Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Auto-bibliography software is not ready for prime time

A previous edit implemented a system in which the bibliography entries are entered as fields and auto-converted to a format displayed on the page. I have converted the bibliography back to text because of what I take to be serious flaws in this software:

• It permits editors to link the reader to particular bookseller. In this case, the editor in question consistently picked the Amazon web site. I definitely think we should not be endorsing one bookseller over another. (A further note: this problem was fixed years ago when the software was set up so that when the reader clicks on the ISBN number, (s)he is directed to a large, commercially-neutral set of options. The newer code re-introduces the old problem.)
• The current auto-bibliography formats the entries in a nonstandard and reader-unfriendly way. The purpose of the Author (Date) format is to make it easy to find a reference by using your eyes to scan the page for a simple, compact formula. The actual month and day of publication are trivia and make it harder for the reader to find the reference (s)he is looking for. To my knowledge, no professional scholarly outlet formats its bibliographies this way.

If someone ever bothers to clean up the bibliography-creating software to fix these problems, I think it would be fine to use it. Opus33 (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Smallpox

Hello, I'm starting to read Ruth Halliwell's incredibly detailed book The Mozart Family, which includes informative material on Mozart and smallpox. Until 1796, with Edward Jenner's work, smallpox vaccination used an attenuated form of the human smallpox virus. This was very dangerous and sometimes caused the patient actually to die of smallpox. So vaccination was a very hard decision for the parents, Mozart's included. The simplistic sentence we had before, which makes Leopold appear like an ignorant, child-neglecting religious fundamentalist, doesn't really conveying the proper sense of the issue and I've taken it out.

I think sooner or latter the question of Mozart and smallpox vaccination should be discussed, but probably in a satellite article of some sort and not the main article. Opus33 (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Opus, I read that book for class last semester and I think its questionable if he really had small pox. OblivionLdy67 (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Oblivion, are you sure? Maybe give me the page numbers? Thanks, Opus33 (talk) 05:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing Project

I am removing Project:Freemasonry from the article... according to that project's stated scope, it deals with articles about the organization, not for individuals who were Freemasons. If this is a problem, please discuss at the Project talk page. Blueboar (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Image sizes

A while ago someone removed all designations of image size, so that they all come out default width. I'm restoring the "hard" widths in a number of cases, specifically, in cases when the default width produced an illegible image.

I'm aware that in principle, users can set image size using the Wikipedia's software. However, I'm also convinced that this is a poor way to handle image sizes. The great majority of our readers have no idea that you can do this (think of your mother, if that helps), and so we serve them better by specifying sensible image sizes in the article itself. Please note that the policy page for images does permit editors to do this. Opus33 (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple reverts

• I put back the "German composers" category. Mozart's citizenship was in the small independent nation-state of Salzburg. It's true that in later history, when the modern German-speaking nation-states were established, Salzburg ended up as part of Austria, not Germany, but this sort of thinking doesn't really take Mozart's perspective, as I think we should. His letters suggest he thought of himself as German (where "German" denoted an ethnicity rather than a country).
• I restore the original wording of the "Mozart in fiction" section, under the view that the section should do nothing other than tell readers that there is a satellite article. Opus33 (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think, we should remove both categories, Austrian xx and German xx.--80.109.98.103 (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

German or Austrian?

There's a case for both, but the case for being German is much stronger. He was born and brought up in Salzburg at a time when Salzburg was one of many German states within the Holy Roman Empire. Salzburg was not a part of Austria at that time. Salzburg did not become a part of Austria until the 19th century. So in Mozart's own time, he would have seen himself as a German. In fact, even in Mozart's time Austria itself was one of the German states within the Holy Roman Empire, so even Austrians would have considered themselves as Germans then. So I doubt if Mozart's later years when he was living in the Austrian capital, Vienna, made him feel any less German. It is only since 1866 (with the exception of the period (1938-1945) that Austria has not been a part of Germany, and it's only since the second world war that many Austrians have tended to distance themselves from the German label. The case for arguing that Mozart was an Austrian lies on the technical ground that Salzburg, where he was born and brought up, sits today inside Austria, and that he spent a large amount of his later years in Vienna, the capital of Austria. David Tombe (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. At the time of Mozart's birth, the seat of the Holy Roman Empire, ruled by the Habsburgs, was Vienna. Based on your logic, those living in "the German states within the Holy Roman Empire" were actually Austrians too, not Germans! --TrustTruth (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I was fully aware that the Habsburgs ruled the Holy Roman Empire from Vienna for hundreds of years. That didn't make the Germans in the other German states become Austrians. Bavarians didn't become Prussians when the Hohenzollerns ruled Germany from Berlin. Were you trying to put forward an argument to enhance the case that Mozart was an Austrian? Because if you were, it was not a logical argument. There is absolutely no way that Hanoverians or Prusians were ever considered to be Austrians in the days of the Holy Roman Empire. And even if they were, that still wouldn't stop them from being Germans. German is the umbrella term. Austrians were Germans, as were Liechtensteiners, and as are Bavarians, Prussians, Saxons and Hessians. Nowadays the issue of whether or not Austrians are Germans is controversial because of the second world war. David Tombe (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand at all what this discussion is about and what David Tombe (talk · contribs) wants to achieve. The article doesn't refer to Mozart as Austrian nor German. There are a few categories which group by nationality. I am no great fan of such categories, but I accept they exist. As they do, I submit it would be baffling to most readers not to have Mozart listed in Category:Austrian composers and in Category:German composers. So, again: why did David Tombe ask the question: "German or Austrian?" Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Bednarek, It wasn't me that raised the question. Check back through the history. I was only responding to the question. At the end of the day, while there are arguments both ways, there are also good arguments as to why Mozart should not be listed as an Austrian, whereas there are no good arguments as to why he should not be listed as a German. Being silent on the issue is not the correct approach. It should state clearly in the introduction that he was a German composer.David Tombe (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there is a missunderstanding, otherwise it is POV: There was nor "Germany" in the meaning of a German "national" State (Nationalstaat) until 1871. The Holy Roman Empire (HRR) was not a German state, it was a loose confederation of germanspeaking states (most of them princedoms), and many national states followed on the territory of which was formerly the HRR: Germany, Austria, Eastern Part of Switzerland ... and even some Eastern/Central European states are now built on this territory which changed its frontiers and composition so frequently during its 1000 years of existance. So you cannot compare this loose confederation with a German national state. Why do Germans always try to equalize the Holy Roman Empire (HRR) with Germany, which is especially unfair for all the other states which followed the HRR! Learn some history ;-) -- Rfortner (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Rfortner, you are twisting what was written above. I spoke about German states within the Holy Roman Empire. At no stage did I refer to the Holy Roman Empire as a German state. David Tombe (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I think the right solution is to put this information in a satellite article, which could cover the details/nuances. I feel it most definitely does not belong in the intro - it's very important for an intro paragraph to read smoothly and not get bogged down with particular details. Instead, the intro paragraph should include a link to the satellite article, so people who really want to know could read about this issue. Opus33 (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you guys have a problem with the fact that Mozart was a German? Mozart was a German and there is absolutely no doubt about the fact. It is nonsense to claim that this fact is 'Point of View'. I can see here that the Mozart's German identity seems to have become the source of controversy, no doubt amongst Austrians who are uneasy about being identified as Germans because of the second world war. An encyclopaedia cannot pander to this kind of emotion. An encyclopaedia is about straight facts. And the straight facts are that Mozart was a German. He came from Salzburg which was a Prince Archbishopric that had once been a part of Bavaria. After Mozart's time, in 1849, Salzburg was transferred to Austria, which at that time was part of the German confederation. Austria itself was expelled from Germany in 1866 because of problems to do with a conflict between the Prussian Hohenzollerns and the Austrian Habsburgs. I came to this article for the sole purpose of finding out if any headway had been made in tracking down the missing fifth movement of Eine Kleine Nacht Music (K. 525). I came to the discussion page only to discover that they were all bickering about whether or not Mozart was a German. Of course he was a German! I noticed then that rather than dealing with the problem, they had all run away from the problem by removing all references to nationality and birth place from the article. They had gone for the cowardly and unprofessional solution. You don't do that. Of course Mozart was a German and that's what should go in the article. Similar controversies exist over the national identities of physicist Heinrich Lenz, and also of Adolf Hitler. But if you look at those articles in wikipedia, you will see that the straight biographical facts have been presented. As such I will now restore Mozart's national identy data to the main article so that readers can know where he originated from, which is what an encyclopaedia article about a person should tell us. Every biographical article begins by stating the national identity and birthplace of the subject. It is one of the key pieces of information that people are looking for when they look up an encyclopaedia article about a person. Finally, as regards the number 626, it's interesting that all the time that the incorrect number 600 prevailed in the introduction, nobody minded. But when I changed it to the correct number 626, somebody removed it completely saying that we don't need a number. Then somebody else restored the original incorrect number of 600, and the person who didn't want a number at all is not complaining. The argument that the article has been stable for some time is not a valid argument. Wikipedia is open to ongoing corrections. Nobody has got the right to declare that the article has now reached a state in which nobody else is allowed to alter it any further. David Tombe (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that we are open to correction; however, what you suggest is not a correction, but the addition of two inaccuracies.

Mozart had 626 separately listed items in the Köchel catalogue. One Köchel number does not equate to one composition (that's what the little "a" and "b", etc. after the number means -- that there's more than one composition to that particular number). There are not "exactly" 626 compositions. Probably the best way is to say "over 600" -- the "600" in the article, as I read it, was understood as an approximation, not an exact number. An exact number is rather hard to come by; if Alfred Einstein could not do it with absolute certainty, I suspect we would be just a touch overconfident if we thought we could improve on him.

Regarding the "nationality", the most sterile and time-wasting edit-wars on Wikipedia have involved this pointless topic, with comes back with relentless persistence on articles on composers, astronomers, aristocrats, anarchists, horse thieves, and just about everyone else, and I suggest we avoid this particular tar-pit and leave the article as it is. The first sentence of the second paragraph indicates Mozart's origin. Looking at the some of the encyclopedias I have within reach, the 1980 Grove article by Stanley Sadie himself says "Austrian composer" ... the 2001 New Grove article, by Cliff Eisen, begins with "Austrian composer", and Nicolas Slonimsky's impressive article in Baker's Biographical Dictionary commences with the magisterial "supreme Austrian genius of music whose works in every genre are unsurpassed in lyric beauty, rhythmic variety, and effortless melodic invention, ..." So much for NPOV, but he was Slonimsky, and we are mere Wikipedians. I suggest the article was fine as it was. Respectfully, Antandrus (talk) 00:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So what was wrong with my 626+ ? David Tombe (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't break up people's comments: it makes it hard to follow for newcomers; it's best to add your comments to the end of the comment to which you want to reply, at the proper indent level.

There are 626 K. numbers, but the number is problematic if you indicate it as exact, as you did here. You did not write "626+", but "626". For example, some of the original K. numbers are now known to be spurious, and as I explained above, others are multiple compositions. Antandrus (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm David Tombe, you "spam" this discussion page here with your personal POV and write many times that Mozart should have been German (which is not true), but you don't bring any facts and even don't react (or answer) properly to my comment above. You mix between "German" and "Germanspeaking", thats one of your problems. (e.g.: Austrians are Germanspeaking, but they are NOT Germans ... Got it???). And at the time of Mozarts birth, Salzburg was an indipendent Archbishopric, which was - like many other germanspeaking states - part of the Holy Roman Empire (HRR). So sorry if the facts are too complicated for you, but at the time of Mozarts birth there was no national state of Germany (or Austria)! While in the case of Hitler there were already national states, so you can distinguish very well between the time of his Austrian citizenship (which he ended in 1925) and his German citizenship (which started in 1932). Mozart is above such categories, that is why in the germanspeaking Wikipedia we found the compromise to call him an influent "european" composer. PS: Please don't use so many blank lines, they just disturb the reading fluency! -- Rfortner (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this whole Austrian/German thing, I think that it's not a controversy of great importance; the case for stating his being German seems to be a product of more recent scholarship and politics, which is why the references cited (Groves et al.) consistently state Mozart as Austrian. [1] [2] --Blehfu (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I was curious about the letter quoted in the NYTimes letter I linked to. Here is more of the quote. I'm not putting my oar either which way, but I just want to add that there does seem to be substance in what Mr. Tombe is saying. --Blehfu (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

... I believe I am capable of bringing honour to any court -- and if Germany, my beloved Fatherland, of which, as you know, I am proud, will not take me up -- well, let France or England, in God's name become the richer by another talented German -- and that to the disgrace of the German nation!

— Mozart to his father, 1782-08-17, Letter of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, ed. Hans Mersmann, Dover 1972

Thank you Blehfu. That is quite a compelling quote which proves exactly what I have been saying. I have read a considerable amount about the subject and I have never been in any doubt that he considered himself to be a German. It seems from reading the writings of the above editors that there has been far too much effort on their part to convince us all of an untrue fact. Ie. That Mozart was not a German. One of the editors above seems to have failed to realize that native German speakers in the Holy Roman Empire were Germans. David Tombe (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In about 1990, Philipps released a complete Mozart collection on CD. A book came with it. I'll now quote a paragraph from the book, Mid-eighteenth-century Salzburg was a charming little princely seat, like many others in Germany at that time. Now part of Austria, it was then Bavarian, more within the orbit of Munich than of Vienna, which moreover, was further away. This was where Mozart first saw the light of day on 27 January 1756, not in Austria but in Bavaria. He was thus German by birth, like Beethoven, another who eventually settled in Vienna. I recall a visit to a Vienna cemetry in 1988. There were unknown soldiers of the K.u.K army buried there that had been killed in the first world war. The headstones read 'Unbekannte Deutsche Soldat'. In English this means 'Unknown German Soldier'. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that on the collapse of the Austria-Hungarian Empire after the first world war, the remaining German rump that was to become modern Austria was populated by a majority of people who considered themselves to be German. In fact, their postage stamps stated on them 'Deutschosterreich' (German Austria) until the allied powers told them to stop doing that. German-Austria wanted to join with the greater German nation but Clemceau of France in particular (backed by the British and the Americans) refused to allow this to happen on the grounds that he didn't want Germany to be too large. So why do we have to continue with this fiction that Austrians aren't Germans. They are identical ethnically and linguistically and indeed Bavarians in particlur are much more similar to Austrians than they are to the other Germans in their own country. This of course is due to the fact that Austria began one thousand years ago as a Bavarian colony. The Austrians and the Germans both eat Sauerkraut, Schnitzels and Apfelstrudel, they both yodel and wear lederhosen. They both do that dance in which they smack their thighs. Their folk music and their architecture is identical. They are the same in every single respect. So can we now adopt the correct and professional approach and write in the introduction that Mozart was a German composer born and brought up in Salzburg which now sits inside the borders of the modern state of Austria? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Tombe (talk • contribs) 23 July 2008

Antandrus : "I suggest we avoid this particular tar-pit and leave the article as it is." I agree. That sums up exactly my feelings on this question. --Kleinzach 14:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

My answer to Mr Tombe's egregiously loaded question: sorry, no. I'm with Antandrus as well. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Me too. --Catgut (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this because you all feel uncomfortable about the fact that Mozart was a German? Is that how encyclopaediae should operate? David Tombe (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

He was neither "German" nor "Austrian" as we now understand those terms. He was a subject of the Holy Roman Empire. --TrustTruth (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Another loaded question from Mr Tombe. --RobertG ♬ talk 18:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I for one am happy with the way the introduction stands currently, with mention of neither German or Austrian background. --Blehfu (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Me too. May I be stupid enough to send this circular argument off on another circuit by pointing out that since the country "Germany" had yet to exist in Mozart's day, to describe oneself in those pre-nationalist times as "German" meant a different thing? In 2008 I can call myself "north european" without expressing a desire to to live in a federation of say, Germany, Benelux, Scandanavian & Baltic states and the British Isles. almost-instinct 21:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly what I wanted to point out above, but Mr. Tombe did not react to it. Today, in the time of national states in Europe, we distinguish very carefully between "German" (a person with citizenship of the German national state) and "germanspeaking" (a person whose mother language is German, but who may be also from Austria, Switzerland, Luxemburg, Belgium, etc....). At the time of Mozart, this distinction was not common, and "German" was used for all of this, because the Holy Roman Empire was a loose federation of many germanspeaking territories (thats also an explanation for the well known citation about Mozart calling himself a German). At that time, the term "germanspeaking" (deutschsprachig) was not used (only the term "deutscher Zunge" was used, which means: "of german tongue"). So I keep my argument from above: Calling a person who was a subject of the Holy Roman Empire (HRR) a "German" is unfair for all the other states which followed the HRR (beneath Germany). ... And Mr. Tombe is also wrong in his oppinion about Germans and Austrians being the same, thats false. Austria has its own Culture, its own history (as a melting pot of many etnicities in central Europe during the 600 years of Habsburg-Monarchy), and even the Austrian German differs in many ways from the German spoken in Germany. But he prefers to work with old-fashioned stereotypes about "yodeling" ;-) ... By the way: I am still quite irritated about the way, how Mr. Tombe states his POV as incontrovertible "truth" (again, again, again ... till it is boring) while he doesn't react to my (and others) arguments at the same time. Hello, do you hear us? -- Rfortner (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Servus Rfortner! Kannst d'dann mit mir a Säun mochn und d' David Tombe <<hau di über d'Häuser>> sogen, weil er mit seinem parifizieren zwischen d'Deutsche u. d'Österreiche a Wuchtl druckt? --TrustTruth (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ja klar ;-) ... But I will keep my contributions here in English, and I think this discussion will soon be over. Look at the discussion-page of Mr. Tombe and how often he has already been blocked - he seems to have problems like this more frequently in Wikipedia. -- Rfortner (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

My 100 cents: I think the only way to determine a person's nationality is by considering his or her citizenship. Recently we had a similar problem regarding the article on, well, fellow composer and musician Carla Bruni [3]. From this point of view, Mozart was a citizen of Salzburg, and later after moving to Vienna he became a citizen of Austria. Period. Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge a German citizenship or Imperial citizenship didn't exist at that time. I think the Holy Roman Empire was something like the European Union: definitely more than a supranational organization, but not quite a nation or a state. Some of the member states even fought wars against each other. The Empire included people of different cultures, languages, lifestyles, religious beliefs, etc. The whole concept of what nation means, or what patriotism is, had not yet been established, and certainly not in the Holy Roman Empire. By chance I remember conductor Nikolaus Harnoncourt once talking about how much Mozart was influenced by local, rural music in Salzburg. Obviously that's where Mozart's cultural and psychological roots were. And basically I think he was a truly great European, working with Lorenzo Da Ponte, travelling and performing across Europe, writing operas in Italian and German. Let's leave the article as it is. Right now, the capture of Radovan Karadžić sadly reminds us of the dangers of petty nationalism. Call me ignorant, but to me great artists are always sort of international. I mean, whether we're Americans, or Europeans, or Asians, or Africans, we all enjoy and understand his music. And more than 200 years after the death of its creator, Mozart's music continues to touch and move us. Yeah, this Salzburgian-Austrian-European guy named Mozart rocks, regardless of where we come from, or what the geopolitical landscape may look like. --Catgut (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Leave the article as-is. --TrustTruth (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Call you ignorant? Never. That was beautifully expressed, and I entirely agree. Nicely done. Antandrus (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So does that then mean that Bach and Beethoven weren't Germans either? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Tombe (talk • contribs) 24 July 2008

Another vote for Catgut here. Am I right in remembering a guideline saying that a subject's nationality/enthnicity should only be mentioned if it is pertinently to the subject's notability? If so, the absence of anything German/Austria/Holy Roman Emporium is correct. Am I also right in thinking that the "Austrian composer" and "German composer" categories exist so people working within those categories will be able to track them? In which case it makes perfect sense for WAM to be in both; if there were a catagory Italian Opera Composers I would expect him to be filed there too. almost-instinct 09:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In this case, you raise interesting questions, because correctly one would have to avoid any citizenship-label for people who had been subject of the Holy Roman Empire, as so many national states followed it. But European historians have shown some pragmatism in dealing with this tricky question: Normaly they "extrapolate" from the place of birth and/or the place were the person lived for most of his/her life, and apply the citizenships of todays territories on persons from the HRR. Bach was clearly born and lived on a territory, which is nowaday Germany. Already with Beethoven it becomes more tricky, as he was born in a city which is now part of Germany, but he spent more than the half of his live in Vienna (because his hometown was occupied by the French), thats why we Austrians sometimes call him a "Viennese guy". Anyway, we have accepted that Beethoven is called a "German". But Mozart is above all these categories, he is, as far as I know, the most complex case of all.

So with the people of the HRR, it is somehow like after a (more or less) peaceful divorce, when children are fairly seperated between "Mom" and "Dad", and there is one left that cannot be assigned to one side. But read his biography: He escaped from Salzburg (which was too conservative for him) and stayed in Vienna for most of his remaining life. In Vienna, he composed more masterpieces than anywere else, and here he was even respected by the Austrian Emporer Josef II. himself (maybe also because it is assumed that both were Freemason). So I think, Mozart has made his decission, and if you would assign any kind of citizenship, it is not fair to call him a German. -- Rfortner (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not uncommon to have confusion over a person's national identity. This can occur when people move or when borders move. I can think of a few other similar cases to the case of Mozart. There is the physicist Heinrich Lenz, there is the composer George F. Handel, and there is Adolf Hitler. In all these cases, an attempt has been made in the wikipedia introduction to cater for this fact in the most simple terms. The attempts may not be perfect. It is not easy to get the perfect wording. But at least attempts were made. We read about a Baltic German from Estonia, an Austrian born German, or a German who later took out British nationality. I'm sure that there might be people who would quibble about the accuracy of these attempts, but in my opinion, these attempts were as good as is necessary for the purpose. I came to the Mozart page to see if I could find out something about the missing fifth movement of K.525. I noticed that there was alot of quibbling about his nationality. I was as annoyed as all of you are that people should have homed in on what is not an entirely important aspect about Mozart. But what annoyed me even more was the fact that rather than dealing with the issue by trying to find the best compromise wording, you had all run away from the problem and left the introduction totally silent on the issue. There are many people who look up encyclopaedia articles to find out that very basic kind of information. So the evasionist strategy that you have all adopted is simply not satisfactory. Having read all your comments, I can see that I am dealing with a group that is very dedicated and determined to make sure that readers don't get to know that Mozart was a German. If you read my original comments, you will see that I stated that there is a case for both German and Austrian, albeit that I believe the case for German to be stronger. I put in a compromise wording. I described him as a German composer who was born and brought up in Salzburg which now sits inside modern Austria. It is clear that the deletion of this description was done and backed up using totally specious arguments, by a group who have wrongly decided amongst themselves that Mozart was not a German. This is totally unfair to the readers at large. The readers want to know the facts. What you have been doing is a form of censorship. You are imposing your own prejudiced point of view on the matter. And because there is about five or six of you, you seem to think that makes you right. If I were to revert again, you would claim that I am a vandal who is opposing the wishes of the majority. Unfortunately that seems to be how wikipedia operates across the board. Wherever a controversy exists, there will always be a group of zealots watching the article constantly to make sure that their own point of view sticks. It constitutes group editing in order to legitimately breach the three revert rule. Based on your arguments above, should we now remove all references to the word German in the Bach and Beethoven artices? David Tombe (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Some facts in live are too complicate to sumarize them in ONE word. And Mozarts "citizenship" (in a time where no "citizenship" existed) is one of those cases, where it is better not to over-simplify the facts in a wrong way and mislead the "quick" reader, as those facts can't be summarized in ONE word. Therefore it is better to avoid a "label" for his citizenship, and this is no censorship. Any adult and intelligent reader finds all the facts about Mozarts birthplace, his parents as well as his frequent travels and movements in the Wikipedia-article - and the adult, intelligent reader is free to interpret those facts in his (or her) mind. Wikipedia should not propagate over-simplifed facts which are still highly doubtful (and which are still discussed by many historians in Germany and Austria) only to satisfy "quick" readers who always search for the "executive summary". This is a serious encyclopedia and not the right place for the typical (over-over-simplified) "Europe-in-5-days-tour" that some tourists from the USA or Japan like to book ;-) -- Rfortner (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: If you really search for the quick and easy answer, than stick with the majority of Austrian and German historians who defined and kept since decades the following compromise: Mozart as an Austrian and Beethoven as a German - that is the way how both nations had been satisfied after the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire and the "rediscovery" of its most brilliant but (for a while) also forgotten composer(s). But thats only one possible "short answer", because in both cases other "short" answers are possible due to their complex biography! If all composers would have moved only within such a small area like Johann Sebastian Bach, writing an encyclopaedia would be much easier! (see Bach's residences) -- Rfortner (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As the length of this discussion reveals, I think there is enough substance for an additional section to the article; perhaps after Works. --Blehfu (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(after an edit conflict)

(a) First of all, lets quote Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)

Nationality –
1. In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. (Note: There is no consensus on how to define nationality for people from the United Kingdom, which encompasses constituent countries. For more information, please see the talk page and archives.)
2.Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability

By point one we cannot call him a German, since Germany didn't exist then; by point two we need not mention anything, since his ethnicity isn't relevent to his notability
(b) In reply to your accusations, by calling me a zealot you are failing to assume good faith. You know nothing about me and you are very unwise to think you do. I joined this conversation much later than you, and have never heard of the other contributors to this argument, and certainly had nothing to do with the editing you refer to. So aswell behaving in an uncivil manner towards me you are also factually incorrect. One reason why I have never heard of these people is that I am relatively new to WP, so you are also guilty of behaving an inappropriate manner to a newbie. Please do not indescriminately throw accusations at me again. Thank you.
(c) Finally, I would suggest that the correct places to discuss Bach and Beethoven would their relevent talk pages. almost-instinct 21:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This debate has gone on for some time. IMO there is a clear consensus for keeping the article as it is (re Mozart's 'nationality'). I propose archiving the discussion. --Kleinzach 02:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be some reference to this controversy in the main article. You guys seem to think that the readers are not interested in these kinds of details. I can assure you that they are.

In 1982, I was looking up encyclopaedia articles on Heinrich Lenz exclusively because I was interested in the role of Lenz'z law in the law of conservation of energy as it related to magnetism.

Some articles described Lenz as a Russian, while others described him as a German. I researched the matter and concluded that he was an Estonian. I now believe that my conclusion at that time was not accurate. At that time, I had no knowledge about the existence of the Baltic Germans who controlled the civil service in Imperial Russia. Estonia was inside Imperial Russia.

Regretfully, I wrote to Encyclopaedia Britannica and told them that Lenz was an Estonian. They changed it to Estonian in a later edition a few years later.

I now realize that Lenz was in fact a Baltic German from Estonia. The wikipedia article confirmed this to me because the existing article on the matter has been written by somebody who has taken care to get the details as correct and informative as possible.

You cannot assume that the readers of this article are only going to be interested in matters to do with Mozart's music. Readers can be curious about many aspects of a subject that they first become interested in for other reasons.

You cannot evade the issue of nationality in the main article.

What we have here is a group of people who are uncomfortable with the fact that Mozart was a German and who are trying to cover the fact up. David Tombe (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate Almost-instinct's sentiments regarding assuming good faith. I would like to call your attention to my comment above:

As the length of this discussion reveals, I think there is enough substance for an additional section to the article; perhaps after Works.

— me

Do mind the broad brush that you mark the wall with. --Blehfu (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This page is now about 60k. Would anyone object if I archived this section (German or Austrian?)? Best. --Kleinzach 03:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)