Talk:Frédéric Chopin

Should the article's name be changed to Fryderyk Chopin?

Frédéric is the French spelling of Frederick. Since Chopin is referred to as solely Polish in the article instead of being Franco-Polish, I think it is more appropriate to rename the article to Fryderyk Chopin. Lebaophuoc2005 (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

But as he lived the most productive part of his life in France and is most well-known by the French version of his name, the article title should stay as it is. - kosboot (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Very obvious case of WP:COMMONNAME here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

So why Frédéric and not Frederic, since it's English language wiki? 45.93.75.81 (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, most people know him as Frederic. Also Fryderyk doesn’t sound familiar. 2600:8802:3A0B:3000:B128:B046:A97C:CE74 (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

How do you verify the signatures?

How do you know that the signature of Chopin is real? 2600:8802:3A0B:3000:B128:B046:A97C:CE74 (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Recent changes

@Butterflydog: I have restored the page to an earlier version because your changes are problematic for multiple reasons. You have deleted sourced content, labelling them "accusations without evidence". You inserted material not explicitly stated in the cited sources, thereby distorting them. You introduced claims without sources. The paragraph on "Worldview and political preferences" is awkward and out of place in the article and should be integrated into the other paragraphs. It also needs additional scholarly sources to back up the claims. Overall, while you made some improvements, it would be best to discuss the more major changes here. See also the recent RfC on Chopin and sexuality. intforce (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Translation of Chopin -> Woyciechowski letter very poor.

The letter quoted from Chopin to Tytus Woyciechowski is translated poorly. The scholar (Alan Walker) who translated it very clearly transposed his personal view about the implication of the letter onto the literal text itself, a practice he has been extensively criticised for in many languages. There are glaring errors in the text that become evident when contrasted to the original polish. For example:

In the second sentence, the word "całuj" is rendered as embrace. "całuj" is a polish word meaning "kiss". It is never translated as embrace. The phrase used in the letter (see last paragraph, 4th last line) is "nie całuj mnie", meaning "don't kiss me". Here is a webpage with nine examples of that exact phrase, translated from polish to english, with 'embrace' appearing 0/9 times. Wiktionary itself correctly lists this word as second-person singular imperative of całować, which is then listed as a verb meaning "to kiss." The point is surely made.

This folly is repeated with the phrase "nie pocałowałbyś," (third last line) which translates from polish into english as "you wouldn't kiss". Again, it is rendered as embrace. Again, any casual Wikipedian without the desire to look up original polish is led astray.

Once more this incorrect translation rears its head. Chopin, rather poetically says "Dziś Ci się śnić będzie, że mnie całujesz", meaning, "today you will dream that you are kissing me." 'całujesz' is just a conjugation of 'całuj', which has been tackled. This basic error has really become inexcusable at this point, and quite apart from anything, it has deadened all of the poetry originally present in the text.

I think it's pretty clear what has happened here. Alan Walker respects Chopin greatly, and believes that when he wrote these letters he must have been (in Alan's own words) "twisted in the mind" and in a state of "psychological confusion". Thus, he has toned down some of the language, and in doing so, he has made basic errors of fact which I have illustrated. Fine - but there are other translations, and it is ridiculous not to use them over one that is, in a literal sense, misinformation, taken from a source which repeatedly questions Chopin's mental state in a spurious manner. Please let's discuss alternatives. Tqger (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors can't use their own translations because that is original research (see WP:NOR). If you can find better published translations, list them here. - kosboot (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. Page 102 of this book, Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011, provides an accurate (if clunky) translation, which is a step up. It was compiled/translated in 1931 by Ethel Voynich, an interesting character in herself. Tqger (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

thanks for doing this! Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Birth Date

The church claims that he was born on February 22nd while his family claims that he was born on March 1st, why cant this be mentioned in the Article or in the Infobox? @Antandrus Olek Novy (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Previous consensus was to use the 1 March date in the lede, as that's what's in most of the reliable sources we looked at then (like the current New Grove article). I think it's fine as is, since it's well-explained in the detailed bio, but if consensus changes I'm fine with that too. Anyone else want to comment? Some of the other wikis (e.g. Polish and German) include both dates in the lede; others (e.g. French) use only 1 March. Antandrus (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Can a note at least be added? Olek Novy (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

A note like "1 Mar^{[n 4]}" where the note explains the discrepancy between the parish register and the other date? That's fine with me. See if anyone else wants to weigh in. Antandrus (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)