Talk:Frédéric Chopin/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Chopin stars in a videogame

I wonder if any of you is aware of the fact, that a game was released, in wich Chopin is a main character. It was released on Xbox360 and Playstation 3. The game's title is Eternal Sonata. Maybe someone, with better English skills could mention this in the article.

(Sorry if I did something wrong, my first edit)--Durjódhana (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

They have heard of it, but to the genteel Wikipedians, video games will never be as culturally advanced as other entertainment mediums. Shikyo3 (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Video games can be sophisticated. Consider this eloquent monologue by a character in Half-Life 2: Episode Two, and this composition in the video game Age of Empires III.

Quarkde (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Op. vs op.

Read & edited Chopin's article & changed *Op.* to *op.* As I was working, a note arrived at my talk page, which I am pasting below together with my answer, in case anyone else questions my revision:

Hi, Frania. I've noticed this edit. Can you tell me what your rationale for decapitalising "Op." is? It is certainly usually capitalised in English language references. If there's some WP convention about it, can you point me to it? Cheers.

My answer:

I know that I must be the only person in the whole of en:wikipedia with this, so I looked it up before decapitalising *Opus* & *Op.* in order to have an immediate answer to the question I was sure would be coming! After finishing reading/editing the article, I was going to leave a note on Chopin's discussion page, but you beat me to it. I still will as I am not finished with this long article.

Please check the following:

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:lcnDub8e8H0J:www.library.yale.edu/cataloging/music/capital.htm+should+opus+op.+be+capitalized&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Frania Wisniewska

Best regards,

Frania W. (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed to some degree @ Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (music)#Abbreviation of "opus". -- JackofOz (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

1849 Bisson daguerreotype of Chopin

If not a daguerreotype, then what? Frania W. (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A photograph. I quote from the picture's caption in Jeremy Siepmann's biography of Chopin: "The only known photograph of Frédéric Chopin, often incorrectly described as a daguerreotype." --RobertG ♬ talk 15:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A photograph in 1849? Isn't it rather a photograph taken from a now lost daguerreotype? Frania W. (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to answer your question. Where did you read that it's a daguerreotype? --RobertG ♬ talk 16:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In all the books & articles where this portrait is. What I would like to know: since this was always (as far as I know) described as a daguerreotype, from where did Siepmann get that it is not? Frania W. (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

All books & articles?! Google "chopin daguerreotype" and "chopin photograph": not a precise test, I know, but 5000 results versus 3.4 million is interesting. Don't know; not the sort of thing you write unless you think you know. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

RobertG: Encountered an *edit conflict* with you. Here is what I was trying to post:

P.S. And if it is not a daguerreotype, then Siepmann should tell us was process was used because, for a picture done in 1849, we cannot simplify the description to the word *photograph*. In the mid 19th century, there was an evolution in this new art & the new process for each step of the way had a name. Frania W. (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No he should not - his book is a biography of Chopin, not a history of photography. "Photograph" is simply a general term: we describe images of real things, be they Polaroids, digital image files, scanned images, copied images, projected transparencies (and even perhaps daguerreotypes), all as photographs without any problems. Daguerreotype is a specific name for a specific process. If you have a reference that tells us the specific process that made this image then please name it, otherwise it's surely just a photograph. --RobertG ♬ talk 21:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

When I "find the reference that tells us the specific process..." I'll put it there. Frania W. (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you checked the validation of the photo chopin22.jpg? Some time ago a similar picture, named Chopin2.jpg was published in the Wikipedia Chopin article, and immediately retracted. The photo was a mirror version of the present one, and named chopin2.jpg. I downloaded it before it was retracted, to see how long it would take a hoax to be removed. The file was dated may 2007. The photo in the file was dated 1839 in its caption, the present 1847, somebody must have found out that photograhy, was only invented in late 1839 (cf the wikipedia article on photography). The stains 'witnessing' the age of the photo were different. To me the stains don't look authentic, neither on the previous nor the present one. If the validation hasn't been checked it demonstrates a serious problem with Wikipedia. Erik Axel.

Composer project review

I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This article is arguably A-class, and clearly well on its way to FA consideration. I have a few suggestions -- I put them in my review on the comments page. Questions and comments should be left here or on my talk page. Magic♪piano 16:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Progone?

In the quotation from Laurencin, what does the word progone mean? I can’t find a definition anywhere on the web. MJ (t • c) 14:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I suspect that is likely a corruption of the word "paragon," though the source does in fact say "progone." Anyone have access to Oxford Unabridged? We should perhaps remove "progone" and replace it with "paragon" in brackets. It would read something like: "Chopin is the musical [paragon] of all [paragons] until now." Granted, that looks odd; maybe we should just replace the quote with a better one? Snagglepuss (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A "progone" is the opposite of an "epigone"—the latter being "an undistinguished imitator or follower of an important writer, painter, etc." The word "progone" comes from the Greek progonos, meaning "born before."

I propose that we leave the Laurencin quotation ("Music" section) in place and add any other quotation that may be appropriate. Nihil novi (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the definition. I agree with the statement then, FWIW. A link to Wiktionary would be good (except that it’s not defined there yet either). MJ (t • c) 05:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

His students/pupils

This has been mentioned previously, but is there an accurate list anywhere of his students? Some people claimed to have studied under him (such as Debussy's teacher, Marie Mauté de Fleurville), but there's no evidence. Others definitely did, although in most cases their careers came to nothing. That aside, it would be good to have an accurate, referenced, list, which could also make some reference to his student genealogy (notable grand-pupils etc). Maybe a separate article would be the appropriate place. I've just come across another name I'd never heard before - Kazimierz Wernik (1828-1859), who, according to Grove V, studied with Chopin for 2 years 1846-1848. He'd be on the list. If there's no comprehensive list already in existence, I'm prepared to create one. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a worthwhile project, especially given the controversies regarding proper renderings of Chopin's works. Nihil novi (talk) 07:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:French people of Polish descent

How is that?

1. Chopin's father: Frenchman, born in France, emigrated to Poland.
2. Chopin: Polish, born in Poland, emigrated to France.
3. Even if Chopin took French citizenship, he cannot be classified with French people of Polish descent. He could not descend from anything Polish: he WAS Polish.
4. If Chopin acquired French citizenship, then he should be in a category named Polish people who acquired French citizenship, in which you could put Mme Curie, for instance.
5. If Chopin had had any children born in France, then his children would be *French people of Polish descent*.

Frania W. (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Amen. Chopin was, if anything, a Polish person of (partly) French descent. Nihil novi (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Even more: Chopin felt himself, during his exile's journey to France, a Pole. After the Imperial Russian Army routed some Polish November insurgents, he wrote: "May the French suffer the direst torments for not having come to our aid." (in the Polish, "Niech najsroższe męczarnie dręczą Francuzów, co nam na pomoc nie przyszli."). Mathiasrex (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am perplexed at the tone of the article and of the discussion with respect to Chopin's nationality (as well as his father's, being presented as a "French-expatriate", rather than a French citizen expatriated to Poland, or similar). They appear emotional rather than objective. The sentence "to avoid having to rely on Imperial Russian documents, became a French citizen" is not well supported by the quotes provided and conveys a sense of reluctance in taking French papers which is not supported by fact. Furthermore, the article does not accurately capture French law with respect to French citizenship, which was Chopin's by birth right (even though he only officialized it much later). There seems to be a tendency to want to secure Chopin as a Pole. In practice, Chopin was the result of a cultural mix, spoke both languages from childhood, held both citizenships and spent time in both countries (both as a youth in Poland and as an adult in France, to oversimplify). There is no doubt that he had very significant ties (familial, practical and emotional) to both countries - and that he both benefited and occasionally suffered from being a dual-national. He did not renounce his Polish citizenship and the Polish side of his being for officializing his French citizenship, but that does not in any manner support the tone of the article suggesting some sort of constraint and compromize... 168.103.87.121 (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Ergos, Colorado USA

Because I am pretty sure that there would be bruised feelings on the Polish side of the border, I have stayed away from Chopin's nationality, or should I say "nationalities", on both fr:wiki & here; and also because I believe that my arguments would be considered OR. According to the Code Napoléon, his father being French, Chopin was born a French citizen (jus sanguinis). Moreover, his mother became French at the time of her marriage to a French citizen. The passport issued to Chopin in July 1837 (footnote n° 13 in article) states de parents français (= of French parents). Consequently, this "born of French parents" would have made Chopin a dual Polish/French national at birth, ensuing that he never would have had to obtain French nationality. In all the reading I have done, I have never seen anywhere, except on en:wiki, that Chopin "became a French citizen". Some writers have Chopin a dual national, while, ignoring the Code Napoléon on nationality, encyclopedias, dictionaries etc. have him as a Pole whose father was French.

The sentence "to avoid having to rely on Imperial Russian documents, became a French citizen" is wrong. If Chopin did in fact become a French citizen, where is copy of the document, the one showing that Chopin took French nationality? As a Pole, Chopin could have traveled out of France with a Polish(Russian) passport but, why should he go to the Russian Embassy in Paris (which he could never have brought himself to do!) & obtain a passport issued by the Russians when he could get one from the French government (Au nom du roi) as a French citizen ? - which is exactly what he did.

Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Footnote 14 [1] in lead of article directs us to the Chopin article in the much respected & often used as reference Encyclopædia Britannica, which begins as follows: "Polish-French composer and pianist of the Romantic period..."

--Frania W. (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Although above that it calls him just a "Polish" composer, and Larousse seems to regard him simply as Polish. We mustn't get mixed up between citizenship and nationality here - I haven't seen any evidence that he felt himself to be French.--Kotniski (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, Kotniski, give the difference between "citizenship" and "nationality" and explain that difference in the case of Chopin father & son.

Juridically speaking, whether Chopin felt himself to be French or not has nothing to do with the fact that, according to the Code Napoléon (1804), he was French because born of a French father. --Frania W. (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well that's the difference. Citizenship is a legal matter, while nationality is something much fuzzier. I'll believe you about the Code Napoleon (though it's possible that Chopin's father may have ceased to be a French citizen at some point); I don't know what the laws on citizenship of the Duchy of Warsaw or Congress Poland were (or even if it was possible to be a Polish citizen at that time). However Chopin's Polishness (and - to my knowledge - lack of Frenchness) is not based on laws and documents, but where he felt his background and loyalties to lie. (My children are in a similar situation, so I have some experience of this - they're both British and Polish citizens by law, due to mixed parentage, but if you asked them their nationality, I'm pretty sure they'd give just one.)--Kotniski (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, thank you for your reply; however, you are leaving me in the dark as to what the difference is between "citizenship" and "nationality" and as to the way the terms should be applied to Chopin father & son.

Why is it so easy to define what "citizenship" is ("a legal matter"), while you put "nationality" in the "fuzzy" department?

Can one be citizen of a country and not a national of that country?

Is not a citizen of France a French national?

Was not Chopin's father a French citizen and also a French national?

By the way, Papa Chopin never lost his French citizenship/nationality. Also, remember that Chopin's 1837 passport bears the phrase "issu de parents français", as even Chopin's mother - again because of the Code Napoléon - became French at the time of her marriage to a Frenchman.

--Frania W. (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Frania W. I suggest you read the following article: Nationality. It explains the difference between nationality and citizenship pretty well.  Dr. Loosmark  19:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Dr. Loosmark. Now that I have read the article, I still cannot figure out what the argument is about here: Chopin father & son: "citizens" or "nationals": c'est du pareil au même. And whether Frédéric Chopin is a "French citizen" or a "French national", it should be added, to his biography, not removed. According to the 1804 Code Napoléon in effect at the time of his birth, Chopin had the French nationality because born of a French father (jus sanguinis), no matter where in the world he was born: "un enfant né de père français est français". That clearly covers the case of Chopin.

--Frania W. (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

To Kotninski: Chopin's Polishness (and - to my knowledge - lack of Frenchness)... is not wording usually seen on someone's passport. Chopin's feelings, "Polishness or lack of Frenchness" (as you say) belong in the article itself, while his nationality or the fact that he is a Polish-French dual national belong in the lead, and should be developed at the beginning of the biography section with a footnote to the 1804 Code Napoléon with mention of the so important jus sanguinis case, that made him a Frenchman at birth.

--Frania W. (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

We have a copy of:

• Chopin's baptism certificate with mention that his father was French

I think you mean "baptism certificate", Frania. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Jack of Oz, my mistake, I meant to write "baptism certificate", not "birth". Corrected --Frania W. (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Chopin's 1837 French passport with mention that his parents were French

However, we have no copy of the very important document we need to prove what's written in the article about Chopin becoming French:

• Chopin's naturalisation document.

And yet, that is what we base our argument RE Chopin's supposed acquired French nationality/citizenship. In other words, we ignore what is in front of our eyes and use as proof of what we advance something that is invisible. Hm! Vous avez dit étrange?

--Frania W. (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're still not getting the difference between nationality and citizenship. On the citizenship question, I think I'd agree that the statement about Chopin "acquiring French citizenship" may be based on an error in the source. But on the nationality question, I don't think that his using a one-year travel document issued by the French authorities (particularly if it didn't follow any conscious decision to adopt French citizenship) can be considered evidence of any kind of allegiance or feeling of belonging to France on his part.--Kotniski (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, OK, I'll put the question to you another way: Is someone born in France of French parents, a French citizen or a French national? According to the Code Napoléon, when Chopin was born he was a French*man* (a tiny one!). Was he then a French citizen or a French national?

As to (quoting you) ... can be considered evidence of any kind of allegiance or feeling of belonging to France on his part. Chopin must have felt some tie with France because that's where he chose to remain. He could have stayed in Austria, Germany, England, Italy, but he lived in France for the second half of his life. He, naturally, was close to the Poles living in Paris, this while living in the midst of the French artistic & intellectual milieu. In other words, when living in France, he did not limit his acquaintances to only people from Poland.

The one-year travel document, his 1837 passport (he had already got one in 1835), may not be evidence of any allegiance or feeling of belonging to France, but it is evidence that the French considered him to be French "issu de parents français", otherwise, the "Police Générale de France" would not have issued him a passport "Au nom du roi".

The love of Chopin for Poland did not stop him from being a Frenchman - citizen or national, whatever the difference. --Frania W. (talk) 13:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think we agree that the French authorities considered him to be legally French. The Russian authorities may have considered him to be legally Russian. This all speaks to citizenship (or "being a ... national" - the noun "national" means the same as citizen to me, rather confusingly). But he apparently considered himself to be Polish, which speaks to nationality (or "being a Pole"). Going back to me, I live in Poland and have many Polish friends, but that doesn't make me Polish. I'm not an English citizen (there's no such thing, only UK) but I still consider my nationality to be English.--Kotniski (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, maybe we are getting somewhere with your I think we agree that the French authorities considered him to be legally French. The French authorities considered Chopin to be legally French for the very reason that he was. And, aside from Chopin's feelings about his Polishness, this simple detail should not be blatantly ignored in an encyclopedia. --Frania W. (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. There is a difference between you & Chopin living in a country that is not the country of your birth: in the case of Chopin, he happened to live in a country (France) that was not his birthplace (your case also, if I understand correctly as far as Poland is concerned), but that was the country of birth of his father, which, because of French law, made Chopin un petit Français à sa naissance. Why is Chopin's Frenchness such a hard pill to swallow for the Poles? --Frania W. (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't know what you mean with the last sentence (I'm not aware of Chopin's "Frenchness" being a major topic of conversation among Poles or anyone else, except here). How do you propose to incorporate your discoveries into the article?--Kotniski (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, This last sentence of mine was inspired by what you wrote earlier: However Chopin's Polishness (and - to my knowledge - lack of Frenchness...), dixit you.

I am not surprised that Chopin's "Frenchness" is not a "major topic of conversation among Poles"; however, I see no reason why in an article on Chopin, his "Frenchness" should be downplayed or ignored; and here, I am not talking about Chopin's soul, but his legal status as a Frenchman from the time of his birth. I, for instance, do not think that he had to "become" a French citizen in order to get a French passport (as stated by Tad Szulc), but that after he arrived in France, he contacted the French authorities (probably had to go to the Préfecture de police in Paris) - as you just do not enter a country & decide to make it your permanent residence without legal authorisation -, thus establishing his French nationality because born of a French father. (Code Napoléon)

How am I going to incorporate my discoveries? First, they are no my discoveries, and the reason I have not incorporated them in the article is because they probably would be interpreted as original research and rejected. But this being a talk page, I feel free to talk about the subject, just as others have brought it up. Please note that, although this article is on my watch list, I very seldom touch it, I even once reverted a "Polish-French" because I felt that it would start an edit war.

If/When I find a reference acceptable to Wikipedia as a secondary source, unless the 1804 Code Napoléon can be used, I will present it, then we can discuss the subject again. In the meantime, I am not touching that part of the article, although I believe that this sentence in the third paragraph of the lead needs editing "Though an ardent Polish patriot,[10][11] in France he used the French versions of his given names and in 1835, possibly to avoid having to rely on Imperial Russian documents, became a French citizen.[12][13][14]". --Frania W. (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I"m going to start a new thread at the bottom of the page, to see if anyone can shed any more light on this.--Kotniski (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Birth Date

22 march ... is this old style julian date? His birth certificate said 22feb Y23 (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What birth certificate would that be? Chopin historians are unaware of the existence of a birth certificate. All we have is a baptismal certicate, with an alleged (but generally considered erroneous) birth date recorded on it. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Background

Chopin is both Polish and French: his mother was Polish and his father was French (according to the Encyclopedia Britannica). In acknowledging his ethnic background, we should state that he is Polish-French. Quarkde (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

We state that his father was French. But his nationality was Polish, which he retained even after adopting French citizenship. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I assumed that the statement was about ethnicity, not nationality, because the word "Polish" is a link to the article about Poles, the polish ethnic group. Should it instead be a link to the article about Poland (to imply that "Polish" in that context means "Citizen of Poland")? Quarkde (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography order

I have used reverse chronological order because that is the most effective way to allow the reader to trace the scholarly discussion back from the most current sources to the earlier ones.Wordpainter2416 (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Frédéric Chopin 'book'

We now have a Frédéric Chopin 'book' see Wikipedia:Books/Frédéric Chopin. The contents can be edited. In particular the chronological order of the compositions probably needs checking. --Kleinzach 02:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is meant by chronological order? Checking of List of compositions by Frédéric Chopin? Insorak ♫ talk 22:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Maria Wodzińska's portrait of Chopin

In 1835, when Chopin was twenty-five, his soon-to-be-fiancée Maria Wodzińska painted a watercolor portrait of him which Tad Szulc, in Chopin in Paris, describes as one of the two best portraits of the composer. (It graces the cover of the book.) There may be a reproduction of the portrait in the museum that was formerly the apartment that Chopin shared with his family until November 1830, in the Krasiński Palace south annex at Krakowskie Przedmieście 5 in Warsaw. The museum is very near the Holy Cross Church, where Chopin's heart is immured.

Perhaps someone could check whether the portrait is at the museum and photograph it for the "Chopin" article? (For technical reasons, the cover of Szulc's book doesn't make a good original.) Nihil novi (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

George Sand

Undid adjective "woman" as it is unnecessary information. Despite her unusual pseudonym it is not customary to designate the sex of a writer in such a context. Furthermore it's poor English. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with my colleague.  Dr. Loosmark  22:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Which one? Dr. Dan (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the previous wording, "authoress," and of the more recent "woman author" was to make it clear to uninitiates that George Sand was not a male and Chopin was not a homosexual. Nihil novi (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It should not take too long for "uninitiates" to figure out that George Sand was not a man, as she is mentioned in the third paragraph of the lead. Also, there are a couple of portraits of her in the article... Frania W. (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully my edit [2] solved the issue to everyone's satisfaction here, at this discussion. In any case the edit objected to in no way established or refuted the sexual preferences of either Chopin ("sometimes Szopen"} or George Sand to the "uninitiates" (sic) or anyone else. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Cher Dr. Dan! Merci, you beat me to it! I was going to propose her real name. Frania W. (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Became a French citizen in 1835 (?)

Does anyone have any other source for this statement (which appears in the lead - of the three sources given for it, only the Tad Szulc book actually seems to mention it)? As mentioned above in the thread #Category:French people of Polish descent, Chopin probably had French citizenship all the time, and so didn't need to "change" his citizenship in order to obtain a French passport. Is this matter mentioned in any other sources that people know of?--Kotniski (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Kotniski for this appeal. I am reading a couple of books on Chopin & want to go from beginning to end to be sure I am not skipping anything on this subject, as it may be mentioned (if at all) very succinctly. What I think may have been the case with Chopin is that after his arrival in France in 1831, like anyone else entering the country for whatever reason (passing through, immigration, political asylum, etc.) he had to present himself to the French authorities, in this case, the Préfecture de Police. Faced with the fact that he was a Pole born of a French father, which made him a Frenchman (1804 Code Napoléon), he may then have had to choose between the two, because French law at the time (in the 1830s), may not have allowed that someone be a dual national. Thus, this would have been a "choice" of opting for either French or Polish citizenship, not "becoming" a French citizen. --Frania W. (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That's possible. It would also be good to know if the concept of "Polish citizenship" existed at that time (when Congress Poland was de facto part of the Russian Empire). Maybe the choice would have been between French and Russian.--Kotniski (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Returning to the Code Napoleon (see here), I suspect that Chopin's father would have lost the "quality of Frenchman" under article 17 or 21. Hence Chopin may indeed have had to "recover that quality" under article 10 (wrt 9).--Kotniski (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Had Nicolas Chopin lost his French citizenship, then why would the French government issue his son Frédéric a passport on which is inscribed "issu de parents français"? --Frania W. (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. RE the title of this section: Became a French citizen in 1835: while we are debating whether Chopin did become a French citizen in 1835 or did not have to, the title of this section makes it appear as if Chopin did; so, I am adding a question mark. --Frania W. (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this says that Chopin "refused to take a Russian passport".--Kotniski (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the Code Napoléon & an article by a French (modern) university legal expert, I am reading three books - one a French translation of the History of Poland published in 1971 by the "Éditions scientifiques de Pologne in Warsaw, P.Z.G.K. Poznań", another by a French author on the life of Chopin, the third one being the translation in English of his correspondence, where I fell upon a very interesting letter from his father dated 7 September 1834:

As it seems you will be remaining abroad for some time to come, I must tell you, my boy, that there should have been a notice in the French Official Gazette of 11 June to the effect that every Pole is required to obtain an extension of his passport. As you left before the troubles began and took no part in them, I do wish you would make inquiries about this at the embassy. I confess I should not like to see you finding yourself through carelessness numbered among the émigrés. Do not fail to do this and let me know what happens - it is easy for you to do this since you are well known.

My feeling is that Nicolas Chopin may not have realised at the time that, because of his own French nationality, his son was French, then maybe he knew. On the other hand, Frédéric living in Paris was mingling with the "high society" of France where artists such as him met people in high offices, government members, (he performed at the court of Louis-Philippe on several occasions). At one time, he must have made the acquaintance of those who could advise him on his legal status in France; he, then, would have been informed that he was French, the proof being that he got a French passport with the mention "issu de parents français". As to the "embassy" mentioned by Nicolas Chopin, it was not, unfortunately, the Polish embassy (non-existing), but the Russian embassy in Paris, the last place Chopin would have mis les pieds ! (Before the end of 1834, Chopin himself may not have known that, because of the Code Napoléon, he had been a French citizen/national since birth.) --Frania W. (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that seems quite likely (though we can't include our own speculation in the article - let us know if you find anything else on the subject in the course of your reading). Meanwhile I think it's time to remove or at least play down the "change of citizenship" statement in the article - since there's effectively only one source for it, out of all the many available sources on Chopin's life, I think it's reasonable to regard that source as unreliable in this matter.--Kotniski (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, I agree with your removal of that one source. As you can imagine, I am combing books in order to get that piece of information, lacking (?), but that seems so obvious to me because of the Code Napoléon & Chopin's French passport. Is not the information right in front of our eyes in the very existence of that 1837 French passport with the sentence "issu de parents français"? A passport is an official document, not something given out of complaisance. However, we need incontestable proof. In the meantime, I am not touching the article. --Frania W. (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Chopin an illegitimate child?

I've just read the following text "Furthermore, while most accept he was the son of a French expatriate some experts argue he was the bastard child of an unnamed aristocrat. The truth has been lost to time." here [3]. Does anybody know any more about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varsovian (talk • contribs) 10:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No, and that's not the only thing I'd question:

Most sources agree he was born on February 22, 1810, yet some claim his family could be found celebrating his birth on March 1.

• That is the opposite of the truth. Most sources agree he was born on 1 March, the date his family celebrated his birthday. His baptismal certificate, written a considerable time after his birth, says 22 February, but this is widely considered to be an error.

At the time of his death only Jane Stirling, his Scottish benefactor, claimed to know the truth, and this she wrote on a piece of paper before burying it with him.

• I have never heard anything remotely like this. What was so mysterious and secret about his true date of birth?

Furthermore, while most accept he was the son of a French expatriate some experts argue he was the bastard child of an unnamed aristocrat. The truth has been lost to time.

• Which "experts"?

He graduated from the Conservatory in 1829, the same year he was to meet Konstancha Gładkowska ...

• Konstancha? Konstancia, surely.

Dissuaded from joining the uprising himself Chopin drew inspiration from events to write his masterpiece, Revolution.

• The Revolutionary Study is not known simply as "Revolution".

These questions lead me to the conclusion that this is not a reliable source, and it can safely be ignored. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll email the author and ask about his sources.

The Jane Stirling story is mentioned here [4] and the same place says that "The Chopin Society celebrates the 22nd of February, as our Founder, Lucie Swiatek, favoured that date"

Konstancia? Konstancja, surely. Although I guess a Pole would use a 'j', a Brit would use an 'i' and a Russian would use an 'h'.

Out of interest, googling "Chopin Revolution" gets thousands of hits, so perhaps some people do know it by that name. Varsovian (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As promised, I have emailed the author of that text about his sources. He replied that his information comes from multiple sources, all of which are very reliable. He's travelling round Poland at the moment and has the sources on his office PC in Warsaw. Once he's emailed them to me and I've checked them out, I will be incorporating them into the article.Varsovian (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

To Varsovian: I have one word for your piece of information & the article from which you got it: TRASH.

I also wish you would not have put this title for the section you created. To do this, use that word, a few weeks before the bicentenary of Chopin's birth is shameful and, if you had any sense of decency, you would remove it. --Frania W. (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree, the title is insulting. I will change it.  Dr. Loosmark  23:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Dziękuję ! --Frania W. (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

DO NOT edit my posts! Varsovian (talk) 09:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I see you have decided to edit war over the title. Very well, you are only showing your complete lack of culture.  Dr. Loosmark  09:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I have reported your revert. Check your user talk page for details.Varsovian (talk) 10:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Frania: would you consider "Chopin an illegitmate child" to be an appropriate title for this discussion? If you would, I will be happy to change it. I simply used the word from the source I quoted.Varsovian (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"At the time of his death only Jane Stirling, his Scottish benefactor, claimed to know the truth, and this she wrote on a piece of paper before burying it with him."

Varsovian,

1. When I see such a sentence at the beginning of an article, I immediately know the type of article it is. In French, this falls into the category of "presse à sensation", in English, "tabloid", and I call it TRASH. Imagine lending truth to the supposedly claim made by Jane Stirling (please bring the proof) that she wrote his real birthdate on a piece of paper and had him buried with it...!!! My answer to such sentence is that, logically, if the truth was buried, how can anyone use that piece of evidence to prove anything, one way or the other?

• Now, one small & unique argument I am going to bring against that very sentence, and that is going to shoot it down as total untruth. At the time of his death, 17 October 1849, Jane Stirling could not be the only person to know the truth about Chopin's birthdate as his mother was still alive. Then, there was also his sister Ludwika who took his heart back to Poland. So, the piece of paper buried with Chopin by Mme Stirling...? Fairytale!

2. Another piece of TRASH: "Furthermore, while most accept he was the son of a French expatriate some experts argue he was the bastard child of an unnamed aristocrat. The truth has been lost to time."

• Here is a mix up if I ever saw one! (And who are the "some experts"? The one Chopin that may (no proof, just a rumour) have been born out of wedlock from a Polish aristocrat living in France year before the birth of Chopin's father or Chopin himself would have been François Chopin, who was Frédéric's grandfather. So, after having read that sentence written out of ignorance and for sensationalism, you feel that it is correct to insult the memory of Frédéric Chopin, and that of his mother & father by putting such a title for the new section you created?

To see such garbage here a few weeks before the 200th anniversary of Chopin's birth is revolting!

I'll add a few expressions or phrases picked out of the article you are offering to us as the Truth parachuted to Earth:

"gushing reviews",

"Joseph Elsner, who was wowed by Chopin’s musical mastery",

"sparkling foreign debut",

"Chopin settled in playboy Paris",

"while his dapper dress and natural charms attracted a string of adoring females",

"Polish scandal sheets",

"controversial author George Sand (yes, that’s a woman)",

"he embarked on a torrid nine year affair" (the affair with Sand was anything but *torrid*),

"their rocky relationship" (was not *rocky*, only ended after ten years because of disagreement at the marriage of Sand's daughter),

"Sand, a loose-moraled man-killer",

"Broke, ill and now broken-hearted, Chopin led an increasingly miserable and secluded life." (not true as Chopin was surrounded by his friends who helped him out financially and stayed by his side until his last breath),

"though just like his birth, his death is equally contentious" (again not true, Chopin died of tuberculosis),

"If you believe the stories he carried a lock of Sand’s hair till the day he died (though by the same token he is also alleged to have carried an urn of Polish soil)" (the lock of hair was Marie's & there is no doubt about the Polish soil),

"he was petrified ",

"His funeral was as weird as his life",

"So tough cheese"

Such style should prevent anyone serious about contributing to the making of an encyclopedia to use this very text as a source. I would not touch a word of it with a ten foot pole.

So, Varsovian, answering your question Frania: would you consider "Chopin an illegitimate child" to be an appropriate title for this discussion?, my answer is a resounding No !, and at the risk of repeating myself, I find either of the titles you came up with extremely offensive, and stupidly so because based on untruth. I also find it ridiculous that you should report Dr. Loosmark as a vandal. The ones who desecrate the memory of people are the vandals, so, please, Varsovian, reconsider the title & do not make an edit war out of this.

--Frania W. (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You call it trash, I call it information from the Chopin Society. And it is most probable that they are ever so slightly better informed about Chopin than you are, wouldn't you say? They certainly seem to have less of a problem keeping a NPoV when talking about him. As for your comment about "the Truth parachuted to Earth", kindly do not attempt to put words into my mouth: I said that I had just read that text and asked if anybody knew anything more about it. If the author of the text provides me with the sources which he claims to have and if the sources meet WP policy, I will be including the information in this article. Varsovian (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Because this a link to the Chopin Society?

http://www.inyourpocket.com/warsaw_71560f?more=1

--Frania W. (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you think you could possibly drop the attitude? That is clearly not a link to the Chopin Society, so why bother posting to imply that I said it is? The link to the Chopin Society which I have provided above is http://www.chopin-society.org.uk/articles/chopin-birthday.htm It covers the claim about the paper which Chopin's real date of birth on it being buried with him. Perhaps you would like to remember that just because you haven't heard something before does not automatically make it wrong. Varsovian (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Drop my attitude? Do you mind if, instead, I drop my participation in this exchange? --Frania W. (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy 200th, Fred

Happy bicentenary, wherever you are. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC) (it's 1 March where I am)

Joyeux anniversaire avec un bouquet de deux cents violettes! --Frania W. (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy Birthday, may your music live on for another 200 years. Etincelles ^(talk) 23:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Added Trivia

Hi guys

I added a Trivia section to mention the fact that the municipality of Tirana, Albania had named a square after the composer. I have provided the references, but they are in Albanian. Also, if anyone thinks that the information i put belongs to a subsection or somewhere else in the composer's biography, please make the necessary changes, for i can't figure out where or how to put it.

Best regards LiveGo 21:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orges (talk • contribs)

Baptism

The policy of the Roman Catholic Church in the 19th century was not to "Christen" children in the the vernacular (as is done today) and his baptismal records would show "Fridericus Franciscus Chopin" rather than Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Now you only need to provide a RS for "Fridericus Franciscus Chopin".  Dr. Loosmark  18:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it might be easier than providing an RS that he was "christened" Fryderyk Franciszek. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok we are eagerly awaiting your sources. In the mean time you don't mind if I revert your for now unsourced edit, do you?  Dr. Loosmark  23:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Dan is correct: the registration of Chopin baptism is written in Latin showing dual names Fridericus Franciscus. His parents are "Nicolai Choppen French ("Galli") and Justina Kryzanowska, legally married..."

Including Latin names in lead of article & this as footnote: http://diaph16.free.fr/chopin//actenaissancechopin.png

Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(OD) Thank you, Frania, for providing the source. Personally it was not my intention to add the Latin version to the lead of the Chopin article, since I think it is unnecessary "overkill". The issue was simply that Chopin was not "christened", Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin, that is his name in Polish, and correcting this error was sufficient. That is all that I did with my edit and all that I desired. Again Frania, thank you for your extra work and efforts. Loosmark, there was no need to turn this into some kind of hostile incident. Correcting a blatantly false assertion doesn't require a "source". Chopin was baptised in Latin. Despite this simple fact, I only made the assertion that records show he was not baptised in Polish, here on the talk page, not at the article. My comment [5] was an explanation for my edit [6]. I shouldn't have bothered to ask you to provide a source for the other version because you couldn't do so even if you wanted to. My bad. Childish and useless comments like "Ok we are eagerly awaiting your sources. In the mean time you don't mind if I revert your for now unsourced edit, do you?", serve no purpose in so far as improving the project. Don't kid yourself that your comments and behavior do anything to advance your arguments and beliefs in the eyes of anyone trying to end the continuing juvenile and adolescent mentality that should have ended with the WP:EEML fiasco. Sometimes I read some of the things posted in these arguments and ask myself if these aren't the same people who "visit" the project on a daily basis with vulgar and obscene "edits" and then crawl back into the wood work for a day or two, and come back with more "gems". Eventually one can only hope these people will come around to realize the error of their ways and maybe contribute to improving Wikipedia. If not, they will find that they are not welcome and continue to be reverted, blocked, and banned from the project. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Dan I don't know what do you mean by advance your arguments and beliefs. With regards to Chopin I have no arguments or beliefs and I most certainly don't want to "advance" anything. All I am interested in is that the editors adhere to wikipedia's editing principles. Also interesting that you accuse me of juvenile and adolescent mentality but apparently you didn't have the slightest problem when a certain gentleman stamped a big title on this very talk page hinting that Chopin was a "bastard". That was the only really vulgar and obscene thing on this talk page.  Dr. Loosmark  10:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that you could perhaps read WP:AGF? It very very much appears from your behaviour towards me that you need to read it several times. Kindly note that I did not 'hint' that Chopin was a bastard: I posted a source (one which I find to be most usually accurate) and asked if anybody knew any more about the claim made in that article. Varsovian (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Back to the topic, of course this is interesting information, but I don't think it belongs in the lead of the article (as far as I know this Latin name wasn't used anywhere else than in the baptismal records, so it's hardly a notable name). Any objections if we move it to the section of the article that deals with his birth?--Kotniski (talk) 10:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

To All: I knew it was an "overkill"... and personally removed it, leaving the info in footnote "2". Bonne journée! --Frania W. (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

After edits by Kotniski & myself, is this satisfactory now? --Frania W. (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it seems ok now.  Dr. Loosmark  12:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article seems a little biased in its (arguably) excessive praise of Chopin. Quotations or citations regarding his supposed 'universal appeal' litter the article and seem to give the impression that there is no criticism of his music. While the reality is that his style of writing is quite out of fashion with many contemporary musicologists and composers, and much of the piano music of the 20th and 21st century piano music has been written 'in reaction to' what is seen as his bombastically scalar writing which has become the norm in popular perception of what is 'pianistic'. Is there anyone with a bit more background in the subject who would be able to contribute a section on this aspect of the contemporary reception of his work? I am not calling for a 'bash chopin' section or even 'criticism' -- if anything, it is a testimony to his profound success that his style is something to be reacted against. Thoughts? Am I just talking out of my hat, here?--James O'Callaghan 22:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDOCallaghan (talk • contribs)

My thoughts are that despite the truth of your comments (Chopin clearly does not have universal appeal, I know a number of people who can't stand his work), you will soon learn how Poles react to people who dare to even question the outstanding status of any Polish success! Varsovian (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha, perhaps. Hopefully they will join me in my love of Penderecki, then? --James O'Callaghan 03:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear James O'Callaghan,

While the reality is that his style of writing is quite out of fashion ... Could you give us something that is not "out of fashion" a century and a half later? And maybe "out of fashion" as far as composing is concerned, but certainly not "out of fashion" the way Chopin's music touches us, as does Mozart's music, Beethoven's or Telemann's. The fact that we are in the 21st century & musical styles have changed should not take anything out of the genius of Chopin, no more than Chopin's music took anything out of the genius of Mozart or Bach, two composers he greatly admired. Until now, great composers & performers always "respected their elders", as every great composer is a link between the past & the future. If it has become fashionable by some late 20th century & beginning 21st musicologists to belittle the creations of the greatest of the greats, it is a rather sad undertaking on their part. This being said, if you feel that this article is lacking in proper criticism of Chopin's work, why don't you create a new section ? - you already have a title for it.

do witz...! --Frania W. (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC) (And you may put your hat back on your head.)

I think I must have been in a bad mood when I wrote this. Anyway, perhaps what is best to take out of it is how Chopin's scalar style really did define what became known as idiomatic for the piano, and through that there has been a lot of continuation of and reaction to that style. This is really in a way that goes beyond the general 'old composers go out of fashion' conceit, which is not what I meant. In any case, I do believe I went on a bit of a rant and perhaps went a bit too far. I merely worry about the occasional generalizing statement about his universal appeal, etc.--James O'Callaghan 03:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. O'Callaghan,

It is quite unheard of for someone to admit to have been in a bad mood when writing! Funny because your words caused me to go into a rant..., which I admit. And I do agree with you that Chopin's music may not be universally loved or appreciated: to each his/her own taste. But do these 'old composers' really go out of fashion? Their music is an unlimited source used in films, films usually remembered because of their music. In the late 1940s, a song was composed by the Hungarian/French composer Joseph Kosma. It became a success around the world. Its title in French is Les feuilles mortes, known in English as Autumn leaves. The first measures of the refrain? : the fifth measure of Bach's Fantasie in D minor. How many supposedly Bach-haters do love that song, unaware that its refrain comes straight out of Bach ?

Back to Chopin, why don't you write the 'critic' section? Cordialement !! --Frania W. (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wasted space & signature

The space between the end of the lead & life section is too large. Is not there a way to remedy this problem?

Also, Chopin's signature [7] should be right under his photograph, not so far down.

• Catherine of Aragon: in infobox;
• Louis XIV : ditto;
• Bach : at beginning of article, under his portrait;
• Mozart : ditto;
• Beethoven : ditto;
• Franz Schubert : ditto.

--Frania W. (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Chopin's other photograph (the one where he wasn't about to die)

Why has this been relegated to the bottom of the page? It should be next to the other one like it was for a time. Cloak' —Preceding undated comment added 13:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC).

LEAD: Polish, French, or Polish-French?

I correct it , in fact chopin was half french and half polish, so I don't understand why people write only polish. What's wrong with french ? Is it francophobia or something like this ? I understand that he was born in Poland but he gained french citizens thanks to his father ( « Tout enfant né d'un Français a l'étranger est Français »). So he was half french, half polish. It's not complicated, except if you have something against the french ....:( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.66.146.209 (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You have to understand that although Chopin had a French father, a Polish mother and French citizenship to many Poles he is in no way French, he is purely Polish. Just as Copernicus had a Polish father, a German mother and spoke no Polish but to many Poles he is in no way German, he is purely Polish.... Varsovian (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The father of Nicolaus Copernicus came from Cracow, where the majority of merchants were Germans, and shortly after arriving in Thorn, he served in the "Schöppen" council, for which he had to be able to speak proper German. While a few other persons are referred to in council documents as Polish, no member of the astronomer's family ever was. -- Matthead  Discuß   19:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Which brings up the question: Are we to follow the guidelines, or are we to edit the article merely to appease one nationality or another?

Wiki guidelines: The opening paragraph should have:

1. Name(s) and title(s), if any (see, for instance, also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility));
2. Dates of birth and death, if known (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death);
3. Nationality and ethnicity –
   1. Usually this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. (Note: There is no consensus on how to define nationality for people from the United Kingdom, which encompasses constituent countries. For more information, please see the essay "Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom" and the talk page archives. There are also issues with highly mobile people whose nationality may be unclear.)
   2. Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities and/or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.
4. What the person did;
5. Why the person is significant.

THD3 (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Are the 1804 Code Napoléon on French citizenship, plus the facsimile of Chopin's register of baptism and one of his passports (1837) issued by the French wiki-acceptable as proof of Chopin's French nationality?

--Frania W. (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I would very much say that they are (which is why I edited the article to say "Polish-French"). I suppose an alternative might be to simply not mention his nationality in the lede. Varsovian (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't do original research or original synthesis here. We assume Chopin probably had French citizenship from the evidence presented, but until a reliable source says it, we can't say it. Anyway that's a different matter from his "nationality", which is what's important for purposes of the lead. I don't think anyone who knows anything about Chopin can doubt that he identified as a Pole. If there's any evidence that he considered himself a Frenchman (and it's that that matters, not whether the French government considered him a Frenchman), then I've yet to see it. (The guideline quoted isn't much help, as Chopin lived in a time where nations did not generally correspond to citizenship-granting states - he probably wasn't even a Polish citizen, as there was no such thing at that time.)--Kotniski (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski: Something escapes me.

Is reading the "Code Napoléon", which has been in effect since 1804 and was in effect in the Duchy of Warsaw at the time of Chopin's birth, doing original research anymore than reading the driving code, which tells us that running a red light is a "no-no", be considered original research? In either case, the law is the law printed black on white for everyone to read and to know.

• Here is the 1804 Code Napoléon translated into English:
  • http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/government/code/book1/c_title01.html#chapter1, where you can read at #10 Every child born of a Frenchman in a foreign country is French.

In addition:

• Chopin's register of baptism in which his father's French nationality is mentioned:
  • http://diaph16.free.fr/chopin//actenaissancechopin.png
• Chopin's 1837 French passport issued "Au nom du Roi", stating that Chopin was born of French parents:
  • http://diaph16.free.fr/chopin//passeportchopin.png

Is this to be considered original research when it is easily available on the Internet with the click of the mouse? If it is there, others have done the research before and made it available to us.

--Frania W. (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Frania W., reading the code is definitely not original research because anyone can do so. Original research is primarily experimental work (like dropping a Mentos into a bottle of Pepsi to see if it will explode), or similar.THD3 (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, if reading the code "is definitely not original research", then article 10 of Code Napoléon (1804) can be used as proof of Chopin's French nationality at birth.

--Frania W. (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

But drawing a conclusion from what you've read is original research. Since we are not lawyers specializing in 19th-century French law (apologies to anyone who is), we can't make deductions like this. For all we know, the law changed, or Chopin's father lost his French nationality (which the Code Napoleon would in fact imply, and which the Polish parish priest wouldn't know about), or any of a number of things that renders our conclusion invalid. And in any case, this isn't the matter we're discussing, since in Chopin's case citizenship law is of such little significance that as far as we known none of his many biographers have mentioned it, therefore it does not belong anywhere near the lead.--Kotniski (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Does one need to be a lawyer specializing in 19th-century French law to look at a passport? Chopin had a French passport, as can be seen by looking at his French passport. Do we know if he had a Polish passport? Varsovian (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2010

Konitski.

1. The Code Napoléon is the law, which - in France - no one is supposed to ignore. If it is necessary to find - not reading it out of the Code itself - that a child born of a Frenchman in a foreign country is French, then I shall endeavour to do so.

2. The Code Napoléon is still in vigor and a child born to at least one French parent (mother included, which was not the case in 1804) outside of France is French.

3. Even if the law had changed, as far as Chopin is concerned, the law applied would have been that of the time he was born, i.e. the 1804 Code Napoléon.

4. If Chopin's father had lost his French nationality, then it would not be written on Chopin's 1837 passport "born of French parents" (in the plural because when Chopin's mother married Nicolas Chopin, she automatically became French.)

5. Leaving Chopin's nationalities out of the lead will not solve the problem because it will always come up, and with good reason: every author, composer, poet, political person is given his/her nationality in first sentence of the lead, so we cannot escape with Chopin.

• Example #1 with Victor Hugo: Victor-Marie Hugo (French pronunciation: [viktɔʁ maʁi yˈɡo]) (26 February 1802 – 22 May 1885) was a French poet, playwright, novelist, essayist, visual artist, statesman, human rights activist and exponent of the Romantic movement in France.
• Example #2 with Marie Curie: Marie Skłodowska Curie (7 November 1867 – 4 July 1934) was a physicist and chemist of Polish upbringing and subsequent French citizenship. NOTE: (quite a weird way of describing her as being born a Pole! and that remains in Wikipedia...)

--Frania W. (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Varsovian: Chopin arrived in France in 1831 with probably a Polish Russian passport, which he found difficult to bring himself to renew (in 1834) because he would have had to go to the Russian Embassy in Paris. Polish refugees in France were to either renew their Polish passport (thru the Russian Embassy), or register with the French as "émigrés", which Nicolas Chopin suggested he not do, in a letter to his son dated 7 September 1834. That is when Chopin contacted the French administration & got a French passport - based on the fact that he was born a Frenchman because his father was French, hence the mention on his French passport "né de parents français".

Please forgive me, but I must leave my computer for a few hours & will pick up the discussion later.

Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Leaving out the bit in the lede about the nationality of Copernicus (whose father apparently makes him Polish to some people) seems to have stopped the problem about what nationality he was. Varsovian (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Copernicus can't be easily assigned to any nationality. Chopin can. There is no "problem" here except that of certain notoriously anti-Polish editors who show up time and time again to try to score points off the Poles by raising irrelevant facts. No-one can seriously dispute that "a Polish composer" very accurately represents the man (though the lead should also mention - without cites, they come later - his significant connections with France).--Kotniski (talk) 06:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In future kindly refrain from calling me a racist. Varsovian (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on the above arguments, I conclude that the intro should describe Chopin as being Polish-French. FWIW, similar discussions have taken place in the talk pages of the Vladimir Horowitz and Arthur Rubinstein articles, with similar results. There is another issue with the intro: It's too long. Everything but the top paragrapgh should be integrated into the main body of article.THD3 (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the intro should describe Chopin as being Polish-French. However, it may be less controversial to simply omit references to his nationality there. Varsovian (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2010

(UTC)

It would made things simpler to omit the nationality - but it's against MOS as described above. Information should not be left out merely to avoid upsetting certain persons. THD3 (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The ugly bolded Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin should be removed from the lead. Would should the English Wikipedia show Polish translations of the German names Friedrich and Franz, when the composer himself used the French translations? -- Matthead  Discuß   19:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I would very much agree with that. Varsovian (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You agree that Chopin's names were translations of German ones? I've come to expect this sort of trash from Matthead, but I thought you were just a bit more discerning. --Kotniski (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could limit yourself to addressing the comments that I make and not the ones that I do not make? I agree that the bolded Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin should be removed. The man himself used the French names and those are also the names used in English. I have never once heard a native speaker of English use the name Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin. Varsovian (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's perfectly normal to give the French names of French people, German names of German people, etc. in this way in Wikipedia. Why this sudden objection when it comes to a Polish person? (In fact, even my one-volume "New Everyman Dictionary of Music", which has a much shorter article on Chopin than we do, finds space for this information and presents it in practically the same way we do.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This is English language Wikipedia: we use the names most commonly used by speakers of English. In that case that name also happens to be the name used by the subject of the article. Interestingly, Polish language WP [8] can find no space to include the name by which Chopin is known to the English speaking word or to his French compatriots. Varsovian (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And he was born in the Duchy of Warsaw, ruled by Frederick Augustus I of Saxony. If Copernicus is claimed as Polish just because his hometown has allied a few years before his birth with a king of Poland on the occasion of his wedding with a German princess, then Chopin can be claimed as Saxon, too. -- Matthead  Discuß   19:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, clearly Chopin should be described as German—as was demonstrated earlier by certain German scholars of the National Socialist period. Nihil novi (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think that comparing German editors to Nazis is acceptable under WP:CIVIL? Varsovian (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And clearly the French writer George Sand, Chopin's bosom friend, must have been mistaken when she described him as "more Polish than Poland." Nihil novi (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've read about that. The author of the piece which I read pointed out that at the time when the comment was made Poland did not actually exist and thus something even a quarter Polish would be more Polish than Poland. Varsovian (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

We are beginning to slide off the subject, which should not be what people such as Sand thought of Chopin's Polishness, i.e. the nationality of his soul & his music, but what his actual nationality was according to the civil code (Code Napoléon) in vigor in the Duchy of Warsaw at the time of his birth, which makes it clear that he was French.

We have the following:

• baptismal register stating his father was French (=galli);
• he travelled on a Polish probable Russian passport when he left Poland in 1830;
• at time (1834) he had to register with the French as a Polish émigré or refugee, or go to the Russian Embassy to get a new passport, which would have been Russian, the French authorities gave him a French passport on which is written "né de parents français", which, according to the French civil code, was stating that he was French.

P.S. The passport we have here is that issued in July 1837, not that of 1834. At the time, passports were for one year, which means that from 1834 until his last trip outside of France in 1848, Chopin had several French passports. --Frania W. (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is of any great interest at all (you're still confusing citizenship with nationality - we went through this ages ago), but can you specify where you get this "he travelled on a Polish passport when he left Poland" from? I seem to have missed that - do we have a photo of the passport or anything like that?--Kotniski (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If we assume that Chopin was a Frenchman as a citizen of the Duchy of Warsaw, then all Poles are in fact Frenchmen. Brilliant example of original research. Chopin was a Pole with French father, there is no controversy here. All respected musicological sources reflect that, only certain well-known trolls are trying again to re-write history here. - Darwinek (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Please be mindful of name calling.THD3 (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, this was not aimed at you, nor meant to offend you. - Darwinek (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think it was, and it doesn't matter. You shouldn't make statements like that.THD3 (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Darwinek, forgetting the usual name calling, your remark, "If we assume that Chopin was a Frenchman as a citizen of the Duchy of Warsaw, then all Poles are in fact Frenchmen"...makes absolutely no sense. Furthermore I don't see anyone making such an assumption here. The argument is that his father, who was French, retained French citizenship per the Code Napoleon. As another consideration you might take a look at this [9]. THD3 is quite correct... "it isn't a matter of life & death". Dr. Dan (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is such an assumption, made by "Frania" above. However, retaining the French citizenship by his father is non-controversial ... I think it is not a problem for anybody here. The problem are allegations Chopin was solely French, which is just not true. - Darwinek (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You can certainly count on my support in opposing anybody who wishes to edit the article to say that Chopin was solely French. You are completely right: it is not true that Chopin was solely French; he was Polish-French (or perhaps French-Polish would be the better way round, either way he wasn't solely French!) Varsovian (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Darwinek, I re-read Frania's (without quotation marks) remarks and don't see it. Please link the specific passage. If you are referring to ..."but what his actual nationality was according to the civil code (Code Napoléon) in vigor in the Duchy of Warsaw at the time of his birth, which makes it clear that he was French", I have worked with Frania concerning this article and other articles and it was never my impression that she believes Chopin was "solely" French. I don't think anyone else at this discussion thinks so either. The conundrum seems to be that one side thinks he was "solely" Polish. That's simply not the case. The article should reflect that he was Polish-French and we can move on. Seems to be rather simple. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that she had said that. My point was that if anybody did want to edit the article they would receive precisely the same amount of support from me as a person who wants the article to say the Chopin was purely Polish, i.e. none. Varsovian (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It reflects what fits the facts (or it did before we got this strange "Polish-born" forced into the text) - that he was Polish, with a French-expatriate father (his father was probably more Polish than French actually - he fought for Poland, which according to the Code Napoleon would have cost him his French citizenship, but it seems we aren't allowed to make that deduction). I don't see any point in saying "Polish-French" when the facts are so well-known and the degree to which he was "French" can be explained in words. Anyway, it all comes down to sources, and it can't be denied that there are some sources that say "Polish-French", though in my experience far more of them say "Polish". Do we have any secondary sources that say Polish-French - biographies and the like (I know we have this link to Britannica, but that seems to be more than cancelled out by Larousse, which says "polonais", and ought to be at least as authoritative on this matter).--Kotniski (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Frania is not "rewriting history".

Frania has also never said that "all Poles are in fact Frenchmen."

Frania has never made the assumption that Chopin was "solely" French.

Frania is saying that, at time of his birth, Chopin was a Pole and a Frenchman.

Frania is saying that Article 10 of the 1804 Code Napoléon, which was in vigor in the Duchy of Warsaw at the time of the birth of Chopin, makes it clear that, as of the son of a Frenchman, Chopin was born a Frenchman... - which was in addition to being a Pole.

That is all that Frania is saying.

Period.

--Frania W. (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have contacted an administrator to request arbitration on this matter. Until that time, let's everybody keep a cool head, and try to espouse a neutral point of view. Remember, this is just an encyclopedia article, it isn't a matter of life & death. However, I feel we owe it to Chopin's memory, especially in his bicentennial year, to get it above a C-class, where it presently resides.THD3 (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Konitski:

• According to the 1804 Code Napoléon in vigor at the time of Chopin's birth, Chopin was born a Frenchman - now, whether you want to interpret this as a French national or a French citizen, as far as I am concerned, c'est du pareil au même: he was a Frenchman.
• Chopin began travelling outside of Poland - or should we say the Duchy of Warsaw? - in 1828: Berlin; 1829, Vienna, Prague, Dresden; 1830: Dresden, Prague, Vienna; 1831: Vienna, Stuttgart, Paris. In order to travel, he needed a passport and I assume (forgive me Widipedia for assuming) that he travelled on a Polish or Duchy of Warsaw passport. No, I have no facsimile of it, nor have I ever seen any, but without passport, Chopin could not have left Poland.
• NOTE: In Selected Correspondence of Fryderik Chopin, collected & annotated by Bronislaw Edward Sydow, translated by Arthur Hedley from Polish and other languages (French & German) used by Chopin and his correspondents, McGraw-Hill, 1963, p. 90, from what is referred to as Chopin's Album (a diary):
  • Stuttgart, after 8 September 1831: "My passport expires next month - I am not entitled to live in a foreign country - at least I have no official right..."

--Frania W. (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So, as he describes Stuttgart, the Swabian capital, as being in a foreign country, at least it's safe to say he did not consider himself to be a Szwab ... -- Matthead  Discuß   15:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Kotnitski wrote about Nicolas Chopin: "'he fought for Poland, which according to the Code Napoleon would have cost him his French citizenship, but it seems we aren't allowed to make that deduction)."

Excerpt from the life of Nicolas Chopin from the Narodowy Instytut Fryderyka Chopina, Warsaw:

• In 1794 Nicolas became teacher to Jan Dekert Jr. in Warsaw, and in November that year he is reputed to have participated in the defence of Warsaw from the Russian army of Alexander Suvorov, which ended with the bloodshed of the Praga district and the fall of the capital. Nicolas did not serve in the army, but in the compulsory civil defense (residents' militia).

Nicolas Chopin never lost his French nationality; his participation in the defence of Warsaw was in 1794, ten years before the Code Napoléon came out, and which did not become juridically retroactive — (I also doubt very much that the French, at any time, would have taken away his French nationality/citizenship from a Frenchman for helping the Poles defend themselves against the Russians - but that is a remark I am making to myself.)

And if Nicolas Chopin had been deprived of his French nationality, then why would his son's 1837 French passport bear the mention "born of French parents"?

--Frania W. (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Chopin (or whoever was acting on his behalf) presumably didn't mention the war when applying for the passport... Anyway, assuming there was a status more or less translatable as "French citizenship" back then, and assuming the French authorities only gave passports to people they regarded as having that status, and assuming the photo is genuine, we can conclude that the French authorities regarded Chopin as having something more or less translatable as French citizenship. Personally I'm happy with all three assumptions, but for the purposes of making any statement to that effect in the article, we'd not only need sources confirming each assumption, but by Wikipedia standards (this is what WP:SYN is about - a bit harsh in my view, but it's the policy) we'd actually need a source confirming the conclusion. And that's just to say something like "he held French citizenship" somewhere in the article. I hope such a source can be found, but even then, I don't agree that it makes him "Polish-French" for the purposes of the lead sentence - that term would seriously misrepresent his nationality in terms of its importance for his life, work and legacy, and in terms of how countless reliable sources describe him (they obviously don't consider the legal question of citizenship - assuming it is as we assume - to be a determining factor in his national identity). Although like Britannica, some sources obviously do use this term, so perhaps a fairer representation of the totality would be something like "a Polish (sometimes described as Polish-French) composer".--Kotniski (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski: It has nothing to do whether Chopin (or whoever was acting on his behalf) presumably didn't mention the war when applying for the passport..., The Code Napoléon came out 10 YEARS after Nicolas Chopin's participation in the defence of Warsaw from the Russian army of Alexander Suvorov, and was not applied retroactively. Thus:

• Article 10 of the Code - born outside of France of a French father - applied at the time of the birth of Chopin, i.e. 1810.
• Article (I do not have the number in my head) - serving in a foreign army - did not apply because the facts happened in 1794.

That Wikipedia classifies "original research" or whatever (WP:SYN) what I am doing, I personally do not care because I know that I am right, and I prefer to be right alone than wrong with the crowd. By saying that juridically speaking Chopin is/was French is not taking his Polish nationality & Polishness away from him, it simply gives him what belongs to him. The problem with Chopin is that only musicologists write about him & these respected authors never bothered to look into Chopin's nationality/nationalities; it is not their concern. And because of the tragedies that have befallen the Poles over the years, the French have never come forward in force with their claim & proof that Frédéric Chopin was also French. That is where the problem lies. And it must seem strange that someone with a name such as mine would fight for the recognizance of Chopin as being also French.

This will probably be rejected: http://diaph16.free.fr/chopin//home.htm. because controversial & in French but, nonetheless, the work of a French jurist.

--Frania W. (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Not so much for those reasons, but it just seems to be a personal website, so not really a reliable source. Interesting, though (and some of the information he cites, particularly the quotes, might be usable somewhere in the article).--Kotniski (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• I was asked to review this issue. I have no stake in the matter whatsoever. My first response is: "Another wiki ethnic war, lovely". Get a grip people, solve your issues instead of using wiki to foment more ethnic wars and push a particular POV. And knock off the personal attacks while you're at it. Anyway, here's my take. Chopin was born in Poland, lived there essentially his whole youth, did not speak French as a native, and George Sand said he was more Polish than Poland. To call him solely French is preposterous. He needs to be called Polish or French-Polish (don't know about other countries but in America it'd be French-Polish, not Polish-French). All this outweighs the fact French law made him eligible for a passport in addition to being Polish. The case of Copernicus is more ambiguous because he didn't speak Polish but I digress. Face it, his dominant culture was Polish, not French. Yes French is part of his heritage and culture but not the predominant one. I have personal experience in this matter...I am American and my wife is Thai. Our kids are half Thai and half American (which I'm a western European mutt and American Indian). My kids were born and live in America. To say they are Thai only is silly. They're either American or Thai-American. Likewise, Chopin, I strongly feel, should be called Polish or French-Polish. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse, thank you for your take. Like you I have no particular stake in the matter, other than Wikipedia presenting accurate and correct information to its readers. If some want to turn this into "another wiki ethnic war" that is their problem and they may have to be dealt with appropriately. Now lets be clear about one thing, no one to my recollection, no one at this talk page, has contended that Chopin was exclusively French. That is not so. On the other hand many, and they are here at this talk page, want to believe that he is exclusively Polish. Even though it is not true. Interestingly, Marie Curie, who was 100% Polish, is usually considered to be Polish-French when located in most references. Amazingly we are asked to give some kind of undue weight to George Sand saying "he was more Polish than Poland". More weight than the fact that his father was French, born in France. More weight than his baptismal certificate or passport. As for him having lived essentially his whole youth in Poland, he lived most of the rest of his life in France. Neither fact is particularly important in solving how he should be categorized. Copernicus is way too off topic, and due to the lack of information that is often the case with medieval personages can't be of much help here. As for your personal family situation, thanks but it leaves one with a "pick and choose" what you want and doesn't help much either. If Bonnie Prince Charlie can make it on the list of Polish British, I think Chopin being claimed as either French-Polish or Polish-French is not only the best solution, but the only one based on reality. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we stop making totally irrelevant points about other people and how they are (probably wrongly) classified. Can we just try to get this one right? As we all know, our personal views on what is "The Truth" count for nothing on Wikipedia - we just believe what reliable sources say, and if the sources differ, we describe the difference. Does anyone object to my proposal (above) to say "Polish (sometimes described as Polish-French)", as a fair reflection of the sources?--Kotniski (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, what might be irrelevant to you may not be irrelevant to others. "Truth" and reality conveniently put aside, you ask if your proposal is a fair reflection of the situation..."Polish (sometimes described as Polish-French)". I think it is weasely, and might assuage some "hurt feelings" that it can't stay exclusively Polish. There is sufficient evidence, and I dare say sourced evidence, that he is Polish-French. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I support Kotniski's proposal as it seems a fair compromise. I also support the proposal of my colleague Dan that Maria Skłodowska should be considered 100% Polish because that's what she was.  Dr. Loosmark  18:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Could this horrible sentence be changed? "...was a physicist and chemist of Polish upbringing and subsequent French citizenship." What is that nonsense about "Polish upbringing", then "subsequent French citizenship"?

--Frania W. (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the best is to say Polish-French or French-Polish. Why is Polish-French being proposed over French-Polish? I don't know about the European style, but the American one would be French-Polish. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you give some examples of Americans (or others) who call him French-Polish?--Kotniski (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"Polish-French" vs "French-Polish"? Since he was born on Polish soil, "Polish-French" is what should be; besides, if we have "French" first, the wrath of the Poles will fall upon us! --Frania W. (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Why? You're all missing my question. Here, if you're born/raised in America the "American" comes second and the ancestral part first, so it'd be, for example, Thai-American; or for an American of Polish descent, Polish-American. Kotinski seems to be saying "he's mostly Polish so Polish should come first". I don't care which side gets upset due to the outcome, I care that we get it right, with sound reasoning. So unless someone comes up with a sound reason why it should be "Polish-French", I'm sticking with "French-Polish". — Rlevse • Talk • 22:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You must understand that these "Xian-American" compounds don't generalize - we all know what a "Polish American" or "African American" is, but it's not true in general that an "Xian-Yian" is a Yian of Xian descent (at least, some people might use it that way, but it would be a very unreliable way of conveying information to readers). Here we need to say explicitly that he was Polish with a French father; then we've said what we mean and everyone should be happy.--Kotniski (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"Polish with a French father" sounds about right. It is not only true, it's unequivocal. Nihil novi (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"Born in Poland to French parents and the holder of Polish and French passports" is what you actually mean. Varsovian (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Frédéric Chopin's mother Justyna Krzyżanowska was a citizen, serially, of Poland, South Prussia, the Duchy of Warsaw, and the Congress Kingdom (Russian Poland); but all her life she was ethnically and culturally Polish. The composer's father Nicolas Chopin (Mikołaj Chopin) was born in France, left at the age of 16, and became thoroughly Polonized, speaking at home to his children only in Polish (though he taught French to the children of other Polish nobility). Frédéric was reared as a Polish patriot, traveled abroad to further his musical career, and remained abroad in order not to live in a country that was under foreign subjugation.

For someone who affects a Poland-related user name, you seem to have a very poor grasp of Polish history and of Chopin's biography in particular.Nihil novi (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

She also acquired French citizenship when she married Nicolas Chopin. That is why Fred's French passport says 'born to French parents'. Thank you very much for your personal comments about me, they are hugely useful. Varsovian (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If Frédéric was, on those grounds, deemed by the French to be a French citizen and was as a result able to obtain a French passport, then good for him! It came in handy when he continued living in France. Was he considered a Frenchman by the Russians who ruled the Congress Kingdom after 1815, or by his own compatriots — or by himself?

The child of a foreign mother who gives birth to her child in the United States is, even if they immediately leave the U.S., deemed by the United States to be a U.S. citizen. The child may thereafter have little else in common with the United States — even if he applies for and receives a U.S. passport. Nihil novi (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"Polish with a French father" works too. Amazing how much time wikipedians spend on simple stuff. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Nihil novi (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

My dear Rlevse!

But the nationality of Frédéric Chopin IS NOT "simple stuff" ! Poland was torn up & divided by three powers, and the people of carved out Poland were left with not even an official national identity. But they were Poles in their heart & head & music, and no one could take that away from them. If we want to dig (dubbed verboten in Wikipedia no original research, but that we can do on our own so that we know what's true or not, and as long as we keep it to ourselves, or mention it ONLY on the discussion page), so, if we dig a little, we quickly find that Chopin was in fact Russian. When Chopin was a child, on several occasions, he was invited to play the piano at the palace in Warsaw, not the palace of any king of Poland, but that of the Grand Duke Constantin, brother of the Russian Tsar. A godsend to Chopin was that his father was a Frenchman, which made Chopin a little Frenchman at birth, making it possible for him, in 1834, in Paris, to get his first French passport, instead of registering in France as a émigré or having to go to the Russian Embassy in Paris & be issued a Russian passport. In fact, I doubt that he held a Polish passport when he left "home".

In 1849, a few weeks before Chopin died, his dearest friend, Titus, rushed from "Poland" to see Chopin for the last time. When he arrived at Ostende, on the French-Belgian border, Titus was not allowed into France because he was a Russian subject, and the French authorities made difficulties into recognizing the validity of his Russian passport. When he learned of it, Chopin wanted to go meet Titus in Belgium, but he was too weak to travel. So, in view of all this, it seems to me that the fact that Chopin was born in Poland (a country that did not exist any more, but in the heart of the Poles) of a Frenchman, which, because of the Code Napoléon, made his son a Frenchman, the mention of the French nationality of Chopin is an important matter.

Sorry, Rlevse, for the long spill commenting your one line sentence, and thank you for your intervention.

--Frania W. (talk) 05:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Right. As I noted above, if the accident of having a French-born father made Frédéric eligible for a French passport, then good for him! But that did not make him French in his own eyes, but a Polish expatriate living in France.

This is not the only time when the granting of a passport (e.g., a Nansen passport) has helped people survive adversities. Nihil novi (talk) 06:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Frania, we understand what you're saying, and have done for a long time, but it's all about the legal concept of citizenship, which might be interesting, but isn't key to someone's national identity, particularly in the period we're talking about here. If you doubt this, just consider why you haven't found any information about this subject in any of the biographies you've read - it's just not considered of primary importance by those who are interested in a person. Or imagine your country were suddenly partitioned between its neighbours, and ceased to exist and have citizens - would that change what you are, how people would characterize you?--Kotniski (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well put. That, indeed, is the nub of the matter. Nihil novi (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski & Nihil novi,

At least, we seem to be understanding explanations given by one another! And you'd be surprised to learn how much I am in agreement with you as to the way Chopin felt himself a Pole. Many French lived that type of situation in Alsace and Lorraine after the 1870 war and again no later than WWII.

But the fact is that Chopin had a French father, which means that he was not "granted" a French passport as a ploy to avoid him the pain of having to get a Russian one, but because it was his right as a French national/citizen. I unfortunately have not read all of his correspondence, but I would love to see the remarks he may have written in his journal the day he came back from the Paris Préfecture de police after having been told that he was a Frenchman!

When you find it, please let us know. Nihil novi (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not have much hope of finding it, one reason being that his journal (which I do not have) was written in Polish (which I do not read), although Chopin probably inserted bits of French in it; however, he may have informed his father since it is his father who suggested to him to regularise his situation in France in a letter dtd 7 September 1834: "Do not fail to do this and let me know what happens—it is easy for you to do this since you are well known." The suggestion of his father was to "make inquiries about this at the embassy", and that is where Chopin must have found himself in a bind, having to choose between a Russian passport & a status of émigré. That's when French law saved him. (You'd better believe that I have been hunting for this evidence for a long time!) This also leads me to believe (non-wikiable), that when Chopin left Poland, he was travelling on a Russian passport, not a Polish one. --Frania W. (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Now, the fact that his French nationality/citizenship (oh! Kotniski, you bug me!!!) is not mentioned in any of the biographies we have read is because all these biographies are written by musicologists and/or Poles who highlight the Polishness of his music, and I can easily imagine that the Poles are going to hold on to Chopin, for which I do not blame them, and not let the French "have him". On the other hand, as I mentioned before, the tragedies endured by the Poles have made the French "let them have him": he is & always has been Poland's rallying "flag". (I remember calling from Paris friends in Poland in the early 1980s, and all one could hear on the telephone - while unable to reach the friends - was Chopin's Étude Révolutionnaire. It sounded as if it was blasted throughout the whole of Poland!)

Finally, of course Chopin always felt himself to be a Pole, it's spread out all over in his letters, just as people from Alsace & Lorraine felt themselves to be French after these French provinces had been taken by the Germans; in fact, and this is demonstrated in the case of Chopin, during the periods Alsace & Lorraine were under German domination, people of these two provinces were the most patriotic of Frenchmen; and when Alsace & Lorraine were returned to France, there was no argument as to them being French, and when we talk about them, say "Alsaciens" & "Lorrains". But, all this being said, juridically speaking, Chopin was a Frenchman at birth, and this cannot be ignored. Had he not been a young musician already famous, had he been a "Polish plumber", the French would have given him a French passport because he was born so - thanks to the Code Napoléon.

--Frania W. (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)