Talk:Frédéric Chopin/Archive 11

Unexplained IPA character
The Polish pronunciation guide uses IPA character "n̪", but I don't see that character (with the accent at the bottom) on the Polish-IPA page. -- not-just-yeti (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

can we PLEASE get the video game refs out of the article?
I thought that consensus had already been reached to remove the 'Eternal Sonata' video game out of the article, that it demeans the subject and adds nothing of relevance? Put this ... stuff ... in its own article, but please, not here. Besides, these refs seem to be little more than advertising commercials, anyway. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
 * Any objections on dropping this from the article? Going once ... HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
 * None from me, go right ahead.  Them From  Space  11:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I third the motion. Nihil novi (talk) 11:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I "fourth" (?) it. --Frania W. (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I dood it. For the editor who added it-make a standalone article for this game if you must but please don't re-add it here-thanks.HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Horowitz quote
Re: " Vladimir Horowitz referred to Chopin as "the only truly great composer for the piano."[citation needed] " - where did this come from, some liner note? I don't believe it, or that it is taken out of context. Horowitz played Beethoven, for example, with such depth of feeling that one can't possibly think he didn't regard him as "great." HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
 * I further suggest that any "quote" to which must be added "citation needed" be eliminated outright.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I put the quote there - but I have no objection if you want to remove it. The quote is from a 1982 interview that appeared in (I think) Newsweek magazine - it was a short article that appeared around the time of Horowitz's London concert - but I have not been able to find this article in their online archives.  In other interviews, Horowitz has said similar things to the effect that only Chopin combined great "musical" and "pianistic" content - whereas Liszt was musically lacking and Beethoven was pianistically lacking.THD3 (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please footnote it as a quote from Newsweek - your new quotes, in that context, makes a bit more "sense" - he's wrong, of course, [Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann, & Brahms are all as 'good' in this area as Chopin, but in different ways] but he's entitled to his opinion. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
 * Agree. Nihil novi (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Chopin and Epilepsy
Interesting article about a possible underlying cause for Chopin's hallucinations. Of course, it's only a theory since the composer's remains haven't been tested. THD3 (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm! Interesting!
 * "They propose the French-Polish composer suffered from a type of... "
 * --Frania W. (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mebbe he had french-polish epilepsy - yuk yuk yuk. HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

The spelling of 'Chopin' in Polish
The article provides both the Polish and French varients of the spelling of 'Chopin'. However, isn't the Polish spelling as follows: "Fryderyk Franciszek Szopen"? However, the "supposed" polish name that begins the article provides the French varient, viz., 'Chopin', which results in the incorrect amalgamation of a Polish-French name: 'Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin'. (In other words, this is incorrect: 'Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin', and it should be replaced by the purely Polish spelling: 'Fryderyk Franciszek Szopen'.)

Why does the spelling of the Polish name keep being altered to Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin, when it should be Szopen? I do not understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monikadare (talk • contribs) 03:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Poles nearly always spell it Chopin. (For example, see the article in Polish Wikipedia.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In Poland we do use "Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin", while spelling "Szopen" is highly unusual, popularised only through the poem "Fortepian Szopena" ("Chopin's piano") by Cyprian Kamil Norwid. The variant with "Sz" was in use, I think, in the beginning of the 20th century. That's the usage, languages don't have to be logical. Gregory of Nyssa (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Martinus Sieveking (who?)
Martinus Sieveking contains the following extraordinary statement: What could this possibly refer to? --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  22:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He arranged a number of Frédéric Chopin's piano pieces and those versions have become the "standard" which are performed regularly to this day.

"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)

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 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. Volunteer Marek  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". Volunteer Marek 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. Volunteer Marek 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&#39;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. Volunteer Marek 00:55, 11 March 2012 (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)

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)

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&#124; talk to me 16:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography section
The comment that somebody has inserted under Bibliography, after the last reference to “Jorgensen, Cecilia; Jens Jorgensen (2003) …”, is both incorrect in substance and derogative and inappropriate in form. The referenced book does not contain “much speculation”, but is based on letters by Chopin and Jenny Lind, on the discovery of erroneous English and French translations and annotations of Chopin’s important letter of 30 October 1848, and on other sources. The book was well received by Prof. Poniatowska and Chopin in the World (2003-2004). The book’s contradiction of information in Fr. Niecks’ biography (its Preface names Jenny Lind-Goldschmidt among his few surviving "chief sources of information") and in other Chopin literature is no reason to dismiss Jorgensen’s work. Finally, the line, “an allegation that it was Lind who paid …”, is cited inaccurately and out of context and it is also improper for a bibliography. Therefore, it is proposed for Wikipedia’s consideration to revise and shorten the reference as follows: “Jorgensen, Cecilia; Jens Jorgensen (2003). Chopin and The Swedish Nightingale. Brussels: Icons of Europe. ISBN 2-9600385-0-9, reviewed by Prof. Dr Irena Poniatowska in Chopin in the World (2003-2004, p. 25-26). – Icons of Europe’s subsequent research findings on Jenny Lind’s close relationship and romance with Chopin have in 2004-2010 been shared with Chopin experts including Prof. Dr hab. Mieczysław Tomaszewski and Société de Chopin à Paris and with stakeholders in BBC’s Chopin 2010 documentary as listed and accessible for verification at the website http://www.iconsofeurope.com/chopin.jennylind.htm". Jean de Beaumont (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

GA/FA?
Hello. I have been thinking about getting this article up to GA or FA status, as I am currently doing with the Antonín Dvořák article. For reference on how a Featured Article on a composer would look like, please see these examples: Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Gustav Mahler, Edward Elgar and Frederick Delius. The article looks good overall. However, there are a couple of things we need to do in order to get it up to GA/FA status though: All are welcome to assist in this process. Comments, ideas, thoughts or suggestions would be very much appreciated. If there are a few mistakes, please let me know here. Thank you, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead section - looks good. It is at least three paragraphs, but can be expanded to four paragraphs if possible.
 * Life section - Looks good as well. I think the header should be changed to "Biography" in order to keep in line with other composer FAs (for example, see Edward Elgar, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and Gustav Mahler). I believe that the "Life" header should be kept, as it has been used on some composer FAs. Also, I am thinking about revising the section as well. I am concerned about the use of the days of the week when referring to dates, since we want to maintain a consistent format with the dates. For example, in the death section, on the paragraph regarding the time of his actual death, I think we should remove "Wednesday" to maintain a consistent date format, but if this is a mistake, that will be all right.
 * Music - the publishing subsection is completely unsourced. Aside from this section, it looks good.
 * Reputation section - I'm actually quite surprised that this article does not have a reception section and it may need to be added as well.
 * External links - needs an extensive cleanup, as it has been tagged for over two years now.
 * Copyedit - this article may need to undergo an extensive copyedit. Also I am concerned about using redundancies in the article like "The vast majority of" should be "most of", as well as avoiding weasel words per WP:PEACOCK. We should also watch out for vague terms as well, which are often redundant in the article if it becomes excessive, such as “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”.
 * Overlinking - I have some concerns about overlinking as well, but I believe it looks fine for now.
 * Citations - per the WP:POLAND B-Class assessment by Piotrus above, there are insufficient citations throughout the article, and quite a few outstanding citation requests, so I am thinking it will be appropriate if we should expand the article and add the sources from the bibliography section with the appropriate page numbers and links to the books there. Also, all of the dead links need to be fixed or replaced, as I have found like at least 9 dead links there and I have repaired at least one dead link. When citing books, reliable websites and encyclopedias, we should also use the cite book and cite web template where appropriate and they should be listed with the author's name in alphabetical order to maintain consistency. As per Cite_book, we should use the language parameter to mention the appropriate language in the citations if it is not published in English, as there are some sources that are foreign (i.e. the Gastone Belotti references, which are Italian) and we should not use icons. Also, we need to provide the ISBN and OCLC numbers for some of the books that don't contain them as well.


 * I can try with Poland-related issues if you'll have any questions. I can get a hold of the relevant Polish Biographical Dictionary entry around XMAS, or if you want to be done by then, I can ask some collegues if they could scan it and send it to me; unfortunately Chopin means Tome IV (1938), so the quality is going to be, well, pre-war. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  17:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * All right, then. I agree with this matter. :) I also admit that I make quite a few unintentional mistakes in editing the article, since I am a member of the Composers WikiProject, and I apologize. By the way, I have already put the article in my future projects and if no one minds, I am going to help work on expanding and improving the Chopin article. This will take a few weeks, during which the article may temporarily look odd, but we will try to keep it coherent to the general reader (it attracts at least 2000-3000 viewings each day). Suggestions on this improvement and my above proposals would be welcome, but as we are working within a particular structure, it would be appreciated if these were raised on the talk page, rather than merely bolted onto the article. At an appropriate time, the redrafted article will be put up for general criticism at peer review. The objective is to have the article as TFA on the 165th anniversary of Chopin's death, 17 October 2014. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Btw, since you mention cite books, are you familiar with this nice tool? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 18:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am familiar with how the tool works. I think it would be very useful for these books in question if they have URLs from Google Books. I am also in the process of reformatting the references in the Bibliography section as well. If there are any good faith mistakes in my edits, please feel free to address them. :) Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Photograph of Chopin
Apparently this exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Image-Frederic_Chopin_photo_downsampled.jpeg

Should we use it in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.186.66 (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"Disparate" views
The article currently says the following:


 * It is very difficult to characterise Chopin's oeuvre briefly. Robert Schumann, speaking of Chopin's Sonata in B-flat minor, wrote that "he alone begins and ends a work like this: with dissonances, through dissonances, and in dissonances", and in Chopin's music he discerned "cannon concealed amid blossoms". Franz Liszt, in the opening of his biography about Chopin (Life of Chopin), termed him a "gentle, harmonious genius". Thus disparate have been the views on Chopin's music.

First of all, the Liszt quote appears to deal with Chopin's personality, not his music. Second, even if it did, it simply means that different people have had different concepts of what is dissonant (and Liszt was after all harmonically more progressive than Schumann). So this passage requires cleanup. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox
I would not pass this as GA+ without an infobox. Just my two cents. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think only 2 of the featured articles on classical composers use infoboxes, so it seems that Piotrus' view is not universally shared. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The full list is found at Category:FA-Class Composers articles. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

another photograph?
here http://jackgibbons.blogspot.it/2010/03/chopins-photograph.html you can see another photograph of chopin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.188.233 (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

FA?
After a discussion with User:Nihil novi over on my talk page, I am going to help work extensively on the Chopin article so we can take it up to FA status if possible. I know I have been busy with other stuff since I proposed to work on it last September, but I am thinking about getting it up to FA status. I plan to get this by a TFA date of 17 October 2014 (165th anniversary of Chopin's death). In one of the previous discussions, Toccata quarta expressed concerns about a lack of citations, citing it to be "fatal." He also said that the tone of the "Publishing" section is unencyclopedic, and "there are several violations of WP:NPV in the article. Moreover, the article ignores those musicians who have been critical of Chopin (Glenn Gould being one of the best known critics of Chopin's work)." All are welcome to assist in this process and if anyone wants suggest improvements, please discuss here. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead section
Let's start with the lead section. I think for now, we should eliminate "The vast majority of", which is considered redundant, and replace it with "most of". I will expand on this as I go along. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Most" means "over 50%", which may be a little weak. Still, I will happily go along with "most".  Good suggestion!  Nihil novi (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Szafarnia
There are several places named "Szafarnia" in Poland. I've reintroduced the link to the one that Chopin visited. Nihil novi (talk) 05:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Chopin's heart
Thanks for your help in getting this article sorted - there's a fair amount of dead wood to be cleared before it can be properly rebuilt. Do you by the way have a source for Chopin's sister 'smuggling' the ashes to Warsaw (as opposed to just taking them) - I can't find one at present. Best, --Smerus (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've read that Ludwika got Chopin's heart through checkpoints (customs?), concealed beneath her skirts. As I don't recall where I saw this, I propose modifying the current text for now to:  "His sister took it in an urn to Warsaw, where it was eventually sealed within a pillar of the Holy Cross Church, beneath an epitaph sculpted by Leonard Marconi..."
 * Marconi (1835-99) would have been too young in 1849, aged 14, to have at that time sculpted the epitaph, which I understand to have been contemporary with the heart's immuring. Hence I think that took place eventually.
 * You've done a very creditable job, pruning the article of unneeded, conjectural, incorrect, and long-winded matter, and otherwise revising the article. I think, though, I would have kept a few of the deleted items, such as the mentions (if only in footnotes) of Chopin's first cousin, American Civil War General Włodzimierz Krzyżanowski, and more distant relation, World War II British SOE agent Krystyna Skarbek, aka Christine Granville.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Jachimeck/ Hedley as a sources
There are numerous citations in the article of a six-page biography by Jachimecki, which is not avaiable in English and dates from the 1930s. Frankly I don't think this is a quality source. From the extracts given it is clear that Jachmiecki treated Chopin in a full-blooded 'romantic' and patriotic style which is not in accord with modern academic evaluations. I should like to remove these citations entirely where modern sources in English can be cited. The same applies to some extent to the citations from Arthur Hedley. I welcome opinions on this.--Smerus (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Chopin in his times is not always best viewed through the prism of our times, over a century and a half later. Much of what Zdzisław Jachimecki and Arthur Hedley, both of them serious scholars of music, have to say is valid and should not be too cavalierly discarded.
 * At one point you deleted – on the ground that you had never heard of such an episode – Hedley's mention (in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed., 2005, vol. 3, p. 263) that Chopin, at age eleven, performed in the presence of Alexander I, Tsar of Russia, who was in Warsaw to open the Sejm (Polish Parliament). Subsequently you found another reference to this event, and you reinstated this information.
 * It may be difficult for citizens of secure modern countries to appreciate the pervasive awareness, for Chopin's generation and several subsequent generations of Poles, of their country's loss of independence in the latter 18th century. It was the central fact that dominated their lives, and to an extent still does so today.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 08:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I take your points. I am only concerend when some of these sources tend to go 'over the top' in adding interpretations - e.g. in the case of Alexander I, the original source said something to the effect that Alexander was 'charmed' by the performance - we don't in fasct know even if he listened to or took any notice of the performance, but we do know that he gave Chopin a diamond ring, as the present cistation reports. I propose to proceed as follows; where an element is strictly factual (Chopin lived here, went there, etc.) I will use a recent English citation in preference to an older or Polish citation, and delete the latter; where there is a relevant matter of opinion or interpretaton, where no recent English source is avaialble, I will retain the older  and/or Polish citation. I am very conscious of Chopin's status as a national/historical figure in Poland - but that also needs to be clarified, for English readers, within a more objective evaluation (as far as that may be possible!). Best, --Smerus (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You are confusing Tsar Alexander I and his younger brother, Grand Duke Constantine. It was Constantine, for whom Chopin performed privately at Warsaw's Belweder Palace, who was "charmed" by Chopin's playing (Zdzisław Jachimecki, p. 420).  Nihil novi (talk) 07:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Conceded, apologies again.--Smerus (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Chopin / Maria
I have deleted the following as, although it is credited to a Polish source of 1937, it appears to be a fairy-tale:

'On his return to Paris [in 1836], Chopin composed the Étude in F minor, the second in the Op. 25 cycle, which he referred to as "a portrait of Maria's soul." Along with this, he sent her {Maria Wodzińska] seven songs that he had set to the words of the Polish Romantic poets Stefan Witwicki, Józef Zaleski and Adam Mickiewicz.'

Chopin made no Zaleski settings before 1841, so he cannot have sent one to Maria in 1836. The other settings date from c. 1830, (with the possible exception of a Mickiewicz setting of 1837) so were not inspired by or related to Maria. I also find no mention anywhere else of op. 25/2 being "a portrait of Maria's soul." Of course if citations are avaailbe it would be good to know of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smerus (talk • contribs) 13:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Case solved - corrected text and ref now in article.--Smerus (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking for help integrating new Musopen Chopin content
Hello,

Musopen is in the process of launching a project to record and release the works of Frederic Chopin for free. As part of this project we will also be writing and releasing content for most of the pieces (liner notes). I wanted to post here in case anyone wanted to either help write content or integrate what we create with existing Wikipedia Chopin articles.

The project is here: www.kickstarter.com/projects/Musopen/set-chopin-free

Please let me know if you'd be interested in helping or have any general tips for us.

Sincerely, Aaron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.11.29 (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

More refs
Hi, I'm going through the article and referencing whatever I can, and I will be adding quite a few citation neededs. I currently have access to Zamoyski's book, but once I've referenced everything I can from it I will probably look in the other sources. The tags are there so that we know which bits the refs refer to and which bits need referencing. I don't intend to tag bomb. Best wishes, Rain City 471  13:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just adding that for know I'm just focusing on the refs, not the formatting. I'm probably putting in lots of duplicate refs, but I'll clear that up after everythings reffed.  In my opinion, it's better to have lots of refs formatted badly than to have only a few well-formatted ones.  Best wishes, Rain City 471  (Whack!) 20:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Protected
Note that I have fully protected the article for two weeks, given persistent and ongoing edit-warring regarding the issue raised in the RfC above. If the RfC reaches a decision before protection expires, feel free to unprotect or request unprotection; otherwise, unfortunately for now any edits unrelated to nationality will need to be addressed via editrequest. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
Revert of Volunteer Marek's POV removal of statement (sources were removed as well). 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 18:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Assuming you are referring to this edit: request denied. Please re-read my statement above and note that until the RfC is closed, no one should be making or requesting any more changes dealing with his nationality. If you think that issues are being overlooked above, feel free to point that out civilly in the discussion above, or to ask for other opinions at WP:NPOVN or elsewhere. Please also be aware that you came very close to being blocked over edit-warring here, so continuing this dispute is a very bad idea. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on November 17 2013
I am sorry if I am doing this wrong; I read about edit requests but could not understand the way to do it. I would do the edit mysefl if I could. In the section "Music - Overview", the following paragraph appears about an extremely well known and non-controversial relationship:

Chopin's Preludes, Op. 28 were in part a tribute to J. S. Bach's The Well-Tempered Clavier. Chopin's preludes move up the circle-of-fifths, whereas Bach uses the chromatic scale to create a prelude in every major and minor tonality achievable on the clavier.[citation needed]

But: no citation is really needed for the second sentence; it is a simple statement of fact. Chopin's preludes do go up by a circle of fifths, and Bach's do go up chromatically [=step by step] through all the 48 possible tonalities in western music. These respective orders are basically as obvious as the letters of the alphabet.

The first sentence, however, DOES require a citation. It asserts that Chopin's preludes were "in part a tribute" to Bach's. Now, I would probably have written the phrase "were inspired by" or "modelled after" instead of referring to a "tribute". Nevertheless, in either case, citations are easy to come by for this extremely well-known relationship. One excellent citation would be to: Charles Rosen, The Romantic Generation, p. 83. I myself would (if I could) place that citation after the first sentence; it could instead be placed at the end of the paragraph, as Rosen also mentions (and provides support for) the topic of the second sentence. I am sorry I have to explain all this! I would just change it if I could. Thanks for any help! David Couch (talk)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Don't worry, you are doing it right, and I've added the citation for you. Thank you for finding a source for this. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 05:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Mr. Stradivarius, thank you; but could you also, pursuant to David Couch's suggestion, change "were in part a tribute to" ---> "were inspired by"?  Nihil novi (talk) 07:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I must have missed that part. Done. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Nihil novi (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * While we are at it, could the clunky and irrelevant sentence in 'Childhood', "In Poland he used the Polish form of his name, Mikołaj.[citation needed]", be deleted. This is both unsourced (and not mentioned either in the WP article Nicolas Chopin), and is in any case a WP:UNDUE item in an article on Frédéric Chopin. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You'll need to get a consensus for this change first, as it may be controversial. If there is a consensus to delete this text after a few more days, please make another request. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The English Wikipedia "Nicolas Chopin" article gives the Polish version of his name, "Mikołaj Chopin", and our article originally appeared under that title. The title was changed to "Nicolas Chopin" purely in deference to the sensibilities of some Francophile Wikipedia editors.
 * The Polish Biographical Dictionary article on the composer's father appears under the title "Chopin, Mikołaj" and states: "Though he came from a foreign mileiu, in time he became completely Polonized and undoubtedly considered himself a Pole."   Wincenty Łopaciński, "Chopin, Mikołaj," Polski słownik biograficzny, vol. III, Kraków, Polska Akademia Umiejętnosści, 1937, pp. 426–27.
 * The Polish Biographical Dictionary article on Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin, the composer, similarly states: "The Polish spirit and language pervaded Mikołaj Chopin's [Polish] home, and as a result the son never, even in Paris, perfectly mastered the French language."  Zdzisław Jachimecki, "Chopin, Fryderyk Franciszek", Polski słownik biograficzny, vol. III, Kraków, Polska Akademia Umiejętnosści, 1937, p. 420.  This information originally appeared in our Wikipedia "Frédéric Chopin" article but was cut by an editor who evidently preferred to under-emphasize the Polish national identity of Fryderyk Chopin.
 * George Sand described Chopin as "more Polish than Poland." This information, too, was cut from our article.  Nihil novi (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * With respect, not a single one of these citations offers evidence that Nicolas Chopin himself ever used the form 'Mikolaj'. The citations from pre-war Polish publications which use 'Mikolaj' in their texts perhaps says more about Polish nationalism of that period than it does of Nicolas Chopin. If WP articles are to maintain a NPOV, we should ensure that we use verifiable citastions. I write, by the way, as can be seen above, as one who is entirely certain that Chopin should be regarded as Polish, not French - but that does not mean that we should misrepresent, or tweak the facts. It is neither desirable nor necessary to do so. By the way, this article (and any other article on WP) is not 'ours' - it is Wikipedia's. If parties on both sides can cut out their pointless and foolish quarrel on Chopin's Polishness, which is not in doubt to modern scholars, we might be able to improve this article to GA standard. But if it remains mired in this petty squabble the article will remain third rate.--Smerus (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * By "ours", I meant "Wikipedia's". Nihil novi (talk) 07:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There are many things about this dispute which are total mysteries to me. Why are we arguing about Nicolas Chopin's article on his son's talk page? And why are folks slinging about charges of POV? What POV is anyone pushing here? It seems to me a dispute about facts, not about points of view. And finally, why is this RFC not closed, and the article reopened for editing? There seems to be an overwhelming consensus to call Chopin Polish, the person who opened the RFC in the first place has been reprimanded and banned, and no one seems to be adding opinions anymore. So can't we put this whole embarrassing episode behind us? Ravpapa (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2Awwsome's 24-hour WP:BLOCK (not WP:BAN) has already expired, and he didn't start this RfC (Sjones23 did). Toccata quarta (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear. I did not want to get involved in an edit war, so I am the one who started this RFC, not 2Awwsome. I wanted to do it so we can get a consensus as consensus can change and ask for other opinions on this matter as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Corrections noted. Wanting to avoid an edit war is a noble objective. This nevertheless does not change the outcome of that RFC. which appears to be clarion and also appears to have run its course. So, can we get on with things? Ravpapa (talk) 09:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Well I hope it is now clear that there is indeed a consensus. Chopin was Polish. It doesn't need to be banged on about at every opportunity. The fact that he got a French passport in the 1830s needs only a mention in the text. All the cruft about his father's name etc. is superfluous and can be removed as irrelevant/WP:UNDUE. So, as Ravpapa says, let's get on with it.--Smerus (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, yup, yup. Close RfC, unlock article, remove the stuff about father's name (or put it somewhere else).  Volunteer Marek   14:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Aspects of Chopin's compositions that are glossed over in this article
i would like to add or rewrite some sections of this article, and rewrite the lead to emphasize these aspects of his work:

1. Piano technique: Chopin, together with Liszt, revolutionized piano technique. He introduced techniques that no other composer had assayed, including:


 * arpeggiated tenths
 * running thirds in the weak fingers
 * cross-rhythms in left and right hands (not completely new, but used in new and complex ways).

Significant is that these virtuosic techniques appear in a bel canto style; as opposed to his predecessors Hummel and Czerny, whose technically difficult passages are meant to stand out, Chopin requires his performer to subjugate the virtuosity to the music. This requires a different hand position and a new approach to sound production.

2. Chopin and the "star cult": Chopin was one of the first musical superstars, following Paganini. The romantic era saw the rise of a new kind of hero worship of solo performers, which was a predecessor of the groupy culture of today. Musical superstars not only could demand exorbitant prices for their concerts, their lives were the subject of gossip, their loves appeared in gossip columns. This cult was closely associated with the ascendency of the piano as the Romantic period instrument of choice.

3. Chopin was the first composer to turn to his national music as a main source of inspiration. The rise of nationalism in music was to characterize the Romantic era; while Chopin was the first, he had many followers: Glinka in Russia, Dvorak, and so on.

These three points, I think, should be the heart of the article and the meat of the lead. What do others think? Ravpapa (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If there are good, solid sources that won't create undue omissions or emphases, then go for it! Nihil novi (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's fair to say these aspects are 'glossed over' - editors have gradually brought sense to this article over recent months fom its former deplorable state, and it's still very much a work in progress. Noone is specifically trying to obscure or 'downgrade' these matters. Certainly the aspects mentioned by Ravpapa are highly relevant and should be treated in detail in the article. Whether they should all be the 'heart of the lead' is perhaps more debatable - issues like "arpeggiated tenths - running thirds in the weak fingers - cross-rhythms in left and right hands (not completely new, but used in new and complex ways)" whilst they certainly belong in the text, are 'overweight' for the lead and risk confusing or putting off the less expert reader. It may be - perhaps should be - necessary to create an additional article on the music of Chopin to go into particular detail - the main article should balance biography with the music. And be careful about being over-enthusiastic about Chopin's influence - Glinka's 'Ruslan and Ludmila' was written in 1837, and whilst it may have stemmed from similar nationalistic impulses, I think it's a bit strong to call G a 'follower' of C. But otherwise I'm entirely with Nihil novi (and with his comment on sources) and I hope that together we can bring the article up to GA standard.


 * Also important by the way in upgrading the article is, I think, to remove some of the sources which are only available in Polish and about 75 years old - which makes them less than satisfactory for English WP references - and to replace them with equivalent modern English citations.--Smerus (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If said sources can indeed verify everything in question, sure. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Grzymała quote
Does this quote add anything to the article? Shouldn't it be removed, per WP:UNDUE? Toccata quarta (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree; however piquant it is, it doesn't add anything to the story.--Smerus (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Peer review
Editors may like to contribute to the ongoing peer review of this article. User:Brianboulton has suggested there that "Discussion of the article is being fragmented between this review and ongoing threads on the talkpage. It would be better if all the discussion was in one place, and I would have thought the peer review was the most appropriate forum."--Smerus (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Holy Cross Church.
User:Nihil novi has twice reinstated the latter half (in square brackets) of note 8: " In 1882 the heart was sealed within a pillar of the Holy Cross Church, behind a tablet carved by Leonard Marconi [bearing an inscription from Matthew VI:21: "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." The Holy Cross Church stands only a short distance from Chopin's last Warsaw residence, the Krasiński Palace]."

My deletion of these words had two bases:
 * It is WP:UNDUE for the Chopin article, relating to events long after his death and not therefore part of his biography. The inscription has no bearing on Chopin one way or the other.
 * The reference to Holy Cross Church being not far from the Krasinski Palace seems irrelevant. Nn has justified it in an edit by claiming "The Church's location probably determined that location for Chopin's heart" (sic), which would seem to be WP:OR as no citation is available to support this.

I have already suggested that the details of the inscription would be more appropriate in the WP article Holy Cross Church, Warsaw.

I would appreciate readers' comments on this. It seems to me that if we are to get this vital article up to GA standard (which it deserves) we have to cut out our own little favourites and concentrate on the man (biography and reputation) and the music. A discussion might help us pave the way for improvement of the article as a whole, as well as deal with this particualr issue. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Events long after his death": Then why include the photo of, and references to, the Chopin statue at Warsaw's Royal Baths (Łazienki) Park, which was put up in 1926?


 * For that matter, why include the photo of, and references to, the pillar at Warsaw's Holy Cross Church in which Chopin's heart was immured in 1882, after having been, at his own request, repatriated by his sister to Poland? And if the pillar is referenced, then why not the epitaph drawn from Matthew VI:21?  It is very apposite and reflects how Poland feels about Chopin as well as (from what we abundantly know of him) how he felt about Poland.


 * Why was Chopin's heart immured in the Holy Cross Church and not, say, in Warsaw's St. John's Cathedral, where Henryk Sienkiewicz, author of Quo Vadis, reposes? Anyone who has visited Warsaw and its Chopin landmarks knows why:  it was practically next door to where he and his family had lived; that is a readily verifiable fact, hardly requiring a reference (which, in any case, could doubtless be provided by Wikipedia's GPS mavens).


 * Why mention the International Chopin Piano Competition, established 1927, the Fryderyk Chopin Museum, established 1954, the Fryderyk Chopin University of Music, renamed for Chopin 1979, the "Chopin's Warsaw" benches set up for his 200th birthday in 2010, Warsaw Chopin Airport, renamed for Chopin 2001, Mercury's Chopin crater, named for him 1976, or asteroid 3784 Chopin, discovered in 1986? Nihil novi (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree about cutting out or rewording the article cruft mentioned in Nihil novi's first and last paragraphs, and we will get round to dealing with them, no doubt. I am glad to recognize that we will have Nn's support for this. (Probably he best thing to do with some of these is to note them in passing in a 'Legacy' section). But that doesn't make the other stuff he writes about relevant. Whichever way you look at it, what 'anyone knows' is not acceptable as a Wikipedia citation. Nn is I am sure perfectly aware of the common fallacy 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' - it's no proof, and it's not encyclopaedic.--Smerus (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Legacy section? Very good, then please also include there the Matthew VI:21 epitaph from Chopin's Holy Cross Church, Warsaw, memorial tablet.  That biblical quotation should have been in the article's main body anyway, rather than buried in footnote 8.  Nihil novi (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Nihil novi - Please give me one reason to include this inscription anywhere in the article. There is no evidence that Chopin requested this inscription which was added to his memorial over 30 yars after his death. We do not know who chose the inscription, or why they did so. In short, whilst the inscription may be relevant (in a minor way) to the article to Holy Cross Church, it is in no way of primary, secondary, or even tertiary relevance to the article on Chopin - unless you can prove otherwise with a citation. If you cannot do this, then the inclusion is WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. The fact that there is other irrelevant material in the article - which hopefully will also be dealt with - has no bearing on this question. Best,--Smerus (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you demonstrate that Chopin requested that a Chopin statue be put up at Warsaw's Royal Baths (Łazienki) Park? If not, may I ask what you plan to do about this "irrelevant" statue?  Nihil novi (talk) 05:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Did Percy Bysshe Shelley request that the Latin epitaph "Cor Cordium" ("Heart of Hearts") be placed on his Rome grave? Do you think the existence of that inscription should have been omitted from the Wikipedia "Percy Bysshe Shelley" article?  Nihil novi (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I nies that you do not answer my points. As it appears you cannot, or choose not to, answer them, I am proceeding with deletion of the quotation. As previously suggested, you can place thjis information in the article on the church, if you wish. We can deal with the statue on a 'case by case' basis - but cnmparison with Felix Mendelssohn, Ludwig van Beethoven and many other WP composer articles suggests that mentions and/or photos of statues are acceptable for such aerticles, whereas they do not include epitaphs, which contain no personal information or relevance, concocted by unknown people many years after their deaths.--Smerus (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)