Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:39, 6 April 2014

Frédéric Chopin has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 23, 2014.

Frédéric Chopin received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Composers This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Composers, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!ComposersWikipedia:WikiProject ComposersTemplate:WikiProject ComposersComposers Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. France High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Poland Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on March 1, 2010.

Archives

2004–2005 2006 – July 2006 August 2006 – March 2008 April 2008 – June 2008 June 2008 – Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

A fact from Frédéric Chopin appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 March 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that Frédéric Chopin (pictured) left his homeland of Poland in 1831 and never returned? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2014/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Frédéric Chopin.

Yes, it has been discussed to death before

Type in "nationality" into the field in the archive box. There's at least ten relevant discussions in the past.

Unless there's some brand new development or completely novel argument, please respect WP:CONSENSUS and drop the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and the edit warring. Thanks.  Volunteer Marek  18:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

What consensus? Those sections seem to be arguments 2Awwsome 18:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

And for this kind of article, and this issue in particular, the Telegraph is simply not a reliable source. Not to mention that it doesn't say what you claim it says. Volunteer Marek  18:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

If newspapers are not reliable, why is there a 'cite news' option? And it does say that it is disputed.2Awwsome 18:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Read the archives first. Then come up with a *new* argument or stop wasting people's time. Volunteer Marek  18:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Aren't sources given more weight than arguments (not agreement) on the talk page, per WP:RS and WP:NOR? 2Awwsome

Read the archives first. We've been over this ground. What matter is weight of sources. Volunteer Marek  00:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

For example . Volunteer Marek  00:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk page discussions are not reliable sources. See WP:RS and WP:NOR2Awwsome 13:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You know, blatant trolling won't make people to take you more seriously.--Staberinde (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

A middle ground might be an option presented at the Curie article, Polish, French-naturalized. I definitely would not say French-Polish, if the compromise isn't accepted, then Polish would be my vote. I do agree that anyone who does start a lame edit war in the lame edit war article should be completely ignored. :) Does the editor questioning the article actual write any articles? I'm just looking at the User contribution listing ... Ajh1492 (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I mainly just make minor edits, and Volunteer Marek made the first revert in the WP:LAME, your statement is also a personal attack. And it isn't really much of a compromise. Also see WP:RS. 2Awwsome 16:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking back at your contribution list (and diffs) and a see a rather long list of reverts and fact tags. I'm just making a statement of fact. Volunteer Marek knows that this article is one of the "touchy ones" on EN:WP. And Staberinde does bring up the good point that you did edit the Chopin section of WP:Lamest edit wars - which only makes the point that article is trying to make. Many moons ago I too was like you, trying to patrol the wikispaces looking to right the wrongs all before breakfast. But the best way to help is to (a) not take this whole WP thing seriously -if a fact is slightly wrong, the earth does NOT stop spinning on it's axis and (b) put your energy into doing some heavy editing on articles that are of interest to you and need some help - there a LOT of stub articles that need help. If you'd like a mentor, I'd be glad to help where I can. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Almost all of my reverts are reverts of vandalism or unsourced content additions. And attack the content, not the contributor 2Awwsome 17:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

No, all your reverts are mindless, disruptive edit warring, many with misleading and false edit summaries. In all the edit warring you've been engaged in since October 19 there's not a single reversion of vandalism. And as has been pointed out to you, there's over 8000 sources to choose from to source a trivial fact. Volunteer Marek  12:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

If you actually bothered to look at my contributions you'd see that what you are saying is false. And please see WP:RS. 2Awwsome 12:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Not as far as this article goes. Volunteer Marek  12:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

My contributions were being talked about, not my edits to this article. The same could be said about your edits to the article. 2Awwsome 12:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

And in response to you ridiculous argument based on Google results, searching for chopin "german composer" has more than half as many as chopin "polish composer", which, by your logic, means we should mention that some sources think he is German, even though it is ridiculous OR. Your argument has already been refuted many times. Dark Sun (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • If Handel is a British composer despite his German birth "German born British Composer" and the fact the Chopin has one parent from France should it not make most sense that his descriptor be Polish/French? No one wants to deny his Polish heritage, but to argue that he was Polish exclusively is NPOV! Rikaard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.189.86.5 (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Chopin's nationality

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.

Here are some of the discussions pertaining to this issue

• Nationality
• Talk:Frédéric_Chopin/Archive_2#Nationality (second discussion)
• Nationality (third discussion)
• Nationality standards?
• LEAD: Polish, French or Polish-French?
• Nationality (one more time)

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 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.

• Support A - The sources indicated in the lead and in past discussions say that he is clearly Polish. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support C - 3 vs 5 isn't much of a minority, and per WP:NPOV it should say that he is Polish and Polish-French. Per WP:OPENPARA it should say that he is Polish-French, but the sources have conflicting views, so per WP:RS it should mention both. 2Awwsome 18:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support A, followed by second choice of Support D. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support A, as that is by far the most common claim made in reliable sources—see . Toccata quarta (talk) 08:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support A, sources which describe him as a "Polish composer" out number sources which call him "Polish-French" by a factor of at least 10. No brainer, non-controversial, just a single disruptive user on a edit-war-path upsetting long standing WP:CONSENSUS.  Volunteer Marek  08:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

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. 2Awwsome 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)

• Support A- Chopin was a Pole who lived in France as an exile. I do not edit on this page but have a interest in and love classical music. --Woogie10w (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Also Paul Hindemith was a German composer and Arnold Schoenberg an Austrian even though both became American citizens. We would never refer to them as Americans--Woogie10w (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• A. Did Chopin ever consider himself French? Don't people get to say who they are anymore? Ravpapa (talk) 14:11, 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. 2Awwsome 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) " is. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Where did I say that? 2Awwsome 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) "? 2Awwsome 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 2Awwsome 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. 2Awwsome 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? 2Awwsome 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? 2Awwsome 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. 2Awwsome_{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)

• Support A. Where Encyclopaedia Britannica is concerned, Moxy has exposed the heart of the matter. On the subject of Chopin, E.B. is sloppy and perfunctory and cannot be a guide to the much more precise and comprehensive Misplaced Pages. Nihil novi (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sources are not unreliable just because they oppose your view. And Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source, see WP:NOTRS. 2Awwsome 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. 2Awwsome_{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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

• Support A This entire controversy is absurd. Trilobitealive (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Further my post supporting A: From Moritz Karasowski, Frederic Chopin: His Life and Letters (1906), volume II, page 368: "When 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 Misplaced Pages 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. 2Awwsome 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. 2Awwsome 17:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep telling yourself that. Volunteer Marek  17:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep telling me that 2Awwsome_{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 Misplaced Pages'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)

B-class review

The article seems to pass B-class requirements at this point. A number of issues remain before it can receive a higher grade (see my comments below). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Few pre-GA comments

1. ) I removed a clear error claiming that he was born in Russian Empire-controlled Duchy of Warsaw (DoW was never Russian controlled, at least not until the last year of its existence when it was occupied by them). The article should mention the Russian-controlled Congress Poland that he grew up in. The absence of the link to the country of his youth is galling.
2. ) Please provide a Polish or French name for this; it is also most likely notable and should be linked (if we don't have an article onit, but it is notable, links are required per WP:RED).
3. ) aren't all of Chopin's works notable? If so, they should be linked whenever mentioned, starting with the phrase "in 1817 he composed two polonaises, in G minor and B-flat major. Chopin's next work, a Polonaise in A-flat major of 1821" (which should obviously have three links). The latter work should be added to Polonaise in A-flat major (or is there an error on that page?).
4. ) Clearly notable Warsaw Conservatory is not linked, why?
5. ) eolomelodicon is probably notable, please research and discuss why the term should or shouldn't be linked.
6. ) Dominik Dziewanowski is notable and should be linked (has article at pl:Dominik Dziewanowski).
7. ) Emilia Chopin may be notable (she has an article on pl:Emilia Chopin). Please research and discuss why she should or shouldn't be linked.
8. ) "executed a set of portraits" - sounds weird, change the word executed to painted or such.
9. ) Tytus Woyciechowski is notable (pl:Tytus Woyciechowski)
10. ) Jan Białobłocki may be notable, please research and discuss why he should or shouldn't be linked.
11. ) Jan Matuszyński is notable (pl:Jan Matuszyński)
12. ) Maurycy Mochnacki is notable (pl:Maurycy Mochnacki); his name is mispelled here - please fix
13. ) please verify that Jan Matuszewski is correctly spelled, I am not seeing much for that name in relation to Chopin (but I did spend only a few seconds on this). It could be a mispelling of Jan Matuszyński. If it is not, please discuss notability.
14. ) Julian Fontana is notable. The trend of underlinking is at this point clear and worrisome.

I will take a break here. Please improve the underlinking in the remaining sections, and I'll review them once this has been done. If there's a reply here, please WP:ECHO me. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. A few points:

• In fact I see that Chopin was indeed born in the Duchy of Warsaw, and grew up in Congress Poland; I have corrected accordingly.
• what does your point 2 refer to (i.e. a Polish or French name for this)?
• Not all of Chopin's works are notable and many don't have articles. The WP position is not to provide red links where there is no existing English WP article. In this context, your comments on the eomelodicon and persons who are in Polish, but not English, Misplaced Pages, apply. Of course you or other editors are free to write such articles on WP if you wish and then the links can be provided.
• In fact your comments on notability seem to me excessive. This is simply a candidate for GA. There is no requirement to research everyone, or everything, mentioned (or not mentioned) for their notability, or to discuss this. I have been involved in numerous GA and FA nominations and discussions and such questions have never arisen. Of course you are welcome to add informatino to the article yourself, subjwct to WP:UNDUE.
• Julian Fontana is linked at his first mention. The policy is not to repeat links (WP:OVERLINK).
• 'Execute' is a perfectly acceptable Enlgish expression for painting.

Lastly, can I suggest that you try not to be too prescriptive in your comments, or make disparaging comments ('worrisome', 'galling') about your fellow editors; WP is a cooperative venture! -

Best, --Smerus (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

@Smerus: For 2) I meant the "Polish Literary Society in Paris". You are very much incorrect when you say "The WP position is not to provide red links where there is no existing English WP article.". Please read the WP:RED which I linked already. You are correct about Fontana. I'll leave the topic of execution of paintings to native English speaker, for me it still brings an image of somebody shooting them with a gun :> I am sorry if the tone of my comments was discouraging, I certainly respect your (and others) work. Please keep up the good job. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I have now carried out some further edits on User:Piotrus's recommendations. On checking the reference I find that neither Maurycy Mochnacki or Jan Matuszewski (whoever he may be) are actually cited there, so I have deleted them. Looking at the Polish WP articles on pl:Dominik Dziewanowski, pl:Emilia Chopin, pl:Tytus Woyciechowski, and pl:Jan Matuszyński I find that these are in general rather sparse and they do not seem to me to have any WP:N qualities for English Misplaced Pages. I think therefore that if there is a wish to apply WP:RED literally, someone needs to make a case for their notability (rather than any editor being required to make a case for their non-notability). I have added the Polish name of the Society, Towarzystwo Literackie - there is an article on this in Polish WP, Towarzystwo Literackie but again I am not convinced of its notability for English WP. I would be interested to see views of other editors on these notability issues.--Smerus (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

@Smerus: Emilia aside, Dominik Dziewanowski is clearly notable (general). Jan Matuszyński and Tytus Woyciechowski: JM is not in the PSB, TW cannot be; looking by JM birth and death dates and names I am not seeing anything major in Google Books, however TW is likely notable; there's at least one academic article dedicated to him - Tytus Woyciechowski—Przyjaciel Chopina” . Ruch Muzyczny 19, no. 21 (November 12, 1975):4–6; his bio can be found on a number of Chopin-related sites - , , ; this seems to satisfy GNG/BIO - so I think you should red link him, unless you feel like challenging the above. However, your comment that some claims in this article are not cited in the sources given is problematic. Whenever I am bringing a new article to GA, I try to verify everything in it with the refs I am using currently. Since you found some errors already, as time-consuming as it may be, you may want to verify every single fact that appears to be referenced... I won't insist on this (it's not like I have the time or will to double check it anyway), but another GA reviewer may have a different opinion on this and certainly this will need to be done before FA level. Stil waiting to hear on eolomelodicon (some sources suggest it is the same as Choraleon, and this term gives even more g hits). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

@Piotrus:. Thanks for these comments. I have in fact already checked the English sources and references, but the one I have just corrected slipped through the net. I don't have access to the Polish-language sources, and here I assume good faith of the Polish editors who placed them. This is largely the problem with the Polish people in the article who you feel are WP:N - the sources are in Polish and whilst I can vaguely make out their meaning (from similarities with Slovak and Russian) I am not up to using academic sources in the language. Nor can I assess or justify these people being WP:N myself - thus I'm afraid it's up to you or other Polish speakers to make the case for them that convince mere English-speaking editors. All the sources you give for Woyciechowski, for example, are in Polish. As it happens, by the way, I spent a lot of time a few weeks ago trying to find out about the eomelodicon but came up with no meaningful sources whatsoever. Actually I find your 'choraleon' suggestion very plausible, but alas it can't rate as more than WP:OR without some published back-up. Bear in mind that anyway my hope is only to get this up to GA level - FA can wait for someone who is more of a Chopin-fanatic than I am - so there is no incentive at present to bust a gut over the more esoteric details. Best, --Smerus (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

@Smerus: Thanks for dispelling most of my concerns. I'll link the individuals I consider notable (I believe I explained above why DD and TW pass GNG/BIO), I hope you won't object to that, and I'll move on to read the next sections. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

@Piotrus: To dobrze!

I have now reviewed and added links to music in the article, and to some technical musical terms.--Smerus (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Continuing review:

• regarding whether we should (red or not) link all of his works, in Misplaced Pages:Notability (books) it is said: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Misplaced Pages's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study." I think this is also applicable to the notability of songs, and thus would make all of Chopin's songs notable. Misplaced Pages:Notability_(music)#Songs is also applicable. I don't intend to red link all of his works if you disagree, but this is something that should be discussed further (perhaps in a separate, dedicated thread, also advertised on some other projects).
  • Pl wiki has a template listing his works that is interesting to look at: pl:Szablon:Chopin, it does not seem to have an equivalent on en wiki. I'd strongly suggest creating such a template, even if we were only to link works by Chopin that have articles on en wiki.
• some facts mentioned on pl wiki missing from the para Childhood:
  • one of his teachers in his youth was Wilhelm Würfel
  • "he played the piano for the Duke and composed a march for him". Pl wiki identifies this as pl:Marsz wojskowy (Chopin).
  • according to pl wiki, 1818 saw the first significant review of him, published in pl:Pamiętnik Warszawski (1815-1823). This is referenced on pl wiki to "Kazimierz Wierzyński: Życie Chopina. Białystok: Krajowa Agencja Wydawnicza, 1990, p. 33. ISBN 83-03-03117-1.".
  • "Nasze Przebiegi... Pl wiki notes that a work of Julian Ursyn Niemcewicz (unnamed there) was actually a critique of a society, instead of a praise for Chopin. It was also inspired by an event/concert that drew many notable individuals, and did contribute to Ch.'s popularity. I think we should discuss this further, with the stress not on JUN's work but on the original event itself.
  • Also in 1818, Chopin gave a notable concert for Maria Feodorovna (Sophie Dorothea of Württemberg)
• Education
  • " their spoofing of the Warsaw newspapers" - pl wiki identifies the newspaper as Kurier Warszawski
• Travel
  • " On a return trip to Berlin, he was a guest of Prince Antoni Radziwiłł" Clarify when. Pl wiki gives years 1827 and 1829 for his visits to Prince AR. Also, note the word return. "In September 1828, Chopin had visited Berlin". According to pl wiki, he already went to Berlin in 1826, which our article does not mention.
  • Pl wiki notes that he spent his last three days in Poland in Kalisz. Earlier, on 2 November, the date of his leaving Warsaw, he was celebrated by his friends, including his teacher Elsner, who composed a cantata for his pupil
  • The November Uprising inspired the Étude Op. 10, No. 12 (Chopin).
• Paris
  • pl wiki gives a statistic of his giving 19 public concerns in Paris, starting with 26 Feb. 1832
  • according to pl wiki, he lived at Rue de la Chaussée-d'Antin
  • according to pl wiki, he had notable pupils (royalty or at least high nobility as well as notable musicians; I am pressed for time, so I'll just paste the pl wiki sentence so you can recognize the names: "księżniczkę de Noailles, księżnę de Chimay i de Beauvau, baronową Rothschild, hrabinę Peruzzi i Potocką. Wśród uczniów także wielkie talenty – Karolina Hartmann, Karol Filtsch, a także wierny przyjaciel Chopina Adolf Gutmann")
  • Albert aka Wojciech Grzymała is notable (), pl:Wojciech Grzymała
  • Salle Pleyel is discussed in two places, merge into one?
  • move ilink to salon (gathering) to first occurrence
  • Wodzińscy are probably notable, even through they don't have a pl wiki article. I'll ping User:Sobiepan for his opinion, he has been working on a number of related articles recently.
• George Sand - will resume from here next time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

@Piotrus:Thanks for this, but I would resist going overboard to include non-essential facts just because they are in the Polish WP article (which I note is not rated GA and need not therefore not be taken as an exemplar for the present purposes). The Polish WP article is poorly cited, and I am unable to assess the Polish sources it does quote. This, however, is the English WP article, and it stands or falls by what it contains. There is no obligation on an article in one language to include all the details from the same topic in another Misplaced Pages. Moreover, many of the issues you raise seem to me to be WP:UNDUE as regards an English article on Chopin. The issue should be whether or not the English article stands by the GA criteria, rather than to stuff it with bits and pieces. (There are acres of stuff which could be added from English sources, were it not that they would overload the article). I don't feel that the absence of inclusion of the elements you raise detracts from the balance or integrity of the article, or that their inclusion would improve them. I would agree that Grzymala is notable; have no comment on others. Adolf Gutman is already named in the article as a pupil.

Let me remind you of the GA criteria at WP:GACR, particularly - "it addresses the main aspects of the topic - (note) this requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics".

Best,--Smerus (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll ping some active members of WP:POLAND and see if they agree this is indeed undue (User:Nihil novi, User:Poeticbent, User:Volunteer Marek, User:Sobiepan, User:Szopen). I agree that some facts are not essential, but I disagree that the entire review is non-actionable due to Polish bias. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

On the creation of a template for Chopin's works, if anyone wishes to tackle this they are welcome to do so. It is not however a prerequisite for GA status.--Smerus (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree it is not. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@Piotrus:I reverted the links to French nationality and French passport because these articles relate to the situation of 1990 and later, and are therefore not relevant to the article. But I believe in any case such links are unnecessary per WP:OVERLINK - ("everyday words understood by most readers in context").--Smerus (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have restored those links. They are relevant. First, because they are useful for the recurring discussion of Chopin's nationality. Second, the fr wiki for both articles discuses pre-20th century concepts; I've started the history section on en wiki - our articles are much less comprehensive and both were missing history sections, but eventually those articles should discuss 19th century citizenship and passports in detail, just like on fr wiki. Lastly, with your edit you also removed another link to a notable organization.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:13 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)

@Piotrus: You are in error about the links to French citizenship and passport. Firstly, these links are seriously misleading to readers, since the articles they lead to relate to a situation 150 years after Chopin's death. The situation in the fr wiki is irrelevant for these purposes. If you wish to edit the English articles so that they state clearly what the rules were for French citizenship in the 1830s, and then give a link, that is up to you. Otherwise, please do not risk misleading WP users. As things stand these links are simply wrong. Furthermore, as per per WP:OVERLINK, which I cited above - ("everyday words understood by most readers in context") - such links are in any case not appropriate. The issues relating to Chopin's nationality are adequately expressed in the present article, and are not affected by the condition of French naturalization legislation of the early ninetheenth century, so you do not need to overload this point. I appreciate your interest and concern but minutiae of this sort are not relevant to a GA discussions - still less to a pre-GA discussion. Once again I repeat the GA criteria at WP:GACR, particularly that the article "addresses the main aspects of the topic - (note) this requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics". Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@Smerus: Again, the fact that the articles currently are not comprehensive is irrelevant. They will be eventually relevant, and those links are even more justified than the case of WP:RED. You cite WP:OVERLINK, but it is not applicable (if you disagree, cite the exact wording that you rely on). If you mean that those links are "everyday words understood by most readers in context" than I strongly disagree: again, Chopin's nationality and citizenship are controversial issues subject to significant discussions, and we should link relevant concepts (even if at present the target articles are focused on the present, and are missing the historical overview). Incompletness of the target article is never an issue on whether to link it or not, if the said article should in theory cover those topics.

With regards to facts from pl wiki, I think some (not all) are highly relevant to a GA-level completeness (such as the number of public concerts he gave in Paris); several others clarify or correct errors (or at least suggest that errors may exist). I would like to see your comments on each of my points in specific - why or why not should be include them, not just the generic summary. Once again, thank you for your hard work, and remember - it's the job of reviewers to nitpick :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Piotrus that some items of information that have been deleted or, indeed, totally passed over in the article would have been useful in limning the milieu in which Chopin lived and worked. For example, I don't believe mention has been made that Jan Matuszyński, one of the Chopin family's Warsaw boarders — a physician and an accomplished flutist — shared Chopin's Paris apartment for some years, helping look after his health and joining him and another former Warsaw boarder, the pianist Julian Fontana, in impromptu music-making. Matuszyński unexpectedly predeceased Chopin, succumbing to tuberculosis.

Why was the evocative description deleted, of the ailing Chopin, in the final weeks of his life, visiting the poet Mickiewicz and playing the piano to lift his compatriot's spirits?

This article has at various times been subjected to a Procrustean bed that tends to force Chopin's biography into a template of preconceptions.

Preconceptions may account for some errors that have been introduced into the article. Thus, the information that the building in which Chopin and his family lived in 1817-27 belonged to Warsaw University, has been deleted and replaced by a footnote that the building is "Now part of Warsaw University."

Similarly, I think calling Chopin's Żelazowa Wola birthplace "presently museum of the composer" is misleading on several grounds.

I think a fetish has been made of relying, in principle, exclusively on English-language sources. On some occasions, perfectly apropos information has been deleted because it came from Polish-language sources — and, pointedly, only reinstated after it had been rediscovered in English-language sources that themselves draw on Polish-language ones. Unfortunately, some such items still await rediscovery in English.

Nihil novi (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

That is interesting; can you show any specific diffs for when facts have been removed solely due to references being in Polish? Such removal is against our policies, and such edits should be reverted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The article has been so massively plowed up and re-edited that it's hard to locate the exact spots where specific deletions or replacements have been made. But an example of deleted material, involving Chopin's visiting Mickiewicz in the winter of 1848-49, may be found in the last paragraph of the "Final years" section, as of 02:22, 19 November 2013. Nihil novi (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I have traced the removal of this referenced piece of information to . Such gutting of the text without proper justification is not nice. I will note that the second part of the sentence appeared to have been referenced through a footnote, removed some edits prior. The current article does not even mention Mickiewicz, a major poet and Chopin's friend. This is another strike against GA - the article fails on being comprehensive if it omits such a fact (sample source for their close friendship: Tad Szulc (12 March 1999). Chopin in Paris: The Life and Times of the Romantic Composer. Scribner. p. 54. ISBN 978-0-684-86738-0.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, mention probably should be made of the friendship between Poland's greatest Romantic composer, Chopin, and Poland's greatest Romantic poet, Mickiewicz, both then in exile in Paris. Mickiewicz was one of 3 or 4 Polish poets, I believe previously mentioned in this article, whose works Chopin set to music. (As also previously mentioned, he never set to music the verse of the notable French or German poets with whom he was friendly.)

If I remember correctly, Tad Szulc's Chopin in Paris likewise mentions Chopin's housemate Matuszyński.

I wonder, too, whether it was really necessary to apply the Procrustean bed to the documented sentence that, as late as 08:20, 19 November 2013, closed the "Education" section: "In this period he was also friendly with members of Warsaw's young artistic and intellectual world, including Mauryry Mochnacki, Jan Matuszewski, Józef Bohdan Zaleski, Julian Fontana and Stefan Witwicki."

Nihil novi (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

May I then suggest that you restore that information, the article can benefit from further expansion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Pinging User:Smerus - we are waiting for your replies to various points raised above. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have made edits where I consider them appropriate (and, by corollary, not where I do not consider them necessary for GA). I am now awaiting the formal GA review. Best --Smerus (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)--Smerus (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Sand/Delacroix

A very prosy and affected quote from Sand about life at Nohant in the 1840s, cited by Maurois, and included in the article by a previous editor, turned out on examination to be from Sand's Impressions et Souvenirs, written at the end of her life in 1873, thirty years after the events. I have therefore replaced it with a quote from a contemporary letter of 1842 from Delacroix describing Nohant, which gives a similiar but more genuine impression.--Smerus (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the Sand quotation is interesting, in documenting Chopin's recognition of analogies between the creative processes in music and painting — and perhaps, more broadly, between various fields of creative endeavor in general. I'd suggest placing the quotation in a note. Nihil novi (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I really can't agree at all - the Sand quote is only 'interesting' as showing the picture Sand wanted to present, at the end of her own career, of her relationship with Chopin - it would be incorrect to give it the status of telling us something about Chopin. The Sand quote is immensely long and 'romanticised', and one cannot encyclopaedically warrant the accuracy of fragments of conversations tarted up like this 30 years later; whilst the Delacroix quote is a genuine citation of what happened at the time.--Smerus (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Frédéric Chopin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 10:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC) Will review. Beginning first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Preliminary observation: At the moment the main text contains a mixture of American and English spellings: "kilometers", "parlor", "favorable", "traveled", "catalog", "modeled" and "realized" from the US, and "organised", "rumours", "realising", "rumour", "centre", "subsidised", "pedalling", "colouring", "utilised" and "patronising" from Britain. As British spellings are in the majority, it might make sense to adopt them throughout, but either way, I think you should standardise. – Tim riley (talk) 11:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point! Now anglicised, except for 'modeled' which is the spelling used by Taruskin in the citation. I assume we should not adjust quoted text in this way.--Smerus (talk) 12:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely! Sorry: I didn't spot that it was in a quote. Tim riley (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I disapprove of any GA reviewer who thinks his/her job is to tell nominators how to write even though their original prose is perfectly fine, so my comments below are the merest suggestions, to be followed or ignored as you think fit, and don't affect the promotion of the article, which I have much pleasure in effecting, below.

• Education
  • "commenced" – I can't remember if it was Fowler who put me off the word, but "started" or "began" is crisper, perhaps.
  • "resulted in him being asked" – gerund preferable here: "resulted in his being asked"
• Travel
  • "his Piano Concerto No. 2 in F minor" – I wondered why there had been no mention of the First earlier, but having clicked on the link I now understand. Perhaps worth a footnote, do you think?
  • "he met with his parents … he met with Schumann" – one meets with disaster, disapproval or even success, but just meets one's parents and friends, surely?
• Final years
  • "Recent research" – this will become WP:DATED quite quickly. Perhaps "modern research"?
• Form and harmony
  • My mentioning this is flagrantly ultra vires, but can no-one be found to speak well of the piano concertos? I think they're delectable, and so do many others, I'm certain.
• Titles, opus numbers and editions
  • Do any of the sources comment on the quality of the posthumously published works? (I mean, I suppose, was Chopin wise or mistaken in wanting them destroyed?)
  • "alternate catalogue designations" – this should be "alternative", I think.
• Reception and influence
  • "virtually everything he wrote for the piano" – is there a "was" missing here, before "wrote"?
  • As Fauré's Vicar on Misplaced Pages I am sad not to see him mentioned among those influenced by Chopin. I should say that along with Schumann and perhaps Brahms, Chopin was one of Fauré's chief influences. But this comment, too, is ultra vires, I know.
• Recordings
  • "Artur Rubinstein" links to "Arthur Rubinstein". People seem to get very hot under the collar about the form of his given name, and you may possibly like to consider changing it here. (Swank: I heard Rubinstein play Chopin in the concert hall back in the 1960s. Never to be forgotten.)
  • Are your selected pianists in random order or in order of personal preference? Alpha order might be kinder.

That's all from me so far as GA is concerned. I hope you will be taking the article to FAC. I shall have a few additional minor drafting points if you do, what with the more pernickety standard for prose in FAs (e.g. quite a lot of places where the text would flow more smoothly if "Chopin" were replaced by "he" or "him"), but this is plainly a potential FA, in my opinion. I have greatly enjoyed reviewing it, and have learned a lot. As the only substantive point, the mid-Atlantic spelling, is now dealt with I have much pleasure in declaring this GA open:

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

"Did you know" error

The 1 March 2014 DYK includes the erroneous statment that "Frédéric Chopin... left his homeland of Poland in 1831 and never returned". He left Poland in 1830, shortly before the eruption of the November 1830 Uprising. Nihil novi (talk) 07:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there somewhere we can complain about this? I never even knew it was nominated, and would certainly have made the same point as you at the nomination page.--Smerus (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I said so here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks , I have supported! Hope they do it in time!--Smerus (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

I have reverted the infobox added by another editor. This is per policy of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Composers, as per numerous discussions.--Smerus (talk) 08:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Composers does not make policy as you are well aware and they do not OWN this article. You should not be telling lies to Vinícius94. If you have good reasons to remove an infobox from this article, let's hash them out here, but I'm not prepared to see you edit-war to impose your own version on the article, and to remove good faith contributions from other editors without any reasonable explanation. You were warned about that behaviour at the ArbCom case. I've put an infobox back, so explain to me properly why that wasn't an improvement to the article. --RexxS (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's avoid edit-warring by restoring the stable version until we are able to determine whether consensus on the matter has changed. Of course, since that would depend on discussion rather than on simple voting, we would need someone to present an argument for including a writer template on the article of someone identified primarily as a composer and musician. Though I'm sure it was in good faith, it doesn't make sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

(watching and trying to stay out of war) If I see that a user didn't use the best possible infobox template I address the user. I would do so especially if I notice that it is a new user who may be unfamiliar with the choices, and with finding edit summaries, and if finding them, interpretating something like this, instead of the normal revert good faith edits, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with restoring the stable version while discussion continues.

If there is general agreement that an infobox is not a net positive on this article, I will have no problem in seeing it continue without one.

I do have a problem with the way that a good faith edit by Vinícius94 was dealt with by the reverters. ArbCom has made clear that degrading discussion is unacceptable behaviour. The decision on whether to have an infobox or not rests on discussion at the talk page of each article. It follows then that no other venue, in particular a wikiproject, can create a blanket ban on having an infobox for multiple articles. The initial nonsense from an editor who should know better is a slap-in-the-face for any uninvolved editor who would like to see an infobox in this article and a breach of the remedies in the ArbCom case. --RexxS (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Frédéric Chopin
Photograph of Chopin by Bisson, c. 1849
Born	Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin (1810-03-01)1 March 1810 or possibly 22 February 1810 Żelazowa Wola, Poland
Died	17 October 1849(1849-10-17) (aged 39) Paris
Occupation(s)	Composer and pianist
Signature

Infoboxes are neither required by, nor forbidden by, Wíkipedia policies. As this article has already obtained GA status, an infobox is clearly not a necessity. We might therefore consider whether the infobox proposed added anything to the article. I therefore propose that an infobox does not add anything to this article, as all the information it contained (or would contain) was available immediately to its left. (Not only that, but it was factually inaccurate, giving 'Szopen' as the composer's birth name.) Moreover, it is distracting to the reader. On the grounds that 'if it ain't broken don't mend it', the article should be left without an infobox, whatever its type.--Smerus (talk) 07:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The infobox adds nothing but wasted space. It also skips over the uncertainty about Chopin's birthdate. Nihil novi (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I propose that an infobox does add something to this article, videlicet:

• The infobox that Vinícius94 suggested contains a brief collection of the key facts from Chopin's life, date and place of birth and death, and his principal occupations. It is placed in a position familiar to visitors and enables them to get that information at a glance in the same way that they are accustomed to in over 2,500,000 other Misplaced Pages articles. The article at present does not offer that facility to visitors.
• The information in the infobox is arranged as "key-value" pairs in a table that allows natural language processing tools to read that information with a much higher degree of certainty and to more accurately glean information from other parts of the article. The article at present does not offer that facility to third-parties who use NLP to re-use our articles.
• The data in the infobox is emitted as a microformat, in particular: vcard, bday, dday, deathdate, role. These microformats may be collected by many data collection tools. The article at present does not offer that facility to third-parties who make use of the microformats to re-use our articles.
• We have a sister project called Wikidata that collects data from all Wikipedias to create a central repository of information. This allows different language wikipedias to use data provided by another wikipedia. In particular, the 4.5 million-article English Misplaced Pages is a valuable - and regularly updated - source of facts for smaller wikipedias to build articles upon. The infobox is the principal source of data for Wikidata and the article at present does not offer that facility to Wikidata, and hence to other small wikipedias.

In response to the objections, I must point out that the best response to flawed formatting is to correct it, not throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's not difficult to correct "Szopen" (a plausible rendering of the name) to the more common "Chopin". I've appended an amended version here so that the disputants can examine what an infobox might offer.

In reply to Nihil novi, the lead of the article also skips over the uncertainty about Chopin's birthdate, but I do not see you arguing to remove the lead as a result. It's simple: if it's not in the lead, then generally it should not be in the infobox.

In response to Smerus: of course, we all agree that an infobox is not necessary, but the question governing inclusion is not one of necessity, but of value. I have shown above that an infobox adds value to the article in multiple ways. You have not adduced a single rationale beyond "distracting the reader" why your personal dislike should override that added value. --RexxS (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Rexxs has opined added value, but he has not demonstrated it.

• He does not dispute that the information duplicates what is already in the article.
• He asserts an opinion that 'as "key-value" pairs in a table that allows natural language processing tools to read that information with a much higher degree of certainty and to more accurately glean information from other parts of the article'. The 'other parts' of the article are immediately to its left. I do not know what a 'key-value' pair is, but the assertion that ths information in the box takes such forms, and the assertion that these forms have any value to the reader, appears to be a piece of WP:OR or a personal opinion of Rexxs.
• Rexxs is perfectly aware from previous discussions in which he and I have been involved that the metadata (microformat) function (if any) of an infobox is not an argument to be employed in its favour as a deciding factor. In any case, the arguments relating to information in an article should relate to convenience of the reader, not to an editor's favourite outside projects.
• The errors and absence of clarity in the original infobox are not adduced by me as a reason for its unwelcomeness. The fact however that an infobox tends to propagate such errors or unclarity is another argument to me in its disfavour.
• I therefore continue my preference for the 'natural language process' known as reading. As the infobox is agreed by Rexxs to be not necessary, I do not see any reason why it should be added.
• I would add that it would be a help if this discussion could be limited, as it should be, to what, if anything, an infobox adds to this article on Chopin, rather than to try to extend, distract and redirect the argument to irrelevant realms of knowledge theory.--Smerus (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Smerus is trying to conceal his lack of argument by mere assertion. I have in fact clearly demonstrated the added value that an infobox brings to this article for (i) readers who want a quick overview (as in the majority of other articles); (ii) third party re-users who read structured data; (iii) third party re-users who read microformats; (iv) other wikipedias who are denied the full range of data available in an infobox.
• Smerus obfuscates by trying to suggest that duplicating information is somehow disadvantageous. It is not. Does he deny that the lead duplicates information? Is that a disadvantage? Does he deny that persondata duplicates information? Is that a disadvantage?
• Smerus lacks any knowledge of natural language processing, despite having been pointed to a Google Talk explaining it multiple times - and its usefulness is a demonstrated fact, not an opinion. Smerus' willful ignorance is not an argument that NL processing is not an advantage for re-users of the article.
• Smerus is perfectly aware from previous discussions in which he and I have been involved that the both the metadata and the microformats provided by an infobox in a given article are strong arguments in its favour, but he would like to pretend that they are not as he has no argument to counter them. I refute the narrow-minded interpretation of our project as solely for people reading the Misplaced Pages site. Misplaced Pages is fundamentally based upon a premise that our content shall be made freely available to everyone for re-use and our licence is designed to ensure that.
• It is well-known that discrepancies between infoboxes and the main text are a flag that information needs to be updated and that can be detected by automated tools. It is just as likely in a developed article that the infobox has been accurately updated and the main text needs to to catch up. Without an infobox such maintenance is not possible.
• Smerus claims to have a preference for reading. What he actually displays is complete disdain for anything other than reading. This is 2013, not 1813 and consumers of our content access it through many different channels and often via reusers. Some will want to read an entire article (and I applaud that); others will want a 30-second overview and will read the lead; still more will want a 3-second précis, or a single fact, and will consult the infobox. It is not Smerus' place to force others to use our content solely in the way that Smerus prefers.

I will simply add that Smerus wants to rely on broad, discredited arguments such as "an infobox is redundant; it duplicates the lead; it's ugly; it distracts from the article" which only comment on the debate over infoboxes in general. Nevertheless he tries to disqualify specific arguments such as the particular microformats made available in this very article on Chopin. I have demonstrated the added value of the infobox, but have seen no argument to the contrary, beyond a desperate repetition of the fallacy that only elements that are necessary can be included in an article - 2.5 million other articles give the lie to that. --RexxS (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Waffle Waffle Waffle. I am joining the discussion even though I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. In previous discussions on this topic, words flowed like the Nile in flood, and I suppose this one will not be different. In any case, what I want to say is that the Wikidata natural language processing argument seems awfully weak. There is nothing in this infobox which cannot be included as persondata, so, at least in that respect, it adds nothing. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

  There is actually a lot of information that could be included in an infobox that cannot be included in persondata (which has an extremely limited repertoire). Just taking a quick look at the infoboxes in French, Spanish or Polish Misplaced Pages versions of Chopin will give some idea. The French Misplaced Pages, incidentally gives Szopen (prononcé « chopéne ») est l'orthographe polonaise de « Chopin ». --RexxS (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Infoboxes improve ALL articles: Here we go again, trying to hold back the tide of progress. The infobox is used on well over half of all wikipedia articles and add useful information for the casual reader to get basic data at a glance, they are highly encyclopedic, when properly designed are attractive and add a professional element to the article. Everywhere other than the classical music project and a few literary pages they are generally welcomed and accepted. We have been to arbcom and back on this and the decisions was, clearly, that wikiprojects can't dictate policy and that the decisions are made on a case by case basis. Here, we have aesthetic, technical and practical reasons to include them on one side and IDONTLIKEIT on the other. Same reactionary nonsense as every other time this has come up at the classical music projects. Montanabw 18:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Frédéric Chopin
Born	Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin (1810-03-01)1 March 1810 (or possibly 22 February 1810) Żelazowa Wola, Poland
Died	17 October 1849(1849-10-17) (aged 39) Paris, France
Occupations	Composer (works by genre) Pianist
Signature

• I would format the infobox a bit, to stress his works more (as in FA Imogen Holst) and not link Poland to today's Poland. We should separate discussion of "infobox yes or no" from discussion of parameters and values. I looked at the six version of the article in other languages which are FA: they all have an infobox, also the French GA. That I would answer the "infobox yes or no" question with "yes, why not?" is known enough, and RexxS explained well why it adds quality, better than I could, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Music good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• GA-Class biography (musicians) articles
• High-importance biography (musicians) articles
• Musicians work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class Composers articles
• WikiProject Composers articles
• GA-Class France articles
• High-importance France articles
• All WikiProject France pages
• GA-Class Poland articles
• Top-importance Poland articles
• WikiProject Poland articles
• Misplaced Pages articles as assignments
• Selected anniversaries (March 2010)
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles