Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 6

Arguments
German "... I believe I am capable of bringing honour to any court -- and if Germany, my beloved Fatherland, of which, as you know, I am proud, will not take me up -- well, let France or England, in God's name become the richer by another talented German -- and that to the disgrace of the German nation!"
 * He was born and brought up in Salzburg at a time when Salzburg was one of many German states within the Holy Roman Empire. Salzburg was not a part of Austria at that time. ... So in Mozart's own time, he would have seen himself as a German. -DTombe

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


 * Mid-eighteenth-century Salzburg was a charming little princely seat, like many others in Germany at that time. Now part of Austria, it was then Bavarian, more within the orbit of Munich than of Vienna, which moreover, was further away. This was where Mozart first saw the light of day on 27 January 1756, not in Austria but in Bavaria. He was thus German by birth, like Beethoven, another who eventually settled in Vienna. -Philips liner notes


 * ...on the collapse of the Austria-Hungarian Empire after the first world war, the remaining German rump that was to become modern Austria was populated by a majority of people who considered themselves to be German. ... Austrians [are] Germans. They are identical ethnically and linguistically and indeed Bavarians in particlur are much more similar to Austrians than they are to the other Germans in their own country. This of course is due to the fact that Austria began one thousand years ago as a Bavarian colony. -DTombe

Austrian
 * As stated by current scholarly sources (Groves, et al.)
 * Both Salzburg and Vienna are in modern day Austria —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blehfu (talk • contribs) 02:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither?
 * Today, in the time of national states in Europe, we distinguish very carefully between "German" (a person with citizenship of the German national state) and "germanspeaking" (a person whose mother language is German, but who may be also from Austria, Switzerland, Luxemburg, Belgium, etc....). At the time of Mozart, this distinction was not common, and "German" was used for all of this, because the Holy Roman Empire was a loose federation of many germanspeaking territories (thats also an explanation for the well known citation about Mozart calling himself a German). At that time, the term "germanspeaking" (deutschsprachig) was not used (only the term "deutscher Zunge" was used, which means: "of german tongue"). So I keep my argument from above: Calling a person who was a subject of the Holy Roman Empire (HRR) a "German" is unfair for all the other states which followed the HRR (beneath Germany). -Rfortner
 * I think the only way to determine a person's nationality is by considering his or her citizenship. ..., Mozart was a citizen of Salzburg, and later after moving to Vienna he became a citizen of Austria. ... The Empire included people of different cultures, languages, lifestyles, religious beliefs, etc. The whole concept of what nation means, or what patriotism is, had not yet been established, and certainly not in the Holy Roman Empire. ... Mozart was influenced by local, rural music in Salzburg. Obviously that's where Mozart's cultural and psychological roots were. And basically I think he was a truly great European, working with Lorenzo Da Ponte, travelling and performing across Europe, writing operas in Italian and German... -Catgut
 * a subject's nationality/enthnicity should only be mentioned if it is pertinently to the subject's notability? If so, the absence of anything German/Austria/Holy Roman Emporium is correct. Am I also right in thinking that the "Austrian composer" and "German composer" categories exist so people working within those categories will be able to track them? In which case it makes perfect sense for WAM to be in both; -Almost instinct
 * European historians have shown some pragmatism in dealing with this tricky question: Normaly they "extrapolate" from the place of birth and/or the place were the person lived for most of his/her life, and apply the citizenships of todays territories on persons from the HRR. Bach was clearly born and lived on a territory, which is nowaday Germany. Already with Beethoven it becomes more tricky, as he was born in a city which is now part of Germany, but he spent more than the half of his live in Vienna (because his hometown was occupied by the French), thats why we Austrians sometimes call him a "Viennese guy". Anyway, we have accepted that Beethoven is called a "German". But Mozart is above all these categories, he is, as far as I know, the most complex case of all. -Rfortner

Talk
The fact that Salzburg was not part of Austria in Mozart's time has been the cause of considerable controversy regarding how to describe his nationality. In his own time, he was unequivocally a German and he thought of himself as a German. But since Salzburg now sits inside Austria, this means that he is also entitled to be described as an Austrian.

In the interests of keeping edit wars out of the article, I propose to make any edits either here or in a sandbox. Above is the proposed edit by David Tombe. --Blehfu (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Considerable controversy? Maybe in Wikipedia. However, per the spirit of WP:OR, talk page debates do not warrant mention in the actual article! --TrustTruth (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I agree with you; there is no controversy, let alone a "considerable" one, except in the mind of one editor here who seems to find a "Fanatical Group of Denialists" everywhere he goes on Wikipedia.  (I suspect we all by now have seen the eerily parallel conversation on the talk page to centrifugal force.)  Out it comes.  Sorry Mr. Tombe, you really need to abide by Wikipedia policy, which includes WP:CONSENSUS, assuming good faith, no original research, and avoiding ad hominem attacks and other kinds of fallacious argumentation.  Thank you for your understanding, Antandrus  (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of coming up with something to add to the article, I've added the arguments I've distilled from the previous section. Feel free to add and refine as you see fit. --Blehfu (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone feel like taking a gander at synthesizing that glob of text above into some sort of paragraph? I have a theory headache and am having difficulty constructing complete sentences. --Blehfu (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How about this?

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was born to Leopold and Anna Maria Pertl Mozart in Getreidegasse 9 in Salzburg, the capital of the sovereign Archbishopric of Salzburg, in what is now Austria, then part of the Holy Roman Empire.
 * Ah - I see this is in the article already. --RobertG &#9836; talk 06:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the quote from the letter, "I'm German, I love Germany, pooh pooh if they don't want me here"? How to fit that whole angle in, if at all? --Blehfu (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Antandrus, now you are even trying to deny that there is a controversy. Of course there's a controversy. There are many reliable sources to tell us that Salzburg only became a part of Austria in 1849, and we have got sources quoted above to the extent that Mozart considered himself to be a German. It is normal encyclopaedia practice to mention a biographical subject's national origins. And because I have put in a compromise wording stating that Mozart was a German who came from a place that is now in Austria, you have accused me of ad Hominem attacks and original research. What original research are you talking about? The accuracy of an encyclopaedia cannot be compromised just to pander to a group of about six men who are in total denial of the content of reliable sources. You have reduced the whole thing to a cheap numbers game. David Tombe (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, your last two edits were unable to encompass all of the points of view adequately. But please do not mistake our unwillingness to cede to your edits as denial; I would beseech you to approach this matter with an air of collaboration with us rather than at loggerheads. --Blehfu (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Following Antandrus above, I strongly endorse his position and I suggest that we continue as a matter of course to abide by Groves as the authoritative source - which states straightforwardly that Mozart is an Austrian composer. The suggestion that we should discard Groves as an authority would be met with outright disbelief at the Composers project. While I respect David Tombe's point and eye for historical nuance, there does not seem to be any consensus at the moment for his revision and further debate is unlikely to provide a convincing basis for NOT using Groves as authoritative, notwithstanding sensitivity about the contrast between a contemporary Kulturidentität versus a simple matter of (post-facto) Staatsangehörigkeit. We can continue this discussion perhaps on Hummel's page and make him Slovakian ;) Eusebeus (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * @David Tombe: Six men? I count 11 editors opposing your view, none supporting. Let me recommend the essay The Plague and all the further links in its "See also" section. Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Mr. Tombe, you should learn some history. Your statement "that Salzburg only became a part of Austria in 1849" is simply wrong. Already between 1805 and 1810, Salzburg was part of Austria, then for a short while Bavarian, and since the end of the Congress of Vienna in 1815 it definitely became part of Austria, first as a province of Upper Austria, later as independent region. These are the facts, where are yours? ... And stop insisting on the message "Mozart was a German" without being open to discuss about this serious, complex topic. You seem like a Guru or Mr. Bush (jun.) on one of his crusades against whatever ... that is not serious, and not an encyclopaedial attitude! -- Rfortner (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Rfortner, The transition of Salzburg to Austria began during the Napoleonic wars but it wasn't completed until 1849 when it became a crown land. At any rate, there is no point in arguing over these details because we are all agreed that Mozart was not an Austrian in his own time. I am the one that has been trying to compromise. I have paid attention to all the citations. I fully acknowledge that Mozart would have been an Austrian if he had been born a few years later and that he came from an ethnic grouping that is virtually indistinguishable from the Austrians. You eleven on the other hand have totally dismissed out of hand any of the citations which indicate that Mozart was a German. You have not even responded to the existence of Mozart's letter to his Father in which he described himself as a German. Numbers don't count in this. When eleven people suddenly emerge to suppress truths that are clearly contained in numerous sources, then the administrators need to take action. Truth is not a product of the prejudices of active groupings.David Tombe (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * David, you fail to see the point that "German" meant something completely different to Mozart and his contemporaries than it means to us. Belabouring this point of Mozart's make-up is, eh, pointless. As for numbers: you brought it up. Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is exactly why we have a policy advising strongly against using primary sources (which Mozart's letters clearly are). See this section:  "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."  There are cases when you can use primary sources, with extreme caution, but this is not one of them.  Thanks, Antandrus  (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Antandrus, secondary sources have been given as well. There is a quote above from the book that came with the Phillips Mozart collection in 1990, and Blehfu supplied some newspaper articles as well. Having said that, I can't see how you could be so enthusiastic about dismissing the idea that Mozart was a German after having read the letter from Mozart to his Father, even though such letters are supposedly inadmissable under wikipedia's rules of evidence. David Tombe (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The need for clearer guidelines on nationality of biographical subjects
This kind of argument could occur with alot of famous people and indeed it does. I think the above argument should send out a signal to the management that clearer guidelines are needed in this respect and that the administrators should enforce the guidelines. This would avoid alot of unnecessary edit wars. I have always said that there is a case for Mozart being an Austrian. But where complications exist due to people moving and borders moving, we need to have a clear set of rules about how to cater for all these aspects in a simple sentence. It cannot be a simple case of basing the nationality on the present day borders, because that would not be fair to people who were strongly identified with a particular ethnic grouping yet who eminated from a place that now sits inside a country that is strongly identified with a different ethnic grouping, especially when there is a history of rivalry between the two groupings. The Germans for a start were spread well beyond the 1937 borders of Germany. They were (and still are) found in Silesia, Pomerania, the Sudetenlands, Transylvania, The Baltic states and indeed far into Russia and the Ukraine. We cannot describe a famous German from Konigsberg or Estonia as a Russian or an Estonian. Guidelines need to be made on this. Readers are ideed interested in these finer details if they are interested in a biographical subject. The case of Mozart is particularly subtle because in his time, he came from an ethnic grouping which is virtually indistinguishable from Austrians. Bavarians, Salzburgers, and Austrians are about as similar as any two groupings could possibly be without being exactly the same thing. Hence the controversy is not so much about Mozart being identified with a foreign ethnic grouping, so much as the fact that it sails close to the raw nerve concerning whether or not Austrians are Germans. This controversy itself is heavily tied up with the 1938 Anshluss and Adolf Hitler, which of course then leads to the issue of Austria's role in the holocaust etc. But we cannot refer to a German from Strasbourg in the year 1900 as being a Frenchman just because Strasbourg now sits inside France. A biographical article needs to be clear about a subject's ethnic origins especially where a controversy exists regarding who should own the territory. Indeed I would go further and say that even in non-controversial cases such as when we are talking about a Swiss man it is always a matter of curiosity as to whether he is German, French, or Italian Swiss. Likewise with a Belgian man, we like to know if he is Flemish or Walloon. Guidelines need to be issued on this matter and rigidly enforced by the administrators to avoid edit wars. These guidelines should explain how to formulate a sentence which includes ethnic origin, place of origin and which country that place was in both then and now. Groves cannot be the last word on the matter especially when it contradicts so many other sources. We need formal guidelines to end all these edit wars permanently. David Tombe (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree.  "Rigidly enforcing"  the inclusion of  "ethnic origin, place of origin and which country that place was in both then and now"  in (all pre-modern?) biographical articles would encourage 'nationality' edit wars rather than end them IMO. -- Klein zach  13:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We already have clear guidelines - indeed policies. Relevant ones here include WP:CONSENSUS (policy), WP:RELY (policy), WP:PRIMARY (policy), Etiquette (guideline) and WP:FRINGE (guideline).  --RobertG &#9836; talk 15:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

German or Austrian: the point is?
The historical facts are not in debate. What motivates this discussion? Does it matter whether Mozart thought of himself as "German" in a sense different from today's meaning? Does the old term "German" enlighten our understanding of the man? (Possibly.) And if it does, does it not require a paragraph to separate the meaning of "German" from its modern usage and point out why this is an important observation.? Just state the facts. Brews ohare (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Brews, yes I think there should be a special section on it. I was first introduced to Mozart in 1968 as being a German composer. Then in 1974, I was rebuked by a German teacher (Swiss German) for listing him as a German composer and was told that he was Austrian. In later years, I read articles explaining why he wasn't an Austrian.
 * The German/Austrian question was highlighted to the English speaking world in the 1960's through the 'Sound of Music' film. It was based in Salzburg and it explored the thinking of the people of Salzburg in 1938 at the time of the Anschluss. The errand boy spoke of his desire to be considered a German while his girlfriend mentioned how her Father liked to think of themselves as being more Austrian.
 * People are genuinely curious about the nationality and ethnic origins of biographical subjects that they are interested in. I was once interested in Heinrich Lenz in relation to the concept of energy conservation in magnetism. At that time, I was curious to know what country he came from. Discovering that he came from Estonia was not enough. My knowledge on the matter wasn't complete until I read in wikipedia that he was a Baltic German.
 * Meanwhile, any mention of Mozart's nationality ought to involve a formula of words that includes both German and Austrian and sticks rigidly to the facts.
 * The encyclopaedia is there to give all basic facts that a wide variety of readers might wish to know. We cannot run away from this controversy simply because some people don't like the idea of Mozart being a German. David Tombe (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you are the one projecting modern nationalities on historical figures. Germany wasn't unified until 1870.  Mozart died in 1791.  The Hohenzoellerns' influence was strictly in the north and east until after Napoleon.  Exactly what is wrong with "Salzburg, the capital of the sovereign Archbishopric of Salzburg, in what is now Austria, then part of the Holy Roman Empire." ?  The article doesn't claim he was "Austrian" either.  The most I would do is insert the adjective "german-speaking" describing Salzburg, nothing more.  What does any of this have to do with WWII or The Sound of Music?  You're trying to generate a backlash against the anti-German post-WWII backlash to change the history of the 18th century.  It doesn't make any sense.  DavidRF (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1871, not 1870 (see German Empire). With the rest of your posting I fully agree! -- Rfortner (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

So what was the Fatherland that Mozart was referring to in his letter to his Father? There are three strands to this controversy, (1) Mozart did not come from Austria in his own time and he considered himself to be a German. (2) Mozart missed out on being an Austrian for the exclusive reason of having been born too early. (3) Even if he had been Austrian in his time, Austrians were considered as Germans anyway at that time. There may not have been a 'Germany' as such before 1871, but there were certainly Germans. Austria was a German territory and it only separated politically from the other German territories in 1866. Even then, the German speaking people within the Austro-Hungarian Empire were still considered to be Germans. I referred to the headstones in the Vienna cemetry for the unknown German soldiers of the K.u.K army and also the post WW1 postage stamps inscribed 'Deutchosterreich'. There were Germans in the Austro-Hungarian Empire all the way from the Sudentanlands to Trentino. The Sudenlanders continued to be Germans and we still talk about the Germans in that northern province of Italy. It's not a backlash against a backlash. The article was locked when I first looked at it. That meant there had been an edit war. I quickly realized that the edit war had been over the issue of nationality. I thought I knew the answer and put an edit in to that extent. Suddenly 11 editors arrived on scene claiming that they just happened to be passing by and weren't interested in this topic and claimed that it was only me that believed there to be a controversy, and duly reverted my edits. The conclusion is that the 11 editors are actually very interested in the controversy and are determined to suppress any mention of the fact that Mozart was German. Finally, by your logic above, Bach and Beethoven shouldn't be considered to be Germans because there was no Germany before 1871. David Tombe (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In this case the semi-protection was due to IP's making edits like "Wolfgang music makes plants grow". Nothing more than that. Your conclusion is faulty if that's the hook you're hanging your argument on.  Acroterion  (talk)  01:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The 'fatherland' that you mention is the Holy Roman Empire. Read that article, the full name of that entity since the fifteenth century is the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation which already redirect to the main HRE article. So, again.  What's wrong with "Salzburg, the capital of the sovereign Archbishopric of Salzburg, in what is now Austria, then part of the Holy Roman Empire."?  Beethoven is listed as being born in the Electorate of Cologne and Bach is listed as being born in Saxe-Eisenach.  Wikipedia is very consistant about how it lists birthplaces.  Town, country at time of birth and where that town is in today's political borders.  Mozart is in the Category: German composers as well as the Category: Austrian composers because it is indeed ambiguous how you would classify someone born in that area of the Holy Roman Empire.  See Germans where it states that many people consider Mozart to be both German and Austrian... and that many people consider even Austrians to be Germans.  So, exactly *what* is wrong with the Mozart article?  And why are we having this discussion here?  There's lengthy discussions of this at Germans, Ethnic Germans, Austrians and Holy Roman Empire that go over many historical issues involving German-speaking peoples.  Why would be clutter this article with that stuff? DavidRF (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * DavidRF, Mozart missed out on being an Austrian because of wrong timing. But despite that fact there is still a very good case for describing him as an Austrian based on today's borders. Nevertheless, this article ommits to explicitly state that Mozart was a German, which he was in his own time.
 * I've been trying to figure out who would be offended by having him described as a German. It certainly wouldn't be the Germans. And if Austrians were comfortable with the fact that they themselves were Germans in Mozart's time then we wouldn't be having this argument.
 * It seems to me that this ommission is done exclusively to pander to certain Austrians who don't want it to be believed that Austrians were ever Germans at any time.
 * An encyclopaedia should be aimed at the readers and contain a wide variety of facts that a reader may look up. Some readers are very interested in these kind of issues and may even look up an article on Mozart especially to find this kind of information out.
 * We cannot duck the issue on the grounds that the eleven editors here are only interested in Mozart's music and in specifically playing down his German identity.
 * I notice that some of the eleven editors are even uncomfortable with the fact that this discussion is taking place at all and they are itching to archive it before it is finished. David Tombe (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody is "offended"! The article clearly states (1) his birthplace (Salzburg), (2) where that was then (the sovereign Archbishopric of Salzburg in the Holy Roman Empire) and (3) where that is now (Austria).  There's been a movement in Wikipedia to standardize birthplace information using those three things.  I'm sorry if that doesn't turn out to be "German" enough for you, but what are we supposed to do about it?  To me, the problem seems to be that the "German Nation" that keep referring to didn't put the word "German" in its name but instead called itself the "Holy Roman Empire".  Why is that a "problem" (if it is a problem) that we need to deal with here?  I listed several articles above that deal with the history of German nationality and identity, those arguments and discussions can stay there.  Since when is the Mozart article a soapbox for historical German nationalism?  Mozart wasn't even a "nationalistic" composer.    Accusing other editors of being "offended" and "uncomfortable" and "ducking the issue" and "pandering" just annoys people and makes them less likely to take you seriously.  As a compromise, I'd be all for replacing "Holy Roman Empire" with "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" (since that was its official name at the time), but I don't see how more than that fits here.  DavidRF (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Tombe, I would love to see your arguments in the form of a cogent paragraph that could be included in the article. --Blehfu (talk) 03:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Blehfu, It would make an interesting section but I'll leave it for somebody else to do. It would run along the lines of TITLE- MOZART'S NATIONALITY 'The question is often asked whether Mozart was a German or an Austrian. In fact there are strong arguments in favour of both designations. He was born and brought up in Salzburg which nowadays sits within the modern state of Austria. However, in his own time, Salzburg was an independent Prince Archbishopric within the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation and he considered himself to be a German.' David Tombe (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * DavidRF, nobody is offended the way it is right now. But try putting in the full title 'Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation' and I'll bet that it will be very quickly erased. The reason is that it involves that key word 'German' that they have been trying to keep out of the article.
 * I'll certainly support you if you put it in, but I doubt if it will last. David Tombe (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There you go annoying editors with accusations of anti-German bias again. I think people are trying to be unanachronistic.  "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" is bolded at the Holy Roman Empire article as its "official name" from the late 15th century.  The redirect is already there.  Is this really all you want? I hope so, because I don't want lengthy discussions on historical nationalism added to the article that really belong elsewhere.DavidRF (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

DavidRF, Yes, it's much more balanced now and it is totally accurate. Accuracy was all that I was ever interested in. David Tombe (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * DavidRF, I told you that one of the eleven editors would revert it. That proves that I was right all along. They are not even interested in compromise. These guys are totally intolerant of any references to the fact that Mozart was connected with Germany in any shape or form.David Tombe (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, there was no state or nation called "Germany". We've discussed this already at great length. --Catgut (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No. It means you don't like the name of the Holy Roman Empire article and you are taking it out on the editors here by making *nasty* accusations about their intent. Your dispute here is extremely petty and quite semantic in nature. Go complain on the talk page of the Holy Roman Empire article and see if you can get it renamed. This is not a dispute that should be settled on the talk page of a composer's article. Best of luck! DavidRF (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Time to close the nationality debate?
I'd favor closing the debate. I think we have discussed all the arguments. I don't consider it particularly useful restarting the whole debate again and again, or accusing other editors of being "intolerant". It simply doesn't enrich this article or our community at all. To me it seems like debating for the sake of debate, or for the sake of "winning" the debate by means of exhaustion. --Catgut (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that we've now reached the point where closing the debate is the only sensible option. -- Klein zach  02:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It just remains for one of us to link to WP:WORD, I think ;-)  almost - instinct 09:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

DavidRF, Where did you get the idea that I don't like the name Holy Roman Empire? I have nothing against the name at all. All I wanted was an overt reference to Mozart being a German. You decided that a good compromise would be to use the full name of Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. I agreed with you that it was a good compromise. But as you can see, there is a group here who are not interested in compromise. All they want is to remove all references to the word 'German' in connection with Mozart. And there is no point in saying that this is a petty and trivial dispute. It is obviously not petty and trivial for Opus33, Catgut, Kleinzach, and Almost-Instinct. Those guys are absolutely determined to remove all references to the word 'German' in connection with Mozart and to archive the debate and pretend that no controversy ever existed. So are you going to stand by your own compromise edit or are you going to yield to a crowd who are clearly in breach of wikipedia policy as regards erasing sourced material? David Tombe (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC) :David Tombe:


 *  "It is obviously not petty and trivial for Opus33, Catgut, Kleinzach, and Almost-Instinct. Those guys are absolutely determined to remove all references to the word 'German' in connection with Mozart . . ."  Not so! We all agree that Mozart spoke German, wrote some wonderful works in German, and made a great contribution to German culture etc etc. What we object to is the attempt to (1) make a spurious issue out of his so-called 'nationality', and (b) waste the time of otherwise productive editors by endlessly repeating the same arguments, while making disruptive WP:POINT attacks on the article. -- Klein  zach  14:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly.
 * Mr. Tombe, I believe we have an expired equine on our hands. Can you please stop pummeling the poor beast?  It it dead.  It has been pounded into a paste.  It is an ex-horse.  It has ceased to be.  It is no longer moving.   It has passed on.  It has met its maker.  Thank you, Antandrus  (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It only seems to be dead when you have removed all references to the word 'German' in relation to Mozart. Originally, I inserted the word 'German' in front of 'composer' in the introduction. That's what started the edit war. The 626 issue was trivial and has since been resolved satisfactorily. David RF came up with a compromise in which the term 'German' appeared in a lower key further down the article in connection with the full name of the Holy Roman Empire. That's the compromise that ought to remain, even though ideally I see absolutely no reason as to why Mozart shouldn't be described as German in the introduction. The fact that you are constantly insisting on closing the debate proves that there are issues of truth here which you feel uncomfortable about.David Tombe (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There was never an edit war. I concur that this debate be closed as it appears that a consensus has been achieved (not everyone has to agree with the consensus for there to be a consensus) and that any "nationality" be left out of the article. --TrustTruth (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

TrustTruth, You say that there never was an edit war. Sounds like something that would be announced by the 'Ministry of Truth' in Orwell's 1984. What you really mean is that you didn't want there ever to be an edit war. You didn't want anybody to ever think that there was an alternative point of view. David Tombe (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We are now aware that there is an alternative point of view. Thank you Mr Tombe for making that clear.  The point of view referred to has been overwhelmingly rejected.  The motion to close the debate has been proposed.  Those in favour say "aye".  --RobertG &#9836; talk 16:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Aye. --RobertG &#9836; talk 16:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Aye. --Antandrus  (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And so what exactly is your point of view on the matter? You haven't altogether made that clear apart from your desire to close the debate. I'll attach more significance to the names of the contributing editors who don't say 'aye'. David Tombe (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Mr. Tombe, there is no sense in bringing the same (partly wrong) arguments again and again. Now we have heared them all many times. We have discussed this for a while, and you didn't convince us (the grand majority). Accept it and search another place for playing such games. Therefore I strongly appreciate the idea to close this discussion. Aye. -- Rfortner (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Close Now - Regrettably a quick review of David Tombe's talk page demonstrates ample evidence of past querulousness; the user seems to thrive on this kind of engagement. In light of his recent edits regarding the debate above, despite overwhelming consensus to the contrary, it is hard to conclude but that this is simply another instance of tendentious, disruptive editing. As such, this debate should be closed and archived forthwith and should the user persist, the correct venue is not this talkpage but WP:AN/I. I would urge any editors with a faster internet connection than I currently enjoy to revert any attempts to reopen this debate by the user and to solicit a topic ban if not an outright block for wantonly violating WP:POINT. Or I'll do it myself if no one else is willing. Eusebeus (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Aye. The talk page Eusebeus mentioned is an eye-opener--a long history of making trouble, wasting other editors' time, getting blocked ...  The participants in this discussion ought to be able to spend their time on productive editing.  Opus33 (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Aye  almost - instinct 22:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Aye. --Blehfu (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. I just surfed onto Mr. Tombe's talk page. Who knew that MathML battles could be so enthralling? --Blehfu (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Aye. -- Klein zach  00:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)