Chip-chip-2020 (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
:Dear [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]], please remember the [[Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding|basic rules]] of Wikipedia. And remember, that this is the talk-Page of an article about a Waltz.--[[User:Chip-chip-2020|Chip-chip-2020]] ([[User talk:Chip-chip-2020|talk]]) 11:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC) |
:Dear [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]], please remember the [[Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding|basic rules]] of Wikipedia. And remember, that this is the talk-Page of an article about a Waltz.--[[User:Chip-chip-2020|Chip-chip-2020]] ([[User talk:Chip-chip-2020|talk]]) 11:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
::It seems clear that the Zurich IP edits of 12 November were made by you; so it is hard to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. As more experienced editors have noticed (those that brought [[Frédéric Chopin]] to [[WP:FA]]), your edits have been [[WP:SPA|single purpose]]—to push the idea that Chopin might have been gay, and to diminish Chopin's connections with women. These edits to a musical stub[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waltzes,_Op._70_(Chopin)&oldid=993848177] seem [[WP:UNDUE|unbalanced]]. Shoe-horning sexual material into an article on Chopin's early waltzes seems like [[WP:CPUSH]]. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 11:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC) |
::It seems clear that the Zurich IP edits of 12 November were made by you; so it is hard to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. As more experienced editors have noticed (those that brought [[Frédéric Chopin]] to [[WP:FA]]), your edits have been [[WP:SPA|single purpose]]—to push the idea that Chopin might have been gay, and to diminish Chopin's connections with women. These edits to a musical stub[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waltzes,_Op._70_(Chopin)&oldid=993848177] seem [[WP:UNDUE|unbalanced]]. Shoe-horning sexual material into an article on Chopin's early waltzes seems like [[WP:CPUSH]]. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 11:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
{{cot|Off-topic}} |
|||
[[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] stop spreading such accusations on various talk pages, and remember the outcome of your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=994357084 request] was void.--[[User:Chip-chip-2020|Chip-chip-2020]] ([[User talk:Chip-chip-2020|talk]]) 09:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC) |
[[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] stop spreading such accusations on various talk pages, and remember the outcome of your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=994357084 request] was void.--[[User:Chip-chip-2020|Chip-chip-2020]] ([[User talk:Chip-chip-2020|talk]]) 09:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
{{cob}} |
Revision as of 13:50, 10 January 2021
Classical music | ||||
|
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Sixteen Waltzes, Op. 39 (Brahms) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Chopin's "ideal"
This article currently identifies Chopin's "ideal" as his schoolmate, Tytus Woyciechowski.
This is in error, as explained on "Talk:Chopin", in the section "Chopin's homosexuality"; and at "Talk:Tytus Woyciechowski".
Chopin's "ideal" (in the original Polish, ideał – "person of [his] dreams") is clearly the young singer, Konstancja Gładkowska, of whom he was enamored.
Nihil novi (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- I have deleted the misinformation concerning Chopin's friend Tytus Woyciechowski
- Nihil novi (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- thank you for spending so much time on editing, Nihil novi. But delete almost content is definitely not appropriate, since the improvements were added with citations.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, this is misinformation coupled with WP:COATRACK and WP:ACTIVISM. Mathsci (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Dear Mathsci, please cool down a bit. I don‘t understand why you talk about misinformation and why you deleted relevant content. In this letter, Chopin writes about this waltz, about what was the inspiration for it, about how it should be played, so it is a very relevant source also for interpreters. That he composed it for Tytus is obvious, since he writes at the very end of the letter that he wanted to give Tytus pleasure with it, because he loves him madly.[1][2] So the case seems to be quite clear, or not? And since these are the only indications Chopin makes about this piece, the quote is even more precious.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not.
- Nihil novi (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not?--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Response to your rhetorical question above.
- Further, please see user:Smerus's and my comments on the matter at "Talk:Tytus Woyciechowski".
- Best,
- Nihil novi (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not?--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Dear Mathsci, please cool down a bit. I don‘t understand why you talk about misinformation and why you deleted relevant content. In this letter, Chopin writes about this waltz, about what was the inspiration for it, about how it should be played, so it is a very relevant source also for interpreters. That he composed it for Tytus is obvious, since he writes at the very end of the letter that he wanted to give Tytus pleasure with it, because he loves him madly.[1][2] So the case seems to be quite clear, or not? And since these are the only indications Chopin makes about this piece, the quote is even more precious.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, this is misinformation coupled with WP:COATRACK and WP:ACTIVISM. Mathsci (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- thank you for spending so much time on editing, Nihil novi. But delete almost content is definitely not appropriate, since the improvements were added with citations.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Well I did, and I couldn‘t find any good points or reliable sources in the discussion of the two of you there either, which would justify deleting almost the whole article here - which you did.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Happy new year, Nihil novi.
- 1. Could you answer the questions please?
- 2. And please explain also, why you wrote in the Chopin-Talk that you deleted my contributions but actually it was Mathsci who deleted it?
- 3. And why do you believe, that it is an error, that Chopin‘s ideal was Tytus? You say it is clearly Gladkowska, but her name doesn‘t appear in the whole letter[3], the pronouns (like „nim“) are indicating a male, and even the translator David Frick told the Guardian it was possible that Chopin was referring to Woyciechowski.[4].--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- The citation was from Professor John Rink's C.U.P. book Chopin: The Piano Concertos (1997). It is a WP:RS, explicitly mentioned in the discussion section of the RfC on Talk:Frédéric Chopin: Rink gives a long quotation where the "ideal" is discussed in its proper context. Please follow the reference there for Rink's quotation. If you have any questions with Rink's book, please ask at WP:RSN. This article is a classical music stub on a piece of piano music by Frédéric Chopin.
- You should probably ask User:Nihil novi for clarification again, as he was the first user to notice the edits of the IPs from Zurich, which were followed by identical edits by your recently registered account. Mathsci (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ David Frick, Chopin‘s polish letters, The Fryderyk Chopin Institute, Warsaw 2016, pp. 138-140.
- ^ https://en.chopin.nifc.pl/chopin/letters/detail/person_out/6308/id/664
- ^ https://chopin.nifc.pl/en/chopin/list/664_to-tytus-woyciechowski-in-poturzyn
- ^ https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/nov/25/chopins-interest-in-men-airbrushed-from-history-programme-claims
Well, Nihil novi didn‘t answer question 3 by now. And a publication more than 20 years old like John Rink’s is probably outdated anyway. I‘ll have a look at it though.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Meatpuppetry in Zurich
On 12 November 2020 there were two edits by IPs from Zurich, Switzerland, where Moritz Weber is based. They concerned Weber;'s theories about Chopin's personal life. The IPs' edits were reverted by another editor, User:Nihil novi. The edits were then reinstated by the newly registered account User:Chip-chip-2020. They had the same tone, content and German punctuation as the Zurich IPs. User:Chip-chip-2020 has a single purpose. To prove that all of Chopin's relationships with women were a sham and that Chopin has or or more male lover, drawn from his schoolfriends. That is more more less a summary of Weber's theory. In addition Weber's webpage refers to the Chopin entry for de.wikipedia.org, with a clickable link: there is a complaint that the Weber theory's about Chopin keep getting reverted. Mathsci (talk) 10:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Dear Mathsci, please remember the basic rules of Wikipedia. And remember, that this is the talk-Page of an article about a Waltz.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- It seems clear that the Zurich IP edits of 12 November were made by you; so it is hard to assume good faith. As more experienced editors have noticed (those that brought Frédéric Chopin to WP:FA), your edits have been single purpose—to push the idea that Chopin might have been gay, and to diminish Chopin's connections with women. These edits to a musical stub[1] seem unbalanced. Shoe-horning sexual material into an article on Chopin's early waltzes seems like WP:CPUSH. Mathsci (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Off-topic
|
---|
Mathsci stop spreading such accusations on various talk pages, and remember the outcome of your request was void.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 09:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC) |