Talk:Frédéric Chopin/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Chopin's nationality: Added Solution F, G, and H with Support also for B

Definitely Polish-French, as per Solution F, G, and H provided to enhance merit of the discussion above and make it conclusive by adding a certain standard/substance of consideration to eliminate arbitrary discretion of too limited previous choices not allowing a full consideration of the apparent only issue, but historically entrenched especially in Poland.

• Solution F - Describe Chopin as of the Polish-French descent in the lead.
• Solution G - Describe Chopin as of the Polish-French descent and nationality in the intro/lead
• Solution H - Describe Chopin as Polish-French in the lead, but discuss the descent and nationality in the body of the article.

• Support B - Chopin was a Polish citizen of the Duchy of Warsaw and then Congress Poland. At the age of 20, he moved to France for the rest of his life where he became naturalized, like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Thus, legally, in English speaking world, he was Polish-French, as Arnold - Austrian-American, and encyclopedias are about facts and feelings.

• Support F - Chopin was of a Polish-French descent, as his mother was ethnically Polish and his father Nicolas - French. The Polish-French order over French-Polish is dictated by the place of birth - Poland called Duchy of Warsaw at that time. Nicolas could be Polish citizen only from the arrival to Poland in 1787 until 1795 when Poland ceased to exist, and again from 1807 when the Duchy of Warsaw was created. In 1910, when Frédéric was born, Nicolas could not have been Polish citizen, since the Duchy of Warsaw was a satellite state of the First French Empire and Nicolas could have preferred to associate himself with Napoleon and hold his birth's French and not Polish citizenship. Thus, Frédéric's Polish-French descent/ethnicity is certain.

• Support G - Frédéric's Polish-French both descent and nationality/citizenship are certain/factual (see Support B and F above) and worth mentioning in the intro/lead to clear the apparent only controversy of denying him, mainly in Poland, to be also French both by the French ethnicity and citizenship of his father and his own voluntarily French naturalization or acceptance of French citizenship.

• Support H - Frédéric's Polish-French both descent and nationality/citizenship are certain/factual (see Support B and F above) and not worth mentioning in the intro/lead, but only in the body of the article, since the apparent only controversy of denying him to be also French (see Support G above) takes place mainly in Poland and this article is in English, in which there is no doubt that Frédéric's was Polish-French analogically to Arnold Schwarzenegger who even did not have an ethnic/national American parent, but still is considered to be Austrian-American and not only Austrian.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you proposing to re-open the discussion, then, or just stating your opinion after the fact?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I reopen discussion where is nothing to discuss, as having dual citizenship/nationality is denoted in English speaking world as "[1st citizenship/nationality]-[2nd citizenship/nationality]" without doubt; end of discussion. That is a rule and not a matter of opinion or voting. The previous approach of voting was misguided and incorrect. Or you know it or not. Especially people from Poland are potentially misguided as nationalistically fed from early childhood incl. school textbooks that he was Polish only. I am from Poland, experienced that bias, and hold dual citizenship. Many discussing here people are likely from Poland and biased. Frédéric held dual Polish-French citizenship and thus according the English Wikipedia standard was Polish-French. End of discussion.

BTW, as a person, who voluntarily spent almost all his adulthood in France, he practically was more French than Polish. I belive, Arnold Schwarzenegger considers himself to be American of Austrian descent and not Austrian-American, but technically/legally he is Austrian-American. The French consider Frédéric to be French only, but the French Wikipedia provides "of Polish-French descent", which is true. Nevertheless, in the English-speaking word, the citizenship is decisive, so Frédéric was Polish-French.

Stupid Communists claimed that Immanuel Kant was born in Kaliningrad, because, after World War II, they took over East Prussia and renamed Königsberg. Then, somebody not very clever could go 1 step further and claim that everyone born in Kalinigrad was... Russian. Do not get fooled.

--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion has already ended, with the majority of votes for Resolution A (Chopin described as Polish in the lead), however, if there is a reference or source stating that Chopin had officially acquired French citizenship or any personal quote supporting his devotion to France, then the lead would likely be altered. I am in support for both claims (I wouldn't mind Chopin being called Polish-French in the intro), but I have to rely on sources and facts that can be found either on the internet or in books. Additionally the discussion has been already settled, so there is little room for counter-argument.

-- Oliszydlowski (TALK) 12:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The end by voting of 1 discussion on a fact, does not settle anything, as voting does not prove facts. Or you know a fact or not. Your argument that "if there is a reference or source stating that Chopin had officially acquired French citizenship" is based on the premise that such documents should exist, which is false, as "before World War I, most people did not have or need an identity document". The second part of your argument that "or any personal quote supporting his devotion to France" is supported by 17 of 19 years of his adulthood spent voluntarily in France. If his 17-year residence in France is not a proof of his devotion to France, than nothing is. Thus, he is also French by his 17-year residence in France. Please, produce a valid argument instead of the result of voting, which by its nature does not prove anything and contradicts stated by you requirement for a solid proof, which you do not have to exclude him being French. Thus his residence proves that he was. That is formal logic.--03:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logicalgenius3 (talk • contribs)

It is not a question of establishing Facts, but of establishing Consensus concerning what reliable sources can reasonably be construed to verify. This process has recently been carried out, and the consensus was for Option A. Any editor may re-open a consensus discussion, supposing that new reliable sources have been found, or the sources previously accepted as valid can be shown not to be reliable. The reliability of the sources is not being challenged, as far as I can see, and neither have any significant new sources been offered. Please therefore explain why the consensus should be changed, in your opinion. FWIW, I am neither Polish nor French, whether by citizenship or by descent.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Jerome, you are wrong, as Oliszydlowski, in regard to consensus where there is a clear Wikipedia's standard. According to MOS:OPENPARA sec 3 par 1, nationality is "if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a [...] or permanent resident when the person became notable". Thus, Chopin was French by being notable while in France almost exclusively whole his adulthood (17 of 19 years), and being practically unknown until the age of 20, when he left Poland for good. But, because the themes of Chopin's oeuvre were Polish, then considering Chopin Polish-French is most accurate description according to the Wikipedia's above-mentioned standard. That standard is demanded by Wikipedia and is the most reliable source.

In the view of this clear Wikipedia's standard for nationality, your above demand for consensus or an external reference is moot, as Wikipedia's standard is more than both demanded less strict remedies and they apply when a clear Wikipedia standard cannot be satisfied unlike here.

Thus, you both display Wikipedia:Vandalism#Lack of understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia by disregarding Wikipedia's rules incl. WP:OWNERSHIP (Oliszydlowski above: "the discussion has been already settled, so there is little room for counter-argument"), and who engages in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing by reverting correct edits due to such disregard. Jerome's statement that "[t]he reliability of the sources is not being challenged, as far as I can see, and neither have any significant new sources been offered" is in violation of WP:OWNERSHIP. Please, do learn basic standards of Wikipedia before correcting others.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I would've thought that by describing one of the world's most famous composers - Frédéric Chopin - as "Franco-Polish" as opposed to just "Polish" would've been totally uncontroversial... given that all reliable sources do describe in some such matter... considering that he was a naturalized French citizen, never set foot in Poland after age 21, is the child of a French father, and is known by, ye know, a French name (!).... but evidently this "debate" has been going on for years.

However, there doesn't need to be any "debate" or discussion at all. Wikipedians aren't scholars. Wikipedians aren't reliable sources. Wikipedia reflects what the sources say. End of discussion.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Frederic-Chopin

ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand you correctly: editorial consensus on these matters is irrelevant because you disagree with it? Do pull the other one, it's got bells on.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

"editorial consensus" is irrelevant because it is, by point of fact, according to Wikipedia policy - if "editorial consensus" contradicts what the reliable sources say. A few random, anonymous internet usernames do not trump the established facts of reliable sources. My opinion, or your opinion, has nothing to do with it. We are not reliable sources. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a hair-splitting match here, but what "established facts of reliable sources" are being "trumped"? This has solely to do with the wording of the lead section; the intricacies of Chopin's ancestry are various domiciles are amply discussed in the body of the article. It has been agreed that this is too intricate and detailed to go into at length in the lede. This and only this has been decided by consensus. Why do you think you have the authority to overturn consensus single-handedly?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with me, or the "consensus" of a few random people. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say. Omitting any mention of is Frenchness in the lead, is a novelty, original thinking, on the part of anonymous online usernames. It's not encyclopedic. There is no debate to be had here. You either reflect what Encyclopedia Britannica says, or you demonstrate it is not a reliable source. Good luck. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Everyone who is part of consensus are "random". That's the whole point. Cassianto^Talk 19:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

No kidding. Please, keep in mind, Wikipedia is not a democracy and not a publisher of original thought. You either reflect what the Encyclopedia Britannica (for instance) says, or you demonstrate it is not a reliable source. Good luck. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm so pleased I have the likes of you to remind me. "Good luck"Cassianto^Talk 20:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Jerome Kohl, do you have difficulties understanding formal logic, English language, Wikipedia rules for intro/lead, or you just engage in prohibited trolling? The incompetent and wrong "editorial consensus on these matters is irrelevant because" - as you asked above - it is contradicted by (1) the reliable source - demanded by you above - of Encyclopedia Britannica at https://www.britannica.com/biography/Frederic-Chopin, and (2) the clear Wikipedia's standard MOS:OPENPARA sec 3 par 1 stating that nationality is "if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable" you may not understand, but both of which contradict that consensus according to formal logic and their English language meaning. Maybe for you "this is too intricate and detailed", as you stated, but for normal people, it is clear and simple. You may not force you standard of what is "too intricate and detailed" on others, because in violation of WP:OWNERSHIP. Got it?--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the only troll around here is you. And seeing as we now seem to be resorting to cliché essay linking, here's one for you to read. Cassianto^Talk 22:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto, (1) you stated 'Everyone who is part of consensus are "random"'. "Random" means - according to Webster's Dictionary - "lacking aim or method; purposeless; haphazard". Thus, people who are part of consensus and thus whose aim is to support that consensus option and thus have aim are the opposite of "random". Are you familiar with formal logic and do you understand English?

Cassianto, (2) you stated that it is "resorting to cliché essay linking" when providing above by ZinedineZidane98 and myself as reliable source the article in Encyclopedia Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Frederic-Chopin) written by famous musicologist Leon Plantinga who wrote 4 books on music of the later XVIII and XIX C? Who are you to dismiss the Leon Plantinga's article in Encyclopedia Britannica? How many books you wrote on the later XVIII and XIX C music? If you could dismiss a Leon Plantinga's article in Encyclopedia Britannica, as not a reliable source on later XVIII and XIX C music incl. Chopin, you could dismiss any reliable source to write whatever you please in violation of the essence of Wikipedia and its basic rules. Who are you to dismiss Leon Plantinga's credibility on later XVIII and XIX C music incl. Chopin?--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Frederic-Chopin provides also the alternative authorship of that article by Arthur Hedley who "was a British musicologist, scholar and biographer of Polish-French composer Frédéric Chopin". Still, my question remains, who are you Cassianto to dismiss Arthur Hedley's credibility on Chopin?--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing anything. I happen to respect a consensus that was formed on this page not so long ago. Cassianto^Talk 12:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This is really getting ridiculous... How many sources are needed before certain users stop reverting according to their own personal opinions? 2? 3? 4? 20? Note how he is described on the French, German, and Spanish versions of Wikipedia.... ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll tell you what is ridiculous and that's someone naming themselves after a French footballer and then trying to force a French nationality descriptor into this article. Cassianto^Talk 12:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow. You got me. Good call! What's this, a little bit of the famed English Francophobia? (see how easy it is to cast aspersions?) Incidentally, if you'd like to exclude anyone of French or Polish heritage from editing this article on account of bias, I would happily oblige, being neither French nor Polish! Yes, ridiculous, that you claim to be a higher authority than Encyclopedia Britannica and Oxford University :-) ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not getting into a xenophobic arguement with you about the French vs English; today of all days. But seeing as we are on the subject of idiotic accusations, maybe you'd like to provide a diff which shows my claim to be a "higher authority than Encyclopedia Britannica and Oxford University"? Cassianto^Talk 17:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

[1] ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

So you're illiterate as well as a steaming xenophobe? That diff shows nothing other than me reverting to the current consensus. Try again? Cassianto^Talk 20:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm extremely illiterate, and abundantly xenophobic (towards who, exactly?). Regardless, you are still guilty of deleting reliable sources for no other reason than...... "current consensus" (?). Well done my boy, well done. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Just because a reliable source exists, it doesn't mean it's suitable for the article. You do know that, right? Cassianto^Talk 22:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• I have just blocked ZinedineZidane98 for edit warring. Likely to get blocked for violations of WP:NPA, judging from this conversation, ZinedineZidane98, Cassianto, and Logicalgenius3. Personal attacks includes not just name calling ("illiterate", "xenophobe") but also derogatory remarks ("my boy") and a-holish sneers ("Are you familiar with formal logic and do you understand English"). Please continue this without such commentary. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, did you want something Drmies? Only you pinged me accusing me of a PA whereas what I was actually doing was calling a spade a spade. Don't worry though, I won't badger you for an apology once you've eventually worked out where the xenophobia exists. Cassianto^Talk 18:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I accept your apology; I just know that you acknowledge that "So you're illiterate as well as a steaming xenophobe?" is a clear-cut insult. If an editor like you needs a reminder of our policy, that's fine: WP:NPA. All kidding aside, Cassianto, the problem with your course of action is, of course, that any actual xenophobia will not get the attention it deserves, nor will your attitude encourage simple admins like me to look for them. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
      • You accepted an apology that wasn't there, curious. It might surprise you to know that I stand by my comments: 1). Illiterate, according to this rather reliable source means "unable to read and write". Did you see their inability to understand a very simple comment? Which part of the "unable to read or write" do you think that refers to? 2). Do you think it's acceptable to make comments like: "[a] little bit of the famed English Francophobia" on a day in which nearly 100 innocent people got mowed down in the South of France by a terrorist? I happen to be English and to be likened to a member of a country that is, apparently, "famed" for their xenophobia, in light of the atrocities, is fucking disgusting. Did you also notice that the accusation of "Fancophobia" is, in itself, xenophobic? No, I didn't think so. Still, how wrong of me to call a spade a spade. Cassianto^Talk 21:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I thought you said "sorry". Drmies (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
          • Drmies, you accused me above of "a-holish sneers ("Are you familiar with formal logic and do you understand English")". Since neither "a-holish" nor "holish" is a proper English word and thus not included in the Webster's Dictionary nor defined on the Web, then "a-holish sneers" refers to something that does not exist, as per formal logic. So - in other words - you accused me of something that does not exist. I am puzzled and do not know what to think. Should I worry or feel scared? I think, I should worry that you have power to block a user, as you have just done to ZinedineZidane98 (see above). I believe that knowing formal logic is essential to understanding user's offences, only which the users can be blocked for. So, it is also really scary that you have such a power. I hope, you will not abuse it. Does, what I wrote here, sound like "a-holish sneer" too, just a regular sneer, or - maybe - a mockery or a ridicule by an educated person, which do not qualify as WP:NPA, though close? Enjoy guessing.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
            • It just sounds ridiculous. Lay off the personal attacks please. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)'ve always

I find it a bit strange too that sir Chopin isn't described as being French and Polish... I've always thought he was, and I think most dictionaries describe him so... and I came here because I wanted to show to my flatmate that he's not only French but also Polish... I've read a bit the discussions above but I still don't understand how you got to this strange decision of describing him as Polish and not French too... Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, guys, not a fan magazine... 188.22.29.246 (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia sometimes gets uncomfortably close to that fan-magazine characterization, which is when we are obliged to turn to the "real" encyclopedias which, as Cassianto points out, somewhere in the welter of words above, are virtually unanimous in describing Chopin as "Polish composer and pianist". At most, they may mention in parentheses that his father was French, but it would be reckless indeed for Wikipedia editors to buck a tide like that.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, you do as you like, but I think you're wrong when describing sir Chopin as being only Polish. I've read a bit the talks above, I've read stuff like "he considered himself Polish", these are primary sources, we're not a fan magazine, I think we'd better consider tertiary sources, and the tertiary sources mentioned on this talk page (britannica) state he was French and Polish, as well as my own dictionary, as well as my own memories. But I think all has already been said above, I don't feel the need to keep on talking about it, I just find it a bit ridiculous, such situations sometimes happen on Wikipedia, it's not the first time and not the last time... 91.114.199.103 (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

NB: I've just given a look at the article on Mozart, and it's exactly the same situation!! All dictionaries state that Mozart is an Austrian composer but Wikipedia doesn't, ha ha! (I agree that the issue of his nationality can be discussed, but well... Once again all dictionaries usually write he's Austrian... I find it strange to do it differently on Wikipedia; pupils who come onto Wikipedia in order to check of which nationality were Mozart or Chopin want to read the usual answer, not subtle controversies about if he was German or Austrian or nothing or French or Polish or French-Polish or Polish-French :-), although we may of course develop the idea, like: Mozart was an Austrian composer [note 1], with note 1 explaining a bit the controversial aspect of such a statement, or: Chopin was a Polnish-French composer [note 1 or section lambda], with note 1 or section lambda explaining a bit the situation with more details...) 91.114.199.103 (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Only two known photos?

The article about Louis-Auguste Bisson states that only two photos of Chopin are known. This leads to two thoughts; 1: why isn't this fact stated in a featured article, seems pretty interesting? And 2: Why isn't the other photo shown here? FunkMonk (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

There's a blog on the photos by Jack Gibbons, here. I suspect the answer is "Because the earlier one makes him look like an extra in The Walking Dead". William Avery (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Still worth a mention though, no? FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2016

In 'he headed for Austria', someone please insert 'again' after 'he', just for clarity and logic, since we have recently read about his debut the previous August.

thanks, David Moran

96.233.44.183 (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2016

Section on George Sand. Her full real name was Amantine Lucile Aurore Dupin, married name Dudevant. This section incorrectly states her name as Amantine Aurore Lucile Dupin. 204.84.165.4 (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. clpo13_(talk) 17:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

A third, previously undiscovered photo of Chopin has been found. Request permission to update title photograph as it is a better profile of the individual, directly showing the face. AquaSmite1 (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to it? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I have it saved but I wouldn't Know where to find it now AquaSmite1 (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Perhaps we can all just imagine what it looks like, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I found it and I'm trying to post the link. For some reason it won't let me post it here, is there anywhere else I could send the link. If not I can keep trying. AquaSmite1 (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

www.slippedisc.com/2017/01/swiss-physicist-finds-new-chopin-photograph/ AquaSmite1 (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

How fascinating. The page says:

"The Institut polonais de Paris in Paris reports that a Swiss enthusiast, Alain Kohler, has come up with a hitherto unknown photograph of Frederic Chopin.

The Daguerreotype portrait was taken in or around 1847 in the Paris workshop of Louis-Auguste Bisson.

Chopin looks less haggard that usual, and rather annoyed.

Dr Kohler was previously responsible for discovering a lost Chopin piano." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Is the photo not showing? AquaSmite1 (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

www.slippedisc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/chopin-unknown-portrait.jpg AquaSmite1 (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Prefix that address with http:// instead of www. I can't post the link here with http:// for some reason AquaSmite1 (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Showing fine for me, thanks. And a mixture of annoyance and aloof desperation, I'd say. Martinevans123 (talk)

File:Fryderyk Chopin w 1847 roku.jpg

Image in question, at Commons

See http://slippedisc.com/2017/01/swiss-physicist-finds-new-chopin-photograph/ at Norman Lebrecht's blog; there's some scepticism among the comments. The "lost Chopin piano" refers to this instrument. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Though it may not be best to replace the title photo with this new one I still feel as though it has a place somewhere within the article. AquaSmite1 (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the newly discovered daguerreotype should be placed in the article. If it proves genuine, I'd put it in the lead.

Nihil novi (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree. How and when will we know if it's genuine? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

For now, why not put it in the body as a "putative" daguerreotype of Chopin, discovered in 2017?

Nihil novi (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

No objections. No copyright applies, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

That image has been uploaded on 19 January 2017 to Commons at File:Fryderyk Chopin w 1847 roku.jpg, sourced from http://www.institutpolonais.fr/#/event/1731, although I can't see the image there (it's some weird Adobe Flash thing), but it's discussed and attributed to Louis-Auguste Bisson. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I've entered it in the "Decline" section, where it fits chronologically.

Nihil novi (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit request, 22 Feb 2017

Paris should be linked the first time the name appears in the text. 2.25.149.66 (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Not according to WP:OVERLINK: "the following are not usually linked: ... The names of major geographic features, locations (e.g. United States, London, New York City, France, Berlin...)". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

"Fee of one guinea"

I'm always a little suspicious of current monetary value conversions. But surely, in 1848, after Britain's 1821 adoption of the Gold standard, a guinea was simply equivalent to 21 shillings, whatever relative value that was at the time? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

We could try {{Inflation}} which gives: "equivalent to £112 in 2021" ({{Inflation|UK|1.05|1848|fmt=eq|cursign=£}} or "" ({{Inflation|UKNGDPPC|1.05|1848|fmt=eq|cursign=£}}. That doesn't help much either, does it?. As usual, it would be better to find a reliable source for the current value of a Guinea from 1848. Until then, it's probably best to remove the previous (£1.05) or current (£245) attempts. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Frédéric Chopin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130707105707/http://konkurs.chopin.pl/en/about/competition to http://konkurs.chopin.pl/en/about/competition
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140819085703/http://graduateinstitute.ch/files/live/sites/iheid/files/sites/developpement/shared/developpement/mdev/soutienauxcours0809/rainhorn_sante/Kubba.Chopin.pdf to http://graduateinstitute.ch/files/live/sites/iheid/files/sites/developpement/shared/developpement/mdev/soutienauxcours0809/rainhorn_sante/Kubba.Chopin.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Alleged 1847 "photo"

Re: this recent removal. The caption clearly said: "Alleged daguerreotype of Chopin, ca 1847 (found 2017)." Isn't there sufficient doubt to suggest that this image would be of general interest to readers, whether or not it could ever be proven to be genuine? I think there was quite a bit if discussion about this image when it surfaced? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It is only 'alleged', and moreover it is not clear on what authority it is alleged. As you can see in past comments in the talk page, at least one other 'alleged' photo has turned up for which the sources are dubious to say the least. The source given on the file in WikiCommons for this picture appears to be dead. This article is FA status and shouldn't contain information which cannot be reliably sourced. If there is a reliable citation which makes the status of this picture clear that might make reinstatement appropriate. Smerus (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't argue with your policy-based logic. But I hope a new replacement source can be found, as the image caused quite a stir in the general press when it was unearthed. One might expect to find it via the External link provided to "Media from Commons". But that links to "Category:Frédéric Chopin" not to "Category:Portrait photographs of Frederic Chopin", where the image resides, together with 11 others. In fact, that first category is itself a separate sub-category of "Category:Frederic Chopin". Is a second Commons link called for, or some kind of adjustment at Commons? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC) p.s. if you search the html file redirect given, you'll find the source is here. So is there any problem, if the source at the file is simply updated?

Smerus, so would you like me to update it over there? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

IMO - For myself I would want rather better support than the opinion of a Swiss doctor that this was a genuine find - and I think that WP deserves better as well. What do photo experts think of it - where and how was it found, and can those circumstances be proved - what do Chopin experts say about it, etc.etc. In brief, how do we know this isn't just the work of some ingenious fellow who is good at Photoshop? It seems from this site - http://ikonografiachopina.pl/wyglad-fryderyka-chopina/dagerotypy-2.html - that there is quite a tradition of alleged 'Chopin photos' which pop up out of the blue.....Smerus (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm asking if it's better to have a valid source at the Commons page so that we at least have an idea where it came from? I'm also suggesting that the way images have been categorised at Commons is far from ideal, because using the link in this article to go there means you might miss a lot of them. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see, you are absolutely right. Of course categorization in Commons is a large scale problem in general, but we ought I suppose to patch it up as a matter of principle when we see the opportunity.Smerus (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

OK. I'll see what I can do. Thanks. I also see your point about "My Little Pop-up Book of Chopin Photos". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

page range presentations

@Smerus: Some of the citations had full page ranges (like 123–124) and some were shortened (like 123–4 or 123–24). This has been corrected so that the spans are consistent. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

In the light of this RFC from July 2016, which part of MOS:NUM supports the format of your changes? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

It appears that the RFC is limited to date ranges, rather than more general numerical ranges like page numbers. Am I missing something?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:CITESTYLE is the guidance. E.g., keep the presentation consistent within the particular article. – S. Rich (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I have undertaken the tedious task of checking the edit history, in case the provisions of WP:CITEVAR still apply, once the discussion at MOS:NUM has been resolved. The first-established citation style used the two-digit truncation for page ranges. This edit by an anonymous IP editor, on 20 June 2008, simultaneously introduced the other two variants which S. Rich has corrected (correctly, in my view) to the established style.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:CITESTYLE is no guidance because it is silent on the presentation of page ranges. MOS:NUM was different in 2008 when it made no special mention of number ranges and instead relied on the style for year ranges generally. That compressed style was abandoned last year, and the same principle was recommended in in MOS:NUM recently. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frédéric Chopin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140809202325/http://en.chopin.nifc.pl/chopin/institutions/text/cat/1/page/2/id/1527 to http://en.chopin.nifc.pl/chopin/institutions/text/cat/1/page/2/id/1527

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

====

Hello, I would like to suggest that new information from an article published today in The Guardian be included regarding Chopin's cause of death. Medical examination of his preserved heart has lent new support to the tuberculosis hypothesis. 108.84.130.26 (talk) 07:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

References

The latest on cause of death.

Under the Death and funeral section, it says: "In 2017, an autopsy was performed on Chopin's preserved heart...". However, this article from the Smithsonian website, "Chopin’s Preserved Heart May Offer Clues About His Death: Scientists who recently examined the organ have suggested that Chopin died of complications from tuberculosis", notes that "The team was not allowed to remove the heart from its jar...". Therefore, no autopsy could be achieved.

They also note a major break in custody: "...his heart was removed from the Holy Cross and given to the S.S. officer Heinz Reinefarth..." and not returned until after it was found in 1945. If none of the church officials were present when it was disinterred by the Nazis or if they weren't allowed to look at the organ then, how could it be identified as THE heart that was returned? I'm not suggesting that it wasn't Chopin's; I'm pointing out the possibility that it might not be.

The link to the American Journal of Medicine takes us to a small abstract clip that doesn't get to the point where the examiners made their exam or offered a conclusion. If someone is interested, the full article costs $36. Perhaps someone here has a subscription?

So, Chopin's cause of death is still not nailed down conclusively. It's true that some of the proposed conditions were unknown then. However, sadly, the people of the time (especially his doctor) had a lot of experience with tuberculosis. Now a respected team has drawn a conclusion based on seeing the actual (probable) heart. That seems to indicate a legitimate lean, at the least, towards TB with light mentions of conflicting theories. Someday, actual tissue may be obtained from the organ and a definitive cause of death found, then fine - the article can be altered to reflect that. Science works that way - make a conclusion with the evidence available, but remain flexible enough to accept a new result when new evidence comes along.

Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry; I left out the Smithsonian link - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/chopins-preserved-heart-may-offer-clues-about-his-death-180967168/ Thank you again, Wordreader (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2017

Add one of the two versions of the following file to the listen section:

79.67.6.159 (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

1) There is no "listen section" in the article. 2) Why add two versions of the same work? 3) Both files are used at Étude Op. 25, No. 12 (Chopin), where they should be. – Oppose as there's no need for them here and they wouldn't improve the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 06:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Frédéric Chopin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140122020240/http://www.nimoz.pl/upload/wydawnictwa/cenne_bezcenne_utracone/2010_1/Strony_08-12.pdf to http://www.nimoz.pl/upload/wydawnictwa/cenne_bezcenne_utracone/2010_1/Strony_08-12.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140122020235/http://www.nimoz.pl/upload/wydawnictwa/cenne_bezcenne_utracone/2010_1/Strony_48.pdf to http://www.nimoz.pl/upload/wydawnictwa/cenne_bezcenne_utracone/2010_1/Strony_48.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed infobox

Frédéric Chopin
Photograph of Chopin daguerreotype by Bisson, c. 1849
Born	(1810-03-01)March 1, 1810
Died	(1849-10-17)October 17, 1849
Signature

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SpanishSnake (talk • contribs)

FYI

 – Prior discussion at Talk:Frédéric Chopin/Archive 13#Infobox (April–May 2014) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article was brought to and agreed as FA, specifically without an infobox. The proposal says nothing - significantly less in fact - than the first sentence of the lede, and serves no useful purpose.--Smerus (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Good grief, not again! What's the matter, can you not find the birth and death dates in the top line of the lead section? Cassianto^Talk 20:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - If it ain't broke, don't fix it. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral -- Seems to be no real added value. To me it still looks like he's suffering from a severe head cold combined with chronic constipation. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• He very possibly was at the time. --Smerus (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• He does indeed look like someone worried about being buried alive (and quite soon). But the exact nature of his cause of death seems something of a mystery. All we have in the Cats is Category:Infectious disease deaths in France. Not that I'd ever want to "nail it down" on the lid of an infobox, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: heart study.--Moxy (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. I feel a new article coming on. Cheers! But it's all there, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - absolutely not, agree with Smerus.Smeat75 (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – Ye, gods! Not again?! This has been done and dusted! Doesn't anyone read the archived discussion?!! (No, I guess not. The lesson of history is that no-one ever learns the lesson of history!)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Apparantly, archived discussions have a shelf-life and expire after two years. Cassianto^Talk 07:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral - I feel like in some way it would make the page look nice, but it wouldn't be necessary if the first few paragraphs clearly and explicitly state details told in the infobox; if there were/are any details omitted from the introduction, then one could consider an infobox. Other than that, I don't see much of a purpose despite looking nice. TrevorABrown (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Szafarnia Couriers

At the very end of the "Childhood" section, from concern about proper attribution, someone has deleted the sentence, "It was at Szafarnia that young Chopin wrote his famous Kuriery Szafarskie (Szafarnia Couriers) spoofing Warsaw newspapers." This is a very famous episode, showing the remarkable breadth of Chopin's talents (including the literary). It would be well if someone with access to a Chopin biography could provide an adequate source for this information.

Thank you.

Nihil novi (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• This was in fact a duplication of information already covered (more appropriately in terms of time line) in the following section (Education), where it is already properly sourced.--Smerus (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Chopin's name - wrong spelling

There is inconsistency in the text. He was born as 'Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin' and died as 'Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin' he never changed his name. Later in the text name 'Fryderyk' is used since this is the name he actually used even in France. It is English page so you can translate the name to Frederick (possibly Frederic) but Frédéric is French spelling and it should not be used here. If it was decided he was Polish composer the name should be changed accordingly to Fryderyk. You can give French and English spelling in brackets.

• See lengthy exchanges in the archives after which it was decided that spellings should remain as they are at present. The article was approved as FA on this basis.--Smerus (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2018

I would like to put in a request to change the main featured image (1849 daguerreotype) to the 1846 daguerreotype (the information when the photograph is clicked on also reads incorrectly as saying this is the earlier of the two known, confirmed images; it is not. This one was taken 1849, portraying an especially sickly Chopin near death). The request I am making is to 1) include the photographs in a section with either both featured if keeping the 1849 Bisson, or, 2) moving this image to a section with the photographs (of significant importance) and featuirng the earlier one. The earlier image, though in worse shape, portrays a much younger, much less ill Fryderyck Chopin. Chopin 1846 Daguerreotype There is a version via a Wikimedia page Chopin 1846 Wikimedia, but I do not see why this isn't the featured image. It has been confirmed as an existing photographic image of Chopin.

It is, again, in a more deteriorated state technically speaking due to its age and being a reproduction of the original, however, its portrays the artist, one would assume, would be closer (by three years) to life than the currently-featured 1849 image (with perhaps more flattering lighting). If not clear enough, as the current featured 1849 image of Chopin has claimed to have been restored (I assume digitally), I'm sure it would be possible through digital means to reclaim some detail in this one as well.

From a photographic and historical point of view, I am reaching out and making this request. Literalmenial (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)Literalmenial

I would like to make the case this is a better image of the artist to feature as a main image (or featured within the Wiki page more prominently). Literalmenial (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)Literalmenial

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Just to make sure I understand correctly, you'd like the photograph of F.C. used now, which currently is a featured photo on Wikipedia, replaced with a less clear, but younger, healthier version? That decision would require a broader consensus, I'm afraid. Spintendo      08:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• The alleged photo of Chopin referred to (which has by no means been authenticated) has already been discussed on this talk page. The present pic was approved when the article obtained FA status and should remain.--Smerus (talk) 08:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Chopin' s tumultuous love-life

Would you please give some information to justify the word tumultuous. Thank you. HarWie (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the reader may be quite disappointed, alas. Not easy to justify, given that "love-life" doesn't appear anywhere else in the article. I'd guess an unmarried couple holidaying in 1838 Majorca might cause more disapproval and consternation than tumult. Perhaps his image is still affected by the "Potocka letters"? But these don't appear to be mentioned in the article. Would you suggest an alternative more suitable phrase? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Changes to 'high-profile' which i think is justified.--Smerus (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

p.s. that film collaboration between András Schiff and Mischa Scorer might also be worth a mention somewhere? I can't find it in any article, including this one, although it was 19 years ago? e.g. [2] Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I think Schiff's documentary is a wonderful one and I have just added information about it in the article. As for justification of the word "tumultuous" to describe Chopin's love life, I do feel his relationship with George Sand was one of immense turbulence, in addition to his enigmatic proposal to Maria Wodzińska which ultimately never came about. Zingarese (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2018

Please add the category tag: Category:Polish classical composers Johnoandrews (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2018

Please add the category tag: Polish classical composers Category:Polish classical composers

I apologize for the repeat edit request. It looks like my previous edit request was incomplete.

Johnoandrews (talk) 02:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Johnoandrews (talk) 02:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Zingarese (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Categories

Chopin was Polish but also acquired French nationality. When this article was approved as FA in 2014, it quite correctly included Chopin in both French and Polish categories where "Category XXXish [occupations]" applied. I see there has been juggling around over the years in adding or taking away categories which specify him as one or the other. The answer is perfectly clear; if while he was in France he did something which he also did while he was in Poland, he should be categorized as both Polish and French. Any attempt to remove perfectly justified categories is simply vandalism. I have restored the categories in the article to what they ought to be, I think. But of course the situation is open to discussion by editors; please discuss here.--Smerus (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you. Chopin is mentioned as just Polish in the lead because of compelling arguments in the RFC above. However, it doesn't change the fact that he acquired French citizenship in the 1830s. Zingarese (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Citizenship is not the same thing as national self-identification. Chopin was a Polish composer with a French passport, just as Polish nuclear physicist and Nobel Peace laureate Joseph Rotblat self-identified as "a Pole with a British passport".

Nihil novi (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Categories have nothing to do with self-identification. Chopin lived for a long time in France (i.e. nearly half of his life), and he was quite successful there. Not mentioning it in the first sentence of the lead is fine, but categories should be kept. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Self-identification is all very fine but doesn't make nationality rules irrelevant.

• 1° his father was French (his name doesn't sound much Polish), which makes him de facto French. He is world wide known under his French first name and not Fryderyk
• 2° he held French and Polish citizenship which de jure makes him French.
• 3° most of his life and his creative period was spent in Paris where he is buried. Also he certainly was bilingual.
• 4° his name is associated with the Parisian Romantic era not the Warsaw one.

Look at List of Nobel laureates in Physics and List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry and you'll see that Marie Curie is presented as Polish/Russian and French.

LouisAlain (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point is LouisAlain's comments, which seem very WP:OR. In fact simple arithmetic will show you that less than half of Chopin's life was in France; and the article shows that he was indeed involved in the Romantic music scene in Warsaw. At the moment the categories show him, correctly imo, as both French and Polish. End of story.--Smerus (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Pocket watch

I recently visited the Fryderyk Chopin Museum in Warsaw and got a shot of this lovely watch presented to the 10 year old Chopin by soprano Angelica Catalani. I thought it might be a good image for the article, but the article is pretty dense. If someone wants to make room for it, here it is:

Pocket watch presented by Angelica Catalani to the 10-year-old Frédéric Chopin on January 3, 1820

. -- kosboot (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

V nice pic, many thanks. I will seek a lodging for it.--Smerus (talk) 09:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a little about it at the Museum's website here. Presumably they have no qualms with photography. Very nice photo. Might also make a good addition at Fryderyk Chopin Museum. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2018

We do not know the exact date of when Chopin was born. 2001:569:7AAF:3800:5946:86A7:C3FC:A645 (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we do know. It was 1 March 1810. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The article makes it clear about consensus on the birth-date.--Smerus (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

His name

Can someone explain to me why the French variation is used here and not his native Polish, Fryderyk? I’ve never understood it. I mean, we don’t call Ludwig van Beethoven “Louis”.Trillfendi (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

How long do you think Beethoven lived in France? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

I think this article could benefit from an infobox with his birth date, death date, etc. I don't have editing permissions so I am suggesting it here. Nickerdip (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Already extensively discussed and dismissed here. By the way the info you seek can be found in the first sentence of the article, if you would like to read it.--Smerus (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Is this article's photo really showing Frédéric Chopin?

To me this seems like a photo of composer and pianist Franz Liszt – see the German Wikipedia page. Also, a photo search with Google substantiates that suspicion.

Mustermaxi (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• I am glad to be able to put your mind at rest and to tell you that your suspicions are incorrect.--Smerus (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2019

Change the info about his birthday as "1 March 1810" to "22 February or 1 March 1810". Considering the information from the following website: http://www.chopin-society.org.uk/articles/chopin-birthday.htm , https://www.linns.com/news/us-stamps-postal-history/2017/february/born-february-22-frederic-chopin.html , https://www.coindumusicien.com/Fredchop/enfance_anglais.html PedroFranca22 (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Thanks, but this is already explained, with sources, in the "Childhood" section. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)