This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovakia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Slovakia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SlovakiaWikipedia:WikiProject SlovakiaTemplate:WikiProject SlovakiaSlovakia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This article has serious issues with bias, speculation, and reference formatting. Further, the article goes into great length to discuss trivial details of the person's life. She is notable for her speculative relationship with Beethoven. Fine details of her life not pertinent to her contact with Beethoven are not relevant enough for Wikipedia inclusion. Whatever remains needs to be presented with neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.182.87 (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
"Speculation": All relevant statements are backed up by verifiable sources of publications by reputed researchers and scholars. German statements are translated, and the original text is given.
"Trivial details": These have been mentioned mainly because (according to published research, as quoted) they are not trivial.
"She is notable for her speculative relationship with Beethoven": A sentence that can only be accepted if one assumes the writer knows close to nothing about both of them.
"Fine details of her life not pertinent to her contact with Beethoven are not relevant enough for Wikipedia inclusion": Perhaps one should put it rather this way: The very fact that certain influential Beethoven scholars (mainly in the USA, but also in Germany) as well as the Brunsvik family (see details in Tellenbach 1983) have done what they could to ignore Josephine's role in Beethoven's life, to wipe out her memory, to belittle researchers doing hard work in (among others, Slovakian) archives - isn't Wikipedia the appropriate place to break through the damnatio memoriae imposed by those who have a vested interest? The Truth must out!
"Neutrality": See "Bias"; what is needed is to counter the prevailing ignorance of this woman who was after all indeed the only one whom Beethoven ever loved. Her personal fate - which was rather tragic, reflecting the oppressive rules of the class structure of her time - is worth to be recorded.
P.S. For me it's a "serious issue" if unqualified remarks like this are made hiding behind the anonymity of an IP address.
This is a very educational and splendid article. Ignore the comments of the anonymous nitwit. and a fine rebuttal by John I might add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.68.48 (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
