Talk:Frédéric Chopin/Archive 26
 | 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. |
| Archive 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 |
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)
- Hi Taurusthecat, as I indicated in my edit summary, the removal was per MOS:CREDITS: "image credits in the infobox image are discouraged, even if the artist is notable". Please undo your reversion. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- It's just you doing it so don't refer to yourself as 'we' please. Taurusthecat (talk) 18:07, 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)
- This image is a special case. Taurusthecat (talk) 18:12, 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)
- I've already explained why it's a special case but you don't seem able to address this. Taurusthecat (talk) 18:25, 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)
- Happy? https://www.businessinsider.com/only-2-known-photos-of-chopin?op=1 Taurusthecat (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- That article says nothing about Bisson other than mentioning his name. Cullen328 (talk) 18:41, 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)
- 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)
- That article says nothing about Bisson other than mentioning his name. Cullen328 (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- Happy? https://www.businessinsider.com/only-2-known-photos-of-chopin?op=1 Taurusthecat (talk) 18:29, 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)
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. SPECIFICO talk 18:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- If it had its own article we could link to that instead and address both sides' concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- Photos are rare of almost anybody who died in 1849. Cullen328 (talk) 19:04, 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)
- 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)
- Photos are rare of almost anybody who died in 1849. Cullen328 (talk) 19:04, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- thanks! Davidbreniere (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2023
 | 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.
Source : https://fr.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Code_civil_des_Fran%C3%A7ais_1804/Livre_I,_Titre_I 2A02:8440:8106:56A6:A58B:A427:211D:A28F (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}}template. See the FAQ at the top of this page. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)- So what? That a piece of historical information that does not necessarily apply today. - kosboot (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
How do you verify the signatures?
How do you know that the signature of Chopin is real? 2600:8802:3A0B:3000:B128:B046:A97C:CE74 (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Recent changes
@Butterflydog: I have restored the page to an earlier version because your changes are problematic for multiple reasons. You have deleted sourced content, labelling them "accusations without evidence". You inserted material not explicitly stated in the cited sources, thereby distorting them. You introduced claims without sources. The paragraph on "Worldview and political preferences" is awkward and out of place in the article and should be integrated into the other paragraphs. It also needs additional scholarly sources to back up the claims. Overall, while you made some improvements, it would be best to discuss the more major changes here. See also the recent RfC on Chopin and sexuality. intforce (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)