Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

GA/FA Push

All right. I am considering a possible push for GA or FA status. There are a few issues we may need to tackle on.

• Lead section - looks good, but can be expanded up to four paragraphs. However, I think we might list his nationality if it is necessary. For reference, please see Edward Elgar and Gustav Mahler (both of which are FA class)
• Biography section - looks good, probably needs to be expanded on with more citations.
• Works, musical style, and innovations - also looks good
• Selected works - may need to be created.

All are welcome to assist in this process. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and good luck in your "push". I do hope the lead is not expanded further -- it strikes me as already rather wordy. Opus33 (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Biography

I think we should expand and reorganize the biography section of the article. For example, in the early years section, we can include a family background and childhood subsection, as well as his student days. I also think that we should group the 1788-1790 and 1791 sections into Last years, with the "Final illness and death" in the subsection. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

1) Family background currently appears in the articles about his parents (Leopold Mozart and Anna Maria Mozart; it's put there because the Mozart article is already quite long and less-important material has to be relegated to satellites.

2) Mozart didn't have any student days -- he never attended school a single day of his life.

3) Combining 1788-1790 with 1791 would go against normal practice in Mozart biography, since they are so different in tone (1788-1790: financial troubles and career worries; 1791: career recovery interrupted by illness and death).

In other news: I've noticed that what you have labeled as "copy edits" often actually change factual content, in ways that reduce article accuracy. I also think that your copy edits are at best neutral with regard to prose quality. Is it really necessary to be doing this? Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I understand that some of the less-important material had to be spun out into their own articles as the Mozart article was getting overly long and also, I agree that Mozart did not have any student days. For the family background, we should just describe Mozart's parents but we don't want to go into way too much detail. As for my copy edits to the article, these were neutral at my best with regards to prose quality. However, some of them were unintentional good faith mistakes on my part and and some of the changes that I made to the article were unnecessarily changing factual content to reduce the accuracy while labeling them as "copy edits", so I apologize for that.

Also, I am concerned about the use of peacock terms throughout the article. Per Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Puffery, words such as "legendary, great, acclaimed, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, cutting-edge, extraordinary, brilliant, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuos" can be used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. As such, we should use facts and attribution to demonstrate the importance, and also rewrite it to correct the problems and remove the peacock wordings.

By the way, as for the Works, musical style, and innovations section, I think we should add a reception section to it, using the reception section of Gustav Mahler as a model. Would that be a good idea or not? Best wishes, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead section

Also, per the recent peer review suggestions, we should rewrite the lead section. For example, I have removed the Salzburg from the "Mozart showed prodigious ability from his earliest childhood" sentence. It generally seems badly well-written compared to the rest of the article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

(A link to Wikipedia:Peer review/Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/archive2 would have been helpful.)

I suggest to eschew WP:BRD when making major changes to this article, especially to its lead, but present and discuss such changes here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, right. I might not have been aware of that. I apologize if I forgot to include the peer review link. Also, JoshuSasori pointed out that the section about his death, then suddenly there is another paragraph after that which is partly repeating what is in the first paragraph. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll change that portion of the lead, if there are no objections. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I have merged the information about his music into a single paragraph. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Pinkwater

I would love to see a list of all books by Daniel Manus Pinkwater featuring Wolfgang Amade Mozart. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this would probably fit in better on the Pinkwater page. Opus33 (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The name in syllables

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (German: [ˈvɔlfɡaŋ amaˈdeus ˈmoːtsaʁt], changed to W. Amadeus M. (German: [ˈvɔlf.ɡaŋ amaˈde.us ˈmoː.tsaʁt] to make syllables clear (eu is often a gliding vowel (diphthong) in German, but not here). --Haigst-Mann (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That change in IPA transcription was unnecessary. The diphthong "eu", as it occurs in the German words "Heu" or "Räuber", is transcribed as [ɔʏ]; there is no chance that [amaˈdeus] could be pronounced that way. I suggest you revert your change as it is it only confusing. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It's clear in the context that this is transcription and not orthography, so the spelling conventions of German would not be applicable. In general, Wikipedia refrains from placing syllable divisions in its IPA transcriptions, and this strikes me as a good idea: many readers are somewhat overwhelmed by the unfamiliarity of IPA, and the syllable breaks increase complexity but seldom add precision. Opus33 (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a pauper's grave

This discussion originally appeared at Death of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart but since JackOfOz put the change into this article as well I've reposted it here, just so all are in the loop. Personally, I'm fine with Jack's change. Opus33 (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just heard a respected radio announcer broadcast YET AGAIN the erroneous information that Mozart was buried in a "pauper's grave, as was the custom at that time". What was the custom at the time was that anyone who wasn't an aristocrat was liable to be buried in a common grave, along with other people. You didn't have to be a pauper to get that treatment.

Can we say something in the article that will stop people spreading this lie about a supposed pauper's grave? I know we prefer to talk about what was the case, not what was not the case, but we do serve an educative purpose and sometimes we need to disabuse people of their misconceptions. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. A useful source might be http://www.aproposmozart.com/Brauneis%20--%20Dies%20irae.rev.Index.pdf. Opus33 (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Opus, that's well worth reading. My knowledge has now been expanded. "Common" did not mean "communal"; Mozart had his own individual grave, but there was no guarantee his remains would remain intact after 10 years (unlike the rich folk, whose monuments were permanent). That's what "common" means in this context. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Distinguish quote from surrounding text

The quote in the section Family and early years, starting with "He often spent much time at the clavier", looks just like another paragraph in the section. I think the quote would look better and be easier to read if it is distinguished in some way. Usually a quote is distinguished by indenting it like the quote in the section Final illness and death, starting with "Mozart was interred in a common grave", but since the first quote is beside a picture, the indent by <blockquote> doesn't show. I suggested using Template:Quotation but Jerome Kohl disagrees, saying that it is an "improper use of pull-quote formatting" (see the page history). The template documentation doesn't say that it is reserved for pull quotes only and Wikipedia:Quotations#Formatting suggests that the Quotation template can be used to set quotations apart. What does everyone else think? Xin-Xin W. (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is created by awkward left-right placement of the images illustrating that portion of the article. As a result, the intended blockquote indentation is being interfered with (as you yourself observe). Boxing a quotation (one form of pull quote formatting) separates it too well from the preceding and following material. In the present case, the box makes the reader's eye skip over the enclosed material, and look for the material referred to after the colon in the text following the box. This is clearly just as bad a problem as the one it was meant to correct. The solution must be first and foremost in the realm of page layout (that is, the placement of the illustrating figures), and not in desperate attempts to adjust the text after the fact.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

"Mozart finally reached home on 15 January 1779 and took up the new position, but his discontent with Salzburg was undiminished (citation needed)" In "Mozart - the man and the artist revealed in his own words" compiled and annotated by Friedrich Kerst and translated and edited by Henry Krehbeil, Dover Publications, Inc., New York (1965)page 52, Mozart writes in a letter to his father on October 15, 1778: "I must admit that I should reach Salzburg with a lighter heart if I were not aware that I have taken service there; it is only this thought that is intolerable. Put yourself in my place and think it over. At Salzburg I do not know who or what I am; I am everything and at times nothing." And in the same letter referring to the new post at Salzburg: "For aside from obeying a praiseworthy and beautiful motive" (he means filial affection), "I am really committing the greatest folly in the world" 63.28.98.222 (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Argus, 2-10-2013

Lead image

Why show a detail of a portrait for the lead image when you have the full portrait—especially a full portrait that is a better quality image? MOS:IMAGES: "Lead images should be images that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic; they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." By comparison, here's the image chosen for the lead of the Mozart article in the Encyclopedia Britannica. See WP:LEADIMAGE for guidance on selecting images for the lead. Bede735 (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Bede, the image you just posted is also a detail! The full picture is actually this:

It portrays Wolfgang with his entire family; Leopold, Nannerl, and (as a picture on the wall) the dead Mom. Since the image we've been using is better digitized and more revealing of Mozart's appearance, I will now switch it back again. Opus33 (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. to the above. I think the Britannica's choice of main image, which is this one:

is pretty dubious, because their image is actually not a portrait from life; it was produced almost 30 years after Mozart died, relying on other portraits (including the Della Croce). See the discussion of this image on Commons. Opus33 (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the original painting is included in the article. The point is not that both images are taken from a larger image, but that the current image is a detail of Mozart from that painting that is restricted to a portion of his head, making it a less than ideal candidate for a lead image, which should be "a natural and appropriate visual representation". My point is that the use of the image is not consistant with the MOS guidance on lead images. I'm pretty sure we can find another visual representation where the top of the composer's head isn't lopped off. Bede735 (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

These guidelines were often put together by a dozen or fewer editors who happened to be on the scene at the time and shared an opinion -- the governance structure of WP is so absurd. In the present case, I think focusing in on Mozart's face produces a vivid and thought-provoking image. I was surprised when this image first got put up but now I've gotten used to it and would be sad to see it go. Opus33 (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The image chosen by EB is indeed very popular, but historically clearly inferior. I don't consider the replacement image suggested by Bede735 to be an improvement. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Am I mistaken, or is the replacement just a closer crop of the exact same image? DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 16:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The replacement Bede proposes is a less-close crop, though there seem also to be differences in the digital rendering. The closer crop (and what is currently on the page) is what we've been running for years. Opus33 (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

"Mozart's last composition"

I have published a story entitled Mozart's Last composition on my website: http://thegentlemanangler.com/historic-tales/mozarts-last-composition/899/ I found this story in “The mysteries of all nations: rise & progress of superstition, laws against and trials of witches, ancient & modern delusions” by James Grant (1880).

The story does suggest Mozart's general preoccupation with his own death. Do you believe this story? Would you like to put a external link or a link in the body text to this story on the Mozart page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheUKgent (talk • contribs) 21:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Other editors may disagree, but my own personal opinion is that in WP, as in any encyclopedia, we must stick with objective content, backed by reliable, fact-based source material -- and an apocryphal story based on a book of "superstitions and delusions" is hardly that, I'm afraid. It is, however, an interesting story. Is there any historical evidence that Mozart was, in fact, preoccupied with the prospect of his own death? My impression was that he generally enjoyed life, and died of an acute illness. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 22:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The OP is asking if it should be an EL, which doesn't necessarily have to be "objective content, backed by reliable, fact-based source material". That said, it probably doesn't quite fit well enough as an EL....MAYBE in the Requiem article, but not on this page. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Frustratingly, I can't find the original source for this passage. It pops up in a variety of 19th century books, including the Encyclopedia Britannica; none of these say where it came from. In any event, I would agree with Melodia and the Doctor: this is a "no" for external linking, at least for now, precisely because it isn't sourced. Opus33 (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Aiming for a more useful bibliography

This article currently conflates two kind of references in the bibliography: core general references (suitable for readers who want to start a program of independent reading) and peripheral references (cited merely to justify a particular factual point). It would seem useful to separate them. The two ways one might do it are:

• bifurcate the References section into Main sources and Other
• put the non-core references into footnotes.

Does either of these strategy seem more sensible or more standard on WP? Opus33 (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason that we cannot do both? That is, non-core references that provide citable information can be cited as RS in footnotes, and miscellaneous non-core references could be listed as "other" within the reference section. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 March 2013

Please change "While visiting Vienna in 1781, he was dismissed from his Salzburg position." to "While visiting Vienna in 1781, after weeks of tolerating slights at his own expense, he resigned from the Archbishop Colloredo's services. This lead to his dismissal from his Salzburg position." as stated in Peter Gay's book "Mozart" (2000). I request this change as the way this information is stated on Wikipedia is misleading on Mozart's behalf.

Gay, P. (2000). 3. The Servant. In: Mozart. 2nd ed. London: Phoenix. p52-55.

81.140.96.82 (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for making this suggestion. I feel reluctant to make a change here because different authors give different opinions about the quarrel between Mozart and Colloredo; there's a school of opinion (e.g., Ruth Halliwell) saying that not only was Colloredo a difficult employer, but Mozart was a difficult employee. Note that the article already does mention some of Mozart's grievances.

It's also worth remembering that being a musician was a low-status occupation in Mozart's time and it was more or less expected that they would put up with a certain amount of unpleasantness from their aristocratic bosses. Opus33 (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. RudolfRed (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Purple prose?

Hello, I've moved this good-faith contribution to the Talk page for discussion:

In 2009, Philopsher Roger Scruton wrote, "there is, in Mozart, a purity which is at once musical and spiritual. No musical pollution, and no spiritual pollution, sounds through his music. It is angelic in the true sense of the word: a visitation from another and higher sphere, and we listen to it exactly as though it had a message of eternal validity. This music is not of mortal provenance: nor, it says, are we".[4]

To tell the truth, I don't see this as encyclopedic. It seems to be mainly expressing Roger Scruton's feelings. Perhaps, by implication, it says something about how other other people react to Mozart's music. But I think we'd need survey data to know for sure whether (for example) it's characteristic for people to view Mozart's music as "free of pollution" (for myself, I don't hear any classical music at all as being "polluted"). It seems this guy was trying to write some kind of worshipful prose poem about Mozart's music. Let such poems be posted elsewhere on the internet; we're trying to be a reference source. Opus33 (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. to my own comment. Charles Rosen once wrote an entertainingly scathing review of a book about Mozart filled with purple-prose passages of similar character. The review is on line and I found it illuminating. The pithiest quote is:

"What Levey [Rosen's target] is doing is not describing the music, at least not in the usual sense of description: the metaphors are not there to make anything more easily recognizable or to point out features of the music that had previously gone unremarked. The writing does not describe but arouses and stimulates. Levey seeks by his prose to awaken in the reader the sensations he would have if he were listening to the music. The music is being sold.

Opus33 (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Should we rethink our policy on Mozart's nationality?

Hello everyone, I've long been part of the little cabal here  :=) that reverts all edits claiming that Mozart is either Austrian or German. And I'm aware of how complicated the reality of Mozart's nationality is (To review quickly: 1. Was Salzburg an independent state? 2. Does it matter that Salzburg is in Austria now? 3. What about the Holy Roman Empire? 4. What about the patriotic German passages in Mozart's letters?).

The editors of the authoritative New Grove are of course also aware of these complications. Yet their article about Mozart begins:

(Johann Chrysostom) Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

(b Salzburg, 27 Jan 1756; d Vienna, 5 Dec 1791 ). Austrian composer, son of (1) Leopold Mozart.

Would it be such a bad idea to just go ahead and imitate the New Grove, and say "Austrian composer"? We could also add a footnote specifying the messy factual details.

We get so many comments about Mozart's nationality it seems that the "say nothing" stance we've taken may be counterproductive. What do people think? Thanks, Opus33 (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm ok with that as well. For what it's worth, Britannica agrees. I don't have access to my library at the moment but I believe Slonimsky's Baker's Biographical Dictionary also uses "Austrian". It's seemed to me for a while that we get so many people trying to add a nationality that we might as well do it, and explain the details in a footnote. Antandrus (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

@Opus33 Yes, and the Gaul leader Vercingetorix should also be described as a French leader. (Irony!) Until you have changed it on 15 July 2012, the article started: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was born to Leopold and Anna Maria Mozart at 9 Getreidegasse in Salzburg, capital of the Archbishopric of Salzburg, a former ecclesiastical principality in what is now Austria, but then was part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. This passage was correct and also mentioned Austria! Your proposal simply would not be correct! Salzburg only became a part of Austria in 1805, after Mozart's time. Mozart never considered himself an Austrian, but only a German! Henrig (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to Opus33's and Antandrus' arguments, but I fear such a move will not reduce attempts to describe WAM as German. Grove, Britannica, Baker's, etc. don't have to contend with the concept that everyone can edit them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand the concept of WP:RS at all? Seriously? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with the concerns by Opus33 and Andantrus. We should explain the nationality via a footnote. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

There was no modern national German state at the time of Mozart's life. He decended from a South German family (his father Leopold Mozart was born in Augsburg) and was born in Salzburg, capital of the Archbishopric of Salzburg which was part of the Holy Roman Empire. Mozart was an open-minded person but considered himself a German. In a letter to Anton von Klein regarding the performance of a German opera (21 March 1785) he wrote ironically: Wäre nur ein einziger Patriot mit am brette – es sollte ein anders gesicht bekommen! – Doch da würde vielleicht das so schön aufkeimende National-theater zur blüthe gedeihen, und das wäre Ja ein Ewiger Schandfleck für teutschland, wenn wir teutsche einmal mit Ernst anfiengen teutsch zu denken – teutsch zu handeln – teutsch zu reden, und gar teutsch – zu Singen!! (Would there be only one single patriot involved - the whole affair should change! Perhaps the nicely sprouting National Theater would florish, and this would be an eternal shame if we Germans would earnestly start thinking German, acting German and speaking German, and even singing German !!)
(cited according to Alfred Einstein: Mozart. Sein Charakter, sein Werk: chapter Patriotismus und Bildung) --Furfur (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Furfur, there's been more discussion on this topic since this section was active; please see "Mozart's nationality", further down on this page. Opus33 (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Grammar

an ecclesiastical — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcbritt1 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 15 July 2013‎

Thank you for pointing that out. I have made the correction [1]. Voceditenore (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

"Greatest three"?

Hello, I'm moving this good-faith edit here:

...he is widely regarded as one of the three greatest composers of all time (together with Johann Sebastian Bach and Ludwig van Beethoven). ...

I'm worried that (a) it doesn't have a source; (b) I think it would actually be pretty hard to find a scholarly source that says this -- professional musicologists seems to be very reluctant to make claims about who is greater than who. I feel what we have already makes it pretty clear that Mozart is considered important; we don't have to delve into this "biggest three" stuff to make this clearer. Thanks for listening, Opus33 (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not just type "greatest composers" into Google? The claim that musicologists do not compare the greatness of composers can't be serious; ever heard of Schenker, for instance? Toccata quarta (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Why trust the dubious statistics generated by internet search engines? Still, musicologists undoubtedly do sometimes consider such things, but it is quite another thing to say that musicologists or any other definable group of people (Olympic athletes, for example, or taxi drivers) "universally agree" on it, especially if those willing (or reckless enough) to voice an opinion constitute only a small portion of the class in question. You might also consider that Schenker was not, by most measures, a musicologist at all. He is usually regarded today as a music theorist, though he proudly described himself simply as "an artist". Personally, I don't think any judgment concerning "greatness of all time" can be made until a chap has been around for at least a thousand years. Quite a while yet to go on these three upstarts, then.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"Dubious statistics generated by internet search engines"? What about Anthony Tommasini's "My top spot goes to Bach ... The obvious candidates for the second and third slots are Mozart and Beethoven." [emphasis added]? What was the last time you heard somebody declare Egon Wellesz one of the three greatest composers of all time? As for Schenker, isn't music theory a branch of musicology (which is the scholarly study of music)? (The previous version of the lead paragraph did not use the word "musicologists" in any case.) And what does age have to do with anything? Toccata quarta (talk) 05:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I don`t understand your point..1`st you say there are no greatest three..anyone in classical music will tell you there are..it`s common knowledge..then you say he shouldn`t be considered the greatest of the three..which is it? of the three he seemed to be the one who`s brain was hard-wired for music but that`s not the issue..you contradicted yourself in your opening statement..what`s your point? Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The 3 greatest composers could very well be Vaughn Williams, Debussy and Vivaldi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReadTheGuidelines (talk • contribs) 07:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You may be referring to the 3 most popular composers and one of them being Mozart, but not necessarily the greatest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReadTheGuidelines (talk • contribs) 07:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Genealogy

Ref 5. "Maria Anna Pertl", Genealogical database by Daniel de Rauglaudre. (retrieved 14 June 2012) is BS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.217.73.20 (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Cause of death

Some time ago, I read one of the Mozart biographies. (I don't recall which one, but it was easily 700+ pages.) From the description of his fatal illness offered in the book, I got the very strong impression that he died of rheumatic heart disease, a consequence of having had rheumatic fever earlier in his life. After all, he had been sick as a child with what some medical historians think was RF. I am a long time RN with a history of RF/RHD myself, so the description seemed very familiar to me. Of course, since he is long dead and his body lost, there will never be a way to conclusively prove or disprove the theories, but they are fascinating to consider. Thank you, 24.47.173.120 (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC) Added: Sorry - I my sign-in period elapsed. It's me - Wordreader (talk) 07:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Rheumatic fever is certainly among the possible causes according to the article Death of Mozart where other possibilities are also discussed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

"Mozart was a ... stateless composer"

Or at least that appears to be what some people want humanity to believe. Why doesn't this article mention his nationality? If somebody in 1791 were to ask Mozart what his nationality is, what would his reply be? Is this a complex question? Toccata quarta (talk) 09:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• See section 17 above. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 15:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Some people refuse to act upon the fact that The Grove—which is certainly a reliable source—describes Mozart as an Austrian. What's your point? Toccata quarta (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

In a former posting I once had written:

... Austria makes advertisements with him. This is her good right, especially with M.'s native town, the Austrian city of Salzburg. But one consequence of this is, that throughout the world, Mozart is considered as an Austrian and numerous sources, including Britannica therefore describe him as an Austrian composer. Being an Austrian in these former times, alone wouldn't exclude to call him a German as well, because Austria formerly consisted of many different ethnicities. German speaking people were considered as (ethnic) Germans, Polish speaking people as (ethnic) Poles etc. Therefore, in the list of Poles we naturally can also find people, who had grewn up in the Austrian Empire. But obviously there may be a few Austrian officials, who are rather weak in history. I remember, that one of them had protested against M.'s nomination as one of the candiates in the 2003 German television survey Unsere Besten (Our Best). Nothing against Austria's advertisements with Mozart Every city, where he lived for some time (- including my town of birth, where he lived for some months -) has the right, to make advertisements with him. But really, he actually even wasn't an Austrian in his time, but only a German. His native town Salzburg became only later, during the Napoleonic area, a part of Austria. Furthermore, Mozart's survived letters, where he called Germany his „beloved fatherland“, were now and then markedly German patriotic. Mozart's example shows, how even not massive and in no way nationalistic advertisements can impress the common picture in the world and influence sources like Enzyc. Britannica. ...Henrig (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Please listen. This subject has been discussed here, by our German colleagues, and in some other Wikipedias, since the inception of the article. The only sensible conclusion and consensus is to omit WAM's nationality. I'm going to restore the previous wording. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I have already "listened", and the only thing I "hear" is "I don't want this article to contain any information on this, therefore it won't contain any information on this", which amounts to WP:OWN. Do you have any understanding of WP:RS? Toccata quarta (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The better option is to put German Austrian or nothing at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.71.186 (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make with a link to WP:LISTEN was the heading there: "Failure or refusal to 'get the point'" which seems applicable. As for WP:OWN, previous discussions have shown (please read them), that there are numerous editors who explained the anachronistic nature of assigning a nationality to Mozart. As for reliable sources, there are of course others, including Mozart himself, which call him German. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

If the proposed options are "German-Austrian" or "nothing", I will cast my vote for "German-Austrian". "Nothing" clearly stimulates people to add "something", which triggers yet another brouhaha, and neither German nor Austrian seems quite right by itself. German-Austrian might put the issue to bed, especially since the next paragraph explains that Austria didn't exist during his lifetime, so it makes little sense to call him an Austrian - just as it would make little sense, for example, to call Julius Caesar an Italian, or Jesus Christ an Israeli. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 14:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

"Some people refuse to act upon the fact that The Grove—which is certainly a reliable source—describes Mozart as an Austrian. What's your point? Toccata quarta (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)"

Is not Mozart himself an even more reliable source than Grove? "That Mozart considered himself a "German" is beyond question. In a letter of Aug. 17, 1782, written when he lived in Vienna, he refers to "Germany, my beloved fatherland -- of which I am proud, as you know.""RAYMOND ERICKSON Flushing, Queens, Dec. 27, 1991 The writer is professor of music at the Aaron Copland School of Music, Queens College, CUNY"[[2]] It is a complicated question as there was not such a country as "Germany" in Mozart's time and there wasn't such a country as "Austria" either. The way it is in the article right now, Mozart was born in Salzburg and "This was the capital of the Archbishopric of Salzburg, a former ecclesiastical principality in what is now Austria, then part of the Holy Roman Empire" is the best solution, unless people want to have a whole section explaining how these states and ideas of nationality have changed over the last two hundred and twenty years, which would not be very relevant.Smeat75 (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"I'm a pink unicorn." Please see WP:PSTS. Toccata quarta (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is a BBC piece quoting the Austrian Ambassador to Britain: "Mozart was neither German or Austrian as he came from Salzburg when it was its own city state." Absolutely true. He goes on to say that "...Austria now claims him as 'Austrian' " -- not particularly helpful for our purposes. How about using "Salzburg-born" instead of "German" or "Austrian"? That would be accurate, and minimally confusing, and the next section explains the whole "former ecclesiastical principality in what is now Austria, then part of the Holy Roman Empire" thing. How about that, as a compromise? Just a suggestion. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 23:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be, as you say, entirely accurate.Smeat75 (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Would? Isn't that what the 1st sentence in the section "Early life – Family and childhood" says? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

What I'm proposing is adding it to the lede as well -- to hopefully make this perpetual "German vs. Austrian" argument go away, at least for awhile. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 14:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. I think the matter is complicated enough to make it unsuitable for the lead section. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

::::: Why do we not apply the same standards as with all other composers and historical figures? Salzburg is today in Austria, Mozart is therefore Austrian. Salzburg was never part of Germany, which did not exist until 90 years after Mozart's death, nor was Salzburg part of anything that formed Germany at that later date. We should not give in to factually baseless claims that apparently are taught in Germany's schools. Nobody disputes that Vivaldi is Italian, although he is in the same case as Mozart. And so are many others. Else, we would be obligated to remove all nationalities from historical figures who live before the 19th century. Dirpio (talk) 04:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Vivaldi was born in the Ventian Republic. So shall the mention of Italy be banned by non-Italian bullies from his page? Germans should not be allowed to bully Austrians in that way. Dirpio (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Complicated in what way? Why can't we simply say in the lede that he was born in Salzburg, and leave it at that, since it is spelled out in detail a few lines later? It's not a complicated issue, IMHO, unless we make it so. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 14:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a diplomatic answer from a diplomat. But factually untrue. There is no substance to construe a link with Germany, as Salzburg was never part of Germany nor part of anything that later became Germany and furthermore there was no Germany at the time that Mozart lived. This is not complicated, just as simple as categorizing Vivaldi as an Italian. Vivaldi was born in the independent Venetian Republic. Also, the Holy Roman Empire was in now way an old-day "Germany." Remember that this false and ignorant claim (apparently still alive in the mind of some Germans) has led to World War II.Dirpio (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Michael that the way it is now is fine. If it is felt that the lede must specify a nationality, then it should say he was Salzburg-born, as that is accurate whereas "Austrian" or "German" are not. If it were to be insisted that the article must say Mozart was Austrian, citing Grove, which is indeed a reliable source, then there would have to be other reliable sources cited, which certainly exist, saying that he was no such thing, with an irrelevant digression into Austrian and German history, and that would be complicated.Smeat75 (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The reason that it is not fine the way it is, IMHO, is that it looks like an oversight -- and every new editor coming along tries to "correct" it, triggering a new cycle of debate. If there is a consensus favoring leaving it the way it is now, I will abide by it -- but I vote for describing him as "Salzburg-born" in the lede. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 20:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

As there has been no further discussion on this, perhaps I was wrong -- it might be best left as is -- but are there no editors other than myself and Smeat75 who think that "Salzburg-born" is a good compromise? DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 16:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence in the first section mentions Salzburg as WAM's place of birth. The lead section describes him as "a prolific and influential composer of the Classical era". I don't think either needs changing. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It is well documented that Mozart regarded himself as a German (see my citation above). The problem is that there was no real distinction between Austrian and German art or music through the centuries. Of course there were different styles but if you would like to make a distinction you could also distinguish between art from the Rhineland, from Saxony, from Bavaria, Prussia, etc., but this does not make much sense. In the French literature you often read the term Pays Germaniques for the German-speaking areas of Central Europe, which elegantly circumvents the problem of categorization. Perhaps a similar although much more fiercely discussed point is the nationality of Copernicus. We have to accept that the modern concept of nationality which refers to modern states is not always appropriate for historical persons. I would not mention a nationality in the introduction (or refer to Mozart as a "Austro-German composer") but discuss it in a short paragraph in the text, and categorize Mozart as a "German composer" and "Austrian composer". --Furfur (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Post scriptum: I just discovered the article Mozart's nationality that very well describes and weighs the different arguments. --Furfur (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It is false to claim that Mozart regarded himself as German, when "German" as it is understood today, did not exist until 100 years after Mozart's death. He referred to himself as a originally German speaker, although, like most educated Austrians of that time, he spoke many languages. He could therefore, according to the logic of Furfur's post, be as easily classified as an Italian composer.

Mozart's nationality

I put together an article by this title and linked to it, inconspicuously, with a footnote. I tried to put together all the facts that would bear on the question of Mozart's nationality and provide published reference sources for everything. I also did a bit of surveying to see what modern reference sources do about the Mozart nationality question.

Two comments:

• I'm completely happy with our current practice (i.e., within the main article) of not identifying Mozart with a nationality. In the course of my research I learned that, among modern reference sources, we are perhaps a bit in the minority in not calling Mozart Austrian, but we are hardly alone.
• I do not anticipate in any way that the new article will put an end to the lengthy discussions on this page of whether Mozart should be assigned a nationality, but at least we can say that the question is duly addressed. Opus33 (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well done! I continue to be of the opinion that "Salzburg-born" is a better descriptor than nothing at all, but your opinion appears to be in the majority, so I will abide by it. And kudos for taking the time & trouble to spell everything out; it might just put the issue to bed, at least for awhile. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 17:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Nonetheless he is mis-categorised under "Austrian Composers", "Austrian Classical Pianists" etc. SInce Salzburg did not become part of Austria until some years after his death, these categories are clearly inappropriate.88.167.22.75 (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The same applies to the German categories, but: Categories are navigation aids for readers; they expect WAM to turn up in those categories. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Point well taken. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 15:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Mozart was actually born as a German, because his father never abolished his German citizenship. Salzburg is today Austrian just because Napoleon decided arbitrarily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.71.130 (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I live in Salzburg. If you want to be correct on this, W.A.Mozart was born in Salzburg (just around corner from here - now museum so information is freely available to me). At the time of the birth, Salzburg was not in Austria. It was not in Germany either. It was for short time an independent state at this moment in history. This is one of the great public relations deals we Austrians have manufactured. Everyone now thinks Mozart was Austrian and Hitler was not! 91.113.189.10 (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The remark above posted by 91.113.189.10 is scandalous, slanderous and absolutely unacceptable. The entry from 84.57.71.130 is simply factually false. The idea that Mozart was German and Hitler was Austrian is an idea manufactured and still circulated (taught?) in Germany, and Germany only. If this is even a real IP address, it can only have been posted by a German tourist spending the Holidays in Salzburg, maybe after being upset that the twisted German view of history is not at all appreciated in Austria.

First Hitler: Hitler formally renounced his Austrian citizenship 1925, which, for all non-Germans, indicates that he did not want to be an Austrian. He then had no citizenship for seven years until he was made a German citizen by German politicians. Subsequently, he was elected by the German electorate.

Second Mozart: for all historical figures, historians categorize them according to the country in which their birthplace is today. This is also the policy of Wikipedia. Hence, Mozart is clearly Austrian. If not, then there can either be no mention of nationalities for people born before the second half of the 19th century, or all nationalities of historical figures have to be revised accordingly.

Moreover, a few facts that demonstrate that it is completely false and preposterous to manufacture a link between Mozart and Germany:

1. Germany did not exist until 1871. Mozart died in 1781. How could he have been or felt German (or have a supposed German citizenship, as mentioned above) in the sense of nationality? German-speaking yes, but that is an entirely different concept. By the way, Mozart spoke several other languages. There would be many more reasons to say he was Italian than German.
2. Salzburg was not part of any of the states that later formed Germany. It was a direct possession of the Catholic Church, headed by a bishop-prince. So where is the supposed link with Germany?
3. The Holy Roman Empire was in now way a predecessor to Germany. It was based on the idea that an emperor would reign the continental European kingdoms and the Pope would be the highest religious authority. By the way, that emperor came from Austria and not from, at that time, non-existing Germany.
4. Culturally speaking, where does Mozart fit in? Into the Austria or into the German cultural tradition? Where can similar artists to him be found? Where did he spend his time? Okay.

It is sad that ideas from the Nazi era, such as that Mozart should be regarded as a German, still prevail in Germany today. They have no place on Wikipedia or any serious place of record.

Mozart is Austrian by all standards and it should be clearly mentioned as such. It would be a shame to give in to loaded claims from the Nazi propaganda machine that he is not.

Beethoven was born in a place that is today in Germany to Dutch parents, but spent all of his life in Vienna. He is rightly listed as a German composer due to where his historical birthplace is today. Bartok's wikipedia page unequivocally states that he is Hungarian, although he was technically born when Hungary (really) was part of Austria (or Austria-Hungary). Remember, Salzburg was never part of "Germany" which did not exist for another 100 years.

It is high time that the farcical debate as to where Salzburg is and that Mozart is Austrian stop, that the same standards be applied, and that Germany be asked to remove remnants of Nazi propaganda from its history books.

Dirpio (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

the comment by 91.113.189.10 must be flagged as abusive, posted under a false pretense : it is clearly posted by a German posing as an Austrian, revealed by the content and language used - e.g. the confluence of Hitler and Mozart, a recurring theme among Germans but not among Austrians, the construction of the phrase directly translated from German German, and last not least, the mention of a supposed PR conspiracy, because it irks Germans that everybody (rightly) thinks that Hitler saw himself as, acted as and spoke like a German, not as an Austrian, proactively. renouncing his Austrian citizenship. Dirpio (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2014

i would like to be allowed to make changes due to some incorrect information, i assure you that out of respect that none of this material shall be damaged you may check on my change after and judge it yourself. many thanks James Wells 86.162.3.69 (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Please specify the edit you want made, you cant make it is you are not an autoconfirmed editor. Flat Out let's discuss it 15:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2014

I would like to make an edit to the Mozart page due to some incorrect information, i can assure you that out of respect that none of this material will be damaged, please check on my changes when i have done them to see if they are valid Many thanks James Wells Chickeninchina (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Please specify the edit you want made, you cant make it is you are not an autoconfirmed editor. Flat Out let's discuss it 15:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The relation of the main page and the Death page

Having read the rest of DoctorJoeE's points of "advice to myself," I think it may be useful to spend some words on the relationship between the main page and the page for Death of Mozart, and see if a rationale for what needs to be included can be established on which editors agree. To start with, it would seem to go without saying that any biographical article contains some account of the death of the person who is the subject. In the case of Mozart, I can think of three positions that should, however summary in form, be included on the main page. First, the contemporary diagnosis that Mozart himself probably received and what his family thought he died from. Second, the most influential of the later suggestions, and with the word influential I mean: the kind that keep reappearing in biographies of Mozart. Third, an account of what is/are the most probable cause(s) from the point of view of modern medicine. It is perhaps possible to reach consensus that this last category should be included, but it seems more difficult to reach consensus on what the content should be. Modern medicine evolved in the last decades, so that the most plausible suggestions from a scientific point of view would be so recent that no scholarly consensus yet exists on them, because such scholarly works still need to be published. This is, in short, the editorial problem for Wikipedians.MackyBeth (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Another source for the superiority of this strep research

Is it really ill will that editors here keep missing the point I am trying to get across? It seems so, but here we go again with this item here:

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1739358/mozart_died_of_strep_throat/

Two paragraphs, the first begiining with "Researchers from..." and the following, beginning with ""The new study..." state that the new research is based upon better, more thorough, more methodologically sound, more serious or whatever term you want to use to describe it, in short research methods superior to what has been done before. The researchers say that "until now" studies of Mozart's death have been based on somewhat shaky evidence. This does not mean that they have established the one and only cause for all time, but it does mean that the Mozart page is simply misleading as long as it lists their work as just another suggestion without indicating the superiority of this research.MackyBeth (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Here again, the problem is that the article never expressly concludes that the Dutch research is "superior". A basic WP rule is that you cannot draw a conclusion yourself; the sources must draw it. None of the sources cited so far -- including the primary source, the article itself -- concludes that this is "the answer", or even the most likely answer. I do believe that, sooner or later, someone will editorialize (in the Annals or elsewhere) that the Strep theory is in fact more likely to be correct than most other hypotheses -- but until such a statement is in print within a reliable source, we can't say it here. It would certainly be okay, IMHO, to state that the new research is based on improved methodology, since the RedOrbit source does say that, or something similar -- how do other involved editors feel about that? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has covered a lot of ground to some considerable depth. Nothing has persuaded me that the current wording in the main article needs to be expanded. The article on the death of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is where these things can be presented in more detail. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The source (no byline) from Red Orbit, a generalised news service, is similar to many which came out at the time via wire services. It is (a) not remotely authoritative either from the point of medical science or Mozart scholarship and (b) the mention of "improved methodology" is paraphrasing the authors' views, not reporting their own. Meanwhile CNN's "Mozart may have died of strep throat complications" quotes Dr. Martin Schreiber, the head of the nephrology and hypertension department at the Cleveland Clinic, in Ohio: "Is this plausible? Yes. But is it definitive? No." The same article cites Dr. Stephen Gluck, a nephrologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who "finds some faults with the new theory: There are no accounts of Mozart suffering from a sore throat in the last weeks of his life; nor were there reports of high blood pressure or blood in his urine. All are telltale signs of APSGN. Gluck adds that APSGN now occurs mainly in children and is nonfatal in most cases.". The Associated Press article, (reprinted here) also quotes a doctor not involved in the study, Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University Medical Center: "It's not definitive, but it's certainly food for thought." The article goes on to say "He [Schaffner] said it was not unreasonable to presume that Mozart died from strep complications, based on the information presented, but he pointed out that the authors had scant data to go on." Like Michael Bednarek, I see no reason to change the current wording or to give particular primacy to this theory, apart from saying that it is one of the more recent. Voceditenore (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

All of the material you cited here underscores my point, which is not that the researchers would have nailed down the exact cause with proof, but that their work is simply better than most others, and this evaluation by people not involved in the research themselves is worth to be reflected in the main article.MackyBeth (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it does not remotely underscore your point that it is better than most others. None of the quoted doctors said it is "better". At best, they said it is plausible but by no means definitive and at least one pointed out the scant data on which it is based. Voceditenore (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, it absolutely underscores my point, whether you admit it or not. One doctor said it was plausible, which is precisely my point. You seem to believe that the pointing out of scant material is a criticism of the researchers, but in fact they have to make do with the existing material and the doctors simply cite what material would be needed in order to reach absolute certainty. The insincerity of your comment is proven by pointing out that you say that one doctor pointed out "the scant data on which it is based," as if the researchers were not thorough enough, while he actually said the had "scant data to go on," meaning there just isn't much material.MackyBeth (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MackyBeth (talk • contribs) 15:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I repeat. No source independent of Zegers et al. has said that their research was "better" than or "superior" to any other, nor have any of them said that it was the "most plausible"—simply that it was plausible. And no, my paraphrase of "the authors had scant data to go on" was neither "insincere" nor does it imply in any way the researchers were not thorough. No matter how thorough they were, the data is still scant. The fact of the matter is, you want to publish your personal evaluation of Zegers et al as better than or superior to most others and as having the most plausible finding so far, when no independent source currently supports that evaluation, and the consensus here is against adding it to the article. Voceditenore (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I repeat. The fact of the matter is that you have no idea how to paraphrase without adding your own slant to it. The consensus here is that editors think that any suggestion is worth as much as any other, regardless of the fact where it was published. This is simply un-scholarly behavior. Adding a description of this research to the page is not equal to saying it is definitive. There are a lot of ways you can modify such description, but the lot of you is against constructive thinking.MackyBeth (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2014

please add birthdate! Jonesvio (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

His birthdate, 27 January 1756, is already in the article in the very first sentence. Voceditenore (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)