Talk:Frédéric Chopin/Archive 19

After implementation of the "sexuality" paragraphs in the article (12 December 2020)
In order to not burden the very extended section on this talk page any further, I suggest to continue post-implementation comments about the topic in this new section. Meaning, any topic of that context can be continued here (please refer to the subsection in the older discussion you wish to continue here if that is the case), as well as initiating new related topics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Example of a new topic: see WP:DRN for a related discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Prose

 * I'm somewhat surprised by the size of the new section, but content-wise, I think it's acceptable. The Swiss radio broadcast section suffers from the WP:RECENTISM problem, but it can always be deleted at some future point; time will tell if it will have much longevity. I have three comments to make (having made some changes to the section myself):
 * sentimental "salon" style: I have not checked most of the sources, so I'm not sure about coordinate and cumulative adjectives and if comma usage and hyphenation here are OK.
 * One reason for this may be "demographic": If such a claim appears in the sources, attribution should be made, otherwise it sounds like WP:OR.
 * Such attitudes may also: Same issue. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think you already commented on the first paragraph, re Kallberg's "Small Fairy Voices". That needs to be slowly rewritten using key words like "Unworldly". The same applies to all the other paragraphs. Suggested content on Chopin-related articles by, some originally added by two Zurich IPs (meat/sockpuppets?), has already been reverted. That applied to Waltzes, Op. 70 (Chopin) which was used as a WP:COATRACK for a biography on Woyciechowski/Chopin. That kind of material has no consensus: it seems deliberately provocative. Mathsci (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I was just about to post the following: I've copyedited the section. Other than general CE (trimmed some quotes, corrected a couple of statements...) and reordering of the paragraphs (moved the letters to the top, and Kallberg's notes on nocturnes to the bottom), the content is more or less the same. What are your objections? François Robere (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * François Robere I very strongly disagree with your edits which I feel changes the careful wording that achieved. I'm not the only one here who notes the undue weight given to WP:RECENTISM in the guise of that radio broadcast.  Just has Smerus had the courtesy to post the paragraph here before putting it in the article, you should absolutely do the same. - kosboot (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's a paragraph for paragraph comparison of both revisions. As you can see, it's essentially the same content. The main difference, other than various CE for readability and conciseness, is in the order of the paragraphs: Smerus's text starts with a reference to sexuality, then veers to musical interpretation, and only then gets to the core of the question - the letters. Moving the the second paragraph to the end makes the text much clearer: François Robere (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Further comments
Thank you François / Francis for this side-by-side comparison. I like things in both of them. But for the overall general impression, I feel the "old" version is better because 1) it is more concise; 2) it doesn't require additional research of seeking out the needed citations; 3) most importantly, the "new" version brings up too many tangents which I find distract from the main point - which I find is not strong enough in either version. Does not Kallberg have a summary after which he summarizes the problem? - kosboot (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Almost of the last segment on the left was due to Smerus. In the relevant paragraph on Custine, Kallberg writes: "the overtly innocuous import of Astolphe de Cusine's 'inconstant Sylph' was gently to implore more social contact with his distant friend, whose ethereal art and personality he enfolded into the rubric 'Sylph' ... In 1824 [Custine] suffered intense public opprobrium (as well as a severe beating, which brought the matter to public attention) for apparently having made advances to a young soldier. Without making any suppositions about Custine's intent or Chopin's response (and, indeed, recognizing the impossibility of discovering any essential position for either subject), 'inconstant' and 'Sylph' inevitably bear the trace of Custine's sexual history." This last sentence, with its careful qualification in parentheses, is phrased in a deliberately cautious way. Mathsci (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess all the information is there, but I dislike the order of ideas. People often look at the first paragraph, and then the final paragraph or concluding sentences.  Therefore I feel that the concluding sentences must be as clear as possible or even a repeat of the topic sentence.  Maybe I'll experiment with these two versions and see if I can create something more to my liking. - kosboot (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Below I wrote: "A section combining Kallberg's "gender" material and the biographers' "sexuality" material is akin to WP:OR. So, the problem seems to lie less in the section title: the mishmash is in the section's content..." Similarly, rehashing the section's content, as in François's proposal, doesn't even begin to address the actual problem, which is a OR-like combination of two completely different narratives (Kallberg's "gender" narrative, which is a non-biographical reception topic, with the biographer's "sexuality" narrative, which is biographical). In the current version (left side of François's table) the most problematic sentence is imho "Such attitudes may also have influenced opinion about the composer's sexuality" (starting #3): completely unreferenced; vaguish speculation; OR 1.0 while suggesting a link between two types of sources which is likely unsourceable, while neither the "gender" sources nor the "sexuality" sources suggest such link to the other type of sources, nor does a source outside both groups appear to suggest such link. François, in the proposal on the right side of the table, left this questionable sentence out, proposing instead, "Perceptions of Chopin's sexuality may also have to do with his musical style." (second row in the table) – yeah, write some unsourceable personal impression and then slap a cn at the end. Like that's going to fly... actually worse than the current version (at least it's honest in indicating there's no source for it but that doesn't compensate it being unacceptable for mainspace). So, seeing there's no opposition to my proposals to separate the "gender" material from the "sexuality" material (see below), I propose to proceed with it ASAP, and then we can forget about the OR additions that try to glue the "gender" topic to the "sexuality" topic, despite they being separated in scholarly literature, and no serious scholar ever having tried to stomp them together like Wikipedia editors are doing now. PS: FYI, please don't confuse François (which I am not) with Francis (which I am). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that mixing his sexuality with gender perceptions is problematic. I tried to address it by pushing the gender perceptions to the bottom, to have a more coherent narrative regarding his sexuality. It's certainly possible to separate the two completely, though I think they could be kept together with more content from Brett and Woods, and Pizá (see comment here). I completely agree on the OR statement; the reason I kept it was simply to limit friction, since I knew even reordering the paragraphs would encounter resistance.
 * You may dislike the order of ideas, but you can't deny that it makes sense. Mentioning Chopin's sexuality, then veering off to abstract perceptions of his music, before returning to his sexuality just doesn't make a lot of sense from a reader's POV. Plus, it's probably that his sexuality affected his music and interactions, not the other way around. François Robere (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Images and quotes
Above in the subsection I wrote: "the added images are also OK for me", meaning these images added by : I'd suggest we re-introduce at least the first of these images, for instance with the caption as proposed here (see →), for instance in the new Frédéric Chopin section. Thoughts?--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * File:Tytus Woyciechowski.jpg
 * File:Jan Matuszynski.jpg
 * File:Julian fontana.jpg


 * It is imo ridiculous to introduce the picture of Woyciechowski. If you had one of him at the age of 20 it might, conceivably, be relevant. This pic adds nothing to the article or to the topic. The caption is also misleading, because of the letters received by W. very few had content which could be construed in any way as sexual.
 * As regards our friend, you should be aware of the allegations appearing here as to his activities on this and other WPs and allegations of sock-puppetry. We have gone quite far enough on this topic already and may already be breaching WP:RECENTISM as regards WP:NPOV.--Smerus (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Smerus. We have already had several suggestions for content in Chopin-related articles from, some originally added by two Zurich IPs (meat/sockpuppets?). They have already been reverted. That applied to Waltzes, Op. 70 (Chopin) which was used as a WP:COATRACK for a biography on Woyciechowski/Chopin. It had no consensus. As far as Fontana is concerned, he was an old schoolfriend of Chopin's who for two years served as in-house doctor and factotum: he married shortly after that. There is a Sotheby manuscript of a letter in Polish by Chopin to Fontana (easy to download), but again, while interesting, it is irrelevant to this article. Mathsci (talk) 10:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The word "ridiculous" that you used concerning images was appropriate. As you and other regular editors have discussed, improving/pruning text is the main priority; images are currently a distraction. Mathsci (talk) 10:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And by the way, one of the Zurich IPs you mention, , encouraging disruption of this discussion (to which they already made one or two unpleasant contributions) and insulting contributing editors, which you may have missed - I am glad to say it was spotted and removed by another editor a couple of days after posting....Smerus (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The new IPs were from Melbourn; the personal attacks were removed. Regarding images, I added an image to Jane Stirling, a portrait with her father. A nice oil painting (but not suitable for this article). I wonder whether as a wee lassie she danced the Gay Gordons up there at Kippenross House, Kippendavie? Mathsci (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no need in the "Chopin" article for photos of Chopin's 3 schoolmates – particularly when a photo was taken several decades after Chopin had died. Interested readers can find the photos in the subjects' individual articles.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * – you're entitled to your opinions, but please don't change my talk page posts as you did (probably inadvertently) here (turning a bluelink into a redlink), per WP:TPG. I restored my original post. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely inadvertent, and I apologize unreservedly--Smerus (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Re. "... allegations appearing ..." – neither WP:DRN, nor this article talk page are suitable for assessing "alleged" broad behavioural issues. I treat them as WP:ASPERSIONS until proven differently in an appropriate forum (which is, as said, neither this talk page nor the DRN venue). Have you tried talking to the editor on their talk page? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Francis, whilst you and I frequently disagree, I have never found occasion to doubt your good faith. Alas I cannot say the same of one or two other contributors on this page.--Smerus (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Still, not here the place to voice such doubts: it rather distracts from the content discussion. Take such doubts to the appropriate place (not here, nor DRN, which is a content discussion board). Again, the first place to raise such doubts is on the user's talk page, and if good faith interaction can't be restored there, take to a non-content related, a.k.a. a behavioural, dispute resolution process or board, which also may be, if applicable, SPI when the doubts are about socking, etc. If you keep voicing such doubts here, that will, if kept up long enough, become a quite disturbing behavioural issue in itself, which someone else, e.g. I, might take up in an appropriate place. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Francis Schonken for your constructive input. I think it would be appropriate to add at least this picture of Tytus to the article. Since Chopin wrote so many long letters to him, and for example to Maria Wodzinska he didn‘t write any letter, but of her there is a picture in the article. One picture of Julian Fontana would be nothing but transparent too, and/or one of Matuszynski. They both lived with him for years in apartments on Chaussee-d’Antin. I would also suggest to add one quote from one of the letters Chopin wrote to Tytus, for example this one. Where Chopin writes very personally to him and also refers to a piece, including hints for the interpretation of that piece. And it contains also one example for the issue of mistranslations. "„I already, perhaps unfortunately, have my ideal, whom I faithfully serve, […] about whom I dream, [...] who this morning inspired the little waltz I am sending to you. Take note of one passage marked with a +. No one knows anything about this but you. How sweet it would be for me to play it for you, my dearest Tytus. In the trio, the bass line should dominate up to the high E flat of the upper keyboard in the 5th bar, about which it is unnecessary to write to you, because you feel it. […] Forgive me for sending you the waltz, […] but upon my word I wanted to give you pleasure with it, because I love you madly.“ Frédéric Chopin to Tytus Woyciechowski, 3.10.1829" What do you think about that?--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * As with so many passages from Chopin's letters – these passages are ambiguous, and subject to a variety of possible translations and interpretations.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the contribution, Nihil novi. Could you explain what is ambiguous about „but upon my word I wanted to give you pleasure with it, because I love you madly“?--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see user:Smerus' and my comments at "Talk:Tytus Woyciechowski", in the "Konstancja Gładkowska" section.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

For earlier presentations of, and discussion on, quotes from Chopin's letters, see, e.g.: (bolded = contains side-by-side quote translation) --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * lead section of
 * 
 * lead section of
 * 
 * lead section of
 * 
 * 

WP:TPG: if refactoring of a talk page discussion is opposed, attempts to repeat it should usually stop. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Francis Schonken, sure, I agree. And the previously suggested side-by-side translation undoubtedly should be preferred. But when I reread the whole letter I just found that the last sentences are also very telling and in my opinion clarifying. That‘s why I added them and I think if the Quote will be added to the article these last sentences should be included.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 11:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Subsection title
--Smerus (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Somewhere in the above, near-impenetrable thickets, an editor suggested reducing the section heading, "Gender and sexuality in music and life", to the more manageable "Sexuality". I would second this suggestion, but worded as "Chopin's sexuality" (which, indeed, was the original title of this talk-page discussion).
 * Nihil novi (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It was me (with slanted bold). Mathsci (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I do hope the section gets retitled.
 * Would you, as the original proponent, consider being so bold?
 * Nihil novi (talk) 05:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For various reasons, I would prefer if you changed the title. Is that OK? Mathsci (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * In some quarters, my reputation is already irretrievable, anyway.
 * Thanks for the portrait of Jane Stirling with her distinguished dad!
 * Nihil novi (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You might very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment. Thanks for your help! Mathsci (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A great serial! England doesn't make statesmen like that anymore.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)




 * I am pleased with the way has re-arranged the material. It fits together very well. The made editors—Smerus, JackofOz, Toccata quarta, Nihil novi, and kosboot—seem to have developed consensus on how to proceed with improving the article. From what I understand, the size of the new section is already considered to be quite large compared to the article itself.  There seems to be no consensus for poor quality images which postdate Chopin's death, as these do not appear elsewhere in the article. This applies also to parallel Polish/English quotations. There are letters in Polish from Chopin to Fontana which can found at sothebys or in Library of Congress; but I am not sure that documents like that are particularly helpful.


 * On the other hand, musical autograph manuscripts of Chopin are easy to find. If a particular piano piece, such as a nocturne or a waltz with a known dedicatee, is being discussed, an image of that manuscript with a caption might be appropriate. In Kallberg's "Small Fairy Voices", he certainly relates Chopin's persona with individual pieces of music. There's plenty of choice: the nocturnes, the barcarolles, ... Possibly also an audio file? There already is a waltz, a mazurka, an etude and a prelude, so why not a nocturne or a barcarolle (subject to availability) .... Mathsci (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There are good recordings on commons or downloadable from the usual repository of the Berceuse, the 4th Ballade (Hokanson), some Nocturnes, etc. (No scherzi yet.) Mathsci (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That large picture makes it difficult for me to comment on the section heading, which Mathsci has suggested to be "Sexuality." But it's not really about Chopin's sexuality. It's really about the attempts to discern what might have been Chopin's sexuality.  In other words, it's less about the composer's sexuality, and MORE about 21st century attempts to discern what they were or could have been. Indeed, Smerus's proposal recognizes that it is an ongoing attempt, rather than a fact. So in my opinion, it would be nice if the section heading could reflect that.  Perhaps something like "Seeking Chopin's sexuality" or if you prefer something more euphemistic (which makes it more universal, meaning that the techniques of uncovering his sexuality apply to other undiscernable aspects of his life) maybe something cliché like "Searching for Chopin."  (And please let it be known that I'm very pro-gay; but I'm also extremely pro-scholarly and take a professional view to weighing evidence.) - kosboot (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Phrasings like "Seeking Chopin's sexuality" or "Searching for Chopin" don't seem to meet Wikipedia style, both from from a vague general style mismatch (we're an encyclopedia, not a book selling itself) and because per MOS:SECTIONSTYLE, "Chopin" shouldn't be in a section title. Something like "Modern investigations of sexuality" could be okay, but I think simply "Sexuality" would be better. Ultimately 21st century attempts to discern what they were or could have been are about the composer's sexuality. Gbear605 (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think is correct: the section is not about Chopin's sexuality, it is about modern perceptions of sexuality in his life and music. In all the morass of comment above, no one has yet produced (nor imo could they produce) a single piece of evidence of Chopin's sexual practices and inclinations (either towards men or towards women). Nor has anyone demonstrated why it would be important in any way if we could. We need to concede that there is no such evidence; and that if evidence is ambiguous we as editors whould not seek to make or imply a conclusion either way. The section is not a report on Chopin, it is a report on contemporary opinions. The title I orginally suggested for the section, "Gender and sexuality in life and music" is therefore I think more appropriate.--Smerus (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Kosboot's distinction is critical. At best this content should only be in a separate article and presented as speculation. That is how we treat the topic for Jesus. SPECIFICO talk 15:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ditto: "Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln"; "Sexuality of Adolf Hitler"; and "Sexuality of William Shakespeare";
 * This alternative has previously been suggested for Chopin, and been batted down. Perhaps it's time to revisit it?
 * Such a separate, dedicated article would put Chopin into interesting company.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as these three example are concerned, here are a few observations:
 * For Lincoln, the topic is linked to at Abraham Lincoln
 * For Hitler, the topic is mentioned and linked to at Adolf Hitler
 * For Shakespeare, the topic is linked to in the article lead, and mentioned and linked to at William Shakespeare
 * I would also note that the article section in its present form would not justify the creation of a separate entry (such as Mozart's nationality) and a WP:AFD discussion would most likely result in the content being merged (back) into the Chopin page. This, of course, does not preclude having a more substantive article on the topic of Chopin's sexuality and its expression in his music. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Give it a try! If a dedicated article is good enough for Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Hitler, maybe it will be good enough for Chopin.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The section elevates the opinions of two non-notable individuals, Piza and Weber, over the vastly larger number of people who reject such speculation. This violates NPOV, specifically WEIGHT, and should not be published in this article. SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A bit baffled why you are picking on Pizá here. The quote from him is absoluteley WP:NPOV ad serves simple to introduce the section. And he is a qualified academic. Unilke Weber who seems to be in it for the publicity. I see he has already updated his written article with bumf about this WP debate.--Smerus (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We are citing him as if he were a notable expert on the subject, but he is not. We are using him as a foil to introduce a casual observation. SPECIFICO talk 09:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also we should not conflate the performance styles of amateur aristocrat ladies with 21st century terminology and understanding of sexuality. That is not encyclopedic exposition.  SPECIFICO talk 17:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Very good point. This touches on gender stereotypes. Nihil novi (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * (ec) Why not "Questions of sexuality"?
 * There is a striking contrast between Jeffrey Kallberg's commentary—couched in music, metaphors and Chopin's elusive persona—and the very direct approach of Moritz Weber. Mathsci (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry to nitpick here, but Smerus's suggestion "Gender and sexuality in life and music" means that the section is about that, and it isn't. I like Gbear605's suggestion, Modern investigations of sexuality because that's exactly what it is, and it does not imply an answer. - kosboot (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The plain "Sexuality" (or "Gender and sexuality") is the best and most encyclopedic. Also, per WP:WIAFA (which applies to this page), the article should have "a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings". If we can choose a simple section heading, there is no need to give preference to a wordier alternative. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

On reflection I would be happy with 'Sexuality' as the title of this section, as it conforms to the opening sentences of the WP article Human sexuality: "Human sexuality is the way people experience and express themselves sexually. This involves biological, erotic, physical, emotional, social, or spiritual feelings and behaviors. Because it is a broad term, which has varied with historical contexts over time, it lacks a precise definition." Whether the section as it stands is appropriate for the article obviously remains in debate.--Smerus (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Good, that was my original suggestion. Small is Beautiful! Kallberg's articles are obviously relevant: as a musician and historian, he's one of the few scholars qualified to comment on Chopin and sexuality. The current WP article is not just a biography as much of it is about Chopin's music (like the 4th Ballade that I helped edit today). Mathsci (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * IMHO,
 * The Kallberg material is part of gender studies and should normally not appear under a (sub)section title "Sexuality". As far as Chopin is concerned, gender studies are a (rather tiny) subbranch of the composer's reception history. The largest part of the Kallberg material is not biographical in nature (it is about perception, and hardly contains biographical data).
 * The biographers' comments on Chopin's sexuality, based on his letters (note that the Kallberg material is not based on these letters) do not belong under a "Gender" or "Gender studies" (sub)section title. The letters, and the biographers' comments on them, are biographical material.
 * A section combining Kallberg's "gender" material and the biographers' "sexuality" material is akin to WP:OR. So, the problem seems to lie less in the section title: the mishmash is in the section's content, and that can not be resolved by highlighting either exclusively "Sexuality" in the section title (while that doesn't cover the "gender" material which is currently the focus of the section), or exclusively "Gender (studies)" which is no biographical material.
 * The solution lies, imho, in splitting the section: the Kallberg material repositioned in the reception narrative (near the end of the article), and the "sexuality" material kept in the biographical section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that this could be a part of the solution, and I have no problems with the principles you suggest. Splitting off the Kallberg stuff as you suggest is not problematic. Then the broadcast (if it is kept at all) would also belong in reception. Integrating the Woychiekowski letters by mentioning them in the biography (with relevant acceptable secondary sources) is appropriate, but not if they are extensively discussed or blown out of proportion (e.g. by unsourced speculation about C's relationships (or absence of same) with Wodzińska, Gladowska, etc.) These are a few letters when Chopin had hardly embarked on his professional career, and no one has yet shown in this discussion (or anywhere else that I am aware of) that they have any bearing on his later life.--Smerus (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Re. "the broadcast (...) would also belong in reception" – yes and no. The part of the broadcast that speaks of a possible different interpretation than the standard interpretation by the biographers is, of course, biographical. The part of the broadcast that speaks about whether or not Polish society can deal with that possibility is reception. Re. "if it is kept at all": whether we keep either of these parts (the biographical and the reception-related), are two independent questions, and is, for either part, unrelated to whether you and I (or other editors) can or cannot give credence to the material.
 * For biographical material it is also not about whether or not any link with Chopin's music can be established. Compare, a biographical article about Bach (including Wikipedia's article about the composer) will mention he had 20 children. It doesn't report he had 19 children or 21 children. Nobody has ever demonstrated that one child more or less would have made any difference whatsoever for his music. The quality of Wikipedia's biographical article on the composer is judged on getting it right, not on whether it makes the tiniest bit of difference for his music. This goes also for biographical material where multiple interpretations are possible, in which case such interpretations are reported NPOV-wise in Wikipedia, e.g. for Bach his relations with his employers, and for Chopin his relation with Sand. We report what reliable sources say on the matter with due weight, and avoiding undue weight, per Wikipedia's editorial principles.
 * For reception-related material, changes in perception play, of course, a role. Of course a reception narrative in Wikipedia has a NPOV balance too. The current "Reception and influence" (sub)section has six paragraphs. Let's assume, for the current discussion, that it is somewhat underdeveloped (despite the FA status of the article). Each paragraph in the section mentions on average, the views of, let's say, about half a dozen commentators, and covers, on average, let's say, a few decades. Adding to that section two paragraphs exclusively devoted to Kallberg's views, and another exclusively devoted to late 2020 perceptions of a speculative theory would truly unbalance the section NPOV-wise. Long way of saying that, as far as I'm concerned, the comments on Polish society dealing with the homosexuality speculation can be dropped entirely from the article, until if and when it can be included in a much longer piece on reception of Chopin (which would likely be a separate article on reception of Chopin, in order not to unbalance the Frédéric Chopin article) – this is the WP:RECENTISM aspect, as I see it, or, in the perspective of the current reception section, too ephemeral as kosboot called it.
 * But yeah, returning to the first point (biographical interpretations based on the SRF documentary), I do think a one-sentence addition after we have dealt with Walker's and Zamoyski's interpretations (which BTW are not identical!), that another interpretation has been proposed in 2020 does not seem out of order. Again, irrespective of whether you and I or other editors give any credence to it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Kallberg:Small Fairy Voices

 * (ec after a long delay) I have been looking at Kallberg's "Small Fairy Voices". I have been to unable to access directly the document through "Chopin Studies 2": contrary to what is reported on this article page, it is not an ebook on cambridge.core. It is available, however, on some pages of google.books as well as on amazon. The original book on Harvard University Press is only just a link. From the available pages, Kallberg's discussion enters into medical problems and is sometimes quite technical, reflecting historical practices and mores in the early nineteenth century. Only one sentence of the section on "Chopin's sexuality" has been cited in Kallberg's chapter. I believe that a more accurate but nevertheless brief summary would be an improvement. Does another editor have access to the whole of Kallberg's article? Mathsci (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

You can read the whole essay here. In my view, for what it is worth, an interesting but somewhat arcane essay. Its topic (a somewhat narrow one) is sexual/gender perception of C's music in his era - as Kallberg summarizes the topic "How then did sex 'speak' music - Chopin's music - in the 1830s and 1840s?" (p. 70). The article does not deal with C's personal sexuality other than metaphorically. Therefore I believe that extrapolating further from it would be WP:UNDUE for this article.--Smerus (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've used books.google.co.uk, de, fr, nl, es, com and be, but six pages were invariable missing, No luck with sk. Perhaps it's a problem with caches. I will experiment. Mathsci (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I'm probably assisted by being stuck in Slovakia at the moment, returning to London on Thursday, so I will enjoy the [almost] complete Kallberg [it's missing pp. 54-5 I see on looking at it again] while I can!--Smerus (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * A method to access the entire "Small Fairy Voices" essay which would probably work for most readers, that is from two different sources (1994/2006 and 1996), is given above in (see first line after summary; and click, where given in the summary, each time both of the double footnotes). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies, looking again, yes the .sk is missing 6 pages as well, I think I also used Francis's method in piecing together the two versions - but given Kallberg's elusive style one is probably not missing much. By inference the missing sections deal with 1) Chopin adored by female listeners and perceived as an angel, 2) sexual ambiguity in Sand's Gabriel and Charles Nodier's Trilby, and 3) early nineteenth-century medical theories linking sexual anomalies with chronic diseases - so I think my evaluation still stands, especially in the lights of Kallberg's summary and conclusion. --Smerus (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Smerus, please take the hint which I tried to give you above (in ) that material substantially based on Kallberg does not belong in a biographical section (such as a subsection of Frédéric Chopin), but in a section devoted to reception/legacy. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I do not disagree on this point.--Smerus (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have all the pages from the Chopin Studies 2 that I wanted, thank you. I have checked my library (the University of Cambridge) with all the sources electronic resources. Whoever wrote that Chopin Studies 2 was an ebook was mistaken. Mathsci (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I have read the three sections from "Small Fairy Voices" and am starting to to read the earlier article on "Nocturnes". As far as I can tell Kallberg is a WP:RS and there seems to be no reason beyond WP:WIKILAWYERING to question Kallberg's intellectual credentials. The attempts to relegate Kallberg to a section on reception so far has no consensus and, as far as composing content, would create a WP:TRAINWRECK. Similar discussions about "Reception", however, can be seen in Schubert-related articles:


 * The section Franz Schubert has a small and unobtrusive paragraph on Schubert's sexuality. That can be compared to the article, Grand Duo, D 812. There German quotations by Schumann about Schubert's feminine qualities were placed in parallel with a self-generated English translation. In a section titled "Legacy", the passage by Schumann was referenced: "In the late 1980s Schumann's contentions about Schubert's feminity started to attract attention from a different perspective: articles published in 19th-Century Music described Schubert as homosexual, to which the 1838 comments about the Grand Duo, published in the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik, were seen as corroborating evidence." The comparisons between the GA on Schubert and D 812 shows that far more care is needed. Mathsci (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Kallberg is imo definitely a WP:RS. But why would moving his comments to the 'reception' part of the article be a 'relegation'? I don't quite understand you here. Kallberg's comments do not in fact relate to Chopin's life, they are about the the way his music was received (the assumptions made or implied by contemporaries in their perception of his music). Kallberg indeed seems to me to avoid making any assumptions or assertions about Chopin's sex life. I am not clear exactly what the parallel is with the Schubert examples you give. Basically it seems to me that Chopin wrote the letters to W. in his life, and they can therefore legitimately be placed in an account of his life. Kallberg is giving 20th/21st interpretations, and his comments can legitimately be placed in legacy. I would further add that although K's writings are (to me anyway) very interesting, they are hardly central to an acocunt of Chopin and that to rattle on about them at length in the WP bio article on Chopin would be WP:UNDUE. The option is always there w=fro anyone to creare an article on Chopin's sexuality should they wish to do so, as has been remarked.--Smerus (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For clarity, the last extensive rewrite of the D 812 article was mine: any gender- or sexuality-related content in the current version of that article was introduced there for the first time by me, and the way it is there now is still exclusively resulting from my edits. Applicable IBAN restrictions should normally prevent some editors from commenting on these edits of mine under any guise or form, including on this talk page. I'm only mentioning this because some might not know that these were my edits in that article. But if there are any questions by other editors (I mean other than the IBAN ones) of how I treated gender and sexuality in that article, I'd be happy to answer. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, Kallberg is a WP:RS. (Today I've been spending time creating a mini-score for the fourth ballade using lilypond, so have been away from wikipedia.)


 * It is not that easy to give a short summary of the article "Small Fairy Voices", particularly as Kallberg writes in a very literary way. From what Kallberg's writes, however, there are three aspects in his essay: firstly the otherwordly metaphors for elves, fairies, sylphs, angels, glittering pearls—tropes used by listeners to describe what Chopin's music and his playing conjures up for them; secondly the literary aspects of unwordliness linked to androgeny, which can be found in George Sand's own writing (and her transvestism) and reflect Chopin's sexually ambiguous image; and thirdly, other pathological and medical issues, arising in early nineteenth-century science, aimed at understanding Chopin's sexuality as a predisposition to his physical sickness.


 * As far as Sand & daughter are concerned, the comments on "Sans-Sexe" are just footnotes. The schoolfriend letters have unfortunately suffered from hype in WP:RECENT headlines. The scholarly discussions in "Chopin Studies" are probably intended only for well-versed experts, so are not particularly suitable for wikipedia. But, by the same reasoning, the letters to a former schoolfriend should only warrant a very brief parenthetic mention in an article intended for a general readership. Half of the article is about music, so is more of a "musical biography" than a "biography". The addition of the new section still seems like a storm in a tea cup. Mathsci (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A storm in a teacup, apparently sans tea.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the trope, Ariel of pianists, the American version "tempest in a teapot" might be better ... Mathsci (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed! Thank you!
 * Nihil novi (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed footnote

 * The ambiguous effusive letters of the teenaged Chopin (regrettably not lost in the wartime destruction of Woyciechowski's rural manor) could be treated in the penultimate paragraph of the "Education" section, in a footnote to the mentioned "Tytus Woyciechowski":
 * "Several letters of 1829–30 from Chopin to Woyciechowski (who had moved to his rural estate 300 kilometers southeast of Warsaw) contain ambiguous passages and brief expressions of affection which, especially in inaccurate translations, have been interpreted by some as homoerotic. Chopin's biographer Adam Zamoyski describes the more extravagant passages as mere early–Romantic–era outpourings of regret at Woyciechowski's absence."
 * Anyone so inclined, could write an article on "Chopin's sexuality" or "Chopin's emotional life".
 * Nihil novi (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have some issue with the "ambiguous" characterisation. First, I can't remember seeing that description used for Chopin's writings. Several of his personal letters are characterised as difficult to fathom, but not as ambiguous. Also, there is a difference between it sometimes being difficult for other readers than the addressee to fathom what Chopin meant, while these things were without much doubt clear for the addressee (Chopin writes a few times something like: you understand what I mean). Ambiguity is an inherent quality (multiple often contradictory meanings), question marks for 20th- and 21st-century readers is not an inherent quality of Chopin's writing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * One of my dictionaries defines "ambiguity" as "the quality or state of having two or more possible meanings." Another dictionary defines it as "doubtfulness or uncertainty as regards interpretation."
 * That pretty well characterizes the differing meanings that have been attached by latter-day investigators to Chopin's use of the Polish expression "ideał" (a person – male or female, as the case may be – of one's dreams).
 * Ambiguity also attaches to the proper interpretation of other passages. Tytus Woyciechowski is now living 300 km. from Warsaw, so Chopin's advising him not to kiss Chopin, as he hasn't yet washed, cannot be taken literally. Is Chopin being homoerotic? Is he making some sort of a joke? Is it some sort of allusion to something that, perhaps, Woyciechowski will understand but that is ambiguous to latter-day "gentlemen [who] read other people's mail"?
 * There are certainly ambiguities in those letters.
 * Zamoyski, for his part, rejects the hypothesis of Chopin's homosexuality, while Walker strongly doubts that hypothesis.
 * Who am I to gainsay them?
 * Nihil novi (talk) 10:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The letters were not ambiguous when written. They did not have "multiple meanings" when written. That they have ambiguities (from a certain perspective) is not the same as qualifying them as over-all ambiguous. That's like saying something is bad prose for the only reason of containing some typos. The main problem is, however, the lack of reliable secondary sources for the "ambiguous" qualifier. And that seems to be a broader problem for much of the repetition occurring on this talk page: show me the reliable sources qualifying Chopin's letters as ambiguous. I've read Walker's ruminations on the point, but afaics he does not use "ambiguous" or a similar over-all qualifier for the composer's letters. On the other hand, I can give you a reliable source calling Walker's ruminations on the point as, literally, "hand-wringing". So, in my eyes, the biographers' reports on the letters exceed the actual letters in ambiguity. Please understand my lack of interest in what individual wikipedia editors have found out by themselves, without looking at reliable secondary sources. Imho, this is, to a large extent, what makes this this talk page a bit tedious. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You will notice that the actual proposed footnote says the letters "contain ambiguous passages", not that the letters overall are ambiguous.
 * So, no quarrel there.
 * And I won't dispute your opinion that much of this talk page has been a little tedious.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 11:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Rejecting your summary over-all. "ambiguities (from a certain perspective)" is not the same as "contain ambiguous passages", the difference is, still, that "ambiguous passage" is an absolute (ambiguous for everyone), while that seems an over-interpretation, not shared by any reliable source. A next phrase is even worse, "... especially in inaccurate translations, have been interpreted by some as homoerotic." Really? This is not the page to spout such WP:OR 1.0. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Rejecting your rejection.
 * If one Chopin–investigator considers "ideał" to be a "he", while another considers it to be a "she", I think that qualifies as an ambiguity.
 * Unless you also reject Wikipedia's "ambiguity" article.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Please get acquainted with Wikipedia's core content policies. Above, in you were told by several editors not to use "bad translations" as an argument to reject secondary sources. It is not allowed per Wikipedia's core content policies. Nonetheless, you steam ahead and do exactly what you were told multiple times as being unacceptable. Not a reliable source in sight. *You did not cite a single source* for your POV summary. The reason appears simple: this can not be referenced to reliable secondary sources, so you should not be wasting our time with this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I submit a revised version of my proposed footnote to the mention of "Tytus Woyciechowski" in the penultimate paragraph of the "Chopin" article's "Education" section:


 * "Several letters of 1829–30 from Chopin to Woyciechowski (who had moved to his rural estate 300 kilometers southeast of Warsaw) contain ambiguous passages and brief expressions of affection which have been interpreted by some as homoerotic or homosexual. Chopin's biographer Adam Zamoyski describes the more extravagant passages as mere early–Romantic–era outpourings of regret at Woyciechowski's absence, and Chopin's biographer Alan Walker very much doubts there having been a homosexual relationship between the two."


 * I will leave it to those who have ready access to the Zamoyski and Walker biographies, to provide the appropriate references.


 * Thank you.


 * Nihil novi (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Imho this starts to be mere disruption. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Creative disruption, I hope?
 * Thank you, Francis Schonken, for your incisive critiques, collegiality, and unfailing good humor !
 * I inadvertently failed (it was getting past bedtime) to remove mention of your "original–research" bête noire, "ambiguity".
 * My following footnote 3.0 will facilitate your proposal of splitting the biographical strand of this controversy (leaving it in the "Education" section) from the "reception" strand. I hope the following footnote 3.0 meets with greater approval:
 * "Several letters of 1829–30 from Chopin to Tytus Woyciechowski (who had moved to his rural estate 300 kilometers southeast of Warsaw) contain brief expressions of affection which have been interpreted by some, including Moritz Weber of Swiss Radio, as homoerotic or homosexual. Chopin's biographer Adam Zamoyski describes the more extravagant passages as mere early–Romantic–era outpourings of regret at Woyciechowski's absence, and Chopin's biographer Alan Walker very much doubts there having been a homosexual relationship between the two."


 * I will leave it to those who have ready access to the Zamoyski and Walker biographies and to the Moritz Weber pronouncements, to provide the appropriate references.


 * Thank you.


 * Nihil novi (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Since writing Wikipedia articles is not about creativity (which would generally be rejected as WP:OR), the distinction between creative and non-creative disruption is futile in this context. Re. "I will leave it to [... others ...] to provide the appropriate references". Wrong, according to WP:ONUS (... and we're back at you ignoring core content policy): if it's you who wants to see this included in mainspace, it's up to you to demonstrate it is viable, with acceptable references to reliable sources. I reject it as a WP:OR fantasy, and without references that prove otherwise it can afaik not be accepted in mainspace. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Rubinstein as de-feminizer
The Kallberg reference refers not to Arthur Rubinstein, born ca 1890, but to Anton Rubinstein -- a contemporary of Chopin. This invalidates any thesis that a feminized Chopin persisted for decades until a revisionist rediscovery in the twentieth century. Contemporaries and peers of Chopin never feminized his work and this narrative relates only to a stereotype of twentieth century gender and social norms. SPECIFICO talk 21:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not correct. In his 1992 "Harmony at the Tea Table" article, Kallberg refers to Artur Rubinstein's 1973 autobiographical book, "My Young Years", pages 86–87. On page 112, Kallberg writes: "Artur Rubinstein frequently gave himself credit for steering interpretations of Chopin away from the 'salon style'—itself an encoded reference to 'women's music'—of the late nineteenth century. In his memoirs, Rubinstein disparaged the performances of Chopin he attended as a youth, which led him initially to adopt, as he wrote 'the generally accepted opinion of Chopin as the young, sick, romantic figure who wrote sentimental music for the piano.'" Mathsci (talk) 11:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Oddly, a different essay in the same volume as the other Kallberg reference, Chopin Stuies, cites Anton Rubinstein. The mention of Arthur Rubinstein's. Reminiscence of performances he heard in his youth is not necessarily representative of professional European performance practice. The Anton bit still contradicts any such view. I also think it's a bit UNDUE to accept Arthur's view that he was responsible for changing the world's view of Chopin, if that is actually what he intended to say. SPECIFICO talk 01:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)