Talk:Frédéric Chopin

erasing a section

This statement is silly and i'm erasing it. Particularly in Mozart's case; He was a child prodigy and composed music basically his entire life. You also have to take into account location. There were many musically pillars in German speaking territory and anyone blossoming would not immediately be praised as the greatest.

"According to Polish musicologist and Chopin biographer Zdzisław Jachimecki, comparison of the juvenile Chopin with any earlier composer is difficult because of the originality of the works that Chopin was composing already in the first half of his life. At a comparable age, Bach, Mozart and Beethoven had still been apprentices, while Chopin was perceived by peers and audiences to be already a master who was pointing the path to the coming age." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilxhlywood (talk • contribs) 23:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Martinus Sieveking (who?)

Martinus Sieveking contains the following extraordinary statement:

• He arranged a number of Frédéric Chopin's piano pieces and those versions have become the "standard" which are performed regularly to this day.

What could this possibly refer to? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Nationality (one more time)

For sometime now, the lead sentence referred to Chopin as "a Polish composer, virtuoso pianist, and music teacher of French–Polish parentage," more recently the last phrase has read: "... music teacher of French paternity." Earlier today, 76.121.148.186 eliminated the last phrase so it read: "... a Polish composer and virtuoso pianist." I've read through the pages of discussion in the archives. I note that there was no disagreement that he considered himself Polish. I also note that no one disputed that his father was French and that Chopin acquired French citizenship when he lived in France. It seemed simple to me, so I changed it to read: "a Polish-French composer and virtuoso pianist." Nihil novi reverted me, but did not explain why. Would someone please explain (briefly—I've read the archives, remember) why "Polish-French" is not the simplest and most accurate statement about his nationality? Sunray (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Some sources (like Britannica) put it like that, but the great majority of biographies describe him as a Polish composer - this seems to be how he saw himself and how he was and is viewed by the world. The legal niceties of citizenship (a concept then in its infancy, and likely inapplicable to Poland at that time anyway) are not given any weight by sources (I think we only found one footnote on the subject, and that's probably in error anyway, since it seems he would have had French citizenship from birth under French law). So basically, we follow the sources (though I preferred the version that said he had Polish-French parentage, or acknowledged that he is sometimes described as Polish-French, in the sentence that says he was a Polish composer).--Kotniski (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Chopin's father became thoroughly Polonized, even serving actively in the Warsaw militia during the 1794 Kościuszko Uprising until wounded, and rising to the rank of lieutenant, and his son considered himself Polish (the Columbia Encyclopedia notes that in France he always "remained a Polish nationalist". George Sand said he was "more Polish than Poland." No one denies that his father came from France (the lead states his dual-ethnic parentage), but Chopin's self-identification was with Poland. Nihil novi (talk) 09:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You both make a strong case for calling him Polish. Kotniski says that he prefers the version that also said he had "Polish-French parentage." I agree with what you have both said that he viewed himself, and was viewed by the world, as Polish. He was, as Nihil novi points out, a Polish nationalist. Still there is that French connection (with a small "c" :) So my question is: what is the best way of dealing with his nationality? I liked Polish-French, because it is a simple, yet inclusive, statement. But I recognize that it may be somewhat misleading. Would the statement "a Polish composer...¹"—with a footnote explaining his parentage and citizenship—satisfy all who frequent this page? I think we need to have a strong consensus on this. Sunray (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

In the lead, the first sentence of the second paragraph states: "Chopin was born in Żelazowa Wola, a village in the Duchy of Warsaw, to a Polish mother and French-immigrant father." This seems a clear exposition of Chopin's ethnic paternity, prominently placed. It takes nothing away from that paternity, to unequivocally acknowledge Chopin's own national self-identification as a Pole. Nihil novi (talk) 05:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The article on Kaikhosru Sorabji declares Sorabji to have been British, even though Sorabji refused to be seen as such (his mother was British, but he repeatedly denied that fact). I do not see why Chopin's case should be any different. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about Sorabji, but Chopin apparently had dual citizenship. Nihil novi: If we added "who also held French citizenship" in the second paragraph of the lead it would seem to cover all the bases. Sunray (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Chopin's citizenships and passports are adequately addressed in the "Paris" section.

Citizenship should not be confused with ethnicity or with the broad sense of "nationality". There are ethnic-Kurdish citizens of Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Iran, the Caucasus, Russia, the European Union, the United States and elsewhere who identify themselves principally as Kurds, regardless of their citizenships.

Chopin's being at least till 1830 a subject of the Tsar of Russia and having a Russian passport did not make him Russian. Nihil novi (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Having read through the pages of discussion in the archives of this talk page, I think that his connection with France, through both paternity and citizenship are important. Since the article mentions both in different places, I trust that should be enough to eliminate the possibilitiy of further edit waring. Thank you for your patience. Sunray (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Certainly "French-Polish" is unacceptable. I've corrected it as "Polish-French", which is a much better choice until we reach a consensus. However, he should preferably be described as "Polish" if the Columbia Encyclopedia reports that "he considered himself Polish" and in France he always "remained a Polish nationalist") and George Sand said he was "more Polish than Poland." Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The little text in the little <-- signs says not to change it unless a new consesus can be established. What has happened is that a brand new created account [1] has shown up, ignored that instruction and has done their best to try to restart this sorry dispute. To those of us who've been watching this page for awhile, this looks all too familiar. Hence I reverted that portion to how it was before Mr. GAYousefSaanei showed up. If s/he wishes to change it, then s/he can start a discussion here first.VolunteerMarek 01:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Had French nationality. This is a silly debate. And the above user is simply trying to prolong an edit war for whatever reason. GAYousefSaanei (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The instructions are explicit that before the info is changed, consensus on talk page must be obtained. You ignored those instructions. And you're the one who started the edit war. For "whatever reason".VolunteerMarek 01:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Instructions? Puhleeze. As it says on your own page - please avoid "wiki drama" and just work towards having an article that represents reality, and not some Polish uber-nationlist pipe dream. GAYousefSaanei (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

some Polish uber-nationlist pipe dream - Annnnnnnddddd here we have it once again.VolunteerMarek 01:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

have what? drama queen. GAYousefSaanei (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, our old American friend again, with his gratuitous verbosities and ad hominems, used as a smoke screen for weak or nonexistent arguments. Nihil novi (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

ad hominems? I think you'll find VolunteerMarek started those. I also think you'll find you have me confused with someone else. I am not American - I'm about as far away from America as one could get. So, are you denying Chopin held French nationality? No? Then what is the problem? GAYousefSaanei (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If "nationality" is understood superficially as possession of citizenship, Chopin at least in part of his life held French citizenship, which provided him some legal protections while he lived, like so many other Poles of the Great Emigration, outside partitioned Poland. If nationality is understood as self-identification with a nation, Chopin was thoroughly Polish by self-identification, language and culture. Nihil novi (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course, that is a given. But it is not up to you how an encyclopedia defines nationality... Encyclopedia Britannica defines him as "Polish-French". GAYousefSaanei (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

There has been some action on this and I have made an attempt to bring the information together in a more balanced way. Nihili's change made an effort to bring the "French-Polish order" back in by emphasizing his Polish identification, but I think this was a bit too POV in some respects. However, I have retained the wording about him being considered one of Poland's greatest composers, as I believe that accurately summarizes the popular perception of him. At the same time by giving first preference to the French nationality, we reasonably attain balance on that issue and I think together the lede reads and looks a bit better (paragraphs are a bit meatier without being bulky).--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your changes. GAYousefSaanei (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The underlying issues are actually not that controversial. Chopin self identified as Polish, was a Polish patriot whose friends described him as "more Polish than Poland", whose music was to a significant extent influenced by traditional Polish folk music, who was pissed off at the partitions of Poland, etc. At the same time he had some French background and ended up a French citizen - of which he was also proud of (why shouldn't he be - and in fact Poles are quite happy to emphasize his links to France). The facts are not in dispute, this is all about what people make of them and specifically in the Wikipedia context of how people try to use these facts to pursue personal grudges, nationalistic disputes or just plain trolling.

Time and time again we've had various editors who apparently took How to deal with Poles as some kind of instruction manual come to this page and stir shit up for no reason. Well... there probably were some reasons, like if you want to start an edit war under a no-name disposable account with one of the established Polished editors in order to get them blocked or sanctioned this is the perfect article to do it. It sort of worked in the past too. It's a bunch of cynical sock puppeting bullshit from editors who have probably been already banned from Wikipedia for exactly this kind of nonsense giving it another go. And honestly who can blame them? Worst thing that happens is that the no-name disposable account gets blocked unilaterally. More likely the no-name disposable account gets blocked but manages to get some established Polish editors blocked as well by some idiot admin who just sees "edit warring" and then the disposable account goes off and brags on the axis or anonymous or stormfront or some of the weirder "alternative history" forums about how they played Wikipedia and got a respected editor banned. This happens all the time. This is what is happening now. Just some sanity please.VolunteerMarek 00:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

"Classical"?

What is the deal Adrian.Ramlal's edits to this article? Toccata quarta (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted all of them. What a waste of time on his part. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

image flipped?

In the two interesting early photographic images, the daguerrotype of 1846-7 shows Chopin's hair parted on his right side, and the better-known image by Bisson has the parting on his left side. All the other images suggest that he parted his hair on his left side. Should the daguerrotype be flipped in order to present a truer likeness of the composer? Eebahgum (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

B-class for WP:POLAND: failed

For the usual reason: insufficient citations. There are numerous unreferenced paras, and at least one outstanding cite request. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)