Jump to content

Talk:Frédéric Chopin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 91.114.199.103 (talk) at 10:55, 18 September 2016 (→‎Chopin's nationality: Added Solution F, G, and H with Support also for B). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Featured articleFrédéric Chopin is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 17, 2014.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 5, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
February 23, 2014Good article nomineeListed
July 17, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
August 17, 2014Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article


RfC: Chopin's nationality

Clear majority voted for Option A, by a wide margin as seen below. GRUcrule (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 a 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.

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. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 14:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 18:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
Where did I say that? 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 18:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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]"? 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 18:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)#[reply]
It isn't mentioned, because it was removed and then the page was protected to the wrong version 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 19:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 19:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
But did you search for Polish-French? And are you sure Encyclopedia Britannica is non-scholarly? 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 20:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 20:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Given that last point you should change it to Support E. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 12:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Sources are not unreliable just because they oppose your view. And Wikipedia is not a reliable source, see WP:NOTRS. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 16:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The expression "Polish" is even more vague. It could refer to all of those, plus the fact that they polish things. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 12:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 16:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works. Volunteer Marek  17:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Let me quote:

"...not superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 17:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep telling yourself that. Volunteer Marek  17:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep telling me that 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 12:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Me,too Ravpapa (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.

Chopin's nationality: Added Solution F, G, and H with Support also for B

Definitely Polish-French, as per Solution F, G, and H provided to enhance merit of the discussion above and make it conclusive by adding a certain standard/substance of consideration to eliminate arbitrary discretion of too limited previous choices not allowing a full consideration of the apparent only issue, but historically entrenched especially in Poland.

  • Solution F - Describe Chopin as of the Polish-French descent in the lead.
  • Solution G - Describe Chopin as of the Polish-French descent and nationality in the intro/lead
  • Solution H - Describe Chopin as Polish-French in the lead, but discuss the descent and nationality in the body of the article.
  • Support B - Chopin was a Polish citizen of the Duchy of Warsaw and then Congress Poland. At the age of 20, he moved to France for the rest of his life where he became naturalized, like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Thus, legally, in English speaking world, he was Polish-French, as Arnold - Austrian-American, and encyclopedias are about facts and feelings.
  • Support F - Chopin was of a Polish-French descent, as his mother was ethnically Polish and his father Nicolas - French. The Polish-French order over French-Polish is dictated by the place of birth - Poland called Duchy of Warsaw at that time. Nicolas could be Polish citizen only from the arrival to Poland in 1787 until 1795 when Poland ceased to exist, and again from 1807 when the Duchy of Warsaw was created. In 1910, when Frédéric was born, Nicolas could not have been Polish citizen, since the Duchy of Warsaw was a satellite state of the First French Empire and Nicolas could have preferred to associate himself with Napoleon and hold his birth's French and not Polish citizenship. Thus, Frédéric's Polish-French descent/ethnicity is certain.
  • Support G - Frédéric's Polish-French both descent and nationality/citizenship are certain/factual (see Support B and F above) and worth mentioning in the intro/lead to clear the apparent only controversy of denying him, mainly in Poland, to be also French both by the French ethnicity and citizenship of his father and his own voluntarily French naturalization or acceptance of French citizenship.
  • Support H - Frédéric's Polish-French both descent and nationality/citizenship are certain/factual (see Support B and F above) and not worth mentioning in the intro/lead, but only in the body of the article, since the apparent only controversy of denying him to be also French (see Support G above) takes place mainly in Poland and this article is in English, in which there is no doubt that Frédéric's was Polish-French analogically to Arnold Schwarzenegger who even did not have an ethnic/national American parent, but still is considered to be Austrian-American and not only Austrian.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing to re-open the discussion, then, or just stating your opinion after the fact?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I reopen discussion where is nothing to discuss, as having dual citizenship/nationality is denoted in English speaking world as "[1st citizenship/nationality]-[2nd citizenship/nationality]" without doubt; end of discussion. That is a rule and not a matter of opinion or voting. The previous approach of voting was misguided and incorrect. Or you know it or not. Especially people from Poland are potentially misguided as nationalistically fed from early childhood incl. school textbooks that he was Polish only. I am from Poland, experienced that bias, and hold dual citizenship. Many discussing here people are likely from Poland and biased. Frédéric held dual Polish-French citizenship and thus according the English Wikipedia standard was Polish-French. End of discussion.
BTW, as a person, who voluntarily spent almost all his adulthood in France, he practically was more French than Polish. I belive, Arnold Schwarzenegger considers himself to be American of Austrian descent and not Austrian-American, but technically/legally he is Austrian-American. The French consider Frédéric to be French only, but the French Wikipedia provides "of Polish-French descent", which is true. Nevertheless, in the English-speaking word, the citizenship is decisive, so Frédéric was Polish-French.
Stupid Communists claimed that Immanuel Kant was born in Kaliningrad, because, after World War II, they took over East Prussia and renamed Königsberg. Then, somebody not very clever could go 1 step further and claim that everyone born in Kalinigrad was... Russian. Do not get fooled.

--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has already ended, with the majority of votes for Resolution A (Chopin described as Polish in the lead), however, if there is a reference or source stating that Chopin had officially acquired French citizenship or any personal quote supporting his devotion to France, then the lead would likely be altered. I am in support for both claims (I wouldn't mind Chopin being called Polish-French in the intro), but I have to rely on sources and facts that can be found either on the internet or in books. Additionally the discussion has been already settled, so there is little room for counter-argument.

-- Oliszydlowski (TALK) 12:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The end by voting of 1 discussion on a fact, does not settle anything, as voting does not prove facts. Or you know a fact or not. Your argument that "if there is a reference or source stating that Chopin had officially acquired French citizenship" is based on the premise that such documents should exist, which is false, as "before World War I, most people did not have or need an identity document". The second part of your argument that "or any personal quote supporting his devotion to France" is supported by 17 of 19 years of his adulthood spent voluntarily in France. If his 17-year residence in France is not a proof of his devotion to France, than nothing is. Thus, he is also French by his 17-year residence in France. Please, produce a valid argument instead of the result of voting, which by its nature does not prove anything and contradicts stated by you requirement for a solid proof, which you do not have to exclude him being French. Thus his residence proves that he was. That is formal logic.--03:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logicalgenius3 (talk • contribs)
It is not a question of establishing Facts, but of establishing Consensus concerning what reliable sources can reasonably be construed to verify. This process has recently been carried out, and the consensus was for Option A. Any editor may re-open a consensus discussion, supposing that new reliable sources have been found, or the sources previously accepted as valid can be shown not to be reliable. The reliability of the sources is not being challenged, as far as I can see, and neither have any significant new sources been offered. Please therefore explain why the consensus should be changed, in your opinion. FWIW, I am neither Polish nor French, whether by citizenship or by descent.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jerome, you are wrong, as Oliszydlowski, in regard to consensus where there is a clear Wikipedia's standard. According to MOS:OPENPARA sec 3 par 1, nationality is "if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a [...] or permanent resident when the person became notable". Thus, Chopin was French by being notable while in France almost exclusively whole his adulthood (17 of 19 years), and being practically unknown until the age of 20, when he left Poland for good. But, because the themes of Chopin's oeuvre were Polish, then considering Chopin Polish-French is most accurate description according to the Wikipedia's above-mentioned standard. That standard is demanded by Wikipedia and is the most reliable source.
In the view of this clear Wikipedia's standard for nationality, your above demand for consensus or an external reference is moot, as Wikipedia's standard is more than both demanded less strict remedies and they apply when a clear Wikipedia standard cannot be satisfied unlike here.
Thus, you both display Wikipedia:Vandalism#Lack of understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia by disregarding Wikipedia's rules incl. WP:OWNERSHIP (Oliszydlowski above: "the discussion has been already settled, so there is little room for counter-argument"), and who engages in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing by reverting correct edits due to such disregard. Jerome's statement that "[t]he reliability of the sources is not being challenged, as far as I can see, and neither have any significant new sources been offered" is in violation of WP:OWNERSHIP. Please, do learn basic standards of Wikipedia before correcting others.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I would've thought that by describing one of the world's most famous composers - Frédéric Chopin - as "Franco-Polish" as opposed to just "Polish" would've been totally uncontroversial... given that all reliable sources do describe in some such matter... considering that he was a naturalized French citizen, never set foot in Poland after age 21, is the child of a French father, and is known by, ye know, a French name (!).... but evidently this "debate" has been going on for years.

However, there doesn't need to be any "debate" or discussion at all. Wikipedians aren't scholars. Wikipedians aren't reliable sources. Wikipedia reflects what the sources say. End of discussion.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Frederic-Chopin

ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I understand you correctly: editorial consensus on these matters is irrelevant because you disagree with it? Do pull the other one, it's got bells on.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"editorial consensus" is irrelevant because it is, by point of fact, according to Wikipedia policy - if "editorial consensus" contradicts what the reliable sources say. A few random, anonymous internet usernames do not trump the established facts of reliable sources. My opinion, or your opinion, has nothing to do with it. We are not reliable sources. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get into a hair-splitting match here, but what "established facts of reliable sources" are being "trumped"? This has solely to do with the wording of the lead section; the intricacies of Chopin's ancestry are various domiciles are amply discussed in the body of the article. It has been agreed that this is too intricate and detailed to go into at length in the lede. This and only this has been decided by consensus. Why do you think you have the authority to overturn consensus single-handedly?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's got nothing to do with me, or the "consensus" of a few random people. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say. Omitting any mention of is Frenchness in the lead, is a novelty, original thinking, on the part of anonymous online usernames. It's not encyclopedic. There is no debate to be had here. You either reflect what Encyclopedia Britannica says, or you demonstrate it is not a reliable source. Good luck. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone who is part of consensus are "random". That's the whole point. CassiantoTalk 19:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No kidding. Please, keep in mind, Wikipedia is not a democracy and not a publisher of original thought. You either reflect what the Encyclopedia Britannica (for instance) says, or you demonstrate it is not a reliable source. Good luck. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so pleased I have the likes of you to remind me. "Good luck"CassiantoTalk 20:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jerome Kohl, do you have difficulties understanding formal logic, English language, Wikipedia rules for intro/lead, or you just engage in prohibited trolling? The incompetent and wrong "editorial consensus on these matters is irrelevant because" - as you asked above - it is contradicted by (1) the reliable source - demanded by you above - of Encyclopedia Britannica at https://www.britannica.com/biography/Frederic-Chopin, and (2) the clear Wikipedia's standard MOS:OPENPARA sec 3 par 1 stating that nationality is "if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable" you may not understand, but both of which contradict that consensus according to formal logic and their English language meaning. Maybe for you "this is too intricate and detailed", as you stated, but for normal people, it is clear and simple. You may not force you standard of what is "too intricate and detailed" on others, because in violation of WP:OWNERSHIP. Got it?--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only troll around here is you. And seeing as we now seem to be resorting to cliché essay linking, here's one for you to read. CassiantoTalk 22:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cassianto, (1) you stated 'Everyone who is part of consensus are "random"'. "Random" means - according to Webster's Dictionary - "lacking aim or method; purposeless; haphazard". Thus, people who are part of consensus and thus whose aim is to support that consensus option and thus have aim are the opposite of "random". Are you familiar with formal logic and do you understand English?
Cassianto, (2) you stated that it is "resorting to cliché essay linking" when providing above by ZinedineZidane98 and myself as reliable source the article in Encyclopedia Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Frederic-Chopin) written by famous musicologist Leon Plantinga who wrote 4 books on music of the later XVIII and XIX C? Who are you to dismiss the Leon Plantinga's article in Encyclopedia Britannica? How many books you wrote on the later XVIII and XIX C music? If you could dismiss a Leon Plantinga's article in Encyclopedia Britannica, as not a reliable source on later XVIII and XIX C music incl. Chopin, you could dismiss any reliable source to write whatever you please in violation of the essence of Wikipedia and its basic rules. Who are you to dismiss Leon Plantinga's credibility on later XVIII and XIX C music incl. Chopin?--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Frederic-Chopin provides also the alternative authorship of that article by Arthur Hedley who "was a British musicologist, scholar and biographer of Polish-French composer Frédéric Chopin". Still, my question remains, who are you Cassianto to dismiss Arthur Hedley's credibility on Chopin?--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not dismissing anything. I happen to respect a consensus that was formed on this page not so long ago. CassiantoTalk 12:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is really getting ridiculous... How many sources are needed before certain users stop reverting according to their own personal opinions? 2? 3? 4? 20?[1][2][3][4][5] Note how he is described on the French, German, and Spanish versions of Wikipedia.... ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you what is ridiculous and that's someone naming themselves after a French footballer and then trying to force a French nationality descriptor into this article. CassiantoTalk 12:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. You got me. Good call! What's this, a little bit of the famed English Francophobia? (see how easy it is to cast aspersions?) Incidentally, if you'd like to exclude anyone of French or Polish heritage from editing this article on account of bias, I would happily oblige, being neither French nor Polish! Yes, ridiculous, that you claim to be a higher authority than Encyclopedia Britannica and Oxford University :-) ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting into a xenophobic arguement with you about the French vs English; today of all days. But seeing as we are on the subject of idiotic accusations, maybe you'd like to provide a diff which shows my claim to be a "higher authority than Encyclopedia Britannica and Oxford University"? CassiantoTalk 17:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[4] ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you're illiterate as well as a steaming xenophobe? That diff shows nothing other than me reverting to the current consensus. Try again? CassiantoTalk 20:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I'm extremely illiterate, and abundantly xenophobic (towards who, exactly?). Regardless, you are still guilty of deleting reliable sources for no other reason than...... "current consensus" (?). Well done my boy, well done. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a reliable source exists, it doesn't mean it's suitable for the article. You do know that, right? CassiantoTalk 22:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just blocked ZinedineZidane98 for edit warring. Likely to get blocked for violations of WP:NPA, judging from this conversation, ZinedineZidane98, Cassianto, and Logicalgenius3. Personal attacks includes not just name calling ("illiterate", "xenophobe") but also derogatory remarks ("my boy") and a-holish sneers ("Are you familiar with formal logic and do you understand English"). Please continue this without such commentary. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, did you want something Drmies? Only you pinged me accusing me of a PA whereas what I was actually doing was calling a spade a spade. Don't worry though, I won't badger you for an apology once you've eventually worked out where the xenophobia exists. CassiantoTalk 18:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I accept your apology; I just know that you acknowledge that "So you're illiterate as well as a steaming xenophobe?" is a clear-cut insult. If an editor like you needs a reminder of our policy, that's fine: WP:NPA. All kidding aside, Cassianto, the problem with your course of action is, of course, that any actual xenophobia will not get the attention it deserves, nor will your attitude encourage simple admins like me to look for them. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • You accepted an apology that wasn't there, curious. It might surprise you to know that I stand by my comments: 1). Illiterate, according to this rather reliable source means "unable to read and write". Did you see their inability to understand a very simple comment? Which part of the "unable to read or write" do you think that refers to? 2). Do you think it's acceptable to make comments like: "[a] little bit of the famed English Francophobia" on a day in which nearly 100 innocent people got mowed down in the South of France by a terrorist? I happen to be English and to be likened to a member of a country that is, apparently, "famed" for their xenophobia, in light of the atrocities, is fucking disgusting. Did you also notice that the accusation of "Fancophobia" is, in itself, xenophobic? No, I didn't think so. Still, how wrong of me to call a spade a spade. CassiantoTalk 21:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, I thought you said "sorry". Drmies (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Drmies, you accused me above of "a-holish sneers ("Are you familiar with formal logic and do you understand English")". Since neither "a-holish" nor "holish" is a proper English word and thus not included in the Webster's Dictionary nor defined on the Web, then "a-holish sneers" refers to something that does not exist, as per formal logic. So - in other words - you accused me of something that does not exist. I am puzzled and do not know what to think. Should I worry or feel scared? I think, I should worry that you have power to block a user, as you have just done to ZinedineZidane98 (see above). I believe that knowing formal logic is essential to understanding user's offences, only which the users can be blocked for. So, it is also really scary that you have such a power. I hope, you will not abuse it. Does, what I wrote here, sound like "a-holish sneer" too, just a regular sneer, or - maybe - a mockery or a ridicule by an educated person, which do not qualify as WP:NPA, though close? Enjoy guessing.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find it a bit strange too that sir Chopin isn't described as being French and Polish... I've always thought he was, and I think most dictionaries describe him so... and I came here because I wanted to show to my flatmate that he's not only French but also Polish... I've read a bit the discussions above but I still don't understand how you got to this strange decision of describing him as Polish and not French too... Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, guys, not a fan magazine... 188.22.29.246 (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia sometimes gets uncomfortably close to that fan-magazine characterization, which is when we are obliged to turn to the "real" encyclopedias which, as Cassianto points out, somewhere in the welter of words above, are virtually unanimous in describing Chopin as "Polish composer and pianist". At most, they may mention in parentheses that his father was French, but it would be reckless indeed for Wikipedia editors to buck a tide like that.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you do as you like, but I think you're wrong when describing sir Chopin as being only Polish. I've read a bit the talks above, I've read stuff like "he considered himself Polish", these are primary sources, we're not a fan magazine, I think we'd better consider tertiary sources, and the tertiary sources mentioned on this talk page (britannica) state he was French and Polish, as well as my own dictionary, as well as my own memories. But I think all has already been said above, I don't feel the need to keep on talking about it, I just find it a bit ridiculous, such situations sometimes happen on Wikipedia, it's not the first time and not the last time... 91.114.199.103 (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NB: I've just given a look at the article on Mozart, and it's exactly the same situation!! All dictionaries state that Mozart is an Austrian composer but Wikipedia doesn't, ha ha! (I agree that the issue of his nationality can be discussed, but well... Once again all dictionaries usually write he's Austrian... I find it strange to do it differently on Wikipedia; pupils who come onto Wikipedia in order to check of which nationality were Mozart or Chopin want to read the usual answer, not subtle controversies about if he was German or Austrian or nothing or French or Polish or French-Polish or Polish-French :-), although we may of course develop the idea, like: Mozart was an Austrian composer [note 1], with note 1 explaining a bit the controversial aspect of such a statement, or: Chopin was a Polnish-French composer [note 1 or section lambda], with note 1 or section lambda explaining a bit the situation with more details...) 91.114.199.103 (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2016

He was also attracted to the singing student Konstancja Gładkowska. In letters to Woyciechowski, he indicated which of his works, and even which of their passages, were influenced by his fascination with her; his letter of 15 May 1830 revealed that the slow movement (Larghetto) of his Piano Concerto No. 1 (in E minor) was secretly dedicated to her

The larghetto in the Piano Concerto in F minor was composed as an expression of love for Konstancja Gladkowska. Part of the confusion may stem from the order of composition and numbering in the publication: the Piano Concerto in F minor was completed before the Piano Concerto in E minor but published as the Piano Concerto No. 2.

See Encyclopedia of the Romantic Era, 1760-1850 edited by Christopher John Murray page 184: https://books.google.com/books?id=8GS8DWMLRYEC&pg=PA184&dq=Gladkowska+Concerto+in+F+minor&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiThcvA_-HOAhXKkh4KHaJdBuc4ChDoAQgbMAA#v=onepage&q=Gladkowska%20Concerto%20in%20F%20minor&f=false

8.22.97.30 (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 17:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only two known photos?

The article about Louis-Auguste Bisson states that only two photos of Chopin are known. This leads to two thoughts; 1: why isn't this fact stated in a featured article, seems pretty interesting? And 2: Why isn't the other photo shown here? FunkMonk (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a blog on the photos by Jack Gibbons, here. I suspect the answer is "Because the earlier one makes him look like an extra in The Walking Dead". William Avery (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Leon Plantinga, "Frédéric Chopin Polish-French composer and pianist", Encyclopædia Britannica.
  2. ^ Oxford Music Online, "Chopin, Fryderyk Franciszek".
  3. ^ Encyclopedia of World Biography, "Frédéric François Chopin (1810-1849), a Polish-French composer and pianist".
  4. ^ 1902 Encyclopedia, "Frédéric François Chopin Polish-French composer (1810-49)".
  5. ^ YourDictionary, "Frédéric François Chopin (1810-1849)".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frédéric_Chopin&oldid=739990702"