Talk:Frédéric Chopin/Archive 12

Nationality
Per WP:OPENPARA, Chopin should be described as a Polish composer. There's not much to argue about here. Thank you for your time, and please drop the edit warring and childish user talk page blanking. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like some clarification of your interpretation for WP:OPENPARA, then. Because to me, WP:OPENPARA says that the coutry of birth is not to be mentioned, and the relevant nationalities are the ones relevant to the context of the creation of notable work. I will not claim to be a qualified expert in Chopin's work, but even if he was already composing in Poland, it seem to me that most of his most notable works were done in Paris. So to me, WP:OPENPARA support "Polish-French composer". Tokidokix (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Blanking your own talk page is allowed, per WP:BLANKING. Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2Awwsome (talk • contribs) 19:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems a bit ridiculous that a guy with a French name and French nationality would be listed as "Polish" without qualificagtion. Personally I have no dog in this fight, but I do believe that you're trying to pull the wool over the reader's eyes by denying that someone called "Frédéric Chopin" is in any sense French. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.222.192.243 (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's resolvable: call him "Fryderyk", as he was baptized in Poland.  As for the French surname, what are all those Americans doing with English, French, German, Italian, Polish, Russian, Turkish, Indian, Chinese, Egyptian, Haitian, etc., names?  Nihil novi (talk) 04:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Except for the small detail that he wrote his own name in French, not Polish. But, if you so insist, change his name to "Fryderyk" then. And change his surname to "Szopen" while you're at it. And are you sure Wojciech Żywny wasn't Polish? You should look into that. Certainly Marie Curie was Polish...


 * Nihil novi, would you care to explain to me why you have edited three articles so that the Marie Curie, born in Poland but moved to France as a young age is listed as "French-Polish"; Wojciech Żywny, born in Czech but moved to Poland at a young age, is listed as "Czech-born Polish"; and Frédéric Chopin here is listed solely as "Polish"? 178.222.192.243 (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * A rose, by any other name, is still a rose.
 * The great Finnish patriot Johan Julius Christian Sibelius chose, in his published works, to use the French version of his given name Johan. Did that make this famous composer, Jean Sibelius, a Frenchman or any less a Finn?
 * And I do not take responsibility for the work of other editors of an article. Nihil novi (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Jean Sibelius did not hold French citizenship. Nor was he commonly referred to as "French" or "French-Finnish". T178.222.192.243 (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're also responsible for listing Wojciech Żywny as "Polish" too, are you not? 178.222.192.243 (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Did Chopin describe himself as French?
 * After World War II, the future Nobel laureate Józef Rotblat (Joseph Rotblat) decided not to return to a Russian-dominated Poland and took out British citizenship. He spent most of his life in Britain but described himself as a "Pole with a British passport."  Chopin had been in an analogous situation a century earlier, in France.  Nihil novi (talk) 05:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You didn't answer my questions. I don't think you'll find anyone who denies Chopin was Polish. But you'd have a hard time finding eminent sources who would deny that he was in any sense French also - due to the fact that he applied for and received French citizenship. But I see this "argument", if these posts even dignify such a description, is going nowhere. Do what you will. And please do change the title to "Fryderyk Szopen", by your own reasoning this is appropriate. 109.92.238.217 (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:UCN. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, the plot thickens. So, Toccata quarta, you agree his real name was actually "Fryderyk Szopen" then? Interesting... 109.92.238.217 (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I've added a reliable source saying he was Polish-French. No sources previously existed saying he was either Polish-French or Polish.2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 19:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Even my compromise saying his nationality was disputed has been undone, and the sources I used removed. We need further discussion2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 09:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

One of the users continuously keeps writing that Chopin was "Polish-French" in this article. I specially created a subsection called "Nationality" in which I use documented evidence to prove that Chopin viewed himself as a Pole, not as being French, and felt foreign when exiled in France. I used the sources that user keeps putting back in to that section. From the sources I use, it is clear that Chopin viewed himself as a Pole, and so did contemporaries as have historians. Thus the sources that call him "Polish-French" are few, the exception, and largely inaccurate. Chopin is linked to Polishness; his music reflects Polish nationalism strongly, and he was a passionate Polish patriot. I even use a source that says that it was never disputed that Chopin was a Pole. Also, it is worth noting that Chopin's French-born father (Gunter Grass's mother was of Polish-Kashubian origin, so why don't we call him a "Polish-German" writer? Why isn't Albert Camus - who was born in Algeria and whose mother was a Spaniard - a "French-Spanish-Algerian" writer? We don't but this user's logic we should) had Polish ancestry and moved to Poland at the tender age of 16 and fought in Poland's anti-Russian insurgencies and became assimilated into Polish society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazurczak88 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Inferences from sources are original research. 3 v 6 is not a small minority. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 18:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you would, make that 3 to 7. I don't have a dog in this fight except to point out the general absurdity of hyphenated citizenship. (You might want to look at French people for further insight on this. I don't see any great move afoot to classify Frenchmen in France by their various hyphens. Else we'd have Greco-French, Celto-French and a half hundred others. Trilobitealive (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Like others have said there is nothing really wrong how it is, even the Polish article on him says Polish composer because that is what he was, his French ancestry and residing is mentioned within the whole article. What is the exact problem?--Windows66 (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

List of memorials to Frédéric Chopin
As the memorials section on this page was disputed because of its eclecticness, partiality, queries of relevance, absence of inclusiveness, etc., I have moved it to a separate article, which is noted in the secion on 'influence'. The new article can doubtelss be greatly extended.--Smerus (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Taruskin
The following paragraph in the article's "Polish nationalism in Chopin's music" subsection seems illogical and pointless. Since when does the posited modeling of a composer's works on a putative tradition of composition contravene a particular sense of national identity? Jean Sibelius' Finlandia clearly builds on earlier European compositional traditions, yet is thought a supreme musical expression of Finnish patriotism. I propose that this paragraph be dropped:

"Richard Taruskin writes that 'it was only because Chopin's nationalism was an oppressed and offended nationalism that Schumann noticed it as nationalism at all... Schumann... was used to thinking of the values of his [own] nation... as the general values of humanity, thus professing an unwitting double standard – we now call it ethnocentrism – that perpetuated the oppression with which he consciously sympathised on Chopin's behalf.' Taruskin notes that this ambivalent attitude to Polish nationalism on the part of non-Poles has persisted; and that in some ways Chopin may be felt to have shared in these parallel attitudes: 'He felt his Polish patriotism deeply and sincerely' but consciously modeled his works on the tradition of Bach, Beethoven, Schubert and Field."

Nihil novi (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree Ravpapa (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The example you choose rather undermines your case. Finlandia is specifically written, as its title implies, as a piece of musical patriotism. Chopin wrote no piece called Polonia and nowhere explicitly claims his pieces as examples of, or summonses to, patriotism. That was 'read into' his music (rightly or wrongly) by others. Attitudes such as Schumann's, claims Taruskin, are also patronizing, classifying Chopin's music generically as interesting because it comes from a 'quaint' (non-German in this case) point of view. Whereas, he suggests, to Chopin the 'Polish' elements of his music were, rather, one of the means by which he extended the musical tradition. (Imo, the same applies pari passu to Sibelius, by the way). This is clearly presented in the article as Taruskin's POV, and as he is a notable authority I see no reason to remove it. The whole point of WP is that it should include various opinions of authorities, including those with which we do not happen to agree. That is what WP:NPOV is about.--Smerus (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Chopin's sense of his own and his music's national identity does not depend on the vagaries of musical titulature such as you advert to. More telling is his composing of polonaises and mazurkas that are clearly Polish musical genres.  Taruskin regrettably, to judge by his citation in the article, appears to say nothing that enhances our understanding of Chopin's life and works.  Nihil novi (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You disagree with Taruskin. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, either. But that's not the point. Find, if you like, an opposing opinion and citation and put it up.--Smerus (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've now found something myself perhaps along the lines you are seeking, and have added it.--Smerus (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have not read Taruskin's article, so I can't really agree or disagree with it. My support for Nihil's suggestion is because, as the paragraph (and the added new paragraph) now stands, it is a kind of nonsequitur, and unfocused. The first part of the paragraph seems more about Schumann than about Chopin ("it was only because Chopin's nationalism was an oppressed and offended nationalism that Schumann noticed it as nationalism at all"); the second part ("this ambivalent attitude to Polish nationalism on the part of non-Poles has persisted; and that in some ways Chopin may be felt to have shared") is written as though it is mere speculation on Taruskin's part. The last sentence seems to suggest that music built on the Germanic classical tradition cannot be national, but is necessarily universal.


 * If there is evidence that Chopin felt ambivalent about his nationality, that is certainly germane and should be included in the article. Perhaps a quote from a letter? If the paragraph is trying to raise the question of what is nationalism in music - a fascinating subject in itself - I am not sure this is the place for it. Perhaps in Musical nationalism, which never discusses the issue but is simply a laundry list of composers considered nationalistic.


 * In any case, if the paragraph really does have something to say about Chopin, it needs to be tightened up and refocused. IMHO. Ravpapa (talk) 06:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Admirably stated. Ravpapa perfectly captures my own reaction to the paragraph about Richard Taruskin, quoted above.
 * Principal foci of efforts with this article include clarity and relevance. It would be a pity to vitiate those efforts by leaving the paragraph as it stands. Nihil novi (talk)

You are making heavy weather of this! :-) This section, like the rest of the article is a work in progress - mainly it seems by me at present, with others shouting from the sidelines. You are very welcome to help writing the article yourself and find citations supporting points of view which may be under-represented (or toning down those which may be over-represented)! In the meantime, in response to your comments, I have reduced Taruskin but I have added others who dispute the traditional 'patriotic' point of view, to try to give some balance of modern opinion.--Smerus (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Epilepsy?
Lots of hits here for a recent diagnosis of epilepsy. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  10:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jack!--Smerus (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Jhgvui
User:Jhgvui has several times in the past two days placed WP:UNDUE or otherwise non-relevant material in the article. This has been reverted by me and (independently) by another editor. I have requested him/her on his/her talkpage to avoid this disruptive editing.--Smerus (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * How can the following information, not be a beneficial addition to the information about Chopin's performance style?


 * Paderewski wrote:
 * "According to a current story, Chopin used to say to his pupils: 'Play freely with the right hand, but the left one act as your conductor and keep time.' We do not know whether the story should be afforded the benefit of the doubt. Even if it be exact, the great composer contradicted it most energetically in such wonderful compositions as the Etude in C-sharp minor, preludes No. 6 and No. 22, the Polonaise in C minor, and in so many fragments of others of his masterpieces, where the left hand does not play the part of a conductor, but most distinctly that of a prima donna. Another contradiction of this theory, or rather of the way Chopin put it into practice, is the testimony of some of his contemporaries. Berlioz affirms most emphatically that Chopin could not play in time, and Sir Charles Hallé pretends to have proved to Chopin, by counting, that he played some Mazurkas 4/4 instead of 3/4 time. [...] Chopin played from his heart. His playing was not national; it was emotional. To be emotional in musical interpretation, yet obedient to the initial tempo and true to the metronome, means about as much as being sentimental in engineering. Mechanical execution and emotion are incompatible. To play Chopin's G major Nocturne with rhythmic rigidity and pious respect for the indicated rate of movement would be as intolerably monotonous, as absurdly pedantic, as to recite Gray's famous Elegy to the beating of a metronome."


 * Constantin von Sternberg wrote:
 * "It is amusing to note that even some serious persons express the idea that in tempo rubato 'the right hand may use a certain freedom while the left hand must keep strict time.' (See Niecks' Life of Chopin, II, p. 101.) A nice sort of music would result from such playing! Something like the singing of a good vocalist accompanied by a poor blockhead who hammers away in strict time without yielding to the singer who, in sheer despair, must renounce all artistic expression. It is reported by some ladies that Chopin himself gave them this explanation, but – they might not have understood him [...]"
 * Jhgvui (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The quote from Sternberg (not renowned as a notable Chopin authority, or indeed renowned at all) is simply his garrulous opinion of Niecks's opinion. It does not bear directly on Chopin or anything that can be attributed to Chopin. Paderewski's 'quote' is a denial of an unsourced alleged comment of Chopin, justified by a string of unsourced opinions attributed to a variety of people and some general windbaggery. Paderewski never met or heard Chopin and his assumptions about how Chopin played, whilst possibly interesting in reference to Paderewski himself, have no bearing in this article which seeks to summarize Chopin's life, work and style without infringing the guideline WP:UNDUE. Henry T. Finck, who solicited Paderewski's 'article', appears to have been no more than a third-rate hack. Just because this sort of material is available for download on line is no reason to use it to trivialise Wikipedia articles. These very lengthy quotes, which have zero factual content and give little or no useful insight into Chopin or his works, distort the article and should certainly in my opinion be removed. The other examples given in the section of the article relating to Chopin's style are directly related to cited opinions of Chopin himself, Chopin's own pupils or those who heard him. I will be interested to view comments of other editors.--Smerus (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

B-class review
The article seems to pass B-class requirements at this point. A number of issues remain before it can receive a higher grade (see my comments below). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Few pre-GA comments
I will take a break here. Please improve the underlinking in the remaining sections, and I'll review them once this has been done. If there's a reply here, please WP:ECHO me. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) ) I removed a clear error claiming that he was born in Russian Empire-controlled Duchy of Warsaw (DoW was never Russian controlled, at least not until the last year of its existence when it was occupied by them). The article should mention the Russian-controlled Congress Poland that he grew up in. The absence of the link to the country of his youth is galling.
 * 2) ) Please provide a Polish or French name for this; it is also most likely notable and should be linked (if we don't have an article onit, but it is notable, links are required per WP:RED).
 * 3) ) aren't all of Chopin's works notable? If so, they should be linked whenever mentioned, starting with the phrase "in 1817 he composed two polonaises, in G minor and B-flat major. Chopin's next work, a Polonaise in A-flat major of 1821" (which should obviously have three links). The latter work should be added to Polonaise in A-flat major (or is there an error on that page?).
 * 4) ) Clearly notable Warsaw Conservatory is not linked, why?
 * 5) ) eolomelodicon is probably notable, please research and discuss why the term should or shouldn't be linked.
 * 6) ) Dominik Dziewanowski is notable and should be linked (has article at pl:Dominik Dziewanowski).
 * 7) ) Emilia Chopin may be notable (she has an article on pl:Emilia Chopin). Please research and discuss why she should or shouldn't be linked.
 * 8) ) "executed a set of portraits" - sounds weird, change the word executed to painted or such.
 * 9) ) Tytus Woyciechowski is notable (pl:Tytus Woyciechowski)
 * 10) ) Jan Białobłocki may be notable, please research and discuss why he should or shouldn't be linked.
 * 11) ) Jan Matuszyński is notable (pl:Jan Matuszyński)
 * 12) ) Maurycy Mochnacki is notable (pl:Maurycy Mochnacki); his name is mispelled here - please fix
 * 13) ) please verify that Jan Matuszewski is correctly spelled, I am not seeing much for that name in relation to Chopin (but I did spend only a few seconds on this). It could be a mispelling of Jan Matuszyński. If it is not, please discuss notability.
 * 14) ) Julian Fontana is notable. The trend of underlinking is at this point clear and worrisome.
 * Many thanks for this. A few points:


 * In fact I see that Chopin was indeed born in the Duchy of Warsaw, and grew up in Congress Poland; I have corrected accordingly.
 * what does your point 2 refer to (i.e. a Polish or French name for this)?
 * Not all of Chopin's works are notable and many don't have articles. The WP position is not to provide red links where there is no existing English WP article. In this context, your comments on the eomelodicon and persons who are in Polish, but not English, Wikipedia, apply. Of course you or other editors are free to write such articles on WP if you wish and then the links can be provided.
 * In fact your comments on notability seem to me excessive. This is simply a candidate for GA. There is no requirement to research everyone, or everything, mentioned (or not mentioned) for their notability, or to discuss this. I have been involved in numerous GA and FA nominations and discussions and such questions have never arisen. Of course you are welcome to add informatino to the article yourself, subjwct to WP:UNDUE.
 * Julian Fontana is linked at his first mention. The policy is not to repeat links (WP:OVERLINK).
 * 'Execute' is a perfectly acceptable Enlgish expression for painting.
 * Lastly, can I suggest that you try not to be too prescriptive in your comments, or make disparaging comments ('worrisome', 'galling') about your fellow editors; WP is a cooperative venture! -
 * Best, --Smerus (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * For 2) I meant the "Polish Literary Society in Paris". You are very much incorrect when you say "The WP position is not to provide red links where there is no existing English WP article.". Please read the WP:RED which I linked already. You are correct about Fontana. I'll leave the topic of execution of paintings to native English speaker, for me it still brings an image of somebody shooting them with a gun :> I am sorry if the tone of my comments was discouraging, I certainly respect your (and others) work. Please keep up the good job. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have now carried out some further edits on User:Piotrus's recommendations. On checking the reference I find that neither Maurycy Mochnacki or Jan Matuszewski (whoever he may be) are actually cited there, so I have deleted them. Looking at the Polish WP articles on pl:Dominik Dziewanowski, pl:Emilia Chopin, pl:Tytus Woyciechowski, and pl:Jan Matuszyński I find that these are in general rather sparse and they do not seem to me to have any WP:N qualities for English Wikipedia. I think therefore that if there is a wish to apply WP:RED literally, someone needs to make a case for their notability (rather than any editor being required to make a case for their non-notability). I have added the Polish name of the Society, Towarzystwo Literackie - there is an article on this in Polish WP, Towarzystwo Literackie but again I am not convinced of its notability for English WP. I would be interested to see views of other editors on these notability issues.--Smerus (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Emilia aside, Dominik Dziewanowski is clearly notable (general). Jan Matuszyński and Tytus Woyciechowski: JM is not in the PSB, TW cannot be; looking by JM birth and death dates and names I am not seeing anything major in Google Books, however TW is likely notable; there's at least one academic article dedicated to him - Tytus Woyciechowski—Przyjaciel Chopina” [T.Woyciechowski—Friend of Chopin]. Ruch Muzyczny 19, no. 21 (November 12, 1975):4–6; his bio can be found on a number of Chopin-related sites -, , ; this seems to satisfy GNG/BIO - so I think you should red link him, unless you feel like challenging the above. However, your comment that some claims in this article are not cited in the sources given is problematic. Whenever I am bringing a new article to GA, I try to verify everything in it with the refs I am using currently. Since you found some errors already, as time-consuming as it may be, you may want to verify every single fact that appears to be referenced... I won't insist on this (it's not like I have the time or will to double check it anyway), but another GA reviewer may have a different opinion on this and certainly this will need to be done before FA level. Stil waiting to hear on eolomelodicon (some sources suggest it is the same as Choraleon, and this term gives even more g hits). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * . Thanks for these comments. I have in fact already checked the English sources and references, but the one I have just corrected slipped through the net. I don't have access to the Polish-language sources, and here I assume good faith of the Polish editors who placed them. This is largely the problem with the Polish people in the article who you feel are WP:N - the sources are in Polish and whilst I can vaguely make out their meaning (from similarities with Slovak and Russian) I am not up to using academic sources in the language. Nor can I assess or justify these people being WP:N myself - thus I'm afraid it's up to you or other Polish speakers to make the case for them that convince mere English-speaking editors. All the sources you give for Woyciechowski, for example, are in Polish. As it happens, by the way, I spent a lot of time a few weeks ago trying to find out about the eomelodicon but came up with no meaningful sources whatsoever. Actually I find your 'choraleon' suggestion very plausible, but alas it can't rate as more than WP:OR without some published back-up. Bear in mind that anyway my hope is only to get this up to GA level - FA can wait for someone who is more of a Chopin-fanatic than I am - so there is no incentive at present to bust a gut over the more esoteric details. Best, --Smerus (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for dispelling most of my concerns. I'll link the individuals I consider notable (I believe I explained above why DD and TW pass GNG/BIO), I hope you won't object to that, and I'll move on to read the next sections. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 21:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To dobrze!
 * I have now reviewed and added links to music in the article, and to some technical musical terms.--Smerus (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Continuing review:
 * regarding whether we should (red or not) link all of his works, in Notability (books) it is said: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study." I think this is also applicable to the notability of songs, and thus would make all of Chopin's songs notable. Notability_(music) is also applicable. I don't intend to red link all of his works if you disagree, but this is something that should be discussed further (perhaps in a separate, dedicated thread, also advertised on some other projects).
 * Pl wiki has a template listing his works that is interesting to look at: pl:Szablon:Chopin, it does not seem to have an equivalent on en wiki. I'd strongly suggest creating such a template, even if we were only to link works by Chopin that have articles on en wiki.
 * some facts mentioned on pl wiki missing from the para Childhood:
 * one of his teachers in his youth was Wilhelm Würfel
 * "he played the piano for the Duke and composed a march for him". Pl wiki identifies this as pl:Marsz wojskowy (Chopin).
 * according to pl wiki, 1818 saw the first significant review of him, published in pl:Pamiętnik Warszawski (1815-1823). This is referenced on pl wiki to "Kazimierz Wierzyński: Życie Chopina. Białystok: Krajowa Agencja Wydawnicza, 1990, p. 33. ISBN 83-03-03117-1.".
 * "Nasze Przebiegi... Pl wiki notes that a work of Julian Ursyn Niemcewicz (unnamed there) was actually a critique of a society, instead of a praise for Chopin. It was also inspired by an event/concert that drew many notable individuals, and did contribute to Ch.'s popularity. I think we should discuss this further, with the stress not on JUN's work but on the original event itself.
 * Also in 1818, Chopin gave a notable concert for Maria Feodorovna (Sophie Dorothea of Württemberg)
 * Education
 * " their spoofing of the Warsaw newspapers" - pl wiki identifies the newspaper as Kurier Warszawski
 * Travel
 * " On a return trip to Berlin, he was a guest of Prince Antoni Radziwiłł" Clarify when. Pl wiki gives years 1827 and 1829 for his visits to Prince AR. Also, note the word return. "In September 1828, Chopin had visited Berlin". According to pl wiki, he already went to Berlin in 1826, which our article does not mention.
 * Pl wiki notes that he spent his last three days in Poland in Kalisz. Earlier, on 2 November, the date of his leaving Warsaw, he was celebrated by his friends, including his teacher Elsner, who composed a cantata for his pupil
 * The November Uprising inspired the Étude Op. 10, No. 12 (Chopin).
 * Paris
 * pl wiki gives a statistic of his giving 19 public concerns in Paris, starting with 26 Feb. 1832
 * according to pl wiki, he lived at Rue de la Chaussée-d'Antin
 * according to pl wiki, he had notable pupils (royalty or at least high nobility as well as notable musicians; I am pressed for time, so I'll just paste the pl wiki sentence so you can recognize the names: "księżniczkę de Noailles, księżnę de Chimay i de Beauvau, baronową Rothschild, hrabinę Peruzzi i Potocką. Wśród uczniów także wielkie talenty – Karolina Hartmann, Karol Filtsch, a także wierny przyjaciel Chopina Adolf Gutmann")
 * Albert aka Wojciech Grzymała is notable, pl:Wojciech Grzymała
 * Salle Pleyel is discussed in two places, merge into one?
 * move ilink to salon (gathering) to first occurrence
 * Wodzińscy are probably notable, even through they don't have a pl wiki article. I'll ping User:Sobiepan for his opinion, he has been working on a number of related articles recently.
 * George Sand - will resume from here next time. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this, but I would resist going overboard to include non-essential facts just because they are in the Polish WP article (which I note is not rated GA and need not therefore not be taken as an exemplar for the present purposes). The Polish WP article is poorly cited, and I am unable to assess the Polish sources it does quote. This, however, is the English WP article, and it stands or falls by what it contains. There is no obligation on an article in one language to include all the details from the same topic in another Wikipedia. Moreover, many of the issues you raise seem to me to be WP:UNDUE as regards an English article on Chopin. The issue should be whether or not the English article stands by the GA criteria, rather than to stuff it with bits and pieces. (There are acres of stuff which could be added from English sources, were it not that they would overload the article). I don't feel that the absence of inclusion of the elements you raise detracts from the balance or integrity of the article, or that their inclusion would improve them. I would agree that Grzymala is notable; have no comment on others. Adolf Gutman is already named in the article as a pupil.

Let me remind you of the GA criteria at WP:GACR, particularly - "it addresses the main aspects of the topic - (note) this requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics".

Best,--Smerus (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll ping some active members of WP:POLAND and see if they agree this is indeed undue (User:Nihil novi, User:Poeticbent, User:Volunteer Marek, User:Sobiepan, User:Szopen). I agree that some facts are not essential, but I disagree that the entire review is non-actionable due to Polish bias. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

On the creation of a template for Chopin's works, if anyone wishes to tackle this they are welcome to do so. It is not however a prerequisite for GA status.--Smerus (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree it is not. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the links to French nationality and French passport because these articles relate to the situation of 1990 and later, and are therefore not relevant to the article. But I believe in any case such links are unnecessary per WP:OVERLINK - ("everyday words understood by most readers in context").--Smerus (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have restored those links. They are relevant. First, because they are useful for the recurring discussion of Chopin's nationality. Second, the fr wiki for both articles discuses pre-20th century concepts; I've started the history section on en wiki - our articles are much less comprehensive and both were missing history sections, but eventually those articles should discuss 19th century citizenship and passports in detail, just like on fr wiki. Lastly, with your edit you also removed another link to a notable organization.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:13 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)
 * You are in error about the links to French citizenship and passport. Firstly, these links are seriously misleading to readers, since the articles they lead to relate to a situation 150 years after Chopin's death. The situation in the fr wiki is irrelevant for these purposes. If you wish to edit the English articles so that they state clearly what the rules were for French citizenship in the 1830s, and then give a link, that is up to you. Otherwise, please do not risk misleading WP users. As things stand these links are simply wrong. Furthermore, as per per WP:OVERLINK, which I cited above - ("everyday words understood by most readers in context") - such links are in any case not appropriate. The issues relating to Chopin's nationality are adequately expressed in the present article, and are not affected by the condition of French naturalization legislation of the early ninetheenth century, so you do not need to overload this point. I appreciate your interest and concern but minutiae of this sort are not relevant to a GA discussions - still less to a pre-GA discussion. Once again I repeat the GA criteria at WP:GACR, particularly  that the article "addresses the main aspects of the topic - (note) this requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics". Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, the fact that the articles currently are not comprehensive is irrelevant. They will be eventually relevant, and those links are even more justified than the case of WP:RED. You cite WP:OVERLINK, but it is not applicable (if you disagree, cite the exact wording that you rely on). If you mean that those links are "everyday words understood by most readers in context" than I strongly disagree: again, Chopin's nationality and citizenship are controversial issues subject to significant discussions, and we should link relevant concepts (even if at present the target articles are focused on the present, and are missing the historical overview). Incompletness of the target article is never an issue on whether to link it or not, if the said article should in theory cover those topics.
 * With regards to facts from pl wiki, I think some (not all) are highly relevant to a GA-level completeness (such as the number of public concerts he gave in Paris); several others clarify or correct errors (or at least suggest that errors may exist). I would like to see your comments on each of my points in specific - why or why not should be include them, not just the generic summary. Once again, thank you for your hard work, and remember - it's the job of reviewers to nitpick :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Piotrus that some items of information that have been deleted or, indeed, totally passed over in the article would have been useful in limning the milieu in which Chopin lived and worked. For example, I don't believe mention has been made that Jan Matuszyński, one of the Chopin family's Warsaw boarders — a physician and an accomplished flutist — shared Chopin's Paris apartment for some years, helping look after his health and joining him and another former Warsaw boarder, the pianist Julian Fontana, in impromptu music-making. Matuszyński unexpectedly predeceased Chopin, succumbing to tuberculosis.

Why was the evocative description deleted, of the ailing Chopin, in the final weeks of his life, visiting the poet Mickiewicz and playing the piano to lift his compatriot's spirits?

This article has at various times been subjected to a Procrustean bed that tends to force Chopin's biography into a template of preconceptions.

Preconceptions may account for some errors that have been introduced into the article. Thus, the information that the building in which Chopin and his family lived in 1817-27 belonged to Warsaw University, has been deleted and replaced by a footnote that the building is "Now part of Warsaw University."

Similarly, I think calling Chopin's Żelazowa Wola birthplace "presently museum of the composer" is misleading on several grounds.

I think a fetish has been made of relying, in principle, exclusively on English-language sources. On some occasions, perfectly apropos information has been deleted because it came from Polish-language sources — and, pointedly, only reinstated after it had been rediscovered in English-language sources that themselves draw on Polish-language ones. Unfortunately, some such items still await rediscovery in English.

Nihil novi (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That is interesting; can you show any specific diffs for when facts have been removed solely due to references being in Polish? Such removal is against our policies, and such edits should be reverted. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The article has been so massively plowed up and re-edited that it's hard to locate the exact spots where specific deletions or replacements have been made. But an example of deleted material, involving Chopin's visiting Mickiewicz in the winter of 1848-49, may be found in the last paragraph of the "Final years" section, as of 02:22, 19 November 2013.  Nihil novi (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have traced the removal of this referenced piece of information to . Such gutting of the text without proper justification is not nice. I will note that the second part of the sentence appeared to have been referenced through a footnote, removed some edits prior. The current article does not even mention Mickiewicz, a major poet and Chopin's friend. This is another strike against GA - the article fails on being comprehensive if it omits such a fact (sample source for their close friendship: ). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, mention probably should be made of the friendship between Poland's greatest Romantic composer, Chopin, and Poland's greatest Romantic poet, Mickiewicz, both then in exile in Paris. Mickiewicz was one of 3 or 4 Polish poets, I believe previously mentioned in this article, whose works Chopin set to music.  (As also previously mentioned, he never set to music the verse of the notable French or German poets with whom he was friendly.)
 * If I remember correctly, Tad Szulc's Chopin in Paris likewise mentions Chopin's housemate Matuszyński.
 * I wonder, too, whether it was really necessary to apply the Procrustean bed to the documented sentence that, as late as 08:20, 19 November 2013, closed the "Education" section: "In this period he was also friendly with members of Warsaw's young artistic and intellectual world, including Mauryry Mochnacki, Jan Matuszewski, Józef Bohdan Zaleski, Julian Fontana and Stefan Witwicki."
 * Nihil novi (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * May I then suggest that you restore that information, the article can benefit from further expansion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 21:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Pinging User:Smerus - we are waiting for your replies to various points raised above. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 19:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have made edits where I consider them appropriate (and, by corollary, not where I do not consider them necessary for GA). I am now awaiting the formal GA review. Best --Smerus (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)--Smerus (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Sand/Delacroix
A very prosy and affected quote from Sand about life at Nohant in the 1840s, cited by Maurois, and included in the article by a previous editor, turned out on examination to be from Sand's Impressions et Souvenirs, written at the end of her life in 1873, thirty years after the events. I have therefore replaced it with a quote from a contemporary letter of 1842 from Delacroix describing Nohant, which gives a similiar but more genuine impression.--Smerus (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Sand quotation is interesting, in documenting Chopin's recognition of analogies between the creative processes in music and painting — and perhaps, more broadly, between various fields of creative endeavor in general. I'd suggest placing the quotation in a note.  Nihil novi (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I really can't agree at all - the Sand quote is only 'interesting' as showing the picture Sand wanted to present, at the end of her own career, of her relationship with Chopin  - it would be incorrect to give it the status of telling us something about Chopin.  The Sand quote is immensely long and 'romanticised', and one cannot encyclopaedically warrant the accuracy of fragments of conversations tarted up like this 30 years later; whilst the Delacroix quote is a genuine citation of what happened at the time.--Smerus (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

"Did you know" error
The 1 March 2014 DYK includes the erroneous statment that "Frédéric Chopin... left his homeland of Poland in 1831 and never returned". He left Poland in 1830, shortly before the eruption of the November 1830 Uprising. Nihil novi (talk) 07:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there somewhere we can complain about this? I never even knew it was nominated, and would certainly have made the same point as you at the nomination page.--Smerus (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I said so here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have supported! Hope they do it in time!--Smerus (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it has been discussed to death before
Type in "nationality" into the field in the archive box. There's at least ten relevant discussions in the past.

Unless there's some brand new development or completely novel argument, please respect WP:CONSENSUS and drop the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and the edit warring. Thanks.  Volunteer Marek  18:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What consensus? Those sections seem to be arguments 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 18:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

And for this kind of article, and this issue in particular, the Telegraph is simply not a reliable source. Not to mention that it doesn't say what you claim it says.  Volunteer Marek  18:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If newspapers are not reliable, why is there a 'cite news' option? And it does say that it is disputed.2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 18:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Read the archives first. Then come up with a *new* argument or stop wasting people's time.  Volunteer Marek   18:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Aren't sources given more weight than arguments (not agreement) on the talk page, per WP:RS and WP:NOR? 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up
 * Read the archives first. We've been over this ground. What matter is weight of sources.  Volunteer Marek   00:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * For example .  Volunteer Marek   00:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Talk page discussions are not reliable sources. See WP:RS and WP:NOR2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 13:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You know, blatant trolling won't make people to take you more seriously.--Staberinde (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

A middle ground might be an option presented at the Curie article, Polish, French-naturalized. I definitely would not say French-Polish, if the compromise isn't accepted, then Polish would be my vote. I do agree that anyone who does start a lame edit war in the lame edit war article should be completely ignored. :) Does the editor questioning the article actual write any articles? I'm just looking at the User contribution listing ... Ajh1492 (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I mainly just make minor edits, and Volunteer Marek made the first revert in the WP:LAME, your statement is also a personal attack. And it isn't really much of a compromise. Also see WP:RS. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 16:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm looking back at your contribution list (and diffs) and a see a rather long list of reverts and fact tags. I'm just making a statement of fact. Volunteer Marek knows that this article is one of the "touchy ones" on EN:WP. And Staberinde does bring up the good point that you did edit the Chopin section of WP:Lamest edit wars - which only makes the point that article is trying to make. Many moons ago I too was like you, trying to patrol the wikispaces looking to right the wrongs all before breakfast. But the best way to help is to (a) not take this whole WP thing seriously -if a fact is slightly wrong, the earth does NOT stop spinning on it's axis and (b) put your energy into doing some heavy editing on articles that are of interest to you and need some help - there a LOT of stub articles that need help. If you'd like a mentor, I'd be glad to help where I can. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Almost all of my reverts are reverts of vandalism or unsourced content additions. And attack the content, not the contributor 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 17:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, all your reverts are mindless, disruptive edit warring, many with misleading and false edit summaries. In all the edit warring you've been engaged in since October 19 there's not a single reversion of vandalism. And as has been pointed out to you, there's over 8000 sources to choose from to source a trivial fact.  Volunteer Marek   12:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you actually bothered to look at my contributions you'd see that what you are saying is false. And please see WP:RS. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 12:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not as far as this article goes.  Volunteer Marek   12:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My contributions were being talked about, not my edits to this article. The same could be said about your edits to the article. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 12:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And in response to you ridiculous argument based on Google results, searching for chopin "german composer" has more than half as many as chopin "polish composer", which, by your logic, means we should mention that some sources think he is German, even though it is ridiculous OR. Your argument has already been refuted many times. Dark Sun (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If Handel is a British composer despite his German birth "German born British Composer" and the fact the Chopin has one parent from France should it not make most sense that his descriptor be Polish/French? No one wants to deny his Polish heritage, but to argue that he was Polish exclusively is NPOV!  Rikaard  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.189.86.5 (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)