Jump to content

Talk:Frédéric Chopin/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 25

Origines

You spoke about Chopin's nationality, I would like to talk about his origins. I find it dishonest to not find a "French-Polish" mention in the introduction to the article. If we wants to be objective, it is enough to cross the information to know that Chopin is not only Polish. You all talk about sources and you put in the article that his father is from Lorraine, so Chopin is clearly of French-Polish origin. If you refuse to mention the fact that he is half of French origin for lack of sources, then do not mention the fact that his father is of French origin. We are talking about origin and not nationality. If your only sources are Polish authors then there is little chance that you will come across the words "of French-Polish origin", which is nevertheless a fact. And It must be mentioned. At least by intellectual honesty... Do I need to remind you that this article is read by millions of people? Edelleweiss (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Edelleweiss: Numerous and repeated discussions on this page have concluded that he should only be described as "Polish". See the discussion at the top of this page, and read through all the arguments made thoroughly (since proposing an argument already discussed won't likely change the standing consensus). Giving WP:DUE weight is the guiding principle here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng: I have already read everything and your arguments are totally invalid, I explained in my previous message. Wikipedia is supposed to give objective information. You are not supposed to choose whether to put this information. If Chopin's father was of French origin and you validate this affirmation then you self-confirm the fact that Chopin is French-Polish and not only Polish. It's simple. I even wonder why I am obliged to open a discussion on this ... And if you need sources, then use the same sources as the one that confirms the French origin of his father.
@Edelleweiss: Then you didn't read WP:DUE. Being geographically from Lorraine does not imply French ethnicity in any case. The fact that Chopin was raised specifically in Poland from the very start makes it irrelevant. As another example, we call Dilma Rousseff a Brazilian politician even though her father wasn't born in Brazil! Nearly all reliable published sources call him Polish. Thus we do too. It's not our job to "set the record straight".--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng: Of course it's revealing of his "French ethnicity". The reason he lived half of his life in France is undoubtedly due to the French origin of his father. Moreover, what he did in France, the people he met, the friendships and the loves he formed are absolutely essential elements of his career and his identity, which makes him remained in history as one of the greatest composers of classical music. So, yes, his French origin is important and should clearly be mentioned. To take away this origin is to take away part of his history.

Reliable sources? Where do you see reliable sources which talk about its origins? There are biographies like those of Zdislas Jachimecki but oh! Surprising, he is Polish and wrote his work in the 1930s. It is not because he is a historian that no one can question his work and even more so if this work is so old .. They are many historians who are a little too proud of their origin and specially at this period . The other sources that seem to me really reliable, do not talk about its origins. We are in 2019, not in the 1900s, it would be time to update his biography even if there isn't any historian that has made a recent biography. . And it's more ironic to see all these French sources and refuse to mention that he is French-Polish. That your "reliable sources" say that it is only Polish does absolutely not remove this reality: his father is of French origin and this origin is transmitted no matter where you are on this planet and any period. Attention, I'm not saying that you must absolutely mention that it is French-Polish but if you don't do it, remove the mention that speaks of the French origin of his father, because otherwise your article is totally inconsistent. You can not have a father of French origin and be totally Polish. Especially concerning Chopin, France has not played a small role in his story. He lived a big part of his life in Poland? This is also the case in France..

@Edelleweiss: None of what you said matters. Find numerous reliable sources that explicitly call him "French-Polish" or else everything you're saying here is original research. And also, he moved to France not really because he wanted to, but because of political events making his return to Poland unsafe.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the existing wording. Despite the presence of this very prominent notice on the talk page, maybe something needs to be put in the article in the form of a footnote, explaining that this issue has been discussed extensively and settled, and that a record of the editor's decision can be found on the talk page. - kosboot (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng: As said earlier, all sources who say that his father was of French origin are sources that allow to define Chopin as a French-Polish and not as a Polish only. There, you are clearly looking for excuses ...

And concerning his arrival in France, "none of what you said matters" he could perfectly have moved to another country than France, he dosn't. Frankly, I do not know who made the decision to ignore his French origin but it would not have been more logical to avoid talking about his origin if it is to be incomplete? And simply mark in the introduction "born on ... in the duchy of warsaw, Polish mother and French father". But if you want sources there are : The law in France (and in the Duchy of Warsaw at the time of the birth of Chopin) was the Code Napoleon (1804) in which it is written black on white: Article 10: "Every child born of a Frenchman abroad is French ". Emmanuel LANGAVANT Associate of Public Law Professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Lille II, clearly explains the nationality of Chopin and this, from a legal point of view, therefore in accordance with the law. By the Code Napoleon, Chopin is French, because born of French father. He was also Polish by his mother who, according to the Code Napoleon, had become French at the time of her marriage with Nicolas Chopin ... And that is exactly what is written on the passport of Chopin issued July 7, 1837: born of French parents.

@Kosboot: The footnote is not enough. We must add or remove information, which are contradictory here.
  • @Edellweiss: Being born to a person of other nationality does not necessarily imply being of that nationality (even in part; you may not assert this material implication for Chopin without a source that makes this exact argument), so it's not a contradiction. Merely rehashing your argument won't convince me. WP:DUE is not an excuse, it's a policy. You may not come to your own conclusions on this matter; we need a source that explicitly says what you want to say, and numerous such sources. To be blunt, I've told you how things work on Wikipedia here, and it's up to you to find something compliant with our processes.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
@Edellweiss: if there was another vote, and a majority of editors said the article should remain the way it is, would you accept that? - kosboot (talk) 05:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng:
@Kosboot:First, I want you to give me your sources since you obviously only take into consideration those that suit you. And I want these sources to be carefully checked to see if they are really relevant. Be honest 2 second, it is not a problem of sources but of ridiculous pride.

You want historians to write in black and white "Chopin is French-Polish" but are you aware that these same historians use the kind of documents I am quoted above? I want to see who these historians are. That you trust much more than archival documents..

@Edellweiss: I strongly advise you to carefully read: WP:NOTTRUTH. I wasn't talking about sources. All I asked—which you did NOT answer—was if a majority of editors felt different from you, would you accept that? If the answer is no, then you are out of luck. Wikipedia is based not only on evidence but also on the consensus of editors. If 12 editors feel one way, and a single editor feels another way, even if that single editor thinks they have the most correct information, Wikipedia goes with the majority of editors that comprise a consensus. You are a single person going against an established finding of editors. Until you convince a majority of editors, you will achieve nothing, no matter how many times you repeat it. To repeat: I strongly advise you to carefully read: WP:NOTTRUTH. - kosboot (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

INFOBOX

can we do a new Infobox please ??? Jena (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:Frédéric Chopin/Archive 13#Infobox? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

WOW all that for an Info box ... well it's benn 5 years .... and I'm board ... so .. I'll ad an infobox !! Jena (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Spoken like a true troll. FWIW, oppose, preempting the start of another time-sink discussion. CassiantoTalk 18:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
If you wish to change the established consensus, please bring your arguments to this page. I doubt if much has changed in five years.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Was that hardboard or chipboard? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Wooden you like to know?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I officially award this request "nil points". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not a Troll I was Just Passing Through and Saw this was Missing a user box but if you are Silly enough to argue about it I'll go away Jena (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
It's not a case of "being Silly and arguing", but rather discussing reasonably. Your reaction to that discussion I linked was "WOW all that"? Is that your entire critical response to the arguments presented there? Some folks take the matter quite seriously. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

History

In 2016 2015, Brianboulton added - as the result of a discussion, with the consent of the main contributor, Smerus - what he called an identibox: "suggested identibox". Perhaps we could look at that compromise again? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to a compromise. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Would there have been a "compromise" if there was a box in place and it was us wanting to delete it? No, of course there wouldn't be. The compromise is only expected on one side of the argument, and for that reason I am against it. Should anyone wish to continue discussing this, please feel free to talk generally about it on my talk page, as I'm up to my full quota, thanks to the ArbCom gestapo. CassiantoTalk 07:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Stasi, surely? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Cassianto, I suggest we still ask questions here, and know to expect answers on your talk. I don't recall any discussion on a talk page "wanting to delete". If there was one, the compromise between "too much information" and "no information" could be "some information", which is exactly what the identybox tries to do, - a possible compromise from both directions. (Alec Guiness: I'd agree that the military career is of little importance, and could be collapsed, or not shown at all, if this had been discussed.) In Chopin's case, wanted information, showing his place in history and his work at a glance, is:
  1. a good image, - the complete image shows history better than the blurred crop.
  2. date and place of birth (which would also diminish the ever-repeated discussions about his nationality), in a templated granulary form, ready for every user in a foreign language to use when translating
  3. date and place of death
  4. what he did
  5. a prominent link to his work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
So, in answer to my question below, there is nothing that has changed on this article that could act as a factor for adding an IB? The "good image" point is superfluous to the IB: that can be chanegd, box or no box, unless anyone objects. - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the "changed" aspect matters. The compromise was good then and now. A prominent ink to the list of works is nowhere in the lead, and wouldn't be prominent if it was there. Vision-impaired readers, people not so good in English, people seeking only one bit of information, etc., may have difficulties to "spin their eyes" to the right spot in the prose, - why not make it a little easier for them? This is called accessibility. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
"people not so good in English" is a straw man: this is the English language WP: other languages have their own places to look. Maybe we should follow the excellent example of [Chopin on German WP ]? We have been a long time without an IB here and the number of people who request an IB is microscopically small compared to the number of readers (actually, most of the requests are done by the same small group who "request" their way on several articles on an ongoing basis. If there isn't a link to his works in the lead, then just add one, rather than use it as an excuse to add an IB. The situation has not changed since the last time this was discussed, so why asre we back to have the same circular arguements as we did then. When something has changed to change the arguments put forward, then it may be time to consider it, otherwise it's all just the same disruptive nonsense as it always is. - SchroCat (talk) 11:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Tend to agree about non-English readers. But as I've said before, I'd be interested to see any actual evidence from readers, whether novices or not, that infoboxes are liked or unliked, used or not used, enhancing or detracting. I suspect it would be almost impossible to collect such data. Meanwhile it's hardly surprising that veteran editors find them useless and annoying. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
This is the English Wikipedia, but I am sure we have readers from languages where Chopin is not covered, or not that well covered, and who come here. I am also sure that some may want to translate to their language, and parameter-value pairs are easier to translate than prose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Has anything in the article or the historiography changed? Without that, I'm not sure there are many good reasons for changing the status quo. Still, if there are any new arguments, I would like to hear them to see if things should be changed. - SchroCat (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Wikidata is much more complete now, so the kind of irrelevant information clutter that makes the infobox such a questionable addition, can now all be found at wikidata::Q1268, via the wikidata link. William Avery (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
If the reader knows where to look? I think the infobox is so hated because it's so "in your face". But this wikidata link is really hidden away, by comparison, especially for a new reader? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Or the reader could spin their eyes over the opening lines, which covers most of the major points? - SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Procedural (history)

Re. "In 2016, Brianboulton added ..." – the diff provided for that alleged edit (... "suggested identibox" ...) shows however an edit in 2015 (at a time when there was an active talk page discussion), an edit that was performed less than 10 hours after a page protection for edit-warring over the infobox had ended. The related talk page discussion (which seems mysteriously to have gone missing in the talk archives) ended a few weeks later, resulting in a removal of the infobox, as the proponents of the infobox (in numbers about as strong as the opposers) all wanted a different infobox (i.e. with different content), none of the proposed infoboxes gathering anything near a consensus. The task ahead being to propose an infobox which can gather significantly more support than the combined opposers. Please get your facts straight. Referring to mildly (or less mildly) disturbing behaviour in 2015 (which would have been even more disturbing in 2016) seems not to be the right foot on which a sound new discussion should be started. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Found the 2015 discussion in an archive not listed in the archive box above, now fixed. Here is the link: Talk:Frédéric Chopin/Archive 15#Discuss infobox yes or no. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for that, Francis. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry about the wrong year. Francis, when you closed the "yes or no" question, you seem to have ignored people who had voted "oppose" but then participated in how it might look. No need to dig into that now, just noting that the socalled "consensus" is on shaky ground. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I oppose the addition of an infobox now or at another time. The article was apporced as an FA without infobox after long and tedious discussion as I recall. I am really disappointed that Gerda is still going on about this, given her history in infobox sagas.--Smerus (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I am really disappointed that I'm still going on about this, given the history of infobox sagas as a whole. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't "going about this", a new user was surprised, and I tried to help to history. I have articles to write. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
That would explain whay it was only five comments here then. Oh, and one at the Arb elections, and gawd knows where else... - SchroCat (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I propose adding in a new section on pop culture references to note Chopin's appearance in a noted video game:

The 2007 video game Eternal Sonata (トラスティベル 〜ショパンの夢〜, Torasuti Beru ~Shopan no Yume~, Trusty Bell: Chopin's Dream) featured a fictionalized version of Chopin as a character.

The sources for this citation can be found on the Wikipedia page for Eternal Sonata. Given that this is a pop culture reference, the standard for "notability" would be met here.

One-Off Contributor (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

No objection to a brief mention. I'm amazed that he appears in a noted video game. I suspect many younger people would never have heard of Chopin if it was not for Eternal Sonata. But I realise that's just a subjective guess on my part. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
This instance seems like is passes WP:POPCULTURE. But I'd advise closely adhering to that page's advice. - kosboot (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
What specific sources were you planning to include with this addition to demonstrate its significance? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
One possibility is some of the press coverage from around the time that Eternal Sonata was published. Some examples: https://www.pcgamer.com/which-game-has-cutscenes-you-actually-enjoy-watching/, https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/arts-culture/2015/06/19/61070/10-classical-music-pieces-in-video-games/, https://www.diepresse.com/4711793/musik-fur-computerspiele-zu-beethoven-schiesst-es-sich-gut, https://www.stuff.tv/my/features/10-underrated-last-gen-console-games-desperately-need-hd-remake, https://www.ign.com/articles/2008/10/24/eternal-sonata-review. Also, the award and awards nominations noted in the "Reception" section of the Eternal Sonata article would seem to qualify as well for significance.One-Off Contributor (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I object to this. There are thousands of appropriations of famous works of music, art, and literature. Unless there are numerous mainstream discussions -- not gamer fan magazines -- of this particular use, it is UNDUE and obnoxious. The WP:ONUS is on the editor who proposes inclusion. It should stay out until there's consensus to include. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I believe the WP:UNDUE characterization is inaccurate. Nobody is disputing that the quoted Japanese text is the correct translation of the Japanese title of the video game published in English under the name Eternal Sonata. So while there may be other points of disagreement, there doesn't appear to be the dispute-of-fact and minority-opinion type issue that would fall normally under the WP:UNDUE standard. Also, it is worth clarifying that the Eternal Sonata game isn't cited here because of a reference to a particular work or music; a fictional version of Chopin himself is a major character in the game, and Chopin's name appears explicitly in the Japanese version of the game's title.One-Off Contributor (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I think you'd have to concentrate on sources that explain that some of Chopin's music is also combined into the game, and how. One of your five sources above says this: "The games soundtrack contains mostly original works, all of which deserve high praise, but some of Chopin's own compositions are also included -- along with fascinating biographical information that is displayed during the pieces." That might be the best of those. The use of Classical music and musicians in video games, is a topic in itself, of course. So you might be better adding something at Video game music first? (currently no mention of Chopin over here). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose - agree with (User talk:William Avery) - this is all about the game and should be in that article. The game does not merit more than a single sentence in this article.
  • If the proposal is to create an entire new section for "pop culture references", just to accommodate this one game, then I also oppose. The current mention is fine located where it is. It could possibly be expanded slightly, with more/ better references. I guess the section title "In literature, stage, film and television" could be adjusted, if necessary. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I am fine with the reference's current placement; no new section is now required (that reference wasn't included in the article when this topic in the Talk page was originally started). However, I am proposing inclusion in the current one-sentence reference of the Japanese version of the game's title with its English translation, since that Japanese version of the game's title does include Chopin's name explicitly. It can all still fit in the same one-sentence comment.One-Off Contributor (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • How was Chopin's career or reputation influenced by the mention in a 2007 video game? Did sales of Chopin's works rise or fall? Was there a change in the frequency with which his works were performed in concerts? If no reliable source answers these questions, the mention does not belong here—put it in the article about the video game. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I suspect it has meant that very many more young people have now heard his name, heard fragments of his music and read details about his life. But I guess you might argue that sources which support similar claims also apply to all other entries in this section, not just evidence that they exist? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • It's some recent random video game. Do we even mention "Einstein on the Beach" or "Peanuts" comics, (each one far more notable than a recent video game) in the articles on Einstein and Beethoven? Why are we prolonging this discussion based on some casual, fictional evocation of what somebody imagines they wish to portray as Chopin-related? ANd let's not argue from our own editorial O.R. and surmise. Time to move on. SPECIFICO talk 14:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but "otherstuff" is an essay primarily about notability and the section you should consider is WP:Some stuff exists for a reason. Our editorial decisions on other articels are useful precedents to help contextualize the decision that is apparently difficult for some editors here. Consider all the hundreds of books, films, poems, and pieces of music that refer to, describe, or appropriate Chopin. How many of those are in this article? I'm not inclined to discuss this further. It's just gross. If anyone continues to insist on it, there will inevitably be an RfC and lots of time wasted on what's basically a preposterous suggestion that this tidbit is significant to the topic of this WP article. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't see it as "preposterous" at all. I imagine that more people may well see this game than will see some of the items already included. Your characterization of an RfC as a "waste of time" betrays a certain bias. No real surprise though. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Argument from what you "imagine" is not relevant to this discussion. Yes, I have a strong bias against wasting the time of Wikipedia editors on trivia and arguments where the outcome is known in advance. SPECIFICO talk 16:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose We don't mention the chocolates, perfume, vodka or any of the other ephemera that people have slapped his name on, so I'm not seeing the benefit of giving undue weight to the use in Japanese script on a video game. - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Beethoven

The article seems to suggest that Chopin was indeed influenced by Beethoven, in some pieces at least. But I'd certainly agree that a good source would be needed to support such a general claim. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

This came up in the article about Piano Sonata 2 as well. I don't find it credible, beyond the extent to which all later composers would have known Beethoven's music. What about Couperin and Rameau? Any sources discuss them as "influences"? SPECIFICO talk 17:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
The 1947 article: "The Fantaisie-Impromptu-a tribute to Beethoven" (Musicology, 1, no. 4: 407–429) by Ernst Oster discusses notable quotations as well as structural influence from Beethoven's Moonlight sonata in Chopin's Fantasie-Impromptu. - kosboot (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Please semi-protect this article

This article has experienced so much vandalism. Can an admin place a semi-protect on it so that only registered users can edit it? And unlike previously (which was for 6 months), make it indefinite? - kosboot (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It's been protected for a year. - kosboot (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Nationality

Please check the RfC for consensus. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It's kind of embarrassing that his nationality is listed only as Polish. It should at least be Polish-French. This amounts to a complete erasure of his French father's ancestry. Not to mention the fact that he made a career in France. It's ironic that the Anglophone part of this encyclopedia would even attempt this, when we know that if Chopin had immigrated to the US or the UK, it would indisputably have that as part of his hyphenated nationality/identity. Unfortunately, this reflects a "political" bias emanating from the editors and the exercise of subtle "knowledge-power" authority posturing that comes from this part of the world. For example, for Handel it says "German, later British", which is better, but already bespeaks the battleground that led the eventual formulation of that phrase. Chopin went to France at a much earlier age than Handel, but Handel is almost totally claimed by the British. BIAS BIAS BIAS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.200.162 (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Please see the RfC at the head of this talk page.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
You mean his father who was so Polonised that he fought in the Kościuszko Uprising (this after refusing to return to France to avoid conscription into the French army)? Double sharp (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Don't encourage the troll.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Polish name should be first in the lead, instead of just being mentioned later in passing.

As above. Same pattern follows all other Wikipedia articles with similar problems LordParsifal (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't follow "similar patterns", but treats each article individually. Look at Mozart. Would you want his name at baptism first thing? A name most readers wouldn't even recognize? Same here, for me, but yes, I'd mention the birth name sooner in this lead, - having come from Poland IS a key feature of his biography. For Max Reger, however, I'd prefer NOT to have the monumental birth name in the lead, because it was just a costum of the time to assign many names of saints/godfathers when baptizes, - of no significance to his biography. For Reger, we at least have a way to show his names at a glance. - Back to Chopin: I'd say soon in the lead yes, but not first thing, as for Mozart: Frédéric Chopin ... (born Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin, 1 March 1810 – 17 October 1849) was a Polish-born composer and virtuoso pianist ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I concur. Chopin's birth name should immediately follow his international name, in the lead.
Nihil novi (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I think ordering it this name:

ARTICLE NAME: Frederic Chopin Lead: Fryderyk Chopin [BIRTHDATE BIRTHPLACE] Further in the lead: later called Frederic Chopin

I think there should be enough emphasis on his Polish name, because there’s almost no emphasis on it now - it’s just mentioned in passing.

This would also work well since he is only referred to as a POLISH pianist and not a Polish-French pianist. So making the Polish name as first in the lead would clear up some confusion

Shall we have a vote? LordParsifal (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Ordering it this way*

Sorry LordParsifal (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

It would not be a vote, but what we have already: discuss, listen to arguments, trying to find a consensus. I gave my version above. If we begin with a Polish name, and say Polish composer, a reader who never heard of him may think of only Polish notability. A reader who heard of him probably doesn't need any of this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Another famous composer was born "Johan Julius Christian Sibelius" but internationalized his name as "Jean Sibelius".
His article lists him as "Jean Sibelius... born Johan Julius Christian Sibelius..."
This is a perfect analogy to what User:Gerda Arendt is proposing.
Nihil novi (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] There is nothing wrong with putting the Polish name in the lead, but MOS:FIRST states plainly that, "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." This is not only possible here, but is the way the article has begun since it was created. Nihil novi (Oops, sorry! Gerda Arendt) is perfectly correct, we treat each case independently, and the examples of Mozart and Reger are excellent ones, to which I might add Michael Praetorius, Wendy Carlos, and Sigfrid Karg-Elert, who are not listed first as "Michael Schultze, Schultheis, or Schultz", "Walter Carlos", and "Siegfried Theodor Karg", respectively.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, Jerome Kohl and Nihil novi have taken the words out of my mouth. I support moving the Polish name as Gerda proposes; not very first thing, but mentioning it soon after . Zingarese talk · contribs 03:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, I think that would be fair. The case of Jean Sibelius is very convincing and I believe that Chopin should receive the same treatment. LordParsifal (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I would likewise support Gerda's proposal. Double sharp (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
My scepticism of any need for alteration has been overcome somewhat. I don't think there is a case for overriding MOS:FIRST, but I am neutral regarding a change to match the treatment of Sibelius. William Avery (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Gerda wins (to me). - kosboot (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

So shall the edit be made? LordParsifal (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks like consensus by unanimous consent. Would you like to do the honours?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@LordParsifal: ? Zingarese talk · contribs 00:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure! LordParsifal (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2020

change "Rue Lafitte" to "Rue Laffitte" Exprosic (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Thjarkur (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia ethic

I don't understand why this article is so biased to please some foolish Polish. Instead of seeking a biased compromise, you should have checked some facts. Chopin and both of his parents were officially French. This is Chopin's french passport : https://www.gettyimages.fr/detail/photo-d%27actualit%C3%A9/the-french-passport-issued-to-polish-born-composer-photo-dactualit%C3%A9/2559193

Why couldn't Chopin be French and Polish at the same time ? Why do you erase his frenchness ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:1DA:3530:188E:66BF:72:93DA (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Please see the discussion and vote below. The article is as what the consensus of editors agreed upon. - kosboot (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
If you argue that his father had been “officially French” until adulthood, fine, but only under your extremely non-bullshit non-propaganda definition of “fact” could his mother ever be French. Exprosic (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Why would i do that ? There is no debate or consensus. I disagree with the proposal. The entire article is full of bullshit and propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:1DA:3530:4D25:B67A:AD3:3467 (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Szopen?

@Najgorszakomediaromantyczna: - Can you please revert your edit, nothing was accepted to my knowledge by other users yet. I'd suggest you achieve a Wikipedia:Consensus per Wiki rule before imposing a change which is in fact trivial. You can even view Polish Wikipedia where the name "Szopen" is not mentioned in the lead and is not taken seriously. Older writers from previous centuries used to polonise the name to "Szopen" for comprehension; for the benefit of people who were unsure how to pronounce his name. Furthermore, the alternative name "Szopen" should not be enforced; it was written sporadically. Perhaps it could be mentioned in the body, but not in the lead, especially on English Wikipedia where the "Szopen" version is highly uncommon if not absent. When you say that "Szopen is a variant normally used in Poland", that's false and POV. I suggest an WP:RfC with other users. If others express their support I'd be happy to accept your edit. Oliszydlowski (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit myself. It should be discussed here to obtain a consensus. In my opinion it should be treated, if at all, as a note in the body of the article. That is because this is Englsih WP and the usage Szopen is apparently unknown in English. To announce it in the lead is misleading to readers of the article. It would be relevant to see what other English primary sources - e.g. Grove, biographies, etc. have to say about this. If they do not rate it, then it it is not worth mentioning at all.--Smerus (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Lets keep it in this form, and wait for the other people opinion. @Oliszydlowski: @Smerus:. There is not the page dedicated to Chopin's name variants, where should it be put? Chopin (Szopin) was Polish, it is not the old variant (few years ago it was the Szopen's street in Warsaw; changed for more popular Chopin but the variant still exist). Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski: @Smerus: Smerus, you are making an edit war by force! Lets keep it in preserved form, and lets talk about it! There is not the paragraph dedicated to the Chopin name variant. For ages it was the Szopen's street in Warsaw; changed few years ago for the current one (just because it is more popular variant, but not forgotten). Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Would a footnote be an acceptable compromise? Double sharp (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Amongst the issues to be considered and answered here are:

  • Did the subject ever use the form 'Szopen' himself - in signatures, publications, etc.? I have found no evidence that he did.
  • Do any formal documents relating to the subject use the form 'Szopen'? E.g., birth certificate, passport. I have seen no evidence for this. (The birth certificate uses the form 'Choppen').
  • How do English biographies, dictionary entries, etc. refer to him? I have found no evidence of the use of 'Szopen'.
  • What evidence is there that the variant 'Szopen' is commonly used in Polish in referring to the subject? The 'Narodowy Instytut Fryderika Chopina' (National Chopin Institute), for example, uses the form 'Chopin'. Chopin's grave and other monuments to him in Poland use the form Chopin.

Unless these and similar issues are clearly answered in favour of 'Szopen', there are no grounds for altering the article; or for adding a note.

This is an FA article, viewed typically by over 3000 people per day, and therefore it is particularly important that issues like this and the subject's sexuality (see above) are dealt with responsibly by consensus, rather than through attempts at edit warring. --Smerus (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

A quick check shows:
Not much shoppin' goin' for ,,Szopen" in formally named things and festivals in Polish... I think that ,,Szopen" could be mentioned as a variant in the body of the article, but a source that studies the frequencies of usage and the attitudes to the spelling [e.g. considered "wrong" or considered as a typical myth circulated in primary school textbooks, or as Oliszydlowski says above, used by older writers as a clue to pronunciation (though ,,Szopę" would be closer)] would in principle be needed. Boud (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski: @Boud: Ok, guys, I see yours points! In that case, I quit fighting for the "Chopin" adnotation. If in future, I would have ideas how to implement it, maybe I will try to edit it with the previous disscusion. Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Anyway, shame on @Smerus: who is trying to persuade us that talking about changes is important, but still reverting non-vandalism just because he does not like it :)

Image sizes

I think recent changes to image sizes quite counterproductive. For example, why should the image of one of Chopin's teachers be wider than the lead image (Chopin himself). I'll bring this back to more normalized image sizes (see WP:IMGSIZE). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Image sizes may vary, depending on one's computer settings.
If my size changes substantially threw off the image readings, I apologize.
Nihil novi (talk) 06:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frédéric_Chopin/Archive_18&oldid=1007040288"