Talk:Frédéric Chopin/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Frankist allegations

User:Galassi has introduced into the "Chopin" article certain allegations that seem dubious. I have copied below my exchange with Galassi, from his talk page:

You have introduced into the "Chopin" and "Mickiewicz" articles, assertions that the mothers of both have been proven to have been descendants of Frankist Jews. You cite as your evidence "M. Mieses, Polacy–Chrześcianie pochodzenia żydowskiego [Christian Poles of Jewish Descent], I–IV vol., Warszawa, 1938." Could you please give me the respective volume and page numbers, and the pertinent quotations?

You have also introduced into the "Chopin" article an assertion that Countess Skarbek was likewise of Frankist Jewish descent. You cite as your evidence an article in the Russian-language online publication, Kaskad. Could you please tell me approximately how far down in that article this assertion is made, and would you be so kind as to quote the relevant passage for me in English translation? Nihil novi (talk) 06:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an access to the library right now. Look for word -Фигнер- in the Kaskad article.Galassi (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Exact quote- "сама графиня до замужества принадлежала к сословию мещан и была дочерью банкира Фингера".Galassi (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Galassi has introduced an analogous assertion into the "Adam Mickiewicz" article, that the Jewish descent of that poet's mother has been proven, allegedly based on the same 1938 book by M. Mieses (again providing no volume number, page number or quotation). Nihil novi (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Galassi states disingenuously, above, regarding details about the Mieses book: "I don't have... access to the library right now." He might better have said, "I don't have access to the library used by Boris Klein." The identical imprecise reference that Galassi gives to the Polish-language book by "M. Mieses" (Mateusz Mieses, according to Polski słownik biograpficzny — "d. 1942?, Judaist, philologist, publicist") appears midway down an article by Boris Klein, "Doctor of historical sciences," in Cascade Russian Newspaper, "published in Baltimore since 1995." Nihil novi (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Accordingly, since Galassi's entire case about the alleged Jewish extractions of Chopin and Countess Skarbek appears to be based on Boris Klein's Cascade article, which provides no exact citations, I propose that Galassi's assertions be deleted from the "Chopin" and "Mickiewicz" articles as inadequately documented. Nihil novi (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Galassi's sources

I have demonstrated above that User:Galassi picks "sources" out of newspaper articles, then uses them, never having seen these "sources" themselves, as "evidence" for his opinions. He did this, picking Mateusz Mieses's 1938 book out of a Cascade Russian Newspaper article published in Baltimore. Now he continues this method, "citing," without giving pages or quotations:

• Balaban, Meir, The history of the Frank movement, 2 vols., 1934-1935; and
• "Russkaya starina" #14, 1883.

Folantin has shown that Galassi, when citing a source that is readily available (Czesław Miłosz), has asserted that the source supports Galassi's opinion, when Miłosz actually expresses exactly the opposite opinion.

Surely a novel approach to scholarly research! I wonder whether the time is not rapidly passing for merely reverting Galassi's impositions in the "Chopin" and "Adam Mickiewicz" articles. Nihil novi (talk) 04:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me you are pushing Undue Weight onto an unfavorable view... Lute88 (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether this is the book in question, but maybe user Piotrus could clarify that: http://www.atticus.pl/index.php?pag=poz&id=13891&lang=en .Lute88 (talk) 05:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If that is Galassi's source, it would be greatly appreciated it if he would provide relevant page numbers and pertinent quotations. Nihil novi (talk) 05:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As to Piotrus, he has already given his view that the "1938 [Mieses] source is not that reliable. I don't recall any modern research repeating it." Nihil novi (talk) 05:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you properly cite why would Mieses be unreliable? Is there any hardcopy criticism?Lute88 (talk) 05:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please consult Piotrus directly. (You are the one who referred me to Piotrus.)

In any event, Galassi has given us nothing to indicate Mieses's reliability — or even so much as a quotation from Mieses's book that Galassi allegedly cites but has apparently never seen. Nihil novi (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but irrelevant

Actually, I'm using the word "interesting" rather broadly, since frankly (ha ha getit) I'm not so interested. I've sort of scanned the above comments, but no one seems to have asked what, to me, seems the most important question: Why was this stuff added to this article in the first place? The Jewishness of Justyna and/or her family might be interesting to biographers of that family, but I can't see the significance here. Additionally, the fact that it's even mentioned implies something distasteful -- the idea that we need to "prove" that anyone was Jewish or not sort of makes me wonder whether the editor has a motive based on yuck. The kind of yuck surrounding, for example, arguments about whether a person has "Negro blood" or not. (For the record, the "Negro blood" is not the yuck.)

I don't think this sort of "debate" belongs in an article about Chopin, and if it does belong anywhere, it should be approached with extreme caution, and the relevance should be crystal clear.

And if the above isn't enough, there's this: We don't like this kind of thing in Wikipedia, and not just because it isn't encyclopedic. (If you don't know what I mean by "this kind of thing," then I'm probably not talking to you, so don't worry.)

Therefore, I've removed the following text:

According to historian Meir Balaban, writing in the 1930s, Justyna was born to a family of converted Frankist Jews (as was her relative, Countess Skarbek, née Figner ). The first allegation of Jewish origins of Justyna appeared as early as 1883 in the memoirs of the Privy Councillor for Home Affairs and the publisher of Tygodnik Peterburgski (the official periodical of the Kingdom of Poland) Jozef (Osip) Przeclawski. Later similar claim were put forth by Antoni Lange in his 1911 pamphlet "On contradictions of the Jewish Question".

Sugarbat (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. As a matter of fact, a little voice of mine has begun to question whether or not this article is becoming a tad lengthy. We seem to be writing an article for the arcane music professor, or, to be better put, writing about obscure details that do not really shed much light on Chopin's major achievements as a musician as opposed to "just another bio." I say we develop on established facts and add small details to magnify what is great about this composer, placing the focus on his works rather than the needless details of his life, (much less the details of people who knew the people who knew Chopin, ethnicity be nuked).

Apologies to Nihil Novi, if this should offend. :) —LaPianista! ^«talk» 03:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think N. novi's cool w/it.  :)

In other news, does anybody know anything about the person who seems to be singlehandedly crapping up this article?? XO - Sugarbat (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Tone poets

Note, tone poet deals with orchestral performance,(Liszt piece for 13 instruments ok) Chopin only composed about 10 works for piano, viola and few other instruments. I am not sure if that chopin definition is appropriate.

According to Webster Tone poem is also Symphonic Poem, or did I lose something in translation:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/symphonic+poem

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tone%20poem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirandamir (talk • contribs) 19:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

At the bottom of the article there's a section - Romanticism - where it is explicitly stated that Chopin was NOT a tone poet, so the article contradicts itself. The bad definition would be that he is. I don't have references to give, but I studied in Italian Conservatories, and Chopin is NOT known for his programmatic music, but for his ABSTRACT music.--David Be (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That line should have no place in this article, especially since this article has made it clear that Chopin is a composer of chiefly non-programic music, and his compositions rarely have any extra-musical connotations. In fact, just about all of the "nicknames" and stories that have been applied to his pieces were done so by other people after his death. Maybe occasionally we will find a piece that might have a possible story behind it, but this is most definitely not enough to go on to call him one of the "greatest tone poets", which is in itself very POV-based and surely not the type of statements that should be found on WikiPedia. In fact, stating that he is "widely regarded as the greatest Polish composer" is already pushing the envelope, and then following that up with "one of the greatest tone poets" crosses the line, IMHO. To add to that, the source cited is an offline source not readily accessible, that weakens the case even further. I suggest we remove the tone poet claim, and even consider rewording the preceding "widely regarded as the greatest Polish composer" line as well, since that's clearly weasel language and non-neutral POV. TheFinalSay (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Delacroix

Moved Delacroix painting to the Final Years. It seemed more appropriate . Bluee Mountain (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This painting (Delacroix painting) shows the composer in wery bad healt. It is a person who is almost dying. It doesn't give the right impression for such a delicat and intelligent person like Chopin. It looks like a person who is defeated by life. The other picture (also from one of Wikipedias article) shows an alert, focused human beeing with intergrity. His legacy and his highly sophisticated music is a tresure and he should be seen as a great composer not a person who receives medical attention. Bluee Mountain (talk) 07:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Delacroix's Romanticist 1838 painting, showing Chopin at the age of 28, is the best-known portrait of the composer at the height of his powers. The Scheffer painting, rendered in that artist's "frigidly classical" style, makes Chopin look as wooden as Pinocchio. I am reverting the article to the Delacroix version. Nihil novi (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The Delacroix painting doesn't represent the composers spirit.

Bluee Mountain (talk) 07:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And Pinocchio does? Nihil novi (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm behind N. novi here. Bluee, please tell us how to define Chopin. Think about it - Can there be a painting that portrays Chopin's spirit in the most satisfactory fashion for you, and for that matter, everyone else? Is there really a right and a wrong way to depict such a many-faceted individual? (glimmer of POV, sorry)

Anyhow, good luck with your search, seeing that Chopin lived before anyone else in our lifetime. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 19:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

We really need consensus on which image of Chopin to put on here. I myself do not even care which (although personally I am quite partial to the photograph from 1849), but I'm sick and tired of seeing it changed virtually every time I log in. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  19:54 21 September, 2008 (UTC)

• 
  Delacroix's Chopin, vs...
• 
  Scheffer's Chopin, vs...
• 
  Bisson's photograph.

Let's try it in !vote format, shall we?

• Support Delacroix. The image gives a nice impressionistic view of the composer, which I like. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 20:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Delacroix. Delacroix's portrait is simultaneously the best-known, the most evocative of the Romantic period and of Chopin's romantic personality, and the most expressive of his vivid creative spirit. The best of the alternative portraits is a far-distant second. Nihil novi (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Scheffer. I've never been very fond of Delacroix's portrait. This alternative picture is a perfectly acceptable illustration for this article. Either this or the very well-known photograph from 1849. Colonel Mustard (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Delacroix. Not only that the painting is exquisite and full of stylistic drama, but also it is made by arguably the most renown painter of the Romantic period. The sum of two seems irresistible. --Poeticbent talk 16:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Delacroix. Iconic portrait. Best known. But would be equally if not more happy with the Bisson photo as mentioned above. J. Van Meter (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC) (why don't we run the photo up the flagpole too and see who votes for that?)

• Support Scheffer. Wiki has no obligation to sport the best known, but has the obligation for the most realistic.Galassi (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• If realism is the obligation, then there should be no debate here and we should use the photo. J. Van Meter (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Scheffer. I personally find Delacroix a bit cheesy, and most likely drawn from memory.Lute88 (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Delacroix painted his famous unfinished double portrait of Chopin and George Sand (later cut in two) in 1838 at his Paris atelier, from life. See Tad Szulc, Chopin in Paris, 1998, p. 194.

Szulc (p. 137) describes Delacroix's portrait of Chopin as the best extant; he considers the second-best to be the earlier, 1835 watercolor by Chopin's fiancée, Maria Wodzińska. Nihil novi (talk) 07:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Photo. I guess this would be the best solution. M0RD00R (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys, when you started this voting, you weren't contacting me, and got me involved in this negotiation. That's not fair. And you seem to forget about my vote. Than the votes would have been = 4 for Scheffer, 3 for Delacroix and 1 for the photo. Bluee Mountain (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• From my count, four people here prefer the photo. J. Van Meter (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Photo is fine. watercolor by Chopin's fiancée, Maria Wodzińska is fine too. A better reproduction of the Delacroix is probably also acceptable. Chopin is all green in this one.

• Support Delacroix.—La Pianista
• Support Delacroix.. Nihil novi (talk)
• Support Delacroix.. --Poeticbent talk

• Support Scheffer..Galassi
• Support Scheffer.. Colonel Mustard
• Support Scheffer. I.Lute88 (talk)
• Support Scheffer, Bluee Mountain

(or the foto or Wodzińska OR anything else but this green Delacroix).

• use the photo. J. Van Meter (talk)
• Support Photo. M0RD00R (talk)
• Support Photo Springeragh
• Support Photo Bluee Mountain

iS THERE ANYONE I FORGOT? Bluee Mountain (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually Bluee, votes on Wikipedia are determined by consensus, not vote counting. It all depends on the how the discussion ends, in favor of one or the other or neither. That is why frequent, civil discussion on this page is important. —La Pianista ^{(T•C•S•R)} 20:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I saw, quite a lot of people were for the photo, including myself, and some were supporting even Scheffers painting. Cheers Bluee Mountain (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

All right then: I guess we'll go with consensus and post the photo. I personally don't have much problem with it, though Chopin looks a little...uh...discomfited in this one. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 17:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"This [likeness] shows the composer in wery bad healt. It is a person who is almost dying. It doesn't give the right impression for such a delicat and intelligent person like Chopin. It looks like a person who is defeated by life."—Bluee Mountain, 19 September 2008.

Bluee might well have been speaking of the 1849 photo that now opens the "Chopin" article and shows a near-dead Chopin. But Bluee was speaking of Eugène Delacroix's famous portrait of 11 years earlier, when Chopin was at the height of his powers and—while not the picture of the best health—not yet moribund.

Have we collectively taken leave of our senses? Nihil novi (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Lovely girl, this La Pianista. Bluee Mountain (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

N. novi, please accept that consensus has been reached, albeit against you us. You can't win all the battles, as they say.

Accept the fact that the photo will stay where it is. Stubborn denial won't help. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 17:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And, uh, Bluee...thank you? —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 17:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't be sad NN, the Delacroix painting is still here, only some lines further down. Bluee Mountain (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC) .

I for one, support Delacroix - just listen to an Etude and the painting expresses just that. It's romantism we're talking about. Scheffer's portrait is just too bland - it would suit Clementi for sure, but surely not Chopin. However I'm not in for an edit war and am happy with the photography - consensus indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.123.74.175 (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)