![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
User:Galassi has introduced into the " Chopin" article certain allegations that seem dubious. I have copied below my exchange with Galassi, from his talk page:
User:Galassi has introduced an analogous assertion into the " Adam Mickiewicz" article, that the Jewish descent of that poet's mother has been proven, allegedly based on the same 1938 book by M. Mieses (again providing no volume number, page number or quotation). Nihil novi ( talk) 00:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Galassi states disingenuously, above, regarding details about the Mieses book: "I don't have... access to the library right now." He might better have said, "I don't have access to the library used by Boris Klein." The identical imprecise reference that Galassi gives to the Polish-language book by "M. Mieses" (Mateusz Mieses, according to Polski słownik biograpficzny — "d. 1942?, Judaist, philologist, publicist") appears midway down an article by Boris Klein, "Doctor of historical sciences," in Cascade Russian Newspaper, "published in Baltimore since 1995." Nihil novi ( talk) 01:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Accordingly, since Galassi's entire case about the alleged Jewish extractions of Chopin and Countess Skarbek appears to be based on Boris Klein's Cascade article, which provides no exact citations, I propose that Galassi's assertions be deleted from the " Chopin" and " Mickiewicz" articles as inadequately documented. Nihil novi ( talk) 01:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I have demonstrated above that User:Galassi picks "sources" out of newspaper articles, then uses them, never having seen these "sources" themselves, as "evidence" for his opinions. He did this, picking Mateusz Mieses's 1938 book out of a Cascade Russian Newspaper article published in Baltimore. Now he continues this method, "citing," without giving pages or quotations:
Folantin has shown that Galassi, when citing a source that is readily available ( Czesław Miłosz), has asserted that the source supports Galassi's opinion, when Miłosz actually expresses exactly the opposite opinion.
Surely a novel approach to scholarly research! I wonder whether the time is not rapidly passing for merely reverting Galassi's impositions in the " Chopin" and " Adam Mickiewicz" articles. Nihil novi ( talk) 04:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'm using the word "interesting" rather broadly, since frankly (ha ha getit) I'm not so interested. I've sort of scanned the above comments, but no one seems to have asked what, to me, seems the most important question: Why was this stuff added to this article in the first place? The Jewishness of Justyna and/or her family might be interesting to biographers of that family, but I can't see the significance here. Additionally, the fact that it's even mentioned implies something distasteful -- the idea that we need to "prove" that anyone was Jewish or not sort of makes me wonder whether the editor has a motive based on yuck. The kind of yuck surrounding, for example, arguments about whether a person has "Negro blood" or not. (For the record, the "Negro blood" is not the yuck.)
I don't think this sort of "debate" belongs in an article about Chopin, and if it does belong anywhere, it should be approached with extreme caution, and the relevance should be crystal clear.
And if the above isn't enough, there's this: We don't like this kind of thing in Wikipedia, and not just because it isn't encyclopedic. (If you don't know what I mean by "this kind of thing," then I'm probably not talking to you, so don't worry.)
Therefore, I've removed the following text:
According to historian Meir Balaban, writing in the 1930s, Justyna was born to a family of converted Frankist Jews [1] citation needed [2] citation needed (as was her relative, Countess Skarbek, née Figner [3]). The first allegation of Jewish origins of Justyna appeared as early as 1883 in the memoirs of the Privy Councillor for Home Affairs and the publisher of Tygodnik Peterburgski (the official periodical of the Kingdom of Poland) Jozef (Osip) Przeclawski [4]. citation needed Later similar claim were put forth by Antoni Lange in his 1911 pamphlet "On contradictions of the Jewish Question". citation needed
Sugarbat ( talk) 20:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Note, tone poet deals with orchestral performance,(Liszt piece for 13 instruments ok) Chopin only composed about 10 works for piano, viola and few other instruments. I am not sure if that chopin definition is appropriate.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/symphonic+poem
At the bottom of the article there's a section - Romanticism - where it is explicitly stated that Chopin was NOT a tone poet, so the article contradicts itself. The bad definition would be that he is. I don't have references to give, but I studied in Italian Conservatories, and Chopin is NOT known for his programmatic music, but for his ABSTRACT music.-- David Be ( talk) 23:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Moved Delacroix painting to the Final Years. It seemed more appropriate . Bluee Mountain ( talk) 22:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This painting (Delacroix painting) shows the composer in wery bad healt. It is a person who is almost dying. It doesn't give the right impression for such a delicat and intelligent person like Chopin. It looks like a person who is defeated by life. The other picture (also from one of Wikipedias article) shows an alert, focused human beeing with intergrity. His legacy and his highly sophisticated music is a tresure and he should be seen as a great composer not a person who receives medical attention. Bluee Mountain ( talk) 07:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The Delacroix painting doesn't represent the composers spirit.
Bluee Mountain ( talk) 07:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
We really need consensus on which image of Chopin to put on here. I myself do not even care which (although personally I am quite partial to the photograph from 1849), but I'm sick and tired of seeing it changed virtually every time I log in. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 19:54 21 September, 2008 (UTC)
Let's try it in !vote format, shall we?
Guys, when you started this voting, you weren't contacting me, and got me involved in this negotiation. That's not fair. And you seem to forget about my vote. Than the votes would have been = 4 for Scheffer, 3 for Delacroix and 1 for the photo. Bluee Mountain ( talk) 20:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Photo is fine. watercolor by Chopin's fiancée, Maria Wodzińska is fine too. A better reproduction of the Delacroix is probably also acceptable. Chopin is all green in this one.
(or the foto or Wodzińska OR anything else but this green Delacroix).
iS THERE ANYONE I FORGOT? Bluee Mountain ( talk) 10:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
As far as I saw, quite a lot of people were for the photo, including myself, and some were supporting even Scheffers painting. Cheers Bluee Mountain ( talk) 13:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Lovely girl, this La Pianista. Bluee Mountain ( talk) 16:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't be sad NN, the Delacroix painting is still here, only some lines further down. Bluee Mountain ( talk) 14:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC) .
I for one, support Delacroix - just listen to an Etude and the painting expresses just that. It's romantism we're talking about. Scheffer's portrait is just too bland - it would suit Clementi for sure, but surely not Chopin. However I'm not in for an edit war and am happy with the photography - consensus indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.123.74.175 ( talk) 03:56, 24 April 2009 (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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
User:Galassi has introduced into the " Chopin" article certain allegations that seem dubious. I have copied below my exchange with Galassi, from his talk page:
User:Galassi has introduced an analogous assertion into the " Adam Mickiewicz" article, that the Jewish descent of that poet's mother has been proven, allegedly based on the same 1938 book by M. Mieses (again providing no volume number, page number or quotation). Nihil novi ( talk) 00:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Galassi states disingenuously, above, regarding details about the Mieses book: "I don't have... access to the library right now." He might better have said, "I don't have access to the library used by Boris Klein." The identical imprecise reference that Galassi gives to the Polish-language book by "M. Mieses" (Mateusz Mieses, according to Polski słownik biograpficzny — "d. 1942?, Judaist, philologist, publicist") appears midway down an article by Boris Klein, "Doctor of historical sciences," in Cascade Russian Newspaper, "published in Baltimore since 1995." Nihil novi ( talk) 01:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Accordingly, since Galassi's entire case about the alleged Jewish extractions of Chopin and Countess Skarbek appears to be based on Boris Klein's Cascade article, which provides no exact citations, I propose that Galassi's assertions be deleted from the " Chopin" and " Mickiewicz" articles as inadequately documented. Nihil novi ( talk) 01:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I have demonstrated above that User:Galassi picks "sources" out of newspaper articles, then uses them, never having seen these "sources" themselves, as "evidence" for his opinions. He did this, picking Mateusz Mieses's 1938 book out of a Cascade Russian Newspaper article published in Baltimore. Now he continues this method, "citing," without giving pages or quotations:
Folantin has shown that Galassi, when citing a source that is readily available ( Czesław Miłosz), has asserted that the source supports Galassi's opinion, when Miłosz actually expresses exactly the opposite opinion.
Surely a novel approach to scholarly research! I wonder whether the time is not rapidly passing for merely reverting Galassi's impositions in the " Chopin" and " Adam Mickiewicz" articles. Nihil novi ( talk) 04:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'm using the word "interesting" rather broadly, since frankly (ha ha getit) I'm not so interested. I've sort of scanned the above comments, but no one seems to have asked what, to me, seems the most important question: Why was this stuff added to this article in the first place? The Jewishness of Justyna and/or her family might be interesting to biographers of that family, but I can't see the significance here. Additionally, the fact that it's even mentioned implies something distasteful -- the idea that we need to "prove" that anyone was Jewish or not sort of makes me wonder whether the editor has a motive based on yuck. The kind of yuck surrounding, for example, arguments about whether a person has "Negro blood" or not. (For the record, the "Negro blood" is not the yuck.)
I don't think this sort of "debate" belongs in an article about Chopin, and if it does belong anywhere, it should be approached with extreme caution, and the relevance should be crystal clear.
And if the above isn't enough, there's this: We don't like this kind of thing in Wikipedia, and not just because it isn't encyclopedic. (If you don't know what I mean by "this kind of thing," then I'm probably not talking to you, so don't worry.)
Therefore, I've removed the following text:
According to historian Meir Balaban, writing in the 1930s, Justyna was born to a family of converted Frankist Jews [1] citation needed [2] citation needed (as was her relative, Countess Skarbek, née Figner [3]). The first allegation of Jewish origins of Justyna appeared as early as 1883 in the memoirs of the Privy Councillor for Home Affairs and the publisher of Tygodnik Peterburgski (the official periodical of the Kingdom of Poland) Jozef (Osip) Przeclawski [4]. citation needed Later similar claim were put forth by Antoni Lange in his 1911 pamphlet "On contradictions of the Jewish Question". citation needed
Sugarbat ( talk) 20:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Note, tone poet deals with orchestral performance,(Liszt piece for 13 instruments ok) Chopin only composed about 10 works for piano, viola and few other instruments. I am not sure if that chopin definition is appropriate.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/symphonic+poem
At the bottom of the article there's a section - Romanticism - where it is explicitly stated that Chopin was NOT a tone poet, so the article contradicts itself. The bad definition would be that he is. I don't have references to give, but I studied in Italian Conservatories, and Chopin is NOT known for his programmatic music, but for his ABSTRACT music.-- David Be ( talk) 23:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Moved Delacroix painting to the Final Years. It seemed more appropriate . Bluee Mountain ( talk) 22:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This painting (Delacroix painting) shows the composer in wery bad healt. It is a person who is almost dying. It doesn't give the right impression for such a delicat and intelligent person like Chopin. It looks like a person who is defeated by life. The other picture (also from one of Wikipedias article) shows an alert, focused human beeing with intergrity. His legacy and his highly sophisticated music is a tresure and he should be seen as a great composer not a person who receives medical attention. Bluee Mountain ( talk) 07:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The Delacroix painting doesn't represent the composers spirit.
Bluee Mountain ( talk) 07:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
We really need consensus on which image of Chopin to put on here. I myself do not even care which (although personally I am quite partial to the photograph from 1849), but I'm sick and tired of seeing it changed virtually every time I log in. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 19:54 21 September, 2008 (UTC)
Let's try it in !vote format, shall we?
Guys, when you started this voting, you weren't contacting me, and got me involved in this negotiation. That's not fair. And you seem to forget about my vote. Than the votes would have been = 4 for Scheffer, 3 for Delacroix and 1 for the photo. Bluee Mountain ( talk) 20:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Photo is fine. watercolor by Chopin's fiancée, Maria Wodzińska is fine too. A better reproduction of the Delacroix is probably also acceptable. Chopin is all green in this one.
(or the foto or Wodzińska OR anything else but this green Delacroix).
iS THERE ANYONE I FORGOT? Bluee Mountain ( talk) 10:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
As far as I saw, quite a lot of people were for the photo, including myself, and some were supporting even Scheffers painting. Cheers Bluee Mountain ( talk) 13:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Lovely girl, this La Pianista. Bluee Mountain ( talk) 16:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't be sad NN, the Delacroix painting is still here, only some lines further down. Bluee Mountain ( talk) 14:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC) .
I for one, support Delacroix - just listen to an Etude and the painting expresses just that. It's romantism we're talking about. Scheffer's portrait is just too bland - it would suit Clementi for sure, but surely not Chopin. However I'm not in for an edit war and am happy with the photography - consensus indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.123.74.175 ( talk) 03:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)