This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Someone keeps deleting a reference to a photographer.
Someone keeps repeatedly deleting a reference to a photographer. There is a credit to a French photographer who took the photograph of Chopin shown on this page (under his photo), and this credit is also linked to the page for that photographer and it shows the same photograph over there. So the referenced name being deleted is linked to the correct Wikipedia page for that photographer. If this information is accurate, why is this person continually deleting this reference? I've reverted it twice now, because Wikipedia needs all the accurate information it can get, not less. So unless this photographer never took this photograph and it can be proven, please stop deleting the reference, and if they didn't take it and it's in error, then comment on the talk page instead of just removing it, citing your reasons for doing so. Ty. Taurusthecat (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
This would be to discourage advertising contemporary artists trying to use Wikipedia to plug their reputation and work. Further, it says discouraged not forbidden. The artist is historical and it's connected to the earliest photography, so therefore it is in the interests of people using Wikipedia to be linked to them to learn something, particularly those researching historical photography. Stop deleting it. Taurusthecat (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
No, it's because the infobox is meant to focus on the article subject rather than on those researching historical photography. Stop restoring it. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a reference data base designed to educate people and provide valuable information especially cross-linked pages. You are dumbing-down the page and devaluing it by deleting something factual. Leave it there. Taurusthecat (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
If you believe the Manual of Style devalues articles, you're welcome to propose a change at its talk page. But until you do so successfully, the link should be excluded per CREDITS. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Removing it makes no sense other than because you are obsessed with removing it. All you are doing it making the page less informative for anyone who comes across it and preventing people learning things. Further, because there are virtually no photographs of Chopin existing, it is especially important that this one is credited. If you were dealing with an image taken for example in the 1980's I could imagine it may be OK, but this is an extremely rare example of a photo of Chopin where there are no others to be found and of great interest and I repeat, you are dumbing-down the page and devaluing the very reason people come to Wikipedia to learn things. If the named credit is factual, and bearing-in-mind it's rarity and historical importance as an image in itself, it should stay there. Taurusthecat (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
No, what we're doing is ensuring that the infobox focuses on the key facts of the article's subject. If you believe that discussion of photography of Chopin is significant and warrants inclusion, that should be done via sourced article content. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm referring to "we" because that is a sitewide consensus as expressed in CREDITS - which, again, if you disagree with, you should address there. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
If it's not special enough to have sourced discussion in the article, it's definitely not special enough to be considered a key fact about the article subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
You've asserted it's a special case; you haven't backed that up with sourced article content nor have you achieved the consensus necessary to disregard sitewide MOS. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
It says there are only 2 photos of Chopin in existence and has examples of both of them, the one on this page is one of them, this is why this is a special case for those researching Chopin due to the rarity of ANY photographic images of Chopin at all. It is not a normal case of having any old photograph or image on a Wikipedia page and this requires special consideration due to historical and interest value to those researching Chopin. For an image of someone or something where there are many and plentiful other images floating around, who cares. You can understand that the creator of those images is not necessarily something which warrants inclusion. But when there are only 2 known photographic images in existence of this extremely famous composer which makes this image extremely historic and exceptional and of great interest to those interested in and researching Chopin, it is a different story. The guideline does not state ‘banned’ or ‘forbidden’ it simple states ‘discouraged’, which in itself grants leeway for special circumstances, such as this. Taurusthecat (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Notwithstanding MOS, this is a very early photograph that could, with some research, well have its own WP article. The captioned name and link seem harmless to me and the sort of thing that would interest 19th Century Eurogeeks who might come to the page. SPECIFICOtalk18:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Chopin is not just anybody. I would ask you have you ever researched anything in your life, and do you understand how researchers operate and what removing this information means to a researcher researching Chopin who is potentially at the time unaware that the photo is even a rare one let alone one of only 2 existing in the entire world? You're expecting a photo to sit there with no mention of who did it or where it came from (on a reference resource lol) just a plain image with no discoverable context via the link to the creator, despite it's extreme interest to historians and those particularly researching Chopin. If it's not linked to another page due to it's notoriety, anyone could just look at it and think nothing of it and be none the wiser and that's not what Wikipedia is here. You are doing this page a huge disservice and that is not why Wikipedia has editors. Taurusthecat (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
As I said earlier, under normal circumstances with just normal contemporary images of this or that it would be fine, who would care, it's only a photo, we don't need to know who took it, which is where you seem to be coming from. This guideline prevents graphic artists and photographers abusing Wikipedia by putting their own images on pages and linking to themselves to give themselves some attention and it could be easily abused so I do understand why this guideline is in place. But this is not just a photo. This is an exceptional circumstance particularly tied directly to Chopin where it is part of the Chopin 'lore' if you will, that there are virtually no records of what he really looked like. Add to that it is one of the earliest examples of photography in the world of one of the most famous composers in the world and it certainly needs special consideration in this regard. Taurusthecat (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Preventing self-promotion is not the purpose of that guideline; rather, it's to reinforce from MOS:INFOBOX that the infobox is meant to be limited to key facts on the article subject. At the moment, without either a standalone article on the photo or any relevant content in this article's text, your assertion that this is part of Chopin "lore" is insufficient to demonstrate that the photo's credit qualifies. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
I refer you back to that which SPECIFICO said. It's not really a difficult case and will help people out. Sometimes dogmatic thinking is not appropriate. Taurusthecat (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
If the article SPECIFICO proposed existed, linking to it might actually help people out. But your proposal would require people to understand the significance to "Chopin lore" without that context. Nobody who doesn't already know about it would look at that caption and think, "hey, this is an extremely rare photo and the photographer's name is essential to my understanding of Chopin". Nikkimaria (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
"The captioned name and link seem harmless to me and the sort of thing that would interest 19th Century Eurogeeks who might come to the page" Taurusthecat (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Anyone who wants to know more about the photo can click on it and go to the associated file page, as I have been doing on Wikipedia for at least 15 years. Cullen328 (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Chopin's nationality
I noticed there was a discrepency with the french and the spanish wikipedia articles about chopin saying he is a "franco-polish" instead of "polish" composer as he had both the french and polish citizenship after 1835. I would be in favor of changing it to harmonise the different wikipedia versions Davidbreniere (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
This question has been the subject of multiple discussions here, for example this RfC; the current situation is a reflection of that consensus and shouldn't be changed based on what other Wikipedias are doing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
This edit request to Frédéric Chopin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
According to the French civil code of 1804:"Any child born of a Frenchman in a foreign country, is French" (Chapter 1, article 10 of the civil code)(Chopin was born in 1810 by a Frenchman)
Therefore, Chopin cannot be considered only Polish but must be considered Franco-Polish.
The church claims that he was born on February 22nd while his family claims that he was born on March 1st, why cant this be mentioned in the Article or in the Infobox? @AntandrusOlek Novy (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Previous consensus was to use the 1 March date in the lede, as that's what's in most of the reliable sources we looked at then (like the current New Grove article). I think it's fine as is, since it's well-explained in the detailed bio, but if consensus changes I'm fine with that too. Anyone else want to comment? Some of the other wikis (e.g. Polish and German) include both dates in the lede; others (e.g. French) use only 1 March. Antandrus(talk)17:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
A note like "1 Mar[n 4]" where the note explains the discrepancy between the parish register and the other date? That's fine with me. See if anyone else wants to weigh in. Antandrus(talk)18:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
There are already a lot of notes in the lead; perhaps this information would be better suited for the body. Do we even know if many RS use the date? Aza24 (talk)06:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Translation of Chopin -> Woyciechowski letter very poor.
The letter quoted from Chopin to Tytus Woyciechowski is translated poorly. The scholar (Alan Walker) who translated it very clearly transposed his personal view about the implication of the letter onto the literal text itself, a practice he has been extensively criticised for in many languages. There are glaring errors in the text that become evident when contrasted to the original polish. For example:
In the second sentence, the word "całuj" is rendered as embrace. "całuj" is a polish word meaning "kiss". It is never translated as embrace. The phrase used in the letter (see last paragraph, 4th last line) is "nie całuj mnie", meaning "don't kiss me". Here is a webpage with nine examples of that exact phrase, translated from polish to english, with 'embrace' appearing 0/9 times. Wiktionary itself correctly lists this word as second-person singular imperative ofcałować, which is then listed as a verb meaning "to kiss." The point is surely made.
This folly is repeated with the phrase "nie pocałowałbyś," (third last line) which translates from polish into english as "you wouldn't kiss". Again, it is rendered as embrace. Again, any casual Wikipedian without the desire to look up original polish is led astray.
Once more this incorrect translation rears its head. Chopin, rather poetically says "Dziś Ci się śnić będzie, że mnie całujesz", meaning, "today you will dream that you are kissing me." 'całujesz' is just a conjugation of 'całuj', which has been tackled. This basic error has really become inexcusable at this point, and quite apart from anything, it has deadened all of the poetry originally present in the text.
I think it's pretty clear what has happened here. Alan Walker respects Chopin greatly, and believes that when he wrote these letters he must have been (in Alan's own words) "twisted in the mind" and in a state of "psychological confusion". Thus, he has toned down some of the language, and in doing so, he has made basic errors of fact which I have illustrated. Fine - but there are other translations, and it is ridiculous not to use them over one that is, in a literal sense, misinformation, taken from a source which repeatedly questions Chopin's mental state in a spurious manner. Please let's discuss alternatives. Tqger (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors can't use their own translations because that is original research (see WP:NOR). If you can find better published translations, list them here. - kosboot (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm aware of that. Page 102 of this book, Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011, provides an accurate (if clunky) translation, which is a step up. It was compiled/translated in 1931 by Ethel Voynich, an interesting character in herself. Tqger (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Tqger! Frick‘s translation is very precise (in this passage):
I will go and wash. Don‘t kiss me now, because I haven‘t yet washed. You? Even if I were to rub myself with Byzantine oils, you still wouldn‘t kiss me, unless I compelled you to do so with magnetism. There is some sort of force in nature. Today you will dream that you‘re kissing me. I have to pay you back for the nasty dream you brought me last night.
— Frédéric Chopin to Tytus Woyciechowski (4.9.1830)[1][2]
Should the article's name be changed to Fryderyk Chopin?
Frédéric is the French spelling of Frederick. Since Chopin is referred to as solely Polish in the article instead of being Franco-Polish, I think it is more appropriate to rename the article to Fryderyk Chopin. Lebaophuoc2005 (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
But as he lived the most productive part of his life in France and is most well-known by the French version of his name, the article title should stay as it is. - kosboot (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
So why not say that he is “French-Polish” and not just “Polish”? Since his father was French, it makes perfect sense (especially since the Napoleonic Code at Chopin's birth stipulated that a child born to a French parent was French as well). I don't understand why some people are blocking this modification which should have been made a long time ago. 2A02:8428:A14:6D01:B683:CDCF:2BF4:92D4 (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
It's simple - Chopin was born and raised in Poland and felt a Pole, his native language was polish. Writing "French-Polish" would be an abuse. 176.100.195.245 (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
But this is an english wikipedia. So let's be consistent. Either use an english name Frederick, or use his baptism / documented (as you prefer) name Fryderyk. 176.100.195.245 (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
The English language field of Chopin study doesn't currently have a standard for which spelling to use, so some scholars use the Polish, some use the French, and some use neither. For example, 2 modern partial biographies used the French spelling (Annik LaFarge's Chasing Chopin (2020), and Paul Kildea's Chopin's Piano (2018). Jeffrey Kallberg is a major name in the field, and he has been calling him just "Chopin" since the 1980s. The trend seems to be leaning toward using the Polish spelling, however. The most influential modern biography is Alan Walker's Fryderyk Chopin: A Life and Times (2018), the most recent English translation of Chopin's correspondence is David Frick's Chopin's Polish Letters (2016), and a current major English-language collection of essays is the 2017 Chopin and His World edited by Jonathan D. Bellman and Halina Goldberg -- all of which call him Fryderyk. None use the English, and I don't think Wikipedia will change the page based solely on trends in the field toward a Polish spelling. 12angrybees (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Of course it should. But westerners have a weird obsession of making every famous Polish person their own. Maria Skłodowska? No, Marie Curie. Mikołaj Kopernik? No. Nicolaus Copernicus. Fryderyk Chopin? No. Frédéric Chopin. I, despite not being a nationalist, can easily see why Polish people would be angry at that. It's as if someone was actively trying to erase existence of Polish culture. Something that soviets, prussians, austrians, russians tried to do in the past, now is done in the present. By normal people. Disgusting. Awhileo (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS; Wikipedia is a highly general encyclopedic work that is fundamentally a reflection of secondary sources. Whether those secondary sources are eroding this aspect of Chopin's national identity is, unfortunately, irrelevant. If you want to make a change, go start publishing on Chopin in an academic journal. Aza24 (talk)19:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
