of Wola nineteen years before as a memorial of his beloved fatherland, and shortly before his death had requested that if he might not rest in Polish soil his body might at least be covered with his native earth. Chopin's heart, which had beaten so warmly, and suffered so deeply for his country was, according to his desire, sent to the land whose sun had shone on his happy youth; it is preserved ad interim in the Church of the Sacred Cross at Warsaw."
Can we not let this poor piano-playing Pole (to paraphrase Paderewski) rest in peace?
I move to close this RFP. Ravpapa (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
As the sole Arthropod-American Wikipedia editor, I strongly second the motion. This whole thing is an example of what happens when you have a strongly POV minority trying to change articles. Trilobitealive (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Don't you mean the NPOV minority? Anyway, WP:RS and WP:NPOV are core content policies, which cannot be superseded by consensus. So this means nothing. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 16:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
That's not how it works. Volunteer Marek  17:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes it is. Let me quote:

"...not superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 17:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep telling yourself that. Volunteer Marek  17:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Keep telling me that 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 12:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • "Polish-born" in lead: This source uses this wording which seems to side-step the issue nicely. The French aspect shouldn't be suppressed as we do have sources (1 2) that describe him so. We might also need to mention that the nationality issue is a touchy topic in Poland (source). Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support E, "Polish-born" in lead - Per User:AbstractIllusions,Dailycare; Always a good idea to shy away from definitively asserting that "Person X is of some given nationality" when there is even the smallest ambiguity on the matter. WP shouldn't be deciding what someone's proper nationality is. Using "Polish-born" strikes me as a nice way to reflect the fact that most sources do refer to him as Polish, while not positively asserting that he is either Polish or French. NickCT (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Dailycare and NickCT: I don't know how familiar you are with Chopin's biography, but your comments are not addressing a very important point: that Chopin was not merely Polish, he was emphatically Polish. He never identified himself as French, on the contrary, he always saw himself as an exile. His letters, his music, all his documented comments, from the day of his departure from Poland to his burial, all cry out his love and yearning for his native land. All the sources agree about this, even the two which in their leads refer to him as "Polish French". To call him anything other than Polish is not merely to distort the sources, but to do him a profound injustice. Ravpapa (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
@Ravpapa - Self identification is important. But it's not a be all and end all. And I agree, from my uninformed POV Chopin certainly does look "mostly or almost entirely Polish". That said, I think anyone who'd argue that Chopin was at least in some part French by virtue of his father and the fact that he spent half his life in France, would be making a reasonable point. Why not leave his nationality vague in the lead, but reflect the majority of sources and his own identification by calling him "Polish-born"? I don't see the injustice. It would seem we're placing emphasis on his "polishness" while simultaneously saying that his nationality was not definitively Polish. NickCT (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
By your reasoning, George Washington should be described only as "British-born", since he spent the first two-thirds of his life (1732–1776) as a British subject. Let's not muddle matters by mentioning that in the latter third of his life he thought of himself as an American!
The fact is that "–born" adjectives are so ambiguous as to be meaningless. I don't know whether one of Wikipedia's goals is meaninglessness. Nihil novi (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
How Washington should be described turns exclusively on what sources say about him, not on what editors think about him. There are sources that describe Chopin's nationality in a more nuanced way than merely "Polish", so allowing for them with "Polish-born" seems reasonable to me (and, importantly, since at least one source uses that exact language). We can expand on the subject a bit in the article body, maybe even mentioning that his nationality is a bit of a touchy subject in Poland, at least one source says that. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes but the sources which describe Chopin as "Polish born" rather than just "Polish" are in a small minority. So exactly by your logic, you should switch your vote. Volunteer Marek  20:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
@Nihil novi - re "should be described only as "British-born"," - Sort of, yeah. I'd oppose saying some like "George Washington was American." in the lead of his article. A reasonable person might dispute that unqualified assertion. NickCT (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I haven't counted sources on this page, but even I now know (having arrived via the RFC) that several sources describe his nationality in a more nuanced way than just "Polish". One source cited above describes him as Polish, but that "the situation is not simple". Saying "Polish-born" in the lead accomodates all the sources that I know, at least, and gives primacy to Polishness in line with what the majority of sources say. --Dailycare (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I make the following compromise proposal (F) for the lead, in view of comments above: "was a Romantic-era Polish composer, who spent most of his mature career in France." I believe that this statement is compatible with all recognised authorities. The detail (e.g. his father, his exile, his passport, etc.) is already covered in the text of the article. --Smerus (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Me,too Ravpapa (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support F or E. Why on Earth did it take this many kilobytes to find what seems like the most natural way to describe him? Yes, he was born in Poland and apparently considered himself Polish. Yes, he spent most of his life in France. Let's just say that instead of turning it into a civil war or contemplating dreadful constructs like Polish-French, which are anachronistic at best. Sai Weng (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC Close

This RfC has been around for three days now, I'd like to ask that it be closed if it doesn't last for more than a couple of days or so. By my reading, option A seemed to garner the most support, with D coming in second, and C/E coming in last place.

  • Solution A - (12 support)
    • Support: me, Piotrus, Toccata quarta, Volunteer Marek, Woogie10w, Smerus, Moxy, GRUcrule, Nihil novi, Trilobitealive, Ravpapa
    • Weak or qualified support:
  • Solution B - (0 support, 0 weak support)
    • Support:
    • Weak or qualified support:
  • Solution C - (1 support, 0 weak support)
    • Support: 2Awwsome
    • Weak or qualified support:
  • Solution D - (0 support, 1 weak support)
    • Support:
    • Weak or qualified support: Piotrus
  • Solution E - (3 support, 0 weak support)
    • Support: AbstractIllusions, Dailycare, NickCT
    • Weak or qualified support:
  • Solution F - (1 support, 0 weak support)
    • Support: Smerus
    • Weak or qualified support:

Though there seems to be some off-topic arguing between a couple of users, I hope this is a clear consensus that satisfies all parties. There is no hurry, but does anyone have thoughts about this? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The default duration of an RfC is 30 days or... if the community's response became obvious very quickly, the RfC participants can agree to end it, it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor. -- Moxy (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I completely understand. I think we should let this run for the full 30 days this RFC was opened (on December 15.) Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:58, 24 November 2013 (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.

Bibliography and references

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Smerus, I saw you were beginning to standardize the format of the bibliography, so I added to the endeavor [5] as I had already begun to do so in my sandbox the day earlier [6]. In looking at the sources, I'm not sure about the Chen ref; written by an non-notable performer (Shu-fen Viola Chen—who doesn't even have a Wikipedia page), and published by the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, who don't exactly seem first-class. Also, if your future intentions include converting refs to sfn for ease of access by readers, let me know and I will attempt to assist in such an approach—in light of what we did at Fanny. Aza24 (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance in this, I am very grateful for any help; yes, I am also hoping to grade up all the refs to sfn. I am trying to get the article generally in order after the recent discussions, and will then submit it to an FAReview just to make sure everyone still feels that the rating is kosher. Lots of bits and pieces were added since the original FA (including Chen), and many may need replacing or rethinking. Best,--Smerus (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Work seems to be progressing nicely, I've cleaned up some references and sfn-ed more. I have two queries on sources; refs 205 & 205 seem to have the wrong year for Kallberg though I'm not sure which is correct (since there are three Kallberg sources) and there is no Milweski in the biblio to match to at the moment. Aza24 (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Likewise with Michałowski and Samson Aza24 (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I will check these later today! "Michałowski and Samson" is a curiosity since when the article went for FA the Grove article on Chopin was credited to the two of them, but now, altho' the article is scarcely changed, it is credited only to Samson.--Smerus (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Woyciechowski

Latest comment: 3 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion

I am seeking to tidy up the article and submit it to Featured Article Review. I have added the following text to section 1.1.2, which I believe is accurate and non-contentious. The issue has been raised by many of Chopin's biographers over the past 20 years or so - it is not a novelty (despite the fuss some editors made of it in recent discussion) and Walker's conclusion represents the consensus of writers including Zamoyski, Kallberg, etc. But I would appreciate and will of course respect comments.

Letters from Chopin to Woyciechowski in the period 1829–30 (when Chopin was about twenty) contain erotic references to dreams and to offered kisses and embraces. Chopin's biographer Alan Walker considers that, insofar as such expressions could be perceived as homosexual in nature, they would not denote more than a passing phase in Chopin's life.{{sfn|Walker|2018|pp=109-110}}


--Smerus (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

"beginning when Chopin was 19"?
Mention consensus as also including the views of Zamoyski and Kallberg?
Mention that, according to some or all of the biographers, the letters' "erotic" features may have been cultural rather than stricto sensu erotic or homosexual?
Nihil novi (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
One of Chopin's letters does mention an ambiguous "szkaradny sen" ("bad dream"), which hardly need be an "erotic" dream.
Given the ambiguities of interpretation of the handful of references from a couple of letters to Woyciechowski, then residing 300 km. from Chopin, I wonder whether the whole question might not be UNDUE?
Nihil novi (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion, not WP:UNDUE. The facts as stated are not contested - there is no ambiguity that Chopin wrote to W. in terms that have raised questions - and there is a consensus from the reputable authorities in their opinion on this, as you you say. Writers on Chopin today regularly mention and discuss this. People may well want to come to WP to see what it says about this matter, and imo with these two sentences we are just reporting the facts. There is little point I think in arguing here abstruse points of Polish translation - it would be absolutely wrong to bring in long passages from the letters and debate their translation and import: that would indeed be WP:UNDUE (and WP:OR) and just risks making the disucssion, as we have already seen on this page, a partisan fracas. The more we elaborate on this and the more we seek to find 'excuses' the more WP:UNDUE the whole matter becomes. (The letters of course only exist because W. was 300km. away from Chopin; who knows or can speculate on what their conversation was when they were both in Warsaw?) It's not an issue I think of whether we like it or don't - my wording I believe just tells it the way it is, no less, and no more, with a citation from a reputable authority that justifies the wording - and that is what WP is all about.--Smerus (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
How do we know the "bad dream" was erotic? That interpretation smacks of OR.
Which passage speaks of "embraces"? I don't recall the expression in the letters in question.
Nihil novi (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
If this is what Walker says, I see no issue with it. And it seems far from OR—the "interpretation" is clearly from Walker, which is fine, since reliable high-quality secondary sources should be doing the interpreting, not us. Perhaps the best way to go about this is directly quote from Walker? If only to avoid accusations of unfaithful interpretation like the above. Aza24 (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I have added a note with direct quotes. Nihil novi, be careful to read my prose accurately. I do not speak of the "szkaradny sen" as erotic, I write of "erotic references to dreams". E.g. Chopin writes to Titus "Today you will dream that you are embracing me!". You will find numerous extracts from the letters to Titus in Walker pp. 157-8 (as well of course as elsewhere in editions of Chopin's letters, etc.). There is no point in seeking to evade this issue in comments on Chopin's life. If an authority like Walker devotes 3 pages to discussing it, it cannot be rated as UNDUE. I am against erasure of any sort, and so is WP.--Smerus (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Sorry but this is worse than some of the RfC proposals and I oppose. It ends up being majorly POV by excluding Niecks and Zamoyski's caution, and mention of Konstancja Gładkowska, noted here on your own RfC proposal. After all this discussion and work to get rid of undue stuff, it's for no reason surrendering to the "he was bisexual!!" advocates. It is WP:UNDUE because it's focusing on one biographer's claim when other biographers apparently ignore it and thus results in POV, as described. Either his sexuality is ignored entirely (my preference) or it gets a balanced treatment. As for "erasure", sure, but we don't engage in WP:UNDUE writing to go to the other extreme either. That would be WP:ADVOCACY and WP:RGW. Crossroads -talk- 17:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I regret Crossroads that you have the wrong end of the stick here. The RfC was about whether there should be a separate section on sexuality. It was not about censorship of opinion or reputable sources. In no way does the text you have deleted (and which I have now restored) say that Chopin was bisexual - if you wish to make a case please base it on actuality. Other biographers do not, as you claim, 'ignore' the issue - all reputable contemporary biographers (Walker, Zamoyski, Azoury) cover this issue - all of them conclude, as does Walker, that it must remain an open question. Niecks who has been dead over a century does not address the issue explicitly - he wouldn't given the time he lived in - and does not as you claim give any 'caution' relating to it. Zamoyski's conclusion is open-ended - as is Walker's. You may not like what the reputable authorities say, but that is tough - WP is here to report what they say. If you find a reputable authority who says that there was no way that Chopin ever had any non-heterosexual impulses, let me know and I will be very glad to include it. In the meantime please refrain from wholesale deletion whilst this thread is open for comment and discussion.

Thank you however for pointing out that in the turmoil over recent months, Gładkowska has not been restored. You are absolutely 100% correct in pointing this out and I have added her to the text (in the outturn with rather more coverage than Titus). --Smerus (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Smerus, I find Crossroads' arguments cogent and NPOV. Until you restored her just now, Konstancja Gładkowska got written out of Chopin's life, though according to Zamoyski they corresponded for a year after he left Warsaw. According to Zamoyski, also, Chopin's epistolary expressions of affection for Tytus Woyciechowski "carry no greater implication than 'love' concluding letters today." Crossroads makes a valid point, bolstered by evidence in your own 26 December 2020 texts: "Either [Chopin's] sexuality is ignored entirely (my preference) or it gets a balanced treatment." Nihil novi (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Nihil novi, any argument that suggests, without justification, the deletion of the opinions of reputable sources, is itself a clear WP:NNPOV. As you are very well aware, the questions are not about Chopin's expressions of affection to Titus, but about the other more explicit comments in the letters. I have no more wish to discuss these explicitly than you do, that would undoubtedly be WP:UNDUE. I be;eive the treatment I have given them in the text is appropriate and proportionate according to the authorities. I repeat the request I made above - if you have any reputable sources that contest what is said about Chopin, Titus (or Gladkowska for that matter), in this section, please let me know and I will be glad to include them.--Smerus (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Smerus, you could begin by citing the above Zamoyski quotation, that Chopin's epistolary expressions of affection for Tytus Woyciechowski "carry no greater implication than 'love' concluding letters today." Nihil novi (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. Replying to Smerus: The RfC was about whether there should be a separate section on sexuality. No, it is very clearly about how, if at all, such material should be included, not a mere technicality like if it should have a heading, and was spurred on by a POV pusher whom you appear to be surrendering to for no reason. It was not about censorship - removing UNDUE and POV text is not censorship. In no way does the text you have deleted (and which I have now restored) say that Chopin was bisexual - a statement that he was attracted to a male friend implies just that (since sexual orientation isn't a "phase") and is the very matter which we just overcame POV pushing about. all reputable contemporary biographers (Walker, Zamoyski, Azoury) cover this issue - all of them conclude, as does Walker, that it must remain an open question. As noted above, Zamoyski states it carries no special implication. Does Azoury say it definitely was sexual feelings and towards Woyciechowski? You may not like what the reputable authorities say, but that is tough - WP is here to report what they say....any argument that suggests, without justification, the deletion of the opinions of reputable sources, is itself a clear WP:NNPOV - not about me. What I don't like is WP:UNDUE WP:ADVOCACY material which we just got done spending tons of time overruling, but which has returned from the dead for some reason. And we do exclude sourced material if it is WP:UNDUE. If you find a reputable authority who says that there was no way that Chopin ever had any non-heterosexual impulses - you're asking me to find a source proving a negative, which is impossible. If it was due that Chopin was non-heterosexual than I am all for it. But this sort of cherry-picked source speculating this or that historical person is gay or bisexual is not encyclopedic material. I think this has ended up being an end-run around the RfC above which found no consensus for any of this 'was he sexually interested in Woyciechowski?' material. We should be respecting that and the enormous amount of time sunk into it. It should only be added if there is a clear consensus for it, per WP:ONUS, and for NPOV would need to include Zamoyski's clarification and possibly Niecks' view from your draft as well. But I prefer not to cover that question at all per the RfC finding no consensus for change; we should stick to known and due facts, not speculations. Crossroads -talk- 20:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
This ([7][8])([9])([10]) is very disappointing. You are at the WP:3RR. WP:ONUS is clear about how these additions are supposed to work. Crossroads -talk- 20:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I have full-protected the article for 24 hours. I will unprotect if I can see a clear agreement on how to proceed on the Woyciechowski-related content under dispute. MelanieN, this has (as a consequence of full protection) over-ridden your semi-protection placed because of vandalism, which means it will need to be re-applied when this protection expires. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Ritchie. The semi-protection that I imposed a year ago was set to expire next week anyhow. I'll watch the article and see if the semi-protection needs to be reinstated, or if the need has passed. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Name

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hello. I'm wondering why this article's main title is Frederic Chopin. Chopin's name was Fryderyk, as he was a Pole, born and raised in Poland of polish mother (and french father, as a matter of fact) and polish was His native language. Is there a rational explanation to that? Thank you. 5.173.2.177 (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)Maciek

WP:USEENGLISH ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
English, you say? Yes, that's obvious as it is an english version of Wikipedia. But let's see, here the same name is spelled quite different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Forsyth It's quite acceptable spelling for me here, while the french spelling (Frédéric) is... rather confusing. 5.173.2.177 (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Please read article: where it is clearrly explained that he was Fryderyk in Polish and Frédéric in his adopted country of France. As he was never a British citizen he is never referred to as Frederick, any more than he is known in Germany as Friedrich.--Smerus (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I read it, I know it all. I've just wondered why, of those two versions of the name, the article in english wiki is named with the french version. But it seems that there is no answer to this, that's just the way it is... Regards.5.173.2.177 (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Perhaps we could/should have a permanent link to the very extensive discussion we had concerning Chopin's sexuality: Talk:Frédéric_Chopin/Archive_23. - kosboot (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems sensible, and it would make sense to link to the nationality discussion as well—so it can finally be archived. Aza24 (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I am not against: would this/these link/links go on this talkpage then, and how would we stop them being archived themselves?--Smerus (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I would suggest with a {{notice}} under the talk header. Maybe similar to at Talk:Atheism, but without the awkward red highlighting. Aza24 (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I've seen talk pages that have a kind of "do not archive" command which results in the archive bot leaving the section alone. - kosboot (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I have a feeling that {{Template:Round in circles}} (which is on the Talk:Atheism page) and/or {{Template:FAQ}} might be useful here, if I had a clue as to how to use them.--Smerus (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@Smerus and Kosboot: how does this—yet to be inserted—look? Feel free to tweak with the wording, I was not entirely sure on how to present the second part. Is there anything else we would want to include? Aza24 (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Now added, cheers. Aza24 (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was merge. Smerus (talk) 06:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I propose to merge Emilia Chopin into Frédéric Chopin. I think that the relevant content in the Emilia article, which is slight, can easily be explained in the context of Frédéric, and the Frédéric article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Emilia will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. It should be noted that there is no way that Emilia, who died at the age of 14, meets the criteria of WP:NOTABLE. She appears to have a separate article only because of her brother.--Smerus (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

In view of the effort to raise the profile of women overlooked throughout history, my gut instinct would be to leave it as a separate article. But she died at age 14, before she really could accomplish much (or enough to fill a substantive article). Therefore in this case, I agree it should be merged. - kosboot (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2021 (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.

Szopen spelling

Latest comment: 2 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

It kind of surprises me not to see any mention of that, but since there was some debate about this in Polish sources in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it seems surprising not to mention the Polonised spelling as a possibility. It after all is the one Norwid used for his poem Chopin's Piano (Fortepian Szopena). I'd suggest to add a note saying "His surname is occasionally given the polonised spelling Szopen in Polish sources."

A couple of Polish linguistic sources confirming that the spelling is still considered OK in contemporary usage, though rarer: University of Zielona Góra, PWN. In the PWN encyclopedia both forms of his surname are given up front. Double sharp (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Please search for "Szopen" in the archives of this talk page for previous discussions on this topic. Mathsci (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Seems not to have been discussed very often. The only time it was discussed in the past five years is apparently in Archive 18, last year. In that case sources were not presented showing actual contemporary use of this; in this case I linked PWN encyclopedia giving it as a secondary annotation. As for historical use, I pointed to (first link) a study mentioning Stanisław Niewiadomski's advocacy for the Sz spelling in the 1930s while discussing and arguing for the Polishness of Chopin and his music. That seems somewhat relevant since we have sections on Chopin's Polish identity and his reception. Unlike what was sometimes claimed in previous years' discussion, it was not always just about making the pronunciation more transparent for Poles who couldn't understand French orthography. Niewiadomski used that spelling very much to make a point. Double sharp (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The problem here is I think that there is not a single instance of FC himself (or any of his family) using this version. The fact that Niewiadomski has advocated it - not on the basis of documentary evidence but for reasons of political nationalism - can hardly make him an acceptable seocndary source. similalrly we should treat with great caution any 'authority' who seeks to justify the Sz version - unless and until an actual example of it being used by FC can be provided. It's just WP:OR on an exalted plane.--Smerus (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't know of any evidence that FC used it, but Juliusz Słowacki interacted with him, and seems to have used that spelling in his letters to his mother. The Chopin Institute quotes one of them: Mówią, że się Szopen z Marią Wodzińską, a niegdyś moją Marią ożenił.... I can find this one on Google Books: seems they changed the orthography for Maria, but not for Szopen. So at least it is probably contemporary to his time.
Yes, Niewiadomski had an agenda, but my point was that he's a data point for Polish-language writers using the spelling. As I mentioned, even today some style guides for Polish seem to consider the Sz version acceptable for that language: since they mention in the same breath cases like Waszyngton or Szekspir in Polish, presumably they aren't doing it because it's documentarily correct, but to make the pronunciation clear or to stake an orthographic claim for Chopin's Polishness like Niewiadomski did. You can see it here for instance – it is written that both versions are acceptable by Polish-language conventions, and justify it by saying that Chopin was Polish. Chopin jest jednym z tych nazwisk, które w języku polskim posiadają wersję wariantywną. Możemy zatem wykorzystywać obie formy – zarówno Chopin, jak i spolszczone Szopen. Brak takiej możliwości budziłby zapewne wątpliwości zważywszy na fakt, że Fryderyk Chopin był wybitnym pianistą i kompozytorem polskiego pochodzenia. The Sz spelling is also on some street names in Poland. That's why I think that it's reasonable that the reader would want to know something about this spelling and if it's documentarily justified or not. Hence the note I had in mind was not a bald-faced "or Szopen" or something like that, but rather "Polish-language writers occasionally use the polonised spelling Szopen". Given Słowacki, perhaps it should even be "Polish-language writers from Chopin's time to now have sometimes used the polonised spelling Szopen, but there is no evidence that the composer or his family ever used it". Double sharp (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Whether Chopin used Szopin himself is irrelevant (WAM and his contemporaries never used the now familiar name during his lifetime) – what matters is usage in reliable sources. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
In that case, there you go: I presented links showing that Polish-language authors have sometimes been using this spelling from Chopin's time to the present, that it remains in use on some Polish street names, and according to some significant authorities is an acceptable alternative in that language. Since we list Chopin's Polish name, that seems relevant. Double sharp (talk) 09:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

In Alan Walker's recent biography of Chopin, there's a relevant paragraph on the use of Szopen in the chapter on Maria Wodzińska, which refers to her letter of September 1835, from Dresden.

One sentence from Maria’s final paragraph calls for comment: her expression of regret that Chopin was not called Chopiński, a sentiment that was shaped by the Wodziński family. Behind her bland words lay something profound. Many Poles whose families bore foreign names had changed them to indicate their immersion into Polish society. This was especially true of German names. Schmidt became Szmit; Schroeder became Szreder; Schulz became Szulc. Mikołaj had integrated as fully as anyone, but he always refused to change the spelling of his family name and hide his French roots. Fryderyk himself was often referred to in the Polish press as Choppen, Szoppen, or Szopen, a practice that was a source of amusement to him. As for Chopiński, Maria must have known that he was immovable on the topic.

Commentary like this, from an English-language WP:RS like Walker, are helpful (possibly as a source for a footnote). Mathsci (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Poles' spellings, "Waszyngton" and "Szekspir" (and Polonizations of other foreign names), are very much apropos. They prevent Poles from grotesquely distorting the original foreign names. "Chopin", if pronounced according to normal Polish orthography, would be "Hoppeen".
There is surely no harm in adding a note: "Though none of Fryderyk Chopin's family spelled their surname Szopen (pronounced Shoppen), the latter spelling has been used by many Poles since his own day, including by his poet contemporaries Juliusz Słowacki and Cyprian Norwid."
In the Anglophone world, Kazimierz Pułaski's name is regularly misspelled "Casimir Pulaski", and Tadeusz Kościuszko's name is mispronounced and misspelled any number of ways. Turnabout seems fair play.
Nihil novi (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Case in point: Australia's highest mountain is Mount Kosciuszko, but until recent years it was officially (mis-)spelled "Kosciusko". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Since no one has objected for five days, I've added a note roughly following Nihil novi's wording.
I would've liked to cite Walker following Mathsci for the assertion that Chopin's family did not use the Szopen spelling, but Google Books is refusing to reveal to me which page it is on. Mathsci, would you mind adding it? (Sorry for troubling you.) Double sharp (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for this Double sharp. It's page 289 by the way. --Smerus (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I downloaded Walker's book both as epub and pdf files: they are searchable but alas have no page numbers (blame Russian technology). Fortunately Smerus has a version with page numbers. Thanks to both of you. Mathsci (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frédéric_Chopin/Archive_24&oldid=1136744347"