Talk:Charles-Valentin Alkan

Ableist phrasing
Per @Mathsci's request (here) I'm opening up the conversation about how disabilities are being described as "suffering". This phrasing is editorializing and problematic as it implies that the lives of those with Asperger's, schizophrenia, and ocd are less valued. There is a long standing recommendation from people in the disability community and the field of psychology to not use editorialized language. See discussions (here) and (here) Smasongarrison (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The principal creator of this article is User:Smerus, who in RL is David Conway (music historian). Charles-Valentin Alkan came from a different era (1813–1888), that of Delacroix and Sand. It is completely anachronistic to try to apply 21st-century terminology to the life and music of a nineteenth-century Jewish composer and virtuoso pianist, well known as a recluse. The article of Stephanie McCallum in the bibliography has not been consulted by Smasongarrison: there are comments in Archive 1 of the article talk page.Talk:Charles-Valentin Alkan/Archive 1.
 * The use of the word "ableism" seems as inappropriate to Alkan as it would be (and has been) to Vincent van Gogh: Smasongarrison has made similar "ableist" changes to that WP:featured article, which have been reverted. Their campaign has not been properly explained and verges on some misguided attempt to right all wrongs, as evidenced by their indiscriminate spamming/vandalism of multiple articles in a self-indulgent spree of edits, churned out like an unstoppable bot with no apparent thought applied. In these circumstances some kind of editing restriction would normally be appropriate, since some amateurish script seems to have been used. The article Diary of a Madman (short story) has also been subjected to the same ill-thought-out semi-mechanised bot script of Smasongarrison. Their changes are not politically correct and verge on being offensive, since no thought has been applied.
 * The campaign/crusade as a bot-like script only causes offence to wikipedia editors. I defer to the judgement of Smerus/David Conway, who is far more of an expert. Mathsci (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Regardless of my alleged expertise, the issues here are simply about WP citation standards and the English language. McCallum suggests Alkan may have had these disorders and that they may have detracted from his social, physical and mental abilities. That is, (in normal English usage), that he suffered from them. The sentence in the article reflects these comments by McCallum. There is absolutely nothing in the present phrasing that suggests that "the lives of those with Asperger's, schizophrenia, and ocd are less valued." (But if the cited source had suggested that there was - which she absolutely did not - the principle of WP would remain to report what authorities write). If Smasongarrison has a reliable source that states, either that Alkan did not have these illnesses, or that, having them, they had no effect on his social, physical or mental abilities, then they are welcome to edit the article appropriately. I comment in passing that the purpose of WP is to convey knowledge, not any individual's ideas of virtue. Principles of WP include to avoid seeking to impose editor's own interpretations. Discussions on 'ableism' on Smasongarrison's own talk page do not consitute WP standards; if this is a matter of concern for Smasongarrison they should consult WP:PROPOSALS, rather than indiscriminately editing individual articles as itemised above by Mathsci.--Smerus (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree that with @Smerus and @Mathsci. But honestly, I don't have the bandwidth to itemize their responses. The principles of WP are also to remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate WP:EPSTYLE. Removing the phrase "suffering" does that and is consistent with other well-respected style guides such as the APA with has a section on bias-free language https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/disability Smasongarrison (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "I don't have the bandwidth to itemize their responses" means; but I take it to mean that Smasongarisson does not intend to make a reply to the points raised. There is no WP guide which condemns using the word "suffering". I have carefully read the APA link cited by Smasongarrison and have found absolutely nothing in their guidance (which seems to me to be perfectly sensible) that would impugn the use of the word "suffering" in the present context. As I see, by the way, from their talkpage that Smasongarrison has a professional interest in the issue they have raised, might I suggest that they carefully consult WP:EXTERNALREL before continuing or extending their campaign (if that is what they are intending to do)?--Smerus (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "I don't have the bandwidth to itemize their responses" it means that I am preoccupied with a personal family matter that is taking up a lot of my mental bandwidth. Benchmarking and copy-editing is supposed to be a stress-reducing distraction for me. I honestly don't want to fight over this and am happy to shift my edits to something less controversial if it'll let me go back to copy-editing in peace. Smasongarrison (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is unconvincing, User:Smasongarrison, since you have continued making these "ableism" edits like a robot, quite aware of how offensive it is. With almost 40,000 edits, you have made no substantial content edits at all. By modifying the search term, your intention has not been to go back to copy-editing in peace; it has been to stir up matters by actively changing a macro to search for "suffer", "disability" or its variants. Mathsci (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please, just leave me alone. You're not assuming good faith, and I do not have the emotional energy to argue with you. Smasongarrison (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * just to note that I have once again changed "suffered from" to "had" Asperger's syndrome, as the use of "suffered" is deprecated by the manual of style at WP:SUFFER. This is an FA, an example of Wikipedia's best work and one of the requirements there is that it be MOS compliant. Note that I have also made a longer reply to Smerus here, following their note on my talk page. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am reverting again. WP:SUFFER is specifically a guideline for medical articles, as it states on its header. It is not applicable in the present circumstances.--Smerus (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Saying that he has Asperger's is a medical claim, therefore falls under the MOS for medical claims. Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason not to say "had Asperger's syndrome". THis is natural language also. Please stop reverting, this article needs to be MOS compliant. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Amakuru, this article is completely MOS compliant. As you are determined to assert yourself, I am setting up an RfC on this issue so that we can get proper editorial input.--Smerus (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Language and MoS
The issue can be reviewed in the exchanges by editors in the above section, "Ableist phrasing". It has been speculated that Alkan suffered from Aspergers syndrome and/or other ilnesses. This speculation is cited in the article. The use of the word 'suffer' was originally queried by User:Smasongarrison, and that query was contested by User:Mathsci and myself. Smasongarisson's justifications were basically on a WP:OR basis; when they were contested in the above section, Smasongarisson demurred from giving further explanation (although they did subsequently repeat their edit, which I reverted).

That might have been the end of the episode. What gives me concern here is that this episode was, for reasons I do not comprehend, brought up in a separate discussion on User:Mathsci, concerning another WP article, whch resulted in a site ban for Mathsci. I do not understand the issues of the formal objections in that discussion, I did not contribute to it (although for some reason my name was mentioned in it), and I have no views on the outcome or on the decision re Mathsci.

However it seems to have been as a consequence of that discussion, which had no bearing on the issues of the article Charles-Valentin Alkan, that User:Amakuru has resolved to repeat Smasongarrison's unsupported edit to this article. In doing so they have imo seriously misconstrued WP guidelines in a way which threatens the freedom of WP editors to use standard English in the way that they choose. In particular they have summonned to justify their edit WP:SUFFER - which is specifically a part of (quote) "the style guide for editing medical articles. The general rules from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style also apply when writing medical articles." The present article is not a medical article, and this guideline clearly does not apply here.

I set out again here my comments from the section above: "McCallum suggests Alkan may have had these disorders and that they may have detracted from his social, physical and mental abilities. That is, (in normal English usage), that he suffered from them. The sentence in the article reflects these comments by McCallum. There is absolutely nothing in the present phrasing that suggests that "the lives of those with Asperger's, schizophrenia, and ocd are less valued." "

The article might indeed use a direct citation by McCallum as follows: ""His life has been regarded as a puzzle – Ronald Smith calls it an enigma. I would like to speculate that - like Schumann, Wolff, Satie and possibly even Mozart – Alkan may have suffered from a serious mental illness which affected his ability to engage successfully with the world." (see McCallum ASB75). Are we to rewrite citations in line with prejudices about language? - that would seriously undermine WP as a work of reference.

I should be grateful for editors' opinions on this issue, which has very important implications far beyond this article. If editors are going to be nit-picked on their use of language by anyone who wishes to construe that certain words, part of everday discourse, may risk offending some others - then the foundations of Wikipedia are imo theatened.--Smerus (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a neutral framing as required for an RFC. See further background at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It also isn't brief, which makes it look very strange at Requests for comment/Biographies. @Smerus, could you try summarizing this in one or two sentences? Maybe something like "How should we deal with the posthumous diagnosis of Alkan by pianist Stephanie McCallum in the Alkan Society newsletter?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

For information. The issue at the heart of this RfC is also now raised by User:Amakuru's post on the talk page of Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles.--Smerus (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think this is a pretty hairy introduction for an RfC, and guarantees nothing will be resolved. I think the "suffered from" phrasing is just fine, though I acknowledge the real difficulties of describing illness or disability without implying moral or normative judgement. To say a person suffers from migraines is not to say she must always and at all times be in a state of suffering. It is silly to say "she suffers from migraines" makes any claim about the value of her life. I think it is fine for disabled persons and their advocates to argue that they are in a meaningful sense undiminished, and have perhaps even moved beyond the desire to be made whole, satisfied with their lives as they are lived; but this is simplified by the absence of practical means to make them whole. When revolutionary therapies become available, they are often eagerly pursued. The presumption that illness or disability imposes some kind of suffering is not wholly unwarranted. "He endured robust good health." Jarring, no? Though in truth any life does involve a fair amount of endurance, it isn't the good health, per se, that one endures. What about, "He enjoyed tuberculosis"? But a consumptive's long decline was doubtless punctuated by happy episodes; and before effective treatment, the culture imagined the disease imbued the consumptive with exquisite sensitivity, a kind of wan, poetic half-life—a kind of upside. Nobody talks like that anymore; tuberculosis is just a repulsive and horrifying disease. Of course, something like schizophrenia is a little less cut-and-dried, to say nothing of Asperger's, whatever that turns out to be. It looks to me like McCallum is perfectly comfortable saying, precisely, that he suffered from whatever it was he suffered from, and this strengthens the case for using the word in a paraphrase. The only reason we are talking about it at all, the only reason historians are making wholly speculative diagnoses at a distance of almost a century, is that the evidence suggests that Alkan did, in fact, suffer from something, that something caused him suffering, and that that something might be something we are also trying to describe and understand in our contemporaries. However. All that notwithstanding, I think the "foundations of Wikipedia" are in no way threatened by the phrasing, "he may have had Asperger's". Regulov (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Stephanie McCallum has suggested that Alkan may have had Asperger syndrome, schizophrenia or obsessive–compulsive disorder.[82]. Stephanie McCallum is a pianist; why is her post-humous speculation included in the article at all (and yes, using the word suffer in this context is dreadful). First option: this is the wrong RFC--delete the phrase entirely, WP:UNDUE. Second preference, remove the word suffer. There are other general arguments in this case I have seen here and elsewhere and reject: 1) that Alkan came from a different era [so it] ... is completely anachronistic to try to apply 21st-century terminology; and 2) the notion that we have to accept this content because only three FAC reviewers did. I don't see sufficient independent review on the FAC, or medical reviewers. Further, the phrasing of this RFC is decidedly non-neutral and personalizing to individual editors. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * (summoned by bot). I read this bio (for the first time) and Stephanie McCallums 2007 opinion piece before reading the controversy /RFC. First, as a physician (though no psychiatrist) I am underwhelmed by the "evidence" of a particular mental disease here. Too many possible alternative explanations and even differential diagnoses come to mind. In particular, as Sandy Georgia has mentioned, diagnosing with a retrospectoscope especially when it comes to mental health, which is so dependent on societal norms is dangerous. Second, I think McCallum´s personal speculation in a field outside of her professional expertise as a pianist, published in a non-peer reviewed publication ( a society newsletter) is basically no reliable source. Hence inclusion of her rather narrow opinion is at the very least problematic, if not borderline admissible (blog like). IMO McCallum´s piece basically exposes her (even if she is an intimate connoisseur of his music) as an amateur. If she had been serious about this issue, she would have co-written it with a medical expert. So if this sentence of her medical opinion is to remain it should be worded much more cautiously. Had this been done, the subsequent controversy might not have arisen. I would definitely not expand the sentence with a direct citation of McCallum s opinion piece (as Smerus suggested), lending it more weight than it deserves.Lastly, like Regulov wrote, I would also not object to the word suffering in general, especially since Alkan used the term in one of his letters himself.  --Wuerzele (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Request Please leave me out of this discussion. I do not want to be drawn into a debate about this specific edit. I've already apologized for accidentally redoing the edit. The drama that resulted from this conversation has already taken up too much of my mental bandwidth. See my statement here on Mathsci's ANI for additional context  Mason (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment (invited by the bot). The really isn't an RFC, it has too many problems to be one.  But it sort of served a good purpose.  The first three respondents gave you / the editors here excellent advice and I would recommended just editing the article, being guided by that advice.  If you then get to a specific content question that you've already made an attempt in talk  to resolve, to formulate it as a new RFC which would be limited to a succinct statement of relevant background and then  a succinct statment of the content question.   Happy editing!  North8000 (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Pavlovian reflex against the use of the word "suffer" (and other related terms) is perplexing. Lully didn't have gangrene – he suffered until it killed him. Beethoven wasn't a person with a hearing impairment – he suffered from his deafness. Stephen Hawking wasn't a wheelchair user – he was wheelchair-bound (he said so). Alkan's letter to Hiller shows his suffering. These terms do not depict the subject as helpless – their life story attests to that. I'm also perplexed by the failure to understand that WP:RS works both ways. Wikipedia articles are expected to support assertions with citations. Flipside: if assertions in reliable sources are made, Wikipedia reports them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Further to all the above, I am wondering if there isn't some culture difference here, with those against "suffer" being (I believe) all based in the US. In the UK attitudes it appears are very different. The National Health Service is a leader in 'correct' language: and yet a little research yields these examples:
 * Addenbrooke's Hospital : "The Acute Stroke Unit and the Lewin Rehabilitation Unit combine to make the Stroke Unit, caring for patients who have suffered a stroke."
 * St. Thomas Hospital: "We see people who have suffered a stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA)"
 * King's College Hospital: "If you think you or a family member are suffering with the symptoms of a heart attack you must dial 999 immediately."

I suggest in this light that editors on both sides of the pond seek to respect the language uses of each other, rather than seek to impose formulaic 'rules' where standard practices differ, or to patronise those who differ and call their practices 'dreadful'.--Smerus (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I see nothing wrong with the language being used by Smerus, and it seems to accurately reflect the scholarship on the subject in published sources. Further the argument of ablest language to my mind is a WP:POVPUSH which threatens issues of accuracy, balance, and neutrality by editorializing encyclopedic content into a certain POV.4meter4 (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: leave "suffered" as the sources say, as Michael Bednarek explained. It's the historical way to look at this biography. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Having seen the discussion at MEDMOS, I discovered this was a source of the dispute. For crying out loud, folks, what a lot of nonsense written by folks who it seems are unable to accept someone might have a point about generally avoiding certain language, as though giving an inch and trying to get along with others, is the first step towards some kind of..., yes, I saw on talk MEDMOS, someone actually used the "censorship" word. You guys are editors. So show some editorial wisdom and choose your words wisely. Armchair speculation that someone in 1850 had Asperger's, over a century before the syndrome was so named and defined, is not "scholarship" but tripe. If you must insist on including it, neutrality is to state someone had Asperger's, etc. Foisting your or some pianists opinion that to have Aspergers is to "suffer" is POV pushing, and to claim instead that simply replacing it with a neutral "had" is POV pushing is spinning of the highest order. Why must you guys fight to be offensive, when it is far far simpler to just write "had" and perhaps then concentrate your energy on solid encyclopaedic facts about this composer. -- Colin°Talk 13:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Even simpler, stop framing the root of the problem as having anything to do with WP:MEDMOS (a guideline), and consider WP:DUE (a policy). A pianist's post-humous speculation about a medical condition does not belong in the article. That a (mere) three FAC reviewers missed that point is no reason to keep the content. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I fail to comprehend why it is that, because the music historian Stephanie McCallum is also a pianist, it should prevent her offering any opinionon the subject of Alkan. The objections set out by Colin just don't hold water; because (eg) no-one defined Aspergers as a condition until a certain date does not mean that nobody until then had that condition; and the dismissal of McCallum's suggestion as "armchair speculation" is just condescending and plain rude. You may not agree with McCallum; but she has as much right to comment on a musician as you do, (even if you are, as you claim, a physician). The issue here is not about the status of the authorities. Editors in WP have a responsibility to report dispassionately the opinions of reputable sources. It is not for us to cancel a responsible source because we disagree with it. We don't have to accept the wording because it was accepted at FAC - we should accept it because it is our job to report sources accurately. SandyGeorgia's insistence on the FAC aspect and McCallum's ability at the piano, Colin's denunciation of McCallum as "tripe", and of differing opinions as "a load of nonsense", are just crude attempts to avoid the issue. --Smerus (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to find a sentence in the above that is coherent, never mind correct. But for the record, no, I have never claimed to be a physician and "armchair diagnosis" is a thing, just google it, and unless Stephanie McCallum is a time-traveller as well as a neurologist... -- Colin°Talk 20:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Since when has Stephanie McCallum been a music historian? Her article doesn't mention it, neither does her own website and I have not found any other published work. As noted above by, this is an opinion piece (self-described as a "speculation") by a pianist that she edited from the text of a lecture-recital. It has neither received acknowledged medical input, nor been peer-reviewed. I doubt that it should be mentioned at all. Davidships (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting observation, and that source is used more than once in the article. A charity/advocacy organization is not the kind of source that would be/should be passing muster at FAC to support the kind of text it was used to cite. It doesn't look like a source review was done on the FAC, which was passed in a time period when sourcing scrutiny was lax, and prose nitpicks predominated.  Hopefully, this issue can be resolved once the RFC is concluded, to avoid WP:FARGIVEN. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove the claims about a posthumous diagnosis entirely. The source in question is an edited transcript of what a pianist said about Alkan during a performance (called a "lecture recital" in the source – that just means you talk a bit about a piece of music, and then you play it, and repeat until you're done), published in a fan club's newsletter.  While the subject is a classical composer instead of pop culture, this is not too different in sourcing terms from an Elvis impersonator writing personal beliefs about Elvis's death in a Elvis fan club's newsletter.  The factors we use for judging whether a source is reliable (e.g., a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; whether it is published by a reputable publishing house) score the same for newsletters of both kinds of fan clubs.  If you wouldn't accept a newsletter piece by a musician who plays Elvis's music professionally for claims about Elvis's health, then you shouldn't accept a newsletter piece by a musician who plays Alkan's music professionally for claims about Alkan's health.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Post RfC
Removed post-humous speculation from a source that shouldn't be in a Featured article:  (noting that the source is still used once in the article). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That edit also removed a sentence that was supported by a second citation, Conway (2012), pp. 234–235. Was that intended or bycatch? As to marking S. McCallum as an unreliable source: that citation – McCallum (2007), 8, and n. 11. – consists of a quotation from Ronald Smith's Alkan: The Enigma (1976) and an editor's note, IOW not her voice. I suggest once this has been clarified in the citation, rs is unwarranted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Re-checking now ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Some of Alkan's music gives hints of the obsessiveness which some have detected in his personality.
 * What does Conway, stand-alone say ? (Requesting quote). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also note, MOS:NUMRANGE, while we're here.
 * If supported, then some would be changed to a direct attribution to Conway, taking care to rephrase to avoid armchair diagnosis (depending on what Conway actually says).
 * testify to his knowledge of the religion, and many of his habits indicate that he practised at least some of its obligations, such as maintaining the laws of kashrut.
 * Once the remaining note on McCallum (2007) quoting Smith is cleared up, I would be fine with removing the rs tag for the one remaining bit of text cited to her. But why can't we just use Smith ?

Thanks for picking this up, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Re. Smith: He doesn't mention kashrut in the quotation; it's the editors "possible explanation'. I haven't worked out who that editor is. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Alkan and Masarnau
Basis of RfC: to determine appropriateness of material in article provided by User:Chip-chip-2020. Smerus (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments
 * I have twice deleted recent additions to this article by User:Chip-chip-2020 ([particularly a long quote from a letter by Alkan which can be seen here), and which I deal with below). At the first deletion, I suggested that they take the issue to this talk page. As instead they simply reinserted their addition, I have initiated this RfC.

My objections to the insertion are as follows:
 * 1)    WP:UNDUE/ WP:OR. The excerpt from Alkan’s correspondence cited by Cc2020 has no implications in respect of Alkan’s career or his work. The citations given by Cc2020 are to the original letter by Alkan to his correspondent Masarnau; in the original and in translation. They are not however accompanied by any citation from any third-party authority suggesting why this extract is in Cc2020’s words (in reinstating their text) ‘vital’ – the assumption that the quote is ‘vital’ is a piece of entirely unfounded own research on Cc2020’s part.
 * 2)    Cc2020 does not suggest why this extract is in any way ‘vital’. Editors may draw their own conclusions as to what Cc2020 means by ‘vital’. The article is WP:FA and if the extract and its implications cannot be justified then it seriously dilutes the authority of the article.
 * 3)    Most importantly of all, the extract given by Cc2020 is seriously misleading. My presumption is that it is cited to suggest a homoerotic relationship between Alkan and Masarnau – something which is nowhere suggested in any reliable source of either composer’s life. I apologize for giving here the full context of the letter – but as I myself am responsible for the translation cited by Cc2020 I give the paragraph cited by him in full, together with the two preceding paragraphs, and give myself the copyright permission to do so. I think that editors may agree that to quote the incomplete last paragraph out of context is extremely misleading to the reader and damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia. Indeed the first paragraph would be of far more relevance to Alkan’s life, if we had any knowledge of the person to whom it refers. No third-party authority on Alkan has made any suggestions in this respect, however.

I have a beautiful memory, it is of who is no more, perhaps that is why [it is so beautiful]. A woman loved me, but with a pure love, a disinterested love; she is dead. Is that fortunate, is it unfortunate, I ask myself? If she had lived, I might perhaps have wished to try her too sorely and there would not have been for me what I now call a beautiful memory. – Meanwhile I'm desolated, I weep. Yes, even though I sometimes forget in the whirlwind of events which surrounds me, it comes back to me later, and then it is a new force, remembrance, which arises from the smallest things, tearing my innards; inhuman desires seem to dominate my heart; I burn, I crave for something I cannot identify, I feel suspended in mid-air, wholly unable to cling either to heaven or to earth ..... and yet she who causes my torment today suffered in her lifetime through me. I showed towards her a coldness that I did not feel, I went for a long time without seeing her, I never said farewell at her deathbed! Even though I was not to blame for this last cruelty, I would give my last drop of my blood to have embraced her at her last moment, to be sure she forgave me my indifference.

And when these torments are joined by the fear of being abandoned by one’s few friends, of being not being loved as much as one deserves by those close to one, of being misled, of being shown ingratitude by the unfortunates whom one has helped, one’s head splits [la tête se brise], and one begins to doubt the goodness of humanity. Not of nature, not of the Supreme Being, such an idea has never entered, and never will enter, my mind. - I told you: I have a beautiful memory - do you want me to count on two, once I approach death? Well, be my friend: not, like my friend Field, because I have written six caprices and a concerto, but my friend because there is in me something which burns to attach, and because this feeling must not decay by remaining cold as it has been now for some time.

I love you, less for the incredible variety of your knowledge, than for yourself, for the goodness of your soul; which is perhaps the fruit of your unusual learning. I love you, but with a friendship that admits no sharing - a friendship which resembles constantly the fleeting love that an impassioned woman may have for you for a moment. If I write to you all the time; if I have been a year without speaking to you; you are nonetheless the image I have before me when returning to my room alone with my thoughts I seek a friend, as the image of she who has died presents itself when I seek a lover. So look inside yourself, think about it, and see if you can resolve to respond to what I ask; or else otherwise burn this letter and my earlier ones to you – if I were only to be granted a moment more of friendship.


 * 4) Cc2020 added an image of Masarnau to the article, to which I have no objection. However, they have insisted on labelling him as “addressee of 41 often intimate letters by Alkan.” The name of Masarnau is already linked to the article: there is no call to give him status over other pictures in the article (e.g. of George Sand and Antoine Marmontel) by giving him a special write-up.

Overall and on the above bases I believe that Cc2020’s additions are inappropriate, espercially in an FA article. I invite editors’ opinions. Smerus (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The RfC statement is decidedly non-neutral, and at over 5,500 bytes, is a long way from being brief. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It cannot be brief because of the need to place the quote selected by Cc2020 in its full context. Best, --Smerus (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you read the paragraph beginning If you have lots to say on the issue? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - I have rewritten the beginning so as to clearly separate (I hope) the issue from my comments. I don't alas understand your quote - which paragraph are you referring to? Best, --Smerus (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you follow the link that I provided (either WP:RFCNEUTRAL or WP:RFCBRIEF, they go to the same place) it's the last paragraph of the section. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Smerus (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Omit the quotation. Adds nothing to the reader's knowledge of the composer. The relationship is adequately covered already without this supererogatory addition. The quotation is no doubt accurate, but we could, one supposes, find elsewhere in the correspondence the composer's thoughts on any number of things – which doesn't mean they need quoting at length here. I'd trim the caption of the picture, but I don't feel particularly strongly on that point.  Tim riley  talk   15:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep the quotation. Smerus, as you just said above, you were responsible for the translations, and you wrote that these lettres are „A remarkable discovery, of a sequence of correspondence from Alkan extending over forty years, from 1834 to 1874, may transform our understanding of Alkan“ - in other words: vital. The quote I added is just one of many passages, where he describes his feelings for Masarnau, as you well know. So one quote is necessary, at least. Best for the readers is this one, since it is very clear. But I can suggest some more if necessary (like „I do not think it would be possible to love someone more than I love you“, „But I hope that you think often of me, who always has you in his thoughts and who would give so much to see you for a moment, to have you in my small room at Piscop“ etc.) Did the Alkan society publish all the translations, by the way? (I only found the ones in Bulletin 88 & 89 ).Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Omit Agree with Smerus, this is WP:UNDUE. Also, agree that this RfC is malformed and far from brief. Nemov (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Omit per Smerus. Double sharp (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Omit This quotation might be considered excessively long in a 400-page biography. Is paraphrase a lost art? Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:UNDUE, WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC.--Quisqualis (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Omit – Undue wp:proportion for a long quote which has already been summarized with a sentence in the main body of the article. If the summarized sentence requires support, a sample quote of intimate correspondence can be included in footnote 4. However, this is not necessary, since there is already a book reference. --Guest2625 (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Omit, undue and improper use of primary sources in a historical topic. As the WP:OR policy states, Jimmy Wales has said of synthesized historical theories: "Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history." Crossroads -talk- 23:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The importance of the quote and the letters in general is pointed out in secondary sources too, as I mentioned above; f.e. here  Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 11:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * as a reminder: I shared this letter with François Luguenot of the Société Alkan. We both agreed with Dr. Salas that the letter was extremely important, although from our point of view of course more in terms of Alkan’s biography than of Masarnau’s. Until this time Masarnau had figured in Alkan’s biography merely as a name, the dedicatee of the 1837 Trois études de bravoure, dédiés à son ami Santiago de Masarnau. This letter however indicated a warm friendship (the use of tu throughout), contained an acute description of Alkan’s feelings of anomie, and also carried fascinating remarks about Chopin and how his death had affected Alkan. It would actually be irresponsible to hide this discovery and it‘s importance from the eyes of readers, the community and last but not least modern research.Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 11:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As I am in fact the sole 'secondary source' (there are no other 'secondary sources' as claimed) quoted by Cc2020 above, can I take this opportunity to make it clear that I seriously object to Cc2020's selective and therefore misleading quotes of myself and of Alkan, that I believe Cc2020 to be completely unjustified in using them to seek to demonstrate any relevance of the extract that Cc2020 is seeking to promote, and that Cc2020's WP:POINTy attitude seems to me utterly at odds to the spirit of Wikipedia.--Smerus (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)