keeps moving this article in spite of requests not to by means of cut n paste Will contributors who watch this article please check that it is at Frederic Chopin which seems to be the current consensus before editing Unfortunately protecting the page against moves won t stop cut n paste moves I have asked OliverTwist to desist Reply to Chopin fan and the rest Chopin fan is right who knows more about Chopin s other works except of course for piano The bottom line is if on his birth certificate says Feb 22 that is legal no matter what his family says birth baptismal certificate the bottom line is so many so called justed wikipedians here are messing it all up then when they admit they are wrong they say they are only human grow up will The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22 17 February 9 2006 The document in question is not a birth certificate but a baptism certificate This is not a government legal document but a church document The church is less interested in the date of birth of children than in the date on which they formally become members of the church ie their date of baptism That is why for example we know Beethoven s and Shakespeare s dates of baptism but not their dates of birth and probably never will Nevertheless most baptism certificates include a place for the child s date of birth to be written which is good because in many cases this is the only documentary record we have of the date The certificate is filled out not by the parents but by the priest who was not a witness to the birth We have to rely on the priest to record this date accurately and he in turn has to rely on what the parents tell him Chopin s baptism took place not just a day or two after his birth but almost eight weeks later 23 April 1810 That is when the baptism certificate was written Priests are humans and sometimes misunderstand what the parents tell them about the date of the child s birth That is what the vast majority of Chopin scholars believe is what happened here If the mother and father always insisted Frederic was born on 1 March and someone who wasn t there says something different who are you going to believe That is what this comes down to Believing Chopin s parents who were very much there or believing the priest who wasn t Thank you that was well stated For these reasons as well as for consistency with other publications such as the New Grove I suggest retaining only March 1 in the lead I agree with Antandrus Seconded Thirded Fourthed I do nt have much to say You can do whatever you want you can say whatever you want I can say I was born on this day if I go to social security and I want to change my name I must show them my birthdate i do nt show what i think period therefore the ignorance of people lije JackofOZ or Makermi or whoever else is suggesting the date like this to remain only shows your ignorance therefore I am building a website to let the world know not to bother with this crap and incorrect information here enough said date 2 22 is an option which is mandatory you can argue as long as you want use any words you like you are deadly wrong and ignorant as usual For once I m in total agreement with you You don t have much to say Best of luck with your website Ay yi yi There are so many things wrong with this argument that I don t even know where to begin Indeed it appears that I don t have much to say is the only truthful statement in this entire post It s not a birth certificate It s a baptism certificiate The former is a legal document the latter is not The modern American use of legal documents has exactly nothing whatsoever to do with the early 19th century As everyone else participating in this argument has agreed the other date is not even remotely mandatory Anyone can fake a webpage Anyone who seriously cl