Talk:Frédéric Chopin/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

RFC: Chopin and Sexuality

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In this discussion and several other related ones, the community considers how to cover Chopin's sexuality. The community fails to reach a consensus.—S Marshall T/C 10:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Which of the following sections on Chopin's sexuality should be included in the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

A. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Chip-Chip-2020 portion.

B. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Francis Schonken portion.

C. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/François Robere's proposal.

D. See User:Smerus/chopforrfc.

E. Status quo, see, in the article, explanatory footnote No. 6 and "Sexuality" subsection of "Life" section.

F. Remove and do not replace the Sexuality section. This would restore the status quo. The sexuality section was recently added and is not status quo. SPECIFICO talk 21:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Please state which section you favor briefly in the Survey. You may engage in back-and-forth discussion in the Threaded Discussion. Back-and-forth discussion must be civil, and should be at least relatively concise. Remember that if you post a wall of text, other editors will think too long, didn't read, and that isn't useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Other/new versions (after RfC launch):

• B' (31/12/2020) – revised version of "B", now including the Rink source. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• I have added the true status quo, option F above. SPECIFICO talk 21:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option G: this option is a variant of Option D (User:Smerus/chopforrfc), with the 3rd paragraph of the original proposal for the "Travel and domestic success" section inserted in the Frédéric Chopin article and the second more extended version of that paragraph as start for an independent Sexuality of Frédéric Chopin article. Please discuss below in #Separate article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Revised versions

---

See the new reference of John Rink mentioned below, added by me on 22:23, 30 December 2020. Presumably C and B are to be modified in the same way. John Rink is not a biographer: he is Professor of Musical Performance Studies at the University of Cambridge. Mathsci (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Unsurprisingly, I support my proposal, D. I am not against the proposal of User:Francis Schonken save for the prominence it gives to da Fonseca Walker, and to the Swiss radio broadcast, neither of which should be regarded as appropriate authorities. However he is I think resonable to feature the piano concerto connections re Gladkowska and Woyciechowski in the 'life' section. I may try a revision of my proposal in the next few days to incorporate some features of Francis's. I may also make brief comments on the other proposals in the threaded discussion.--Smerus (talk) 11:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
• Only option D seems acceptable at the moment (Pizà, however, is no a prominent Chopin scholar, so his inclusion might be WP:UNDUE; and more priority should probably be attached to Chopin's infatuations with singers). In this article, the BBC 4 and Italian documentaries, all involving Chopin biographers, scholars and pianists, have not entered the territory of "what if?" The recent journalistic sources have affected options A, B and C. Reasons for the dedication of a musical score vary and are open to interpretation; however, editing audio links to accompany homoerotic letters for a section titled "Passions" seems unencyclopedic—possibly reminiscent of The Music Lovers, one of Ken Russell's several docudramas from the 60s-70s. Mathsci (talk) 13:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC) A fifth "status quo" option E has very recently been added by Robert McClenon (13:54, 25 December, 2020). Options D and E are compatible, but option D is clearly a refinement and still so far the best option. Mathsci (talk) 15:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC) (A possible 2nd version of paragraph 3 of D was added by Smerus on 26 December.[5] It's a reworking of B and C, with similar problems of balance; the original is still the best so far. Mathsci (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)) After recent clarification, the newly added option F also seems viable, with the possible addition of a few appropriate and non-contentious sentences. Mathsci (talk) 04:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option D is still the only option I support because it is balanced and is likely to result in a stable article. The claimed "new" variant of D originates in a WP:POVFORK of User:Piotrus, cf #Separate article. It shows no chance of being stable. As User:Smerus has already pointed out and as WP:consensus seems to indicate, no new material is currently planned for this WP:FA. Mathsci (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• I would prefer a modified version "E":

Split off the current "Sexuality" section's music-reception discussion (paragraph 1) and add it to the article's current "Reception and influence" section.

Add the "Sexuality" section's information about Chopin's involvement with George Sand (paragraph 2) to the article's current "George Sand" section.

The Marquis de Custine is already mentioned in the "Paris" section's paragraph 3 and does not appear to merit further mention (except possibly in a footnote to that paragraph).

Leave the ultimately indeterminate speculations (which are therefore inappropriate for the main text) about the proper interpretation of Chopin's adolescent letters where they now are – in note 6 [6].

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 21:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• SUPPORT version F, fully and without reservation. Speculation about the import of isolated passages in a few of Chopin's adolescent letters should never have been entertained in this article as any sort of indication concerning Chopin's emotional or love life or his musical creativity.

Nihil novi (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• A through C are not as clear as D. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• I support option D as offering the best compromise and balance. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• Version BVersion B' (31/12/2020). I've given it some careful consideration whether I could get behind any of the other proposals, but the "B" version seems, by far, most conforming to NPOV policy requirements. Its inclusion of the two quotes which recur most often (as in: nearly always) in biographical accounts of the period around 1829–1830 seems more than justified. Making a separate subsection (as opposed to merely a paragraph) about the Gładkowska/Woyciechowski phase in Chopin's life seems also more than justified: book-length biographies customarily devote an entire chapter to the topic – proportionally, three or four paragraphs, in a separate subsection, for each of the topics that customarily take a chapter in a book-length biography, seems about right. Walker's biography and da Fonseca-Wollheim's criticism on it (regarding the topic at hand) are afaics both acceptable reliable sources – if that is doubted, it should go to WP:RSN – and the adoption of both in this context contributes to a NPOV treatment of the topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Updated !vote: version B' additionally uses John Rink's Chopin: The Piano Concertos as reference, which is definitely an improvement from WP:V perspective. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Option G as second choice. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Proposal C for me would fit best, but I would suggest to add one passage from Proposal B, since Chopins stay at Poturzyn at Tytuses obviously was very important for him. Moreover, in both proposals, B and C, there is a translation mistake in the example with the ideal. Chopin doesn‘t write, that he served his ideal silently, but „to whom I haven‘t spoken to for half a year“. A subtle but important detail, since it fits the fact, that half a year before that letter Tytus left Warsaw to settle in Potruzyn. --Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Version C, as nominator. It has the benefits of Francis Schonken's proposal of separating Chopin's sexuality from his popular reception (which is really what this RfC should've been about), with several highlights that put the existing content and Smerus's version in perspective: first we quote Alan Walker in full, giving the reader the ability to judge Walker's perceptions (which are evidently biased) rather than accept them as fact; second, we add Pizá's, Brett and Wood's perspectives on the historiography of Chopin, which underlies this entire debate; and third, we add a balancing comment from Pizá, which is straightforward and not bound by said historiography. We end up with a concise and balanced text, which summarised all of the major viewpoints on the subject. François Robere (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Version D - none of the other versions are as clear and concise; they also bring up too many side and tangential issues. D is far better writing. - kosboot (talk)
• I support Version E which seems to me to be well-balanced and sufficient enough in context.--Darwinek (talk) 00:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support D which is the clearest and the one I believe provides the best WP:WEIGHT. Putting the radio broadcast in a note is far more appropriate than putting it in the text. Aza24 (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Interested editors could consider a separate article, like Sexuality of William Shakespeare. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support for F + neutral 1-2 sentence summary stating the issue of sexuality is of some interest to scholars + dedicated subarticle. A lot of the other versions seem to build sandcastle theories based on passing comments or unreliable journalistic speculation, some of which also invokes WP:REDFLAG or WP:FRINGE. That said, I do think there is enough here - looking at the proposed sections/footnotes to possibly warrant an article on sexuality of Chopin, where all of this could be preserved and discussed further. Do note that what is WP:UNDUE here may be more due and relevant in a subarticle. But as far as the main article here, I'd at best keep one neutral quote like Pizà's "Chopin's sexual life has never failed to awaken the curiosity of music lovers and to generate discourse among experts" or from the (unnamed?) spokesman for the Fryderyk Chopin Institute who 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." This could be added somewhere linking to a subarticle where we could try to hash this further (and in the meantime, that subarticle could be tagged with {{NPOV}} or such, while the main article where is stable, neutral and unaffected by our deliberations (which, I repeat, seem to be based on rather weak sources - research equivalent of 'grasping for straws'). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• F Weakly sourced speculation and no theory as to its relevance to the man or his works. SPECIFICO talk 02:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• D Having read through the copious discussion above, this seems like the best option for presenting facts attributed to reliable sources according to their WP:WEIGHT. It's entirely possible Chopin's sexuality might become more of a topic of discussion and more scholars will evaluate it in the future, but for now focusing on and hence privileging fewer sources isn't the right tack. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option F, with Option D as second choice. The other options give WP:Undue weight on recent non-scholarly speculations, contrary to WP:Fringe. Oppose fork article on his sexuality. It would be undue weight. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  To be absolutely clear, I oppose any spin-off article on this subject (the recently added "Option G"). This was also discussed below under #Separate article. Only noting this because it has been claimed lower down that such an article would be a separate matter, but this RfC is clearly about how to cover this material and to assign weight about it wherever it is, not just here. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC) revised Crossroads ^-talk- 21:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

• Comment – I posted invitations to participate in this RfC at:
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Chopin and homosexuality
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#RfC on Chopin and sexuality
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#RfC on Chopin and sexuality

--Francis Schonken (talk) 12:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• And I have mentioned that the RfC is taking place in posts at Wikiprojects Composers, France and Poland, which also include the article in their remits.--Smerus (talk) 14:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
• As regards proposal A, this is almost a text-book example of tendentious editing. It loops in several of Chopin's friends (and seeks to add large pictures of them) on the unfounded assertion that they were all his homosexual lovers. The only assertion that this is the case is in a Swiss radio programme which attracted a large amount of media attention in the days that followed it, but should be treated with extreme caution as the presenter is not recognized (anywhere) as an authority on Chopin and gave no evidence to support the assertions. Proposal A does not meet with the appropriate standards of neutrality, or reliable citation; for example, no source is provided for the supposed 'doubt' that Sand ever had sexual relations with Chopin. The letters to Woychiekowski which relate to this issue are extremely well-known and have been discussed by well-known biographers and music historians such as Zamoyski and Walker, who are not cited in Proposal A. This proposal is entirely unsuitable by Wikipedia standards, and particularly so when it is suggested for a Wikipedia FA.--Smerus (talk) 14:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Some of these criticisms apply also to proposals B and C, which seem to be almost identical (apart from two extra citations). Chopin's adolescent letters cover only a small period of Chopin's life, so speculating on them in too great detail might be WP:UNDUE. That applies to proposals A, B and C all of which have parallel translations between Polish and English of the letters from Chopin to Woyciechowski; there are no records of any replies. On the other hand, by emphasising recent media headlines like "Was Frédéric Chopin Gay?", it is easy to overlook the correspondence between Chopin and women, particularly singers. Mathsci (talk) 15:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

As has previously been pointed out by Francis Schonken, the current "Sexuality" section conflates the disparate topics of Chopin's romantic involvements, with the public reception of his compositions. A separation of these two strands would seem reasonable, and would make them more assimilable for readers.

Nihil novi (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• Proposals B and C. I comment on these together, as Proposal C is acknowledgedly a build on Proposal B. I deprecate both version for their featuring of de Fonseca Walker as an appropriate source, and for giving a high profile to the broadcast by Werner. De Fonseca Walker has no status at all as an expert in this issue, and moreover demeans herself further in version C by the inclusion of her coarse description of Sand, who was not habitually “cigar-smoking and trouser wearing” as the casual reader might be led to believe. Werner’s broadcast was a nine-days wonder but to dwell on it as any sort of authority would be gross WP:RECENTISM. See in general my comments on Proposal A on such sources. Version C also suggests a further inappropriate source, viz. Brett and Wood. This source mentions Chopin only in passing, as “the effeminized Chopin.” It is not explained what is mean by this – “effeminized” in the Oxford English Dictionary is defined as “rendered effeminate or womanish in character or appearance”. If they are saying that others have presented Chopin as effeminate they may possibly be referring to (and misunderstanding) Kallberg, but the implications of this as an assessment of Chopin’s sexual character are nugatory to the point of meaninglessness. They do not help their case or reputation (such as they are) by their snide inclusion of Chopin amongst “bachelor composers”. This sort of titillating (to some) suggestiveness should have no place in Wikipedia.

What is worthwhile imo in version B is the placing of the Woychiekowski letters in the context of the piano concertos and Gladkowska. I don’t think however there is a call for quoting the letters in extenso, but para 3 in the section ‘Travel and domestic success’ in my proposal, proposal D, could be expanded to give this context. I have now given an alternative para 3 in proposal D as an example, if anyone wants to look at it.--Smerus (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Did you mean "[Moritz] Weber" rather than "Werner"? Mathsci (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, sorry! Thanks for correction.--Smerus (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Version 2 of paragraph 3 does give more context to the "letters" question. At the second mention of "the letter of 4 September", it would be helpful to repeat its year: "the letter of 4 September 1830".

In the article's "Paris" section, I think it would be useful to quote Chopin's 1832 diary entry about Konstancja Gładkowska. Indeed, more about Chopin's relations and correspondence with women, especially singers, might be desirable – particularly, given the crucial influence that the female singing voice seems to have exerted on Chopin's musical imagination (as discussed, among other places, in the 2010 BBC documentary, "Chopin: the Women behind the Music", [7], available on YouTube, cited by Mathsci). One of Chopin's last acts on this earth, as he lay dying, was to ask Delfina Potocka, apparently an accomplished singer, to sing for him.

Nihil novi (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

(ec) The 2016 translation of David Frick was reviewed by Jeremy Coleman in The Chopin Review, where he wrote: "For all its novelty and attractiveness, this new collection of Chopin’s Polish letters does not challenge Adam Zamoyski’s old observation that the composer’s correspondence 'betrays little about [his] emotional life, let alone his sexual habits [...], makes no judgements on other musicians or composers, and gives no clue as to how Chopin considered his music or how he felt about creating it'." In journalist M. Weber's article "Chopin war schwul – und niemand sollte davon erfahren", each occurrence of "her" in Frick's translation is crossed out in red to support Weber's theory that "Chopin Was Gay". In proposals B and C, only Weber's article is cited for that change. (BTW Chopin biographies have been listed in the 2015 Routledge book "Frédéric Chopin: A Research and Information Guide" by William Smialek and Maja Trochimczyk.) Mathsci (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Corinna da Fonseca-Wollheim has a Ph.D in Italian Literature from Cambridge, and has been writing music reviews and art critiques for the WSJ and NYT since at least 2008 - presumably she can spot a gap in a biography, and that's what we cite her for; and as for George Sand's style - her contemporaneous "gender-bending" is described in her own autobiography. François Robere (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

original comment moved to "Survey" section
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposal C for me would fit best, but I would suggest to add one passage from Proposal B, since Chopins stay at Poturzyn at Tytuses obviously was very important for him. Moreover, in both proposals, B and C, there is a translation mistake in the example with the ideal. Chopin doesn‘t write, that he served his ideal silently, but „to whom I haven‘t spoken to for half a year“. A subtle but important detail, since it fits the fact, that half a year before that letter Tytus left Warsaw to settle in Potruzyn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chip-chip-2020 (talk • contribs) @Chip-chip-2020: is there a reason you put this in the #Threaded Discussion subsection and not in the #Survey subsection, per the OP's recommendations ("Please state which section you favor briefly in the Survey" – my emphasis)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC) Thanks for the hint!--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Probably we should also mention the detailed and convincing explications by Krzysztof Tomasik, who is an expert on the topic.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• As I mentioned on your own talk page, users should not be making edits related to "Chopin and sexuality" on the article during the 30 days of the RfC. Please could you self-revert? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the hint. So we can discuss about this important specification for the sexuality-section here. We definitely should move from allegations about the relationship Chopin-Sand to what they themselves wrote about it. Since this is the best source we can get. My suggestion for the last paragraph in the sexuality-section:

A more open discourse in most countries worldwide about sexual variety may also have influenced the view and scholarship on the composer's sexuality; debate on this topic began to expand towards the end of the 20th century. Moreover, is dubious whether Chopin's relationship with George Sand had ever been physical. In a letter she already in June 1838 points out, that and how he abstained. And 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, referred to Chopin in 1842 as "Sexless" ("Sans-sexe"), although in later years she seemed to display affection for him herself. Chopin was a friend and more than one time guest of the Marquis de Custine in Saint-Gratien, who lived his homosexuality openly. A letter from de Custine to Chopin, inviting Chopin to visit, refers to the composer as an "inconstant sylph"; Kallberg recognizes the "impossibility of 'discovering' the truth" of what this may imply. On the other hand, Krzysztof Tomasik notes Polands mastery in disguising homobiographical details about famous polish artists and personalities.

--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Zamoyskis Biography about Chopin unfortunately is far away from a scientific approach, as I explained in the separate section about his biography.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 11:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • In Moritz Weber's bilingual web article, there are direct links to de.wikipedia.org. Weber writes: "To date, Chopin’s emotional and erotic relationship with Woyciechowski, the most important relationship in his life, has been distorted or marginalized beyond recognition – even in otherwise reliable sources of reference. In Wikipedia proven details of this relationship were instantly deleted." Mathsci (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that's a reference to Wikipedia being a "reliable source" as much as a "notable source". François Robere (talk) 08:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Usual WP criteria for sourcing still apply. The 2016 Routledge/T&F online translation of Frick is available by subscription only, so inaccessible for most users. Weber's invitation to click on the "deleted" button is still there. Mathsci (talk) 08:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
      • François Robere's comments on his extra sources for proposal C are disingenuous. The passing reference to Chopin in Brett & Wood's book is misleading and appears out of context. Similarly the short Spanish article by Antoni Piazà has not so far been cited by established Chopin scholars; he gives long quotes from "Sex Lives of the Great Composers" by Nigel Cawthorne, a regular contributor to The Daily Mail. . Mathsci (talk) 09:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
        • The passing reference to Chopin in Brett & Wood's book is misleading and appears out of context I don't believe it is either.
          You're correct about Pizà, but no need to spread it further. Cawthorne's popular books have been cited by other scholars too,[8] and Pizà doesn't exactly rely solely on him, quoting sources from Sartre to Kallberg. François Robere (talk) 11:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• RE: Piza - Could we please remove Piza from option D. He is not a noteworthy Chopin scholar, and we have nearly 200 years of Chopin commentary by persons who themselves are highly notable and respected. The Piza bit serves only to ease us into the subject and has no substantive import to the proposed section text. SPECIFICO talk 17:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you intending to complete the survey? Mathsci (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I haven't had time to read each of the proposals in detail. Right now, I favor D, but I hope others will join me in recognizing the possibility of D ex Piza. SPECIFICO talk 18:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

My proposal was for D with the same caveat on Pizà's article, not a WP:RS. Mathsci (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I concur with SPECIFICO and Mathsci about the apparent uselessness of Piza, who seems to have nothing substantial to say.

I would also remove the subheading "Sexuality" from the reception section. Little is known about Chopin's sex life.

He was rejected as a suitor by the parents of his only known fiancée as being too poor and too sickly.

For a time, George Sand provided this sensitive, shy man with some companionship.

As with other creative persons, the one constant attachment in his life seems to have been to his métier – to music.

Nihil novi (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that, as written at the moment, the options B and C are inadequately sourced. The second piano concerto of Chopin is discussed there; but one of the main sources is:

• Rink, John (1997). Chopin: The Piano Concertos. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511611636. ISBN 9780511611636.

John Rink is an American from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania with a PhD from Princeton University before appointments at Royal Holloway College and then St John's College at the University of Cambridge. His book covers the music and life of Chopin; the first two chapters are titled "Contexts" and "Creation". Rink is a world authority on Chopin. At the beginning of Chapter 2, Rink writes:

Brief excerpt of John Rink's book on Chopin's Piano Concertos

After his Vienna triumph in August 1829, Chopin returned to Warsaw newly committed to a virtuoso career, and before long he embarked on his first concerto with that goal in mind. His earliest mention of the F minor Concerto appears in a letter to his friend Tytus Woyciechowski dated 3 October 1829, confessing that his 'ideal'—Konstancja Gladkowska, a young singer he had long admired—had inspired the slow movement. On 20 October, he told Tytus: "Elsner has praised the Adagio of my concerto. He says it is original; but I don't wish to hear any opinions on the Rondo just yet as I am not quite satisfied with it." In mid-November Chopin commented that the third movement was still incomplete, and several months passed before the concerto's first public airing on 17 March 1830 at the Teatr Narodowy, conducted by Kurpinski. This concert—Chopin's Warsaw debut—had such success (despite his own misgivings) that it was repeated on the 22nd with a larger, more resonant piano. By then the E minor Concerto was underway. Chopin reported to Tytus on 27 March 1830 that "I shall be finishing the first Allegro of my second concerto before the holidays", and on 15 May that although the Rondo was unfinished, the first movement was done, as was the second movement, of which he observed: "It is not meant to create a powerful effect; it is rather a Romance, calm and melancholy, giving the impression of someone looking gently towards a spot which calls to mind a thousand happy memories. It is a kind of reverie in the moonlight on a beautiful spring evening. Hence the accompaniment is muted: that is, the violins are muffled by a sort of comb which fits over the strings and gives them a nasal and silvery tone ..."

The first chapter establishes the context of Chopin's early life and music in the WP:RS of Rink; in the second chapter, his informed discussion of Chopin's letters avoids any need to construct hypothetical content using primary sources, i.e. Chopin's Polish letters. Mathsci (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nihil novi: I agree with you that probably there is no need for a subheader "Sexuality" (just like the article on Franz Schubert). I was also quite happy that at last content on music was again being introduced into this article. Adding Scherzos (Chopin) was an obvious thing to do (Chopin autograph manuscripts are off-line until 4 January 2021). Mathsci (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

---

---

@Nihil novi: I'd give you the same recommendation I gave to SPECIFICO (see below): write it out in a proposal. In the "Survey" section you describe a modified "E", then, according to your last comment above, you make clear that even that is not what you want, so I'd really, really, recommend you stop beating around the bush, and write out what you actually propose. I, for one, can't follow any more what the end result would be of your accumulated proposals: write it out clearly, e.g. at User:Nihil novi/chopforrfc, give it a new letter in the lead section of the RfC, and try to get support for it. Even I might eventually support, if I only could see what your actual proposal is. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't know who moved my above reply to Nihil novi around a few times. Repeating what I said on 09:51, 14 December 2020 on this page: "WP:TPG: if refactoring of a talk page discussion is opposed, attempts to repeat it should usually stop."

Unrelated to that: I don't think it very proper if editors with whom I'm in an IBAN would be commenting—directly or indirectly—on proposals I wrote, which include B, B' and a substantial part of DC. The simple truth is: I couldn't reply to such comments (whether justified or unjustified), while that's how IBAN works. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC) (typo corrected 06:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC))

@Francis Schonken: If it's a two-way ban then that's a violation on their part, and can be reported at WP:AE. François Robere (talk) 11:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I have commented on the proposals A, B and C and their variants. None of them have much connection with the featured article, which is after all a concise article on the music and life of Frédéric Chopin. I have already written substantial content on Ballade in F minor; and have started the new article Scherzos (Chopin), using Jim Samson's 1992 book and the lengthy Henle-Verlag preface. Like Ballades (Chopin), these cover the most outstanding compositions of Chopin. Or do you have some different view? Mathsci (talk) 11:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Not exactly: nothing to do with arbitration (AE not the correct forum), nor could IBANned editors themselves report any such thing, while that's how IBAN works (community would more often than not react badly when confronted with the fact that the remedy didn't keep the problem off the discussion boards). But thanks for the suggestion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: instead of suggesting others rewrite their proposal, you can, for instance,

1. Support one of the proposals that doesn't have Piza (including mine, B);
2. Write your own proposal, e.g. at User:SPECIFICO/chopforrfc, which shouldn't take more than a few minutes if you start from another one minus Piza, and add it as option F to the RfC's lead section: only five days of the RfC's projected 30 days have elapsed, so still time enough to gather some support.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Unfortunately the sexual revolution and decriminalization of homosexuality - in fact the very recognition and legitimization of the term in scientific literature and society at large - are a matter of only a few decades, so one shouldn't expect older sources to up-to-date on these matters. François Robere (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

That Walker quote

As I previously noted, inclusion of Alan Walker's full quote - specifically the phrases "psychological confusion" and "mental twist" - is crucial for giving the reader the full context of his comments on Chopin, which regular attribution doesn't do. Walker's use of such anachronistic terms to address the young Chopin's homoerotic letters suggests internalized bias, which the reader ought to be made aware of; not doing so means presenting Walker as an objective a source as any, breaking WP:NPOV. François Robere (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

There are over a hundred biographies of Chopin. Walker's is a fairly recent one, but still, only one of around 25 published in the 21st century. He has, afaik, a rather unique interpretation on the Gładkowska/Woyciechowski theme ("mental twist" etc.). Interpretations that occur in only one biography out of over hundred would not generally get an entire sentence in Wikipedia's summary of these over hundred biographies, that is, unless... that unique interpretation is commented upon in several secondary sources (which is the case here), but then, still, in order to not lose balance (with other unique interpretations which may or may not be mentioned in the article), a short sentence to summarize the essence of it should suffice. So, no, as far as I'm concerned, not a quoted full sentence in addition to that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

1. However many there were, Walker is the one we quote here, and so his is the one that needs qualifying - especially if it's unusual.
2. However long the quote is, it should include that particular portion, as it's the key understanding his reading. ATM we have a much longer quote than what I was suggesting (with potential WP:SYNTH in the last paragraph), introduced by Nihil novi in a series of edits meant as a response to my own.[9][10][11][12] This lack of conciseness should not be a barrier to accuracy and balance, especially if it was contentious. François Robere (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Re.:

1. On the contrary, the more unusual it is, the less Wikipedia should give a forum to it. That is part of Wikipedia's core content policies, see e.g. WP:BALASPS and WP:REDFLAG.
2. Either it can be adequately summarized, or it should probably not be in the article at all. There is virtually no support by editors for a long version, and that lack of support aligns, consciously or unconsciously, with core content policy. So I'd rather suggest you try to produce a better summary than mine (in B and B'), preferably even shorter, than pushing for a long version which would result in a WP:UNDUE elaboration.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's just drop Walker's theories. They and he are not commensurate with the subject. SPECIFICO talk 15:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken and SPECIFICO: AFAIC he can be dropped completely, but if he is quoted from what you effectively claim is a WP:FRINGE position, we mustn't present it as mainstream. As for a different version - there are any number of ways to shorten it (by ten words?), some of which shorter than yours, eg. ...the passage as undeniably erotic, but believes it was the result of "psychological confusion"., ...but believes it was the result of "psychological confusion" about his emotions towards Gładkowska, etc. François Robere (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem is it's BS peeping tom UNDUE opinion. SPECIFICO talk 17:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Which is now in all five versions. François Robere (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

John Rink's book has a long quotation, above, where the "ideal" is explained in an appropriate context for Chopin's music and life. Rink is not WP:FRINGE. Is there any particular reason to focus on Walker? Why not read Pierre Azoury's 2000 commentary, « Chopin à travers ses contemporains » ? Mathsci (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Good question. Re: Rink - not that long from what I saw, and not comprehensive on this particular subject (Chopin's romances etc.). Can you provide the relevant translations of Azoury? François Robere (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, John Rink's book is a WP:RS. Nothing is comprehensive on this particular subject. Egyptian born Pierre Azoury (1930–2014) was professor at the American University of Beirut.[13] His 1999 book is in English, "Chopin through his contemporaries: friends, lovers, and rivals". The epilogue concludes with a summary on Chopin's relationships. There are one or two online versions out there on the web, e.g. here (subscription possibly required); I found a pdf version. It's probably tamer than you would like. Mathsci (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Not at all, but the typography is awful. From p. 43 (p. 64 of the PDF): "Chopin, for a while, was emotionally dependent on Tytus, who quickly became his hero figure, confidant, and alter ego. The explicitly erotic passages (that have aroused so much controversy among biographers) contained in some of Chopin’s letter to Tytus should be viewed in their proper perspective: they relate to a transition period, not uncommon in puberty and adolescence, during which Chopin was maturing emotionally." A teenage "crush", then. François Robere (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Azoury simply writes that this was a passing phase; and he goes on to describe Chopin's other relationships. Somewhere Chopin's music is being forgotten in all of this. BTW the Italian wikipedia has completely rewritten their article based on the current English article. Mathsci (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

More importantly, Azoury does not deny that these were explicitly, and clearly, erotic. Should we substitute Azoury for Walker? François Robere (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

IMHO, no. Walker is the more solid source afaics, and has reception in scholarship and high-profile newspapers. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment (1)

Thanks for the attempts at comical relief, but this is outside the scope of this RfC. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Further comments (1)

More broadly – I wonder how many of us would feel sanguine about people, 172 years from now, examining fragments of a couple of our adolescent scribblings in a foreign language and unclear context and, from them, attempting to conjecture our lifelong emotional and behavioral proclivities?

Even felons sometimes get paroled.

Nihil novi (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It sometimes helps to look up, take a breath, and think about something a little different.

I recently read two reviews of Janis A. Tomlinson's Goya: A Portrait of the Artist, Princeton, 2020 – the author's third book on Francisco Goya (who lived 1746–1828).

Andrew Martin (writing in Harper's Magazine, October 2020, pp. 81–82) notes (p. 81) that

Goya maintained a robust correspondence with his friend Martín Zapater, a businessman from his hometown of Zaragoza. The intimacy of some of these letters – Goya referring to Zapater as his "soulmate," writing that he has prepared a room where they could "live together and sleep," and enclosing, on more than one occasion, a drawing of a penis – has understandably led scholars to suggest that Goya's affection was more than platonic. (Tomlinson, however, argues that the very survival of the letters indicates that they couldn't have been as homoerotic as they now seem.)

Peter Schjeldahl (The New Yorker, 21 September 2020, pp. 61–64) writes (pp. 63–64):

Goya seems to have [...] led a decorous enough life [...]. There's a lingering suspicion of homosexuality regarding his primary and, perhaps, only close friend, a never-married Zaragoza businessman named Martín Zapater. When apart, they corresponded constantly and longed for each other's company. But Zapater fell silent when Goya became hysterical during a case of smallpox in his remaining heir, Javier, and pelted his friend – "oh, my soulmate" – with letters of hyperbolic devotion. [...] The pair revelled in bawdry and exchanged drawings of male and femaile genitalia. Tomlinson discounts a sexual liaison on the ground that the men were too discreet to risk the possible scandal. [...] For the record, I doubt a sexual relation, for want of more than speculative evidence.

I will add: the ancient Romans attached phallus figures to the outsides of their homes as good-luck charms.

I anticipate the responses to this from some quarters. But I wonder, are we perhaps, with Chopin, making a mountain out of a molehill?

Nihil novi (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Well after the RfC we may need to hang one on thie article. Where is the option for none of the above? @Robert McClenon: SPECIFICO talk 03:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Makes you wonder what Chopin would've had hung. François Robere (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Nihil novi: I think your questions are relevant. The article on the Sexuality of William Shakespeare, mentioned by Gråbergs Gråa Sång is probably not directly relevant. For 19th-century composers, however, Franz Schubert is relevant, but he only gets a paragraph. There is an article on the Sexuality of Pyotr Illyich Tchaikovsky, but it is a redirect to "Personal life" in Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. Mathsci (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment (2)

This RfC is invalid, as it has no option to remove this recnt and UNDUE sex talk entirely. I have brought this to the attention of @Robert McLenon: who may be able to suggest a constructive way forward. Of all the tens of thousands of thoughtful writings about Chopin, ask yourselves what is the relative incidence of speculation about ill-defined gender identity narratives about gender identities and hermaphrodite among the long-ago continental aristocracy? SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, correcting ping above @Robert McClenon: SPECIFICO talk 16:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Further comments (2)

I have:

• Moved Gråbergs Gråa Sång's comment in the !voting section to below (#Separate article), and replied to it.
• Hatted some off-topic comments, that don't seem to have any bearing on this RfC (#Off-topic subsection above)
• Added the #Procedural subsection title above, for discussion of procedural matters relating to this RfC
• Moved the #Konstancja Gładkowska and Maria Wodzińska section to the RfC discussion.

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Nihil novi, SPECIFICO, and Chip-chip-2020:

• Changing topic mid-discussion is mostly counterproductive (a new subtopic belongs in a new subsection; a different topic altogether, not in this RfC);
• Adding discussions unrelated to the topic of this RfC in the RfC discussion is mostly counterproductive;
• Adding non-!vote comments to the survey section is mostly counterproductive (such comments belong in the discussion section)
• Starting a new topic outside the RfC that is exactly about the topic of this RfC is mostly counterproductive.

I don't say any of you have done any of that, but please, keep the discussion as coherent as possible. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Restorations
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Restored comments (#1) --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Restored hatted germane comment outside of hatting (#2) --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC) "Procedural" is a germane subsection (and does not belong to the previous subsection) → restoration #3. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Again, "Procedural" is a germane subsection title, restored it for the second time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Attempt to make it otherwise more coherent didn't work: merge procedural sections again into one (in other words: self-reverted my earlier split). Francis Schonken (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Restored a deleted comment & removed germane subsection titles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments (3)

• Version D is too much based on the „romantic biography“ by Zamoyski IMO. Author Smerus and proponent Mathsci of Version D maybe too much involved anyway, because also main contributors to the Zamoyski article. A wikipedia-article about Zamoyski BTW, which has a time ago mainly has been written by Zamoyski himself. So, still preferring B or C with the named improvements on the translation and Poturzyn.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Contrary to Chip-chip-2020's assertions, I am not a "proponent" of a particular view. As usual, they has misrepressnted me. Mathsci (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Chip-chip-2020: I am not a proponent of any particular view. I think that the options A, B and C and their variants are not unrealistic and self-serving. I am undecided about D, E and F, although veer to D. Chip-chip-2000 has already been advised on WP:TEA about his misinterpretation of WP:HOUND, but has repeatedly chosen to ignore that. This kind of disinformation is now being repeated. Mathsci (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• As it happens my inolvement with the Adam Zamoyski article has been not as a 'main contributor' but in deleting most of it as unencyclopaedic and unsourced. Perhaps Chip-Chip will apologize for this blatant misrepresentation, but I am not holding my breath. It is a mark of the increasing desparation of Chip-Chip that he seeks to defend his attempts to distort this article by distorting and misrepreseting the actions of editors in other parts of Wikipedia.--Smerus (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Option F added

I have added Option F - the true status quo before the current round of discussion. That is to exclude the section entirely and without replacement. In the context of Chopin's life and work and the factors that have been considered noteworthy for the past 200 years, the current garbled and ill-sourced gender speculation is less than a speck of dust. It is UNDUE and not NPOV and no source or editor has made a case that it is significant to the man, his music, or the factors that make him notable. SPECIFICO talk 21:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Perfectly stated. I agree completely and have now so voted.

Nihil novi (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Happy you added the option you prefer, per my suggestion above. "True status quo" it is however not: the version before discussion began in the wake of the SRF broadcast *had* a quote from a Chopin letter, however with a *wrong* description (see #Problematic passage above). I suspect that's not the situation you want to go back to. Option E is status quo at the start of the RfC (which is a valid option), option F is a mixture of status quo before SRF (no separate "Sexuality section"), plus improved last two paragraphs of the "Education" section (which have been modified at least half a dozen times between the start of the discussions about the SRF broadcast and the start of the RfC). --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Clarifying option F (cf Nihil novi above), SPECIFICO pinged me[14] about a query they had on User talk:Robert McClenon. I replied[15] about Moritz Weber related edits of 2 Zurich IPs on 12 November. The identical edits were later reinstated by Chip-chip-2020. Option F is a reversion to the state on 12 November prior to the edits of the Zurich IPs & co. Mathsci (talk) 05:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• @SPECIFICO:@Nihil novi: Your proposals were easy to find. Thanks for that. Mathsci (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

---

---

---

Comparison of the last two paragraphs of the "Education" section, last version before 20 November (when the first introduction of the SRF material was attempted) and the version at the start of the RfC (05:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC), disregarding this small change which was performed a few hours after the official launch of the RfC):

• Pre-SRF version (12 November):

---

In 1827, soon after the death of Chopin's youngest sister Emilia, the family moved from the Warsaw University building, adjacent to the Kazimierz Palace, to lodgings just across the street from the university, in the south annexe of the Krasiński Palace on Krakowskie Przedmieście, where Chopin lived until he left Warsaw in 1830. Here his parents continued running their boarding house for male students; the Chopin Family Parlour (Salonik Chopinów) became a museum in the 20th century. In 1829 the artist Ambroży Mieroszewski executed a set of portraits of Chopin family members, including the first known portrait of the composer.

Four boarders at his parents' apartments became Chopin's intimates: Tytus Woyciechowski, Jan Nepomucen Białobłocki, Jan Matuszyński and Julian Fontana; the latter two would become part of his Paris milieu. He was friendly with members of Warsaw's young artistic and intellectual world, including Fontana, Józef Bohdan Zaleski and Stefan Witwicki. 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." His final Conservatory report (July 1829) read: "Chopin F., third-year student, exceptional talent, musical genius."

Notes

---

• Version at the start of the RfC:

---

In 1827, soon after the death of Chopin's youngest sister Emilia, the family moved from the Warsaw University building, adjacent to the Kazimierz Palace, to lodgings just across the street from the university, in the south annex of the Krasiński Palace on Krakowskie Przedmieście, where Chopin lived until he left Warsaw in 1830. Here his parents continued running their boarding house for male students. Four boarders at his parents' apartments became Chopin's intimates: Tytus Woyciechowski, Jan Nepomucen Białobłocki, Jan Matuszyński, and Julian Fontana. The latter two would become part of his Paris milieu.

Chopin was friendly with members of Warsaw's young artistic and intellectual world, including Fontana, Józef Bohdan Zaleski and Stefan Witwicki. Chopin's final Conservatory report (July 1829) read: "Chopin F., third-year student, exceptional talent, musical genius." In 1829 the artist Ambroży Mieroszewski executed a set of portraits of Chopin family members, including the first known portrait of the composer.

Notes

---

As said above, the last paragraph of the section in the pre-SRF version should be unacceptable, while containing erroneous information, as explained in #Problematic passage above. As SPECIFICO mentioned no changes to these paragraphs in the "Version F" proposal, I assumed there were no changes intended to these paragraphs in that proposal (thus "start of RfC" version). I suggest SPECIFICO clarifies what is really intended in that proposal, if and when the above assumption about "no change" to these two paragraphs would be incorrect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Separate article

Moved here from the Survey section, while not even an attempt at voicing an opinion in the RfC:

---

• Comment Interested editors could consider a separate article, like Sexuality of William Shakespeare. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Unlikely, there is substantially more discussion about Shakespeare's sexuality than Chopin's. I can't imagine an article being much longer than the size of the paragraphs we're considering. Aza24 (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Reply: no, we're not stupid, the suggestion has been done multiple times before (see discussions on this page above the RfC section). Truth is, it should not make the least bit of difference for the topic of this RfC whether such separate article exists. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Francis Schonken, Indeed, which is why I created a stub. As shown in the ensuing discussion below, some people clearly took a major offense to my action, however... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The content of your separate article proposal failed miserably (see #New article: Sexuality of Chopin below). Proposing another take at the separate article idea:

• I've added Option G to the list of choices. This is all at the eleventh hour, sorry for that, but didn't know this was going to be such a big issue after the RfC had run for more than a month. As defined above, Option G is a "variant of Option D (User:Smerus/chopforrfc), with the 3rd paragraph of the original proposal for the "Travel and domestic success" section inserted in the Frédéric Chopin article and the second more extended version of that paragraph as start for an independent Sexuality of Frédéric Chopin article." – it is probably all a bit late to discuss this option thoroughly in this RfC (I !voted for it as second choice in the #Survey section above though), but I would like it would at least be considered before the RfC is closed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Konstancja Gładkowska and Maria Wodzińska

Since there is no reliable and/or written proof for the so often alleged ‚relationships‘ or ‚feelings’ between Chopin and Gładkowska and Wodzińska, I think it is necessary to find more neutral words for these legends in the article, because these legends, told since Chopin’s death, seem to be nothing more than another clumsy attempt of straightwashing from ancient times. What do you think?--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• See here, where an independent observer of this discussion comments to Chip-chip-2020, who had complained to him about his alleged harrassment on this page and elsewhere in WP: "I would stress that saying certain sources "not supported by RSes" is NOT straightwashing, an attempt of portraying LGB people a hetero. And I am firm that all editors involved assume good faith, at least on you. You have to be grateful some are still willing to seek a civil discussion with ya."--Smerus (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Folks, I urge you not to overlook but to read Smerus's above-mentioned "here" (Wikipedia:Teahouse#Feels_like_hounding), an extraordinary exposé of Chip-chip-20's role in instigating the current debate over Chopin's "sexuality". Chip shows behaviors compatible with his being a sock-puppet and, when he cannot get Wikipedia editors to accept his contentions, resorts serially to successive instances of Wiki-appeal to press his case of "being harassed" and "hounded" by editors who disagree with him.

A Swiss journalist, possibly having run out of topics with which to intrigue his readers, presents his audience with brief exuberant expressions and ambiguous passages from a couple of letters from an adolescent Chopin to former schoolmate Tytus Woyciechowski – and ties up in knots Wikipedia editors who variously attempt to read something into Chopin's letters, or to swat away a gadfly and possible sock–puppet...

And now, not having found an unquestioning sympathetic ear, Chip is already appealing to an editor with whom Smerus has previously differed in another matter.

Nihil novi (talk) 06:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Smerus:@Nihil novi: I have seen the recent postings on Wikipedia:Teahouse#Feels_like_hounding. The current muddying of waters on this RfC, with the introduction of off-topic issues like straightwashing, is not helpful. Mathsci (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

---

---

@Nihil novi: see my comment above (in #Images and quotes) that WP:ASPERSIONS on this page should stop. The Teahouse analysis by Gerald Waldo Luis seems heavily flawed, as I explained there. Would it be possible to stop attempts to derail the discussion here with off-topic comments? Tx. Also, the second paragraph of your comment above seems hardly helpful: afaics it is the nth restatement, in colourful language, of your prejudices (without demonstrating, as in previous instances, why these prejudices would be justified). We know these prejudices from this and earlier discussions on the same topic. Repeating them in a "let's throw as much mud at the wall as possible until something sticks" style does not seem to further the discussion either. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Funny, no one answered the question I originally asked in this section or brought up any good point for a discussion about it. And Mathsci: straightwashing is not at all an off-topic here, as you can read in the article by the award-winning polish investigative publication oko.press. It’s title says that Poland is a master in concealing it‘s history.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

And à propos of Chopin's "alleged engagement" to Maria Wodzińska (please see the above title of this section), what do you all make of the following passage from Wikipedia's "Chopin" article?

"Chopin placed the letters he had received from [his fiancée] Maria and her mother into a large envelope, wrote on it the words 'My sorrow' ("Moja bieda"), and to the end of his life retained in a desk drawer this keepsake of the second love of his life." [Note that follows: "A photo of the letters packet survives, though the originals seem to have been lost during World War II." [16] the photo]

Nihil novi (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I read that and was thinking about that too, thanks for the point Nihil novi! But the packet is said to be lost, and it seems - unfortunately -, that is has not been properly and scientifically examined or listed (there are just some old fotos of it). What was really in there - I think nobody can say nowadays, or am I wrong? Possible, that the letters from somebody else were in there? Maybe the ones from Tytus, which are said to be lost too?--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The source of the information is Zdzisław Jachimecki, "Chopin, Fryderyk Franciszek". Polski słownik biograficzny (Polish Biographical Dictionary), volume III, Kraków, Polska Akademia Umiejętności (Polish Academy of Learning), 1937, pp. 420–26 (cited here from p. 423).

Zdzisław Jachimecki (1882 – 1953) was an eminent Polish historian of music, composer, professor at Kraków's Jagiellonian University and the Kraków Music Academy, and a member of the Polish Academy of Learning (Poland's original prewar Polish Academy of Sciences).

His "Chopin, Fryderyk Franciszek" entry provides further details of Chopin's relations with, and engagement to, Maria Wodzińska.

If anyone would have known the contents of Chopin's envelope, Jachimecki would have. And Jachimecki makes quite clear that the envelope held letters that Chopin had received from Maria Wodziňska and her mother.

In 1829 Ambroży Mieroszewski painted portraits of the members of the Chopin family – which portraits likewise were lost during World War II and now exist only in prewar photographs. By your reasoning, we might question whether those photographs are actually of the lost Chopin–family portraits – or whether Mieroszewski ever painted portraits of the Chopin family, or whether Mieroszewski himself ever existed.

And so we end up endlessly discussing conspiracy theories.

Nihil novi (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

at least we are discussing now. A source from 1937 might be a bit outdated, especially if it comes to gender and sexuality topics. Then, it wouldn‘t have been possible probably to write about the homosexuality of a person - for some, it still isn‘t in 2021. So if we introduce the package of letters, IMO we should at least mention that it is lost, and that the Chopin Institute confirmed that there is no written proof for all of that. And we should consider that the letters of Tytus and other men who wrote to Chopin are lost too. And that the letters from Wodzinski family and from Maria are far away from beeing love-letters, and Chopin never wrote to Maria. And another thought: If this package - whatever it originally contained - should already be a proof for an engagement or love, I ask in return what can be concluded from Chopin’s own explicit words which he addressed directly to Tytus.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

1. In case you didn't notice, it is mentioned that the envelope with Wodzińska's letters to Chopin was lost during World War II.

2. You say that "the Chopin Institute confirmed that there is no written proof for all of that" – What is "all of that"? Please be specific.

3. You say: "And we should consider that the letters of Tytus and other men who wrote to Chopin are lost too." What is your point?

4. You assert: "And that the letters from Wodzinski family and from Maria are far away from beeing love-letters". How do you know, if they were lost?

5. You say: "Chopin never wrote to Maria." How do you know? (By the way, after he had left Poland in 1830, he continued writing for a year to his first love, Konstancja Gładkowska.)

6. You ask "what can be concluded from Chopin’s own explicit words which he addressed directly to Tytus." Probably not what your prurient mind thinks.

Nihil novi (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

1. -

2. No written proofs: Aleksander Laskowski from Warsaw Chopin Institute cited here, read and listen here.

3. Worth mentioning

4., 5. Transcripts here with quite good name- and keyword-research.

6. -

--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

You have made no material response to any of my comments or questions above.

The SRF (Schweizer Radio und Fernsehen [Swiss Radio and Television]) material you refer to is full of innuendo, misinterpretation, and outright mistranslation.

Example: Moritz Weber writes that the Polish word "ideał" (used in Chopin's correspondence, and today – nearly 200 years later – still used in the sense of a "person of one's dreams") is a grammatically masculine noun and therefore must denote a male beloved. This is plain false: "ideał" is applicable to a person of either sex. There is no grammatically "female" equivalent of the noun "ideał" that Chopin or any other Polish-speaker could use to denote a female beloved.

Nihil novi (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Nihil novi, but it the original letter, which is available online, there is indeed no grammatically female polish pronoun in this passage, not one. But actually I would be interested in the passage you mentioned above, could you post key quotes from that one here? Zdzisław Jachimecki, "Chopin, Fryderyk Franciszek". Polski słownik biograficzny (Polish Biographical Dictionary), volume III, Kraków, Polska Akademia Umiejętności (Polish Academy of Learning), 1937, pp. 420–26 (cited here from p. 423).

Thanks--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

1. Nor would one expect to see a female-gender pronoun in that passage, since the following expressions ("z nim... który...") naturally have to agree in gender with "ideał", which is masculine-gender.

2. The passage from Zdzisław Jachimecki, "Chopin, Fryderyk Franciszek". Polski słownik biograficzny (Polish Biographical Dictionary), volume III, Kraków, Polska Akademia Umiejętności (Polish Academy of Learning), 1937, pp. 420–26 (cited from p. 423):

"Chopin długo cierpiał [z powodu niedoszłego ślubu z Marią Wodzińską], potem włożył listy Marii i jej matki do dużej koperty, wypisał na niej smutne słowa 'Moja bieda' i tę pamiątkę swojej drugiej w życiu miłości przechował do końca žycia w szufladce sekretarzyka."

Moritz Weber's Polish-language assistant needs to brush up on his Polish usage and grammar – and perhaps be fired, since he has made his boss a laughing-stock among Poles.

Nihil novi (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, thank you, Nihil novi, but still this passage is not a more reliable proof at all: No closer description and no scientific facts. Probably it’s even less reliable in this regard, since it is even older than the other biographies and written in an even more heteronormative and homophobic time.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Waltzes & schoolfriends

While this RfC has being discussed, User:Chip-chip-2020 has been actively making edits to Waltzes, Op. 70 (Chopin). At the moment that article is a stub. Jean-Jacques Eidelinger's annotated book, "Chopin pianist and teacher as viewed by his pupils", gives brief comments on Nos. 2 and 3. On the other hand, Chip-chip-2020 has expanded this classical musical stub in an WP:UNDUE way, by adding unsourced suggestive material on Chopin's former schoolfriends. Similar material has been added by the same user on de.wikipedia.org, fr.wikipedia.org, pl.wikipedia.org, es.wikipedia.org, it.wikipedia.org and ca.wikipedia.org. Such edits compromise this RfC. The same applies to the edits on cottaging. Mathsci (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Have any inappropriate edits been removed?

Nihil novi (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Chip-chip-2020 added their own material, with implications about about Fontana and Woyciechowski.[17] It has been restored to its previous content twice on en.wikipedia.org. Talk:Waltzes, Op. 70 (Chopin)#Meatpuppetry_in_Zurich explains the problems with the English article, including the music.User:Chip-chip-2020 had simultaneously rendered their peferred versions in German and Catalan. On the German version here is the discussion section:

Extended content in German/English.

Lieber Mathsci, warum möchtest Du dieses Notenbeispiel löschen? Kannst Du bitte die genauen Gründe angeben sowie einen konstruktiven Lösungsvorschlag, bevor Du es erneut einfach löschst? Es ist übrigens ein anderes als dasjenige in der englischen Wikipedia, wie Du an den fehlenden Fingersätzen erkennen kannst.--Chip-chip-2020 (Diskussion) 14:21, 18. Jan. 2021 (CET) @Chip-chip-2020: Ich denke, weil Du bei den hochgeladenen Dateien nicht angegeben hast, woher Du sie hast. Dort steht, es wäre dein eigenes Werk und der Ersteller der Datei wäre Chip-chip-2020. Das ist ganz offensichtlich nicht wahr. Bitte gib bei den Dateien unter source= an, woher Du sie hast (Buch mit Seitenangabe, Weblink, oder woher auch immer), date= (Datum der Veröffentlichung des ursprünglichen Werks) und author= der Urheber des Werkes (nicht Du). Diese Angaben fehlen nämlich bei diesem c:File:Walzer op. 70,3. Thema des Trios..jpg und diesem: c:File:Waltz op. 70,3.jpg. --Migebert (Diskussion) 13:12, 20. Jan. 2021 (CET) Hi Migebert, super, vielen Dank für den guten Tipp! Das war das erste Bild, das ich hochgeladen habe, deshalb... Ich hab’s angepasst. Gruss--Chip-chip-2020 (Diskussion) 22:35, 20. Jan. 2021 (CET) @Chip-chip-2020: Sehr gut, das gleiche bitte auch für c:File:Waltz op. 70,3.jpg machen. Also Quelle usw. angeben. Dann kann der Löschantrag danach geschlossen werden. Aber er war berechtigt! --Migebert (Diskussion) 09:06, 21. Jan. 2021 (CET) The musical quotation does not have the E-flat in the five bars of the trio in the treble clef, so has been removed. With the upbeat, there are only four bars. The other sexual conjectures are not properly sourced: see the current RfC about "Chopin and sexuality" on en.wikipedia.org. In this case, a standard stub has been inflated with WP:UNDUE material. Mathsci (Diskussion) 09:54, 21. Jan. 2021 (CET) Der Auftakt zählt mit. Bitte liefere eine verlässliche Quelle, die Deine Zweifel untermauert, bevor Du löschst.--Chip-chip-2020 (Diskussion) 10:19, 21. Jan. 2021 (CET) The excerpt again has been listed for deletion on Commons, since not enough bars have been added. Reliable sources discuss the Waltzes Op. 70, which describes the left hand in the four bars and then the fifth bar where the highest voice is heard. In his 1987 book, Chopin pianist and teacher as seen by his pupils, Eigeldinger quotes from Chopin's letter: "In the trio, the bass melody must dominate until the violin's E-flat in the fifth bar [bars 33/]" with 9 bars quoted musically; then "but I don't need to tell you, because you'll feel it anyway." (Page 89) Mathsci (Diskussion) 14:06, 21. Jan. 2021 (CET)

It is hard to know why [[User:Chip-chip-2020]] is making these kinds of edits, but they result in an WP:UNDUE mess—not a classical music stub, more like an orgy: see de:Walzer op. 70 (Chopin). The edits are single-purpose and indicate WP:NOTHERE. Even after explanations by administrators on their user talk page, advice has been ignored. Mathsci (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Are there grounds for the blocking of Chip for conduct incompatible with Wikipedia norms?

Nihil novi (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The stub Waltzes, Op. 70 (Chopin) is periodically becoming a POV-fork. That's a pity. Op. 70, No. 2 in F minor is often called "La Valse mélancolique". Where first editions are available, all the versions of the Waltzer are explained on the KCL/Cambridge/Mellon website; all of the waltzes can be seen on line in the G. Henle Verlag edition. Mathsci (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Offer to Close

This Request for Comments was running for 30 days, and is eligible for closure, and the bot has de-activated the RFC tag. This RFC is now eligible for closure. I have not taken part in the discussions other than to collect the proposals and pull them together into this RFC because I wished to be a neutral mediator until I published the RFC, and then because I saw it as still useful to remain neutral. So I am willing to formally close this RFC, but only if the participants will accept my closure. So: Should I close the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC) @Smerus, Nihil novi, Mathsci, Walter Görlitz, Toccata quarta, Francis Schonken, Chip-chip-2020, Darwinek, Aza24, François Robere, Kosboot, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Piotrus, SPECIFICO, Crossroads, and David Fuchs:

• @Robert McClenon: I think Smerus suggested that it might be a good idea if a senior administrator closed the RfC. There is an artbitrator on your list, but you could choose any other senior administrator who agrees to it, e.g. AGK, Bishonen, Bearian, Carcharoth, Drmies, GorillaWarfare, JzG, Liz, MastCell, Opabinia regalis, Orlady, SlimVirgin, etc. Mathsci (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Mathsci - I don't get to decide who closes the RFC. Usually it just gets closed when someone is ready to close it. But I agree that a senior administrator would be preferred. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Thanks, then that is fine. Mathsci (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Robert McClenon's WP:FORUMSHOPping end run via RfD on something that was discussed in this RfC (see above: #Separate article) makes them totally ineligible for closing this RfC. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• I have not been following this Rfc closely and have no opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Hi. You added good faith comments about Sexuality of William Shakespeare to the survey. I looked at that article yesterday, just to see how cautious the edits were and how scholarly the sources were (did it match up to "Sex Lives of Famous Actors" by Nigel Cawthorne?). The posting #Separate article duplicated your comments and possibly has been misinterpreted. On the other hand, since you have no opinion on the RfC, that is irrelevant. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• This has been going on quite long enough, time to close.--Smerus (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Note to RFC closer

The Sexuality of Frédéric Chopin redirect has been indefinately fully protected, please consider whether it is appropriate to unprotect it when you close this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I will note (as the creator of the stub) that a discussion of that subarticle should be decided at AfD not here. As such I'd recommend unprotecting, restoring one of the article versions AND then starting an AfD to determine the fate of the article (redirect...) mentioned. Note that it was declined to be reviewed at RfD for procedural reasons. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It should never have been created by you, and trying to make it go through AfD is a WP:FORUMSHOP. Using it as a second chance to do this material a certain way is WP:GAMING. The consensus at the RfC is obviously about how to cover the topic on Wikipedia and cannot be circumvented. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: My only view is that discussion of what should happen to that article/redirect should wait until after the RFC is closed because whether it should exist at all, and in what form, will depend, at least in part, on what the outcome of the RFC actually is. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I don't see how a discussion on one page can be an alternative to AfD. If I were to write up an article on that topic, I don't need to be aware of the discussion here, and the article I write should be judged on its own merit. And if someone wants to remove it, it has to be done through AfD, unless it meets the criteria for speedy deletion. No discussion here has the right to override that. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

But you were well aware of the discussion here of how to cover the topic. And no, an RfC can indeed apply to a closely related page. This is why we have guidelines like WP:POV fork - articles are not isolated entities. Per that guideline, editors cannot create a new article to evade an RfC from a previous article and demand a new and separate consensus to delete. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The standard for article content is not the same as the standard for a separate article. The RfC relating to article content cannot be projected onto a separate article. If it's a FORK, then AfD is the place to settle that issue. SPECIFICO talk 22:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

So any time someone has an RfC go against them, they can just start a fork article to shoot for a free second chance to get it accepted? And at a venue (AfD) where no consensus = keep, contrary to WP:ONUS? How is that not tipping the scales in favor of POV pushers? Crossroads ^-talk- 23:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

That's how it hangs. And we have very experienced AfD closers who generally get it right, if not on the first try then eventually. SPECIFICO talk 23:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Nah, that's why we have WP:GAMING and WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:POV fork; to prevent "loophole" arguments. And I don't feel like wasting the time, especially with an AfD closer maybe not getting it right on the first try. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

That is not a POV fork. POV fork relates to core NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 00:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• See also recent additions to the #Separate article subsection above. Discussion regarding the "Option G" I proposed can be added there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Mainspace (again)

@SlimVirgin:

1. If you HAVE a strong opinion on this matter, then please express it in this RfC.
2. If you DON'T HAVE a strong opinion in this matter, then please take some time and close the RfC.

Anyhow, your petty games in mainspace, and going to user talk pages for something that is the subject of an unfinished RfC are less opportune behaviour. Thanks for abstaining from it. If more mainspace changes occur on this topic I'll probably be taking this back to how it was at the time the RfC started. Which would probably anyhow be best until the RfC concludes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The RfC was specifically started to resolve an ongoing dispute. Until there is a consensus for any of this material, it should stay as it was before this whole dispute (push to add sexuality-questioning material) began. More like how it was when it became WP:FA. This is per WP:ONUS. Per the article history, [18] you keep restoring this material against 3 (I am the 4th) other editors who agree it doesn't belong. Please stop. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Reflist

References

The discussion above 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.