Talk:Frédéric Chopin/Archive 2

message: I removed this from the article: as well as a piano technique which was of his own creation.  Can this be referenced?  I think a case can be made for Chopin's technique being an extension of contemporary developments; particularly those of Hummel.  There is probably much in Chopin that is totally new, but can someone point to such brand-new technical developments which are verifiable (referenced)?  Or is the clause I removed just making the weaker point that all pianist-composers are influenced by their own piano technique?  --RobertG ♬ talk 13:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Technique & style

message: Can someone provide a reference that Chopin was a notable cat-lover, and perhaps put a sentence to that effect somewhere in the article?  At the moment the categorisation acts as an unreferenced assertion.  --RobertG ♬ talk 10:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The category is mainly for people who have owned the animal and influenced their personalities or work in some way. Chopin owned several cats in his life and one was the source of a polemic here: . Antidote 20:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page you cite does not mention Chopin at all. A further link at the bottom of that page makes some silly claim about a cat walking across a keyboard prompting Chopin to write a "Cat Waltz", when in actuality there is no such piece. It is apparently referring to the waltz in F major, op. 34, no. 3, but that piece has never had an acknowledged title of any kind. I do not believe that there is any evidence whatsoever to support the claim that cats in any way influenced Chopin's work or personality. Microtonal...(Put your head on my shoulder) 08:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cat lover?

message: Can somebody tell me, what are the titles of the compositions, all, that Choping composed for piano, violin and violoncello? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.2.24 (talk • contribs) 2 February 2006.
: See List of compositions by Frédéric Chopin, Op. 3, Op. 65 and Op. S 2 No. 1.  --RobertG ♬ talk 09:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other works

message: Whoa, something is wrong with this page... the page history is "crediting" both me and JackOfOz with vandalistic edits actually made by the kids at that [gosh-darn] middle school... in fact, I think the software is even restoring old deleted edits back into the article, somehow. Hopefully, it's just a weird local glitch with this page. I did put in a bug report. So watch for weirdness on this page for a while. Herostratus 16:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WARNING! 

message: I looked over Herostratus' claims and they are bogus. The Herostratus name itself is a name taken from ancient Greek history, Herostratus was a guy searching for fame, when he was not able to find it, he burned down the local sanctuary/place of worship.
This article http://www.chopin.pl/biografia/index_en.html clearly indicated Chopin and his family claimed March 1st, however, the date which should be under Chopin is right and wrong, both dates must be present with footnotes or with "or".
Chopin.pl, which I am part of is definitely THE MOST PRECISE AND ACCURATE BIOGRAPHY OF CHOPIN, IT IS THE ONLY AUTHENTIC F CHOPIN WEBSITE.
-Chopin fan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.40.154.18 (talk • contribs) 4 February 2006.
:I don't dispute the accuracy of anything on that website.  However your claim that it is "the only authentic Chopin website" is absurd. 
::Have you checked any of the facts with Chopin himself?
::The website was written by "Barbara Smolenska-Zielinska", and what do we find in the bibliography - a reference source by, surprise surprise, "Smolenska-Zielinska, B."  This is hardly evidence of independent research and an "authentic" biography.  
:Your argument is one for finding the most "authentic" source on any given person, and using that as the text of our article on that person, to the exclusion of all other sources.  Wikipedia does not rely on any one source of information on a given topic, no matter how authentic it is claimed to be or even generally believed to be. Within certain guidelines, any reputable, published information can be drawn upon. JackofOz 00:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the choice between the Grove Dictionary and some random website in a dispute over musical biography, the Grove must take precedence. In fact, the only thing that should prevent this from becoming Wikipedia-wide policy is a fear of instruction-creep. The article currently has a sentence referring to differing birthdates at the beginning of the "biography" section. That is perfectly sufficient. Inserting an explanation of the same into the intro paragraph would be pedantic, redundant, counterproductive. confusing to the casual reader, and blatantly against the consensus that has already been reached here on the talk page. Microtonal 22:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Follow up

message: I've only just noticed that the title of the article spells his given name with a "k", as if he were from an English-speaking country.  Why is this?  I have never seen his name spelled that way.  JackofOz 12:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page has already been moved two or three times between various combinations of first and last name. I think the person who moved it yesterday is wrong about the most common name, anyway, since he's commonly referred to as "Frédéric-François" in pretty much every country except the United States. Even then, he only appears as "Frederick" (or even "Frederic", sans accents) on those cheapo budget-bin recordings of questionable quality. Microtonal 19:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Frédéric-François Chopin" is quite assuredly NOT the common english name. I have always seen it rendered either as "Frederic Chopin" or "Frederick Chopin" - either is fine by me. But the location yesterday was clearly not OK. Raul654 19:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What next?  Morris Ravel? John Brahms? Joseph Verdi? -[He would have to be "Joe Green", actually. :) Microtonal 12:11, 8 Feb 2006]- Francis Liszt? These are all as absurd as Frederick Chopin.  There may be a debate about whether he's best called Frédéric or Frederic or Frédéric-François - but that is not solved by adopting the "k" option. JackofOz 19:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal preference is for Frederic Chopin. It's largely because I can't really do accents easily on my keyboard, which I think is true of most Americans. I think it satisfies the most common name problem without getting too silly. (although on a side note I admit a horror of "Arvo Part"). Just to add confusion the title of the grove article is "Chopin, Fryderyk Franciszek", which I think is eminently impractical. Makemi 20:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support that.  JackofOz 20:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already moved the article to there :) Raul654 20:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, what just happened? It looked like people were happy with Frederic Chopin. Did I miss something? Makemi 23:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Frederick with a "k"

message: The Chopin fan is correct, again, so many sites on wiki have two birthdays in one parenthesis, especially if there is a doubt, it goes to show how you are all so called objective people contradicting yourselfs and goes to show you dont know anything about truth.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.3.198 (talk • contribs) 15:22, February 6, 2006.
:If that's true, all it shows is that we're human and not always consistent.  It has nothing to do with "truth". JackofOz 20:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No - if there's doubt, we put "circa" and give one of the dates. If there's no known date but there's a baptism date, we give the date of the baptism, ala Ludwig van Beethoven. Raul654 21:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We use c. where the date wasn't recorded, it has had to be deduced from other evidence, and it can't be pinned down to one exact date.  This is a different scenario.  The tension here is between one date (1 March) and another date (22 February).  They are the only 2 possible candidates.  All the evidence strongly suggests that 1 March is the right one, and no reputable reference work now holds any brief for 22 February.  But we have to admit the very slim possibility that the family was wrong and the register is right (even though it was apparently filled out in April 1810, about 6 weeks after Chopin's birth).  The possibility is not one deserving of a place in the lead para, where it would simply confuse readers and tend to perpetuate misinformation.  JackofOz 09:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Chopin fan

message: You said it yourself, there is a chance they might be wrong, and still because of that THE DATE MUST BE THERE, BECAUSE I CAN GIVE YOU 100 WIKI WEBSITES WHERE IT SAYS OR... Therefore you are again contradicting yourself, again you are not following or reading or following common sense, the benevolent will some of you might have to follow the procedures is wrong, especially if it's taken in a wrong way. The date will not confuse people, since the article explains it, as a matter of fact I know many people who celebrate Feb 22 as his official birth-day, after all, that is what it says on his baptismal certificate and that is the only proof, duh!
The bottom line is, you said you are only human, but you forgot how ignorant you really are... But of course I can show you many sites here where it says or, or... but then you will delete them, that's why I chose from now on, never (and will tell everybody I know) never to look for wiki for any dates, i found many, many that are wrong, but I will not bother (except here) change those, because vandals so called administrators will reverse them... it goes to show how smart they really are! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.1.115 (talk • contribs) 17:38, February 8, 2006.
:The February 22 date is in the article, it's just not in the first line.  We operate by consensus here.  If you can get other editors to agree with you, we can put both dates in the first line, but I politely remind you that your periodic vandalism binges aren't likely to incline editors to your point of view. Antandrus  (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply

message: Chopin fan is right, who knows more about Chopin's other works, except of course for piano?
The bottom line is, if on his birth certificate says Feb 22 that is legal, no matter what his family says, birth/baptismal certificate, the bottom line is, so many so called justed wikipedians here are messing it all up, then when they admit they are wrong, they say they are only human, grow up will...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.222.68.39 (talk • contribs) 22:17, February 9, 2006.
:The document in question is not a birth certificate, but a baptism certificate.  This is not a government legal document, but a church document.  The church is less interested in the date of birth of children than in the date on which they formally become members of the church, ie. their date of baptism.  (That is why, for example, we know Beethoven's and Shakespeare's dates of baptism but not their dates of birth, and probably never will.)  
:Nevertheless, most baptism certificates include a place for the child's date of birth to be written - which is good, because in many cases this is the only documentary record we have of the date.  The certificate is filled out not by the parents, but by the priest, who was not a witness to the birth.  We have to rely on the priest to record this date accurately, and he in turn has to rely on what the parents tell him.  Chopin's baptism took place not just a day or two after his birth, but almost eight weeks later (23 April 1810).  That is when the baptism certificate was written.  Priests are humans and sometimes misunderstand what the parents tell them about the date of the child's birth.  That is what the vast majority of Chopin scholars believe is what happened here.  If the mother and father always insisted Frederic was born on 1 March, and someone who wasn't there says something different, who are you going to believe?  That is what this comes down to.  Believing Chopin's parents, who were very much there - or believing the priest, who wasn't.  JackofOz 08:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you:  that was well stated.  For these reasons, as well as for consistency with other publications (such as the New Grove), I suggest retaining only March 1 in the lead. Antandrus  (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Antandrus.  --RobertG ♬ talk 16:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. Thirded. Microtonal 16:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fourthed. Makemi 19:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Chopin fan and the rest

message: Peole who are here longest will run this site and will not allow both days, again you ignorants expect people to look all over for correct date, some people just check for dates, when they see the date, thats what they remember or write, of course, you are some terrible trolls of subjectivity. No other site misleads others. And so badly.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.220.174 (talk • contribs) 13 February 2006.
:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 21:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Its obvious

message: Claims of dodgy page-moving nothwithstanding (see above), I've noticed User:OliverTwist has posted a Requested move for this article, but without the completing the process as here.
Frederic Chopin → Frédéric Chopin : The page has been at Frédéric for quite some time, but it was recently moved for unknown reasons. All articles should have diacritics included, and Chopin's name was Frédéric, not Frederic. Also, he adopted a French name, and in French, adding the accent to e's is a must as e makes a different sound in French than é does.
===Voting===
Please add  * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using "~~~~"
* Tentative Support. Although his original Polish name may be Fryderyk – and so should be included in the article – I am under the impression that Chopin himself used "Frédéric" (with diacritics included) once he had moved away from Poland. The name I have seen most often is also Frédéric with diacritics included. (I can't recall seeing Frédéric-François before this article.) For me, "Frederic" is simply a(n English) keyboard-friendly version of Frédéric, so if the choice for article title came down to "Frédéric Chopin" or "Frederic Chopin", I would support the former and make the latter a redirect (along with Fryderyk, Frederick(!), etc.)
: I also have in mind Franz Liszt, technically Liszt Ferenc, but known outside Hungary as Franz Liszt; and another case of strong Polish nationalism over a Wikipedia article, Nicolaus Copernicus. The Hungarians I've met and known both within and outside Hungary, however, accept and understand that the rest of the world knows Liszt Ferenc as Franz Liszt. The same pattern for Chopin, then? Nonetheless, I know I do not have a profound knowledge of the subject! David Kernow 20:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Please add  * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using "~~~~"
* Tentative Support. Although his original Polish name may be Fryderyk – and so should be included in the article – I am under the impression that Chopin himself used "Frédéric" (with diacritics included) once he had moved away from Poland. The name I have seen most often is also Frédéric with diacritics included. (I can't recall seeing Frédéric-François before this article.) For me, "Frederic" is simply a(n English) keyboard-friendly version of Frédéric, so if the choice for article title came down to "Frédéric Chopin" or "Frederic Chopin", I would support the former and make the latter a redirect (along with Fryderyk, Frederick(!), etc.)
: I also have in mind Franz Liszt, technically Liszt Ferenc, but known outside Hungary as Franz Liszt; and another case of strong Polish nationalism over a Wikipedia article, Nicolaus Copernicus. The Hungarians I've met and known both within and outside Hungary, however, accept and understand that the rest of the world knows Liszt Ferenc as Franz Liszt. The same pattern for Chopin, then? Nonetheless, I know I do not have a profound knowledge of the subject! David Kernow 20:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: The formative years portion of the article refers to to him leaving Poland, and never returning, but later text explicitly refers to visiting his parents. Modus Vivendi 01:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Never returned to Poland?

message: Chopin never returned to Poland, because of his baptismal which took place on March 1st, he was confused he was born on March 1st, I have the copy of birth certificate, I have jpg link, but what is the use to wiki vandals, you will reverse it anyways, at least now others cant edit...
:His birth certificate is not known to exist.  What you probably have is a copy of his baptism certificate, that was not filled out until 8 weeks after his birth (or, if your theory is correct, 9 weeks).  So much for reliability.  This issue was resolved well over 75 years ago.  It's all fully explained above.  Just give up on the 22 February thing.  Please. JackofOz 02:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No return

message: I understand, I know, it was 'resolved' 75 years ago, again, that's not the point, if you look into the replies from before, February 22 footnote is still missing, and remember even if we are sure he was born on March 1st, there is always 5-10% chance that may not be so.
:I've added a footnote, what do people think of it? I think it's a little visually confusing, and it's not so hard to scroll down to the Biography section for the information about his birthdate, but I thought we'd give it a try. Mak (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Feb 22

message: Is there another candidate for "Poland's most significant composer"?  The lead has been changed to read, "…one of Poland's most significant composers".  --RobertG ♬ talk 11:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By coincidence I rewrote that part a short time before reading this. I took the "most significant in Poland" part out as Chopin is most significant in the world, not only Poland. And the first sentence already says he is polish. Janderk 21:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance 

message: Somebody should (I could, but I will be reverted again, so will not waste my time on ungratefuls...) put some info on the main page about Chopin's other music, he had some for viola and violin and piano, between 5-7 pieaces. Include original scores' names and when it was written.
--WP:SQUID
:First of all, what the heck are you ranting about? Secondly, there's already a List of compositions by Frédéric Chopin and :Category:Compositions by Frédéric Chopin. If you had been reasonable in the first place the footnote would have gotten in a lot faster, and the way you're acting now is making me wish I had never put it in. Don't be a dick or a Vandal and things will go much better for you. Mak (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chopin's other music

message: I accept that using such trifles as basic grammar, spelling, or (Lord forbid) punctuation is considered superfluous and "uncool," but please understand that even minor stylistic decisions can greatly affect one's meaning. I bring this up because there are a lot of references on this page to Chopin's being "polish," his "polish-inspired music," and having "polish in his heart." Without a capital "P," the long "O" becomes an "ah" sound, and suddenly, Chopin is more concerned with giving things a smooth and shiny surface than with his national heritage. What is so intimidating about the SHIFT key? S.Bowen 18:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have nothing against this article not sucking. Why don't you fix it, instead of making rude comments? And what's so intimidating about four tildes? Ok, sorry, you're right that Polish should be capitalized, but next time you could be less snarky about it, and simply fix it. Probably the people who added polish in are never going to come to this talk page, so really you're just insulting the people who are working on keeping the article vaguely un-vandalised. Thanks, Mak (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, let me apologize for my lack of tildes. The above was my first comment ever posted on a Talk page, and until you opened my eyes to standard comment protocol, I was entirely unaware of how to sign my comment. So, thanks. Surely, however, you can't compare my Wikipedia-specific oversight to a lack of the most basic knowledge of English. It wasn't the article that I was criticizing; it was the comments right here on this Talk page. So, it is possible that the people who continue to mix up "Polish" (a nationality) and "polish" (smoothness or glossiness) just might read it. Like I said above, I accept that nobody here cares about English or our linguistic heritage, but since I can't count on anyone else to stick up for our language, I sometimes have to do it myself. Unsurprisingly, and not for the first time, I was met with hostility. But I guess it's only in a culture like this that it's considered "snarky" and "insulting" to show any sense of pride or protection for one's language. And how am I insulting anybody who is trying to keep the article un-vandalized? I'm sympathetic to the aim of those people. Despite your attempt to demonize me, I care deeply for the overall integrity of all Wiki-related projects. Those who should feel insulted are Polish and French people, who, in the minds of English-speakers, aren't worth the effort of moving our little fingers over to the SHIFT key. S.Bowen 18:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh jeez. You're just talking about the talk page. And at my count it happened once. I'm going to archive this page now so that people don't think that the level of ridiculousness on this page demonstrates how a talk page is supposed to be used. This page is for discussing important changes in the article. I'm not demonizing you, I'm asking you not to insult people by saying that no one on this page cares about grammar or spelling or anything like that. Mak (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Polish" spelling