Talk:Frédéric Chopin

RfC: Chopin's nationality

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we mention Chopin's nationality as Polish or Polish-French? A debate on this has been simmering on for sometime now.

Here are some of the discussions pertaining to this issue

• Nationality
• Talk:Frédéric_Chopin/Archive_2#Nationality (second discussion)
• Nationality (third discussion)
• Nationality standards?
• LEAD: Polish, French or Polish-French?
• Nationality (one more time)

As consensus has and will always change, here are some solutions which are being considered for proposal:

• Solution A - Describe Chopin as Polish in the lead
• Solution B - Describe Chopin as Polish-French in the lead
• Solution C - Describe Chopin as Polish and French in the lead
• Solution D - Describe Chopin as Polish, French-naturalized in the lead
• Solution E - Do not describe his nationality in the lead. Discuss it in the body of the article.

Please weigh-in, indicating the solution(s) you support using the example format below. Include a brief explanation of your rationale. Or, alternatively, if you have some idea which hasn't previously been put forward, please let us know!

Example format

• Support A - He is clearly a Polish. - Example 1 (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2257 (UTC)
• Support C - He is of Polish and French Nationality - Example 2 (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2257 (UTC)
• Support E - It is too tough of an issue to deal with. Let's not mention it. - Example 3 (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2257 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the suggestions/comments/opinions in advance!

Please note that this RfC should not be construed as a vote rather than an attempt to measure consensus. As always let's keep the conversations at a civilized level and focus completely on content, not contributors or their motives.

---

• Support A - The sources indicated in the lead and in past discussions say that he is clearly Polish. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support C - 3 vs 5 isn't much of a minority, and per WP:NPOV it should say that he is Polish and Polish-French. Per WP:OPENPARA it should say that he is Polish-French, but the sources have conflicting views, so per WP:RS it should mention both. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 18:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support A, followed by second choice of Support D. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support A, as that is by far the most common claim made in reliable sources—see [1]. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support A, sources which describe him as a "Polish composer" [2] out number sources which call him "Polish-French" [3] by a factor of at least 10. No brainer, non-controversial, just a single disruptive user on a edit-war-path upsetting long standing WP:CONSENSUS.  Volunteer Marek  08:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

How many times do I have to refer you to WP:GHITS and WP:NPOV? It's a factor of much less than 10, because (And I've pointed this out to you repeatedly) adding words greatly decreases the number of Google search results. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 14:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support D to indicate that he composed and achieved fame while living in France. Also, all that discussion about his nationality and how he always considered himself Polish should be moved from the first paragraph of the lead into a later paragraph. The first paragraph should be about why he is notable, it should be concerned with his music and his work. FurrySings (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support A- Chopin was a Pole who lived in France as an exile. I do not edit on this page but have a interest in and love classical music. --Woogie10w (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Also Paul Hindemith was a German composer and Arnold Schoenberg an Austrian even though both became American citizens. We would never refer to them as Americans--Woogie10w (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• A. Did Chopin ever consider himself French? Don't people get to say who they are anymore? Ravpapa (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Much as I disagree with some of the POV-pushing here, primary sources usually should not be used for determining nationality. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The POV you and the other members of your tag team are pushing is nationalist propaganda, the POV I am 'pushing' is neutral. Read policies before making hypocritical personal attacks. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 18:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

1. I'm not Polish, nor am I aware of having Polish ancestors.
2. "You are engaging in POV-pushing" is not a personal attack; "you are a(n) [expletive]" is. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Where did I say that? 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 18:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Say what? You accused me of "pushing ... nationalist propaganda", and you deemed "POV-pushing"—a concept to which you have also referred—a personal attack. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Just because I prefer a neutral POV to your completely biased one, it doesn't mean I'm a POV pusher. And where did I say "you are a(n) [expletive]"? 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 18:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You didn't say that; after all, I never accused you of making a personal attack. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support A - mainly because I'm in agreement with Toccata quarta in regards to how reliable sources state him. Plus, I believe this column from the La Jolla Music Society is an informative read on the very topic. GRUcrule (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support A- as per Dale Tucker (1998). Frederic Chopin. Alfred Music Publishing. p. 5. ISBN 978-1-4574-0134-3. - though French should be mentioned in the article as it is now - all is fine -- Moxy (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)#

It isn't mentioned, because it was removed and then the page was protected to the wrong version 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 19:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Current version says in the lead "Although Chopin's father was a Polonized Frenchman and Chopin himself was exiled in France from the age of 20 until his death, the composer always regarded himself as a Pole rather than a Frenchman" then outside the lead in the first section we say "Chopin's father, Nicolas Chopin, was a Frenchman from Lorraine who had emigrated to Poland in 1787 at the age of sixteen" - thus we can all imply hes of French heritage because of his fathers. This is how most bio confront the situation as we do here - V. K. Subramanian (2004). The Great Ones. Abhinav Publications. p. 225. ISBN 978-81-7017-421-9.. -- Moxy (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

By 'most bios' are you referring to the number of Google hits or the sources provided (which is 5 v 4)? And the article mentions that he was not French. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 19:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

General statement - out of all the "book sources" (dont care about Google hits of non scholarly websites or news papers) I can find only one small bio that mentions both Polish-French at William J. Roberts (2004). France: A Reference Guide from the Renaissance to the Present. Infobase Publishing. p. 214. ISBN 978-0-8160-4473-3. -- Moxy (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

But did you search for Polish-French? And are you sure Encyclopedia Britannica is non-scholarly? 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 20:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

We are only here to regurgitate what the majority of sources say and in the manner they say it. We have lots of space here thus we have more then enough room to explain the situation and not just a small bio trying to jam all in a few paragraphs. We have done this in the article pretty well I think (first time here today). Even non scholarly articles like this new paper confront the situation. So from what I am reading all over they refer to his "nationally" as Polish and in the same breath say he was "ethnically" half-French. -- Moxy (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

And by 'majority' do you mean 5 vs 4? Or are you talking about 5 vs 0 because the 4 supporting the fact that he was Polish-French removed by a biased POV pusher? 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 20:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes Britannica and the book France : a reference guide from the Renaissance to the present say this - in the case of Britannica they are trying to get you to read on with a subscription....thus both are very small bios trying to say a lot in a confined space. The book Jacqueline Dineen (1998). Frederic Chopin. Lerner Publications. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-57505-248-9. does not say this in the copy I can read. - as in his "nationality" was French. As for Northern light : the Skagen painter I cant see it but why a panting book as a source? So from what I can see in the majority of source that I have found today that cover the topic in-depth say his "nationally" is Polish with a French background - as we explain in this article. I see no problem in expanding the section "Nationality" but to add this contentions point in the lead as if it was fact without explanation as we do later is not serving our readers well. -- Moxy (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Given that last point you should change it to Support E. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up.}_{See where I screwed up.} 12:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support E. Came here via RFC, so not involved. I like the way NPR cut the cake. It is ok to not put the nationality of people front and center and then give full details late. Say he was Polish-Born in the lead, then have the nationality section down below really go into it. That is informative while not distracting from the guy's works and life. I know the issue is important, but I think being broad in the lead and having a good nationality section could make for a much improved article. Best of luck. AbstractIllusions (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support A. Where Encyclopaedia Britannica is concerned, Moxy has exposed the heart of the matter. On the subject of Chopin, E.B. is sloppy and perfunctory and cannot be a guide to the much more precise and comprehensive Wikipedia. Nihil novi (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sources are not unreliable just because they oppose your view. And Wikipedia is not a reliable source, see WP:NOTRS. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 16:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica's expression, "Polish-French", is sloppy. What on earth does it mean?

Does it refer to a given individual's birthplace, ethnicity, sense of national identity, or citizenship, or to some combination of these?

Or does the expression refer to these characteristics in relation to the individual's parents?

Perhaps a mathematician could calculate for us the doubtless large number of possible combinations of characteristics that can lurk behind the vague expression, "Polish-French"? Nihil novi (talk) 10:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The expression "Polish" is even more vague. It could refer to all of those, plus the fact that they polish things. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up.}_{See where I screwed up.} 12:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support A, or (less-preferred, because not really relevant in the lead, but acceptable) D. At the time when I was active editing WP, (and was hoping to bring this article up to GA quality) I gave a lot of thought to this issue. All reliable musical dictionaries, critics and biographers regard Chopin as Polish. And he regarded himself as Polish. There is no problem providing citations for all this. The fact that he took French nationality (which was a convenience for him) made him legally French, I suppose, but this is trivial in the context of his music, which did not draw on French sources, as I hope the maturing article will point out when it starts being edited properly once again. I don't see in Wikipedia, e.g., Winston Churchill being described as American , even though his mother was an American and he himself received honorary American citizenship. Incidentally the cluster of notes in the first two sentences of the lead section should surely be removed, according to WP:MOS. The right place to explain in cited detail about squabbles of this sort is in the text, not the lead. I also believe the second sentence of the lead belongs in the body of the article as being WP:UNDUE in this section; later in the lead in the second paragraph Chopin's residence in France is quite adequately described, and the 'after age of 20' doesn't need to be anticipated in the first paragraph. Best, --Smerus (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree completely with Smerus. The sentence "Although Chopin's father was a Polonized Frenchman and Chopin himself was exiled in France from the age of 20 until his death, the composer always regarded himself as a Pole rather than a Frenchman." should be removed from the lead altogether - all this polemic over his nationality is not nearly as important as his impact on piano technique and composition, as well as his importance in the emerging "star" culture surrounding great solo performers (especially pianists) - points which, in fact, are undercovered in the article itself. Ravpapa (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support A This entire controversy is absurd. Trilobitealive (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Further my post supporting A: From Moritz Karasowski, Frederic Chopin: His Life and Letters (1906), volume II, page 368: "When [Chopin's] remains were lowered into the grave, Polish earth was scattered on the coffin. It was the same that Chopin had brought from the village of Wola nineteen years before as a memorial of his beloved fatherland, and shortly before his death had requested that if he might not rest in Polish soil his body might at least be covered with his native earth. Chopin's heart, which had beaten so warmly, and suffered so deeply for his country was, according to his desire, sent to the land whose sun had shone on his happy youth; it is preserved ad interim in the Church of the Sacred Cross at Warsaw."

Can we not let this poor piano-playing Pole (to paraphrase Paderewski) rest in peace?

I move to close this RFP. Ravpapa (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

As the sole Arthropod-American Wikipedia editor, I strongly second the motion. This whole thing is an example of what happens when you have a strongly POV minority trying to change articles. Trilobitealive (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't you mean the NPOV minority? Anyway, WP:RS and WP:NPOV are core content policies, which cannot be superseded by consensus. So this means nothing. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 16:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Volunteer Marek  17:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is. Let me quote:

"...not superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 17:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep telling yourself that. Volunteer Marek  17:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep telling me that 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up.}_{See where I screwed up.} 12:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Polish-born" in lead: This source uses this wording which seems to side-step the issue nicely. The French aspect shouldn't be suppressed as we do have sources (1 2) that describe him so. We might also need to mention that the nationality issue is a touchy topic in Poland (source). Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support E, "Polish-born" in lead - Per User:AbstractIllusions,Dailycare; Always a good idea to shy away from definitively asserting that "Person X is of some given nationality" when there is even the smallest ambiguity on the matter. WP shouldn't be deciding what someone's proper nationality is. Using "Polish-born" strikes me as a nice way to reflect the fact that most sources do refer to him as Polish, while not positively asserting that he is either Polish or French. NickCT (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Dailycare and NickCT: I don't know how familiar you are with Chopin's biography, but your comments are not addressing a very important point: that Chopin was not merely Polish, he was emphatically Polish. He never identified himself as French, on the contrary, he always saw himself as an exile. His letters, his music, all his documented comments, from the day of his departure from Poland to his burial, all cry out his love and yearning for his native land. All the sources agree about this, even the two which in their leads refer to him as "Polish French". To call him anything other than Polish is not merely to distort the sources, but to do him a profound injustice. Ravpapa (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@Ravpapa - Self identification is important. But it's not a be all and end all. And I agree, from my uninformed POV Chopin certainly does look "mostly or almost entirely Polish". That said, I think anyone who'd argue that Chopin was at least in some part French by virtue of his father and the fact that he spent half his life in France, would be making a reasonable point. Why not leave his nationality vague in the lead, but reflect the majority of sources and his own identification by calling him "Polish-born"? I don't see the injustice. It would seem we're placing emphasis on his "polishness" while simultaneously saying that his nationality was not definitively Polish. NickCT (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

By your reasoning, George Washington should be described only as "British-born", since he spent the first two-thirds of his life (1732–1776) as a British subject. Let's not muddle matters by mentioning that in the latter third of his life he thought of himself as an American!

The fact is that "–born" adjectives are so ambiguous as to be meaningless. I don't know whether one of Wikipedia's goals is meaninglessness. Nihil novi (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

How Washington should be described turns exclusively on what sources say about him, not on what editors think about him. There are sources that describe Chopin's nationality in a more nuanced way than merely "Polish", so allowing for them with "Polish-born" seems reasonable to me (and, importantly, since at least one source uses that exact language). We can expand on the subject a bit in the article body, maybe even mentioning that his nationality is a bit of a touchy subject in Poland, at least one source says that. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes but the sources which describe Chopin as "Polish born" rather than just "Polish" are in a small minority. So exactly by your logic, you should switch your vote. Volunteer Marek  20:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

@Nihil novi - re "should be described only as "British-born"," - Sort of, yeah. I'd oppose saying some like "George Washington was American." in the lead of his article. A reasonable person might dispute that unqualified assertion. NickCT (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't counted sources on this page, but even I now know (having arrived via the RFC) that several sources describe his nationality in a more nuanced way than just "Polish". One source cited above describes him as Polish, but that "the situation is not simple". Saying "Polish-born" in the lead accomodates all the sources that I know, at least, and gives primacy to Polishness in line with what the majority of sources say. --Dailycare (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I make the following compromise proposal (F) for the lead, in view of comments above: "was a Romantic-era Polish composer, who spent most of his mature career in France." I believe that this statement is compatible with all recognised authorities. The detail (e.g. his father, his exile, his passport, etc.) is already covered in the text of the article. --Smerus (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Me,too Ravpapa (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support F or E. Why on Earth did it take this many kilobytes to find what seems like the most natural way to describe him? Yes, he was born in Poland and apparently considered himself Polish. Yes, he spent most of his life in France. Let's just say that instead of turning it into a civil war or contemplating dreadful constructs like Polish-French, which are anachronistic at best. Sai Weng (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC Close

This RfC has been around for three days now, I'd like to ask that it be closed if it doesn't last for more than a couple of days or so. By my reading, option A seemed to garner the most support, with D coming in second, and C/E coming in last place.

• Solution A - (12 support)
  • Support: me, Piotrus, Toccata quarta, Volunteer Marek, Woogie10w, Smerus, Moxy, GRUcrule, Nihil novi, Trilobitealive, Ravpapa
  • Weak or qualified support:
• Solution B - (0 support, 0 weak support)
  • Support:
  • Weak or qualified support:
• Solution C - (1 support, 0 weak support)
  • Support: 2Awwsome
  • Weak or qualified support:
• Solution D - (0 support, 1 weak support)
  • Support:
  • Weak or qualified support: Piotrus
• Solution E - (3 support, 0 weak support)
  • Support: AbstractIllusions, Dailycare, NickCT
  • Weak or qualified support:
• Solution F - (1 support, 0 weak support)
  • Support: Smerus
  • Weak or qualified support:

Though there seems to be some off-topic arguing between a couple of users, I hope this is a clear consensus that satisfies all parties. There is no hurry, but does anyone have thoughts about this? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The default duration of an RfC is 30 days or... if the community's response became obvious very quickly, the RfC participants can agree to end it, it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor. -- Moxy (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I completely understand. I think we should let this run for the full 30 days this RFC was opened (on December 15.) Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Secondary Sources

First picture of Chopin. An approximation of what the original may look in better quality to the right. Taken around 1846-47, photographer unknown.

The original picture appears to be in several websites and they all point to the same description. One of them says it was recovered during World War II. It also says original was lost which could explain the decay on the present copy. There is even assumption that the picture might have been reversed somehow.

Sources include:

• http://www.left-hand-brofeldt.dk/Catalogue_c.htm
• http://www.coindumusicien.com/Fredchop/Image/phtchop_1846.html (a black/white restoration)
• http://jackgibbons.blogspot.com/2010/03/chopins-photograph.html

This colorized restoration was made by me. Please make sure to know all the facts before reverting. Although you ended up doing the "right thing" it's still considered bad taste to just revert an edit upon assumptions. A little more looking around in the web wouldn't have hurt. --Molokaicreeper (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. I apologise for my overhasty reaction, and your comments on this are quite correct. I don't believe that the sources you cite from the web can qualify as appropriate secondary sources for Wikipedia as regards the credibility of this image, whose origins are very unclear. It shouldn't in itself be part of this article unless it can be justified on scholarly grounds. As regards your reconstruction - it is admirable and enterprising - but I don't think it can qualify for WP. Really it is a version of WP:OR, as you yourself admit that 'I used my faithful judgement and also made assumptions'. I don't for a moment question your good faith, but our own ideas about what photos ought to look like, however we justify them, are not material for WP. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

A bit more: I see that Jack Gibbons admits that the photo 'has not been taken...seriously' and that he himself implies (in the source cited by Molokaicreeper) that it is his enthusiasm for the photo which has resulted in it being more widely disseminated, after it was (apparently) 'discovered' by a Dr. O'Shea. It would seem that all citation of this photo comes from O'Shea, or Gibbons via O'Shea. O'Shea, in turn , gives his source as 'Fryderyk Chopin Society in Warsaw'. The Fryderyk Chopin Institute (successor to the FC Society) does not include this picture in their own website, as far as I can see. Gibbon 'believes' the original was destroyed in World War II. My own WP:OR contribution is that, if this picture was known to the FS Society before WWII, it is very surprising that there was no reproduction or publication of it.... --Smerus (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps not enough effort has been employed in the investigation toward the origins of this picture, and it is understandable. This picture was shot 167 years ago, but there is no telling if a certain diseased someone somewhere had a copy of this in their cellar and it's yet to be found. The photographer himself who took it may have left a buried box somewhere that the world is not aware of. Who knows? Although Chopin was a famous composer, there have been anomalies and accidents for which wreckage is still found after many hundreds of years, as archaeologists dig abandoned villages that have been buried, bones belonging to a certain important person found, graves examined, etc. There are studies that reveal lots of previously unknown facts from the Titanic for example, and of course I could keep mentioning. Sadly there was no way to confirm this picture's originality, and because of that it is not taken serious. That's Chopin though, there is no question that it isn't him; I've no doubt it is. Also, the possibility that the daguerreotype picture might be reversed, was a common thing in those days and the fact that Chopin probably didn't take it serious himself (black/white low quality portrait vs. full color paintings in those days) much like dot matrix b/w printers from the 80s. Either way, I will continue to research this. There might be a book or an encyclopedia somewhere that speaks about it, or there will be more about it spoken someday. This is just not the time. Thanks though. --Molokaicreeper (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Molokaicreeper: - Keep us in touch here on the talk page with anything you find out - many thanks.--Smerus (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Infobox?

Is there a particular reason why there is no infobox quickly listing the vitals (date of birth / death, etc)?

I'd BOLDly add it, but 1) I'm at work, and 2) if it's missing for such a figure, I would suppose that it would have received it by now if it were desired. I mean, he does have significant, significant N. Jsharpminor (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Jsharpminor; please see here. N is of course not a criterion for infoboxes. Previous discussions on this talkpage have not resulted in consensus in favour of creating one.--Smerus (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be good for the community to look at and retire this composer-anti-infobox bias. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it mostly in place because then you get silly wars over whether to list Chopin's nationality as Polish, French, Polish–French, or French–Polish? And in fact, though I had read that entry in WP:LAME, I totally forgot about it when making the above comment. So, I apologize if I accidentally stepped in a minefield. I really wasn't trying to set the whole thing off. Jsharpminor (talk) 07:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I initially came here to ask the question because, as a musician, Chopin and Beethoven are two of my favorite composers, and I had been listening to the Nocturne Op. 9 no. 2 and I was curious as to whether or not Beethoven and Chopin were contemporaries, or if Chopin was closer to the Impressionist period. I was surprised by the lack of infobox. Hence my comment. Again, apologies if I accidentally stepped in a minefield. Jsharpminor (talk) 07:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Smerus: I wasn't saying that N was a criterion for an infobox, just that it would be bizarre for so public an article to have accidentally missed an infobox. There's a threshold of N for justifying an article, then there's another less-talked-about threshold where a topic is so significant that it gets lots of attention almost by default. For example: if the article on George W. Bush did not have an infobox, that would be strange indeed, simply because he's so big a figure. Likewise, I was assuming that the article on Chopin would have all the basic features (e.g. infoboxes) that were wanted, simply because enough editors had noticed the article. Jsharpminor (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

In the continuing absence of consensus I have reverted today's addition of an infobox, which was added without discussion. Previous discussions on this talkpage have not resulted in consensus to provide an infobox. Please can editors discuss here whether or not an infobox should go ahead - and provide please reasons for or against - before installing one. I remind editors that a unanimous resolution of arbitrators was that "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article". Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Add infobox: For what it's worth, I favor an infobox on these composer articles and I think it's time for consensus to change. The pro-con arguments about infoboxes can go on ad infinitum and we all know how they work, so instead of endless WP:IDONtLIKEIT versus WP:ILIKEIT debates, I will simply note that I see three editors in the edit summary wanting one (one an anon IP) and two more here supporting it, so that sounds like consensus to me. And indeed, these composer articles look "bizarre" without one. I see 83643 transclusions of infobox musician and infobox person has 183565. It's time. Montanabw^(talk) 21:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

As there is no "protocol" and Wikiprojects have no authority to ban infoboxes, per the ArbCom decision, I've restored the good-faith addition of the infobox. The infobox provides a brief summary of the salient details of the composer's life and meets the needs of a visitor who just wants a quick piece of information - as demonstrated by the comments from Jsharpminor. In addition it provides a structured framework for third-parties and sister projects (such as Wikidata) to gather key information and microformats from our articles and data dumps.

There is never any need for a good-faith editor to ask permission to make an edit and there is no mandate to demand that discussion occurs before an edit is made. If anyone has any reason to doubt the bona-fides of the editors who added and worked on the infobox, let's hear that reason, otherwise there needs to be a sound reason why their edits were reverted. It is dishonest to fob off a genuine question with the reply "Previous discussions on this talkpage have not resulted in consensus in favour of creating one" when a link to the previous discussion held at Talk:Frédéric Chopin/Archive 13 would have shown the questioner that a narrow majority of those commenting were in favour of an infobox. A dissenting minority should not be allowed to hold a veto over the majority and it's time that this bullying of editors unfamiliar with the desperate efforts of those irrationally opposed to infoboxes was brought to an end. --RexxS (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I have undone RexxS's edit restoring the box as it is not I think good faith in a discussion to preempt the conclusion before others have made their case (myself for one). I am pretty sure that the Arbcom decision has no implications jusatifying such pre-emption. I shall be posting later today in this thread my reasons for being against adding an infobox (so as to take part in the discussion per se). In the meantime may I say that I agree entirely with Montanabw that it is pointless to have "WP:IDONtLIKEIT versus WP:ILIKEIT debates". In this context, the comments of Piotrus and RexSS, and indeed of Montanabw and RexSS, are all of the nature "ILIKEIT". They are generic please for infoboxes as a concept, but they do not address why or how an infobox would improve this article. I remind editors once again of the Arbcom standard: "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article". This discussion should therefore be about Chopin, not about composers (or Wikipedia articles) in general.--Smerus (talk) 07:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I see, with a deep sigh, that an anonymous editor has restored the infobox, without comment or explanation, while the discussion is continuing. I regret this rude behaviour. The enthusiasm with which this editor has thrust this inaccurate (see below) infobox on the article suggests a preference for form over content which undermines the entire concept of Wikipedia as a provider of reliable information. I will offer here some of my pronciple my arguments against an infobox for the article Frédéric_Chopin.

1) Whilst infoboxes are doubtless useful in articles such as, e.g. Polonium, where they can summarize uncontested data, they are not so appropriate in biographical articles where the summary information they present may be unclear or positively misleading. Thus is the present restoration of the infobox at this article (at the time of writing) we are given the following inaccurate or debatable pieces of information:

• date of birth (there are two alternatives)
• Alma Mater - certainly wasn't (then) Fryderyk Chopin University of Music
• partner- Maria Wodzińska was never his partner and the relationship with George Sand was on/off to say the least
• height - irrelevant, and anyway not sourced.
• Nationality - not clearcut and a matter of ongoing, and sometimes fierce debate. (See this talk page).

2) The article as it stood before this defacement was accepted by peer editors as FA status - that is, there was no perceived need to add an infobox to improve its quality or accuracy. As the information in the infobox is already (or should be already) included in the article, it can be argued that it is merely duplication.

3) For Chopin, as for many biographical articles, facts cannot often be boldly started and may often need to be nuanced. The issue of nationality has been mentioned. The ambiguities are pointed out in the lede and are covered in the article. A causal reader (e.g. college student) who simply takes information from the box therefore risks being misled. On the other hand, to point out these nuances by expanding the text in the infobox makes it clumsy and repetitive of the article.

4) RexxS raises the red herring of 'metadata' provision by infoboxes. Editors may be aware from previous discussions however that the provision of metadata is not a policy of Wikipedia and that there is absolutely no recommendation or requirement on this basis that can justify infoboxes as a matter of Wikipedia policy. This argument also ignores the Arbcom standard, which I repeat for Rexxs's convenience: "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article". I again pint out that this implies that his discussion should therefore be about Chopin, not about composers or Wikipedia articles in general.

5) The opinion of Montanabw that this article looks "bizarre" without an infobox is certainly one to which she is entitled; as I am also entitled to my opinion that it looks bizarre with one. Neither of these arguments however is relevant to the discussion - Montanabw has already correctly pointed out that comment son the basis of ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT are irrelevant and unhelpful.--Smerus (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Smerus: There is far more rudeness when an editor misleads another editor by reverting them with an edit summary such as "per WP protocols". There is no protocol that any good-faith editor needs your permission to edit your articles. WP:BEBOLD is the applicable protocol and you have defied it by lying about the outcomes of previous discussions as an excuse for reverting an edit that you simply don't like. Incidentally, I'll do you the courtesy of addressing you in the second person, even though you fail to accord me the same.

1) Data does not need to be uncontested to be useful in an infobox. The Flat Earth Society contests that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, yet our article clearly states its circumference and other useful data. Similarly, much of a subject's biographical information is well-enough accepted within the mainstream view to be uncontroversially stated as a fact.

Chopin's date of birth is generally accepted as 1 March 1810, and I would favour treating that as a simple fact, although if there were sufficient support to give "or 22 February", then we would be giving exactly as much nuance as the lead does. If it's acceptable to simplify the "alternatives" as is done in the lead, then so it is for the infobox. It is hypocrisy to claim otherwise.

The infobox that you reverted with this edit gave Chopin's alma_mater as Warsaw Lyceum and Warsaw Conservatory. When you blindly revert, you miss the fact that earlier errors had already been corrected. And that is what should always be done - fix it, rather than "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

Similarly the infobox that you reverted gave his partner as George Sand (1836–47) - a very reasonable précis that meets the spurious objections that you raise above and matches quite well what we find in the lead.

Who are you to say that a person's height is irrelevant? It may be irrelevant to you, but we're writing articles for readers, some of whom may wish to know such details. The article makes a point of George Sand's height and knowing Chopin's helps to place that in context. I do agree that it requires a source if it should be challenged.

When the lead opens with "Frédéric François Chopin ... was a Polish composer ...", then what is compromised by stating his nationality as Polish in the infobox? That gives the casual reader the information that allows them to place his birth geographically and to gain some idea that he may be of importance to the historical culture of Poland, no matter what the region may have been called at the moment of his birth.

2) WP:Featured Articles are not exempt from improvement and the majority of them have infoboxes - even among biographies. If editors feel that adding an infobox is an improvement, then they have every right to do so. There is no consensus on this article that it should not have an infobox. It is indeed duplication, just as the lead duplicates the reat of the article. An infobox merely collects those key pieces of information together in a predictable place with a clear structure, making the information available for the reader who wants that information about Chopin "at-a-glance", as well as making it available to third-parties in key-value form as well as in microformats. Summarising information is one of the jobs of Wikipedia and there is nothing clumsy about it.

3) I see no argument that the nuances are any less well summarised in the infobox that you removed than in the lead. If that degree of summary was acceptable when the lead passed FA, how can it now be any more misleading for the hypothetical college student than reading the opening sentences? The issue of nationality has been addressed and the lead quite clearly does not raise any issue of ambiguity. In fact there is absolutely no ambiguity about where Chopin was born and no doubt that Poland claims him as one of their national heros. What more information could anyone want from 'nationality'?

4) Contrary to what you assert, Wikipedia has a mission to make the sum of human knowledge freely available to everyone. That means not just the readers of the Wikipedia website but many others who see our content mirrored or summarised in many different places. And it's not just policy, it's a fundamental principle on which Wikipedia is founded that we enable that. Infoboxes are well-known to be particularly well-suited as a source of information. The majority of the content of Wikidata, for example, is created from automated tools picking up the data that infoboxes in the many different languages makes available. Google uses infoboxes to train its natural language processing tools. These arguments do indeed apply to all articles, but they apply to Chopin. We can say where and when Chopin was born and died, where he was educated, the names of his parents, and so on; that becomes available not just for the "at-a-glance" reader, but for many others who will get indirect access to that information from the infobox. The fact that a similar rationale applies to the millions of other articles that have an infobox doesn't make it any less true in the case of Chopin. The value of provision of this kind of data on Chopin needs to be taken into account when deciding on whether or not to have an infobox on this article.

I see also that you've once again canvassed for support at a single WikiProject, whose views you know would be sympathetic to yours, without notifying any other interested projects. This is a clear example of attempting to sway consensus by WP:VOTESTACKING. Your contempt for the basic principles of fair debate is disgraceful, but I suppose I should expect nothing more. --RexxS (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with all the above points. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• If I'm counting edits correctly, I see a 4 or 5:1 consensus at this talk page for addition, about a 9:2 editing consensus in favor of keeping the infobox (comparing edits adding or improving the infobox to those removing it) and this on top of the !votes in favor of one the last time around. Yes, the classical music editors remain vehemently opposed to any and all infoboxes, (and I am sure that they will all be showing up here soon) as they have for years and with the same stale arguments that fail to recognize that there are technical, aesthetic, and summary style arguments all in favor. An infobox neither must duplicate the lead nor avoid redundancy with the lead; it is an adjunct to the article as a whole and contains summary material. Montanabw^(talk) 19:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, not all classical music editors are vehemently opposed: I for one am vehemently neutral. You remember in December there was a mini edit war at WikiProject Composers about this, discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers#Reversions. I made a proposal there about how to give the project guideline some NPOV, to which you, Montanabw, responded constructively, but from everyone else there was deathly hush. Does this mean there was agreement to it, or merely readiness to revert its implementation anyway? Would any of you revert if someone did implement it? I just want to add that it's just this kind of childish pantomime squabbling, and personal attacks such as one might expect from brattish 4-year-olds, that led me to delist myself from this project's membership and reduce my activity on Wikipedia. It's the kind of last-man-standing characteristic that the newspaper articles about Wikipedia keep on mentioning. Today's edit war here is about nothing. Are you all enjoying it? --Stfg (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

At last! A decent classical performer. But that seems a very sensible proposal, Stfg. Thanks for trying to be constructive. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• I was good with the changes you suggested to the wording on the project page. Still am. And it's high time WP Composers engaged constructively on this. Montanabw^(talk) 23:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Here we have a beautiful article about Chopin, carefully researched by thoughtful editors, which now, thanks to the infobox system, says up front, as one of the truly essential facts about Chopin, what his height was. Frankly, I am disgusted -- why should it be a priority to provide a venue for thoughtless editors to leave little deposits like this? Opus33 (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop the edit warring on this article immediately. I have requested full protection until this discussion is resolved. --Mirokado (talk) 02:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox 3

Discuss infobox yes or no

1. Support infobox (repeating from 2014, I am restricted to not make a further comment in the matter) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
2. Support. Love it! It's great to find some of the essential plot points of Chopin's life neatly summarized this way! Nihil novi (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
3. Support for all the reasons I mentioned above and all the reasons any major biography should contain an infobox. Montanabw^(talk) 08:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
4. Oppose infobox for the same reasons I dislike curtains. Must all houses have curtains? Are houses without curtains inherently inferior? Second, why use a cropped version of the only photograph taken of Chopin? Victoria (tk) 16:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
5. Support infobox for all the reasons already aired. Sorry, can't provide any home-furnishing arguments. I think the cropped photogragh looks a bit more focused, although he looks equally miserable in both. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
6. Oppose infobox for reasons I have given above. --Smerus (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
7. Oppose. I don't know who wrote this article, but it's clear that they knew what they were doing: they read up on the topic thoroughly and wrote with care. It's disrespectful to these good editors to let other editors, who haven't done their homework, come in and post trivia in the most conspicuous possible position. Opus33 (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

   Surely building consensus for what editors see as an improvement has nothing to do with "respect" for previous editors. The information proposed for the infobox is anything but "trivia". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

   ...but thanks anyway for the compliment which I accept also on behalf of User:Dr Blofeld and others who contributed.--Smerus (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

   you're very welcome. Perhaps he also has a view. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

8. Oppose infobox per the extended discussion above, and particularly because of the point made about contentious nationality, which can adequately be addressed in a medium-sized paragraph, but not in an infobox.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
9. Oppose in the current form -- I am neutral on the use of infoboxes, but I agree with those who point out that this example uses trivial (e.g. height) and contentious (e.g. nationality) data. I'd like any consensus to be explicit about the omission of these. --Stfg (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
10. Oppose in current form. I am with Stfg on the need to limit any infobox to essential identifying data. The inclusion of height is a provocation, and a pretty stupid one (along with weight, hat size and favourite colour). Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

    Some composers can be quite heavy, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

    Yeah, but that's undue weight, no? --Stfg (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

11. Support infobox with the information as shown. I wouldn't worry if height were omitted, particularly if unsourced. I'm pretty certain that Chopin's nationality is not contentious: "born Polish, French citizen 1835" or something similar would be a reasonable summary and quite beyond dispute. --RexxS (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
12. Support infobox, preferring the original daguerrotype image for its historical importance and better quality. We should not include height in the infobox as it is irrelevant without the context of the Sand quote about "...this little creature..." (where it is in any case not mentioned). --Mirokado (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
13. Oppose infobox as redundant and possibly misleading, in this particular article. I agree with User:Smerus [4]. The article's lede summarizes the most important points clearly, the rest is explained in the article's body. I also oppose the uniformity on Wikipedia. See Help:Infobox: The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Why would it be "possibly misleading"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Discuss infobox design

Frédéric Chopin
Born	Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin (1810-03-01)1 March 1810 Żelazowa Wola, Poland
Died	17 October 1849(1849-10-17) (aged 39) Place Vendôme, Paris, France
Nationality	Polish; French citizen 1835
Education	Warsaw Lyceum Warsaw Conservatory
Occupations	Composer Pianist Piano teacher
Notable work	List of compositions
Movement	Romantic
Partner	George Sand (1836–47)
Parents	Justyna Krzyżanowska Nicolas Chopin
Signature

Dislike of parameters is a good reason to discuss those parameters. My version was shorter. I added the works list to this box, which would provide access to his compositions in a prominent position. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Love your idea of adding the Chopin works list! A brilliant idea! Nihil novi (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This infobox was started by 118.210.75.162 and edited by Nihil novi, Smerus, myself, Favonian, Jsharpminor, Martinevans123, Stfg and Mirokado, and restored by RexxS, AMEB2003 and Montanabw. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: If certain parameters aren't desired (height, unless relevant) then they can stay out of the infobox until resolved. No reason to throw out the whole infobox. Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good. FA class doesn't mandate an exhaustive infobox, just a solid and accurate one. Montanabw^(talk) 08:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have a comment about the picture. There was some discussion about this at the time of FA, as I recall. Cropping it has imo two drawbacks. You lose the composition of the original by Bisson - which itself is significant as it was typical of the period and places Chopin in the context of early photographic practices. Also, as the quality of the original is somewhat grainy, it looks even grainier in the close-up. I therefore argue in favour of retaining the earlier photo, whatever the outcome of this discussion. I also repeat my comment about the irrelevance/inappropriateness of including FC's alleged height - for which I think we still don't have any citation, in any case. Unlike the other information in the proposed infobox, it has no bearing whatsoever on his career or significance. If you include this, where do you stop? - we will have bright sparks proposing the colour of his hair or eyes, or his favourite breakfast....--Smerus (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that the older, sepia image is better and there is no real need to include height. However, no need to raise the logical fallacy of a slippery slope argument here, just because a parameter exists doesn't mean we have to use it. Montanabw^(talk) 22:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Let me also make a comment about nationality. As can be seen from discussions above and at the time of the FA this has been a hot topic. I am amongst those who believe that 'Polish' is the right answer if you only have one word. But he did become a French national , and the French in particular often treat him as such. Therefore, if you are going to highlight this information in an infobox, (and if it goes ahead), I believe you should say something like: 'Polish: obtained French nationality in 1835.'--Smerus (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That would work, or as below omit nationality in favor of listing birth and death location. Either would work. Montanabw^(talk) 22:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comments. 1., agree with Smerus about nationality. Typically infoboxes don't lend themselves well to artists who are born in one country and become citizens of another. 2., the birthdate is an issue. 3., File:Frédéric Chopin by Bisson, 1849.png is a 9 mb high rez image, presumably a daguerrotype, and if truly the only image, then we should use it. File:Frederic Chopin photo.jpeg is a 536 kb very grainy cropped version of the original and retains none of the background. 4., "Piano teacher" gives me pause. 5., To Americans who don't use the metric system height means nothing and begs the question of how tall was the piano? 6., threaded discussion is here and this section should be renamed and it would be best to move all responding comments from the section above down here. A neutral party should watch this discussion and refactor as necessary, so as to allow consensus to develop. 7., Suggest allowing the discussion to run for 30 days. Victoria (tk) 20:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• The purpose of an infobox, if any, should be to serve as a quick reference to those things that a drive-by reader might want to look up quickly, but with no intention to read the text of the article. That's surely one reasonable use of an encyclopedia. For most composers, this would include dates of birth and death, nationality (but if contentious, either say so or omit), famous family members and partners (very famous, not merely GNG notable; think of the Bachs and the Couperins), movement, link to list of works. No biometrics please, these aren't boxers or footballers. Education isn't really needed in a quickref. Nor is signature -- yes, it's in the FA already, but perhaps it's undue so high up anyway (?) --Stfg (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with your comments. (Can never really get my head round signatures. Maybe they should be reserved for writers and art forgers?) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• • Room for flexibility: Anyone opposing the infobox because they have issue with a parameter is simply poisoning the well; We can start with a very stripped-down design and than add as consensus allows. There is room within the parameters to deal with disputes. Nationality can be omitted in favor of stating a birthplace and a death place. Dates that are disputed can be noted as disputed by simply using raw text instead of a templated parameter. The convert template can handle the height issue if it needs to be in there at all, which I doubt. Montanabw^(talk) 22:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• An infobox with very little content would be an infobox that I wouldn't take the trouble to defend if removed. But here is an infobox with a dozen pieces of information available at a glance. I can see from previous debates that nationality has been the subject of debate, but I'm quite certain that (1) modern Poles identify him as born in their country and (2) he spend much of his brief adult life in France and became a French citizen. It's not too difficult to précis that without being any more "misleading" than the opening sentence and I'd prefer Smerus' formulation to MontanaBW's in this instance. The article agrees that Chopin's date of birth is generally accepted as 1 March 1810. An earlier commenter said they were "curious as to whether or not Beethoven and Chopin were contemporaries" and it is a valid query that infoboxes are good at answering. We don't need to know about the parish baptismal records discrepancy to make the comparison with Beethoven's birth and death dates. And if consensus considers that the 22 February 1810 putative birthdate is significant enough, it's no hardship to state "1 March or possibly 22 February 1810" in the same way as the lead does. There's no contention over Chopin's place of birth; his age, place and date of death; his occupations; his liaison with George Sand; where he was educated; his parents' names, and more, although I've never been a fan of having signatures in infoboxes. I hope that this will accepted in the spirit in which it is intended: a possible way forward that other editors could live with, even if not their first choice. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Identibox

Frédéric Chopin
Photograph of Chopin by Bisson, c. 1849
Born	Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin (1810-03-01)1 March 1810 (or possibly 22 February 1810) Żelazowa Wola, Poland
Died	17 October 1849(1849-10-17) (aged 39) Paris, France
Occupations	Composer Pianist
Notable work	List of compositions
Signature

Similar to the one suggested in 2014, no height, no nationality, focus on life data and the works, - The term was coined by Brianboulton, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Similar

• Oppose for now because the proposal made at 7:46 UTC is being so quickly followed by a second proposal at 21:35 UTC. Consensus takes time to develop and there's no reason to rush from one proposal to the next. Pinging Courcelles, who protected the page, to keep eyes here, moderate if necessary, or to ask another uninvolved admin to step in. Let's please allow the 420 some watchers on the page to chime in if they wish. Issues such as nationality and the image have been raised and decisions are only slowly forming. It often takes time for consensus to form, but we don't have a deadline. Suggest archiving this thread and bringing back to the table later if necessary. Victoria (tk) 21:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This was suggested on 6 April 2014, here with the other image, to show alternatives. If we can discuss only one idea (but why?) we should discuss this one first. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Possibly we're moving into !voting too quickly, but it's useful to know that an advocate is willing to cut it down to size. This suggestion seems to me to be moving in the right direction, acknowledging the concerns of the opposers. I would cut it down still further -- omit occupation and signature, but possibly reinstate George Sand since this connection is very well known. --Stfg (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

More sensible suggestions. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

My feeling is that we must give adequate time to decide. To use the analogy above, is it necessary to hang a curtain - because most of the houses have curtains, because they are useful, fashionable, whatever? Or can we wait patiently to decide? If the overwhelming consensus is to have a curtain, the type of curtain can be decided at that time. Anyway, I have this article on watch only because I meant to post during the FA review, and have now used up my self-imposed rules about infoboxes curtains for the next year or so. Victoria (tk) 22:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

"A house without curtains is like a woman without eyebrows" (Romanian). For some reason I'm always reminded of Frank, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Arguably, an infobox is the absence of a curtain: it gives the passer-by a peep into the house. Nihil novi (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• A blend - each version has something to be said for it. Parameters aren't set in stone, there is room for variations. Montanabw^(talk) 22:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• • Per discussion above, I WP:BBoldly edited the first infobox to reflect what I think people agree on, the image swap and clarifying nationality. Montanabw^(talk) 02:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Whilst I cannot honestly say that I like the 'identibox', it would be churlish for me to object to something that meets most of my objections and seems to have some general approbation. I therefore thank Gerda for introducing it (and Brian for the concept) and would give it, in principle, my support. I make the following comments:

1. The signature could of course (and I think should) be detached from the identibox and placed in a separate box below it.
2. I do not see justification for including George Sand in the identibox, as suggested by Stfg. She is indeed a part of Chopin's story, but in fact an incidental one; she played no part in his greatness, had no demonstrable influence on any of the aspects which make him notable. In fact, for summary purposes, she is no more relevant than his height. The occupation(s) are however germane, so should stay.
3. On 30 days curtain-hanging - why prolong the agony? If we are close to consensus, let's nail it to the wall and celebrate.--Smerus (talk) 06:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Smerus. I'm cool with leaving Sand out of it. --Stfg (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)