Talk:Frédéric Chopin/Archive 9

Lamest edit wars
To give this discussion its proper place in history, I have entered Frédéric Chopin under "ethnic and national feuds" in  Lamest edit wars. There, the Polish, French, Polish-French, or French-Polish composer meets Ányos Jedlik, Freddie Mercury, Ivana Miličević, Jennifer Aniston, Nicolaus Copernicus, Nikola Tesla, Raven Riley, Werner Herzog, Milla Jovovich, John Logie Baird, Orpheus and The Spy. Chopin (Szopen, Choppen) joins the growing ranks of people whose nationality/citizenship/ethnicity are subject of spirited debate. (Disclosure: The author has "no dog in this hunt" as his American friends would say.) --BsBsBs (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this most edifying link! The debate over Frédéric Chopin, that pure-Frenchman-at-birth — courtesy of a civil code that had been promulgated by another Frenchman, Napoleone di Buonaparte — who (Chopin) never mastered the French language and perversely composed Poland's most Polish music, reminds me of Chopin's friend and compatriot (at least, Poles claim that they were compatriots — but what do they know?), Adam Mickiewicz — the "Belarusian poet who wrote about Lithuania in Polish"!  —  Nihil novi (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It reminds me of Anthony Sawoniuk. He was born in Poland to a Polish mother but his father was of unknown nationality (and not married to his mother). However, Poles tend to claim that the bloke was actually Belarussian, probably because he was convicted by a British court of taking part in the holocaust. Then there is also Bronislaw Kaminski, Polish father and a German mother (i.e. identical to Copernicus, provided we buy into the argument that Copernicus' father was Polish) but to Poles Kaminski is Russian. And Feliks Dzierżyński, two Polish parents, born into Polish aristocracy, went to school with Piłsudski but is not in the slightest bit Polish say many Poles. Varsovian (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of Leopold Godowsky, about whom the following words have stood the test of time for the past few years: "... was born to Jewish parents in Żośle, near Wilno, in what was then Russian territory but is now part of Lithuania. He considered himself of Polish heritage. He became a naturalised American. He is therefore now considered to be "Polish-American."" --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   13:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting how anyone who immigrated to the United States & became a US citizen is not denied the "Country of Birth-American" appellation, such as the one given above by Jack of Oz, or to
 * Arthur Rubinstein: "... was a Polish-American pianist.",
 * Einstein: "Jewish German-born Swiss-American", and helvético-américain in French wiki, or
 * Werner von Braun: "a German-American rocket scientist, astronautics engineer and space architect...",
 * Gerard Béhague: "... (born in France, died in Texas)... was an eminent Franco-American ethnomusicologist ",
 * easier to check this: "Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States" here;
 * but the same logic cannot be applied to Frédéric Chopin who was Polish-French from birth. Had Chopin immigrated to the US, the English language American created Wikipedia would call him "Polish-American" and the Polish Cavalry would have a h... of a time fighting the Yankees on that one!
 * --Frania W. (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"Chopin was a Polish composer and virtuoso pianist who also had French citizenship"
That's my proposal. Actually it would be the best to leave just Polish since the article already extensively discusses Chopin's French citizenship but ok. I think this proposal should satisfy even the most ardent editors who push the "French" thing in this discussion. Dr. Loosmark 19:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason (other than Polish nationalism) why the article should not mention the nation into which Chopin was born a citizen and of which his parents were both citizens before he was born? Varsovian (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

World View or Polish View?
Following the nationality thread discussion at the WikiProject Poland page I thought it might be salutary to bring this link to this page (second paragraph on). Dr. Dan (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Novickas gave us that link to Norman Davies' God's Playground, vol. 2, p. 20, at WikiProject Poland.
 * What one thinks may depend on which Briton one wishes to believe. Chopin's English biographer Arthur Hedley, quoted in our article's "Nationalism" section, writes in Encyclopaedia Britannica that Chopin "found within himself and in the tragic story of Poland the chief sources of his inspiration. The theme of Poland's glories and sufferings was constantly before him, and he transmuted the primitive rhythms and melodies of his youth into enduring art forms." Nihil novi (talk) 05:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nihil, would that be the same Encyclopaedia Britannica that calls Chopin "French-Polish" (or was it Polish-French)? Which Briton, got it right, the historian that has delved into Polish history and the psyche of the Poles over the millennia, or the Briton, the musicologist, who wrote a biography about Chopin, and felt that the cigar smoking, combat boot wearing, "partner" of Chopin, George Sand, got it right? Where do you stand on this question? And why? Dr. Dan (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

...considered to be...
Why is Chopin within a few lines "considered to have been..." or "considered to be..." and not "was"?
 * "... is considered to have been one of the great masters of Romantic music."
 * "was considered a child-prodigy pianist." (twice in the text)

while, the three following are nowhere "considered to be...", but emphatically "are": Arthur Rubinstein "by the age of four was already recognised as a child prodigy."
 * Mozart "... is among the most enduringly popular of classical composers."
 * Beethoven "... was a crucial figure in the transitional period between the Classical and Romantic eras in Western classical music, and remains one of the most acclaimed and influential composers of all time."

Removing the "considered to be" out of article, as Chopin:
 * was a child-prodigy pianist
 * was one of the great masters of Romantic music.

--Frania W. (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent observation, Frania! Wholeheartedly agree with your edits and rationale. Hopefully, it won't be challenged as unacceptable. Like as in the sun rises in the east and sets in the west . Dr. Dan (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC):
 * Dr. Dan: which could be challenged by someone standing on his head on either the North Pole or the South Pole at time when either Pole is in 24/24 darkness.
 * RE the Sun article: the information given in the first paragraph of the lead, referring readers to a couple of scientific journals, is not being questioned while no one (not even the authors of the articles published in scientific journals) has ever gone with converted-to-metric-system yardstick & scale and measured its "diameter" of about 1,392,000 kilometers (865,000 mi) (about 109 Earths)," its "mass" of (about 2 × 1030 kilograms, 330,000 times that of Earth) and the fact that about three-quarters of its mass "consists of hydrogen, while the rest is mostly helium", and that less than 2% consists of other elements, including iron, oxygen, carbon, neon, and others." That's a lot of information thrown at us that we must take for granted. In spite of the respect due these learned men (I love astronomy & astrophysics and check daily NASA picture of the day ), I do put more trust in the Code Napoléon describing the French nationality of Frédéric François Chopin, which allowed him to get a French passport, than in the statement: "The Sun is currently traveling through the Local Interstellar Cloud in the Local Bubble zone, within the inner rim of the Orion Arm of the Milky Way galaxy" - sans passport.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Too many images?
Since a link to the Commons is already present, may we remove some of the images here? &mdash; La Pianista  ♫ ♪ 16:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

George Sand facing wrong direction
I moved this image to the left as having it on the right makes George Sand look toward the outside of the frame of the article - a "no-no" in publishing.


 * right: wrong
 * left: correct

In fact, why not have Delacroix' painting in its entirety instead of having two halves?

--Frania W. (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)






 * Bonjour, c'est une excellente question. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The painting has been cut in two: Chopin is at the Louvre & Sand at the Ordrupgaard museum in Copenhagen.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 05:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

George Sand sewing
I have been looking for hours for a source saying that George Sand was sewing while listening to Chopin at the piano. It does look as if she is but... enlarging the picture, it is hard to see what is in her left hand, whether she is holding a needle or something else, if anything. Also, it is doubtful that she would be holding a needle with her left hand since she was right-handed.

I may be mistaken, but believe it is worth looking into; in the meantime, "sewing" should be removed from the caption under the picture, unless Nihil novi can show us otherwise.

Beside, "Sand sewing—the rest of Delacroix's dismembered joint portrait" does sound weird since half of the painting is in Paris & the other half in Copenhagen. --Frania W. (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity, what do you think she is doing? Dr. Loosmark  17:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * She's throwing up gang signs, obviously.radek (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it does look as if she is sewing but, if so, she has a strange way of holding the piece of material she would be working on. She could also be holding a cigarette, not to say a... joint ! Try enlarging the picture & tell me what you see.  Moi, je vois de la fumée.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Possible, but it seems a weird way of holding a cigarette. Dr. Loosmark  18:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not at all, I have often seen cigarettes being held "inside" the hand. However, this painting being only an ébauche, it is hard to tell what is in her hand and, unless we have something to fall back on, Wikipedia should not première "sewing" in the caption of this painting.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This only source I can find on G. Sand sewing in this painting is here - a wiki link to the Delacroix sketch done for the painting.
 * G. Sand sewing is mentioned in several sources, this one in particular
 * --Frania W. (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well now. Holding a joint (probably the best one so far), gang signs, sewing, blah, blah, blah. Frania, I'm curious how you know that she was right-handed? And guys, what gang did she belong to? One thing we do know is she enjoyed chomping on a cigar and wearing men's clothing. According to Davies she was a devoted companion to a delicate, neurotic, piano playing "bachelor" (who never married). Honestly, I think a séance with Lady Catherine is probably the only way this one is going to be resolved. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha, Dr. Dan! Je savais que la fumée vous ferait sortir de votre terrier !!!
 * Il a fait. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I probably have to review a few things that I said.
 * Primo: she sewed a lot, she loved to, she made the clothes for the marionnettes & the costumes of her theater at home in Nohant.
 * Secundo: One of her letters, (to Chopin I believe, I cannot find in which book I read it), she wrote with her left hand, commenting that she was trying to learn to write with her left hand in case she found it impossible one day to write with her right one - one never knows - from which I concluded that she was right-handed. However, it has only been for a couple of generations that left-handed individuals have been allowed to write with their left hand: they used to be forced to write with their right hand, while they would do everything else with their left hand. An old cousin of mine wrote with her right hand, but sewed & did everything else with the left. If this was the case for G. Sand, then in that "ébauche" she could be sewing, although holding the piece of material in a weird way.
 * Tertio: She smoked only cigars.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Photographs > Paintings!
Since when are romanticised portraits more important than actual photographs? Thankfully we have at least two and the earlier one would be most appropriate at the head of the article. This was the typical face of the man people personally recognised at the time. Oh and I am also heavily against calling him Polish solely in any context. Polish-French or something, not just Polish. Personally, in the grand scheme of things I would refer to him as French only but this is a different story. Cloak' 20:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You raise a good point about the image in the lead. There are really two questions here: Is a photo always perferable to a painting? Should the page header show an image of the subject at his peak, or when he was on death's door?  There are two photos of Chopin (one of which is a daguerreotype, IIRC).  The earlier one is heavily worn and faded.  The latter one was taken toward the end of Chopin's life when, frankly, he looked like Hell.  (To use another example, look at the page for Franklin D. Roosevelt.  The photo used in the lead was taken in the 1930s.  Even though photography had avdanced by 1945, and there are color photos of him, the older photo is used because most people, subjectively, would say that he looked better in the older photo - it's also very well composed.)  So, none of the photos of Chopin is ideal for the lead.  The Chopin painting is obviously as seen through the eyes of the artist, but going by the photgraphic evidence, is a reasonably accurate portrayal of what he looked like when he was relatively healthy.  Besides, the other images are elsewhere on the page and easily viewable on Wikimedia.  As for the Polish v. French thing: been there, done that, not going there again.THD3 (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent points, THD3. I've often also noticed that if someone has a negative opinion about a particular subject, and believes their image to be too flattering, be it a painting or a photograph, they will replace it with a more negative one reflecting their POV. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about Dr Dan? Chopin's my favourite composer. It's an injustice to give our composers inaccurate images at the article's opening, surely. Look at the article for Charles-Valentin Alkan. The real man is in the forefront, while a typically inaccurate romantic portrait is sitting in the middle of the article. I just want the real Chopin to be seen, what is there to hide?  Cloak'  16:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus at Wikipedia that states that photographs are preferable to paintings, or vice versa. I would also add that just because one article has something one way, it doesn't automatically create precedent (terrible photo of Alkan, by the way).THD3 (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have just reverted an edit by an anon user and reinstated the Wodzinska painting as the lead image. In addition to the very scratched, faded quality of the 1846-47 daguerreotype, the image is left/right flipped, as are all daguerreotypes.THD3 (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"French-Polish parentage"
I've never read an article in which a person is described as having a mixed national parentage in such a way. Chopin's father may have been French but he immigrated to Poland, and as the article later notes he never taught his children the French language. One could be tempted to conclude that such a phrase was included by someone unwilling to fully acknowledge Chopin's Polishness.Atwardow (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) "Chopin's father immigrated to Poland, but never lost his French nationality. Besides, where has anyone seen that he became a Polish citizen? On Chopin's baptismal registration - April 1810, twenty-three years after Nicolas Chopin had immigrated to Poland -, it is inscribed in Latin that his father was "French".
 * 2) Where did you see that Nicolas Chopin, a Frenchman who immigrated to Poland and was a professor of French in a lyceum in Warsaw, did not teach French to his children or did not use his native language to converse with his children at home? Why is it that Frédéric Chopin's sister Ludwika, who never lived in France except for a couple of trips to visit her brother, could write in French to George Sand when they wrote to each other, French being the only language the two could use since George Sand did not know a single word of Polish? And besides, all the letters Nicolas Chopin addressed to his son after the latter went to France were only in French, not a single one was written in Polish. Did Frédéric & Ludwika become fluent in French the second they crossed the border into France? I wish it was that easy to learn a foreign language!
 * 3) No one is denying Chopin's "Polishness" by stating that he was of "French-Polish parentage" - "Polishness" does not mean "Polish nationality" -, but no one can deny that his father was a French national, who was born in France, with members of his family who remained in France as he was the only one to have left the country; so what is strange in saying that Chopin was of "French-Polish" parentage when, on top of that, according to the Code Napoléon in effect in the Duchy of Warsaw at the time of his birth, he was a dual national - a double whammy. And the fact that Chopin had a French father makes it more than correct to say that he was of "French-Polish parentage" without taking anything from his "Polishness".


 * Why is it that some people cannot accept the fact that French blood ran through Frédéric Chopin's veins? "Chopin" is not exactly a Polish name... Maria Wodzińska put it so well in a letter she wrote to him in French from Dresden in September 1835:
 * "Nous ne cessons de regretter que vous ne vous appeliez pas « Chopinski », ou qu'il n'y ait pas d'autres marques que vous êtes Polonais, car de cette manière les Français ne pourraient nous disputer la gloire d'être vos compatriotes."


 * Maria must have had a premonition!
 * --Frania W. (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, Monsieur Chopin "emigrated" to Poland from France. He did not "immigrate" there. Thank you. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Forget it. Wikipedia is truly a joke.Atwardow (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Chopin was undeniably Polish, not French in any way, shape, or form. Atwardow (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Atwardow, whether or not Wikipedia is a joke, or becomes one, remains to be seen. Personally, I don't agree, but in the meantime we can all strive to correct grammatical mistakes and spelling errors. Thank you however, for your insight and opinion regarding Chopin's (Szopen's) origins. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

We've been through all this before - a significant-ish minority of sources even describe Chopin as Polish-French, so the description "Polish ... of French-Polish parentage", or something like that, represents fairly what sources say about him as regards nationality. I also once suggested "Polish (sometimes described as Polish-French)", but I think the parentage wording is neater and more informative.--Kotniski (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The whole Polish thing is honestly so shallow. His father was French. He spent his adult life in France... He never went back to precious Poland. He spoke with a put-on Polish inflection on his voice and spoke continuously of some idealised Poland that he never again visited (and he could have visited easily, Russians and this and that aside). His greatest works have nothing to do with Poland whatsoever although if you try hard enough you can find anything (Polish folksong, Singing in Polish cathedrals blah blah). The fact he had this whole complex about his upbringing and kept forcing it upon everyone he met made the Polish leap to claim them as their composer but you would be hard-pressed to find anything Polish in his music as I said earlier. The forced mazurkas and polonaises are far and away my least favourite pieces which is a sentiment shared by many and he certainly kept a precious ring given to him by the evil Russians constantly warring with poor Poland. He didn't destroy it or throw it away but kept it with pride.
 * My point is that I find it ridiculous to see a factual article on Chopin begin with POLISH POLISH POLISH POLISH unfortunate french descent POLISH POLISH POLISH. Of course, it's totally anti-Polish to even mention the fact he wasn't absolutely Polish so I have to stop.   Cloak'  01:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Your post, Cloak, reeks of unbelievably hostile bigotry. I think that one would be very hard-pressed to find someone discuss an article on a Jewish person or an African-American person and find references to "the whole Jewish" thing or statements such as "he never went back to precious Africa" or something like that. I don't know why it's acceptable for you, Cloak, to use such offensive language about Poland, especially during a discussion about a person whom Poles proudly regard as a countryman and a national hero. I think that if you, Cloak, spent even a minute's time studying Chopin's letters or what his contemporaries said about him (Liszt especially) you would find that Chopin's Polish identity was an important part of who he was as a composer and as a private man. "His father was French." That doesn't mean anything. His mother was Polish. His father moved to Poland at the age of 16, lived his whole life there, fought under Kosciuszko's uprising and died in Poland. Besides, the fact that his father was born in France has nothing to do with Frederic's identity. "He spent his adult life in France...He never went back to precious Poland." Again, spend some time studying the history of 19th century Europe. Read about the political turmoil in Warsaw at the time and why it wasn't possible for Chopin to remain in the city of his youth and education anymore. Saying that he could have "easily" visited is nonsensical and shows you probably have no knowledge about his life. Does sending his heart back to Warsaw after his death count as an empty gesture, Cloak?

The joke that is your credibility is fully exposed when you delve into your shallow comments on Chopin's mazurkas and polonaises, which you say are "forced" (whatever that means). Your highly uninformed opinion about his music has nothing to do with this discussion and shows that the people who try to portray Chopin as French are motivated by undeniable bad will. What exactly do you mean that "his greatest works have nothing to do with Poland whatsoever"? Did you know, Cloak, that both of Chopin's piano concertos were composed and premiered in Warsaw? Does that make them French, or not Polish? What do you think about the fact that Chopin was educated at a music conservatory in Warsaw? Do those facts all make him French?

Your comment about Chopin's "put-on Polish inflection" reveals how the people who keep undoing fact-based edits that better express Chopin's Polish identity are bent on rewriting history and advancing their French nationalism. Chopin was in his 20s when he left Poland. What on earth do you mean that he spoke with a "put-on" inflection? It's very difficult for a person of such age to lose the accent of his childhood and early adulthood. What do you think about the fact that Chopin was heavily involved with Paris's Polish community? That one of his last concerts in Scotland was for Polish expatriates? Are those gestures meaningless?

If the administrators of Wikipedia see Cloak's comment and still conclude that the constant undoings of my and other's edits to reflect Chopin's Polishness is inspired by good will, then this article's objectivity can seriously be called into question. Cloak is a vicious bigot and ought to apologize for his insensitive and offensive remarks.Atwardow (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe Cloak's outburst was due to exasperation at having the truth about Chopin being reverted.
 * If Chopin had nothing to do with anything French, why did he have a French last name? Why didn't he father change it to "Chopinski"?
 * Again, and here we are not talking about Chopin's feeling of "Polishness", Chopin was a dual-national Polish-French, which, I'll have you note, has not been mentioned in lead, where he is put down as only "Polish" - because we are quite aware of the fact that talking about the nationality of Frédéric Chopin is like walking on eggs.
 * According to the 'Code Napoléon, Frédéric Chopin was a French national at birth because his father was French. Born a French national, Nicolas Chopin never lost his French nationality and passed it on to Frédéric.
 * Removing "of French parentage" amounts to willfully scratching an historical fact off the page of an encyclopedia.
 * Please, let's not have another edit war. All on this has been said before. Go & read the archived discussions. Do us this favor.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Do us this favor." I beg your forgiveness. I promise that I will never interfere with your personal private property ever again. Atwardow (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Maybe Cloak's outburst was due to exasperation..." Blah. You click of French bigots are insulting. "Chopinski?" What is that? Not every Polish last name ends in "ski," that's an offensive and totally ignorant suggestion. I suppose that the French nationalists will just have to have their way, there's no point in arguing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atwardow (talk • contribs) 04:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I beg your pardon; I did not originate the "Chopinski" affair, Maria Wodzińska did! Here is what I wrote above a few days ago:
 * Why is it that some people cannot accept the fact that French blood ran through Frédéric Chopin's veins? "Chopin" is not exactly a Polish name... Maria Wodzińska put it so well in a letter she wrote to him in French from Dresden in September 1835:
 * "Nous ne cessons de regretter que vous ne vous appeliez pas « Chopinski », ou qu'il n'y ait pas d'autres marques que vous êtes Polonais, car de cette manière les Français ne pourraient nous disputer la gloire d'être vos compatriotes."
 * Was Maria Wodzińska a "bigot"? Not only did she write "Chopinski", but she wrote the letter to Frédéric Chopin in French !
 * --Frania W. (talk) 04:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and this little excerpt translates: "We continue to regret that you do not call it "Chopinski, or that no other brands that you are Polish, because that way the French could not dispute with us the glory of your compatriots '." This suggestion from Maria Wodzinska was simply a recognition that looking at Chopin as something other than Polish was nonsensical and intolerable, which is why she made the comment. So actually Maria Wodzinska favors truth's side, not your (meaning the clique of Francophiles) side.Atwardow (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

And who cares if it was written in French? Guess what, the lingua franca of the day was French and educated people corresponded in French. Pointing out that Maria Wodzinska wrote a letter in French means nothing. Have you ever read the book "Chopin's Poland"? Read all the letters he wrote in POLISH! Atwardow (talk) 05:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

From the article:

Benita Eisler, Chopin's Funeral, Abacus, 2004, p. 29: "Language was another matter, rooted in anxiety passed from father to son. A foreigner concerned with shrouding his origins and proving his Polishness, Nicolas was as cautious as a spy dropped behind enemy lines; he never seems to have mentioned his French family to his Polish children. French was the lingua franca of the nobility and the subject Nicolas taught to others' sons—but not to his own.... Consequently Fryderyk's grasp of French grammar and spelling would always remain shaky. Surprising for one blessed with an extraordinary 'ear' and famed from earliest childhood as an extraordinary mimic, his pronunciation, too, was poor. More telling was his own unease in his adopted tongue: half-French, living in Paris, the paradise of expatriates, Chopin would always feel twice exiled—from his country and from his language. Imprisoned by foreign words, the expressive power of his music unbound him." --Atwardow (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) If Maria Wodzińska wrote to Frédéric Chopin in French, it is because she knew that he could read French.
 * 2) My previous answer to you bringing out Maria Wodzińska's "Chopinski" was to show you that the French clique did not originate the "ski" suffix, nor did Frania Wisniewska, but that Maria Wodzińska did.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 05:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually enjoy what the French article on Chopin has to say about Chopin's nationality.

De son vivant, que Chopin soit polonais est un fait incontestable ; non seulement pour le musicien7, mais aussi pour son entourage. Ses compatriotes parlent de lui comme du compositeur national polonais8. Ces amis internationaux agissent de même. Balzac écrit à propos de Liszt et de Chopin : « Le hongrois est un démon, le polonais un ange »9, Liszt parle de l'« artiste polonais »10. Chopin a passé les vingt premières années de sa vie en Pologne. A son époque, cet élément est suffisant pour lui assurer une identité polonaise11, quitter la Pologne à l'âge de 20 ans et ne plus jamais y retourner ne modifie pas la donne. Cependant, cette identité n'est pas uniquement la conséquence d'une jeunesse en Pologne et d'une convention sociale. Non seulement « Chopin, en Pologne s'est construit polonais »12, mais le musicien revendique fréquemment son allégeance à ce pays. En 1830, la Pologne est envahie par la Russie, qui mène une politique de répression et de russification du pays. Cette oppression est ressentie par le musicien, comme : « la pathétique signification d'un tourment inguérissable et d'une blessure à jamais ouverte »13. Ce patriotisme douloureux chez Chopin se traduit dans sa musique14. Si cette dimension d'exilé du musicien sarmate15, fréquemment narrée par les biographes du passé, est reprise par les musicologues contemporains, elle est néanmoins interprétée différemment. Pour Eigeldinger, elle est maintenant comprise comme une nostalgie typiquement slave, une sensibilité culturelle, qui dépasse la contingence politique16. Pour Liszt, Chopin : « pourra être rangé au nombre des premiers musiciens qui aient aussi individualisé en eux le sens poétique d'une nation »17.

Yes, I did just throw it into Google translate but here's the translation:

During his lifetime, Chopin is Polish is an indisputable fact, not only for musicien7, but also for his entourage. His countrymen speak of him as the national composer polonais8. These international friends do the same. Balzac wrote of Liszt and Chopin: "The Hungarian is a demon, an angel Polish" 9 Liszt speaks of the "Polish artist 10. Chopin spent the first twenty years of his life in Poland. In his time, this element is sufficient to ensure identity polonaise11, leaving Poland at the age of 20 years and never return does not change the situation. However, this identity is not solely the consequence of a youth in Poland and a social convention. Not only "Chopin, Poland has been built in Poland" 12, but the musician frequently claimed allegiance to this country. In 1830, Poland was invaded by Russia, which has a policy of repression and Russification of the country. This oppression is felt by the musician as "the pathetic service of torment and incurable wound forever open 13. This patriotism is reflected in Chopin painful in its musique14. If this dimension of exiled musician sarmate15, often narrated by the biographers of the past is echoed by contemporary musicologists, it is nevertheless interpreted differently. For Eigeldinger, it is now understood as a typical Slavic nostalgia, cultural sensitivity, which exceeds the contingency politique16. For Liszt, Chopin, "may be ranked among the first musicians who also have individual poetic their sense of a nation 17.

I think that the French speakers have it right. --Atwardow (talk) 05:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As one of the "French speakers" who has contributed heavily to Chopin's article & epic discussions in fr:wiki that made possible a wording that would offend no one, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for the compliment.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * An interesting quote from Chopin:
 * To his friend Tytus, in December 1831, only a few weeks after he had arrived in Paris: "Pleyel's pianos are the last word in perfection. Among Poles I see Kunasik, Morawski, Niemojowski, Lebewel and Plichta, besides a vast number of imbeciles..."
 * --Frania W. (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for posting a totally out-of-context quote that achieves basically nothing. --Atwardow (talk) 06:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's an interesting quote from music critic Camille Bellaique in 1840: "We aren't aware of another musician who was more patriotic than he. He is Polish in fact more than any Frenchman is French, or Italian is Italian, or German is German. He is nothing but a Pole, and from that destroyed, murdered Polish country his spirit arises as an immortal his spirit, his music. The heart of his country beats in his chest."

I'm sure you know that Cyprian Norwid was a Pole who lived in Paris as well. He said this about Chopin: "Rodem Warszawianin, sercem Polak, a talentem świata obywatel, Fryderyk Chopin zszedł z tego świata." Translated: A native of Warsaw, a Pole at heart and citizen of world talent, Chopin went from this world." Not entirely meaningless words, I'd say.--Atwardow (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, this discussion doesn't need to go on. I know that I'm not going to convince you of anything even though I am certain that I am correct. There is a unified front against Poles, but that's just symptomatic of the anti-Polonism that continues to exist in many sectors of society. I certainly admire the fact that the French article on Chopin acknowledges the importance of his Polish identity far better than this silly article does.
 * Please also note that the French article on Frédéric Chopin does not deny him his French background from the paternal side, which is what you want to do here.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, as a Pole I'll be the first to acknowledge the existence of Polish imbeciles. So I'm in total agreement with Chopin there. --Atwardow (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've read all notable books regarding Chopin in every way possible. I know everything one could possibly know about him from public sources in today's day and age. What a typical answer just to call me a bigot or something...you have no idea how credible I really am. Oh Admins help us! Cloak put a daguerreotype at the top! The entire article is too Polish by default by beginning with calling him a Polish composer only. Does anyone realize how asinine this all is not to just call him Polish-French as you would do with practically anybody else? Oh, but the difference here is that Chopin wanted to accentuate his Polishness in a wave of other French musicians....and please, the most offensive things being said on this page are clearly about this band of 'French bigots' you keep referring to.

Why not POLISH-FRENCH!? The Poles are clearly in charge of the article, and if you wanted to quell this debate somewhat you would change it from POLISH to POLISH-FRENCH rather than run around calling everyone bigots...I mean it's unbelievable. Oh yes, and now I hate Jews apparantly. The funny thing about that one is that Chopin himself called people he generally didn't like 'Jews'. Yes, I had to go there. Cloak' 13:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Atwardow, you gave the game away by saying "Forget it. Wikipedia is truly a joke. Chopin was undeniably Polish, not French in any way, shape, or form."
 * Your calling me a bigot for suggesting the slightest otherwise and pretty much asking an admin to just remove me from this whole debate is incredibly weak. I actually believed that was a sarcastic statement until you responded as someone surely would have in that manner. Cloak'  13:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I initially thought that there were several people responding but it's actually just the same user again and again. Well, there's clearly much less resistance than I expected! Cloak'  13:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

To Atwardow:

You seem to be missing the point: Chopin's Polishness and nationality are never questioned or denied; the first sentence of the lead reads "was a Polish composer and virtuoso pianist", going on to "of French-Polish parentage", which is nothing but the truth. The wording of that sentence was arrived at after lengthy debates.

Stating the facts as they are is not "just symptomatic of the anti-Polonism that continues to exist in many sectors of society" through a "unified front against Poles". If mentioning the fact that Frédéric Chopin's father was French is seen as "anti-Polonism", we have arrived at a sad state of affairs, and demanding that this very fact be crossed out of this article amounts to censorship.

Whether Frédéric Chopin was a French national or not, whether Nicolas Chopin became a Polish national & by doing so may have lost his French nationality (which would be only if he renounced it or had committed a crime against France itself), the fact remains that Nicolas was of 100 per cent French heritage, which makes his children of "French-Polish parentage".

Removing "of French-Polish parentage" from the article, amounts to denying Frédéric Chopin his "paternal bloodline".

Sawing off the French branches of his family tree amounts to denying Frédéric Chopin part of his identity.

Since you brought up the article in French wiki, please note that its redactors also chose to show his family tree up to his grandparents on both sides.

--Frania Wisniewska (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It's wonderful that the family tree is put up. However I simply think it's completely redundant to say that Chopin was of "French-Polish" parentage in the first paragraph and then note in the next paragraph again that Chopin's father was a French expatriate. Why mention it twice? It's simply not necessary. I would be more comfortable with either-or, as a matter of rhetorical simplicity.--Atwardow (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Now the entire introduction makes no reference to his being at all French. Are you slowly trying to rewrite history here? Cloak'  13:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How strange that Frédéric Chopin's "French-Polish parentage" and mention of his "father being French" (parentage and who your father is being two of the most important facts in someone's "being") are redundant in lead, and the object of unending discussions, while, in this very lead,
 * 1. with no concern about the fact that in the lengthy George Sand section, redundancy occurs, eleven words had to be added to French world-renowned novelist George Sand for fear readers would think she was a he:
 * "...from 1837 to 1847 he carried on a relationship with the French novelist Amantine Aurore Lucie Dupin, baronne Dudevant, better known by her pseudonym, George Sand."
 * 2. then further down in lead, ignoring another case of redundancy which appears at death section:
 * "For the greater part of his life, Chopin suffered from poor health. He died in Paris, aged 39, of what was diagnosed as pulmonary tuberculosis but has since been argued to have been cystic fibrosis ."
 * 3. in last paragraph of lead:
 * "The majority of Chopin's compositions were written for solo piano; all his extant works feature the piano in one way or another ."
 * (necessary to repeat so as not to mistake that solo instrument for a trumpet...)
 * --Frania W. (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not rewriting history. I objected to an unnecessary second mention of Chopin's father's French nationality as it is already discussed in the first paragraph of the lead and later on in the section on Chopin's childhood. No other article on a major composer devotes so much space in the introductory area to the nationality of the parents (in the article on Mozart, there is not even a mention of Mozart's father in the lead, and any person aware of musical history knows how important Leopold Mozart was to Wolfgang's development). I am of the personal opinion that including three mentions of Nicolas Chopin's French nationality (even though he moved to Poland at 16 and remained there the rest of his life) in the first eighth of the article is simply unnecessary. --Atwardow (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Atwardow,


 * Imagine turning the tables and comparing the argument given for :
 * Nicolas Chopin's supposed Polish nationality because he left France for Poland at the age of 16, never to return to his native country, becoming a Pole out of the clear blue sky, although he tried (never mentioned) to return twice to France before his marriage but could not make it because of sudden health problems, plus having all his professional activities in Poland turned to French teaching, writing poetry in French, etc. but, according to you, denying to himself his French origin & nationality, although his French nationality is mentioned in his son's baptismal register twenty-three years after his arrival in Poland;
 * with that of:
 * Frédéric Chopin, his son, who left Poland for France at the age of 20, with the help, blessing, recommendation & urging of his father Nicolas who begged him not to return home after the 29 November 1830 uprising, in spite of which some want to occult Frédéric Chopin French origin, and French nationality, which cannot be mentioned in any wiki article because it would be labeled "lèse-Poland" by the Poles who watch Wikipedia world-wide for articles on Frédéric Chopin.
 * You seem to ignore that, a couple of months after his arrival in Paris on 24 September 1831, Chopin's correspondence does not show him shedding tears over the fate of Poland, but rather broadcasting his excitement about Paris. To Alfons Kumelski in Berlin, he wrote, on 18 November 1831: "I reached Paris quite safely although it cost me a lot, and I am delighted with what I have found...", going on with description of Paris, his apartment & view from it. Subsequent letters from father, sister, friends & Chopin himself are nothing but on his good fortune at being in Paris. I would not dare ever attempt including such correspondence in this article on Frédéric Chopin, which amounts to self-censorship on my part. Chopin was a Pole who loved Poland, a fact that I would be the last one to deny; however, Chopin was a Franco-Pole who never attempted to go back to Poland, traveled on a French passport, lived the second half of his life in France, a country he also loved & described in beautiful words in many of his letters - whether he wrote them in Polish or in French.
 * Turning it around, just what his born-in-France father felt about Poland. From which we should conclude that the men Chopin, father & son, had two countries which they loved, France & Poland, or if you prefer, Poland & France.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Here, here! I still mean to fix up that earlier photo and stick it at the top though.  Cloak'  13:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's Hear, hear, and get consensus before you change the lead image.THD3 (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm clearly never going to get consensus when one person just dislikes photographs, one person insists that Chopin doesn't have any French in him whatsoever and any other way about it is bigotry, one person who just corrects people's spelling and grammar and one person who kind of agrees with me about Chopin's Frenchness. That's everyone. This image would be absolutely fine in the lead. I flipped it to correct way (compare his hair with the later photo) and cleaned up the area outside. I doubt this would be allowed of course but I can't see how this valuable photograph could be places below just another painting just because said painting perhaps looks prettier. Though saying such things implies I have a negative view of Chopin so I want to make him look bad, of course. And I'm sorry about the here here. Cloak'  18:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cloak, I have nothing against photographs - I've even contributed a few myself. I merely have stated that the two extant photographs of Chopin are of poor quality - the earlier due to the daguerreotype's decay (even with your fixes, it's still pretty cloudy), the other due to the subject's decay.  Further, the Wodzinska painting is far from "romanticized", it's a straightforward watercolor.  The Delacroix painting, now that's romanticized.THD3 (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cloak, I just did some experimenting. If you want your refurbished daguerreotype in the lead, it must be put at the upper left so that Chopin would be facing toward the text, not outside the article. That would allow keeping the painting on the right just where it is. However, I know of no article that begins with a portrait at upper left, or one on each side.
 * Another disadvantage is that it slightly enlarges the already huge blank space between the lead & Life section.
 * My personal opinion is that this dag should appear in its original form at time of life when taken, that is 1846.
 * Please go to article at "test", which I reverted immediately.
 * Cordialement, from "the one person who kind of agrees with you about Chopin's Frenchness',
 * --Frania W. (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good job & good luck, Cloak. Now, all you have to do is wait for the sky to fall on your head.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * With pleasure! I'll go down fighting. Cloak'  01:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Vous avez quelques heures de répit, la Pologne dort. --Frania W. (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Parlez-moi d'elle! Le silence... Cloak' 02:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly Frania we are wrong and they don't sleep. Cloak'  02:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"You have a few hours of respite, Poland sleeps." Very funny. That is certainly the kind of constructive cooperativism and openness that new Wikipedians such as myself have come to expect from a few established Wikipedians. Either way, I disagree with a number of points you bring up. The cases of Mikolaj's and Frederic's emigrations are not identical. There are several reasons why Mikolaj Chopin left for Poland and didn't return to France. The most important fact is that he never had to leave, which is different from Frederic's case as I'll mention soon. The closeness of Mikolaj's undeniably French family to Poland precedes his life. In the 1730s, following the War of Polish Succession, the exiled King Stanislaw Leszczynski was granted the Duchy of Lorraine by his son-in-law, King Louis XV. Stanislaw brought a sizable number of Poles with him to Lorraine, including to Marianville, and created a strong Polish environment in which Francois Chopin raised his son Mikolaj. In 1787, as violent revolution was unfolding in France, Count Jan Adam Wejdlich invited the 16-year-old Mikolaj to Poland. Indeed he came, learned Polish, volunteered for the Warsaw National Guard, and reached the rank of captain when he fought for Poland's independence in Kosciouszko's 1794 uprising. By this point, all correspondence with his French family had ended. Count Skarbek noted that Mikolaj "[had] become a Pole indeed." He taught French in Warsaw's academies to support his family because French, as the the lingua franca of Europe, was in high demand. This is different from some fluffy academic teaching Polish in southern China out of a love for Polish.

This is entirely different from the case of Frederic, who was performing in Vienna when Warsaw rose up in violent insurrection against the Russian occupiers. For Frederic's own safety and fearing the ramifications of the perilous political environment for him, Frederic's family persuaded him not to return to Warsaw to join the uprising. He wrote to Elsner "as an artist, I am in my cradle, as a Pole, I am already twenty." The following September, while in Stuttgart, he learned of the Russian suppression of the uprising and wrote: "At times, I can only groan, suffer, and pour out my despair at the piano!" Chopin couldn't return to Poland for the preservation of his own life; would a Jew on holiday from Germany return after Hitler assumed power in '33? Chopin wasn't the only Pole to leave Polish lands at the time; in fact many of Poland's cultural elite left because the political calamity and foreign occupation made their creative lives impossible. That doesn't mean they abandoned Poland, it means that immensely powerful political forces beyond their control made life in the land of their birth unreasonable. Chopin, by the way, didn't apply for a new passport at the Russian embassy and forfeited his right to return to Warsaw because he refused to cooperate with tsarist regulations; applying for a new passport would have been a tacit approval of the legitimacy of the occupying regime. Certainly traveling on a French passport would have afforded more convenience, no one is denying that. I totally disagree with your previous assertions that Chopin never expressed dismay at the events unfolding in occupied Poland, that's simply not true. It brought him unimaginable grief.

I am not surprised that Frederic expressed satisfaction at being in Paris. I have had the good fortune of visiting Paris many times and each time have sent people postcards expressing my satisfaction with being in such a beautiful city. But being in effective political exile doesn't necessarily mean that one embraces a new homeland, as pleasant as the surroundings may be to the senses. You'll find such an idea thoroughly repudiated on the discussion page of the Rachmaninoff article. Rachmaninoff, born in Russia, lived for years in the United States, assumed American citizenship, and died in California, but you'll be laughed out of the room if you try to assert that Rachmaninoff was "Russian-American." Actually, while in Los Angeles, Rachmaninoff was fervently involved in the area's Russian community and played all the time for Russian emigres. That's just how Chopin was involved in Paris's Polish community, playing and performing for them, using the Polish language prominently and publicly. Rachmaninoff continued to incorporate Russian melodies and styles into his compositions, much like how Chopin continued to utilize Polish tunes and themes in his music, particularly his mazurkas and polonaises. Rachmaninoff's body was buried in New York; at least Chopin arranged to have his heart buried in Warsaw.

I am not denying the importance of France in Chopin's life, and I am not trying to deny that he spent half his life in Paris. I am questioning whether being forced to leave one's homeland for reasons beyond one's control necessarily bestows a new nationality on a person. A person's nationality is far more complex and abstract than the simple issue of what kind of passport he holds.--Atwardow (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Atwardow, you make some good points, and I agree with Chopin and you about imbeciles. I don't care for the Rachmaninoff analogy terribly much, however, because both of Rachmaninoff's parents were Russian. As for Chopin having to leave what was "defacto" Russia, because Russia invaded Russia in 1830 (small, ugly, reality check), why did he have to leave, when the rest of his family stayed? You may know that Wagner did have to leave Saxony due to his participation in the May Uprising in Dresden. To the best of my knowledge the diminutive, neurotic, bachelor, who never married (description of Chopin by Norman Davies), played no part in any political or military engagements in his homeland (either one). It's funny how certain individuals escape this nationalistic dragnet. Take Joseph Conrad for example. You'd be "laughed out of the room" if you tried to assert that he is not considered to be a British novelist (oops, Polish-born) at least on English Wikipedia and most other English sources. Please understand, it does not denigrate Poland in any way to acknowledge his French paternity. Think about it. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I know that Poland was partitioned in the 19th century. You're certainly correct that after the collapse of the Duchy of Warsaw, the city was incorporated against the will of the Polish people into the Russian Empire. But it's not incorrect to speak about the continuing existence of Poland for many reasons. "Poland" continued to exist politically (Congress Poland), certainly as a part of the Russian Empire, but it was Poland nonetheless. So the idea of Poland was never completely eliminated as such. (The tsars until Nicholas II would refer to themselves as kings of Poland, so there was indeed a Poland to rule over.) More importantly, the absence of an independent political State doesn't necessarily imply the end of a nation, especially when a certain group of people are bound by a common religion, language, culture, history, etc. So in the 19th century, regardless of the absence of the name "Poland" on any map of Europe, Poland continued to exist in the hearts and minds of the Polish people as much as it continued to exist as a political unit, albeit a non-independent one. Chopin's own behavior reflects that reality as he refused to comply with tsarist regulations and file for a Russian passport. Under such circumstances, I too would rather acquire a French passport, as I'm sure would many others who vehemently rejected the legitimacy of the Russian occupation (not that what I would do is important and I'm sure no one cares). You're right that the diminutive, neurotic genius of Romantic music was not politically involved, but allow me to share with you what Robert Schumann himself said about Chopin's music: "Guns buried in flowers."

This page provides a context for Schumann's quote and shows that Schumann was indeed referring to the Russian occupation of Poland: http://books.google.com/books?id=JDW1KoVHtHkC&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=robert+schumann+chopin+guns+buried+in+flowers&source=bl&ots=b_slcbGTNI&sig=GJtETpTmMp2O69pQ_xwZIzwBCLA&hl=en&ei=L4R8TLPaE8KonAe5tJH4AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false So you're completely correct that Frederic didn't take up physical arms in the defense of Poland (unlike his French-born father, who came to Poland and fought in Kosciuszko's Uprising). But I'm sure you know that there are non-violent ways of expressing resistance. In summation, I'm not denying the fact that Mikolaj Chopin was born in France. I am not planning to touch the "French-Polish parentage" line at all, as much as I disagree with it or regard it as utterly useless in the first paragraph. Such details are best left to the main body of the article, as I and many, many, many countless others regard Chopin as Polish only. We all know how important Leopold Mozart was to Wolfgang's musical development, but there is not a single mention of the former in the lead of the latter's article.
 * The reason there is no need to mention Leopold Mozart in the lead of his son's article is that there is no argument, no controversy about either of them identities, nationalities, or whatever, while in Frédéric Chopin's case, the Poles refuse to admit that his father was French. Wherever there is no debate, the "Frenchness" of Frédéric Chopin is completely ignored. Why should the truth to be "suppressed"? Is it a coincidence that every time Chopin's French nationality or heritage are mentioned, there is a levée en masse on the Polish side? And it is not because "many, many, many countless others regard Chopin as Polish only" that""many, many, many countless others" are right. There used to be a time when ""many, many, many countless others" thought the Earth was flat, and these ""many, many, many countless others" burned ""many, many, many countless others" at the stake as heretics.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 05:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Dr. Dan, a lot of these comments are addressed to Cloak as well because in previous posts on this discussion page he said that if it were up to him Chopin would be listed as "French" only.--Atwardow (talk) 04:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As I try to post this, I keep on running into Dr. Dan & Mr. Atwardow
 * Atwardow,
 * If you'd care to read the archived discussions, you will see that this subject has been debated in depth, height, length & width.
 * So, what are you telling me that I do not know? - with the difference that you leave some details out.
 * I have never, absolutely never denied Chopin's Polishness, love of Poland & the Polish influence in his music. But I will not deny either the French part of his being, no more than I will deny the fact that his father was a Frenchman. You cannot deny a human being half his identity. If his parents had married someone else, there would not have been a Frédéric Chopin. He was who he was because of both his parents.
 * On another point, the Russians were not after Frédéric Chopin like the Germans were after the Jews. Had they been, they would have managed to "kidnap" him in any of the countries where he was travelling. The Russki had embassies in every country, and Chopin travelled on a Russian passport. Further, it is thanks to his French nationality (né de parents français) that he did not have to renew it, as the French government issued him a French one - which kept Chopin from having to register with the French police as a Polish refugee or émigré.
 * And, by the way, Frédéric Chopin seems to have highly enjoyed his "life in exile" in France.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 05:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to "many many etc" references in academia and among musicians (Artur Rubinstein, Krystian Zimerman, etc) to the exclusivity of Poland's legitimate "claim" over Chopin. But actually you're right, I spoke incorrectly. In fact, there is a wonderful sarcastic expression that describes what I just said: "six million Frenchmen can't all be wrong."

If you want to discontinue this discussion, that's fine. I'm not too impressed that "this subject has been debated in depth, height, length & width" because I don't think that means that no person is allowed to question the status quo on an article ever. I started this discussion the other week because I disagreed with the inclusion of "French-Polish parentage" in the lead paragraph.This is an article about Frederic Chopin. Certainly he existed because of his parents, but articles have bodies to discuss such important facts in depth. Mikolaj is not Frederic, he doesn't belong in the lead. Of course, I do not believe that Chopin is French, so I will always disagree with you there. The point of the reference to Germany and Jews was to note that there were very simple, practical reasons Mikolaj encouraged Frederic not to return to Warsaw - namely, intense uncertainty about the political climate. Chopin would not have left for Paris had it not been for the failure of the November Uprising.--Atwardow (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, please don't accuse me of denying Mikolaj's Frenchness. That's not what I have been claiming.--Atwardow (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Atwardow, you wrote: Mikolaj encouraged Frederic not to return to Warsaw - namely, intense uncertainty about the political climate. Chopin would not have left for Paris had it not been for the failure of the November Uprising. 
 * From Selected Correspondence of Fryderyk Chopin ... translated & edited by Arthur Hedley: pp. 20-21:
 * Arthur Hedley's comment preceding Nicolas Chopin's letter to Minister Grabowski : "When the spring of 1829 arrived it was clear that Chopin had nothing further to learn in Warsaw and must soon prepare for a period of study abroad. The young man had no wealthy patron to whom he could turn and his father had no choice but to appeal to the government for a grant. He did so in the following terms":
 * Warsaw 13 April 1829
 * May it please Your Excellency!
 * Having been employed for twenty years as a teacher at the Warsaw High School and being convinced that I have fully performed my duties to the best of my ability, I venture to address a modest request to Your Excellency and beg for you gracious intervention with the Government, a favour which I shall regard as the best possible reward for my efforts.
 * I have a son whose innate gifts for music call for further development in this art. His Imperial Majesty Alexander, of blessed memory, Tsar and King of Poland, most graciously deigned to reward him with a precious ring as a token of His satisfaction when he had the honour of being heard by the Monarch. His Imperial Highness the Grand Duke [Constantine], Commander-in-Chief, has also allowed him on occasion to give proofs of his talent in His presence. Finally, many respectable persons and connoisseurs can support the view that my son might become a credit to his country in his chosen profession if he were given the opportunity to pursue his studies to their proper completion.
 * He has finished his preliminary course of study, in witness whereof I may refer to the Director of the Musical High School and University Professor, Mr.Elsner. He now only needs to visit foreign countries, viz. Germany, Italy and France in order to perfect himself according to the best models.
 * Since my modest resources, based solely on my salary as a teacher, are insufficient to cover the expense of such a journey lasting perhaps three years I beg to submit to His Excellency the Minister a request that the Administration might draw from the fund which has been placed at the Viceroy's disposal some contribution towards my son's expenses.
 * I am, with the greatest respect, Your Excellency's humble servant,
 * Nicolas Chopin, Assistantat the Warsaw High School.
 * Hedley's comment: "The application was coldly turned down: public funds could not be "wasted" for such purposes, even though the Tsar himself was in Warsaw for his coronation as King of Poland [...] Chopin, at his father's expense, made his first real excursion into the outside world, traveling to Vienna in the company of four of his school-mates."
 * --Frania W. (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

So what? Many people spend part of their youth studying abroad. This has nothing to do with permanent political exile. --Atwardow (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason I brought up the above letter was because of your: "Chopin would not have left for Paris had it not been for the failure of the November Uprising": Chopin's trip abroad had been planned & was carried out when he left Poland at the beginning of November 1830, some three weeks before the uprising. So his leaving for Paris was not a result of the failure of the uprising. He was already out of the country.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, there is another composer whose mixed parentage isn't noted at all in the introductory paragraphs. That's right, Maurice Ravel, a major French composer, had a French father and a Basque mother who grew up in Madrid, Spain. Yet we do not read "Maurice Ravel was a French composer of French-Basque parentage" or "French-Spanish parentage." Are the writers of that article denying him his identity? I don't think so. They are properly leaving such details to the body of the article where they belong. --Atwardow (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Atwardow:
 * Again, there has never been an international dispute on any other historical figure, denying his/her other nationality or parentage, i.e. half of his/her identity, such as is on Frédéric Chopin . I am beginning to believe that, against the United Polish Front, God Himself would be fighting a losing battle on this one.
 * You chose a bad example with Maurice Ravel's mother, Marie Delouart-Ravel. She may have been from an ancient Spanish family, but she - like Frédéric Chopin's father - was born in France. She was born in Ciboure, near St Jean-de-Luz, in the "Pays basque" that is not a part of Spain, but a part of France, as the French Pays basque covers the western zone of the French Pyrénées-Atlantiques department, so she was born French, like my Bayonne-born grandmother. People born in the French Basque region are French nationals, just as the people from Bretagne, Provence, Alsace or Lorraine are French, n'en déplaise aux Polonais.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I am perfectly content with the fact that she was a French citizen but I'm sure you're aware of the complicated issue of Basque nationality. I've been browsing numerous sites that refer to his mother as Basque, not French.


 * You are not sure that I am not aware of the complicated issue of Basque nationality. The cradle of my French family is the Aquitaine: Pays basque, Béarn, the Pyrénées, Médoc wine region and, unless we'd keep our heads buried in the sand dunes of the Landes, we do know something about the complicated issues of the Basques on both sides of the Pyrénées.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

http://www.maurice-ravel.net/mother.htm

http://www.bookrags.com/biography/maurice-joseph-ravel/


 * That last one says that Ravel learned to love the Spanish and Basque cultures from his mother.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_Trio_(Ravel)


 * Even this last article notes that Ravel felt a deep closeness to his Basque heritage.

http://www.sfcv.org/learn/composer-gallery/87


 * According to this last one, Ravel "identified with his mother’s Basque-Spanish heritage, seen in works like Rhapsodie espagnole (Spanish rhapsody, 1907-08), and Boléro (1928)."

http://www.sfsymphony.org/music/ProgramNotes.aspx?id=37546


 * Again, this identifies his mother as Basque, not French.

So no, my example was good. It shows that Ravel too had a mixed parentage, and you are now denying him part of his Basque identity - bez obrażania Francuzów.--Atwardow (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not deny Ravel anything from his mixed parentage, being a Basque does not take away his French nationality. The "Pays Basque" is a part of France, not a country within France. His mother was French born in a part of France called "Pays Basque", and so was he.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Who is this Nihil novi? Who is he to revert people's edits without blessing us with a word on the talk page? Does he own the article? Cloak' 15:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * To some extent this discussion is getting lurid and unnecessarily nasty. Accusations about French "nationalists" and Polish "nationalists" should stop. It's not going to settle anything nor bring about any kind of consensus. I'm especially impressed with Atwardow's impassioned research, however, and believe he makes some very valid points. To be sure he's discussed Rachmaninoff, Schumann, Ravel, Liszt, and many other famous composers. I have read that Tchaikovsky was actually Polish and not Russian. Atwardow, may I ask you your opinion concerning Tchaikovsky's heritage? In it's own way, that might put your perspective into better focus. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well that is an interesting point. To my best knowledge, he was born in lands that were always considered Russian, Russian was his first language, and he considered himself Russian. So I think that one would consider Tchaikovsky Russian. Do you have a different view?--Atwardow (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is it an "interesting point"? Actually, I do not have a different view about the generally accepted view of Tchaikovsky's heritage. Have you ever come across claims that "Czajkowski" was actually Polish (ancestrally), I have? Dr. Dan (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it's interesting because I was aware that he may have had Polish ancestry and perhaps you wanted (maybe I'm completely wrong) to see if I regarded him as Polish. But since Tchaikovsky probably regarded himself as Russian, I will call him a Russian in the same way I call Chopin Polish because he regarded himself as a Pole. Just my opinion.--Atwardow (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't have a special purpose, nor an ulterior motive, in asking you the question. However, I do find your addition of "probably" to the Tchaikovsky situation to be an interesting characterization. Evidently you do not seem to be of the persuation, that Chopin "probably" regarded himself a Pole. Chopin undoubtebly considered himself a Pole. No "probability" in that regard. Right? I'm not sure that I can go along with the idea that someone is something because that's what they regard themselves. A boy or girl born in Scotland to Scottish parents does not become a Choctaw because that's what they regard themselves. Just my opinion. You might find a recent discussion that I had here to be somewhat enlightening as to what others think about similar situations. In that discussion I learned that an individual (Joseph Kozdon) who didn't consider himself to be a Pole, and actually stated that he wasn't a Pole, became a Pole anyway. This was the gist of that argument "The fact that he did not feel personally as a Pole (sic) does not matter here...." So you see there are wide differences of interpretations of that debate. Incidentally, do we have a statement from Chopin, "I'm Polish", "Jestem Polakem", or "Je suis polonais"? Don't remember ever coming across anything like that? Dr. Dan (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It was an interesting discussion. I'm not sure what you mean that Jozef Kozdon became a Pole anyway; do you mean others called him Polish anyway? If he referred to himself as Silesian, then that's it. This is not the same with Chopin. Chopin was born in a Polish state, the Duchy of Warsaw (lack of full independence notwithstanding) of a Polish mother and a father who immigrated to Poland and by all accounts (see the article's links and references) considered himself Polish even though was of French origin, and was referred to as Polish by others. So I don't consider Chopin Polish for any exterior reason other than that he was born in a Polish city and whose first language was Polish. It's as simple as that. I don't recall ever reading Chopin write "jestem polakiem" or "jestem francuzem" or "jestem obywatelem swiata" or "ich bin ein berliner," but that's immaterial. As I have stated on many occasions and as the article notes in its body and through the references it provides, Chopin did feel a closeness to his homeland that was expressed in his writings and, most importantly, in his music. I understand that there are wide differences of interpretation. But I regard the case of Chopin to be a fairly simple one.--Atwardow (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, my point concerned someone believing that someone is something because they might believe they are something that they are not. Sound confusing? To be sure, I'm not denying the Polish component of Chopin's heritage. I wish that others could stop denying the French component of his heritage. The only reason that I brought up the Kozdon matter, is that Kozdon said he was not a Pole, did not want to be a Pole, and one of the Polish editors argued that he was a Pole and the fact that he did not consider himself a Pole does not matter here (presumably on WP). I brought it up because it is in sharp contrast to your own POV. You may know that there are many more cases of disputes concerning peoples' heritages and ethnicity on Wikipedia and elsewhere. It seems that if you emigrate to Poland you can lose your ethnicity on Wikipedia. At least that seems to be the argument concerning Nicholas Chopin. Dr. Dan (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Why the amounting-to-censorship imposed blank on Chopin's Frenchness: ancestry, birth as a French national, recognition by the French government that he was a French national, as these are legal facts?
 * baptism registration where father is mentioned as "galli" = "French", twenty-three years after Nicolas Chopin arrived in Poland
 * French passport issued in 1837 (not the first one but the only available online), in which is clearly mentioned "né de parents français", which reflects the 1804 Code Napoléon in effect in the Duchy of Warsaw at the time of his birth
 * It seems to me that if Nicolas Chopin had denounced his French nationality, he would not have had the priest who baptised his son write "galli", qualifying him as a Frenchman.
 * If Frédéric Chopin had considered himself to be only a Pole, he would not have asked for - as it was not imposed on him - a French passport, not a "laissez-passer" for foreigners living on French soil, but a French passport "en bonne et due forme" recognising his French nationality because born of French parents.
 * Had Frédéric Chopin recognised himself only a Pole, he would have done what other Poles had to do, get a Russian passport.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Frania, why would you post a logical and rational explanation for explaining Chopin's dual nationality at this Talk page? Dr. Dan (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I like logic, Dr. Dan. For instance, because they were born in Poland of Polish parents, no one in France claims that the following Poles are French:
 * Henryk Sienkiewicz, Stefan Żeromski, Andrzej Wajda, Lech Wałęsa, or Pope John Paul II, Karol Józef Wojtyła.
 * Chopin is obviously different.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 03:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but I think a more logical understanding is this: Chopin was born in a Polish city of a Polish mother and a father who, though born in France, came to Poland and by all accounts considered himself Polish (again, consult the article's links and references). This situation is not identical to Chopin's move to France, which was spurred by political instability and uncertainty regarding Warsaw's fate following the failed November Uprising. Being born in Warsaw and speaking Polish as your first language doesn't make your nationality French. And going into political exile doesn't make you French. So I disagree that your assertion is based on logic.

By the way, I already expressed my view on the whole passport issue. Carrying around a particular passport for the convenience of travel doesn't change your nationality. Citizenship and nationality are two different things. So I'm not impressed by your reference to that issue.--Atwardow (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Atwardow,
 * It is my turn not to be impressed by your logic.
 * First, be it understood that I have never said that Frédéric Chopin was not Polish, what I am saying is that he was also French.
 * Second, the "French-Polish parentage" in the lead was agreed upon after long & heated discussions on the subject. We managed to come to a consensus, which is reflected in the lead with Chopin's "French-Polish parentage", while he is described as a Polish composer.
 * Now, responding to some of points of your last comment above:
 * Chopin was born in the Duchy of Warsaw which, at the time of his birth, was governed under the 1804 Napoléon Code, which recognised the nationality of a child according to that of his father (jus sanguinis), making Frédéric Chopin a little Frenchman because his father was French. The Code Napoléon did not have a codicil stating "a French national unless the father believes himself to be something else". And the Code Napoléon did not remove any Polish nationality from the newborn either, it simply gave Frédéric Chopin the French nationality of his father.
 * Why do you choose to ignore Chopin's birth registration where the priest wrote that his father was French?
 * Chopin's move to France was a long-prepared move to go study abroad, and was not "spurred by political instability and uncertainty regarding Warsaw's fate following the failed November Uprising"! Frédéric Chopin left before the uprising.
 * Speaking Polish as a first language, and being Polish, did not keep Frédéric Chopin from also speaking French & being a French national (see above).
 * Again, Frédéric Chopin did not go into political exile: when came time to renew his Russian passport, the French were able to issue him a French one because he was French "born of French parents". This is a detail that separated Chopin from many of the Polish political refugees in exile in France, who had to register with the French authorities as such, which Frédéric Chopin did not have to do because etc. (see above)
 * One does not "carry around a particular passport for the convenience of travel": a political refugee is not given a "passport" of the host country in which he resides, he is given a "titre de voyage", which is very different: Frédéric Chopin was given a French passport, his French nationality (not citizenship) being certified by the fact that his parents were French (because of the Code Napoléon, Chopin's mother had become French at the time of her marriage to Nicolas, a Frenchman.)
 * Whether you are impressed or not "by my reference to that issue" does not change the legal facts of the nationality of the Chopin family, which is nicely swept under the Polish rug. This amounts to refusing to acknowledge the truth.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't plan to repeat myself again and again to answer these Francophile assertions. If the owners of this article came to a consensus long ago, that's fine. After all, the rules of Wikipedia do indeed prohibit any tampering by non-owners. So I'll just say this: I accept the article the way it is. I disagree with its insertion; I said before that I think it properly belongs in the body of the paragraph. Not to hide it, not to take away his supposed "French identity," but because this is an article about Frederic Chopin, born in Zelazowa Wola in 1810, and not about his father Mikolaj Chopin. But fine, if it's going to be there, then it's going to be there. --Atwardow (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You can consider this discussion closed from my end.--Atwardow (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Chopin himself was quite a Francophile... France is where he chose to go, and after he got there, except for a few short trips outside its border (I have counted five, but it could be a couple more), he never left. The Russian passport he travelled on when he first arrived in France had a visa for London countersigned by the French Ambassador in Vienna with the mention "passing by Paris". Years later Chopin would joke with his Parisian friends saying Yes, I am still here, but I am just "passing through".
 * Adieu !
 * --Frania W. (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me say something additionally here. Look, all this crap about Francophiles, Francophobes, ad nauseum, is getting to be too much. The same goes for Chopin's leaving Poland with, "which was spurred by political instability and uncertainty regarding Warsaw's fate following the failed November Uprising". All nonsense. Chopin was a great artist and "performer". He left Poland to go to where the money was, where the fame was, where the glory was. It was not to be found in Żelazowa Wola, or anywhere else in Polska. His half-French nationality opened the door for him to do so in France, the country of his father's birth. That's the long and short of it. Since Atwardow plans to drop out of this discussion anyway, this namby-pamby nonsense should be stopped already. The simple fact that Chopin was a Polish-French composer need to be placed into the lead, referenced, and be done with. If that reality hurts somebody's nationalistic pride or feelings, they need to have a good cry and move on to something else on the project. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, since Dr. Dan wants to continue dragging this discussion along, I'll oblige. No, it isn't "crap" to refer to Poland's political state at the time. I don't think you are aware of the complex political turmoil of that era, or of how Chopin wasn't sure if he wanted to stay in Paris permanently (at one point he considered emigrating to the US), or of how his family urged him not to return. So no, it's not crap to say that. Preventing the hijacking of history is not "namby-pamby nonsense." Sure, find a "source" that refers to him as Polish-French. I could easily replace it with a source that considers him exclusively Polish.--Atwardow (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Here, Dr. Dan, is an excerpt from Chopin's diary after he got word of what was happening in Warsaw. I'm sure this'll give you a good opportunity to show how Chopin was a "namby pamby" who probably needed a good cry:
 * "The enemy has reached my home! The suburbs are stormed - burnt down! My family, my friends! Where are you? Wilhelm has surely perished on the ramparts. I see Marcel a prisoner. Sowinski, that good patriot, is a prisoner in the hands of those scoundrels. And God, are you too a prisoner? You are, but you do not avenge! Perhaps you too are a Russian! And the churchyard where my poor sister is buried. Have they respected her grave, or has it too been trampled underfoot, a thousand other corpses piled above it? Why am I here, and why could I not slay a single Russian? May the most frightful torments seize the French for not coming to our aid." --Atwardow (talk) 04:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The text you are referring to, which we all know by heart, was written in Stuttgart after 8 September 1831, and in a letter addressed to his friend Alfons Kumelski from Paris, on 18 November, hardly two months later, he wrote how he was pleased with Paris & what he found there. Then on 27 November, in a letter answering that of his son, Nicolas Chopin wrote (in French): I was glad to see from your last letter that in several respects it will be more advantageous for you to be in Paris than it was in Vienna, for I am convinced that you will miss no opportunity of perfecting yourself in your chosen art. To know famous artists, to converse with them and hear them play their own works and to profit by their experiences cannot but be of the greatest advantage to a young man who is trying to shape a career for himself..." Hum... not much about Poland here, but all about Frédéric Chopin's success among the best of the best.
 * P.S. Does this letter of Nicolas Chopin to his son present us Frédéric Chopin as a political refugee or as a young man who went abroad for "perfecting himself in his chosen art...and trying to shape a career for himself" ?
 * --Frania W. (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do we have this incessant need to "politicize" Chopin's taking leave of Poland, when it is obvious that his motivations were to perfect and advance his musical career? Like Paderewski or Rubinstein, who left Poland because musical opportunities in Poland were limited at the time. Chopin left Poland before the "uprising", not because of it. He was not a political refugee. And he could have returned to Poland at anytime. He never did, not even for a short visit. Is there a "political theory" for that too? Or did he find life in the West more to his liking? As I said before, acknowledging his dual ethnicity, does not in any way detract from the Polish half of his person. Denying his French half is very chauvinistic and simply not factual or reality based. Atwardow, it would behoove you to read this again. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm very surprised that you're failing to see the reason Chopin left Poland for France among all of this. You're absolutely correct that he left for France to expand his career and be "among the best" as you say. But the reason that this is so is that Russia made life in Warsaw impossible for artists and intellectuals. Do you honestly think that Chopin could expect to continue composing and performing when in the letter you know by heart he laments the thousands of corpses laying around Warsaw and the many buildings in his home burned down by the Russian occupiers? You seem to suggest that he left Poland because he was living among country bumpkins and needed French enlightenment to become somebody great. That's not the case; he was already flourishing in Warsaw. He had premiered his only two piano concerti in Warsaw before the uprising, he had finished his education and was composing and performing. As I said before, I am not surprised that he wrote another letter expressing his pleasure with being in Paris. Under such circumstances, if my homeland were being razed to the ground and thousands of corpses were being strewn about by Russians, I'd be happy to be in Paris. Chopin was in political exile. That's my position, and the facts of history attest to that fact. Your argument would make sense if he were living in "peace time," but that's absolutely not the case. I'm sorry.--Atwardow (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Besides, you're understanding of the timeline is just not correct. All of the sources I've encountered - here's one: http://www.culture.pl/en/culture/artykuly/os_chopin_fryderyk - show that was outside Poland when the uprising happened - he was in Stuttgart - and His family discouraged him from returning. Now, if his family had to discourage him from returning when he was lamenting that he couldn't slay a single Russian, what does that say about his life's plans? That's when he went to Paris. Again, he wasn't sure if he was going to stay in Paris. A political exile like him, in the Great Polish Emigration following Russia's brutality, considered going to the US. Initially he didn't intend to settle permanently in France. --Atwardow (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Now, I was going to make some other points. But honestly, I don't see the need in continuing this discussion. I said many times that I am no longer disputing the article as is, I don't feel the need to repeat myself indefinitely. Please don't take that as some sort of "cowardice" on my part, I am just tired of repeating myself. I'm sure you are too.--Atwardow (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(OD) Atwardow, that was quite a long post, but although "full of sound and fury", it didn't signify very much. Let's shorten it up and start here, "Besides, you're understanding of the timeline is just not correct. All of the sources I've encountered - here's one: http://www.culture.pl/en/culture/artykuly/os_chopin_fryderyk -  show that was already outside Poland when the uprising happened - he was in Stuttgart". That's your quote, your source, not mine (they need to correct their dates a little). That's what I've been saying all the time. He didn't leave Poland because of the "uprising", it happened after he left Poland. Furthermore, even though Russia finished partitioning Poland in 1795 (Chopin was born in 1810), you say "he was already flourishing in Warsaw. He had premiered his only two piano concerti in Warsaw before the uprising, he had finished his education and was composing and performing". If he was flourishing there, he didn't need to leave. Didn't he play a command performance for the Tsar of Russia (King of Poland) in Warsaw (and get a dainty little ring for his trouble)? As for "All of this seems to suggest that he left Poland for political reasons". Yes, let me dust off one of my medical textbooks and read about the "Power of suggestion" (here's a wlink) after many years. Look, the issue here isn't what he thought about Russia, or Poland's plight at the time. The issue here is his ethnicity, or nationality if you will. Not about his sexuality, nor about cystic fibrosis vs. tuberculosis. His father was French. His mother was Polish. He was French-Polish (O.K., O.K., Polish-French). Dr. Dan (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there a precedent for not giving someone a hyphenated nationality when the article's subject was born in a country other than his or her parents'? Sure there is. Look at the article on Samuel C.C. Ting. He is ethnically Chinese and was born of Chinese parents, but since he was born in the United States he's referred to exclusively as an American. (And he's pretty significant, he won a Nobel Prize.) Same with Roger Y. Tsien. Why isn't Kate Chopin (no relation to this Chopin) referred to as Irish-American? She was born in the U.S., but her father was from Ireland. Oliver Stone's mother was born in France, but I have never heard Oliver Stone referred to as a French-American. Leonardo DiCaprio's mother was born in Germany, but I don't recall ever hearing that DiCaprio is a German-American. If it's going to be your policy to refer to Chopin as French-Polish because his father was born in France, then I think you should go to all these articles I've mentioned and change their leads too. If you tell me that you're not going to, then I think your actions could be construed as inconsistent.--Atwardow (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, I just thought of an even better example: Winston Churchill. His mother was American. Therefore, he is American-British. I strongly recommend that you change the lead to his article--Atwardow (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I like consistency. Do you consider Paul von Hindenburg to be a Pole? He was born in Posen. Do you consider Joseph Pilsudski to be a Lithuanian? He was born in Zalavas? Dr. Dan (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not thrilled with these examples. Paul von Hindeburg was born in a German state, spoke German as his first language, probably (almost certainly) considered himself German, and lived in a German state his whole life. Chopin was born in a (non-independent) Polish state (even later, as a part of the Russian empire, Poland existed as a dependent political sub-entity, but it was still Poland), and spoke Polish as his first language. He considered himself Polish:
 * "I am still in the cradle, but as a Pole already a man." "The enemy has reached my home. Etc. He never made such references to France or his supposed "Frenchness."
 * Now, Pilsudski's case is completely different. He was born in lands that once belonged to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and his family was long affiliated with that state. I don't know exactly what he considered himself. The article mentions that Polish was his first language. As far as his nationality is concerned, I guess you would have to look to him to see what he considered himself. He ultimately became a Polish head of state and fought fiercely for Poland's independence, not Lithuania's, so I would imagine that he considered himself Polish. --Atwardow (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow. At this point I think I would be entirely justified removing the "French-Polish parentage" bit because of the all the examples I've cited. There is simply no credible precedent (to my knowledge) for such a phrase on Wikipedia.--Atwardow (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, Atwardow, nationality has nothing to do with what one feels like being or considers himself to be. It is the legal status of one person according to the laws governing the country of his/her birth, or that of his/her parents, (jus soli vs jus sanguinis) at the time of his/her birth.
 * By the way, as has been pointed out several times, there are many inconsistencies in Wikipedia, and some of the examples you are giving might indeed be in need of correction; for instance, unless his French mother did not declare his birth at the French Consulate in New York, Oliver Stone is a dual national Franco-American; and if she didn't do it, and was French at the time of his birth, Oliver Stone has every right to claim his French nationality. From interviews I heard of him in France (by the way, according to your arguments, his French being perfect, this is sufficient to make him a Frenchman) I have always been left under the impression that he was both French & American, but not knowing the particularities of his case, I would not correct the article on him.
 * The laws governing nationality being different in every country, and having changed in the course of the years, there is not a unique blanket covering all the examples you have cited. Each case has to be dealt with separately.
 * One article that could be corrected is that on Guillaume Apollinaire (1880-1918) who was born in Italy of a Polish mother, was thus a Polish national because at the time of his birth jus sanguinis was the law governing nationality in Italy, and who took the French nationality only in 1916, hardly two years before his death. For 36 years, Guillaume Apollinaire, who lived most of his life in France, was a Pole. I do not see much hulaballoo made of him. Even Polish wiki does not lay much claim on this Pole described as a "francuski poeta polskiego pochodzenia". Could it be because Wilhelm Albert Włodzimierz Apolinary de Wąż-Kostrowicki did some jail time?
 * --Frania W. (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems a little baffling that one country can simply pass a law and declare that an indiscriminate number of people anywhere in the world and for all perpetuity are going to be nationals of that country whether they like it or not. What if Saudi Arabia suddenly announces that all Muslims are nationals of Saudi Arabia? What if the Vatican declares that all baptized Roman Catholics are citizens of the Vatican City State and have to start paying taxes? Ok, enough of my personal lack of understanding with assigning people nationality because some unfathomable foreign law mystically makes it so. Here's an excerpt from Tad Szulc's book:
 * “[After Chopin first arrived in Paris in 1831:] Because Chopin’s Russian passport restriction allowed him to remain in Paris only ‘in passage’ to London, Paer wrote the French authorities requesting a more permanent status for 'this young man…who is a Pole deported from Warsaw as a result of the revolution [and] who was in Vienna where the press and the society elite received him with great consideration. Chopin is an educated man’. “Chopin of course had not been deported and was not a political refugee, but the French granted him permission to stay in Paris indefinitely ‘to be able to perfect his art’. Four years later, Fryderyk became a French citizen and a French passport was issued to him on August 1, 1835. He is not known to have discussed his decision to change citizenship with anyone, not even his father. It is unclear whether he did it to avoid renewing his Russian passport at the Russian embassy for patriotic reasons or simply as a matter of general convenience”. (Tad Szulc “Chopin in Paris” p.69 )
 * Here's my question. If Chopin had automatically inherited his father's French nationality at birth, and this was reflected in the laws, in the baptismal records, etc. etc, then why was it necessary for Chopin to go through the process of acquiring citizenship, applying for a passport, requesting permission to stay in Paris, etc.? If he, by the principle of jus sanguinis, was a Frenchman, why don't the facts of history attest to this? It seems that the French authorities treated him as a foreigner, which he indeed was. He was a Pole, not a Frenchman, regardless of his father's birth in France.


 * By the way, I find it absolutely bewildering that a consistent application of your interpretation of this problem would lead you to assign nationalities to a bunch of people who probably wouldn't feel the same way about it. So Leonardo diCaprio is a German-American? I don't ever recall reading or hearing him refer to himself as that. If Oliver Stone considers himself French and American equally, in my mind that would have more weight than some arbitrary law in some faraway place claiming him in perpetuity. Nationality is all about self-identity, solidarity with a group of people one cares about and feels bound to, identification with a particular history and language, etc. And even if the "jus sanguinis" idea has any merit, then could you explain why the French treated him as a foreigner (which, to them, he was)?--Atwardow (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What facsimile document is Tad Szulc showing in his book that proves that Frédéric Chopin became a naturalised French citizen? Because it does not make any sense that an individual born a Frenchman because born of French parents - as is inscribed on his French passport - would have to become a Frenchman when he is one already. The letter you are quoting from Paer is filled with errors concerning Frédéric Chopin, this one being a pearl: 'this young man…who is a Pole deported from Warsaw as a result of the revolution... Neither you nor anyone else can base an argument on something that is so false.
 * The Chopin case being made complicated enough, it seems to me that Leonardo diCaprio and Oliver Stone should be kept out of this discussion: there is no international law that covers the case of nationality, be it acquired at birth or through a naturalisation process.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Frania, you will have to consult his book if you question the credibility of his assertions. I for one am having a very difficult time finding a source to back up your claim that the laws of France regarded him as a Frenchman upon his birth. It appears that this is original research. You may wildly disagree with Tad Szulc because he makes an assertion that is contrary to your point of view, but that doesn't mean that he should be arbitrarily dismissed. (By the way, Szulc already acknowledges that Paer's letter is filled with untruths; could it have been an introductory letter to French society? If Chopin already considered himself a Frenchman or if the laws regarded him as a Frenchman, why doesn't Paer's letter acknowledge this?) Why don't we find references to his automatic French nationality in any source? If he was a Frenchman and was guaranteed citizenship and protection, why then did he struggle with the decision about where to go after his family urged him not to return to Warsaw? He considered Italy, Austria, etc. If he was a Frenchman and could have easily returned to France (because the mystical laws of the time made him a Frenchman), why don't we find a single source verifying this? If I'm wrong, please correct me.--Atwardow (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)