Talk:Frédéric Chopin/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

His Polish paternal great-grandfather

I've just finished Paul Kildea's Chopin's Piano (2018). At p.176, he writes about Wanda Landowska tracing Chopin's family back to his Polish great-grandfather, "the man who established Ferrand et Chopin wine merchants in Nancy in the early 18th century, changing his surname from Szop to facilitate local trade".

Kildea seems an erudite and serious writer, so I take this seriously. But I've never previously heard of Chopin having any Polish ancestry on his father's side, as distinct from his mother's. Is this trustworthy information? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

There is some discussion about the lineage of Frédéric's father, Nicolas Chopin, at that article's talk page. It seems quite murky. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Article and lead don't correlate

"Chopin" is French so this wouldn't change "Frédéric" is French and "Fryderyk" is Polish In the lead he is described as Polish Why use the French name for the article but then describe him as Polish; it doesn't make sense to use his French passport name if he isn't going to be considered French (which makes even less sense.)

His passport from July 7, 1837, gives him the French nationality; and says "natif de Varsovie de parents français" which translates to "born in Varsovia from French parents" Because this was following the text of laws in place at that period. According to the latest Code civil from 1804, "nationality is now an attribute of the person which is transmitted by paternal descent and no longer depends on the place of residence." So when Chopin was alive, he was technically, and legally, French, as his father was French, and as he had a French passport.

So we should make a decision, because this doesn't make sense.

Yes, Chopin is known word widely as Frédéric Chopin, and died under that name, so it makes sense to use it for the article head. However, the lead and the article should correlate!

You can't use Chopin's French name, and then claim he wasn't French.

Option 1 Article:Frédéric Chopin Head: Franco-Polish composer

Option 2 Article: Fryderyk Chopin Head: Polish composer

This would make more sense. Because the article feels like it is lying to itself. Esteban Outeiral Dias (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant "Warsaw"... not Varsovia. Varsovia is Warsaw in Spanish! Esteban Outeiral Dias (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Please read above the "Frequently Asked Questions", specifically Q.1 Why is Chopin described as a "Polish composer" in the lead (first paragraph)? - kosboot (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

That's all right, Warszawa, even if called Varsovia (in Latin and Spanish), Varsovie (in French), or "Warsaw" (in English), is still Warszawa (in Polish) – just as the Pole Chopin, whether his given name be spelled Fryderyk (in Polish), Фридерик (in Russian), Frédéric (in French), or "Frederick" (in English), is still the same Pole (by his own preference).

Chopin was born in Poland, under Russian occupation. Neither the Poles nor the Russians recognized French law on their territory.

Did Italian physicist Enrico Fermi cease to be Italian after taking out U.S. citizenship? Should he have anglicized his Italian given name, Enrico, to "Henry" after accepting U.S. citizenship?

Nihil novi (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nihil novi: - Actually, he was born in the Duchy of Warsaw under French control. @Esteban Outeiral Dias: - Apart from the "Frequently Asked Questions" - Q.1 Why is Chopin described as a "Polish composer" - resolution, French back then was an international language (lingua franca), and these days many people adopt English styled nicknames and sobriquets. The French rendering of his name is just much more common in literature. Merangs (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Dear all, the article lead's first words are "Frédéric François Chopin (born Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin)". I don't see how it could possibly be clearer. The words do not in any way conflict with the content of the article. He was Polish, and he was a composer, therefore was a Polish composer. I am living in Slovakia at the moment, that doesn't stop me being English.--Smerus (talk) 08:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

"I am living in Slovakia at the moment, that doesn't stop me being English." Of course, never said it did. However, if one of your parent is Slovakian and the other is English, you're effectively Solvakian and English. And if you move to a country and get a citizenship there, you remain English, but you are still a Slovakian citizen.

I, for example, am Spanish and Portugese because of my parents, even tho I never went to Portugal. Chopin had a French father and Polish mother, so he is therefore Franco-Polish. When immigrating to France, both my parents and Chopin became French citizen, because this is how immigration and citizenship works. Even Henle Verlag consider Chopin to be part of French composers too, alongside Ravel, Bizet and others.

Which isn't surprising considering the work he has done. Not only did he wrote Polish pieces, he also wrote French ones (and many of the title of everything he wrote were in French, and dedicated in French): "à la mazur", "Berceuse" "Bourrée" "Contredanse" "Fantaisie" "Grande valse brillante" "Ballade", the 27 "Études", "Impromptu" "Nocturnes" "Variations" etc..

It just feels weird to consider him French enough so he keeps his French name but not French enough to be French lol, unlike what his documents indicated. Esteban Outeiral Dias (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how to reply to one person only on Wikipedia, sorry again. I'm replying to Nihil novi!

"Chopin was born in Poland, under Russian occupation. Neither the Poles nor the Russians recognized French law on their territory." Of course, however his father is still French. And when moving to a new country, you have to follow its rules; hence why on Chopin's most used passport (the one from July 1837) it says he is born from French parents (the Code Napoleon said that if a woman marries a French man, she become French; and if a French woman marries a non-French man, she takes his nationality).

"Did Italian physicist Enrico Fermi cease to be Italian after taking out U.S. citizenship? Should he have anglicized his Italian given name, Enrico, to "Henry" after accepting U.S. citizenship?" Neither Enrico Fermi nor Chopin cease to be who they are, Chopin was born from a Franco-Polish parenthood, and he remained Franco-Polish even when he was in England or Spain. La Fayette was French, but he effectively became an American citizen when he was in America (1792); meaning he had both citizenships; however La Fayette wasn't American because he did not had any American parents. Chopin was not only a French citizen, but also French because of his blood. Esteban Outeiral Dias (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe this is a cultural difference. For those of us in the United States, whatever the ethnicity of your parents, you are American. I once spoke to a man who had an obviously Native American surname. I assumed he was also Native American, but he responded "Well, my father was." Perhaps this is true for whatever country Esteban Outeiral Dias is writing from, but I don't believe it's true for those people who use English Wikipedia. - kosboot (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I think kosboot may have nailed the issue here.--Smerus (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@kosboot said: "For those of us in the United States, whatever the ethnicity of your parents, you are American." Meaning that for people living in the U.S., living in the U.S. alone is enough to make you American. Using this logic, it means that Chopin living in France is enough to make him French. This is also why Arnold Schwarzenegger is considered an "Austrian-American actor" on the English Wikipedia, even tho neither of his parents are American and he isn't born in the U.S.

But I also think your statement isn't 100% true, as many many people who are born in the U.S. rather consider themselves Latinos, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, or African-American, instead of just American, even if them and their parents are born in the U.S.

However, neither Poland nor France nor England or Spain is in the America but in Europe. And it's quite the same thing in Europe, if one of your parent is Italian and the other is Greek, you are Greek and Italian. If you're born in Switzerland, from a French dad and a Swedish mom, your Swiss because that's where you're born; but you're French and Swedish because of your blood. So if you move to Sweden and start being apart of Sweden's culture, it wouldn't be wrong to call you a Swiss Swedish composer. Just like Wikipedia does with Arnold, calling him an Austrian-American actor even tho he isn't an American but only an American citizen. Esteban Outeiral Dias (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I thnk the point is being lost here. The question as to whether Chopin should be described as Polish, French or Franco-Polish was decided here by consensus and no cause has been given to restart this debate. Esteban Outeiral Dias needs to understand this. The title of the article is a separate matter, and here we have gone by WP:EN. "If an examination of the sources in an article shows that one name or version of the name stands out as clearly the most commonly used in the English language, we should follow the sources and use it......The native spelling of a name should generally be included in parentheses, in the first line of the article". If you want to change the title of the article, present any relevant statistical evidence and I am sure editors will discuss and consider it.--Smerus (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, it's impossible for me to find this on the talk page without clicking on your link so I couldn't have known.

And this consensus is weird then; I thought Wikipedia was more impartial and constant when it came to how they treated subject but it seems like it's a case by case matter then.

Doesn't really make sense but okay! Esteban Outeiral Dias (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Smerus, I just checked your link (I did take a long time to check it because I forgot..) but it seems a bit outdated lol, 2013, I saw this as an argument:

"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)"

"We would never refer to them as Americans"

When you go on his Wikipedia page however:

"Arnold Schoenberg Austrian-American composer (1874–1951)" Esteban Outeiral Dias (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Discuss that at Talk:Arnold Schoenberg, not here.--Smerus (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Marie Curie

Polish-French physicist and chemist (1867–1934)

just saw that too Esteban Outeiral Dias (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Chopin's correspondence at Talk:Tytus Woyciechowski

An RfC on Chopin's correspondence has opened, covering issues which have previously been discused on this talk page.--Smerus (talk) 10:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Smerus for putting this vital quote back in. (Probably one more wouldn‘t be wrong either…) I don‘t think if the translation by Walker is a good choice though: szkaradny sen in polish doesn‘t mean nightmare, this would be koszmar. Frick‘s translation is much more precise.

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)

And the picture of Woyciechowski is missing! We should add that, since he even by the most conservative authors is mentioned as a important person in Chopin‘s life.Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Tytus Woyciechowski

• The text is accurate as given by an appropriate reputable source, which is cited. Frick's translation does not appear to be especially precise, and it's not as good English. "Szkaradny sen", literally "ugly dream" , is perfectly represented by the English "nightmare". WP is not a picture gallery. No authority I have seen declares that W. is or was an "important person in Chopin's life". The only picture available of TW, taken in old age long after his acquaintance with Chopin, serves no illustrative purpose in this article.--Smerus (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Walker f.e. wrote: Woyciechowski was ″vitally important to Chopin″ (Page 9). Niecks wrote: ″What reveals perhaps more distinctly than anything else Chopin's idiosyncrasy is his friendship for Titus Woyciechowski. At any rate, it is no exaggeration to say that a knowledge of the nature of Chopin's two passions, his love and his friendship—for this, too, was a passion with him—gives into our hands a key that unlocks all the secrets of his character, of his life, and of their outcome—his artistic work.″ The translation by Frick is way more precise than walker - does he speak polish at all? Brzydki would be ugly, szkaradny is more like dirty - so nasty fits better.Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

This is no less UNDUE than the first time around, and it asks the reader to make inferences, which will vary wildly among readers -- not how an encylopedia should be presenting information. SPECIFICO talk 15:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

How to do a FAQ section

There's another article for which I'd like to start an FAQ section like the one above. I've tried to study the source code and I don't see how to do it. Can someone help? - kosboot (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

At the top of this page, click "faq page" to view the FAQ subpage, then edit it to see the wikitext. Copy that to where it is needed but remove the "Comments" and replace the Chopin stuff with the other page. Then copy the {{FAQ}} from the wikitext of this talk page to the other talk page. If more is needed, post a link and/or ask at WP:HELPDESK. Johnuniq (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Johnuniq! - kosboot (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Chopin, homosexuality, opinion and bias.

I have made a number of edits on this page attempting to do the following:

Replace the translation of the selected quote from one of Chopins letters to Tytus Wojciechowski with a better one, and

Remove clearly biased, baseless or out of context opinions.

These have all been reverted, with no explanation. The following is my case for why these edits are necessary if the article is to be considered factual and unbiased.

Translation

The current translation for the letter used in the article is as follows:

Now I am going to wash myself. Please do not embrace me as I have not washed yet. And you? Even if I were to anoint myself with fragrant oils from Byzantium, you you would not embrace me - not unless forced to by magnetism. But there are forces in Nature! Today you will dream that you are embracing me! You have to pay for the nightmare you caused me last night.

This translation is extremely clunky, and at times quite wrong. Here are some corrections that maintain the original sentiment of the quote far better than this translation, sentence by sentence.

"Now I am going to wash myself." Far too literal. "Now I will go and wash" means exactly the same thing, but it is less clunky, and more readable, as "wash" is a verb in English, so the "myself" is implied.

"Please do not embrace me as I have not washed yet." A comma placed after the "me" breaks up the sentence naturally without changing the tone of the sentence, and removes the need for the word "as". Plus, the polish word całuj most certainly means kiss, not embrace, so "Please do not kiss me, I have not washed yet." is a much better final product here. I suspect the translator has deliberately mistranslated całuj (the translator being Walker, who seems to have an almost instinctive reaction to sweep any trace of homoeroticism relating to Chopin under the rug) to serve his own agenda, but that is conjecture. In any case, całuj means kiss, and other translators agree (such as David Frick).

"And you? Even if I were to anoint myself with fragrant oils from Byzantium, you you would not embrace me - not unless forced to by magnetism". This is very wordy, and the całuj problem again - "And you? Even if I anointed myself with fragrant Byzantine oils, you would not kiss me - not unless compelled by magnetism" is the most reasonable change here that still improves the translation.

"But there are forces in nature" is quite confusing, and you have to reread it a few times to fully understand what Chopin means. "Nature does have it's forces" means the same thing, but it is far more fluid and readable. While translating, it is important to be as natural as possible, while keeping true to the original meaning.

"Today you will dream that you are embracing me! You have to pay for the nightmare you caused me last night." is the final sentence that needs addressing. Again, całuj must be corrected. "Have to" would be better as "must". Nightmare is a contextual mistranslation, "dirty dream" or "nasty dream", or even "hideous dream" is more correct. I will go with nasty dream, as it seems the least likely to be controversial.

So, the final translation is as follows:

"Now I will go and wash. Please do not kiss me, I have not washed yet. And you? Even if I anointed myself with fragrant Byzantine oils, you would not kiss me - not unless compelled by magnetism. But nature does have its forces! Today you will dream that you are kissing me! You must pay for the nasty dream you caused me last night."

This is, I hope you agree, a much more fluid and natural translation, while retaining the original meaning.

Opinion and bias.

Musicology has long found it difficult to deal with the homosexuality of great classical musicians. Tchaikovsky and many others were alleged to have had romantic affairs with women in post, in order to cover up their obvious homosexuality. I find this article as a stunning example of this anti homosexual bias.

The first opinion that I believe must be removed is "According to Adam Zamoyski, such expressions "were, and to some extent still are, common currency in Polish and carry no greater implication than the 'love'" concluding letters today. "The spirit of the times, pervaded by the Romantic movement in art and literature, favoured extreme expression of feeling ... Whilst the possibility cannot be ruled out entirely, it is unlikely that the two were ever lovers."

This is Zamoyski's opinion. It has no evidence attached in the article. Also, it mostly doesn't relate to the quote above it, it relates to other, more tame, things Chopin signed his letters with, such as "As always, even now, I carry your letters with me. How blissful it will be for me, having gone beyond the city walls in May, thinking about my approaching journey, to pull out a letter of yours and assure myself sincerely that you love me, or at least to gaze at the hand and the writing of him, whom only I am able to love!". This quote is more what Zamoyski is talking about, a general expression of love, rather than the raw, detailed, and erotic phrasing of the Chopin quote in the article, which the article is formatted to imply he is talking about directly. If there is anything worse than an opinion on Wikipedia, it is an out of context opinion on Wikipedia.

The second opinion that is in need of removal is Walkers himself.

"Chopin's biographer Alan Walker considers that, insofar as such expressions could be perceived as homosexual in nature, they would not denote more than a passing phase in Chopin's life, or be the result – in Walker's words – of a "mental twist""

This is another baseless opinion, coming from someone who grew up in an era when homosexuality was illegal and considered evil. It echoes the homophobic chants I had hoped we had moved away from. So tired is the rhetoric it's almost comical - "Homosexuality is just a phase" "Homosexuals are just in a mental twist."

This is harmful, it's wrong, and it's lacking evidence. It does not belong on Wikipedia. Tqger (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Tqger if you look at your watchlist the edit summaries do provide capsule explanations for why your edits have been reverted. As far as Chopin's sexuality, please see near the top of this talk page the FAQ section, specifically question 2 - which provides a link to the extensive discussions that have been argued on the points you bring up. - kosboot (talk)

Discussion

I continue to think that, because this is controversial and shrouded in speculation and textual analysis, it is UNDUE for all but a brief summary mention, i.e. that it is a subject of inconclusive curiosity. It's unrelated to the basis for Chopin's notability and both editors and readers tend to view the subject with 21st century consciousness rather than the mores of the subject's era. This is a worthy topic for its own article, full of detail, perhaps. It is too much on the main Chopin biography. SPECIFICO talk 13:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I fully agree.

A precedent for a separate article, on another controversial topic, is "Health of Frédéric Chopin".

Nihil novi (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, a separate article on "Chopin's sexuality" (or whatever it's called). At the very least, I feel the article talk page should set out what sources are usable and which are not. - kosboot (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

While chopin's sexuality is controversial, I don't understand how that justifies mistranslation. Also, it seems that every opinion quoted directly in this article is set out to dispel any speculation of chopins homosexuality without evidence, as if it is an open-and-shut case which it most certainly is not. Tqger (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I agree. So why is every directly quoted opinion in this article so dismissive of the very real possibility of Chopin's homosexuality? If I were to read this article without any outside knowledge I would come out of those passages with the impression that some uneducated people have sought to paint homosexual tendencies onto someone who did not have them, however that is not the case. There are well researched opinions that believe wholeheartedly that Chopin is a homosexual, however these are not at all mentioned.

Perhaps a better passage would be "letters from Chopin to Woyciechowski in the period 1829–30 (when Chopin was about twenty) contain references which have given rise to speculation that their relationship was homoerotic, at least on Chopin's part, which is a much debated topic" With a link to an article. Obviously could be phrased better, but something small and simple without all the unnecessary opinions on the main page.

I still defend my translation as objectively more readable, and more correct. Tqger (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Tqger You can only use published translations. You can't translate yourself (or oneself) because that would be original research. - kosboot (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

This seems silly. However, there are better translations out there from published translators, so I will use those. Tqger (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I was not entirely correct. See WP:NOR. I can foresee big disagreements on translations. - kosboot (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

sure, but objective facts should remain (such as całuj meaning "kiss") Tqger (talk) 06:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually that's not true, and there have been articles on this. WP reports on what secondary literature says, not what the facts are. Years ago a professor discovered some aspect of history that historians had gotten wrong. He had one article, but historians of the other view had 13 articles. Despite his belief in the "truth" of his discovery, the Wikipedia article had to rely on what the overwhelming majority of people said and had to relegate his view as an outlier. - kosboot (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

In principle, when translations are needed, we prefer existing ones found in reliable secondary sources – to avoid contaminating Wikipedia with translations of uncertain reliability.

However, when quoting foreign-language secondary sources that do not provide English translations, we do routinely offer translations by Wikipedia editors conversant with the foreign languages in question.

The Polish word "całować" does indeed mean "to kiss" [1], not "to embrace". And to my mind, in our context "embrace" conjures up even more lurid images than "kiss".

Where does all this leave us, in this particular case?

It might indeed be well to pursue all these matters in a separate article discussing Chopin's pertinent letters and their possible implications – and to refer readers of the "Chopin" article to that separate article.

Nihil novi (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Passing by, I concur that this is UNDUE. Also possibly ORish. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The tranlation by Walker is indeed bad. Opieński, Frick - and also the french edition by Sydow - translate it correctly with KISS.

I am going to wash now; don't kiss me, I'm not washed yet. You? If I were smeared with the oils of Byzantium, you would not kiss me unless I forced you to it by magnetism. There's some kind of power in nature. Today you will dream of kissing me! I have got to pay you out for the horrible dream you gave me last night.Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no purpose in replacing the originally cited text with the version subsituted in the article by CC202, which I have (pnce again) reverted. See User:Kosboot's comment above on WP practice. -Smerus (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

References

RFC Consensus on country

There's no discussion on Chopin's nationality (he was born Polish from a French father and Polish mother, and was naturalised French when he moved to Paris).

Could this formulation ("Polish and naturalized-French") be the best way to reflect Chopin's connections to both of these countries? 92.184.102.66 (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:Frédéric_Chopin/Archive_24#RfC:_Chopin's_nationality. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

As Nikkimaria points out, this topic has indeed been the subject of extensive discussion, including two RFCs. I suggest you read those discussions, and if you still feel the consensus solution is inadequate, post your arguments once again. Ravpapa (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

He was not naturalized. He was born Franch through his father. 2A01:E0A:224:DA90:E8E6:A8D2:74CA:3CEB (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Your source for this? You seem to disagree with every recognized authority; they note that he was naturalized French in 1835.--Smerus (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Chopin is Polish-French

Why does the article claim otherwise? Even the Encyclopedia Britannica says it, and I consider them to be a very reliable source. RPI2026F1 (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

See FAQ Aza24 (talk) 08:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Debut in Vienna? 1818?

According to this (to read without signing in: just do ctrl f and put "adalbert gyrowetz" or smth) it says that Chopin made his debut in Vienna in 1818 performing a piano concerto by Adalbert Gyrowetz, although the article does mistakenly put his age as 9 years old...

However, this book gives the concert day as 24 February 1818 (and while not explicitly saying most likely at Warsaw), and says that this concert was Chopin's debut.

The article gives his debut in Vienna as 1829 (well "After completing his studies at the Warsaw Conservatory..."), so uh what's going on here exactly, when is what? Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The WP article is correct, and the NYSun article is bullshit.--Smerus (talk) 09:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

aigh cool thx - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Attention needed to related external links

An editor has inserted a large number of external links to the pages of various related articles. They link to what I would call an enthusiast website that has pithy and more or less empty chatter of the sort one finds in program notes and CD reviews. Here is an easy way to see many of them on various pages.

I rather think these should be removed. Anyone have an opinion on this? Also, similarly I see many commercially released recordings showing up in External Links. Some are from long ago, but mightn't others still be under copyright, e..g. Pollini Etudes on DGG.? SPECIFICO talk 22:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

a) The editor you mention hasn't edited since 2007 (Special:Contributions/142.151.130.182). b) I don't think any of their addition to external links in this article have survived. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I just used that as a convenient way to show all the links. As far as I can see, the links remain in the articles for the etudes and elsewhere. I think they should be removed. What do you think of the content in the links? I think it's inappropriate. SPECIFICO talk 01:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The links are not present in most of the articles. I find eight and they all seem to come from Internet Archive. I looked at some and I don't find them objectionable. This discussion page seems to be the wrong venue for these concerns. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The issue of self-published misinformation is the same for all the pages with the links, so I think this is the most efficient place for any discussion. Let's see if any others have a reaction to them. I believe the site is still live, e.g. [2]. SPECIFICO talk 02:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I think all these links (added by 142.151.130.182) should be removed. - kosboot (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I've removed several of them. There are more that I didn't get to or can't find. SPECIFICO talk 02:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Repetitious

"Chopin placed the letters he had received from Maria and her mother into a large envelope, wrote on it the words "My sorrow" ("Moja bieda"), and to the end of his life retained in a desk drawer this keepsake of the second love of his life."

...then...

"Chopin finally placed the letters from Maria and her mother in a package on which he wrote, in Polish, "My Sorrow". " 2001:1BA8:143A:E300:95DA:E81:1486:D4AC (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

No Info Box like other composers

An artist info box is important for information at a glance. Why is there none on this article? While Liszt has one? Hausa warrior (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

As this article comes under WikiProject Composers, it says on the project page: The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Speaking personally, I'm very much in favor of infoboxes. I think the resistance comes from the over-reliance on thinking of Wikipedia as a literary work, rather than a structured work that influences how articles are used, where the infoboxes would be very useful. - kosboot (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Please see this talk-page archive for endless discussions on this, which have all ended against the use of infobox. I agree that the Liszt article is of such terrbile quality that even an infobox might improve it, but that is not an argument imo for this article which is a WP:FA.--Smerus (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Was the last consensus 5 years ago? If so, can the vote be taken up again? I am also in support of infobox, and find it odd the opposition was so strong. Ppt91 (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

it's benn so long, I think everyone has forgotten about the debate, (and the link you put dose not work) just put a info box up... Jena (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jena Fi @Hausa warrior @Kosboot @Smerus On principle, I will never go against consensus if it's been established. However, this doesn't seem to be the case here, or at least not anymore (as Jena noticed). I get the FA argument, but it was last reviewed in 2021 and it appears that the infobox discussion last took place in 2015 without consensus (10 in favor, 11 against, with some added comments later if I recall correctly).

It feels like one of those instances where potential utility, especially for those looking for quick facts, is thwarted by a discussion mostly focused on minutiae (eg. including height is trivial and that somehow translates into an infobox at large no longer being useful). And the argument of not wanting to possibly disrespect FA authors to me is an example of WP:POINT not WP:CONSENSUS. Not to mention I really find it hard to believe they'd actually feel disrespected by a sensible and practical addition.

So, with all that in mind, might creating a new talk topic with a new vote be a good idea? Ppt91 (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

A daily average of over 4700 readers look at the article. Three of them (above) want an infobox, though no constructive reason is given for this; the arguments are 1) finding the opposition to infoboxes being 'odd' (so much for respecting the views of fellow editors), 2) some other articles have infoboxes, 3) 'just put an infobox up'. It does not seem there is any justification or notable demand for raising this battle once again.--Smerus (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

It used to be that a majority of WP editors saw WP as a literary work. But it is not; it's a work that has literary aspects as well as a lot of structural metadata. I come down strongly on the latter because having usable metadata is what makes Wikipedia stronger and more useful to people and organizations across the world. I actually think *every* article on WP should have an infobox because the infobox isn't so much a literary signpost as much as it is structural metadata bookmark, one that can link different language Wikipedias (and does already in some cases). If one edits Wikidata one can immediately see how purposeful is the infobox. For some reason music projects seem to be very much behind the general WP consensus which is to have an infobox. So for reasons of consistency and external usefulness, I think this (and every) article should have an infobox. - kosboot (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

History: i really liked this compromise. Unfortunately, it was reverted by a (now banned) editor who just counted votes in the previous poll and saw no consensus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

So you are saying out the 4700 people who are only viewers only 3 people active editors who develop these pages want it. and you equate these two unrelated groups? And then you talk about LOGIC? I am sorry I cannot take your statement seriously. Put the info box!Like the world will end if you do. Hausa warrior (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Just to respond. 1) The readers of this article are 4700 per day, not just 4700. There is a difference. I don't equate them with the three pro-infobox editors in any way. Just that the former don't seem to care much about the absence of infoboxes, and there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that they do. 2) The only active editors in this discussion who have ever contributed to this article are I think myself and, to a lesser extent, Kosboot. Let me suggest to you that you forget the info box - as if the world will end if you don't.--Smerus (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I thought the people who Likes to argue and have there own way and be right about stuff would have forgotten this ... Gauss I was wrong oh well I will unfallow this page .. I got better things to worry about. Jena (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand the supposed benefits of infoboxes providing metadata. I assume readers are interested in data, not metadata. If instead structured data is meant, that's provided by Wikidata, and every search engine now puts structured data in its results, regardless of the presence of an infobox. There are whole Wikipedias, e.g. the German one, that don't have any biographical infoboxes, except for sportspeople. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

We should not compare to the German Wikpedia only looking at the infobox, but also at the lead. In German, you get the full life data in the first sentence, while in English the MoS recommends to have only the years of birth and death, and specifies "no places" in the first sentence. The MoS almost seems to expect the presence of an infobox supplying these details. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I personally find infoboxes tremendously helpful. They allow easy access to facts that generally don't require much nuanced discussion. Examples include: age, birthplace, spouses, political party affiliations and so on. I decided to read this article today to quickly find Chopin's age when he passed away. The lack of an infobox delayed this task. Gutten på Hemsen (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Current infobox consensus: I wanted to wait several weeks to allow sufficient input and participation from others, including past editors who may have originally felt strongly about not including an infobox. It has now been over a month and it appears that the majority of editors in this thread are in favor of having a more expanded infobox. This includes one editor who had previously contributed to the article, one who had previously suggested a compromise version of an infobox later reverted by now banned user, and four other editors who see it as an added value for new readers that align with WP:MIB. Arguments regarding metadata, improvements in meeting WP:MOS expectations in en-wiki, and improved access to information that includes birth date or birth place for the purpose of quick reference all appear valid. The two opposing editors, one of whom was a significant contributor to this page, have not sufficiently addressed the current arguments in favor of an infobox. Referencing the total number of daily readers is not relevant to WP:CONSENSUS as the only way to gauge current consensus is through appropriate community discussion; we are not able to poll all daily readers of this article or assume how they feel about an infobox. As for the counter-metadata point raised by the other opposing editor, expanded metadata benefit in infoboxes is stated in H:IB. It is also important to note that the editor most opposed to changes has recently decided to WP:RETIRE which is generally considered an as an "official" statement that a user does not intend to return. Given that this the only discussion about the subject of infobox in recent years and per WP:CCC, I've reinstated a slightly modified version of a previous "compromise" mentioned by @Gerda Arendt, which includes the signature and a list of compositions (the latter further improving the quality of added content to satisfy the principal problem raised in disinfobox WP:DIB essay). Please do not revert without further discussion. Ppt91^talk 21:32, 18 March 2023 (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.

Other References to Chopin on Television

Your Lie in April also includes many of Chopins pieces like his etudes and ballades, as well as Forest of Piano which is partly about the International Chopin Competition :) 172.58.111.147 (talk) 05:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Chopin and Liszt's "love-hate" relationship

There is a paragraph about the "love-hate" relationship between Chopin and Liszt, but a lot of information there is unconfirmed or subjective opinions.

1. The idea of a "love-hate" relationship comes from Schonberg's book, and I couldn't really find other sources that would confirm it. On the contrary, for example in an early biography by M. A. Szulc ("Fryderyk Chopin i Utwory Jego Muzyczne" from 1873), Szulc mentions their "friendship until death" and that "the first place among Chopin's friends belongs to Liszt". Also in other sources, like accounts of his pupils/friends, Chopin's letters, G. Sand's "Story of my Life" etc., I can't find any evidence for the "love-hate" relationship.

Also, Schonberg does not mention where he got this information from - if it's not in the "old" sources, where did he get it from? He was born in 1915, so long after Chopin's death - therefore, he should provide some sources for it. Without such sources, it may as well be just his own opinion.

Also, I would be very cautious when citing Schonberg's book in general - I think it's best to confirm what he says with at least 1 other source. It contains plenty of "subjective" phrases, like "maybe", "probably" etc. He even calls Carolyne Sayn-Wittgenstein, Liszt's partner, "a very stupid woman" (this is a direct quote from the book) - it's definitely not a statement to use in an encyclopedia article. He also states this as if it was a fact, when it's only his personal opinion.

2. Also the mention of a "tinge of jealousy and spite" seems to only exist in Schonberg's book and once again he doesn't provide any sources for that.

3. The story about "he should play the music as written or not play it at all, forcing an apology" is also not confirmed. It comes from Schonberg's book where he says this is "Josef Novakowski's anecdote", but at the same time Schonberg emphasizes that he's not sure if it's true. He writes: "A romantic invention, or the truth? The story just might be true.", so I think there isn't enough evidence to state this story as a fact. I also could not find any evidence for this story anywhere else than Schonberg's book.

4. The statement "Most biographers of Chopin state that after this the two had little to do with each other" is definitely false - the citation for this is Schonberg's book, but Schonberg never mentions that. Schonberg writes that "Most biographies state that Chopin had little to do with Liszt after 1843", and he states a different reason for this than the anecdote allegedly told by Nowakowski.

5. As for the last sentence in this paragraph ("events in the two men's romantic lives"), I couldn't find this in the "old" sources I searched, but on the other hand it says "Some commentators point (...)", so technically it's correct.

I propose the following changes:

1. Remove the information about the "love-hate" relationship and "a tinge of jealousy and spite". This means removing the first sentence of the paragraph and the first part of the second sentence until "[74]" - as these are likely Schonberg's opinions, not facts.

2. Add a mention that the story about "play the music as written or not play it at all" is unconfirmed - even Schonberg explicitly says he isn't sure if it's true.

3. Change "Most biographers of Chopin state that after this the two had little to do with each other" to "Most biographers of Chopin state that after 1843 the two had little to do with each other".

4. Add a mention of Chopin's and Liszt's "friendship until death" and that "the first place among Chopin's friends belongs to Liszt" (based on M. A. Szulc's book) - this would have to be translated from Polish, because this book is only in Polish.

What do you think? Jjbbeg (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Below is the text I managed to come up with (2 paragraphs) - it would replace the whole paragraph with "love-hate relationship". Overall I tried to be more accurate with the facts than the current version, and also point out that some things are unconfirmed/debated. I deliberately used square brackets for citations in this draft to make them more visible/"verbose". Also, the question marks are there because I'm too lazy to check the actual values, but the fragments below should be easy to find in the sources (there are either page numbers or quotes, which can be copy-pasted to the search-box in the source). Also, I'm not a native English speaker or a professional writer, so I would greatly appreciate any help in this area.

TEXT START

At some point, the two composers' friendship began to loosen - there are varying opinions among researchers as to the exact cause and time of it happening. When asked about the reason for the composers' breakup, Liszt explained: "Our lady-loves had quarreled, and as good cavaliers, we were duty bound to side with them.". Chopin, when asked the same question, replied with a similar sentiment: "We are friends; we were comrades.". Liszt also expressed their changed relationship is this way: "There was a cessation of intimacy, but no enmity. I left Paris soon after and never saw him again.". Some commentators also point to various other events in the two men's romantic lives that may have led to this rift between them. [sfn|Hall-Swadley|????|pp=32-33] Despite their relationship becoming more distant, they stayed in contact with each other. Chopin, in his letters dated as late as 1848, still referred to Liszt as "my friend Liszt". [sfn|Schonberg|????|p=151] Also, Liszt signed one of his letters to Chopin from 1845 as: "Yours ever, in true and lively friendship, F. Liszt.". [sfn|Liszt letters vol. 1|????|p=70]

It is not clear to what degree the two composers competed against each other in the musical sphere and how such competition potentially affected their friendship. Some researchers believe they were in constant competition with each other, however there is no conclusive evidence for this view and it is an object of debate. [sfn|Hall-Swadley|????|p=32] One of George Sand's friends - Charles Rollinat - in his "Souvenir de Nohant" mentions two situations which purportedly show a competitive side to the two composers' friendship. However, the authenticity of these stories is debated. For example, according to Frederick Niecks "the greater portion of M. Rollinat's so-called Souvenir consists of poetry WITHOUT truth.". Rollinat's stories are as follows: [sfn|Niecks|????|p=??]

One evening when Liszt played a piece of Chopin's with embellishments of his own, the composer became impatient and at last, unable to restrain himself any longer, walked up to Liszt and said with his ENGLISH PHLEGM:

- "I beg of you, my dear friend, if you do me the honour to play a piece of mine, to play what is written, or to play something else. It is only Chopin who has the right to alter Chopin."

- "Well! play yourself!" said Liszt, rising from his seat a little irritated,

- "With pleasure," said Chopin.

At that moment a moth extinguished the lamp. Chopin would not have it relighted, and played in the dark. When he had finished his delighted auditors overwhelmed him with compliments, and Liszt said:

- "Ah, my friend, you were right! The works of a genius like you are sacred; it is a profanation to meddle with them. You are a true poet, and I am only a mountebank."

Whereupon Chopin replied: "We have each our genre."

Five days afterwards the friends were again assembled in the same place and at the same time. Liszt asked Chopin to play, and had all the lights put out and all the curtains drawn; but when Chopin was going to the piano, Liszt whispered something in his ear and sat down in his stead. He played the same composition which Chopin had played on the previous occasion, and the audience was again enchanted. At the end of the piece Liszt struck a match and lighted the candles which stood on the piano. Of course general stupefaction ensued.

- "What do you say to it?" said Liszt to his rival.

- "I say what everyone says; I too believed it was Chopin."

- "You see," said the virtuoso rising, "that Liszt can be Chopin when he likes; but could Chopin be Liszt?"

According to Niecks, Liszt does not have any recollection of ever having imitated Chopin's playing in a darkened room. [sfn|Niecks|????|p=??]

TEXT END

The 3 sources: Hall-Swadley, Schonberg and Niecks are already in bibliography. I used one additional source which is not currently in the bibliography: "Liszt letters vol. 1" ("Letters Of Franz Liszt vol 1"). Also, some of the quotes I used are from volume 2 of Niecks's book, but the current bibliography only contains volume 1 - therefore, I would suggest to change the existing source to the one in Project Gutenberg (which contains both volumes) and update the existing citations of volume 1 - there are only 3 occurrences.

I decided not to mention M. A. Szulc's quote ("the first place among Chopin's friends belongs to Liszt"), because it turned out to not be necessarily 100% correct.

Also, I've spotted another mistake in the current version of the paragraph: currently it says "he had become enchanted with Liszt's theatricality, showmanship, and success", but the cited source actually says he was disenchanted, so the opposite. 2A01:112F:4404:9500:ED3F:279C:8547:2B20 (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2023 (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.

Infobox photo

I saw in one of the archives that there was already a discussion regarding which photo to use in the infobox. From what I understood, the consensus was to use the "original" Bisson's daguerreotype (which I also personally agree with). But on 22 November 2016, @Nihil novi made an edit to replace the "original" with the "photoshopped" version. The change summary was: "more legible photo", but my guess is that maybe @Nihil novi wasn't aware that this photo is actually photoshopped - in this case we should probably change this photo back to the original. What do you think? Jjbbeg (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I just made the change to revert the photo back to the original (from the "photoshopped" version). Jjbbeg (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Chopin, Woyciechowski and same-sex love

It seems that any discussion of Chopin's love life gives way to a hotbed of bullshit, as on the Wikipedia page; something must be done to redress this. The page mentions the fact that some believe Chopin to have been gay, but the context of the surrounding paragraphs deliberately discredits this view; it is not expressed in a serious or objective way. The page is quite willing to accept that he was infatuated with Gładkowska, despite the fact that Chopin never corresponded with her intimately or mentioned his love for her in letters. The reference to her as his "ideal" may well have been referring to Tytus, as accepted by David Frick, a translator of Chopin's letters, something not mentioned in the article. Incidentally, the only romantic letters of Chopin are to men, the eroticism or romance of which is dismissed. When he writes passionately to men, it is dismissed as "of its time"; when he refers to Gładkowska - and even the Chopin Institute accept he never explicitly wrote of his love for her - as his ideal (when, in fact, he may well have been referring to Tytus) it is seen as a declaration of love. (Indeed, if that can be seen as a declaration of love, and if he was in fact writing to Tytus, it surely shines a different light on the apparently romantic letters he wrote to him.) Of course, it is up to historians to make judgments from historical sources, not Wikipedia; however, the way these sources and judgments are currently shown in the article is biased towards expressing the view that he was purely heterosexual, with the attitude that other interpretations are somehow suspect. If people insist on keeping the content the same, I suggest the wording be changed, at lest. Why is his relationship to Tytus described as one of potential "homosexual urges" yet his relationship to Gładkowska referred to as one of "intense affection"? I don't believe anybody would write "heterosexual urges". Heterosexual and homosexual desire must both be described equally, rather than describing one romantically and the other clinically. Many thanks, Glissando1234567890 (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

See the recent RfC on this issue. intforce (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes - but my point is that any agreement reached was evidently lacking. Glissando1234567890 (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree with Glissando1234567890, they made good improvements in that passage lately, which were deleted unfortunately. Moreover, the vital quote from Chopin‘s letter is presented in a biased and faulty translation. That should be improved too to the correct translation:

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)

And, there still is no picture of Woyciechowski in the article.

Tytus Woyciechowski, c. 1875

Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe you are ignoring the very extensive discussion of this issue - a discussion which is longer than the article itself. You believe you know the truth. I strongly advise you to read WP:TRUTH followed by WP:WAR. - kosboot (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

As evidenced by your talk page, I note that you seem to be engaged in a long-term campaign to alter the article in accordance with your beliefs while ignoring those reached by consensus. Working with Wikipedia requires one to accept others' viewpoints, particularly when they are supported by consensus. - kosboot (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

as you can read there, the discussion got so long because it was undermined by a group of users, and you were involved in that filibustering too. But if we get back to the quality of the article here, which the community would like to be improved: you obviously don‘t know any polish, kosboot.

Chopin’s original words « Idę się umywać, nie całuj mię teraz, bom się jeszcze nie umył. — Ty? chociażbym się olejkami wysmarował bizantyjskimi, nie pocałowałbyś, gdybym ja Ciebie magnetycznym sposobem do tego nie przymusił. Jest jakaś siła w naturze. Dziś Ci się śnić będzie, że mnie całujesz. Muszę Ci oddać za szkaradny sen, jakiś mi dziś w nocy sprowadził. », mean something else than the biased translation by Alan Walker. Każdy Polak to widzi i wie.

Every polish native speaker sees and knows that. For all others it’s easily possible to check it with a translator: « I am going to wash, do not kiss me now, for I have not yet washed. - You? Even if I smeared myself with Byzantine oils, you would not kiss me if I did not magnetically compel you to do so. There is some force in nature. Today you will dream that you are kissing me. I must repay you for the scurrilous dream you brought me tonight. » Obviously Frick’s translation is much more accurate here.

And Glissando1234567890’s contributions would improve the article, because they reflect the knowledge we have today.Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

or we use vertical aligned rows for the translation, that would be the most transparent way:

Idę się umywać, nie całuj mię teraz, bom się jeszcze nie umył. — Ty? chociażbym się olejkami wysmarował bizantyjskimi, nie pocałowałbyś, gdybym ja Ciebie magnetycznym sposobem do tego nie przymusił. Jest jakaś siła w naturze. Dziś Ci się śnić będzie, że mnie całujesz. Muszę Ci oddać za szkaradny sen, jakiś mi dziś w nocy sprowadził.

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.

Now I am going to wash myself. Please do not embrace me as I have not washed yet. And you? Even if I were to anoint myself with fragrant oils from Byzantium, you would not embrace me – not unless forced to by magnetism. But there are forces in Nature! Today you will dream that you are embracing me! You have to pay for the nightmare you caused me last night.

Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

We have been over this many times. By selecting a single letter you are consciously distorting history. Smerus mentioned several authors who pointed out that Chopin's language was fairly typical at that time (the specific translation is not the issue). The bottom line as Q.2 in the FAQ above states, that the majority of reliable sources do not pass judgement on he nature of Chopin's sexuality. As Wikipedia functions as a summary of these sources, so too should this article reflect that. By including this letter and with it its inferences, you are not only in violation of WP:WAR and WP:TRUTH but also WP:NOR. Give it up already and go on to something else - you're wasting your life on an issue that you will not win. - kosboot (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

your opinion…. This is actually a quote which has been pointed out by many biographers as erotic, including Zamoyski in his old fashioned book from 1979.Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

What are you doing?? You've been told many times that we cannot analyze primary sources like this here thus must of what you're saying is inherently inadmissible as a rationale for anything. Aza24 (talk) 09:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

could you first read the inputs carefully and the secondary sources too please Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Please read again what I wrote. Glissando1234567890 (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

That is not (just) the point. Please read again my original paragraph. Glissando1234567890 (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

No solid arguments so far against your and my suggestions for improvement, Glissando1234567890. So I think we have a consensus here.Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

There's only one argumemnt that matters today: Nobody agrees with you and we can't change the page without consensus here, so maybe find other ideas to improve the page? SPECIFICO talk 16:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Glissando1234567890 made good suggestions to improve the article, and mee too. All well sourced. Many of the sources are already in the article and here below. 1. More objective wording as suggested by Glissando1234567890, 2. correct translation, 3. picture of Woyciechowski Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

References