Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →

Contents

Front Photo

I personally think that the painting by Barbara Krafft should be the photograph at the top. I think that it is the most recogniseable picture of him. It seems to be the most repetetive on Google[1] Reginmund 03:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you! The current picture is not as famous (and known) as the painting by Krafft, even when it was finished after his death ... -- Rfortner 08:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I really think that using a painting not done from life is a no-go here; we're supposed to be giving the truth about Mozart, not the legend. On the other hand I agree that the Bologna portrait we've got up front now looks sort of sad. What would you think of using the face detail from the Della Croce portrait, already on Wikimedia Commons? It looks like this:
Opus33 16:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Wait, I'm confused. Was the Krafft portrait painted after Mozart's death? Reginmund 21:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Oops, sorry not to have been clear. The Kraft portrait dates from 1819, 28 years after Mozart died ([2]). Joseph Sonnleithner wanted a portrait for his collection (later given to the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde; Deutsch 1965), and got Krafft to visit the still-living Constanze, who let her study the portraits she owned and use them as models.
So, the Krafft portrait isn't an outright phony (like this one is), but I think it should not be the "up front" portrait in our article, because there are several nice portraits that were actually painted from life. Cheers, Opus33 22:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, maybe the image by Krafft is not the best choice, but can we agree on the statement, that the current front pic is not extensively nice-looking? -- Rfortner 23:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but maybe the question is not about the Krafft painting being less accurate but about it being less authentic. I just think that if it gives us a proper depiction of his visage, it is passable. Reginmund 23:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if we all agreed on which one is better-looking, I don't think we should be aiming at beauty on Wikipedia. Cigsandalcohol 21:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. But I just put up the Dalla Croce one anyway. My rationale (admittedly subjective) is that the Dalla Croce one makes Mozart look thoughtful (which surely, he often was) and the Bologna one makes him look sick and worried (which also was, but only from time to time). So if you buy my subjective assessments of the pictures, the Dalla Croce one could be fairly called more "accurate". Cheers, Opus33 21:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you have made the right choice and brought the right arguments. In addition: This picture looks quite similar to the famous Krafft-picture and is therefore also better than the sick-looking one ;-) ... Maybe its just a little but oversized and should be reduced? -- Rfortner 22:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I took off 50 pixels. Opus33 23:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey, guys. I agree that the Krafft painting is pretty much useless, but I also find the Croce painting to be faulty at best. Most people would agree that when you compare the other portraits of Leopold to the one done by Croce, you will see that the Croce portrait is fundamentally different. I stated this fact because it also seems this way with Mozart and other paintings in the same respect.
I'm no expert on the "Bologna Mozart", but I'm positive it is the most realistic and often seen as the best portrayal of the great master. I think people mistake Constanze's approval of the Lange painting as it captured the character of his constant relevations and deep modes of thought, rather than his actual appearance. Their maid often said when he ate his supper (while his wife cut up his steak for the fear of damaging his hands) he always seemed to be distant in eyes - always masked by his high sprits. The Bologna Mozart may not capture the 'essense' of Mozart's character, but I do believe it captures the 'essense' of his physicality. Maybe the Lange portrait is better than both for the intro? As for the Croce and Stock portraits, I think there not very well done. Even Leopold's appearance resembles nothing of his other portraits. I think that it's not important to state that the "Bologna Mozart" is sad looking. It's not something I want to say, but he WAS a very sad man. From his father's disapproval of Constanze, to his outright arrogance in blaming Mozart for the death of his wife, to his sister taking Leopold's side coupled with the constant over spending and money problems later on I think it's safe to say that the "Bologna Mozart" captures the essence of Mozart. Of course this is a democracy so I'm entitled to at least ask for a vote in a set time period.User:InternetHero 23:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
If more people support your idea you could start a vote, but currently it is more a discussion in which we somehow found a concensus. But in case you would like to count votes: As already stated above I am against the Bologna-picture as "Front Photo". -- Rfortner 00:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
InternetHero, your talk contribution is so badly written (grammar, spelling, organization) that it's actually rather hard to follow what you're saying. Would kindly spend some time editing your talk page contributions before you post them?
Other than that, I would like to politely disagree with your characterization of Mozart's life as uniformly joyless. From what I've read (Solomon, New Grove, Niemetschek, and Deutsch) I see a person who loved to play music, loved to listen, had many friends, told jokes, loved his wife and her family, and was made very happy when the public enjoyed his work, which was often. Of course Mozart had a lot of problems, but we patronize him when we say his life was nothing but a vale of tears. That's out-of-date, 19th century stuff, refuted in modern times by more responsible scholarship. Opus33 02:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, now that I looked at it, it was a bit confusing. I copy + pasted it from the past discussion page which was deleted. I fixed it so it should be readable now.
You've read Maynard Solomon's book as well? Right on. I didn't say his life was joyless because you're very right in saying he had much love at his side from his friends and Constanze. What I was trying to portray was that he, was, at times, a very sad man. You must of read his letters to his father which was in Solomon's book. Pretty awful the way his father treated him and in no doubt I believe it played a role on Mozart's psychology. For example, Solomon argues that he picked an 'unworthy' wife in Constanze so that he may 'save' her - as he wishes somebody could save him. You must have read that part; it was groundbreaking to me.
My arguement in respect to the painting is this: I believe that a consensus is in play, but I also believe that the Neutral Point of View act is also in play. My two cents is this: Leopold himself was recorded to comment on the 'Bologna Mozart' in respect to this: 'As a piece of art, it is useless; as to the issue of resemblance, I can assure you that it is perfect.' InternetHero 21:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
User InternetHero (talk · contribs) again puts his preferred painting Image:Martini bologna mozart 1777.jpg at the top of the article, just like he did briefly this May[3]. There is no consensus supporting his edits. Also: classifying these edits as minor is disingenious at best or misleading at worst. Michael Bednarek 10:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Since the Wikipedia:Consensus act is a sub-category to the Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View act in respect to Wikipedias' policy standards, I think that the Wikipedia:Verifiability act overrides the consensus you guys have achieved. In the middle of the 'Burden of Evidence" tab, the Wikipedia:Verifiability act clearly states that: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable(>_<), published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page."
As for the principle of the concensus, the article on the Wikipedia:Negotiation act - which is a strong implementation to the consensus act - simply says: "In compromising in respect to 'Splitting the difference', it is generally inappropriate if it means departure from generally recognized points of view, both of which need to be included to achieve Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. However, this should not stop participants from finding compromises that provide a balanced presentation. The goal of Wikipedia, presumably shared by all sides to any dispute, is to produce a useful and reliable (>_<) reference work. Objective criteria such as accuracy, reliability, and fair representation of all significant points of view can be used as participants in a dispute to work toward solutions."
Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others include Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, but the latter is a fundamental Wikipedia principle and its prerequisite is the Verifiablity act. I'm assuming you haven't read the tutorial on Wikipedia since you haven't even agreed to multi-license your references under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License versions 1.0, 2.0, and 2.5.
In conclusion, I think that Leopold's quote on the 'Bologna Mozart' is the core argument in the discussion, which is in coherence with reference guidelines under the Wikipedia:Verifiability act since, as a verifiable source, it is a reliable outcome of any factual evidence when trying to portray Mozart's physical appearance. Reliability is the most important guideline under all this 'red-tape' in Wikipedia - not the artistic preference of its writers. This fact coincides with the 'Burden of Evidence' tab under the Wikipedia:Verifiability. I'm not trying to be rude, but if an unknown writer was all of a sudden chosen by an editor to override somebody like Alfred Einstein of Mayanrd Solomon as a source, then that editor would be overrided his or herself as well because their potential verifiability as a source. Therefore, my arguement even implies to Wikipedia Wikipedia:Consensus with the Wikipedia:Negotiation act used as a prerequiste or 'foreground' given Leopold's acceptance of the painting as perfect - and for the fact that the Leopold painting done by Pietro Antonio Lorenzoni doesn't look at all like the one done by Croce, as well as Nannerl in the same manner. InternetHero 03:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
You completely exagerate with your personal interpretation of these Wikipedia-rules: You brought ONE single quotation concerning your favored picture. But to contest the current front photo it would be necessary to bring arguments that THIS photo doesn't show the real Mozart - like we discussed it for the Krafft-Image which was finished after his death. But as long as you do not bring more than ONE single quotation, don't claim to know the rules of Wikipedia better than us. By the way: A painting is not a photo and is always "subjective", as the artist who made it has influenced it (see also the official paintings of other famous people of the pre-photo-times). But who is "objective" enough to decide, which painting is the most realistic? Thats also a quite personal rating ... -- Rfortner 10:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The 'Bologna Mozart' provides an accountable recognition of Mozart's factual appearance. You see, Wikipedia relies on reliable and accurate sources under Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View, and Leopold's account on the painting provides just that.
I wouldn't have anything against the Croce painting other than the fact that the Leopold painting done by Pietro Antonio Lorenzoni doesn't look at all like the one done by Croce - as well as Anna Maria and Maria Anna in the same manner. InternetHero 19:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I found a letter from Nannerl, written in 1819, in which she discusses which of her three pictures of her brother she ought to loan to Barbara Krafft for copying. She calls the della Croce painting "very good", and indicates that Krafft's intention was to use it as the primary source. So that's a pretty good credential for della Croce. If you'd like to see Nannerl's letter, visit http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wolfgang-amadeus-mozart_1.jpg and look under "Background Information".
Also, inspection at full size indicates that the Bologna Mozart portrait is in rather poor condition--it's blotchy and stripy, problems that doubtless were not there when it was first painted. Opus33 03:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The painting looks fine to me, and I think Nannerl would have contributed any viable painting to Krafft. I still think that the 'Bologna Mozart" is still more reliable though, so please list a reason why it might not be. InternetHero 03:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello IH, you haven't convinced me or (as far as I can tell) anybody else. So could you please just let the matter drop for now, and let your fellow editors spend their time on other things? Thanks very much. Yours sincerely, Opus33 15:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think the matter isn't closed at all because the Croce painting isn't reliable or accurate enough to meet Wikipedias' quality standards. The painting of Leopold done by Pietro Antonio Lorenzoni looks far more detailed but interestingly, it doesn't have much of a resemblance to the painting done by Croce, and I don't think that this fact can be ignored as just some bravado of self-confidence on Croce's part. The 'Bologna Mozart' was even created before his mother had died, so why not let that be a factor when refering to your argument about him looking sad? As I said earlier, many people check back on their past edits sporadically, so I don't think I'm alone on this one. InternetHero 22:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
You say: "Croce painting isn't reliable or accurate enough to meet Wikipedias' quality standards". Could you please give us specific arguments and sources which support this personal opinion? I don't ask for sources about your favoured picture, I ask for sources which support your opinion about the Croce-painting. -- Rfortner 09:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
"I wouldn't have anything against the Croce painting other than the fact that the Leopold painting done by Pietro Antonio Lorenzoni doesn't look at all like the one done by Croce - as well as Anna Maria and Maria Anna in the same manner."InternetHero 13:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
STOP your ongoing try to push your personal opinion, after NOBODY supported your point of view here on the discussion page. Your last argument was quite weak, because you can not bring any reasonable argument AGAINST the current front photo, you just say why YOU prefer the other one. -- Rfortner 08:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. Michael Bednarek 08:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Opus33 16:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You see, the thing about Wikipedia is that anybody can conjure up their friends to form a consensus, but to fully adhere to the rules of conduct for Wikipedia, the concept of having a verifiable source overrides all other principles.
Unless you fellow Internet Heros can seriously refute my arguement with facts, I'm afraid I have the right to edit at the moment.
Again, the painting of Leopold Mozart done by Pietro Antonio Lorenzi[4] doesn't at all look like the once done by Croce[5]. In contrast to Maria Anna[6] in the same context - it is the same arrangement.
Also, I sense that you think I'm on some sort of power trip but I think it is funny that any arguement used against me can often be refuted, yet, when I reverse such arguements you guys ignore them - like the one about the 'Bologna Mozart' looking sad even though the painting was done before the death of his mother. So, I think it is worth noting that the 'Bologna Mozart' is a more realistic painting since it portrays his true physicality. If he was at all sad, he must have been more so in the Croce painting yet the painter doesn't portray it. A 'coup detas' so to speak.
In conclusion: '„It has little value as a piece of art, but as to the issue of resemblance, I can assure you that it is perfect.”' - Quote: Leopold Mozart InternetHero 20:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't be silly, IH. RFortner and M. Bednarik aren't my friends, though of course I'm glad they're here :=). I assume all three of us are going to keep monitoring your edits and reverting, so why not save yourself some frustration and move on to other things? Opus33 21:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Ummm, alright. There isn't going to be any frustration since you've obviously ignored my most conclusive points in post above, therefore, if you want to start an 'edit war', I'll just find an administrator to assess the situation.
I'm sorry you guys think that I'm some stupid kid who messes about, but I have some valuable contributions to give. I find I have very good grammar and write my sentences very well. I'm using all my logic and reason here, guys. InternetHero 01:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
You mistake the situation, it is you who has started an edit-war (and who would break the 3R-rule first, because nobody supports your edits). It is your personal opinion that you think your arguments are better, but nobody ever supported this view. So what? Do you think you can ignore all other co-workers on this page just because your are so conviced of your personal opinion? Thats not how a colaborative project like Wikipedia goes! -- Rfortner 08:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, you haven't refuted my arguements but merely gathered some of your friends to form a consensus. Consensus or not, having verifiable sources supercedes your disposition.
I have only broken the 3RR rules because i made a mistake. Seems like that's par for the course around here.
In conclusion: '„It has little value as a piece of art, but as to the issue of resemblance, I can assure you that it is perfect.”' - Quote: Leopold MozartInternetHero 01:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Stop your edit-war as well as your personal attack. I don't have gathered any "friends" here, but you are to "blind" to see, that three other users (who are unrelated but obviously share the same spirit) have a different opinion than you. And you are not the person who has to decide if a picture is verifiable or not. You make your statement, but in the end it is the community that decides, and currently you are alone with your opinion. Please stop to think you can ignore other opinions by stating that YOU know the truth about verifiable sources. That could be interpreted as "arrogant" -- Rfortner 13:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This is non-sense. "And you are not the person who has to decide if a picture is verifiable or not." No, I am not; Leopold Mozart IS.
I've posted my arguements AGAIN and AGAIN, yet you guys COMPLETELY ignore them as "personal attacks" and "my biased preference". The Croce painting is obviously not as reliable and therefore, not as verifiable as the 'Bologna Mozart' BECAUSE the painting of Leopold done by Lorenzi looks very well done when compared to the latter.
In conclusion - AGAIN, '„It has little value as a piece of art, but as to the issue of resemblance, I can assure you that it is perfect.”' - Leopold Mozart on the painting done in BOLOGNA. InternetHero 01:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted to the version which clearly represents the consensus on this page. Internet Hero, please do not continue this pointless edit war. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
These editors are using a faultered painting based solely on sheer numbers of keyboards rather than verifiable and reliable sources. This isn't over. I may too form a consensus and put a painting of the child-Mozart, but that would too would be faultered - just like the reason of these particular editors.
Fine, ban me for for a while so that I may know that reason doesn't coincide with Wikipedias' rules. From what I gathered, the neutral-point-of-view act overrides the consensus since anybody could gather supporters to coincide with any vague or faultered source. However, I'd like the situation posted on the administrators board.
Please know that I haven't been refuted, but instead have fallen in between the cracks of a faultered system. I know with my reason and in my heart that the 'Bologna Mozart' is the most verifiable and reliable source available.
The editors in question have ignored my arguements and simply posted their correspondence to this "consensus". They have won (for now) through unreliable means, but I'll make it my mission to find as many people to support my logical arguements and to form my own consensus. Then, and only then, I will have the luxury of simply stating that I agree without stating any logical reasons to back it up as these people have done to this article and Mozart.
I'm tempted to form a "consensus" rather than providing clear and consise reason and/or logic, but that wouldn't make me a good InternetHero. Good day, fellow Internet Heros.
In conclusion - AGAIN, '„It has little value as a piece of art, but as to the issue of resemblance, I can assure you that it is perfect.”' - Leopold Mozart on the painting done in BOLOGNA. InternetHero 03:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that part of the cause for the disagreement in this matter is that no-one can understand InternetHero's argument. Frankly, the rather fractured spelling, grammar, syntax and logic won't persuade many - that's why InternetHero (talk · contribs) forms a minority of one. Michael Bednarek 03:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Nice try, but I know my disposition. My arguements were simple enough, but you've all obviously let yourself get the better of yourselves in respect to emotions, since none of you have made an attempt to refute them.
So here it is; Croce painting not look like Lorenzi painting when contrasting Leopold; Croce painting not look like Lange painting when contrasting Nannerl (Maria Anna). Meaning, Mozart's appearance could have been lost in the translation as well.
Leopold makes good quote of 'Bologna Mozart'. InternetHero 03:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
You are entirely alone in your opinion, and your continued reverts are in violation of consensus. Please stop the edit warring. Edit summaries such as this make it quite clear where you are coming from. Kindly stop wasting our time. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that was very childish of me and I'm sorry. The kind editor told me that I shouldn't do that really caught my attention. Case in point, I discussed the arguement and seemed to have won since nobody tried to refute it. InternetHero 05:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Nobody should be out to "win" or "lose" here. It's a collaborative environment, so we should be trying to work together. It's a give and take thing - Alison ❤ 06:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, if all it takes is quantity rather than quality to make a point, I think I shall adapt to the 'method'.InternetHero 23:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
You mistake this: It is not (only) a question of quantity, it is even more a question of convincing other editors with reasonable arguments and polite statements during a discussion. But there is no "supreme court" (even the Administrators are not able to decide about the "truth", they only check if everybody respects the rules of Wikipedia). So if you cannot convince other editors with your arguments, you should reflect on them. -- Rfortner 10:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
ttt. I should have known that you were obstructed by your emotions too much to understand anything else but trying to portray your point of view. ttt. InternetHero 20:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
InternetHero, would you please stop editing other users' contributions. It is most irritating. Michael Bednarek 05:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Are you trying to get me kicked out? Grow up, Michael.
If you're talking about the colon thing, I'm sorry - that's the way it's supposed to work. One colon for the first reply; two colons for the second. InternetHero 00:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The following is from the Five Pillars act: "Wikipedia works by building consensus. Consensus decision-making is an inherent part of the wiki process. Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia, so consensus can change. The primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy, anarchy or any other political system. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in testing for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion, and should be used with caution, if at all."
In hindsight, Robert G, has banned me for editing more that 3 times - not for failing to adhere to Wikipedias' principle rules. In light of the new information starting on Thursday October 8th, 2007, I am not going to break the 3RR rule but I am going to do what I feel is my right and obligation. I will reconsider when somebody can give me an informed reason to why Leopold's quote on the Bologna-Mozart shouldn't be viewed as a reliable source in respect to it's "perfection" - which is what Leopold said about it.
If this constitutes as 'edit-warring', then any person who thinks in such a way hasn't read the Five Pillars act. I have referenced my reliable source, so I have a complete right to edit as long as my edits correspond to the discussion page here. If any of you can't give me a logical reason to why Leopold's quote shouldn't be regarded as the most accurate reference depicting Mozart's physical appearance, I won't change my position on this matter. If this isn't 'peace-editing', then I'm afraid I haven't been taught the proper reasoning skills to aknowledge this.
P.S. I would appreciate if the editors here would also try to refute my arguements in respect to the Croce-Mozart not having a faulty disposition. --->Meaning, why does the portrayal of Leopold and Maria Anna have very different dispositions when compared to their singular portraits done by other painters?<--- Sincerely, InternetHero 19:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Even though I am Internet"Heros" friend, I toatlly agree with his discussion. I think that Leopold's quote should be held in a high regard enough to warrant a discussion on this matter.... Maria Anna and Leopold looks different in you look at the other paintings. I seriously agree. (I know a little music myself) InternetZero 14:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by InternetZero (talk • contribs)

Hm, I have some doubts about this new User "InternetZero". It seems to me, that the could be a simple Sock puppet for "InternetHero". Other opinions? -- Rfortner 09:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


Recent edits by InternetHero (talk · contribs)

I don't know whether it's malice, ignorance, incompetence, stupidity or laziness, but edit's like these http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart&diff=169654720&oldid=168415356 are beyond the pale (and don't deserve to be proteced bt WP:CIVIL). Removing previous contributions by others and her-/himself, adding comments into previous contributions, all without signing them - can someone please point me to the appropriate User Warning template for such behaviour? Michael Bednarek 01:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Usually we restore the deleted comments. That's what I just did.
InternetHero, I strongly suggest you do not carry out your above threat "but my colleagues and I are going to revert three (3) times each day unless any of you ..." for it amounts to a declaration that you will carry out an edit war, which violates our policy on disruptive behavior. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, that was very childish and I'm sorry, but, I was doing it out of good faith since it made both of us look bad. Thanks for bringing that into my perspective.
Michael, I'm sorry you feel that way but personal attacks don't adhere to what Wikipedia is trying to accomplish. I know it seemed that I was trying to anger you, but I sincerely hope that you would believe me if I told you that I wasn't. Sincerely, InternetHero 04:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

FCOL, you've done it again. In this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart&curid=159496&diff=169778788&oldid=169760107 you changed the heading level I chose, and on your Talk page you changed in this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:InternetHero&diff=next&oldid=169763480 the perfectly correct indentation of my contribution. Most irritating.

And marking your edits as minor is at best disingenious, at worst misleading, particularly when you add new points. But I feel even changing the language of your earlier contributions should not be done in situ but in subsequent edits. Michael Bednarek 09:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought that you just didn't know how to make a heading. Um, it didn't seem like it looked right to me. I don't want to be rude - SERIOUSLY.
P.S. I changed the colons again because thats the way the colon template is suppossed to work. I changed my other edits because they were childish and I didn't want to be like that anymore. I hope you can look past this whole situation. Sincerely, InternetHero 16:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, may I humbly suggest a moratorium on replying to InternetHero? I mean, we should keep on reverting if he tries to alter the consensus, but surely, we're way beyond the point where discussion would lead to a useful result. Perhaps if we all just "let it be" the discussion will gradually peter out, leading to a more pleasant Wikipedia experience for all. Thanks for considering this suggestion. Opus33 17:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The discussion isn't leading to anywhere because you guys haven't tried to refute any of my arguements.
P.S. I've edited Opus33's contribution because it is more clear and concise the way I've reverted his reply. One colon (:) for the 1st reply; two colons for the 2nd reply. Sincerely, InternetHero 18:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Even though I am Internet"Heros" friend, I toatlly agree with his discussion. I think that Leopold's quote should be held in a high regard enough to warrant a discussion on this matter.... Maria Anna and Leopold looks different in you look at the other paintings. I seriously agree. InternetZero 14:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. I would like everyone to know that I have tooken a great deal of time aknowledging the other editors views and opinions. In regard to this, I do have agree with InternetHero's request that the "Bologna-Mozart" shuold be taken seriously.
I have been informed of the rules, so I await your replies. Ryan Burke (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Recordings

I'm not sure about all of the recordings at the bottom of the page, but the recordings of the clarinet concerto are simply horrible (technique, tone, improvisation/cadenzas)-- could we get better quality recordings, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.143.161.216 (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Item I moved from main article

Another debate involves Mozart's alleged status as a kind of superhuman prodigy, from childhood right up until his death. While some have criticized his earlier works as simplistic or forgettable, others revere even Mozart's juvenilia. In any case, several of his early compositions remain very popular. The motet Exultate, jubilate (K. 165), for example, composed when Mozart was seventeen years old, is among the most frequently recorded of his vocal compositions.

Hello, I've moved this "debate" to the talk page because it seems completely subjective and unresolvable. Also, there's no reference source (and it's not clear to me there even could be one). Note that Exultate, jubilate is now mentioned in the bio section as a popular early composition, so deleting it here is less of an issue. Opus33 01:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Item II moved from main article

Hello, I've moved this from the main article:

Mozart died at approximately 1 a.m. on December 5, 1791 in Vienna. With the onset of his illness, he had largely ceased work on his final composition, the Requiem. Popular belief has it that Mozart was thinking of his own impending death while writing this piece, and even that a messenger from the afterworld commissioned it. Documentary evidence has established that the anonymous commission came from one Franz Count of Walsegg on Schloss Stuppach, and that most if not all of the music had been written while Mozart was still in good health. A younger composer, and Mozart's friend and, some say, pupil, at the time, Franz Xaver Süssmayr, was engaged by Constanze to finish the Requiem, which he had been already helping the ill composer with, since Mozart could not write on account of his swollen limbs. He was not the first composer asked to finish the Requiem, as the widow had first approached another Mozart student, Joseph Eybler, who began work directly on the empty staves of Mozart's manuscript but then abandoned it.

Reason: we've already got extensive discussion of the Requiem in two other articles, namely Death of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Requiem (Mozart). The main Mozart article is very long, and I would judge that it really just have a quick summary of the Requiem (which I just put in). Opus33 18:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Item III moved from main article

Hello, I've moved this from the main article:

Because he was buried in an unmarked grave, it has been popularly assumed that Mozart was penniless and forgotten when he died. He earned about 50,000 florins per year,[1] equivalent to at least 142,000 US dollars in 2006, which places him within the top 1% of late 18th century wage earners,[1] but he could not manage his wealth. His mother wrote, "When Wolfgang makes new acquaintances, he immediately wants to give his life and property to them." His impulsive largesse and spending often had him asking for loans. Many of his begging letters survive, but they are evidence not so much of poverty as of his habit of spending more than he earned. He was not buried in a "mass grave" for paupers but in a regular communal grave according to the 1784 laws in Austria.[citation needed]

I'm not happy with income figure of 50,000 florins. Maynard Solomon (in his 1995 bio) conducted a really painstaking survey of Mozart's sources of income, and he put all his data and reasoning in the appendix to his book. It looks like Mozart probably never made much more than 5,000 florins in any one year. I suspect that the source for the 50,000 figure, a newspaper reporter, got wrapped up in enthusiasm for his point and added an extra zero.

I also don't think this paragraph is entirely about Mozart's death, which is the section it occupied. I've tried to fix this by discussing all the various points in what I think are more logical places: the spendthrift habits for 1785-6 (when Mozart became temporarily rich and started to manifest these habits in a serious way), the begging letters for 1788-1790 (when they were written). Opus33 18:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

At least we should keep the information from the last sentence, because often people think that it was heartless to burry one of Austrians biggest composers in such a simple grave. But due to the radical reforms that Emperor Josef II. had made (see Josephinism) this was really "normal" at that time! So please dont delete too much information from the main article, and try to condense the most important facts to keep them in the most accessed article about Mozart. -- Rfortner 20:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
<This seems to have been worked out ok; the article now does mention the mass grave as well as Josephinism.> Opus33 17:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Mahler's last words

Someone wrote, long ago, that Mahler's last word was "Mozart". I Googled this to get a bit more, and found:

What Mahler said was "Mozartl... Mozartl...", where the suffix -l is a diminutive in German; hence (sort of) "Little Mozart". He was about to die, he couldn't talk or breathe very well, and his words were recorded by his wife Alma.

Who can know what poor Mahler was thinking? If I had to guess, I would say that Mahler was familiar with the poignant story of Mozart's death, and was thinking of it in parallel with his own approaching demise.

This anecdote seems to me more of a curiosity in the biography of Mahler than good testimony for the regard in which later composers have held Mozart. Stuff like Tschaikovsky's Mozartiana strikes me as more compelling evidence. So I took it out. Cheers, Opus33

Film Description

Under "Mozart in Fiction" the page contains this sentence.

"Modern audiences have been gripped by the account of Mozart's life given in Peter Shaffer's play Amadeus, as well as the luxuriantly produced Hollywood film based on the play."

Personally, I think "luxuriantly produced" is a bit of a subjective phrase, which is open to too many interpretation, but the real problem with the sentence is the claim that the film is a "Hollywood" film. It's not. It was shot in primarily in Prague and funded by a San Franciscan company. Where does Hollywood fit in? <comment by User:Therealunno>

Hello, I took out both items. I had originally meant "Hollywood" in the sense of "popularized, intended for a mass audience" but this is getting too close to a WP:NPOV violation. Cheers, Opus33 21:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Leck mich im Arsch

It doesn't mean "Lick me in the arse." It means "Kiss my arse," as the wikipedia page devoted to this canon clearly explains.Schlier22 04:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I am not alone in being rather annoyed by the recent edit wars on this article. I notice that Leck mich im Arsch is currently protected and labelled on the talk page as subject to one of the lamest edit wars in history (I think it's "arse" versus "ass" over there). Surely we don't want that to happen on this article too? Can we agree on the most appropriate translation, please, rather than continuing the current bad-tempered oscillation? My latest edit was my suggestion for compromise. Please bear in mind that those of us who don't speak German well enough to know one way or the other are forced to rely on the integrity and good sense of other contributors who can determine the most appropriate translation. The current back-and-forth is an unedifying spectacle. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I second RobertG's contention and think his inclusion of the literal and idiomatic translations represents a suitable compromise. This edit war is growing tiresome. Kindest regards, AlphaEta T / C 17:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
RobertG, I think you have found an appropiate phrase to present both translations and let the adult reader decide him/herself about the English meaning of this term. So if nobody else (e.g. Schlier22) contestes your compromise, I will support it. By the way: For someone like me, whose native language is Austrian German, it is quite funny to see an entire section in a Wikipedia-discussion devoted to "Leck mich im Arsch", because as a single phrase it is a common (vulgar) form for "Fuck off!" So you can imagine how funny it appears to me, that a COMPROMISE has this section-title ;-) -- Rfortner 17:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
RobertG, I accept this very reasonable compromise. Thank you for your help in arbitrating this dispute.--Schlier22 01:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I also am pleased with the compromise; thank you all. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. Opus33 02:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)