Talk:Frédéric Chopin/Archive 22

Neutrality / Chopin and cottaging
I have changed one of the header title to a neutral title to reflect the content of Moritz Weber's article. The title is 'SRF broadcast "outing" Chopin'. The original posting of involved a German link and asked rhetoric questions. The article on Scherzos (Chopin) does involve the life and music of Chopin. The article on Valldemossa Charterhouse concerns the period when Chopin, Sand and her family were together during winter 1838–1889. Those topics are inextricably linked to the main article here. In general, editors interested in Chopin take a scholarly approach to this article (see for example ). Mathsci (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Mathsci wants to change the original title („Chopin’s homosexuality“) of the very long discussion above. He repeatedly kept changing the original title to a different meaning - even if the majority of talk-contributors had nothing against the original title „Chopin’s homosexuality“, and now he started a new discussion about the title of this discussion topic on this talk page.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not think about "Chopin" and "women" in a different way for a while? Think positive. Here is Martha Argerich (see above). She won the International Chopin Piano Competition in 1965. She is one of the greatest living pianists. Her playing is spine tingling. So why not put all thoughts of "straightwashing" out of your mind and listen to Martha Argerich's performance of the Barcarolle. Mathsci (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * very adventurous and acrobatic turn, indeed: Switch to the contrary while listening to music - is that what you call scientific or scholar? Poor Martha, that she is being used for such a thing.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Plonk. Mathsci (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

today has made this edit, adding an entry to the list "cottaging". It reads:

"1837: The famous polish composer Frédéric Chopin is supposed to have practiced cottaging during his icognito stay under the name of „Mr. Fritz“ in London in July 1837. In a letter from London to Julian Fontana in Paris he then wrote: „it amuses me most worthily. You can tell Jaś that one can amuse oneself here with cautious ease - when one is here for a short time. Huge things!! - Great urinals. And yet, there is nowhere to have a good tinkle. [...] everything washed and yet as black as a nobleman‘s a..!!!“"

The edit refers to Chopin's 1837 visit to London. By adding the entry under "cottaging", 's edit casts unjustified aspersions on Chopin's sexual behaviour which have no firm basis in WP:RS. Alan Walker's recent biography of Chopin mentions the letters, but with no prurient suggestions; and David Frick's 2016 translation of "Chopin's Polish letters", published by the Fryderyk Chopin Institute, does not appear to provide any context. (Detailed access to the entire publication does not seem to be available, although Jeffrey Kallberg's introduction can be downloaded as a pdf file.) The content added by on "cottaging" seems to prejudice the RfC on this talk page. Mathsci (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The reference is indeed to a July 1837 letter from Chopin to his friend Julian Fontana concerning London. Chopin writes:
 * "There are such tremendous things! Huge urinals, but all the same nowhere to have a proper p[ee]! As for the English women, the horses, the palaces, the carriages, the wealth, the splendour, the space, the trees -- everything from soap to razors -- it's all extraordinary, all uniform, all very proper, all well-washed BUT as black as a gentleman's bottom!"
 * This passage illustrates the importance of context when interpreting an author's intent. Chopin is expressing his reaction to a whole range of English institutions – not an interest in places for striking up homosexual acquaintances.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Lack of infobox
Is there any reason such a significant article in its field does not have in infobox? Was there consensus against it, perhaps? Thanks.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe that, for some reason, it has been a consensus that composers should not have an infobox – see, for example, "Ravel" and "Rachmaninof".
 * Best, and Happy New Year,
 * Nihil novi (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Infobox is not an indication of article significance; it is an arbitrary addition on the basis of editors' consensus. There is no consensus as regards composers in general, an infobox is always discussed for individual articles. It has been discussed on this page on several previous occasions (search 'infobox' in this page's archive) and consensus has been against. The article was approved for FA without infobox.--Smerus (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)




 * The current embedding of the signature into the description of the photo is ugly to say the least. It's maybe too soon to start a new debate, given that the last discussion was only one year ago, but I don't see how the article being approved for FA without an infobox is relevant, given that adding an infobox would certainly not degrade the quality of the article. intforce (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:FAOWN. The article was approved without an infobox after a thorough vetting from the community; I would consider such information "relevant". Aza24 (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Unsure whether is in a position to criticise the aesthetics of Chopin infoboxes considering their own edits to infoboxes/images. Mathsci (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not criticizing the aesthetics of Chopin infoboxes, since there is no Chopin infobox. I am criticizing that the photo of Chopin in the lead has been hijacked to produce a "proto-infobox". The signature does not belong in the photo's description. --intforce (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with you; and WP:consensus does not seem to be on your side. There seems to be no evidence that anything was hijacked. Mathsci (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * By WP:CAPTION, captions should only include text. How is the signature relevant to the photo? intforce (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Well,, as you see, the article is in the middle of an RfC at the moment. On the basis of "one thing at a time", I suggest that when it is dealt with, you formally propose on this talk page the deletion of the signature, and hopefully it will be possible to arrive at a consensus one way or the other.--Smerus (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Johann Sebastian Bach and Ludwig van Beethoven have it. I see no reason to not include an infobox, they look stylish and seem useful. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

New article: Sexuality of Chopin
Regardless of the RfC above, I think Sexuality of Chopin is a notable subtopic and such an article should be created - so I did it. Feel free to expand it, plenty of usable content has been already drafted above. Per my comment in the RfC I suggest splitting any less reliable (journalistic, etc.) comments from the current article there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Michael Moran has given a balanced view on this topic: Composer Abuse - Truth Decay in the Life of Fryderyk Chopin. It's not sure whether the sub-stub will survive an AfD. Mathsci (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting about the Michael Moran article - very comprehensive and worth a citation in the main article when the present RfC is completed. As User:Piotrus suggests, we could reassess the 'journalistic' comments in its light; it could also be held (and would be by me) to downgrade substantially the supposed notability of the article Sexuality of Chopin in any AfD discussion of the later.--Smerus (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Like the dormouse, the sub-article sexuality of Chopin has now been suppressed. It's now a redirect to this page (like the page on the Sexuality of Tchaikowsky). Mathsci (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Good. If restored it should be AfD'ed and deleted. No matter what it would be a WP:POVFORK of WP:Undue weight on fringe speculations. Crossroads -talk- 21:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I restored it. No objection to proper AfD, but in my view this topic is notable, and the RfC here is irrelevant as it can only concern what to do with this article, not with others (that's what the AfD process is for). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * AfD isn't the only viable process: I proposed a merger, with the discussion on whether-or-not to merge in this talk page section. Personally I think a stand-alone article on Frédéric Chopin's sexuality is possible, but it should never be a WP:POV fork, that is, neither a POV fork before the RfC is concluded, nor a POV fork after the RfC is concluded. Also, it should adhere to WP:Summary style principles, meaning that the separate article should have more extended content than the content on the sexuality topic in the Chopin article. As such, it currently fails on both points (and should, for these reasons, best be merged back now until a more viable text can be proposed):
 * it is a POV fork, while (apparently deliberately) excluding sources with a different view
 * as a stub it has less content than the content on the topic in the parent article.
 * See also above, , and  where diverse options regarding a separate article on the sexuality topic have already been discussed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Whatever the outcome of this RfC regarding whether a section on sexuality should be included here and if so, what it should contain, the stand-alone article on this topic should be judged by its own merit. A merge could be considered, yes, or an AFD. What should not happen is 'stealthy/sneaky deletion' by blanking and redirecting. There is no justification for such action in the Deletion policy. If anyone thinks such a subarticle should not exist, AfD is the way. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I agree that a stand-alone article on this topic should be judged by its own merit, and indeed I think User:Robert McClenon has, unintentionally I'm sure, been muddying the waters about that at WP:ANRFC. That being said and done I agree with what seems to be the emerging, but very strong, consensus about the stand-alone article: not now (and for the current majority there is even a clear: not ever). Split options have been discussed in the RfC (by you, and others, including myself). The RfC's closer can leave that unmentioned (mentioned by less than a handful participants afaics), they can say something along the lines of "no prejudice against pursuing a stand-alone article option", or they can say something along the lines of such option not being desirable. I don't know: that is their task. But reviving the separate article against the current consensus not to have it, at least until it is known whether the RfC closure report says anything about it seems, to say the least, inopportune. I'd invite you to self-revert your revival of the separate article for the time being, and try to convince your fellow editors here of the desirability of such article, if you think you have a strong case for it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am not even invested in this discussion much, but I don't think an RfC here has any power to determine whether another article can or cannot be created. The fate of another article should be decided at AfD. If the AfD results in 'delete and salt', so be it. But an RfC here has no right to be used as a substitute, an RfC is not an option allowed for by the Deletion policy. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree the Moran article is a very thoughtful treatment of the subject, and it reflects a deep understanding of how nonsensical is all the recent speculation, including, sadly, Piza's little bit. But the implication of Moran's article is that this matter should be omitted entirely. If the speculation were widespread and significant, Moran's article would provide NPOV context. However I don't see that informed or scholarly thought has ever put significant weight on these speculations. SPECIFICO talk 21:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I read the Moran article, and frankly, it made me smile. It made me think of 19th century tourist guides to gay life: these tourist guides were written in a disapproving voice, listing all the places where a decent man shouldn't go. But the readers of the covert "guide" were, if they were of the inclination, informed and knew exactly where to go. In a similar approach, Moran says all the sensational facts about Caravaggio and many others aren't worth to be considered... but these allusions are listed nonetheless. The Guardian article: despised... but nonetheless linked to, etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. Where can we see one of these tourist guides. Maybe Vienna or Zurich? SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support merge/redirection. Spin-off is a classic WP:POV fork giving the matter a WP:FALSEBALANCE and, regardless of intent, has the effect of evading the above RfC which is clearly intended to be about how the matter is to be discussed on Wikipedia and cannot be wikilawyered to only apply to one article. There is nothing encyclopedic or worthwhile to say beyond what is being decided up there; any more is inherently WP:Undue weight no matter the title it's parked under. I don't see that this passes WP:GNG as a topic, and even if it did, WP:No page applies because the WP:NPOV/due weight policy supersedes the general notability guideline. Crossroads -talk- 05:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Crossroads' reasoning above. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * All content on "Sexuality [and Chopin]" is this topic is already present in the WP:FA and its talk page, so there is no content to be merged at the moment. (If new content was added, while the RfC was still being discussed, that was a WP:POVFORK with no WP:consensus: see below.) In comparison, content on "Sexuality of Pyotr Illyich Tchaikovsky" already appears as a redirect to the section "Personal life" of the article on Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky.


 * User:Robert McClenon has already pointed out on the closure request that the RfC has been compromised and that there has been an attempt to WP:GAME the system (he used the term "end run"). He has suggested that matters could be taken up at WP:AN. Wikiawyering has continued on that closure request and in this section.


 * Prompted by my comments about Michael Moran's posting, User:Smerus, the main editor to promote this article to FA, has commented positively on that posting, but not in a cynical or trolling way. However, Smerus has pointed out that that content should only considered after the RfC. Mathsci (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

"Sexuality of Frédéric Chopin" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sexuality of Frédéric Chopin. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 27 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , The discussion has been procedurally closed as RfD is not AfD. As the closer comments there indicate, AfD is the right place to determine whether an article should exist. RfD is not the right place for such a discussion, and neither is the RfC here a correct venue. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Piotrus - That isn't what User:Thryduulf said in the procedural close, but I accept the procedural close as a reasonable step. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would have used AFD if the article had been an article or a stub. I can't nominate an article for deletion when the article has already been cut down to a redirect.  And that isn't what the closer said.  But it is what you say.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , My preferred best outcome would be to restore one of the article versions and AfD the article. I was going to do it myself but I was accused of edit warring, so I didn't feel like restoring the article (which would be pre-requisite of AfDing it). And I clearly can't do it now due to the protection. Again, I'd suggest to the closer of the RfC here to do just that (deprotect, restore, AfD). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In my view as RfD closer, no changes should be made to what is presently the redirect until after the RFC is closed. What should happen then will be determined, at least in part, by what the outcome of the RFC actually is. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, Thryduulf, I think the section Sexuality of Frédéric Chopin should (have) be(en) discussed by an independent jury before beeing protected. Since as it is now, it doesn‘t really reflect the actual discourse and it doesn‘t reflect many of the main points that have been discussed here intensively. (translation questions etc.) Moreover, it now contains unproved allegations like that one about Sand and Chopin.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * the full protection applies only to the redirect, which (like all redirects) contains no content at all. The content is in the section of the article, which is only semi-protected so you can edit it. I would suggest discussing specific issues before editing though as it is controversial. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * re "... the section of the article, which is only semi-protected so you can edit it" – deceptive: as long as the RfC is running, its initiator asked to not edit the section (nor other content on the topic elsewhere in the composer's article). If I recall correctly Chip-chip-2020 was more or less summoned to self-revert some edits to the section for that reason. When the RfC finishes, whatever solution comes out of it will be implemented, and that will mean that editing the content on this topic after the RfC would most likely be reverted to the version that came out of the RfC, unless there is a very strong prior talk page consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I was intending only to note that the comment was technically incorrect. My only involvement here has been procedurally closing the RfD and fully protecting the redirect, both pending the outcome of the RFC. I've taken no action with regards to the article, and I have no interest in doing so or of becoming involved in any other way. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Retitle the article's "Sexuality" section to "Emotional life"
It has been 2 1/2 months since user:Chip-chip-2020, on 17 November 2020, started this whole discussion, ostensibly of Chopin's sexual orientation, with his reference to "discoveries" made by journalist Moritz Weber at Swiss Radio and Television – "discoveries" which were subsequently mirrored in The Guardian and elsewhere.

Weber's allegations, resting on a few passages in letters from a teen Chopin to his slightly older former schoolmate Tytus Woyciechowski, hinged on two things. One was that Chopin refers in one letter to an "ideał" (Polish for an "ideal" – here used in the Polish idiomatic sense of "a person of one's dreams") – a noun that, in Polish, carries a male grammatical gender. This does not mean that Chopin's "ideał" (the person of his infatuation) had to be male. If Chopin is using the noun in reference to a female, the noun will still be spelled exactly the same way; and subsequent pronouns and adjectives modifying "ideał" would perforce likewise take the male grammatical forms. All serious translators and interpreters of Chopin's letter have ascribed his infatuation to a female – to the 16-year-old soprano, Konstancja Gładkowska.

The other leg of Weber's argument relates to several brief passages in a couple of letters that read to us as endearments – as when, writing to Tytus, now living 300 kilometers from Chopin and Warsaw, the composer asks Tytus to kiss him, then says he knows Tytus will not, even if Chopin were to pour "Byzantine oils" on himself. The fact that Chopin acknowledges that Tytus would not kiss him should reassure readers of Chopin's mail as to Tytus' heterosexuality (which is confirmed by his lsubsequent life). But how, in fact, are we to interpret Chopin's exotic "Byzantine" reference? Could it be a joking allusion to some literary or operatic work? Might not, for example, Lady Macbeth's lament serve as a literary analogy, when she says, "All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand."

A quarter-century before Chopin wrote those letters of his, the last words of Admiral Horatio Nelson – as he lay mortally wounded at the Battle of Trafalgar – uttered to one of his male officers, were "Kiss me, Hardy." Hardy obliged. Are we therefore to impute homosexuality as well to the victor of Trafalgar – who was also famously the illicit lover of Lady Hamilton? I think not. I have never heard such a suggestion.

The fact is, we seem to know nothing of Chopin's sex life, apart from a liaison with the French female writer George Sand – which she described as having been brief. And a Chopin Institute spokesperson has described Chopin as having been extremely discreet about his sex life, so that essentially nothing can be said about it.

Nor does our "Chopin" article's "Sexuality" section tell us more on the subject. What it essentially discusses is some aspects of the reception of his musical compositions. Its content would therefore be best moved to the "Reception and influence" section.

If more information is desired on Chopin's emotional life, perhaps it can be found. One starting point might be to restore – immediately after "I curse the moment of my departure", in the final paragraph of the "Travel and domestic success" section – the paragraph:

"When in September 1831 Chopin learned, on his way from Vienna to Paris, that the uprising had been crushed – writes Jachimecki – Chopin poured 'profanities and blasphemies, resembling the final verses of Konrad's improvisation,' in his native Polish into the pages of a little journal that he kept secret to the end of his life. He expressed fear for the safety of his family and other civilians, especially womenfolk at risk of outrages by Russian troops; mourned the death of 'kindly [General] Sowiński' (to whose wife he had dedicated a composition); damned the French for not having come to the aid of the Poles; and expressed dismay that God had let the Russians crush the Polish insurgents – 'or are you [God] yourself a Russian?' Jachimecki ascribes to Chopin's emotional experiences at this time the composer's maturing 'into an inspired national bard who intuited the past, present, and future of his native Poland.' Chopin's cris de coeur would find musical expression in his Scherzo in B minor, Op. 20, and in his 'Revolutionary Étude', in C minor, Op. 10, No. 12."

Nihil novi (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Let's wait for ther RfC to close and we can then more confidently make appropriate decisions on that basis.--Smerus (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hôtel Baudard de Saint-James
I recently included the Hôtel Baudard de Saint-James as the location of Chopin's death. Is this accurate? Thriley (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thriley, what was your source? Did you find it in Zamoyski's book, on p. 288, as the reference – as it now stands – implies?
 * Nihil novi (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 12 Place Vendôme is the address of that particular building. There is also a plaque on it commemorating his death:Plaque Frédéric Chopin, 12 place Vendôme, Paris 1.jpg Thriley (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Thriley!
 * I've added the photo of the plaque (and a photo of the Hôtel Baudard de Saint-James) to a gallery at the "Memorials to Frédéric Chopin" article.
 * I've also added a link to that article from the "Chopin" "See also" section.
 * I remember previously seeing a photo of the Hôtel Baudard de Saint-James, described as the place of Chopin's death.
 * I think your addition of the Hôtels name to the Chopin "Death" section can be left in place where you put it. I've added a note there referring readers to the "Memorials" article.
 * Thanks!
 * Best, Nihil novi (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)