Talk:Josephine Brunsvik

Untitled
This article has serious issues with bias, speculation, and reference formatting. Further, the article goes into great length to discuss trivial details of the person's life. She is notable for her speculative relationship with Beethoven. Fine details of her life not pertinent to her contact with Beethoven are not relevant enough for Wikipedia inclusion. Whatever remains needs to be presented with neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.182.87 (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Bias": If any, yes, there was a prevailing bias against the recognition of Josephine Brunsvik (born in Bratislava, Slovakia) - until recently.


 * "Speculation": All relevant statements are backed up by verifiable sources of publications by reputed researchers and scholars.  German statements are translated, and the original text is given.


 * "Trivial details": These have been mentioned mainly because (according to published research, as quoted) they are not trivial.


 * "She is notable for her speculative relationship with Beethoven": A sentence that can only be accepted if one assumes the writer knows close to nothing about both of them.


 * "Fine details of her life not pertinent to her contact with Beethoven are not relevant enough for Wikipedia inclusion": Perhaps one should put it rather this way:  The very fact that certain influential Beethoven scholars (mainly in the USA, but also in Germany) as well as the Brunsvik family (see details in Tellenbach 1983) have done what they could to ignore Josephine's role in Beethoven's life, to wipe out her memory, to belittle researchers doing hard work in (among others, Slovakian) archives - isn't Wikipedia the appropriate place to break through the damnatio memoriae imposed by those who have a vested interest?  The Truth must out!


 * "Neutrality": See "Bias"; what is needed is to counter the prevailing ignorance of this woman who was after all indeed the only one whom Beethoven ever loved.  Her personal fate - which was rather tragic, reflecting the oppressive rules of the class structure of her time - is worth to be recorded.


 * P.S. For me it's a "serious issue" if unqualified remarks like this are made hiding behind the anonymity of an IP address.
 * John E Klapproth (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a very educational and splendid article. Ignore the comments of the anonymous nitwit. and a fine rebuttal by John I might add.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.68.48 (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)