View source for Talk:Frédéric Chopin/Archive 3

{{Aan}}

== Chopin left for Paris at 21==
I know this is very minor but it seems that he left for Paris at 21, not 20. (according to  Philips Classics Compact Companions titled "Chopin" by Christopher Headington. It was published by Simon & Schuster". ISBN 10951750)  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/60.50.110.130|60.50.110.130]] ([[User talk:60.50.110.130|talk]]) 10:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Chopin was born ca. March 1, 1810.  He left Warsaw forever on November 2, 1830, when he was '''''20'''''.  He arrived in Paris by September 1831, when he was '''''21'''''.  [[User:Huelga|Huelga]] 20:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Left Poland (Nov 2,1830)->Kalisz(?)->Breslau and Dresden(?)->Prague(?)->Vienna(Nov 23,1830-Jul20,1831)->Salzburg(?)->Munich(stayed for about a month)-> Stuttgart(?)-(trip that took about 2 weeks)->France,probably Paris(Mid of September,1831)  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/218.111.218.122|218.111.218.122]] ([[User talk:218.111.218.122|talk]]) 11:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Isn't there is another Chopin photograph? ==

I think the statement ''The only known photograph of Frédéric Chopin...'' is wrong. I know of another (see davgri8.freehostia.com/uploads/ch11.jpg) although admittedly I can't remember where I can across it. Thoughts? [[User:DehGriff|DehGriff]] 23:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:No, there is not another ''[[photograph]]''...however, I have found this worn-out ''[[daguerreotype]]'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Public_domain_art&from=Ch| here] (mind, you'll have to scroll down a bit to find it). I believe that statement that you mention is correct, as this is, I repeat, a ''daguerrotype'' - as different from a photograph as a harpsichord is from a Steinway. :) --[[User:MusicalConnoisseur|<span style="background:#321;color:#fff">''~~MusicalConnoisseur~~''</span>]] <small>[[User talk: MusicalConnoisseur| Got Classical?]]</small> 22:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

== Chopin in Literature ==
I first heard of Chopin while I was reading James Hilton's Lost Horizon. I also just read The Awakening by Kate Chopin. Chopin's piano music plays an (slightly) important role in both of these books. Could someone please add a section that lists books where he is mentioned? Thanks, [[User:Greenblade99|Greenblade99]] 02:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


<!--Please take material to archive from below this line - thank you-->

== Students of Chopin ==

It would be great if there could be a section listing the students of Chopin, perhaps with thumbnail biographies (when available). --Kosboot 17:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There aren't many of them, and few (if any) achieved much fame. The best of them was reputed to be Karl Filtsch, who died young. Kullak and Mikuli achieved some fame, mainly as editors of the music of Chopin. Alkan may have been a pupil (or just a friend) of his.

== Links to important resources and recordings ==

Fryderyk Chopin's student Carl Filtsch (1830-1845): see www.freewebs.com/fjgajewski/

== Edits ==
Isn't "widely regarded.." as "famous" redundant?  Fame encompasses wide regards.  How about "famously regarded" - ? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/166.70.188.25|166.70.188.25]] ([[User talk:166.70.188.25|talk]]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP -->

== Chopin and Romanticism ==
I deleted some of the citation needed and original research markings. It was very cluttered, but maybe that section oughta be removed altogether, unless we can get some facts to back it up. ~~ <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:O Violinista|O Violinista]] ([[User talk:O Violinista|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/O Violinista|contribs]]) 19:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

== The First Recording Ever ==

To clarify before the discussion is taken seriously: this was an April Fool's joke done by a classical music magazine... see the last comment for details.

Here is a link to the recording: http://media.putfile.com/Chopin-playing-the-minute-waltz-1840
In this article there was no mention of the fact that the first intentional audio recording ever made was that of Frédéric Chopin playing the minute waltz. Isn't anyone aware of this? It was in 1840 and the recording was made at the home of George Sand using a glass cylinder covered with the soot from a candle which was scratched by a pin connected to a diaphragm. The cylinder was made to rotate by the mechanism of a clock and the device was only able to record one minutes worth. The recording is remarkable and due to the light action of the piano, much lighter than todays pianos, Chopin was able to play extremely fluently and at the end of the piece the sound of a man laughing can be heard, whether it be Chopin himself or the inventor of the device or someone else isn't known.  The man who invented the device was able to record the performance but was unable to play the recording once made and therefore was unable to sell the idea. But knowing what he had done was significant he documented the event and preserved it. Many years later a box with the device and documentation was discovered and with modern techniques and the use of a computer, a laser, and a sinclavier, the historic recording was realized and can be heard. It has lots of hiss which one would expect and some popping sounds but aside from that it is utterly astounding. The piano has a good tone and the playing is magnificent. I have searched the web for information on this but have come up with nothing. My information comes from a magazine which is no longer in publication called 'Classic CD' magazine which had an article, the gist of which I have just reported, and a CD of the recording (XOHA CDO10491). Isn't it amazing to discover that the first intentional audio recording ever made was not someone saying "Testing - testing 1,2,3" but this wonderful historic performance of Chopin? (scottlesbme@yahoo.com)[[User:Scottlesbme|Scottlesbme]] 22:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:I've never heard of this story, so I wouldn't know if it were true. Some 19th century composers and pianists have been recorded however, on [[piano roll]]s. Whether Chopin is among them I don't know. <strong>[[User:Maester_mensch|mensch]]</strong> • <strong><small>[[User_talk:Maester_mensch|t]]</small></strong> 22:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:I've also never heard this story.  That this could happen 38 years before Edison's invention strains my credulity a bit.  Another minor problem is that Chopin didn't write the "minute" waltz until 1847, and that's considered to be a reliable date (the manuscript exists; it's in the Royal College of Music Library in London).  What company published that CD?  "XOHA" wouldn't be an anagram for "HOAX", now, would it be?  [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 23:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::Maybe that article was published in the 1 April edition of the magazine.  Or, if it is indeed true that, in order to fit it into the capacity of the recording device, Chopin "magnificently" performed in a minute a piece that usually takes closer to two minutes to perform, it might explain why the Minute Waltz is so named.  Given the huge amount of information out there about Chopin and his life, and the well-known story about the cylinder recording supposedly made by Liszt that has yet to surface (if it ever existed), I remain rather sceptical about this Chopin claim, but am prepared to be convinced if the CD can be produced.   But why has this not made BIG headlines in the musical world previously?  [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 04:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

:::The 1 April option is supported by the number: O10491. Looks rather like a date, doesn't it? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 09:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, can't give a cite, but soon after that magazine had come out, I listened to a show on KPFK radio in Los Angeles, where they discussed this.  Sorry, but it's a hoax. [[User:Bunthorne|Bunthorne]] 15:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to the recording in question: http://media.putfile.com/Chopin-playing-the-minute-waltz-1840
I didn't hear the radio show on this but the article and the recording I found compelling. Although there wasn't a photo of the 
apparatus, the cylinder or the documentation. Furthermore, one would think someone else would have spoken of this although I've seen great things ignored in the past in fact regularly so it's hard to say what is the truth in this matter but I wouldn't accept KPFK in LA as the final word on anything. All I can assure with any certainty is is that it isn't me playing. If it isn't Chopin he or she certainly could play. (scottlesbme@yahoo.com)

:That recording sounds really fake to me. [[User:Makemi|Mak]] [[User_talk:Makemi|<span style="color:green;">(talk)</span>]] 01:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
::I remember that edition of the magazine (one of its first, if not ''the'' first), and can confirm it was an excellent April fool joke which caused much hilarity; it was well documented with an accompanying article, and I know a couple of people (not musicians) who were taken in.  By the way, it doesn't take a pianistic genius to play the minute waltz in under a minute; I remember on the British television show "[[Record Breakers]]", once, speedy performances of the minute waltz played by under-14s.  Those musical luminaries [[Hinge and Bracket]] were on hand, adjudicating on whether all the notes were present in each performance.  --[[User:RobertG|RobertG]] &#9836; [[User talk:RobertG|talk]] 09:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

==Nationality==
Just want to make sure I didn't go out on an unsupported limb here. Chopin seems to be one of those composers who tends to be claimed as their own by various nationalist groups. I suggest that we keep his nationality out of the first sentence, and leave the full description of his national backgrounds in the intro, allowing the reader to decide for themself whether being born in Poland makes him Polish, or adopting France makes him French, or whatever else they choose to extrapolate from the information given. [[User:Makemi|Mak]] [[User_talk:Makemi|<span style="color:green;">(talk)</span>]] 22:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

:Well, his father was French, and his mother (in case you couldn't tell by reading her name) was, of course, Polish. 50% of each seems pretty reasonable. &mdash; [[User talk:Springeragh|<span style="background:#808;color:#fff;">&nbsp;'''''$PЯING'''''rαgђ&nbsp;</span>]] <small>[[User:Springeragh/Loyalties|Always loyal!]]</small> 22:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

::So, if I understand you correctly, you think that the first sentence should read, as it did previously, "Frédéric François Chopin (English: IPA: [ʃoʊpæn] or [ʃoʊpæ̃]; French: [fʁedeʁik fʁɑ̃swa ʃɔpɛ̃]), (March 1, 1810[1] – October 17, 1849) was a Polish-French pianist and composer of the Romantic era."? [[User:Makemi|Mak]] [[User_talk:Makemi|<span style="color:green;">(talk)</span>]] 22:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Well, I was attempting to be diplomatic, but if you choose to be blunt, I can't keep you from it. Yes, I do. &mdash; [[User talk:Springeragh|<span style="background:#808;color:#fff;">&nbsp;'''''$PЯING'''''rαgђ&nbsp;</span>]] <small>[[User:Springeragh/Loyalties|Always loyal!]]</small> 22:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

::::Just trying to make sure I understand you correctly. [[User:Makemi|Mak]] [[User_talk:Makemi|<span style="color:green;">(talk)</span>]] 22:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::Polish is fine.  Polish-French is also fine--it is literally true, if you consider the nationality of his father.  The [[New Grove]] has "Polish composer."  He was born in Poland.  His musical identity is 100% Polish.  Leaving the national origin adjective out of the opening sentence is a way to solve the problem, only our anonymous friend seems insistent on putting it back.  Honestly, I'm fine with either of the three ways, I just don't like the edit war.  [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 22:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
::::I think "Polish composer" is just fine too. After all, [[Maurice Ravel]] gets to be a "French composer", even though his father was Swiss and his mother was Basque. Chopin clearly identified himself as a Pole. Check out the comparable cases of the "Hungarians" [[Franz Liszt]] and [[Sandor Petofi]], which are a lot murkier. This really isn't the same as the [[Copernicus]] debate. I think there should be some early reference to his being "generally regarded as Poland's greatest composer" (hardly a controversial statement, though no doubt someone willl challenge it if it's unsourced). Cheers. --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] 11:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
::My piano professor refers to him as Polish in nationality and so does my Music encyclopedia book.__[[User:Seadog.M.S|<span style="color:darkblue;">Seadog</span><sup> '''♪'''</sup>]] 03:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

== Contradiction ==

"Chopin wrote almost exclusively for the piano, and published little music that did not involve it." (Third paragraph.)

"All of Chopin's works involve the piano, whether solo or accompanied." (Under the heading 'Works'.)

This is a contradiction - the first statement implies that he wrote some work without piano; the second states that he did not. I am 99% sure that the second statement is correct but cannot be 100% certain, therefore cannot edit it. But whichever is correct, it is still a contradiction. 

[[User:Musical lottie|Musical lottie]] 01:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

: All of his work contains a piano of some sort. See the [[List of compositions by Frédéric Chopin]]. Also the Polish [http://www.chopin.pl/biografia/prtw_en.html Frédéric Chopin  Society] says so. [[User:Janderk|Janderk]] 09:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:: This is a matter of boolean logic: He wrote almost exclusively for the piano = he wrote a lot of works for solo piano; This is compatible with the second statement. There's no contradiction. [[User:Loudenvier|Loudenvier]] 14:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:::But it also says that Chopin "published little music that did not involve it", which suggests that he did publish ''some''. &mdash; 23:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


There is not a single extant original piece by Chopin that did not involve the piano in some way.  However, among his lost works are: 
* 2 works (KK Ve/1-2) for [[aelopantalon]], a kind of [[aelodion]]; date unknown  (Wikipedia seems not to be aware of these obsolete instruments; according to my Grove V, the aelodion or aelodicon was a keyed wind instrument resembling the [[harmonium]].  Its tone was similar to the harmonium, and it has been completely superseded by the harmonium)
* Military March (B.2; KK Vd/4).  Chopin wrote this for piano in 1817, and it was later scored by an unknown person for military band.  Both versions are lost.
* 2 sacred works (KK Va/1-2), including "Veni Creator"; date unknown but before 1846, and possibly as early as 1830; forces unknown.

In c.1831, he arranged the aria ''Casta Diva'' from [[Bellini]]'s [[Norma]] for piano accordion (!) (KK VIIa/1).  I know of no recording of this.  

I think it is safe to say all of his published music involved the piano.  (The KK and B numbers refer to the catalogue numbers of these works in the lists compiled and published by K Kopylanska and MJE Brown respectively). [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 03:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

== "Irregular" Lessons? ==

In the formative years section, it makes mention of Chopin's lessons under Wilhelm Würfel.  Why exactly were they irregular (it might be useful to add it)?. [[User:Justinmeister|Justinmeister]] 16:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

==Eponyms==
Asteroid, airport, pop-singer's album. The latter seems out of place here, just as Gazebo's "I like Chopin" hit would be. If there is no particular controversy, it'll be deleted. --[[User:Beaumont|Beaumont]] [[User_Talk:Beaumont|<small><span style="color:#118811">(@)</span></small>]] 19:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

:Agreed, if the album was particularly noteworthy I might be inclined to keep it there, but it doesn't seem to be. [[User:M A Mason|M A Mason]] 23:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

== Infobox ==

I know this is only one article with an infobox on a composer, but it's the first one I noticed, so…

Why do we put the flag (in this case {{flagicon|Poland}}) next to where the person was born, but not where that person died (in this case {{flagicon|France}})? &mdash; <small>[[User:Springeragh/ESP|<span style="color: green;">The still-Esperanzan</span>]]</small> [[User talk:Springeragh|<span style="background:#808;color:#fff;">&nbsp;'''''$PЯING'''''rαgђ&nbsp;</span>]] <small>[[User:Springeragh/Loyalties|Always loyal!]]</small> 20:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

How about make a '''"Background Information"''' box on the upper-right corner as what other articles have such as [[Liszt]], [[Bach]], [[Mozart]], etc.?  --- [[User:Sautiller|Sautiller]] 07:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

:Because infoboxes cause more trouble on people articles than they're worth, especially when basic facts about a person's life are in dispute, such as name, birthdate, and nationality, as they are for Chopin. [[User:Makemi|Mak]] [[User talk:Makemi|<span style="color:green;">(talk)</span>]] 14:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

==Return to Poland??==
''In 1835 Chopin visited his family in Karlsbad, whence he accompanied his parents to Děčín where they lived, '''and then to Warsaw'''.''  This suggests that he did indeed return to Poland after previously having decided not to, after hearing of the 1830 uprising.  I've never heard or read anywhere that he ever went back.  Is there a citation for this visit to Warsaw?  [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 23:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

:Nothing in Grove.  I don't think it's true.  He decided ''not'' to go to Warsaw because he feared what the Russian officials might do to him.  I also thought he never returned to his homeland after leaving.  The article in the online Grove says at the end of section 1 "he finally ventured on a much planned (and often postponed) journey to Vienna on 1 November 1830, though at the time he had no reason to think that it would be his last contact with Poland."  I just took out that bit about Warsaw.  [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 00:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

::As I thought.  Well done, Antandrus.  [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 00:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

== Slavic elements ==
In the introduction, there is the claim that "Chopin was the first Western Classical composer to imbue Slavic elements into his music". While I would agree that his output made Slavic elements broadly prominent and popular, I think it is not true to state that he was the first. For instance, I am pretty sure that there is at least one orchestral piece by Telemann which explicitly includes style elements from Polish folk dances, and I seem to recall that J.S.Bach's 1st orchestral suite also includes a Polonaise. Later examples include Beethovens Polonaise in C op.89 and the Polonaise for Military Band WoO 21. --[[User:TomR|TomR]] 02:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
:I have accordingly deleted the assertion from the lead.  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 07:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

== new infobox added  ==
{{Infobox musical artist  <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians -->
| name                = Frédéric Chopin
| image                 = Frederic Chopin photo.jpeg
| caption            = In 1849 by [[Louis-Auguste Bisson]]
| image_size            = <!-- Only for images narrower than 220 pixels -->
| background          = non_performing_personnel
| Born                = [[March 1]] [[1810]]<br><small> [[Żelazowa Wola]],<br>[[Poland|(present-day) Poland]]</small>
| Died                = [[October 17]] [[1849]]<br><small> [[Paris]], [[France]]</small>
| instrument          = [[Piano]]
| genre               = [[Classical music|Classical]], [[Romantic music|Romantic]]
| occupation          = [[Composer]], [[Pianist]]
}}
Hi, do you guys think is ok the infobox I've just added?--<span style="border: solid 1.5px #63B8FF; background-color: #D0E7FF">[[User:Walter_Humala|<span style="border: solid 1.5px #63B8FF; background-color: #D0E7FF">Emperor Walter Humala </span>]]</span> · <sup><small>[[User_talk:Walter_Humala|<span style="color: #00AA88;">( talk?</span>]] · [[User:Walter_Humala/HelpMe|<span style="color: purple;">help! )</span>]]</small></sup> 21:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
::please be more careful with your reverts. thanks--<span style="border: solid 1.5px #63B8FF; background-color: #D0E7FF">[[User:Walter_Humala|<span style="border: solid 1.5px #63B8FF; background-color: #D0E7FF">Emperor Walter Humala </span>]]</span> · <sup><small>[[User_talk:Walter_Humala|<span style="color: #00AA88;">( talk?</span>]] · [[User:Walter_Humala/HelpMe|<span style="color: purple;">help! )</span>]]</small></sup> 05:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

:::There's a pretty clear consensus on this page that an infobox is inappropriate. See earlier sections. [[User:Makemi|Mak]] [[User talk:Makemi|<span style="color:green;">(talk)</span>]] 13:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

::::I agree, especially having seen one inserted into [[Chopin]]'s article.  It adds nothing that is not already in the lead — and does so, inelegantly.  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] 21:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the only person commenting on not wanting an infobox above was [[User:Makemi|Mak]], so let's put it up to a vote on whether the page should have an infobox or not. Vote support to have an infobox and against to not have an infobox.  I've put an example of what the infobox might look like on the right. - [[User:Cgilbert76|cgilbert]]<sup>([[User_talk:Cgilbert76|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cgilbert76|contribs]])</sup> 05:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
:'''Support''' Infobox - [[User:Cgilbert76|cgilbert]]<sup>([[User_talk:Cgilbert76|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cgilbert76|contribs]])</sup> 05:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

:'''Do not support''' infoboxes on composers.  Composers need a more nuanced approach than the binary is/isn't approach of an infobox.  Infoboxes work for baseball cards or butterflies, but for artists with which many details are ambiguous and need careful explanation, such an approach is not helpful.  When was he born, exactly, and what does that date really mean?  What was his ancestry, really?  How is "genre, classical" helpful, except for someone filling bins in a CD shop?  No infobox please.  Thanks, [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 05:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

:'''Oppose''', definitely.  An artist's life doesn't need a "score card," like some sort of sporting event.  The essentials are already in the lead.  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] 05:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

IMHO a vote is out of place here. Personally, I don't care much if the Chopin article is with or without an infobox. I just think that the Chopin article should stick to the guidelines. All classical composers like [[Bach]], [[Beethoven]] and [[Mozart]], use the [[Template:Infobox_musical_artist|Musical Artist infobox]] as recommended by the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians|Musicians Project]]. I see no reason why the Chopin article should follow a different direction. Also, if a discussion is to be held to get rid of infoboxes for classical composers then this should be done on a higher level for all composers and not for each composer separately. [[User:Janderk|Janderk]] 08:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

:'''Note''' - an umbrella discussion is taking place at the WikiProject [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers#Infoboxes_for_composers|here]]. [[User:Alton|<span style="color: #808080; font-size: small;"><b>ALTON</b></span>]] [[User talk:Alton|<span style="color: #808080;">.ıl</span>]] 05:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

::'''Strongly oppose''' Let's get rid of all of them. They're reductive and potentially misleading. Introductory paragraphs are far better at giving a brief overview. --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] 19:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

::'''Strongly oppose''' - [[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] 22:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes like this just don't tell you anything useful, are potentially misleading, and don't add anything because all the information is invariably repeated elsewhere. Composers need a better approach than this. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[User talk:Moreschi|Talk]]</sup> 15:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

== Lead name ==

I don't know how to fix it, but the first sentence is terrible. The article shouldn't start with <nowiki>[[Polish language|Polish name]]</nowiki> (unless some ''consensus'' agreed so), and the IPA and languages are confusing and cluttered. [[User:Alton|<span style="color: #808080; font-size: small;"><b>ALTON</b></span>]] [[User talk:Alton|<span style="color: #808080;">.ıl</span>]] 02:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks for the suggestion.  I've redone the intro paragraph, dropping the IPA French pronunciation since this is an ''English'' Wikipedia article.  [[User:logologist|logologist]]|[[User_talk:logologist|Talk]] 03:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks, it looks great. [[User:Alton|<span style="color: #808080; font-size: small;"><b>ALTON</b></span>]] [[User talk:Alton|<span style="color: #808080;">.ıl</span>]] 05:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Merely in my personal experience, his name is at least as commonly pronounced using the French pronunciation - i.e. "shop-ah" instead of "show-pan". Can the ''alternative'' pronunciation be added in IPA? --[[Special:Contributions/88.96.119.238|88.96.119.238]] ([[User talk:88.96.119.238|talk]]) 10:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

== Images and Table of Contents ==

I like the new image that [[User:Claus Ableiter|Claus Ableiter]] added to the lead section.  I'm not sure if there is Wikipedia policy concerning the lead image in a biographical article, but I would prefer this painting of Chopin over the photograph of him as the lead image.  We can move the photograph to a lower section of the article.  If, however, Wikipedia or WPBiography stress use of a photo for the lead, then keep the photo there and move the painting to the Paris section. - [[User:Cgilbert76|cgilbert]]<sup>([[User_talk:Cgilbert76|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cgilbert76|contribs]])</sup> 18:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] has moved the image to the paris section as one of my options given above suggested.  Novi also reverted an edit I had made to improve the layout at the top of the page. I had moved the photo to the right, enlarged it to give an easier view, and moved the table of contents to its default location by removing the tocright template.  This is the normal layout for biographical articles and do not see a reason that the case should be different here. - [[User:Cgilbert76|cgilbert]]<sup>([[User_talk:Cgilbert76|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cgilbert76|contribs]])</sup> 22:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

:It strikes me as unnecessary and rather heartless to present in blow-up a photo of a man who was then more dead than alive.  Placing the TOC on the right prevents it from displacing the section heading immediately below, and does not render the TOC any more difficult to find or read.  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] 22:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

::Well, as for the photo, that is one reason that I suggested using the Hayez painting of Chopin in 1833 for the lead image rather than the photo from the year of his death.  The painting portrays him in a much better light and is in color. - [[User:Cgilbert76|cgilbert]]<sup>([[User_talk:Cgilbert76|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cgilbert76|contribs]])</sup> 13:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

:::The photo, for its   documentary value, as you said earlier, seems worth keeping in the lead; it is the only image that affords "verifiability," as inspection of the painted portraits suggests.  My objection was to presenting it in 300px — rather than 150px — format, which made for needlessly painful viewing; those wishing a closer view may still click on the photo.  
:::I liked your idea of placing the Hayez portrait in the "Paris" section, since the portrait comes from that period and the "Paris" section, almost uniquely, had no illustration.[[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] 18:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

==Addresses==
It would be very helpful if someone could identify the address of the building (illustrated in the article) in which Chopin lived till 1830, when he left Warsaw forever; and the address of the building from which Russian soldiers dropped Chopin's piano in 1863.  (I gather these were two different buildings.)  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] 23:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

== Long article split ==

This article is relatively long compared to [[Beethoven]], and concentrates much on his death and music. I suggest a split into Chopin's Death and Chopin's Music. I remember several books written about his funeral alone; supposedly it's a very significant event. I'm not sure what the protocol is on something like this but because both his life and his music are very well documented and detailed, I suggest both have their own article. [[User:Alton|<span style="color: #808080; font-size: small;"><b>ALTON</b></span>]] [[User talk:Alton|<span style="color: #808080;">.ıl</span>]] 22:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
:Good idea.  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] 23:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
::Actually it's 34K which I don't think is overlong in comparison to many other pages on WP. I'd suggest leaving it as it is. --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] 11:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

::It really isn't that long, and should stay as one article.  In fact, there are calls for more of the Beethoven information to be put back in the original article because it is not long enough.  Some object because re-adding some of that information may lead to edit wars, so they say. - [[User:Cgilbert76|cgilbert]]<sup>([[User_talk:Cgilbert76|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cgilbert76|contribs]])</sup> 04:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

::I think the problem is that Beethoven is too short, not that Chopin is too long.  An article on an important and influential composer probably should be even longer than this, especially when the musical style, works, and influence sections are fully developed.  Just my two cents.  [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 04:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

:Beethoven is a warzone right now, speaking of that. Sure it isn't long now, but what I want is eventually to expand more on his Musicality. His life is very thoroughly documented, and the biography can be made much better with references from more accounts, and I think the other sections can be made larger as well. In terms of length, I personally would find it easier to read and begin research if important aspects were split into separate articles. I define an article on a person whose life is significantly documented to consist wholly of his or her biography, and to be a central hub for more detailed articles on specific constituents; in this situation, his Funeral and Musicianship are two I think can be greatly expanded. Perhaps my argument isn't about its present length as much as it is about its potential readability. [[User:Alton|<span style="color: #808080; font-size: small;"><b>ALTON</b></span>]] [[User talk:Alton|<span style="color: #808080;">.ıl</span>]] 04:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

== AfD: List of Competitions ==
I went ahead and put [[Frédéric Chopin Piano Competitions]] up at AfD. Please comment '''[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frédéric Chopin Piano Competitions|here]]'''. [[User:Alton|<span style="color: #808080; font-size: small;"><b>ALTON</b></span>]] [[User talk:Alton|<span style="color: #808080;">.ıl</span>]] 04:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

==Death mask==
If someone has access to photos of Chopin's [[death mask]] and of the casts of his hands, they might make a valuable addition to the article's iconography.  For no ghoulish reason, but because there is not a wealth of objective representations of him, in life or in death.  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] 03:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be interesting because I have always learned in my music history course, that he had very small but flexible hands that gave the impression that they were long.
[[User:Krozo|Krozo]] 20:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

==First lessons==
Someone could write about his first lessons, he was taught how to play the piano by his mother. In the article Chopin is born and at once he's a talented pianist... [[User:83.10.191.25|83.10.191.25]] 13:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
:Why don't ''you'' write it?  You seem to know a lot about his life.  Oh... and would you consider registering as a user?  It would facilitate communication.
:If you're new to Wikipedia — welcome!  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] 14:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

== Images clutter this article ==

I suggest getting rid of the low-quality pics (if any exist) and moving some of the images to a section of their own, like a gallery or something, because there's quite a lot of them - or then just remove the unnecessary ones.--[[User:Deadworm222|Wormsie]] 20:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

To explain myself further: an article with lots of tiny images looks confusing and, uuh, in need of a cleanup. Making the images smaller doesn't make the article look better or justify adding even more small images. I got so distressed with the images that I started removing the ones that nobody will hopefully miss. But if somebody does miss them, I'd support adding a Gallery-section for most images.--[[User:Deadworm222|Wormsie]] 20:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

== Chopin and Pere Lachaise Cemetery ==

There is an error in the article. Chopin is buried next to Cherubini, not Bellini, in Pere Lachaise Cemetery.

== Chopin in media ==

The prelude No. 15 in D-flat major ("Raindrop") (1838-1839) is featured in the James Bond Movie "Moonraker" as Bond enter a room, sir Hugo Drax plays it.

== Chopin's Etudes and Liszt's Transcendental Etudes ==

This is bothering me: "His Préludes (Op. 28) and Études (Opp. 10 and 25) rapidly became standard works, and inspired both Liszt's Transcendental Études and Schumann's Symphonic Études."  Liszt composed and published the first version of those etudes in 1826.  Chopin began composing his etudes in 1829.  So this statement must be incorrect.  Should it be removed? [[User:Alexb54|Alex]] 20:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


It's true that Liszt composed his etudes in 1826. They however are of mediocre quality. They were published under the name "Etude en douze exercices" S136. Each etude lasts for 1 to 2 minutes. They were like previous composers' piano exercises and no one paid attention to them during that time. Under Chopin's influence, Liszt expanded his etudes to a greater scale and quality so that they could stand independently as a masterpiece like Chopin's etudes. He published them under the name "Douze grandes etudes" S137 in 1837. These etudes were unnecessarily extremely difficult but lacked the poetic element found in Chopin's. Finally, Liszt revised his etudes the last time to Chopin's standard and published them under the name "DOUZE ETUDES D'EXECUTION TRANSCENDANTE" S139 in 1852. 

Schumann composed his symphonic etudes in 1834 and revised in 1852. His etudes were not really etudes, but variations. They were based on a theme by Baron von Fricken. 

We can be pretty sure that Chopin was the first composer that raised the etudes to the highest quality. Chopin's etudes were the best among all etudes ever composed.
[[User:Tranluonganh|Tranluonganh]] 19:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

== Sequence of Preludes ==

I have removed the statement that Chopin based the sequence of his Preludes on Bach's ''[[Well-Tempered Clavier]]''. The keys of Chopin's preludes are in the order C, A minor, G, E minor, D, B minor, etc. (i.e., the major keys according the cycle of fifths, with each major key followed by its relative minor), while Bach's are in the order C, C minor, Db, C# minor, D, D minor, etc. (i.e., the major keys ascending chromatically, with each major key followed by its parallel minor). [[User:John Link|John Link]] 01:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

== Thumbnail sizes ==
I just gave all thumbnails except the default top one the default size again. Which means I removed all size information. There was a mixture of many sizes. The main reason for doing so is not to override the preferences of any visitor. Not everyone has the same screen resolution. Also, having a lot of different sizes makes the page look messy. I propose to keep the thumbnails at the standard size unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. [[User:Janderk|Janderk]] 11:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I decided to lookup what wikipedia says about this issue. The [[Wikipedia:Extended_image_syntax#New_syntax_for_images|Extended Image syntax page]] states:
:{{cquote|From MediaWiki 1.5 the default thumbnail width can be set in the preferences, so it is recommended not to specify "px", in order to respect the users' preferences (unless, for a special reason, a specific size is required regardless of preferences, or a size is specified outside the range of widths 120–300px that can be set in the preferences).}}

Looks like wikipedia also says we should stick to the default. [[User:Janderk|Janderk]] 11:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

:It is precisely your "default sizes" that are producing a lot of arbitrarily different image sizes on my screen, making "the page look messy."  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] 16:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

:: All thumbnails now have the same width. Are you referring the height of the thumbnails? I noticed that you gave the Łazienki Park picture a width or 500 pixels. It is a nice picture but personally, I think that we should stick to the Wikipedia recommendation and leave the thumbnails at their default size, so people with smaller screens (think pda's and phones) are also able to read the pages properly. But Wikipedia is a democracy so what do the others think? Also while the page layout may disputable, do you think that we should override the defaults that visitors may have set? [[User:Janderk|Janderk]] 20:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

:::Keeping all illustrations the same "default size" creates visual disharmonies.  Compare the effect of the [[Żelazowa Wola]] photo with the Chopin 1817-27 residence, which is much larger in reality but looks puny next to the birth cottage.  More to the point, compare the [[Francesco Hayez]] portrait with the Lilliputian-looking Weger portrait opposite.  Or the gigantic [[Franz Xavier Winterhalter]] with the [[Rudolph Lehmann]] slightly below.  It's these disparities that I wanted to avoid.  And the concert-in-the-park photo, unmagnified, leaves the reader unable to make out the photo's focal point — the Chopin statue.  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] 00:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

==Images==
There are entirely too many images on this article. So much so that they crowd out the text and each other. The article does not need a picture of every painting of Chopin, nor does it need a picture of every house he lived in, even if they're all free use. I think keep the photograph, the Delacroix painting, the hand cast, the birthplace and maybe one more. And why the hell does George Sand get a picture here? This isn't even her article and it doesn't illustrate anything vital. [[User:Axem Titanium|Axem Titanium]] 21:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
:I would go along with most of the above.  The portraits in particular, aside from the Delacroix, seem hardly to resemble objective likenesses of Chopin such as the photo or death mask.  I could also give up the cemetery photo; but I think the three residences are intrinsically interesting to Chopin's story, as is the [[Holy Cross Church, Warsaw|Holy Cross Church]] memorial.  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] 03:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
::I imagine one of the houses can be kept but including all of them seems excessive. One does not learn much from a picture of a house about the man who lived there. [[User:Axem Titanium|Axem Titanium]] 00:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
:::On the contrary, I think it would be impressive to live in any of them today.  Also, they are an elegant way to string together various episodes in Chopin's life and his family's (which were intimately connected — Chopin did not live in Warsaw in splendid isolation).  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] 00:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
::::I'm not arguing over the houses' impressiveness; I'm arguing that a picture of that house tells the reader nothing about the person who lived there. Someone could upload a picture of any old house and say Chopin lived there and they wouldn't know the difference. Thus, not all the pictures are necessary. [[User:Axem Titanium|Axem Titanium]] 22:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::Go to [[Warsaw]], to the [[Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, Warsaw|Tomb of the Unknown Soldier]] (what's left of the [[Saxon Palace]] where Nicolas Chopin taught and the family lived on the grounds, and which is to be rebuilt); cross the [[Saxon Square]] (now [[Piłsudski Square]]) over to [[Krakowskie Przedmieście]], where the family subsequently lived on the grounds of [[Warsaw University]] (where Nicolas Chopin taught); then recross the same street to where Chopin lived with his family until his departure from Warsaw, unexpectedly forever.  So much history in such a small space, all connected with Chopin and his family!  Even without traveling to Warsaw, just looking at the illustrations evokes time and place and incident.  Chopin sprang from a specific environment, and having an inkling of that environment helps explain some more familiar facts such as the final resting place of Chopin's heart at [[Holy Cross Church, Warsaw|Holy Cross Church]], just steps from these residences of his childhood and early youth.  It was this [[sense of place]] that persuaded Poles to raise from the rubble these buildings and the 85% of the city that was destroyed in [[World War II]], rather than move the country's capital to [[Lublin]] as had been proposed.

:::::I agreed with many of your earlier suggestions and myself removed some illustrations.  I would, however, like to leave these in place.  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] 01:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::P.S.  I do think that the photo of part of ''[[Krakowskie Przedmieście|Krakowskie Przedmieście 5]]'' should eventualy be replaced with one that shows the whole building, and perhaps something of the street.  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] 01:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::As I said, I don't dispute how important and significant these residences are. I am simply suggesting that when I see a picture of it, I don't learn ''anything'' about Chopin except that he lived in a neoclassic-style house. What can you learn about Chopin by ''looking'' at his house? I think leaving the birthplace and Warsaw Univ. pics would be fine but all four is simply not educational. [[User:Axem Titanium|Axem Titanium]] 01:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I suppose the [[Saxon Palace]] illustration could be sacrificed.  I'd like to keep the University building, though, and the Krasiński Palace, which is connected with a famous poem by [[Cyprian Norwid|Norwid]] that is (best) referenced in the caption.  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] 03:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Great! It looks much better than before. [[User:Axem Titanium|Axem Titanium]] 01:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
:(un-indent) Holy crap, why are there so many music files now? It may be best to incorporate them in the sections near (chronologically) where he wrote them and do without the rest. Also, stick to the most famous/recognizable movement of the most famous/recognizable pieces. [[User:Axem Titanium|Axem Titanium]] 02:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

== Eternal Sonata ==
I have removed this from the article.
:''The death of Chopin is the central plot point of the video game ''[[Eternal Sonata]]''. In the game, Chopin dreams of a fantasy world as he sleeps in his final hours. Although the game is an obviously heavily fantasized depiction of the end of Chopin's life, the game pauses at certain points to relate facts about his life to the player, such as his relationship with George Sand. The game also features seven Chopin compositions as played by pianist [[Stanislav Bunin]].''
All the information above is available on the ''[[Eternal Sonata]]'' article, where I think it belongs: it's vital information about the game, but here it is unreferenced, and tells us precisely nothing about Chopin's life, his death, or his music.  The identity of the composer used might as well have been arbitrary as far as I can tell, insofar as it was apparently the director's personal choice.  I think this paragraph's removal improves the article.  I'd welcome other comments, and I would be happy to see the paragraph reinstated if consensus dictates.  --[[User:RobertG|RobertG]] ♬ [[User talk:RobertG|talk]] 19:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
:Agree heartily with all the above.  Thanks!  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] 01:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


This defintely belongs in an "In popular culture" section and should be left as a simple sentence reference.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.63.103.226|68.63.103.226]] ([[User talk:68.63.103.226|talk]]) 04:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Please see [[User:RobertG|RobertG]]'s comments, above.  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] 05:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I can read, thank you.  Chopin's article should reflect not only his "life, death, and music", but also how he is depicted in ''today's'' world, whether by classical music fans or those not quite as immersed in the world.  As such, this tidbit belongs in a "IN POPULAR CULTURE" section as a ''small'' and simple sentence.  To do so creates a more complete article that not only recounts history, but connects it to the present.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.63.103.226|68.63.103.226]] ([[User talk:68.63.103.226|talk]]) 05:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: Sorry, 68.63.103.266, but I disagree with you entirely.  It simply does not "connect Chopin to the present" - it connects an individual computer-game-creator's adulation of Chopin to its object.  It is not information about Chopin, but about the game.  Worse, the information is not [[WP:RELY|referenced]].  --[[User:RobertG|RobertG]] &#9836; [[User talk:RobertG|talk]] 10:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
::I agree.  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] 14:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
:::I agree too. --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] 08:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Me three. [[User:MusicalConnoisseur|<span style="background:#321;color:#fff;">''~~MusicalConnoisseur~~''</span>]] <small>[[User talk: MusicalConnoisseur| Got Classical?]]</small> 06:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong.  A "Popular Culture" section is a widely accepted section among Wikipedia articles and two people's absolute refusal to accept it in this article is nothing more than a elitist minority view apparently promoted by said two people.  You claim that the section isn't information about Chopin - which may have been true in previous editions of the edit, but the last revision was a simple sentence explaining that Chopin is referenced in a popular culture title fulfills the goals of the section completely - no more, no less. 
See the following biographic pages: 
[[Mozart]] - Mozart in fiction<br>
[[Beethoven]] - Cinematic Depictions<br>
[[Cultural depictions of Rasputin]] - A Rasputin in Culture section so large it required its own page.<br>
[[Charles Dickens]] - Dickens as a character in fiction<br>

Just to name a few.  Stop deleting this relevant section on Chopin.  The sentence offers zero information about the game - only that Chopin is referenced, and indeed, featured in it.  It doesn't matter what your opinion is on the title itself, the media it's on, or the fanciful depiction of Chopin.  The game references Chopin.  It is a part of our culture.  

PS: Again, this is not "trivia."  Trivia would be what Chopin's favorite color is (unless that somehow influenced his work.)  A reference in popular culture is exactly what it says.  Although you may think it trivial, the in culture section is not generally considered trivial.  I will try and figure out how to add a reference for you.  And so you know, the game designers did not randomly choose a composer.  It contains plot points that are completely specific to Chopin and without them, would change the story entirely. [[User:Honorkell|Honorkell]] 03:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

:''&hellip;absolute refusal to accept &hellip; elitist minority view''.  A classic example of how to polarise and distract by incorrectly extrapolating the other parties' general views from short statements about a particular matter.  It would be possible to similarly caricature your arguments as "dogged tabloid-populist promotion of a commercial product", but that would no doubt be equally incorrect.  Also, it appears to be possible to extrapolate from your argument to an endorsement of the inclusion of anything whatever that "references Chopin" provided it is "part of our culture".  Can you give me an example of something that is ''not'' "part of our culture" in this connection?  In any case, nowhere did I argue that there should not be an "In popular culture" section in the article.
: May we concentrate on the issue at hand?  I merely stated that in my judgement the bald assertion that the game refers to Chopin is completely trivial, because its reference to Chopin is arbitrary.
: If you were to contribute a [[WP:RELY|referenced]] paragraph which demonstrated that the game has significantly and notably affected attitudes to Chopin (and how), I would have no objection whatever: in fact that would be a terrific addition to the article provided it were well done.  If it is ''not'' trivia, then this should be eminently possible.
:By the way, can you explain, please, how <s>two</s> three editors' saying the Eternal Sonata reference should not be in the article, and one (you) saying it should, with reasoned argument on both sides, equates to a consensus to ''include'' the information?  --[[User:RobertG|RobertG]] &#9836; [[User talk:RobertG|talk]] 09:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The game is under a month old so hasn't had much of a chance to "significantly and notably" affect attitudes to Chopin.  However, this is not the only requirement to be considered non-trivial.  The very fact that the game has the potential to turn on a new and perhaps usually apathetic segment of people to Chopin in the first place, '''and''' the game's being referred to as "edu-tainment" due to its intermissions of Chopin's biographical information should be sufficient; at least for now.  [[User:Honorkell|Honorkell]] 12:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
: So you appear to share my opinion that merely ''referring to'' Chopin doesn't render something worth including in an article about Chopin.  I take it by "usually apathetic" you mean ''not usually attracted to classical music''.  I hope you are right that the game may redress any such "apathy"; that would probably be notable, and worth mentioning.  But isn't the way forward here to refer to the game when (as I'm sure many hope) it can be shown to have had relevance, rather than to guess that it shall?  Also, I wonder how presenting the game as "edu-tainment" makes any difference?
: By the way, you wrote that affecting attitudes to Chopin is "not the only requirement to be considered non-trivial".  Nobody has suggested that the game is trivial; it is surely notable on its own terms.  What is being questioned is only its relevance in the Wikipedia encyclopedia article about Chopin.  --[[User:RobertG|RobertG]] &#9836; [[User talk:RobertG|talk]] 18:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I see you're point - simply referencing Chopin I suppose wouldn't merit inclusion into this article.  But - the game does a lot more than reference him - he is arguably the most important character.  Also - the game revolves around his life and experiences.  It also educates as to his biography.  I guess it just boils down to "is this game important to the modern understanding of Chopin?" This is where it gets hazy.  I argue yes, because it artisticly portrays Chopin and his life in a medium that can attract a brand new segment of the general population to Chopin's work, educates said segment on his biography, etc I won't repost what I already wrote.  I don't think the game will change the perceptions of most people who already know about Chopin (although even that is arguable.)  But I do think it will change the perceptions (or at least create a perception where the was none) in the case of people who know nothing about Chopin.  To this group, the game is important with regards to Chopin; the former group - not much at all.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/165.230.65.52|165.230.65.52]] ([[User talk:165.230.65.52|talk]]) 12:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: Now you are trying to have it both ways.  The first part of your previous comment could be paraphrased thus: a computer game with Chopin as a ''major'' character ''is'' relevant, while a computer game that has Chopin as a minor character is not.  Once it is stated thus, I doubt you would agree!  Which scale do you use to measure "character prominence"?  Which "character prominence" value is deemed to confer ''relevance''?  It starts getting fairly ridiculous!
: So, based on our discussions so far, I think that we have established that a "cultural reference" is ''just'' a cultural reference.  The mere existence of a cultural reference is not relevant to the subject, and a bald statement of the existence of a cultural reference to any subject doesn't belong in the subject's article.
: So, it follows that any cultural reference to Chopin requires some other attribute than existence before it becomes ''relevant'' in an article about Chopin.  Further, we appear to agree on what such attributes might be: it has to have a notable effect on the subject, whether by changing perceptions of the subject, or by altering the subject's popularity.  You accept that the game has not (''yet'') done any of this - or, more to the point, you do not have a reference that says it has.  I still think that you have not made the case for why the game is relevant to Chopin, and until you do it should be removed.  --[[User:RobertG|RobertG]] &#9836; [[User talk:RobertG|talk]] 17:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Oye.... wrong, wrong, wrong.  In attempting to argue your points, you assume I abandoned my original ones?  Of course not - they still stand.  A cultural reference, no matter how slight, is still a culture reference.  If you want to keep this article rather tight and narrow, then you wouldn't include simple references in culture into this article; even though there is precedent for exactly that throughout wikipedia.  Thus, you need to look at Eternal Sonata's inclusion based on more than just simple reference.  The game meets these requirements also based on what I've said above.  Either way you slice it, the reference belongs in this article. [[User:Honorkell|Honorkell]] 17:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

: So now you say that any cultural reference, however slight, is still relevant to its object?  I'm not getting anywhere, am I?  And no-one else seems interested, so it looks as if we will have to agree to differ; I find your logic circular and inscrutable (you probably don't understand mine, either).  --[[User:RobertG|RobertG]] &#9836; [[User talk:RobertG|talk]] 08:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

== Chopin's passport/hair and eye color ==
According to several biographies of Chopin (i.e. Niecks, Karasowski) the composer had brown (or dark-brown) eyes. I have, however, read that Chopin's passport says his eyes were grey-blue. I haven't seen a text copy of Chopin's passport. Does anyone know where this could be found?  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.20.58.160|70.20.58.160]] ([[User talk:70.20.58.160|talk]]) 01:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::I put a link to a photocopy of his French passport in the notes, sadly it is constantly removed by a few Polish nationalists (who also keep changing his nationality from Polish-French to Polish). [[User:Mrglass123|Mrglass123]] ([[User talk:Mrglass123|talk]]) 13:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Mrglass123

:::Describing people with whom you disagree as "Polish nationalists", and their edits as vandalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Chopin&diff=prev&oldid=189251800], is not helpful.  I see you are new here:  please read [[WP:VAND|about what vandalism is]] as well as our [[WP:CIV|civility policy]], thanks.  Chopin was a Polish composer, and you have removed two excellent, current cites from reliable references that this was so.  If you are interested in the topic, why don't you help improve the article rather than endlessly reverting Chopin's nationality?  Thanks, [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 14:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Indeed, especially since Chopin himself was a Polish nationalist ("rabid" or otherwise). --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] ([[User talk:Folantin|talk]]) 15:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::You just state "Chopin was a Polish composer" without ever adressing the links I provided, just erasing them (like, his French passport) or the fact that his father was French, which is enough to make him a Polish-French (nevermind that he lived half his life in France and is known in the world by his French name). And yes, every single one of the people editing his nationality back are Polish, if not vandalism that is certainly POV. It is also funny to receive a warning in wikimail by one of the worse offenders.[[User:Mrglass123|Mrglass123]] ([[User talk:Mrglass123|talk]]) 01:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Mrglass123
::::::And in what way are two music books more reliable than the Britannica, or an actual historical document? Reverting back. Please also note that the author of one of those books (Kornel Michałowski) uses the name "Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin" in what looks like an online english encyclopedia, how is it even considered a reliable source to solve this "debate" is beyond me. Likewise, notes 6-17 all refer to the same polish book. I also question the POV behind the decision to remove the sentence "he adopted the French version of his given names, ''Frédéric-François''".[[User:Mrglass123|Mrglass123]] ([[User talk:Mrglass123|talk]]) 02:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Mrglass123

:::::::If you are unfamiliar with the [[New Grove]], referring to it merely as "an online english encyclopedia", I politely suggest you have no business editing music articles.  It is the gold standard for accuracy in music, Mr. Glass, not the Britannica.  Only the MGG is close to Grove in comprehensiveness, detail, and accuracy.

:::::::Suggesting that an edit which designates Chopin as a "Polish" composer is ''vandalism'', is absurd beyond my poor capacity for expression.  Sincerely, [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 02:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

::::::::The [[New Grove]] may be the "gold standard" for music, but not for law. Or is "Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin" the "gold standard" name of Chopin? You should just go ahead and edit the title of this article then. It is just absurd to say that Chopin is just Polish, but Marie Curie (for example) is Polish-French. Until you give one reason why the son of a French father and a Polish mother, who spent half his life in France, shouldn't be considered "Polish-French", no source will do. The burden of the proof is on you.[[User:Mrglass123|Mrglass123]] ([[User talk:Mrglass123|talk]]) 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Mrglass123
::::::::And if you want to continue this debate, please do so in the "Nationality standards" section.[[User:Mrglass123|Mrglass123]] ([[User talk:Mrglass123|talk]]) 02:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Mrglass123

:::::::::"No source will do", eh?  I suspect you may be unfamiliar with our policies.  Try [[WP:V]].  You need to read this stuff if you want to write here.

:::::::::"...until you give one reason why..." Because reliable sources have it that way.  New Grove is the most obvious.  Slonimsky's Baker's Biographical Dictionary also calls him a "Polish" composer.  Chopin is ''Polish''.  Believe it or not, the world's most famous composer of mazurkas and polonaises is a Polish composer.  Having a French father and living in France are historical facts, but labeling Chopin as Polish-French is misleading.  The "burden of proof" is on ''sources'':  once again, I ''urge'' you to read our policy pages before editing further.  Thank you, [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 02:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::"Having a French father and living in France are historical facts, but labeling Chopin as Polish-French is misleading." In what way is it misleading? Let me remind you "historical facts" are certainly something to be valued. Why is Marie Curie Polish-French then since both of her parents were Polish, unlike Chopin? You don't make any sense and try to add an artistic component to the definition of nationality. Does the fact that he also wrote waltzes make him an Austrian? And again, please continue this debate in the appropriate "Nationality standards" section.[[User:Mrglass123|Mrglass123]] ([[User talk:Mrglass123|talk]]) 03:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Mrglass123

==[[Frédéric Chopin#In popular culture|In popular culture]]==
''[[Dexter (TV series)|Dexter]]'' was previously deleted as irrelevant, and is now back.

''[[Eternal Sonata]]'' keeps returning like a bad penny.

[[Ingmar Bergman]]'s film, ''[[Autumn Sonata]]'', was deleted.
:Why was this deleted? That scene tells something about Chopin and his style as well. For example, the mother points to a specific piece of music and tells to her daughter that chopin was sad there, but not mawkish.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.187.201.87|76.187.201.87]] ([[User talk:76.187.201.87|talk]]) 18:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Would we not do better, deleting the entire section?  We could probably find thousands of examples of Chopin being referenced "in popular culture."  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 02:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

: Here I agree with Nihil Novi; I am not dogmatic about "popular culture" sections, but in my view each item included in such a section should be referenced: not only to verify it, but also to demonstrate that the cultural reference is itself notable with respect to the article's subject.  Incidentally, where were you (and everyone else interested in such discussions) when I needed you in the Eternal Sonata section above? <span style="font-family:courier">:-D</span>
::I expressed agreement with your September 19 entry, on September 26.  I reinforced it, twice, on October 29.  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 21:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
: I disagree with the anon's comment.  A mother talking to her daughter is not notable unless it can be demonstrated that it either tells us something worth knowing ''about the subject'' or has altered perceptions of the subject.  Anything else is "just a cultural reference", a random fact, and [[WP:IINFO|Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information]].  In this particular instance, telling us that "Chopin is sad there, but not mawkish" is only relevant if the mother is an acceptable Chopin authority: but this mother is fictional&hellip;  --[[User:RobertG|RobertG]] &#9836; [[User talk:RobertG|talk]] 17:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

== Chopin's Raindrops Prelude in Halo 3 Believe Ad ==

in the popular culture refrence of this page, 
shouldn't it be noted that his Raindrops Prelude piece was used in the 2nd Halo 3 "Believe" ad?

very popular culture, seeing how well the game has sold this year....  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/134.39.112.105|134.39.112.105]] ([[User talk:134.39.112.105|talk]]) 18:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

bah 
nevermind
found out what incidental music is lol  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/134.39.112.105|134.39.112.105]] ([[User talk:134.39.112.105|talk]]) 18:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== "Friends with Pleyel" ==
I removed this from the article:

: ''Chopin was friends with Joseph Pleyel, (a piano manufacturer in France) and used his piano's ''[sic]'', recommending them to his friends. Chopin highly regarded Pleyel piano's ''[sic]'' as the best piano in the world.''

It is unreferenced.  I may check it up when I get the chance - or perhaps someone else knows a reference for it?  Also it was rather imprecise and ungrammatical as it stood, as well as being (in my view) in the wrong place: it is not specifically relevant to the time on Mallorca.  It probably deserves expanding into its own paragraph if it can be substantiated.  --[[User:RobertG|RobertG]] ♬ [[User talk:RobertG|talk]] 09:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

== Riddled ==

THIS article i s riddled with [[WP:WEASEL|wieasel words]]. Please fix now. [[User:Smith Jones|Smith Jones]] ([[User talk:Smith Jones|talk]]) 12:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
: Thanks for your helpful comment.  Please may we have some specific examples?  --[[User:RobertG|RobertG]] &#9836; [[User talk:RobertG|talk]] 12:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You may:

*"He is widely regarded as one of the greatest composers for the piano." (by whom?)
*"Hailed in his homeland as a child prodigy" (outlandish calaims need sources)
*"and his compositions are widely considered to be pinnacles of the piano's repertoire" (who considers him this?)
*"Chopin's style emphasizes nuance and expressive depth rather than technical virtuosity." (any prominente musical experts sourced to confirm this?)
*"Chopin's music for the piano combined a unique rhythmic sense " (unique how? thse claims need sources!!!)

The whole articles is filled with these staements. I have no doubt that all of them are true about Chopin but these thye still need sources or else it looks like a fanpage or an advertisement instead of an encyclopedia. i've already started researching some of these but i uld appreciate the help of something who was had been wrecking on here for quite some time since my chopin research book collection is somewhat limited . [[User:Smith Jones|Smith Jones]] ([[User talk:Smith Jones|talk]]) 13:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:Good points. I am looking forward to seeing the article improved by you guys! --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00; background:#006400;"> talk </span>]]</span></sub> 04:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

== Nationality standards? ==

I wonder which standards do apply for attributing a nationality, in general, and in this case. 
*nationality of his parents? mother Polish, father French
*[[Mother tongue]]? - [[Polish language]], apparently. To what degree did he know French before he went there?
*Place/state of Birth? - [[Duchy of Warsaw]], so a Warsovian or Warsawian?
*nationality of the overlord? - [[Frederick Augustus I of Saxony]], so a Saxon?
*Place/state where he spend most of his life, voluntarily or not so? - France.
*Place/state where he created and published his works? - France.
[[Marie Curie]] is a somewhat related Polish-French case. Or exclusively Russian, according to standards applied by some to certain figures. --&nbsp;[[User:Matthead|Matthead]]&nbsp;[[User_talk:Matthead|<span style="color:#ffff00; background:#0000cc;"><small>&nbsp;Discuß&nbsp;</small></span>]]&nbsp; 04:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:While discussing nationality, I wonder if we should mention that during WWII Nazi Germany launched a campaign claiming that Chopin was ... German. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00; background:#006400;"> talk </span>]]</span></sub> 04:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::I had never seen anybody claiming Maria Skłodowska to be of Russian nationality. Where did you see it ?--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] ([[User talk:Molobo|talk]]) 05:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::The article [[Marie Curie]] says: born in Warsaw, Congress Poland, Russian Empire, and lived there until she was 24. As I saw people born in Royal Prussia or in certain Hanseatic cities being pronounced as Polish, I figure that Curie must be Russian accordingly, no matter what language she spoke. If not so, where's the error in the nationality standards? As persons born under overlordship of a Polish-Lithuanian monarch are pronounced Polish, Chopin, born under a Saxon ruler, must be Saxon - ei verbibsch! And the town his family moved to in 1810 was Saxon-ruled [[Warschau]], nicht wahr? Oh, wait, as "the most important person in the duchy was in fact the French ambassador", it must have been Varsovie, n'était pas? Then, until aged 20, he lived in Варшава, in Царство Польское. After all, a Hanseatic city is called Królewiec [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Kr%C3%B3lewiec&fulltext=Search more than 20 times on English Wikipedia], too, shouldn't we stick to this standard? I'd be interested in that WW2 campaign, BTW. Was it aimed against France or Russia? --&nbsp;[[User:Matthead|Matthead]]&nbsp;[[User_talk:Matthead|<span style="color:#ffff00; background:#0000cc;"><small>&nbsp;Discuß&nbsp;</small></span>]]&nbsp; 10:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::See Wikipedia rules on Original Research.I thought you had a source, but it seems you invented the idea yourself. Since OR is not allowed on Wiki, then this is a non-existant issue.  There is no and there was no Royal Prussian or Hanseatic nationality of course, since those entitites(A Polish fief, and merchant alliance) containedon various different ethnic groups. Also I would like to ask to please stop such emotional responses and use English language in place of sentences like "ei verbibsch!" which won't be understood by other readers.--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] ([[User talk:Molobo|talk]]) 12:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Does [[Ève Curie]] qualify as a source in this case, or did she conduct forbidden OR? "Called in turn a Russian, a German, a Jewess and a Pole"[http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=Called+in+turn+a+Russian%2C+a+German%2C+a+Jewess+and+a+Pole&btnG=Search+Books]. Speaking of "no Royal Prussian or Hanseatic nationality of course", in regard of e.g. certain 15th to 18th century astronomers who undoubtedly spoke and wrote German, you surely confirm that they had German nationality, same as Chopin was not born with DuchyofWarsawian nationality, but Polish? Or to you prefer to have the astronomers pronounced Polish as subjects of a Polish-Lithuanian overlord, and accordingly, Chopin as Saxon and Curie as Russian, after their overlord? --&nbsp;[[User:Matthead|Matthead]]&nbsp;[[User_talk:Matthead|<span style="color:#ffff00; background:#0000cc;"><small>&nbsp;Discuß&nbsp;</small></span>]]&nbsp; 05:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In your list of criteria, you omitted perhaps only one:  how the individual saw himself.  The Polish Wikipedia article quotes [[George Sand]] as saying that [[Fryderyk Chopin]] "was even more Polish than Poland herself."  The article also references a French music critic as saying: "His nation's heart beat in his chest.  We know of no other musician who was more of a patriot than he.  He is a Pole much more so than any Frenchman was French, any Italian—Italian, or any German—German.  He is a Pole, nothing other than a Pole, and from this ravaged, tormented Polish country there emerges, like its immortal soul, its music."  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 05:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:How Polish was Poland at this time, according to Mrs. Sand, or others? --&nbsp;[[User:Matthead|Matthead]]&nbsp;[[User_talk:Matthead|<span style="color:#ffff00; background:#0000cc;"><small>&nbsp;Discuß&nbsp;</small></span>]]&nbsp; 10:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::Please elaborate on the question.--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] ([[User talk:Molobo|talk]]) 12:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::The Polish Wikipedia quotes G. Sand making a comparison. It was not me who started to use a ''Polishness scale''. --&nbsp;[[User:Matthead|Matthead]]&nbsp;[[User_talk:Matthead|<span style="color:#ffff00; background:#0000cc;"><small>&nbsp;Discuß&nbsp;</small></span>]]&nbsp; 05:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: the purpose of this section is to find out how nationality is determined. Do standards apply, or is each case determined individually? --&nbsp;[[User:Matthead|Matthead]]&nbsp;[[User_talk:Matthead|<span style="color:#ffff00; background:#0000cc;"><small>&nbsp;Discuß&nbsp;</small></span>]]&nbsp; 05:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
:It is simple. Nationality at that time was defined by the nationality of the father ("jus sanguinis"), and Chopin's father was French (he never got the Polish nationality). Chopin therefore had the French nationality from birth. [[User:Mrglass123|Mrglass123]] ([[User talk:Mrglass123|talk]]) 23:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Mrglass123
::And looking at [[Marie Curie]] on Wikipedia, I wonder just how many rabid Polish nationalists edit those pages: "of Polish upbringing and, subsequently, French citizenship." (instead of simply Polish-French), and in the first paragraph: "While an actively loyal French citizen, she never lost her sense of Polish identity. Madame Curie named the first new chemical element that she discovered "polonium" for her native country." The continuous use during the article of "Skłodowska-Curie" instead of simply "Curie" is comical. At least they didn't try to make her 100% Polish, unlike Chopin.[[User:Mrglass123|Mrglass123]] ([[User talk:Mrglass123|talk]]) 23:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Mrglass123

Here are the facts, none of which are contested:
:- Chopin's father was French (giving him the French nationality from birth by "jus sanguinis"), his mother Polish
:- He spent half his life and died in France
:- He spoke French
:- He is known in the world by his French name (as illustrated by the title of this article)
Now why shouldn't he be described by "Polish-French" instead of just "Polish"?
[[User:Mrglass123|Mrglass123]] ([[User talk:Mrglass123|talk]]) 02:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Mrglass123
::Chopin's father became thoroughly Polonized, and in fact spoke Polish at home and did not teach Fryderyk French; many people have lived in France without becoming French (e.g., the entire [[Great Emigration]], which included Chopin); Chopin spoke French imperfectly; [[Jean Sibelius]] used the French form of his given name, without ceasing to be a Finn; most importantly, Chopin felt himself to be a Pole.  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 03:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

:If you look through the talk archives, you will see this has been discussed before, more than once.  [[WP:CONSENSUS|Consensus]] has been to keep it at "Polish".  There will be some sources calling him Polish-French (such as the current Britannica) and then numerous others calling him Polish.  Thank you, [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 03:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

::You are right, he didn't "become" French in Paris, because he was born with the French nationality. Once again, [[Jus sanguinis]] was the rule across all Europe at the time, and the reason why the French nationality of his father was mentioned on his act of baptem. Also, I can't help noticing that someone is trying to make his father more Polish by the minute; he is now "Mikołaj Chopin, originally a Frenchman"! For your information, his father had the French nationality only, until his death. This doesn't bode well for the objectivity of this article. But Chopin was Polish-French, by any standard you follow for nationality. Or perhaps you would make Schwarzenegger an Austrian, since he still "speaks [English] imperfectly"? And unlike Chopin (French from birth), Schwarzenegger wasn't American from birth.[[User:Mrglass123|Mrglass123]] ([[User talk:Mrglass123|talk]]) 03:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Mrglass123

:::I'll be brief since you've ignored me before.  ''We'' don't determine his nationality.  The ''sources'' do.  I've listed a number of them.  Consensus is against you, and now you've violated [[WP:3RR]].  [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 03:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether Chopin should be described in the lead as Polish or Polish-French, but I feel strongly that collaboration and consensus is the way forward.  I have requested that Mrglass123 refrain from edit warring and engage with the discussion here.  Please let me know if this does not happen.  --[[User:RobertG|RobertG]] ♬ [[User talk:RobertG|talk]] 11:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Musical identity is surely relevant here. Handel, at least in part, is regarded as a German composer because his music has a singularly Teutonic character. Chopin's music is a similar case. It's worth noting that specialist musical sources refer to him as Polish, not Polish-French. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[User:Moreschi/If|If you've written a quality article...]]</sup> 13:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
:I think it's even simpler than that. If you ask anyone to name a famous Polish composer they're almost certain to say Chopin. In fact, even the French Wikipedia has him down as "un compositeur et pianiste polonais" (strangely, judging by the talk page, there doesn't appear to be any controversy over the subject among French editors). The fact that Chopin had a French father is noted in the article. Maurice Ravel had a Swiss father (and a Basque mother), yet I've always seen him designated as a French composer. --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] ([[User talk:Folantin|talk]]) 13:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

::As a compromise version, we could do something like we did for the birthdate issue:  footnote it.  He's a Polish composer in the lead, as it currently stands.  A footnote explains that some sources (actually I've only found one -- the current online EB) call him "Polish-French", due to the origin of his father, and most others (EB 1911, Grove, Slonimsky-Baker's, Harvard, Oxford, Scholes, ...) call him simply "Polish".  Don't know if this will make our solitary objector happy, but it is one way.  Thanks, [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 14:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
:::All this shows that Wikipedia fails to control a vocal minority when it wants to impose its POV on a subject not many others care about; hence the "consensus". This article is even more polish-nationalist than when I first discovered it, the description of Chopin's father (Mikołaj!) is just ridiculous now. Congratulations on making Mother Poland proud Chopin, it is good Wikipedia can be used for political propaganda these days.[[User:Mrglass123|Mrglass123]] ([[User talk:Mrglass123|talk]]) 17:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Mrglass123
:::"A Polish spirit, and the Polish language, pervaded Mikołaj Chopin's home, and as a result Fryderyk would never, even in Paris, perfectly master the French language. The boy inherited his blond hair and blue eyes from his mother; his frail health, rather from his father." This is getting better than the Pravda.[[User:Mrglass123|Mrglass123]] ([[User talk:Mrglass123|talk]]) 17:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Mrglass123
::::''Pravda'' was Polish? Hmm. The quoted passage might be phrased in more flowery language than we're used to now (probably because of its source in a work from the 1930s) but the content is essentially true. Chopin never did master the French language. "Language was another matter, rooted in anxiety passed from father to son. A foreigner concerned with shrouding his origins and proving his Polishness, Nicolas was as cautious as a spy dropped behind enemy lines; he never seems to have mentioned his French family to his Polish children. French was the lingua franca of the nobility and the subject Nicolas taught to others' sons - but not to his own. (Did he fear that the accents of a former vineyard laborer would betray him at home?). Consequently Fryderyk's grasp of French grammar and spelling would always remain shaky. Surprising for one blessed with an extraordinary 'ear' and famed from earliest childhood as an extraordinary mimic, his pronunciation, too, was poor. More telling was his own unease in his adopted tongue: half-French, living in Paris, the paradise of expatriates, Chopin would always feel twice exiled - from his country and from his language. Imprisoned by foreign words, the expressive power of his music unbound him" (Bettina Eisler ''Chopin's Funeral'', Abacus, 2004, page 29). --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] ([[User talk:Folantin|talk]]) 18:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Ack! Please, no more of this debate! I've kept this on my watchlist for so long, and about every ''second'' someone has posted a counter to someone else's argument. Instead of uselessly throwing our weight around trying to convince or drown out the other, let's collect a set of sources and list them '''here.''' That way, we'll get a good idea of what the experts agree is right. --[[User:MusicalConnoisseur|<span style="background:#321;color:#fff">''~~MusicalConnoisseur~~''</span>]] <small>[[User talk: MusicalConnoisseur| Got Classical?]]</small> 06:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

===Sources that list Chopin as [[Polish]]===
*''Barron's Student's Concise Encyclopedia'', compiled by the editors of [[Barron's Educational Series]], Inc. (1988).
*''The [[American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language]]'', New College Edition, 1980 (although it is questionable how this source could contradict itself, see below).
*Barbara Smoleńska-Zielińska, [''Fryderyk Chopin''] ''Biography'': a Polish website about Chopin, with a full bibliography, http://www.chopin.pl/biografia/index_en.html
*David Ewen, ''Ewen's Musical Masterworks:  the Encyclopedia of Musical Masterpieces'', New York, Arco Publishing Co., 1954.  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 06:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
*Michael Kennedy, ''Oxford Concise Dictionary of Music'', 4th ed., Oxford, 2004, p. 141.
*Kornel Michałowski, "Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin," ''Grove Music Online'', ed. L. Macy (http://www.grovemusic.com)
*Zdzisław Jachimecki, "Chopin, Fryderyk Franciszek," ''[[Polski słownik biograficzny]]'', vol. III, 1937.  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 07:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
:*'''NB: most important source here''': [[New Grove]] - the most prestigious general authority on classical music in English.--[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] ([[User talk:Folantin|talk]]) 08:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
*Tad Szulc ''Chopin in Paris''. "“Slim and pale, five feet seven inches tall, almost feminine in his blue-eyed, blond delicacy, Fryderyk Chopin was born in a village near Warsaw in 1810, the Polish son of a Frenchman who had settled in Poland. Now, in turn, Chopin the genius musician was bringing Poland to France, yet remaining unassailably Polish until the moment his breathing ceased".  (p.19)--[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] ([[User talk:Folantin|talk]]) 08:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

===Sources that list Chopin as [[Polish]]-[[French]]===
*The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, http://www.bartleby.com/61/42/C0324200.html
*Encyclopædia Britannica, http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9082338/Frederic-Chopin
*Famous Composers and Their Works, John Knowles Paine and Theodore Thomas
*Wikipedia until a revision in the last year, still listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Polish-French_people
:*'''Note''' Wikipedia is not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] (although it's worth noting that the French Wikipedia describes Chopin as Polish). --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] ([[User talk:Folantin|talk]]) 08:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
*Tad Szulc “Chopin in Paris” p.69   <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mrglass123|Mrglass123]] ([[User talk:Mrglass123|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mrglass123|contribs]]) 23:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:*Erm, no, Szulc writes that Chopin was "unassailably Polish until the moment his breathing ceased". --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] ([[User talk:Folantin|talk]]) 08:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope that this will help us reach a ''factual,'' not ''abstract'' agreement. Thanks--[[User:MusicalConnoisseur|<span style="background:#321;color:#fff">''~~MusicalConnoisseur~~''</span>]] <small>[[User talk: MusicalConnoisseur| Got Classical?]]</small> 20:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

:Good idea. I will also add a section for historical documents, since at least the French nationality is well-established by them. In any case, the fact that he did have the French nationality should be mentioned early in the article, since it is a simple historical fact.[[User:Mrglass123|Mrglass123]] ([[User talk:Mrglass123|talk]]) 11:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Mrglass123

===Historical documents proving Chopin was French===
*Act of baptem, "from a French father", giving him the French nationality by [[jus sanguinis]]: http://diaph16.free.fr/chopin//chopin5.htm
*French passport, http://diaph16.free.fr/chopin//chopin7.htm
:*'''Note''' Self-published websites are not accepted as [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] on Wikipedia. Besides, the passport issue is more complicated than it sounds. --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] ([[User talk:Folantin|talk]]) 08:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
::Those are photocopies of historical archives and not OR, the website doesn't matter.[[User:Mrglass123|Mrglass123]] ([[User talk:Mrglass123|talk]]) 23:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Mrglass123

===Historical documents proving Chopin was Polish===

===Note: the 1835 passport===
How Chopin acquired a French passport:

“[After Chopin first arrived in Paris in 1831:] Because Chopin’s Russian passport restriction allowed him to remain in Paris only ‘in passage’ to London, Paer wrote the French authorities requesting a more permanent status for 'this young man…who is a Pole deported from Warsaw as a result of the revolution [and] who was in Vienna where the press and the society elite received him with great consideration. Chopin is an educated man’.

“Chopin of course had not been deported and was not a political refugee, but the French granted him permission to stay in Paris indefinitely ‘to be able to perfect his art’. Four years later, Fryderyk became a French citizen and a French passport was issued to him on August 1, 1835. He is not known to have discussed his decision to change citizenship with anyone, not even his father. It is unclear whether he did it to avoid renewing his Russian passport at the Russian embassy for patriotic reasons or simply as a matter of general convenience”. (Tad Szulc “Chopin in Paris” p.69 )

Question: if Chopin was already French, why would he have to apply for French citizenship to get a passport? --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] ([[User talk:Folantin|talk]]) 08:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
:Answer: Chopin was ''not'' French; therefore, he was able to acquire a French passport. He was born in [[Żelazowa Wola]], near Warsaw, Poland (the article itself states this fact). Although is father was of French descent, he himself had been thoroughly "Polonized." --[[User:MusicalConnoisseur|<span style="background:#321;color:#fff">''~~MusicalConnoisseur~~''</span>]] <small>[[User talk: MusicalConnoisseur| Got Classical?]]</small> 00:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
::My point exactly! :) --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] ([[User talk:Folantin|talk]]) 10:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Re: thoroughly "Polonized." Note that his father kept the French nationality only until his death, and that he wrote to Chopin in French.[[User:Mrglass123|Mrglass123]] ([[User talk:Mrglass123|talk]]) 23:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Mrglass123
::::Wrong. He was thoroughly Polonised. He changed his name to Mikoŀaj, never mentioned anything about his French family and brought up his children to be Poles. He always corresponded with his son in Polish, not French ("Father and son wrote to each other in Polish", Eisler p.29). --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] ([[User talk:Folantin|talk]]) 08:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Frederic Chopin was French from birth by [[jus sanguinis]], once again. Any Polish source can be suspected of POV given the status of Chopin today as "greatest Polish composer", even though he wasn't considered such at the time. But I am glad even this source admits: "Four years later, Fryderyk became a French citizen and a French passport was issued to him on August 1, 1835." So, we all agree Chopin was indeed French, and it should therefore be mentioned in the first paragraph.[[User:Mrglass123|Mrglass123]] ([[User talk:Mrglass123|talk]]) 23:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Mrglass123
::::True, very true, and that can be done. We can mention his French passport later in the introductory paragraph. However, I don't agree with mentioning him as Polish-French. (But PLEASE...do not reply to this comment. We may disagree on that point, but let's not revive the debate). Thanks. :) --[[User:MusicalConnoisseur|<span style="background:#321;color:#fff">''~~MusicalConnoisseur~~''</span>]] <small>[[User talk: MusicalConnoisseur| Got Classical?]]</small> 00:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
::::I did not change the lead as it seems impossible with such a sensible figure for Poles today, nevermind the fact that he is the very definition of Polish-French; but did include the mention of his French nationality in the introductory paragraph. I do hope this will not be edited out once again given the numerous historical sources available, and the importance of France in his life.[[User:Mrglass123|Mrglass123]] ([[User talk:Mrglass123|talk]]) 05:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Mrglass123

I'm in agreement with MusicalConnoisseur here, that Chopin should not be mentioned as Polish-French ''in the lead''.  I believe that the details of his parentage, passport, citizenship can be mentioned in the appropriately more detailed later portions of the article, -- or in a footnote.  Leaving him as a "Polish" composer is in conformance with the majority of scholarly opinion.  And please do not change the lead back to "Polish-French" until achieving consensus on this page: much appreciated.  Thank you, [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 04:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
:In what part of the article is it appropriate to mention historical realities? Chopin was Polish-French, or if you prefer "of Polish upbringing and, subsequently, French citizenship" just like [[Marie Curie]], or Polish-born French like [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] is Austrian-born American. Why should the standards for nationality differ for cultural icons?[[User:Mrglass123|Mrglass123]] ([[User talk:Mrglass123|talk]]) 06:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Mrglass123

::I can't answer that question because [[Fallacy of many questions|I was too busy beating my wife]].  Please remain logical, [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 14:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

::And ''one other thing'':  No one is trying to make Stravinsky, Schoenberg, or Rachmaninoff into ''American'' composers, even though ''all three had US citizenship''.  When considering a composer, the works, style, and intent are more indicative of "nationality" than the legal documents that composer had.  Thank you,  [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 15:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Did any of them have half of their family American, and spend all their adult life in the US? Did any of them have an American family name, and change their first name to an American version? [[User:Mrglass123|Mrglass123]] ([[User talk:Mrglass123|talk]]) 12:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Mrglass123

   
: I laughed! Why a "Polish-born French"??? Why not "Pole who had to emigrate" ... and spent the rest of his life in France??? Your highly biased, emotional approach reveals your ignorance. '''Facts are also that Chopin:'''


'''1. Chopin was born in Poland to a Polish mother and a polonised French father who came to Poland in 1787 at the age of 16, and spoke to his son in Polish.'''


'''2. Chopin was born and spent most of his life (20 years) in Poland - 20 years of his childhood and youth - the time which shaped his personality and national identity - here he received education, here he became influenced by the Polish folk music'''


'''3. Chopin was brought up in a house of old Polish aristocrats (counts Skarbek) with Polish traditions and customs, in the Polish countryside (Chopin's father was looking after the children of count Kacper Skarbek).'''


'''4. Chopin spoke perfect Polish - a language he used at home, but did not speak perfect French - a language which he had to learn.'''


'''5. Chopin always associated himself with the Polish emigrants in France. Also, in his music, he showed his strong affection for his home-country - Poland. Just like on 29 XI 1830 - when the Polish [[November Uprising|November Uprising]] started and, upon hearing the news, Chopin himself said "I curse the moment when I left the country". Or on 8 X 1831, when deeply moved by the failure of the uprising, he wrote the very famous "Revolutionary" etude [[C Major OP. 10 NR 12|Étude Op. 10, No. 12 (Chopin)]].''' 


... these are the FACTS... so whence that idiotic, irrelevant mumbo-jumbo about USA and Arnold Schwarzenegger???


'''Obviously an ignorant - like you - does not know most of the facts above, not to mention the history behind some of Chopins most patriotic pieces. Now that, in spite of all these FACTS, you call him a "Polish-born French" you get the best proof for your bias and highly subjective attitude. Well - you certainly are not the first one to have some sort of agenda behind such opinions. And why do you politicise the issue so much? What was the thing with these "nationalists"??? It's a double-edged sword - you could be a nationalist with some agenda as well.'''  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:81.106.131.140|81.106.131.140]] ([[User talk:81.106.131.140|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/81.106.131.140|contribs]]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:''How else can I phrase this...'' Please, to everyone who is involved in the editing and improvement of this article: 
:Let's put aside opinions on a little, relatively trifling sentence. No offense intended, but it may seem that we are making a '''mountain out of a molehill''' (come on, we've been bickering for ''weeks'' over a sentence only a few ''words'' long). Instead, folks, let's focus on placing this article on the road to [[WP:FA|FA]] class. We'll return to the subject of "Polish" or "Polish-French" when needed. The last thing anyone in a reasonable frame of mind would want, I assume, is more edit wars and/or conflicts.
:I sincerely hope that this is the last time I will have to interrupt consecutive posts. Thanks always, --[[User:MusicalConnoisseur|<span style="background:#321;color:#fff">''~~MusicalConnoisseur~~''</span>]] <small>[[User talk: MusicalConnoisseur| Got Classical?]]</small> 06:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


I can add that Chopin's other greatest piece - Fantaisie-Impromptu in C-sharp minor, Opus 66 was dedicated to his friend Julian Fontana - ''a Polish pianist and composer best remembered as a close friend and musical executor of Frédéric Chopin. Fontana left Warsaw in 1831, after '''the November Uprising''' and settled in Hamburg, before becoming a pianist and teacher in Paris in 1832. He took up a wandering life.''  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.106.128.119|81.106.128.119]] ([[User talk:81.106.128.119|talk]]) 22:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Analfabetismo? ==

I'm curious as to the [[WP:Weasel]], ''sometimes'', calling him "Szopen" for the Polish version of his name. Is this for pronunciation sake? Did he use it himself? Or is this to help the [[illiterate]]? I recall a lot of flak concerning concerning the [[Lithuanization]] and [[Germanization]] of "Polish" surnames. [[User:Dr. Dan|Dr. Dan]] ([[User talk:Dr. Dan|talk]]) 17:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:I'm not sure there's anything weaselly about it really - it is a fact that in some Polish writing the spelling Szopen is used.  Whatever the motive for its origin (see [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&docId=10320158 p7], and an explanation of the derivation in Slonimsky, TMQ 34, 4 for some material) it has stuck, and the mention helps readers coming from texts and monuments with the alternative spelling.  I can't really think of a better way of phrasing it. - it is a spelling, that is sometimes used in that language.  EB gives it as 'the' Polish spelling, which is incorrect.  Columbia omits Szopen, but also omits Fryderyk which isn't particularly helpful.  Szulc's book from around 2000 has more information too. I'm not sure there's a canonically accepted derivation of the name, so I think a simple statement of the existence of this linguistic quirk suffices. [[User:Knepflerle|Knepflerle]] ([[User talk:Knepflerle|talk]]) 18:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

::''Whatever the reason'' (Szopen)...''it has stuck''... where has it stuck? And I'll repeat the other question, did Chopin ever use it himself? [[User:Dr. Dan|Dr. Dan]] ([[User talk:Dr. Dan|talk]]) 02:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:::"''Szopen''" ("SHOP-en") is the Polish spelling of how Poles pronounce Chopin's name, and is sometimes used by Poles as an alternate spelling.  Chopin and his father usually spelled their surname "Chopin," rarely Polonizing it to "''Szopen''."  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 03:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Alternate spellings are also known in the [[English language]]:  "favor"—"favour," "jail"—"gaol," "Jeffrey"—"Geoffrey," "[[Florence]]"—"[[Firenze]]," etc.  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 03:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::You forgot to mention ''"[[Cracow]]"'' - ''"[[Cracow|Krakow]]"'' as another example. And "Firenze" is not an "alternate" English spelling of ''[[Florence]]''. Are you saying that Chopin and his family used ''Szopen'', on occasion, albeit "rarely". Where and when? Besides it would be ("SHOW-pen") not ("SHOP-pen"). [[User:Dr. Dan|Dr. Dan]] ([[User talk:Dr. Dan|talk]]) 03:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::No, it's "SHOP-en."  [[Polish language|Polish]] does not use such [[diphthong]]s. Finding  answers to some of your questions on the [[pl:Fryderyk Chopin|Polish Wikipedia]] will present no difficulties for you, given your expert knowledge of Polish language and history.  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 06:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Hmm? So (SHOP-en) contains no dipthongs, while (SHOW-pen) does. Very interesting. Of course the fact that the "O" in shop is pronounced as "ah" in English while the "O" in "show" is pronounced as "oh", and in shoe as "oooh", means nothing to you. So you're saying that Szopen is pronounced actually as "Shahp-en" in Polish. Don't think so. As for the rest of the questions, please consider that other Wikpedians (who don't have my "expertise") might also be interested in Chopin's use of ''Szopen.'' [[User:Dr. Dan|Dr. Dan]] ([[User talk:Dr. Dan|talk]]) 15:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

::Where has it stuck?  In general use, in Polish-language texts, of all types (scholarly/informal/.  Some writers use Chopin, some Szopen - works of reference in Polish usually mention both.  From my experience I would say Chopin is slightly more prevalent, but Szopen usage is a sizeable minority.  The Szopen/Chopin dual spelling is given as an example of a small number of proper names with two spellings acceptable in Polish orthography [http://so.pwn.pl/zasady.php?id=629616] (hence the incorrectness of [[Encyclopedia Britannica|EB]]'s pronouncement).
::As to whether he used the Szopen spelling himself - I do not know, and I don't know if anybody knows.  From what I have read, I guess he didn't, with its origin coming from the supposed link to Szopa as detailed in the sources I gave above.  The Chopin spelling is not a result of Fryderyk's life and travels in France per se, but rather the origins of his father.  Every signature I have seen used Chopin.  But that's just my interpretation of the limited material I have read. [[User:Knepflerle|Knepflerle]] ([[User talk:Knepflerle|talk]]) 00:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
:::PS: [[Warsaw Frederic Chopin Airport|The biggest Chopin memorial of them all]] unquestionably uses Chopin, not Szopen, in both English and Polish! [[User:Knepflerle|Knepflerle]] ([[User talk:Knepflerle|talk]]) 00:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

==Automated peer review suggestions==
If this article is to be considered for GA in the future, the following issues should be addressed:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic [[User:AndyZ/peerreviewer|javascript program]], and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at [[Wikipedia:Lead]]. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on [[WP:LEAD]], and should adequately summarize the article.<sup>[[User:AndyZ/G#lead|[?]]]</sup>
*Per [[Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context|Wikipedia:Context]] and [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates)]], months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide [[WP:CONTEXT|context]] for the article.<sup>[[User:AndyZ/G#contxt|[?]]]</sup>
*You may wish to consider adding an appropriate [[WP:INFOBOX|infobox]] for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. <sup>[[User:AndyZ/G#infobox|[?]]]</sup> (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*If this article is about a person, please add <code><nowiki>{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}</nowiki></code> along with the required parameters to the article - see [[Wikipedia:Persondata]] for more information.<sup>[[User:AndyZ/G#persondata|[?]]]</sup>
*Per [[Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context|Wikipedia:Context]] and [[Wikipedia:Build the web]], years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as [[January 15]], [[2006]].<sup>[[User:AndyZ/G#linkdate|[?]]]</sup>
*As per [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates)]], dates shouldn't use <sup>th</sup>; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using ''[[January 30|January 30<sup>th</sup>]] was a great day'', use ''[[January 30]] was a great day''.<sup>[[User:AndyZ/G#dateth|[?]]]</sup>
*Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either [[American and British English spelling differences|American or British spelling]], depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: ''favourite'' (B) (American: ''favorite''), ''meter'' (A) (British: ''metre''), ''organize'' (A) (British: ''organise''), ''criticize'' (A) (British: ''criticise''), ''isation'' (B) (American: ''ization'').
*Watch for [[User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_2a#Redundancy|redundancies]] that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's [[User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a: redundancy exercises|redundancy exercises]].)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “<span style="color: red;"><s>All</s></span> pigs are pink, so we thought of <span style="color: red;"><s>a number of</s></span> ways to turn them green.”
*As done in [[WP:FOOTNOTE]], footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the [[The Chicago Manual of Style|CMS]], but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, ''the sun is larger than the moon [2].'' is usually written as ''the sun is larger than the moon.[2]''<sup>[[User:AndyZ/G#footspace|[?]]]</sup>
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of [[WP:WIAFA|Wikipedia's best work]]. See also [[User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a]].<sup>[[User:AndyZ/G#copyedit|[?]]]</sup>
You may wish to browse through [[User:AndyZ/Suggestions]] for further ideas. Thanks, <sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00; background:#006400;"> talk </span>]]</span></sub> 06:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

== Persistent vandals ==

Well, I've just about had it with these pesky vandals! Do you guys think we should protect this article now? The same has been done for Debussy for a similar case of the [[WP:VAND]]'s, so should we do so here? --[[User:MusicalConnoisseur|<span style="background:#321;color:#fff">''~~MusicalConnoisseur~~''</span>]] <small>[[User talk: MusicalConnoisseur| Got Classical?]]</small> 20:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
:Absolutely.  This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an obstacle course.  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 02:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
:I understand and share the frustration, but disagree.  "[Seeking] to protect the article against vandalism that has not yet occurred" is specifically proscribed by [[WP:PROT#Semi-protection|protection policy]].  Reverting vandalism usually takes 5 seconds, and the article has seen only five bits of graffiti in two days, none of which has been by a persistent vandal.  --[[User:RobertG|RobertG]] &#9836; [[User talk:RobertG|talk]] 09:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
::Well, now that the vandalism has ensued and intensified, is it still possible to protect it? Further, what purpose is there for a blockage if not to prevent future vandalism? --[[User:La Pianista|<span style="color: LightSteelBlue; font-family: rage italic; font-size: large;"><sup>La</sup></span>]][[User talk:La Pianista|<span style="color: SteelBlue; font-family: rage italic; font-size: large;">Pianísta!</span>]] 00:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Partial protection would still allow established participants to contribute, while unburdening the community of ceaseless antivandalism patrol, which cuts into time available for constructive work.  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 04:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
::::True, true...so...to reciprocate what I said further (I <s>am</s> ''was'' ~~MC~~)...can we block it now, pretty please? --[[User:La Pianista|<span style="color: LightSteelBlue; font-family: rage italic; font-size: large;"><sup>La</sup></span>]][[User talk:La Pianista|<span style="color: SteelBlue; font-family: rage italic; font-size: large;">Pianísta!</span>]] 06:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::I've just requested semi-protection for "[[Frédéric Chopin]]," on the grounds that, except for 6 substantive ones, the last 41 revisions since March 29 have been vandalizations or reversals of vandalizations.  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 06:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::Hurrah! Thanks, Nihil novi. Hopefully, we'll now have more energy to do some more real work around here...by the way, what happened to [[User:Jeandebeaumont|JdB]]? You can respond on my talk page.--[[User:La Pianista|<span style="color: LightSteelBlue; font-family: rage italic; font-size: large;"><sup>La</sup></span>]][[User talk:La Pianista|<span style="color: SteelBlue; font-family: rage italic; font-size: large;">Pianísta!</span>]] 19:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

== Chopin, 1848-1849 ==

I would like to show a proposed revision of the whole section "Death" in a sandbox for any comments, before uploading it for real (consistent with the recent updating of [[Jenny Lind]]'s "Early life and career").  Where and how to I do that?

It starts:

FINAL TWO YEARS

It could be considered that Chopin ended his days in style, even if his deteriorating health had brought his musical creativity and excellence to a halt. – In February 1848 Chopin gave his last concert in Paris.  To escape the hard times caused by the French revolution, he travelled in April like many other artists to London<ref >Chopin’s former pupil [[Thomas Tellefsen]] wrote to his parents in August and on 26 November 1848:  “Well!  I made the journey with Chopin” to London, where “I visited him every day and had lunch with him all the time” (copies obtained from the National Library of Norway).</ref> ...
[[User:Jeandebeaumont|Jean de Beaumont]] ([[User talk:Jeandebeaumont|talk]]) 19:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

:My main concern would be about this segment's lack of [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] ("excellence," "ended his days in style," etc.). Further, we might want to integrate this into the existing text rather than create an entire new section. And if you would like to create a personal sandbox, please read [[WP:SP|this]].--[[User:MusicalConnoisseur|<span style="background:#321;color:#fff">''~~MusicalConnoisseur~~''</span>]] <small>[[User talk: MusicalConnoisseur| Got Classical?]]</small> 03:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks for your comment. The proposal is ''not'' to create a new section, but  to revise the existing section 'Death' (renamed 'Final two years'). 'Death' is incomplete.  For example, it does not mention Chopin's former pupil Thomas Tellefsen accompanying him to London (unpublished handwritten letter from Oslo), nor Chopin's very last appearance at the Polish Ball at Guildhall on 16 November 1848 (reported in ''The Illustrated London News'').  On the other hand, 'Death' contains unnecessary details on, for example, Luigi Lablache's CV (incidentally, I have seen no source saying it was "Luigi" père singing at the funeral, only 'Signor Lablache' which could have been his son Frederico who performed at Her Majesty's Theatre in 1848).

::The new information would be referenced with NPOV reliable sources (e.g. Chopin's own letters, Fr. Niecks, London and Paris press 1849, original documents obtained from UK's National Archives).  If the very first sentence about 'in style, excellence, etc.' is inappropriate for setting the scene, it can obviously be omitted. I realize the importance of the whole Chopin article.  That's why it is proposed to improve it in consultation with connoisseurs like yourself before uploading. - Would that alleviate your concern? [[User:Jeandebeaumont|Jean de Beaumont]] ([[User talk:Jeandebeaumont|talk]]) 11:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Citing will help a great deal, and I suppose that phrasing (and a few small grammatical specks) could be helped later. I believe that, once it has been revised a small bit, it will be a benefit to the overall constitution of the article. Anyone else agree? --[[User:MusicalConnoisseur|<span style="background:#321;color:#fff">''~~MusicalConnoisseur~~''</span>]] <small>[[User talk: MusicalConnoisseur| Got Classical?]]</small> 22:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

== Artworks commemorating Chopin ==

The is a need to clarify if not revise the subtitle of the undated artwork in the Paris section: "Chopin plays at fancy-dress ball in Hôtel Lambert. Standing in left foreground: Prince Adam Jerzy Czartoryski. Painting by [[Teofil Kwiatkowski]]".  It is inconsistent with the subtitle and text in the French-language Wiki article and the Kwiatkowski article (English and Polish). The "fancy-dress", "Hôtel Lambert" and "Czartoryski" seem to be unsubstantiated speculation not indicated by the artist or the [http://www.mnp.art.pl/galerie/malarstwo/index_a.html National Museum in Poznan].  The museum only says (the last image): "Teofil Kwiatkowski, ''Polonez Chopina'' /ok. 1849-1860/". Various sources say it is a 'watercolour and gouache on paper'. - Is the source(s) known for the current subtitle? I suggest at some point to add images of other well-known Chopin artworks (e.g. Parc Monceau, Félix Barrias). - Incidentally, how is in general updated information in English transferred to the same Wiki article in other languages? [[User:Jeandebeaumont|Jean de Beaumont]] ([[User talk:Jeandebeaumont|talk]]) 08:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
:Could you please clarify your comment/question?  The French [[fr:Frédéric Chopin#Le concertiste à succès|Chopin article]] captions the picture:  "Chopin plays his polonaises at a ball at the Hotel Lambert in Paris.  Gouache painting on paper by Teofil Kwiatkowski."  The Polish article [[pl:Teofil Kwiatkowski#Główne dzieła|here]] lists the painting, under "Chief works" (''Główne dzieła)'', as (my translation) "''Chopin's Polonaise — a ball at the [[Hôtel Lambert]] in Paris'' (1849-60, many versions; watercolor and gouache on paper; [[Polish National Museum|National Museum]], [[Poznań]])."  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 09:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks for responding so quickly.
::1. What is the original title of the work (given by Kwiatkowski, possibly written on the paper), i.e. ''Polonez Chopina'', or ''Polonez Chopina - Bal w Hotel Lambert w Paryżu''? The Poznan Museum seems now only to use the first, and it says ''Polonez Chopina'' under the image in the Polish article on Kwiatkowski (a diffent subtitle in English - what is meant by "(background) is temporary stage scenery."?). The museum gave various speculative meanings to "the ball" some years ago (Hôtel Lambert, Valdemossa, Polish village). 
::2. With what justification is the words "fancy-dress" and "Czartoryski" inserted in the English subtitle?
::3. In general, how is updated ot new information in one language transferred to the same Wiki article in other languages? [[User:Jeandebeaumont|Jean de Beaumont]] ([[User talk:Jeandebeaumont|talk]]) 14:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
:::I don't know where authoritative information on the precise title of the picture or on the picture's interpretation is to be found.    
:::In this painting, if what is taking place is indeed a ball, then "fancy-dress" seems a fair inference, given that the costumes include paraphernalia such as wings.  If the event is taking place at the [[Hôtel Lambert]], then the identification of the principal male figure as Prince [[Adam Jerzy Czartoryski]] seems a fair inference, too, since that was Czartoryski's residence and the figure resembles sculptures and portraits of Czartoryski.
:::Updated material is transferred between sister Wikipedias by individual editors.  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 22:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
::::Exactly, you are confirming some big 'if's and 'might's about the meaning of the artwork. For example, it might not be a ball, but a mythological scene with 'real' angels. It might not be at Hôtel Lambert, because there is no room there with such proportions (incidentally, I have toured the Hôtel inside). It could resemble Czartoryski and other people Chopin knew, but they might be portrayed 'tongue-in-cheek' by Kwiatkowski. That's why I think that speculation about "fancy-dress" is inappropriate and even demeaning for Chopin (any "identification" of the people would equally seem inappropriate at this level of Wiki information, which does not attempt to analyse the whole artwork), unless it would be justified by an authoritative or verifiable source.  The National Museum in Poznan is probably a good source, and it now only names the work as ''Polonez Chopina'' on the website (as far as I have found). 
::::I would therefore suggest that the subtitle should be: "''Polonez Chopina'' / ''Chopin's Polonaise'', watercolour and gouache on paper, 1849-1860 (several versions)". Do you agree? [[User:Jeandebeaumont|Jean de Beaumont]] ([[User talk:Jeandebeaumont|talk]]) 09:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::I think the caption is a good idea. Knowing how obsessed people are about accuracy, the safer, the better. --[[User:MusicalConnoisseur|<span style="background:#321;color:#fff">''~~MusicalConnoisseur~~''</span>]] <small>[[User talk: MusicalConnoisseur| Got Classical?]]</small> 02:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::Better yet, given the uncertainties about what the picture represents:  delete it.  Much more authentic, meaningful and attractive illustrations have been deleted from this article for much less reason.  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 03:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I definitely think the image should stay. Should Delacroix's Chopin portrait also be removed from Louvre, because the reason for it having been cut is unknown ;-). ''Chopin's Polonaise'' is part of the commemoration of Chopin. Its presence would continue to inspire thinking and research into what it could represent, and why the rather unknown Kwiatkowski - not mentioned in any of Chopin's letters as far as I have noticed - all of sudden started to pay tribute to Chopin (e.g. was he a theatre decorator at Théâtre Lyrique; did he know Meyerbeer; how did the work come to Poznan?). I hope NihilNovi would agree to the proposed subtitle (one could add it today is located at Poznan - might attract more tourists :-). [[User:Jeandebeaumont|Jean de Beaumont]] ([[User talk:Jeandebeaumont|talk]]) 07:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Oh, come on!  Now that we have the [[self-portrait]] by Maria Wodzińska — a real artist — for the "[[Frédéric Chopin#Paris|Paris]]" section, we don't need this piece of ''[[kitsch]]''!  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 09:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Anyway, Chopin's heart belongs not to [[Poznań]] but to [[Warsaw]]! [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 09:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::I am not sure I understand you. Kwiatkowski's work has been shown for some time at WP.  Why suddenly take it  away in the context of a discussion of an appropriate subtitle? Should a judgment be made on whether it is "kitsch" or not; what is WP policy? I proposed early that the Parc Monceau sculpture and other artworks honouring Chopin could be posted (it would take a WP lay-out principle), but why 'punish' Kwiatkowski (even if he is not a great master)? The artwork is at the National Museum, Poznan; what has that do with Chopin's heart in Warsaw? Incidentally, it may be no coincidence that Félix Barrias' painting was donated to Krakow in 1926, which gives three large Polish cities each a piece of Chopin's legacy (but that is a separate idea which I may discuss with you later, if you would be interested :-) .
:::::::::Thus, as supported by MusicalConnoisseur earlier, I propose the the English subtitle: ''Chopin's Polonaise'', watercolour and gouache on paper, 1849-1860 (several versions), at the National Museum, Poznan. [[User:Jeandebeaumont|Jean de Beaumont]] ([[User talk:Jeandebeaumont|talk]]) 11:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

::MusicalConnoisseur, I am ''not'' going to argue whether Chopin should be considered as Polish or Polish-French, so I hope you will allow me to make a point on how Chopin's 'Polishness' was commemorated some 50+ years after his death while a good deal of Poland was still dominated by Russia (which apparently has not been made in the discussion under the sections above). Some examples:
::- Chopin's heart brought to Warsaw by Ludwika
::- Fontana (with new U.S. citizenship) suddenly moving to Paris in 1850
::- Cyprian Norwid's writings ("citizen of the world", ''Chopin's Piano'')
::- The 17 Polish songs (for soprano, I believe)
::- Chopin's furniture and other items depatched to Warsaw
::- Teofil Kwiatkowski (also a Pole) portraying Chopin (1849-1860)
::- His ''Chopin's Polonaise'' ended up at Poznan Museum (when, how?)
::- Jenny Lind singing ''Receuil de Masourkas'' at concerts in occp. Poland 1858
::- FC Musical School in Warsaw (during the harsh Russian occupation)
::- The Zelazowa Wola park with the Tsar's "supreme permission" (1894)
::- W. Szymanowski's sculpture created in Paris about 1904 (to Warsaw 1926)
::- Several other Polish artists in Paris created works in tribute to Chopin
::- Paderewski and Arthur Rubinstein playing Chopin's music (Europe, USA)
::- Félix Barrias' painting donated by a Paris source to Krakow museum in 1926 
::- FC International Piano Competition, a Polish initiative (?) in 1927
::Did these 'Polish tributes' evolve spontaneously, or could there have been a grand design? Other than the bust a Parc Luxembourg, the main French work seems to be the large sculpture by Jacques Froment-Meurice at Parc Monceau. Do others share my observation? Any other examples in 1849-1930 (e.g. any important French biography of Chopin)? [[User:Jeandebeaumont|Jean de Beaumont]] ([[User talk:Jeandebeaumont|talk]]) 06:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Whether or not I personally share your observation depends on ''what exactly'' your observation is - are you advocating French works because they are few and far between, or are you pointing out how Polish works of Chopin are varied and wide? 
:::I think the "Polish tributes" originated from deep-rooted Polish pride, as intense as Texan or American pride. But, on the whole, I'd like to avoid that subject and focus on the artwork in consideration.
:::I noticed that you mentioned my "support" of the artwork, but sadly, I do not support its use here. My mention of the caption was only if it was to be used, and now going through the previous posts, it seems that a consensus was reached sometime in history not to add any more images. In fact, many portraits had to be removed and/or replaced.
:::Further, I cordially ask the basic question: Why is this painting needed? We already have <s>four</s> five images of Chopin himself (excluding the sculptures). :-\ --[[User:MusicalConnoisseur|<span style="background:#321;color:#fff">''~~MusicalConnoisseur~~''</span>]] <small>[[User talk: MusicalConnoisseur| Got Classical?]]</small> 21:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

==Final two years==
This section, as it now stands, passes over some notable events, such as Chopin's stay in [[Scotland]] in the late summer of 1848, during which his admirer Jane Stirling proposed marriage to Chopin, and his visit to [[Edinburgh]] in late October, when he wrote his will.

This section now contains a fair amount of rather inchoate circumstantial matter which is apparently meant to suggest that [[Jenny Lind]] wished to marry Chopin, and that he entertained the idea.  At the very least, the section requires editing for clarity, and the presentation of better evidence than isolated snippets from letters, diaries, books and the like.  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 01:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
:Thank you for comments.  Please allow me to respond:
:1. I think that the current proposal include more significant events or info on 1848-1849 than before (rathing than "passing over" something): Thomas Tellefsen; Chopin's many upbeat letters about Jenny Lind; Chopin's visit to Scotland with concerts arranged by Broadwood (Jenny Lind's good friend), the Polish Ball at Guildhall; Lind coming to Paris hoping to marry him; and Meyerbeer and other info on the funeral. At the same time, irrelevant info about Luigi Lablache cv/earlier repertoire has been taken out (it could also have have been his son Federico who sang). - What do you mean by Chopin's "will" in Oct. 1848?
:2. The notes show that Chopin experts in Warsaw and Krakow accepted already in 2004-2005 the new evidence by Icons of Europe that it could NOT have been Jane Stirling who (a) proposed marriage to Chopin in October 1848 (Chopin's letter of 30 Oct. is incorrectly translated and Nieck's information on the subject is unreliable because Jenny Lind was one his few surviving "chief sources of information" as he says in the Preface); and (b) provided Chopin with financial support - she could not have afforded it, whereas Jenny Lind had the incentive and means to do it (ref. Chopin's letters and her own letters, Chopin staying with her good friends the Schwabes in Manchester, etc.). The original 1849 letters also support the finding that Jenny Lind indeed tried to marry Chopin in May 1849. - 
:3. So that bridge is crossed in consultation with the Fryderyk Chopin Institute, the University of Edinburgh and many other institutions: It was not Jane Stirling, but Jenny Lind (incidenatlly, the earlier 'Death' section did not suggest that Stirling did more than finding the apartment). It is understood that the new discovery has come as a surprise for many scholars who so far have trusted Niecks, Sydow and Hedley (the latter two and Audrey Evelyn Bone also mistranslated Chopin's letter of 30 Oct. 1848 - Voynich did not, but included an unsubstantiated footnote 'out of the blue'). I am not sure it would be productive to pursue a new 'bilateral' discussion of the subject in this forum.
:4. The question is rather how much of the "isolated snippets" or better :-) the selected pieces of evidence would need to be shown here - MusicalConnoisseur initially asked for such citations. We have discussed that he/she would propose in my sandbox how it could be edited and condensed, which I would welcome. [[User:Jeandebeaumont|Jean de Beaumont]] ([[User talk:Jeandebeaumont|talk]]) 08:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

::I hope someone ''will'' be able to make a coherent and compelling narrative of the Chopin-Lind story.  It now reads like a scrapbook of clippings from the ''[[National Inquirer]]''.
::Was Chopin aware of the designs on his bachelorhood?  What points to his having been?  Did he encourage them?
::Until a coherent narrative is produced (perhaps by the Chopin Institute), why not set up a final sub-section at the end of the "Life" section, detailing what ''is'' known?
::Chopin wrote out his last will and testament at the end of October 1848, in [[Edinburgh]], at the home of a Pole, a Dr. Łyszczyński.  Chopin described it as "a kind of disposition to be made of my stuff in the future, if I should drop dead somewhere."  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 04:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
:::With the guidance of MusicConnoisseur and yourself, I am hopeful that an acceptable narrative and set of notes could be formulated.
:::- I think that the story of the current narrative flows relatively well and that its style is better than the earlier 'Death' one. But it can be improved, of course. I agree there is a need to condense the notes (once more, I put them up because MusicConnoisseur asked for citations).
:::- Not sure what you mean by "the designs of his batchelorhood". His letter of 30 Oct. 1848 shows he was not interested in marriage;  later letters give no indication.  Jenny Lind was the driving force as noted already in ''Chopin and The Nightingale'' (2003, p. 74).
:::- I agree that the section should contain what ''is'' known. However, the main sources have earlier been Chopin's letters (not revealing Jenny Lind's marriage plan, other than the hint on 30 Oct. 1848, and the October 1849 events) and Niecks.  But, as said before, Niecks is flawed on 1848-1849 (and even later years), because Jenny Lind was the main source of information (ref. Preface) and obviously wanted to keep it all secret. For example, it is a fact that Jenny Lind failed to marry a fragaile person in Paris in May 1849 and that that person presumably if not certainly was Chopin (she had proposed before, Queen Victoria knew it, Lind's hotel was located 400 m from 74 Rue de Chaillot, Chopin's says she was there, etc.).  But it is not known that "Madame Castellan" sang at the funeral, because the soprano was hidden by a black curtain (but Lind says Castellan sang in a "subordinate part" with her in London 1847: Memoir 1891, vol. II, p. 70 - typical for the half-truths with which the Memoir and Niecks are littered in 1848-1849).
:::- Thus, what ''is'' known is primarily based on the roundtables with the Fryderyk Chopin Institute on 1 March 2004 and with Edinburgh / St Andrews scholars on 10 January 2005 (including Chopin's upbeat letters on Lind, N.W. Senior's handwritten letters, Jane Stirling's original death certificate, etc. as well as two articles in ''Chopin in the World'' 2003-2005), and the 1849 press sources quoted by Niecks.
:::- What is your source for Chopin's "last will and testament" (I must have overlooked it in Niecks)?  Does it say anything concrete; was it found later; if not, would it be relevant to mention it? Incidentally, you may be aware that Chopin's stayed at 10 Warriston Crescent in the same period Jenny Lind performed at Edinburgh and at Glasgow, and Niecks says (II, p. 293) that Chopin [out of character] one day wanted "to force" Mrs Lychinsky to sing :-).

:::Again, I hope we can find an acceptable way in substance and style to document the Final two years. [[User:Jeandebeaumont|Jean de Beaumont]] ([[User talk:Jeandebeaumont|talk]]) 08:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

::::So what's the bottom line?  Did Fritz lead Jenny on?  Did he give her false hopes?  Did he in fact romance her?  Or was he at death's door, fairly indifferent, even oblivious?
::::Information about Chopin's last will and testament appears in Zdzisław Jachimecki's biography of Chopin in ''[[Polski słownik biograficzny]]'', vol. 3, p. 424.  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 09:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::- The research in 2003-2007 shows that the bottom line is that [[Jenny Lind]] in 1848-1849 was Chopin's musical and financial benefactor, tried to marry him, failed to do it, apparently organized his lavish funeral, and later paid tribute to his music in a variety of ways.
:::::- Your other questions are interesting, but possible answers would not seem appropriate for the article.  You probably know them as well: Chopin writes upbeat about Lind's presence and singing and their late-night 'recitals', "not like the others" (ref. also Douël in ''Musical Quarterly'' 1932). He does write about "prostrating under my feelings" without saying with whom. He was increasingly very ill and tired and apparently not at all interested in marriage, but still in November, "I have promised to come back!!!". 
:::::- Yah, Chopin may have given Lind false hopes. Otherwise she might not have written on 27 April 1849 to her legal guardian Judge Munthe, Stockholm "We will marry ... 14-16 May"; left the opera (final performance in Meyerbeer's ''Robert le Diable'' on 10 May, Queen V. and Prince A. were present); met with Mr Senior and Mrs Grote to Paris a week later in the middle of cholera and street fights; and asked Judge Munthe on 18 May to come immediately to Paris, with "sufficient money" (which he did before obtaining the King's written permission dated 12 June 1849).
:::::- About Chopin's will, do you know what source Zdzisław Jachimecki has used, and what the will says?  Does the will exist today? I have seen no other publication citing this highly important document.

:::::Based on the helpful comments you and MusicalConnoisseur have made, I suggest to write in my sandbox a more condensed version of the Final two years with emphasis on what is "known". Would that be ok with you? [[User:Jeandebeaumont|Jean de Beaumont]] ([[User talk:Jeandebeaumont|talk]]) 10:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::I have now put a proposed shorter version of 'Final two years' in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jeandebeaumont/Sandbox for your comments. I have tried to focus on what is relevant and 'known'. - I would also suggest that some earlier notes - for which I am not responsible - i.e. note 10 be reduced and the repetitive notes 11-32 folded into one note! [[User:Jeandebeaumont|Jean de Beaumont]] ([[User talk:Jeandebeaumont|talk]]) 14:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Chopin wrote, of his late-October 1848 Edinburgh last will and testament, to his friend Wojciech Grzymała.  Jachimecki does not specify which of his many sources he found this in.  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 18:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks for the information. I take it therefore that the content of the will 'is not known' :-). None of the contacts I have had at the Frederick Chopin Society and the Fryderyk Chopin Institute in Warsaw have ever mentioned that such a key document existed. - On a different subject, do you happen to have information about the whereabouts of Grzymala in 1848-1849, and why he apparently was not present near Chopin in October 1849, but still could tell Auguste Leo about the 2,000 frs paid to the artists (B.E. Sydow, letter 786)? [[User:Jeandebeaumont|Jean de Beaumont]] ([[User talk:Jeandebeaumont|talk]]) 19:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

::Why, in your sandbox version, have you omitted information about Chopin's stay in Scotland, partly as a guest at Jane Stirling's castle?  
::Again, I would consign the bulk of the Jenny Lind speculation to a final "Life" subsection  for future development if and when more concrete, documented information becomes available.
::Why, at age 28, did Ms. Lind require a "legal guardian"?  [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 02:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

:::1. The proposed version, "John Broadwood & Sons, Appointed Pianoforte Manufacturers to Queen Victoria, assisted him generously with grand pianos and public performances in London and Manchester and during his nearly three-month sojourn in Scotland", provides more information and more relevant and accurate information about Scotland than the earlier one, "... and visited England and Scotland with his student and admirer Jane Stirling. They reached London in November ...". - Broadwood / Jenny Lind were Chopin's benefactors. He stayed at a JS relative's castle (not "JS' castle") and other places (e.g. at Hamilton's, friends of Jenny Lind; so were Schwabe's in Manchester). Chopin was annoyed by the "boring" Scottish sisters. He did not travel ''with'' JS, and he did not reach London in November ''with'' JS (she and Erskine came after him to his despair, say his letters). There was no information on Guildhall in the first version (a significant event, the last).
::: 2. There is no "Jenny Lind speculation" at all! The evidence on Lind's relationship with Chopin is "concrete, documented" and  accepted by the Fryderyk Chopin Institute and others. Errors in the translation of Chopin's 30/10/48 letter and other sources have been recognised, so have the flaws of Niecks (then an unknown German viola player as also documented in a note).  You do not seem to specify any precise concern with the evidence. There is therefore no need for a "Life subsection" awaiting further information. - As you are well aware, historical research is not like mathematics ;-), there is often room for words like "apparently" (used only twice - on "Chopin had apparently requested" and in the note "Icons of Europe says ... she apparently arranged the whole funeral").
:::3. However, you may have noticed the proposed last sentence inviting "Institutional participation in the continued research on artworks commemorating Chopin", which among other issues no doubt would provide a new explanation to the meaning and origin of ''Chopin's Polonaise'' and other works. That's why I invited discussion on Kwiatkowski for starters.
:::4. The need for a "legal guardian" of the stature of Judge Munthe was apparently caused by Lind having been appointed Court singer and being single and very wealthy (e.g. her Memoir says she was paid £ 5,600 for the four-month London season in 1848 and £ 10,000 for the regional tour, and she raised £ 10,000 for charitable purposes at the same time). - As a middle-aged spinster living on an annual annuity of only £ 300-400 (ref. her father's original will of 1816 as well as Victorian practice of favouring the sons), Jane Stirling could as the youngest of 13 borthers and sisters also be seen to have her guardian, her elder widow sister Katherine Erskine (a source shows that the bulk of her husband's estate went to his brother when he died, coincidentally also in 1816). [[User:Jeandebeaumont|Jean de Beaumont]] ([[User talk:Jeandebeaumont|talk]]) 10:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
::::Sorry if I'm intruding, but I probably should have explained my objections to this section completely before we get too immersed in the Chopin-Lind story... 
:::::1. Because the cites are mainly from primary sources, there is a chance of bias, in other words, possibly exaggerations on the part of the writer. Of course, they are still adequate to use on the side (and I do notice that a handful of cites are from a third party), but it is probably unwise to rely on them 80% of the time.
:::::2. I'm still afraid of going into too much detail. Again, knowing how religiously people uphold WP protocol, we should summarize as much as possible in a manner that is succint and encyclopedic, in order to avoid writing a 20-pg. biography.
:::::3. After we have done a cursory check of this section, it is best to send these to the peer review volunteers. A [[WP:PR|PR]] has already been done automatically, but I think it is within our best interests to have an outside look from someone that is neutral on the subject. 
:::::4. Further, though I somewhat approve of the minor shortening of Jean de Beaumont's segment of the article, I've noticed that many of the edits that he/she requested me to make in his/her sandbox have been either countered or undone. I kindly ask for an explanation. --[[User:MusicalConnoisseur|<span style="background:#321;color:#fff">''~~MusicalConnoisseur~~''</span>]] <small>[[User talk: MusicalConnoisseur| Got Classical?]]</small> 18:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

::::::MusicalConnoisseur, I accept the approach you are outlining in the shared interest of documenting Chopin's final two years in accordance with the available new evidence and the consensus already established with scholars in Warsaw, Krakow and Edinburgh since 2004 :-).
::::::I uploaded the socalled shorter version at my sandbox on 25 March 2008 at 14:59 and I have since made no changes (by the way I am a 'he').  Are you not able to see who countered changes you made after that time? 
::::::Thanks again for your interest and time on this subjebt. [[User:Jeandebeaumont|Jean de Beaumont]] ([[User talk:Jeandebeaumont|talk]]) 19:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

::::::I just discovered that my sandbox with the proposed shorter version of the Final two years has been emptied by somebody? Any explanation as to who and why? [[User:Jeandebeaumont|Jean de Beaumont]] ([[User talk:Jeandebeaumont|talk]]) 12:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
(no indent) I have also [[user talk:MusicalConnoisseur|replied on my talk page]] but I guess I could also elaborate here.
Now going through the page's history, no malicious edit can be found...as to who or what emptied your sandbox is still an enigma. 
Anyhow, it's now back to normal. =)--[[User:MusicalConnoisseur|<span style="background:#321;color:#fff">''~~MusicalConnoisseur~~''</span>]] <small>[[User talk: MusicalConnoisseur| Got Classical?]]</small> 04:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)