Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Cause of Mozart's death

To my surprise my edit was made undone for no good reason. The information from the 2009 research deserves to be on Mozart's main page, because it is simply the best explanation yet given of his disease. If anything should be removed, it should be the other theories. The reason it is thye best explanation is that medical professionals first looked at all the documents that described the course of Mozart's disease, end then also looked at the medical archives in Vienna to see what caused the deaths of young men in Vienna in the years around 1791.MackyBeth (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

"The cause of Mozart's death cannot be known with certainty." There's the official record, "hitziges Frieselfieber", and at least a posited 118 other causes. Results from an epidemiological study of other deaths in Vienna that may offer one more cause does not belong into this article; that's what the article on the death of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is for. The paragraph should be removed and the original phrasing in the preceding paragraph should be restored. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
You don't do yourself any favours by misrepresenting the NYT article as you did in this edit; the level of assertion in that article never rises above may. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed; the article never draws the conclusion that it is the "best explanation", so it is WP:OR for you to do so. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
No WP:OR is involved at all. My knowledge of this research comes from English and Dutch newspaper items, but in an English-language article it makes no sense to cite a Dutch source. The doctor who conducted the investigation said that since the conclusions are based on two different pillars of research involving different documents, this is probably the best explanation for a long time to come. In case someone doubts how convincing the case is, a lot of other results in English can be found for the combination "Mozart strep," and however the formulation may turn out to be, this explanation is important enough to be mentioned on the Mozart main page.MackyBeth (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Please review the definition of WP:OR. The source you cited does not call it the "best explanation". You cannot combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Do you realize that your comment implies that you are able to read Dutch? As I have clearly said above, the researcher says in a Dutch source that it is the best explanation yet. No conclusion of my own is drawn, you just assume I do draw my own conclusions. MackyBeth (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Here is the English abstract of the research paper: http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=744666 MackyBeth (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
That's peculiar -- I never implied anything, just stated the fact that you cannot use that conclusion unless you can cite a reliable source for it. And now you're verging on an edit war. Would someone else like to weigh in here, since I'm at 2RR already? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
You "never implied anything"?? You implied I did violate the OR policy, and in order to say that you have to be able to read my Dutch sources. It is as simple as that. Here you have the Dutch source: in the last paragraph you can read that this is the best explanation yet. http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4324/Nieuws/article/detail/1152870/2009/08/20/Voorlopig-is-Mozart-bezweken-aan-streptokok.dhtml MackyBeth (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The reasoning is getting curiouser and curiouser. You violated the OR policy by not citing a reliable source to support your conclusion. I didn't have to read anything except your edit in order to say that! And now I see that you are edit warring with another editor as well. Please stop edit warring and make your case here, civilly. As it stands, you are clearly against consensus, and if you keep edit warring, someone is just going to block you. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
If you want to threaten someone of being blocked, pick someone else! Not citing a source does not amount to OR. I cite sources here on the Talk page that back up my phrasing, and I have explained why I did not cite them in the article. And how am I the one who is edit warring, when you are inviting people to undo my edits? MackyBeth (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I'm trying to help you avoid getting blocked. Belligerence of this sort simply never works here, and only leads to administrative intervention. Not citing a source is part of the definition of OR. Please review WP:OR -- also WP:EDITWAR, since you asked about that as well. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I do know what an edit war is, and I object to your assertion that I start one. I am making a sensible edit, and the person that undid it started this.MackyBeth (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't matter who started it; edit warring is one of WP's most sensitive block triggers, regardless of who is "at fault". 16:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Then they should block you too if they block me.MackyBeth (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
You really should review the criteria for edit warring. The only one >3RR here is you. But I see that another editor has attempted to demonstrate for you exactly how to cite your source properly, so that it is not seen as WP:OR, and I hope you will look at that. WP:UNDUE is another matter, which needs to be discussed further; I'm not sure what the correct answer is on that. Again, we are only trying to help you. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The section on Mozart's death yet needs to identify superficial suggestions from serious research. Over the centuries many suggestions have been made of what caused Mozart's death. These suggestions are not all of equal value. Some have been pure guesses by people with no medical background, some suggestions have been made by medical professionals. This 2009 research has been done on an academic level by professionals. This is not just "another" suggestion, and should not be discussed as if it were.

For one thing, the researchers note that the "hitziges Frieselfieber" or Wassersucht that the disease was called at the time, is not much of a diagnosis. It is rather a description of the symptoms. A doctor with today's knowledge who reads those documents may recognize what the condition actually is, and therefore reach a diagnosis that is more probable than was possible in Mozart's lifetime. This probability is stressed in the Dutch article linked above, and therefore no OR is taking place when I repeat that in my edit.MackyBeth (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The current material can be placed in historical perspective. There's a little pattern that repeats itself: some doctor, looking for a hobby, takes up the case of Mozart's death. Examines the pathetically small amount of information available. Gets his research published in a medical journal, probably without serious peer review from Mozart scholars. Newspapers pick up the story, since it is entertaining. Nothing especially changes in the long run. Repeat cycle.
I'm totally fine with adding this material to our article on Mozart's death (along with all the other doctor's-pet-project theories) but it's just not important enough to go on the main Mozart page. MackyBeth should accept the placement of this theory on the satellite Death page (it's already there, in fact) and not try to keep bullying it onto the main Mozart page. If, in future years, the new pet theory miraculously achieves scholarly consensus, we can reconsider. Opus33 (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
1)Your first paragraph with its assertion about the value of this specific research is not backed up by anything. You just assume it is worth just as much as any other suggestion, which is precisely the point.
2) Since this research identifies the most probable cause, it should be included in the main page if any suggested cause is to be included at all. Delegating it to the subpage in my view is injustice.MackyBeth (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
And it makes no sense to undo my edit when you are still discussing this on the Talk page.MackyBeth (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
In order to illustrate that the researcher is careful not to overstate his case, here you have the English translation of the last paragraph of the Dutch article: In the last paragraph of that Dutch newspaper article, the researcher Richard Zegers stresses that after 200 years it is impossible to achieve 100% certainty on the cause of death. But his team was "the first to base the cause of death on two pillars. It will take a long time for anyone to come up with something better."
You may or may not agree with this self-assessment, but in any case the accusation that I did state a conclusion of my own when I said that strep is the most probable cause of death is not warranted.MackyBeth (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
MackyBeth, it doesn't matter who "started it". With your latest and 5th revert, you are clearly in violation of the The three-revert rule. I strongly suggest you cut it out, unless you want to be blocked. I have amended your wording slightly to reflect the actual quote in the Dutch article and included that article as a reference. As to whether the 2009 study should be in the article at all, I'm fairly neutral. Voceditenore (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
As I already said, I have no regard at all for threats such as being blocked. The point is simply that I made an edit that however you look at it, can not be regarded as an act of vandalism. Therefore, undoing such edit should be discussed on the Talk page. If not, I will always revert the edit because reverting is simply the right thing to do if you stand by your edit and think the issue important enough to fight for it. Since my edits here are done in a spirit of integrity, I never take into account the possibility of being blocked.MackyBeth (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I've looked more closely at one of the assertions in the article prior to the edit-war: "One of the most widely accepted hypotheses is that Mozart died of acute rheumatic fever". Neither of the supporting sources bear out the use of "most". Thus I have removed that word. Incidentally, the second source was a broken link to the February 2000 press release authored by Franklin Crawford and printed in the Cornell Chronicle. However, I found Crawford's press release on EurekAlert! (The press service of the American Association for the Advancement of Science) and have updated the references accordingly. As a side note to MackyBeth, "fight for it" is a very inappropriate metaphor to use when approaching editing here. If you never take into account that you may be blocked for edit-warring, you may wish to take into account that the heavy sanctions it brings reflect the consensus that it is the worst possible way to work with your fellow editors, creates an extremely unconstructive atmosphere, and hinders rather than helps the improvement of the encyclopedia. Voceditenore (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you -- that is what I was trying to convey as well. You can ignore block threats all you want -- but then you'll be blocked, and you won't be able to edit. As Voceditenore said, you are going about this in entirely the wrong way. And for the record: (1) saying that you're not edit warring -- when you're at 5RR -- does not preclude the fact that you are, in fact, edit warring; and (2) it does, in fact, make sense to undo your edit when it is being discussed on the talk page. It is the responsibility of the adding editor to provide reliable sourcing for his/her content. Voceditenore helped you out by fixing your repeated mistakes, so that point is now moot; but for future reference, you should have left it alone while the dispute was being discussed, instead of repeatedly re-adding the material. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
As Voceditenore mentioned, the section on Mozart's death needs further improvement. The first issue would be for editors to reach consensus on what must be present and what not, since there are many useless suggestions. For instance, in 2013 one doctor suggested that Mozart died from Vitamin D deficiency, based on the wrong assumption that Mozart workd during the night ans slept during the day, so he did not get sunlight. But we know Mozart worked long days and rose early, but essentially he did have a regular day-night pattern.MackyBeth (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The 2009 paper is highly speculative (epidemiological research whith a plausible conclusion) and doesn't offer any radically new explanation – a streptococcal infection is also part of rheumatic fever. I'm not totally familiar with Wikipedia rules of evidence in the medical field (WP:CITEMED), but I believe that primary sources (the original research paper by the ophthalmologist Richard Zegers) are never sufficient (WP:MEDPRI) – only reviews in reliable sources (a limited number of medical journals) make research citable; I suspect neither Trow nor The New York Times are in that group (WP:MEDRS#Popular press). I suggest to remove the two sentences in the section Final illness and death starting with "In 2009, …". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree completely. As Opus33 has already said, this material is appropriate for the article on Mozart's death (along with all the other theories) but it is not yet important enough to go on the main Mozart page. If, in future years, the new theory achieves scholarly consensus, we can reconsider adding it to the main page. So far, we seem to have WP consensus toward that end. Those who disagree should speak up now, so that we can either leave this content or remove it. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Michael Bednarek and DoctorJoeE. Indeed, I think this section of the article had already grown too long before the recent intervention. Given that all is speculation, in the context of the main Mozart article we really should just give a list of the proposed diagnoses (each footnoted) and then refer the reader to the satellite article. The list might plausibly include poisoning, since people wonder about that one. Opus33 (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS doesn't really apply in an article like this. This article is not about the various diseases themselves, but about what people have said about the possible cause of Mozart's death. If it were to apply, then Death of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart would be unreferenceable. Having said that, I agree that this kind of detail doesn't really belong here when there is a dedicated article. Removing both sentences is the optimal choice. However, their references should be kept and the remaining sentence should be changed to:
"The cause of Mozart's death cannot be known with certainty. The official record has it as "hitziges Frieselfieber" ("severe miliary fever", referring to a rash that looks like millet seeds), more a description of the symptoms than a diagnosis. Researchers have posited at least 118 causes of death, including acute rheumatic fever, streptococcal infection, trichinosis, influenza, mercury poisoning, and a rare kidney ailment."
Voceditenore (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Michael Bednarek needs to look up the definition of things being "highly speculative." The 2009 publication is the most thoroughly researched and the least speculative account of Mozart's death. It is ridiculous that editors here refuse to accept this fact and keep insisting that it is just as speculative as any other explanation. Lazy thinking, guys.MackyBeth (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that's not a call that you, or any other editor, gets to make. At WP, editors' opinions don't matter; what matters are sources. As others have pointed out, someday a majority of reliable sources may agree that the 2009 study is the "most thoroughly researched" or "least speculative"; but until they do, WP:NPOV dictates that we consider all explanations, without attempting to advance one over others, or force an unsourced conclusion. (See WP:Don't bludgeon the process.) Also: Someone suggested including the poisoning theory — that "was knocked down fairly summarily", according to the NY Times article, although it might be worth a bit more source research. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
"Highly speculative" is an opinion not expressed by me, but it is an estimation of the research that simply does not do justice to its methodic rigor. And once again: you don't have to tell me what Wikipedia policy is. The poisoning theory is worth some discussion here, because according to the biography that Mozart's widow published years after his death, Mozart himself thought he was poisoned. The place for that theory in the article would be somewhere in the account of his final weeks but not as a possible death cause if no one else suggested this.MackyBeth (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I've implemented the proposed wording put together above by Voceditenore, which I think is very sensible. I plugged in all the footnotes and references from the older wording, including the sources put forth by MackyBeth for the streptococcus theory -- which, please note, is discussed in full in the satellite article Death of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. We still need to say something about the famous Salieri poisoning theory, but I think Voce's wording represents progress on its own and we can think next about how to include the poisoning bit. Opus33 (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

And I have undone that edit, since it is nothing else than a tactic aimed toward a step-by-step removal of the streptococcus research account from the main page, even though Opus33 tried to conceal this by not mentioning in his edit summary above the removal of my words, which comprises the largest part of his edit. Opus33, you must really think I am a fool and your recent behavior shows a lack of respect for both the work and the reasoning of other editors. Voceditenore ended this unfriendly quarrel with some edits, I suggest OPus33 does not start with this again.MackyBeth (talk) 07:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Well no, not a fool. But definitely thin-skinned.
Look, standard biographies of Mozart run to hundreds of pages. We can hope to achieve comparable coverage on the Wikipedia eventually, but it would not be wise for us to have a Mozart article that is hundreds of pages long. Instead, we work with satellite articles, using the links to guide readers to the level of detail they prefer. The Zegers et al. work seems definitely worth including in the Wikipedia, and indeed I think the satellite article Death of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart ought to treat it in more detail. But (as Zeger et al. themselves are careful to point out) their work is only informed speculation, and as such I don't think it belongs in the main Mozart article. Opus33 (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Edited out the words "widely accepted" from the phrase "One of the most widely accepted hypothses," for it is unclear writing, and it is unclear how it is a widely accepted hypothesis and even what the word "accepted" means here.MackyBeth (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
As we have a satellite article where this matter is dicussed in depth, I agree with User:Opus33's wording. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
My initial edits were an interim solution. Like Michael Bednarek, I agree with Opus33's later edit and that the newer wording is preferable. In fact, I was the one who suggested it. I have asked for wider input from the members of WikiProject Classical Music [1] and WikiProject Opera [2]. – Voceditenore (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I also agree with Opus33's later edit and that the newer wording is preferable. User:MackyBeth I stongly urge you to carefully read and process Wikipedia:Core content policies and its associated pages.4meter4 (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Is it hopelesss to keep pointing out that the work of Zeges is not "only informed speculation," as Opus33 keeps saying? Their research is the closest diagnosis that is possible with the absence of bodily remains. It is important that this article differentiates between thoroughly researched papers by a medical team that took years of meticulous research and lazy suggestions.MackyBeth (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
You continue to insist that you "know how Wikipedia works", even as you continue to demonstrate that you do not. Do you have a reliable source to support your contention that Zeges is "the closest diagnosis possible without bodily remains"? Or is it your opinion -- which would obviously be WP:OR? I would endorse 4meter4's suggestion that you read Wikipedia:Core content policies and its associated pages, along with WP:Don't bludgeon the process. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
To say that the Zegers et al. research is "informed speculation" is not a put-down! Take a look at the original 2009 article. To their credit, the authors present their results quite diffidently. So, for instance, in discussing their examination of local spikes in the causes of death in late-1791 Vienna, they say (p. 276) "Our data have serious limitations, so conclusions must be drawn with extreme caution." In their overall conclusion, they say only (p. 278) "In summary, our analysis of the registry of deaths in Mozart’s Vienna highlights the possible role of a minor epidemic condition involving edema that primarily affected young men. This, together with the evidence from contemporary witnesses, could fit a streptococcal epidemic leading to an acute nephritic syndrome caused by poststreptococcal glomerulonephritis." On the strength of these passages, I suspect that the authors would actually agree entirely that their work is "informed speculation." Indeed, we would be doing a disservice to the Zegers et al. research team if we oversold their findings. Opus33 (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
As you apparently do not understand at all, academic magazines do not accept papers that fit the meaning of the word "speculation." There is a whole world of nuance between proven facts on one side and speculation, informed or not, on the other.MackyBeth (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
They do, when there is no alternative to speculation -- as in this case, when the subject has been dead for 220+ years -- and when it is clearly labeled as such. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
You really don't get it at all, do you. Not even the beginning of the concept. As you say on your user page, wikipedia is not fair. And you are not even trying to be.MackyBeth (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I would submit, based on a review of the above discussion, and the fact that you have absolutely no consensus for your viewpoint, that I am not the one who does not get it. Your only response to the points that I, and others, have made is a series of ad hominems. Speaking of which, would it kill you to be just a little bit civil?
Here you have a nice example of being civil, a citation from your friend Opus33 copied from above:
  • There's a little pattern that repeats itself: some doctor, looking for a hobby, takes up the case of Mozart's death. Examines the pathetically small amount of information available. Gets his research published in a medical journal, probably without serious peer review from Mozart scholars.

This is a clear example of ad hominem insinuation that this research should not be taken seriously. And you want me to be civil? Get lost.MackyBeth (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do want you to be civil. I want everyone to be civil. You mentioned above that you read item #1 of "advice to myself" on my user page; read the other nine, please. Whenever someone is constantly making subtle uncivil comments with a particular bias that slide under the block radar, the immediate victim is editor participation; the ultimate victim is neutrality. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Your understanding of the word civil is flawed: it is what is regularly called paternalistic.MackyBeth (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The sentence "Researchers have posited 118 causes" is also misleading. It is impossible that all 118 causes stem from actual research. If you go by the documentary evidence, how many causes can be serious candidates? Maybe ten or fifteen or somewhat more, but not 118. The consensus here is to throw everything on one big heap without any differentiation. This is a problem that is not very helpful to readers of the article, and editors who seriously want to improve these pages would do wise to think about this instead of using consensus as an excuse to leave everything the same.MackyBeth (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a valid point, worthy of further discussion. And no, I don't want you (or anyone else) to be "paternalistic"; I want you to be civil, which means exactly what it means. People of the WP community respond much more positively to civility, I have found. Paternalism, not so much. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
There is one other thing that is worth discussion. In the NYTimes article reporting the strep research, it says that he was in good health until November. The Wikipedia page, however, suggests that he fell ill in September 1791 and never did recover from that point. Perhaps biographies do not agree on this, but in any case this page is clearly not finished.MackyBeth (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

no infobox?

can the person infobox be added into the article? is there a valid reason for its exclusion?208.96.87.57 (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed here before; see Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 8#Infobox and Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 10#Infobox; a comprehensive record of the state of affairs is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infobox debates. In a nutshell: consensus is against it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Archives from 2009 and 2012. A recent, reasonable and still open discussion of the everlasting question why most (but not all) composers are treated differently than other biographies is for Chopin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2014

24.57.97.40 (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC) Mozart is still alive! How could you not know? Well, I know because he is realted to me, like great-great-great- grandfather...

Uh-huh. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments about Voltaire

I've just finished a language edit of the '1777–78: The Paris journey' section. I can't see that comments Mozart made about Voltaire in a letter written after his mother's death have any relevance to this section, or in fact, any other part of the article. I question whether this paragraph belongs in the text Robocon1 (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you and have gone ahead and taken it out. Opus33 (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation

[ˈvɔlfɡaŋ amaˈdeːʊs ˈmoːt͡saʁt] is a better choice. Short "u", long "e" (the stress is on the "e") and "ts" is one affricate (some languages distinguish between ts and t͡s). --2.245.93.19 (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Citing Melograni, Piero (2008) work

http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/W/bo4106106.html
Mozart's view of Voltaire has been extensively researched and published in other well known works concerning Mozart. So nothing new here. Additionally his religiosity (Mozart and Roman Catholicism) and his loyalty to the ruling Habsburg dynasty makes it quite obvious that the philosopher François-Marie Arouet "Voltaire" was for him a vile character spouting noxious lies about the things he cherished. RudiLefkowitz (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Three editors have agreed that the section, as inserted by you, should not stand. I suspect if the wording had been less inflaming ("Mozart slipped in this nasty comment ...", "pernicious remarks by Voltaire"), not to mention some grammatical infelicities and lack of wiki links and awareness of Wikipedia's formatting requirements, the reaction might have been different. But even if all these points were remedied, I still don't see why a peripheral opinion expressed by Mozart deserves a whole paragraph here. I notice that Mozart and Roman Catholicism is silent on WAM & Voltaire. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Why the censoring approach? If the gangrene is in the toe, why chop off both leg's? If the wording or the placing is the problem, why expunge all. Wouldn't it be more appropriate just to correct and relocate Mozart's sociopolitical opinions. I will do that now. Let's be a bit more correct and fair so we needn't make a much more drawn-out affair of this. Ideas are welcome! Спасибо! RudiLefkowitz (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
ps I can't see the discussion and arguments here on the Mozart talk page by these three editors. Who are they and can I join also join the Club? Quite substantial Wikipedia policy arguments are needed to explain the total removal of a valid quote by Mozart backed by a prestigious book & scholar. It has significance! RudiLefkowitz (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Editors Robocon1 and User:Opus33 expressed their views further up. Please revert your latest edits until a consensus is reached here; see WP:BRD. For a start, the citation you provided is so badly malformed, it serves no purpose. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I removed it again. I don't understand the point of the section -- it's a jarring aside about Voltaire, which has nothing to do with what comes before or after -- what is its significance? And please see the WP:BRD link given by Michael. You need to attain consensus to add something that multiple editors have objected to. Antandrus (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not at issue whether Mozart really said this; it's in a letter, still preserved, to his father Leopold. However, I do object to User:RudiLefkowitz's particular edit. As Antandrus says, the Voltaire remark comes "out of the blue", meaning no context is given to make it intelligible; and without this context it just seems a random interruption of what had been meant to be a coherent narrative.

Re. Antandrus's query, "what is its significance?": as a bit of reading I did indicates, this turns out to be complicated! The "Voltaire" letter seems to be one of the outstanding puzzles of Mozart biography. One complicated bit is that various authors have recommended that we consider Mozart's letters to Leopold not in literal terms but rather from the viewpoint of what kind of impression Wolfgang was trying to make. In this case, we can note that Leopold was a "fundamentalist" Roman Catholic, so Wolfgang's mentioning Voltaire harshly may have been meant to appeal to or placate him. Indeed, David Schroeder (in Mozart in Revolt) judges that the odds that Mozart really meant what he said about Voltaire are "small in the extreme". Another issue of context, also raised by Schroeder, is that Mozart likely wrote the letter in a state of extreme stress; his mother had died just hours earlier and he had chosen to conceal the terrible news from his father until the following letter.

Given that the issues surrounding Mozart's remark are nontrivial, I think Michael Bednarik's suggestion that discussion of the Voltaire letter go into Mozart and Roman Catholicism is the way to go; that article has plenty of room, and we could summarize how scholars have interpreted the Voltaire letter. The main Mozart article doesn't have such room; if we treated all issues in comparable detail the Mozart article would go on for hundreds of pages.

There is useful discussion of the Voltaire letter on line. I found that just a quick search on Google Books found two discussions (Schroeder's and Hildesheimer's) that I thought were very interesting. Opus33 (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Article on the Spanish WP

es::Aspecto físico y personalidad de Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart contains much material that can't be found anywhere on this WP. Contact Basemetal here 09:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Requiem as example of Mozart's handwriting

I don't think File:Mozart Sheet Music.jpg is a good example of Mozart's handwriting (in the section "Style"), specifically because over a third of that page is in the hand of Joseph Eybler. Double sharp (talk) 12:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

About moving image

I would like to move the first image to the same level as the TOC, reducing by this way the ample white spot to the right of TOC itself. Let me know if there is an agreement. Carlotm (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

It's customary for all biographical articles to have their most significant image at the very top. Some readers may get very different look from yours, and mobile devices are very different again. I suggest to leave it as it is. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
It's customary for biographies to have something else with the image at the very top, compare Nicolaus Copernicus and Leonardo da Vinci, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Never mind then. Let's keep these empty spots empty. Carlotm (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

One more painting, maybe?

Shouldn't we have this famous painting (Commons link below) in the article? It does illustrate the musicians' role as entertainers of the aristocracy in the 18th century. --Lubiesque (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC) File:Michel-Barthélémy Ollivier - Afternoon Tea at the Temple - WGA16645.jpg

I find the depiction of WAM difficult to see in this picture (File:Michel-Barthélémy Ollivier - Afternoon Tea at the Temple - WGA16645.jpg), so I don't think it adds much to this article. However, it might be an improvement on the current picture (File:Mozart.birth.500pix.jpg) at Mozart family grand tour#Homeward journey (March–November 1766). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Whatever your decision, please be advised that the mentioned painting is already present in Mozart family grand tour. Cheers. Carlotm (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

In great need of expansion and detail

Mozart is one of the great geniuses of Western Civilization; this article hardly does him justice. It needs much work by editors with expertise in both music and 18th Century history, and needs much better explanation of why he is one of the greatest classical music composers of all time, surpassed by none and equaled by few. PJtP (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your comment. You could help by providing more specifics. First, can mention some specific areas where our coverage has factual gaps? Second, if you think it is explainable in some way "why [Mozart] is one of the greatest classical music composers of all time", could you specify some particular explanations you think we ought to be including, ideally providing some reference sources? Opus33 (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2015

Please change the vord keybord into piano because various reasons mostly: 1. Keyboard is an instrument from 19. century, electrical, made for pop concerts. 2. In Mozart's time there was none of that, there was just Harpsichord. From that one came the developement of piano NOT KEYBOARD. resource: any literature from a music libary about pianos, the history of piano, development and such (just use which ever you want) 86.61.75.175 (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Piano would not make sense. If your argument was true, that there was only the harpsichord at Mozart's time, it still would not make sense to change the word to "piano". But there were more keyboard instruments during Mozart's time than the harpsichord. There was also the forte-piano (evolving during Mozart's time into the intrument commonly called piano today), clavichord (obsolete by Mozart's time), and of course the organ. These all belong to the keyboard family. The term "keyboard" is by no means limited to the 20th century (not 19th, which designates the 1800s) electrical instrument use in pop/rock/jazz music. I refer you to the very sources (as long as they are deemed reliable) that you suggest. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Freemasonry

Why does the article not mention that Mozart was a Freemason? Freemasonry was essential to his final opera, THE MAGIC FLUTE. Does anyone know whether he had an internal conflict, being both a member of the Catholic Church and a Freemason? 2604:2000:C6A1:B900:8901:48DD:A879:D70F (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read the article again; it's mentioned 8 times, including a link to the article Mozart and Freemasonry. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

More on the accent in Amade

Sorry, this is a little complicated; bear with me.

An editor named Fak119 is emphasizing (including through reversion) that we should use an acute accent on Mozart's own preferred middle name, Amade.

I've read up on this topic (see in particular the article Mozart's name, which includes what I read as sources) and what one learns from the sources is that Mozart used all three possible spellings: Amadè, Amadé, and Amade. Also, the (very widely cited) Mozart scholar Otto Erich Deutsch suggested that Amadè is most frequent, and that is why I've put this both into the main Mozart article and into the Mozart's name article as the principal variant.

Interestingly, Fak119 notes that as august an authority as the Encyclopedia Britannica prefers acute-accented Amadé. I checked this, and observed further that the author of the Britannica article is no slouch, but a major, also widely-cited Mozart authority, Stanley Sadie. What gives? A clash of the scholarly titans?

Inquiring further, I went to Google Books and searched on "stanley sadie wolfgang amade mozart". Lo and behold! In books published by Sadie himself, the preferred spelling for the mature Mozart is Amadè. You can see this here and here.

I think that the most likely answer is that Sadie got overwritten by his copy editors at the Britannica, who insisted on Amadé. Perhaps, just like Fak119, they assumed that since Amadé is correct French, it must be what Mozart called himself.

As I was writing this editor Jerome Kohl put Amadè back (thank you) and hopefully if Fak119 wants to continue this discussion (s)he will do so on this talk page. Opus33 (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome, Opus33. I had hoped to do a little better research into French orthography in the 18th century, either to confirm or contradict that the practice then was identical with today's, but I have not had the time. Anecdotally, I believe it was, though I have not read extensively in 18th-century sources. Nevertheless, it is plain that Wolfgangus's practice with accent marks was at least sloppy and inconsistent but, beyond this, why should we assume he was thinking in French and not Italian (or German, for that matter)? The spelling "Amadè" is certainly not common in Italian, but it does occur occasionally (for example, in this name). If the name "Wolfgang" could confidently be claimed as a French (as opposed to an Italian or German) name-form, then we might be on stronger ground to admonish him for his illiteracy but, even then, if the guy clearly preferred his name be spelled "Amadè", then we should not be saying otherwise.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, JK. The grave-accent-as-Italian idea seems very plausible. Opus33 (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Where does Mozart come from?

Recently I was stroked out by somebody for the reason that I wrote in the incipit that Mozart was Salzburg born, …, which is an irrefutable fact.

I am not here to reopen an old question, but to assert that it is simply absurd that a group of editors can decide to hide from the introduction the place of his birth. Sorry but you cannot do that. Better would be to delete the entire page, than to inflict on Mozart such an offensive action, by pulling him out from his nurturing background and letting him float in the universe on a godlike cradle. If the lead should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, ... than the place of birth cannot be missing from the introduction of a biographical page.

Besides, by stating the place of birth being Salzburg I tried to leave the quarrel should WMA be considered a German or an Austrian, which is, of course, a false quarrel, totally in the background.

Anyway, Mozart is an Austrian because Salzburg currently belongs to Austria and because Salzburg always belonged to that particular way of being a German speaking land that got the name of Ost Mark, Österreich, aka Austria. Not for nothing “Freistaat Bayern”, which is the second closest region, per culture, vernacular and, sometimes, ruler, to Salzburg, continues to these days to have a special treatment in the commonwealth of lands that constitute the current Federal Republic of Germany. Nevertheless it would be quite strange to consider Mozart a Bavarian composer or a German composer from Bavaria, or a German composer from Salzburg, or, even more absurdly, a German composer from Austria, unless we want to be part of a lunatic patronage of pan-Germanism.

Please, have the grace to state in the intro that, at least, Mozart was a Salzburg-born composer. Carlotm (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. I didn't put it in the opening sentence, where adding more would damage prose quality, but it is now at the top of the second lead para. Opus33 (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

"always composing prolifically"

I just took this out of the lead because it seems to be not true. The Paris visit was a dead spot in Mozart's career, according e.g. to Alan Tyson: "The painful fact, which he attempted to conceal from his father in a variety of ways, seems to have been that he had written very little in Paris." ([3]). (I've read this in other authors, too).

Of course, averaged over his career Mozart did compose prolifically, but we already say this in the opening sentence. Opus33 (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Tanzmeisterhaus

User:Opus33 changed the caption from "where Mozart lived from 1773 to 1781" to "where the Mozart family lived from 1773 to 1781" with the edit summary "Better to say that it was the Mozart family living in the Tanzmeisterhaus; he wasn't alone when he was there, and during the Paris journey he was not there."

I think it may be more complicated; WAM's mother died in 1778 in Paris (and yes, WAM wasn't there during that journey)), WAM left that residence in 1781 to move to Vienna, Nannerl moved to St Gilgen in 1783/84, whereas Leopold lived there until his death in 1787. I think the previous caption, "where Mozart lived from 1773 to 1781", contained fewer inaccuracies than "where the Mozart family lived from 1773 to 1781" because the mother didn't, and Nannerl and the father lived there longer. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Michael, indeed you are right about 1781 being a newly-introduced error. Perhaps we can come with something more accurate than either wording so far? "Mozart family residence from 1773" would be vague enough to contain no falsehoods. I'm hesitant to keep the "where Mozart lived" because when he left Salzburg in 1777 -- he really meant not to come back; the idea was to get a job and resettle. Opus33 (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Fine, that'll work. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

why doesn't this page have an infobox? 118.92.70.16 (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

See past discussions. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Religious views of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Yes, its has it's place. That you brought up catholic is not the same thing as being a lifelong adherent. No ifs, ands, or buts. If you don't like his belief/views, but like his music, that your personal problem. Please do not try to create a Mozart that fits your own views or that of your own time. RudiLefkowitz (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Images

Mozart is one of the most well known opera composers worldwide - next to Verdi and Puccini. Three of his master pieces are ranking constantly among the Top 10 (Zauberflöte, Don Giovanni, Figaro). Of course this three operas should be featured in the biography, also with pictures of real live performances. An opera only lives on stage, the atmosphere and the constellation of the characters can not be described by words only. The intention of the Wikipedia photographers is to get access to the best productions worldwide. They have traveled to Salzburg and Edinburgh, to Oslo, Lyon and Dresden, to Graz, St. Margarethen, Bregenz and Linz, they took photographs in all major Viennese theaters and opera houses, in order to create emblematic images for all important operas. Just for Wikipedia. Please, don't be disrespectful toward this endeavor.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Upcoming productions:

Isn't this a list of top directors and top productions?--Meister und Margarita (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I would hardly want to be disrespectful to this endeavor. But I do think images for Mozart operas should be chosen with care. Opera production nowadays is a hugely controversial area because of the widespread practice of hiring stage directors who run roughshod over the intentions of the composer and his librettists. Since the article is about Mozart himself, it would be sensible to pick images from productions that Mozart would likely have found recognizable or sensible, particularly with regard to costumes. These should not be hard to find. Opus33 (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
IMHO, da Ponte and Mozart would be very happy with this production as it was both playful and thoughtful. Unfortunately we can't ask them to decide the dispute. As it is practically impossible to convince photographers and theaters to donate pictures of previous productions to WikiCommons (trust me: I tried it for several years, unsuccessfully), we must live with what he have. The two Wikipedia opera photographers have had to fight for more than two years to obtain access to major opera houses. And what do they get? Criticism, cynical remarks, blame. It costs a lot of energy (and money) to (a) convince theaters to open their doors, (b) to travel to the venue, (c) to take the pictures, (d) to make the selection and find accordance with the director or the theatre, (e) to upload the pictures on WC. This is an enormous workload, given as a gift to Wikipedia. Then: You never know in advance if the production will be a masterpiece or not. But you have to plan in advance as the photo rehearsal takes place two to seven days prior to the opening night. Therefore the selection of the productions to be photographed is tricky. In this case there was the choice between Salzburg (directed by Bechtolf) and Dresden (directed by Erath). Read the critics, my guess is that the decision for Dresden was the better choice. By the way, Wikimedia is covering a part of the travel expenses of the two photographers. Somehow it seems a little absurd to me that the one hand is sponsoring the production and the other hand enWP is deleting the results. If you have a suggestion for photographing a specific production: Please send me your proposal. I will forward it immediately. Best regards--Meister und Margarita (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, you have to concede that WP editors naturally will judge the pictures solely on how they contribute to the article, not on how difficult they were to obtain! I don't think that's being cynical. To give an example, one of the pictures evidently shows Figaro and Susanna dressed up as the Commedia dell'Arte characters Harlequin and Columbine. This is clever and cute, but it using it as an illustration to show readers what the first scene of "The Marriage of Figaro" looks like is very misleading. There is certainly no evidence that Mozart or Da Ponte wanted their hero and heroine to be portrayed in this way, nor that other stage directors are likely ever to follow this lead.
If I could try to make a constructive suggestion, I think pictures of controversial "Regieoper" productions would work very well for the articles about the stage directors, who often are famous (or at least notorious :=) ). Also, such pictures would be fine in articles about the singers -- some of the pictures you've posted capture the singers in vivid poses and facial expressions, which is great.
What productions might fit better in illustrating the Mozart operas themselves? Well, I've seen a few that I think would work well. The Glyndebourne La finta giardiniera of a couple summers ago seemed a fairly serious effort to produce a composer-faithful performance, and I also saw a Don Giovanni in Prague last summer which was quite overtly an effort to look like what the 1787 premiere there might have looked like. Sometime ago John Eliot Gardiner, royally sick of what stage directors were doing to his opera performances, staged his own composer-faithful Cosi fan tutte in Paris, which I've seen on DVD. Surely there are many more.
I hope this is helpful. Opus33 (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
We have this discussion about ″Regietheater″ and ″faithful to the composer″ also in the German speaking countries - and the two parties are not always nice to each other. Frankly, I think there are good/great productions in both fields. In 2012, Salzburg showed two horrible Regieoper-productions (Věc Makropulos, directed by Marthaler, and Die Frau ohne Schatten, directed by Loy). In both cases you didn't understand the opera. In 2014 Hermanis' Il trovatore and in 2015 Guth's Fidelio made both sense although there were transposed into the world of today. From the point of view of an encyclopedia: We should reflect reality, i.e. both sides. It would be great to have pics from al least six Cosí fan tutte productions: Salzburg (Rennert), Salzburg (Ponelle), Paris (Gardiner), Aix-en-Provence (Chereau), again Salzburg (Guth) and Madrid (Haneke). The sad reality until now is, that we do not have even one picture of any of these milestone productions. (In this case I did not go back in history as there was no proper theatre photography before the 1960s). In case of Figaro, I think that Mozart would have had fun with the commedia-del-arte-quotation - and I'm pretty sure he would have loved the playfulness and the bright colors of the production. I chose this image as it reflects two main characteristics of Mozarts opera: Figaro is an ensemble opera with many main roles. There is lot of confusion and quarreling going on. Thirdly, the Count stands in the middle between to rivaling parties. Furthermore: You see very well that it is a comedy and not a tragic story of murder and death. Regards--Meister und Margarita (talk) 09:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC) By the way: Unfortunately all productions you mentioned cannot be photographed any longer. Access to prague opera was denied till now. Suggestions can only be translated into photographs if they arrive at least four weeks prior to opening night - as the press office has to admit the photographers and travel arrangement have to be made.
  • I agree, along with the folks on Talk:The Marriage of Figaro, that the Semperopera images have no obvious place in this article or in The Marriage of Figaro. There seems to be a consensus of that view. I have removed the image as distracting (jarring, even), non-helpful, non-relevant. Softlavender (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Missing infobox

My thoughts on this is the fact that people keep asking why there's no infobox, and that the page has to be locked to prevent them from adding it, is a good indication that the page actually needs an infobox. Consensus is a great thing on Wikipedia but in cases like this it just means users with strong opinions, who can carry on debating details like this for months, win because normal users just move on with their lives, even if they are a majority. Laurent (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

They carry on for years, not months, - no page needs to be locked ;) - we editors will not agree, but how about finally thinking about what helps our readers, at least some of them? (Those who don't like infoboxes could opt out to even see them.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Infobox?

What infobox would be appropriate for this article? It is need of one.

-- SpareKash (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

As Michael Bednarek said, just a few lines further up on this same page: See past discussions. I observe also that the "needs infobox" flag in hidden test in the Project Austria banner shell at the top of this talk page is marked "no".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Who gets to decides that response? Project Austria? Project Biography? Why just them? 20.133.0.13 (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Portrait and color of Mozart's eyes

The various paintings in this article show that Mozart had blue or maybe green eyes, however the portrait in the lead has brown eyes. Shouldn't we pick a portrait that more accurately show the color of his eyes? Laurent (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

In fact, the portrait in the lead comes from this one, where he has gray/blue eyes. I think the portrait in the lead has been darkened too much so, if there's no objection, I will replace it with a lighter version coming from the original painting. Laurent (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Laurent, I'm all for getting eye color right. But you've got the portraits all mixed up. The portrait we have right now at the top of the article is from 1780, by Della Croce. It's actually a detail from a larger family portrait, showing Wolfgang, Nannerl, and their parents ([4]). Contrary to what you say, the article lead image does *not* come from this portrait. The portrait you have identified was painted by Barbara Kraft in 1819, long after Mozart had died (Kraft borrowed the Della Croce portrait and others for purposes of her work; see [5]). It seems to me more likely that Della Croce, who had Mozart sitting in front of him, got the eye color right, than Kraft, who did not. So please don't change the portrait unless you can find published reference sources to back up your claim about eye color. Also, please do not switch from Della Croce to the historically less-authentic Kraft without first obtaining consensus on this page; we've discussed this issue before. Regards, Opus33 (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for for clarifying the source, and I agree that if possible we should use a painting that was done during his lifetime. The portrait in the lead does seem darker than all the sources I've looked at though, way darker than this one but also this higher res one, and as a result we are missing some details, most notably the color of his eyes.
I've put a side by side comparison there:
http://i.imgur.com/AvrAy6H.jpg
On the left one (our version) he pretty much has brown eyes, on the right one (the mozartschildren version), he has blue eyes. So I think we should pick a version that better shows the original colors. Laurent (talk) 08:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Laurent, I see your point.
I conjecture that the image we have been using was image-processed by some overeager Wikipedian, changing the eye color. I like your fixed one better, and it solves the eye color problem. Perhaps it's ok for you to replace? (I mean, it's fine by me.) Regards, Opus33 (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Surely not brown?? Maybe his eyes would have complimented "soft dark taupe color with a gray and purple undertone and hues of gold": [6]? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC) (... a very nice lippy also available)
I recommend caution against simply replacing File:Croce-Mozart-Detail.jpg. That image is widely used, so care should be taken that the same aspect ratio and cropping is maintained, and that its colouring and resolution is indeed an improvement. The 2 images shown at http://i.imgur.com/AvrAy6H.jpg have different aspect ratios and cropping to each other and to File:Croce-Mozart-Detail.jpg. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Name Change

When did he change his name to a German one, and why?119.92.93.84 (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

See Mozart's name, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Very good. But why is this not discussed, nor linked in the article at all? After reading that, I am amazed I never knew his name is actually "Wolfgang Gottlieb Motzart". Curious why this wiki does not mention his real name anywhere?119.92.93.84 (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
It is linked in the "Family and childhood" section. But it's a piped link so it's not obvious. Perhaps it could be made clearer? Or maybe also added at “See also”? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes please. I am afraid anytime I touch a wiki I get banned for one reason or another. Quite a relevant read to me. I would very much like to see it in the "see also" section if not anywhere else that is obvious. Thanks very much.119.92.93.84 (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I just added a link under "Family and childhood" - feel free to move it. I didn't see a better place right off, but agree it should be more visible somewhere. Antandrus (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Looks good enough to me. I can clearly see it. I think it is very beneficial and helps the article. Thank you for your time. Others should benefit from it. 119.92.93.84 (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Temporal confusion

It's erroneous to write "Leopold Mozart, a native of Augsburg, Germany" (in "Family and childhood" sub-chapter) because Germany didn't exist yet. Wouldn't be better "a native of the Free imperial city of Augsburg, now in Bavaria, Germany"? Carlotm (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart/Archive_12&oldid=1144184320"