Talk:Witold Lutosławski/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Witold Lutosławski. 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 1

Diacritics

Is there a way to have the slashed "l", "ł", in the article title? Hyacinth 21:58, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No. The character set we use doesn't allow it. I think there are plans for us to switch to one that does at some point in the future, but until then we're stuck with it (same for Leos Janacek and so on). --Camembert

This was fixed in the 1.5 upgrade, 27th June 2005, and the titlelacksdiacritics tag removed by Antandrus shortly thereafter (smart work, Antandrus!). --RobertG ♬ talk 28 June 2005 11:22 (UTC)

Draft article

There was a draft article which I was working on which anyone was welcome to incorporate here if you thought it was worth it. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was so nearly there, I'd just clean it up a bit and post it, and see what happens. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Looks really good. I've just made a few little edits to break down a few very long sentences and change a few little grammatical things - I hope that's ok. I'm a newbie, so please let me know if I'm doing things wrong - I just want to help!

144.32.128.68 17:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realise I wasn't logged in - both the comment above and the recent edits discussed are from me. Thanks!

Hutchies 17:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Images

I recently added three images to the article, hopefully making it more attractive and liable to being accepted as featured article. All photos are in public domain, I have contacted the authors/sources and asked for permission. Please move the photos about the text to make the layout look better. If there is a need, I can find another/more images. Karol July 8, 2005 21:25 (UTC)

Peer review

Thanks everyone who contributed to the peer review; particularly thanks to Karol for uploading those images. I will submit this article for featured status in mid-to-late-August when I return from Wikiholiday and when time permits. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you think I should also add an image from times when he was a bit younger? I have found a few from the 70s. Karol 11:07, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

The more, the merrier, just make sure you add the correct Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

All the sources I used declared their images to be PD. Karol 14:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits to introduction

A recent edit introduced factual inaccuracy and removed implicit information. I have revised the changes. Individual performers are not given latitude, nor are they asked to improvise, as the section Aleatory technique makes clear. Implicit information was removed when the Easter-egg link was added (People's Republic of Poland was wrapped under Poland). His solistic works (song cycles and concertos) were the ones written for renowned soloists: this obviously wasn't stated clearly enough in previous versions. You don't adhere to a line: the correct expression is to toe the line. I've recast the sentences in question. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Some queries

Robert, I'm wondering why this sentence: 'Until World War I, Poland was divided according to the 1815 Congress of Vienna, and Warsaw was part of Tsarist Russia.' is in the middle of the paragraph on L's family. Can it be relocated? Tony 12:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

It's important as context for Jozef's political activity, and because it helps explain why the family went to Moscow. I'll move it to the start of the Early years section and see how that looks, perhaps as part of your suggestion below of merging these two sections. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Is there a reason for including Polish translations such as '(szlachta or ziemiaństwo)' and '(Stronnictwo Narodowo-Demokratyczne or Endecja)'? They make the text signficantly harder to read, and I can't see what the advantage is. And two alternatives in Polish are given for each of these examples, without explanation as to whether they are interchangeable, synonymous, etc. There are already quite a number of Polish names in the text. What do you think? Tony 12:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. Ziemiaństwo and Endecja came direct from one of my references (Rae); the other translations have been introduced by our native Polish Wikipedia friends, and I'm afraid I don't speak Polish. I haven't really thought about it too much, except that szlachta is a separate link and to bundle it up as link like this: "landed gentry", seems unfair on the reader. I take it that Stronnictwo Narodowo-Demokratyczne is simply Polish for National Democratic Party. It wouldn't worry me if you removed the translations. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The blue links are an essential aspect of Wikipedia, but there are guidelines on their density (roughly not more than one per line, or 10% of the words). There are quite a lot of links at the opening, and I wonder whether some of the years could be delinked, since they are hardly focused on the topic. The advantage would be that the text is easier to read with fewer links. I wonder about mathematics and violin; starting to look like a dictionary. Tony 12:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, I agree. I do think the article has become somewhat overlinked. Be bold! --RobertG ♬ talk 14:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Early years: perhaps it would be kinder to the uninitiated to avoid using 'Germany', 'Russia', and 'Prussian forces' in the same sentence. 'Prussian' is likely to confuse. Tony 12:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

An alternative doesn't immediately spring to mind. Have you a suggestion? --RobertG ♬ talk 14:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

At the opening, I'd like to see a statement giving the reader a sense of L's achievement in relation to music in the twentieth century. Tony 12:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The international recognition and also the implicit demand for major compositions for important figures are already there. What else did you have in mind? Do you see anything in the main article which could be summarised to give what you suggest? --RobertG ♬ talk 14:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I wonder whether the section on 'Lutosławski's family' can be merged with the next section on 'Early years'. Perhaps these sections could be slightly shorter as well. Tony 12:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right. I'll take a look. The "Lutosławski's family" section began as a couple of context-setting sentences! Much of it is not appropriate for the Early years section because it's about what happened before that! --RobertG ♬ talk 14:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Robert—I've made some changes pursuant to some of the points above; see what you think. As well, I'm concerned that the biography is in too much detail; you have to scroll down a long way to get to what's important: the music. Can you see any scope for trimming the biographical details here and there? Tony 23:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Good. I accept there may be a little too much biographical detail for perfect balance (my personal style is a little more succinct), but it was partly a result of the Peer review, and I don't see where to trim without compromising that. Also, there is necessarily some discussion of the music in with the biography. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible to find a photo of one of his scores? It would be valuable to give the readers an idea of just how innovative his style, and the related notation, was. Also beautiful visually. Tony 23:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I will ask some experts on fair use, and perhaps upload a photo if I have time to take one: I agree that a photo of, say, the climax of his 2nd symphony would be an excellent addition if it is not considered a copyvio. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

My preference is for a photo from Symphony No. 3, or Chain 2 or 3; but any example of his later scores would be just excellent. Tony 01:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Your suggestion of what not to do with the 'landed gentry' link is just what I have done; sorry, but don't you prefer it now? Tony 23:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes I do, strangely enough! --RobertG ♬ talk 16:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Robert, I wonder whether all works cited in the text could be referred to by their formal name (unless perhaps repeated soon after, where a less formal abbreviation is OK), and in italic? I'm thinking of Symphony No. 3, and the Concerto for ...., etc. Tony 01:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

See format standards: it is not done to put, say, "Symphony No. 3" or "Concerto for Orchestra" in italics. There are small inconsistencies in the article (for instance I notice "Third Symphony" is capitalised once only) which I may get round to looking at. Otherwise, if you want it to state the formal title at first mention, I have no objection. --RobertG ♬ talk 06:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The discussion at that link isn't very clear, in my view, and is only in the discussion section of the manual of style. Perhaps we need to look at this issue when the article is ready. Tony 10:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I have seen many Wikipedians removing unnecessary italics from generic titles like symphony on the strength of it, and they are unlikely to take kindly to being told to put them all back! Perhaps the manual of style needs updating to reflect the discussion? (The argument about italics not being necessary round symphonies, concertos etc. makes sense to me, although I haven't thought about it too deeply.) I still don't have any objection whatever to your suggestion of stating the title formally ("Symphony No. 1" rather than "first symphony") at its first mention. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the music section at the end; it's rather short, and might be better before the biography. Could be possible? Tony 10:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

This is the first time I remember anyone making this comment; indeed on peer review the biography was expanded and no-one mentioned the music! No other Wikipedia composer article I know of discusses the music before the biography; the music usually requires some biography, sometimes even history, for its context. I really don't want to start making wholesale changes to the structure of the article, particularly since the structure has had positive reviews in the ongoing FAC.

I agree there could be more discussion of the music, but before expanding those sections I would have to get back into Lutosławski mode (it's some while since I rewrote the article now, and I've been in Messiaen mode since then), and do some thinking and some more research, which I don't have time or the inclination for just now (and I don't currently have access to my references, anyway). It would help if you could jot down here any concrete suggestions for points you would like to see discussed. Anyone else have a view? --RobertG ♬ talk 17:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Recast of intro

Tony, I think you've needlessly "cut" the intro. He "rose from making a living by playing the piano in bars to be the pre-eminent musician of his country" gives a false impression: on the contrary, he and Panufnik were reduced to making a living playing piano in bars by wartime deprivation; if it hadn't been for the war, L. would have been studying in Paris. Why remove his formative struggle with Soviet Realism during the Soviet era from the intro? He was a notable pianist as a student, but he never pursued it; he was mainly (only?) a noted conductor of his own works. I've taken action on the pianist/conductor points, but I want to understand your reasons for the other changes before doing any more. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Robert, glad you fixed the piano and conducting bit. I think the first paragraph should give a bird's-eye view of just the really really important things, and nothing else. So there were three problems, in my view: (1) it didn't place him immediately as a great composer, (2) it included (and still includes) information that is too detailed for an opening, whereas I think it should merely prepare the reader for the greater level of detail in the body of the article, and (3) a couple of big-picture statements lacked brief but essential details.

Thus, I was trying to paint his career in one sentence (or two, if unavoidable) in terms of his overall rise and uniqueness: just about every composer in the last 150 years has studied at a conservatoire, so that could be left to (and is currently treated in) the biography. (If it had been retained, it probably should have specified the Warsaw C, but I think it's better dropped.) However, making a living in a bar is not universal, is interesting, and is related to his stylistic development; so I left that in. If the bit about honours and prizes is retained, can we specify them here? ... was awarded numerous prestigious prizes, including the ... and the ... I'd like to argue that the bit about dying suddenly from cancer be dropped from the opening—heck, lots of us do that; it's kind of private, and doesn't help the reader to understand the phenomenon of the great man. I'd like to add a sentence early in the paragraph about his stylistic influence. That should fill it out. What sayest thou? Tony 01:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see - we're coming from different angles. The question is "what is the purpose of the lead section?" I subscribe to the view that "the lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article". I think for music articles the lead section should be a precis such as one might encounter in a 500-page dictionary of music & musicians. How it was before reflects this view (although it admittedly was capable of improvement!): a paragraph of potted biography, a paragraph about his music. How it is now reflects your view. What shall we do? --RobertG ♬ talk 09:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Are our views very different? Can't it be both? Tony 11:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

You're right. (Also I missed your edit summary: "work in progress".) On reflection I agree with your points above, although I think you stripped a little too much out. I think two paragraphs would be better as there is a natural break before the intro's discussion of his music. I think the Soviet proscription is important enough to be in the intro; I've tried to give the "piano in bars" bit more context. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Robert, how about this opening (first the existing one, then below, a possible recasting that ?takes the best of both of our ideas):

EXISTING

Witold Lutosławski (January 25 1913 – February 7 1994) was one of the major European composers of the 20th century, and possibly the most significant Polish composer since Chopin. Lutosławski studied piano and composition in Warsaw. During World War II he made a living by playing the piano in bars. In the late 1940s and early 1950s his music was banned as formalist by the Stalinist authorities. He became the pre-eminent musician of his country in the last few decades of the century, and was presented with a large number of international honours, awards and prizes. In the 1980s, Lutosławski was a staunch supporter of the Solidarność movement, which in 1989 won the legislative election and broke the Soviet hold over Poland. He died shortly after being awarded Poland's highest honour.

Lutosławski's early compositions were overtly influenced by folk music; in the late 1950s and early 1960s he developed his own harmonic techniques and started to employ aleatory processes. His works include four symphonies and a Concerto for Orchestra; he also composed concertos and song cycles for renowned musicians including Mstislav Rostropovich, Peter Pears, and Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau. He was also a notable conductor of his own music.

PROPOSED

Witold Lutosławski (January 25 1913 – February 7 1994) was one of the major European composers of the 20th century, and possibly the most significant Polish composer since Chopin. Lutosławski studied piano and composition in Warsaw, and during World War II made a living by playing the piano in bars. His early compositions show the influence of Bartok, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, and Polish folk music. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, his music was banned as formalist by the Stalinist authorities. From the late 1950s onwards, he developed his own charactistically dense harmonies and highly innovative aleatoric techniques, in which the rhythmic coordination of parts within an ensemble is subject to an element of chance. It was largely through his strategic use of aleatory that he went on to explore a wide range of rich atmospheric textures, a distinctive feature of his style that was imitated by several other composers.

In the last three decades of the century, he became the pre-eminent musician of his country, and was presented with a large number of international awards and prizes, including Poland's highest honour, the Order of the White Eagle. In the 1980s, he used his stature to support the Solidarność movement, which won the 1989 legislative election and broke the Soviet hold over Poland. His works include five major symphonic works and several concertos and song cycles. He was a notable conductor of his own music.

I propose that the clause '... for renowned musicians including Mstislav Rostropovich, Peter Pears, and Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau' be left for the detailed sections.

What do you think? Tony 13:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony: an improvement, and as we've discussed, I've implemented part of this suggestion. The Bartok influence, while entirely obvious, needs discussion in the main article, as do the Prokofiev and Stravinsky influences (which are less obvious), before they find their way into the intro. I agree with the influence on other composers' styles, but also this should be discussed and exemplified in the main article before going into the intro. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Suggested improvements

You might want to use "Solidarity," perhaps with its Polish equivalant in parentheses.

Also, I suggest you explain "formalist," which is used in the intro and again in the postwar years paragraph. In the late style paragraph, formalist is finally linked, but the link doesn't help me understand why his music was "banned as formalist." Perhaps if you improve the Formalism (art) stub, you can just link to it in the intro.

I recommend that all of the red links be eliminated, ideally by generating articles (or stubs). Non-encyclopedic people do not need to be linked. Technical terms, however, should either be explained in context or should have links to explanatory articles (especially for us non-musicians). Thanks! Rewster 21:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Rewster for your helpful suggestions. I did as you suggested for "Solidarity", and linked formalist to Russian Formalism as the most appropriate explanatory article. While I sympathise with the idea that there should be no red links, I do think they perform a useful function as requests for articles. I have removed some red links as unencyclopedic (I don't think there will ever be an article on Lutosławski's mother or his wife) leaving only particularly notable ones; Wicenty Lutosławski for example is in my opinion well worthy of documentation, but I am not planning to start an article about him. There will be no red links when Wikipedia is complete! :-) --RobertG ♬ talk 10:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Witold Lutosławski/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs inline citations --plange 20:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 16:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Classified works list

I don't think the article gains from having the works in a classified list. Each work has the forces for which it was written clearly stated, so the article does not gain any information; on the contrary, the chronology of the works is lost. Can I put it back to just a plain list, please? --RobertG ♬ talk 09:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

However, the link to the Polish Music Center already gives a chronological list. I think it's better for us not to repeat the same thing. Also, since most people who visit will not be musicologists, there wouldn't be such an important need to list the works chronologically; it would be more systematic to group similar things together; it also helps people in remembering the contents. If the list is a short one, it is very natural to list them chronologically. But since this is a very long one, I support grouping items into categories, so as to be more systematic.

The list getting a bit long in any case, so it should be put on a separate page... there we can have different classifications and also a chronological list. Karol 10:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Compositions

Why has the list of compositions been unilaterally moved? This is a featured article, and doesn't deserve to be chopped up in this way. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved it, because it was very long. There's no point in listing _all_ of his works in this article, even if it is a featured one. There is now incentive to refactor that list and place the most important compositions in the article, and perhaps to add a summary of his compositions, some statistics, comments, etc. 16:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to request for a page on his cello concerto. It is an intriguing piece of work for musicians, yet there is a severe lack of information on this piece.

Huh? Article missing?

I can read the discussion page, but when I try to look at the article, it tells me Wikipedia has no such page. Is there a database problem? DanB†DanD 04:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Strange ... I "fixed" the article by selecting the most recent version from the history, editing it, and saving it without changes. My edit doesn't show up in the history, but the article is visible to me once again. Is this a known problem wikipedia has? Or is it nothing but a caching problem or something like that on my end? DanB†DanD 04:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

On pre-eminence

Regarding the statement "...and was the pre-eminent musician of his country during the last three decades of the century". I changed this sentence to "...and was one of the pre-eminent musicians of his country...", since, at the very least, Krzysztof Penderecki and Henryk Górecki too were pre-eminent during the last three to four decades of the 20th century. ---Sluzzelin 17:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

images

I noticed in the archives a reference to pictures of the younger Lutoslawski. I think it'd be nice to have them for variety -- all the photos there now seem to be from at least the mid 1980's. Esp. a picture w/ his family, for example, or Panufnik or another significant musician, would be pretty cool.

Also it occurs to me that for an illustration of his aleatory technique and notation, maybe a smaller-scale work would be easier for the novice to read. The analysis to the right of the symphony page is excellent -- clear and concise -- but I find myself squinting to try & make out what's going on in the score, and the notes themselves are nothing but blurs, so that the rhythmic variety in each part is apparent only if you click through twice to the larger image. Wouldn't the seminal String Quartet, for example, provide a clearer illustration for the novice? (provided somebody could find or provide an image). This example would still be valuable for the article on the symphony itself. --Turangalila (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agreed with Turangalila's assessment of the musical example from the Third Symphony. I replaced it with an extract from the Second Symphony that could be included more legibly. I hope this is satisfactory. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Too many footnotes!!

Featured article or not, this is seriously marred by the excessive number of footnotes. Their presence after every other sentence makes this difficult to read - yes, there is value in documenting the sources, but it is totally unreasonable to have so many reference to the same source - this article goes too far... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.71.171 (talk • contribs) 20 Septemer 2009

I quite agree. I still think it highly amusing that the Featured Article Review process resulted in this being viewed as an improvement. This process completely killed my drive to improve Wikipedia by writing articles. --RobertG ♬ talk 06:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hovhannes got there first?

An anonymous editor has added the assertion that Alan Hovhaness in the 1940s used aleatoric processes similar to the ones Lutoslawski developed from the 1960s. This may be true (I haven't heard the Hovhaness pieces referred to), but is there a reliable published reference for it - that both describes this element of Hovhaness's technique and its link to Lutoslawski's? I don't have the references to check, but I don't remember mention of Hovhannes while I was researching this article. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Robert, I'm still researching this but think Hovhaness has been somewhat ignored by musical academia, just glancing through the indexes of several "authoritative" modern musical surveys. I thought it worth mentioning in the Lutoslawski article, as there does seem to be an assumption (at least in Europe) that Lutoslawski pioneered this quasi-aleatory technique in the early 1960s. My personal viewis he arrived at it independently, since texts (e.g. Stucky) quote him as saying Cage's HSPCHD opened his eyes to indeterminacy. "Anonymous Editor" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.103.226 (talk • contribs)

In-line citations

hello,

currently the article is lacking in-line citations; every paragraph has to be cited. Currently the article fails WP:FA?, 2c. Regards.--GoP _T ^C _N 14:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say you are wrong: first, I see 28 inline citations, so the article does not lack them. If you are not seeing these, I suggest you check your browser or WP account settings to see if something is suppressing display of footnotes. I also do not see anything in WP:FA? that specifies every paragraph has got to have at least one citation. The point to which you refer (2c) says that citations should use a consistent format and, since the format citations here are quite consistent, the article complies with WP:FA? 2c perfectly. If there are specific dubious claims that you believe require citations, then by all means mark them with {{Cn}} or a similar template. If there might be some ambiguity, please add a short hidden note (using  syntax) identifying the nature of the problem. Alternatively, bring up your specific concerns here. That is what Talk pages are for.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Right then, if it won't be reverted to this good version with in-line citations, then it needs to be demoted, sorry. You may want to read WP:IC and especially this essay. Regards.--GoP _T ^C _N 17:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

No need to tell me about it—I'm just a bystander, not an editor who has ever contributed much to this article. You also don't need to refer me to WP:IC, with which I am already familiar, though I might in turn call your attention to a specific part of that guideline, here, which is pertinent to your incorrect claim that every paragraph must have at least one citation, and was in fact the core of my suggestion that you tag any dubious claims you notice in this article. The 116 footnotes in that version from 2007 are, in one sense, impressive. I am not, however, going to review the entire edit history since that time in order to find out what the logic has been (if any) in changing the article at every stage. I hope the editors active on this article will respond appropriately.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but if you look at it you will see that the article needs in-line citations to check for verifiability. Every paragraph should have at least one in-line citation as users split or merge the paragraphs all the time, and to avoid any issues it is better to do this. As you can see in that version, several different sources were used throughout. It is not restricted to use only a few sources (for example in Fyodor Dostoyevsky, the Frank 2500-page biography has nearly all information about the writer), but here most of the footnotes were ironically removed by the nominator with one edit. Regards.--GoP _T ^C _N 18:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem to believe that I do not know what inline citations are for. Trust me, I am notorious for demanding citations where other editors see no need. While I am personally inclined to agree that every paragraph—apart from the "sky is blue" variety—should be cited at least once, I still fail to see this actually expressed in the guidelines. Can you point me to a specific place where it says, "every paragraph must bear at least one inline citation"? (I would love to be able to use this when my own demands for citations are questioned.) I have not examined the present article for editorial intent, so I cannot say what degree of irony may have been behind editorial removal of citations. As I have already said, perhaps the editors active on this article will respond.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Your dialogue made me curious, so I looked at the history and found this this edit, reducing the citations to two major sources. It makes sense to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda, for looking that up. Ordinarily, this is exactly the kind of situation that would have me peppering the article with "fact" or "cn" tags, since I do tend to prefer knowing on which page in a book I will find a particular fact. On the other hand, 28 footnotes vs 116 seems a fair trade-off (zero footnotes are too many footnotes, in my opinion—I far prefer parenthetical citations, but let's not fight that battle here), so long as it is clear what the WP:GENREFs support.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead section concerns?

Hello. I have a concern about the lead section. Per the suggestions at Wikipedia:MOSLEAD#Length, the appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. Also a useful suggestion would be to expand the lead to four paragraphs, as this article has more than 30,000 characters per the MoS. Unless someone objects, I am going to expand the lead section in the next couple of days. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was a bit short wasn't it? I'm not in favour of a lead section size "quota", but on reading it again I thought I remembered it being longer once upon a time. A trawl through the history showed I was right: I restored a paragraph (heavily modified, in the hope of addressing legitimate concerns leading to its removal) and moved bits around. What do you think? I hope this helps you. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

That should work. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Age

Took the liberty of changing the "Final Years" section to say he was aged eighty-one at death, not eighty-four. Simple maths (1994-1913) lead to this conclusion, if however there is something complicated going on with Gregorian calendar or such like, please correct back?! Mathi80 (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Witold Lutosławski Centennial

Semimartingale (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

FA?

This is a featured article, but it suffers from a severe lack of sources. The following paragraphs in it lack (enough) references:

"Family and early years"

All paragraphs

"World War II"

All paragraphs

"Post-war years"

Paragraphs 1, 2 and 4

"Maturity"

All paragraphs

"International renown"

All paragraphs

"Final years"

Paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6

"Aleatory technique"

Paragraphs 3 and 4

"Late style"

Paragraph 1

Also, I'm confused by this:

"Biography"

"Lutosławski's life is documented in both Stucky (1981) and Bodman Rae (1994, 1996, 1999)."

What is the purpose of this remark? Either write about his life, or create a "Further reading" section. Toccata quarta (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

We should write about his life. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

We wrote about his life. That's what the biography section is about.

The article is not unreferenced. The purpose of the remark that confused Toccata is to indicate that everything may be verified from Stucky and Rae, two authoritative accounts. When we looked at this after the last FAR, it seemed to me (and others) that the result was egregiously clumsy. This edit seemed to me a huge improvement. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. I have created a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#General references about this matter. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

srsly? we have had lots of people complaining that the citations are insufficient and have already received comments to the effect that general references should be replaced by the footnotes. I do not understand this footnote-hatred here. Clumsy? How many look at the footnotes? most ignore them and just read the article (don't trust the 1 complaint, only those who don't like it will complain) Restore them. Double sharp (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you attributing "this footnote hatred" to me? I added all the footnotes in the first place. "Lots of people?" - the article gets between about 4000 and 6000 hits a month, and this discussion has had only five or six contributions this year: you're the first to comment here since April. Lutosławski is hardly "popular culture". Anyway, why not just put the footnotes back if you feel so strongly? I am quite happy to be in a minority. I only donated the article to Wikipedia: I am perfectly content if others feel they know better what readers require of it. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry if I offended you – no, I don't think it's you: it seems more to be one of the general sentiments on this talk page, the other one being that the footnotes are needed. Personally I would like to know which pages of the refs the text came from, because otherwise it could be problematic if people add uncited material, because then it looks cited but isn't (this is editable after all; if it wasn't I would have absolutely no problems with this format). Re putting the footnotes back – yes I do intend to do this at some point, but of course the article has changed since the footnote removal and it will need some time. This diff will certainly help! Double sharp (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Witold Lutosławski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Witold Lutosławski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140724194941/http://grawemeyer.org/music/previous-winners/1985-witold-lutoslawski.html to http://grawemeyer.org/music/previous-winners/1985-witold-lutoslawski.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)