Talk:Frédéric Chopin/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

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 [Chopin] 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 [at the gravesite] 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)

Thanks for this link. Yes, it's the same excerpt I found on the website of a local library (currently closed due to the Covid-19 pandemic).

Nihil novi (talk) 08:46, 19 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. Wikipedia'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. Wikipedia's Chopin biography has a multiple-paragraph section about that. Things didn't end well between them (also explained in a few paragraphs in Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia is not a reprinting office of New York Times articles. Wikipedia 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 ^{[pleasantries]} 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 Wikipedia-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 Wikipedia policies, principles and guidelines, which is what this is all about. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Several biographers (Eisler, Zamoyski, Atwood, etc) have described Chopin's final months, when his sister and brother-in-law were at hand in Paris. Sand wrote two or more letters to his sister but showed no deep concern for Chopin's health. After Chopin's death, Sand also corresponded with her sister. Sand's daughter Solonge also reported seeing her in Paris during the period when she was purportedly in Nohant working on her latest novel. According to Chopin biographers, the depiction of Chopin in Sand's autobiography was idealised and unreliable. Perhaps one or two concise sentences about Sand, Solonge and Chopin's sister could be included. Mathsci (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

A great idea. Why don't you give it a try?

It will enhance readers' understanding of Chopin's life, which after all is the point of a biography.

Nihil novi (talk) 02:07, 20 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

Interesting general considerations (very repetitive though, which includes repetition of what I already said), but not an answer to the question I asked you. Can you now please answer the question: how, in your opinion, all of those noble general principles apply to the case at hand (Sand not at the funeral)? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

References

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)

This is what Zamoyski has to say on the topic in full (locations 827-863):

By the end of the summer he had reached new heights of emotional turmoil, ostensibly on account of Konstancja. Having met her well over a year before and immediately recognised her as his ‘ideal’ (the very word is redolent of schoolboy ritual), he had still not declared himself to her. ‘I could go on hiding my pathetic and ungainly passions for another couple of years,’ he wrote to Tytus, at the same time stressing their depth and force.31 Strong his feelings may have been, but they were certainly not exclusive. The brief infatuations with the Radziwiłł girls and Henriette Sontag are only some of the manifestations of an acute susceptibility to women. From his letters we know that at one soirée in August he saw a girl (who of course reminded him of Konstancja) whom he could not take his eyes off, and who had set his heart on fire by the end of the evening. Another day, in church, he caught the eye of ‘a certain person’, as a result of which he staggered out in a state of sensuous inebriation and nearly got himself run over by a passing carriage.

These and similar stories are recounted to Tytus in tones of mawkish self-pity, alongside assurances that he, Tytus, is in fact the most important person in Chopin’s life. While reaffirminghis constant and undying love for the girl, he would write to his friend that he thought constantly of him: ‘I do not forget you, I am with you, and it shall be so till death.’32 It was Tytus who would have a portrait of Chopin before Konstancja, and it was Tytus who was the recipient of what would have been love letters to Konstancja, had Chopin dared write to her. These letters, sometimes friendly, sometimes petulant, sometimes verging on the passionate, 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 to passions, secrets and torment combine with the extremely specific terms of endearment to make this appear plausible. Chopin signs off one letter to Tytus with the following jumble of childishness and coy eroticism:

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!

Taken out of context, this may appear a little risqué, as might the endless kisses sent and demanded by Chopin. But these expressions were, and to some extent still are, common currency in Polish, and carry no greater implication than the ‘love’ people regularly sign off with today. And the traces of infantile eroticism in the letters are of little significance in themselves. The spirit of the times, pervaded by the Romantic movement in art and literature, favoured extreme expression of feeling and glorified transcendent friendship, and it is probably this that lies at the heart of these letters, written as they were at a period in Chopin’s life when he came nearest to living out the Romantic ideal. 

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, stronger boy and his gentler, more emotional classmate really developed into a sexual rapport, it would almost certainly, knowing Chopin’s malleable and undecided nature, have become an exclusive and long-lasting passion. In such a case there would have been no reason for Chopin to sit about being bored in Warsaw while the bucolic seclusion of Tytus’s estate beckoned.

Zamoyski also by the way has the temerity to quote other instances of Chopin's affection towards females which some of our friends contributing on this page somehow manage to consistently overlook:, e.g.

[In 1832] the memory of Konstancja kept cropping up in his thoughts […] ‘Her image is continually before my eyes’ he wrote in his diary, adding that ‘sometimes I think I no longer love her, yet I cannot get her out of my head.’ (loc. 1122)

--Smerus (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Smerus. I've suspected for some years that I should have bought Zamoyski's book !

Nihil novi (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

How can this expanded information be integrated into the article?

Nihil novi (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Did the wikipdia email message I sent to you attaching Zamoyski's e-book not work? Mathsci (talk) 07:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for the attached e-book. I will try to snag one of the younger generation who know how to convert it to a pdf. :)

Nihil novi (talk) 08:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a pdf file with the e-book converted to pdf format. Mathsci (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you !

Nihil novi (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Zamoyskis Biography unfortunately is full of unproven and flowery decorations, as soon as it comes to the alleged affairs with f.e. Gladkowska. For example he is writing about an alleged last meeting of the two before Chopin left Warsaw, and he even writes that Chopin told her about feelings for her, her reaction was positive, Zamoyski alleges, and, he‘s even crowning it with „rings were exchanged“ (Page 32 in the iBook Version). But: There is zero proof for all of this, just nothing. That there is no proof for all of that is even confirmed by the Chopin Institute in the article and in the SRF-features. Or, even more striking, on page 29 Zamoyski seriously writes, that Chopin could have added Konstancjas name (!) after the line „I tell to the piano what I often would like to tell you“, which Chopin wrote to no one else than to Tytus. This is almost the same attitude as Alan Walker’s by now famous „mental twist“. And, sincerely, such allegations can’t be regarded as an impartial and scientific approach.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

References

• I think we must all acknowledge that Chip-chip-2020 is an expert on "unproven and flowery decorations". Read the quote from the Chopin Insitute in Weber's article and you will see that it simply a statement that the Institute owns no correspondence of Gladkowska.--Smerus (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the hint, Smerus - so no correspondence. But is there any other reliable proof for all of that what Zamoyski wrote? I can‘t find anything of that footnoted in the book.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Chip-chip-2020: Moritz Weber's article has a direct complaint that his theories have been reverted on de.wikipedia.org. (Click the button to check.) Apart from Zurich IPs, you are the unique registered user to have placed Weber-related content onto wikipedia (starting with de.wikipedia.org, en.wikipedia.org, fr.wikipedia.org, pl.wikipedia.org, it.wikipedia.org and es.wikipedia.org). On other wikipedias, you have added content to suggest that Chopin and some of his former schoolfriends, Woyciechowcki, Fontana, et al, might have been "lovers". This is an example from today.[1] Mathsci (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Chip-chip-2020 writes in English on their user talk page for pl.wikipedia.org.[2] Their suggestions involve Chopin's relationships with men and women. Given the guidelines for WP:COI and WP:SPA and Chip-chip-2020's global contributions, should they still be making edits to Chopin-related articles on en.wikipedia.org? Mathsci (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Is this your explanation or proof for the passages in Zamoyskis book, the ones that we were discussing?--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking. Zamoyski's Chopin biography so far has been acknowledged as a WP:RS. His concluding chapter on the forgeries is explained in detail. If you have a query about Zamoyski's biography, please post a request at WP:RSN. Similarly for Moritz Weber's article. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Mathsci, I checked if the Zamoyski-Book is on any wiki-list of reliable sources. Actually I didn‘t find it on any of these lists, but f.e. the Guardian or CNN were listed there as „reliable“. Maybe you can show me where it is listed as a reliable source? And wiki-users should try to find a consensus in talks like this one, before making an effort like WP:RSN. That leads me back to my question which you say you didn‘t understand: Can you explain why you think Zamoyskis book is a reliable source, considering the points and passages I mentioned? Or maybe Nihil novi can respond? Since you emailed him (a PDF of) the book on December 21st 2020, as you mentioned earlier in this section, both of you should have it. And Smerus seems to have it too, since he quoted a quite long passage from it (a passage which also contains many unproved allegations), so he should be able to check the passages too and especially have a closer look if the information is proved somewhere reliably. And I would welcome also other users to share their opinion.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Please post to WP:RSN if you have a query about a particular book. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• I find it awkward that our fellow editors here find all the reasons in the world to doubt statements like "you wouldn't kiss me if I rubbed myself in aromatic oils... tonight you'll dream you're holding me" (to Tytus), but accept "I can't get her image out of my mind" (on Konstancja) unreservedly. Isn't it just "floral 19th c. Polish"? "Expressive Romantic-era affectations"? Did he not "fall in love" with her in a completely platonic fashion, the way composers often do with their favourite soprano or ballerina? This is of course a rhetorical question - I don't actually care either way - but I can't shake the impression that some of my colleagues do, and that they would breath a sigh of relief for any evidence portraying Chopin as a dedicated, full-time, practising heterosexual. François Robere (talk) 13:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not up to editors to decide on such issues. It's up to what reliable sources say. Plenty of dubious sources say he was gay but don't deal with evidence of heterosexuality (or even asexuality). That's one issue that has bothered me very much about this whole discussion - some people are bringing up what Chopin says in letters, even though it's almost a waste of time since these are primary sources and thus unusable. We may disagree with what certain writers say about those letters but, there too, we can't correct those writers. In my opinion, the more you discuss those letters, the more your focus gets difused and diluted because the letters are not the issue. What the secondary sources say is the issue. - kosboot (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• I share kosboot's mystification as to what points some editors are seeking to make here. This is an article about Chopin's life and music. There are primary sources, on which WP says we should not rely - not least because our own interpretations or selections of these are going to have a high element of WP:OR. There are secondary sources, which may be WP:RELIABLE or not. And there are tertiary sources referred to by these editors, such as the Guardian, which are commentaries on the secondary sources and therefore not directly relevant to the topic of this article. The secondary sources are what WP requires us to deal with, whatever our personal views or theories may be as to Chopin's sexuality. And we should only deal with Chopin's sexuality insofar as it has a bearing on his life or music. This article, or indeed this talk page, is not the place to debate or speculate on what the phrase 'oils of Byzantium' may or may not meant to the reader or writer in a single letter of 1830. Here is an extract from WP:RELIABLE:

• Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. [...] editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

Zamoyski seems to me to be an appropriate source in this context. If anyone thinks not, let them give detailed reasons why. It is François Robere's comments, assumptions and moral judgements about his fellow editors which are offensive here, not the adhesion of those editors to WP guidelines.--Smerus (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I wholly agree with Kosboot that focusing on the letters is problematic, and I didn't care much for it either; but my point exactly is that both sides do it, and with much glee.

As for my fellow editors - some of them have suggested that discussing Chopin's queerness is akin to McCarthyism,[3][4] that homosexuality is quite literally alien,[5] and that a fair-minded critic commenting on the issue in a major newspaper "demeans" herself.[6] One has also removed content that might present one particular source in an unflattering light (by virtue of his own anachronistic words),[7][8] potentially relenting on WP:BALANCE. All of these are offensive moral judgements, as is (to a lesser degree) your jab at Chip-chip further up the thread. Do not assume they are anything but, simply because they align with what you perceive as "obvious" or "normal". Not you nor anyone else here is free of morality or cultural assignment, and the sooner everyone considers their positions the more honest the discussion will be, and the better the encyclopaedia will get. François Robere (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Yet that is not the way to proceed here. I couldn't care less whether my co-editors carry baggage in that sense. They should be able to concentrate on sources, and extract a NPOV summary from them. And then I see a lot of misrepresentation of core content policy in the endless repetitive discussion here. The "reliable sources" concept in Wikipedia (WP:RS) is NOT about selecting a single reliable source and then let that source carry the whole narrative in a Wikipedia article, with opposing views, at best, in a few footnotes. No. The WP:RS threshold is not a terribly high bar, and can include authors relying on authors who *also* published in tabloid press, it can even include authors who themselves at some point published in tabloid press. Once above that bar, all significant views count. As for the assumption that Chopin was in love with Gładkowska, that is the broad majority viewpoint among biographers from the late 19th century till at least 2018 (when Walker published his biography). Any of these biographers can be used as a source for that. No additional newspaper articles are needed to verify that point. Nor Zamoyski, nor Walker are a secondary source on that point, on which they only repeat what others have written before them. But then, there's that other point: each biographer can add some personal educated guesswork to what others have written before. You can't blame biographers for adding original thought to the canonical treatment of a topic. Niecks, Zamoyski and Walker all deal differently with Woyciechowski: each of them is of course the *primary* source for the personal thought they add to the narrative. For this aspect it is *not* indifferent which of the biographies is used (while they all say something different), and if there is a reliable secondary source on a biographer's personal approach to the conundrum (like da Fonseca-Wollheim on Walker), this secondary source has an advantage for usage in Wikipedia. In general, biographical narratives that pass the WP:RS bar, none of them able to claim representing the "definitive" consensus of scholars on the topic, should be treated on equal footing in Wikipedia's summary. If that is done correctly, it should be impossible to guess the personal persuasion of the editor writing the summary (so again, nobody needs to admit they have a persuasion, I don't want to know, and I certainly don't want to feel it in texts designed for mainspace). Then there's the third topic: the SFR radio broadcast taking a new turn, and differing on the first topic with the majority view (a presentiment of which was already in da Fonseca-Wollheim's criticism on Walker). SFR is a reliable source, but a *primary* source on this new approach. The secondary sources on that new viewpoint are, for the time being, a handful of reliable newspapers and news outlets. Enough to pull it above "extreme minority view" (in WP:NPOV policy parlance), so should be given a balanced (as in WP:BALASP) representation in Wikipedia. Again, I don't want to know or see who of my fellow editors gives credibility to the story: the objective is not to make it credible nor to rob it of its potential credibility. It is in a collection of reliable sources (one primary, a handful secondary), and should get a dispassionate proportionate representation in Wikipedia. Then, there's the fourth aspect, the political conundrum in 21st-century Poland. I'll not elaborate on that: only that, inasmuch as this needs to be mentioned (maybe not), it doesn't belong in the biographical narrative while it is a "Reception" topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Chopin biographies not WP:RS?

So far there seems to be no WP:CONSENSUS that the standard Chopin biographies used for this WP:FA are not WP:RS. If any user has a contrary view, the best idea is to post a report on the WP:RSN, without prejudice. Theoretically they could do that as a team if they wished. Mathsci (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the clear summaries and the impartial pocedures François Robere and Francis Schonken suggest - since Wikipedia should be an impartial and hopefully reliable encyclopedia which shows all aspects of discourses and personalities in a preferably neutral way.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Please post any report of your concerns to the RELIABLE SOURCES NOTICEBOARD. You already seem to have assembled a small group of like-minded editors, so please go ahead. Thanks and good luck. Mathsci (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian reviewed, that it is „an expanded and revised version of his 1979 study of the composer“, which „retains the outlines of a romantic biography“.. --Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The copy-pasting „an expanded and revised version of his 1979 study of the composer“, which „retains the outlines of a romantic biography“ seems like German punctuation, hard to decipher. The review from the The Guardian was written by Guy Dammann, now at Upsala University. Chip-chip-2020's statement—It‘s more than 10 years old, basing on even older material—are typical of their outbursts, far removed from wikipedia's policy of WP:RS and WP:V. Mathsci (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)