Charles-Valentin Alkan is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 30, 2013.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 11, 2013 Good article nominee Listed August 3, 2013 Featured article candidate Promoted
	A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 29, 2018.
Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Mid-importance). Composers This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Composers, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!ComposersWikipedia:WikiProject ComposersTemplate:WikiProject ComposersComposers articles France Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Per @Mathsci's request (here)[1] 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)[2] and (here)[3] Smasongarrison (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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#Stephanie McCallum "Speculations" about Alkan.

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.[4] 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  "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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  @Smasongarrison and Smerus: 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  — Amakuru (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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  — Amakuru (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is not a neutral framing as required for an RFC. See further background at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#MOS:MEDLANG in non-medical articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It also isn't brief, which makes it look very strange at Wikipedia: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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• (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 SandyGeorgia 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)[reply]
• 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 [5] Mason (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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 Wuerzele, 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)[reply]

  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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Post RfC

Removed post-humous speculation from a source that shouldn't be in a Featured article: [6] (noting that the source is still used once in the article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Re-checking now ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of Alkan's music gives hints of the obsessiveness which some have detected in his personality.^[1]

  What does Conway, stand-alone say ? (Requesting quote). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  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.^[2]

  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, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]