![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
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)
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..
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.
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..
can we do a new Infobox please ??? Jena ( talk) 16:53, 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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 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)
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)
|
As above. Same pattern follows all other Wikipedia articles with similar problems LordParsifal ( talk) 04:14, 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)
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)
So shall the edit be made? LordParsifal ( talk) 16:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Sure! LordParsifal ( talk) 00:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Frédéric Chopin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change "Rue Lafitte" to "Rue Laffitte" Exprosic ( talk) 18:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ 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)
Amongst the issues to be considered and answered here are:
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)
@ 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 :)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
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)
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..
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.
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..
can we do a new Infobox please ??? Jena ( talk) 16:53, 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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 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)
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)
|
As above. Same pattern follows all other Wikipedia articles with similar problems LordParsifal ( talk) 04:14, 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)
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)
So shall the edit be made? LordParsifal ( talk) 16:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Sure! LordParsifal ( talk) 00:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Frédéric Chopin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change "Rue Lafitte" to "Rue Laffitte" Exprosic ( talk) 18:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ 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)
Amongst the issues to be considered and answered here are:
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)
@ 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 :)
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)