Talk:Frédéric Chopin/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Image options

I'd like to discuss these three images:

1. [[File:Frédéric Chopin by Bisson, 1849.png|thumb|right|upright=1.0|Photograph of Chopin by [[Louis-Auguste Bisson|Bisson]], c. 1849<br /><br />{{center|[[File:Chopins Unterschrift.svg|150px]]}}]]
2. [[File:Eugène Ferdinand Victor Delacroix 043.jpg|thumb|upright=0.8|left|Chopin at 28, from [[Eugène Delacroix|Delacroix]]'s [[Portrait of Frédéric Chopin and George Sand|joint portrait of Chopin and Sand]]]]
3. [[File:Eugène Ferdinand Victor Delacroix 041.jpg|thumb|right|upright=0.7|[[George Sand]] sewing, from [[Eugène Delacroix|Delacroix]]'s joint portrait of Chopin and Sand (1838)]]

• #1 is currently the WP:LEADIMAGE but #2 (currently in the "George Sand" section, see below) seems a much better fit for that (from the guideline: "...the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see"): the Delacroix painting is used much more often as a first visual encounter in reference works than the Bisson photograph.
• #3 obviously rather belongs to the Frédéric Chopin#George Sand section than where it is now.
• #1, an image from the late 1840s, obviously belongs to the Frédéric Chopin#Decline period (section content starting "From 1842 onwards...") much more than a 1838 portrait of Sand.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Francis, you evidently did not 'want to discuss the images'; you made the changes in the article without discussion, which was rather peremptory, to say the least. This is an FA, so please show particular consideration when you make far-reaching edits. There has already been quite a lot of discussion about the lead image on this talk page. (Look at recent archives). The consensus was that this particular image was suitable for the lead. Vis-a-vis Delacroix, one obvious point is that it is a photo. There is no question that the image is of a type suitable for high-quality reference works. The guidelines say nothing about 'first visual encounters', and balancing Bisson vs. Delacroix is going to boil down to WP:OR, or, what is much the same, personal taste. I don't feel that it is necessary to rerun the previous discussions. In the meantime I am reverting the lead and other images to the situation before an infobox was imposed on the article (and to when it was approved as an FA).--Smerus (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:FA notwithstanding, how does the image of George Sand sewing illustrate the section on "Chopin's decline", where she is not even mentioned? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Martinevans123, do try to read the article before commenting, you will see that Sand is indeed mentioned in the section 'Decline'. I wouldn't object to axing the George Sand image entirely (bearing in mind WP:NOTREPOSITORY). To place it elsewhere would make the text, which is the prime element of WP, cluttered. She is incidental to Chopin's story, not really any part of his artistic developmwent (unless you include making him fretful from time to time). One alternative might be to make a small gallery featuring various people from Chopin's life, and including her there.--Smerus (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Smerus, thank you so much for such useful advice. Yes, I must try harder. "Chopin's relations with Sand were soured..." is not a big mention, is it? I'm struggling still with the sewing and the difference in the years - the painting was two years earlier. Was this how it was at FA? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

M. le docteur, I have reinstated the arch of the photo. Last time this was discussed it was agreed to retain it for two reasons: 1) making the original photo larger also made it coarser, and 2) leaving the arch shape gave a clearer indication of the intended look and composition of the photo which was typical of its period. Once more, as this was recently discussed and consenssus reached, I submit that its not appropriate to discuss it again.--Smerus (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I supsected I was wasting my time on the issue :-) The problem for me is when you click the photo and the bare white at the top shows, looks unprofessional. You can see the grey grid when you click it. And I also don't like the signature underneath set at a different size. If you edited the photo to include the signature in the bottom right of the image it would look a lot better, or at least use the Template:Multiple image function to avoid the gap and difference in width..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

How recent was that discussion? I'm sure a link would be very useful. Was User:Dr. Blofeld a part of that discussion? Sometimes different editors bring new arguments. Consensus can change (apparently). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The stray signature set at a different size to me looks pretty unsightly. Click the photo and you can see the grey grid in the Chopin picture at the top. Doesn't emulate the period to me, it looks amateurish when you click it. We prefer a nice clean photograph in other composer articles don't we? The Richard Wagner article with the clean photograph, no silly gaps and arches, with the signature underneath all in one looks a great way to display it without an infobox IMO. If there's consensus against me then I'll refrain from further comment.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Poor blighter looks doomed. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Chopin, 1835, watercolor by his fiancée, Maria Wodzińska

I agree. Why not use the 1835 watercolor portrait by his fiancée at the time, Maria Wodzińska?

Nihil novi (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You could that 1835 watercolor with the signature underneath, all in one like Wagner. The photo is OK but that archway really has me baffled.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Doctor, I am very happy for you to edit the photo to contain the signature as you propose; as I'm cackhanded at this sort of thing I leave it to you. User:Martinevans123, the discussion about the photo was on this page and at the FA discussion of August last year. By the way, actually the poor blighter was doomed, so you've given us another good reason for keeping the pic, now I come to think of it, many thanks.--Smerus (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Happy to oblige. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Reiterating my original proposal:

• There is a section in the article with the section title "George Sand". There's only one image of Sand in the article, the Delacroix painting (#3 in the list above). Now we can have that image appearing in a section further down on the page (where she is mentioned in passing), as it is now. Or we can put the picture in the section called "George Sand". The second option appears by far preferable to me.
• Afaik the Delacroix painting of Chopin (#2 in the list above) is by far the most often used effigy of the composer. That is no OR, but if needed we could look into this. I don't say the Bisson photograph (#1) is "unsuitable" or whatever as a lead image. What I say is that the Delacroix painting seems a "better fit" for "...the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see" as the guideline has it. This is a layout option I support without needing to be ashamed of whatever (as such, since no content is removed or added, only moved to different places, I see nothing in content policies that would be against such preference: WP:BALASPS rather supports my preference I suppose).
• #1, the Bisson photograph is not the Chopin of famous compositions like the Piano Sonata No. 2 or the Preludes Op. 28. It belongs to a period when he wrote less (and generally less remembered) compositions. That period is titled (somewhat over-the-top if you ask me but nonetheless) "Decline" in the article, and which makes him look like a "doomed poor blighter" as it is expressed above (note that the photograph has zero eye expression, which is maybe high quality for monochrome photography at the time, but not high quality compared to other effigies made at the time, most commonly by the medium of painting). That's not who Chopin was when writing the compositions that make him most memorable as a composer. I'm not trying to prove anything here, just explaining my support of a layout option that doesn't remove or add any content to the article. For such reasons I support moving the Bisson photograph from the lead to the section titled "Decline", which is also a chronological fit for that effigy.

I couldn't find any prior discussion where all three of the images above are discussed, and afaik the permutation I propose is suggested here for the first time. FA acknowledged but that is no guarantee that further improvements are unthinkable (otherwise: apply page protection ad infinitum and we wouldn't be discussing this – that's not how Wikipedia works). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Well if we're after opinions, mine is to leave the pictures as they now are. And that's what this is all about, just opinions. For you maybe 'the Bisson photograph is not the Chopin of famous compositions like the Piano Sonata No. 2', but for others, (maybe), it is 'Chopin the suffering Romantic genius' which is how they think of him. Neither of those opinions (which constitute WP:OR) are in themselves justifications.--Smerus (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think the time and energy would be best put into getting another composer to FA..♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Although Smerus is voicing opinions here, I think they are informed musical opinions and I tend to agree with him. (We don't want to get trapped in the hallway, arguing over two discount wallpaper pattern books, when there is such a beautiful whole house to attend to.) Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Tad Szulc, author of Chopin in Paris, calls Maria Wodzińska's 1835 portrait of Chopin the best depiction of him, alongside Delacroix's more famous picture. Nihil novi (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Does he say anything about the Bisson photo? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Well David Conway, author of Jewry in Music 1780-1850 (Cambridge University Press, 2012), thinks the Bisson pic is the bee's knees and the Wodzińska pic is effete rubbish. And he knows Chopin personally just as well as Tad Szulc does.--Smerus (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Phew, what a relief. For a moment there I thought there might be a "conflict of interest". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Tad Szulc, Chopin in Paris: The Life and Times of the Romantic Composer, New York, Scribner, 1998, ISBN 0-684-82458-2, p. 137:

A gifted artist, Maria [Wodzińska] made sketches of Chopin's head as he played the piano and talked, then sat him down in an armchair to paint his portrait in watercolors. It is one of the best portraits of Chopin extant—after that by Delacroix—with the composer looking relaxed, pensive, and at peace.

Delacroix painted his joint portrait of Chopin and George Sand three years later, in 1838. Szulc writes, p. 194:

[Delacroix had] a Pleyel piano moved to his huge atelier on rue des Marais–Saint Germain on the Left Bank [...]. Then he began painting what became the famous unfinished "double" portrait of Fryderyk and George, with him seated at the piano and her standing behind [...]. The portrait was never fully completed, except for the faces, apparently because Chopin decided he did not like it (the two men often violently disagreed over visual arts without jeopardizing their friendship), and the canvas remained at the atelier until Delacroix's death in 1863. Between 1865 and 1873 (nobody is sure), an unidentified culprit slashed the portrait into two parts (the right side of the portrait, depicting Chopin, remains in Paris at the Louvre; the left side, with Sand, is at the Ordrupgaard Museum in Copenhagen).

Szulc's portfolio of portraits of Chopin, his family, and his acquaintances includes the Bisson photo, minus the awkward overhead arch, and with the image reversed in relation to that in our article's lead.

I don't recall Szulc commenting on this cadaverous photograph. I am glad that it exists; but it seems a shame to memorialize Chopin with such a haggard image.

Szulc himself placed Maria's portrait of Chopin on the front cover and spine of his book.

Nihil novi (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

As to the placement of portraits in our article, I had the same reactions as Francis Schonken.

The Bisson photo of Chopin would, chronologically, be more suitable for the "Decline" or the "Tour of England and Scotland" section.

Delacroix's portrait of George Sand would be more appropriate for the "George Sand" section than for the "Decline" section, where it now resides.

Either the Delacroix or the Wodzińska (my own preference) portrait would be much better for the article's lead than the Bisson photo that is there now.

Nihil novi (talk) 06:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

A couple of points. Tad Szulc was a political and war journalist who happened to write a best-selling (and imho not very insightful) biography of Chopin. He probably didn't even know that the Bisson photo existed - the fact that he didn't mention it is not WP:NOTABLE one way or the other. More importantly, this is a photo of Chopin - indeed it is the only verifiable photo, and therefore has encyclopaedic value and, I would say, preference over artistic interpretations. Objections to it on the basis that it is 'cadaverous', 'haggard' or 'gloomy' are simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT, (which please read). Other FA and GA articles on 19c composers - Richard Wagner, Bedrich Smetana, Jules Massenet, Gabriel Fauré, Arthur Sullivan, Johann Strauss II, John Philip Sousa, André Messager, etc. etc. also have photos at the head, and quite right too imo.--Smerus (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that the reproduction of Bisson's photo that appears in Szulc's book found its way there against his will and without his knowledge? I specifically said (see above) that the photo appears in the book, minus the arch, and with the image reversed. There is even a caption which says: "Fryderyk Chopin photographed during the final years of his life (1847–1849?) by L.A. Bisson. This is the only known photograph of Chopin extant. (Collection of Fryderyk Chopin Society, Warsaw.)" The fact that Szulc does not seem to have otherwise commented on it certainly does not mean that the photo isn't in his book or that he "didn't even know that the Bisson photo existed"! Nihil novi (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't have the book - my comment was generic, I don't rate Szulc, that's all. You are the one who said he didn't comment on it, but now you correct that by citing the caption in the book.--Smerus (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I did try the portrait vs the photograph and the photograph is a superior image, although I'd prefer it without the arch at the top and cropped.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The arch at the top is indeed a gratuitous distraction, but as far as I can make out if you crop the arch you also scalp the composer, or at least position him precariously and inelegantly close to the top. Should we wish to do this? Or is there a cropping expert out there with a solution? Charles01 (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree btw that the arch is inelegant by modern standards...but...it is part of the photo, the way they were done in those days, and therefore, clumsy as it is, it says something about Chopin's times and milieu. 'Looking nice' (to our modern eyes) is maybe not the prime criterion in this case.--Smerus (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

So no chance of photoshopping a smile on or doing something with that dreadful mullet, then? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, there is this.......--Smerus (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah! A ray of sunshine in the gloom! It's amazing what one can do with a touch of rouge, isn't it. I see a very different use of images over at fr:Frédéric Chopin - and I guess they might have quite a healthy interest in him, n'est ce pas? Alors! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I rather like this one (a featured picture no less!) - no colours, but clear eyes. BTW, the Bisson photo has depth (nuance), just not in the copy used on the article currently, while kept in the dark range, which makes the face (and eyes) expressionless. When the Bisson photo is used, at least an acceptable reproduction/digitized version should be used. The current one is high in pixels, but, to make a comparison, like an uncorrected OCR of a manuscript from pages that have been yellowed by time - shouldn't be used in that form. The arch etc. are of no significance as a time document if the nuance is lost in overall darkness (and probably some unnecessary tweaking of contrast which happens automatically by most digitization equipment). --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Wholly agree. That's a very wise comment. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I am very happy to go with Francis's preferred version of the Bisson if this has consensus. A featured picture is certainly appropriate to lead a featured article.--Smerus (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Completely disagree. The picture which has just been placed on the article page is, as has already been discussed only recently, of very low quality. I am astonished it is a featured picture and will create a delisting proposal as soon as I have time. There are scanning or digitisation artefacts all over it, the contrast is poor and the grey tones are blotchy. The texture of the coat is completely blurred out. Mid tones are disfigured by regular arrays of black and white spots (shadow under right eyebrow, necktie for example). Lighter areas lose detail (right lapel stitching for example). The only advantage this picture has is less saturation in the dark areas, so more hair detail for example is visible, but this does not in my opinion outweigh the disadvantages. I presume that a good reproduction of the original would be better than either of these images, but we should stick with the darker image – at least it does not look as if it has been incompetently scanned. --Mirokado (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Francis - I remain neutral on this particular issue , but I did make the proviso that I would go with consensus. Normally one should wait awhile to see what comments arise before determining what the consensus is, and I think your substitution of the photo could appropriately have waited until a more secure outcome.--Smerus (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to see that consensus will ever be reached on anything with this lot. But this case, if the concern is only with the technical quality of the picture, there are plenty of people with the skills and "tools" that could be used to "photoshop" either image to make it look (1) less like something from the nineteenth century without (2) making it obvious that it's been "tweaked". (Tweaking will of course to have happened already, inadvertently or otherwise, in the course of preparing the old image(s) for upload, so we really can't afford to be too "purist" on that score.. Though whether consensus could ever be achieved on what constituted an improvement and what didn't....).

What the pictures have in common - and an important message that I think is well worth conveying with a picture - is that the fellow really does not look very well. Which as we know he mostly wasn't. Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Chopin's best known photograph: variant reproductions of a lost (?) daguerrotype (?) by Louis-Auguste Bisson (?) from 1847 or 1849 (?) left - based on a copy at Musée de la Musique (Paris) right - photoshopped extract

When a picture is thus problematic, better not use it in the lead, but somewhere else in the article, imho. Compare former (?) featured article Charles-Valentin Alkan: the photograph of Alkan used in the article is obviously "problematic" (for other reasons as Chopin's unless "lacking face expression" is somehow desribed as the common problem), and thus not used in the lede, but further down in the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Frédéric Chopin by Bisson, 1849 crop.png looks better though IMO, although might be slightly too dark in hue.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Let us be clear: the picture in itself is not problematic as Francis Schonken claims; it is definitely the only confirmed picture of Chopin and thus appropriate for the lead. The issue in contention (low-priority in my personal view) is about the version of this picture to be used. As the editor responsible for the (still - why do you suggest 'former'?) FA article on Alkan, I confirm that my reason (which was not discussed during the FA review) for not putting the photo in the lead was indeed that it does not show his face. This photo, however, in whatever version, does. The Musée de la Musique version is clearly citable. We transgress WP:OR if we go about photoshopping a version. Mirokado's comments seem to be from someone who knows what he is talking about, I am happy to defer to him. A crop is acceptable if people think so - in which case Dr. Blofeld's latest proposal seems to me to be as good as any, if objections to the arch are insuperable.--Smerus (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the "former (?)", my bad, struck it.

How about giving the two versions + explanation (as presented above) in the "Decline" section? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Chopin's best known photograph: variant reproductions of a lost (?) daguerrotype (?) by Louis-Auguste Bisson (?) from 1847 or 1849 (?) left – original format, a copy at Musée de la Musique (Paris) centre – cropped right – photoshopped extract

Here are the three most recent lead images from the article, presented as they actually appeared in the article instead of with an explicit size. --Mirokado (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Image proposal

I've made a new section for convenience. Thank you Mirokado for the 'side-by-side' comparison. For reasons discussed above I believe that it is fully appropriate to use this image in the lead. I think it is also clear that we should not use the photoshopped version, which is effectively someone's WP:OR. There have been objections to the arched version. I therefore propose that the cropped version of the original, at an appropriate sizing, be used in the lead.--Smerus (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• For reasons of historic accuracy I prefer the complete, arched version. Cropping should only be done as a last resort when a person has to be extracted from a group photograph, or when the original was poorly framed. Neither applies here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'd prefer the lead image to be BOTH an accurate depiction of the person and an accurate time document. If both are not possible (as seems the case here) preference should go to the recognizability of the person, i.e. in the lede of this article (an article on 19th century photography etc. is different).

As there appears to be no version of the photograph available in Wikipedia that satisfies the "accurate effigy" criterion (it just occured to me that the height of the featured image version is somewhat stretched, so no not even an accurate depiction of the composer, and the darker images obliterate the hue depth, so a deformation of the effigy of the composer whatever way one turns it) it seems only reasonable to go for the most famous portrait of the composer ([1]) as lede image, and for the photograph have the split "accurate reproduction"/"recognizable face" duo further on in the article, as I suggested before (or only the arched photograph as long as nobody has uploaded a version with a good recognizability that isn't also a deformation). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a clear policy statement somewhere that "photoshopping = WP:OR"? And what percentage of "stretching" is that? The images are all instantly recognisable as Chopin. I can hardly percieve any stretching. The photoshopped image looks fine to me! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Policy aside, I think the quest for historic accuracy is commendable. Here's a description of the photo: "ein blasses, von Ödemen ungesund aufgedunsenes Gesicht" ([2] – "... a pale face with a unhealthy edematic aspect ..."), then yes photoshopping out the edematic aspect seems to miss a target of improved recognisability by far. From the same description of the photograph: "zu schmächtig für die Kleider" ("too scanty for the clothes") is what set me to have a closer look at the photoshopped version that hasn't got that aspect, while the original has (that's where the stretching comes in as a deformation). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You're saying the photoshopped version stops his clothing looking baggy? And you're saying the photoshopping doesn't improve recognisability, on the basis of an external description of the photo? I was asking "is there any strict policy on this or not?" Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

"stops his clothing looking baggy" is maybe an exaggeration, less baggy, sure. Policy aside, because there isn't any applicable afaik, apart from WP:CONSENSUS. All I'm saying is that in my appreciation historic accuracy is one of many commendable arguments to weigh in when trying to find consensus on the lead image. But then, accurate reproduction of a photograph that today probably only has manifestations way darker than what the photographer saw when finished with it is questionable "historic accuracy" too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Are we OK then with using the "most famous" portrait as WP:LEADIMAGE, the Sand portrait in the Sand section, the full darkish photograph in the section where it chronologically belongs? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

No we are not! Look at comments above - there is no consensus to make the changes you propose. You want the portrait in the lead - Michael Bednarek and myself want the photo - preferably in un-photoshopped form. Martinevans is satisfied with the unphotoshopped form. That's all we have here. Therefore, to be left alone. And as there was no consesnsus to move to the photoshopped image in the lead before Francis change it, really we should go back to the original image. -- Smerus (talk) 06:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect I don't see much reasoned opposition against using the Sand portrait in the section where it chronologically and thematically belongs. Sure, it is possible to cling to one passing mentioning in the Decline section as opposed to a whole section dedicated to the person... I don't think we're far from consensus there.

Also for the photograph there's more discussion about which version to use then where to put it. I think the version discussions will be over soon once it's no longer used as a lead image.

...and no reasoned opposition against using the most famous portrait as lead image. Some personal preferences may play, but when it is thus clear which is the effigy most commonly associated with Chopin... --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I concur. Nihil novi (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

What we see in the previous conversations is several editors, including me, expressing strong, reasoned preference for the original version of the photograph, which was already in the lead. Thus there was, and is, no consensus to change it and it should be restored. If you want an explicit statement vis à vis "photo or portrait", the photo has its own historical importance and a photo is generally preferable to a portrait as the lead image if both are available, since we see the person without someone else's artistic interpretation or style. The portrait by Maria is already perfectly positioned in the section discussing their engagement and next to her self-portrait, so the reader can visualise the couple while reading about them. Similarly, the Delacroix fragments are placed near each other in the article (I think the Sand portrait should go in the George Sand section, with the Chopin portrait a bit later). --Mirokado (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

as there was no consensus to move to the photoshopped image in the lead before Francis changed it, really we should go back to the original image. +1 -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Re. "a photo is generally preferable to a portrait as the lead image if both are available, since we see the person without someone else's artistic interpretation or style" – apart from the insult to all photographers (denying they could create artistic interpretation or style, which is particularily something the early 19th century photographers believed in) you can't have it both ways: defending the arch (artistic interpretation) and over-darkness (style) need to be kept for the lead image and then at the same moment contend it is "without" artistic interpretation or style.

Every photograph is an interpretation (light from the back? light from the front? props? background? ...?), every photograph expresses a style (Sepia or B/W? etc). In this case the style (which also may be due to ageing of the material, and the reproduction of a reproduction which adds layers of interpretation and style) obfuscates the directness of the portrait (i.e. of the person pictured in the portrait).

I defend the most iconic portrait for the lead, letting external reliable sources decide on that (basicly: which portrait of Chopin is most often used in reliable sources? which should be standard procedure per the available guideline) – WP:NPOV, instead of wikipedians deciding which is the most "true" portrait based on their POV concepts of art & style, and all that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Francis, your 'defence' is simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. On this thread, three editors disagree with you and one agrees. Repeating your arguments, however stridently, does not add to their strength.--Smerus (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Pardon? The "photo has no artistic interpretation & style" argument was used for the first time, I replied to it for the first time, because, yeah, that was the first real content counterargument on the matter (however flawed in its superficiality).

So no, there's no WP:IDONTLIKEIT in my argument, it's all about letting *external* reliable sources decide. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are written by editors; they make choices – what material to present and how to present it. That's what an encyclopedia is. A mere collection of factoids from external sources is what Google presents. There is no support at all for the current lead image, which was introduced by Francis. So, for a start, the status quo ante should be restored immediately (see also WP:BRD, not WP:BDR). Then we can argue about the merits of the portrait by Maria Wodzińska or the cropped Delacroix, or any other. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

As per above I have now restored the lead image to the status quo ante before Francis's unilateral decision.--Smerus (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"Suffering".

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.

---

I think the subject comes across as less pathetic when we simply say he "had" or "was" something, rather than "suffered" from it, like so. Slightly more concise, too.

Aye? Nay? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Nay. "Pathetic" has nothing to do with it. There is a standard English idiom that uses "suffering" to describe what a person undergoes from a disease or other adverse health condition. It sounds odd—even comical or satirical—to put it any other way.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

"Through most of his life, Chopin was unhealthy." is a very odd and unidiomatic phrase; it would certainly raise eyebrows and invite further attempts to improve it. Further, I can't find any mention of it in the review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frédéric Chopin/archive1 or the preceding Wikipedia:Peer review/Frédéric Chopin/archive2. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It's unidiomatic, because clichés and idioms are meant to be generally avoided. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Michael Bednarek and Jerome Kohl. --Smerus (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

We had a similar thing to this on Ian Fleming where an editor pitched up to eliminate all mentions of the word "suffering". It didn't work there either. Cassianto^Talk 01:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

and on Gabriel Fauré....clearly a certain editor has a mission to single-handedly redefine English idiom - Aye? Nay? --Smerus (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Now I wonder who that could of been? Cassianto^Talk 07:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

"could of been"? Ahem! -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, this one can keep it, too. My mission's only to eliminate the POV rhetoric where nobody feels strongly attached to it. "Unhealthy" certainly isn't odd, though, it just means not in good health. If someone suffers from poor health, they aren't in good health, and when we can cut down on wordiness, we generally should. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I would strongly advise you to abort that "mission" as soon as you can. It's getting you nowhere fast. --Cassianto^Talk 12:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of addressing this point seriously, I would like to know how idiomatically using the word "suffer" constitutes "POV rhetoric". The notion of "efficient" language is another value that I would like to see defended here. (Has there ever been a prize offered for "efficient" literature, apart from Monty Python's "summarize Proust" competition, and the "semaphore version of Wuthering Heights", which I am led to believe were meant in jest?) Redundancy is a regular feature of language, and not without reason. Most words, including "unhealthy", have more than one sense, and pairing them with a redundant verb like "suffer" helps to align them for the reader in the intended sense, rather than some other. This is why the phrase "Chopin was unhealthy" leaves an uneasy feeling, because it can be read as saying he had "unhealthy appetites" or an "unhealthy attitude to life", or associated with "unhealthy company". The verb "suffered" makes Chopin the object of poor health, rather than its possible agent. The sense of "injury, loss, shame, disgrace" is only one (and not the primary) sense of the word "suffer" which, on its own, might be subject to the same ambiguity as "unhealthy". The idiom, on the other hand, makes plain that "suffer" has its original sense of "To undergo, endure", while at the same time clarifying that Chopin was in fact "poorly" or (in American English) "in poor health". Nay?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, English is open to interpretation. Someone might think "unhealthy" means what you say it might, though I say the context is clear. Someone might also read your sentence and think most every waking hour of the man's life was a living hell, or at least an unpleasant chore. Paints him like an all-around wretched, miserable creature and invites pity.

If both ideas allow people the wrong idea of Chopin, we go with the one that most editors like. Or, theoretically, a third idea. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

English is also subject to regional variation, and I am beginning to suspect this may be a factor here. The expression "suffered from ill health", in my experience at least, usually implies intermittent illness, like the expression "a sickly child"—quite a different thing from "every waking hour ... a living hell", but also contrasted with "robust good health". Pity does not come into it, at least not in formal English, or the English as she is spoke where I have lived and grown up (mainly the mid-west and west of the United States). The fact that you have now come up against stiff opposition on at least three different Wikipedia articles suggests that perhaps you need to re-evaluate your own understanding of this particular phrase or, more particularly, the verb "to suffer".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

"Through most of his life" implies it wasn't only now and then. Sounds fairly constant. Could help to actually say "intermittently suffered", if that's what's implied, rather than make readers guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Now I think you are splitting hairs. Shall we try and see if we can find some proper statistics to help us determine more precisely what percentage of the days in his life he was manifesting the symptoms of some debilitating condition to a measurable level (say, at least 12.3% incapacitated)? That way we don't have to rely on such vague terms as "intermittently" which, as I said, is already implied by "suffered ill health". Good luck finding a reliable source, though. Oh, yes, and do please look up the word "intermittent" in a dictionary. It doesn't mean what you seem to think it does, either.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Coming and going, not continuous. And "through", here, is during the entire period, from the beginning to the end of. Same thing they mean in the Midwest. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. So you understand it does not mean "only now and then". The word for that is "occasionally".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Can we close this thread? I'm really suffering.--Smerus (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• What words to describe this do English language sources generally use? I remember from Un hiver à Majorque that Chopin wasn't ill all the time (Sand somewhere referring to "the sick one" meaning one of her children, not Chopin – if my memory doesn't fail me). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eternal Sonata

I have twice reverted an edit which an anonymous editor has inserted (without any citation) referring to the above video game. The game apparently has a character named Chopin and uses some of his music. It has no other connection with Chopin's life or works. A reference to the game adds nothing to information about Chopin himself which is the topic of this article. I should be grateful however for the opinions of other editors.--Smerus (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the removal, for the reasons above. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I, too, agree entirely. In addition, this looks very much like a purely promotional addition (i.e., spam). Isn't there a guideline somewhere about threshold levels for trivia of such an ephemeral nature?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

That was me. The game is explicitly based on the life of Frederic Chopin - it is not just some random guy named Chopin. It has every connection with Chopin's life and works, in that it's literally based around both of those things. I'm sorry that I don't frequently use Wikipedia and don't know how to properly go about adding something like this, but seeing as how the entire point of the section "In literature, stage, film and television" is to list fictional works that have featured Chopin, I don't at all see how a video game centering around him is irrelevant to a page about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.146.57 (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. But the section "In literature etc..." is in no way intended as a list of everything which mentions Chopin - otherwise it would be endless. It is there to give an idea of some of the most significant presentations of Chopin which shed some light on his historical life and works. The video game sheds light on neither of these; it's certainly not "explicitly based" on Chopin's life, as you claim, as none of the actions in the game have any correlation with events which took place in reality - it's just (apparently) a fantasy world in which one of the characters is named Chopin and which uses some of Chopin's music, as arranged by others - unless you have a reputable source which says different. --Smerus (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

As someone who has only just now heard of both Chopin and the game, I believe Eternal Sonata is worth mentioning in that last section. I have stumbled upon this composer after hearing of this game with an unusual premise, and so maybe to some individuals that piece of trivia makes this composer interesting and might make them more likely to read about him. The IGN review seems to justify its connection and to an extent notability - I quote; "The game's developer in fact prided itself on combining genuinely educational content with a very playable game.", "The premise behind Eternal Sonata's whimsical setting are the final three hours of an unconscious Frederic Chopin's life. Chopin, renowned composer, is dying of Tuberculosis, and as he begins to lose grip on this world, he begins an adventure in the next." I'm no authority, just giving my two cents. Elzbenz (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Wait.. then again, this is a featured article. Probably not worth messing with. I think I might take what I said back to an extent, but not sure who knows. Elzbenz (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Lorenz "Godson"

Several people (including me) have reverted the addition of <Lorenz, Michael. "A Godson of Frédéric Chopin " Vienna, 2015.> on the basis that (a) it was added to a section meant for cited sources and it is not cited, (b) it is "not of sufficient standing", and (c) it is not a reliable source. I have invited the editor to comment here to try to gain a consensus for the addition of this entry, should he/she wish to do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed completely, not even debatable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's rules the claim that Lorenz's article is "not a reliable source" is not tenable. These rules read as follows: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is 'made available to the public in some form'." Lorenz is an internationally renowned musicologist with the highest possible "reputation for fact-checking and reliability" (to quote Wikipedia's rules). He has published widely (also in print) on all kinds of musicological topics. As a matter of fact (contrary to many obscure published sources in the Chopin bibliography which are not even peer-reviewed and mostly consist of the authors' personal opinions) Lorenz's internet-publications can be fact-checked by the readers themselves, because he provides pictures and shelf marks of all the primary sources he uses. Hence his web-based publications have widely been referred to in the scholarly literature and his Chopin research will surely be quoted in future Chopin books. Let's cut to the chase here: what is the basic implication of doubting the reliability of Lorenz's research? Does it mean that the pictures of his sources are fake? That he made up the story about Chopin's godson? Is his article a piece of historical fiction? It's rather obvious that the scepticism of the censors, that are at work here, is based on vanity, narrowmindedness and (most of all) jealousy.--2001:62A:6:1:0:0:0:1F (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with everything my predecessor says. The rule is nonsensical in that Lorenz, who spends much of his time in painstaking research in dusty archives reading documents which to most contributors to Wikipedia are largely hieroglyphic, continually makes the contents of these available to the public, and not just in any old form but in a highly understandable and optically most attractive one. Everything he says, whether in German or in English, is to the point and well-documented, and what is more, his statements can easily be checked by anyone possessing the requisite linguistic, palæographical, biographical and historical competences. These things in my opinion make Lorenz into a secondary source with abundant lashings of primary sauce, in other words the very incarnation of the ideal Wikipedagogue. Such a person is inevitably the target of the professional jealousy of better-paid and less diligent colleagues, and I should be surprised if he had not become abundantly aware of the fact. I wish him the best of luck.Pamino (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The deafening silence, that set in here on the part of the censors, speaks volumes. They have no arguments, they cannot even enter a discussion and all that remains is embarrassing silence. Fortunately Chopin scholarship does not have to rely on the judgement of Wikipedia's pseudo experts.--Suessmayr~enwiki (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Szopen

Why is his Polish last name "Szopen" not mentioned anywhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.255.31.5 (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The pl.wiki article is Fryderyk Chopin? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

My Polish is minimal, but not my French; should that perhaps read <Szopę>?Pamino (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

He was always Chopin, because his father Nicholas Chopin migrated to Poland from France, and did not change the spelling. The composer is called "Szopen" in some sources, mainly for the benefit of Poles who didn't know how to read French orthography, but it was never how he spelt his own name. It's analagous to spelling François as "Franswa". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2016

He was also attracted to the singing student Konstancja Gładkowska. In letters to Woyciechowski, he indicated which of his works, and even which of their passages, were influenced by his fascination with her; his letter of 15 May 1830 revealed that the slow movement (Larghetto) of his Piano Concerto No. 1 (in E minor) was secretly dedicated to her

The larghetto in the Piano Concerto in F minor was composed as an expression of love for Konstancja Gladkowska. Part of the confusion may stem from the order of composition and numbering in the publication: the Piano Concerto in F minor was completed before the Piano Concerto in E minor but published as the Piano Concerto No. 2.

See Encyclopedia of the Romantic Era, 1760-1850 edited by Christopher John Murray page 184: https://books.google.com/books?id=8GS8DWMLRYEC&pg=PA184&dq=Gladkowska+Concerto+in+F+minor&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiThcvA_-HOAhXKkh4KHaJdBuc4ChDoAQgbMAA#v=onepage&q=Gladkowska%20Concerto%20in%20F%20minor&f=false

8.22.97.30 (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 17:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)