Q2: Why doesn't this article include more information on Chopin's sexuality?
A2: Opinions on Chopin's sexuality, particularly as to whether he was homosexual, are equivocal or absent in the majority of secondaryreliable sources. Since this article is a featured article, it is required to utilize only "high quality" sources; such sources do not generally give a direct declaration on whether Chopin was homosexual or not. See this request for comment for further information.
Q3: Why doesn't this article give 22 February as Chopin's birthdate?
A3: Although Chopin's baptismal record gives his birthdate as 22 February, this is now considered a mistake by modern scholars. Chopin himself and his family considered his true birthdate to be 1 March, which is now accepted by most scholars. See Britannica and the UK Chopin Society for further information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Composers, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!ComposersWikipedia:WikiProject ComposersTemplate:WikiProject ComposersComposers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
So why not say that he is “French-Polish” and not just “Polish”? Since his father was French, it makes perfect sense (especially since the Napoleonic Code at Chopin's birth stipulated that a child born to a French parent was French as well). I don't understand why some people are blocking this modification which should have been made a long time ago. 2A02:8428:A14:6D01:B683:CDCF:2BF4:92D4 (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this is an english wikipedia. So let's be consistent. Either use an english name Frederick, or use his baptism / documented (as you prefer) name Fryderyk. 176.100.195.245 (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The English language field of Chopin study doesn't currently have a standard for which spelling to use, so some scholars use the Polish, some use the French, and some use neither. For example, 2 modern partial biographies used the French spelling (Annik LaFarge's Chasing Chopin (2020), and Paul Kildea's Chopin's Piano (2018). Jeffrey Kallberg is a major name in the field, and he has been calling him just "Chopin" since the 1980s. The trend seems to be leaning toward using the Polish spelling, however. The most influential modern biography is Alan Walker's Fryderyk Chopin: A Life and Times (2018), the most recent English translation of Chopin's correspondence is David Frick's Chopin's Polish Letters (2016), and a current major English-language collection of essays is the 2017 Chopin and His World edited by Jonathan D. Bellman and Halina Goldberg -- all of which call him Fryderyk. None use the English, and I don't think Wikipedia will change the page based solely on trends in the field toward a Polish spelling. 12angrybees (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it should. But westerners have a weird obsession of making every famous Polish person their own. Maria Skłodowska? No, Marie Curie. Mikołaj Kopernik? No. Nicolaus Copernicus. Fryderyk Chopin? No. Frédéric Chopin. I, despite not being a nationalist, can easily see why Polish people would be angry at that. It's as if someone was actively trying to erase existence of Polish culture. Something that soviets, prussians, austrians, russians tried to do in the past, now is done in the present. By normal people. Disgusting. Awhileo (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 ofcałować, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks Tqger! Frick‘s translation is very precise (in this passage):
I will go and wash. Don‘t kiss me now, because I haven‘t yet washed. You? Even if I were to rub myself with Byzantine oils, you still wouldn‘t kiss me, unless I compelled you to do so with magnetism. There is some sort of force in nature. Today you will dream that you‘re kissing me. I have to pay you back for the nasty dream you brought me last night.
— Frédéric Chopin to Tytus Woyciechowski (4.9.1830)[1][2]
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? @AntandrusOlek Novy (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
There are already a lot of notes in the lead; perhaps this information would be better suited for the body. Do we even know if many RS use the date? Aza24 (talk)06:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
