Talk:Frédéric Chopin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Location of article

Should the article be at Frederic Chopin or at Frédéric Chopin. I like the first one better, but eitherone is fine by me. Note for Gzornenplatz: To delete redirects use Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. -- Chris 73 | Talk 02:09, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please excuse that I already moved it. You may move it back (and forth) easily now depending on the outcome of this discussion. -- User:Docu

No problem. Chris 73 | Talk 03:15, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The article should be at Frédéric Chopin, but for some reason it isn't. All names with diacrtics should have the diacritics included in the article.

Technique & style

I removed this from the article: as well as a piano technique which was of his own creation. Can this be referenced? I think a case can be made for Chopin's technique being an extension of contemporary developments; particularly those of Hummel. There is probably much in Chopin that is totally new, but can someone point to such brand-new technical developments which are verifiable (referenced)? Or is the clause I removed just making the weaker point that all pianist-composers are influenced by their own piano technique? --RobertG ♬ talk 13:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Also this bit: Often Chopin is played in the late Romantic style, with an excess of rubatos and exaggerated dynamics. I don't think it's sensible to start a discussion of Chopin's style with an example of bad performance practice - quite apart from its being opinion (unless someone can find a reference). --RobertG ♬ talk 13:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I also removed Many people still play Chopin in a romantic style, and often with a pleasing result. However, it is paramount that performers recall what Chopin had in mind when he was composing. Good examples of interpretation differences are found in recordings of the Op. 28 préludes: compare Alfred Cortot's often drawn-out style (EMI) to Maurizio Pollini's more metronomic interpretation (Deutsche Grammophon). because it is someone'e unreferenced opinion. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Cat lover?

Can someone provide a reference that Chopin was a notable cat-lover, and perhaps put a sentence to that effect somewhere in the article? At the moment the categorisation acts as an unreferenced assertion. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The category is mainly for people who have owned the animal and influenced their personalities or work in some way. Chopin owned several cats in his life and one was the source of a polemic here: [1]. Antidote 20:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The page you cite does not mention Chopin at all. A further link at the bottom of that page makes some silly claim about a cat walking across a keyboard prompting Chopin to write a "Cat Waltz", when in actuality there is no such piece. It is apparently referring to the waltz in F major, op. 34, no. 3, but that piece has never had an acknowledged title of any kind. I do not believe that there is any evidence whatsoever to support the claim that cats in any way influenced Chopin's work or personality. Microtonal...(Put your head on my shoulder) 08:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Nationality

Mikołaj (Nicolas) Chopin, a Frenchman of distant Polish ancestry

Chopin was not French!!! Won't France ever leave him alone?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.233.7.9 (talk • contribs) .

Chopin was fully Polish. Even though is father had some French blood in him, Chopin's father adopted Poland as his homeland. Chopin was always Polish in heart. He never adopted France as his homeland, therefore he was never French, and France should leave Chopin alone.

Hmm, as I know, Chopin's father was 100% French. Can someone explain that —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.23.139.184 (talk • contribs) 11 January 2006.

No, Chopin's dad married Polish gal, but he was mostly French with Polish heritage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.2.24 (talk • contribs) 2 February 2006.

Some Polish nationalists suggested that Nicolas Chopin was of some Polish descent, but I thought that it is untrue, only 'cause they wanted Chopin all for Poland, looking at this that Frederic's music is very Polish and that he was our first famous composer outside Poland. But let's say myths about Chopin's father are still alive. One thing is sure : from mother's side and in his heart, Chopin was Polish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.23.160.18 (talk • contribs) 2 February 2006.

Other works

Can somebody tell me, what are the titles of the compositions, all, that Choping composed for piano, violin and violoncello? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.2.24 (talk • contribs) 2 February 2006.

See List of compositions by Frédéric Chopin, Op. 3, Op. 65 and Op. S 2 No. 1. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

WARNING!

Whoa, something is wrong with this page... the page history is "crediting" both me and JackOfOz with vandalistic edits actually made by the kids at that [gosh-darn] middle school... in fact, I think the software is even restoring old deleted edits back into the article, somehow. Hopefully, it's just a weird local glitch with this page. I did put in a bug report. So watch for weirdness on this page for a while. Herostratus 16:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Chopin's Birth date

People (generally anonymous) keep adding in the alternate date to the beginning of the article. I realise that this is discussed later in the article, but I'm just wondering if it's worth the constant revision. Perhaps a very brief note could be at the top, and refer people to the more complete discussion further down the page? Makemi 21:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested to hear what consensus is on this by interested parties. To me the way it's written right now sounds a little klunky but it probably belongs there in some form. Is the birth cert. date considered the "official" date? Rx StrangeLove 22:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I vote we only have 1 March in the lead para. Reasons:

Mentioning 22 Feb there will only serve to confuse people and perpetuate misinformation. We can discuss any alternative dates (22 Feb 1810; 1 March 1809) later on, and a foot-note reference or similar in the lead para would be appropriate. That way, we're not claiming 1 March is the undisputed date. But we are asserting he was born on 1 March, so that is the clear and unequivocal message we should be putting out.

In this case, it's a bit contentious because we are disagreeing with a birth certificate, which is normally considered 'holy writ'. However, to quote Grove 5, "There is ample evidence to show that at the time of Chopin's baptism (23 Apr. 1810) a mistake of exactly one week was made when his birth-date was recorded in the parish register as 22 Feb. 1810. There are, however, no valid reasons for assuming that he was born on 1 Mar. 1809".

I would even go so far as to disgree with Slonimsky's approach on this one (sorry, Nick). In Webster's New World Dictionary of Music (1998 ed.), he says, on Chopin, "b. ... probably Mar. 1, 1810 (his certificate of baptism gives the date Feb. 22, 1810) ..". Maybe he's saying it's just Chopin's family's word against the official word, so nobody else should be categorical about it because they weren't there, and nobody will ever know for sure now. I think we can do better than that.

If we make an exception here, we'd need to do it for hundreds of articles where there is some doubt about the date, eg. Humphrey Bogart. This is exactly the way that Wikipedia should be taking a stand on matters like this. JackofOz 01:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JackofOz's arguments, and I like the idea of adding a footnote right up there at the top. My only problem with not having the secondary date at the beginning is that people keep adding it in. I say people, but it could simply be one editor with a roving IP, in which case I vote for only having the actual birth date. On the other hand, if it is many different people, it might be worth it to mention it at the beginning, just so it isn't constantly changed outright by people looking at other sources (leading to the Feb. date being sometimes the only date there). Hopefully a footnote would prevent this, I don't know. Makemi 01:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article to protect it from the persistent anon who insists, in spite of consensus, and along with numerous nasty personal attacks, on inserting Feb 22 at the top of the article. (FWIW the New Grove gives only March 1 in the Chopin lead.) Antandrus (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: All edits from users in IP range 64.107.n.n and 66.99.n.n are usually the George Reeves vandal (see User:Dijxtra/Sock) and should be reverted on sight. This user's modus operandi is to mess with dates in articles. He just picked yours at random. Good luck... Herostratus 09:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Follow up

I looked over Herostratus' claims and they are bogus. The Herostratus name itself is a name taken from ancient Greek history, Herostratus was a guy searching for fame, when he was not able to find it, he burned down the local sanctuary/place of worship. This article http://www.chopin.pl/biografia/index_en.html clearly indicated Chopin and his family claimed March 1st, however, the date which should be under Chopin is right and wrong, both dates must be present with footnotes or with "or". Chopin.pl, which I am part of is definitely THE MOST PRECISE AND ACCURATE BIOGRAPHY OF CHOPIN, IT IS THE ONLY AUTHENTIC F CHOPIN WEBSITE.
-Chopin fan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.40.154.18 (talk • contribs) 4 February 2006.

I don't dispute the accuracy of anything on that website. However your claim that it is "the only authentic Chopin website" is absurd.

Have you checked any of the facts with Chopin himself?

The website was written by "Barbara Smolenska-Zielinska", and what do we find in the bibliography - a reference source by, surprise surprise, "Smolenska-Zielinska, B." This is hardly evidence of independent research and an "authentic" biography.

Your argument is one for finding the most "authentic" source on any given person, and using that as the text of our article on that person, to the exclusion of all other sources. Wikipedia does not rely on any one source of information on a given topic, no matter how authentic it is claimed to be or even generally believed to be. Within certain guidelines, any reputable, published information can be drawn upon. JackofOz 00:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Given the choice between the Grove Dictionary and some random website in a dispute over musical biography, the Grove must take precedence. In fact, the only thing that should prevent this from becoming Wikipedia-wide policy is a fear of instruction-creep. The article currently has a sentence referring to differing birthdates at the beginning of the "biography" section. That is perfectly sufficient. Inserting an explanation of the same into the intro paragraph would be pedantic, redundant, counterproductive. confusing to the casual reader, and blatantly against the consensus that has already been reached here on the talk page. Microtonal 22:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

reply

That's right, we need to put a footnote, that directs to the information which deals with February 22nd as a birthday, many other wiki articles do it like that, but the ignorant so called administrators can not do the basics, except attack others, block or immediately reverse what they think is their truth only! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.220.152 (talk • contribs) 15:49, February 4, 2006.

Music

In the above unsigned comment, we need to put a link for Chopin's other works for piano and violin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.40.154.18 (talk • contribs) 19:17, February 4, 2006.

Frederick with a "k"

I've only just noticed that the title of the article spells his given name with a "k", as if he were from an English-speaking country. Why is this? I have never seen his name spelled that way. JackofOz 12:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This page has already been moved two or three times between various combinations of first and last name. I think the person who moved it yesterday is wrong about the most common name, anyway, since he's commonly referred to as "Frédéric-François" in pretty much every country except the United States. Even then, he only appears as "Frederick" (or even "Frederic", sans accents) on those cheapo budget-bin recordings of questionable quality. Microtonal 19:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"Frédéric-François Chopin" is quite assuredly NOT the common english name. I have always seen it rendered either as "Frederic Chopin" or "Frederick Chopin" - either is fine by me. But the location yesterday was clearly not OK. Raul654 19:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

What next? Morris Ravel? John Brahms? Joseph Verdi? -[He would have to be "Joe Green", actually. :) Microtonal 12:11, 8 Feb 2006]- Francis Liszt? These are all as absurd as Frederick Chopin. There may be a debate about whether he's best called Frédéric or Frederic or Frédéric-François - but that is not solved by adopting the "k" option. JackofOz 19:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

My personal preference is for Frederic Chopin. It's largely because I can't really do accents easily on my keyboard, which I think is true of most Americans. I think it satisfies the most common name problem without getting too silly. (although on a side note I admit a horror of "Arvo Part"). Just to add confusion the title of the grove article is "Chopin, Fryderyk Franciszek", which I think is eminently impractical. Makemi 20:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I support that. JackofOz 20:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've already moved the article to there :) Raul654 20:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, what just happened? It looked like people were happy with Frederic Chopin. Did I miss something? Makemi 23:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Chopin fan

The Chopin fan is correct, again, so many sites on wiki have two birthdays in one parenthesis, especially if there is a doubt, it goes to show how you are all so called objective people contradicting yourselfs and goes to show you dont know anything about truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.3.198 (talk • contribs) 15:22, February 6, 2006.

If that's true, all it shows is that we're human and not always consistent. It has nothing to do with "truth". JackofOz 20:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No - if there's doubt, we put "circa" and give one of the dates. If there's no known date but there's a baptism date, we give the date of the baptism, ala Ludwig van Beethoven. Raul654 21:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

We use c. where the date wasn't recorded, it has had to be deduced from other evidence, and it can't be pinned down to one exact date. This is a different scenario. The tension here is between one date (1 March) and another date (22 February). They are the only 2 possible candidates. All the evidence strongly suggests that 1 March is the right one, and no reputable reference work now holds any brief for 22 February. But we have to admit the very slim possibility that the family was wrong and the register is right (even though it was apparently filled out in April 1810, about 6 weeks after Chopin's birth). The possibility is not one deserving of a place in the lead para, where it would simply confuse readers and tend to perpetuate misinformation. JackofOz 09:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply

You said it yourself, there is a chance they might be wrong, and still because of that THE DATE MUST BE THERE, BECAUSE I CAN GIVE YOU 100 WIKI WEBSITES WHERE IT SAYS OR... Therefore you are again contradicting yourself, again you are not following or reading or following common sense, the benevolent will some of you might have to follow the procedures is wrong, especially if it's taken in a wrong way. The date will not confuse people, since the article explains it, as a matter of fact I know many people who celebrate Feb 22 as his official birth-day, after all, that is what it says on his baptismal certificate and that is the only proof, duh! The bottom line is, you said you are only human, but you forgot how ignorant you really are... But of course I can show you many sites here where it says or, or... but then you will delete them, that's why I chose from now on, never (and will tell everybody I know) never to look for wiki for any dates, i found many, many that are wrong, but I will not bother (except here) change those, because vandals so called administrators will reverse them... it goes to show how smart they really are! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.1.115 (talk • contribs) 17:38, February 8, 2006.

The February 22 date is in the article, it's just not in the first line. We operate by consensus here. If you can get other editors to agree with you, we can put both dates in the first line, but I politely remind you that your periodic vandalism binges aren't likely to incline editors to your point of view. Antandrus (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Chopin fan and the rest

Chopin fan is right, who knows more about Chopin's other works, except of course for piano?
The bottom line is, if on his birth certificate says Feb 22 that is legal, no matter what his family says, birth/baptismal certificate, the bottom line is, so many so called justed wikipedians here are messing it all up, then when they admit they are wrong, they say they are only human, grow up will...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.222.68.39 (talk • contribs) 22:17, February 9, 2006.

The document in question is not a birth certificate, but a baptism certificate. This is not a government legal document, but a church document. The church is less interested in the date of birth of children than in the date on which they formally become members of the church, ie. their date of baptism. (That is why, for example, we know Beethoven's and Shakespeare's dates of baptism but not their dates of birth, and probably never will.)

Nevertheless, most baptism certificates include a place for the child's date of birth to be written - which is good, because in many cases this is the only documentary record we have of the date. The certificate is filled out not by the parents, but by the priest, who was not a witness to the birth. We have to rely on the priest to record this date accurately, and he in turn has to rely on what the parents tell him. Chopin's baptism took place not just a day or two after his birth, but almost eight weeks later (23 April 1810). That is when the baptism certificate was written. Priests are humans and sometimes misunderstand what the parents tell them about the date of the child's birth. That is what the vast majority of Chopin scholars believe is what happened here. If the mother and father always insisted Frederic was born on 1 March, and someone who wasn't there says something different, who are you going to believe? That is what this comes down to. Believing Chopin's parents, who were very much there - or believing the priest, who wasn't. JackofOz 08:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you: that was well stated. For these reasons, as well as for consistency with other publications (such as the New Grove), I suggest retaining only March 1 in the lead. Antandrus (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Antandrus. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Thirded. Microtonal 16:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Fourthed. Makemi 19:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont have much to say

You can do whatever you want, you can say whatever you want, I can say I was born on this day, if I go to social security and I want to change my name, I must show them my birthdate, i dont show what i think, period... therefore the ignorance of people lije JackofOZ or Makermi or whoever else is suggesting the date like this to remain, only shows your ignorance, therefore I am building a website to let the world know not to bother with this crap and incorrect information here, enough said, date 2 22 is an option which is mandatory, you can argue as long as you want, use any words you like, you are deadly wrong and ignorant as usual... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.197.126.10 (talk • contribs) 10 February 2006.

For once, I'm in total agreement with you. You don't have much to say. Best of luck with your website. JackofOz 23:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ay-yi-yi. There are so many things wrong with this argument that I don't even know where to begin. Indeed, it appears that "I don't have much to say" is the only truthful statement in this entire post.

1. It's not a birth certificate. It's a baptism certificiate. The former is a legal document, the latter is not.
2. The modern American use of legal documents has exactly nothing whatsoever to do with the early 19th century.
3. As everyone else participating in this argument has agreed, the other date is not even remotely mandatory.
4. Anyone can fake a webpage.
5. Anyone who seriously claims to be the sole possessor of the ONE HOLY TRUTH, despite all evidence and argument to the contrary, is either lying or hopelessly deluded.

Wikipedia operates by consensus, not by you pissing everyone off until they get fed up and stop reverting your edits. That won't happen anyway, so you're pretty much SOL if you believe otherwise. If you get outvoted (and you have, resoundingly so), that's just your tough titty. You can either suck it up and learn a hard lesson about objectivity, or you can run away and sulk like a bratty child. The choice is yours. Microtonal 02:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Er, may I humbly, with all due respect, propose that we not feed the troll? Makemi 04:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, trolls feed themselves, regardless of what we do or do not do. Microtonal 05:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ignorant people...

...nothing but ignorance and lack of understanding, only twisted philosophy which can go on forever, the bottom line is, you are wrong, you DO NOT HAVE SELF EVIDENT TRUTH and only ignorant people will reverse it and only ignorant will support it! It goes to show, I wanted to leave a note here. Here in Poland everybody celebrated February 22 as the official birth-date, little sissies and good for nothing "objective" wikipedians like the above microtonal and the rest of the crew go by voting and mass psychology, 100 people could vote yea, i like that and yea I like that day, but they are so stupid and ignorant they can not put in parenthesis the correct date, they can not suck up the truth, because then they will say they are only humans, therefore they can not change small date like that, therefore it's not safe to ever do any research on any peolpe here BECAUSE IT IS LACKING DETAILS AND OBJECTIVITY AND ERASING SIMPLE FACTS LIKE CORRECT DATES.... ENOUGH SAID, YOU DO NOT HAVE A STORY, YOU DO NOT HAVE AN EXCUSE, YOU CAN SAY WHAT YOU WANT, WRITE A BOOK IF YOU WANT, BUT AS THE ABOVE PERSON MENTIONED... BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND IT'G LEGAL IN ANY COURT, EXCEPT IN WIKI COURT! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.19.137.58 (talk • contribs) 13 February 2006. How true! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.169.112.145 (talk • contribs) 13 February 2006.

Its obvious

Peole who are here longest will run this site and will not allow both days, again you ignorants expect people to look all over for correct date, some people just check for dates, when they see the date, thats what they remember or write, of course, you are some terrible trolls of subjectivity. No other site misleads others. And so badly.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.220.174 (talk • contribs) 13 February 2006.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 21:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Claims of dodgy page-moving nothwithstanding (see above), I've noticed User:OliverTwist has posted a Requested move for this article, but without the completing the process as here.

Frederic Chopin → Frédéric Chopin : The page has been at Frédéric for quite some time, but it was recently moved for unknown reasons. All articles should have diacritics included, and Chopin's name was Frédéric, not Frederic. Also, he adopted a French name, and in French, adding the accent to e's is a must as e makes a different sound in French than é does.

Voting

Please add  * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using "~~~~"

• Tentative Support. Although his original Polish name may be Fryderyk – and so should be included in the article – I am under the impression that Chopin himself used "Frédéric" (with diacritics included) once he had moved away from Poland. The name I have seen most often is also Frédéric with diacritics included. (I can't recall seeing Frédéric-François before this article.) For me, "Frederic" is simply a(n English) keyboard-friendly version of Frédéric, so if the choice for article title came down to "Frédéric Chopin" or "Frederic Chopin", I would support the former and make the latter a redirect (along with Fryderyk, Frederick(!), etc.)
  

I also have in mind Franz Liszt, technically Liszt Ferenc, but known outside Hungary as Franz Liszt; and another case of strong Polish nationalism over a Wikipedia article, Nicolaus Copernicus. The Hungarians I've met and known both within and outside Hungary, however, accept and understand that the rest of the world knows Liszt Ferenc as Franz Liszt. The same pattern for Chopin, then? Nonetheless, I know I do not have a profound knowledge of the subject! David Kernow 20:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support The name Chopin used should be the name we use; the proper French form, that is. It's worth bearing in mind that this is only the official title, and anyone searching "Frederic Chopin" will find the article just as easilly. I have to add that I don't think I have ever seen Chopin's name given as the former; my musical dictionary gives "Chopin, Fryderyk (Franciszek) [Frédéric François]". Indeed, I don't see any reason to not include the "François". However, this seems not to be an option and since he is commonly referred to only as Frédéric, I strongly believe it should be so - with diacretics. We should be as technically correct as possible, to give an accurate and scholarly article. M A Mason 21:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Note Britannica also uses "Frédéric", and the article was at that title before being moved to Frédéric-François and then being moved to "Frederic" in a roundabout way. -- Curps 21:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. For much the same reasons as above. His name Fryderyk Franciszek became francified (? gallicised) and hyphenated to Frédéric-François, but he is known generally just as Frédéric. That is the name (including diacritics) that we should use in the title. Frederick and even unaccented Frederic are anglicised versions of his name, which don't belong in an encyclopedia. This is consistent with Felix Mendelssohn (not Jakob Mendelssohn-Bartholdy), Franz Liszt (not Liszt Ferenc), Pyotr Tchaikovsky (not Peter). Handel is different because he did anglicise Georg to George. JackofOz 21:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support for excellent reasons already given. FWIW, Slonimsky (Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Music and Musicians) does it this way as well. Antandrus (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support as above Microtonal 23:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Mushroom (Talk) 23:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support As above; also, the Oxford and Merriam-Webster's dictionary entries for Chopin include the acute accents (actually Frédéric François Chopin without the hyphen), and the redirect is more than sufficient for those who will not or know not to render those characters on a keyboard. The fact that it was moved without renewed discussion, though, is reason enough to reverse it. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support move to Frédéric Chopin, without François, since that is generally omitted in English, although it should certainly be in the first paragraph. It was in fact Oliver Twist who unilaterally moved the page in the first place to Frédéric-François Chopin, leading to a seeming backlash to Frederick Chopin, which virtually no one was happy about. Then, if you look above, it was decided to move it to Frederic Chopin as a more moderate measure, at which point all intelligent conversation was halted by out favourite troll. Makemi 01:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Noted; either way, I guess this demonstrates the trials and tribulations of unilateralism in Wp. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support move back to Frédéric Chopin with accents, but without François for reasons stated above. Janderk 09:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Don't get me wrong: I wasn't suggesting renaming it to ...François... – I was merely citing sources to validate the move to Frédéric Chopin and renditions in the article. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. —Nightstallion (?) 21:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Name Change

As long as the spelling remains the same, I do not know what is the problem, letters are letters, may be in French, he has the point, but see the paradox here, wrong birthday is ok, but everything else... wow, must be corect... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.220.180 (talk • contribs) 20 February 2006.

Shall we put you down for Oppose, then? M A Mason 19:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cystic fibrosis or Tuberculosis?

Could someone give a source for thinking Chopin might have had cystic fibrosis? It seems thoroughly unlikely, since I think up until recently children with this disease tended not to live past a very young age, like five, not to the age of 39 (even now that would be pretty darn old). I think it's highly unlikely he had it. Makemi 19:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza of 21 February 2006 (it is available for a short time in Polish here [2]). It is an opinion of Prof. Wojciech Cichy of Medical Academy in Poznań, basing on Chopin's symptoms. Pibwl [[User_talk:Pibwl|talk]] 00:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The Gazeta Wyborcza article lists Chopin's symptoms and states they are similar to those of Cystic Fibrosis: "from an early age: diarrhoea, stomache aches, headaches, often catching cold" and as an adult, "his letters show symptoms characteristic of C.F., such as being easily tired, having low bodyweight, aching joints, sore stomach, clubbed fingers (in all portraits and photographs Chopin hides his fingers), and probably sterility, spitting blood, and dyspnoea". This doesn't seem to be a convincing argument, but then it is just a short four papragraph newspaper column. The hiding the fingers bit is interesting, but weren't casts of his hands made at some point, maybe after death?? — Stumps 16:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the tuberculosis statement out of the article as there are many theories about the lung disease Chopin had. Tuberculosis seems to be the most mentioned one, but other diseases (like Cystic fibrosis) are not closed out. The only thing we can say with certainty is that he had a lung disease. Maybe we should add a statement that he had a lung disease and that it is not 100% clear what it was. Janderk 10:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, we should, if we want to make Wikipedia most informative. Those days, if people coughed, they were said to have tuberculosis (or rather "consumption" (Polish: suchoty)), but now we know more illnesses ;) Pibwl [[User_talk:Pibwl|talk]] 17:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but according to the Cystic fibrosis article in the sixties the average life span of someone with CF was four years, and that was with anti-biotics. The idea that Chopin could have had it and lived to the age of 39 without antibiotics just seems ludicrous. Unfortunately I don't speak any slavic languages so I cannot read the reasoning in the link given above. I think that since this is an encyclopedia, and that we should only report well established ideas about Chopin's death. I agree with Janderk that perhaps the best idea is to mention that it's unclear what lung disease he had, and a variety of theories have been put forth, the most common one being Tuberculosis. Makemi 17:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It does indeed say four years, however the article posted below counters this ([3]), see page 5, just below the table; the paragraphs continuing to near the bottom of page 6, where it comes to the conclusion, are also relevent. M A Mason 18:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that translation, MA Mason. It is indeed an interesting proposition, and I was not aware that recent research shows that there can be less severe presentations of CF. I maintain, however, that since it does not seem to be a particularly mainstream theory, then if it is presented it must be presented with a very strong caveat. I personally would choose not to include it, but if others feel it has strong enough reasoning and support, and is enough in the mainstream of understanding, then I will not oppose it. I would just mention however that the following sentence in the source you give concerns me:

"Is it not right to make an attempt to prove to many suffering people that many things count in life much more than a weak physical body, and that they are not predestined to vanish without leaving something that will influence, inspire, and enrich the generations to come."

This makes me think that this is more of a retroactive activist theory, meant more to give hope to those currently living with the disease than to find the truth about Chopin's cause of death. Although I sympathise with that cause, I do not think that it is necessarily a productive route to scholarship. Makemi 19:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Lung Problems

Yes, he had lung problems, just because he was 39, that does not mean he had it in advanced stage in his youth, Makemi, why dont you think straight... same with his birthday, now you question other things, but you can not post info about chopin's non-piano works... great! I had many other sites to contribute, but wiki will not get it because there is no freedom or truth here! Nothing new! Heck, you must excuse my spelling, (if i mess up) I cant do 10 projects and also "vandalise" wiki at the same time... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.98.2.37 (talk • contribs)

jag.igr.poznan.pl/2003-Volume-44/1/pdf/2003_Volume_44_1-77-84.pdf

- As long as the spelling remains the same, I do not know what is the problem, letters are letters, may be in French, he has the point, but see the paradox here, wrong birthday is ok, but everything else... wow, must be corect... more ..90% + of all Poles celebrate his b-day on 2 22!Duh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.220.173 (talk • contribs)

technically no such thing as "Poland" in 1810

Technically, in 1810, there was no such thing as Poland as an independent state. Żelazowa Wola was in the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, a creation of Napoleon in 1807 that was dismantled during the the Congress of Vienna in 1815. -Beth

The key word in your statement is, of course, "technically." Nobody is going to refer to Chopin as a "Grand-Duchy-of-Warsaw-ish" composer, no matter how "technically" correct that would be.

Neither Germany (1871) nor Italy (1861) "technically" existed as an independent nation in 1810, either, but you're never going to see anyone claim that Beethoven wasn't German or that Cherubini wasn't Italian. Hungary wasn't an independent state until 1989, but that has no real impact on how we refer to Liszt, Kodály, and Bártok. In cases like these, the adjectives "German," "Italian," "Polish," and "Hungarian" define a socio-cultural and linguistic identity (Chopin's Polish identity concerned him deeply, even though he lived most of his life in France), rather than a simple designation of recognized legal citizenship. The modern concept of the "independent state" simply didn't mean anything in the 19th century. Hell, it barely means anything now. Microtonal 00:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Beth might have a point though concerning the birth place listed at the top of the article. I made it clearer, and I hope it doesn't end up sounding too clunky. Lesgles (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the history of Poland article cites the 10th century as the emergence of the "Polish nation" in its very first sentence. Making a big deal out of the Duchy of Warsaw is unnecessarily splitting hairs — a distinction without difference. Similarly, the Beethoven article simply states that he was born in Bonn, Germany, and makes no mention of the fact that it was "technically" a part of the principality of Cologne at the time (which was itself a free city of the Holy Roman Empire). Beethoven wasn't a politician, so this stuff simply isn't relevant. The same is true of Chopin. Besides, the article already mentions the Duchy in the first sentence of the "biography" section. So the intro paragraph is now redundant, too. Microtonal 10:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

All right, I suppose that having it as a second mention in the article is good enough. It is interesting to compare this with the "other encyclopedia" though: Britannica lists the Duchy of Warsaw under the birthplace, and later uses Poland. It does the same with Beethoven. I think it's unfair to say that it "simply isn't relevant". The political environment in which the composers grew up certainly had an influence on their musical development. Beethoven's relatives, for example, held positions at the court of Cologne, as did he, and that certainly affected his early musical endeavors. I'm not saying we should make a big deal of it, but it should be mentioned. Lesgles (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It already was mentioned, and it wasn't a big deal. Now it's mentioned twice, and it is a big deal.

Look, the fact is that Chopin considered himself a Pole rather than just a guy from the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, just as Beethoven considered himself a German rather than just a Kölner. You're retroactively projecting a political notion of "citizenship" onto people to whom such a thing simply wouldn't occur, and in doing so, you're confusing the 20th/21st century political entity of "Poland" and "Germany" with the 18th/19th century notion of "Poland" and "Germany" as an identity, something that was not bound by mundane geography or fleeting political situations. That the Britannica makes the same mistake does not mean that it isn't a mistake.

Furthermore, the fact that the Duchy was annexed by Russia and effectively dissolved long before Chopin was even old enough to understand what was going on (unless you'd like to argue that he was a political savant at five years old, in addition to being a musical prodigy) should tell you just how much its existence meant in his life. Microtonal 05:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I admit that when at first I read Beth's comment I assumed that there was no mention of it in the article, which is why I made the change. I'll go ahead and remove my edit. But the point I wanted to make in my last comment was not that citizenship is more important than national or cultural identity, nor that Chopin is not a Polish composer. I just wanted to point out that one cannot assume that politcal environment has no effect whatsoever. The political situation in Poland had an indirect effect on Chopin, even at an early age, through his parents. Anyway, I don't think there needs to be an argument about this, because it is relatively unimportant. Lesgles (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Never returned to Poland?

The formative years portion of the article refers to to him leaving Poland, and never returning, but later text explicitly refers to visiting his parents. Modus Vivendi 01:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Chopin's Social Life

"Also, unlike his flamboyant contemporary Franz Liszt, Chopin was withdrawn from public life."

Really? I'm under the impression he was right up there with Liszt, a popular celebrity and "party-goer." There's no specific citation for that sentence.. where'd it come from?

No return

Chopin never returned to Poland, because of his baptismal which took place on March 1st, he was confused he was born on March 1st, I have the copy of birth certificate, I have jpg link, but what is the use to wiki vandals, you will reverse it anyways, at least now others cant edit...

His birth certificate is not known to exist. What you probably have is a copy of his baptism certificate, that was not filled out until 8 weeks after his birth (or, if your theory is correct, 9 weeks). So much for reliability. This issue was resolved well over 75 years ago. It's all fully explained above. Just give up on the 22 February thing. Please. JackofOz 02:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Works

Please add any new 'Etudes' points on the new page called Chopin etudes. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hex90 (talk • contribs) .

Feb 22

I understand, I know, it was 'resolved' 75 years ago, again, that's not the point, if you look into the replies from before, February 22 footnote is still missing, and remember even if we are sure he was born on March 1st, there is always 5-10% chance that may not be so.

I've added a footnote, what do people think of it? I think it's a little visually confusing, and it's not so hard to scroll down to the Biography section for the information about his birthdate, but I thought we'd give it a try. Mak (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Footnote

Call yourself rude, when george reeves dude wanted to change the footnote, asking you in a nice way, nobody ever did, except block him and anybody else who wanted to do it. Now, how hard was that?

Pictures

I wanted approval before I did it, but I would like to switch around the locations of the Delacroix painting and the photograph of Chopin. This is because the Delacroix, though it is easily the most popular painting of Chopin, is probably (definately, in my opinion) the least accurate portrayal of Chopin, whereas with the photograph, we get a real life glimpse of his pale, sickly figure. Just a thought.

--Patrick 22:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool by me. Mak (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

A picture is by default the most accurate. So I say: good idea. Janderk 22:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And what a picture it is! I too agree, especially considering the featured status of the picture. M A Mason 22:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Great. I'll change it then.

--Patrick 01:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I just realized that quite by accident I placed the painting in the section "Chopin and George Sand", and that painting originally, of course, included Chopin and Sand. So it worked out quite well.

--Patrick 01:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Significance

Is there another candidate for "Poland's most significant composer"? The lead has been changed to read, "…one of Poland's most significant composers". --RobertG ♬ talk 11:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

By coincidence I rewrote that part a short time before reading this. I took the "most significant in Poland" part out as Chopin is most significant in the world, not only Poland. And the first sentence already says he is polish. Janderk 21:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct birth day

Well.. few weeks ago they added a foot-note, how hard was that, 5 months of using open proxy just to get my point across, just to make sure people are aware this could be his birthday and what did I get in return... attacked, branded vandal and then some.. may I remind you... from Fulton J Sheen (and others):

The majority is not always right! Majority is right in the field of the relative but not in the absolute (crteria too). Majority is a legitimate test so long as voting is based on conscience and not on propaganda. Truth does not win when numbers alone become decisive. Numbers alone can decide a beauty queen, but not justice. Beaty is a matter of taste, but justice is tasteless and sour. Right is STILL right if nobody is right and wrong is STILL wrong if everybody is wrong, at any time, at any place. The first poll in Christianity was wrong.

Barabas was freed because of Christ, (hmm... first freed soul?) political freedom though it was. But it was a symbol that through His death men were to be made free. It happened at Passover time when a lamb was substituted for the people and went to death in atonement for their sins. The Savior should suffer and the sinner go free. The Book of Exodus had proclaimed that the sinner was to be redeemed with a lamb, but the Lamb could not be redeemed. The Savior could not be released but the sinner could. AND NONE OF YOU WERE EVER RIGHT.

Chopin's other music

Somebody should (I could, but I will be reverted again, so will not waste my time on ungratefuls...) put some info on the main page about Chopin's other music, he had some for viola and violin and piano, between 5-7 pieaces. Include original scores' names and when it was written.

--WP:SQUID

First of all, what the heck are you ranting about? Secondly, there's already a List of compositions by Frédéric Chopin and Category:Compositions by Frédéric Chopin. If you had been reasonable in the first place the footnote would have gotten in a lot faster, and the way you're acting now is making me wish I had never put it in. Don't be a dick or a Vandal and things will go much better for you. Mak (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply to a very rude man

First of all, I asked the names direct names for those pieces which only, only deal with other compositions, not only piano. Second of all I have contributed a great deal to this site and I am not a vandal, you are, your language above is terrible and clearly shows nothing but ignorance and your hate towards me and it indicates your subjectivity. The footnote is for the good of the site and the biography, do not attack me, attack yourself, I did follow all the rules and I am not squid, most of the info on that page is incorrect and if you cant understand, learn english and ethics, you have none, you never will have, shame on you all, people like u! Also you keep on reversing my talk, did I say anything bad, when I asked you to check on the Bern link, the historical PDF file which was created when i was 1 or 2 years old, you say it's not trusted, shame on you. In other words your words claim the author and the paper of that time is not true, so you can not face the truth... as usual!

"Polish" spelling

I accept that using such trifles as basic grammar, spelling, or (Lord forbid) punctuation is considered superfluous and "uncool," but please understand that even minor stylistic decisions can greatly affect one's meaning. I bring this up because there are a lot of references on this page to Chopin's being "polish," his "polish-inspired music," and having "polish in his heart." Without a capital "P," the long "O" becomes an "ah" sound, and suddenly, Chopin is more concerned with giving things a smooth and shiny surface than with his national heritage. What is so intimidating about the SHIFT key? S.Bowen 18:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against this article not sucking. Why don't you fix it, instead of making rude comments? And what's so intimidating about four tildes? Ok, sorry, you're right that Polish should be capitalized, but next time you could be less snarky about it, and simply fix it. Probably the people who added polish in are never going to come to this talk page, so really you're just insulting the people who are working on keeping the article vaguely un-vandalised. Thanks, Mak (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

First, let me apologize for my lack of tildes. The above was my first comment ever posted on a Talk page, and until you opened my eyes to standard comment protocol, I was entirely unaware of how to sign my comment. So, thanks. Surely, however, you can't compare my Wikipedia-specific oversight to a lack of the most basic knowledge of English. It wasn't the article that I was criticizing; it was the comments right here on this Talk page. So, it is possible that the people who continue to mix up "Polish" (a nationality) and "polish" (smoothness or glossiness) just might read it. Like I said above, I accept that nobody here cares about English or our linguistic heritage, but since I can't count on anyone else to stick up for our language, I sometimes have to do it myself. Unsurprisingly, and not for the first time, I was met with hostility. But I guess it's only in a culture like this that it's considered "snarky" and "insulting" to show any sense of pride or protection for one's language. And how am I insulting anybody who is trying to keep the article un-vandalized? I'm sympathetic to the aim of those people. Despite your attempt to demonize me, I care deeply for the overall integrity of all Wiki-related projects. Those who should feel insulted are Polish and French people, who, in the minds of English-speakers, aren't worth the effort of moving our little fingers over to the SHIFT key. S.Bowen 18:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh jeez. You're just talking about the talk page. And at my count it happened once. I'm going to archive this page now so that people don't think that the level of ridiculousness on this page demonstrates how a talk page is supposed to be used. This page is for discussing important changes in the article. I'm not demonizing you, I'm asking you not to insult people by saying that no one on this page cares about grammar or spelling or anything like that. Mak (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong

Bowen should not insult people but Mak has no basic manners, he inuslted everybody...