Talk:Frédéric Chopin/Archive 13

Frédéric Chopin
Frédéric Chopin
Born	Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin; 1 March 1810 (or possibly 22 February 1810); Żelazowa Wola, Poland
Died	17 October 1849 (aged 39); Paris, France
Occupations	Composer (works by genre); Pianist;
Signature

Frédéric Chopin
Frédéric Chopin
	Photograph of Chopin by Bisson, c. 1849
Born	Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin; 1 March 1810 or possibly 22 February 1810; Żelazowa Wola, Poland
Died	17 October 1849 (aged 39); Paris
Occupation(s)	Composer and pianist
Signature

This is an archive of past discussions about Frédéric Chopin. 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 10

→

Infobox

I have reverted the infobox added by another editor. This is per policy of Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers, as per numerous discussions.--Smerus (talk) 08:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers does not make policy as you are well aware and they do not OWN this article. You should not be telling lies to Vinícius94. If you have good reasons to remove an infobox from this article, let's hash them out here, but I'm not prepared to see you edit-war to impose your own version on the article, and to remove good faith contributions from other editors without any reasonable explanation. You were warned about that behaviour at the ArbCom case. I've put an infobox back, so explain to me properly why that wasn't an improvement to the article. --RexxS (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's avoid edit-warring by restoring the stable version until we are able to determine whether consensus on the matter has changed. Of course, since that would depend on discussion rather than on simple voting, we would need someone to present an argument for including a writer template on the article of someone identified primarily as a composer and musician. Though I'm sure it was in good faith, it doesn't make sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

(watching and trying to stay out of war) If I see that a user didn't use the best possible infobox template I address the user. I would do so especially if I notice that it is a new user who may be unfamiliar with the choices, and with finding edit summaries, and if finding them, interpretating something like this, instead of the normal revert good faith edits, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with restoring the stable version while discussion continues.

If there is general agreement that an infobox is not a net positive on this article, I will have no problem in seeing it continue without one.

I do have a problem with the way that a good faith edit by Vinícius94 was dealt with by the reverters. ArbCom has made clear that degrading discussion is unacceptable behaviour. The decision on whether to have an infobox or not rests on discussion at the talk page of each article. It follows then that no other venue, in particular a wikiproject, can create a blanket ban on having an infobox for multiple articles. The initial nonsense from an editor who should know better is a slap-in-the-face for any uninvolved editor who would like to see an infobox in this article and a breach of the remedies in the ArbCom case. --RexxS (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Infoboxes are neither required by, nor forbidden by, Wíkipedia policies. As this article has already obtained GA status, an infobox is clearly not a necessity. We might therefore consider whether the infobox proposed added anything to the article. I therefore propose that an infobox does not add anything to this article, as all the information it contained (or would contain) was available immediately to its left. (Not only that, but it was factually inaccurate, giving 'Szopen' as the composer's birth name.) Moreover, it is distracting to the reader. On the grounds that 'if it ain't broken don't mend it', the article should be left without an infobox, whatever its type.--Smerus (talk) 07:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The infobox adds nothing but wasted space. It also skips over the uncertainty about Chopin's birthdate. Nihil novi (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I propose that an infobox does add something to this article, videlicet:

The infobox that Vinícius94 suggested contains a brief collection of the key facts from Chopin's life, date and place of birth and death, and his principal occupations. It is placed in a position familiar to visitors and enables them to get that information at a glance in the same way that they are accustomed to in over 2,500,000 other Wikipedia articles. The article at present does not offer that facility to visitors.
The information in the infobox is arranged as "key-value" pairs in a table that allows natural language processing tools to read that information with a much higher degree of certainty and to more accurately glean information from other parts of the article. The article at present does not offer that facility to third-parties who use NLP to re-use our articles.
The data in the infobox is emitted as a microformat, in particular: vcard, bday, dday, deathdate, role. These microformats may be collected by many data collection tools. The article at present does not offer that facility to third-parties who make use of the microformats to re-use our articles.
We have a sister project called Wikidata that collects data from all Wikipedias to create a central repository of information. This allows different language wikipedias to use data provided by another wikipedia. In particular, the 4.5 million-article English Wikipedia is a valuable - and regularly updated - source of facts for smaller wikipedias to build articles upon. The infobox is the principal source of data for Wikidata and the article at present does not offer that facility to Wikidata, and hence to other small wikipedias.

In response to the objections, I must point out that the best response to flawed formatting is to correct it, not throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's not difficult to correct "Szopen" (a plausible rendering of the name) to the more common "Chopin". I've appended an amended version here so that the disputants can examine what an infobox might offer.

In reply to Nihil novi, the lead of the article also skips over the uncertainty about Chopin's birthdate, but I do not see you arguing to remove the lead as a result. It's simple: if it's not in the lead, then generally it should not be in the infobox.

In response to Smerus: of course, we all agree that an infobox is not necessary, but the question governing inclusion is not one of necessity, but of value. I have shown above that an infobox adds value to the article in multiple ways. You have not adduced a single rationale beyond "distracting the reader" why your personal dislike should override that added value. --RexxS (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Rexxs has opined added value, but he has not demonstrated it.

He does not dispute that the information duplicates what is already in the article.
He asserts an opinion that 'as "key-value" pairs in a table that allows natural language processing tools to read that information with a much higher degree of certainty and to more accurately glean information from other parts of the article'. The 'other parts' of the article are immediately to its left. I do not know what a 'key-value' pair is, but the assertion that ths information in the box takes such forms, and the assertion that these forms have any value to the reader, appears to be a piece of WP:OR or a personal opinion of Rexxs.
Rexxs is perfectly aware from previous discussions in which he and I have been involved that the metadata (microformat) function (if any) of an infobox is not an argument to be employed in its favour as a deciding factor. In any case, the arguments relating to information in an article should relate to convenience of the reader, not to an editor's favourite outside projects.
The errors and absence of clarity in the original infobox are not adduced by me as a reason for its unwelcomeness. The fact however that an infobox tends to propagate such errors or unclarity is another argument to me in its disfavour.
I therefore continue my preference for the 'natural language process' known as reading. As the infobox is agreed by Rexxs to be not necessary, I do not see any reason why it should be added.
I would add that it would be a help if this discussion could be limited, as it should be, to what, if anything, an infobox adds to this article on Chopin, rather than to try to extend, distract and redirect the argument to irrelevant realms of knowledge theory.--Smerus (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Smerus is trying to conceal his lack of argument by mere assertion. I have in fact clearly demonstrated the added value that an infobox brings to this article for (i) readers who want a quick overview (as in the majority of other articles); (ii) third party re-users who read structured data; (iii) third party re-users who read microformats; (iv) other wikipedias who are denied the full range of data available in an infobox.
Smerus obfuscates by trying to suggest that duplicating information is somehow disadvantageous. It is not. Does he deny that the lead duplicates information? Is that a disadvantage? Does he deny that persondata duplicates information? Is that a disadvantage?
Smerus lacks any knowledge of natural language processing, despite having been pointed to a Google Talk explaining it multiple times - and its usefulness is a demonstrated fact, not an opinion. Smerus' willful ignorance is not an argument that NL processing is not an advantage for re-users of the article.
Smerus is perfectly aware from previous discussions in which he and I have been involved that the both the metadata and the microformats provided by an infobox in a given article are strong arguments in its favour, but he would like to pretend that they are not as he has no argument to counter them. I refute the narrow-minded interpretation of our project as solely for people reading the Wikipedia site. Wikipedia is fundamentally based upon a premise that our content shall be made freely available to everyone for re-use and our licence is designed to ensure that.
It is well-known that discrepancies between infoboxes and the main text are a flag that information needs to be updated and that can be detected by automated tools. It is just as likely in a developed article that the infobox has been accurately updated and the main text needs to to catch up. Without an infobox such maintenance is not possible.
Smerus claims to have a preference for reading. What he actually displays is complete disdain for anything other than reading. This is 2013, not 1813 and consumers of our content access it through many different channels and often via reusers. Some will want to read an entire article (and I applaud that); others will want a 30-second overview and will read the lead; still more will want a 3-second précis, or a single fact, and will consult the infobox. It is not Smerus' place to force others to use our content solely in the way that Smerus prefers.

I will simply add that Smerus wants to rely on broad, discredited arguments such as "an infobox is redundant; it duplicates the lead; it's ugly; it distracts from the article" which only comment on the debate over infoboxes in general. Nevertheless he tries to disqualify specific arguments such as the particular microformats made available in this very article on Chopin. I have demonstrated the added value of the infobox, but have seen no argument to the contrary, beyond a desperate repetition of the fallacy that only elements that are necessary can be included in an article - 2.5 million other articles give the lie to that. --RexxS (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Waffle Waffle Waffle. I am joining the discussion even though I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. In previous discussions on this topic, words flowed like the Nile in flood, and I suppose this one will not be different. In any case, what I want to say is that the Wikidata natural language processing argument seems awfully weak. There is nothing in this infobox which cannot be included as persondata, so, at least in that respect, it adds nothing. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
There is actually a lot of information that could be included in an infobox that cannot be included in persondata (which has an extremely limited repertoire). Just taking a quick look at the infoboxes in French, Spanish or Polish Wikipedia versions of Chopin will give some idea. The French Wikipedia, incidentally gives Szopen (prononcé « chopéne ») est l'orthographe polonaise de « Chopin ». --RexxS (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
But that information is not part of the proposed infobox given here - if you want to propose an expanded box you should make that clear. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Infoboxes improve ALL articles: Here we go again, trying to hold back the tide of progress. The infobox is used on well over half of all wikipedia articles and add useful information for the casual reader to get basic data at a glance, they are highly encyclopedic, when properly designed are attractive and add a professional element to the article. Everywhere other than the classical music project and a few literary pages they are generally welcomed and accepted. We have been to arbcom and back on this and the decisions was, clearly, that wikiprojects can't dictate policy and that the decisions are made on a case by case basis. Here, we have aesthetic, technical and practical reasons to include them on one side and IDONTLIKEIT on the other. Same reactionary nonsense as every other time this has come up at the classical music projects. Montanabw^(talk) 18:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, here we go again with obviously false nonsense like "infoboxes improve ALL articles" - surely you don't believe that? Further, why is your "attractive" an aesthetic reason for inclusion, but others' "wasted space" and "distracting" a case of IDONTLIKEIT to be discarded? If you accept the validity of subjective rationales for one side, you must do so for the other, even if you personally disagree. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

LOL, yes, I actually DO think ALL articles should have an infobox wherever possible. We're more than halfway there on wikipedia! I think that this is an encyclopedia, and they are encyclopedic - just like the old print infoboxes that appeared in many articles in the trusty World Book encyclopedias (as a kid, a report about Our 50 States would have been impossible had it not been for them) Now, I admit, I'm hard-pressed to find one for, say, hindgut fermentation (though if there is one, I'll add it), but from a professional graphic design point of view and a practical, educational point of view, a section that summarizes basic information is quite helpful; the main arguments I hear against their inclusion are mostly from people who take a rather snobbish, "if people can't read the article then they are too stupid to be bothered with" attitude. Many people access wikipedia who are not subject area experts, whether school-age children, journalists, people with idle curiousity, anyone who takes a fast or casual glance at a article. All that said, there is plenty to debate about formatting (color banners, what to include/exclude, etc.) but the anti-infobox view seems in my mind really to be the same old argument of "I don't like them because I think they are ugly and besides only stupid people won't stop to read "my" superior highbrow article, so they don't deserve any easy way to access the information". (but OK, so "nonsense" is a bit bitey, I'll stop if everyone else does)Montanabw^(talk) 22:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I would format the infobox a bit, to stress his works more (as in FA Imogen Holst) and not link Poland to today's Poland. We should separate discussion of "infobox yes or no" from discussion of parameters and values. I looked at the six version of the article in other languages which are FA: they all have an infobox, also the French GA. That I would answer the "infobox yes or no" question with "yes, why not?" is known enough, and RexxS explained well why it adds quality, better than I could, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Unusually, the Polish article does not claim him as born in Poland, but in the Napoleonic Duchy of Warsaw (Księstwo Warszawskie), so I'd be quite sympathetic to removing any link to modern-day Poland. The lead currently states Duchy of Warsaw, which is probably the most accurate qualifier, and (with apologies to Nikki) suggests that the |nationality parameter would be employed to indicate his Polish nationality. --RexxS (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The argument that an infobox's structured data in a Wikipedia article is essential to maintain Wikidata is the opposite of the relation: all data in the proposed infobox is available at d:Q1268 for interested other parties to extract, making the infobox doubly redundant. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It is nice not to have to do math to figure out how old he was when he died. That is just one of the benefits of a box - dont have the read the whole article to find simply info. Its naive to think our readers what to or will read the whole article to derive serviceable information like simply stats. Want our readers to go to other sites like biography.com, nndb.com, allmusic? Are we going out of our way to implement personal preferences over the normal format used by the internet for bios that the world is use to? We have to think of what our readers expect to see in a complete bio. -- Moxy (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek: That's fine if all you want to do is take, not give. The only reason you found data at d:Q1268 is that the French Wikipedia article has an infobox that was 'mined' by bots for much of the information there. Without an infobox here, any updates to Wikidata have to rely on other wikipedias. --RexxS (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that view is supported by the revision history at Wikidata. Many users who I not consider to be bots, including some we know (1, 2), contribute there. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

We all do our bit, of course, but Wikidata now has over 14,000,000 items. With the best will in the world, it's never going to be maintained by humans as it was in the early days and we have to rely on bots for the majority of it now. You can see from the revision history of almost any item how the balance has shifted over the last twelve months. Furthermore folks like Magnus write scripts that do a lot of the work - and although run from a user account, not a bot account, still require a structured data source to retrieve useful information for Wikidata. When you see a user make 8 edits in 4 minutes, it's often not purely manual additions. --RexxS (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

In repsonse to RexxS

"Smerus is trying to conceal his lack of argument by mere assertion. I have in fact clearly demonstrated ...." But you have not, you also have merely asserted. You conceal the fact that there is no evidential basis for the supposed advantages of infoboxes.
"Smerus obfuscates by trying to suggest that duplicating information is somehow disadvantageous. It is not. Does he deny that the lead duplicates information?" The lead is a summary of the article, that is its purpose. A summary is not a duplication - it has a specifric function. There is no purpose in having a summary of a summary (an infobox). If that were the case, one could justify e.g. a 'micro infobox' with just the name and the dates - is that where we are going?
"Smerus lacks any knowledge of natural language processing, despite having been pointed to a Google Talk explaining it multiple times - and its usefulness is a demonstrated fact". An absence of prioritizing language processing is not (yet) a disqualification for being a WP editor. Nor is a preference for the presentation of intelligent, informative, verifiable articles. RexxS once again relies on assertion that something is a 'demonstrated fact' - without offering any evidence.
"Smerus is perfectly aware from previous discussions in which he and I have been involved that the both the metadata and the microformats provided by an infobox in a given article are strong arguments in its favour" Quite the reverse, I regards these arguments as extremely weak - they are related to highly-disputed, and in my view, utterly misguided, notions as to the function and purpose of Wikipedia.
"It is well-known that discrepancies between infoboxes and the main text are a flag that information needs to be updated and that can be detected by automated tools." 'It is well-known that..' - the timeless argument advanced by losers. If there is no infobox, there is one less opportunity of discrepancy in an article.
"Smerus claims to have a preference for reading. What he actually displays is complete disdain for anything other than reading. This is 2013, not 1813 and consumers of our content access it through many different channels and often via reusers." Again, a series of assertions presented with no evidence. I will therefore with equal plausibility assert that the vast majority of WP readers are just that - readers. They don't give a fig for metadata, etc. And the purpose of WP itself is not a medium for other people's or organisations' metadata - as RexxS very well knows from previous discussions and decisions. Let me advise RexsS to read WP:ARTICLE, so as to understand Wikipedia policy - and this is indeed evidence - "A Wikipedia article, or entry, is a page that has encyclopedic information on it. A well-written encyclopedia article identifies a notable encyclopedic topic, summarizes that topic comprehensively, contains references to reliable sources, and links to other related topics." That's it. The concern with 'other channels' etc., which fuels the approach of RexxS, and of the guys at the hit squad of the self-appointed Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement (some of whom I see have also turned up to contribute here), is notably absent from this very clear policy definition.
Lastly, but most importantly, for all his reliance on assertion, blather, and personal put-downs, RexxS does not offer a single evidence-based argument to demonstrate why this article on Chopin would be intrinsically improved for the reader - how s/he would know more, and more accurately, about Chopin -by the addition of an infobox.--Smerus (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Smerus fails to understand the difference between demonstration and assertion. I explained four key areas where the article lacks a feature that an infobox would provide:

the opportunity for a visitor (sighted or otherwise) to obtain key information at-a-glance at a predictable location;
the opportunity for natural language processing applications to extract information from key-value pairs;
the opportunity for software to process microformat information intended for end-users automatically;
the opportunity for English Wikipedia to collaborate in keeping Wikidata updated for the benefit of many smaller wikis and their readers;

Not one of those lost opportunities has been adequately addressed by Smerus.

It is simply untrue that a summary is not duplication: of course it is - nothing is in the summary that isn't already in the item being summarised!

Equally untrue is Smerus' demonstrably invalid assertion that "There is no purpose in having a summary of a summary (an infobox)" since visitors regularly tell us that they want a quick-reference to key information - a summary of the lead - and over two-and-a-half million infoboxes can be found on Wikipedia, all of which are acknowledged to serve a purpose. Smerus would also benefit from a read of WP:Summary style - we have articles summarising other articles, and they themselves have a lead (a summary of a summary): many have an infobox (a summary of a summary of a summary). Should we be deleting those summary articles because they don't fit Smerus' straight-jacket view of what a Wikipedia article is?

I do not seek to use Smerus' ignorance of modern data processing to disqualify him from editing (strawman fallacy), but I will say that it does nothing to lend credibility to any of his claims about it. Anyone who takes the time to learn will quickly see how the data we have available can be used beyond simple reading of an article. It is indeed a pity that Smerus places "the presentation of intelligent, informative, verifiable articles" in opposition to the presentation of information beyond the boundaries of paper. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Does Smerus deny that the metadata and the microformats provided by an infobox are arguments in favour of infoboxes? He claims that infoboxes add nothing, but seems to concede that they add something - although he calls them "weak" and "highly disputed" without adducing a shred of evidence in support of that.

Yet "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute.". Wikipedia is designed to be redistributed freely - and that's fundamental policy linked to from the First Pillar (not just a help page like WP:ARTICLE that Smerus confuses with policy). Infoboxes play a major role in that redistribution and anyone interested only has to listen to the Google Talk I cited as for a prime example of evidence for how that can be done. That's not my assertion - that's stone-cold fact that available for anybody who cares to check.

Smerus seems to think that a discrepancy between an infobox and the other text is a bad thing. It's not. It's the sort of thing that automated tools or keen editors can quickly spot and flag for correction. The alternative is all too often incorrect text with no way of being able to spot it. What's worse: a discrepancy that can be quickly brought to the attention of an expert or incorrect text that languishes until an expert happens to come across it?

We agree on one thing: the vast majority of users of Wikipedia content are just that - readers. What I won't concede though is the tyranny of the majority. There is no need to exclude visitors who just want a 30-second overview. There's no need to disadvantage the already disadvantaged screen reader users who expect to find information in predictable places on our page and shouldn't be forced to plough through reams of text to hear the one snippet of information they came for. There's no need to exclude natural language processing systems from using our content. There's no need to stop RSS feeds from picking up our microformats. There's no need to prevent automated scripts from copying our updated information onto Wikidata. It's all so unnecessary just to satisfy a small group who have established an outdated local consensus to the detriment of everyone who wants our project to be more than just a paper encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Time for some editors to get up-to-date on how people use the internet. It is the norm - Google has done this as has many of the most popular internet sites because they recognizes many people just want some simple facts. Thinking all readers what to read full articles to obtain simple info is nieve. If they dont find it here with a quick glans there on there way to another site for the info - thus all the hard work done by those working on the articles here is pointless to many flyby readers. Google needs to add age at death like we do so people dont have to do math. -- Moxy (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Your example proves that Google manages to display summary data without Wikipedia's infoboxes. A quick test (search for Goethe) shows that your second assumption about the helpfulness of "age at death" in an infobox also fails. As I wrote above: the place to look for key:value pairs of structured data is Wikidata. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes the data is there - I dont care abut the data side of things. The point being made it that the box is the norm all over even Google. As for age of death not sure what your trying to show above with your link. Having simple data in a box is what an internet user expects to find. -- Moxy (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I find infoboxes useful and their exclusion from musician articles puzzling and hurtful in the big scope of things (a jarring dissonance from the regular MoS for biographies). As such, I support the inclusion of the infobox here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to bar an infobox on this page. Smerus is proposing a bar for inclusion that is not at all reflected in community consensus; at first I made the mistake of thinking that he was unaware of the near-ubiquity of infoboxes in biographical articles, but after looking a little at the breadth of the discussion this topic has on various composer-relevant Wikiprojects, its clear there is a lot of history here. Nevertheless, he speaks of this as "policy" set by those projects, which does reflect a certain lack of understanding of what constitutes policy and how it is established on Wikipedia, however long he has been involved in this particular discussion; a finding by a collection of contributors on a Wikiproject does not in any way set standard for any article the editors contributing to said project feel is within its domain. And broader, actual community consensus is that userboxes provide useful functionality to broad variety of articles, bios especially. It's inclusion in this case adds valuable function and suites the present article quite nicely. Asserting that this addition must meet the conditions of particular editors involved here as to its absolute necessity is a non-argument, from a policy perspective (and again, is not at all reflective of community consensus). If the editors of certain projects are attempting to enforce this perspective on articles perceived to be in their purview, I suggest the next logical step is to take the matter to Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion where the consistency of this approach with broader project-wide policy can be discussed. Regardless, I'd like to suggest to Smerus and Rexxs both that I think you've both made your arguments and counter-arguments at length and that the situation above is devolving into an endlessly-recursive structure that is, to my perspective, taking up a lot of space well beyond the point where it serves as constructive. Snow (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The infobox looks good and should stay. It provides a clear overview of the page with easily accessible funamental data. Most Wikipedia readers expect an infobox with this data on major biographies such as this. And, in my aesthetic opinion, it is a handsome header for the article. As a reader as well as an editor, I value infoboxes and refer to them for basic facts quite often. I would go into greater depth of the WikiProject and its persistent yet senseless objection to infoboxes (elucidated by Smerus above), but I think we all know the history here. Them From Space 21:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Time for an RfC

It looks as if a narrow majority favours the inclusion of the infobox -- and a fair portion of those editors, of which I am one, seem to feel that the perspectives of a handful of editors working under the purview of WP:WikiProject Composers have misinterpreted the role of such projects for setting broad standards on articles deemed to be within their scope and that said misinterpretation conflicts with many policies, accepted discussion guidelines and broad community consensus on proper forums for content discussions. All of that said, it is clear we have nothing approaching consensus on the matter for this particular article. I suggest it's time for an RfC and, further, than this RfC should as broadly publicized to the general public as possible, with notices posted at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion and WP:Village pump (policy) at the very least, owing to the facts that A) such a rule being cited as per-existing consensus on any article which falls within the domain of a given project, even if the subject has never been broached on that article before, seems to conflict with normal process and is an activity upon which the broader community deserves review and B) this rule is apparently being enforced across a large number of articles. However, as -- despite some strong feelings on the legitimacy and advisability of this activity -- I am unfamiliar with the history of the debate within that project itself, I'm not sure I'm the ideal candidate to launch such an RfC and wonder if someone else with that knowledge might not be better suited to the task. However, if no one responds within a day or two, I'll attend to the task myself. Snow talk 06:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

a) I don't know which "rule" (prohibiting infoboxes) you are referring to; I don't think there is any such thing nor is there a rule mandating them. b) What do you want to be commented on in your proposed RfC? That Chopin should have an inbox? That all biographies should have them? That all articles, wherever possible, should have an infobox? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

"I have reverted the infobox added by another editor. This is per policy of Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers, as per numerous discussions.--Smerus"

That's the very first posting of this thread. It's succinct and blunt and I think illustrates rather clearly what "rule" I am talking about. I don't think we need to parse words here as to the language employed by those engaged in the activity under discussion. Suffice it to say, if certain statements made here by parties to both sides of the issue are to be taken at face value, a group of editors in the afore-mentioned project have come to an understanding between themselves that infoboxes are to be avoided in articles pertaining to composers and are presenting this as "policy" and "consensus" on the matter with regard to articles they perceive within the project's scope. That's a matter of record in this discussion (and apparently exhaustive record elsewhere). Such statements are a massive misrepresentation of what constitutes both policy and consensus on Wikipedia, where content for an article is determined on that individual article's talk page and a handful of other venues for central discussion and where policy is formed through broad community consensus, not a handful of editors on a Wikiproject, whose affiliation through shared interest in a given topic does not grant them special rights to determine how content it to be treated withing articles they self-determine to be of primary interest to them first. It is basically blatantly WP:OWN behaviour, institutionalized and applied to a broad swath of articles and problematic in a great number of ways.

As to B), I don't know what in anything that I stated could make you think that I am advocating either of the latter two proposals, but if you genuinely do, I think you need to reread my statements carefully. Clearly I think the focus of the RfC (if it is to be conducted here) should by on whether the infobox is appropriate to this article, since the entire gist of my comments is that broad rules for content should not be decided upon by a limited number of editors, but rather through the appropriate central community venues already set up for those purposes. That being said, there are broader issues not restrained to the content of the present article at work here that the greater Wikipedia community should be aware of, which is why listing of this discussion at the above-mentioned spaces is appropriate, so that a parallel discussion can take place about these issues as they apply broadly. Regardless, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making strawman arguments implying I am supporting the equal and opposite radical argument from the one I am opposing here. My interest in drawing scrutiny to these activities has much less to do with any especially strong feelings on infoboxes and when they are and aren't appropriate than it does upon what I view as usurpation of regular process by editors who seem to be labouring under misapprehensions about the role of Wikiprojects and how content decisions are made on Wikipedia. If my position in that regard was not clear before, I hope it is now. Snow talk 08:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

If all this is about my initial statement, where I sloppily wrote the word 'policy' instead of 'consensus', I refer readers to the Wikipedia composers project which I misquoted (mea maxima culpa): 'It is the consensus of this WikiProject that the lead should not contain an infobox, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes, "without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page".' My wording was wrong, but my sentiments were, I believe, unexceptionable: I brought the issue to the talk page for discussion. That discussion, as Snow Rise him/herself has stated, was without consensus. The project has no 'policy', but it has a point of view - just as, apparently, Snow Rise has. They happen to be different. But it is wrong to use my clumsiness as a stick to beat the heads of others. It is Snow Rise who is making a 'straw man' of the alleged 'usurpation of regular process by editors who seem to be labouring under misapprehensions about the role of Wikiprojects and how content decisions are made on Wikipedia'.--Smerus (talk) 09:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, I based my interpretation of the situation not just on your statements, mistaken or otherwise, but upon the comments of multiple editors here, stating that this is an ongoing pattern of behaviour. You'll note that I overtly held back from formulating the RfC myself because I lack insight into the history of this debate, but I will say that I've seen enough on this page alone to have concerns. If, for example, we do replace "policy" for "consensus" in that statement, it still suggests to me a marked misunderstanding of how that concept is treated on Wikipedia. And I referenced it not to single you out or to pounce upon other editors, but rather to distinguish the behaviour in response to the implication of the previous post that there was no systematic behaviour at work at all, by showing that this "rule of thumb" or whatever others may choose to call it, was invoked from word go. Sorry, but a guideline decided upon by a group of editors in a Wikiproject cannot be used as a policy argument (or per-existent consensus) within any article those editors choose. A common interest does not grant priority to your perspective in any article which you deem central to that interest, nor can you use the canned rationale established within that context to bolster your claim for a particular course of action on a specific article through the suggestion that the opposing view is already fighting against established consensus when the discussion has not even begun on that page. That's just not how Wikipedia operates and I wonder if you see why that approach is problematic on many fronts and where it is in conflict with existing policy, procedure and community consensus. I don't think I find your sentiments exceptionable per say, but I do find them exceptional relative to the broad community views on such matters. Regardless, the one point we seem to agree upon is that consensus has not been reached in the discussion thus far, so RfC is the next logical step, in any event. Snow talk 10:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this. In that case, before starting an RfC you might care to take a look here to ensure that you are not just raking over old ashes. The findings of fact under the decision there last September included "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." This seems to indicate clearly that discussion at an article pre-empts the need for an over-ruling RfC. As it is agreed there has been no consensus to add an infobox at this article, the matter would seem to rest. Best, --Smerus (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Errr, no - a lack a of consensus means we keep striving for consensus, not that we arbitrarily adopt the position that one side perceives as the "default" perspective. Especially when their desire to institute that perspective as a default is part of the crux of the discussion to begin with. Augmenting consensus when discussion has hit a dead end is exactly the purpose for which RfCs exist. I can appreciate that you don't want the situation building to the point where you find yourself the subject of an arbitration ruling again, but clearly that arbitration did not entirely resolve this issue in the minds of some involved editors. And a desire to avoid that conflict is no argument to avoid having a necessary content discussion, especially if the party expressing a desire to avoid that discussion is also insisting upon still keeping the content as they would prefer. So long as everyone holds tight to WP:Civility, there is no reason to fear this process and it will have net benefit in terms of consensus. It's a pity that ArbCom's recommendation that "a well-publicized community discussion be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article." was not adopted by involved editors before now; if it hasn't happened yet, despite the strong feelings of a not insignificant number of editors, I'm not sure what will get the ball rolling, but maybe this discussion is the thing to get it done. Regardless, the discussion as regards this page is clearly not yet resolved, and there are some systemic issues at work here that touch upon violations of serious behavioural policies. Those discussions need not take place at the same locales, per say, but there's nothing to stop them from running parallel to each-other and informing upon one-another. Snow talk 22:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I beg your pardon: I am not aware of anything that I have done which would make me 'the subject of an arbitration ruling again.' Perhaps you could advise me what you mean by this? I have tried simply to advise you of previous discussion of this topic. If you have a complaint to make, please do so forthrightly. Thanks. --Smerus (talk) 08:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I have no charge to make. I think you're seeing implication where none was intended. My goal with that particular sentence was to say something that made it clear I was not being dismissive of your concerns while in the course explaining why the action you suggested was not viable. As far as I can tell from the ArbCom finding, you were advised in it (and advised only, not censured) to try to remember to be civil in discussions on this topic; you have made no breech of civility worth noting here that I have seen. I was only thinking as to the limited reasons why you would want to avoid this discussion and chose, for the sake of good-will, to speculate on the reason that seemed most reasonable and put you in the best light, and then proceeded to talk about why we still needed the RfC, in that light. I'd be blunt and upfront with you if I felt there was an ArbCom level complaint to be made, trust me. Snow talk 10:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this, fully understood.--Smerus (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Return to Poland and preiere of F minor Piano Concerto

I've restored Dank's version (i.e. with the later comma) of the sentence "On his return to Poland in December 1829, he premiered his Piano Concerto No. 2 in F minor, Op. 21, at the Warsaw Merchants' Club." This is because, according to Grove's Dictionary (subscription access, sorry), this concerto was premiered on 17 March 1830. (Grove doesn't mention the Warsaw Merchants' Club, nor does it give the date of Chopin's return to Poland.) @Smerus: could you check your sources on these data please? --Stfg (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Will do. This is part of the original article which I included on an AGF basis because of the EB reference. As I don't have EB of that edition, I may rewrite the section, using Grove etc.--Smerus (talk) 06:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Done--Smerus (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's much better. --Stfg (talk) 10:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Information on milder forms of cystic fibrosis

I am skeptical that Chopin had cystic fibrosis. This claim will need more than one promulgating article to gain traction. However there are milder forms of CF than remain undiagnosed for years, even decades. But because they are milder, do not present as the intense variety of which we usually think. The article, "Cystic fibrosis – a probable cause of Frédéric Chopin’s suffering and death" by Lucyna Majka, Joanna Gozdzik, and Michal Witt, ''Journal of Applied Genetics'', 44(1), 2003. pp. 77-84, does lightly discuss this, but seems bent on comparing the intense form with Chopin's documented and presumed symptoms. Also, I find it troubling and undermining that a journal of any stature would allow spelling or typographical errors to exist in an article, let alone the number that appears in this one.

When did he become ill? In an archived comment from Chopin's Talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Chopin/Archive_1#Fact_check, the writer states that s/he has read in the book given below that: "4) A letter from Chopin's sister states that he died from a disease of the chest which had affected [sic] his lungs. And goes on to state that he had this disease for 30 years. A strange thing is that the biography mentiones [sic] Tuberculosis in a summary but nowhere in the text. I guess the only thing that can be said with certainty is that C. died of a long [sic - "lung"?] disease." This would mean that the man was about nine years old when he developed lung symptoms. That is beyond the age when people afflicted would have died from the intense form in that era, since the WP article on cystic fibrosis states: "In 1959, the median age of survival of children with cystic fibrosis in the United States was six months." Source book given by the commenter: Helse liefde : biografisch essay over Marie d'Agoult, Frédéric Chopin, Franz Liszt, George Sand by F L Bastet, Amsterdam, 1997 (apparently extensive at over 700 pages) - http://www.worldcat.org/title/helse-liefde-biografisch-essay-over-marie-dagoult-frederic-chopin-franz-liszt-george-sand/oclc/37748760 [Per Bing Translator: Infernal love: biographical essay over Marie d'Agoult, Frédéric Chopin, Franz Liszt, George Sand.]

Although the the Chopin Talk page mentions clubbing of the fingers connected to CF in some comments, his WP article does not. Perhaps this means that there is no reliable source that says Chopin had it? It would have been obvious since he was a superb pianist and composer, unable to hide his hands when playing or writing. In addition, his toes would have exhibited clubbing, too, yet there's no mention of that, either. An intimate-turned-nurse like Georges Sand would have seen the clubbing. Symptoms like hemoptysis, clubbing, diarrhea are caused by other conditions, too. And it's always possible that the man was unfortunate enough to have more than one condition concurrently.

I think that to say in the article that CF as a cause of death is "debated" (only one source is discussed in any of the Talk page comments for the claim) is to give it undue weight.

This New York Times interview with Dr. Preston W. Campbell III discusses the milder forms of CF, diagnosed at a later date than infancy, among other points. At the time (maybe still - I didn't check), he was executive vice president for medical affairs at the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and a pediatric pulmonologist at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore: "Expert Q & A: Cystic Fibrosis, Complicated and Variable" by Carolyn Sayre, published 24 April 2009 - http://www.nytimes.com/ref/health/healthguide/esn-cystic-fibrosis-expert.html

Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this, but I think you may be making heavy weather here. The article does not say (and I don't think ever has said) that 'CF as a cause of death is "debated" ', although the introductory sentence, which I amn ow editing, does use the word 'debate'. It mentions, with citation, that CF symptoms may resemble tuberculosis, but concludes "it seems likely that he suffered from pulmonary tuberculosis." This seems in line with what you say and I think to have a detailed technical discussion of medical coditions in the article would be WP:UNDUE. Best, --Smerus (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% about the technical medical discussion being WP:Undue. I personally believe that too much space is already given to the thin cystic fibrosis theory, which was my point, oblique as that may have been. B^) I see the "a matter of discussion" phrasing here now that you have pointed it out. I confused the George Sand article, which does use the "debate" term. I'm afraid I'm guilty of wanting to make one comment apply for both articles. Although there were certainly other lung conditions unknown, or even as yet unemerged, at the time, they certainly had vivid experiences with TB until fairly recently. Many members of my own family died of TB in the 19th century, passed from parent to child and even into other families when they were united by marriage. Thank you for your comment, Wordreader (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Wordreader in suspecting that mention of cystic fibrosis is probably undue. I wonder if it isn't even original synthesis. The only source for the two sentences about CF is a paper in the British Medical Journal titled "Life-table for Cystic Fibrosis". JSTOR (my only hope of viewing this source) doesn't go this far back with the BMJ, but please would someone check whether it discusses Chopin and draws the stated conclusion, as opposed to discussing just CF. If the latter, the CF theory is looking like a strawman, and it should probably go. --Stfg (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand see e.g. here, here and here. Moreover, the WP article Chopin's disease gives a number of other possible illnesses, most of them cited. So there clearly has been 'discusssion' (at beyond the strawman level it seems) as the article states, about not only CF but other illnesses. These discussions seem to have ended with the conclusion, as in the article, that tuberculosis was the villain. If we delete mention of the discussion in the article, we open the way to edit wars about promoting alternative solutions.--Smerus (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I take back some of what I have said; I've located the 1966 article and it is not fit for purpose as a citation here. I'm preparing a rewrite.--Smerus (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Wordreader, Stfg, please see my rewrite and new sources in the text, hope this suits. Best, --Smerus (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Smerus: thanks. That looks very good. --Stfg (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Sources

The original picture appears to be in several websites and they all point to the same description. One of them says it was recovered during World War II. It also says original was lost which could explain the decay on the present copy. There is even assumption that the picture might have been reversed somehow.

Sources include:

http://www.left-hand-brofeldt.dk/Catalogue_c.htm
http://www.coindumusicien.com/Fredchop/Image/phtchop_1846.html (a black/white restoration)
http://jackgibbons.blogspot.com/2010/03/chopins-photograph.html

This colorized restoration was made by me. Please make sure to know all the facts before reverting. Although you ended up doing the "right thing" it's still considered bad taste to just revert an edit upon assumptions. A little more looking around in the web wouldn't have hurt. --Molokaicreeper (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. I apologise for my overhasty reaction, and your comments on this are quite correct. I don't believe that the sources you cite from the web can qualify as appropriate secondary sources for Wikipedia as regards the credibility of this image, whose origins are very unclear. It shouldn't in itself be part of this article unless it can be justified on scholarly grounds. As regards your reconstruction - it is admirable and enterprising - but I don't think it can qualify for WP. Really it is a version of WP:OR, as you yourself admit that 'I used my faithful judgement and also made assumptions'. I don't for a moment question your good faith, but our own ideas about what photos ought to look like, however we justify them, are not material for WP. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

A bit more: I see that Jack Gibbons admits that the photo 'has not been taken...seriously' and that he himself implies (in the source cited by Molokaicreeper) that it is his enthusiasm for the photo which has resulted in it being more widely disseminated, after it was (apparently) 'discovered' by a Dr. O'Shea. It would seem that all citation of this photo comes from O'Shea, or Gibbons via O'Shea. O'Shea, in turn , gives his source as 'Fryderyk Chopin Society in Warsaw'. The Fryderyk Chopin Institute (successor to the FC Society) does not include this picture in their own website, as far as I can see. Gibbon 'believes' the original was destroyed in World War II. My own WP:OR contribution is that, if this picture was known to the FS Society before WWII, it is very surprising that there was no reproduction or publication of it.... --Smerus (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps not enough effort has been employed in the investigation toward the origins of this picture, and it is understandable. This picture was shot 167 years ago, but there is no telling if a certain diseased someone somewhere had a copy of this in their cellar and it's yet to be found. The photographer himself who took it may have left a buried box somewhere that the world is not aware of. Who knows? Although Chopin was a famous composer, there have been anomalies and accidents for which wreckage is still found after many hundreds of years, as archaeologists dig abandoned villages that have been buried, bones belonging to a certain important person found, graves examined, etc. There are studies that reveal lots of previously unknown facts from the Titanic for example, and of course I could keep mentioning. Sadly there was no way to confirm this picture's originality, and because of that it is not taken serious. That's Chopin though, there is no question that it isn't him; I've no doubt it is. Also, the possibility that the daguerreotype picture might be reversed, was a common thing in those days and the fact that Chopin probably didn't take it serious himself (black/white low quality portrait vs. full color paintings in those days) much like dot matrix b/w printers from the 80s. Either way, I will continue to research this. There might be a book or an encyclopedia somewhere that speaks about it, or there will be more about it spoken someday. This is just not the time. Thanks though. --Molokaicreeper (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Molokaicreeper: - Keep us in touch here on the talk page with anything you find out - many thanks.--Smerus (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)