Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Witold Lutosławski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Witold Lutosławski

This is an article on a major 20th century classical composer, which seems comprehensive to me. It's a partial self-nom; I carried out a significant rewrite in May, since when it has undergone peer review which resulted in several improvements. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • As seems all too common with our Polish history articles, even the well-written ones like this, there's a right-wing nationalist perspective pervading them. The anti-Soviet bias in particular knows no bounds, even in an article on a composer: "It was with his substantial Concerto for Orchestra, also completed in 1954, that Lutosławski made his name. Much of the work is based on folk music, and in what may be seen as a cynical attempt to imply that this was in accord with the authorities' principles he was awarded the State Prize for Music." Must evil motives be attributed to every action of the socialist government, even such a harmless measure as awarding a prize for a musical piece? This kind of thing gets kind of nauseating to read after a while, no matter how well it's written. NPOV needs to come first. Everyking 08:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry it nauseates you. The point is that the award was made for the government's political ends, and not because they loved his music (it's plain they didn't approve on the whole). I see no "evil motives" implied in the article; awarding a prize for political reasons seems to me to fall under the category of patronage, which any government does; surely this behaviour can be described as cynical (conduct in self-interest). I believe the passage is true and relevant. Lutosławski himself was not pleased at the award - knowing what I do about him I believe he thought it was cynical; Charles Bodman Rae knew the composer well, and his book (referenced in the article) implies cynicism. Is it the word "cynical" you object to? Would you like it to be replaced with "political" (I would have no objection). Or can you suggest an alternative? I should be grateful if you would be more specific, otherwise there's no way for me to address the objection. And Are there any more examples of "right-wing nationalist" POV you see in the article that I can address? --RobertG ♬ talk 09:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I'd say replace the word 'cynical', it does sounds fairly POVish. Perhaps you can expand the relevant para with information (and source) you gave above; does Rae actually uses the word 'cynical' - or is it your own interpretation? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Slept on it. Agree with Piotrus: I will recast the sentence incorporating Antandrus' sensible take on it below. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Allow me to execute a complete volte-face. I checked up and find I must have been confused. It was the Prime Minister's prizes for the little pieces of "functional music" which Lutosławski viewed as wilfully misrepresenting his works as supportive of the artistic aims of the regime, and my mind had conflated those awards with the State prizes of 1955. So I have recast the sentence altogether. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. All three images in the article are claimed as public domain, but Image:Lutoslawski.jpg is from a copyrighted web site, and Image:Lutoslawski3.jpg is from a page with a photographer's copyright statement. I'd like some evidence that the images are indeed in the public domain. --Carnildo 19:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh dear; the uploader is currently on vacation. She did assure me here that they really are public domain. Advice, please. --RobertG ♬ talk 20:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The trouble is that Karol Langner, who uploaded the images, has already done this I believe. I don't understand why Wikipedia needs it to be done again, to the inconvenience of the parties already contacted. Carnildo's objection is that he'd "like some evidence", which I am sure Karol could supply if she were not on vacation, hence my reluctance to repeat her efforts. I've left a request on Karol's talk page. Is there something Karol omitted to do? Would Carnildo's objection be met by removing the two images from the article pending production of evidence to his satisfaction? --RobertG ♬ talk 11:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
      • In that case, all Karol needs to do is paste copies of the emails involved onto the relevant image description pages. It's not sufficient to simply get permission: it's also neccessary to demonstrate this to the community. --Carnildo 17:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Hi! First of all, I'm happy there's so much interest in the article. As to the images: 1) image from Polish music Center: I recieved information from the manager of PMC via email that to "the bast of his knowledge the image is in the Public Domain". 2) image by W.P. and L.K.: I have contacted the author of this photograph personally (it was made during a photographing session in the composer's house) and he has allowed the use of this image in Wikipedia as long as it has the annotation I added (the one currently there); notice the lack of the watermark present in all images on the author's web page - he sent me the original image. What and where should I provide as evidence? I am currently on vacation and will be looking in here not so often. Ciao! Karol 18:07, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • For (1), it's simply a matter of copy-and-pasting the email into the image description page. For (2), it sounds like the correct copyright tag is {{attribution}}, not {{PD}}. I've made the change. --Carnildo 21:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the change. I'm afraid I don't have access to those emails right now. I am really "out in the wild" during my vacation, and my email archives are at home. I inquired for a copy of that email from the addresser, which I may or may not get before finishing vacation. Also (I'm not oriented in the procedure) - is this common practice to paste such "evidence", i.e. emails, on the image description page? Can you provide examples of such image description pages? Karol 06:44, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
          • It's official procedure for cases where we explicitly get permission to use something, or for cases where the copyright status is not immediately obvious. It doesn't happen very often -- I've only seen it two or three times -- so I couldn't come up with an example. --Carnildo 04:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
            • I'm back between trips and online for a few days, so we can settle this once and for all. I got another email from the manager of the Polish Music Center, and she asked specifically this time if it is "possible to give recognition to the photographer, Betty Freeman?" I have added a note in the image description. Should it now also have an Attribution tag like the other photo or PD? And in this case is the email still neccesary? Karol 11:52, August 31, 2005 (UTC) P.S. I have copied the relevant fragments of two emails concerning the doubted image. Is this what is needed? Also, I'm not sure if the way I formatted the fragments is OK. Karol 16:15, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
              • Looks good to me. Support. --Carnildo 19:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; well-written, thorough, and accurate. A couple of minor things: that one line Everyking objects to could be done better (I'm not really sure what it means). Lutosławski was using folk music before the political climate became arctic in the late 1940s, and he continued developing in that direction not only because he had to, but because it was the most logical course of development harmonious with his own goals, with other paths effectively blockaded by the "anti-formalism" Stalinists. I'm interpreting a little here, but the Concerto for Orchestra was both a very honest work along the main line of his development, as well as being harmonious to the aims of the committee (that wasn't to remain the case with later work!) He did a lot of writing of "little pieces" under a pseudonym ("Derwid") that could be mentioned (this is from the Grove article). The issue with the images--well, you just might have to wait for verification from the USC website; if they are PD, they'll probably let you use them, sooner or later. (I don't know of any source for PD images on him.) Also, inevitably someone will ask for musical samples: since nothing will be available PD, maybe some external links can be found. Nice article! Antandrus (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Reads well, I did comment more during PR. I wonder - are there no public domains samples of his work we can link? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Found an mp3 download of Variations on a theme by Paganini and added it. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Written in a clear style and nicely structured. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It's good, but needs a serious editing job, which I've started by running through the opening section. I'll try to complete this over the next few days. I'll end up giving this article my support. Tony 11:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC) The music section is not there yet! This should be the crux of the article. Tony 10:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure I agree with the music section not being there yet. The section is relatively short, and could perhaps in time be expanded, but a lot of discussion of the music is interspersed with the biography, and the music discussion is far bigger than for, say, the Mozart article! --RobertG ♬ talk 17:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Balcer 14:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support User:Nichalp/sg 06:52, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This article has really come a long way in the past 2-3 months. Karol 11:26, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Mature, comprehensive and complete article. --Lysy (talk) 09:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)