Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2016

In the last paragraph of the section titled "Custody Struggle and illness" it is stated that Beethoven's nephew Karl joined the army and did not see Beethoven again until 1827. Three paragraphs later, in the section headed "Late Works", it is stated that Beethoven's nephew moved in with him in 1818. Is this a different nephew? If so, it would be helpful to include his name. If this is Karl, then the earlier statement needs to be corrected.

2001:18E8:3:1059:F000:0:0:32E (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no obvious conflict between those two sections. The nephew's suicide attempt was in July 1826, and he joined the army after that. His stay in Beethoven's house which began in January 1818 is unrelated. The problem in this article is the claim that the nephew, Karl, met LvB again in early 1827. The German article de:Karl van Beethoven claims that the two never met after July 1826 and that Karl couldn't make it LvB's funeral, so I suggest that sentence, challenged since March 2011, ought to be rephrased. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems that Karl went with Beethoven to Vienna on 1 December 1826 (that's in Grove), and last saw him on 2 January 1827 when he left for military service. This source contains a bit of detail; do you think it's sufficiently reliable to put in? Suchet is a well-respected news presenter and feature writer. Maybe a rephrase of existing text is sufficient. Antandrus (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it ... let me know if you think that's sufficient. Antandrus (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

No objections. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Deafness

I've been reading that Beethoven's deafness was caused by intestinal problems he had early on. I would also like to see something added here about Beethoven's autopsy which noticed labrynthitis in his inner ear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Ehrmant (talk • contribs) 23:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2016

PTessin (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Please correct Beethoven's name. The correct spelling is von Beethoven, NOT van Beethoven.

 Not done. You need to provide a WP:RS for your claim. You might want to note that he's also Ludwig van Beethoven over at de:wiki and, as far as I know, at the wiki article for every other language that uses a Latin alphabet, and in all other available reliable sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Beethoven slight change

Sec. 1.10 Illness and Death: requiem mass needs to be capitalized, Requiem Mass. It is a rite of the Catholic church, not a large group. Thanks, so much, Barbara Butler, 4/19/2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peruna74 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Peanuts + Ludwig van Beethoven = Schroeder?

Okay, let me get this straight. In popular culture, on Schroeder's page, it says that Schroeder himself likes Beethoven and claims him as his hero. Hero, I say. But why it doesn't list it on this article? --MochaCheeseCake (talk) 09:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

A lot of people have been inspired or influenced by Beethoven; listing all of them here would be undue. Knowing that a fictional character likes Beethoven may give us more information on that character, but it has no significant impact on our understanding of Beethoven himself. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, thank you for answering~ --RainPearl (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

1772

Thayer claims that because of multiple and conflicting certificates (or something?) Beethoven and his contemporaries- and people well into the late 19th century- believed him to have been born in 1772; since the composer believed this, many of the ages on his early compositions (agé 11 ans) reflect this and are off by 2 years, etc. This is not of earthshaking importance assuming even that Thayer got it right (did he?) but seems worth mentioning if true.... Schissel | Sound the Note! 22:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC) Schissel | Sound the Note! 22:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Romantic Life

Though he was in a few romantic relationships, Beethoven never married. He was not known to be generally attractive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rauther (talk • contribs) 19:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

POV or censorship?

On 9 June 2016, User:Softlavender removed "some other recent ill-conceived or unexplained changes", most notably a reference

• Klapproth, John E (2016): The Immortal Beloved Compendium. Everything About the Only Woman Beethoven Ever Loved – And Many He Didn't. CreateSpace: North Charleston.

This up-to-date book is without doubt the most comprehensive work about one of the most burning questions of Beethoven biography - as one reputed Bethoven scholar put it: "a book sorely needed".John E Klapproth (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It's also a self-published source; do you have any evidence it meets WP:SPS? You might also want to have a read through WP:COI. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2016

stating the year of his Baptism rather than his Birth in the main box on the right is a Radically religious attempt at taking over what should be a intellectual site. is this the end of Wiki ?\

174.65.105.131 (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Please phrase your request as a "please change X to Y" or "please add/remove X".

(Oh, and you did read past the infobox to the place in the article where it says we don't know what his birthdate is, but we do know when he was baptized. Right?) Magic♪piano 02:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Date of birth or date of baptism?

Currently, the first sentence of the article/lead provides Beethoven's dates of baptism and death, which is absurd. People don't look at the start of an encyclopedia biographic entry for a date of baptism. They look for a date of birth. The current practice wouldn't be entirely senseless if scholars were all over the map on Beethoven's birth, but there is broad scholarly consensus on his birth. The whole baptism vs. birth issue, therefore, should be relegated to a footnote here and to subsequent discussion later in the article, as is largely the case already. It makes no sense to provide a date of baptism in lieu of a date of birth at this point in the main text of the lead. Antinoos69 (talk) 08:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, we don't have incontrovertible proof of his date of birth. General agreement does not equal proof.  But we do have proof of his baptism date, and that's the closest date to his birth that we know with certainty.  The footnote tells readers all they need to know about the 16th, but it is still an uncertain date.  --  Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be laboring under a misimpression. There is generally no such thing in scholarship as "incontrovertible proof." That's for mathematics and formal logic. In the humanities, one generally deals with relative degrees of probability. There is a very broad scholarly consensus going way back that Beethoven was born on Dec. 16, 1770. As readers are interested in his date of birth at this point in the article, that very broad scholarly consensus suffices many times over, with the note and subsequent discussion later in the article. It is nauseatingly precious, at best, to be discussing date of baptism due to some amateurish and misguided conception of "incontrovertible proof" that is largely alien to the humanities. Were we to take your "incontrovertible proof" to our articles on, say, ancient social history, well, we wouldn't be left with any articles on the subject. Antinoos69 (talk) 09:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that LvB is part of ancient social history (SCNR). There is no doubt about the date of birth for many of his contemporaries or even predecessors; there is for Beethoven. As for "consensus": if EB doesn't give a DoB, WP shouldn't either. I recommend reading this talk page's archives for past discussions of this topic, which resulted in the current version. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

You apparently missed my distinction between this "encyclopedia biographic entry" and "our [other] articles on, say, ancient social history." As for "doubt" and epistemology more generally, see my next comment below. It is shameful what EB does with the date of birth. Needless to say, many other sources, including tertiary ones, include the DOB, sometimes without even mentioning the baptism issue. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The distinction I perhaps should have made is that we have documentary evidence of his baptism but only anecdotal evidence of his birth.  What we KNOW is: (a) he was baptised on 17 December, and (b) 16 December is the main candidate of discussion re his date of birth.  What we DO NOT KNOW is when he was actually born.  All the "scholarly consensus" in the world does not change that.  --  Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, your epistemology needs serious work. We don't actually "KNOW" that Beethoven was baptized on Dec. 17, 1770. What we "KNOW" is that scholars reference a record of some sort of his baptism with the purported date. The existence and accuracy of that record are quite separate matters, both logically and epistemologically. I was in a car accident a few years ago. The police report gives the wrong date for it. Fortunately, I didn't have to depend on that date for any purpose. We don't actually "KNOW" when anyone whose birth we didn't witness was born. All we can have here, as generally in the humanities, is scholarship. On Wikipedia, we don't engage in original research, so scholarly consensus, when it exists, is all that matters. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The New Grove gives "baptized Dec. 17", no birth date. Opus33 (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Your comment has nothing to do with the scholarly consensus on Beethoven's date of birth. Antinoos69 (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

A recent (2014) biography by Jan Swafford says, "The date of the composer's birth, a day or so before his name day, is lost to ... history." See [1]. Opus33 (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

See my comments below. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Is it perhaps telling that Antinoos69 has not yet cited any sources for the claimed scholarly consensus?  If there are so many, s/he should have no trouble reeling off a list of them. Magic♪piano 19:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Why would I provide sources for an assertion already in the article, with sources? See the "Background and early life" section, second paragraph, with notes 7 and 8, summarized in note 1. Btw, my moniker accurately reflects my gender. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is some stuff I've found by searching. I'm rearranging a bit to fit everything in one place.

• The New Grove gives "baptized Dec. 17", no birth date.
• A recent (2014) biography by Jan Swafford says, "The date of the composer's birth, a day or so before his name day, is lost to ... history." See [2].
• I also found a scholarly article advocating for the 16th. Theodore Albrecht and Elaine Schwensen (1989) "More than just Peanuts:  Evidence for December 16th as Beethoven's birthday". Beethoven Journal 3:49. (online but pay access). The authors discuss a variety of evidence, but base their case on a letter from Beethoven's teacher Johann Georg Albrechtsberger, dated December 15, 1796. It begins: "My dear Beethoven!  I wish you all the best on your name-day tomorrow." This would be crystal clear if Albrechtsberger had written "birthday" instead of "name-day" (which normally meant baptism date). The authors assert that Albrechtsberger really meant "birthday", but of course this is contentious. They fault the New Grove for not taking this evidence, first published in 1921, into account. Opus33 (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Your first source, if it neither provides nor addresses Beethoven's date of birth, is utterly irrelevant as to what that date is. Your second source is misrepresented. If you search for "December 16," you will find one described as "probably his twenty-fifth birthday." See what internet fishing gets you? Once you've read this source in its entirety, then you can get back to us regarding what it has to offer on this matter. Your third source, if described correctly, clearly supports the article's date of birth. See the article's "Background and early life" section, second paragraph, with notes 7 and 8, summarized in note 1. I don't see what you're trying to accomplish or argue here. Are you disputing the current article's description of the scholarly consensus on Beethoven's date of birth? Do you want that description stricken or changed? 

My point is that the scholarly consensus on Beethoven's date of birth, as already stated later in the article, should appear in the first sentence of the lead/article and in the infobox, where readers expect to find it. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

My postings weren't meant for you, they were for the sensible editors. Opus33 (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It is unwise for those who don't understand or simply ignore statements, facts, and questions put before them, and who don't bother even to read the sources they present, to speak of "sensible editors," a group for which you are clearly unsuited. I will repeat myself. 

 See the article's "Background and early life" section, second paragraph, with notes 7 and 8, summarized in note 1. I don't see what you're trying to accomplish or argue here. Are you disputing the current article's description of the scholarly consensus on Beethoven's date of birth? Do you want that description stricken or changed? My point is that the scholarly consensus on Beethoven's date of birth, as already stated later in the article, should appear in the first sentence of the lead/article and in the infobox, where readers expect to find it. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I went back and checked the sources actually cited in the article.

• The current version of our article says "most scholars accept 16 December 1770 as Beethoven's date of birth," and cites Maynard Solomon's biography ([3]) in support of this. But what Solomon actually says is (p. 10): "Ludwig was baptized on December 17th, 1770, and therefore was probably born on December 15 or 16."
• The article also cites Thayer's well-known biography (p. 53 of Vol. 1: [4]). Thayer quotes the baptismal record, with 17 December, and adds, "The custom obtaining at the time in the Catholic Rhine country not to postpone the baptism beyond 24 hours after the birth of the child, it is in the highest degree probable that Beethoven was born on December 16, 1770." This seems like a good argument against December 15 (assuming his undocumented claim about baptism practices can be supported), but says nothing about the 17th. Again, I cannot see the citation as genuinely supporting the claim made in the main text. Opus33 (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is an author I think is a really careful scholar, David Wyn Jones, in his Life of Beethoven (1998):

• "Beethoven's precise birthdate is unclear. He was baptized on 17 December 1770 and since it was the custom to baptize children as soon as practicable after birth, typically the same day or the day afterwards, his birthdate was either 16 December or 17 December." This can be read at [5].— Preceding unsigned comment added by Opus33 (talk • contribs) 20:49, December 29, 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2016

Hello,

Some of the details from the autopsy are incorrect:

"It also revealed considerable dilation of the auditory and other related nerves."

The arteries around the auditory nerves were dilated, but the nerves themselves were shriveled and much attenuated, according to the source cited.

Thanks,

Michael 41.82.48.130 (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  03:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Beethoven's Death

Beethoven had died March 28,1827 at what many believe about 3:00pm. He had a large and elegant funeral, about 20,000 people showed up to honor his death. To preserve order there, the aid of the military was needed. It is believed the cause of his death was liver disease.Thayer, Alexander Wheelock; Hugo Riemann. Krehbiel, Henry Edward (ed.). "The Life of Ludwig Van Beethoven". 3 (Second Printing). New York: The Beethoven Association: 308–312. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help); More than one of |author1= and |last1= specified (help)</ref>ref>

Pastamonster35 (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2017

Please add:

The leading cause of death still remains lead poisoning however. M.H. Stevens and his team have concluded that high levels of lead deep in the bone sampled from Beethoven's skull, suggest repeated exposure over a long period of time rather than limited exposure prior to the time of death. Among other evidence, the finding of shrunken cochlear nerves at his autopsy is consistent with axonal degeneration due to heavy metals such as lead. Chronic low-level lead exposure causes a slowly progressive hearing loss with sensory and autonomic findings, rather than the classic wrist drop due to motor neuropathy from sub-acute poisoning. Beethoven's physicians thought that he had alcohol dependence. He particularly liked wine that happened to be tainted with lead, therefore Beethoven's chronic consumption of wine tainted with lead is a better explanation of his hearing loss than other causes.

at the end of the paragraph on his "Illness and Death" GoClimbEverest (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Is that a verbatim quote from the source? Maybe that journal needs an article?Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

That would be, and is, much better suited at Death of Ludwig van Beethoven. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Mandolin

I'm moving this to this Talk page because Beethoven's mandolin works are just not important to go in the main Beethoven article. It would be fine making this into a separate article and linking to it.

Beethoven's Milanese mandolin, hung beside the piano in his home

Beethoven composed four works for mandolin, none of which were published during his lifetime. Though known better as a pianist, Beethoven possessed a Milanese mandolin, which was hung beside his piano. Beethoven was friends with two prominent mandolinists, to whom he dedicated music. One was the wife of Count Clam-Gallas, Josephine of Clary-Aldringen; the couple invited him in on his first visit to Prague to their palace, and he dedicated the aria "Ah! perfido" to the count's wife. He also left one of his four known mandolin pieces with them, Andante with Variations for Mandolin and Cembalo, WoO 44b. Another relationship that he cultivated was in Vienna with mandolinist Wenzel Krumpholz, for whom he later wrote Sonatine for Mandolin. Carl Czerny wrote of Krumpholz that he was one of the first to recognize Beethoven's genius.

References

Opus33 (talk) 03:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not think it is even important enough for its own article. Beethoven was just not primarily known as a composer for mandolin, and his use of it in only a few minor pieces – notably, nothing he actually published – confirms the fact that discussing this at length (as opposed to maybe a footnote to a complete list of Beethoven's works, no matter how minor) is undue weight. Do we talk about Mozart's use of the mandolin in his article? No, even though he famously used it in such an important work as Don Giovanni. If Mozart's use is not notable enough for his main article, then Beethoven's is less than even that. Double sharp (talk) 08:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Mozart's Giovanni is mentioned at the top of the mandolin article in the history section, prominently with a photo. I see that it is possible that putting that into the Beethoven article gave the information "undue weight to and his mandolin output is of negligible importance in his entire set of works" as you argue, but I also think that the article makes him look one-sided, as if the piano was the only thing he played. If he hung this on the wall beside the piano, wouldn't that indicate the importance to him? I'm not fighting over this, but I think the article presents a shallow impression of a complex man.Jacqke (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly: Don Giovanni is important to the history of the mandolin, but the mandolin is not particularly important to Mozart in general. Regarding "as if the piano was the only thing he played" – given that that was the only instrument he actually played in public, and given that so much of his output involves it, it is not that bad an impression to have. It is not anything like Mozart playing violin and viola in his violin concertos and chamber works for strings (the latter with Haydn!). Double sharp (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for main picture change

The Stieler 1820 portrait seems to me a bit too much and gets more at the heroic Beethoven than the spiritual Beethoven -- and surely we all agree that the Beethoven who will live on deepest in our hearts is the late spiritual Beethoven. The portrait which I think best represents the Beethoven of the late string quartets is the 1823 Waldmuller portrait which is already there on this wikipedia page, but lower near his later works. I believe making this 1823 portrait the main portrait would help more understand the intended spiritual depths Beethoven's entire life leads to. Thanks for reading this proposal dear friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opus132Mov3 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• The current image by Stieler is suitable as a lead image simply because it's very well known. It's been used on stamps, books, covers of recordings, posters, etc. The Waldmüller painting has none of that recognition. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Given that a date of 1820 would place it after the Piano Sonatas op. 90, 101, and 106, the two late Cello Sonatas op. 102, An die ferne Geliebte, and would have it contemporary with the completion of the Piano Sonata op. 109, I daresay we have a tremendous example here of how an artist's looks may not necessarily reflect what he is actually up to at that moment. And dare I also say that the great concern with spirituality in late Beethoven tends to forget that what Beethoven may have intended may well be different from our conception of spirituality, as I am uncomfortably reminded of every time the opening movement of op. 131 or the finale of op. 111 are dragged out by anyone less than masters. Furthermore I am not sure this end-oriented view of Beethoven's work exactly matches what we see in some of the late works, especially op. 120 (the Diabelli Variations), op. 130 (with the second finale), and op. 135. There are many ways to chart the progress of Beethoven's life, many of which should be covered in a section on reception, and I do not see why this one should receive top billing. Double sharp (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support to leave lead image as it is, per Michael's arguments. We can always use the others for articles on the late composition, - compare Brahms, Piano Concerto No. 1 (Brahms) and Vier ernste Gesänge. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for those links, Gerda – they certainly remind me in comparison how much the Beethoven composition articles tend to suck, with the exception of the works that everyone knows like the Fifth and Ninth Symphonies. I just looked up op. 95, expecting it to be terrible, and found worse. Mind you I'm not sure the usual Beethoven approach on Wikipedia of separate articles for each work is the soundest approach – for one, I'd want to cover the last three sonatas in one page, and perhaps ambitiously do the same for the last quartets, something like Schubert's last sonatas. Double sharp (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree. Related sonatas could be combined, with redirects from the individual names. In general, compositions articles should be much better. I couldn't believe Brahms songs had no article, and created at least a stub. But we waste time questioning an infobox ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2017

I want to edit this report or biography because I am a true Beethoven fan pretty much know everything to know about him. So please let me edit or revise this work. I found some disturbing things in this article that are not true about him so please let me revise the work. Thank You. 108.58.177.109 (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2017

Ludwig van Beethoven (December 16, 1770 to March 26, 1827) was a German pianist and composer widely considered the greatest of all time, whose innovative compositions combined vocals and instruments, widening the scope of sonata, symphony, concerto and quartet. He is the crucial transitional figure connecting the Classical and Romantic ages of Western music. Beethoven’s personal life was marked by a struggle against deafness, and some of his most important works were composed during the last 10 years of his life, when he was quite unable to hear. He died at the age of 56. 108.58.177.109 (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you proposing this as a new lede section? If so, it seems to miss out too much. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. This would substantially shrink the lede. Can you explain what the issue is with the facts you'd like to see removed? CityOfSilver 16:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Changes to references, almost completely preserving current display style and layout

• There are a few errors and inconsistencies in the refs (only a few). I'll fix them. This is not a case where I would be making wholesale changes in style or layout, although a few individual cases will see a little alteration. Things will stay 98% the same. Cheers. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Ludwig Van Beethoven

Beethoven was born in December 17th and died March 2626 living a total of 56 years. He was born in Bonn, Germany. He gave up composing and public performing yet still composed on his own time. His best-known compositions include 9 symphonies, 5 piano concertos, 1 violin concerto, 32 piano sonatas, 16 string quartets, his great Mass the Missa solemnis, and one opera, Fidelio. In his personal time, Beethoven — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.231.77.1 (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

How could Beethoven supposedly simultaneously give up composing and still compose in his own time? And isn't everything else already in the article? Double sharp (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2018

Please change date of death 26 March 1827 to 24 March 1827 since it was clearly stated at "The Life Of Beethoven" written by Ignace Moscheles - who was a close friend of Beethoven and Moscheles's good relations with Beethoven were to prove important to both at the end of Beethoven's life.

Beethoven's death was precisely described - including time of death.

The source can be reviewed from "The North American Review, Vol. 53, No. 113 (Oct., 1841), pp. 289-320"

Direct link: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25104357

With Kind Regards,

Cihan Barut Cihan Barut (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, Cihan Barut. I can confirm that the source you provide, written about Ignace Moscheles' translation of Anton Schindler's biography, by an unnamed reviewer, and published in North American Review, Vol. 53, No. 113 (Oct., 1841), pp. 289-320, does indeed say this, on page 310:

His disease was inflammation of the lungs, followed by dropsy. The water was several times removed by an operation, but with only temporary relief ; and on the 24th of March, 1827, after receiving the sacrament with devotion, he expired at a quarter before six in the evening, during a tremendous hail-storm, aged fifty-six years, three months, and nine days."

But could it be that Moscheles made a mistake? The current source, with the clear date of Monday 26th, is the biography by Barry Cooper, who is a real expert (see page 327 of that book). I'd suggest that some confusion may have arisen as Beethoven lost consciousness on 24 March but remained in a coma for two days. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Martin,

Everyone could made a mistake, maybe Mr. Cooper did ? However, instead of reading an 20th century researchers, I depend on a close contact like Moscheles who composed the piano partition for Fidelio which proves how close they were. Ofcourse we don't know the resource of Barry Cooper, but I can not say that Barry Cooper's far later written biography may be more accurate than Moscheles version who lived, talked and worked with Beethoven. Moscheles version did not mention a 2 day coma - which seems absurd for Moscheles to omit. I believe date must be updated UNTIL a written proof or document must be cited. This proof must not be a bio written at 20th century, but must from 18th in order to be dependable.

Do you have any written source from 18th-19th century supporting March 26 ? I would be happy to investigate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cihanbarut (talk • contribs) 19:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thayer's biography (at least the 1921 English edition, pp. 307-9 Google Books) also gives a fairly detailed account of Beethoven's last days, which is clear on the sequence of events and day of death. Thayer interviewed Hüttenbrenner, one of the witnesses to the death, and others in Beethoven's circle.

I would give significant credence to the work of late 20th-century historians in this area, who are (if they do their job propertly) relying on more than just one primary source (which is what Moscheles is). It is also possible that you can see the "resource of Barry Cooper", if his book is adequately footnoted. (It has been some years since I saw that work.) Magic♪piano 19:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

A further comment on your source: it is not by Moscheles. The North American Review item you cite is a book review of Moscheles' English-language translation of Anton Schindler's biography of Beethoven. (If this chain of connections does not concern you, it should.) The reviewer is not identified by name, and it is his text (summarizing either Schindler or his own research) that is quoted above. Magic♪piano 21:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Cihanbarut, I'm sorry that I'm not overly convinced by your argument that contemporary sources are necessarily more reliable. You seem to be in the minority here at the moment. But if you can present any other sources, that you think are equally or more reliable, I'm sure we'd be happy to consider them. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC) p.s. I had a quick search of the Talk page archives for "death", and I don't think this question has arisen previously. But it would be good for someone else to check. Thanks

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 02:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Ethnicity

It seems rather unlikely that claims Beethoven was a Moor, or at least part-Moorish, or even black, are true; however, there has nonetheless been a relatively significant amount of discussion about it in recent times, hasn't there? And there are still some who consider him to have possibly been not completely white. See www.academia.edu/4074689 (opening passage: "Was Beethoven black? He surely wasn't, but some insist otherwise. The question is not a new one - it has been rehashed over the decades... it has remained somewhat under the radar despite its stubbornness... This very theory ... has reappeared in several works throughout the twentieth century." The first page also states that, "the birth of the myth can be traced back... to 1915 or even earlier.")

Discussions of the question at www.quora.com/Was-Beethoven-a-Moor and www.quora.com/Was-Beethoven-of-African-heritage-Moorish-ethnicity seem to generally conclude, like the above, that he was white after all, but not unanimously, and the fact that (both) the questions were asked in the first place is not un-noteworthy to me.

Obviously I'm not suggesting the Wikipedia article carry on the folk legend by in any way claiming that there's a serious possibility that he's black, but a quick note about it would surely be appropriate, if only to inform anybody looking at this article for the answer about the falseness of it. Adam Dent (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The question is mostly presented by black supremacists who have different kinds of racial theories how Native-European people are not capable to create music and thus every great composer must be black or at least partially black. I hope you or anyone else doesn't carry these kinds of racist theories that try to steal or demean Native-European history and culture. Sure we could start to add all kinds of theories from different kinds of supremacist groups and the end result would be that Shaka Zulu was originally white (because why not) and that Beethoven was black (again why not). Everybody knows that these kinds of claims are mostly carried by different kinds of supremacist groups who like to claim every great person ever lived as part of their stereotype filled world view. This has been discussed multiple times already and you can search the archive for those discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayMay7 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I had forgotten to look at the archive, thanks for pointing me there. It seems consensus was reached long ago among the editors that a mention of the long-running conspiracy theory would not make a valuable addition to the Wikipedia article; I certainly agree it would lend itself to vandals and proponents of the theory, which is why I was hesitant already in my first comment to suggest adding something. I would remove this talk page section, unless someone thinks it might be useful to the next person who comes here looking for a reliable debunk of the myth and forgets to check the archive?

Also, thanks again for the reply but I really hope you didn't infer from my comment that I was one of the conspiracy theorists you were attacking - I mean, I did refer to it as a falsehood and emphasise Wikipedia should not give any credit to it and should describe it as false, as you can see above. Adam Dent (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Austrian Nationality

Guten Tag Guys, I'm actually not sure why this source is telling that Beethoven had a German nationality, as you probably do not remember: He had to give up his german nationality to be able to stay in Vienna when he was 21 and the Austrian Empire was reunited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiHanna12345 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

There were no nationalities in those days. He was ethnically German and moved from one German fiefdom to another one. Both his birthplace and the archduchy of Austria were part of the HRE.--MacX85 (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

"Early", "middle", and "late"

I think we should try to provide cited dates for the three periods, as right now the article is pretty sketchy and confusing about them. Also, the section on his early period is unfortunately currently titled "Musical maturity", which seems confusing and inaccurate. Softlavender (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

On the early/middle/late topic I see those as just vague words and an attempt to organize/divide the article. I thionk that dates would be better but that would be a bigger job than it appears. Every piece of inserted material would then have to have a known date, or if someone pulled out the rulebook, a cited known date. North8000 (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

They are not vague words, they are well-established and frequently used parameters of Beethoven's career. Dating these well-established and frequently used parameters would not affect the rest of the article in any way. Softlavender (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Update: I've handled the problem, by providing dates and citations and changing the confusing header. Softlavender (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Cool. North8000 (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2019

41.210.145.185 (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done No request made. Softlavender (talk) 11:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox classical composer

Should I get the Template:Infobox classical composer in Beethoven's article? Thanks! --Macropedia (talk) 02:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Could you explain the advantage? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Beethoven historical birth countries

Is Beethoven born in Holy Roman Empire and died in Austrian Empire? --Macropedia (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep it simple and list city only. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2019

The article mistakenly calls the Hapsburg emperor Joseph II FRANZ JOSEPH II. His name did not include the Prenom FRANZ. He indeed had a long list of names, but FRANZ was not one of them. EugeneJack (talk) 09:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done with thanks, NiciVampireHeart 10:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Two masses, not one

During his life, he composed nine symphonies; five piano concertos; one violin concerto; thirty-two piano sonatas; sixteen string quartets; a mass; and the opera, Fidelio.

You'll find he wrote two masses, not 'a mass' — there's the Mass in C in addition to the Missa Solemnis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.177.205.223 (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Fixed; thank you! Double sharp (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2019

Died in Vienna, Austrian Empire 2600:8800:6780:224B:2952:272F:906B:3CCA (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose – An infobox about a composers is not the right place to present a diversion into the complicated statehood of Austria (or Germany for that matter – Electorate of Cologne, which was only recently (26 October 2018) added, ought to be removed from the infobox as well). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment – Even the Death of Ludwig van Beethoven article does not see the need to add any further location detail. Vienna is a very well-known city. There is no issue with disambiguation. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment ...and neither Electorate of Cologne nor any elaboration on Vienna was included in the infobox initially agreed by consensus in this long discussion. I support removal/omission. -- Begoon 09:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Vienna is well known, and the exact name, or a short name, of the empire at the time of his death could go to the body of the article. I never fill those countries, being unsure about politics in history, but usually someone comes along adding. Not needed, in this case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Not needed, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Beethoven's religious beliefs

There used to be a whole article on Beethoven's religious beliefs, which then was deleted and redirected to this page, because at the time this article had a substantial section on it. Eventually, even that was deleted – without much ceremony by the same editor who had merged the old page with this one, if I recall the edit histories correctly. Since this is an important aspect of his life that has been the subject of a lot of substantial scholarship, I propose reviving it, possibly with material that was deleted before. Does anyone else agree? Junggai (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Found the edit in question, from 10 December 2011. Browsing what the religion section of the article looked like before that point, I take back my proposal to use the old material, which wasn't very good. But the page that got deleted was better sourced (Wayback Machine). That would be somewhere to start, and there's been some recent, good scholarship on the question. Junggai (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead. I think a separate article might be better, because some readers may not be interested at all. I'd start in a draft, to avoid another deletion discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm not really aware of what the protocol is for restarting a page that was successfully nominated for deletion before. Do I need any approval from an admin before proceeding? Junggai (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that Wayback version is pretty bad. It does not even mention the Heiligenstadt Testament, which contains probably his clearest statement of his religious/spiritual convictions: "Divine One thou lookest into my inmost soul, thou knowest it, thou knowest that love of man and desire to do good live therein." [6]. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, it had a lot of omissions and flaws. But that's not why it was deleted. Rather there was the judgment that those topics were already covered here, which at that time they were. Now the topic is covered nowhere on Wikipedia in any depth. Junggai (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

New publication

There is a new publication:

Beethoven: Die Seyfried Papiere. Reproduction and transcription of the autograph manuscripts for Biographical Notes and Character Traits & Anecdotes with exposé. BoD, Norderstedt, 2019. ISBN 978-3-748-16746-4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.248.57.69 (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Removing "One musician commented that 'We all know there is something there but we do not know what it is.' "

I am removing this unattributed and already-tagged quote, which is presented as being about how difficult it was for listeners in Beethoven's time to comprehend the Late Quartets. I can't find it (in English) anywhere online at all (except from the many many similarly unattributed verbatim copies of the Wikipedia text). The only similar quote is the following one, in which case the Wikipedia version is taken entirely out of context, as the origin is written in praise of the very approachable and easy-on-the-ears "Moonlight" Sonata:

"No words ever express the 'Moonlight Sonata' of Beethoven. Beethoven never called it the 'Moonlight Sonata' at all. We know there is something there no words have ever been able to measure. There is a mysterious voice sounding from the very depths of the eternal. And that speaks to man, gives to man a message so much higher and greater than anything that speech or words can do as to lift him above the machine-like existence to which a purely industrial age has condemned him."

from a periodical called The Etude in The Etude - Volume 39 - Page 506 in 1921, where it seems to be part of an "oration" by the Hon. James Beck, Solicitor General of the US.

If anybody can find the original quote about how hard Beethoven is to understand, and the attribution, they should feel free to put it back -- wherever it really belongs! David Couch (talk) 23:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

correction dedicatee of Fur Elise

PERSONAL AND FAMILY DIFFICULTIES

It is true that Beethoven wrote a piece, dedicated to Therese Malfatti, a sister of Josephine Brunsvik, but I believe that the work is not "Fur Elise", but a sonata in F sharp major, OP. 78, which he dedicated as 'A Therese'. Sarahhaera (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Did he never see the sea?

I've just come across this quote from the poet Anne Michaels:

• Do you realize Beethoven composed all his music without ever having looked upon the sea? (from Fugitive Pieces (1997))

Is this true, or is it a case of poetic licence? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

That may well be true. I know he traveled to Berlin and Prague, but beyond that -- not aware of anything. Interesting. Antandrus (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's unusual for that time and region and people of his circumstances. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@JackofOz, Antandrus, and Michael Bednarek: According to Alexander Wheelock Thayer, Beethoven went with his mother to Rotterdam in 1781: Barry Cooper agrees that the voyage took place, although he dates it to 1783. He may well have seen the sea there. Double sharp (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, all. If it was indeed a "voyage", that suggests travel by ship, in which case of course he saw the sea - unless it was down a river (I don't know if Rotterdam can be reached by river from Bonn). If it was across land, that would be better described as a "journey", methinks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It would take you along the Rhine. William Avery (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Thirteen-year-old Beethoven.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Alleged portrait of Beethoven at 13 must be considered a fake in the absence of authenticating documentation

The portrait of Beethoven at age 13 by an unknown "Bonn Master" should be removed from this article or described differently, because it has not been authenticated. The Beethoven-Haus in Bonn groups it with other "alleged" portraits that lack any authenticating documentary evidence. The portrait image was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by RobertG on 09:22, 21 June 2007 with the following descriptions: "The painting is described thus: 'Ludwig van Beethoven was recognized as a child prodigy. He worked at the age of 13 as organist, pianist/harpsichordist and violist at the court in Bonn, and had published three early piano sonatas. This portrait in oils is the earliest authenticated likeness of Beethoven.' and "Photograph taken by the author of the painting in Die Sammlung alter Musikinstrumente, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Wien. |Date=24th August." So it is claimed to be the earliest authenticated likeness of Beethoven, and yet no authenticating documentation exists. If it DID exist, it is extremely unlikely that Beethoven-Haus wouldn't be aware of it by now. Dozens of organizations have been misled by this image because they trusted the veracity of Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia. Thus a myth about Beethoven is being promulgated by Wikimedia Commons. So the problem really needs to be corrected there. Describing the painting in Wikimedia Commons as an "alleged" portrait is all that is necessary. dnedwards (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you point us to the sources at the Bonn Beethoven-Haus that support the inauthenticity? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Beethovenhaus-Bonn (https://www.beethoven.de/en/archive/view/4823531296653312/Alleged+Beethoven+portraits) describes the painting (along with about a dozen other portraits they classify as "alleged") thus: "Portrait of an unknown boy (supposedly Ludwig van Beethoven as a child) - photography, probably by S. Geiser, after an anonymous painting from the early 19th century." Wikimedia Commons, on the other hand, describes the painting thus: "Ludwig van Beethoven was recognized as a child prodigy. He worked at the age of 13 as organist, pianist/harpsichordist and violist at the court in Bonn, and had published three early piano sonatas. This portrait in oils is the earliest authenticated likeness of Beethoven," but no documentary evidence is provided or referred to in support of this claim. And that is because no such evidence exists. I guess this whole problem could be solved by simply replacing Wikimedia Commons' descriptive language with that of Beethoven-Haus, but I don't know how to do that, and RobertG (the person who uploaded it) has not responded to my query about this. In any case, the burden of proof of this painting's authenticity lies with the uploader. In other words, it is not authentic until proven otherwise. It is inauthentic until proven otherwise. dnedwards (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

User:RobertG did respond at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thirteen-year-old Beethoven.jpg: "the text I added is a simple copy of the label that was displayed with the painting". On balance, I would not object if this image were removed from this article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Neither would I, given Beethoven-Haus doubts (of which I was unaware). RobertG ♬ talk 08:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I have updated the image description on Commons of this file as well as File:Beethoven c1783 Wien SAM 1030.jpg to reflect the disputed description, and requested the file to be renamed. (By the way, people in the deletion discussion used the word "fake" in reference to this image. I would avoid that word, since it suggests an intent to deceive which is not in evidence.) Magic♪piano 16:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you RobertG for taking care of this! dnedwards (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead etc.

The lead for the article was all over the place - I have attempted in honour of LVB's 250th to copyedit it according to WP standards. The rest of the article can probsbly do with a lookthrough as well, which I will attempt to do, and I hope others may join in this.--Smerus (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I am attempting to clean up the article with a view to putting it up for peer review at some point, in the hope that we can get to GA or FA before LVB's birthday (or at leat baptism day) in December. Apoloiges therefore for the chaos which may appear from time to time as I make changes.--Smerus (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Typo in Section "Vienna 1792-1812"

I noticed there was a typo misspelling Beethoven's name as Bwthoven in the first line of section "Vienna 1792-1812". Hope it gets corrected!

• Done, thanks!--Smerus (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Not the talk page for other articles

This talk page is not where the content of other articles than the Ludwig van Beethoven article is decided. The argument was recently used spuriously for a deletion at another page. Coming here, I can't even find the so-called decision involving other articles, so the value of the attempted rationale is void for other articles. Just for clarity. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

It is typical to try to follow the same standard of objectivity in different aticles of the same topic, to avoid double standard. For instance, in the Wikipedia pages of Nadal, Federer and Djokovic, it was decided by general consensus to avoid any mention of "he is considered the greatest tennis player of all time", to avoid controversies and being more neutral.

Anyhow, I created a thread in the talk page of Bach.James343e (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Please don't y'all be puttin' line spaces in the talk page. The software works fine without us adding line spaces. SPECIFICO talk 19:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources RE: critical evaluation for legacy

As an alternative to "best ever composer" or similar -- which, to me, sounds like an advertisement for breakfast cereal -- the article could incorporate statements about Beethoven by notable musicians and critics. Two examples: George Bernard ShawWagner There are many to be found. SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you kidding? "To me it sounds like a breakfast cereal advertisement" is not a rational argument. The truth is that Beethoven is considered as one of the greatest composers, and you want to HIDE that information. Your suggestion of deleting "of all time" is not a good option for the reasons specified in the "Euopean" debate. Me and Double Sharp consider that it is disrespectful to Beethoven to ignore the fact that he is considered one of the greatest composers of all time (which is undebatable and also happens to be mentioned in the Wikipedia pages for Bach and Mozart). There is simply no rational reason to stop putting that "Beethoven is considered one of the greatest classical composers of all time". James343e (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:WEASEL. A verb needs a subject. Anyway, I am confident he will not be offended. SPECIFICO talk 18:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Misleading. In the link you posted WP:WEASEL, it is said that you can use strong assertions as long as they are supported by the references. And I already put multiple references arguing that Beethoven is one of the greatest composers of all time before you deleted them because they were supposedly unnecessary for the lead paragraph. So what do you want? First you cricitize my edits for including references in the lead paragraph, and later you insinuate I don't back it up my claims with references? Please see Double standard. Either the claim "Beethoven is considered one of the greatest classical composers of all time" needs references to reliable sources or it doesn't. Pleasy clarify your position in that sense. And reliable references is not a synonym with "opinion of famous composers references". A site like classical-music.com, which is specialized in classical music, is perfectly reliable. So is the Encyclpedia Britannica. The funny thing is that there are no reliable reference of the opposite. There is no reliable reference arguing that "Beethoeven is NOT one of the greatest classical composers of all time". Please, reply to my previous comment in the "European" section. I wish to arrive to a consensus. James343e (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

We really do not rely on the opinions of non-notable journalists for assertions in Wikipedia's voice. Nobody's even suggesting we use Richard Wagner's opinion without attribution. Surely you realize that there is no reliable reference even that says you, James343e, are not one of the greatest composers, chefs, or footballers of all time. That argument is void. SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on RELIABLE sources, not FAMOUS sources. Reliable and famous are not synonyms. Please note the difference. It is a logical fallacy (wrong argument) to suggest that only famous people can make remarks toward Beethoven. Learn about the fallacy known as argument from authority, not only famous people can be right about a topic. Classical-music.com is a site specialized on classical music, and so a perfectly reliable (the world reliable is crucial) source. The same applies to the Encyclopedia Britannica. In case there was any doubt, I also added a reference from the peer-reviewed and academic music journal Journal of the Royal Musical Association, and another reference from the composer and professional musician Willard Palmer, both of them claiming Beethoven to be "one of the greatest composers of all time". Please, I urge you to stop deleting the obvious, all Wikipedia pages from all languages include Beethoven as one of teh greatest composers of all time. James343e (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear James343e - please read WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL, as well as WP:Reliable sources. It's also worth reading closely WP:CIVILITY. Then you may begin to be in a position to discuss this topic constructively in the context of existing WP guidelines and policy. For what it is worth, I agree with SPECIFICO. In articles which I have brought, or assisted to bring, to FA status, such as Richard Wagner and Gioacchino Rossini that is exactly the approach I have sought to use, with extensive sections on legacy. I intend to develop a similar section in the article on Beethoven. As FA articles are "considered to be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer", I think I may reasonably consider this approach to be appropriate. Best, --Smerus (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Smerus, are you strategically deleting the "Beethoven is one of the greatest composers of all time" to put Beethoven in a similar category to Wagner and a different category than Mozart and Bach? Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are widely cited as the 3 greatest composers of all time, Wagner is not so frequently cited as one of the 3 greatest composers of all time (but if you want to put some similar phrases in the Wikipedia page for Wagner I won't stop you). As I said, there is no logical reason to HIDE that Beethoven is considered one of the greatest classical composers of all time. James343e (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I have placed an appropriate sentence in the lead which will be substantiated in the article (which I am still attempting to improve despite this pointless wrangling), and which therefore needs no citations. I hope this may end this rather futile, and certainly over-the-top, discussion. If the energy wasted in this sort of thing was devoted instead to genuinely improving WP, then WP would be an even greater resource than it is.--Smerus (talk) 09:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

European

Just to remind editors to think in, and use, plain English. If it is written that LvB is 'one of the greatest European composers', it means just that.Not that he is only considered great in Europe. It does not call for quotes or cites from Chinese (or any other non-European source) webmedia to 'prove' that he is considered great over there. Thanks - --Smerus (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Beethoven is not only one of the greatest "European" composers, he is one of the greatest of humankind overall. The problem with the phrase "he is on of the greatest European composers" is that it implicitly suggests he is only among the greatest of Europe, not overall. Neither the Bach nor the Mozart Wikipedia pages make any mention of them being one of the greatest "European" composers of all time. No reason to display a double standard with Beethoven and use the word "European" only for him. It is also worth of mention that the Bach and Mozart Wikipedia articles include references in the lead paragraph. I am open to delete the American and Chinese sources, if you consider them unnecessary or redundant (even though the Wikipedia in Enlgish allows to post references in languages other than English, that is an important part of making the English Wikipedia less biased towards anglophone culture).James343e (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean to be comparing him to musicians, some called "composers", who worked within all the other other widely disparate musical traditions in the world? That doesn't seem helpful or even relevant to his life and work. SPECIFICO talk 13:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear James343e, your concern is rather WP:UNDUE. You may personally want to qualify LvB in any way you wish - but you cannot deny that he is one of the greatest European composers. He may be other things as well, and the description does not exclude him from being one of the greatest composers in the world. But the lead should not contain information which is not supported by reliable citations in the body of the article (and not in the lead). And reliable citations in this case don't include comments on the web in China, US or anywhere else. (see WP:CITE - I'm in the process of tidying up this article so that it can go to a WP:Peer review and eventually i hope be raised to GA or FA status. I'm therefore concerned to ensure that it meets the necessary standards. If you feel really strongyl about this, your best bet is to await the peer review and bring it up there, where you discover whether or not there is consensus for your opinion. Best regards, --Smerus (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Ludwig Van Beethoven is considered among the greatest composers of all time in every continent, not only in Europe. Orchestras from all continents perform his work and I proved it with references from Europe, Asia and America calling him among the greatest (some of those references were quite reliable, like the Encyclopaedia Britannica and classical-music.com, a site specialized in classical music). Also, there is no rule forbidding references in the lead, but it is nice when they can be left out. Keeping references out of the lead makes it easier to read. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_create_and_manage_a_good_lead_section#References_in_the_lead?

I am open to delete the references, as long as you stop putting the word "European", which clearly has an agenda to implicitly suggest he is only one of the greatest composers in Europe, rather than overall. And no reason to exclude the word "European" in the pages for Bach and Mozart, but including it in the page for Beethoven, that represents an example of double standard practice.James343e (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors have no business comparing him to composers in other traditions. I trust Smerus to be familiar with the descriptions of Beethoven's stature in the authoritative literature. But it's just silly to compare him to every other human composer from the Qing Dynasty through today. SPECIFICO talk 14:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear James343e, once again I ask you to read and think in plain English. To say that LvB is 'one of the greatest European composers' does not mean, as you seem to think it does, that he is not considered great outside Europe. I cannot in fact understand why you insist on this interpretation. Please try to think clearly and understand this, and to refrain from stoking unnnecessary conflict. I did not write the articles on Bach and Mozart, and it is offensive to me that you accuse me of double standards. I have taken pains throughout my editing career to try to meet WP standards of courtesy. Please think before you write. Best, --Smerus (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

This is very sensible and incontrovertible. Within the community of European music, his status is uncontested. Whether it's called "European" or "Classical," or something that also includes that tradition in other locations, is a choice we could consider. We could also use an objective statement, such as that his music is among the most world's most widely and frequently performed and recorded. SPECIFICO talk 14:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear SPECIFICO, thanks so much for your constructive and very helpful remarks. You are absolutely right that there are a lot compositions from the Qing Dinasty onwards, but Beethoven seems to be considered among the greatest overall composers (not only in Europe), even by American people (read this https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/arts/music/23composers.html) and Chinese people (read this: https://kknews.cc/culture/v86zyq.html, and this: http://m.qulishi.com/article/201803/277641.html). Another evidence comes from the fact that American orchestras such as the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, or Asian orchestras such as the Shanghai Symphony Orchestra, Beijing Sympohny Orchestra and the Tokyo Philarmonic orchestra, among others, keep playing Beethoven's pieces.

However, I really like your fantastic suggestion of changing the sensible word "European" for "classical". I think saying that "Beethoven is considered to be one of the greatest classical composers of all time" should be uncontroversial.James343e (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Of course, in the context of the lead, "classical" has a different meaning. So there are no end of problems. I'm not sure this kind of statement really adds anything to a descriptive article about his life and work. There's a section of the article that can include statements from other renowned composers or historically significant critics, above the level of media critics, who have written about Beethoven's stature or influence. SPECIFICO talk 15:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again for the detailed reply. The problem is that both the Bach and Mozart wikipedia pages mention them as being "one of the greatest composers of all time". So, to avoid a double standard with Beethoven and follow a universal rule in all the 3 articles, I believe we have two good options:

1) Delete the "he is considered one of the greatest composers of all time" from the 3 articles of Bach. Beethoven and Mozart.

2) Include the "he is conisdered on of the greatest composers of all time" in all the articles, including the Bethoven's one.

By the way, not only "important compositors" or "famours critics" can make a right judgement of Beethoven's work. To suggest that the opinion of "authorities" on a topic is the only valid one is a logical fallacy (wrong argument) known as argument from authority. A person A can be right in his judgement about the topic B, even if the person A is not a so-called "expert" on the topic. Anyhow, the references I included were from the Encyclopædia Britannica and classical-music.com (a webpage specialized in classical music), so hardly those sources could be considered non-reliable.James343e (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Your arguments and suggestions are contrary to several Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You're free to edit the Mozart and Bach articles any time you choose. Also, it's not good practice to insert line spaces in talk page threads. SPECIFICO talk 16:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, I deleted any mention to "he is considered one of the greatest composers of all time" in the three articles of Beethoveen, Mozart and Bach, to follow the same policy with the three of them. As you correctly said, these kind of statements about their place in history is better left for other sites, so Wikipedia remains more neutral. Cheers, James343e (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Up to you, but it is not a "policy" -- that's important. SPECIFICO talk 17:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Exactly what is the problem with saying that he is widely considered one of the greatest classical composers of all time? I bet you can find a ton of reliable sources saying so. It's not a value judgement on the part of WP; it's a statement that most authorities feel he has that importance. And the level at which he is normally put (as a giant marching behind) is so high that it would be astonishing to not put it in the lede, IMHO. Double sharp (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Double sharp. Thanks so much for your comment. I think the debate is on whether to use the word "European". Initially, the text said "he is one of the greatest European composers". I deleted it and put "he is considered one of the greatest composers of all time". I deleted the word "European", because I felt it implicilty suggested he is "only" one of the greatest European composers, rather than one of the greatest composers overall. Do you think we should include the word European or should we exclude it? Your opinion on this topic would be really appreacited. James343e (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@James343e: Well, I think the word "European" is rather missing the point. It suggests that there are Asian or American or African composers who are widely considered greater. Within the Western classical tradition, there obviously are not such composers who are widely considered greater than Beethoven; and outside that tradition, the comparison becomes a bit meaningless. "Classical" is the right word, IMHO. Double sharp (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Double sharp I happen to concur with you that something like "he is considered one of the greatest classical composers of all time" is the right choice, I fully support the use of the word "classical".James343e (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

You are debating the exact wording of a statement that by its nature is inherently meaningliess. That having been said, however, it might be informative for our readers if the article text were to include some particularly noteworhty statements by other notable composers or notable scholars or notable critics (of which there are at least a handful.) SPECIFICO talk 02:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

It's absolutely not meaningless. It has the clear meaning that the literature generally considers Beethoven among the greatest classical composers. What they meant by it can be debated (maybe his significance in history, his innovations, his use of the tradition, which all boil down to about the same thing anyway), but the clear meaning that he is generally considered to occupy an exalted position in this tradition is present. And this is so universally agreed among authorities on classical music that it would surely be a disservice to our readers not to include such a statement in the lede. Double sharp (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Double Sharp. To avoid controversies and to agree with Specifico, I will mention quite especifically that "he is a crucial figure of Western music". I will also add that "he is one of the greatest composers of all time". If Specifico doesn't like it, not my problem, but it is a fact that Beethoven is one of the greatest composers of all time. What will be next? To deny that the Earth is flat? In ALL LANGUAGES of Wikipedia it is said that Beethoven is one of the greatest composers of all time.

Simple English Wikipedia article for Beethoven: "He is said to be one of the greatest classical composers[3] who has ever lived."

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_van_Beethoven

Spanish Wikipedia article for Beethoven: "Es considerado uno de los compositores más importantes de la historia de la música y su legado ha influido de forma decisiva en la evolución posterior de este arte." Translation: He is considered one of the most important composers in the history of music, and his legacy has decisively influenced the posterior evolution of this art.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_van_Beethoven

French Wikipedia article for Beethoven: "l’œuvre de Beethoven a fait de lui une des figures les plus marquantes de l’histoire de la musique. Translation: Beethoven’s work has made him one of the most significant figures in the history of music.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_van_Beethoven

Italian Wikipedia article for Beethoven: "Figura cruciale della musica colta occidentale, fu l'ultimo rappresentante di rilievo del classicismo viennese ed è considerato uno dei più grandi e influenti compositori di tutti i tempi." Translation: Crucial figure of western culture music, he was the last prominent representative of Viennese classicism and is considered one of the greatest and most influential composers of all time. ::::::https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_van_Beethoven

German Wikipedia article for Beethoven: "Er vergoldet als einer der bedeutungsvollen Komponisten schlechthin." Translation: He is considered one of the most important composers per se. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_van_Beethoven

Japanese Wikipedia article for Beethoven: "音楽史上極めて重要な作曲家の一人であり、日本では" Translation: One of the most important composers in music history.  ::::::https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%AB%E3%83%BC%E3%83%88%E3%83%B4%E3%82%A3%E3%83%92%E3%83%BB%E3%83%B4%E3%82%A1%E3%83%B3%E3%83%BB%E3%83%99%E3%83%BC%E3%83%88%E3%83%BC%E3%83%B4%E3%82%A7%E3%83%B3

Cantonese Chinese Wikipedia article for Beethoven: "佢係歷史上一位出色嘅作曲家" "An outstanding composer in history". https://zh-yue.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%B2%9D%E5%A4%9A%E8%8A%ACJames343e (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_van_Beethoven

Normally when it comes to characterizations I say "when in doubt, leave it out" because characterizations are usually not really information, and are put in for other POV purposes. But in this case his prominence both on a world scale and over centuries IS information. And it's not just sourced, it's overwhelming amongst sources expressing such an opinion, which for me is a requirement for insertion of characterization type statements. I'd lean towards putting a broad "Ludwig Van Beethoven is considered among the greatest composers of all time" statement in. And adding qualifiers does confuse that by implying that the statement would not be true without the qualifier. North8000 (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)