Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Toccata quarta (talk | contribs) at 08:06, 19 December 2020 (→Sand's absence from Chopin's funeral). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

	Frédéric Chopin is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 17, 2014.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 5, 2014 Peer review Reviewed February 23, 2014 Good article nominee Listed July 17, 2014 Peer review Reviewed August 17, 2014 Featured article candidate Promoted A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 1, 2014.The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Frédéric Chopin (pictured) left his homeland of Poland in 1831 and never returned? Current status: Featured article

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on March 1, 2010 and February 22, 2017.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Composers 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. France High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Misplaced Pages. 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Poland Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Misplaced Pages. 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

RfC: Chopin's nationality

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should we mention Chopin's nationality as Polish or Polish-French? A debate on this has been simmering on for sometime now.

Prior discussions

1. Nationality

2. Talk:Frédéric_Chopin/Archive_2#Nationality (second discussion)

3. Nationality (third discussion)

4. Nationality standards?

5. LEAD: Polish, French or Polish-French?

6. Nationality (one more time)

Solutions considered

As consensus has and will always change, here are some solutions which are being considered for proposal:

• Solution A - Describe Chopin as Polish in the lead
• Solution B - Describe Chopin as a Polish-French in the lead
• Solution C - Describe Chopin as Polish and French in the lead
• Solution D - Describe Chopin as Polish, French-naturalized in the lead
• Solution E - Do not describe his nationality in the lead. Discuss it in the body of the article.

Please weigh-in, indicating the solution(s) you support using the example format below. Include a brief explanation of your rationale. Or, alternatively, if you have some idea which hasn't previously been put forward, please let us know!

Example format

• Support A - He is clearly a Polish. - Example 1 (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2257 (UTC)
• Support C - He is of Polish and French Nationality - Example 2 (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2257 (UTC)
• Support E - It is too tough of an issue to deal with. Let's not mention it. - Example 3 (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2257 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the suggestions/comments/opinions in advance!

Please note that this RfC should not be construed as a vote rather than an attempt to measure consensus. As always let's keep the conversations at a civilized level and focus completely on content, not contributors or their motives.

Discussion

• Support A - The sources indicated in the lead and in past discussions say that he is clearly Polish. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support C - 3 vs 5 isn't much of a minority, and per WP:NPOV it should say that he is Polish and Polish-French. Per WP:OPENPARA it should say that he is Polish-French, but the sources have conflicting views, so per WP:RS it should mention both. 2Awwsome 18:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support A, followed by second choice of Support D. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support A, as that is by far the most common claim made in reliable sources—see . Toccata quarta (talk) 08:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support A, sources which describe him as a "Polish composer" out number sources which call him "Polish-French" by a factor of at least 10. No brainer, non-controversial, just a single disruptive user on a edit-war-path upsetting long standing WP:CONSENSUS.  Volunteer Marek  08:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

How many times do I have to refer you to WP:GHITS and WP:NPOV? It's a factor of much less than 10, because (And I've pointed this out to you repeatedly) adding words greatly decreases the number of Google search results. 2Awwsome 14:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support D to indicate that he composed and achieved fame while living in France. Also, all that discussion about his nationality and how he always considered himself Polish should be moved from the first paragraph of the lead into a later paragraph. The first paragraph should be about why he is notable, it should be concerned with his music and his work. FurrySings (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support A - Chopin was a Pole who lived in France as an exile. I do not edit on this page but have a interest in and love classical music. --Woogie10w (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Also Paul Hindemith was a German composer and Arnold Schoenberg an Austrian even though both became American citizens. We would never refer to them as Americans--Woogie10w (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• A. Did Chopin ever consider himself French? Don't people get to say who they are anymore? Ravpapa (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Much as I disagree with some of the POV-pushing here, primary sources usually should not be used for determining nationality. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The POV you and the other members of your tag team are pushing is nationalist propaganda, the POV I am 'pushing' is neutral. Read policies before making hypocritical personal attacks. 2Awwsome 18:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

1. I'm not Polish, nor am I aware of having Polish ancestors.
2. "You are engaging in POV-pushing" is not a personal attack; "you are a(n) " is. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Where did I say that? 2Awwsome 18:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Say what? You accused me of "pushing ... nationalist propaganda", and you deemed "POV-pushing"—a concept to which you have also referred—a personal attack. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Just because I prefer a neutral POV to your completely biased one, it doesn't mean I'm a POV pusher. And where did I say "you are a(n) "? 2Awwsome 18:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You didn't say that; after all, I never accused you of making a personal attack. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support A - mainly because I'm in agreement with Toccata quarta in regards to how reliable sources state him. Plus, I believe this column from the La Jolla Music Society is an informative read on the very topic. GRUcrule (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support A- as per Dale Tucker (1998). Frederic Chopin. Alfred Music Publishing. p. 5. ISBN 978-1-4574-0134-3. - though French should be mentioned in the article as it is now - all is fine -- Moxy (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)#

It isn't mentioned, because it was removed and then the page was protected to the wrong version 2Awwsome 19:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Current version says in the lead "Although Chopin's father was a Polonized Frenchman and Chopin himself was exiled in France from the age of 20 until his death, the composer always regarded himself as a Pole rather than a Frenchman" then outside the lead in the first section we say "Chopin's father, Nicolas Chopin, was a Frenchman from Lorraine who had emigrated to Poland in 1787 at the age of sixteen" - thus we can all imply hes of French heritage because of his fathers. This is how most bio confront the situation as we do here - V. K. Subramanian (2004). The Great Ones. Abhinav Publications. p. 225. ISBN 978-81-7017-421-9.. -- Moxy (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

By 'most bios' are you referring to the number of Google hits or the sources provided (which is 5 v 4)? And the article mentions that he was not French. 2Awwsome 19:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

General statement - out of all the "book sources" (dont care about Google hits of non scholarly websites or news papers) I can find only one small bio that mentions both Polish-French at William J. Roberts (2004). France: A Reference Guide from the Renaissance to the Present. Infobase Publishing. p. 214. ISBN 978-0-8160-4473-3. -- Moxy (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

But did you search for Polish-French? And are you sure Encyclopedia Britannica is non-scholarly? 2Awwsome 20:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

We are only here to regurgitate what the majority of sources say and in the manner they say it. We have lots of space here thus we have more then enough room to explain the situation and not just a small bio trying to jam all in a few paragraphs. We have done this in the article pretty well I think (first time here today). Even non scholarly articles like this new paper confront the situation. So from what I am reading all over they refer to his "nationally" as Polish and in the same breath say he was "ethnically" half-French. -- Moxy (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

And by 'majority' do you mean 5 vs 4? Or are you talking about 5 vs 0 because the 4 supporting the fact that he was Polish-French removed by a biased POV pusher? 2Awwsome 20:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes Britannica and the book France : a reference guide from the Renaissance to the present say this - in the case of Britannica they are trying to get you to read on with a subscription....thus both are very small bios trying to say a lot in a confined space. The book Jacqueline Dineen (1998). Frederic Chopin. Lerner Publications. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-57505-248-9. does not say this in the copy I can read. - as in his "nationality" was French. As for Northern light : the Skagen painter I cant see it but why a panting book as a source? So from what I can see in the majority of source that I have found today that cover the topic in-depth say his "nationally" is Polish with a French background - as we explain in this article. I see no problem in expanding the section "Nationality" but to add this contentions point in the lead as if it was fact without explanation as we do later is not serving our readers well. -- Moxy (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Given that last point you should change it to Support E. 2Awwsome_{See where I screwed up.} 12:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support E. Came here via RFC, so not involved. I like the way NPR cut the cake. It is ok to not put the nationality of people front and center and then give full details late. Say he was Polish-Born in the lead, then have the nationality section down below really go into it. That is informative while not distracting from the guy's works and life. I know the issue is important, but I think being broad in the lead and having a good nationality section could make for a much improved article. Best of luck. AbstractIllusions (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support A. Where Encyclopaedia Britannica is concerned, Moxy has exposed the heart of the matter. On the subject of Chopin, E.B. is sloppy and perfunctory and cannot be a guide to the much more precise and comprehensive Misplaced Pages. Nihil novi (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sources are not unreliable just because they oppose your view. And Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source, see WP:NOTRS. 2Awwsome 16:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica's expression, "Polish-French", is sloppy. What on earth does it mean?

Does it refer to a given individual's birthplace, ethnicity, sense of national identity, or citizenship, or to some combination of these?

Or does the expression refer to these characteristics in relation to the individual's parents?

Perhaps a mathematician could calculate for us the doubtless large number of possible combinations of characteristics that can lurk behind the vague expression, "Polish-French"? Nihil novi (talk) 10:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The expression "Polish" is even more vague. It could refer to all of those, plus the fact that they polish things. 2Awwsome_{See where I screwed up.} 12:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support A, or (less-preferred, because not really relevant in the lead, but acceptable) D. At the time when I was active editing WP, (and was hoping to bring this article up to GA quality) I gave a lot of thought to this issue. All reliable musical dictionaries, critics and biographers regard Chopin as Polish. And he regarded himself as Polish. There is no problem providing citations for all this. The fact that he took French nationality (which was a convenience for him) made him legally French, I suppose, but this is trivial in the context of his music, which did not draw on French sources, as I hope the maturing article will point out when it starts being edited properly once again. I don't see in Misplaced Pages, e.g., Winston Churchill being described as American , even though his mother was an American and he himself received honorary American citizenship. Incidentally the cluster of notes in the first two sentences of the lead section should surely be removed, according to WP:MOS. The right place to explain in cited detail about squabbles of this sort is in the text, not the lead. I also believe the second sentence of the lead belongs in the body of the article as being WP:UNDUE in this section; later in the lead in the second paragraph Chopin's residence in France is quite adequately described, and the 'after age of 20' doesn't need to be anticipated in the first paragraph. Best, --Smerus (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree completely with Smerus. The sentence "Although Chopin's father was a Polonized Frenchman and Chopin himself was exiled in France from the age of 20 until his death, the composer always regarded himself as a Pole rather than a Frenchman." should be removed from the lead altogether - all this polemic over his nationality is not nearly as important as his impact on piano technique and composition, as well as his importance in the emerging "star" culture surrounding great solo performers (especially pianists) - points which, in fact, are undercovered in the article itself. Ravpapa (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support A This entire controversy is absurd. Trilobitealive (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Further my post supporting A: From Moritz Karasowski, Frederic Chopin: His Life and Letters (1906), volume II, page 368: "When remains were lowered into the grave, Polish earth was scattered on the coffin. It was the same that Chopin had brought from the village of Wola nineteen years before as a memorial of his beloved fatherland, and shortly before his death had requested that if he might not rest in Polish soil his body might at least be covered with his native earth. Chopin's heart, which had beaten so warmly, and suffered so deeply for his country was, according to his desire, sent to the land whose sun had shone on his happy youth; it is preserved ad interim in the Church of the Sacred Cross at Warsaw."

Can we not let this poor piano-playing Pole (to paraphrase Paderewski) rest in peace?

I move to close this RFP. Ravpapa (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

As the sole Arthropod-American Misplaced Pages editor, I strongly second the motion. This whole thing is an example of what happens when you have a strongly POV minority trying to change articles. Trilobitealive (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't you mean the NPOV minority? Anyway, WP:RS and WP:NPOV are core content policies, which cannot be superseded by consensus. So this means nothing. 2Awwsome 16:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Volunteer Marek  17:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is. Let me quote:

"...not superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. 2Awwsome 17:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep telling yourself that. Volunteer Marek  17:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep telling me that 2Awwsome_{See where I screwed up.} 12:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Polish-born" in lead: This source uses this wording which seems to side-step the issue nicely. The French aspect shouldn't be suppressed as we do have sources (1 2) that describe him so. We might also need to mention that the nationality issue is a touchy topic in Poland (source). Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support E, "Polish-born" in lead - Per User:AbstractIllusions,Dailycare; Always a good idea to shy away from definitively asserting that "Person X is of some given nationality" when there is even the smallest ambiguity on the matter. WP shouldn't be deciding what someone's proper nationality is. Using "Polish-born" strikes me as a nice way to reflect the fact that most sources do refer to him as Polish, while not positively asserting that he is either Polish or French. NickCT (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Dailycare and NickCT: I don't know how familiar you are with Chopin's biography, but your comments are not addressing a very important point: that Chopin was not merely Polish, he was emphatically Polish. He never identified himself as French, on the contrary, he always saw himself as an exile. His letters, his music, all his documented comments, from the day of his departure from Poland to his burial, all cry out his love and yearning for his native land. All the sources agree about this, even the two which in their leads refer to him as "Polish French". To call him anything other than Polish is not merely to distort the sources, but to do him a profound injustice. Ravpapa (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@Ravpapa - Self identification is important. But it's not a be all and end all. And I agree, from my uninformed POV Chopin certainly does look "mostly or almost entirely Polish". That said, I think anyone who'd argue that Chopin was at least in some part French by virtue of his father and the fact that he spent half his life in France, would be making a reasonable point. Why not leave his nationality vague in the lead, but reflect the majority of sources and his own identification by calling him "Polish-born"? I don't see the injustice. It would seem we're placing emphasis on his "polishness" while simultaneously saying that his nationality was not definitively Polish. NickCT (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

By your reasoning, George Washington should be described only as "British-born", since he spent the first two-thirds of his life (1732–1776) as a British subject. Let's not muddle matters by mentioning that in the latter third of his life he thought of himself as an American!

The fact is that "–born" adjectives are so ambiguous as to be meaningless. I don't know whether one of Misplaced Pages's goals is meaninglessness. Nihil novi (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

How Washington should be described turns exclusively on what sources say about him, not on what editors think about him. There are sources that describe Chopin's nationality in a more nuanced way than merely "Polish", so allowing for them with "Polish-born" seems reasonable to me (and, importantly, since at least one source uses that exact language). We can expand on the subject a bit in the article body, maybe even mentioning that his nationality is a bit of a touchy subject in Poland, at least one source says that. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes but the sources which describe Chopin as "Polish born" rather than just "Polish" are in a small minority. So exactly by your logic, you should switch your vote. Volunteer Marek  20:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

@Nihil novi - re "should be described only as "British-born"," - Sort of, yeah. I'd oppose saying some like "George Washington was American." in the lead of his article. A reasonable person might dispute that unqualified assertion. NickCT (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't counted sources on this page, but even I now know (having arrived via the RFC) that several sources describe his nationality in a more nuanced way than just "Polish". One source cited above describes him as Polish, but that "the situation is not simple". Saying "Polish-born" in the lead accomodates all the sources that I know, at least, and gives primacy to Polishness in line with what the majority of sources say. --Dailycare (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I make the following compromise proposal (F) for the lead, in view of comments above: "was a Romantic-era Polish composer, who spent most of his mature career in France." I believe that this statement is compatible with all recognised authorities. The detail (e.g. his father, his exile, his passport, etc.) is already covered in the text of the article. --Smerus (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Me,too Ravpapa (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support F or E. Why on Earth did it take this many kilobytes to find what seems like the most natural way to describe him? Yes, he was born in Poland and apparently considered himself Polish. Yes, he spent most of his life in France. Let's just say that instead of turning it into a civil war or contemplating dreadful constructs like Polish-French, which are anachronistic at best. Sai Weng (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC Close

This RfC has been around for three days now, I'd like to ask that it be closed if it doesn't last for more than a couple of days or so. By my reading, option A seemed to garner the most support, with D coming in second, and C/E coming in last place.

• Solution A - (12 support)
  • Support: me, Piotrus, Toccata quarta, Volunteer Marek, Woogie10w, Smerus, Moxy, GRUcrule, Nihil novi, Trilobitealive, Ravpapa
  • Weak or qualified support:
• Solution B - (0 support, 0 weak support)
  • Support:
  • Weak or qualified support:
• Solution C - (1 support, 0 weak support)
  • Support: 2Awwsome
  • Weak or qualified support:
• Solution D - (0 support, 1 weak support)
  • Support:
  • Weak or qualified support: Piotrus
• Solution E - (3 support, 0 weak support)
  • Support: AbstractIllusions, Dailycare, NickCT
  • Weak or qualified support:
• Solution F - (1 support, 0 weak support)
  • Support: Smerus
  • Weak or qualified support:

Though there seems to be some off-topic arguing between a couple of users, I hope this is a clear consensus that satisfies all parties. There is no hurry, but does anyone have thoughts about this? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The default duration of an RfC is 30 days or... if the community's response became obvious very quickly, the RfC participants can agree to end it, it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor. -- Moxy (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I completely understand. I think we should let this run for the full 30 days this RFC was opened (on December 15.) Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Szopen?

@Najgorszakomediaromantyczna: - Can you please revert your edit, nothing was accepted to my knowledge by other users yet. I'd suggest you achieve a Misplaced Pages:Consensus per Wiki rule before imposing a change which is in fact trivial. You can even view Polish Misplaced Pages where the name "Szopen" is not mentioned in the lead and is not taken seriously. Older writers from previous centuries used to polonise the name to "Szopen" for comprehension; for the benefit of people who were unsure how to pronounce his name. Furthermore, the alternative name "Szopen" should not be enforced; it was written sporadically. Perhaps it could be mentioned in the body, but not in the lead, especially on English Misplaced Pages where the "Szopen" version is highly uncommon if not absent. When you say that "Szopen is a variant normally used in Poland", that's false and POV. I suggest an WP:RfC with other users. If others express their support I'd be happy to accept your edit. Oliszydlowski (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit myself. It should be discussed here to obtain a consensus. In my opinion it should be treated, if at all, as a note in the body of the article. That is because this is Englsih WP and the usage Szopen is apparently unknown in English. To announce it in the lead is misleading to readers of the article. It would be relevant to see what other English primary sources - e.g. Grove, biographies, etc. have to say about this. If they do not rate it, then it it is not worth mentioning at all.--Smerus (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Lets keep it in this form, and wait for the other people opinion. @Oliszydlowski: @Smerus:. There is not the page dedicated to Chopin's name variants, where should it be put? Chopin (Szopin) was Polish, it is not the old variant (few years ago it was the Szopen's street in Warsaw; changed for more popular Chopin but the variant still exist). Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski: @Smerus: Smerus, you are making an edit war by force! Lets keep it in preserved form, and lets talk about it! There is not the paragraph dedicated to the Chopin name variant. For ages it was the Szopen's street in Warsaw; changed few years ago for the current one (just because it is more popular variant, but not forgotten). Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Would a footnote be an acceptable compromise? Double sharp (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Amongst the issues to be considered and answered here are:

• Did the subject ever use the form 'Szopen' himself - in signatures, publications, etc.? I have found no evidence that he did.
• Do any formal documents relating to the subject use the form 'Szopen'? E.g., birth certificate, passport. I have seen no evidence for this. (The birth certificate uses the form 'Choppen').
• How do English biographies, dictionary entries, etc. refer to him? I have found no evidence of the use of 'Szopen'.
• What evidence is there that the variant 'Szopen' is commonly used in Polish in referring to the subject? The 'Narodowy Instytut Fryderika Chopina' (National Chopin Institute), for example, uses the form 'Chopin'. Chopin's grave and other monuments to him in Poland use the form Chopin.

Unless these and similar issues are clearly answered in favour of 'Szopen', there are no grounds for altering the article; or for adding a note.

This is an FA article, viewed typically by over 3000 people per day, and therefore it is particularly important that issues like this and the subject's sexuality (see above) are dealt with responsibly by consensus, rather than through attempts at edit warring. --Smerus (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

A quick check shows:

• Warsaw Chopin Airport
• pl:Lotnisko Chopina w Warszawie
• pl:Kategoria:Obiekty i imprezy im. Fryderyka Chopina - things and festivals named after Chopin

Not much shoppin' goin' for ,,Szopen" in formally named things and festivals in Polish... I think that ,,Szopen" could be mentioned as a variant in the body of the article, but a source that studies the frequencies of usage and the attitudes to the spelling would in principle be needed. Boud (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski: @Boud: Ok, guys, I see yours points! In that case, I quit fighting for the "Chopin" adnotation. If in future, I would have ideas how to implement it, maybe I will try to edit it with the previous disscusion. Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Anyway, shame on @Smerus: who is trying to persuade us that talking about changes is important, but still reverting non-vandalism just because he does not like it :)

• Pożegnanie! z miłością od --Smerus (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Poor Polish, ignorant. Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    • I try at Polish, as you do at English. At least I am more polite to you than you to me! Boh ti žehnaj, môj drahý priateľu! --Smerus (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Ok, I appreciate that, I have nothing against you! Just don't delete your talk page, please. Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

        Just FYI but users are allowed to delete anything they like from their user pages (other than declined unblock requests). The fact it was deleted is taken to mean that they have read it. Other users are not allowed to restore what they delete. I just you self revert your restoration. 92.5.9.21 (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Chopin’s sexuality

There is no evidence at all for Chopins alleged affair with either Gladkowska and also none at all for an alleged engagement with Wodzinska. (See and hear the quote in the linkes publications) They moreover barely appear in his letters, which is obvious after simple searches in the online letters-edition. (https://en.chopin.nifc.pl/chopin/letters/search)

But obviously he wrote many declarations of love to various men. The most numberous, passionate, exclusive and even erotic ones to Tytus Woyciechowski. (Biographies by G. Baur, p. 536 or by A. Walker, p. 114-115) He also writes and stays in contact with him until shortly before his death in 1849. He also visited Tytus in summer 1830 for two weeks in Poturzyn, and called him his ideal (letter to Woyciechowsky from 3.10.1829, that was half a year after Tytus left Warsaw in spring 1829) It’s intersting, that in various translations of that very passage of 3.10.1829 (and also in others) we can see abvious faults: male polish pronouns turned into english or french female pronouns (translation by D. Frick (2016) p. 138 & 232ff.) . Some show lots of added female pronouns. So the question could be if some people just didn’t or don‘t want Chopin to have been homosexual?

https://www.srf.ch/kultur/musik/spaetes-outing-chopin-war-schwul-und-niemand-sollte-davon-erfahren

Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Your sources may require close examination. There have been other "correspondences" of Chopin's that turned out to be forgeries: see his "Letters to Delfina Potocka".

Nihil novi (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

English language article on the matter, could possibly be used as a source? --Viennese Waltz 11:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Also: "Chopin's interest in men airbrushed from history, programme claims" - Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

With any luck, the relevant pages of Alan Walker's, Fryderyk Chopin: A Life and Times may be visible using this link William Avery (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

So what? SPECIFICO talk 15:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. It's nothing new. William Avery (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The point is that it's not currently mentioned in the article, and needs to be. --Viennese Waltz 16:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

In which case the scepticism of previous biographers needs to be acknowledged. William Avery (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

According to the "Chopin" article's "Education" section,

He was also attracted to the singing student Konstancja Gładkowska. In letters to Woyciechowski, he indicated which of his works, and even which of their passages, were influenced by his fascination with her; his letter of 15 May 1830 revealed that the slow movement (Larghetto) of his Piano Concerto No. 1 (in E minor) was secretly dedicated to her – "It should be like dreaming in beautiful springtime – by moonlight."

So, Chopin was... bisexual?

Nihil novi (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

actually, Chopin never writes neither about beeing attracted by her, nor about beeing in love with her. Instead, he feels attracted to Tytus, which many passages in his letters show. "secretly dedicated" can definately not be taken as a serious proof; moreover, there is no written dedication of this movement to her at all, in none of the newest and most reliable scores.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Alan Walker writes in his Fryderyk Chopin: A Life and Times (2018):

This language is fankly erotic and it is fair to ask... whether there might have been a passing homosexual affair between Tytus and Chopin. We are much inclined to doubt it... Tytus was... a reluctant recipient of overt declarations of love, as Chopin's side of the correspondence confirms. It seems far more likely that Chopin wrote these and similar passages in an exalted frame of mind when... he... gave free rein to his adolescent fantasies....

If Chopin's "confession" to Tytus in October 1829 is to be taken at face value, the image of Konstancja could rarely have been absent from his thoughts during his six-week tour of Vienna, Prague, and Dresden made earlier in the year. By the time he had returned to Warsaw, in September 1829, with such accolades as "pianist of the front rank" bestowed on him by the Viennese press, his position had been transformed. Yet his newfound confidence did not extend to his private life and he could not summon up the courage to declare himself to Konstancja.

Nihil novi (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Walker also writes in that exact passage (there, where you are quoting "...") that the loving and erotic words by Chopin addressed to Tytus were the result of a "mental twist". Which perhaps can give us an idea about the attitude of the 90 year old Alan Walker.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 09:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It was mentioned in the Guardian article cited above that "Chopin described rumours of his affairs with women as a 'cloak for hidden feelings'" in one of his letters to Tytus. It was not uncommon in that day and age for homosexual people to have relationships with women. Our understanding of "gay" as an identity can't be mapped one to one onto Chopin in the same way that we can't map it perfectly onto someone like Oscar Wilde, but that doesn't prevent us from understanding that he (and now likely Chopin) were what we would today describe as homosexual men. Whether the increasing evidence for his relationships with men are accepted wholeheartedly or not by everyone in this thread, it certainly, certainly warrants being covered on his Misplaced Pages article. Sandhals (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

May I point out that you're all engaging in original research and WP:NOR. Unless you find a reliable source (considering the voluminous amount of serious musicological research available, a newspaper article is not a reliable source ), you can't state it in the article. - kosboot (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Not true, see WP:NEWSORG. --Viennese Waltz 07:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

On 3 October 1829 Chopin wrote Tytus Woyciechowski:

... I already, perhaps unfortunately, have my ideal, which I faithfully serve, without having spoken with it for half a year – which I dream of, in whose memory arose the adagio of my concerto, and which this morning inspired this little waltz of mine which I am sending you.

This fragment of Chopin's letter immediately follows his mention of another attractive young lady, who was unable to replace Konstancja Gładkowska in his affections.

The second paragraph cited above from Alan Walker's 2018 biography of Chopin makes it quite clear that Chopin, in speaking of his "ideal", is referring to Konstancja Gładkowska.

Nihil novi (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

It's now believed that this was mistranslated - Chopin wrote the word "ideal" in the masculine form, as if referring to Tytus Woyciechowski. It was inaccurately translated as if he were referring to a woman - it's certainly not clear that he was referring to Konstancja Gładkowska. I think it is of great importance that Chopin's relationships with men be included on this page. The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to inform, and it would be inappropriate to miss out the fact that Chopin had relationships with, or a sexual interest in, other men. If the dubious information regarding some of his relationships with women has been accepted as fact in the article, why isn't the evidence of his homosexuality being accepted? Glissando1234567890 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Again I repeat: with a figure such as Chopin who has numerous biographies in multiple languages, and over which there has been continuous musicological research from numerous people all over the world, you are going to need better citations than to a newspaper which, by its nature, seeks to create "news" by taking a deliberately provocative view of the world. Provide some citations to responsible musicologists and then I'll be more accepting of your efforts. - kosboot (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kosboot: "A newspaper which, by its nature, seeks to create "news" by taking a deliberately provocative view of the world" - impartiality, please! Anyway, the newspaper article is irrelevant, when the letter (from the Chopin Institute, as already cited on this page) shows that Chopin used the masculine form of "ideal", and wrote the words "I love you madly" to Woyciechowski. Surely the page should at least mention that "some sources/historians" believe that Chopin had homosexual desires? Also, and I'm trying to be objective, but how can you take Alan Walker's argument seriously? It seems that Walker is not keen on the idea that Chopin was gay, describing the "uncomfortably sensual" language in his letters, which he blames on "psychological confusion" and transference. Glissando1234567890 (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Moritz Weber's article is here (in German) : https://www.srf.ch/kultur/musik/spaetes-outing-chopin-war-schwul-und-niemand-sollte-davon-erfahren?wt_mc_o=srf.share.app.srf-app.unknown He gives a list of the men Chopin loved, and cites Aleksander Laskowski, of the Warsaw Chopin Institute saying that "We actually have nothing on K. Gładkowska. With Wodzińska we have nothing."

So who are these historians? You absolutely can not read documents written 200 years ago and assume that the words have the same meaning today. Read some romantic literature ca. 1800-1850: Lots of men professed love for fellow men, but it does not mean or imply they were homoesexual. The nature of romanticism is of revealing one's inner emotions, but that often means highly exaggerated prose. Don't forget WP:SYN. - kosboot (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

When Chopin uses the Polish word "ideał" (a masculine-gender noun) in his letter to Tytus Woyciechowski of 3 October 1829, it is perfectly clear from context that he is using the word in the sense given by both The Kościuszko Foundation Dictionary, volume II: Polish-English, 1962, p. 149. amd Jan Stanisławski's The Great Polish-English Dictionary, 1970, p. 322, of "dream boy" or "dream girl". Stanisławski gives the additional wording, "boy of one's' dreams" or "girl of one's dreams".

Thus the argument that Chopin's word "ideał" has been misinterpreted is specious. In the 3 October 1829 letter, his "ideał" ("girl of his dreams") was clearly Konstancja Gładkowska – not Tytus Woyciechowski!

Nihil novi (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

You haven't proved anything. Chopin clearly addressed TW in a romantic way - as I've said, read the letters already cited. Yes, language was different then, but he didn't address everybody in this passionate way. (He certainly didn't call others "my dearest life", an address he never used for the women he supposedly yearned for.) And you are blind to the double standards here - when referring to men, his language is dismissed as romantic idiosyncrasy; when referring to women, it's hard evidence of emotion. I'm not saying that the page should state "Chopin was absolutely homosexual", but it should, at the very least, mention the reasonable speculation that arises from the "ambiguities" in his language. Glissando1234567890 (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not trying to prove anything. You say: it should, at the very least, mention the reasonable speculation that arises from the "ambiguities" in his language. Please mention a reliable musicological source (preferably more than one) that mentions the reasonable speculation and I'll consider that for inclusion. - kosboot (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The suggestion that some of these letters can be explained by "ambiguities of language" or C19th conventions of language between friends is, as the program pointed out, ridiculous. C19th friends who weren't bisexual or homosexual didn't write about having dirty dreams about each other, or forcing the other mesmerically to desire to kiss them. For pity's sake! It's insulting to the intelligence to suggest otherwise, and smacks of scholar J. E. Munoz's observation that when historians attempt to document a gay past, there is often a gatekeeper who will do their utmost to invalidate the truth of this experience, and seek to distort it to fit a straight narrative. Which is exactly what the Swiss program has charged historians with doing.

It's not anyone's job here Kasboot to convince you. You're not the sole Hall Monitor. If a number of leading respectable global newspapers print a story, including The Times and The Guardian (Classic FM also believes the story is important enough to print an article ), even whether you believe that story is accurate or not, by Misplaced Pages rules, these become allowable citations for the inclusion of summarising text. Yes, for editorial balance, equally cited opposing opinion can naturally be included, but to seek to disallow it simply because you personally disagree with it, is unacceptable. There is no need to cite musicologists you personally approve of. (Demanding impossible-to-deliver citations by particular experts is a well-worn blocking tactic by stubborn editors.) Misplaced Pages is a democracy, not a dictatorship. For that, you can create your own blog. 2001:8003:5309:BA00:E07E:35C7:5196:38E8 (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree - I think there is sufficient evidence from reputable sources to conclude that Chopin had gay relationships or desires. It is ridiculous to use the biography by Alan Walker as sole evidence that this is false; if Misplaced Pages never considered new research or evidence (not that C19 letters are new...) it would be static and defunct. I only referenced the "ambiguities" to appease those less willing to accept this information, who were attributing the content of the letters to norms of the 1830s. I didn't mean to dispute the evidence. Glissando1234567890 (talk) 12:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Given the direction in which this discussion is heading (and it appears it is beginning to go in circles), it may be best to do an RfC on the inclusion of these viewpoints in the article, similar to the one on the matter of Chopin's nationality (see the top of this talk page). Toccata quarta (talk) 07:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

That would be premature. The WP:ONUS for inclusion is on the advocate here, and this simply fails NPOV WP:WEIGHT. SPECIFICO talk 12:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

"Advocate" (singular)? "Simply fails"? Can't say I agree with that characterization of the exchange here. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I have to admit I generally have prejudice against people who refuse to register a Misplaced Pages account because that means they are not interested in accepting feedback (which is nearly impossible unless one has a talk page). So for this user who refuses to register, why don't you post a draft of your proposed idea on this talk page to let us see what sources you are using. - kosboot (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be obstructing the progression of this page by undermining Misplaced Pages users and reliable sources. And your prejudices are irrelevant, I'm afraid, and voicing them as you did is unnecessary. Glissando1234567890 (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

As with Cary Grant, if multiple reliable sources document alleged homosexuality in detail then we could mention somehting like "Some historians have interpreted his letters as an indication that he had homosexual relationships." but we don't need to go into sordid details. But only if reliable sources and historians have written extensively about it, it wouldn't be our place to write about it and interpret letters ourselves or course. Are there many reliable sources which bring it up?† Encyclopædius 14:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah I see, there was a documentary saying biographers have covered it up. † Encyclopædius 15:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

And then go on to quote some of the letters to Tytus Woyciechowski, surely? The doubt cast on his romances with women would have to be mentioned as well. Glissando1234567890 (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I presume the main quotes must be these:

• Sam zapewne czujesz potrzebę moją powrotu do Wiednia, nie dla panny Blachetki, o której, ile mi się zdaje, pisałem, jest to osoba młoda, ładna, grająca, bo ja już może na nieszczęście mam mój ideał, któremu wiernie, nie mówiąc z nim już pół roku, służę, który mi się śni, na którego pamiątkę stanęło adagio od mojego koncertu, który mi inspirował tego walczyka dziś rano, co ci posyłam. Uważaj jedno miejsce + oznaczone. O tym nikt nie wie prócz ciebie. Jakżeby mi było słodko zagrać ci go, najdroższy Tytusie.,
• Daruj, żem Ci posłał Walc, który Cię może i rozgniewa na mnie, ale dalibóg, chciałem Ci nim przyjemność zrobić, bo Cię szalenie kocham.
  • wikt:szalenie - enormously - so translations could be "I love you wildly", "I love you ferociously", or literally per the en.wiktionary, "I love you enormously."

Obviously, interpretations are for external sources, e.g. taking into account the Romantic period conventions, but having the original in front of our eyes should help. How about just stating that Chopin privately declared himself to be "wildly in love" with Woyciechowski in October 1829 and said that nobody else was aware of it, and that Moritz Weber interpreted this as a homosexual relationship? Trump appeared to be wildly in love with Putin, but that didn't necessarily make him homosexual. See bromance. Of course, this analogy is somewhat distant... Boud (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Boud: Romance more likely than bromance - consider the words: "I embrace you warmly, so they write commonly at the end of letters, but they do not know what they write - but believe me, I know what I wrote, because I love you". Glissando1234567890 (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for these excepts. But Misplaced Pages requires that we use tertiary sources - that is, not what the original documents say but what others say about them. I recall reading somewhere that Maurice Brown was criticized for suppressing elements of Chopin's sexuality. I'm still waiting to see some reference to these musicologists. A mention in a Swiss radio program does not hold water. - kosboot (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Let's add the latest ski conditions at Zermatt. SPECIFICO talk 18:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so I found Norman Lebrecht's reference and link to the Swiss radio broadcast. In my opinion Lebrecht is a sensationalist, writing many things merely to drive attention to his website (for monetary reasons). The speaker of the Swiss broadcast is Moritz Weber, a music critic, certainly not a musicologist or one who has carefully studied these documents. A search of "Chopin and homosexuality" on JSTOR led me to only two citations, one of which I probably can't locate near me. So I post it here in case anyone has access to it: Guy Godlewski, "Chopin genie asexue". Semaine des hopitaux de Paris 55 (1979), 2051-2063. - kosboot (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Let us also bear in mind that the cited correspondence of Godlewski's "Chopin, the asexual genius" ("Chopin genie asexue") is difficult to accurately interpret, given the allusions to unknown previous events and given many other ambiguities. I have already mentioned one ambiguity that has been misinterpreted by amateur Chopin-sleuths who, on being informed that the Polish "ideał" is a male-gender noun, have concluded that this " of one's dreams" must therefore be a male, then have jumped to the conclusion that that male must be Chopin's correspondent, Tytus Woyciechowski. Whereas "ideał", in this context, may mean either a male or a female "person of one's dreams". And we know that Chopin shared with Woyciechowski, in letters, his infatuation with the teenage female singer Konstancja Gładkowska.

Nihil novi (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kosboot: You're right that we need tertiary sources if there's ambiguity in the interpretation or notability or if there's a question of due weight. So let's avoid interpretation: we can give a few key quotes that are the key to the claims, without needing any interpretation. We just give a brief comment that Moritz drew attention to this and claims that the info was deliberately hidden. Due weight: the article already has many claims about Chopin's romantic life. So omitting information about Chopin's infatuation with Woyciechowski would be unbalanced. The notability is overwhelmingly obvious in the current Polish context.

@Glissando1234567890: pl:wikt:ideał - The word ,,ideał" in modern Polish is a masculine noun - as in a "revolution" is grammatically feminine or ,,osoba" = a "person" is grammatically feminine, no matter whether the particular person has a penis or a vagina. So a semantic rather than literal translation would be, in the context used, something like "the true love of my life".

We indeed have Ściskam Cię serdecznie, tak piszą pospolicie na końcu listów, ale nie wiedzą, co piszą – wierzaj mi jednak, że wiem, com napisał, bo cię kocham jak. So I think the question is what to quote. Boud (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Boud: Interesting. Glissando1234567890 (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

No, the letters' text is a primary source, not an indicator of WEIGHT. What does Groves say? SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Surely quotes from letters referenced in other sources can be used? Glissando1234567890 (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

"Ściskam Cię serdecznie, tak piszą pospolicie na końcu listów, ale nie wiedzą, co piszą – wierzaj mi jednak, że wiem, com napisał, bo cię kocham jak" (Chopin's letter to Tytus Woyciechowski, 20 October 1829)

"I embrace you cordially, as they commmonly write at the end of letters, but they don't know what they write – but believe me, I know what I write, for I love you like"

Even today in Western cultures people, on meeting or parting, often literally embrace, with no suggestion of homo- or heteroeroticism. Chopin, in this breathless, chatty, throughout ambiguous letter, is writing that he truly is fond of his friend. No more need be read into it.

Do you tell platonic friends that you have "dirty dreams" about them, or that you want to "embrace in the same mouth"? You are hell-bent on Chopin being straight. Glissando1234567890 (talk) 18:39

It's time to cut out the original research,and soapboxing. You need to demonstrate DUE WEIGHT, and you need to stop bludgeoning the rest of us with repetitious posts. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

There would be no need to repeat myself if you and Glissando did not keep repeating yourselves, and repeating your misbegotten "sources" such as the Guardian article with its ignorance of the Polish language ("male" ideał !) and mistranslations (Chopin's chatty 12 September 1829 letter to Woyciechowski, ending in an endearment, "Ściskam Cię serdecznie, 'w same-usta' pozwolisz?", misrendered as "embrace in the same mouth").

As to "dirty dreams", please give me a link to the Polish original, and I'll review that last repetitive argument of yours.

Nihil novi (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO and Glissando1234567890: Cutting out both the WP:WIKILAWYERING and the violation of WP:AGF ("hell-bent", "soapboxing", "bludgeoning") would help here. We have a widely publicised external source - Moritz. The controversy on the current page makes it obvious how notable and controversial the issue is. Back to work! The Guardian didn't give quotes, so now we're working through the quotes, so that we can at least judge the credibility of the third-party source's claims, and decide which quotes to give so that the reader can decide for him/herself. A one-sentence final paragraph: Ściskam Cię serdecznie, „w same-usta” pozwolisz? (suggested translation: "I embrace you warmly, 'right in the mouth', OK?") Do we have a source (chopin.nifc.pl?) for "dirty dreams"? Boud (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Nobody's questioned your good faith. It's more a matter of failing to follow policy and constructive modes of discussion. SPECIFICO talk 20:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

So on this point we agree. :) Boud (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

FYI, in 19th century and even in 20th there was nothing unusual or sexual for men kissing, including "in the mouth". Therefore speculations based on interpretations of personal letters must come from experts. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

For an example of 20th-century men kissing, please see the photograph at "My God, Help Me to Survive This Deadly Love". Lembit Staan (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Often, any but the very simplest texts may be rendered in more than one way.

An apposite example, here:

"I embrace you cordially; with, if you permit, a kiss on the lips"

Nihil novi (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I am yet to see multiple reliable, secondary high quality sources by musicologists or respected academics. There are "theories" for homosexuality for virtually every major historical figures. Some are have wide scholarly consensus, such as those for Leonardo da Vinci and to a slightly lesser extent Edward II of England. As a featured article, newspaper articles on the sexuality of someone from 200 years ago are not high quality, and the fact that they exist but there doesn't seem to be any equivalent coverage in musicological sources is telling in itself. I admit that I have only skimmed through the conversation but any interpretation of letters is a complete waste of time and more or less completely inadmissible if not from a secondary source, especially on a topic like sexual orientation. Someone needs to start giving passages from serious musicologists if they want to push this issue further, otherwise they're wasting everyone's time. Perhaps the proponents here could, I don't know, look in the biographies actually cited in the WP article for "evidence"? Zamoyski would be a good start. Aza24 (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind, were the issue here that historians have supposably covered it up, it is extremely unlikely that modern historians would continue to do so, so there should be information available were such a theory to be widespread. Keep in mind that even if Chopin was queer in some sense and there is isn't sufficient information, that's awful and truly unfortunate that this is not covered extensively or "remembered correctly", but Misplaced Pages isn't for righting great wrongs. Aza24 (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Just for completeness, my guess for the "dreams" letter is 670 jeszcze jak mi się wyśni, zupełnie wierzyć będę, bo mi się często śni o Tobie. Ileż to razy biorę ja noc za dzień, a dzień za noc; ileż razy żyję we śnie, a śpię w dzień, gorzej jakbym spał, bo zawsze jednak czuję; a zamiast sił nabierać w tym odurzeniu, tak jakoby we śnie, jeszcze się męczę i słabieję – proszę Cię, kochaj mię. Boud (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

David Frick translates the expression with "nasty" dream. This perhaps can clearify quite some statements here. But the question is also, how reliable this translation is, even it is done by a former Yale-Professor: The fact that he translated male pronouns to female ones and added numerous female pronouns may bring up some questions about that.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

ideał

Just to clarify the issue of mam mój ideał, któremu wiernie, nie mówiąc z nim już pół roku, and Yet a translation of Chopin’s letters published in 2016 by Warsaw’s Fryderyk Chopin Institute assigns the “ideal” in the letter a feminine pronoun (“not having spoken to her for half a year now”) even though the Polish noun is masculine. in The Guardian.

The point here is a feminine pronoun, the word "her" in "spoken to her". A correct translation in English requires knowing who the ,,ideał" (ideal ) is. The overall letter makes it clear that the ,,ideał" is Wojciechowski. So The Guardian article is correct in stating that the valid semantic translation should be "not having spoken to him for half a year now"; a literal translation would be "not having spoken to him/her for half a year now". This context would be misleading with the generic gender-neutral "him". The translator either didn't try reading the whole letter, didn't "read with comprehension", or deliberately and misleadingly chose to use "her" despite the grammatical object being a man. So I don't understand the complaints against The Guardian here. Boud (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Language use is often ambiguous; and context, as you say, can be crucial.

However, my reading of Chopin's letter, in the original, seems more suggestive of a "her" than a "him". For example, if Chopin were writing to Tytus about Tytus, he would hardly need to remind Tytus that he hadn't spoken with Tytus "for half a year now".

Nihil novi (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Reminding Tytus that the two of them hadn't spoken f2f (as opposed to letters) for six months seems a fair way to say "I miss you". The sentence starts Sam zapewne czujesz potrzebę moją powrotu do Wiednia, - You yourself must feel the need for my return to Vienna - which is at least a hint that Wojciechowski could be that person. But in any case, I don't see any hint in the letter of who the ideał might be, if not Wojciechowski. Where is there a hint that the ideał is a woman? A serious translator should at least put either 'him/her' or '' and a note discussing hypotheses for who the grammatical object of the sentence might really be. Boud (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The translation you give for Chopin's "Sam zapewne czujesz potrzebę moją powrotu do Wiednia...", from his 3 October 1829 letter to Tytus Woyciechowski – "You yourself must feel the need for my return to Vienna" – is a bit off the mark.

Chopin is saying, "You doubtless sense my need to return to Vienna..."

Had Chopin meant to say what you have him say, he might have said something like "Sam zapewne czujesz potrzebę mego powrotu do Wiednia..."

Woyciechowski himself was not then in Vienna but in Poturzyn, Poland. And Chopin is justifying the idea of returning to Vienna by the enthusiastic reception he had received there.

Nihil novi (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nihil novi: Excellent point - I misidentified which noun was being described. The differing genders of the two nouns make it clear that you're right on this particular point. Boud (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

actually, if you read and search the whole letter from 3.10.1829, you will see that K. Gładkowska is not even mentioned. Her name is only mentioned in unproven footnotes in letter-edtions in various languages.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Transcription of the radio broadcast

Moritz Weber's talk (audio and transcribed) can be found here (in German). Before considering how to much weight to give this, please examine what else Weber has written to determine whether this is a reliable source. Personally I feel he is not a reliable source at all. - kosboot (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Evidence and relevance

Really all this amounts to little more than chit-chat. It is very clear (imo) that Polish writers have been keen to cover up or submerge anything which might subvert the image of Chopin as a national monument, but the positive evidence that he was actively (or even passively) homosexual in his lifetime is vanishingly small. And, (again imo) if he did have a gay fling at any stage, it doesn't seem to be at all signficant to any aspect of his life. To have whole paragraphs about it is certainly WP:UNDUE. If "a number of leading respectable global newspapers print a story", that story still has to be viewed in the context of all other relevant material. Not everything reported by The Times or The Guardian (not in themselves custodians or leaders in music history) becomes automatically material for WP. (And in any case the Guardian arrticle contains a refutation of Weber's suggestins by another academic, David Frick). The suggestion of User:Encyclopaedius that we could add a sentence on the lines of "Some historians have interpreted his letters as an indication that he had homosexual relationships" seems about as far as it is appropriate to go. The key element (again imo) in WP articles is to provide well-sourced and relevant information. We shouldn't go about pruriently listing out or seeking putative references in people's lives for their affairs or flirting, gay or heterosexual, unless we can demonstrate that this is material to their stories. --Smerus (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Smerus.

There is a lot of original research in this section, which is not acceptable for a Misplaced Pages article.

Also please remember that big claims need big sources.

There is a tendency in modern society to try and "discover" LGBT people in history, and this is sometimes more a matter of fiction than fact. This seems to be an example.

Also please take into account that we are talking about the Romantic area, in which people wrote letters in a style that seems exaggerated to us, but was commonplace in their time, and that style should be interpreted according to the standards of their time, not ours.

Last but not least, I agree with Smerus, that things should be in proportion, as in WP:DUE, and if and when good sources will be available, any mention should probably still be small to very small, since Chopin's sexual orientation is not what he is known for. Debresser (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

This does make sense. A short paragraph beginning "some historians..." would suffice. I apologize if I went off piste here earlier; I was trying to make the case for including this information in the page, in some form, rather than suggesting what information should actually be included or how. Glissando1234567890 (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Read what they say above. There are no historians that say anything, just a music critic and two other sources which probably don't say much. At this point it's not worth even a sentence. - kosboot (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• I have inserted a paragraph at the appropriate time junction in the 'Life' section. Incidentally, Weber's claim, which he makes much of in the Guardian article, that there is no evindence of Chopin's involvement with or engagement to Wodzinska is just not true, which doesn't say much for his scholarship. As mentioned in the article George Sand wrote to Grzymala in 1838, when she was debating with herself whether to start an affair with Chopin, to ask about Wodzinska. Jachimecki also talks about Chopin conserving Wodzinska's letters, in a bundle on which he wrote 'Moj bieda' ('my sorrow') although he is not an entirely reliable source; there remains a photo of the letterpacket, but the originals seems to have been lost during WWII.--Smerus (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

  I have reverted that. It is still UNDUE to elevate this utterly insignificant sourcing inChopin's biography. Smerus, I do appreciate your effort, just think this is pretty black and white. SPECIFICO talk 16:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Ну что, I was hoping it might be an acceptable compromise that was within WP guidelines. Can't say I am going to lose any sleep about it, but I would certainly object to any attempt to post anything stronger.--Smerus (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

What about this as a footnote in an appropriate place:

"In 2020, a controversial Swiss radio documentary sparked fresh interest in Chopin's sexuality. The documentary claimed Chopin had a romantic or homoerotic interest in men, citing Chopin's letters to his friend Tytus Woyciechowski, which have been interpreted as declarations of love, and a letter to Julian Fontana, in which Chopin supposedly describes engaging in cottaging. The claims have been disputed. " Glissando1234567890 (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

No. SPECIFICO talk 22:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, please offer arguments that rise above "I don't like it" or "No", neither of which helps build consensus. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I need not repeat. See above. SPECIFICO talk 08:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Is anyone even reading the words in that line? A "Swiss radio documentary" is all of a sudden a reliable high quality source on a composer's sexuality from 200 years ago? And what, using his letters?? Absolute nonsense. Aza24 (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

No, because a) "spark fresh interest" is a WP:OR exaggeration and b) at this length and detail it is clearly WP:UNDUE, as explained above. Do people not have anything better to do on WP than drone on about this essentially trivial bit of attempted sensationalism?--Smerus (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Smerus and Aza, I certainly don't think it would be appropriate to go into details about the letters. And also depends on if that Swiss documentary was purely done for sensationalism or if there are multiple credible authors who genuinely discuss it and for the right reasons. If no historians have discussed it and it's only one or two people who have mentioned it, it's only worth one sentence if that. "Some commentators have interpreted his letters as an indication that he had homosexual relationships." would suffice. It is purely an interpretation after all.. Aza makes a good point about there being a trend now to interpret many historical greats as being homosexual and the sensationalist aspect of it.† Encyclopædius 14:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Smerus: I obviously accept the matter as closed, but I would like to say that sensationalism is never my intention. Many thanks, Glissando1234567890 (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Glissando1234567890, noted, but please be assured it wasn't you I had in mind as being sensationalist, rather the broadcaster and the newspapers who picked up the story! Best, --Smerus (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

So: to summarise the argument so far: a couple of shameless blockers have refused point blank to concede the inclusion of the most mild statement of fact. And to ensure this doesn't happen, they have engaged in classic tactics of dissembling, and distortion of Misplaced Pages rules to their own ends. Of course, as in all such cases, the true reasons behind it have ZERO to do with desiring balance and truth in the article, and EVERYTHING to do with feelings of personal ownership of the article, and in this case, sadly, disgraceful and patently obvious bigotry. They should not be allowed to get away with it. 2001:8003:5309:BA00:E120:FAFE:5069:3953 (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It is very far from a statement of fact, which is why it is controversial and should not be included unless more information surfaces. At the very least, we editors have registered and are responsible for our comments (as well as have many thousands of edits to a large variety of articles), which is far more than anonymous posters can say for themselves. - kosboot (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Mate, FIVE FACTS: (1) It is a claim based on authenticated letters (2) The claim -- one that has been discussed in academic circles for many years -- has received world-wide attention, and therefore justifies inclusion in the article (3) There is violent objection in Poland (and mirrored here) to any academic claim that Chopin was bisexual or homosexual due to the country's institionalised homophobia and Chopin's status as a national icon. This statement of fact, referred to in several articles, should also be included. (4) A number of Misplaced Pages approved news sources stating the claim (including The Guardian and The Times) have been provided to enable citation of the claim (5) All these sources have been dismissed by yourself and a handful of other gatekeepers using every blocking tactic in the book. You've shown you're not remotely interested in rational debate or balanced opinion, so don't insult us by trying to pretend you are. But let me give you some advice from experience. The article WILL CHANGE. It WILL mention these facts. It might not be today. It might not be this month. But it will happen. WHY? Because that change has occurred in EVERY Misplaced Pages article of similar historical gay/bisexual figures whose sexuality was previously relentlessly erased, and fought over in endless Talk battles like this. I could list them, but the articles are endless. All the energy you're expending to stop the tide of change is for NOUGHT. So instead of having a brain freeze, and trying to hammer up a wall, you can save yourself a lot of stress by conceding a sentence or two now. In any case, without question, with five years the article will contain far more than that on the matter. There's too many gay people demanding their history be recognised, and you, and your fellow blockers, are on the wrong side of history. Lastly, this CNN article provides an excellent summary of the issues, and would be a very good citation. A further important point that Weber stresses, and should be included, is his claim that Chopin's male relationships impacted on his music, and this has been underplayed or erased. 2001:8003:5309:BA00:70DE:C289:77DD:6C6 (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Nothing new here relevant to the article. It's interesting that the story seems to be engendering a rumpus in Poland, and it might be appropriate to say something about this row in, e.g. LGBT history in Poland. But no amount of blustering should substitute for sourced evidence as far as this article is concerned. I've already placed a comment on the story in the article, (see here), which has been reverted by another editor. I'm happy if there is consensus to put it up again. --Smerus (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

At this point, we need either a stick-drop or an RfC. I agree with Smerus, this may be relevant to content relating to Poland and the history of identity politics there, but there's no consensus here and we should move on. SPECIFICO talk 17:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I've just seen this today, so excuse me for dropping in like this.

1. Jeffrey Kallberg's Chopin at the Boundaries: Sex, History, and Musical Genre (1996) has a long discussion of Chopin, that I leave to people adept and patient enough in this style of prose to read.
2. Tad Szulc's Chopin in Paris (1999) gives some carnal quotes from Chopin's letters to Woyciechowski, then claims that they're nothing more than "romance by correspondence"; while his lack of pursuit of Gładkowska he explains as "fear of commitment".
3. Thomas et al., Queering the Pitch (2006) states that: "Composers like Handel and Schubert, even the effeminized Chopin, are still assumed to be stable entities, and scholarship about them continues to assume the default position of sexual orientation until such time as documentation is discovered that equals Casanova's bursting in on Winckelmann while the distinguished classical scholar was putting Greek Love to the practical test in his Rome apartment. The literature about these bachelor composers reveals, however, a constant embarrassment or evasion that supports the point about an ingrained homophobia in music scholarship... More nuanced studies of the circumstances of all these composers may link them to patterns of same-sex love or desire that have been discerned among the literary figures of the age."
4. Vuksanović et al., Creativity and destinies of some homosexual composers (2014) mentions that the meaning of Chopin's letters is still debated.

This, along with the other sources presented, is enough to substantiate a statement on Chopin's sexuality still being a topic of active discussion. François Robere (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

As the statement above says, "There is a tendency in modern society to try and "discover" LGBT people in history, and this is sometimes more a matter of fiction than fact. This seems to be an example." I would be willing to accept a sentence saying "Chopin's sexuality still being a topic of active discussion" mainly because "the meaning of Chopin's letters is still debated..." but mainly for the purpose of quenching this discussion which will continue so long as people find that radio show and start editing without looking at this talk page discussion. Since there have been publications of some of Chopin's letters in the past, I'd be willing to accept a paragraph of the various publications of Chopin's letters (including criticism of Maurice Brown's edition), followed by a statement like the one I suggest above (suggested by Robere). - kosboot (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

As I have demonstrated in the foregoing discussions, many statements in the press, such as The Guardian (for example, the alleged significance of the fact that the Polish word "ideał", meaning "a person of one's dreams", is a male-gender noun – for crying out loud, there is no female-gender equivalent in Polish !), have been based on stupid misinterpretations of Chopin's long, breathless, chatty, ambiguous letters (not made easier to read by his failure to split them into paragraphs) and on ignorance of Polish 19th-, 20th-, and 21st-century cultural practices, such as that of males kissing one another (a practice also among the French and other Europeans).

I am still waiting for someone to provide me a link to Chopin's letter with the alleged reference to a "dirty dream".

Nihil novi (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I submit that adding, to the article, unsubstantiated allegations of Chopin's homosexuality would be an instance of fake news.

Is Misplaced Pages now to become a subsidiary of Twitter?

Nihil novi (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Editor, The Guardian: At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

Nihil novi (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The letter about the dream and Chopin rubbing himself with byzanthine oils for Tytus to kiss him is the one from 4.9.1830. In the translation by David Frick (NIFC, 2016) its on pages 174f. --Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 08:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the link.

If someone (David Frick?) has translated Chopin's expression as "dirty dream", this is surely a mistranslation.

Just before putting his signature to this letter to Tytus Woyciechowski, Chopin writes: "Today you will dream you are kissing me. I have to pay you back for the terrible dream you brought me this night."

Care in translating is important. Serious conflicts have been triggered by inaccurate translations.

Again, as to men innocently kissing men, Admiral Horatio Nelson, as he lay dying only 25 years earlier, said, "Kiss me, Hardy" – which, Hardy did, first on the cheek, then on the forehead.

Nihil novi (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

"Care in translating is important", so true and totally right, Nihil novi. But there is more than one possibility to translate the adjective "szkaradny", even more if we consider is it ancient polish, and it was written at times were (self)-censorship was common.

But it is even more important to translate pronouns and verb-forms carefully and in the right gender, and not to swap male pronouns to female ones or add dozens of female pronouns. This actually is a severe and tendentious mistake. --Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

None of your alternative senses for "szkaradny" support the "dirty dream" rendering.

Please provide English translations for your German-language references.

Nihil novi (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nihil novi: You may want to use different terminology in the future, as both "allege" and "indecent" suggest impropriety, and there's nothing improper in suggesting some historical figure may have been homosexual. François Robere (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

By way of clarification, my exhortation to The Guardian was actually a quotation, minus quotation marks, of Joseph N. Welch's admonition in 1954 to Senator Joseph McCarthy.

Nihil novi (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

For persecuting Welch's aide, Fred Fisher. I don't think the Guardian, or anyone else, is persecuting Chopin. François Robere (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

A couple more sources:

• Margaret Tilly's The Psychoanalytical Approach To The Masculine And Feminine Principles In Music (1947) mention of his sexual orientation shows that this is not a new question.
• Antoni Pizzá's La vida sexual de Chopin (2010) contains all sorts of anecdotes on Chopin's sexuality as directed both towards men and women.

François Robere (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Even a slight bit of searching reveals that neither Tilly nor Pizza are professional musicologists. - kosboot (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Pizzá is the Director of the Foundation for Iberian Music at CUNY; Tilly was a concert pianist and Head of Music Therapy at Langley Porter. François Robere (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

A new attempt at consensus

Thank you François Robere for your helpful and interesting comments. I was going to give all this a rest, but I am now moved to seek yet again a worthwhile consensus on this issue.

Let me start with the following points:

• 1) Discussion about Chopin's sexuality is not fake news. It has been discussed by numerous of his biographers and scholars, with varying conclusions; these include Kallberg, Walker, Szulc, etc. These discussions go back over more than twenty years, at least.
• 2) There is no documented evidence that Chopin was a practising homosexual; opinions are based on interpretations of his letters. There is however evidence of his heterosexual involvement with or attraction to various females.
• 3) Opinion about Chopin's sexuality polarizes two groups in contemporary opinion, both of which qualify as non-WP:NPOV:

• 3a) Those who wish to claim him as a gay icon, including, e.g. Thomas et al., Queering the Pitch, and User:2001:8003:5309:BA00:70DE:C289:77DD:6C6
• 3b) Those who wish aggressively to refute any such suggestions, e.g. the present Polish government.

• 4) In the present state of opinion, there is pressure from 'identity politics' to realign many icons of the past as members of 'repressed' groups, especially after media coverage of such suggestions (see e.g. the recent attempt on WP to reclassify Beethoven as black). The media coverage of such initiatives is not however in itself 'evidence' of anything but the wish of the media to enhance audiences, and is not in itself appropriate as a WP source evidencing the underlying issue.
• 5) I am not aware of any evidence that Chopin's sexuality is manifested in any way in his music, or that his homosexuality, if it in fact existed, was a significant element in his life story - but maybe if anyone has such information they could let us know. In the absence of such information any overemphasis in the article on his sexuality would be WP:UNDUE.
• 6) In editing Misplaced Pages, claims require specific evidence. The resulting articles should offer a neutral point of view and offer reliable sources.
• 7) This is an FA article and we have a responsibility to ensure that it fully reflects responsible discussion on its subject.

In these circumstances, I believe it is entirely appropriate to include a paragraph on the debate over Chopin's sexuality, and indeed I believe it would be "non-neutral" not to include such a reference. The reference should mention the reputable scholars in 1) above and summarize their opinions. It would not go into the minutiae of discussing interpretations of individual Polish phrases and grammar (although it could reasonably cite one or two of the phrases concerned in English translation from a reputable source). It should mention as a subsidiary issue that a journalist's radio talk on the issue in 2020 led to media comment on the matter.

If we can find consensus on this, I will draft such a paragraph. If and as in the course of time the disucssion moves on - by the discovery of additional evidence - that paragraph can always be edited or updated.Smerus (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Chip-chip-2020 (new as of 15 Nov 2020) has reverted my revert and includes a paragraph about "Chopin's homosexuality" whose main source is the radio documentary. I don't want to get into an edit war so perhaps someone else can deal with this. - kosboot (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

to point 2: No written evidence for the alleged „love“ or „attraction“ or „engagement“ to Gladkowska or Wodzinska, as confirmend by the Chopin Institute Warsaw.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 08:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kosboot: and @Chip-chip-2020: - One point is to get WP:CONSENSUS on this page before we alter the article. Another point is not to take as incontrovertibly "true" the comments of a not very well informed Swiss radio programme; there is in fact plenty of 'evidence' about Gladowska and Wodzinska which is at least of the same level of 'reliability' as 'evidence' of Chopin's homosexuality. This is not about WP:OR or WP:IDONTLIKE (or indeed about WP:ILIKE). It's about basing information in this article on reliable secondary sources. That means biographies and academic studies, not third hand reports in the Times, Norman Lebrecht, etc. And please User:Chip-chip-2020 take a look at my point 5) above: it's just WP:UNDUE to seek to 'prove' (or 'disprove') in this article in any detail elements of Chopin's sex-life; any more than it would be to 'prove' his favourite food, flower or fashion tastes. As it happens his sex-life has given rise to (scholarly) debate - we can report that debate and give references, and keep a WP:NPOV.

In the meantime I have reverted the article to its status before this discussion commenced. I ask all editors to accept WP discussion and consensus as the route to finding an appropriate resolution. ---Smerus (talk) 10:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• (ec) Supporting the gist of Smerus's approach. Meaning, as far as I'm concerned there's no dibs on "who" writes the summary, whoever gets the work done is OK for me. The current (that is, at the time I started writing this) summary still relies too heavily on the Swiss radio show, while that show is not the first, nor the most solid, secondary source on the topic. I looked at the radio station's similar programme on Schubert (which I have read a bit more about), and I can say that for certain in Schubert's case the Swiss radio station's approach is very one-sided (basicly ignoring counter-arguments): whether or not there is a ploy to muffle claims of homosexuality for these composers wanders in the domain of conspiration theories which is about the last approach we need to give a NPOV summary of what reliable sources say on the topic. Anyway, the added images are also OK for me, and are a useful addition irrespective of how elaborate the homosexuality sentence(s) or paragraph(s) is (or are) going to be. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
• Another thing I've been wanting to mention browsing through all the above is m:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles – please get acquainted with the gist of that page, that is, apart from its comic relief dimension, which may also be welcome seeing all the above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Smerus and Kosboot: Suggesting the following "skeleton" per both your comments:

A 2020 documentary aired by SRF raised the question of Chopin's sexuality.(Guardian) Some of Chopin's correspondence with male friends contain homoerotic statements, which have been interpreted as evidence of romantic attraction,(Mortiz) while his music and demeanour have been seen by some as queer.(Kallberg, Thomas) Other scholars, however, state that these were typical of the times and are not indicative of romantic or sexual attraction, and that his attraction towards women, while lacking in written documentation, was real.(Walker, Szulc) The question remains unsettled.(Vuksanović et al.)

François Robere (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

As I intimated above, imho the "SRF" part should be dropped, per Smerus's #1 above (more in particular: "... It has been discussed by numerous of his biographers and scholars ...") – I don't think referring the initial announcement of the topic to a 2020 radio show is anything near acceptable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Second this, the Swiss company is neither high quality nor reliable (for a claim such as this, at least imo). As I said earlier, we need to seriously favor academic sources for this issue. Aza24 (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Here's a New York Times article that talks about Chopin's "... homosexual affair" and was published two years before the SRF documentary was aired: "An Ingenious Frédéric Chopin" by music critic Corinna da Fonseca-Wollheim. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why people are talking about translations of Chopin's letters: As primary sources, they are subject to WP:PRIMARY of which I'll quote the first sentence:

Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

So making your own translations of Chopin are useless because they can't be used in Misplaced Pages. Secondly, as I mentioned above, Chopin has been the subject of continuing research for nearly 200 years. I strongly feel that anything less than musicological writing should not be given credence, whether from the New York Times or SRF. The sources should be reliable, meaning from peer-reviewed journals (only) or books (which will be generally academic). I can't examine the sources mentioned above until Tuesday but I'll have a look then. - kosboot (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally, the New York Times review of Alan Walker's book seems to include an erroneous quotation from Chopin's 1830-09-04 letter to Tytus Woyciechowski: “Today you will dream that you are embracing me! You have to pay for the nightmare you caused me last night!” The original Polish says nothing about an "embrace", only a "dream", thus: "Today you will dream you are kissing me. I have to pay you back for the terrible dream you brought me this night."

Nihil novi (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment (ec) The same sourcing problem applied to the article on Franz Schubert, where the discussions/debate on sexuality arose around 1989: often the word "otherness" has been used in that context. I don't think the Swiss opinion piece is particularly illuminating. On the other hand, the detailed article "Small fairy voices: sex, history and meaning in Chopin" by Jeffrey Kallberg in Volume 2 of Chopin Studies 2 (CUP, 2006) seems very good. Kallberg uses the word "otherwordly" in this context. Concerning translations, like Schumann writing about Schubert, English translations have often been made by professional academics. More generally there are plenty of experts on Chopin in the UK, many of whom have gravitated to Cambridge (Rink, Rowland, etc). CUP core material on Chopin is often available on-line, subject to having a subscription. I hope this helps. Mathsci (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

By all means, let us give special weight to the views of those who have done extensive research. Often, those are academics.

But let us not be uncritically cowed by academic chairs. I can give examples of academics whose translation skills, and even basic English-language skills, have shown weaknesses. The above New York Times article's faulty translation was presumably quoted from Alan Walker or another academic.

Nihil novi (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The use of press opinion pieces is not acceptable for writing nuanced content about Chopin's sexuality. The peer-reviewed article of Kallberg is an excellent source, extremely nuanced. There is also this 2019 article by Robert Fisk, Emeritus Professor of Music at Wellesley College: "Endangered Tenderness: Schubert, Chopin, and Schumann." It gives a personal perspective, matching with that of Philip Brett, whom Fisk quotes. The request on the talk page of WikiProject Classical Music described the paucity of topics on this particular topic. A greater effort to find peer-reviewed material is required. Alan Walker's book was written very recently, as a nonagenerian not in his prime: it is still obviously a secondary scource, even if Liszt was his forte. Mathsci (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

There is also Kallberg's 1996 book,"Chopin at the Boundaries: Sex, History, and Musical Genre", Harvard University Press. (Sections of Kallberg's book have subsequently been reprinted elsewhere.) Mathsci (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

There's also Knyt, Erinn E. (2017). "Ferruccio Busoni and the "Halfness" of Frédéric Chopin". Journal of Musicology. 34 (2): 241–280. doi:10.1525/jm.2017.34.02.241. etc, etc. Mathsci (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Now some of what's written above makes me curious. Is it OR to translate Chopin's letters from Polish? If so, wouldn't that mean that his letters are acceptable primary sources for pl.wp but not en.wp? What would one do then for a topic that is obviously notable for en.wp, but for which the best sources are in a foreign language, and for which we have reason to believe that the translations available are faulty? Is it out of bounds to refer to the original sources just because a Wikipedian who knows the foreign language has to translate it by him/herself? All that just seems weird to me.

But I'm pretty sure that's also not the case: WP:TRANSCRIPTION explicitly says Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research. For information on how to handle sources that require translation, see WP:Verifiability § Non-English sources.

In any case, what Nihil novi says above regarding translations is not unheard of. Mozart's letters have often been translated badly too! Double sharp (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Double sharp! You make the point more elegantly than I could have.

The links that you provide, to "Translations and transcriptions" and to other advice, exactly describe how experienced and conscientious Misplaced Pages editors in fact proceed when they cite or encounter quoted text in a non-English language with which they are conversant: they provide an English translation – inline, in a footnote, or on the talk page.

Nihil novi (talk) 06:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Returning to Fonseca-Wollheim's 2018 NYT article:
  • In 2018, musicologist Alan Walker published a Chopin biography, titled Fryderyk Chopin: A Life and Times.
  • On 19 November 2018, the New York Times publishes music critic's Fonseca-Wollheim's book review on that biography.
  • The New York Times is, per WP:RSP, a generally reliable source for Misplaced Pages's purposes – the only caveat possibly applicable to the case is, as far as I can see, WP:RSOPINION regarding opinions (e.g. whether Fonseca-Wollheim thinks Walker's book is written "brilliantly" or not), which would need a WP:INTEXT attribution.
  • The NYT article quotes from Chopin's letters, in English translation. No OR whatsoever is involved when using such quotes in a Misplaced Pages article (the importance of these quotes is confirmed by multiple secondary sources).
  • A 21st-century musicologist writing about sexuality in the first half of the 19th century is by definition writing outside their actual field of expertise (that field of expertise being music, not sexuality). So no, musicologists are not by definition the only reliable sources for Chopin's possible heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, asexuality, or whatever other -sexuality.

The above points to clarify that, as far as I'm concerned, Fonseca-Wollheim's 2018 NYT article can be used as a reliable source in Misplaced Pages's article on Chopin (but it is, of course, far from the only source in that respect), and that I would also support, because several reliable secondary sources do so, inclusion of one or two quotes from Chopin's letters to Tytus Woyciechowski. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• As for the quote from Chopin's letter of 4 September 1830, I suppose it could be presented more or less like this:

The footnoted references on the translation side are for variant translations, in German and English, of parts of the quote. I suppose the proposed translation may be improved, and/or may at least be checked by volunteers listed at Misplaced Pages:Translators available#Polish-to-English. For applicable policy, see WP:V#Quoting, which includes "... Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. ... If needed, ask an editor who can translate it for you. ... In articles, the original text is usually included with the translated text when translated by Wikipedians, and the translating editor is usually not cited. When quoting any material, whether in English or in some other language, be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline." --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, we are getting a long way away from the point here. Let's say (for the sake of this comment) that Francis's translation is accurate. It still gives us no evidence about Chopin's sexuality. He might just have been taking the piss out of Woyciechowski, or indeed making fun of his perception of Woyciechowski's sexuality. (We do know for example, that Chopin enjoyed crude jokes, as his account of his night out at the vaudeville with Alkan demonstrates). Or, of course, he might not - but none of us know. This is why it would be a mistake for us to seek to be experts and reprint large tracts of the correspondence in the article as 'evidence' one way or the other. Instead, as I have said above, we should relate the opinions of reliable secondary sources on the correspondence, give citations, and let those who are interested read further accordingly.--Smerus (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

As you offered to do so, I was waiting for your summary based on secondary sources (and trying to keep myself occupied usefully in the mean while). You asked support for an approach, and I think support for the approach you proposed, including mine, has been broad enough to get on with it. I mean, a more formal approval of your approach (if that is what you were waiting for) will likely not be forthcoming in the kind of discussion we're having now (which is less formal than e.g. an RfC or some such more structured discussion). If this wasn't clear yet, I think what we need most now is a summary based on scholarly sources. By now I've read about half of the sources you and François Robere suggested, so might propose my own summary of these sources soon. Anyway, thanks for your proposal which really looks like a useful way out for the wide variety of input added to this section thus far. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I want to endorse Smerus's opinion on reprinting letters. These are not documents that one can read at face value. To be in a Misplaced Pages article (which, except for small quotes, I think is probably inappropriate), I think one would need a lot of apparatus to contextualize what is being said—contextualization that would require a scholarly article in itself. Putting up a letter without context pretty much allows anyone to invent theories about anything mentioned or not mentioned in the letter. - kosboot (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Amen. Chopin's letters that I have read are written elliptically, ambiguously, almost in codes that only the addressee is likely to understand.

Nihil novi (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, contextualising is necessary, that is to say, the contextualising offered by reliable secondary sources. If these sources quote from the letters, there's no reason why Misplaced Pages shouldn't. What is not necessary is Misplaced Pages editors steering Misplaced Pages readers' thoughts. So if multiple interpretations are possible, and that seems to be what secondary sources are saying, then it is not up to Misplaced Pages to suggest that only one interpretation is correct or whatever. Misplaced Pages summarizes various reliable sources, presents the gist of their content in a NPOV way, illustrates that with quotes and images, and after that it is up to reader to do with it whatever they like, including, but certainly not limited to, inventing new theories (as in: theories that neither belong in Misplaced Pages, nor have been published elsewhere before). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Walker

Attempting a summary of material from Walker's 2018 biography:

After explaining the difficulty of translating 19th-century Polish to 21st-century English—the same Polish phrase could as well be rendered as "give me your lips, beloved" and as "let me embrace you, dearest friend"—biographer Alan Walker quotes this passage, which he considers linguistically less challenging, from one of Chopin's letters to Tytus Woyciechowski:

According to Walker, the passage is undeniably erotic, but, inasmuch as this and other passages in Chopin's letters to Woyciechowski could be perceived as homosexual in nature, they would not denote more than a passing phase in Chopin's life. Chopin wrote this some time before leaving Poland: <see continuation of proposal in next subsection>

The quote is one of several quotes from Chopin's letters to Woyciechowski in Walker's biography, and exactly the same which I translated above. I chose it while, according to Walker, it is one of the less problematic ones in translation. Sorry Nihil novi that you found fault with the translation of this text above, but it is as it is, according to Misplaced Pages policy published translations are preferable over ones made by Misplaced Pages editors. For me, this one quote would suffice, meaning that when also the other authors are summarized on the subject (Kallberg, Szulc, Vuksanović, ...) no other quotes will likely needed to be added to these summaries either. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Certainly, Francis Schonken – better to cite a faulty published translation than a more correct, previously unpublished one.

Chopin's "całowac", in its several grammatical variants here, is "to kiss", not Walker's "to embrace" (which in Polish would have been "objąć").

I must here compliment you on your superior command of Polish, in translating Chopin's expression correctly as "to kiss".

If Chopin had meant "nightmare", as Walker has it, he would have used the unequivocal Polish word "koszmar" (borrowed, incidentally, from the French "cauchemar") rather than his ambiguous expression, "szkaradny sen".

But at least Walker has gotten us away from the "dirty dream" that someone originally offered us for "szkaradny sen", and which you have rendered above as "scary dream".

I hope that, having here given us one of Chopin's "less problematic" epistolary quotations, you will favor us with some of his more problematic ones.

Thank you.

Nihil novi (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

P.S. A Polish friend suggests rendering Chopin's expression "szkaradny sen" as "bad dream". Strikes me as one of the more plausible and straightforward interpretations.

Nihil novi (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm quite indifferent which translation is used: the reactions to my own translation seemed less than encouraging at first ("I am not myself sure that ", etc). Expanding my suggestion above: we could leave that to Polish-to-English translation volunteers. I'd include some of the secondary sources' criticism of Walker's translations anyhow, but we're not there yet. I mean: my next step would be summarizing Kallberg material (see next subsection), which is still a few steps away from summarizing post-SRF content, and doing this step by step would anyhow mean that a final revision of the combined summaries would eventually be needed (by which time it can be decided which translation, if any, is used). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

In connection with Alan Walker's above translation of Chopin's 4 September 1830 letter to Tytus Woyciechowski, Francis Schonken points out that "Chopin wrote this some time before leaving Poland". By way of context, Chopin left Warsaw forever, in the company of Woyciechowski, on 2 November 1830; and the November Uprising broke out on 19 November 1830.

All three of Chopin's letters to Woyciechowski which have been brought to my attention (letters of 3 October 1829, 15 May 1830, and 4 September 1830) were written to Woyciechowski at his estate in the village of Poturzyn in present-day Lublin Province, some 300 kilometers southeast of Warsaw, near Poland's present border with Ukraine.

So these were not billets-doux written by Chopin to a Woyciechowski still staying at the Chopin family's Warsaw room-and-board for teen-age male secondary-school pupils, but letters to a friend whom Chopin missed. The brief more extravagant passages in Chopin's letters to him might conceivably reflect this.

Nihil novi (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Kallberg

Continuation of the proposal I started in the #Walker subsection above, this part summarizing content from the Kallberg sources:

Jeffrey Kallberg, a professor of music who has specialised in gender studies, describes how Chopin was perceived from a few years after his arrival in Paris in 1831 until well into the 20th century. According to Kallberg, Chopin's contemporaries saw him as hermaphrodite or sodomite. Kallberg uses this terminology in its contemperaneous meaning, that is, several decades before a more modern terminology developed. One of the examples mentioned by Kallberg is George Sand's daughter Solange referring to Chopin as Sans-sexe (lit. 'Sexless').

I see no significant differences between Kallberg's 1994/2006 article and his 1996 chapter: I kept references to both, because of the fickleness of google books to show some linked pages, and others not (hoping that at least one of the linked versions would show up for most users). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks Francis for this. But it raises further problems. Kallberg is an author whom I greatly admire and his comments on the 'sex' of Chopin's compositions is valuable and thought-provoking. But the cites you give are not straightforward. On p. 77 Kallberg writes "we cannot hope to experience images of Chopin as hermaphrodite or sodomite as his contemporaries did." But one needs to read Kallberg's essay as whole to understand that Kallberg is not in fact saying that Chopin's contemporaries saw him as 'homosexual' (and indeed Kallberg goes into some detail on the differences in conception of homosexuality in the 1830s and 1840s to today) - more, on my reading, that their interpretations of his music (as espressed by critics' 'genderization' of forms such as the nocturne etc.) gave rise to "images of Chopin as hermaphrodite or sodomite" etc. Specifically, Kallberg is not saying here, as you paraphrase him, that "Chopin's contemporaries saw him as hermaphrodite or sodomite." This is where we get into deep waters, beyond our encyclopaedic remit, in seeking to interpret sources. We should avoid putting such words in Kallberg's mouth, although his allusive prose style, ingeniously, promotes a spectrum of interpretations. We can say that Kallberg seeks to elucidate the context in which Chopin's sexuality may have been viewed by his contemporaries, both as regards his behaviour and by analogy to supposedly 'feminine' traits in his music. We do indeed have some suggestions by contemporaries that he was asexual; but in fact nothing that supports your rephrasing of Kallberg, that he was generally thought of as "hermaphrodite or sodomite" . --Smerus (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Smerus: I'd really like to invite you to write a better summary, irrespective of whether you see anything worth salvaging from my first go at it above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• I will sleep on it, hopefully with less disturbing dreams than Chopin's, and try tomorrow.--Smerus (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

À propos, I repeat my earlier postscript (with a view to giving it more exposure):

A Polish friend suggests rendering Chopin's expression "szkaradny sen" as "bad dream". Strikes me as one of the more plausible and straightforward interpretations.

Nihil novi (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Vuksanović et al.

Proposed summary of the 2014 psychiatric journal article:

According to a 2014 article in Archives of Psychiatry Research, the jury is still out on whether Chopin was homosexual.

I find the history side of the article rather weak (comparing to what I said about SRF's broadcast on Schubert, I think this article doesn't do better on this composer, e.g. keeping to "typhoid fever" as cause of death, which is no longer mainstream for several decades). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

This strikes me increasingly as a silly coatrack that's quite beside the point of this article. SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

An incredibly trivial outing by the "Croatian physicians' music society (CMA)" (sic). Scarecely a credible heavyweight authority.--Smerus (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

SRF broadcast and its wake

This, or something like it, could possibly be the concluding lines of the summaries of reliable sources on Chopin's sexuality:

A 2020 Swiss radio broadcast rattled the tree, not so much in ascribing homosexual tendencies to Chopin (which had been discussed in earlier publications), but in describing much of the earlier reports on Chopin's attraction to women as exagerrations, if not downright fabrications. There appears to be little or no concrete historical evidence of Chopin's so-called infatuation with Konstancja Gładkowska or other women, nor of his so-called bethrotal to Maria Wodzińska—which could not be contradicted by an interviewed spokesperson of the Fryderyk Chopin Institute.

(for the time being not yet incorporating my earlier idea to write something here about the flack Walker's translations got). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you imagine Grove Dictionary or Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart citing a newspaper article or a radio broadcast as a source for anything? Perhaps as a start we could decide whether to agree on only peer-reviewed literature? -- kosboot (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with that sentiment. While such a program can be mentioned as an example of the controversy around Chopin's sexuality, opening a paragraph discussing such a topic (in the biography of a historical figure on whom tons of scholarly literature are available) with reference to a 2020 radio broadcast is pure WP:RECENTISM. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, as said, I proposed this as closing lines of a paragraph, not as opening lines. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, and my apologies for missing that part. Yes, putting such information towards the close of a paragraph would be reasonable, provided the broadcast itself is deemed worthy of mention. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Re. "provided the broadcast itself is deemed worthy of mention" – if one starts to think about it... a Swiss radio broadcast gets dedicated articles in several reputable news outlets (including also The Times) – how often does that happen? Per Misplaced Pages's standards, that is the WP:GNG rules, that would mean the Swiss radio broadcast is eligible to get a stand-alone Misplaced Pages article (not that I think it should, but these are the rules). A mention in one or two sentences in the Misplaced Pages article about the topic of that broadcast does however seem a bare minimum imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

That is, of course, one factor to be considered; others include WP:1E and the aforementioned WP:RECENTISM. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Nah, WP:1E does not support your case, on the contrary (did you actually look at the guidance before linking to it?) omitting mention of the radio show: that guidance is about individuals who are known for only one event. Thus, if we were considering to write a separate article about either Moritz Weber or his 16 November 2020 radio show, the guidance is clear: "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person" – which supports creating a separate article about the radio show. The 1E guidance says nothing about a GNG-passing event in relation to a well-known person who already has a well-established separate Misplaced Pages article like Chopin, so is generally *not* a "factor to be considered" here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC) (updated in view of comment below 10:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC))

As if I had stated any such "case" in my previous comments. Please do not claim I hold views that I have neither endorsed nor distanced myself from. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

True, & sorry about misunderstanding: updated my post above. But still, you saying WP:1E being a "factor to be considered" in the context seems way too far-fetched (see my updated comment above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

(ec)I suppose Misplaced Pages often performs considerably better than Grove's. E.g. according to Grove Music Online, Ennio Morricone is still alive and kicking (). Misplaced Pages's article, on the other hand, has the correct information on the composer's death... referenced to two newspapers. Anyhow, if doubts persists on whether the above proposed article content is reliably sourced, it can be taken to WP:RSN (which, by the way, has already decided on the general reliability of some of the sources used for referencing the above proposal). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing attempts at consensus

Edits by Chip-chip-2000 on Chopin and sexuality have so far been reverted by Toccata quarta, Nihil novi, Smerus and Kosboot. No reasonable alternative content has yet been provided. From what regular editors have written, consensus is against including quotations in Polish with parallel English translations (the biography of Chopin by Alan Walker gives references to prior English translations). Regarding Jeffrey Kallberg, he is Professor of Music at the University of Pennsylvania, specialising in 19th- and 20th-century music, editorial theory, critical theory, and gender studies. In the 2017 book "Chopin and his World" published by Princeton University Press, Kallberg's contribution is entitled "Chopin and Jews". That sensitive material is again probably WP:UNDUE for the current general article on Frédéric Chopin, but shows how careful editors have to be. Mathsci (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

In general, consensus is leaning towards acknowledging the existence of controversy surrounding Chopin's sexuality (and I'm personally in favor of that). What sources to cite, what weight to give various scholars, to what extent should the history of the controversy be covered in the article, whether (media) accusations of suppression of Chopin's (alleged) homosexuality should be covered in the article, whether to reproduce some of Chopin's correspondence, and how good the various translations in the scholarly literature and in media articles are, are some of the topics on which we do not have much consensus. The discussion is trying to cover a wide array of topics and would be much better handled by an RfC, in which the proponents of the various options could put forward their best arguments for what (if anything) should be added/changed in the article's coverage of the topic and Wikipedians could WP:!VOTE. The present discussion is already 100,000 bytes long and a resolution under the present format is nowhere in sight. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

(ec) For the article Franz Schubert, a neutral paragraph was written: "In 1989 the musicologist Maynard Solomon suggested that Schubert was erotically attracted to men, a thesis that has, at times, been heatedly debated. The musicologist and Schubert expert Rita Steblin has said that he was "chasing women". The theory of Schubert's sexuality or "Schubert as Other" has continued to influence current scholarship." This approach could also be used for Chopin. Kallberg discusses Chopin's "otherworldly" nature and his ambivalent sexuality; the words "latent" and "homoerotic" have also been used. Three sentences for Schubert were sufficient in June; and I think probably no more than three or four are needed now. Perhaps it's a good idea that any RfC should be initiated by editors who have already played a major role in bringing this article to FA status, such as Smerus, Nihil nisi, JackofOz and you. Mathsci (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The edit history is clear enough for the article Frédéric Chopin. I checked the statistics. I am sorry for the interruption. Mathsci (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

My experience with RfCs is that they are rarely any good for *generating* article prose (as in: starting from a blank), that's why I'm working on article prose proposals, and inviting others to do likewise, while RfCs usually perform much better at selecting between proposals and counterproposals that are worth consideration, and/or at suggesting improved versions of such more or less coherent proposals. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I suggest making a short list of statements and the sources supporting them, and building on that. François Robere (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

But first we need to agree on what sources can be used/cited. - kosboot (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes an RfC is helpful to first determine whether anything at all should be added about this. It's not clear that would result in Yes at this point. SPECIFICO talk 18:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Kosboot that locating good sources is the first step. The articles of Antoni Pizà, Margaret Tilly and recent press opinion pieces are a bit iffy. The entry for "Sexuality, Sex" in Grove online mentions Chopin; it was written by Kallberg. Similarly "Gender and Music". Mathsci (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I propose a parallel tack: the compilation here of an anthology of Chopin's epistolary outrages, comprising the original Polish texts and variant English translations.

The shaky record of some of Chopin's translators might suggest additional criteria for evaluating his respective commentators – on the venerable principle of "garbage in, garbage out".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nihil novi (talk • contribs) 00:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

"an anthology of Chopin's epistolary outrages" seems rather something for wikiquote:Frédéric Chopin. I'd still not compile more than one or two quotes from that in the Misplaced Pages article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

And we're still limited in terms of how to evaluate the quotations ourselves due to WP:OR. François Robere (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

What you're trying to say eludes me. What should we (that is: Misplaced Pages editors) want to evaluate about quotations "ourselves"? Quotations being primary sources, the policy (i.e. WP:PRIMARY) answer to that question would be: nothing, rien, nada (quoted from policy: "Do not ... evaluate ... material found in a primary source yourself ..."). You're of course free to evaluate whatever you want yourself, but, by policy, none of that is material that can be included in Misplaced Pages. And since this talk page is not a blog either (WP:NOTBLOG policy), your personal evaluations of primary sources such as quotations don't seem very appropriate here either. So, can you please explain what it is exactly you want to achieve? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

My proposal is to go to the source material – the several brief passages in letters from Chopin that some find to be suggestive of homosexuality in him – and see how accurately they have been translated into English. Some clearly have not been accurately translated; and conclusions drawn from inaccurate translations may be dubious.

Nihil novi (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Nihil novi, that is strictly forbidden by Misplaced Pages policy, since it would be original research. Our job is to report what secondary sources say, not judge whether they are accurate or not. After all, perhaps the source knows something about 19th-century Polish that we Misplaced Pages editors do not. That's certainly very unlikely, especially since many of us here (but not I) are native Polish speakers, but it's still possible. If we evaluate the primary sources to judge the secondary sources, we're making Misplaced Pages itself into a secondary source. Gbear605 (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

We are in process (please see "source evaluation" section, below) of evaluating sources pertinent to the question of Chopin's sexual orientation. How do you propose that those sources be evaluated without taking account of how reliably they make use of their sources? - Nihil novi (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It is not for us to judge what people publish (at least on WP). See: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability,_not_truth. In our discussion here you can say that a source provides a dubious translation, but we can't say that on WP unless someone has published that opinion. We can evaluate the sources based on the reputation of the authors and the publications, remembering that this is a complex topic that ephemeral media (newspapers, radio broadcast) would not and can not cover adequately. - kosboot (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

We can evaluate secondary sources without directly using the primary sources. For instance, we might find a source that discusses the other sources, or we might find information that an author isn't reputable. We might also find internal inconsistencies. That would all be perfectly fine. What we want to avoid is saying "well, I translated the Polish and I disagree with the understanding of the source, so we shouldn't include the source." That's true regardless of whether you think the Polish says that Chopin was homosexual and the secondary source disagrees, or whether you think the Polish says that Chopin was heterosexual and the secondary source disagrees. Similarly if this were an English source, where a the meaning of a letter in English was disputed, we still shouldn't not cull the source because we disagree with the meaning of it. We would probably not present it in wiki-voice (perhaps saying "Professor John Doe interprets ..."), but we should still include it to the degree that it is due. Gbear605 (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

We're not here to write a dissertation or express what we think, or feel (or hope). We're here to present a narrative for the reader about Chopin, of matters that are not WP:UNDUE, supported by citations from sources which are reliable according to WP standards. (see my comments in the next section).--Smerus (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Source evaluation

Please add below. François Robere (talk) 11:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• Tilly, Margaret (1947). "The psychoanalytical approach to the masculine and feminine principles in music". American Journal of Psychiatry. 103 (4): 477–483. doi:10.1176/ajp.103.4.477. ISSN 0002-953X.
  • I have acquired a copy of Margaret Tilly's 6 page article on music therapy. Tilly was a concert pianist in the 1920s, performing at the Wigmore Hall. She then moved to the Bay Area in California, living in Marin County and working in San Francisco. She had contact with Carl Jung. Tilly proposed her own psychoanalytical theory dividing male composers between "Neurotic Feminine" (NF) and "Masculine" (M). The M qualities are "Form, Impersonality, Direct Approach, Drive, Rhythmic power, Sustained thought and emotion, Superior thinking, Great output of large works"; the NF qualities are "Mood, Personal approach, Indirection, Rhythm subservient to melody and harmony, Quickly shifting emotions, Love of decoration per se, Small output with small works predominating." Tilly gives three examples for each of NF (Chopin, Tchaikovsky, Liszt) and M (Bach, Handel, Beethoven). Tilly gives thumbnail sketches of the composers using sources from 1890s–1920s. About Chopin, Tilly writes, "pampered ... because he was weak and sickly. This led to an adult life of deeply dependent relationships with both men and women. He made strong projections, lasting all his life, on two men met in early youth, with homosexual relations indicated but not proved." Tilly's theories seem to be of very little value for wikipedia. It is hard to get any biographical details of Tilly. A 1920 review for a Wigmore Hall concert was not complimentary. Mathsci (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Margaret Tilly's "psychoanalytic theory" sounds like sexual stereotyping.

Nihil novi (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Kallberg, Jeffrey (1998). "Small Fairy Voices: Sex, History, and Meaning in Chopin". Chopin at the Boundaries: Sex, History, and Musical Genre. Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674127913.
  • {excellent source) Mathsci (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Seemingly the most reliable source among others mentioned, as Kallberg has been writing about Chopin for decades. - kosboot (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
• Fisk, Charles (2019). "Endangered Tenderness: Schubert, Chopin, and Schumann". In Fred Everett Maus; Sheila Whiteley (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Music and Queerness. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199793525.013.18.
  • Possible source by academic musicologist from Wellesley College. Mathsci (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Szulc, Tad (1999). Chopin In Paris: The Life And Times Of The Romantic Composer (1st Da Capo Press ed ed.). New York: Da Capo Press. ISBN 0-306-80933-8. OCLC 42289720. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Check |first= value (help)
• Queering the pitch: the new gay and lesbian musicology. Philip Brett, Elizabeth Wood, Gary C. Thomas (2nd ed ed.). New York: Routledge. 2006. ISBN 978-0-415-97883-5. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: others (link)
  • Highly-cited work (481 citations on Google Scholar). Co-author Philip Brett was a pioneer in the study of LGBTs in music. François Robere (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • But only one passing reference on page 375: "the effeminized Chopin". This is clutching at straws. Mathsci (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Pizzá, Antoni (2010). "La vida sexual de Chopin". Itamaer. Revista de investigación musical: territorios para el arte. 3. ISSN 2386-8260.
• Marina Vuksanović; Darko Breitenfeld; Branimir Krištofić; Danijel Buljan; Ivan Šimunec; Zoran Zoričić; Ankica Akrap; Marija Živković (2014). "Creativity and destinies of some homosexual composers". Alcoholism and psychiatry research: Journal on psychiatric research and addictions. 50 (1): 63–75.
• Walker, Alan (2018). Fryderyk Chopin: A Life and Times (First edition ed.). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN 978-0-374-15906-1. OCLC 1005818033. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Check |first= value (help)
  • Walker's quotation from Chopin, as given above, contains several inaccuracies which – though Walker "very much doubts" that Chopin was homosexual – nevertheless may tend to distort views about Chopin. Nihil novi (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
• Fonseca-Wollheim, Corinna da (2018-11-19). "An Ingenious Frédéric Chopin". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-12-09.
  • This is a music critic for the New York Times and has not been involved with music for much of her career. I would discount this. - kosboot (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
• Weber, Moritz (2020-11-16). "Spätes Outing - Chopin war schwul – und niemand sollte davon erfahren". SRF (in German). Retrieved 2020-12-09. (and related documentary and press coverage)
  • I object to including this item by an author whose research credentials appear to be far less than others. - kosboot (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
• You're going crazily over the top here. This is not a source list for the article 'Frederic Chopin' - to which we are talking about adding a paragraph or two to endure that the topic does not become WP:UNDUE in a biography of the composer. And what we need for WP (which is an encylopaedia, not a dissertation) for an article on Chopin is a narrative supported by citations, not transcriptions or paraphrases of cites. What you propose here is a list of sources for a WP article 'Chopin and sex' - which somebody may or may not wish to write.

All you need imo for citations, meeting WP's critera, to support a narrative in the present article are Kallberg (various works) (the most significant imo), Szulc, Walker, and, crucially (what is omitted above) an edition of Chopin's letters - I would suggest the Frick translation, which has an intro by Kallberg. Maybe Brett et al., which I haven't looked at yet . I will suggest an outline narrative later today. As for the rest - Vuksanovic et al. is a pathetic unreferenced schoolboy-style compilation which has no authority whatever - Weber's broadacast is essentially trivial, seeking to make a sensationalist point by claiming Chopin's sexuality is news and smudging over counter evidence - Pizzá ?wtf? - : the Times and Guardian comments on Weber I will reread to see if they have anything useful to say.--Smerus (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• Here by the way is the abstract of the aricle by Pizá (note spelling) -

Music historiography and popular culture have passed on an image of Chopin as a weak and asexual human being. This cliché has even left a mark on thinkers such as Sartre and his work Nausea. However, a reading of the composer’s correspondence offers an image of a human being with quite normal sexual concerns. As a young man, Chopin had a close relationship with Titus Woyciechowski, a bond considered by many as a homosexual involvement. Later on, he frequented Altolphe de Custine’s circle, an openly gay writer and aristocrat. The correspondence (possibly fraudulent) between Chopin and Delphina Potocka, which never before has been glossed in Spanish, presents a serious, if unsuccessful, attempt to heterosexualize the composer. Deep down, Chopin’s sexual life has never failed to awaken the curiosity of music lovers and to generate discourse among experts

Actually imo a reasonable summary of the situation (except that I think the Potocka correspondence is definitely fraudulent).--Smerus (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Pizà uses Nigel Cawthorne's "The Sex Lives of the Great Composers" as a source. Similar to The Daily Mail. Mathsci (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

1. I agree with Smerus's comment above. The standard of evidence that's been suggested here rivals that of WP:BLP. I suspect in the end there'll be consensus to include the major biographies and other highly-cited works, and we'll be back at a compromise more or less like that I suggested earlier.
2. One thing that's been overlooked here is the fact that the biographers (particularly Walker and Szulc) are no more qualified to determine that Chopin's feelings have been "twisted" or "transferred" (the first being a disturbing, but suggestive choice of words), than the psychiatrists are to interpret his letters - written in 19th century Polish - as displays of romantic affection. Both are out of their field in making this assessments.
3. But the reason they do is spelled out by Brett and Wood, and should be noted - at least in this forum: trying to heteronormalize Chopin and his associates, sometimes clumsily.
4. Moritz as a source may be questioned by some (though I do encourage everyone to take a look at the SRF piece), but there is something we should take from it: the admission by Fryderyk Chopin Institute spokesperson Aleksander Laskowski that there's no direct evidence that he was ever involved with either Maria Wodzińska or Konstancja Gładkowska, romances which the current text claims in Wikivoice.
5. Which brings us back to a simple compromise stating what the question is and what answers have been given, without judging one way or the other. François Robere (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Could you please give us an English translation of the German-language SRF piece – or would that constitute original research?

Nihil novi (talk) 06:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nihil novi: François Robere (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, many thanks for the Web Translator English rendering, which provides a rough gist of the German text.

As generally with machine translations, of course, it leaves a little to the imagination. – "Grzyma'a is also friends with George Sand and for her the grief box."

But it's a start.

Nihil novi (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

LOL It does. We can try a more accurate translation on select passages.

There are several interesting parts there: the various quotes, Laskowski's statement, and the list of supposed male lovers; if nothing more, a basis for further research. François Robere (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Translations of Chopin's letters

There are three main collections of Chopin's letters translated in English:

• Chopin's Letters (1931).
  • Based on Henryk Opieński's collection
  • Translations by Ethel Voynich
• Selected Correspondence of Fryderyk Chopin (1962).
  • Based on Bronisław Edward Sydow's collection
  • Translations by Arthur Hedley
• Chopin's Polish Letters (2016). ISBN 9788364823190.
  • Published by the Fryderyk Chopin Institute.
  • Translations by David Frick

A 2017 review comparing these translations was written by Barbara Milewski of Swarthmore College, and is available here or here.

A listing of the letters, and their editions (that is, up to c. 2010) can be found here – that is pp. 43ff of Frédéric Chopin: A Research and Information Guide by William Smialek and Maja Trochimczyk (2nd edition: 2015). ISBN 9781135839048

For clarity, the translations in Walker's 2018 Chopin biography, e.g. pp. 108ff, are *not* taken from any of these previously published collections. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Problematic passage

From the last paragraph of the Frédéric Chopin#Education section:

was also attracted to the singing student Konstancja Gładkowska. In letters to Woyciechowski, he indicated which of his works, and even which of their passages, were influenced by his fascination with her; his letter of 15 May 1830 revealed that the slow movement (Larghetto) of his Piano Concerto No. 1 (in E minor) was secretly dedicated to her – "It should be like dreaming in beautiful springtime – by moonlight."

The "Zamoyski (2010)" footnote refers to:

Zamoyski, Adam (2010). Chopin: Prince of the Romantics. London: HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-00-735182-4 (e-book edition).

For clarity: I have no access to the "Zamoyski (2010)" source. Issues that need resolving:

• The issue mentioned in François Robere's 4th point above;
• Another quite annoying point is that there appears to be a confusion between Chopin's letter of 3 October 1829 (which speaks about a dedication, however without naming any dedicatee, and about the slow movement of the Op. 21 piano concerto) and his letter of 15 May 1830, which mentions no dedication nor a fascination for an unnamed person, and even less a name of a dedicatee, and speaks about the slow movement of the Op. 11 piano concerto. For clarity: neither letter mentions Konstancja Gładkowska's name, but it is the first of these letters (the 3 October 1829 one) which according to Walker is the evidence that the slow movement of the Op. 21 concerto (not of the Op. 11 concerto) was dedicated to her (). Someone got the letters (with or without dedication suggestion) and concertos (1st and 2nd) mixed up. Since I have no access to Zamoyski (2010) I can not check whether that is what that author (apparently erroneously) assumes, or whether this is a cock-up that happened at Misplaced Pages side.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe something like this:

Early October 1829 Chopin wrote to Woyciechowski about a young and pretty pianist, named Blahetka, in whom he was not interested, while:

The "adagio" is the second movement (Larghetto) of his Piano Concerto Op. 21, and the "little waltz" is his Op. posth. 70, No. 3, in D-flat major. Chopin did not clarify whom his "ideal" was: other translators, such as Arthur Hedley (1962) and David Frick (2016), assume he wrote about a woman, which dovetails with biographers usually assuming that Konstancja Gładkowska was meant.

? --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Something on these lines, possibly. I don't yet have all the references, and don't have access to all of Kallberg's essays: I'm away from my own library at the moment and access to the BL or university libraries is not on these days. But here's an attempt to cover the issues - references just in brackets, or in square brackets where they need to be filled in. I believe that it is also neutral, physically proportionate to the length of the article, and covers the essential issues.

===Gender and sexuality in music and life===

The American musicologist Antoni Pizá notes that “Chopin’s sexual life has never failed to awaken the curiosity of music lovers and to generate discourse among experts” (Pizá, (2010)). In Chopin’s own time, as the music historian Jeffrey Kallberg has noted, “listeners to the genre of the piano nocturne often couched their reactions in feminine imagery” and he cites many examples of such reactions to the nocturnes of Chopin (Kallberg (2010), “The Harmony of the Tea Table: Gender and Ideology in the Piano Nocturne”, ‘’Representations ‘’, No. 39 (Summer, 1992), pp. 102-133, pp. 104- 6). One reason for this may be ‘demographic’ – there were more female than male piano players than men, and playing such ‘romantic’ pieces was seen by male critics as a female domestic pastime. Such genderization was not commonly applied to other piano genres such as the scherzo or the polonaise. (Kallberg (2010), pp. 106-107). “To be associated with the feminine was also often to be devalorized” (Kallberg (2010), p. 110), and such associations of Chopin’s music with the ‘feminine’ did not begin to shift until the early twentieth century when pianists such as Artur Rubinstein began to militate against sentimental ‘salon’ style of playing these works and musical analysis of a more rigorous nature (such as that of Heinrich Schenker) began to assert itself. (Kallberg (2010), pp. 111-112).

Such attitudes may also have influenced opinion about the composer’s sexuality, although debate about this only began to expand towards the end of the 20th century. Evidence relating to Chopin’s sexuality dating from the composer’s lifetime and considered by his biographers and music historians has been based on his correspondence, particularly some letters to Woyciechowski , his association with de Custine, and the comments of some of his contemporaries on his ‘asexuality’. . The Woyciechowski correspondence is ambiguous; although, with its erotic references to dreams and offered kisses and embraces it is not itself evidence of homoerotic activity by the composer, Chopin’s biographer Alan Walker considers that, inasmuch as this and other passages in Chopin's letters to Woyciechowski could be perceived as homosexual in nature, they would not denote more than a passing phase in Chopin's life. (Walker (2018), pp. 208-10). It is also clear that Chopin’s relationship with George Sand offers no evidence of being intensely (or even casually) physical; Sand’s stepdaughter is recorded as calling Chopin ‘sexless’. . Debate provoked by a Swiss radio broadcast in 2020 alleging (despite longstanding scholarly debate on the topic) that Chopin’s homosexuality had been ‘airbrushed’ (Weber (2020)) gave rise to differing opinions amongst the laity, notably in Poland, where such ideas have not obtained currency to date; nationalists were upset, although the Polish LBGT activist Bart Staszewski wrote “"Let's say it openly. Yes, Chopin was at least bisexual." A spokesman for the Chopin Institute commented "Because Chopin was rather discreet about revealing his intimate life even to his closest friends, it is difficult to build theories about this aspect of his life."(Picheta (CNN) 29 November 2020).

Smerus (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The 2010 ebook "Chopin: Prince of Romantics" by Adam Zamoyski has already been used many times in the article. Chapter 4, "Adolescent Passions", describes in detail the friendship with Tytus. The passage is translated there as:

"I must go now and wash. So don’t embrace me now, as I haven’t washed myself yet. – You? If I anointed myself with fragrant oils from the East, – you wouldn’t embrace me, not unless I forced you to by magnetic means. But there are forces in Nature, and tonight you will dream that you are embracing me. – I have to pay you back for the nightmare you caused me last night!"

Zamoyski explains the context quite carefully, so that avoids the use of primary sources. The quote is prefaced by,

"These letters ... are freely strewn with declarations of love and affinity, and contain passages of extraordinary sensuality. This has prompted some to conclude that the two young men were or had been lovers. On the face of it, the equivocal references ... make this appear plausible. Chopin signs ... with ... jumble of childishness and coy eroticism"

and followed by

"Taken out of context, this may appear a little risqué, as might the endless kisses sent and demanded ... But these expressions were ... common currency in Polish, and carry no greater implication than ... 'love' ... today. And ... infantile eroticism in the letters are of little significance ... The spirit of the times ... favoured extreme expression of feeling and glorified transcendent friendship, and it is probably this that lies at the heart of these letters ... While the possibility cannot be ruled out entirely, it is highly unlikely that the two were ever lovers. Had the slightly sentimental relationship between the older ... boy and his ... classmate really developed into a sexual rapport, it would almost certainly ... have become an exclusive and long-lasting passion."

(I have omitted half the words for copyvio reasons, but you or regular editors of the article will already have the ebook.) Mathsci (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The proposed addition by Smerus looks good to me. I may scrutizine it in more detail later on, so I will offer just two quick comments for now:

• "nationalists were upset": the source does not mention nationalism. I would put "conservatives", which would include anti-LGBT attitudes among the public, some representatives of the Catholic Church in Poland and some politicians (all mentioned in the source).
• "It is also clear that Chopin’s relationship with George Sand": The part preceding "Chopin’s" is editorializing and should be removed. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I like Smerus's proposal. I'm a bit unhappy with the juxtaposition of Staszewski with a statement by the Chopin institute, as if to suggest they are two sides of the same issue. Staszewski is just an ordinary person and the Chopin Institute is a fairly respected institution. If it were possible to first list how the issue is current by quoting ephemeral sources, followed by more weighty sources (Walker, Chopin Institute), I'd be happier. - kosboot (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Smerus is sensible, but excessively accomodating to those whose Chopin fetish is rampant on this page. Maybe a separate article on that subject? If such article text persists, readers years from now will not understand the fleeting and petty political identity issues that are elevating such meaningless speculation into the public sphere. As to academics, we know it's "publish or perish" so they often break new ground that's later covered over and forgotten. SPECIFICO talk 20:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SPECIFICO, for the excellent suggestion to set up a separate article on "Chopin's sexuality". There is already a separate article on the "Health of Frédéric Chopin".

Nihil novi (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Please don't twist or misrepresent the words of other editors. Chopin fetish is about the off-topic obsessive specutlation of non-notable commentators and Misplaced Pages edits. It's red-linked because it's not notable. As to whether their theories and theses are notable, that's dubious, but maybe there are secondary sources that discuss this obsession. If so, there could be an article about it. Maybe a newspaper will cover this silly talk page. SPECIFICO talk 14:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Smerus, you are right about "Chopin's letters to Delfina Potocka" – they were a forgery, and the Polish Misplaced Pages article lays out the evidence in excruciating detail.

Nihil novi (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

As to the nature of Chopin's relations with George Sand, Ruth Jordan's biography of Sand states that " 1840... her love for Chopin... was no longer rejuvenated by reciprocal physical need. The need was Chopin's alone. George's feelings for him had been totally purged of physical desire."

Nihil novi (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Jordan quotes from Sand's 12 May 1847 letter to Count Wojciech Grzymała, ending: "He accuses me of having killed him by the imposed privation; I am convinced I would have killed him had I acted differently." On request, I can quote more of her letter.

Nihil novi (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I never liked her. SPECIFICO talk 01:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I think Smerus's proposal is very good and the most viable. I also think it shows that once you try to get into the details it becomes way to difficult to explain in a Misplaced Pages article with too many people doing original research. Once an editor starts explaining Chopin's letters that's original research and unacceptable. Remember this is an encyclopedia. Would you expect to read that kind of opinionated musings in Grove or MGG? Some of you are harping on that radio broadcast - I'm sure it'll be forgotten history by next year as are nearly all radio broadcasts. If Weber wants to publish something let him - and let's see the criticism that article will receive. And if he doesn't publish that also says something. The bottom line is that the evidence shows it's ambiguous and requires a secondary source authored by an expert in the style of letter writing and Chopin's letter writing. - kosboot (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with what kosboot has written. I think the letters can be used but only when an expert biographer/Chopin scholar has discussed them to provide context. Otherwise they are primary sources that cannot be discussed directly. Alan Walker's biography is OK, but Adam Zamoyski's background (lingistic skills, Polish roots) has certain advantages. All of Kallberg's contributions are valuable, including the Grove Music Online references for "Sex, Sexuality" and "Gender and Music". He refers to Chopin's music (the nocturnes), his "otherwordly" nature, the third sex, ambivalence, etc, to which Smerus has already alluded. Kallberg's chapter "Small Fairy Voices", now in "Chopin Studies 2", is also good, grounded in music and metaphors. If Smerus thinks the LGBT category should be attached to the article, then that probably should also be done for the Schubert article. At the moment media intervention and WP:RECENTISM makes it very hard to judge matters. For the Schubert article, the sensationalist NYT headlines happened in 1989; Schubert scholars, including Philip Brett, have had time to give a balanced view. Schubert's "otherness" is documented in current scholarship; it's worth looking at similar literature on Chopin, such as "Chopin and his World"", eds Bellman & Goldberg, for guidance. Mathsci (talk) 10:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Very recent changes in the headers have rendered it hard to navigate. According to the edit history, Smerus has been the main contributor to the article Frédéric Chopin: his integrity should be respected. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I regrouped the refs, and joined Smerus's proposal with the rest of the section about this topic (also inserting some markup setting off proposed article prose from talk page explanations. Hope all of that is OK. As for Smerus's proposal: with some adjustments (like the ones proposed by Toccata quarta and kosboot) this seems workable. Transferring this to mainspace would likely call for some more adjustments, so I likely wouldn't wait too long before implementing this, so that adjustments are a bit more coordinated, depending on *where* this prose (or something like it) ends up in the article. Which brings me to another point – @Smerus: where would you insert this prose in the article? Meaning, the approach you propose is mostly axed on reception, despite the "... and life" in the proposed subsection title. As such, this rather seems to belong towards the end of the biographical article on Chopin (where reception/legacy topics are mostly grouped), or what were your thoughts on this? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Francis Schonken, since the question really involves Chopin's sexuality generally – not just up to the outbreak of the Polish November 1830 Uprising – SPECIFICO's suggestion of setting up a separate article about "Chopin's sexuality" strikes me as the most practical solution.

That article, "Chopin's sexuality", could then be linked to via the "Chopin" article's "See also" section.

Nihil novi (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

If you think it would generally be OK to write a separate article with all the views on Chopin as homosexual (only linked from a "see also" section), while the Frédéric Chopin article would limit itself to present the composer as a heterosexual exclusively, then I'd suggest you take a thorough look at the WP:Content fork guidance – no, that would generally not be an acceptable approach. Both the article on the composer and the article on his sexuality would need to have the *same* balance of reports from reliable sources on his sexuality (in order to avoid a POV fork). As far as I'm concerned the "separate article" proposal is unrelated to getting it right in this article (and the content of that other article should not be discussed here, but at talk:Chopin's sexuality anyhow). The only difference it would make (if the balance of Smerus's proposal would be deemed NPOV enough for mainspace – which I think it does), is that it would start thus:

===Gender and sexuality in music and life===

{{main|Chopin's sexuality}}

The American musicologist Antoni Pizá ...

instead of thus:

===Gender and sexuality in music and life===

The American musicologist Antoni Pizá ...

(compare the start of the Frédéric Chopin#Decline section and of a few subsequent sections) --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Francis Schonken, I don't follow. If "Health of Frédéric Chopin" and "Joseph Conrad's career at sea" were OK as separate articles, then why not "Chopin's sexuality"?

Nihil novi (talk) 09:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

??? As far as I can see I didn't say anything (not either way) about the viability of a Chopin's sexuality article. Don't see your problem. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Two or three points

Looking at the comments above:

• Thanks User:Toccata quarta for these good points.
• User: kosboot, Staszewski has a WP article and I think it's reasonable to quote him in these circumstances.
• I do not think the Category:LGBT people should be applied to this article because that category makes very clear that as regards historical people, they should be "historical figures, who are recognised thus by consensus of scholars in reliable sources". There is no consensus on this matter, and it would be WP:OR to assume so.
• I agree with User:Francis Schonken that it would be inappropriate to make a POV WP:CONTENTFORK to avoid discussion of this topic in the article. It is not up to us as editors to decide whether an aspect of the subject's appropriate or inappropriate in an article; when there is clearly an ongoing discussion by reliable sources on such an aspect, then our task is to report it on an NPOV basis. I'm grateful for the comments of User:SPECIFICO (as indeed for those of all others above) but I don't feel I am being "excessively accommodating to those whose Chopin fetish is rampant". My reporting of different views does not mean I agree with any of them in particular; it's just an acceptance of the responsibilities of a WP editor. .
• Thanks User:Mathsci for the remembrance of Zamoyski and I think that this will be useful in recasting my 'modest proposal', which I hope to do later today or tomorrow.
• Francis, I would suggest that 1.'Life' might be divided into 1.1. Early Life, then 1.1.1 Childhood, 1.1.2 Education; then 1.2 Career (1.2.1 - 1.2 7 = Travel and domestic success - Death and Funeral); then 1.3 Gender and sexuality in music and life. But welcome any alternative suggestions.--Smerus (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

To establish the WP:WEIGHT of the sexuality speculation in this article, I would like to know whether the advocates of inclusion can bring us half a dozen examples of notable pianists discussing the significance of Chopin's sexuality to his music or performing career, (which comprise his notability). As an example, consider Wagner's anti-Semitism. We have widespread discussion of the issue among the most prominent performing musicians for many decades. I am not aware of any pianist's having extensively considered or discussed Gay Chopin. SPECIFICO talk 15:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, that's a very specific gatepost you're making for it being DUE. There are certainly many RSs that discuss this, both in the media and in academia. In my mind that more than clears the bar for being DUE. Are you really claiming that (to paraphrase Jimbo) the view of Chopin being potentially homosexual is held by an extremely small minority? Gbear605 (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Is it in his Groves bio? SPECIFICO talk 16:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, since I've unfortunately never read it. However, that doesn't disagree with my point that something can be DUE without being covered by every source, even not by many sources, as long as it's not a tiny minority. If you look at the reference list just below, I think that suggests that it's not a tiny minority. After all, WP:WEIGHT says that we should represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. That doesn't mean to only include information in published biographies. Gbear605 (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is a vanishing small minority of all that's been written about him by qualified experts and RS. It's piss in the ocean. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I have nothing to say other than that I disagree that dozens of sources across academia and news sources represent a "vanishingly small minority view." Ultimately we may have to let an RfC decide. Gbear605 (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Dozens among hundreds of thousands is, yes, vanishingly small and insignificant. SPECIFICO talk 19:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

"Hundreds of thousands"? Calm down the hyperbole. Since you have invoked the topic of pianists discussing Chopin's sexuality, one may point out an internet discussion like this one. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

You do not realize that there have been hundreds of thousands of comments, opinions, and analyses of Chopin over the course of the past nearly 200 years? Do the math. That's 500 per year for your first 100,000. If you don't know why websites like Pianostreet are useless for WP editors, I earnestly suggest you study our sourcing, verification, and content policies for a while before continuing to think about the current issue. SPECIFICO talk 19:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

By your definition, we also couldn't write about any of his personal life, since if you count the number of sources, the vast vast vast majority about Chopin are going to be solely about his music, not his personal life. To quantify that, I just looked through the first hundred search results in my university's archives for "Chopin", and a single one of those hundred was biographical. The result were about his music.

But yet, of course we still include his personal life. That's because we avoid views that are held by a tiny minority, not things that are only written about in a tiny minority of sources.

For a somewhat similar example, in Ronald Reagan we mention that he worked as a lifeguard at the Rock River in Lowell Park in 1927. I'm sure that's mentioned in only a very tiny number of the many hundreds of thousands of sources about him - perhaps a couple of biographies and a few articles about the river. My university archives have 8 sources that mention both "Rock River" and "Ronald Reagan" out of 288,006 sources that mention "Ronald Reagan." But yet we still include it, because the relevance is whether the belief is a tiny minority view or not, not whether it's widely published. Gbear605 (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Question was whether there have been hundreds of thousands of writings on Chopin. The correct answer is (a), yes. If Reagan wrote a mazurka you can put that in his bio and if Chopin was a lifeguard, feel free to place that one here. Otherwise that strikes me as one of the most inapt comparisons imaginable. Sort of like Jesus and Donald Trump. SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Could anybody explain to me why quotes by Chopin are getting deleted immediately without any proper reason, mostly by Nihil novi, Toccata quarta, kosboot? Or portraits of his closest friends (or even lovers)? The ones he wrote the most letters to? Like Woyciechowski, Matuszyński, Fontana, Grzymala? I would suggest that we put like one or two Chopin-quotes on the site, maybe the one with the "nasty" dream in David Fricks translation, and/or the one with the letters, which he always carried with him. Additionally I would suggest at least to have a portrait of Woyciechowski on the page, better also one of Matuszyński and also Fontana. Like this, the readers could build their opinion, as it actually should be on a page that wants to fulfill the standart of an encyclopedia.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC) And for reasons of transparency, of course there should be a chapter about the mistranslations.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Try reading WP:PSTS, WP:OR and WP:UNDUE for a start. I suggest you also carefully read WP:EDIT and its subsidiary pages. --Smerus (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I just did, thank you Smerus. I read for example: "Unsourced content may be challenged and removed, because on Misplaced Pages a lack of content is better than misleading or false content". And I ask myself, why there is so much about Gładkowska and Wodzińska in the article even if there is no proof for it?--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Another try

Here is a second version. I welcome comments. I do not see that an RfC will help much in this matter. We have to accept that Chopin's sexuality is a matter of interest and that people are likely to consult WP on this issue. I cannot understand why pianist's thoughts on the matter should be thought relevant. The professional pianists with whom I am acquainted don't give a flying fart about a composer's private life if they admire his music. But they cannot be assumed to be representative of WP readers. Reluctantly or otherwise, as WP editors we have to accept that this is an issue which has been addressed by Chopin's biographers and music historians and can be appropriately preresented in this article. As before, I have aimed at concision, neutrality, and appropriate sourcing in addressing this sensitive matter. --Smerus (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

===Gender and sexuality in music and life===

The American musicologist Antoni Pizá notes that “Chopin’s sexual life has never failed to awaken the curiosity of music lovers and to generate discourse among experts” (Pizá, (2010)). In Chopin’s own time, as the music historian Jeffrey Kallberg has noted, “listeners to the genre of the piano nocturne often couched their reactions in feminine imagery” and he cites many examples of such reactions to the nocturnes of Chopin (Kallberg (2010), “The Harmony of the Tea Table: Gender and Ideology in the Piano Nocturne”, ‘’Representations ‘’, No. 39 (Summer, 1992), pp. 102-133, pp. 104- 6). One reason for this may be ‘demographic’ – there were more female than male piano players than men, and playing such ‘romantic’ pieces was seen by male critics as a female domestic pastime. Such genderization was not commonly applied to other piano genres such as the scherzo or the polonaise. (Kallberg (2010), pp. 106-107). “To be associated with the feminine was also often to be devalorized” (Kallberg (2010), p. 110), and such associations of Chopin’s music with the ‘feminine’ did not begin to shift until the early twentieth century when pianists such as Artur Rubinstein began to militate against sentimental ‘salon’ style of playing these works and musical analysis of a more rigorous nature (such as that of Heinrich Schenker) began to assert itself. (Kallberg (2010), pp. 111-112).

Such attitudes may also have influenced opinion about the composer’s sexuality; debate on this topic only began to expand towards the end of the 20th century. In the absence of physical evidence, inferences relating to Chopin’s sexuality made by his biographers and music historians have been based on his correspondence, particularly some letters to Woyciechowski, his association with de Custine, his relationship with George Sand, and Solange Sand’s assertion of his ‘asexuality’ (cited below as appropriate).

Letters from Chopin to Woyciechowski in the period 1829-30 contain erotic references to dreams and offered kisses and embraces. According to Zamoyski, such expressions “were, and to some extent still are, common currency in Polish” and should not necessarily be construed as homosexual in intent. “The spirit of the times favoured extreme expression of feeling Whilst the possibility cannot be ruled out entirely, it is unlikely that the two were ever lovers.” (Zamoyski locs 850-862). Chopin’s biographer Alan Walker considers that, inasmuch as such expressions could be perceived as homosexual in nature, they would not denote more than a passing phase in Chopin's life. (Walker (2018), pp. 208-10). As Kallberg has pointed out, concepts of sexual practice and identity were very different in Chopin’s time to those of the present, so modern interpretation is problematic. (Kallberg 2006, p. 66)

Chopin’s relationship with George Sand, certainly physical in its early stages, ceased, she claimed (not entirely reliably) to be so after June 1839 until the end of their affair in 1847; (Zamoyski locs 2694-2707); Sand’s daughter Solange, (aged 13 at the time) wrote of Chopin in 1842 as ‘sexless’ (‘Sans-sexe’) – although in later years she seemed to display affection for him herself. (Kallberg, ‘Small fairy voices’ (2006), p. 64). Chopin was a friend of de Custine hwho had been assciated with homsexual scandals. A letter from de Custine to Chopin exists in which, asking Chopin to visit him, he refers to the composer as an "incnstant sylph"; Kallberg recognizes the "impossibility of 'discovering' the truth" og what this may imply. (Kallberg 2006, p. 65)

Debate provoked by a Swiss radio broadcast in 2020 alleging (despite longstanding scholarly debate on the topic) that Chopin’s homosexuality had been ‘airbrushed’ (Weber (2020)) gave rise to differing opinions amongst the laity, notably in Poland, where such ideas have not obtained currency to date; conservatives in church and public life were upset, although the Polish LBGT activist Bart Staszewski wrote "Let's say it openly. Yes, Chopin was at least bisexual." A spokesman for the Fryderyk Chopin Institute commented "Because Chopin was rather discreet about revealing his intimate life even to his closest friends, it is difficult to build theories about this aspect of his life."(Picheta (CNN) 29 November 2020). --Smerus (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

That's a start, I would say, but it still needs some work. How f.e. do you know, that the relationship with Sand was "certainly physical in its early stages"? Do we have physical proof of that? We should apply the same criteria on Chopins "relationships" to women as to the ones with men, shouldn't we? And why to rely on Zamoyski so much? And as I read the CNN-Article, that quote was not by the author Picheta, but by the person from the institute. And actually the quote contradicts what everybody can read in Chopins letters, doesn't it? --Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yawn.--Smerus (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The mention of the relationship being certainly physical in its early stages seems to be sourced to "her", but it's not clear who "her" is - Zamoyski? It definitely needs to be clear that it is a certain source that is saying that, not in Wiki voice. Gbear605 (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

This version looks generally good to me. I notice a few minor grammatical issues, but those aside I'm pretty happy. We do need to make it clearer who the sources for certain claims are though, to allow for a neutral POV. Gbear605 (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks Gbear605. clarification as you request is not a problem - the source is Zamoyski, not Sand, in the issue you mention, and I will rewrite. Part of the problem in reading the section as it stands is that I am giving citations in brackets, rather than notes. Thus of course the quote from the Chopin Insitute, like the other comments from contemporary Poland, is sourced in the Picheta reference, which the other editor commenting apparently doesn't understand. --Smerus (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Chopin's relation to George Sand, I repeat myself:

As to the nature of Chopin's relations with George Sand, Ruth Jordan's biography of Sand states that " 1840... her love for Chopin... was no longer rejuvenated by reciprocal physical need. The need was Chopin's alone. George's feelings for him had been totally purged of physical desire."

Nihil novi (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Jordan quotes from Sand's 12 May 1847 letter to Count Wojciech Grzymała, ending: "He accuses me of having killed him by the imposed privation; I am convinced I would have killed him had I acted differently." On request, I can quote more of her letter.

Nihil novi (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Nihil novi (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• I can't regard Ruth Jordan, who was basically a hack journalist (and in my opinon for what it is worth a third-rate one), as an authority here. And I certainly take anything written by Sand with a pinch of salt. But in any case none of this is material to the issue at hand. Chopin did for a period have sex with her is the main thing. And later he didn't, which everyone seems agreed on.--Smerus (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• I tend towards a shorter section on this, but if other editors prefer this, than fine. I would like however to reiterate what I wrote above about Brett and Wood, and Laskowski's comment to Moritz; both sources' statements, I think, merit a mention. François Robere (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• François Robere, the supposed "admission by Fryderyk Chopin Institute spokesperson Aleksander Laskowski that there's no direct evidence that he was ever involved with either Maria Wodzińska or Konstancja Gładkowska" is untrue: the Insitute, according to the article, simply states that they have no letters relating to either woman, which is not the same thing. (Read the citation: «An K. Gładkowska haben wir eigentlich nichts. Mit Wodzińska haben wir nichts.» (Aleksander Laskowski, Pressesprecher NIFC)) In any case, it's pretty irrelevant, since there is plenty of indirect evidence in the letters and comments of others, plus there are the letters from Wodzinska retained by Chopin but lost during WWII (which he annotated "My sorrow" ("Moja bieda")). All this is referred to and cited in the present article text. This is a clear example, imo, of why Weber is ureliable as a source, as he is aggressively selective in his presentation in order to push his (unjustified) point that he is supposedly revealing something which had been rigorously suppressed. It is not appropriate however for this article to waste time and space by pointing out Weber's shortcomings and inadequacies. As regards Brett and Wood, (and as has been pointed out above) they mention Chopin only once, in passing. They do not mention 'heteronormalization' in the context of Chopin or of any of the sources I have cited, and any attempt to apply their comments to these would be glaringly WP:OR. The fact remains - and it is one carefully avoided by Weber - that there is not a single instance of direct or indirect evidence that Chopin was ever involved in any homosexual act. Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - but it certainly shouldn't be interpreted as proof. Smerus (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Smerus: Seeing as the documentary hasn't been released internationally yet, neither of us knows exactly what he said, however it seemed that he indeed admits there's nothing in writing (at least from Chopin's side). This is notable given his many affectionate letters to men - five of which are mentioned in the SRF article - and I don't see how one would say otherwise without doing WP:OR.
• Brett and Wood are indeed short on Chopin, but their prominence as a source (>430 citations) along with the particulars of this case - especially the explanations of Weber and Zamoyski that you quote - make a mention of their point of view regarding historiography (and if you read Heteronormativity you'll see that's what they discuss, whether we use the term or not) - WP:DUE. Remember DUE is about proportion; since most of your text is given to the traditional - and conservative - POVs, some weight should be given to the scholarly dissent.
• there is not a single instance of direct or indirect evidence that Chopin was ever involved in any homosexual act I'm not so much interested in a record of his sexual endeavours as I am in his passions, but for that matter I'm not aware of any "direct or indirect evidence" that he was ever "involved" in any heterosexual act either. François Robere (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Inquiry: One of our sources noted that Chopin commented, in a letter, about Parisian pissoirs. Does anyone know where the Polish text can be found? It has been suggested that Chopin's interest in them was due to his interest in their users; but they were introduced just before his arrival in Paris, and he may simply have been intrigued by this invention. Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 05:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Amusing possibly but entirely irrelevant to the discussion here.--Smerus (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• Nihil novi, here for interest is the text, in a letter about London, to Fontana, July 1837:

There are such tremendous things! Huge urinals, but all the same nowhere to have a proper p! As for the English women, the horses, the palaces, the carriages, the wealth, the splendour, the space, the trees -- everything from soap to razors -- it's all extraordinary, all uniform, all very proper, all well-washed BUT as black as a gentleman's bottom!

Smerus (talk) 11:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Smerus!

If that is the same quotation referred to by gay-Chopin advocates, then I don't see how they conclude he was seeking assignations among urinal-users.

Nihil novi (talk) 11:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Third try

With references in place, and taking account of some of the suggestions above. If there are no serious objections, I will place this in the article. It can always of course be adjusted/corrected as/if further relevant material becomaes available.

===Gender and sexuality in music and life===

The American musicologist Antoni Pizá notes that “Chopin’s sexual life has never failed to awaken the curiosity of music lovers and to generate discourse among experts” . In Chopin’s own time, as the music historian Jeffrey Kallberg has noted, “listeners to the genre of the piano nocturne often couched their reactions in feminine imagery” and he cites many examples of such reactions to the nocturnes of Chopin . One reason for this may be ‘demographic’ – there were more female than male piano players than men, and playing such ‘romantic’ pieces was seen by male critics as a female domestic pastime. Such genderization was not commonly applied to other piano genres such as the scherzo or the polonaise. . “To be associated with the feminine was also often to be devalorized” , and such associations of Chopin’s music with the ‘feminine’ did not begin to shift until the early twentieth century when pianists such as Artur Rubinstein began to militate against sentimental ‘salon’ style of playing these works and musical analysis of a more rigorous nature (such as that of Heinrich Schenker) began to assert itself. .

Such attitudes may also have influenced opinion about the composer’s sexuality; debate on this topic only began to expand towards the end of the 20th century. In the absence of physical evidence, inferences relating to Chopin’s sexuality made by his biographers and music historians have been based on his correspondence, particularly some letters to Woyciechowski, his association with de Custine, his relationship with George Sand, and Solange Sand’s assertion of his ‘asexuality’ (cited below as appropriate).

Letters from Chopin to Woyciechowski in the period 1829-30 (when he aged around twenty) contain erotic references to dreams and to offered kisses and embraces. According to Zamoyski, such expressions “were, and to some extent still are, common currency in Polish” and should not necessarily be construed as homosexual in intent. “The spirit of the times favoured extreme expression of feeling Whilst the possibility cannot be ruled out entirely, it is unlikely that the two were ever lovers.” . Chopin’s biographer Alan Walker considers that, inasmuch as such expressions could be perceived as homosexual in nature, they would not denote more than a passing phase in Chopin's life. . As Kallberg has pointed out, concepts of sexual practice and identity were very different in Chopin’s time to those of the present, so modern interpretation is problematic.

Chopin’s relationship with George Sand was certainly physical in its early stages. Sand claimed (not entirely reliably) that it ceased to be so after June 1839 until the end of their affair in 1847; ; Sand’s daughter Solange, (aged 13 at the time) wrote of Chopin in 1842 as ‘sexless’ (‘Sans-sexe’) – although in later years she seemed to display affection for him herself. . Chopin was a friend of de Custine who had been associated with homosexual scandals. A letter from de Custine to Chopin exists in which, asking Chopin to visit him, he refers to the composer as an "inconstant sylph"; Kallberg recognizes the "impossibility of 'discovering' the truth" of what this may imply.

Debate provoked by a Swiss radio broadcast in 2020, titled "Chopin was gay and no one must know about it" and alleging (despite longstanding scholarly debate on the topic) that Chopin was a homosexual whose sexual preferences had been ‘airbrushed’, gave rise to differing opinions amongst the laity, notably in Poland, where such ideas have not obtained currency to date; conservatives in church and public life were upset, although the Polish LBGT activist Bart Staszewski wrote "Let's say it openly. Yes, Chopin was at least bisexual." A spokesman for the Fryderyk Chopin Institute commented "Because Chopin was rather discreet about revealing his intimate life even to his closest friends, it is difficult to build theories about this aspect of his life."

I would question the same points like in the earlier version, see above. It should be more impartial. To get there, we probably should listen more to what François Robere has to say, what he suggests and what he wrote.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that its impartiality is what you don't like about it. You might try reading my response to François Robere above. I repeat here for your benefit: "The fact remains - and it is one carefully avoided by Weber - that there is not a single instance of direct or indirect evidence that Chopin was ever involved in any homosexual act. Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - but it certainly shouldn't be interpreted as proof." --Smerus (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Smerus, since you cite Weber (2020) at the end of the "Gender and sexuality in music and life" section, I wonder whether it is necessary for Weber to be cited as well at the end of the "Education" section.

Nihil novi (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

You are correct and I have removed that and other WP:UNDUE blather from the article.--Smerus (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, in the article on "Waltzes, Op. 70 (Chopin)", does evidence justify the statements inserted by Chip-chip-2020 concerning Tytus Woyciechowski? I have deleted them, and he keeps putting them back in.

Nihil novi (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

One article at a time please. I'm dealing with this one. Tytus can wait.--Smerus (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Smerus (ec) I have slightly tweaked the material from Zamoyski's book. I hope that's OK. I have a slight concern with the first sentence. Antoni Pizà's short article on Chopin is not a gold-standard source: originating in Mallorca, Pizà is an expert on Iberian and Flamencan culture and, apart from book reviews, he mostly writes in Spanish; the short Spanish 2010 article has not been cited anywhere and reads like a compilation of en.wikipedia.org articles translated into Spanish. He refers to the few pages on Chopin from Nigel Cawthorne's book on the Sex Lives of the Great Composers; that raises alarm bells for me. Mathsci (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Whilst I also have reservations about parts of Piza's article, I have none about the citation which I have made; it is fair, neutral and provides and appropriate introduction to the topic. The citation I have given is from the English summary included in the article. He is a professional academic musicologist with a senior post in New York, so as long as the citation meets other WP criteria I am happy to use it.--Smerus (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Smerus (ec) Agreed. I've seen the Spanish article and its English abstract: the English is garbled as you've already pointed out. The "third try" in the article itself was copy-pastied made with no access to Zamoyski's book. I think the title should probably be changed and the header level reduced: there seems to be no discussion of music at all. Probably just the neutral header "Sexuality" should be adequate, in a lower level header. Otherwise it disproportionately draws attention to itself in the article.

This copy-pasted paragraph is another problem:

Such attitudes may also have influenced opinion about the composer's sexuality; debate on this topic only began to expand towards the end of the 20th century. In the absence of physical evidence, inferences relating to Chopin's sexuality made by his biographers and music historians have been based on his correspondence, particularly some letters to ], on his association with ], on his relationship with George Sand, and on Solange Sand's assertion of his "asexuality" (cited below as appropriate).

It ends with "cited below as appropriate", so looks like a hasty copy-pasting, rapidly scrambled together to put material in the article. The paragraph has no citations (not good for a feathured article). Please could that be corrected? You're the expert. Thanks for your help in copy-editing the article. Mathsci (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Smerus for your distinguished answers. But could please, before judging sources, provide reliable evidence first, that Chopin was ever involved in any HETEROsexual act? Thank you, --Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Why should Chopin had been homosexual, because he is not heterosexuel? He could had been asexuel. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/98/04/05/reviews/980405.05drivert.html Your argumentation fails. Grimes2 (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Although this section of the talk page is longer than the article, I think it has to be retained and not archived because this issue will arise with many new editors. - kosboot (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but this section and the nationality RfC are making this page rather large and unwieldy, which could result in all sorts of technical issues. Some template/hatnote/whatever (placed at the top of this talk page) referencing these two discussions would be the best solution. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The new section needs pruning and slow rewriting, starting with the first paragraph and Kallberg's "Small Fairy Voices". A shorter version, picking out key words like "otherwordly", would be useful; equally for other paragraphs, particularly the last. Looking at the whole article, the section on "Sexuality" seems to be out of proportion (cf Schubert). Mathsci (talk) 08:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Mathsci, I've made an attempt to start pruning, cutting out duplication of info and transaltions.--Smerus (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Please do it as slowly as you wish. Mathsci (talk) 10:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

talk-reflist

After implementation of the "sexuality" paragraphs in the article (12 December 2020)

In order to not burden the very extended #Chopin’s sexuality section on this talk page any further, I suggest to continue post-implementation comments about the topic in this new section. Meaning, any topic of that context can be continued here (please refer to the subsection in the older discussion you wish to continue here if that is the case), as well as initiating new related topics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Example of a new topic: see WP:DRN#Frédéric Chopin for a related discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Prose

I'm somewhat surprised by the size of the new section, but content-wise, I think it's acceptable. The Swiss radio broadcast section suffers from the WP:RECENTISM problem, but it can always be deleted at some future point; time will tell if it will have much longevity. I have three comments to make (having made some changes to the section myself):

• sentimental "salon" style: I have not checked most of the sources, so I'm not sure about coordinate and cumulative adjectives and if comma usage and hyphenation here are OK.
• One reason for this may be "demographic": If such a claim appears in the sources, attribution should be made, otherwise it sounds like WP:OR.
• Such attitudes may also: Same issue. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you already commented on the first paragraph, re Kallberg's "Small Fairy Voices". That needs to be slowly rewritten using key words like "Unworldly". The same applies to all the other paragraphs. Suggested content on Chopin-related articles by Chip-chip-2020, some originally added by two Zurich IPs (meat/sockpuppets?), has already been reverted. That applied to Waltzes, Op. 70 (Chopin) which was used as a WP:COATRACK for a biography on Woyciechowski/Chopin. That kind of material has no consensus: it seems deliberately provocative. Mathsci (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Kosboot: I was just about to post the following: I've copyedited the section. Other than general CE (trimmed some quotes, corrected a couple of statements...) and reordering of the paragraphs (moved the letters to the top, and Kallberg's notes on nocturnes to the bottom), the content is more or less the same. What are your objections? François Robere (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

François Robere I very strongly disagree with your edits which I feel changes the careful wording that @Smerus: achieved. I'm not the only one here who notes the undue weight given to WP:RECENTISM in the guise of that radio broadcast. Just has Smerus had the courtesy to post the paragraph here before putting it in the article, you should absolutely do the same. - kosboot (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's a paragraph for paragraph comparison of both revisions. As you can see, it's essentially the same content. The main difference, other than various CE for readability and conciseness, is in the order of the paragraphs: Smerus's text starts with a reference to sexuality, then veers to musical interpretation, and only then gets to the core of the question - the letters. Moving the the second paragraph to the end makes the text much clearer:

François Robere (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Further comments

Thank you François / Francis for this side-by-side comparison. I like things in both of them. But for the overall general impression, I feel the "old" version is better because 1) it is more concise; 2) it doesn't require additional research of seeking out the needed citations; 3) most importantly, the "new" version brings up too many tangents which I find distract from the main point - which I find is not strong enough in either version. Does not Kallberg have a summary after which he summarizes the problem? - kosboot (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Almost of the last segment on the left was due to Smerus. In the relevant paragraph on Custine, Kallberg writes: "the overtly innocuous import of Astolphe de Cusine's 'inconstant Sylph' was gently to implore more social contact with his distant friend, whose ethereal art and personality he enfolded into the rubric 'Sylph' ... In 1824 suffered intense public opprobrium (as well as a severe beating, which brought the matter to public attention) for apparently having made advances to a young soldier. Without making any suppositions about Custine's intent or Chopin's response (and, indeed, recognizing the impossibility of discovering any essential position for either subject), 'inconstant' and 'Sylph' inevitably bear the trace of Custine's sexual history." This last sentence, with its careful qualification in parentheses, is phrased in a deliberately cautious way. Mathsci (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I guess all the information is there, but I dislike the order of ideas. People often look at the first paragraph, and then the final paragraph or concluding sentences. Therefore I feel that the concluding sentences must be as clear as possible or even a repeat of the topic sentence. Maybe I'll experiment with these two versions and see if I can create something more to my liking. - kosboot (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Below I wrote: "A section combining Kallberg's "gender" material and the biographers' "sexuality" material is akin to WP:OR. So, the problem seems to lie less in the section title: the mishmash is in the section's content..." Similarly, rehashing the section's content, as in François's proposal, doesn't even begin to address the actual problem, which is a OR-like combination of two completely different narratives (Kallberg's "gender" narrative, which is a non-biographical reception topic, with the biographer's "sexuality" narrative, which is biographical). In the current version (left side of François's table) the most problematic sentence is imho "Such attitudes may also have influenced opinion about the composer's sexuality" (starting #3): completely unreferenced; vaguish speculation; OR 1.0 while suggesting a link between two types of sources which is likely unsourceable, while neither the "gender" sources nor the "sexuality" sources suggest such link to the other type of sources, nor does a source outside both groups appear to suggest such link. François, in the proposal on the right side of the table, left this questionable sentence out, proposing instead, "Perceptions of Chopin's sexuality may also have to do with his musical style." (second row in the table) – yeah, write some unsourceable personal impression and then slap a {{cn}} at the end. Like that's going to fly... actually worse than the current version (at least it's honest in indicating there's no source for it but that doesn't compensate it being unacceptable for mainspace). So, seeing there's no opposition to my proposals to separate the "gender" material from the "sexuality" material (see below), I propose to proceed with it ASAP, and then we can forget about the OR additions that try to glue the "gender" topic to the "sexuality" topic, despite they being separated in scholarly literature, and no serious scholar ever having tried to stomp them together like Misplaced Pages editors are doing now. PS: FYI, please don't confuse François (which I am not) with Francis (which I am). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: I agree that mixing his sexuality with gender perceptions is problematic. I tried to address it by pushing the gender perceptions to the bottom, to have a more coherent narrative regarding his sexuality. It's certainly possible to separate the two completely, though I think they could be kept together with more content from Brett and Woods, and Pizá (see comment here). I completely agree on the OR statement; the reason I kept it was simply to limit friction, since I knew even reordering the paragraphs would encounter resistance.

@Kosboot: You may dislike the order of ideas, but you can't deny that it makes sense. Mentioning Chopin's sexuality, then veering off to abstract perceptions of his music, before returning to his sexuality just doesn't make a lot of sense from a reader's POV. Plus, it's probably that his sexuality affected his music and interactions, not the other way around. François Robere (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Images and quotes

Above in the #A new attempt at consensus subsection I wrote: "the added images are also OK for me", meaning these images added by Chip-chip-2020:

• File:Tytus Woyciechowski.jpg
• File:Jan Matuszynski.jpg
• File:Julian fontana.jpg

I'd suggest we re-introduce at least the first of these images, for instance with the caption as proposed here (see →), for instance in the new Frédéric Chopin#Gender and sexuality in music and life section. Thoughts?--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

References

1. Smialek, William, and Trochimczyk, Maja (2015). Frédéric Chopin: A Research and Information Guide. Routledge. ISBN 9781135839048, pp. 46–47 and 49.

• It is imo ridiculous to introduce the picture of Woyciechowski. If you had one of him at the age of 20 it might, conceivably, be relevant. This pic adds nothing to the article or to the topic. The caption is also misleading, because of the letters received by W. very few had content which could be construed in any way as sexual.

As regards our friend Chip-chip-2020, you should be aware of the allegations appearing here as to his activities on this and other WPs and allegations of sock-puppetry. We have gone quite far enough on this topic already and may already be breaching WP:RECENTISM as regards WP:NPOV.--Smerus (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Smerus. We have already had several suggestions for content in Chopin-related articles from Chip-chip-2020, some originally added by two Zurich IPs (meat/sockpuppets?). They have already been reverted. That applied to Waltzes, Op. 70 (Chopin) which was used as a WP:COATRACK for a biography on Woyciechowski/Chopin. It had no consensus. As far as Fontana is concerned, he was an old schoolfriend of Chopin's who for two years served as in-house doctor and factotum: he married shortly after that. There is a Sotheby manuscript of a letter in Polish by Chopin to Fontana (easy to download), but again, while interesting, it is irrelevant to this article. Mathsci (talk) 10:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Smerus: The word "ridiculous" that you used concerning images was appropriate. As you and other regular editors have discussed, improving/pruning text is the main priority; images are currently a distraction. Mathsci (talk) 10:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

And by the way here is a charming post by User:2001:8003:5309:BA00:70DE:C289:77DD:6C6, one of the Zurich IPs you mention, Mathsci, encouraging disruption of this discussion (to which they already made one or two unpleasant contributions) and insulting contributing editors, which you may have missed - I am glad to say it was spotted and removed by another editor a couple of days after posting....Smerus (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The new IPs were from Melbourn; the personal attacks were removed. Regarding images, I added an image to Jane Stirling, a portrait with her father. A nice oil painting (but not suitable for this article). I wonder whether as a wee lassie she danced the Gay Gordons up there at Kippenross House, Kippendavie? Mathsci (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no need in the "Chopin" article for photos of Chopin's 3 schoolmates – particularly when a photo was taken several decades after Chopin had died. Interested readers can find the photos in the subjects' individual articles.

Nihil novi (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Smerus: – you're entitled to your opinions, but please don't change my talk page posts as you did (probably inadvertently) here (turning a bluelink into a redlink), per WP:TPG. I restored my original post. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Absolutely inadvertent, and I apologize unreservedly--Smerus (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Re. "... allegations appearing ..." – neither WP:DRN, nor this article talk page are suitable for assessing "alleged" broad behavioural issues. I treat them as WP:ASPERSIONS until proven differently in an appropriate forum (which is, as said, neither this talk page nor the DRN venue). Have you tried talking to the editor on their talk page? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Francis, whilst you and I frequently disagree, I have never found occasion to doubt your good faith. Alas I cannot say the same of one or two other contributors on this page.--Smerus (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Still, not here the place to voice such doubts: it rather distracts from the content discussion. Take such doubts to the appropriate place (not here, nor DRN, which is a content discussion board). Again, the first place to raise such doubts is on the user's talk page, and if good faith interaction can't be restored there, take to a non-content related, a.k.a. a behavioural, dispute resolution process or board, which also may be, if applicable, SPI when the doubts are about socking, etc. If you keep voicing such doubts here, that will, if kept up long enough, become a quite disturbing behavioural issue in itself, which someone else, e.g. I, might take up in an appropriate place. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Francis Schonken for your constructive input. I think it would be appropriate to add at least this picture of Tytus to the article. Since Chopin wrote so many long letters to him, and for example to Maria Wodzinska he didn‘t write any letter, but of her there is a picture in the article. One picture of Julian Fontana would be nothing but transparent too, and/or one of Matuszynski. They both lived with him for years in apartments on Chaussee-d’Antin. I would also suggest to add one quote from one of the letters Chopin wrote to Tytus, for example this one. Where Chopin writes very personally to him and also refers to a piece, including hints for the interpretation of that piece. And it contains also one example for the issue of mistranslations.

„I already, perhaps unfortunately, have my ideal, whom I faithfully serve, about whom I dream, who this morning inspired the little waltz I am sending to you. Take note of one passage marked with a +. No one knows anything about this but you. How sweet it would be for me to play it for you, my dearest Tytus. In the trio, the bass line should dominate up to the high E flat of the upper keyboard in the 5th bar, about which it is unnecessary to write to you, because you feel it. Forgive me for sending you the waltz, but upon my word I wanted to give you pleasure with it, because I love you madly.“ Frédéric Chopin to Tytus Woyciechowski, 3.10.1829

What do you think about that?--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

References

1. David Frick, Chopin‘s polish letters, The Fryderyk Chopin Institute, Warsaw 2016, pp. 138-140.
2. https://chopin.nifc.pl/en/chopin/list/664_to-tytus-woyciechowski-in-poturzyn

As with so many passages from Chopin's letters – these passages are ambiguous, and subject to a variety of possible translations and interpretations.

Nihil novi (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the contribution, Nihil novi. Could you explain what is ambiguous about „but upon my word I wanted to give you pleasure with it, because I love you madly“?--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Please see user:Smerus' and my comments at "Talk:Tytus Woyciechowski", in the "Konstancja Gładkowska" section.

Nihil novi (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

For earlier presentations of, and discussion on, quotes from Chopin's letters, see, e.g.:

• lead section of #Chopin’s sexuality
• #Evidence and relevance
• lead section of #A new attempt at consensus
• #Walker
• lead section of #Ongoing attempts at consensus
• #Translations of Chopin's letters
• #Problematic passage

(bolded = contains side-by-side quote translation) --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:TPG: if refactoring of a talk page discussion is opposed, attempts to repeat it should usually stop. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Francis Schonken, sure, I agree. And the previously suggested side-by-side translation undoubtedly should be preferred. But when I reread the whole letter I just found that the last sentences are also very telling and in my opinion clarifying. That‘s why I added them and I think if the Quote will be added to the article these last sentences should be included.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 11:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Subsection title

--Smerus (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Somewhere in the above, near-impenetrable thickets, an editor suggested reducing the section heading, "Gender and sexuality in music and life", to the more manageable "Sexuality". I would second this suggestion, but worded as "Chopin's sexuality" (which, indeed, was the original title of this talk-page discussion).

Nihil novi (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It was me (with slanted bold). Mathsci (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I do hope the section gets retitled.

Would you, as the original proponent, consider being so bold?

Nihil novi (talk) 05:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

For various reasons, I would prefer if you changed the title. Is that OK? Mathsci (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Done.

In some quarters, my reputation is already irretrievable, anyway.

Thanks for the portrait of Jane Stirling with her distinguished dad!

Nihil novi (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

You might very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment. Thanks for your help! Mathsci (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

A great serial! England doesn't make statesmen like that anymore.

Nihil novi (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Template:Multi-listen item

• I am pleased with the way Smerus has re-arranged the material. It fits together very well. The made editors—Smerus, JackofOz, Toccata quarta, Nihil novi, and kosboot—seem to have developed consensus on how to proceed with improving the article. From what I understand, the size of the new section is already considered to be quite large compared to the article itself. There seems to be no consensus for poor quality images which postdate Chopin's death, as these do not appear elsewhere in the article. This applies also to parallel Polish/English quotations. There are letters in Polish from Chopin to Fontana which can found at sothebys or in Library of Congress; but I am not sure that documents like that are particularly helpful.

On the other hand, musical autograph manuscripts of Chopin are easy to find. If a particular piano piece, such as a nocturne or a waltz with a known dedicatee, is being discussed, an image of that manuscript with a caption might be appropriate. In Kallberg's "Small Fairy Voices", he certainly relates Chopin's persona with individual pieces of music. There's plenty of choice: the nocturnes, the barcarolles, ... Possibly also an audio file? There already is a waltz, a mazurka, an etude and a prelude, so why not a nocturne or a barcarolle (subject to availability) .... Mathsci (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

There are good recordings on commons or downloadable from the usual repository of the Berceuse, the 4th Ballade (Hokanson), some Nocturnes, etc. (No scherzi yet.) Mathsci (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

That large picture makes it difficult for me to comment on the section heading, which Mathsci has suggested to be "Sexuality." But it's not really about Chopin's sexuality. It's really about the attempts to discern what might have been Chopin's sexuality. In other words, it's less about the composer's sexuality, and MORE about 21st century attempts to discern what they were or could have been. Indeed, Smerus's proposal recognizes that it is an ongoing attempt, rather than a fact. So in my opinion, it would be nice if the section heading could reflect that. Perhaps something like "Seeking Chopin's sexuality" or if you prefer something more euphemistic (which makes it more universal, meaning that the techniques of uncovering his sexuality apply to other undiscernable aspects of his life) maybe something cliché like "Searching for Chopin." (And please let it be known that I'm very pro-gay; but I'm also extremely pro-scholarly and take a professional view to weighing evidence.) - kosboot (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Phrasings like "Seeking Chopin's sexuality" or "Searching for Chopin" don't seem to meet Misplaced Pages style, both from from a vague general style mismatch (we're an encyclopedia, not a book selling itself) and because per MOS:SECTIONSTYLE, "Chopin" shouldn't be in a section title. Something like "Modern investigations of sexuality" could be okay, but I think simply "Sexuality" would be better. Ultimately 21st century attempts to discern what they were or could have been are about the composer's sexuality. Gbear605 (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think Kosboot is correct: the section is not about Chopin's sexuality, it is about modern perceptions of sexuality in his life and music. In all the morass of comment above, no one has yet produced (nor imo could they produce) a single piece of evidence of Chopin's sexual practices and inclinations (either towards men or towards women). Nor has anyone demonstrated why it would be important in any way if we could. We need to concede that there is no such evidence; and that if evidence is ambiguous we as editors whould not seek to make or imply a conclusion either way. The section is not a report on Chopin, it is a report on contemporary opinions. The title I orginally suggested for the section, "Gender and sexuality in life and music" is therefore I think more appropriate.--Smerus (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• Kosboot's distinction is critical. At best this content should only be in a separate article and presented as speculation. That is how we treat the topic for Jesus. SPECIFICO talk 15:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Ditto: "Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln"; "Sexuality of Adolf Hitler"; and "Sexuality of William Shakespeare";

This alternative has previously been suggested for Chopin, and been batted down. Perhaps it's time to revisit it?

Such a separate, dedicated article would put Chopin into interesting company.

Nihil novi (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

As far as these three example are concerned, here are a few observations:

• For Lincoln, the topic is linked to at Abraham Lincoln#Marriage and children
• For Hitler, the topic is mentioned and linked to at Adolf Hitler#Personal life
• For Shakespeare, the topic is linked to in the article lead, and mentioned and linked to at William Shakespeare#Sexuality

I would also note that the article section in its present form would not justify the creation of a separate entry (such as Mozart's nationality) and a WP:AFD discussion would most likely result in the content being merged (back) into the Chopin page. This, of course, does not preclude having a more substantive article on the topic of Chopin's sexuality and its expression in his music. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Give it a try! If a dedicated article is good enough for Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Hitler, maybe it will be good enough for Chopin.

Nihil novi (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The section elevates the opinions of two non-notable individuals, Piza and Weber, over the vastly larger number of people who reject such speculation. This violates NPOV, specifically WEIGHT, and should not be published in this article. SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• A bit baffled why you are picking on Pizá here. The quote from him is absoluteley WP:NPOV ad serves simple to introduce the section. And he is a qualified academic. Unilke Weber who seems to be in it for the publicity. I see he has already updated his written article with bumf about this WP debate.--Smerus (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• We are citing him as if he were a notable expert on the subject, but he is not. We are using him as a foil to introduce a casual observation. SPECIFICO talk 09:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Also we should not conflate the performance styles of amateur aristocrat ladies with 21st century terminology and understanding of sexuality. That is not encyclopedic exposition. SPECIFICO talk 17:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Very good point. This touches on gender stereotypes. Nihil novi (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Why not "Questions of sexuality"?

There is a striking contrast between Jeffrey Kallberg's commentary—couched in music, metaphors and Chopin's elusive persona—and the very direct approach of Moritz Weber. Mathsci (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to nitpick here, but Smerus's suggestion "Gender and sexuality in life and music" means that the section is about that, and it isn't. I like Gbear605's suggestion, Modern investigations of sexuality because that's exactly what it is, and it does not imply an answer. - kosboot (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The plain "Sexuality" (or "Gender and sexuality") is the best and most encyclopedic. Also, per WP:WIAFA (which applies to this page), the article should have "a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings". If we can choose a simple section heading, there is no need to give preference to a wordier alternative. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

On reflection I would be happy with 'Sexuality' as the title of this section, as it conforms to the opening sentences of the WP article Human sexuality: "Human sexuality is the way people experience and express themselves sexually. This involves biological, erotic, physical, emotional, social, or spiritual feelings and behaviors. Because it is a broad term, which has varied with historical contexts over time, it lacks a precise definition." Whether the section as it stands is appropriate for the article obviously remains in debate.--Smerus (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Good, that was my original suggestion. Small is Beautiful! Kallberg's articles are obviously relevant: as a musician and historian, he's one of the few scholars qualified to comment on Chopin and sexuality. The current WP article is not just a biography as much of it is about Chopin's music (like the 4th Ballade that I helped edit today). Mathsci (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

IMHO,

• The Kallberg material is part of gender studies and should normally not appear under a (sub)section title "Sexuality". As far as Chopin is concerned, gender studies are a (rather tiny) subbranch of the composer's reception history. The largest part of the Kallberg material is not biographical in nature (it is about perception, and hardly contains biographical data).
• The biographers' comments on Chopin's sexuality, based on his letters (note that the Kallberg material is not based on these letters) do not belong under a "Gender" or "Gender studies" (sub)section title. The letters, and the biographers' comments on them, are biographical material.
• A section combining Kallberg's "gender" material and the biographers' "sexuality" material is akin to WP:OR. So, the problem seems to lie less in the section title: the mishmash is in the section's content, and that can not be resolved by highlighting either exclusively "Sexuality" in the section title (while that doesn't cover the "gender" material which is currently the focus of the section), or exclusively "Gender (studies)" which is no biographical material.

The solution lies, imho, in splitting the section: the Kallberg material repositioned in the reception narrative (near the end of the article), and the "sexuality" material kept in the biographical section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this could be a part of the solution, and I have no problems with the principles you suggest. Splitting off the Kallberg stuff as you suggest is not problematic. Then the broadcast (if it is kept at all) would also belong in reception. Integrating the Woychiekowski letters by mentioning them in the biography (with relevant acceptable secondary sources) is appropriate, but not if they are extensively discussed or blown out of proportion (e.g. by unsourced speculation about C's relationships (or absence of same) with Wodzińska, Gladowska, etc.) These are a few letters when Chopin had hardly embarked on his professional career, and no one has yet shown in this discussion (or anywhere else that I am aware of) that they have any bearing on his later life.--Smerus (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Re. "the broadcast (...) would also belong in reception" – yes and no. The part of the broadcast that speaks of a possible different interpretation than the standard interpretation by the biographers is, of course, biographical. The part of the broadcast that speaks about whether or not Polish society can deal with that possibility is reception. Re. "if it is kept at all": whether we keep either of these parts (the biographical and the reception-related), are two independent questions, and is, for either part, unrelated to whether you and I (or other editors) can or cannot give credence to the material.

• For biographical material it is also not about whether or not any link with Chopin's music can be established. Compare, a biographical article about Bach (including Misplaced Pages's article about the composer) will mention he had 20 children. It doesn't report he had 19 children or 21 children. Nobody has ever demonstrated that one child more or less would have made any difference whatsoever for his music. The quality of Misplaced Pages's biographical article on the composer is judged on getting it right, not on whether it makes the tiniest bit of difference for his music. This goes also for biographical material where multiple interpretations are possible, in which case such interpretations are reported NPOV-wise in Misplaced Pages, e.g. for Bach his relations with his employers, and for Chopin his relation with Sand. We report what reliable sources say on the matter with due weight, and avoiding undue weight, per Misplaced Pages's editorial principles.
• For reception-related material, changes in perception play, of course, a role. Of course a reception narrative in Misplaced Pages has a NPOV balance too. The current "Reception and influence" (sub)section has six paragraphs. Let's assume, for the current discussion, that it is somewhat underdeveloped (despite the FA status of the article). Each paragraph in the section mentions on average, the views of, let's say, about half a dozen commentators, and covers, on average, let's say, a few decades. Adding to that section two paragraphs exclusively devoted to Kallberg's views, and another exclusively devoted to late 2020 perceptions of a speculative theory would truly unbalance the section NPOV-wise. Long way of saying that, as far as I'm concerned, the comments on Polish society dealing with the homosexuality speculation can be dropped entirely from the article, until if and when it can be included in a much longer piece on reception of Chopin (which would likely be a separate article on reception of Chopin, in order not to unbalance the Frédéric Chopin article) – this is the WP:RECENTISM aspect, as I see it, or, in the perspective of the current reception section, too ephemeral as kosboot called it.

But yeah, returning to the first point (biographical interpretations based on the SRF documentary), I do think a one-sentence addition after we have dealt with Walker's and Zamoyski's interpretations (which BTW are not identical!), that another interpretation has been proposed in 2020 does not seem out of order. Again, irrespective of whether you and I or other editors give any credence to it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Kallberg:Small Fairy Voices

(ec after a long delay) I have been looking at Kallberg's "Small Fairy Voices". I have been to unable to access directly the document through "Chopin Studies 2": contrary to what is reported on this article page, it is not an ebook on cambridge.core. It is available, however, on some pages of google.books as well as on amazon. The original book on Harvard University Press is only just a link. From the available pages, Kallberg's discussion enters into medical problems and is sometimes quite technical, reflecting historical practices and mores in the early nineteenth century. Only one sentence of the section on "Chopin's sexuality" has been cited in Kallberg's chapter. I believe that a more accurate but nevertheless brief summary would be an improvement. Does another editor have access to the whole of Kallberg's article? Mathsci (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

You can read the whole essay here. In my view, for what it is worth, an interesting but somewhat arcane essay. Its topic (a somewhat narrow one) is sexual/gender perception of C's music in his era - as Kallberg summarizes the topic "How then did sex 'speak' music - Chopin's music - in the 1830s and 1840s?" (p. 70). The article does not deal with C's personal sexuality other than metaphorically. Therefore I believe that extrapolating further from it would be WP:UNDUE for this article.--Smerus (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I've used books.google.co.uk, de, fr, nl, es, com and be, but six pages were invariable missing, No luck with sk. Perhaps it's a problem with caches. I will experiment. Mathsci (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I'm probably assisted by being stuck in Slovakia at the moment, returning to London on Thursday, so I will enjoy the complete Kallberg while I can!--Smerus (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

A method to access the entire "Small Fairy Voices" essay which would probably work for most readers, that is from two different sources (1994/2006 and 1996), is given above in #Kallberg (see first line after summary; and click, where given in the summary, each time both of the double footnotes). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, looking again, yes the .sk is missing 6 pages as well, I think I also used Francis's method in piecing together the two versions - but given Kallberg's elusive style one is probably not missing much. By inference the missing sections deal with 1) Chopin adored by female listeners and perceived as an angel, 2) sexual ambiguity in Sand's Gabriel and Charles Nodier's Trilby, and 3) early nineteenth-century medical theories linking sexual anomalies with chronic diseases - so I think my evaluation still stands, especially in the lights of Kallberg's summary and conclusion. --Smerus (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Smerus, please take the hint which I tried to give you above (in #A modest proposal) that material substantially based on Kallberg does not belong in a biographical section (such as a subsection of Frédéric Chopin#Life), but in a section devoted to reception/legacy. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not disagree on this point.--Smerus (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Smerus: I have all the pages from the Chopin Studies 2 that I wanted, thank you. I have checked my library (the University of Cambridge) with all the sources electronic resources. Whoever wrote that Chopin Studies 2 was an ebook was mistaken. Mathsci (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• I have read the three sections from "Small Fairy Voices" and am starting to to read the earlier article on "Nocturnes". As far as I can tell Kallberg is a WP:RS and there seems to be no reason beyond WP:WIKILAWYERING to question Kallberg's intellectual credentials. The attempts to relegate Kallberg to a section on reception so far has no consensus and, as far as composing content, would create a WP:TRAINWRECK. Similar discussions about "Reception", however, can be seen in Schubert-related articles:

The section Franz Schubert#Teacher at his father's school has a small and unobtrusive paragraph on Schubert's sexuality. That can be compared to the article, Grand Duo, D 812. There German quotations by Schumann about Schubert's feminine qualities were placed in parallel with a self-generated English translation. In a section titled "Legacy", the passage by Schumann was referenced: "In the late 1980s Schumann's contentions about Schubert's feminity started to attract attention from a different perspective: articles published in 19th-Century Music described Schubert as homosexual, to which the 1838 comments about the Grand Duo, published in the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik, were seen as corroborating evidence." The comparisons between the GA on Schubert and D 812 shows that far more care is needed. Mathsci (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Kallberg is imo definitely a WP:RS. But why would moving his comments to the 'reception' part of the article be a 'relegation'? I don't quite understand you here. Kallberg's comments do not in fact relate to Chopin's life, they are about the the way his music was received (the assumptions made or implied by contemporaries in their perception of his music). Kallberg indeed seems to me to avoid making any assumptions or assertions about Chopin's sex life. I am not clear exactly what the parallel is with the Schubert examples you give. Basically it seems to me that Chopin wrote the letters to W. in his life, and they can therefore legitimately be placed in an account of his life. Kallberg is giving 20th/21st interpretations, and his comments can legitimately be placed in legacy. I would further add that although K's writings are (to me anyway) very interesting, they are hardly central to an acocunt of Chopin and that to rattle on about them at length in the WP bio article on Chopin would be WP:UNDUE. The option is always there w=fro anyone to creare an article on Chopin's sexuality should they wish to do so, as has been remarked.--Smerus (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• For clarity, the last extensive rewrite of the D 812 article was mine: any gender- or sexuality-related content in the current version of that article was introduced there for the first time by me, and the way it is there now is still exclusively resulting from my edits. Applicable IBAN restrictions should normally prevent some editors from commenting on these edits of mine under any guise or form, including on this talk page. I'm only mentioning this because some might not know that these were my edits in that article. But if there are any questions by other editors (I mean other than the IBAN ones) of how I treated gender and sexuality in that article, I'd be happy to answer. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Kallberg is a WP:RS. (Today I've been spending time creating a mini-score for the fourth ballade using lilypond, so have been away from wikipedia.)

As far as Sand & daughter are concerned, the comments on "Sans-Sexe" are just footnotes. The schoolfriend letters have unfortunately suffered from hype in WP:RECENT headlines. The scholarly discussions in "Chopin Studies" are probably intended only for well-versed experts, so are not particularly suitable for wikipedia. But, by the same reasoning, the letters to a former schoolfriend should only warrant a very brief parenthetic mention in an article intended for a general readership. Half of the article is about music, so is more of a "musical biography" than a "biography". The addition of the new section still seems like a storm in a tea cup. Mathsci (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

A storm in a teacup, apparently sans tea.

Nihil novi (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Given the trope, Ariel of pianists, the American version "tempest in a teapot" might be better ... Mathsci (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Indeed! Thank you!

Nihil novi (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed footnote

The ambiguous effusive letters of the teenaged Chopin (regrettably not lost in the wartime destruction of Woyciechowski's rural manor) could be treated in the penultimate paragraph of the "Education" section, in a footnote to the mentioned "Tytus Woyciechowski":

"Several letters of 1829–30 from Chopin to Woyciechowski (who had moved to his rural estate 300 kilometers southeast of Warsaw) contain ambiguous passages and brief expressions of affection which, especially in inaccurate translations, have been interpreted by some as homoerotic. Chopin's biographer Adam Zamoyski describes the more extravagant passages as mere early–Romantic–era outpourings of regret at Woyciechowski's absence."

Anyone so inclined, could write an article on "Chopin's sexuality" or "Chopin's emotional life".

Nihil novi (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I have some issue with the "ambiguous" characterisation. First, I can't remember seeing that description used for Chopin's writings. Several of his personal letters are characterised as difficult to fathom, but not as ambiguous. Also, there is a difference between it sometimes being difficult for other readers than the addressee to fathom what Chopin meant, while these things were without much doubt clear for the addressee (Chopin writes a few times something like: you understand what I mean). Ambiguity is an inherent quality (multiple often contradictory meanings), question marks for 20th- and 21st-century readers is not an inherent quality of Chopin's writing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

One of my dictionaries defines "ambiguity" as "the quality or state of having two or more possible meanings." Another dictionary defines it as "doubtfulness or uncertainty as regards interpretation."

That pretty well characterizes the differing meanings that have been attached by latter-day investigators to Chopin's use of the Polish expression "ideał" (a person – male or female, as the case may be – of one's dreams).

Ambiguity also attaches to the proper interpretation of other passages. Tytus Woyciechowski is now living 300 km. from Warsaw, so Chopin's advising him not to kiss Chopin, as he hasn't yet washed, cannot be taken literally. Is Chopin being homoerotic? Is he making some sort of a joke? Is it some sort of allusion to something that, perhaps, Woyciechowski will understand but that is ambiguous to latter-day "gentlemen read other people's mail"?

There are certainly ambiguities in those letters.

Zamoyski, for his part, rejects the hypothesis of Chopin's homosexuality, while Walker strongly doubts that hypothesis.

Who am I to gainsay them?

Nihil novi (talk) 10:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The letters were not ambiguous when written. They did not have "multiple meanings" when written. That they have ambiguities (from a certain perspective) is not the same as qualifying them as over-all ambiguous. That's like saying something is bad prose for the only reason of containing some typos. The main problem is, however, the lack of reliable secondary sources for the "ambiguous" qualifier. And that seems to be a broader problem for much of the repetition occurring on this talk page: show me the reliable sources qualifying Chopin's letters as ambiguous. I've read Walker's ruminations on the point, but afaics he does not use "ambiguous" or a similar over-all qualifier for the composer's letters. On the other hand, I can give you a reliable source calling Walker's ruminations on the point as, literally, "hand-wringing". So, in my eyes, the biographers' reports on the letters exceed the actual letters in ambiguity. Please understand my lack of interest in what individual wikipedia editors have found out by themselves, without looking at reliable secondary sources. Imho, this is, to a large extent, what makes this this talk page a bit tedious. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

You will notice that the actual proposed footnote says the letters "contain ambiguous passages", not that the letters overall are ambiguous.

So, no quarrel there.

And I won't dispute your opinion that much of this talk page has been a little tedious.

Nihil novi (talk) 11:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Rejecting your summary over-all. "ambiguities (from a certain perspective)" is not the same as "contain ambiguous passages", the difference is, still, that "ambiguous passage" is an absolute (ambiguous for everyone), while that seems an over-interpretation, not shared by any reliable source. A next phrase is even worse, "... especially in inaccurate translations, have been interpreted by some as homoerotic." Really? This is not the page to spout such WP:OR 1.0. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Rejecting your rejection.

If one Chopin–investigator considers "ideał" to be a "he", while another considers it to be a "she", I think that qualifies as an ambiguity.

Unless you also reject Misplaced Pages's "ambiguity" article.

Nihil novi (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure, Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. Please get acquainted with Misplaced Pages's core content policies. Above, in #Ongoing attempts at consensus you were told by several editors not to use "bad translations" as an argument to reject secondary sources. It is not allowed per Misplaced Pages's core content policies. Nonetheless, you steam ahead and do exactly what you were told multiple times as being unacceptable. Not a reliable source in sight. *You did not cite a single source* for your POV summary. The reason appears simple: this can not be referenced to reliable secondary sources, so you should not be wasting our time with this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I submit a revised version of my proposed footnote to the mention of "Tytus Woyciechowski" in the penultimate paragraph of the "Chopin" article's "Education" section:

"Several letters of 1829–30 from Chopin to Woyciechowski (who had moved to his rural estate 300 kilometers southeast of Warsaw) contain ambiguous passages and brief expressions of affection which have been interpreted by some as homoerotic or homosexual. Chopin's biographer Adam Zamoyski describes the more extravagant passages as mere early–Romantic–era outpourings of regret at Woyciechowski's absence, and Chopin's biographer Alan Walker very much doubts there having been a homosexual relationship between the two."

I will leave it to those who have ready access to the Zamoyski and Walker biographies, to provide the appropriate references.

Thank you.

Nihil novi (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Imho this starts to be mere disruption. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Creative disruption, I hope?

Thank you, Francis Schonken, for your incisive critiques, collegiality, and unfailing good humor !

I inadvertently failed (it was getting past bedtime) to remove mention of your "original–research" bête noire, "ambiguity".

My following footnote 3.0 will facilitate your proposal of splitting the biographical strand of this controversy (leaving it in the "Education" section) from the "reception" strand. I hope the following footnote 3.0 meets with greater approval:

"Several letters of 1829–30 from Chopin to Tytus Woyciechowski (who had moved to his rural estate 300 kilometers southeast of Warsaw) contain brief expressions of affection which have been interpreted by some, including Moritz Weber of Swiss Radio, as homoerotic or homosexual. Chopin's biographer Adam Zamoyski describes the more extravagant passages as mere early–Romantic–era outpourings of regret at Woyciechowski's absence, and Chopin's biographer Alan Walker very much doubts there having been a homosexual relationship between the two."

I will leave it to those who have ready access to the Zamoyski and Walker biographies and to the Moritz Weber pronouncements, to provide the appropriate references.

Thank you.

Nihil novi (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Since writing Misplaced Pages articles is not about creativity (which would generally be rejected as WP:OR), the distinction between creative and non-creative disruption is futile in this context. Re. "I will leave it to to provide the appropriate references". Wrong, according to WP:ONUS (... and we're back at you ignoring core content policy): if it's you who wants to see this included in mainspace, it's up to you to demonstrate it is viable, with acceptable references to reliable sources. I reject it as a WP:OR fantasy, and without references that prove otherwise it can afaik not be accepted in mainspace. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Sand's absence from Chopin's funeral

I think I read somewhere that George Sand did not attend Chopin's funeral. Perhaps it's screen-blindness on my part, but I don't now see a mention of it in the article.

If she did indeed boycott Chopin's funeral, would it be of interest to add this fact?

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

See the article George Sand note 22, although the source is the NY Times. Would be better to have a more reliable source. -kosboot (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Kosboot! I've slipped this source in, if only as a placeholder for now.

I think Sand's absence deserves to be noted.

Nihil novi (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

IMHO, factoid quite irrelevant for Chopin's biography. Certainly not worth a separate paragraph (as it is now). Note that one-sentence paragraphs are generally discouraged, see MOS:PARA, and certainly for such a short sentence a one-sentence paragraph looks quite amateurish (there's another such one-sentence paragraphs introduced by N.n. which I'll undo). Other than that, I'd invite co-editors to stay on topic. If you want to say something about a different topic that crosses your mind for whatever reason, then please start a new section, like I did. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Chopin and Sand were an item for some 10 years. Doesn't it strike one as remarkable that, even after some mutual misunderstandings, she decides to boycott his funeral?

To my thinking, it is remarkable enough to be highlighted by means of a separate, if short, paragraph.

Nihil novi (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Still, a non-event. Misplaced Pages's biography of Chopin summarizes multiple published biographies about the composer, all together thousands of pages condensed into a single web page. One of the first things one would do when one starts such massive condensation task is, imho, to stop mentioning things that didn't happen, unless nearly any biography on Chopin would mention the non-event. For Chopin I can only think of one such non-event: that he never returned to Poland in the second half of his life. And the Sand-not-at-the-funeral non-event isn't even related to Chopin's *life*: Sand and Chopin had an intense thing going on for a considerable stretch of time. Misplaced Pages's Chopin biography has a multiple-paragraph section about that. Things didn't end well between them (also explained in a few paragraphs in Misplaced Pages's Chopin biography). All that was done and dusted by the time Chopin died. It would be rather surprising if Sand would have attended the composer's funeral. The relation and the break-up are significant to Chopin's life. What happened (in fact: *did not happen*) in Sand's life after the split has a marginal relevance to Chopin's life, especially if the non-event is situated *after* the composer's life. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

An important reason to avoid non-events is of course that they're open to multiple interpretations. We're apprehensive of primary sources, and rightly so, because they often can be interpreted in multiple ways, so we don't include them unless they illustrate article content covered by reliable secondary sources. For non-events this is even more stringent: don't include them unless they have, according to reliable secondary sources, a definite meaning. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The cited New York Times author is not a primary source.

Nihil novi (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Nor did I say so. I said non-events are even touchier than primary sources: don't include them without an interpretation by a reliable secondary source. That interpretation is currently missing from the Misplaced Pages article: the non-event is mentioned without interpretation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Why do you suppose the New York Times author considered Sand's absence at Chopin's funeral to be "notable"?

(And I would rate the Times's reliability a bit higher than Moritz Weber's.)

Nihil novi (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Totally unconvincing as far as I'm concerned. Misplaced Pages is not a reprinting office of New York Times articles. Misplaced Pages summarizes. A non-event factoid, situated after Chopin's death, apparently not stock-and-trade of Chopin's biographies, is something that should be summarized out of a one-page biography that is a summary of such more extended biographies. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

And the Sand-not-at-the-funeral non-event isn't even related to Chopin's *life* : One could make the same comment about the totality of Chopin's funeral. His *life* had, by definition, ended before then. See, this argument isn't really a goer. Our interest in our subjects does not magically stop instantaneously at the moment of their death.

I have always thought it very odd, and definitely worth mentioning in a respectable article on Chopin, that Sand did not attend the funeral, despite the earlier breakdown of their relationship. -- Jack of Oz 22:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Re. "Our interest in our subjects does not magically stop instantaneously at the moment of their death" – of course not, but as the material (as in: what can be found in reliable sources) on Chopin which relates to things after his death, up to and including airports named after him, exceeds by at least a ten-fold the reliable-source material that can be found about his life we need to be more selective on the post-mortem material. Which for me excludes all non-events of the post-mortem period. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not this should be noted in the article depends on the attention it receives in the scholarly literature and other reliable sources. Personal preferences should not enter the equation. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The book "Chopin's Funeral" by Benita Eisler is one WP:RS. It has an account of the funeral at the Madeleine and the events which preceded Chopin's death, including his last unplanned encounter with Sand. The first chapter describes the funeral ceremonies, including the cortege and the service (which required permission for a ladies' choir). In her four concluding sentences, Eisler writes: "In the silence ordained by the dead man, his coffin was lowered. The mourners pressed closer together for a last look. But they also seemed to close ranks, filling an empty place among them. Absent from the small circle of those who had been closest to the dead man was George Sand." Accounts of Chopin's funeral are not hard to find, e.g. Kallberg's 2001 article "Chopin's March, Chopin's Funeral", which describes a eye-witness report in a letter by Berlioz to his sister. The affair between Sand and Chopin and its collapse has been well covered, e.g. in the 2004 biography of George Sand by Elizabeth Harlan, Yale University Press. Mathsci (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I have added Eisler's book to the bibliography. It was originally published in the UK in 2003. It is also available as an e-book, which is a little cumbersome for finding page numbers. Eisler's book has been reviewed by the Financial Times, The New York Times Book Review, The Times, The Telegraph, The Grauniad, etc, and has been partially serialised in the NYT. Mathsci (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Do main modern biographies such as Walker's and/or Zamoyski's mention this? Or did nobody actually bother to check? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Lucasta Miller summarizes the content of a book exclusively devoted to Chopin's funeral in around 10 paragraphs. That summary does not mention Sand's absence of Chopin's funeral. We summarize roughly the same content in less than 10 paragraphs: summarizing Misplaced Pages-style is leaving out information bits that don't usually recur in summarizing reliable sources.

I feel that Sand's absence is worth mentioning. It's mentioned in the Sand article. I feel it would confuse readers to see it mentioned in the Sand article and not mentioned in the Chopin article. - kosboot (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

That is a WP:OSE argument, and one that is not relevant to people who have not seen the article on Sand. (Speaking for myself, I have not visited that one in years, if I ever did.) Toccata quarta (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

In your opintion it's WP:OSE, but I disagree. Two people have an intense affair lasting about 10 years, during which both produced world-famous works. In that context, Sand not showing up for his funeral is notable. - kosboot (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

As has been remarked (by me and others) elsewhere in this massive discussion: I'm merely pointing out factors to be considered and arguments to be avoided, not expressing an opinion either way. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Some users seem to find it quite hard to locate sources. In this case the book "Chopin's Funeral" of Benita Eisler is easy to find. Indeed the Penguin Random House website is here and clicking on "READ AN EXCERPT" yields the whole of Chapter I. In the last four sentences, Eisler writes: "In the silence ordained by the dead man, his coffin was lowered. The mourners pressed closer together for a last look. But they also seemed to close ranks, filling an empty place among them. Absent from the small circle of those who had been closest to the dead man was George Sand." Eisler writes very well. Mathsci (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Alleged "difficulties in locating sources" are inconsequential to Misplaced Pages policies, principles and guidelines, which is what this is all about. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Then it is your "opinion" that kosboot's OSE argument is invalid, and I agree to that opinion. Toccata quarta, please show a bit more backbone, if you have an opinion, then just state it – this is not a page to collect statements that have no bearing on the issues being discussed (WP:NOTBLOG). And again, editors' subjective impressions of what is notable and what isn't is also a futile and largely invalid line of argumentation: it's about trying to get a good understanding of what reliable sources do (see the WP:BALASPS policy). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course it is my opinion. It is my opinion that what matters are the rules and guidelines that Misplaced Pages is built on. You might as well say "Atheists also believe in something", which is just the kind of truism this discussion needs. Whether I consider another editor's argument logically fallacious is irrelevant to what information I would like to be included in Misplaced Pages or to the boundaries set by this project, so need for "backbones" or some such to enter the conversation. For the record, "if you have an opinion, then just state it – this is not a page to collect statements that have no bearing on the issues being discussed (WP:NOTBLOG)" is as contradictory a statement as they come. I have never said if I find the speculations on Chopin's sexuality legitimate, nor will you find such a statement of mine to that effect here. I have tried to remind editors of the policies and principles to be considered and which some of them have ignored or overlooked. Considering this discussion now stands at nearly 300,000 bytes (and sarcasm appears to be becoming the dominant tone), it seems that a structured and policy-guided resolution (or an RfC) is in order. You may consider this my last comment on this part the conversation, as I see no need to discuss quixotic truisms or some such. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Toccata quarta: I'd like to hear what you think is the best course of action w.r.t. inclusion or non-inclusion of the Sand-not-at-Chopin's-funeral material in the Frédéric Chopin article, and why you think that is the best course of action. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: The same as for almost any other content dispute: consider how much weight the topic is given in reliable sources and decide whether inclusion of it in the article can be reconciled with WP:Summary style. It's not like this is a contentious topic like "Chopin's sexuality" or a highly sensitive one like "Chopin and Jews", where wider community input and consensus will inevitably enter the equation and have to be clarified. If we are struggling to agree on how to resolve a topic like this one, we will spend the next few months arguing about Chopin's sexuality. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

References

1. Miller, Lucasta (21 June 2003). "The composer who never grew up". The Guardian.

Image sizes

I think recent changes to image sizes quite counterproductive. For example, why should the image of one of Chopin's teachers be wider than the lead image (Chopin himself). I'll bring this back to more normalized image sizes (see WP:IMGSIZE). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Image sizes may vary, depending on one's computer settings.

If my size changes substantially threw off the image readings, I apologize.

Nihil novi (talk) 06:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Rubinstein as de-feminizer

The Kallberg reference refers not to Arthur Rubinstein, born ca 1890, but to Anton Rubinstein -- a contemporary of Chopin. This invalidates any thesis that a feminized Chopin persisted for decades until a revisionist rediscovery in the twentieth century. Contemporaries and peers of Chopin never feminized his work and this narrative relates only to a stereotype of twentieth century gender and social norms. SPECIFICO talk 21:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Not correct. In his 1992 "Harmony at the Tea Table" article, Kallberg refers to Artur Rubinstein's 1973 autobiographical book, "My Young Years", pages 86–87. On page 112, Kallberg writes: "Artur Rubinstein frequently gave himself credit for steering interpretations of Chopin away from the 'salon style'—itself an encoded reference to 'women's music'—of the late nineteenth century. In his memoirs, Rubinstein disparaged the performances of Chopin he attended as a youth, which led him initially to adopt, as he wrote 'the generally accepted opinion of Chopin as the young, sick, romantic figure who wrote sentimental music for the piano.'" Mathsci (talk) 11:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Oddly, a different essay in the same volume as the other Kallberg reference, Chopin Stuies, cites Anton Rubinstein. The mention of Arthur Rubinstein's. Reminiscence of performances he heard in his youth is not necessarily representative of professional European performance practice. The Anton bit still contradicts any such view. I also think it's a bit UNDUE to accept Arthur's view that he was responsible for changing the world's view of Chopin, if that is actually what he intended to say. SPECIFICO talk 01:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Benita Eisler's "Chopin's Funeral"

This book was added by me in the bibliography and is clearly a reliable source. There have been several book reviews of Benita Eisler's book. I have already mentioned some above (in another section), but there are several others such as the Christian Science Monitor and the Wall Street Journal. Eisler's book is extremely detailed and has been used by other biographers as a source (e.g. by Elizabeth Harlan's biography of George Sand). Chapter 14, entitled "Lucrezia Floriani", concerns only Delacroix, Sand and Chopin. It's easy to read, provided editors have access to the book. All of the reviews of Eisler's book appeared at about the same time, i.e. within a month or so of their release in Britain or the United States. Mathsci (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The blurb for Eisler has: "Frédéric Chopin’s reputation as one of the Great Romantics endures, but as Benita Eisler reveals in her elegant and elegiac biography, the man was more complicated than his iconic image. A classicist, conservative, and dandy who relished his conquest of Parisian society, the Polish émigré was for a while blessed with genius, acclaim, and the love of Europe’s most infamous woman writer, George Sand. But by the age of 39, the man whose brilliant compositions had thrilled audiences in the most fashionable salons lay dying of consumption, penniless and abandoned by his lover. In the fall of 1849, his lavish funeral was attended by thousands—but not by George Sand. In this intimate portrait of an embattled man, Eisler tells the story of a turbulent love affair, of pain and loss redeemed by art, and of worlds—both private and public—convulsed by momentous change."

The passage concerning the parting of the ways between Sand and Chopin probably needs to be tweaked. The content doesn't quite match up with the sources. Mathsci (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

For users who don't have access to Eisler's book, here's a summary of how Chapter 14 starts. In Paris in 1846, people were beleaguered by flu, which particularly affected Chopin. Sand was unsympathetic, suggesting hypochondria. She started her new novel "Lucrezia", due to be serialized. As installations were written, Sand would have the text read out aloud to Chopin. After a while, however, Sand moved to Nohant for 3 weeks and there completed the novel. Delacroix and Chopin joined Sand at Nohant, where she read aloud the finished text. On hearing the novel in full, Delacroix wrote that "weariness of boredom" stamped every page and he was "in agony" for Chopin. The rest is as in the article but Eisler continues: "At midnight, when his host suggested that Delacroix accompany him upstairs, the painter leapt at the opportunity to be alone with his friend ... Their talk left Delacroix still more astounded. Chopin’s enthusiasm had not been an act, after all: 'He hadn’t understood a single word.'" Mathsci (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

That is a very evocative scene. I hope something of it can be added to the article.

Nihil novi (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks! Here is the paragraph of the book review in The Grauniad summarising/paraphrasing the same segment from Chapter 14:

"In the painful final stages of their affair, Sand fictionalised unkindly in her novel Lucrezia Floriani, in which the heroine dies suffocated by the emotional demands of her increasingly irrational lover. When Sand read the manuscript aloud to Delacroix in Chopin's presence, the painter was shocked at the brazen way in which she was prepared to carry out such a character assassination in front of the victim. What astounded him more was Chopin's polite, even enthusiastic, response. Was this a bravura display of the unruffled aristocratic good manners on which Chopin prided himself? Determined to find out, Delacroix questioned him in private and came away perplexed. Extraordinary as it seems, the composer had not recognised the obvious portrait of himself."

The review was very short. Eisler's book, however, is much longer and does not elide details. In Chapter 14, Delacroix, Sand and Chopin are mentioned proportionately; and the short paragraph above as written does not distort that. The short book review, however, is not a WP:RS when the complete book is available. Mathsci (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I found, on a library's website, an extremely moving excerpt of chapter one of Benita Eisler's book, Chopin's Funeral. Posthumous as the scene is to Chopin's life, it too helps bring him to life for the reader. Unfortunately, the excerpt seems to be protected against linking.

The last paragraph reads: "Absent from the small circle of those who had been closest to the dead man was George Sand."

Nihil novi (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The whole of Chapter I is here on the website of Penguin Random House. Clicking the link for "read an excerpt" reveals the pop-up text. Is that what you meant? In a section above, I gave the last four sentences from that Chapter I somewhere above. It is very well written. Mathsci (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Adam Zamoyski's biography of Chopin

Has anyone access to the print or e-book biography of Chopin by Adam Zamoyski?

What does he say about Chopin's letters to Tytus Woyciechowski?

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I think I already mentioned on this talk page that I had access (it's now very hard to find anything on this talk page!!). If the file is not too large, it can be transferred using the wikipedia email facility. If it's too large then Google Drive is another way (another user asked for Pevsner's "Gothic architecture" which was about 160 MB). In the text, there are descriptions of Chopin's visits to Woyciechowski's estate.

I just checked the size of the EPUB file, which is less than 500 KB, so tiny. If you send me a message through my wikipedia email account requesting the file, I can reply to you so that the file can be included as an attachment. (I'm using gmail for wikipedia.) Mathsci (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles that are featured articles
• Selected anniversaries (March 2010)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2017)
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class biography articles
• FA-Class biography (musicians) articles
• High-importance biography (musicians) articles
• Musicians work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• FA-Class Composers articles
• WikiProject Composers articles
• FA-Class France articles
• High-importance France articles
• All WikiProject France pages
• FA-Class Poland articles
• Top-importance Poland articles
• WikiProject Poland articles