Talk:Frédéric Chopin

Photographs > Paintings!

Since when are romanticised portraits more important than actual photographs? Thankfully we have at least two and the earlier one would be most appropriate at the head of the article. This was the typical face of the man people personally recognised at the time.
Oh and I am also heavily against calling him Polish solely in any context. Polish-French or something, not just Polish. Personally, in the grand scheme of things I would refer to him as French only but this is a different story. Cloak' 20:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You raise a good point about the image in the lead. There are really two questions here: Is a photo always perferable to a painting? Should the page header show an image of the subject at his peak, or when he was on death's door? There are two photos of Chopin (one of which is a daguerreotype, IIRC). The earlier one is heavily worn and faded. The latter one was taken toward the end of Chopin's life when, frankly, he looked like Hell. (To use another example, look at the page for Franklin D. Roosevelt. The photo used in the lead was taken in the 1930s. Even though photography had avdanced by 1945, and there are color photos of him, the older photo is used because most people, subjectively, would say that he looked better in the older photo - it's also very well composed.) So, none of the photos of Chopin is ideal for the lead. The Chopin painting is obviously as seen through the eyes of the artist, but going by the photgraphic evidence, is a reasonably accurate portrayal of what he looked like when he was relatively healthy. Besides, the other images are elsewhere on the page and easily viewable on Wikimedia. As for the Polish v. French thing: been there, done that, not going there again.THD3 (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent points, THD3. I've often also noticed that if someone has a negative opinion about a particular subject, and believes their image to be too flattering, be it a painting or a photograph, they will replace it with a more negative one reflecting their POV. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about Dr Dan? Chopin's my favourite composer. It's an injustice to give our composers inaccurate images at the article's opening, surely. Look at the article for Charles-Valentin Alkan. The real man is in the forefront, while a typically inaccurate romantic portrait is sitting in the middle of the article. I just want the real Chopin to be seen, what is there to hide? Cloak' 16:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus at Wikipedia that states that photographs are preferable to paintings, or vice versa. I would also add that just because one article has something one way, it doesn't automatically create precedent (terrible photo of Alkan, by the way).THD3 (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I have just reverted an edit by an anon user and reinstated the Wodzinska painting as the lead image. In addition to the very scratched, faded quality of the 1846-47 daguerreotype, the image is left/right flipped, as are all daguerreotypes.THD3 (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"French-Polish parentage"

I've never read an article in which a person is described as having a mixed national parentage in such a way. Chopin's father may have been French but he immigrated to Poland, and as the article later notes he never taught his children the French language. One could be tempted to conclude that such a phrase was included by someone unwilling to fully acknowledge Chopin's Polishness.Atwardow (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

1. "Chopin's father immigrated to Poland, but never lost his French nationality. Besides, where has anyone seen that he became a Polish citizen? On Chopin's baptismal registration - April 1810, twenty-three years after Nicolas Chopin had immigrated to Poland -, it is inscribed in Latin that his father was "French".
2. Where did you see that Nicolas Chopin, a Frenchman who immigrated to Poland and was a professor of French in a lyceum in Warsaw, did not teach French to his children or did not use his native language to converse with his children at home? Why is it that Frédéric Chopin's sister Ludwika, who never lived in France except for a couple of trips to visit her brother, could write in French to George Sand when they wrote to each other, French being the only language the two could use since George Sand did not know a single word of Polish? And besides, all the letters Nicolas Chopin addressed to his son after the latter went to France were only in French, not a single one was written in Polish. Did Frédéric & Ludwika become fluent in French the second they crossed the border into France? I wish it was that easy to learn a foreign language!
3. No one is denying Chopin's "Polishness" by stating that he was of "French-Polish parentage" - "Polishness" does not mean "Polish nationality" -, but no one can deny that his father was a French national, who was born in France, with members of his family who remained in France as he was the only one to have left the country; so what is strange in saying that Chopin was of "French-Polish" parentage when, on top of that, according to the Code Napoléon in effect in the Duchy of Warsaw at the time of his birth, he was a dual national - a double whammy. And the fact that Chopin had a French father makes it more than correct to say that he was of "French-Polish parentage" without taking anything from his "Polishness".

Why is it that some people cannot accept the fact that French blood ran through Frédéric Chopin's veins? "Chopin" is not exactly a Polish name... Maria Wodzińska put it so well in a letter she wrote to him in French from Dresden in September 1835:

• "Nous ne cessons de regretter que vous ne vous appeliez pas « Chopinski  », ou qu'il n'y ait pas d'autres marques que vous êtes Polonais, car de cette manière les Français ne pourraient nous disputer la gloire d'être vos compatriotes."

Maria must have had a premonition!

--Frania W. (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, Monsieur Chopin "emigrated" to Poland from France. He did not "immigrate" there. Thank you. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Forget it. Wikipedia is truly a joke.Atwardow (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Chopin was undeniably Polish, not French in any way, shape, or form. Atwardow (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Atwardow, whether or not Wikipedia is a joke, or becomes one, remains to be seen. Personally, I don't agree, but in the meantime we can all strive to correct grammatical mistakes and spelling errors. Thank you however, for your insight and opinion regarding Chopin's (Szopen's) origins. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

We've been through all this before - a significant-ish minority of sources even describe Chopin as Polish-French, so the description "Polish ... of French-Polish parentage", or something like that, represents fairly what sources say about him as regards nationality. I also once suggested "Polish (sometimes described as Polish-French)", but I think the parentage wording is neater and more informative.--Kotniski (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole Polish thing is honestly so shallow. His father was French. He spent his adult life in France... He never went back to precious Poland. He spoke with a put-on Polish inflection on his voice and spoke continuously of some idealised Poland that he never again visited (and he could have visited easily, Russians and this and that aside). His greatest works have nothing to do with Poland whatsoever although if you try hard enough you can find anything (Polish folksong, Singing in Polish cathedrals blah blah). The fact he had this whole complex about his upbringing and kept forcing it upon everyone he met made the Polish leap to claim them as their composer but you would be hard-pressed to find anything Polish in his music as I said earlier. The forced mazurkas and polonaises are far and away my least favourite pieces which is a sentiment shared by many and he certainly kept a precious ring given to him by the evil Russians constantly warring with poor Poland. He didn't destroy it or throw it away but kept it with pride.

My point is that I find it ridiculous to see a factual article on Chopin begin with POLISH POLISH POLISH POLISH unfortunate french descent POLISH POLISH POLISH. Of course, it's totally anti-Polish to even mention the fact he wasn't absolutely Polish so I have to stop. Cloak' 01:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Your post, Cloak, reeks of unbelievably hostile bigotry. I think that one would be very hard-pressed to find someone discuss an article on a Jewish person or an African-American person and find references to "the whole Jewish" thing or statements such as "he never went back to precious Africa" or something like that. I don't know why it's acceptable for you, Cloak, to use such offensive language about Poland, especially during a discussion about a person whom Poles proudly regard as a countryman and a national hero. I think that if you, Cloak, spent even a minute's time studying Chopin's letters or what his contemporaries said about him (Liszt especially) you would find that Chopin's Polish identity was an important part of who he was as a composer and as a private man. "His father was French." That doesn't mean anything. His mother was Polish. His father moved to Poland at the age of 16, lived his whole life there, fought under Kosciuszko's uprising and died in Poland. Besides, the fact that his father was born in France has nothing to do with Frederic's identity. "He spent his adult life in France...He never went back to precious Poland." Again, spend some time studying the history of 19th century Europe. Read about the political turmoil in Warsaw at the time and why it wasn't possible for Chopin to remain in the city of his youth and education anymore. Saying that he could have "easily" visited is nonsensical and shows you probably have no knowledge about his life. Does sending his heart back to Warsaw after his death count as an empty gesture, Cloak?

The joke that is your credibility is fully exposed when you delve into your shallow comments on Chopin's mazurkas and polonaises, which you say are "forced" (whatever that means). Your highly uninformed opinion about his music has nothing to do with this discussion and shows that the people who try to portray Chopin as French are motivated by undeniable bad will. What exactly do you mean that "his greatest works have nothing to do with Poland whatsoever"? Did you know, Cloak, that both of Chopin's piano concertos were composed and premiered in Warsaw? Does that make them French, or not Polish? What do you think about the fact that Chopin was educated at a music conservatory in Warsaw? Do those facts all make him French?

Your comment about Chopin's "put-on Polish inflection" reveals how the people who keep undoing fact-based edits that better express Chopin's Polish identity are bent on rewriting history and advancing their French nationalism. Chopin was in his 20s when he left Poland. What on earth do you mean that he spoke with a "put-on" inflection? It's very difficult for a person of such age to lose the accent of his childhood and early adulthood. What do you think about the fact that Chopin was heavily involved with Paris's Polish community? That one of his last concerts in Scotland was for Polish expatriates? Are those gestures meaningless?

If the administrators of Wikipedia see Cloak's comment and still conclude that the constant undoings of my and other's edits to reflect Chopin's Polishness is inspired by good will, then this article's objectivity can seriously be called into question. Cloak is a vicious bigot and ought to apologize for his insensitive and offensive remarks.Atwardow (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Cloak's outburst was due to exasperation at having the truth about Chopin being reverted.

If Chopin had nothing to do with anything French, why did he have a French last name? Why didn't he father change it to "Chopinski"?

Again, and here we are not talking about Chopin's feeling of "Polishness", Chopin was a dual-national Polish-French, which, I'll have you note, has not been mentioned in lead, where he is put down as only "Polish" - because we are quite aware of the fact that talking about the nationality of Frédéric Chopin is like walking on eggs.

According to the 'Code Napoléon, Frédéric Chopin was a French national at birth because his father was French. Born a French national, Nicolas Chopin never lost his French nationality and passed it on to Frédéric.

Removing "of French parentage" amounts to willfully scratching an historical fact off the page of an encyclopedia.

Please, let's not have another edit war. All on this has been said before. Go & read the archived discussions. Do us this favor.

--Frania W. (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Do us this favor." I beg your forgiveness. I promise that I will never interfere with your personal private property ever again. Atwardow (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Maybe Cloak's outburst was due to exasperation..." Blah. You click of French bigots are insulting. "Chopinski?" What is that? Not every Polish last name ends in "ski," that's an offensive and totally ignorant suggestion. I suppose that the French nationalists will just have to have their way, there's no point in arguing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atwardow (talk • contribs) 04:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I beg your pardon; I did not originate the "Chopinski" affair, Maria Wodzińska did! Here is what I wrote above a few days ago:

• Why is it that some people cannot accept the fact that French blood ran through Frédéric Chopin's veins? "Chopin" is not exactly a Polish name... Maria Wodzińska put it so well in a letter she wrote to him in French from Dresden in September 1835:
• "Nous ne cessons de regretter que vous ne vous appeliez pas « Chopinski  », ou qu'il n'y ait pas d'autres marques que vous êtes Polonais, car de cette manière les Français ne pourraient nous disputer la gloire d'être vos compatriotes."

Was Maria Wodzińska a "bigot"? Not only did she write "Chopinski", but she wrote the letter to Frédéric Chopin in French!

--Frania W. (talk) 04:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and this little excerpt translates: "We continue to regret that you do not call it "Chopinski, or that no other brands that you are Polish, because that way the French could not dispute with us the glory of your compatriots '." This suggestion from Maria Wodzinska was simply a recognition that looking at Chopin as something other than Polish was nonsensical and intolerable, which is why she made the comment. So actually Maria Wodzinska favors truth's side, not your (meaning the clique of Francophiles) side.Atwardow (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

And who cares if it was written in French? Guess what, the lingua franca of the day was French and educated people corresponded in French. Pointing out that Maria Wodzinska wrote a letter in French means nothing. Have you ever read the book "Chopin's Poland"? Read all the letters he wrote in POLISH! Atwardow (talk) 05:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

From the article:

Benita Eisler, Chopin's Funeral, Abacus, 2004, p. 29: "Language was another matter, rooted in anxiety passed from father to son. A foreigner concerned with shrouding his origins and proving his Polishness, Nicolas was as cautious as a spy dropped behind enemy lines; he never seems to have mentioned his French family to his Polish children. French was the lingua franca of the nobility and the subject Nicolas taught to others' sons—but not to his own.... Consequently Fryderyk's grasp of French grammar and spelling would always remain shaky. Surprising for one blessed with an extraordinary 'ear' and famed from earliest childhood as an extraordinary mimic, his pronunciation, too, was poor. More telling was his own unease in his adopted tongue: half-French, living in Paris, the paradise of expatriates, Chopin would always feel twice exiled—from his country and from his language. Imprisoned by foreign words, the expressive power of his music unbound him." --Atwardow (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

1. If Maria Wodzińska wrote to Frédéric Chopin in French, it is because she knew that he could read French.
2. My previous answer to you bringing out Maria Wodzińska's "Chopinski" was to show you that the French clique did not originate the "ski" suffix, nor did Frania Wisniewska, but that Maria Wodzińska did.

--Frania W. (talk) 05:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually enjoy what the French article on Chopin has to say about Chopin's nationality.

De son vivant, que Chopin soit polonais est un fait incontestable ; non seulement pour le musicien7, mais aussi pour son entourage. Ses compatriotes parlent de lui comme du compositeur national polonais8. Ces amis internationaux agissent de même. Balzac écrit à propos de Liszt et de Chopin : « Le hongrois est un démon, le polonais un ange »9, Liszt parle de l'« artiste polonais »10. Chopin a passé les vingt premières années de sa vie en Pologne. A son époque, cet élément est suffisant pour lui assurer une identité polonaise11, quitter la Pologne à l'âge de 20 ans et ne plus jamais y retourner ne modifie pas la donne. Cependant, cette identité n'est pas uniquement la conséquence d'une jeunesse en Pologne et d'une convention sociale. Non seulement « Chopin, en Pologne s'est construit polonais »12, mais le musicien revendique fréquemment son allégeance à ce pays. En 1830, la Pologne est envahie par la Russie, qui mène une politique de répression et de russification du pays. Cette oppression est ressentie par le musicien, comme : « la pathétique signification d'un tourment inguérissable et d'une blessure à jamais ouverte »13. Ce patriotisme douloureux chez Chopin se traduit dans sa musique14. Si cette dimension d'exilé du musicien sarmate15, fréquemment narrée par les biographes du passé, est reprise par les musicologues contemporains, elle est néanmoins interprétée différemment. Pour Eigeldinger, elle est maintenant comprise comme une nostalgie typiquement slave, une sensibilité culturelle, qui dépasse la contingence politique16. Pour Liszt, Chopin : « pourra être rangé au nombre des premiers musiciens qui aient aussi individualisé en eux le sens poétique d'une nation »17.

Yes, I did just throw it into Google translate but here's the translation:

During his lifetime, Chopin is Polish is an indisputable fact, not only for musicien7, but also for his entourage. His countrymen speak of him as the national composer polonais8. These international friends do the same. Balzac wrote of Liszt and Chopin: "The Hungarian is a demon, an angel Polish" 9 Liszt speaks of the "Polish artist 10. Chopin spent the first twenty years of his life in Poland. In his time, this element is sufficient to ensure identity polonaise11, leaving Poland at the age of 20 years and never return does not change the situation. However, this identity is not solely the consequence of a youth in Poland and a social convention. Not only "Chopin, Poland has been built in Poland" 12, but the musician frequently claimed allegiance to this country. In 1830, Poland was invaded by Russia, which has a policy of repression and Russification of the country. This oppression is felt by the musician as "the pathetic service of torment and incurable wound forever open 13. This patriotism is reflected in Chopin painful in its musique14. If this dimension of exiled musician sarmate15, often narrated by the biographers of the past is echoed by contemporary musicologists, it is nevertheless interpreted differently. For Eigeldinger, it is now understood as a typical Slavic nostalgia, cultural sensitivity, which exceeds the contingency politique16. For Liszt, Chopin, "may be ranked among the first musicians who also have individual poetic their sense of a nation 17.

I think that the French speakers have it right. --Atwardow (talk) 05:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

As one of the "French speakers" who has contributed heavily to Chopin's article & epic discussions in fr:wiki that made possible a wording that would offend no one, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for the compliment.

--Frania W. (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

An interesting quote from Chopin:

To his friend Tytus, in December 1831, only a few weeks after he had arrived in Paris: "Pleyel's pianos are the last word in perfection. Among Poles I see Kunasik, Morawski, Niemojowski, Lebewel and Plichta, besides a vast number of imbeciles..."

--Frania W. (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for posting a totally out-of-context quote that achieves basically nothing. --Atwardow (talk) 06:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's an interesting quote from music critic Camille Bellaique in 1840: "We aren't aware of another musician who was more patriotic than he. He is Polish in fact more than any Frenchman is French, or Italian is Italian, or German is German. He is nothing but a Pole, and from that destroyed, murdered Polish country his spirit arises as an immortal his spirit, his music. The heart of his country beats in his chest."

I'm sure you know that Cyprian Norwid was a Pole who lived in Paris as well. He said this about Chopin: "Rodem Warszawianin, sercem Polak, a talentem świata obywatel, Fryderyk Chopin zszedł z tego świata." Translated: A native of Warsaw, a Pole at heart and citizen of world talent, Chopin went from this world." Not entirely meaningless words, I'd say.--Atwardow (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, this discussion doesn't need to go on. I know that I'm not going to convince you of anything even though I am certain that I am correct. There is a unified front against Poles, but that's just symptomatic of the anti-Polonism that continues to exist in many sectors of society. I certainly admire the fact that the French article on Chopin acknowledges the importance of his Polish identity far better than this silly article does.

Please also note that the French article on Frédéric Chopin does not deny him his French background from the paternal side, which is what you want to do here.

--Frania W. (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, as a Pole I'll be the first to acknowledge the existence of Polish imbeciles. So I'm in total agreement with Chopin there. --Atwardow (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've read all notable books regarding Chopin in every way possible. I know everything one could possibly know about him from public sources in today's day and age. What a typical answer just to call me a bigot or something...you have no idea how credible I really am. Oh Admins help us! Cloak put a daguerreotype at the top! The entire article is too Polish by default by beginning with calling him a Polish composer only. Does anyone realize how asinine this all is not to just call him Polish-French as you would do with practically anybody else? Oh, but the difference here is that Chopin wanted to accentuate his Polishness in a wave of other French musicians....and please, the most offensive things being said on this page are clearly about this band of 'French bigots' you keep referring to.

Why not POLISH-FRENCH!? The Poles are clearly in charge of the article, and if you wanted to quell this debate somewhat you would change it from POLISH to POLISH-FRENCH rather than run around calling everyone bigots...I mean it's unbelievable. Oh yes, and now I hate Jews apparantly. The funny thing about that one is that Chopin himself called people he generally didn't like 'Jews'. Yes, I had to go there. Cloak' 13:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Atwardow, you gave the game away by saying "Forget it. Wikipedia is truly a joke. Chopin was undeniably Polish, not French in any way, shape, or form."

Your calling me a bigot for suggesting the slightest otherwise and pretty much asking an admin to just remove me from this whole debate is incredibly weak. I actually believed that was a sarcastic statement until you responded as someone surely would have in that manner. Cloak' 13:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I initially thought that there were several people responding but it's actually just the same user again and again. Well, there's clearly much less resistance than I expected! Cloak' 13:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

To Atwardow:

You seem to be missing the point: Chopin's Polishness and nationality are never questioned or denied; the first sentence of the lead reads "was a Polish composer and virtuoso pianist", going on to "of French-Polish parentage", which is nothing but the truth. The wording of that sentence was arrived at after lengthy debates.

Stating the facts as they are is not "just symptomatic of the anti-Polonism that continues to exist in many sectors of society" through a "unified front against Poles". If mentioning the fact that Frédéric Chopin's father was French is seen as "anti-Polonism", we have arrived at a sad state of affairs, and demanding that this very fact be crossed out of this article amounts to censorship.

Whether Frédéric Chopin was a French national or not, whether Nicolas Chopin became a Polish national & by doing so may have lost his French nationality (which would be only if he renounced it or had committed a crime against France itself), the fact remains that Nicolas was of 100 per cent French heritage, which makes his children of "French-Polish parentage".

Removing "of French-Polish parentage" from the article, amounts to denying Frédéric Chopin his "paternal bloodline".

Sawing off the French branches of his family tree amounts to denying Frédéric Chopin part of his identity.

Since you brought up the article in French wiki, please note that its redactors also chose to show his family tree up to his grandparents on both sides[1].

--Frania Wisniewska (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It's wonderful that the family tree is put up. However I simply think it's completely redundant to say that Chopin was of "French-Polish" parentage in the first paragraph and then note in the next paragraph again that Chopin's father was a French expatriate. Why mention it twice? It's simply not necessary. I would be more comfortable with either-or, as a matter of rhetorical simplicity.--Atwardow (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Now the entire introduction makes no reference to his being at all French. Are you slowly trying to rewrite history here? Cloak' 13:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

How strange that Frédéric Chopin's "French-Polish parentage" and mention of his "father being French" (parentage and who your father is being two of the most important facts in someone's "being") are redundant in lead, and the object of unending discussions, while, in this very lead,

1. with no concern about the fact that in the lengthy George Sand section[2], redundancy occurs, eleven words had to be added to French world-renowned novelist George Sand for fear readers would think she was a he:

• "...from 1837 to 1847 he carried on a relationship with the French novelist Amantine Aurore Lucie Dupin, baronne Dudevant, better known by her pseudonym, George Sand."

2. then further down in lead, ignoring another case of redundancy which appears at death section[3]:

• "For the greater part of his life, Chopin suffered from poor health. He died in Paris, aged 39, of what was diagnosed as pulmonary tuberculosis but has since been argued to have been cystic fibrosis."

3. in last paragraph of lead:

• "The majority of Chopin's compositions were written for solo piano; all his extant works feature the piano in one way or another."

(necessary to repeat so as not to mistake that solo instrument for a trumpet...)

--Frania W. (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not rewriting history. I objected to an unnecessary second mention of Chopin's father's French nationality as it is already discussed in the first paragraph of the lead and later on in the section on Chopin's childhood. No other article on a major composer devotes so much space in the introductory area to the nationality of the parents (in the article on Mozart, there is not even a mention of Mozart's father in the lead, and any person aware of musical history knows how important Leopold Mozart was to Wolfgang's development). I am of the personal opinion that including three mentions of Nicolas Chopin's French nationality (even though he moved to Poland at 16 and remained there the rest of his life) in the first eighth of the article is simply unnecessary. --Atwardow (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Atwardow,

Imagine turning the tables and comparing the argument given for :

• Nicolas Chopin's supposed Polish nationality because he left France for Poland at the age of 16, never to return to his native country, becoming a Pole out of the clear blue sky, although he tried (never mentioned) to return twice to France before his marriage but could not make it because of sudden health problems, plus having all his professional activities in Poland turned to French teaching, writing poetry in French, etc. but, according to you, denying to himself his French origin & nationality, although his French nationality is mentioned in his son's baptismal register twenty-three years after his arrival in Poland;

with that of:

• Frédéric Chopin, his son, who left Poland for France at the age of 20, with the help, blessing, recommendation & urging of his father Nicolas who begged him not to return home after the 29 November 1830 uprising, in spite of which some want to occult Frédéric Chopin French origin, and French nationality, which cannot be mentioned in any wiki article because it would be labeled "lèse-Poland" by the Poles who watch Wikipedia world-wide for articles on Frédéric Chopin.

You seem to ignore that, a couple of months after his arrival in Paris on 24 September 1831, Chopin's correspondence does not show him shedding tears over the fate of Poland, but rather broadcasting his excitement about Paris. To Alfons Kumelski in Berlin, he wrote, on 18 November 1831: "I reached Paris quite safely although it cost me a lot, and I am delighted with what I have found...", going on with description of Paris, his apartment & view from it. Subsequent letters from father, sister, friends & Chopin himself are nothing but on his good fortune at being in Paris. I would not dare ever attempt including such correspondence in this article on Frédéric Chopin, which amounts to self-censorship on my part. Chopin was a Pole who loved Poland, a fact that I would be the last one to deny; however, Chopin was a Franco-Pole who never attempted to go back to Poland, traveled on a French passport, lived the second half of his life in France, a country he also loved & described in beautiful words in many of his letters - whether he wrote them in Polish or in French.

Turning it around, just what his born-in-France father felt about Poland. From which we should conclude that the men Chopin, father & son, had two countries which they loved, France & Poland, or if you prefer, Poland & France.

--Frania W. (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Here, here! I still mean to fix up that earlier photo and stick it at the top though. Cloak' 13:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's Hear, hear, and get consensus before you change the lead image.THD3 (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm clearly never going to get consensus when one person just dislikes photographs, one person insists that Chopin doesn't have any French in him whatsoever and any other way about it is bigotry, one person who just corrects people's spelling and grammar and one person who kind of agrees with me about Chopin's Frenchness. That's everyone. This image would be absolutely fine in the lead. I flipped it to correct way (compare his hair with the later photo) and cleaned up the area outside. I doubt this would be allowed of course but I can't see how this valuable photograph could be places below just another painting just because said painting perhaps looks prettier. Though saying such things implies I have a negative view of Chopin so I want to make him look bad, of course. And I'm sorry about the here here. Cloak' 18:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Cloak, I have nothing against photographs - I've even contributed a few myself. I merely have stated that the two extant photographs of Chopin are of poor quality - the earlier due to the daguerreotype's decay (even with your fixes, it's still pretty cloudy), the other due to the subject's decay. Further, the Wodzinska painting is far from "romanticized", it's a straightforward watercolor. The Delacroix painting, now that's romanticized.THD3 (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Cloak, I just did some experimenting. If you want your refurbished daguerreotype in the lead, it must be put at the upper left so that Chopin would be facing toward the text, not outside the article. That would allow keeping the painting on the right just where it is. However, I know of no article that begins with a portrait at upper left, or one on each side.

Another disadvantage is that it slightly enlarges the already huge blank space between the lead & Life section.

My personal opinion is that this dag should appear in its original form at time of life when taken, that is 1846.

Please go to article at "test"[4], which I reverted immediately.

Cordialement, from "the one person who kind of agrees with you about Chopin's Frenchness',

--Frania W. (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Good job & good luck, Cloak. Now, all you have to do is wait for the sky to fall on your head.

--Frania W. (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

With pleasure! I'll go down fighting. Cloak' 01:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Vous avez quelques heures de répit, la Pologne dort. --Frania W. (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Parlez-moi d'elle! Le silence...Cloak' 02:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sadly Frania we are wrong and they don't sleep. Cloak' 02:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"You have a few hours of respite, Poland sleeps." Very funny. That is certainly the kind of constructive cooperativism and openness that new Wikipedians such as myself have come to expect from a few established Wikipedians. Either way, I disagree with a number of points you bring up. The cases of Mikolaj's and Frederic's emigrations are not identical. There are several reasons why Mikolaj Chopin left for Poland and didn't return to France. The most important fact is that he never had to leave, which is different from Frederic's case as I'll mention soon. The closeness of Mikolaj's undeniably French family to Poland precedes his life. In the 1730s, following the War of Polish Succession, the exiled King Stanislaw Leszczynski was granted the Duchy of Lorraine by his son-in-law, King Louis XV. Stanislaw brought a sizable number of Poles with him to Lorraine, including to Marianville, and created a strong Polish environment in which Francois Chopin raised his son Mikolaj. In 1787, as violent revolution was unfolding in France, Count Jan Adam Wejdlich invited the 16-year-old Mikolaj to Poland. Indeed he came, learned Polish, volunteered for the Warsaw National Guard, and reached the rank of captain when he fought for Poland's independence in Kosciouszko's 1794 uprising. By this point, all correspondence with his French family had ended. Count Skarbek noted that Mikolaj "[had] become a Pole indeed." He taught French in Warsaw's academies to support his family because French, as the the lingua franca of Europe, was in high demand. This is different from some fluffy academic teaching Polish in southern China out of a love for Polish.

This is entirely different from the case of Frederic, who was performing in Vienna when Warsaw rose up in violent insurrection against the Russian occupiers. For Frederic's own safety and fearing the ramifications of the perilous political environment for him, Frederic's family persuaded him not to return to Warsaw to join the uprising. He wrote to Elsner "as an artist, I am in my cradle, as a Pole, I am already twenty." The following September, while in Stuttgart, he learned of the Russian suppression of the uprising and wrote: "At times, I can only groan, suffer, and pour out my despair at the piano!" Chopin couldn't return to Poland for the preservation of his own life; would a Jew on holiday from Germany return after Hitler assumed power in '33? Chopin wasn't the only Pole to leave Polish lands at the time; in fact many of Poland's cultural elite left because the political calamity and foreign occupation made their creative lives impossible. That doesn't mean they abandoned Poland, it means that immensely powerful political forces beyond their control made life in the land of their birth unreasonable. Chopin, by the way, didn't apply for a new passport at the Russian embassy and forfeited his right to return to Warsaw because he refused to cooperate with tsarist regulations; applying for a new passport would have been a tacit approval of the legitimacy of the occupying regime. Certainly traveling on a French passport would have afforded more convenience, no one is denying that. I totally disagree with your previous assertions that Chopin never expressed dismay at the events unfolding in occupied Poland, that's simply not true. It brought him unimaginable grief.

I am not surprised that Frederic expressed satisfaction at being in Paris. I have had the good fortune of visiting Paris many times and each time have sent people postcards expressing my satisfaction with being in such a beautiful city. But being in effective political exile doesn't necessarily mean that one embraces a new homeland, as pleasant as the surroundings may be to the senses. You'll find such an idea thoroughly repudiated on the discussion page of the Rachmaninoff article. Rachmaninoff, born in Russia, lived for years in the United States, assumed American citizenship, and died in California, but you'll be laughed out of the room if you try to assert that Rachmaninoff was "Russian-American." Actually, while in Los Angeles, Rachmaninoff was fervently involved in the area's Russian community and played all the time for Russian emigres. That's just how Chopin was involved in Paris's Polish community, playing and performing for them, using the Polish language prominently and publicly. Rachmaninoff continued to incorporate Russian melodies and styles into his compositions, much like how Chopin continued to utilize Polish tunes and themes in his music, particularly his mazurkas and polonaises. Rachmaninoff's body was buried in New York; at least Chopin arranged to have his heart buried in Warsaw.

I am not denying the importance of France in Chopin's life, and I am not trying to deny that he spent half his life in Paris. I am questioning whether being forced to leave one's homeland for reasons beyond one's control necessarily bestows a new nationality on a person. A person's nationality is far more complex and abstract than the simple issue of what kind of passport he holds.--Atwardow (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Atwardow, you make some good points, and I agree with Chopin and you about imbeciles. I don't care for the Rachmaninoff analogy terribly much, however, because both of Rachmaninoff's parents were Russian. As for Chopin having to leave what was "defacto" Russia, because Russia invaded Russia in 1830 (small, ugly, reality check), why did he have to leave, when the rest of his family stayed? You may know that Wagner did have to leave Saxony due to his participation in the May Uprising in Dresden. To the best of my knowledge the diminutive, neurotic, bachelor, who never married (description of Chopin by Norman Davies), played no part in any political or military engagements in his homeland (either one). It's funny how certain individuals escape this nationalistic dragnet. Take Joseph Conrad for example. You'd be "laughed out of the room" if you tried to assert that he is not considered to be a British novelist (oops, Polish-born) at least on English Wikipedia and most other English sources. Please understand, it does not denigrate Poland in any way to acknowledge his French paternity. Think about it. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I know that Poland was partitioned in the 19th century. You're certainly correct that after the collapse of the Duchy of Warsaw, the city was incorporated against the will of the Polish people into the Russian Empire. But it's not incorrect to speak about the continuing existence of Poland for many reasons. "Poland" continued to exist politically (Congress Poland), certainly as a part of the Russian Empire, but it was Poland nonetheless. So the idea of Poland was never completely eliminated as such. (The tsars until Nicholas II would refer to themselves as kings of Poland, so there was indeed a Poland to rule over.) More importantly, the absence of an independent political State doesn't necessarily imply the end of a nation, especially when a certain group of people are bound by a common religion, language, culture, history, etc. So in the 19th century, regardless of the absence of the name "Poland" on any map of Europe, Poland continued to exist in the hearts and minds of the Polish people as much as it continued to exist as a political unit, albeit a non-independent one. Chopin's own behavior reflects that reality as he refused to comply with tsarist regulations and file for a Russian passport. Under such circumstances, I too would rather acquire a French passport, as I'm sure would many others who vehemently rejected the legitimacy of the Russian occupation (not that what I would do is important and I'm sure no one cares).

You're right that the diminutive, neurotic genius of Romantic music was not politically involved, but allow me to share with you what Robert Schumann himself said about Chopin's music: "Guns buried in flowers."

This page provides a context for Schumann's quote and shows that Schumann was indeed referring to the Russian occupation of Poland:

http://books.google.com/books?id=JDW1KoVHtHkC&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=robert+schumann+chopin+guns+buried+in+flowers&source=bl&ots=b_slcbGTNI&sig=GJtETpTmMp2O69pQ_xwZIzwBCLA&hl=en&ei=L4R8TLPaE8KonAe5tJH4AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false

So you're completely correct that Frederic didn't take up physical arms in the defense of Poland (unlike his French-born father, who came to Poland and fought in Kosciuszko's Uprising). But I'm sure you know that there are non-violent ways of expressing resistance.

In summation, I'm not denying the fact that Mikolaj Chopin was born in France. I am not planning to touch the "French-Polish parentage" line at all, as much as I disagree with it or regard it as utterly useless in the first paragraph. Such details are best left to the main body of the article, as I and many, many, many countless others regard Chopin as Polish only. We all know how important Leopold Mozart was to Wolfgang's musical development, but there is not a single mention of the former in the lead of the latter's article.

The reason there is no need to mention Leopold Mozart in the lead of his son's article is that there is no argument, no controversy about either of them identities, nationalities, or whatever, while in Frédéric Chopin's case, the Poles refuse to admit that his father was French. Wherever there is no debate, the "Frenchness" of Frédéric Chopin is completely ignored. Why should the truth to be "suppressed"? Is it a coincidence that every time Chopin's French nationality or heritage are mentioned, there is a levée en masse on the Polish side? And it is not because "many, many, many countless others regard Chopin as Polish only" that""many, many, many countless others" are right. There used to be a time when ""many, many, many countless others" thought the Earth was flat, and these ""many, many, many countless others" burned ""many, many, many countless others" at the stake as heretics.

--Frania W. (talk) 05:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Dr. Dan, a lot of these comments are addressed to Cloak as well because in previous posts on this discussion page he said that if it were up to him Chopin would be listed as "French" only.--Atwardow (talk) 04:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

As I try to post this, I keep on running into Dr. Dan & Mr. Atwardow

Atwardow,

If you'd care to read the archived discussions, you will see that this subject has been debated in depth, height, length & width.

So, what are you telling me that I do not know? - with the difference that you leave some details out.

I have never, absolutely never denied Chopin's Polishness, love of Poland & the Polish influence in his music. But I will not deny either the French part of his being, no more than I will deny the fact that his father was a Frenchman. You cannot deny a human being half his identity. If his parents had married someone else, there would not have been a Frédéric Chopin. He was who he was because of both his parents.

On another point, the Russians were not after Frédéric Chopin like the Germans were after the Jews. Had they been, they would have managed to "kidnap" him in any of the countries where he was travelling. The Russki had embassies in every country, and Chopin travelled on a Russian passport. Further, it is thanks to his French nationality (né de parents français) that he did not have to renew it, as the French government issued him a French one - which kept Chopin from having to register with the French police as a Polish refugee or émigré.

And, by the way, Frédéric Chopin seems to have highly enjoyed his "life in exile" in France.

--Frania W. (talk) 05:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to "many many etc" references in academia and among musicians (Artur Rubinstein, Krystian Zimerman, etc) to the exclusivity of Poland's legitimate "claim" over Chopin. But actually you're right, I spoke incorrectly. In fact, there is a wonderful sarcastic expression that describes what I just said: "six million Frenchmen can't all be wrong."

If you want to discontinue this discussion, that's fine. I'm not too impressed that "this subject has been debated in depth, height, length & width" because I don't think that means that no person is allowed to question the status quo on an article ever. I started this discussion the other week because I disagreed with the inclusion of "French-Polish parentage" in the lead paragraph.This is an article about Frederic Chopin. Certainly he existed because of his parents, but articles have bodies to discuss such important facts in depth. Mikolaj is not Frederic, he doesn't belong in the lead. Of course, I do not believe that Chopin is French, so I will always disagree with you there.

The point of the reference to Germany and Jews was to note that there were very simple, practical reasons Mikolaj encouraged Frederic not to return to Warsaw - namely, intense uncertainty about the political climate. Chopin would not have left for Paris had it not been for the failure of the November Uprising.--Atwardow (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, please don't accuse me of denying Mikolaj's Frenchness. That's not what I have been claiming.--Atwardow (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Atwardow, you wrote: Mikolaj encouraged Frederic not to return to Warsaw - namely, intense uncertainty about the political climate. Chopin would not have left for Paris had it not been for the failure of the November Uprising.

From Selected Correspondence of Fryderyk Chopin ... translated & edited by Arthur Hedley: pp. 20-21:

Arthur Hedley's comment preceding Nicolas Chopin's letter to Minister Grabowski : "When the spring of 1829 arrived it was clear that Chopin had nothing further to learn in Warsaw and must soon prepare for a period of study abroad. The young man had no wealthy patron to whom he could turn and his father had no choice but to appeal to the government for a grant. He did so in the following terms":

• Warsaw 13 April 1829

May it please Your Excellency!

Having been employed for twenty years as a teacher at the Warsaw High School and being convinced that I have fully performed my duties to the best of my ability, I venture to address a modest request to Your Excellency and beg for you gracious intervention with the Government, a favour which I shall regard as the best possible reward for my efforts.

I have a son whose innate gifts for music call for further development in this art. His Imperial Majesty Alexander, of blessed memory, Tsar and King of Poland, most graciously deigned to reward him with a precious ring as a token of His satisfaction when he had the honour of being heard by the Monarch. His Imperial Highness the Grand Duke [Constantine], Commander-in-Chief, has also allowed him on occasion to give proofs of his talent in His presence. Finally, many respectable persons and connoisseurs can support the view that my son might become a credit to his country in his chosen profession if he were given the opportunity to pursue his studies to their proper completion.

He has finished his preliminary course of study, in witness whereof I may refer to the Director of the Musical High School and University Professor, Mr.Elsner. He now only needs to visit foreign countries, viz. Germany, Italy and France in order to perfect himself according to the best models.

Since my modest resources, based solely on my salary as a teacher, are insufficient to cover the expense of such a journey lasting perhaps three years I beg to submit to His Excellency the Minister a request that the Administration might draw from the fund which has been placed at the Viceroy's disposal some contribution towards my son's expenses.

I am, with the greatest respect, Your Excellency's humble servant,

Nicolas Chopin, Assistantat the Warsaw High School.

Hedley's comment: "The application was coldly turned down: public funds could not be "wasted" for such purposes, even though the Tsar himself was in Warsaw for his coronation as King of Poland [...] Chopin, at his father's expense, made his first real excursion into the outside world, traveling to Vienna in the company of four of his school-mates."

--Frania W. (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

So what? Many people spend part of their youth studying abroad. This has nothing to do with permanent political exile. --Atwardow (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason I brought up the above letter was because of your: "Chopin would not have left for Paris had it not been for the failure of the November Uprising": Chopin's trip abroad had been planned & was carried out when he left Poland at the beginning of November 1830, some three weeks before the uprising. So his leaving for Paris was not a result of the failure of the uprising. He was already out of the country.

--Frania W. (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, there is another composer whose mixed parentage isn't noted at all in the introductory paragraphs. That's right, Maurice Ravel, a major French composer, had a French father and a Basque mother who grew up in Madrid, Spain. Yet we do not read "Maurice Ravel was a French composer of French-Basque parentage" or "French-Spanish parentage." Are the writers of that article denying him his identity? I don't think so. They are properly leaving such details to the body of the article where they belong. --Atwardow (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Atwardow:

• Again, there has never been an international dispute on any other historical figure, denying his/her other nationality or parentage, i.e. half of his/her identity, such as is on Frédéric Chopin . I am beginning to believe that, against the United Polish Front, God Himself would be fighting a losing battle on this one.
• You chose a bad example with Maurice Ravel's mother, Marie Delouart-Ravel. She may have been from an ancient Spanish family, but she - like Frédéric Chopin's father - was born in France. She was born in Ciboure [5], near St Jean-de-Luz, in the "Pays basque" that is not a part of Spain, but a part of France, as the French Pays basque covers the western zone of the French Pyrénées-Atlantiques department, so she was born French, like my Bayonne[6]-born grandmother. People born in the French Basque region are French nationals, just as the people from Bretagne, Provence, Alsace or Lorraine are French, n'en déplaise aux Polonais.

--Frania W. (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I am perfectly content with the fact that she was a French citizen but I'm sure you're aware of the complicated issue of Basque nationality. I've been browsing numerous sites that refer to his mother as Basque, not French.

You are not sure that I am not aware of the complicated issue of Basque nationality. The cradle of my French family is the Aquitaine: Pays basque, Béarn, the Pyrénées, Médoc wine region and, unless we'd keep our heads buried in the sand dunes of the Landes, we do know something about the complicated issues of the Basques on both sides of the Pyrénées.

--Frania W. (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

http://www.maurice-ravel.net/mother.htm

http://www.bookrags.com/biography/maurice-joseph-ravel/

That last one says that Ravel learned to love the Spanish and Basque cultures from his mother.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_Trio_(Ravel)

Even this last article notes that Ravel felt a deep closeness to his Basque heritage.

http://www.sfcv.org/learn/composer-gallery/87

According to this last one, Ravel "identified with his mother’s Basque-Spanish heritage, seen in works like Rhapsodie espagnole (Spanish rhapsody, 1907-08), and Boléro (1928)."

http://www.sfsymphony.org/music/ProgramNotes.aspx?id=37546

Again, this identifies his mother as Basque, not French.

So no, my example was good. It shows that Ravel too had a mixed parentage, and you are now denying him part of his Basque identity - bez obrażania Francuzów.--Atwardow (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not deny Ravel anything from his mixed parentage, being a Basque does not take away his French nationality. The "Pays Basque" is a part of France, not a country within France. His mother was French born in a part of France called "Pays Basque", and so was he.

--Frania W. (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Who is this Nihil novi? Who is he to revert people's edits without blessing us with a word on the talk page? Does he own the article? Cloak' 15:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

To some extent this discussion is getting lurid and unnecessarily nasty. Accusations about French "nationalists" and Polish "nationalists" should stop. It's not going to settle anything nor bring about any kind of consensus. I'm especially impressed with Atwardow's impassioned research, however, and believe he makes some very valid points. To be sure he's discussed Rachmaninoff, Schumann, Ravel, Liszt, and many other famous composers. I have read that Tchaikovsky was actually Polish and not Russian. Atwardow, may I ask you your opinion concerning Tchaikovsky's heritage? In it's own way, that might put your perspective into better focus. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well that is an interesting point. To my best knowledge, he was born in lands that were always considered Russian, Russian was his first language, and he considered himself Russian. So I think that one would consider Tchaikovsky Russian. Do you have a different view?--Atwardow (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is it an "interesting point"? Actually, I do not have a different view about the generally accepted view of Tchaikovsky's heritage. Have you ever come across claims that "Czajkowski" was actually Polish (ancestrally), I have? Dr. Dan (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it's interesting because I was aware that he may have had Polish ancestry and perhaps you wanted (maybe I'm completely wrong) to see if I regarded him as Polish. But since Tchaikovsky probably regarded himself as Russian, I will call him a Russian in the same way I call Chopin Polish because he regarded himself as a Pole. Just my opinion.--Atwardow (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't have a special purpose, nor an ulterior motive, in asking you the question. However, I do find your addition of "probably" to the Tchaikovsky situation to be an interesting characterization. Evidently you do not seem to be of the persuation, that Chopin "probably" regarded himself a Pole. Chopin undoubtebly considered himself a Pole. No "probability" in that regard. Right? I'm not sure that I can go along with the idea that someone is something because that's what they regard themselves. A boy or girl born in Scotland to Scottish parents does not become a Choctaw because that's what they regard themselves. Just my opinion. You might find a recent discussion that I had here [7] to be somewhat enlightening as to what others think about similar situations. In that discussion I learned that an individual (Joseph Kozdon) who didn't consider himself to be a Pole, and actually stated that he wasn't a Pole, became a Pole anyway. This was the gist of that argument "The fact that he did not feel personally as a Pole (sic) does not matter here...." So you see there are wide differences of interpretations of that debate. Incidentally, do we have a statement from Chopin, "I'm Polish", "Jestem Polakem", or "Je suis polonais"? Don't remember ever coming across anything like that? Dr. Dan (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It was an interesting discussion. I'm not sure what you mean that Jozef Kozdon became a Pole anyway; do you mean others called him Polish anyway? If he referred to himself as Silesian, then that's it. This is not the same with Chopin. Chopin was born in a Polish state, the Duchy of Warsaw (lack of full independence notwithstanding) of a Polish mother and a father who immigrated to Poland and by all accounts (see the article's links and references) considered himself Polish even though was of French origin, and was referred to as Polish by others. So I don't consider Chopin Polish for any exterior reason other than that he was born in a Polish city and whose first language was Polish. It's as simple as that. I don't recall ever reading Chopin write "jestem polakiem" or "jestem francuzem" or "jestem obywatelem swiata" or "ich bin ein berliner," but that's immaterial. As I have stated on many occasions and as the article notes in its body and through the references it provides, Chopin did feel a closeness to his homeland that was expressed in his writings and, most importantly, in his music. I understand that there are wide differences of interpretation. But I regard the case of Chopin to be a fairly simple one.--Atwardow (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, my point concerned someone believing that someone is something because they might believe they are something that they are not. Sound confusing? To be sure, I'm not denying the Polish component of Chopin's heritage. I wish that others could stop denying the French component of his heritage. The only reason that I brought up the Kozdon matter, is that Kozdon said he was not a Pole, did not want to be a Pole, and one of the Polish editors argued that he was a Pole and the fact that he did not consider himself a Pole does not matter here (presumably on WP). I brought it up because it is in sharp contrast to your own POV. You may know that there are many more cases of disputes concerning peoples' heritages and ethnicity on Wikipedia and elsewhere. It seems that if you emigrate to Poland you can lose your ethnicity on Wikipedia. At least that seems to be the argument concerning Nicholas Chopin. Dr. Dan (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Why the amounting-to-censorship imposed blank on Chopin's Frenchness: ancestry, birth as a French national, recognition by the French government that he was a French national, as these are legal facts?

• baptism registration where father is mentioned as "galli" = "French", twenty-three years after Nicolas Chopin arrived in Poland [8]
• French passport issued in 1837 (not the first one but the only available online), in which is clearly mentioned "né de parents français", which reflects the 1804 Code Napoléon in effect in the Duchy of Warsaw at the time of his birth [9]

It seems to me that if Nicolas Chopin had denounced his French nationality, he would not have had the priest who baptised his son write "galli", qualifying him as a Frenchman.

If Frédéric Chopin had considered himself to be only a Pole, he would not have asked for - as it was not imposed on him - a French passport, not a "laissez-passer" for foreigners living on French soil, but a French passport "en bonne et due forme" recognising his French nationality because born of French parents.

Had Frédéric Chopin recognised himself only a Pole, he would have done what other Poles had to do, get a Russian passport.

--Frania W. (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Frania, why would you post a logical and rational explanation for explaining Chopin's dual nationality at this Talk page? Dr. Dan (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Because I like logic, Dr. Dan. For instance, because they were born in Poland of Polish parents, no one in France claims that the following Poles are French:

• Henryk Sienkiewicz, Stefan Żeromski, Andrzej Wajda, Lech Wałęsa, or Pope John Paul II, Karol Józef Wojtyła.

Chopin is obviously different.

--Frania W. (talk) 03:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but I think a more logical understanding is this: Chopin was born in a Polish city of a Polish mother and a father who, though born in France, came to Poland and by all accounts considered himself Polish (again, consult the article's links and references). This situation is not identical to Chopin's move to France, which was spurred by political instability and uncertainty regarding Warsaw's fate following the failed November Uprising. Being born in Warsaw and speaking Polish as your first language doesn't make your nationality French. And going into political exile doesn't make you French. So I disagree that your assertion is based on logic.

By the way, I already expressed my view on the whole passport issue. Carrying around a particular passport for the convenience of travel doesn't change your nationality. Citizenship and nationality are two different things. So I'm not impressed by your reference to that issue.--Atwardow (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Atwardow,

It is my turn not to be impressed by your logic.

First, be it understood that I have never said that Frédéric Chopin was not Polish, what I am saying is that he was also French.

Second, the "French-Polish parentage" in the lead was agreed upon after long & heated discussions on the subject. We managed to come to a consensus, which is reflected in the lead with Chopin's "French-Polish parentage", while he is described as a Polish composer.

Now, responding to some of points of your last comment above:

• Chopin was born in the Duchy of Warsaw which, at the time of his birth, was governed under the 1804 Napoléon Code, which recognised the nationality of a child according to that of his father (jus sanguinis), making Frédéric Chopin a little Frenchman because his father was French. The Code Napoléon did not have a codicil stating "a French national unless the father believes himself to be something else". And the Code Napoléon did not remove any Polish nationality from the newborn either, it simply gave Frédéric Chopin the French nationality of his father.
• Why do you choose to ignore Chopin's birth registration where the priest wrote that his father was French?
• Chopin's move to France was a long-prepared move to go study abroad, and was not "spurred by political instability and uncertainty regarding Warsaw's fate following the failed November Uprising"! Frédéric Chopin left before the uprising.
• Speaking Polish as a first language, and being Polish, did not keep Frédéric Chopin from also speaking French & being a French national (see above).
• Again, Frédéric Chopin did not go into political exile: when came time to renew his Russian passport, the French were able to issue him a French one because he was French "born of French parents". This is a detail that separated Chopin from many of the Polish political refugees in exile in France, who had to register with the French authorities as such, which Frédéric Chopin did not have to do because etc. (see above)
• One does not "carry around a particular passport for the convenience of travel": a political refugee is not given a "passport" of the host country in which he resides, he is given a "titre de voyage", which is very different: Frédéric Chopin was given a French passport, his French nationality (not citizenship) being certified by the fact that his parents were French (because of the Code Napoléon, Chopin's mother had become French at the time of her marriage to Nicolas, a Frenchman.)

Whether you are impressed or not "by my reference to that issue" does not change the legal facts of the nationality of the Chopin family, which is nicely swept under the Polish rug. This amounts to refusing to acknowledge the truth.

--Frania W. (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't plan to repeat myself again and again to answer these Francophile assertions. If the owners of this article came to a consensus long ago, that's fine. After all, the rules of Wikipedia do indeed prohibit any tampering by non-owners. So I'll just say this: I accept the article the way it is. I disagree with its insertion; I said before that I think it properly belongs in the body of the paragraph. Not to hide it, not to take away his supposed "French identity," but because this is an article about Frederic Chopin, born in Zelazowa Wola in 1810, and not about his father Mikolaj Chopin. But fine, if it's going to be there, then it's going to be there. --Atwardow (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You can consider this discussion closed from my end.--Atwardow (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Chopin himself was quite a Francophile... France is where he chose to go, and after he got there, except for a few short trips outside its border (I have counted five, but it could be a couple more), he never left. The Russian passport he travelled on when he first arrived in France had a visa for London countersigned by the French Ambassador in Vienna with the mention "passing by Paris". Years later Chopin would joke with his Parisian friends saying Yes, I am still here, but I am just "passing through".

Adieu !

--Frania W. (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me say something additionally here. Look, all this crap about Francophiles, Francophobes, ad nauseum, is getting to be too much. The same goes for Chopin's leaving Poland with, "which was spurred by political instability and uncertainty regarding Warsaw's fate following the failed November Uprising". All nonsense. Chopin was a great artist and "performer". He left Poland to go to where the money was, where the fame was, where the glory was. It was not to be found in Żelazowa Wola, or anywhere else in Polska. His half-French nationality opened the door for him to do so in France, the country of his father's birth. That's the long and short of it. Since Atwardow plans to drop out of this discussion anyway, this namby-pamby nonsense should be stopped already. The simple fact that Chopin was a Polish-French composer need to be placed into the lead, referenced, and be done with. If that reality hurts somebody's nationalistic pride or feelings, they need to have a good cry and move on to something else on the project. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, since Dr. Dan wants to continue dragging this discussion along, I'll oblige. No, it isn't "crap" to refer to Poland's political state at the time. I don't think you are aware of the complex political turmoil of that era, or of how Chopin wasn't sure if he wanted to stay in Paris permanently (at one point he considered emigrating to the US), or of how his family urged him not to return. So no, it's not crap to say that. Preventing the hijacking of history is not "namby-pamby nonsense." Sure, find a "source" that refers to him as Polish-French. I could easily replace it with a source that considers him exclusively Polish.--Atwardow (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Here, Dr. Dan, is an excerpt from Chopin's diary after he got word of what was happening in Warsaw. I'm sure this'll give you a good opportunity to show how Chopin was a "namby pamby" who probably needed a good cry:

"The enemy has reached my home! The suburbs are stormed - burnt down! My family, my friends! Where are you? Wilhelm has surely perished on the ramparts. I see Marcel a prisoner. Sowinski, that good patriot, is a prisoner in the hands of those scoundrels. And God, are you too a prisoner? You are, but you do not avenge! Perhaps you too are a Russian! And the churchyard where my poor sister is buried. Have they respected her grave, or has it too been trampled underfoot, a thousand other corpses piled above it? Why am I here, and why could I not slay a single Russian? May the most frightful torments seize the French for not coming to our aid." --Atwardow (talk) 04:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The text you are referring to, which we all know by heart, was written in Stuttgart after 8 September 1831, and in a letter addressed to his friend Alfons Kumelski from Paris, on 18 November, hardly two months later, he wrote how he was pleased with Paris & what he found there. Then on 27 November, in a letter answering that of his son, Nicolas Chopin wrote (in French): I was glad to see from your last letter that in several respects it will be more advantageous for you to be in Paris than it was in Vienna, for I am convinced that you will miss no opportunity of perfecting yourself in your chosen art. To know famous artists, to converse with them and hear them play their own works and to profit by their experiences cannot but be of the greatest advantage to a young man who is trying to shape a career for himself..." Hum... not much about Poland here, but all about Frédéric Chopin's success among the best of the best.

P.S. Does this letter of Nicolas Chopin to his son present us Frédéric Chopin as a political refugee or as a young man who went abroad for "perfecting himself in his chosen art...and trying to shape a career for himself" ?

--Frania W. (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do we have this incessant need to "politicize" Chopin's taking leave of Poland, when it is obvious that his motivations were to perfect and advance his musical career? Like Paderewski or Rubinstein, who left Poland because musical opportunities in Poland were limited at the time. Chopin left Poland before the "uprising", not because of it. He was not a political refugee. And he could have returned to Poland at anytime. He never did, not even for a short visit. Is there a "political theory" for that too? Or did he find life in the West more to his liking? As I said before, acknowledging his dual ethnicity, does not in any way detract from the Polish half of his person. Denying his French half is very chauvinistic and simply not factual or reality based. Atwardow, it would behoove you to read this again. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm very surprised that you're failing to see the reason Chopin left Poland for France among all of this. You're absolutely correct that he left for France to expand his career and be "among the best" as you say. But the reason that this is so is that Russia made life in Warsaw impossible for artists and intellectuals. Do you honestly think that Chopin could expect to continue composing and performing when in the letter you know by heart he laments the thousands of corpses laying around Warsaw and the many buildings in his home burned down by the Russian occupiers? You seem to suggest that he left Poland because he was living among country bumpkins and needed French enlightenment to become somebody great. That's not the case; he was already flourishing in Warsaw. He had premiered his only two piano concerti in Warsaw before the uprising, he had finished his education and was composing and performing. As I said before, I am not surprised that he wrote another letter expressing his pleasure with being in Paris. Under such circumstances, if my homeland were being razed to the ground and thousands of corpses were being strewn about by Russians, I'd be happy to be in Paris. Chopin was in political exile. That's my position, and the facts of history attest to that fact. Your argument would make sense if he were living in "peace time," but that's absolutely not the case. I'm sorry.--Atwardow (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Besides, you're understanding of the timeline is just not correct. All of the sources I've encountered - here's one: http://www.culture.pl/en/culture/artykuly/os_chopin_fryderyk - show that was outside Poland when the uprising happened - he was in Stuttgart - and His family discouraged him from returning. Now, if his family had to discourage him from returning when he was lamenting that he couldn't slay a single Russian, what does that say about his life's plans? That's when he went to Paris. Again, he wasn't sure if he was going to stay in Paris. A political exile like him, in the Great Polish Emigration following Russia's brutality, considered going to the US. Initially he didn't intend to settle permanently in France. --Atwardow (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Now, I was going to make some other points. But honestly, I don't see the need in continuing this discussion. I said many times that I am no longer disputing the article as is, I don't feel the need to repeat myself indefinitely. Please don't take that as some sort of "cowardice" on my part, I am just tired of repeating myself. I'm sure you are too.--Atwardow (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(OD) Atwardow, that was quite a long post, but although "full of sound and fury", it didn't signify very much. Let's shorten it up and start here, "Besides, you're understanding of the timeline is just not correct. All of the sources I've encountered - here's one: http://www.culture.pl/en/culture/artykuly/os_chopin_fryderyk - show that was already outside Poland when the uprising happened - he was in Stuttgart". That's your quote, your source, not mine (they need to correct their dates a little). That's what I've been saying all the time. He didn't leave Poland because of the "uprising", it happened after he left Poland. Furthermore, even though Russia finished partitioning Poland in 1795 (Chopin was born in 1810), you say "he was already flourishing in Warsaw. He had premiered his only two piano concerti in Warsaw before the uprising, he had finished his education and was composing and performing". If he was flourishing there, he didn't need to leave. Didn't he play a command performance for the Tsar of Russia (King of Poland) in Warsaw (and get a dainty little ring for his trouble)? As for "All of this seems to suggest that he left Poland for political reasons". Yes, let me dust off one of my medical textbooks and read about the "Power of suggestion" (here's a wlink) after many years. Look, the issue here isn't what he thought about Russia, or Poland's plight at the time. The issue here is his ethnicity, or nationality if you will. Not about his sexuality, nor about cystic fibrosis vs. tuberculosis. His father was French. His mother was Polish. He was French-Polish (O.K., O.K., Polish-French). Dr. Dan (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a precedent for not giving someone a hyphenated nationality when the article's subject was born in a country other than his or her parents'? Sure there is. Look at the article on Samuel C.C. Ting. He is ethnically Chinese and was born of Chinese parents, but since he was born in the United States he's referred to exclusively as an American. (And he's pretty significant, he won a Nobel Prize.) Same with Roger Y. Tsien. Why isn't Kate Chopin (no relation to this Chopin) referred to as Irish-American? She was born in the U.S., but her father was from Ireland. Oliver Stone's mother was born in France, but I have never heard Oliver Stone referred to as a French-American. Leonardo DiCaprio's mother was born in Germany, but I don't recall ever hearing that DiCaprio is a German-American. If it's going to be your policy to refer to Chopin as French-Polish because his father was born in France, then I think you should go to all these articles I've mentioned and change their leads too. If you tell me that you're not going to, then I think your actions could be construed as inconsistent.--Atwardow (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I just thought of an even better example: Winston Churchill. His mother was American. Therefore, he is American-British. I strongly recommend that you change the lead to his article--Atwardow (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I like consistency. Do you consider Paul von Hindenburg to be a Pole? He was born in Posen. Do you consider Joseph Pilsudski to be a Lithuanian? He was born in Zalavas? Dr. Dan (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with these examples. Paul von Hindeburg was born in a German state, spoke German as his first language, probably (almost certainly) considered himself German, and lived in a German state his whole life. Chopin was born in a (non-independent) Polish state (even later, as a part of the Russian empire, Poland existed as a dependent political sub-entity, but it was still Poland), and spoke Polish as his first language. He considered himself Polish:

"I am still in the cradle, but as a Pole already a man." "The enemy has reached my home. Etc. He never made such references to France or his supposed "Frenchness."

Now, Pilsudski's case is completely different. He was born in lands that once belonged to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and his family was long affiliated with that state. I don't know exactly what he considered himself. The article mentions that Polish was his first language. As far as his nationality is concerned, I guess you would have to look to him to see what he considered himself. He ultimately became a Polish head of state and fought fiercely for Poland's independence, not Lithuania's, so I would imagine that he considered himself Polish. --Atwardow (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow. At this point I think I would be entirely justified removing the "French-Polish parentage" bit because of the all the examples I've cited. There is simply no credible precedent (to my knowledge) for such a phrase on Wikipedia.--Atwardow (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, Atwardow, nationality has nothing to do with what one feels like being or considers himself to be. It is the legal status of one person according to the laws governing the country of his/her birth, or that of his/her parents, (jus soli vs jus sanguinis) at the time of his/her birth.

By the way, as has been pointed out several times, there are many inconsistencies in Wikipedia, and some of the examples you are giving might indeed be in need of correction; for instance, unless his French mother did not declare his birth at the French Consulate in New York, Oliver Stone is a dual national Franco-American; and if she didn't do it, and was French at the time of his birth, Oliver Stone has every right to claim his French nationality. From interviews I heard of him in France (by the way, according to your arguments, his French being perfect, this is sufficient to make him a Frenchman) I have always been left under the impression that he was both French & American, but not knowing the particularities of his case, I would not correct the article on him.

The laws governing nationality being different in every country, and having changed in the course of the years, there is not a unique blanket covering all the examples you have cited. Each case has to be dealt with separately.

One article that could be corrected is that on Guillaume Apollinaire (1880-1918) who was born in Italy of a Polish mother, was thus a Polish national because at the time of his birth jus sanguinis was the law governing nationality in Italy, and who took the French nationality only in 1916, hardly two years before his death. For 36 years, Guillaume Apollinaire, who lived most of his life in France, was a Pole. I do not see much hulaballoo made of him. Even Polish wiki does not lay much claim on this Pole described as a "francuski poeta polskiego pochodzenia". Could it be because Wilhelm Albert Włodzimierz Apolinary de Wąż-Kostrowicki did some jail time?

--Frania W. (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems a little baffling that one country can simply pass a law and declare that an indiscriminate number of people anywhere in the world and for all perpetuity are going to be nationals of that country whether they like it or not. What if Saudi Arabia suddenly announces that all Muslims are nationals of Saudi Arabia? What if the Vatican declares that all baptized Roman Catholics are citizens of the Vatican City State and have to start paying taxes? Ok, enough of my personal lack of understanding with assigning people nationality because some unfathomable foreign law mystically makes it so. Here's an excerpt from Tad Szulc's book:

“[After Chopin first arrived in Paris in 1831:] Because Chopin’s Russian passport restriction allowed him to remain in Paris only ‘in passage’ to London, Paer wrote the French authorities requesting a more permanent status for 'this young man…who is a Pole deported from Warsaw as a result of the revolution [and] who was in Vienna where the press and the society elite received him with great consideration. Chopin is an educated man’. “Chopin of course had not been deported and was not a political refugee, but the French granted him permission to stay in Paris indefinitely ‘to be able to perfect his art’. Four years later, Fryderyk became a French citizen and a French passport was issued to him on August 1, 1835. He is not known to have discussed his decision to change citizenship with anyone, not even his father. It is unclear whether he did it to avoid renewing his Russian passport at the Russian embassy for patriotic reasons or simply as a matter of general convenience”. (Tad Szulc “Chopin in Paris” p.69 )

Here's my question. If Chopin had automatically inherited his father's French nationality at birth, and this was reflected in the laws, in the baptismal records, etc. etc, then why was it necessary for Chopin to go through the process of acquiring citizenship, applying for a passport, requesting permission to stay in Paris, etc.? If he, by the principle of jus sanguinis, was a Frenchman, why don't the facts of history attest to this? It seems that the French authorities treated him as a foreigner, which he indeed was. He was a Pole, not a Frenchman, regardless of his father's birth in France.

By the way, I find it absolutely bewildering that a consistent application of your interpretation of this problem would lead you to assign nationalities to a bunch of people who probably wouldn't feel the same way about it. So Leonardo diCaprio is a German-American? I don't ever recall reading or hearing him refer to himself as that. If Oliver Stone considers himself French and American equally, in my mind that would have more weight than some arbitrary law in some faraway place claiming him in perpetuity. Nationality is all about self-identity, solidarity with a group of people one cares about and feels bound to, identification with a particular history and language, etc. And even if the "jus sanguinis" idea has any merit, then could you explain why the French treated him as a foreigner (which, to them, he was)?--Atwardow (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

What facsimile document is Tad Szulc showing in his book that proves that Frédéric Chopin became a naturalised French citizen? Because it does not make any sense that an individual born a Frenchman because born of French parents - as is inscribed on his French passport - would have to become a Frenchman when he is one already. The letter you are quoting from Paer is filled with errors concerning Frédéric Chopin, this one being a pearl: 'this young man…who is a Pole deported from Warsaw as a result of the revolution... Neither you nor anyone else can base an argument on something that is so false.

The Chopin case being made complicated enough, it seems to me that Leonardo diCaprio and Oliver Stone should be kept out of this discussion: there is no international law that covers the case of nationality, be it acquired at birth or through a naturalisation process.

--Frania W. (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Frania, you will have to consult his book if you question the credibility of his assertions. I for one am having a very difficult time finding a source to back up your claim that the laws of France regarded him as a Frenchman upon his birth. It appears that this is original research. You may wildly disagree with Tad Szulc because he makes an assertion that is contrary to your point of view, but that doesn't mean that he should be arbitrarily dismissed. (By the way, Szulc already acknowledges that Paer's letter is filled with untruths; could it have been an introductory letter to French society? If Chopin already considered himself a Frenchman or if the laws regarded him as a Frenchman, why doesn't Paer's letter acknowledge this?) Why don't we find references to his automatic French nationality in any source? If he was a Frenchman and was guaranteed citizenship and protection, why then did he struggle with the decision about where to go after his family urged him not to return to Warsaw? He considered Italy, Austria, etc. If he was a Frenchman and could have easily returned to France (because the mystical laws of the time made him a Frenchman), why don't we find a single source verifying this? If I'm wrong, please correct me.--Atwardow (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Refocusing on the Issue

There has been a great tendency in the above discussion to digress into many off-topic issues (by myself included). Let's refocus on the issue of Chopin's ethnicity, or if you prefer nationality. That will be the only way that some consensus can be reached here. Chopin is a national hero in Poland, much in the same way that Lord Byron is a national hero to the Greeks. The difference being that Byron is only of British ethnicity and Chopin is both French and Polish. This nonsense about you are what you think you are, didn't make Idi Amin "King of Scotland". Is anyone able to explain how or why Chopin loses his French paternity to an eraser (or in modern times with the delete button)? That would be helpful. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you've constructed a few strawman arguments. First of all, insanely declaring oneself the "King of Scotland" isn't exactly asserting a nationality (Amin also declared himself "Conquerer of the British Empire" and had a fascination with Scottish kilts; last time I checked, Chopin didn't have a fascination with kilts. Besides, Uganda was a part of the British Empire when Idi Amin was born.) Secondly, I have never attempted to deny Chopin's French paternity. That Mikolaj was born in France is an obvious fact. What I have been arguing is that a) there generally isn't a precedent on Wikipedia for including hyphenated nationalities in the lead paragraph when the subject's parents were born in a foreign country, b) you can't find any sources in which Chopin acknowledges his automatically-acquired French citizenship or nationality (this is an important fact, and the only source I could find that addressed this seems to suggest that he had to apply for French citizenship after his arrival in Paris), and c) Chopin was tremendously conflicted about returning to Poland after the November Uprising and was urged by his family not to return, suggessting that he regarded Poland as his one and only homeland. I am bothered by the lack of verifiable sources showing that Chopin was automatically born a Frenchman and I am bothered by your dismissal of how considered himself Polish (see the quotations from letters I included in other posts I've made) and how you're comparing him to an African warlord who declared himself the King of Scotland. These aren't exactly equals. --Atwardow (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Atwardow, I'm not sure if if it's a language barrier or what. I'm not comparing Chopin to an African warlord. So don't put words into my mouth. It is you who has repeatedly argued that an individual's ethnic heritage is determined by "how they feel" about the matter rather than by reality. As for "kilts", I have no idea what Chopin's views about them were, and I dare say, that you don't either. Last time I checked his domestic partner aka George Sand did have a fascination with wearing men's clothes, smoking cigars, and engaging in other unusual behavior for the time. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Very well, point taken. Either way, I still maintain two things: a) There doesn't appear to be a precedent on Wikipedia for including hyphenated nationalities in the lead paragraph when the subject's parents were born in a foreign country, and b) you can't find any sources in which Chopin acknowledges his automatically-acquired French citizenship or nationality (this is an important fact, and the only source I could find that addressed this seems to suggest that he had to apply for French citizenship after his arrival in Paris). The last one is especially important because this would mean that any assertion that Chopin was automatically French by his birth would amount to original research. At least that's how I understand Wikipedia's policy on such things. If I'm wrong, please correct me.--Atwardow (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"Original research": what a great excuse used to repudiate a valid argument!

Here are some "mythical" documents:

• http://diaph16.free.fr/chopin//chopin5.htm
• http://diaph16.free.fr/chopin//chopin7.htm
• http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DjtC7CStaCMJ:www.thomasta.com/soutien%2520scolaire/economie/cours/Nationalite.html+Code+Napol%C3%A9on+1804+l%27enfant+tout+enfant+n%C3%A9+de+parents+fran%C3%A7ais+est+fran%C3%A7ais&cd=5&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Found at paragraph 2 of the above under the heading L’ÉVOLUTION HISTORIQUE DU DROIT FRANÇAIS DE LA NATIONALITÉ

• Le Code Napoléon de 1804 accorde en revanche une primauté au droit du sang, qui permet à l'enfant né d'un père français d'avoir la nationalité française à la naissance, même si l'enfant est né hors des frontières hexagonales (contrairement au droit révolutionnaire, cette législation favorise les enfants des Français qui ont émigré pour fuir la Révolution).

--Frania W. (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Atwardow, here is an interesting find[10] to compare with your comments: "It seems a little baffling that one country can simply pass a law and declare that an indiscriminate number of people anywhere in the world and for all perpetuity are going to be nationals of that country whether they like it or not..." & "By the way, I find it absolutely bewildering that a consistent application of your interpretation of this problem would lead you to assign nationalities to a bunch of people who probably wouldn't feel the same way about it." It would seem that, at least on nationality, modern Poland has adopted (or kept) the French Napoleonic Code of 1804:

POLOGNE (mis à jour le 17.09.2004) 1. Dispositions législatives sur la nationalité a. Textes en vigueur - Loi du 15 février 1962 sur la citoyenneté polonaise (Journal officiel/Dziennik Ustaw n° 28, 2000, point 323 et amendements). Traduction en langue anglaise disponible.

4. Droit du sang (Jus sanguinis) Depuis 1920, le droit polonais reconnaît le principe de l’acquisition de la nationalité polonaise du fait d’être né de parents polonais (droit du sang). Un enfant né de parents qui ont la nationalité polonaise acquiert donc cette nationalité quel que soit le pays dans lequel il est né. Le droit polonais reconnaît aux parents le droit de donner à leur enfant la nationalité d’un autre Etat lorsque l’un des deux parents est polonais et l’autre ressortissant d’un autre Etat. Les parents peuvent opter pour une nationalité étrangère dans les trois mois suivants la naissance de l’enfant.

I apologize for sending this in French, but if you are a Pole, I am sure you can find this in the Civil Code of Poland which you seem to know by heart.

Regards, --Frania W. (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I've seen all of these documents before. Yes, I've seen Chopin's certificate of baptism which took place in Poland. You claim that the existing laws may have offered him automatic French citizenship (which is itself contradicted by other sources I've provided which assert that he had to apply for citizenship), but this changes nothing about his nationality. Chopin was born in (some political variant of) Poland, spoke Polish as his first language, left Poland because of political developments, etc. I don't care if the Code de Napoleon or whatever claimed his a Frenchman. This assertion is utterly meaningless because Frederic Chopin wasn't born in France, so he wasn't a Frenchman. France claiming him as a Frenchman is as meaningless as Russia claiming him as a Russian because Poland was at some point during his life in Poland incorporated into the Russian Empire. Was he a Russian national because the laws of Russia claimed him as a Russian citizen? Should the lead read "Chopin was a French-Russian composer of the Romantic Era?" With that example you see how absurd the whole situation becomes. Chopin regarded himself as a "Pole" (see an above quotation I provided). He did not regard himself as a Frenchman, so France's desire to make him a Frenchman will simply not suffice.--Atwardow (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Atwardow, like you, I've heard all of these arguments before. You seem to be an intelligent person, and a reasonable one too. Why then do you return to the nonsensical argument concerning his "place of birth"? Can we at least agree on the simple fact, that had Chopin been born in Madagascar, with the same parents, you'd still consider him to be Polish, and I'd still consider him to be Polish-French? Can you see, with your example or argument, how absurd the whole situation becomes? Then you say "he left Poland because of political developments, etc." That's nonsense too. A nationalistic "point of view", without basis, created by others after his death. Does anyone have any statement by Chopin corroborating that assertion? An assertion, from him, that he left Poland because of "political developments"? No, it's not possible, because that is not why he left Poland. Or isn't such a claim subject to the original research taboo (oops, it can probably be linked to some tabloid)? It's pure nonsense, propagated after his death, without any connection to reality. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Atwardow, you say This assertion is utterly meaningless because Frederic Chopin wasn't born in France, so he wasn't a Frenchman. According to you, this "utterly meaningless assertion" should touch thousands of modern-day children born outside Poland of Polish parents - although Polish law says otherwise. Please read article 34 of the 1997 Constitution of Poland [11], and tell us how different it is from what the Napoleonic Code said about French nationality being acquired at birth when one parent was French, no matter where the child was born?

--Frania W. (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that this provision of the Polish constitution is also utterly meaningless. It's just another instance of a country doing everything it can to claim, in perpetuity, an indiscriminate number of people for generations to come. (I notice that you, Frania, have a Polish last name. Are you a Polish national beyond your choice?) Just to show both of you that I am not motivated by mindless nationalism, I would like to share these facts with you: I think that Marie Curie is probably as French as she is Polish (even though she was born of Polish parents) because that's a nationality that she voluntarily chose. Now, using your line of thinking, was she French in addition to being Polish? Only Polish? Only French? (Remember, neither one of her parents was French. I think you'd have to say she was only Polish to be consistent with your line of arguing.) I don't think it makes sense to say that Nicholas Copernicus is "Polish" or "German" or anything else because "nationality" really didn't have the same meaning in those days (and I say this even though the region he was in was a part of the Kingdom of Poland). So I actually like how the page on Copernicus starts right now: with no mention of his nationality at all. As I recall he was subject to a Prussian duke (or someone Germanic, I can't remember who) who himself was subject to the King of Poland. And he spoke German and Polish (in fact, one of the few existing personal letters of his that wasn't written in Latin was written in German). So I assure you that I'm not doing this to splatter Poland over every page of Wikipedia. The case of Chopin is simply different. He was born in Warsaw. His family identified itself as Polish. He identified himself as Polish. He spoke Polish better than any language. And, again, he left Poland forever because, in his absence during a tour, the Russians littered the streets of Warsaw with "thousands of corpses" and "burned his home" and made life impossible for many, many Poles (see Great Emigration). He went to France (after deliberating about it pretty intensely, by the way, even though he supposedly had French nationality and could presumably return to his "French homeland" anytime) to be free and to be creative, something that the Russians wouldn't let him do in Warsaw.--Atwardow (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

On the admittedly unrelated subject of Marie Curie, if anyone on that page cared about my opinion, I would have her labeled as "Polish-French" and remove that worthless paragraph in the lead extolling her lifelong closeness to Poland.--Atwardow (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Atwardow, let me respectfully say you're doing too much thinking here. In fact you are overthinking the problem. When you say "I think that this provision of the Polish constitution is also utterly meaningless," maybe that's what you think, but for better or for worse, it remains a fact. A fact that is currently in force in Poland. As was the Code Napoleon in Żelazowa Wola in 1810. Personally I believe you are correct regarding Marie Curie, she was ethnically Polish, and it is the fact that she emigrated to France and spent more than half of her life in France that allows her to be called French-Polish. Chopin, on the other hand was half French and half Polish. And the fact that he too emigrated to France and spent half of his life in France would normally make him French-Polish. At least in the real world. On the question of his motivations for leaving Poland (we are in total disagreement, btw), even if you were correct that he left Poland because of the November Uprising, it wouldn't change his ethnicity one iota. It also wouldn't change the fact that emigres like Joseph Conrad are usually referred to in a "dualistic" manner concerning nationality. There are many, many examples like Conrad and Curie, not only on Wikipedia, but other encyclopedias, biographies, etc. And unlike in the case of Chopin, typically these people do not have the dual ethnicity that Chopin had to boot. Like David Garrett. Furthermore the comment, "He spoke Polish better than any language". That's meaningless. I speak Polish better than I speak Lithuanian. It doesn't make me Polish. I speak English better than I speak Polish. It doesn't make me British. And, again, "he left Poland forever because, in his absence during a tour, the Russians... "burned his home"..." (never happened). Lastly ..."even though he supposedly had French nationality and could presumably return to his French homeland anytime". That's what he had, not supposedly (i.e., French nationality), and what Chopin did do (emigrate to his paternal homeland). Sometimes a person can have two homelands, today even dual citizenship, but in any case he never returned to his "Polish homeland", at anytime, after he left it. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess it all boils down to the way one interprets nationality. You're right; if we define nationality in the way you do, if we should care that the Code Napoleon was in force in Zelazowa Wola in 1810, then Chopin was Polish-French. If you want to change the lead paragraph to reflect that and "source" it, then go ahead. I'm powerless to stop you, especially if you are able to include this "hard evidence" to back it up. However, I continue to hold tremendous doubt about the appropriateness of this approach. Unlike you, I do think that it is important to take an individual's personal views regarding his own nationality into consideration. The only quotations we have from Chopin on this matter show that he considered himself Polish, not French. I am not a huge fan of assigning people distinctions and titles against their will or without their cooperation (which is obviously not possible now because Chopin is no longer with us). If he was French, why did Cyprian Norwid announce to the world that a Pole had left this world? Why didn't anyone in France declare that a Frenchman had left the world? I continue to completely disagree with you about the reason Chopin left Poland. I think that the violent upheaval in Warsaw and his parents' admonition not to return after he left was the reason Chopin never returned to Poland (I don't think the Russians would have let him leave Poland if he attempted to return with his French passport). The point is that I don't hold the kind of deterministic view of nationality that you do, and it's very difficult for me to accept a piece of paper and and a convenient principle of assigning future generations in perpetuity a nationality whether or not they want it to be proof that Chopin was a "son of France." I continue to regard him as fully Polish. I've said everything that I have to say on this matter. I hope that if you change this article to reflect this view of yours, you don't forget to take that fact into consideration. I have to let go of this discussion now because I have other obligations that will prohibit me from thinking about this so much now.--Atwardow (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(OD) Atwardow, thank you for your input here. If it's any comfort to know this, I have no plans to "railroad" my understanding of the facts into the article, without a general consensus first. It would be of great benefit to hear other viewpoints concerning the matter. Regarding your belief "I do think that it is important to take an individual's personal views regarding his own nationality into consideration" you may be surprised to know that I do not completely disagree with that premise. Only with the idea that the personal views of the individual could negate the reality of their nationality. Bluntly put, if a person was Jewish, but didn't want to be Jewish, and said they weren't Jewish, does that make them not Jewish? I happen to think not. As for Chopin, I see no evidence that he called himself Polish, or French, or Polish-French. Not everybody has such a need. More importantly, I see no evidence that Chopin, communicating in letters with his family in French, had some reason to deny the French aspect of his heritage. As for the question "why did Cyprian Norwid announce to the world that a Pole had left this world" , rather than a Frenchman left this world, I don't think a lot of effort is necessary to answer that question. Like you, I have other obligations, and best think that others should weigh in on this matter for now. I enjoyed the interaction with you because of your intelligence and reasonableness. Best wishes. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As usual, I thank you for your interesting thoughts and I may come back in some time and admit that you've changed my perspective. I'll "chew on it" for a while. You and Frania definitely had a lot of thought-provoking ideas. And who's to say we should live our lives without changing our mind at least sometimes? I hope some consensus will be reached at some point, I'll be more than open to hearing other views. But I also appreciated the interaction. --Atwardow (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Atwardow, to your: "I guess it all boils down to the way one interprets nationality", I would answer: "There might be two ways of interpreting nationality: that of the passport and that of the soul", and Frédéric Chopin had both.

It was a hard discussion. Thank you for taking our thoughts into consideration.

Aurevoir ! --Frania W. (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Polish nationalism at work

It seems to me that Chopins site has been a victim to polish editors that wanted to make sure Chopin is portrayed as a polish patriot on wikipedia. Here just some of the most ridiculous quotes: "The Polish spirit, culture and language pervaded the Chopins' home, and as a result the son would never, even in Paris, perfectly master the French language." It's obvious that someone wanted to make sure he would not be considered french by anyone - the source being a polish historian that is unknown beyond polish borders.

And here yet another quote: "Chopin at every step demonstrated his Polish spirit [...]" claimed by the same polish historian, Jachimecki.

"he was one of the first composers to clearly express nationalism through his music." the claim coming from Chopins "Mazurkas", which are basically unknown to the world - aside from the english wikipedia there is an article about them in the polish wikipedia alone.

"Though an ardent Polish patriot, in France he used the French versions of his given names and traveled on a French passport [...]"

All sources cited to prove these claims are mostly based on either polish historians or unknown ones. Just take a look "Delfina Potocka" his supposed muse and love - the single source of her article is the polish encyclopedia.

It is a disgrace that this article is being abused by nationalists. His polish heritage should be mentioned, but right now it is highly exaggerated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.89.209.115 (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

IMAGES -- Please read

This article is currently quite difficult to read because of all the cluttery and irrelevant images that crowd out the text and force the reader's eye to snake around the various irrelevant impediments in order to follow the sinuous line of copy. About a year ago I moved, reduced the size of, and judiciously re-located the already sizeable number of images in the article, but now the number of images has grown by leaps and bounds and the images have been enlarged and strewn about with no care towards readability.

The article does not need, and should not contain, images of every place that Chopin ever slept or visited, every museum or monument or plaque, and every person he ever studied with or was related to, MUCH LESS the friends of his in-laws!

The purpose of the article, as with any article in any encyclopedia, is to impart information, not to obscure it with a forest of irrelevant images.

Forgive this outburst; I'm simply frustrated at this problem, because it's a lengthy problem to solve, and I don't have the time to do so right now.

Let us take a lesson from the Chopin article in Spanish Wikipedia, which is a Featured Article on that site, and confine ourselves to no more images than they have: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chopin Softlavender (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Since there has been no objection, I've begun removing the more irrelevant and duplicative images. The article is still a mess visually, but at least it's a less cluttered mess now. What remains to be done is to alter placement of the images so that none faces another and thus blocks off text from both sides. Also, a few more images should be removed. Lastly, I want to suggest that if images of various Chopin museums and memorials and memorabilia and such are desired, that a separate article be created, called something like "Chopin memorials", and on that article images of such, indeed exhaustive listing of such, would be appropriate.

In sum, please do not add any further images to the article, and direct anyone who attempts to do so to this thread. Wikipedia is not a repository of images. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read this also regarding images

As may have been predicted. editors are trying to clutter the article back up with images. I'd like to set a few guidelines to prevent this:

(1) There's absolutely no reason that I can think of to have images of Chopin's parents. This only clutters the article, and I have no knowledge of any other biographcial article containing images of the subjects parents. Their images belong on articles about them.

(2) There is not reason to have an image of somewhere Chopin stayed less than 5 years. There's not even a really good reason to have an image of the house he was born in, although I suppose for sentimental reasons it can stay in.

(3) Images must not face each other with text in-between. The purpose of Wikipedia is to impart knowledge. It's hard to read when the text is crowded between images. This, again, is commn sense, and was posted above.

(4) Please do not add any more images to the article. If anything, remove more or, if you must, substitute something better. The Spanish article, which is an FA, has only 20, expertly placed, and the media files are also nicely consolidated and aligned.

Softlavender (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The Spanish article that you cite as a model includes the portraits of Chopin's parents and the photos of his death mask, all of which you have deleted.

The Spanish article also includes some illustrations of rather peripheral importance, such as a portrait of Paganini and a picture of the Warsaw Arsenal during the 1830 Uprising.

The Szafarnia manor is more important in Chopin's story than the "Fryderyk Chopin Palace" at Sanniki, which he visited during one summer.

In summary, your choices of illustrations are inconsistent with your "guidelines" above, and often capricious.

Your tone is gratuitously overbearing. Nihil novi (talk) 07:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If my tone seemed overbearing, it's likely because I've had this notice about the cluttered excess of images here for two weeks and no one has either responded to it or helped trim the images. Then when you you revert my de-cluttering twice without checking the Talk page as requested, and without discussion or consensus, I felt I needed to make myself clearer. I hope I have laid it out clearly.

Here are my personal viewpoints about the article as it currently stands:

(1) I see no reason to include the deathmasks in the article. Seems gruesome to me, and no other biographical article that I am aware of has them. I feel something very subsidiary like that would be ideal for an article on "Chopin memorials", as suggested above.

(2) I never said the choice of images in the Spanish article was ideal. I said the number and placement of them was ideal.

(3) If Szafarnia is more important than Sanniki, by all means replace it.

(4) I don't think the article needs the memorials in Singapore and China. I'd like to delete them. Not to mention which, they look extremely odd in the Works section! Again, if someone creates an article on Chopin memorials, they can go there.

(5) If we delete the Asian memorials and move a lot of the media files to the Works section, the article might then have breathing room to add back in one or two more images. But lets keep it no more than 22, OK? Softlavender (talk) 08:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Moving the media files would separate them from their biographic correlates, but it would de-clutter the article.

I disagree about the death mask. I don't find it gruesome. Where there are few convincing likenesses of Chopin, the mask gives a realistic sculptural representation of him at the end of his life. The "Dante Alighieri" article includes a death mask.

I did remove some illustrations before you set to work. Nihil novi (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess we disagree about the deathmask, but I'm happy to go with consensus, if other(s) want to weigh in. (I think Dante is in a different category because obviously photographs did not exist, whereas we have an excellent photo of Chopin.) BTW the media files were not necessarily correlated with the text, except possibly chronologically; the works were not mentioned in the surrounding text. Softlavender (talk) 09:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Chopin's autograph, stylised as a half note

In defense of the deathmask image, I would like to cite WP:DISC ("Wikipedia contains content that may be objectionable"); also, personally, I do not find it gruesome. Blehfu (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The "Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky" article shows Tchaikovsky's death mask, with a similarly sculptural effect. Nihil novi (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Instead of having his signature stylised as a half note in Music section, why not use Chopin's signature in infobox, like done in referred-to Spanish wiki article[12], then replace stylised signature by cast of his left hand, which was regretfully removed?

--Frania W. (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

"Chopin" has no infobox, and it seems to be the convention in the English Wikipedia not to provide them for composers.

I like Chopin's stylized-half-note signature, which nicely illustrates his wit and artistic talent.

I wouldn't insist on including the photo of the cast of his left hand, which is not too informative or of best quality. Nihil novi (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

My mistake in mentioning "infobox", when I should have said: under the portrait at beginning, which I did not have time to correct after saving page.

Now, you like the stylised-half-note signature and I like the cast of the left hand: informative or not, it is the cast of the hand of a great pianist. So, unless many contest our choice, why not have the stylised signature under portrait at beginning, since there is so much empty space below between lead & Childhood, and the cast at Music section?

As for the death mask: why "gruesome"? Let's keep it!

--Frania W. (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Since no one replied to my above comment, I put back cast of Chopin's left hand... an appropriate picture in an article on one of the greatest pianists of all times.

--Frania W. (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Stuff deleted -- may want to re-add

The following recently added material was immediately deleted from the section on the Etudes as a copyvio:

---

The great majority of Chopin's compositions were written for the piano as solo instrument; all of his extant works feature the piano in one way or another. They are technically demanding, but emphasize nuance and expressive depth. Chopin invented musical forms such as the instrumental ballade, and made major innovations in the piano sonata, mazurka, waltz, nocturne, polonaise, étude, impromptu and prélude.

Chopin's first set of studies entitled Douze Grandes Études, Op.10, was composed from 1828-1832, published in June 1833 and dedicated to Liszt. The second set, Douze Grandes Études, Op.25, was composed from 1833-1836, published in 1837 and dedicated to the Countess Marie d’Agôult.

In October 1829 Chopin wrote to his friend Titus Woyciechowski, "I have composed a grand study in my own manner." Those last four words provide some insight into the originality of Chopin's style: the man and his music being inseparable.

The basic character and purpose of old stereotyped keyboard exercises and studies were principally didactic. To the young Chopin of eighteen existing exercises and studies were not sufficient to conquer all of the technical and musical demands his compositions presented. Within the year Chopin produced his first composition that would ultimately form part of Op.10 and had created a new genre -the 'grande étude'. Numbers 8-11 were first to be completed, originally numbered 7-10, and by 1831, when Chopin arrived in Paris, all but numbers 3 and 4 had been completed.

There is a hint of irony in Chopin’s typically modest choice of genre title. His études undeniably illustrate the importance Chopin placed on the art of touch and the cultivation of it beyond the acquisition of virtuosity, revealing an infinite variety of tone-colour and textural contrast. Each étude is as much a study in expression and emotional dynamic as pure technique. The extreme technical demands being only ‘a means to an end’.

Chopin's études are the perfect synthesis of art and technique - far transcending the basic didactic purposes of dealing with a principal technical difficulty. They present a formidable challenge to pianists and with few exceptions exhaust all technical and musical possibilities: exceptions being the ‘orchestral’ effects of tremolos and broken octaves, which held no interest for Chopin. His supreme mastery as a composer of works of the highest art is amply demonstrated in these magnificent compositions and provided early confirmation of Chopin’s creative genius. Chopin was more concerned with the quality of tone and how music is performed, than with piano exercises for finger dexterity and development of the high finger striking techniques, requesting his pupils to stroke or caress the keys – “.. mould the keyboard as if with a velvet hand and feel the key rather than striking it!”. [Chopin Pianist and Teacher: Eigeldinger] Technique is essential as a basis to the music, but should remain subordinate to the music itself. As Schumann commented, “.. no-one should dare to be a poor musician in order to become a fine virtuoso.” [Neue Zeitschrift (14) 1841]

---

The deleting editor tagged the material as a copyright violation from http://chopinfound.brinkster.net/ip.asp?op=GrandEtudes. However (I just noticed), since the user who added it, User:Adlear, is clearly the author of the original material (Angela Lear), if she wants to post this on Wikipedia, that is her prerogative, right?, if it is accurate and verifiable and not OR. So we may want to add it back in, perhaps in a truncated or modified version. Anyway, I haven't actually read the material. Also, I notice that the submitting user has only made this one contribution to Wikipedia, which does make it somewhat suspect. But if there's a kernel of useful information in there and she gives free usage, perhaps that bit could be used. Softlavender (talk) 09:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

From my Wiki-layperson's understanding, if the author is cognizant of the disclaimer at the bottom of the page ("Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. See the Terms of Use for details.") that maybe it's kosher. However, this begs the question if the original material at http://chopinfound.brinkster.net/ip.asp?op=GrandEtudes must also be published with a CC-BY-SA license. Who owns the right to the text? Blehfu (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Good question; I don't know, but this Help Desk "Article editing" query response (at the top of October 12) says it reads "© Angela Lear". I do notice that User:Adlear has received instruction on her talk page on how to release the material for free use, but hasn't yet taken any apparent action. Anyway, I'd perhaps say, leave it, unless we want to use some paraphrased portions of it and source it to that link or to this PDF. BTW, she also tried to add this same material to Études (Chopin), where it would actually be more appropriate given the level of detail. Softlavender (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please fill out edit summaries

This is a reminder to all editors that they need to fill out edit summaries for each edit. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 07:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do we list parentage in the lead?

This is not done in any other biography that I've seen on Wikipedia. Parentage belongs in the body text of the article, not in the lead.

Also the lead should not give precise birth-village data. That's far too fine a detail for the lead. Please see WP:LEAD for full details on how the lead should read. In short: "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight."

For good examples of how an expat's nationality is handled in the lead of a couple of other articles, see: Henry James and T.S. Eliot. In other words, just state the facts. Chopin was a Pole who expatriated to France and lived there for the rest of his life. End of story. No need for debate or for nationality wars.

The lead should be much more about his music, its nature and importance, and his influence on music. Softlavender (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Softlavender, don't you believe that bringing this up now is not taking the risk of further debate and nationality war? For weeks, we have had discussions upon discussions upon discussions and finally agreed to the wording of the lead as it is; so could not we leave the matter to rest? As you are aware, the parentage issue came about because of the "Polish-only" nationality claimed & demanded by some, as if Chopin's father himself was nothing but a Pole.

• Henry James' first sentence in lead:

"'Henry James, OM ((1843-04-15)April 15, 1843 – (1916-02-28)February 28, 1916) was an American-born writer...".

We agree that Henry James was: American-born, but does not "American-born" imply that he became something else later on in life, otherwise, the lead sentence would be "Henry James was an American writer..."

• T. S. Eliot's first sentence in lead:

"'Thomas Stearns Eliot OM (September 26, 1888 – January 4, 1965) was an American-born English poet...":

In T.S. Eliot's case, please note that he is described as "an American-born English poet".

On the other hand, Chopin was born in the Duchy of Warsaw of a French father, detail that made him Franco-Polish at birth, a fact that is ferociously denied by some contributors who want a "Polish-only" Chopin, thus amputating Frédéric Chopin of part of his identity. So, after many heated debates, contributors of this article came upon the solution of including the "French-Polish parentage" in the lead.

We also have:

• Arthur Rubinstein (January 28, 1887 – December 20, 1982) was a Polish-American pianist.
• Alfred Cortot (26 September 1877–15 June 1962) was a Franco-Swiss pianist and conductor.
• Wernher von Braun (March 23, 1912 – June 16, 1977) was a German-American rocket scientist, engineer, space architect, and one of the leading figures in the development of rocket technology...

Now, if you believe that mentioning his parentage is putting too much weight in the lead, why don't we treat Frédéric Chopin the same as T.S. Eliot, Arthur Rubinstein, Alfred Cortot, Wernher von Braun & others, and describe him as he really was: "Polish-French"?

--Frania W. (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Good question. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, though, that for instance I've never heard anything about Rubinstein being American. Neither French nor German articles consider him American. The fact of acquiring and using a second passport should never be a reason to assign nationality. I live in Silesia, where German, Czech and Polish people have been merging for centuries; lots of my friends have two or even three passports. They speak no word in German, know no German relative, but do have German citizenship in documents. As they say, one day it may turn out to be useful. Don't tell me they would be called "Polish-German" if one day they had an article on wiki. It would be like calling Alexander Gavrylyuk an "Australian pianist". And, back to Chopin, please remember that Chopin had to have any passport. Poland, after three partitions, did not in fact exist then, so maybe we should call poor Fryderyk a Russian guy of French parentage? ;) Gregory of Nyssa (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Gregory of Nyssa, I would like to point out that when one becomes a citizen of the United States, for instance, what is involved is a bit more than getting an American passport. In the case of Frédéric Chopin, the reason he was issued a French passport was because he was a French national. He also spoke French, and his favorite author was Voltaire, which he learned to appreciate from his father who, contrary to what many are trying to persuade readers, taught French to his children, with French spoken in their household, and wrote only in French to his son.

I am curious: if Frédéric Chopin had emigrated to the United States & become a citizen of that country, would there be all this hullabaloo about denying him his American nationality/citizenship? No! The lead sentence would be

• Frédéric Chopin (March 1, 1810 – October 17, 1849) was a Polish-American composer and the greatest pianist in the world of all times,

the whole article illustrated with a deluge of scintillating Stars on a background of White & Red stripes, under the watchful eyes & protecting wings of one Polish & one American Eagle.

--Frania W. (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Frania, I'm far from willing to take part in the argument how Polish or French Chopin was. For me the matter is clear and the phrase "Polish composer of French-Polish parentage" could not have been more suitable. The fact that Mikołaj wrote letters in French is well known in Poland, I did not know that French was used in his household, though. Where did you take this from? As to naturalised American citizens from abroad, please remember that Chopin did not want to stay in Paris more than it was necessary. I think no one doubts what he would have said if he'd been asked about his nationality and homeland. It's an irony of fate that all these matters are discussed, but of course that's what careful historicians should do. Gregory of Nyssa (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

And finally as to his French... I don't know and won't know how well he spoke French (I assume he did well), but we do know that French isn't the language he wrote songs in ;) Gregory of Nyssa (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Gregory: Hmm! For someone who "... did not want to stay in Paris more than it was necessary...", to quote you, (it was supposed to be for three years), did not our dear Frédéric overextend the "necessity" to remain in the "great city that made such an impression" (on him) "after Stuttgart and Strasbourg" (in a letter dated 18 November 1831 to his friend Alfons Kumelski). Except for a few trips outside of France, he stayed there eighteen (!) years. No iron chains tied him to France & his celebrity made it possible for him to live wherever he would have chosen. He chose France.

--Frania W. (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• To Frania: All of the Wikipedia leads you quoted merely state citizenship. Not parentage. To repeat, no other article I've seen in Wikipedia puts parentage in the lead. There's merely citizenship, and if a person expatriated and lived in another country for a large majority of his life until death [without obtaining citizenship in the new country], that is stated. There's never a mention of parentage. That goes in the body of the article. Softlavender (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Softlavender: :I do not believe that any subject in Wikipedia has ever had his nationality discussed as much as Frédéric Chopin has, and for the good reason that the Poles do not want to accept the fact that he could be something else beside Polish, with the constant arguing & denial of his French nationality. And, in order to put a halt to it after weeks of heated debate, some time in May, we arrived at the wording that is now in the lead, with the mention of his French-Polish parentage, and the article has been at peace since then. In other words, as I wrote earlier:

• Chopin was born in the Duchy of Warsaw of a French father, detail that made him Franco-Polish at birth, a fact that is ferociously denied by some contributors who want a "Polish-only" Chopin, thus amputating Frédéric Chopin of part of his identity. So, after much heated debating, contributors of this article came upon the solution of including the "French-Polish parentage" in the lead.

The problem does not arise with von Braun, Eliot, James & Rubinstein because they were born of same nationality parents in a country that existed at the time of their birth and moved to another country of which they became citizens afterward.

• Marie Curie is listed in lead as a "Polish-born French physicist and chemist" because born in Poland of Polish parents (no French father) and she became a French citizen after settling in France.
• Guillaume Apollinaire is listed in lead as a "French poet, playwright, and art critic" born in Italy to a Polish mother. Because of the law on nationality in Italy at the time of his birth, Apollinaire, whose father was unknown, was not Italian, but Polish because his mother was. A Polish citizen, he lived in France most of his life and, while still a Pole, joined the French army in WWI, to finally become a French citizen in March 1916, dying in 1918. Why no heated debate on his being a Polish Pole? Not a sound on his talk page. Naturally, he did not keep as good company as Chopin did, but his mother was a Polish noblewoman and, again, he was French for only the last two and a half years of his 38-year life.
• Georges Charpak is listed in the lead as a "French physicist", although he was Polish-born in Dąbrowica, (now Dubrovytsia, in the Ukraine). Why is he "French" in the lead of the article & Chopin is not? Not much noise on his talk page either.

All the examples I gave show inconstancy in the way different subjects are treated, and it is more than obvious that Frédéric Chopin has been "kidnapped" by his Polish maternal side; yet, without that French father of his, Frédéric François Chopin would never have been.

--Frania W. (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You're still confusing parentage with nationality. Nationality means citizenship. Chopin never aquired French citizenship. All kinds of people have various mixed parentages (where I live it's the norm rather than the exception), but their nationality is their citizenship, not their parentage. The lead on the Charpak article (not a popular article at all; I'd never heard of him) is simply mistaken and needs to be fixed -- see all the categories he is listed under. Apollinaire is a "French poet" because he wrote exclusively in French; therefore he's not an Italian poet. His lack of French citizenship until a few years before his death was not for lack of trying. I think the lead on that article should simply read "French poet (born Polish)", like it does in French Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation re parentage, nationality & citizenship, subjects I have been swimming into all my life.

By the way, Chopin never acquired French citizenship because he did not have to. He was born a Frenchman because he had a French father. And I am not going to fill kilometers of pages again on this as you can read it above. I will only re-mention that the 1804 Code Napoléon was in effect in the Duchy of Warsaw where Frédéric Chopin was born in 1810, making the child a French national at birth because born of a Frenchman.

There are other articles in Wikipedia dealing with people who became French through naturalisation, or were French at birth & acquired another nationality, and who are listed as "French" or "French + another nationality"

• Eddie Constantine
• Arielle Dombasle
• Julien de Lallande Poydras
• Pierre Charles L'Enfant
• Mike Marshall (actor)
• Tonie Marshall
• Roman Polanski
• Michael Vartan
• and many more

yet, RE the lead of his article, Frédéric Chopin has been and still is the object of fierce arguments, denying him his own birthright as a French-Polish national.

Dommage that you were not acquainted with Georges Charpak while he was still alive, as he was one of the most intelligent, kind, cultured, likable Noble prize winner who would have made a cat fall in love with physics.

--Frania W. (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Déjà vu

Reading the above thread concerning "parentage", etc. puts me into a déjà vu conundrum. Perhaps some of the newcomers to this discussion should read the archives of this entire talk page concerning what I believe to be the heart of the matter, namely ethnicity. That is, Chopin's ethnicity. The WP articles on citizenship and nationality aren't bad primers either. As pointed out, the opening line concerning "parentage" was hammered out in May in an effort to reach a consensus. Although I went along, I disagree that it was the best option, yet do agree that it is awkward and doesn't belong there. So Gregory and Softlavender what's the short version of your objection to calling Chopin a "French-Polish" composer? Dr. Dan (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

For example the fact that the Grove Dictionary, which I just checked out of mere curiosity, calls him a "Polish composer and pianist", with no word about his supposed Frenchness whatsoever. Nor does the Oxford Companion to Music. I think it is you who should start to bring up arguments to challenge what is written in the sources. Unlike Frania has suggested, Chopin did not choose Paris as a whim of the moment or a strong inclination and love for the French. Please note that Polish intelligentsia (please read at least the article Hôtel Lambert if you haven't done it yet) resided in Paris because of the turmoil in their homeland. Chopin was persona non grata in Poland after his refusal to become "Russian court composer", and, what's more, I don't even want to think how he would have earned money if he had come back to Warsaw, trembling with consecutive uprisings. I don't want to take part in the argument, I'm no Chopinist, but I cannot understand the way of thinking: the strange aim to call a composer, who spent his life lamenting on his exile, and ordered to send his heart back home, "French". For me it is clear he was a Polish composer with French-Polish parentage. And again, Frania, I ask for the sources of the suggested habit of French-speaking in Chopin's household. Gregory of Nyssa (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

And, to sum up what I tried to express, for me it's quite all the same to me whether you call him French-Polish, French or Polish. I just cannot understand why you try to delete the neutral sentence (even if it does not occur in other articles) and call him as he would not have liked to be called (I understand you don't agree with the last part). As to him having choosen Paris as a place to live, Frania, you are departing from the truth: Chopin lived poorly in Paris, although it was there that he had friends and pupils, where artistic life was on the highest level, and where people used a language he spoke; if he had moved to London, I wonder in what conditions he'd be forced to live in. Please mind that when you will rewrite your opinion about his enthusiasm about Paris and exile :) Gregory of Nyssa (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Gregory, I have no idea where you got your information on the kind of life Chopin had in Paris (he lived poorly? !). All I can say is: please get hold of Chopin's correspondence & read his letters & letters addressed to him from the time he left Poland to a few days before he died.

--Frania W. (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Frania, I've read a lot about Chopin, including his correspondence (which is even available online: [13], French with a translation when written in French; Polish when written in Polish). It is a pity you cannot read Chopin's original writings in Polish (Kurier Szafarski and then all the later letters to Grzymała, for example, or to his family), which lead Jarosław Iwaszkiewicz to suggest that Chopin was a kind of a "total genius", mastering not only music, but also language and drawing. As to living poorly, although he took a huge amout of gold for lessons he gave, he was not able to teach a lot, and in the end it was his friends who payed for his flat. The role of Jane Stirling and her sponsoring is, I suppose, well known. Gregory of Nyssa (talk) 10:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)No article about Stirling in English? Weird. Gregory of Nyssa (talk) 10:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Gregory, because he stopped composing & giving lessons the last year of his life because he was dying and, unknown to him for its extent, was helped financially by friends, namely Jane Stirling, does not mean that he "lived poorly in Paris" for eighteen years. He did not lead the life of a poor struggling artist but more that of a dandy. If there is one artist to whom misérabilisme does not apply, it is Chopin.

--Frania W. (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

And you suggest he was cheerful and happy with his life, at least when he didn't cough blood? I didn't mean he was a pauper pottering around in Paris, it's obvious that for some years he did quite good, especially when in Nohant. Not good enough, however, to live a few months without works being published and lessons given. Perhaps he could work (compose) in London or Brussels, but only if provided such a place as Nohant; however, he would give no lessons: he spoke no languages beside Polish and French. Please add that to Hotel Lambert and you will be given an answer why Chopin resided in Paris.

The problem is that his income is not the matter in question. I see you have got your own view of Chopin. However, please remember that Wikipedia should be based on exterior sources. Those have so far showed unanimity that Chopin was a Pole born from a Polish mother and a French emigrant. Please let us end the unfruitful discussion, at least until some new facts, not known to the authors of Grove, come to light. Gregory of Nyssa (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(OD) How does the standard of living that Chopin enjoyed while living in Paris (at the Place Vendôme),or who paid for it, have anything to do with his ethnicity, which is supposedly what this is all about? Dr. Dan (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)