Talk:Frédéric Chopin/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Tad Szulc

Tadeusz Witold Szulc, znany również jako Tad Szulc (ur. 25 lipca 1926 w Warszawie, zm. 21 maja 2001 w Waszyngtonie) – amerykański dziennikarz polskiego pochodzenia

Introductory sentence in Polish Wikipedia http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadeusz_Witold_Szulc

--Frania W. (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Tad Szulc was also a Knight of the French Légion d'honneur. Nihil novi (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, born in Warsaw, thus a Polish national, who later became an American citizen, fact that Polish Wikipedia puts in the lead of the article. A simple observation. --Frania W. (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It gets even better. Tad Szulc gets put in a "special" category [1]. I suppose if he hadn't emigrated to the U.S. he'd stay here [2], but like Chopin he did emigrate and that takes him off this list [3]. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the Polish Wikipedia made a mistake — which the English Wikipedia has avoided — in placing a nationality in the lead. Probably the Poles found Szulc's "American" status too impressive to pass over in their lead. Since, however, Szulc's highest formal recognition was granted by the French (the Légion d'honneur), the Poles should instead have called him French. Nihil novi (talk) 04:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't he become an American citizen? --Frania W. (talk) 04:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

What I find interesting with Tad Szulc is that I believe he could turn out to be the secondary source I have been looking for, even if I do not agree with something he said, because, in the end, we both arrive at the same conclusion, and while my argumentation is rejected, his is accepted - because published in a book form:

• My argument:

I brought to the discussion three documents taken from Langavant's article on Chopin's French nationality: Chopin's baptism register with mention that his father was French; Chopin's 1837 French passport & article 10 of the 1804 Code Napoléon declaring that a child born outside of France from a French father is French.

These three pieces proving that Chopin is French are unwikipediable because of Wikipedia "rules & regulations" that demand from contributors that they use secondary, not primary, sources.

• Tad Szulc:

Let's drop the baptism register & the Code Napoléon, and look into the passport issue:

- where Tad Szulc writes that Chopin obtained a French passport after becoming a French citizen, I say that Chopin obtained a French passport because he was French (the famous Code).

Now, Tad Szulc & I are in disagreement only on that point, but we both agree that Chopin got a French passport because he was French: born French vs naturalised, but French nonetheless.

Accordingly, if we drop my questionable proofs & use Tad Szulc written & published affirmations, what are we left with?

-A French Chopin!

Tad Szulc own words in article at Paris section[4]:

"Though an ardent Polish patriot, in France he used the French versions of his given names and traveled on a French passport, possibly to avoid having to rely on Imperial Russian documents.(Footnote 28: A French passport used by Chopin is shown here [5]. Tad Szulc writes (Chopin in Paris, p. 69): "[...] the French granted him permission to stay in Paris indefinitely 'to be able to perfect his art'. Four years later, Frédéric became a French citizen and a French passport was issued to him on 1 August 1835. He is not known to have discussed his decision to change citizenship with anyone, including his father. It is unclear whether he did it to avoid renewing his Russian passport at the Russian embassy for patriotic reasons or simply as a matter of general convenience."(end of footnote 28)

• Conclusion:

Although Mr. Szulc is only guessing the reason why Chopin became French in order to avoid having to renew his Russian passport at the Russian Embassy in Paris, while I say that Chopin did not have to "become" French because he was born French, the fact is that we both agree that Chopin got a French passport. Mr. Szulc is a respected writer & his book a valid verifiable secondary source, in which he wrote: Four years later, Frédéric became a French citizen.

--Frania W. (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I would think that should be enough to call him Polish-French composer, just put the source in (along with Encyclopedia Britannica, if you care to). Another alternate is to follow Nihil Novi's "Clearly the Polish Wikipedia made a mistake — which the English Wikipedia has avoided — in placing a nationality in the lead. " Dr. Dan (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I propose an alternative and more precise solution: "Polish composer who also had French citizenship".  Dr. Loosmark  18:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

In view of the difficulties we have met until now, I would not stand in the way of that alternative, which should not ruffle the feathers of the Polish Eagle. --Frania W. (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm more concerned with correctly describing his ethnicity, rather than his citizenship. That information about his French citizenship, and how he acquired it, certainly belongs in the article. My point being that if Chopin had been Anglo-Dutch he could have also acquired French citizenship. He was Polish-French and he acquired French citizenship. By now everyone should understand the reasons when and how he acquired French citizenship. By now everyone should understand that he emigrated, by choice, to France and spent almost half of his life there. Eventually this charade will come to a close, and I'm not worried about ruffling any feathers, of any nationalist stripe, be they French, Polish, or Khoikhoi. Think about it. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity? I thought that we were talking about nationality and citizenship. Anyway if you really want to go into that, then it's quite clear that the only ethnic group with which Chopin really identified himself, were Poles.  Dr. Loosmark  10:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about a lot of things. Do you understand the definitions of nationality and ethnicity as the terms are used in the English language? Are you saying that a Pole, one with both parents being of Polish nationality/ethnicity would lose that quality upon becoming a citizen of New Zealand? And it's simply ridiculous and presumptuous to state "it's quite clear that the only ethnic group with which Chopin really identified himself, were Poles."

Unfortunately I think you, and like minded individuals, are confusing how you identify this composer rather than how Chopin did himself. We're treading on eggshells when we begin to enter into the mind of someone who was born two hundred years ago. And this, despite the lack of evidence that Chopin somehow refuted his father's French heritage. Do remember he emigrated to the country of his father's birth. Not to Italy, Great Britain, Germany, or Austria. He probably could have had the illustrious, yet semi-tragic (largely do to his poor health) career in a multitude of other countries. Yet he chose "La Patrie" of his Père, and after emigrating there spent almost half of his life there. French father, Polish mother = "French-Polish"; not wanting to hurt any feelings "because he identified himself only with the Polish ethnic group", according to you, we're going along with "Polish-French". Dr. Dan (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you equal "French not in lead" => "article says Chopin's father is not French" => "Chopin had nothing French" => "refuting Chopin's nationality, heritage, whatever" is really beyond me. Does the article about Sean Lennon say that he "refute(d)" the nationality of his father, just because the lead of article says that Sean is an American singer, songwriter, musician, guitarist and actor!? I don't think so. And neither do you. Really Dan, you are making a tempest in a teapot.  Dr. Loosmark  18:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No, Dr. Loosmark, Dr. Dan is not making a "tempest in a teapot", and the parallel Sean Lennon // Frédéric Chopin does not work. Sean Lennon was born in the United States and is an American citizen, considered only American by US law, unless there is an accord between the United States & his father's country of origin to also recognise Sean as a British citizen. Frédéric Chopin was born in the Duchy of Warsaw of a French father, and fell under the French civil code of the time, which made him a Frenchman at birth, while respecting his other nationality. That's why not mentioning Chopin's French nationality together with his Polish one is like acknowledging one of the Earth's hemisphere & denying the existence of the other, which would create a "tempest" within the scientific community. --Frania W. (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Frania, have you actually looked up British and U.S. citizenship law? Both countries do recognize dual citizenship. And "Before 1983, as a general rule British nationality could only be transmitted from the father through one generation only, and parents were required to be married. See History of British nationality law." Sean Lennon's father John Lennon was British, Sean's parents were married (on 20 March 1969), and Sean was born before 1983 (9 October 1975). Hence, if Sean Lennon claims British citizenship, there is every reason to think that it will be acknowledged by the country of his father's birth (the United Kingdom) and that it will be recognized as well by the country of Sean Lennon's own birth (the United States). Nihil novi (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Nihil novi, I did not know, that's why I wrote "unless there is an accord". Two countries may have agreements with each other that they do not have with others. For instance, it used to be that France accepted the dual citizenship of French-American MEN (born a Frenchman, always a Frenchman), not women, while the US did not recognise dual citizenship at all. Since some time in the 1970s, the French law changed & Frenchwomen who become citizens of another country do not lose their French citizenship. A later agreement between France & the US recognised dual citizenship, but the agreement was not applied retroactively to cover those (which happened to the Frenchwomen) who had become US citizens before that date. Which means that you can have close members of the same family who have dual citizenship, while others do not. There is no blanket law covering every country & any two countries. Each country has its own laws, then any two countries their own agreements between each other... It can get rather complicated.

That's why with Chopin father & son, one born in France, the other in Poland of a French father, both of them remained French all their life. There was a privilege in being born a man. The reason was because a Frenchman had to do his military service, and once that had been done, France could not deny him French national/citizenship ever, while they could spare the women since they did not go into the army anyway (I do not know when the "military service" thing came into play, probably in the 19th century with Napoléon). Now the women are treated equally, and military service is a thing of the past with the French Army made up only of volunteers. (Have to go, not taking time to correct my typos. My apologies if there are some. They are an invaluable gift!)

--Frania W. (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

So, are we morally obliged to alter "Sean Taro Ono Lennon (born October 9, 1975) is an American singer, songwriter, musician, guitarist and actor", to read: "Sean Taro Ono Lennon... is a British–American singer, songwriter, musician, guitarist and actor"? Nihil novi (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's see: has Sean Lennon claimed his British passport? No. Did Chopin claim his French passport? Yes. Do we have any WP:RS which say Lennon is entitled to a British passport? No. Do we have any WP:RS which say Chopin was entitled to a French passport? Yes. Has Lennon chosen to move to Britain and live almost half his life there? No. Did Chopin chose to move to France and live almost half his life there? Yes. And does Lennon's mother have British citizenship? No. Did Chopin's mother have French citizenship? Yes. Not quite the same, are they? Varsovian (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

So all the other Poles of the Great Emigration who also moved to France in the wake of the November 1830 Uprising — did they move there because they had a French parent or thought themselves French? They could, after all, as our learned colleague argues (but does he have a WP:RS for this?), have lived anywhere else that they wanted to. Nihil novi (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If such person had French parents, was born French and had French passports, he/she would be at least partly French (although obviously not purely French). Your comment about WP:RS suggests that you need to read WP:RS: nobody is likely to challenge that Chopin could not have lived in the USA had he so chosen. Varsovian (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You miss the point. Chopin's settling in France has been adduced as evidence for his French nationality. Adam Jerzy Czartoryski, Adam Mickiewicz and a whole pleiade of other members of the Great Emigration did the same, and so far no one here has argued that this made them French. Nihil novi (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Going back to margin as on my screen the discussion is at almost one word per line...

Any Pole in the situation of Frédéric Chopin, i.e. born in Poland of French parents as is mentioned on Chopin's French paasport, any such Pole would have been treated exactly as Chopin was, issued a French passport. For the others, they would have had to renew their Russian passport or register with the French government as refugees, which is what Chopin's father was writing to him in his September 1834 letter.

As for Sean Lennon, I am not getting into his case as the case of Frédéric Chopin is taking much of my time and, when it's over, I shall sit to a cup of tea, if there is any left in the teapot, although I think that I will more likely have a glass of champagne.

--Frania W. (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

A passport does not decide the nationality of a person.  Dr. Loosmark  12:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That would depend on where the country that the person is born in follows jus sanguinis or jus soli. Interestingly Poland follows jus sanguinis, which means that a child born in Poland does not become Polish unless at least one of its parents is eligible for a Polish passport. Do we have a WP:RS which tells us that Chopin's mother was eligible for a Polish passport? Not that we really need one: nobody is likely to argue that Chopin was not Polish. It's just a pity that some editors try to argue that having two French parents, choosing to apply for French passports and choosing to live about half his life in France mean that Chopin was not partly French but was actually 100% Polish. Varsovian (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Who had two French parents?  Dr. Loosmark  13:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

According to his passport, Chopin had two French parents. Varsovian (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Then that only goes to prove how utterly useless are passports for determining a nationality of a person. Please try to find a reliable source, (preferably written by a respectful author) which claims that Chopin's mother was French. Until then there is nothing much to discuss, his mother was 100% Polish.  Dr. Loosmark  14:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

How about the one which has been mentioned several times above? http://diaph16.free.fr/chopin//chopin6.htm You have already stated above that "Mr. Langavant is most certainly a respected author" so that would seem to satisfy the requirements of WP:RS. Varsovian (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Varsovian could please translate the relevant passage for those of us who don't understand French? Thank you.  Dr. Loosmark  15:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Professeur Emmanuel Langavant's work on the French nationality of Frédéric Chopin according to Civil Code in effect in the Duchy of Warsaw at time of Chopin's birth

English translation in italics after each paragraph:

Nationalité de Chopin

2 ) En ce qui concerne la nationalité, celle-ci est accordée par l’état en fonction de deux considérations possibles :

• la nationalité des parents, et le plus souvent du père, que I on appelle le « jus sanguinis »,
• la naissance sur le territoire d'un état, indépendamment de la nationalité des parents, c'est le « jus soli ».

Chopin's nationality:

2) In regards nationality, it is granted by the State according to two possible considerations:

• the parents’ nationality, and most often that of the father, called « jus soli »,
• birth on the territory of a state, independently of the parents’ nationality, which is "jus soli".

Autrefois, dans le Code Napoléon de 1804. seule comptait l'acquisition par le sang, car le « jus soli » ne sera reconnu qu'à l'époque récente dans notre Droit ( 1945 ).

In the past, in the 1804 Code Napoléon, only that acquired by the blood, because "jus soli" will be recognized only in 1945 in our Right law (French Civil Code)

Lors d'un voyage de CHOPIN a Londres, celui-ci obtint, le 7 juillet 1837. un passeport délivré par les autorités françaises. On y lit qu'il a les « yeux gris-bleus » ( ce qui est pour le moins inattendu, si l'on songe au portrait du compositeur par DELACROIX ), et ce passeport porte la mention « issu de parents français ».

For a trip he was to undertake to London, CHOPIN obtained a passport delivered by the French authorities on 7 July 1837. One can read that he had "gray-blue eyes" (which is rather unexpected if we think of Delacroix’s portrait of the composer), and this passport bears the mention “born of French parents”.

Il a été prétendu que CHOPIN avait, par cette indication, tenté d'esquiver le contrôle de la Police sur le voyage d'un étranger, d'un émigré polonais suspect d'antipathie contre le Tsar.

It has been alleged that CHOPIN had, by that indication, attempted to avoid Police control on the trip journey to a foreign country, by a Polish émigré antipathetic suspected of antipathy to the Tsar.

En fait ce passeport décrit l'exact état de Droit.

In fact, this passport describes exactly the State of Right (state of the law) .

Le Code Civil confère à la condition masculine une force attractive, quant à la nationalité.

The Civil Code awards the masculine condition an attractive force as far as nationality is concerned.

art. 10 : « Tout enfant né d'un Français à l'étranger est Français ».

Article 10 : « Any child born of a Frenchman in a foreign country is French.. »

Or, l'acte de baptême de Frédéric-François CHOPIN ( qui fera toujours figurer les deux F dans sa signature ) mentionne qu'il est né du sieur Nicolas CHOPPEN ( sic ), Français ( « Gali », dans le texte rédigé en latin ).

Now, the baptismal certificate of Frédéric-François Chopin (who will always show both F in his signature) mentions that he is born of Sire [Mr. ?] ("sieur" is either '"sire" or modern "Mr.") Nicolas CHOPPEN (sic), [a ?] French[man] (“Gali”, in the text redacted written in Latin. (FW's comment: a misspelling of "Galli" -from "Gallus"-, it should have two *l*)

« Je, susnommé Jozef MORAWSKI. vicaire de la Paroisse de Brochow, ai accompli la cérémonie du baptême sur un enfant ondoyé sous le double prénom de Frédéric-François, né le 22 février du sieur Nicolas CHOPPEN, Français, et de dame Justyna née KRYZANOWSKA, époux légitimes. Parrain et Marraine : le sieur Francis-zek GREMBECKI, du village de Cépliny et la gracieuse demoiselle Anna SKARBEK, comtesse de Zelazowa-Wola ».

« I, the above-mentioned above-named Jozef MORAWSKI, vicary vicar? curate? (FW's comment: "vicaire" in French translation, checking in dictionary, "vicaire" is the "curate of a parish") in the Parish of Brochow, have accomplished the baptism ceremony on a child baptised under the double first names of Frédéric-François, born on 22 February of to sire [Mr. ?] Nicolas CHOPPEN, French, and of to dame [Mrs. ?] (this was written at the beginning of the 19th century not in modern US) Justyna née KRYZANOWSKA, legitimate spouses. Godfather and Godmother: sire [Mr. ?] Franciszek GREMBECKI, from the village of Cépliny and gracious demoiselle [Miss ?] Anna SKARBEK, countess of Zelazowa Wola.” (FW's comment: I consider the question for having left sire dame demoiselle instead of putting the modern Mr. Mrs. Miss as having no significance vis-à-vis the problem we are trying to resolve.)

On observera que les actes de baptême des filles ne comportent pas cette mention de nationalité, que Nicolas a estimé par contre importante dans l'acte d'un garçon.

It must be observed that the daughters’ baptisms do not make mention of nationality, which Nicolas estimated regarded, on the other hand, [however, as ?] (my choice of words as good as yours) important in the certificate of a boy.

La nationalité de la mère importe peu, et ce d'autant plus que l'article 12 déclare :

- « L'étrangère qui a épousé un Français suivra la condition de son mari », de sorte que Justyna KRYZANOWSKA. par son mariage à Brochow, en 1806 avec Nicolas CHOPIN, changeait ipso facto de nationalité. Frédéric est donc bien issu de deux parents français.

The nationality of the mother has little importance, and this, more especially, since Article 12 declares :

The foreign woman who has married a Frenchman will follow her husband’s condition”, so that Justyna KRYZANOWSKA, by her marriage to Nicolas CHOPIN, in Brochow, in 1806, changed ipso facto of nationality. Frédéric is thus issued of [the issue of ?] = born of two French parents.

Mais, n'y avait-il pas lieu à double nationalité, du fait de la naissance de CHOPIN sur le territoire polonais ? Non, puisque, nous l'avons dit, le « jus soli » n'est pas reconnu à l'époque, et que, de surcroît, le Droit qui s'applique au Grand-Duché de Varsovie où résidait Nicolas, n'est autre que le Code civil français !

But, was not this a case of double nationality, by the fact that CHOPIN was born on Polish territory ? No, because, we said, that the "jus soli" was not recognised at the time, and that, the Right (Law) that was applied to the Duchy of Warsaw where Nicolas lived was none other than the French Civil Code.

En effet, conformément au Traité de Tilsitt du 7 juillet 1807, scellant pour un temps la paix entre ALEXANDRE de Russie et NAPOLEON 1er, la Prusse, démantelée, cédait le Grand-Duché de Varsovie à Frédéric-Auguste de Saxe.

Indeed, in conformity with the Treaty of Tilsitt of 7 July 1807, sealing for a time the peace between ALEXANDER of Russia and NAPOLEON I, Prussia, dismantled, ceded the Duchy of Warsaw to Frederick-August of Saxony.

De Dresde, NAPOLEON octroyait au Grand-Duché, le 22 juillet, un statut constitutionnel publié au Moniteur de l’empire du 6 août suivant, et surtout, il y introduisait le récent Code civil français !

From Dresden, on 22 July, NAPOLEON granted the Duchy a constitutional statute published in the Moniteur de l’empire the following 6 August, and moreover, he was inserting into it the recent French Civil Code!

Cet ensemble politico-juridique avait pour effet de faire renaître un embryon de Pologne, certes bien en-deçà des espoirs que les Polonais plaçaient en NAPOLEON, mais qui les conduisit à le soutenir de plus belle ( attitude illustrée par la mort du Maréchal PONIATOWSKI à la bataille de Leipzig ) et. d'autre part, de redonner aux Polonais une nationalité certes, mais fondée sur les dispositions du Code Napoléon.

This politico-juridico ensemble had for effect to give birth to an embryo of Poland, assuredly well within the hopes the Poles were placing in NAPOLEON, but which made them support him even more (an attitude illustrated by the death of Marshal PONIATOWSKI at the battle of Leipzig) and, on the other hand, indeed, gave the Poles a nationality, but founded on the dispositions of the Napoléon Code.

Full text at http://diaph16.free.fr/chopin//chopin6.htm Copyright © Benoit Musslin - DIAPH16 photo - Mons en Baroeul

--Frania W. (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the translation. In a few places, I've put in brackets suggestions for more accurate English renderings. Perhaps an experienced French-to-English translator could help us out? Nihil novi (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate more information about the author of the article, Emmanuel Langavant. I could not find him in the French Wikipedia. Nihil novi (talk) 05:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Nihil novi: I did that translation in one "coup de plume" as I could not spend hours on it. Didn't re-read myself. Am going thru your suggestions & will leave in bold the changes you suggested to my original translation. Also leaving comments within the text.

Langavant is not in Wikipedia, will bring to you what I have on him when I have more time for it.

Mr. Langavant is not the only person who has brought up the French nationality of Chopin. He mentions others who have, and there are others not mentioned by him who have, but I really do not have the time to spend my days and nights on a something -digging out all these sources- that will automatically be rejected, no matter what.

--Frania W. (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Those sources won't always be rejected. Eventually certain editors will have to concede that their position is untenable. Varsovian (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hope you excuse an accidental visitor for interfering into the dicussion. The analysis of the situation from French legal point of view seems correct, but is it relevant enough?

1. French legal system was not the only legal system under which Chopin's family lived. Would autorities of Congress Poland consider young Frederic a Frenchmen, i.e. a foreigner when he studied in Warsaw in 1820s? Why their legal point of view is not taken into the analysys? Was France the only country in Europe having some kind of law, or is French law somehow special?

2. Legal definition of nationality was defineently not the only one, or even not the most important for people of early 19th century Europe. There was no German state back then, yet somehow some people were defining themselves and were defined by others as Germans

3. So far you proved Chopin was probably considered egligible for French citizenship ("French") by French authorities of the era.

4. Yet this fact is definetly not the only one defining his nationality, and the question remains whether it is important enough to describe it as 'Polish-French' or similar

5. In other words the major problem here seems to be relevance, not factuality

Born in 1810 in the Duchy of Warsaw, where the legal system of the Code Napoléon was in effect, Chopin was born French because his father was French. What happened afterward to the Duchy of Warsaw has no incidence on the fact that Chopin was born French as his French nationality was a matter that concerned the French, not the Poles, not the Pope, not the Russians, not the Prussians, not the Austrians, only the French, which is the reason why Chopin was able to get a French passport & not get an extension of his Russian one, otherwise, he would have had to register as a "political refugee" in France.

To your question: "Would autorities of Congress Poland consider young Frederic a Frenchmen, i.e. a foreigner when he studied in Warsaw in 1820s?"

Authorities of Congress Poland considered Chopin to be a Pole, not a foreigner, so he was a Polish student in Warsaw. As I said earlier, his French nationality was a matter between him & the French whose juridic Code happened to be the one in effect in the Duchy of Warsaw at time of his birth. Whatever happened to the Duchy & the rest of Poland afterward did not change anything for Chopin (or for those who may have been in the same case, i.e. born of a French father outside of France), his baptismal register with mention of his father being French did not change, the fact that he was born of a French father did not change. When he travelled outside Poland, like all Poles, he had to travel with a Russian passport (or, as the case of other Poles may have been, a Prussian or a Austrian one, depending which part of Poland was concerned). The difference with Chopin and others who were born of a French father is that the French, because of the Code Napoléon, considered them to also be French, and this was not taking away their Polish nationality, simply recognising them as French. Consequently, when after arriving in France Chopin was faced with the choices given above, one of them being the extension of his Russian passport at the Russian Embassy in Paris, which he refused to do, he was able to obtain a French passport, as a Frenchman, with mention made on his passport that he was born of French parents. Please note that no more than now, there was no "European Code", nor "international law" on nationality/citizenship.

To your statement: "So far you proved Chopin was probably considered egligible for French citizenship ("French") by French authorities of the era."

So far, I have said that Chopin was born a French national because that is what the 1804 French Civil Code said and still says, "jus sanguinis" ("right of blood") being the determining factor in establishing nationality of a newborn, so Chopin did not fall under "being eligible for French citizenship" because, even born outside of France, he was born French, just as if he had been born in France. Now, since 1945, the French Civil Code determines nationality on both "jus sanguinis" and "jus soli".

I personally do not see where there is a problem saying the facts as they are. I did not make the law and I am not rewriting history. The Duchy of Warsaw was governed under the 1804 French Civil Code at the time of Chopin's birth, and Poland remained under it throughout the 19th century.

• http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Mg47v92hMSsJ:www.francemagazine.org/articles/issue70/article94.asp%3Fissue_id%3D70%26article_id%3D94+the+duchy+of+warsaw+was+governed+by+the+French+Civil+Code%22&cd=1&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Best regards,

--Frania W. (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Frania, if you wish to summarize Professor Langavant's argument in an in-line note in the "Paris" section, as I have previously suggested, this will make his view available to the article's readers. Considerations that may have induced the French government to issue Chopin a French passport are of interest. But the view that Chopin was French (or even French-Polish or Polish-French) is not currently the prevailing view in the world and should not be presented as such in the article's lead. The French government's attitude toward Chopin in the 1830s and '40s — whatever exactly it was, which is not made definitively clear by the several documents that the Professor adduces — is not necessarily binding on the rest of the world in the 19th, 20th or 21st centuries. Nihil novi (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I will put something to that effect, which, no doubt will be reverted by the "Polish-Pole only" Chopin Society as soon as it appears. The fact that something "is not currently the prevailing view in the world" has always puzzled me & brings to my mind the historical time of Galileo & the Inquisition. How wrong was he & how right they were!

I am also puzzled by the fact that Wikipedia has no problem recognising without the batting of an eye the nationality of other individuals born outside of France of a French father as having the nationality of the country of their birth and that of France, for instance:

• Alfred Cortot, "a Franco-Swiss pianist and conductor" [...] Born in Nyon in the French-speaking part of Switzerland to a French father and a Swiss mother...", is in the exact same case as Chopin, except for the country of his birth:
  • born in Switzerland
  • French father
  • Swiss mother

or:

• Marie Curie, "a physicist and chemist of Polish upbringing and subsequent French citizenship" (what are "Polish upbringing" & "subsequent French citizenship" supposed to mean? - nonetheless mentioned in the article.)

In the above two cases, what permits us to say that Alfred Cortot is "Franco-Swiss" and Marie Curie of "Polish upbringing and subsequent French citizenship"? Is anyone fighting tooth & nail to make Alfred Cortot only Swiss? In both cases, should not a "reference needed" be attached to such statements? Because we are taking for granted that Alfred Cortot was "Franco-Swiss" & the "subsequent French citizenship" of Mme Curie - not a single footnote to that effect.

To summarize, why such resistance recognising Chopin's French nationality when autommatically granted to others in similar circumstances? -

Alfred Cortot: the reality of the fact that permits Wikipedia to say that he was Franco-Swiss is that tiny little sentence in the Code Napoléon: "A child born outside of France of a French father is French."

Another splendid example:

• Guillaume Apollinaire, 'Wilhelm Albert Włodzimierz Apolinary Kostrowicki, known as Guillaume Apollinaire (French pronunciation: [ɡijom apɔliˈnɛʁ]; Rome, August 26, 1880–November 9, 1918, Paris) was a French poet, playwright and art critic born in Italy to a Polish mother.
  • born in Italy
  • (probable) Italian father
  • Polish mother

What exactly, with no source - primary, secondary or tertiary - no explicative footnote, no mention of ever obtaining French citizenship and, aside from "the prevailing view in the world", allows Wikipedia to state that Guillaume Apollinaire was French?

--Frania W. (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Bravo Frania! Well summarized. Incidentally the Polish Wikipedia article on Guillaume Apollinaire states in its lead, "francuski poeta polskiego pochodzenia" (French poet of Polish origin), with no mention of any of his other ancestry at all. Hmm? As for your question, "why such resistance recognising Chopin's French nationality when autommatically granted to others in similar circumstances? " By now, that can only be a rhetorical question. I think Galileo's theories and the work of the Inquisition, and the contemporary "world view" of those issues, are closer than you think to the heart of this matter being discussed. In any case, I'm pleased that Nihil has become more courteous towards you. His earlier condescending and mocking demeanor were very inappropriate. So that's good. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Nationality

Nationality is a curious concept. It is not synonymous with citizenship. The lead of the English Wikipedia article on Albert Einstein gives no nationality or citizenship. Einstein was German by birth; as a teen, he renounced German citizenship in order not to serve in the military. He became a Swiss citizen, and later lived again and worked in Germany. After Nazism came to power, he moved to the United States and eventually became an American citizen. He was of Jewish descent and, though nonobservant, came to feel an increasing kinship, the more the Jews were persecuted.

Einstein wrote in 1918: "I am by heritage a Jew, by citizenship a Swiss, and by makeup a human being, and only a human being, without any special attachment to any state or national entity whatsoever."

Einstein also commented wryly: "If my theory of relativity proves to be correct, Germany will claim me a German, and France will claim me a citizen of the world. However, if it proves wrong, France will say I’m a German, and Germany will say that I’m a Jew." [6]

Einstein said: "Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." [7]

Einstein is difficult to pin down to a nationality not only because he spent substantial periods in various countries, but because he felt no need for a nationality. If he had a spiritual homeland, it was physics, which knows no nationality.

Why might the same not be said of Chopin? His principal domain of activity was music. The difference, though, is that Chopin's music is perceived universally as a Polish music. He is, indeed, credited with having invented national music. According to the Wikipedia Chopin article:

Zdzisław Jachimecki notes that "Chopin at every step demonstrated his Polish spirit — in the hundreds of letters that he wrote in Polish, in his attitude to Paris' [Polish] émigrés, in his negative view of all that bore the official stamp of the powers that occupied Poland." Likewise Chopin composed music to accompany Polish texts but never musically illustrated a single French or German text, even though he numbered among his friends several great French and German poets.

According to Arthur Hedley, Chopin "found within himself and in the tragic story of Poland the chief sources of his inspiration. The theme of Poland's glories and sufferings was constantly before him, and he transmuted the primitive rhythms and melodies of his youth into enduring art forms."

In asserting his own Polishness, Chopin, according to Jachimecki, exerted "a tremendous influence [toward] the nationalization of the work of numerous later composers, who have often personally — like the Czech, Smetana and Norway's Grieg — confirmed this opinion..."

That is why the world regards Chopin as Polish, and that is why he must be so described in the lead of the "Chopin" article. Citizenship and passports really have nothing to do with it. In his lifetime, there was no sovereign Poland on the map of Europe; yet Chopin was a Pole, first, last and always. Nihil novi (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

First, Winston Churchill, then Sean Lennon, now Albert Einstein. You guys can really get a laugh out of me. For all this blather about Einstein, please note that the quote you're using possibly came from here [8], and that the info box at the Albert Einstein info box states that his ethnicity is Jewish. So then Nihil novi, according to presumably the "world view" expressed by Zdzisław Jachimecki, who notes that "Chopin at every step demonstrated his Polish spirit", the world regards Chopin as Polish. You bring in Einstein into the fray and ask us "Why might the same not be said of Chopin"? I'll answer with Einstein, "I am by heritage a Jew, by citizenship a Swiss, and by makeup a human being, and only a human being, without any special attachment to any state or national entity whatsoever." So why indeed does Chopin require the special designation as a Pole? Why then is his French component not relevant? Do we have Chopin stating, "I am by heritage a Pole, by citizenship a Frenchman, and by makeup a human being, and only a human being, without any special attachment to any state or national entity whatsoever?" Where's the analogy of Chopin ethnicity to Einstein's remarks? Does Chopin negate his paternity anywhere at all? Anywhere? Again you note that Jachimecki notes that Chopin wrote hundreds of letters in Polish. And his point and your point is what? He wrote hundreds of letters in French too (many to his French father). As for his sympathy or empathy for Poland's plight there can be no doubt, and Lord Byron had a similar viewpoint concerning Greece, yet it didn't make him Greek. The fact is that Chopin was ethnically half French and half Polish, emigrated to France and lived half of his life there. Nobody is denying his association with Poland, the last time I checked. But the last time I checked there seems to be an unusual necessity to deny those facts concerning his ethnicity and to now do so on the basis of the "world's" view of Chopin. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right. In fact, all three Einstein quotes appear in Wikiquote:Albert Einstein.

And, yes, the "Albert Einstein" article information box does give his ethnicity as "Jewish," despite the serial German, stateless, Swiss, Austrian, German and U.S. citizenships. Similarly, we can call Chopin ethnically Polish despite the French and Russian (?) citizenships. Nihil novi (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Met an edit conflict with the abov:

As I wrote earlier, the sentence "A child born outside of France of a French father is French" means that the child is as French as any French child born on French soil. In fact, at the time of Chopin's birth, having a French father was the only requirement to be French, as only jus sanguinis was required, not jus soli.

I have never met such stubborness as in the case of Frédéric François Chopin to have him recognised as a Frenchman as well as a Pole. No matter what "proof" or "similar cases" I bring to this discussion, it is automatically rejected.

Using only one of the examples I gave, please explain to me what the difference is between an Alfred Cortot born in Switzerland, of a French father & a Swiss mother, being a Franco-Swiss, and Frédéric François Chopin born in Poland, of a French father & a Polish mother, and not being a Franco-Pole, since the same French Civil Code applied to them.

What people of the rest of the world in any century may think of that French nationality of Chopin is not of their concern, they are not juridically trained in French law to say whom France should consider one of its own: the French Civil Code was in vigor in the Duchy of Warsaw, and the Poles kept it for over a century, through the various debacles, Kingdom, Republic, Russian domination, Prussian invasion etc. they went through all the way until after WWI.

What is obvious to me is that the Poles have decided to deny any of France's part in Chopin's heritage & life. To them, he is only a Pole & the French can be damned. Because of the tragedies that Poland suffered, France never raised a voice regarding Chopin's French nationality. France has bent over backward by courtesy to the Poles. But I do not see what good it is to Chopin himself to deny him a part of himself. I am only bringing to this discussion the very pieces of paper that Chopin himself used, copy of a baptismal register, a passport, the French Civil Code, which enabled him to spend the second part of his life in France as if he had been born there, and to travel outside of France without having to bother with the Russians. These are the facts.

--Frania W. (talk) 03:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"The rest of the world [is] not juridically trained in French law to say whom France should consider one of its own." Chopin is not only France's; he belongs to the world at large, which considers him Polish.

"The French Civil Code... enabled him to spend the second part of his life in France as if he had been born there..." Many Poles lived in France, though they did not have a French parent. Nihil novi (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

True, but Chopin did have a French parent. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

...which made him a Frenchman at birth. --Frania W. (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Alfred Cortot is an equally simple issue. Because his father was French and his mother was Swiss he is appropriately called "Franco-Swiss" (despite being born in Switzerland). Had both of his parents been one or the other he'd be one or the other. Btw, Cortot's renditions of Chopin remain very exquisite, even with the great technological advances made in the recording industry since his heyday. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I would be the last person in the world to deny Chopin his "Polishness"; by the same token, I do not want his "Frenchness" to be denied.

Yes, many Poles lived in France at the time Chopin did but, unless they were also born of a French father, they had to register as political refugees. At one time in their life, they may also have returned to Poland and some of them may even have ended as "political refugees" in that part of the world [9]. So, I would not make light of Chopin's "French papers", which may have spared him such a tragic end. --Frania W. (talk) 04:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Chopin didn't take chances. He never returned to Poland. I guess he was aware of the risk of becoming a Sybirak, French citizenship or no. (Who knows whether the Russian Empire recognized dual citizenship? Present-day Poland doesn't.) Nihil novi (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

In the life time of Chopin, while "germanification" & "russification" were taking place, Polish nationality was never denied, the Poles remained Poles, although travelling on the passport of their occupiers. I do not have time right to bring out sources but will as soon as I have a couple of hours at hand.

It is not a question of "dual citizenship" being recongnised by one or the other or the whole world, it is a question of the country, like France in this instance, recognising one child born outside of France as one of its own. Cases: Chopin, Cortot and others. --Frania W. (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Assuming the criterion of civil codes in assigning nationality, and assuming that citizens of the Congress Kingdom of Poland traveled on Imperial Russian passports (is that accurate?), then why not compromise and call Chopin "French-Russian" (assuming that both countries recognized dual citizenship)? Nihil novi (talk) 04:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Nihil your "compromise" has a couple of problems. Even before the Soviet era, the Russian Empire was comprised of many nationalities or ethnicities, other than Russians. Polish people lived in Russia, Prussia, and Austria. No Poland existed, but the Polish nation (ethnicity/nationality) was not extinguished. We also know that after the various uprisings, an intensified policy of Russification was implemented in Poland and in other non-Russian parts of their empire. But since all of us seem to be intent on splitting hairs, the fact is that Chopin was born in the Duchy of Warsaw, not Russia. That Russian thing happened a little earlier for a short time, and a little later for a long time. So let's forget dual citizenship and civil codes for a moment and get back to compromising somehow. I noticed you're fond of Christopher Kasparek. How about..."Chopin was a Polish born composer and virtuoso pianist of Polish-French descent". Since not many people other than ourselves seem to care about this, we can look at my suggestion as a true compromise, rather than a sarcastic one, fix the lead, and move on to other arenas. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no assuming to do in the case of Chopin: The Poles remained Poles but had to travel on a Russian passport, or on a "German" one.

As a compromise, I immediately vote YES for this "Chopin was a Polish born composer and virtuoso pianist of Polish-French descent". Then a couple of sentences with footnote can explain the "French" descent part with people interpreting it as they understand it. Some will see only the "Polish-born", others will say to themselves "oh, but he was also French!", and we leave it at that. --Frania W. (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"Polish with a French father" works too. Amazing how much time wikipedians spend on simple stuff. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As much as I love the Poles (please take note of my name...) I must say that they are a stubborn bunch who love to complicate simple stuff... I also recognise why they are so stubborn, throughout their history, they had to be - and Chopin is their "beacon of light" -, which does not change the fact that he was born also a little Frenchman. That is simple enough. --Frania W. (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"Polish with a French father and a French mother" is more accurate. Unfortunately it's unacceptable to Polish editors. Varsovian (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Varsovian, vous êtes adorable! --Frania W. (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"A French mother" — much as Jacqueline Kennedy became Greek? Nihil novi (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If at the time of her marriage to Onassis, the Civil Code of Greece said so, then she did. Had she married a Frenchman, she would have become French, because of the French Civil Code. --Frania W. (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that the discussion on the francization of Chopin is still in progress, unfortunately I don't see any new interesting argument(s). But well something interesting did emerge in the discussion (thanks Frania) and namely the fact that Maria Skłodowska is called Marie Curie on wikipedia. I propose to change that as soon as possible. In my opinion the francization doesn't make too much sense, I mean one can still understand that "Napoleone Buonaparte" became "Napoleon Bonaparte", but come on "Marie Curie" is a bit too much. Let's use correct names please, it will improve the accuracy of wikipedia.  Dr. Loosmark  02:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Loosmark, the discussion of Chopin's heritage is still in progress. It has nothing to do with the "francization" (sic) of Chopin, his father took care of that matter long ago. Some two hundred years ago. And how does the "Petit Caporal" have any relevance to this question? Napoleon wasn't French, but became Emperor of France. Like Pilsudski, who wasn't Polish and became Marshal of Poland. Both of them, unlike Chopin, who was Polish-French and ultimately may have a greater positive and long lasting effect upon humanity than the other two, down the road. Anyway, you recently said that we're not that far apart on this question concerning Chopin [10]. How do you like my compromise, "Chopin was a Polish born composer and virtuoso pianist of Polish-French descent"? When Rlevse stated, for the second time, "Polish with a French father works too. Amazing how much time wikipedians spend on simple stuff", she failed to understand that the alternative, "French with a Polish mother", doesn't work at all for Polish Wikipedians. That assertion is in complete juxtaposition of "how the world views "Szopen". At times like these it behooves one to read How to deal with Poles again. This tidbit was created by Polish Wikipedians, not created by any hostile groups with an anti-Polish bias. Perhaps it puts a lot of things into perspective. Once again, does my compromise work for those involved parties here? Would like to hear the pros and cons of it. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't you people have anything better to do? We already say in the article that he was Polish with a French father, don't we? What on earth is there to keep arguing about?--Kotniski (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting that Marie Skłodowska-Curie comes up (I'd prefer her article use the name I just did but it seems that WP policy is against me on that one). She is described as "of Polish upbringing and subsequent French citizenship." I wonder if this might be the solution for Chopin. It is not quite factually correct (Chopin had French citizenship from birth) but might be a compromise position. Any thoughts? Varsovian (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well if it's not factually correct, then we can't very well use it. What's wrong with the wording we have at the moment? Do we want to mention his French father in the same sentence we mention that he was Polish? I'd like to do that, though I'm not sure how to word it in the msot natural way.--Kotniski (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

By the time Fryderyk Chopin was born in 1810, his father had been living in Poland, and subsequently in former Polish territory, for 23 years, and had taken part in the 1794 Kościuszko Uprising against Russia and Prussia. Was the father not by 1810 a citizen of the land, in its various political permutations?

I think that a satisfactory phrasing might be: "Frédéric Chopin (1810–49) was a Polish composer of expatriate-French paternity." Nihil novi (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That phrase wouldn't take into account the fact that Chopin's mother was French. Or the fact that Chopin himself was born French. Or the fact that he later used his French citizenship to get a French passport to use when he was traveling in Europe. Or the fact that he lived in France as a Frenchman, not as a Pole. Varsovian (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence that either the elder Chopin, his Polish-born wife Justyna, or Fryderyk Chopin himself ever renounced their Polish citizenship, or that their renunciations were accepted by the authorities in the land at the time (which would be required in Poland today)? Nihil novi (talk) 10:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

After 23 years, Nicolas Chopin may have felt himself a "citizen of the land", but that did not keep him from having mention of his French nationality included in the church record of his son's baptism.

Nowhere have I ever read that Nicolas Chopin asked to become a Polish citizen, or that he renounced his French nationality/citizenship, and he never did since "born of French parents" is written on his son's 1837 passport.

--Frania W. (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

As I kept saying when I was taking part in these discussions, citizenship isn't really something that greatly concerns us (not for the purposes of the lead, anyway, since sources are pretty much exclusively silent on the matter). There was probably no such thing as Polish citizenship at that time, and what we may know about the then embryonic concept of French "citizenship" as it may apply to F.C. tells us interesting things about the French legal system, but not about Chopin. Does Varosovian have sources for any of the statements made in his last post?--Kotniski (talk) 10:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep asking and asking and asking for sources? We know that Chopin used a French passport because we have a copy of it (and WP:RS confirming that he applied for it). We know that his mother was French at the time of his birth because we have the article by Langavant and the 1804 Code Napoléon, we don't know if she gave up her Polish citizenship (I would very much expect that she didn't but we have no WP:RS that confirm that). We know that Chopin lived in France as a Frenchman because he took his French passport and did not register as a refugee. I hear for the first time that the elder Chopin had Polish citizenship, so we have any sources for that? And do we have any sources which in any way link present day Polish law to the law >200 years ago? Varsovian (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No, we should hardly be concerned about the law at all. Probably Chopin was legally a French citizen (or something of similar meaning) for all his life, but so what? We can certainly mention it the article if we can find a reliable source for it (I'm not sure that this Langavant's writings qualify), but that doesn't make it in any way incorrect or misleading to describe Chopin as a Polish composer with a French father.--Kotniski (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That description is certainly incomplete. A complete description would be "a Polish composer who had a French father, a French mother [to be strict, if we can find a reliable source that states his mother kept her Polish citizenship when she acquired her French citizenship at marriage, we can describe her as Polish-French; to be realistic we could just call her Polish-French], French citizenship from birth and a French passport which he used to travel round Europe." As that is more than a little verbose, how about we just call him "a Polish-French composer"? Varsovian (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"A Polish composer who had a French father" is what I want to write. Everything you write after that is original research (and I don't believe you're serious about describing his mother as French). Well, except the passport, which we also mention in the article with about the amount of prominence it deserves.--Kotniski (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Original research? Langavant says all of it! Varsovian (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Where and when did Langavant publish his views on the matter? It would seem to have been an on-line popular, rather than peer-reviewed, medium. Nihil novi (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you say that facsimile of Chopin baptismal record & 1837 passport are fake? Would you deny that the 1804 Code Napoléon applied to the Duchy of Warsaw? I am sure that you can find that one in any book on the history of Poland. Besides, no one seems to deny that Frédéric Chopin was born in Poland, of a French father. As I asked above, why then, in the same circumstances of birth, the Franco-Swiss nationality is given to Alfred Cortot, while Polih-French is denied Frédéric Chopin? Same circumstances, same Civil Code... same Wikipedia. Because what cannot be accepted in Frédéric Chopin's case should not be in Alfred Cortot who should be "Swiss, born of a French father". --Frania W. (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Switzerland is a confederation consisting of many French speaking Cantos. Let's not mix apples and oranges please.  Dr. Loosmark  19:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Loosmark, does "Franco-Swiss" mean "born in the French-speaking part of Switzerland" or "French and Swiss"? If you check wiki-articles on people born in that part of Switzerland, in the "apples & oranges" cart, you will find also "pumpkins"! --Frania W. (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"Joseph-Maurice Ravel... was a French composer of Impressionist music... Ravel was born in the Basque town of Ciboure, France, near Biarritz, close to the border with Spain... His mother, Marie Delouart, was of Basque descent and grew up in Madrid, Spain, while his father, Joseph Ravel, was a Swiss inventor and industrialist from French Haute-Savoie..." Yet Wikipedia holds off from calling Ravel a "Basque–Spanish–Swiss–French composer." Nihil novi (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(od) Nice try Nihil, but the Basque analogy doesn't apply to this case. Read up on Gorals, they also span different geographical areas. One can easily understand that a Goral born in Poland would be Polish, and one born in Ukraine or Slovakia wouldn't be Polish. If Ravels mother was of "Basque" descent, or later lived in Shanghai or Madrid, is of little importance. If I'm not mistaken, the Nazis tried to make Chopin "one of their own", by asserting that Nicholas Chopin was from Alsace-Lorraine (which by the way he was). Quit bouncing around other articles on Wikipedia and concerning yourself about what other Wikipedia articles are "holding off" on. Please see my new thread below and kindly state your opinion as to whether that will work or not. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, for now I'll stay on this side of your wordy section title.

I've already said, below, what I think of your wording. Nihil novi (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Had the Polish-born Mlle Justyna Krzyżanowska married someone other than the French, Sieur Nicolas Chopin, the Polish composer Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin would not have been born.

Put more simply: Justyna Krzyżanowska + Nicolas Chopin = Fryderyk Franciszek/Frédéric François Chopin

--Frania W. (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we agree on the sentence suggested by Dr. Dan & close this discussion? :

• "Chopin was a Polish born composer and virtuoso pianist of Polish-French descent".

Please note that not putting "Polish-French" is a big concession on my part, but with the lead sentence containing the "Polish-French descent", this may be a way to reach a consensus.

--Frania W. (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Fryderyk Chopin wasn't a "Polish-born composer." He was a Polish composer of expatriate-French paternity. Nihil novi (talk) 03:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Calm down, Nihil, we all understand how important this is to you. Just open your mind for a moment and see how ridiculous your arguments are becoming. You bring up Ravel, nope, poor comparison. How about Jan Matejko? Czech father born in Roudnice, his mother half German, half Polish. Didn't master the Polish language either. But he's now "Polish", actually more so because no one really cares about him, and wants to argue the point. Do you? Would calling Matejko a Czech-Polish painter be true or would it upset you? Dr. Dan (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If your Matejko analogy is meant as a guide in the Chopin instance, then you would seem to have demonstrated the absurdity of your own argument.

Your gratuitous advice to "calm down" shows that your are as great a boor as you are a bore. Nihil novi (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Nihil novi, we are trying to reach consensus, not start the discussion all over again on a new tangent, as you are trying to lead us on the Basque path with Ravel. Consensus may not be a cup of tea to everyone's taste, but it is a drinkable cup of tea. What's wrong with "Polish-born". If it ruffles your feathers to the point that only "Polish" satisfies you, then "Polish only" will ruffle the feathers of those who know that Chopin was also "French". So far, you have not only refused to admit that Frédéric Chopin was (legally) French, but you have tried to demonstrate that Nicolas Chopin was not, had never been, or had somehow lost his French nationality through the maze of Poland's complicated political situation(s). We have come to the point where we must opt for a solution, hopefully reaching consensus on what the consensus should be. --Frania W. (talk) 12:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Where have I denied that Nicolas Chopin was French-born? But to call his son Fryderyk "Polish-born" is like attaching "American-born" to Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson (who, by the by, did spend some time in France). Nihil novi (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I see the problem: we are discussing the Frédéric Chopin article, might I suggest that you make the necessary changes to the Fryderyk Chopin article and allow other editors to this article? Varsovian (talk) 10:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"Chopin was a Polish born composer and virtuoso pianist of Polish-French descent"

Cutting to the chase, other than it being suggested my me, what are the objections to this simplified solution? It's factual, not original research, and covers all of the bases and should suffice to not offend anyone's sensibilities. Focus on that, please, like a laser. Comments? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it much (apart from anything else, the father's side of is family was 100% French and the mother's side at least partly French due to his mother being a French citizen) but I could accept it simply so that we can all move on to other things. However, I'm sure that it will be unacceptable to certain editors (who all just so happen to be of a certain nationality). Varsovian (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No objection. --Frania W. (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Works for me.THD3 (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What is "Polish born" supposed to mean? To me it implies either that he was born in Poland (which is dubious, since legally there was no Poland then) or that he was born Polish but (presumably) became less Polish at some later point (which is not true). And I also don't see why this is a "simplified" solution, since it's a bit more complex than the perfectly acceptable text we have at the moment. But if it's the price we have to pay to make the anti-Polish gang leave this article alone and go and make their trouble somewhere else, then I suppose it could be worse... --Kotniski (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you perhaps refrain from accusing other editors of being racists? Thanks in advance. Varsovian (talk) 13:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the second time you've asked me to refrain from doing this. I never have accused anyone of being racist as far as I recall, nor do I have any intention of doing so, so why do you keep saying it? (Please reply at my talk page to prevent this thread's going off topic).--Kotniski (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, saying of some who take part in this discussion that they belong to the "anti-Polish gang" could be taken by some as something similar to being accused of "racism". Having Polish-born ancestors & also French, I can assure you that I do not belong to any gang, be it anti-Polish or anti-French, and do recognise that without France (and another dear nation my family is also tied to) the Polish side of my family - as is feared some members did- would have landed in Siberia or I do not know what other earthly Paradise. And I do not see how giving Frédéric Chopin what is due to him can be considered being anti-Polish.

Now, could we use this newly-created section to decide on the sentence proposed by Dr. Dan instead of starting another Civil War? --Frania W. (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In the English language, "Polish born" means "born in Poland." It implies nothing else. "Polish born" doesn't even mean "born Polish," that would be "of Polish descent." The expression "Polish-born" doesn't imply that someone became less or more Polish later. It doesn't even imply that he or she necessarily is Polish, it simply means born in Poland. See http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/born If this silly talk about nothing continues, then the sentence should be cut to "Chopin was a composer and virtuoso pianist." The argument that Poland did not exist during Chopin's birth would be hotly contested. Just because a country is occupied by another power, the country doesn't cease to exist. At least not for a while.--BsBsBs (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

At last, someone (a native German-speaker) who understands English and uses common sense! Thank you, BsBsBs. Nihil novi (talk) 04:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So I don't see why this sentence is an improvement in any way. I'm afraid this is all just an agenda-driven attempt by a few individuals (sorry Frania, I didn't mean you as part of the anti-Polish gang, but you have a pretty clear agenda here nonetheless) to prevent Chopin from being described as Polish, using the most obviously spurious arguments and classic original research one could wish for. Wikipedia should resist this sort of thing (as well as the similar type of agenda coming from the other side), but unfortunately it doesn't, and articles end up being written by a combination of people who only half understand the subject and people who are only interested in fighting their petty battles. I'm out of here, do what you will, but please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for original interpretations or narratives.--Kotniski (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

[Removed own comment which was based on a mistakenly read revision on my part: had not gone far back enough. Frania] --Frania W. (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

How disingenuous can one be?

It was Dan who unilaterally changed the lead's wording to that of this (his) talk-page section heading.

My apologies on that one, Nihil novi, but I am so hypnotised by your name that it's all I saw! No doubt it will get a chuckle out of Dr. Dan ! --Frania W. (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

BsBsBs directed us to a link for the definition of "Polish-born". Checking that link, all one can find are the various meanings of "born", not "Polish-born", so the definition of "Polish-born" is left to the interpretation of each one of us.

Not really. BsBsBs' point remains valid. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged Edition, states: "born... 3. a native to the locale stated; immigrated to the present place from the locale stated: a German-born scientist; a Chicago-born New Yorker." Nihil novi (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

BsBsBs is entirely correct in his analysis of the expression "Polish-born." Frania's failure to understand this demonstrates her woefully inadequate understanding of the English language.

Fortunately, my "woefully inadequate understanding of the English language" does not stand in the way of my "awesome knowledge of French law". --Frania W. (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If this new thread was meant as a way to establish consensus, then enough time should be given for others to "vote", as during this lengthy discussion, others have been in favour of the mention of Chopin as being "Polish-French" or as having his French paternal heritage mentioned together with his Polish one as the two are inseparable. One cannot ignore the father at the time of the child's conception & Frédéric Chopin would never have been had his mother been married to another man (Grand Duke Constantine, for instance.) The respected Encyclopædia Britannica [11], who cannot be accused of being anti-Polish or having a pro-French agenda, shows Frédéric as "Polish-French", so the "Polish-born" proposed by Dr. Dan was meant as a compromise "to not offend anyone's sensibilities". Frania

The current article lead in no way denies Fryderyk's French-born paternity; on the contrary, it affirms it.

Encyclopaedia Britannica is an outlier in its interpretation of the composer's nationality. One sampling of opinion is Wikipedia, which has articles on Fryderyk in 88 languages. Of the 71 that are written in the Latin, Greek or Cyrillic alphabet, 67 (94%) describe Fryderyk in their leads as Polish. The default version of the English article should be the present one, as of 08:10, 19 May 2010. Nihil novi (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Nihil, whenever I bring up a Wikipedia article to comfort what I was saying, I am told that we are not to use Wikipedia as a source or reference, but when you bring up Wikipedia International to prove your point on the fact that Chopin is described as Polish in a vast majority of other language articles, then that's fine. May I remind you that many of the foreign language articles are translated from the most "active" language of Wikipedia, which I believe to be English, just as many English written articles related to France are translated from French wiki.

--Frania W. (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's make a start. Same Random House Dictionary, above: "Chopin, Frédéric François... Polish composer and pianist, in France after 1831." Nihil novi (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nihil novi, We have been through this for an eternity & I am not going to fall into that trap. According to the 1804 French Civil Code & updated recent one, Frédéric Chopin was French at birth, so I am not going to ask English language wiki & dictionaries if they agree or not; although I noticed that a couple do, such as Encyclopædia Britannica & New Oxford American Dictionary, which both have Frédéric Chopin as "Polish-French".

In order to reach some type of consensus, Dr. Dan proposed as a compromise "Polish born composer and virtuoso pianist of Polish-French descent". If, according to Random House definition, one of the meanings of "born" is *3. "a native to the locale stated";*, then I do not see what your problem is with Dr. Dan's proposal, since the definition for "Polish" in same Random House Dictionary is: "of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Poland, its inhabitants, or their language." So, why are you splitting hair with Dr. Dan's "Polish born"?

--Frania W. (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

According to Polish nationality law, "Children born in Poland to foreign parents do not acquire Polish citizenship unless they would otherwise be stateless." Thus a child born in Poland to two Kenyan citizens, though "Polish-born," would not be a Polish citizen or Polish national. Precision is everything. Nihil novi (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a very interesting point. If Chopin's mother did not have Polish citizenship, Chopin couldn't have acquired it from her. We have both primary and secondary sources which confirm that his mother had French citizenship. Do you have any which confirm that she retained her Polish citizenship? If you don't, we'll have to edit the article to reflect that Chopin never qualified for Polish citizenship. Varsovian (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you cite thorough peer-reviewed discussion of Langavant's views? So far we have been presented circumstantial evidence, published in what appears to be a popular on-line medium. Nihil novi (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nihil novi: Chopin was born 200 years ago, not in modern-day Poland. At the time of his birth, the civil Code (with nationality based on jus sanguinis, not jus soli) in vigour in the Duchy of Warsaw was the French Civil Code of 1804, not today's Polish nationality law you are referring us to. --Frania W. (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the obvious fact that some things have changed over the past 200 years. The purpose of the reference to current Polish law was simply to illustrate the inappropriateness of using the expression "Polish-born," which, as BsBsBs noted, says nothing about a person's citizenship or nationality. Nihil novi (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Could I just make the point that Encyclopaedia Britannica or any other source that describes him as "Polish-French" may simply be referring to his long residence in France and his having adopted French citizenship, rather than referring to any nationality he may have had at birth. Had Chopin spent his whole life in and around Warsaw except for occasional concertising abroad, I very much doubt anyone would ever call him "Polish-French" just because of his father's original citizenship. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Touché! Nihil novi (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Are we supposed to interpret to our liking the written words of an encyclopedia? The editor(s) of the respected Britannica & New Oxford American must have a good reason for publishing "Polish-French". Also, may I remind you that, French at birth, Frédéric Chopin did not have "to adopt French citizenship", (a fact that is falling into deaf ears.) Considering the resistance met here, it is obvious that the Poles are banded together to deny Chopin the French nationality that was his at birth, and that would be his together with the Polish one, should he be born now.

--Frania W. (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)