Talk:Mozart and scatology

POV section

The section discussing Mozart's use of scatological humor as having its origin in Tourette syndrome gives undue weight to that hypothesis and Benjamin Simkin's views, which do not enjoy widespread medical consensus. See the sources at Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome. Also, see WP:LAYOUT on the correct use of hatnotes, removing self-references to other Wiki articles, and WP:MSH (the article has duplicate and repetitive headings). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I was somewhat appalled that the above editor seemed to take me to be an advocate of the Tourette syndrome hypothesis. I've shifted the emphasis somewhat so that this theory is given greater skepticism. However, it's not clear that SG is well-informed re. the literature here: for what it's worth, the hypothesis was published in peer-reviewed journals and advocated by multiple authors. Perhaps that tells us something bad about the peer-review process, but that's not for us WP editors to decide.

Concerning where the reader is informed of other WP articles to read, I'm firmly committed to the goal placing these items where they are most relevant and helpful to the reader. The advice of the WP MOS is sometimes quite poor in this respect and should be trumped by sensible writer judgment. Opus33 (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

There are still many problems, both in POV and in layout, but I probably won't get to them until after Christmas ... this just isn't how we write articles on Wiki (self-references to reference lists without addressing the POV). Removal of the POV section tag was premature; I will try to fix it somewhat as soon as I have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

An utterly superfluous entry

Some people really have too much time on their hands. And somebody who still believes that Spaethling presents a usable translation of Mozart's letters, cannot be wrapped too tight!--62.47.129.156 (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a standard item of Mozart biography. If you're not sure on this point, try reading some. Opus33 (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"Standard item of Mozart biography" is referring of course to the usual jumble of nonsensical mistakes. That's exactly the problem that such incompetent crap is taken as "standard" these days. Spaethling has no knowledge of Austrian 18th-century vocabulary. Like Anderson he mistranslates "Lichterputzer" as "lamp cleaner". "so aber - - ziehe ich nur mein schnupftuch heraus und schmutze." (14 November 1777) is being turned into the nonsensical "As it is, I just pull out my handkerchief and hide a smile."[LOL!], because Spaethling obviously thinks "schmutzen" is a form of "schmunzeln". "mit allen Stimmen" is mistranslated as "just the voice parts", "er geht in die Töne" becomes the absurdly wrong "He attacks the music[!]". And Spaethling's abolute masterpiece of nonsense is his translation of Mozart's sentence "O, wenn man genereux ist, kann man alles haben" with "Oh, there are no limits to those who think imaginatively" [ROTFL!] These are the embarrassing ludicrosities you get, when you trust somebody, who has absolutely no knowledge of the German language and just dabbles in the translation business.--Suessmayr (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, those examples of hilarious Spaethling howlers are truly convincing. It seems that "reading some standard item of Mozart biography" might not really be enough for certain contributors of Wikipedia ;)--217.149.225.126 (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I've not been pleased with this article, and had to clean up a lot of original research with respect to the Tourette's text. If it goes to AFD, I'm on board, but I can't speak to the translation problems mentioned above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, it's a shitty article? Ha! Puns TheJJ chat? 07:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this article should be highlighted on April Fool's Day

Just saying. LOL — Rickyrab | Talk 18:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Examples: German spelling

Regarding this attempt to correct the spelling and its reversal: I agree that Mozart's (lack of) use of capital letters should be preserved, but I strongly suspect that the word "macht" (English "might") ought to be changed to "nacht" ("night"). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Opus33 (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite

This article is poorly written, POV, contains original research, uses medical sources incorrectly, and has multiple MOS issues. I have been meaning to address this for almost a year, but have been busy moving; I am rewriting it in sandbox. User:SandyGeorgia/Sandbox/Mozart and scatology SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've rewritten the top portion only in sandbox, to correct WP:MSH issues, institute encyclopedic tone (we don't say things like "see below"), remove boatloads of original research, and request citations on more original research (note that translating or linking to translations is not the same as "interpreting" the translations or the meaning behind them, and when the article does this, it should be cited and attributed). Rewriting the medical section will take more work, as it is highly POV and uses outdated sources incorrectly. (Simkin was an endocrinologist, with no training I'm aware of in Tourette syndrome, and we should give due weight to the much higher quality medical sources we have on the TS hypothesis, which is quite well refuted, and certainly doesn't belong in the lead because it's a minority viewpoint. This article gives undue weight to the TS hypothesis, and doesn't even do that well.) More later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Did what I could, done for now, but if any of the original research is added back in, I would like to see quotes from the sources placed here on talk. There is some very good material in the sources which is unexplored as yet in this article-- it is not only the TS hypothesis that is soundly refuted, but other psychiatric hypothetical diagnoses as well, with illustrative descriptions of the wit of the time associated with Mozart's scatology-- the TS hypothesis does not belong in the lead because it is so minor to the entire issue, and the other psychiatric diagnoses postulated can be equally refuted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge?

No matter how well-sourced this article is, I don't think it should be it's own article, rather, it should be merged into the main article on Mozart.

Afterall, do we start writing pages like this for everyone who had a controversial side? Solntsa90 (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

But it is a notable subject that keeps coming up in discussions of Mozart's personality and private life. The juxtaposition of high-brow music and juvenile humour has caused lots of confusion in outsiders, such as Margaret Thatcher, whose indignant reaction the article mentions (hilarious story!), though I might note that still nowadays, Bavarian humour is notorious as often rustic and quaint. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The Thatcher anecdote is well-worth the entire article; I can see the old buzzard in my mind's eye, scowling in silent horror as her courtiers squirm in their seats nearby. The Orwell logic train is also hilarious. "Victorian Christian decency is axiomatic to genius, and indecency is alien to Victorian Christian decency; Mozart was a genius, therefore he was not indecent. Change the play immediately." >:-| Court Appointed Shrub (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete Thatcher anecdote

The Thatcher anecdote should be deleted as it tells us nothing about Mozart. It's nothing but a true reflection of Thatcher's own character: her narrow-mindedness, her bigotry to the point of stupidity, her indifference to facts that contravened her prejudices.... Get her out of this article! 82.26.122.179 (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thatcher's attempt to bully her interlocutor was certainly characteristic of her. But the unwillingness to believe that Mozart enjoyed scatology is far more widespread and I think Thatcher is as good an example as any. Opus33 (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It's about Thatcher, not Mozart, and as such is a very poor example and really not appropriate for this article. -- 98.171.173.90 (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

As Opus33 wrote above, it's a useful illustration to a widely held view. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Opus33, it should stay and is relevant to the subject matter. 98.67.1.164 (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

how is it relavent what some random politician thought about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:f4:df00:9022:dde3:9c74:ed97:1fd2 (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mozart and scatology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207145220/http://www.uni-ulm.de/~tkammer/pdf/Kammer_2007_Mozart_preprint.pdf to http://www.uni-ulm.de/~tkammer/pdf/Kammer_2007_Mozart_preprint.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1884721
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2117611
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070722083646/https://www.baerenreiter.com/html/download/pdfs/Endbericht-NMA.pdf to http://www.baerenreiter.com/html/download/pdfs/Endbericht-NMA.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2117611
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207145220/http://www.uni-ulm.de/~tkammer/pdf/Kammer_2007_Mozart_preprint.pdf to http://www.uni-ulm.de/~tkammer/pdf/Kammer_2007_Mozart_preprint.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1884721

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The "translation" in the Examples section

Seriously, it's actually wrong in so many ways ...

lezt wünsch ich eine gute nacht
scheissen sie ins bett dass es kracht
schlafens gesund
reckens den arsch zum mund

closest translation intention-wise I can come up with is:

lastly I wish you a good night
shit into your bed with vigor
have a healthy sleep
stretch that ass to the mouth

Source: Native German speaker.

he is just swearing

german language swearing is very fecal matter centric. in the times of martin luther in the times of mozart and today. it's like a modern day american movie using the word f u c k a lot 06:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:f4:df1e:90ab:75a7:e267:37f5:e49b (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)