Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Addition of country

I suggest adding the country of origin, "was a prolific and influential Austrian composer, which should be included. Otr500 (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. This issue has popped up quite a few times on this discussion page before (see Archive). The difficulty is that none of the possibilities can be described both briefly and accurately. The literally correct answer ("citizen of the Prince-Archbishopric of Salzburg") is uninformative to modern readers. "Austrian" is many people's favorite, but in Mozart's day Salzburg was not part of Austria (it was not within the Habsburg Empire). "German" was used by Mozart to describe himself. And lastly, there's the problem of the Holy Roman Empire, a vague and faded political entity of which Salzburg was a part. So it's really quite complicated. This needs a separate article, I think, written with care (because we get problems with nationalist editors) and properly referenced. If anyone wants to try this, the Cambridge Mozart Encyclopedia has some very helpful material. Opus33 (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

By all due respect, Gentlemen, but actually it is not "quite complicated", Mozart was German, a citizen of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. Also he "felt" German, as one can read in his letters to his father: "Was mich aber am meisten aufrichtet und guten Mutes erhält, ist, daß ich ein ehrlicher Deutscher bin." Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Deutscher Komponist (1756-1791) in einem Brief vom 29. Mai 1778 In 2003 Mozart was voted to one of the greatest Germans alongsides with Martin Luther and Johannes Gutenberg, at first "Austrian" media went crazy, until Austrian and German historians proved the case, know his nationality is accepted in Austria and Salzburg by almost all. By the way: Austrians are Germans too, eben Kaiser Franz Joseph (Emporer Franz Joseph) said: "Ich bin der Kaiser Österreichs - ein deutscher Fürst!" I am the Emporer of Austria--a German prince! Hyperboreer 20:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperboreer (talk • contribs)

Opus33 has explained this clearly. I think the present version is satisfactory in de-emphasizing this question. Nationality in the 18th century was not the same thing as nationality in the 19th or 20th. Let's concentrate on what is important — Mozart's music! --Kleinzach 23:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

SOME (and by that I mean the majority of the population) of Austria (today) are Germans. The other 30% or so are Italians and Swiss, ethnically - it was not, and today is not, a "nation-state" (everyone gets along very well there.) The Austrian monarchy was ethnically German. In Mozart's day the Austro-Hungarian Empire also contained Hungary, Bohemia, and a big chunk of the Balkans - with a German overlord as emperor. The Holy Roman Empire at this time had lost its Italian southern portion, and can be said to have been more or less ethnically German (yes, there were French and Danes and Slavs within its borders) - but was only a nominal political entity, as "Germany" was divided into many independent states. Mozart spoke German, was raised as a German, and considered himself German. He was cosmopolitan in his views of his audience - loving Prague, loving Paris, loving Vienna. Any nationalist wars are positively dull on this topic and should be ignored here. Besides, his music 'belongs to the world' now. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Well, he was Austrian (I say that as a German) although Kurt Wilhelm in his most popular "Brandner Kaspar" puts him "most of the time" into the Bavarian heaven "because he likes it better here" (the Princeabpr. of Salzburg was considered to be part of Bavaria, in the sense of country - obviously not in the sense of Electorate - even by an Austrian such as Father Abraham of Sancta Clara). Reason: Salzburg is now as a whole part of Austria; he worked in the capital of Austria for the reigning Archduke of Austria; the Holy Roman Emperors were in all but literal title predecessors to the future Austrian Emperors; and his music is specifically Austrian in style (other than, for instance, Beethoven's, even though himself a Viennese composer; to be silent of Bach; it has even been said that "Anton" Salieri was the more German of the two). However I may be somewhat personally odd, for I'd concede Händel to the English.--131.159.0.7 (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

He was in a way both, but only calling him Austrian and not German seems to be influenced by an Anti-German attitude. 89.204.136.52 (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, In my opinion and after watching several documentaries, his Father was a composer, very famous too and that is I think part of what made Mozart start composing at such a young age, also His Mother was never blind, many articles have been confusing people on this thus no one is sure about the truth but we have to get it straight some day. -agaille — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.238.152.117 (talk) 07:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The Austrians are Germans anyone with a basic knowledge into history can see this is true, they are ethnic Germans and Mozart even described himself as a German as well and his birthplace was not part of Austria at his birthplace so his nationality would not have been Austrian, it would have been German just like anyone else inside the HRE that spoke German. Austrians considered themselves as Germans until the end of WWII the new Austrian nation is a post-Nazi era nation. Even though Adolf Hitler was an Austrian (nationality) by birth.

Why not put Austrian-German doesn't that work perfect? --Wonderman91 (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

One problem with the word German is that it has acquired an entirely new meaning since Mozart's time, i.e., of or pertaining to the nation-state of Germany, which came into existence in 1871 and notably did not include Austria. Even though this was originally a secondary meaning, it has since become the primary meaning. If one wishes to refer to German in the pre-1871 sense, one is almost obligated to say "ethnic German." Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Why no info boxes for European Classical composers?

How come none of the European classical composers have info boxes which have their details, it would be so useful just like authors, politicians etc have info boxes about them. Age, country, DOB, DOD, genre, romantic, baroque. etc etc. Strange that no one has created this?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes and the further links provided there. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Lack of Infobox

Is there a reason why this and many other articles don't have an infobox on the side? It seems rather standard for wikipedia biography pages to have infoboxes (eg. William Shakespeare). I've checked several composer pages, but they do not seem to have any. Why is this? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Because they aren't required by any guideline, they duplicate (sometimes incorrectly) info already in the article, and many editors (myself included) hate them for those very reasons. They are loaded with problems, trying to summarize an important bio into infobox parameters often leads to errors, and they rarely add anything that isn't already covered in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

So there isn't any guideline that specifically states infoboxes are out for composers? That differs from the impression another editor gave not long ago when reverting out an infobox added to this article by an editor. Yes, infoboxes do duplicate what's already in the article, however, it is a helpful tool for those looking at a Wikipedia article and would like some fast facts. Articles as big as this one is make it difficult for someone looking for those fast facts to find them - an infobox simplifies. Not everyone coming to Wikipedia wants or has the time to read through and digest a large article - discouraged, they will go to another source. Additionally, the duplication argument doesn't hold water for me since the opening paragraph of an article is also duplicated material as it is meant to be a summary of the article content. I, for one, would like to see infoboxes added to large articles such as this that fall into a category (e.g., classical composers). It seems to me it could be for another consensus to be sought on this issue as there are - by all appearances - at least two editors who feel an infobox in this article (and others like it) is needed. Lhb1239 (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're aware of any guideline that makes them obligatory, please post it-- I'm not, they are subject to consensus, many editors hate them. Particularly for a large article, summarizing tidbits down to bite-size chunks might not always be possible or accurate. Your argument amounts to, if two summaries are bad, three are better (and one of them is constrained by bite-size parameters). Our only market isn't the attention-deficit-- accuracy is more important (to some), and accuracy can't always be conveyed in the bite-size paramters of an infobox. As for consensus on this article, I oppose an infobox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"only market isn't the attention-deficit" - I'm hoping you aren't referring to those looking for fast facts about an article subject as individuals with attention-deficit, and if you are, that you aren't trying to diminish their importance as those who utilize Wikipedia. Believing that is what you're saying without confirmation from you would be non-AGF, after all. Back to the subject of infoboxes: accuracy is to be achieved everywhere in the article, that's why a lot of people keep articles on their watchlist: to insure accuracy is maintained. Accuracy CAN be conveyed in an infobox just as it can be conveyed in the opening paragraph and the body of an article. In fact, accuracy is easier to pinpoint in an infobox than in a long, complicated article (where inaccuracies can get lost and remain unseen amongst all the hundreds of words and numerous sections). Lhb1239 (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That's one view. The other is that accuracy is harder to pinpoint in an infobox because nuances, differences in opinion among sources, etc cannot be easily accommodated, as they can in article text. Furthermore, infoboxes are generally discouraged in composer biographies, per the WikiProject guideline and the past discussions linked to from that page. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I get that the consensus in the past has been to leave infoboxes out. I think it's time to revisit that consensus. Consensus isn't written in stone and can most certainly change. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I doubt think much good is going to come from another debate, considering the recent one on another talk page (I forget the exact person). Of course, I really wonder why the arguments always seem to turn toward things that have nothing to do with classical musicians, but rather would be a problem with historical figures in general. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Given the constantly reactivated controversy about Mozart's nationality, I think the last thing we need is a potted 'fill in all the fields' biog. in an info box! --Kleinzach 04:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

While that's the best argument (and funniest ;-) against infoboxes for composer's I've seen yet, it still doesn't persuade. With all of the endless info that goes into them - if it works for European royalty present and past, it can work for composers as well. Lhb1239 (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a clique of dedicated editors dead set against infoboxes. Their standard answer: it inartfully summarizes the article. I wish you luck. TuckerResearch (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

"in what is now Austria" why not "in what is now modern-day Austria"

It makes more sense because Austria still existed then but you could say in now modern-day Austria as it is now part of Austria but not when he was born.--Wonderman91 (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

"now modern-day" looks like the worst tautology of all time. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed -- "now" should be sufficient. Antandrus (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I have changed it back to "now" only. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

But Austria existed back then just his birthplace wasn't part of it then.--Wonderman91 (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That sense is conveyed by: "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was born ... in Salzburg, capital of the sovereign Archbishopric of Salzburg in what is now Austria, but then was part of the Holy Roman Empire." The "now" does not deny the existence of Austria in Mozart's time, all it's saying is that Salzburg is now in Austria but wasn't back then.

But maybe this would be better: "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was born ... in Salzburg, capital of the sovereign Archbishopric of Salzburg, at that time part of the Holy Roman Empire (it is now in Austria)." -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, WP:MOS discourages the use of parenthesis. If the sentence is rewritten, it should be done in such a way that the parenthesis aren't necessary. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

What about this: "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was born ... in Salzburg, capital of the sovereign Archbishopric of Salzburg. While at the time of his birth Salzburg was part of the Holy Roman Empire, it is now in Austria." Lhb1239 (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Antandrus (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

We could also change it to "...part of the Holy Roman Empire, in <insert year here> it became part of Austria and remains so in the present day." (or would that be [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight in an article not about Austria or the Roman Empire?) Lhb1239 (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

If it cannot remain as it is, which is my 1st preference, my 2nd preference is Lhb1239's 1st version. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I like it too, except that, since we've just said he was born, it isn't necessary to say "at the time of his birth". So, how about:

• "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was born ... in Salzburg, capital of the sovereign Archbishopric of Salzburg. While Salzburg was then part of the Holy Roman Empire, it is now in Austria."

I could live with "at that time" instead of "then", but "then" does the job admirably succinctly, imo. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Much better (with "then"), but still my 2nd preference. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I have difficulties understanding why the Holy Roman Empire is mentioned at all in that context. Salzburg was as sovereign state at the time of Mozart's birth. Later, Salzburg lost its sovereign status, and became part of Austria. Saying that Salzburg was "part" oft the Holy Roman Empire equals saying that (modern) Austria is a part of the European Union. The Holy Roman Empire wasn't a sovereign state, but was a Union of sovereign states. The EU has more common institutions than the Holy Roman Empire ever had. And while the EU member states have never fought any wars against each other, this was indeed the case with member states of the Holy Roman Empire (see for example the Silesian Wars. Thus, the solution would be: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was born (...) in Salzburg, capital of the sovereign Archbishopric of Salzburg, and today part of Austria." Any comments, guys? --Catgut (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Mozart, who described Germany in his letters as his "beloved fatherland", was an Austrian and Hitler was a German! No! It's a pattern, which you frequently try to impose in your contributions! At Mozart's time German speaking people within the "Holy Roman Empire of the German nation" (its full name) were, as a matter of course, seen as Germans. In the churches of the HRE the final prayer included the name of the emperor followed by the name of the duke or archbishop etc. (In Prussia this was abolished during the Seven-Year War). Princes of the HRE were obliged to give the emperor troops in cases of war. (It's another topic, that a part of the princes might have seen the long wars of the emperor against the Osmans as a guarantee for a large own independence from the emperor and were only alerted, when the Osmans were victorious and threatened Vienna.) The HRE was the background for the awareness of the people and should be mentioned on all accounts. Henrig (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Mozart (27 January 1756 – 5 December 1791) was born in Salzburg. Salzburg became independent from Bavaria in the late 14th century; then was the seat of the Archbishopric of Salzburg, a prince-bishopric of the Holy Roman Empire. In 1805, Salzburg was annexed by the Austrian Empire.

Mozart died 14 years before the Austrian Empire annexed Salzburg. If anything, Mozart was Bavarian (German). Any questions? --IIIraute (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Why are behaving so arrogantly? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

...because the never ending discussion.... Mozart was Austrian and Hitler was German.... is so boring!--IIIraute (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but these matters are resolved by patient negotiation, consensus building and a degree of compromise, which takes as long as it takes. They are not resolved by one editor asserting "This is the way it is, because I say so", or words to that effect. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No, no compromise, because in this case they are resolved by historical and undeniable facts.--IIIraute (talk) 04:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Facts, eh. Again, because you say they are facts? Or, if not you, who or what is your authority? Wikipedia works by having recourse to what reliable and citable sources say, not what editors say. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Was Mozart (27 January 1756 – 5 December 1791) born in Salzburg? Did Salzburg become independent from Bavaria in the late 14th century? Did it become the seat of the Archbishopric of Salzburg, a prince-bishopric of the Holy Roman Empire? Was Salzburg annexed by the Austrian Empire in 1805? Did Mozart die 14 years beforen Salzburg was annexed by the Austrian Empire? ...because the whole world of modern historians says they are facts. My authority is being an academic and historian - to support my authority I can provide you with 10.000 sources on the statements made above.--IIIraute (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Be our guest. That's what we want to see. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

[1],[2]--IIIraute (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Pinnacles?

The article states, "He [Mozart] composed over 600 works, many acknowledged as pinnacles of symphonic, concertante, chamber, piano, operatic, and choral music." The part of this text which I struggle with is "piano"; Mozart's piano sonatas are generally viewed as the weakest part of his output. On the other hand, Mozart's music for two pianos is far better, so perhaps the lead paragraph should remain unaltered. --Toccata quarta (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right and would be happy to drop "piano" from the lead if no one objects. (The two-piano works are more ambitious but there aren't very many of them.) Opus33 (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I assumed 'piano' referred to the concertos. No? --Kleinzach 12:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The lead paragraph already has the word "concertante". --Toccata quarta (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Since nobody seems to be opposed to my proposal, I will now proceed to change the lead paragraph. --Toccata quarta (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed - who are you to deem the piano sonatas and variations etc. of the master and genius Mozart "weak"? I know enough first-rate pianists who would strongly contradict that remark, and who praise Mozart's music to the skies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.61.252 (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I wrote "generally viewed". (First straw man fallacy.) There are no piano works of Mozart's that have been praised well-nigh unanimously as Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier, Beethoven's Diabelli Variations, Chopin's Préludes, Op. 28, etc. Within the piano repertoire, Mozart's piano music does not occupy the same preeminent position his Don Giovanni has in the realm of opera, his Symphony No. 41 has in the area of symphonic writing, or his Requiem has in the sphere of sacred music. I did not describe Mozart's piano sonatas as "weak"; I said that they are "generally viewed as the weakest part of his output." (Second straw man fallacy.) --Toccata quarta (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course Mozart's piano sonatas contain wonderful music but I'm happy with leaving them out of the intro, which ought to be kept short. When I read Toccata quarta's first comment above, it struck me intuitively as reflecting mainstream opinion. Now, as an extra check, I looked through the coverage of Mozart's works in the New Grove. They emphasize the operas, the late symphonies, the piano concertos, the string quartets, the string quintets, the clarinet quintet, and the Requiem. Piano sonatas are only mentioned in passing. Opus33 (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Mozart's dance music and canons have attracted rather little critical admiration, so it's probably not right to call his piano sonatas the weakest part of his output. The general point still stands. Opus33 (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

"just" 800 florins

It is written that Mozart received "just" 800 florins a year for his post as a composer of dances to the imperial court. That is absurd, since this was a very large sum of money, amounting to a substantial percentage of Mozarts annual income. Please change it ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.61.252 (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's what I could find. The article "Vienna" in the Cambridge Mozart Encyclopedia tells us that 800 florins was a lot -- working-class people of the time made only 50-100 florins. However, Mozart's 800-florin position (or its rough equivalent) had previously been occupied by Gluck, who was paid 2000 florins, a reason for Mozart to feel disappointed. Also, and sadly, 800 florins really wasn't all the much given the lifestyle the Mozart family had already adopted. It didn't keep them out of financial trouble later on. On the balance I think the "just" is justified. Opus33 (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

NANNERL NOTENBACH

this page says motzart composed the nannerl notenbach, but the nannerl notenbach page says mozart's farther did. I cannot edit this page, because it is protected . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.36.68 (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you are referring to the article Nannerl Notenbuch? If you are, that article says it is a notebook, mostly written by Leopold (the father), and the article on the notebook says: "His son Wolfgang also used the book, in which his earliest compositions were recorded (some penned by his father).". This article says: "At the age of five, he was already composing little pieces, which he played to his father who wrote them down...<snip>...These early pieces, K. 1–5, were recorded in the Nannerl Notenbuch." - so that seems fairly consistent to me. Sorry if I've misunderstood you at all. If you think the wording could be improved, feel free to either do so yourself, or suggest some amendments to the text. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 06:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"Rumors of Tourette Syndrome"

I've moved the following material to this Talk page, and instead added a link to the quite-substantial already existing coverage of this topic in Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette's syndrome. From what I've read it's pretty clear that this theory falls under the WP:FRINGE policy and thus does not deserve space in the main Mozart article. Opus33 (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Although some authors have speculated Mozart had Tourette syndrome, evidence for this hypothesis is lacking. Endocrinologist Benjamin Simkin, however, argues in his book Medical and Musical Byways of Mozartiana that Mozart suffered from Tourette's. This claim was picked up by newspapers worldwide and internet websites have further fueled the speculation. A German psychiatrist examined the question of Mozart's diagnoses and concluded, "Tourette’s syndrome is an inventive but implausible diagnosis in the medical history of Mozart". Evidence of a motor tic was found lacking and the notion that involuntary vocal tics transferred to the written form was labeled "problematic". Neurologist and author Oliver Sacks published an editorial disputing Simkin's claim, and the Tourette Syndrome Association pointed to the speculative nature of such information. So far, no expert on Tourette's or organization has voiced concurrence that there is credible evidence to conclude Mozart had the syndrome.

Mozart's nose

I'm moving this good-faith edit here:

His nose was "large" and "aquiline" and “became so prominent a feature in the last years of his life...that a scribber in one of the journals of the day, the Morgenblatter of Vienna, honoured him with the epithet 'enormous-nosed.'"

The large and aquiline bit comes from a letter written by Friedrich Rochlitz and considered by modern scholars to be a forgery; the letter is mentioned by us in Mozart's compositional method. "Enormous-nosed" might be true, but the reference source it comes from was published in 1854 and I'd like to see it from a more recent and trustable source before including it. I haven't seen it in the modern Mozart bios I have read. Opus33 (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Mozart's ass

What's the ruling on 'ass'? (as in 'a kick up the'). I'm English, and ass is a donkey over here, and not the horrid euphemism for arse. Could we have 'backside' or 'rump' or even 'arse' - a proper word for the body part? Nice article - extremely helpful! Katiehawks (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Article modified accordingly. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR. It wasn't immediately obvious to me which variant of English is in use in the article, but arse = BE and ass = AE. (Either is fine with me; BE/AE disputes are sterile, we just need to be consistent within articles.) Antandrus (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Saying it's a "better English word" is completely wrong. As said above, they are just different variations. I called it trolling because the comment seems to just try to get a rise out of people, which I guess worked on me, because I *do* get a rise whenever someone displays the anti-American attitude that shows on on WP a lot for some reason. But an ass is a butt and if you don't accept that, well you're just wrong. No two ways about it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hm. I agree the OP could have phrased the post differently, but an ass isn't always a butt - it's sometimes an animal. Thus, perhaps it would be helpful to use a common term? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course a common term would be best if we can agree on one. Would "bum" or "backside" be acceptable? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

We've been through this issue many times at Leck mich im Arsch and other Mozart-scatology articles. My impression is that many Brits find it simply unimaginable that Americans use "ass" -- and vice versa. I weakly favor "arse", because it's not ambiguous and would probably confuse fewer readers than "ass" does. "Butt" and other options seem suboptimal because "kick in the ass/arse" is a fixed expression in English and fits the context best. Opus33 (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Arse seems to be the least ambiguous; most straightforward. Sunray (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This seems reasonable; I'd favor "arse" even though I'm from the US; the context makes the vulgar but common phrase a better fit. By the way, since it's in quotes, could someone with the 1998 Sadie reference (from the New Grove Dictionary of Opera) please look it up? If it's quoted directly we should use whatever wording Sadie used. Antandrus (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if it's a quote it should be whatever the quote is, though I've heard "ass" specially in an audiobook by The Teaching Company (American professor). Saying "since arse is less ambiguous it should be used" is kinda annoying though as it's still favoring one over the other, and in all honestly how could anyone get confused in the context if they at least know that 'ass' CAN mean 'butt'? I'm sure there's as many people who have no idea what 'arse' as is there are who don't know 'ass' means 'butt'. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that we are a pain in the buttocks, but I have to add that the English word comes from the German root arsch. People who are unfamiliar with arse? Well if there are any, they could always look it up in their Funk & Wagnalls! (Excuse me, I'm just arsing around). Sunray (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

1st portrait of Mozart...

I was writing to say that I believe it would be better to put the Joseph Lange painting at the top of the article. I was wondering what others thought about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.24 (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Deserves better than a 'B' on the article quality scale?

Having just read the entire article it strikes me that B is quite a low grade for this article. There's only one bit (Works musical style and innovations) that seems unreferenced. It's well-written and I can't detect any issues (not that I should be seen as any kind of expert). The article's assessment was done in 2008. Time for another review? --bodnotbod (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Assessments higher than B can only be assigned through a formal review process like good article or featured article nominations. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we just keep the B grade. If we submit the article to formal review we're going to get a lot of new edits emphasizing the Amadeus movie, IQ improvement, Tourette's syndrome, miracles in Rome, and similar topics that form part of Mozart's aura but are not really all that important to the study of Mozart himself. Better just to keep the B grade as it is; we're grownups and can handle it. Opus33 (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

....I would say something in comment to that but it'd probably be taken as a personal attack. Suffice it to say, I find that a very bizzare answer. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Opus33's position. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I encourage Melodia to give her full opinion. I would assume good faith and not interpret it as personal attack. Opus33 (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I just think that preventing something from getting a higher rank - and thus seen in many people eyes as a better article - because of fears that new 'bad' edits will happen is pretty much against the entire spirit of Wikipedia. It also reeks of an elitist attitude. I'm not sure I understand the fear either, but it sounds similar to someone who wanted to keep certain pages from being part of certain wikiprojects (I think it was) 'because they might get edited by rock music fans'. The point of Wikipedia is an OPEN effort of collaboration, not "a few people who think they know what's best try and keep others from ruining it". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I concur tht Opus33's response is quite off and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and OWNish and attackish. I'll take the personal example of Tourette syndrome, which is already quite well addressed in a daughter article, and most certainly deserves a sentence here linking to that article for the purpose of addressing the frequenty (faulty) claim that Mozart had TS, and one sentence about and addressing the frequent claims attributing various health issues to Mozart is certainly better than the mess that is currently in See also. There are scores of high quality medical sources discussing the absurd diagnoses attributed to Mozart, and that they are kept out of this article makes little sense-- there could easily be links to daughter articles, and the TS claim could be handled with one sentence or one part of a sentence. The answers above smell strongly of ownership in a way that does not lead to better content. Could this article attain GA under such an attitude? Doubtful ... however, if the current OWNership allows it, and if editors such as Brian boulton were to come on board, certainly GA would be doable, an FA would not be out of the question-- there is good scholarship available, and there is no reason for this article to not be taking adavantage of that. However, I disagree that the current assessment is incorrect-- this article is B-class now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

We already have a portrait, it is a "B" if not above quility scale article, why not add an infobox? I hope everyone will be O.K. with this idea?--Mishae (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning; the quality of an article is not improved by adding an infobox. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

To my understanding project Classical music is against infoboxes for composers, we just spent too much time on Samuel Barber, my patience to be involved in a new argument for every composer is limited, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well then don't get involved. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Opposed to infobox, for all the reasons well explained many times, many places. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is SORELY lacking...

Mozart was GERMAN...regardless of being born (sighs) in "Salzburg". Till the early 14th century it was part of Bavaria and then independent prince-bishopric of the HRE and the regnum teutonicum. So it was a part of Germany, too. Salzburg became Austrian in 1805. But Mozart died in 1791. This is just historical fact. "Salzburg" was NOT part of "Austria" AT THE TIME. What is with Wikipedia sometimes? This nonsense becomes insufferable after a while. Listen carefully.

FACT: Mozart called himself German.

FACT: Mozart never went around calling himself "Austrian".

FACT: At that time the borders were NOT the same.

FACT: "Salzburg" was NOT part of "Austria" at the time of Mozart's birth and death.

FACT: the point of Mozart's being "German" is fairly well-sourced. I'm putting that he was a "German composer" simply because he was, he said he was, the article needs to mention his ethnicity or nationality clearly somewhere in the lede (it's not even in the article at all really), and he was of German stock (as opposed to Polish or Russian or Chinese stock, right?)...and hence the other editors will commence an edit war (not my choice though, but the doing of the silly whiny nit-picking Wikipedians who can't accept facts). Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Placing the same SHOUTING text three times here doesn't give it any more weight. This has been discussed here at length, and the consensus was that "German" meant something different then. For today's view of Mozart, it is indeed irrelevant, misleading and anachronistic to describe him that way; it would naturally open a further fruitless discussion on why not to describe him as Austrian. The article should be returned to its long-standing stable version. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I understand the point of accuracy and carefulness in articles, but I have to be frank.

It's obvious from your attitude, actions, and history that you have a vested interest in NOT having Mozart's nationality (in any sense) on this article. I know this has been discussed but never settled...because whether you personally don't like it, or think it's "anachronistic", it doesn't matter. His nationality should be mentioned. And he was of German stock, that's just a racial and historical fact. To leave that so out of this article is silly.

Also, you were wrong about that ref I put. I restored it. You said it was not reliable (a circular argument simply because you said so), and you were WRONG about "Chopin". You didn't read it carefully...it said clearly he was a POLE. So that was not there for that. It seems you used that as a front excuse to not have Mozart's "German" there.

The reason I did not put him as "Austrian" is the points I listed, which you totally ignored, but accused me instead of "yelling", which I did not do, but the caps were meant for emphasis, not "yelling".

Again, Mozart called himself German. Do we ignore that?

Again, "Salzburg" was NOT part of "Austria" at the time. Do we ignore that fact?

Again, Mozart was obviously of German blood. That should be ignored and not even mentioned briefly in the article?

Again, "Salzburg" was considered part of Germany at the TIME of Mozart's birth and death. That's to be discounted?

Yes, it's been discussed in the past, but I notice that not even a compromise was done yet on this matter.

Try to focus more on the sum and substance and specifics of my case, in this matter. Not an occasional blunt remark, that you could easily just take with a grain of salt. Thanks.

My point is that Salzburg was NOT part of Austria at the time, but part of the overall "Germany" situation. Why is that (fact) so omitted and left out of this article? And also the fact that Mozart called himself German, and had German "blood"? His nationality is not really even mentioned at all in the article. That leaves an article like this very incomplete. Don't you agree? Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Compromise (I hope)

ok, a compromise...and this is my last edit for this period (per WP policy)..."German-Ausrtrian". Read what I already wrote here on Talk. The problem NO real "consensus" was ever reached, and his nationality is left AMBIGUOUS in an Encyclopedic article.

Should a WP article on Mozart leave his nationality so unclear? Just because there were border differences at the time? So what's wrong with "a prolific German-Austrian composer"? If that gets reverted then that shows the real motives here. That some controlling editors simply don't want his nationality on here, if A) it's not "Austrian" alone, or B) shows "German" in any way at all. So they'd rather leave it ambiguous and UN-settled. Which makes no sense. He was German-Austrian, if that's the case.

So why not have it like that in the spirit of accuracy, fairness, and compromise? Can't please everyone, all the time. And there will (no doubt) be an editor (or editors) who will find some excuse to remove that and crow about that wording too. Hence why I wrote my initial comment on here about what I expect. But again, my point is NO real "consensus" was ever truly reached, and nothing was ever actually put in. And for an encyclopedic article, Mozart's nationality should be mentioned. At least some way. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have sources for "German-Ausrtrian"? If not, then it can't be that. If sources all say Austrian, then THAT is what we go by, true or not. WP:NOTTRUTH. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

All the modern sources I've polled have "Austrian" (Sadie's article in the NG, Slonimsky in Baker's Biographical, current Encyclopedia Britannica, one other I forget). Very old sources sometimes have "German" (the 1891 source that Hashem used, the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica). If we do decide to put in a "nationality" I think it would have to be "Austrian" because that's what the current reliable sources have. I have a feeling we've been here before (see Archive 6) and it's a long argument. I've never seen "German-Austrian" I'm sorry to say. Antandrus (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

...at least worth reading → [3] - --IIIraute (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

...please see → [4]:

• "If Germany, my beloved fatherland, of whom you know I am proud, will not accept me, then must I, in the name of God, again make France or England richer by one capable German; — and to the shame of the German nation."
• "The most stimulating and encouraging thought is that you, dearest father, and my dear sister, are well, that I am an honest German, and that if I am not always permitted to talk I can think what I please; but that is all."
• "I care very little for Salzburg and not at all for the archbishop: I shit on both of them. "

--IIIraute (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The main point of objecting against assigning a nationality to WAM is mentioned in the New York Times letter quoted above by Illraute: it's not applicable. Mozart has of course, in the spirit of his times, declared himself a German, and the interested reader can read the quotes, which are linked in the article. It must be understood that those quotes often served as expression of difference to the French school of composing or simply as linguistic identifier. The Holy Roman Empire, if that's what Hashem sfarim is referring to, was then a dying entity, stretching from Holstein to Trieste, and by no stretch could all its residents be called German. However, today's notion of nationality is quite different (and changing). Even worse, citing "his German blood" is a very dangerous and thoroughly discredited argument. It is quite understandable that a city like Salzburg or a country like Austria now claim Mozart as their own, as did a considerable number of Germans when they voted Mozart fourth in the list of Musikstars aller Zeiten (Music stars of all-time) and 20th-greatest overall. Given this tug-of-war, it would be wrong to attach a nationality to him. The German Wikipedia (which covers Austria) Mozart article and its talk page concur. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)