Talk:Leck mich im Arsch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hoax?[edit]

Is this a hoax? Where is the sourcing? VanTucky (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a hoax Raul654 21:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your link leads nowhere - probably archived. :-(
OK, found it in the September 1997 archive. All it says is:
Hi there Raul, please be aware that you've just been reported to WP:AN/3RR for breaking the three revert rule on Leck mich im Arsch. I've protected the article, in many ways to stop you getting blocked. You should know more than most people that edit warring is a bad thing, and this is the second time in recent months that it's happened. Please try and be more carefull. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
So no real discussion about whether this is a hoax or not.
If you read what the article and its sources say carefully (although some of them are only discussions and even those are now dead links), this should be listed as "believed to be the original lyrics of Mozart's composition" and in the main line it should be clarified that there is a possibility that these were words written by Wenzel Trnka as a parody on Mozart's original lyrics... פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pashute: Here is the real link, complete with a link to the score in the Neue Mozart-Ausgabe. The connexion with Trnka is actually the other way round, and not for this canon; for K. 233 and K. 234, the music was originally Trnka's, and Mozart wrote parodies of them (i.e. keeping the music and changing the text to his own vulgar ones). I'm sorry about the lateness of this reply to your question; this is not so much a major work of music as it is a manifestation of a major part of Mozart's character, and hence its article is probably not watched as much as those on more important Mozart compositions. Double sharp (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My conclusion: It is probably a hoax. A new hoax or a centuries-old one, but in most probability, Mozart DID NOT WRITE THIS.
I was alerted by Double sharp to the ping, thanks. But your 'real link' only serves all the more to question the authenticity of the claims. So no one claims it's Mozart's music anymore, and some claim that Mozart wrote the vulgar words to the music as a parody, but even that claim is doubtful.
The following post by user:!! an alleged sock-puppet and his friends on the German WP don't lend credibility to the claim either.פשוט pashute ♫ (talk)
@Pashute: (Missed this a while back again...) No, there are three vulgar canons with K numbers in this range: K. 231 (this one), K. 233, and K. 234. The latter two have music by Trnka, with the vulgar text by Mozart (Trnka originally was setting different words). Trnka is not the composer of K. 231: to my knowledge nobody has attributed the music for K. 231 to anybody but Mozart. Considering that we have the autographs in Mozart's hand to the equally vulgar K. 560 it seems quite possible that the vulgar text is in fact Mozart's, even without an autograph for K. 231. Double sharp (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I looked it up in the NMA: indeed, some have questioned the authenticity of the musical text of KV 231 as well (see the prefaces to the volumes of Canons and Works of Doubtful Authenticity, Vol. III). But unlike for KV 233 and KV 234, no one has found proof that KV 231 is another's composition. The scatological text is also not transmitted in any authentic source for these three canons, but they fit pretty well (as I said) with texts like those of KV 559, 560, and 561 (which we know are authentic). Just to my ears, BTW, while KV 233 and KV 234 are indeed rather different from Mozart's authentic canons (the NMA preface speaks of "surprisingly ungainly musical lines with angular arpeggio figures"), KV 231 does not have that ungainly a melodic line, and its melodic line does not involve that many arpeggios. (Though it is certainly not as accomplished as KV 347, an unquestionably authentic six-part canon by Mozart, with a beautifully arching melodic line.) Double sharp (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about [1]? There is an article on the German Wikipedia - de:Leck_mich_im_Arsch.
"Ass" or "arse"? -- !! ?? 21:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either one is an acceptable english translation from German. Raul654 21:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Late at night, a drunken Salieri would sneak into Mozart's house and vandalize his manuscripts..
I see that the Australian ABC Classic FM went with the slightly less direct "Lick my backside", but it was the morning show. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


These sources (and more!) need to be added to the article immediately or else it will probably be speedied. As I don't speak German, it is not sure that it isn't a hoax simply translated from a German hoax. Reliable, english language sources please. VanTucky (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you it is not a hoax. The colossal, stodgy, and ever-reliable New Grove includes it in the works list, along with probable place and date of composition (Vienna, 1782). These were probably party pieces for his friends, but there don't seem to be a lot of details about exactly how the two canons came about. Antandrus (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese interwiki is awesome (deals with all of the related songs, but claims two are hoaxes). -- !! ?? 22:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing convo[edit]

<Ceiling_Cat> now I need a freely licensed version of Lick me in the ass
* Ceiling_Cat looks for a musician
<MessedRocker> ask mindspillage
<MessedRocker> she won't file a sexual harrassment claim with human resources AT ALL
<Ral315> Ceiling_Cat, usually you have to pay extra for that.
<Ceiling_Cat> ROFL
<Ral315> And it's tough to find one who'll play that, so you've gotta shop around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raul654 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]
I'd like to hear Mozart's "rimjob" please. Comradeash 09:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

round[edit]

The score seems to indicate it is to be sung as a round. --Random832 22:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that is correct. -- !! ?? 22:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename?[edit]

First, if this is a title it needs to be in caps. Second, for clarification and to disambiguate it, shouldn't it say parenthetically something along the lines of "Mozart canon" or "composition"? VanTucky (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) No, we do not ever make article names all caps except acronyms; (2) No, we do not disambigauate unless there ambigiousness. Raul654 22:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate it from what? I don't think people would type "Lick me in the ass" into Wikipedia and hope to find the anal-oral article. I would personally go for "Leck mich im Arsch", preserving the original name, but that would lose the fact that the title is so amusing. violet/riga (t) 22:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the dictionary of idiom (now linked), a better translation is "kiss my arse" or "get stuffed". But this title is much the most amusing (and used in various sources). -- !! ?? 22:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean making the letters all caps like THIS. I mean capitalizing the words to a title. Titles should always be capitalized Raul. It's simple grammar. See One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest or The Spy Who Loved Me (film). I think disambiguating it might prevent the kind of off-hand objection/deletion that has occurred in the article's recent history. VanTucky (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought you meant all-caps, i.e LICK ME IN THE ASS Raul654 22:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Easy mistake. VanTucky (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How often do you "shout" that, Raul? ;) violet/riga (t) 22:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...if it wasn't for my horse.... Raul654 22:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LMAO! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... given the subject matter, I'd better clarify. L = Laughing. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over-literal translation?[edit]

I believe "Leck mich im Arsch" would be more appropriately translated "lick my ass" rather than the literal "lick me in the ass". The expression is a famous one in German; it's usually attributed to the 17th century knight Götz von Berlichingen (see Götz von Berlichingen#Quotes, Historical and Cultural references). Mozart would certainly have known this and it's possible that he was alluding to von Berlichingen in his piece. -- ChrisO 22:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be kiss - "kiss my ass" - rather than lick? (According to Y.M.C.A. (song), there is a German version of that song entitled "LMAA" - Leck mich am Arsch. I wonder if there is a dance...)
There is apparently another "Leck mich im Arsch!" by Mozart - K213.[2]
Leck mich im Arsch!
Goethe, Goethe
Gutz von Berlichingen! Zweiter Akt;
Die Szene kennt ihr ja!
Rufen wir nur ganz summarisch
Hier wird Mozart literarisch!
That source also gives different lyrics for K233. Perhaps we need disambiguation? -- !! ?? 23:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the source above (Dr David C. F. Wright) is a typo - he means K. 231. Those lyrics are also printed and sung in Brilliant's Mozart's Complete Works. I'm going to incorporate those lyrics and the source [3] later into the article. Michael Bednarek 10:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it was "kiss my ass", that would be "küss mich im Arsch", surely? I'm thinking of the example of Rammstein's song Küss mich Fellfrosch (Kiss my furry frog). -- ChrisO 23:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I realize we're having fun here, but this article should have the German title. We don't translate his aria titles. DavidRF 23:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it shouldn't. We're inconsistent in our naming scheme for his article - (see The Marriage of Figaro, for example), and clearly using the German title detracts from understanding what makes this piece notable (e.g, it's baudiness). Raul654 23:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there has been debate about The Marriage of Figaro, The Barber of Seville and The Magic Flute a while back as well. You'll find name changes in their histories. It was decided to stick with english when the piece was known mainly by its translation. This work (and K233) have K1 numbers. Kochel's been dead for 130 years. People have known about these pieces for a long time. Suddenly translating the title of the piece makes it seem like a new musicological discovery. DavidRF 00:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DavidRF - unlike The Marriage of Figaro, K. 231 is not known in the English speaking world under any English title, so its article here should be the German title (as it is in the Köchel catalogue). Michael Bednarek 10:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree the German title should be used in this case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The transliteration of the title has sexual connotations that simply would not have been intended by Mozart (or Goethe for that matter). "Kiss my ass" would seem to be a felicitous rendition, capturing both the tone of the original German, as well as remaining close to its literal meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.36 (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're interpreting into something you don't know. "Lick me in the ass" is way, way too literal. I am not saying it has to be "kiss my ass" even though I think that translation meets the original the most exact way. I also find it a bit too vulgar. --till 02:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools[edit]

Must get this up to FA status before next April. This would make the most awesome April Fools FA ever. Raul654 22:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart fictitious connection to Tourette syndrome (TS) via scatological language on the mainpage as April Fool's joke; hmmmm, doesn't do a lot to assuage my concerns about having TS anywhere near the front page, and is exactly the sort of thing that I've always worried about. But then, I could be wrong; it could be a backdoor approach to better awareness of correct information about coprolalia. I recall some folk questioned at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tourette syndrome why Mozart warranted mention at all in the TS article, and I had to remind them that this was the nasty rumor that wouldn't go away and continued to get widespread publicity. TS will surely be the butt of this joke. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh... you said butt. heh heh Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added a source that could help to reach FA status. It's so difficult to find scholar literature on music.. --SummerWithMorons (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, how the tide of time carries away the seashells of dreams past. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recordings[edit]

I have a recording of this! Nicol Matt and the Chamber Choir of Europe. Its on the Brilliant Classics box set of Mozart's complete works. The first disc of Volume 8 is "Canons" and K231 and K233 are two of the forty-one tracks. K231 is 1:58 and K233 us 1:46. Pretty choral canons. If I didn't know the words, they'd sound like something sung by a choir in church. Here's the music match page for the disc: [4]. A canon discussion is here (including the scatological ones): [5] DavidRF 00:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I found this on Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Mozart-Time-Karl-Ditters-Dittersdorf/dp/B00000E6S8 Looks real. And Mozart was a completely juvenile individual, so it really could have happened.OfficeGirl 01:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, what is your point? Nobody is suggesting this is a hoax. Raul654 01:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outrageous[edit]

This is outrageous... truly. Actually this is possibly the greatest embarrassment to Wikipedia that I have ever come across, mostly due to the effort put into the accuracy of this article. This is akin to some errant email from a celebrated genius writer being included amongst unnamed genius's works. And then Wikipedia picking up on the email and creating a moundain out of a mole hill. Completely outrageous, in fact I may resign over this.-BillDeanCarter 17:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit dramtic, don't you think? The fact is, it's a piece of music by one who is considered by a large number of people as one of the greatest ever, and it's been recorded (at least twice), and has been given a proper number in his catalog to boot. While it may be a "trifle", its subject matter -- especially considering when it was written -- makes it most certainly worth writing about. I would imagine any detailed Mozart bio would certainly talk about it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think they would whisper about it in a secret corner of one of their pages. Perhaps buried in a large footnote and definitely not placed in the index.-BillDeanCarter 17:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My text-on-the-internet sarcasm detector is a bit wonky - the above comment is a joke, right? Raul654 04:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever BillDeanCarter's intentions were (and I agree with Raul654, they seem rather nebulous), in their current state they don't warrant any further consideration. Michael Bednarek 05:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm very serious and I'm writing up a new piece of wiki policy to prevent articles like this from coming about again.-BillDeanCarter 15:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You gonna try and ban fuck and ass and maybe even mother fucker...and how about cunt...too? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:02, 11 September 2007
Thanks for pointing out cunt to me. It needed work, which I've now started. They say it's an ill wind... --Rodhullandemu 04:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... yes, I guess I will have to. Basically anything that assaults the sensibilities should be banned.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line is: Wikipedia is not censored for taste. VanTucky Talk 19:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh goody. Can we ban Britney Spears and Pokémon, please? -- ChrisO 20:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An astonishing proposal on the 6th anniversary of 9/11 IMO. WP should present an unreal version of the world? I hope not. I's just say this: if you think WP should censor itself, you shouldn't be editing it in the first place. --Rodhullandemu 23:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, possibly it is me who is being outrageous.-BillDeanCarter 23:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the procedures to create new policies, but I suspect it requires a bit more than someone deciding to "write them up". The foundation of such new policies would need arguments a bit more solid than what you have advanced here so far - mere "outrage" won't do. Michael Bednarek 02:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CENSORED. I certainly hope you are not an authority figure, because this is very unbecoming of a wikipedia policy administrator. 216.37.86.10 18:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, I'm no authority figure. I'm actually a professional book burner and people who know me well have figured out that I intend to sanitize all available text over the course of my lifetime. Over time as a reader you realize what you don't and do want to read and you try to enforce those tastes upon others. I think it's natural.-BillDeanCarter 18:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Censorship offends my—and many others—sensibilities. This could get complicated. --j 21:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I predict an ED article will come of this. ←BenB4 04:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Score?[edit]

I don't suppose someone would like to make an image of the first few measures of the score for use in this article? Raul654 06:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a link to the score in the article. Although I could use a music notation program to make an image of the first few bars, I can't quite see how that would improve the article. After all, this is a minor work, it's not an article on LvB 5th which shows the famous da-da-da-daaa. Do you know of any other Wikipedia article showing incipits? Michael Bednarek 14:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I expect it's fairly common. Here's one - Six Moments Musicaux (Rachmaninoff) - I reviewed for GA the other day. Also, Goldberg Variations. –Outriggr § 20:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's nothing at all wrong with having a libre image of a part of the score. It helps enhance the article. Especially as this is a canon. Remember, the articles need to stand alone for themselves. ELs are helpful, but shouldn't be considered in getting the article to its highest quality. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather impractical exactly because it is a canon. To illustrate the structure of this canon (remember, it's for six voices), all 24 bars need to be shown. Look at the score and tell me which bars should be shown in this article to enhance its understanding. Again, this is a minor work, miles away from the examples given (LvB, S.Rachmaninoff, JSB). Michael Bednarek 05:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article name?[edit]

I got curious about this article after spotting it being discussed in some talk page correspondence, because my recollection of learning German is that "Leck mich im Arsch" was usually translated as "kiss my arse"; I guess that would be "kiss my ass" if this article is US English. I checked on Google Books to see how scholars have usually translated it. Searching for "Leck mich im Arsch" arse finds three hits, two for "kiss my arse" and one for "suck my arse"; searching for "Leck mich im Arsch" ass finds four more hits: some for "lick" and some for "kiss". What do Mozart books usually use as the translation? Seems like whatever they use should be the article title; I would have thought it would be "Kiss My Ass". Mike Christie (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before: the article's name should be the first line of the German text - that's how K. 231 is known. Michael Bednarek 13:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would work too. I see that this has been discussed above; sorry I missed that when I first posted.
Is there a standard used by music articles for titling articles on particular pieces? I checked a couple: Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring is in English, though using an archaic translation since that's the name it's well-known by; the less well-known Herz und Mund und Tat und Leben is linked from that page. The latter has the English in parens; I suspect the former should also have the original German, if it isn't to use the German title. Is there a WikiProject that would define such a standard? In any case the current title seems wrong, because it's simply a technically correct translation of the German, rather than the name of the piece as used in the literature. I can see why Raul654 feels the English title is what makes the piece notable, but unfortunately the piece is simply never called that, and the current article title is, I think, bawdier in English than it is German, which also seems wrong. I hesitate to put in a move request since I'm not an active editor of the article, but I'd think either "Kiss My Ass (Mozart canon)" or "Leck mich im Arsch" would be better; in either case there should be a translation to the other language in the lead. Mike Christie (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum, it appears that the "Lick me in the ass" translation is a stretch. I support using the German name, but even then, we get into translation issues when we bring in the English name. Everyone I've seen opining on the topic (and it's been written about on the TS article for well over a year, IIRC) has agreed with Kiss my arse. I don't speak German, so I'm taking their word for it. Let's get this renamed correctly soon, though; what are we waiting for? Whether the German or the correct English translation, the current title seems incorrect. Consensus above is for the German name; perhaps we can then include a discussion of the translation similar to what is found in Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome; much of that text (about the translation) was written by German editors of the Mozart article IIRC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that it should be titled with the German name precisely because there are issues with the translation, and the lede can say "alternatively translated as 'Kiss My Ass', 'Suck My Ass', etc." or something similar. If it become popularly known by one of the English translations, than the page can be moved. Natalie 17:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; unless a work has become popularly known by an English translation (Magic Flute being an obvious example which has been cited previously, it should remain in the original language, when this can be rendered using standard character sets. I am sceptical of your optimism that it *might* become known by an English translation, but I am alive to the possibility that one day some teenager might come to WP and type <rude words> into the search box. I'm sure it would improve their knowledge even to become aware that someone called Mozart ever existed. --Rodhullandemu 00:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

 Done

OK, I've put the move request in -- to the German name, since that seems to have the most consensus. Listed at WP:RM, and this section is for comments. My preference is for the German name too, since the English name only seems warranted if there is a standard translation well known in musicological circles, and that doesn't appear to be the case. Mike Christie (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concur with move to German name. The song is not known in English, and there are issues with this particular translation to English. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Though I would prefer it to remain in English, I feel the translation is too contentious (even among reliable sources) to ever be satisfied. Let's nip the problem in the bud, and ensure that the issue can be treated neutrally. VanTucky Talk 22:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with move to German name. I was worried that this article might be a hoax, so I asked a friend of mine who works as a translator of German into English to look over the lyric for plausibility. He told me the title translates as "Kiss My Arse". As to the US/UK distinction ass/arse, that's a collateral issue which I'm sure has arisen before. Would it be contrary to WP:Reliability and WP:NPOV to put in a footnote along the lines of "Opinion is divided but title could be translated as "Lick Me In The Arse" (colloquially, "Kiss My Arse")."? Just a thought. My concern is that some keen college student might later edit the page & add a translation anyway, which would lead to the need for a revert, and again, and again, and .... SWIM? --Rodhullandemu 23:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I still think it should be in English - can we instead get a consensus on the proper translation (i.e., move Lick Me In The Ass to Kiss Me On The Ass, Kiss My Ass, etc)? DeusExMachina 23:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have a reliably-sourced notable mention of it in English, that would help with a consensus on translation, so that we aren't engaging in original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • support. English translation is not agreed upon and in that light appears to be purposely sensationalistic. Incidentally, this reference from JSTOR: "'Grace Notes' Notes, 2nd Ser., Vol. 47, No. 4. (Jun., 1991), pp. 1326-1328." translated the lyrics in the score as "Lick my behind, hurry [g'schwindi], hurry! Lick my ass and hurry! Lick it![×8]" and so on. I haven't been able to figure out why this differs from the article's refs. I'm getting out the bleach now. –Outriggr § 23:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - also to avoid those silly AmE/BrE style bickerings. Reginmund 00:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as I've stated before (just repeated in this section for the record). Michael Bednarek 02:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's fine the way it is. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not a vote. "It's fine the way it is" does not address the concerns present. VanTucky Talk 06:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse you. Rudeness! I am quite aware of how these proceedings go, and I believe it's just fine the way it is. I have no concerns, therefore as far as I'm concerned, in my mind, it's "addressed." Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please WP:AGF. It may appear rude on the page, but text often can, and nobody but VanTucky knows how the comment was intended. --Nathan (Talk) 00:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The German name is more canonical and avoids emphasizing one of the translations. "Kiss my ass." is definitely more accurate but apparently not as common (judging from comments here), so it's best to sidestep the issue entirely. We can use the German version primarily and thus give both (or more) translations equal weight. --FunnyMan 10:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Apart from the fact that many people think the literal translation is incorrect, why the title of an article about a German song is the English translation of its title is beyond me. --Hpesoj00 11:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The name is poorly translated (it's literal, not by meaning) and is almost certainly based on a quote, which was initially given in German by that famous knight, already referenced above. CsikosLo 11:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As much as I do love "Lick Me in the Ass," I would have to agree that it is obviously too literal, and would be more appropriately rendered as just "Lick My Ass." It rolls off the tongue much more smoothly and sounds like a natural common phrase, which it seems to be in German. I agree that while "Kiss My Ass" is a much more common expression in English, it both looses its history and is inaccurate; if it was meant to be kiss, I am sure there is a word for kiss in German, and he sure didn't use it. I also think it is obvious that using the German would be absurd, as it would completely miss the point, make the article pretty much pointless, and it would quickly be forgotten and lost in the sea of Wikipedia. The German article is obviously instantly recognizable in German. This is just another modern attempt at bowdlerization, and will look just as silly and misguided in retrospect. I am glad that Wikipedia is more concerned with reality than social fads. The only reason that "Kiss My Ass" has been used in the past is that is that the people translating it were uncomfortable doing so accurately as "Lick My Ass." I do not see why we should perpetuate that. Anyway, I just really think it would be a shame to basically kill and bury this article by changing it to German and having it never see the light of day again. Just think of all the views it's getting now; how many do you think it will get once it's changed? I'd have to suspect that to the majority of the human population this is the most interesting thing Mozart has ever done, if they'd only ever had a chance to know about it, which you are proposing they won't. I don't see how encouraging any interesting in Mozart, classical music, history, and other cultures can be seen as such a horrible thing. Please don't perpetuate and support this decades (centuries?) old conspiracy of censorship. Heck, this is probably one of the most interesting articles on the entire Wikipedia, and you just know that no one will ever read it if it's in German, sorry. Elgaroo 12:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, since I am the person who proposed the move, I'll just come out and say that I am not trying to bowdlerize this. I'll be perfectly happy with this name if it can be justified. Mike Christie (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, a lot of people see it NOW, because it's linked to from the main page. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And it would be linked from the main page if it were titled "Leck mich im Arsch"? Elgaroo 12:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I'm not following Elgaroo's logic: it seems to be, keep an inaccurate translation for an article name simply because it's sensationalist title will generate more attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support there is evidently no standard English translation, so it should be at the original language title - with redirects from here and perhaps "Kiss my arse" and other likely variants, and a hat note on Kiss My Ass (worth it just to bemuse the rap fans). David Underdown 12:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for two reasons:
    1. "Eine kleine Nachtmusik" is not translated to "A Little Night Music"
    2. "Leck mich im Arsch" means something more like "Fuck you" in English (in English-language films that are translated/dubbed in German, if a character says "Fuck you", the translation is not "Fick dich", but rather "Leck mich")--Quoth nevermore 13:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Eine Kline is a good example -- it's pretty much universally known by that. This isn't exactly a well known piece, though the argument for changing it to something like "Lick My Ass" certainly makes sense. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a literal translation and not a translation by meaning. Foreign classical pieces should be referenced by their original, foreign titles. Translations, if any, should be provided in the body of the article instead. After all, this is supposed to be an encyclopedic reference. Zylox 13:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Keep in German until there is an agreed-upon English translation. Chl 13:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article's current name is at best misleading, as the song's real name is a German one without a widely known translation, and at worst original research, as it unnecessarily emphasizes a particular, questionable translation. Censorship and bowdlerization? How is Leck mich im Arsch not bawdy? Detracting from it's bawdiness? Again, how is Leck mich im Arsch not bawdy already? And keeping it in English to attract more attention? I think accuracy is a higher priority here than attention-grabbing. -- RG2 13:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is no standard english translation, and the one that we are currently using is misleading. Borisblue 16:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question on move[edit]

 Done

Consensus is pretty clear, and there is a huge backlog (at least a week) at requested moves. What are we waiting for, more sensationalism on the main page? We need an admin to complete the move to Leck mich im Arsch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, page move is done, and I updated the Did you know? link to point to the new title (first time I ever edited the Main Page :-)) -- RoySmith (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS, it seems obvious that the first sentence of the article now needs to be updated to reflect the title change. I'm neither a student of German nor of classical music, so I'll leave that to those more qualified to decide the best way to fix that. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cite journal[edit]

It looks like the editor who made this change doesn't understand what a PubMed (PMID) link to a journal article is. I changed it back to the correct cite template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference in Amadeus?[edit]

In Amadeus (film), there's a scene near the beginning of the movie where Mozart is playing backwards-talking games on the floor with some woman (maybe that was his future wife?) and asked her to Kiss my ass (backwards). I'm guessing that's a subtle reference to this song that the in-crowd all got and went right over my head? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart's baudy sense of humor is well-known from his letters. It wasn't isolated to this composition. DavidRF 17:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if you'll read the article, you'll notice the original lyrics weren't even known until 1991, well after the movie was made. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to anal-oral contact[edit]

This clause: "apparently a reference to anal-oral contact" seems to me to need a citation. Since I know this is (ahem) a sensitive area, I thought I'd mention it here rather than slap a fact tag on it. My reason is that if we were to quote someone notable saying "kiss my ass" to someone else, we wouldn't annotate it with a phrase such as this. It could be that Mozart was referring to sexual practices; he could also have just been saying "kiss my ass". I don't know which it is, but I suggest that a cited authority would be good if the article is to make an assertion like that. Mike Christie (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd slap the fact tag on the end. Heck, I'd dump it out of the article if things weren't likely to become so inflamed. Best sit on it for a while and see what shakes out. ←BenB4 04:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely agree, and intend to rewrite that paragraph soon. "LmiA" has as much sexual connotation in German as "kiss my ass" has in English - both are mere figures of speech. So, the clause , apparently ... should be omitted.
Also, the content of the paper quoted on Tourette's Syndrome only supports the negative argument and the Wikipedia article referenced is also very ambiguous. In short, no-one is seriously suggesting that Mozart's use of language has any relevance to the question whether he might have had TS or not. Consequently, the whole sentence needs to be rewritten or omitted. Michael Bednarek 05:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Double entendres aplenty! Loves it. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leck mir den Arsch fein recht schön sauber[edit]

Wait a second. If another song was the same phrase followed by "nice and clean" doesn't that strongly suggest that the phrase was not being used in an idiomatic fashion? ←BenB4 02:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the article says, "Later research has indicated that the latter composition is probably the work of Wenzel Trnka (1739-1791)". So no. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced the work of a local contemporary doesn't show the same kind of usage. ←BenB4 07:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me, a different use of the phrase in a literal sense doesn't suggest either way whether someone else meant it in a figurative sense. One person could say "kiss my ass," and mean it figuratively, and another person might say, "I'm going to bend over so you can pucker up and kiss my ass," which of course implies the literal, but that doesn't really mean anything. Hell, the same person could say both in different situations, one time meaning it literally and the other figuratively. --Jaysweet 21:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sweet[edit]

cool article...it would make a sweet rock song (LICK ME IN THE ASS!!!!!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.78.103 (talk) 05:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ass/arse[edit]

We'd better start discussing this then. (The article was protected and Raul654 cautioned after this 3RR report.)

Arguments for "ass":

  • It was the spelling used by the original creator of the article, and should be retained according to WP:ENGVAR

Arguments for "arse":

  • Reduces ambiguity, an ass is a donkey outside of America, an arse is an arse everywhere (see the "Opportunities for commonality" section under WP:ENGVAR)
  • It sounds more like the original "arsch" and is etymologically related
  • (A somewhat weak argument...) Germany lies in Europe, close to Britain, and WP:ENGVAR says that "national ties to a topic" can be a reason for changing the spelling

Melsaran (talk) 11:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The third argument is as ridiculous as anything. The second one makes no sense -- so what if they sound similar? Language sounds as language does. That leaves one argument on each side. Personally, I don't see that there's such a deep ambiguity of using 'ass'. Wictionary says it's an "older word for donkey" -- is it commonly used? And furthermore -- and here's the most important part -- is it actually NOT understood in other places to mean butt? Being from the US, I have no idea about the answer to that. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is fairly commonly used in the meaning of "donkey" outside the US – it is given as the primary meaning at [6], and Wiktionary can be edited by everyone so it is not really a reliable source. I suppose the word is understood outside the US as meaning "butt" as well, but I still don't really see the benefit of using a slightly ambiguous word over using a word understood by all. Note that the second argument was adapted from this anon edit summary, I don't say that I think it is an important argument or anything. Melsaran (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ass. None of the three arguments for "arse" convinces me. There's no effective ambiguity -- I find it hard to believe anyone could read this and not be clear what the intended meaning is. The "sounds like" doesn't carry any force either: when one translates a phrase, one looks for accurate translations, not ones that necessarily have similarity of etymology or sound. The third argument also doesn't apply, as far as I can see; the examples given in WP:ENGVAR make it clear that "national ties" mean much more than this.
The only thing I could see justifying a switch of national variety would be if musicological sources written or published on one side of the Atlantic consistently use the word belonging to the English dialect on the other side of the Atlantic. I.e. if US books on Mozart consistently say "arse" in their translations of this work's title, then "arse" is for some reason a standard. As far as I know that is not the case. Mike Christie (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One possible solution to the ambiguity issue would be to not write "ass", but "ass". But (sorry), I'm having a hard time believing there really is any confusion when written in context. Take for example, Monty Python. In Life of Brian, one character says, You know, something peckable but not leprosy, which is a pain in the ass. They're a British act, and I assume the scripts are written in colloquial British English. Surely nobody thinks they're talking about donkeys here. Likewise when the BBC uses kick-ass to describe an actress. If you do a google search for "ass site:co.uk", you'll find lots of uses of ass to mean buttocks in contemporary british writing. I think we're making a mountain out of a molehill here. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original research? That's really REALLY grasping for straws. It's the SAME word. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 14:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning, we don't do the translating of the entire phrase ourselves; we rely on sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Ass" and "arse" are both correct, they're just in different variants of English. The fact that the majority of sources uses British English doesn't mean that we should do so too. On Wikipedia, neither variant of English is preferred. We rely on sources to verify things, but we don't need to verify that "arsch" can be translated with "ass". Melsaran (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When we have multiple reliable sources mentioning a specific translation, I don't see a reason to discard or ignore them; they are the indication that arse is the most common term in use for this song. We need not engage in our own speculation; we have sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not speculation, and it's not even related to this title in the first place. They are the same word, and the German is that word as well. It falls under the 'common knowledge' clause. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The Compleat Mozart: A Guide to the Musical Works of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart" by Neal Zaslaw and William Cowdery can be searched on Google Books; it uses "ass". "Most common term" is not enough for me, Sandy; I think perhaps you mean that it's the standard term, but I strongly suspect it just reflects the language origins of the authors of the works in question. Maybe a comparison is with "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring"; a modern colloquial translation would be "Jesus remains my joy", if my German skills are not too decayed. Nobody would use "Jesu" instead of "Jesus" in a translation now, but it remains in the title because that title is a standard. To overcome the WP:ENGVAR constraint on leaving this article in US English, I think it has to be positively demonstrated that "arse" is standard usage outside British English writing. The book I cite above seems to me to demonstrate that that is not the case. Mike Christie (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're talking sources, finally :-) I believe Simkin is a US author writing in a US journal; I could be wrong. Several other points: I'm not convinced we need to overcome ENGVAR (original author) since the original article title (Lick me in the Ass) was a faulty original research translation; we need to get back to sources. And, while I really don't care if this article comes out as arse or ass, I strongly oppose any guideline on Wiki replacing attribution to reliable sources as the main criteria we use for deciding these matters. It doesn't matter here, but it does matter on a lot of other articles I edit, where POV pushers try to use their own translations to push a point of view, in spite of what reliable sources say. We must stick to sources; not for this article, but for the general principles of Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, I checked. Simkin appears to be a US author writing in a British journal. Half and half, not sure that helps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Agreed on the importance of sources. I went back to the history of the page, and the sequence is this:
  • Created with "ass" in the title but "arse" in a content sentence. Diff. I think this does not establish a variety of English.
  • Lyrics added using "arse" in the translation. Diff.
  • One instance of "arse" changed to "ass" with an edit summary of "consistent with title". Still no definite language established. Diff.
  • Many edits later, Raul made all uses consistent within the article. Diff. This was the first time the article had ever had a consistent usage. I think this is the edit that establishes the prevailing English variant to be used.
However, I agree that sources overrule ENGVAR. I do think the burden of proof is on those who want to argue from sources; and I think you also have to find a good argument to discount "The Compleat Mozart", which uses "ass". I'll certainly change my !vote to "arse" if those sources support it, Sandy; I don't think you've put the argument together yet, though. Mike Christie (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(post edit conflict) Sandy, I think US writer in British journal doesn't establish it; editorial policy is too likely to have overridden spelling. Mike Christie (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
argh, do I really have to go get that stupid Simkin book? (And, don't you need to find more sources than one :-) I haven't checked google books yet; I'm not proficient with its use.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC) OK, I figured out how to search in the Mozart book. It says "Kiss me on the ass", which is a translation not even reflected in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it is that if RS is to trump ENGVAR, then we need to definitely establish that the reliable sources translate "Arsch" as "arse". If you had three or four US sources using "arse", I agree the "Compleat Mozart" would not suffice as a counterexample. But so far all that seems to be established is that the sources (reliable and otherwise) translate "Arsch" according to local usage. So RS doesn't require either one, and ENGVAR governs. Am I missing something? Mike Christie (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm seeing it differently. I'm looking at the numbers. I've got so far four sources that use arse (Kammer, Telegraph, Sacks and Simkin) and you've got one that uses ass. And I've not yet checked the Simkin book (and don't look forward to doing that, it's an obscure publisher, so I'll probably have to order it online). I'm not sure which sources trump, though; I wish the music people would give us some strong, definitive musical source, since mine are all medical. But we've got other issues, in that now several sources give different translations anyway. Why don't we find a way to write the translation section comprehensively, considering all different accounts and versions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arse per SandyGeorgia. How delightful that Wikipedians are spending their Saturday's worrying about Mozart's backside. The Rambling Man 16:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually spend many days worrying about POV pushing on other articles where editors engage in original translations from Spanish that have far more significant real life implications than Mozart's historical arse or ass :-)) I strongly believe this decision must be based upon reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arse since it has a minor benefit (as pointed out above), and there are no real reasons for using "ass" besides the fact that it was used in the original version of the article. Melsaran (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ass, per the manual of style, and per the long standing rule that we don't change an article from what it used originally. Raul654 19:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:ENGVAR was meant to prevent pointless edit wars over British/American spelling with people reverting to the variety they personally prefer. In this case, there are reasons for using a different spelling, as pointed out above, so this does not really apply. Nobody said "change it because British English is better than American English". Melsaran (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reasons you cite are ludicrous ("ass could be confused for the animal") and totally without merit, as Mike Christie has already said. The manual of style clearly applies. Raul654 19:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • At the risk that the quote and dash-arguers may show up here, WP:V policy has to trump WP:MOS guideline. My argument is that we must used the translation supported by reliable sources (whatever that turns out to be). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't quite see how it matters when it's the same word, just a different variant. This isn't a case where there could be multiple translations (like, Night on Bald Mountain for example) -- ass is arse is butt is rear is behind, etc. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nobody said "change it because British English is better than American English" Actually, someone implied just that ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arse I see no substantial national ties to advocate for either side, and the idea that someone would confuse the anatomical and zoological usages in this case is patently insane. The grammar is too clear, and it's a part of common knowledge in its colloquial perjorative sense. However, arse does sound superficially closer to the German original. Also, and this is totally subjective reasoning on my part, I think using arse may more easily prevent the kind of superficial, joking treatment of the article that has occurred (what with the April Fool's suggestions and the like). This isn't a noteworthy subject because it's a lurid song title (God knows there are plenty of those, even in antiquity), but because it's Mozart. I don't want this article devolving into a piece of obscene trivia. VanTucky Talk 19:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vulgarity To everywhere in the world except the US, "ass" sounds incredibly coy. You might as well say "Kiss my bot-bot." The original German title and words were meant to be vulgar. "Arse" is pleasantly vulgar, and is therefore a better translation than "ass".82.138.203.101 21:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arse The German phrase was made famous by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's drama about the historical figure of Götz von Berlichingen. Both these Wikipedi articles give arse in their English version of this quote. So for the sake of internal consistency, it should be used here as well. I also think it is etymologically a much better fit, see cognate. Michael Bednarek 13:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also concerned about internal consistency; if it's changed to ass here, eventually people will be changing it to ass on the TS article, where all the medical citations use arse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a specious argument - "internal consistency" refers to consistency within an article, which is what we have here now with "ass". Inter-article consistency is a goal we long ago realized was hopeless, hence the rules about American versus British spelling. Raul654 16:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer "arse" - it is less ambiguous and closer to the original German. But it is hardly a matter of great importance. -- !! ?? 10:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Arse Per WP:ENGVAR, I'm not particularly concerned either way, because of WP:ENGVAR... but even though the article started with "ass", I think "arse" is probably ever so slightly preferable. While I'm sure people the world over will eventually "get it" either way, Arse is a little more natural for non-Americans, while not being any less natural for Americans. (Also, I just wanted the opportunity to put "Weak Arse" in bold face type and my edit summary ;D ) --Jaysweet 16:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, when you "arseume," you make an arse out of u and me. --Jaysweet 16:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about, arse per engvar? The use oArse is directly contradicted by engvar: If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. Raul654 16:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was phrased in a confusing way. Check it now and see if it makes more sense. The "weak" part of the vote is per ENGVAR, the "arse" part of the vote is not. --Jaysweet 16:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, Arse because ILIKEIT Raul654 16:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
heh... I'm not sure if that's supposed to be a clever pun or not, but I gotta point a couple things out...
First of all, WP:ILIKEIT is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, not necessarily in discussions over article content. For instance, if debating between two possible phrasings for a sentence, there pretty much is no other argument other than "I like it." So even if that was my reasoning, your associating that reasoning with the guideline against WP:ILIKEIT is a red herring.
And secondly, no, not because "I like it," but because I think it is ever so slightly more clear what is meant. Granted, WP:ENGVAR doesn't have a specific exemption for when one variation is more clear than the other, but I don't feel so bad about that given WP:IAR. The letter of the law says "Ass," sure, because of WP:ENGVAR. But I think in this particular case the article would be improved with the use of "Arse."
Okay, this is just too silly now. heh... --Jaysweet 17:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very silly. And best to consult some non-Americans regarding this then -- particularly a German. KyuuA4 19:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ass Direct German to English translation of Arse is to Ass. Arse is simply a less vulgar English variation to Ass. KyuuA4 19:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps in American English. But in the Queen's English, "Ass" is a type of donkey. Martintg 03:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And in American English "Arse" means absolutely nothing. Do you have a point? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I will refrain from voting for now. I need a painting of Mozarts behind for investigation to make sure whether it looks more assy or arsey. Possibly a reference to peer reviewed pornographic magazine would also help in making the decision. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 20:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arse-ing around - Preferable to ass, and though it counts for absolutely nothing, I have a German friend who insists that he always uses "arse", not "ass", when conversing in English among his fellow Germans. DEVS EX MACINA pray 04:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There seems to be some confusion as to which is more vulgar. "Ass" is plenty vulgar in the states. Certainly not polite sunday dinner vocabulary. The donkey connotation is only used these days by people attempting to get away with saying profanity. No one would say the mascot of the democratic party was an "ass" (except maybe some republicans). I thought the main reason the americans switched to the 'ass' spelling in the first place was that the british didn't pronounce the 'r' in 'arse' anyways. I'd vote for the one that would cause the least amount of confusion. But, looking at the size of this discussion, I'd have no idea which one that is.DavidRF 06:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arse. The New Grove uses it, and "ass" strikes me as a bit parochial/Americentric. Opus33 18:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And "arse" isn't? Believe me, it sounds very odd to American ears to hear that word at all. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 18:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we're talking about a European composer, the fact it sounds odd to American ears is unfortunate, but more appropriate than replacing "arse" with "ass". DEVS EX MACINA pray 23:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no. We use the native form if an article on a topic... has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation.-WP:ENGVAR Being European has nothing to do with it. Raul654 01:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on your definition of "nation". Mozart has strong ties to the European Union (being from Europe), and they use British English. DEVS EX MACINA pray 01:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you points for creativity, but sorry, no. Raul654 01:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we were talking about a piece from 2002 instead of 1782, you MIGHT have a point. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The argument for "ass" just seems weaker to me, just on the pure chance it was authored by an American it should stay as "ass"? Even though Germans who speak English are more likely to say "arse"? I can't believe I'm having an argument about the ettiquette of using a particular version of a vulgarity for another, oh well. I just wish we'd come up with a Wikipedian English standard or something, but the likelihood of that is miniscule. DEVS EX MACINA pray 02:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments like this are exactly why there /shouldn't/ be a standard. As I said, 'arse' just looks really odd. So does colour, and a lot of other words. But of course they are perfectly valid. And the number of English speakers that use one or the other is quite high on BOTH ends, which is the major point. Outside of obvious things like locale-based articles, how would you propose one is better than the other? Maybe US English, as WP's servers are in Florida. Or always use color, as that's what the WP article is at, not to mention the help files...but always use aluminium (granted, that probably happens anyway, but I digress, not to mention it wouldn't come up as much). See the problem? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, even though I obviously prefer ass and think Raul is right to cite ENGVAR, it DOES seem the large consensus is toward arse, and should probably stay that way. I'm not about to revert it though... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agee with ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ and find Raul654's revert unjustified. Michael Bednarek 09:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with both of you, but is anyone bold enough to revert him? *cowers* DEVS EX MACINA pray 23:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm weary of seeing this characterized as a British/American spelling issue when it's not; it's a matter of how the reliable sources translate the song name, and that is clearly Lick my arse or Kiss my arse, and has been established on at least three other articles and in every source that has surfaced. I honestly can't believe we're having to discuss this, particularly with such a strong consensus for the correct translation of Kiss my arse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ass per WP:ENGVAR. British English does not really have strong ties to a song probably written in Austria as American Civil War has strong ties to American English. There are sources that use ass. Then whether it is European should not change the original author's spelling choice. Tim Q. Wells 03:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Arse I have only heard this word in Braveheart, to be honest. But in trying to keep this in a logical perspective, if Mozart was bilingual at the time of writing this song, I am going to assume he would have used 'arse' as those who would have taught him the translation would have most likely used that word. Again, I have no uppercase letters to throw out here, just thinking about continuity given the time period. the_undertow talk 06:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laments the state of classical music on Wikipedia – Especially if this is what people argue over. Just mention arse/ass once in the article and from then on in translate it as bottom, rear-end or some other American/British invariant. 131.111.8.103 14:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is an effort to make the article as accurate as possible and you are apparently missing the overall picture. If you are concerned over the state of classical music on wikipedia, consider getting an account and getting involved. the_undertow talk 18:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw on the Colbert Report last night that the amount of ass vs. arse discussion on Wikipedia has nearly tripled in the last decade. --Jaysweet 18:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, this article has very little to do with classical music on wikipedia. We got the title of the article back into German, and after that, well who cares. This whole article is nothing more than an amusing footnote on the life of Mozart and this piece is really not that interesting to listen to. DavidRF 20:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Is it really that important whether its translated as ass or arse, everyone with common sense can translate Arsch for themselves. And also I hope people have seen that this has made it to WP:LAME? Just leave it be...does it really matter? Centy – reply• contribs – 22:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen the WP:LAME thing. I think that's a clear sign that we should all discontinue our attempt at coming to a civil a societal consensus, and pretty much exclude our edits outside of said WP:LAME, which is certainly authoritative and reliable in itself. Honestly, if it didn't matter, there would be no discussion so why drop by and opine? the_undertow talk 02:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you've missed the point of WP:LAME. It's a place where actual editors who try and write for Wikipedia can go and look at how big a fool some people make of themselves by having an argument over a triviality. Most people would burst out laughing knowing the time and debate that has been going over with ass and arse. I am merely dropping by because this argument along with the problems over infobox means virtually no one is actually making significant contributions to Wikipedia's classical music and trying to convince people to stop. How many of you for example have to gone to WP:FAC to review the candidacy of Six Moments Musicaux (Rachmaninoff), or done some research to expand a few of our stubs? The fact that some editors are quibbling over a minor spelling variation makes me slightly concerned.
Besides I'm not adding to the madness. I'm just here to point out that you guys have already given this way too much time (half a month!) and should have probably come to some decision by now. I hope people can take a step back and acknowledge how silly this whole chapter has been (especially those who 3RR). Centy – reply• contribs – 13:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have finally found the perfect compromise Please see the proposal at Talk:Leck mich im Arsch/Proposed Compromise. Comments? --Jaysweet 19:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a well-intentioned compromise, but it makes the page excessively long (two separate lyrics and all) just because we can't agree on which variant of English to use, whilst in other articles we use a single variant. Not really a good idea, I'd say. Melsaran (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually a joke (look at the last sentence of the intro paragraph). I was trying to take this whole debate to the maximum point of absurdity.
That said, the latest edit from Raul actually does seem like a reasonable compromise... He avoids saying ass or arse all except for one single time, so then it's not so bad. --Jaysweet 19:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, "arse" (or "ass", same word, different variety of English) is a literal translation, "buttocks" isn't. Yes, it may be a compromise, but I think it's better to find a consensus on ass vs. arse instead. Melsaran (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It took a two-month wait, but I'm finally back with an example showing my concern with respect to use of reliable sources in translations, no matter how trivial the issue. And if ass/arse lick/kiss my/in my was lame, this example is even more lame, but serves to illustrate how POV can be introduced via original research translations. I'm going to explain this here because this is why I cared about using reliable sources even for a trivial distinction between ass/arse, kiss/lick, etc. The article about the recent Chávez/King Juan Carlos incident was originally correctly titled per reliable sources as ¿Por qué no te callas?‎; this translation/phrase is supported by every reliable source I have found, which includes The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Miami Herald, The Sydney Morning Herald, Time magazine, the BBC, CNN, MSNBC, Reuters, AP, Al Arabiya, many Spanish-language newspapers (Venezuela, Mexico and Spain), and too many blogs, forums and other websites to mention (the phrase itself gets almost 2 million GHits) and is the subject now of T-shirt sales, coffee mugs, songs, skits, contests, and a domain name. One editor found *one* source that claims the phrase could be written more correctly in Spanish as ¡Por qué no te callas! (exclamation points instead of question marks). This is a POV issue because it has to do with Chávez's claims of "Spanish arrogance and imperialism"; that is, that King Juan Carlos was demanding rather than asking. So, based on one source, the article was moved to a new name with exclamations rather than question marks (later moved back), and now has a dispute tag in spite of being a meticulously sourced article with only one source vaguely suggesting exclamation points might be used. Now, if lick/kiss ass/arse my/in my is trivial, that is even more trivial, but there we have the example I tried to refer to earlier in this debate; we should never engage in original research on foreign language phrases when we have reliable sources, and if we fail to do so, we open the door to POV-pushing interpretations on translations. (Wouldn't "Shut up Chavez" make a nice April Fools article; I can certainly bring it to standard by exploring the entire political situation.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Saleable"[edit]

Re: "More saleable"? How so? Prove it. In fact, source it. What's it doing there, besides adding a chatty tone?)

I'm pretty sure I didn't make it up when I added it here, but I can't find the original source again now. I believe it was something to do with the publisher thinking it would be more likely that the buying public would spend money to acquire the music to a song entitled "Let us be glad" rather than "Kiss my arse". Perhaps a dodgy Google-powered translation from a German source. Never mind. -- !! ?? 11:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart and TS[edit]

This edit delinked from the original article containing full information, and linked instead to an article with two sentences and a proposed merge. Raul, are you saying you prefer that the article content be in the article Mozart and Tourette syndrome, even though no credible source indicates he had TS and the topic is already dealt with thoroughly as speculation at Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome? I'm not understanding the reasoning behind delinking to full info in favor of an article that is a proposed merge to that article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, you want to link to the most specific article possible. In this case, the scatological title and lyrics have been used as evidence to support the contention that Mozart had Tourette syndrome - I think that Mozart and Tourette syndrome is clearly a more relevant link than Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome If someone wants to rework the prose to figure out a way of linking the other article as well, I don't have any problem with that - but as written, I didn't see how. Raul654 19:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll wait to figure out where to park the text depending on what happens with Mozart and Tourette syndrome; I think it strange to have an article about Mozart's non-TS, and I suspect it was created because the eidtor didn't realize the content was already in the TS article, but if that article stays, I'll move the content there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Souces'[edit]

Can someone please explain to me how in the world it matters that a source HAPPENS to use a certain version of the SAME word? This isn't a case where the difference actually means something different (like the aformentioned Night on Bald Mountain, or something where the tense might be different, etc). Again, this is the same word. Ass = Arse. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and since noone responded, at all, I'm going to have to assume the answer is that it's irrelevant, and any attempt at justification with it should be discarded. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a longer response above, but it's not just ass. It's ass/arse, lick/kiss, and in the/on, etc. It's the whole darn phrase; what is the most reliably sourced translation of the entire thing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT refers to deletion discussions, not article content!!![edit]

Beyond the whole ridiculous ass/arse controversy, Raul, I would really like you to understand that WP:ILIKEIT applies to deletion discussions, not to article edits. It is impossible to separate personal preference from editing of an article, because there will always be differing opinions over what type of wording is clearest, least awkward, etc. I have seen you cite that guideline in both the Talk page and the edit summaries, and I'm sorry, but WP:ILIKEIT doesn't have anything to do with this whatsoever.

Also, I want to point out that the purpose of WP:ENGVAR is to avoid getting into a big thing over British vs. American spelling -- so now that it is too late for that, now that a large number of serious editors are making a big thing over it, WP:ENGVAR really doesn't serve much of a purpose any longer. The damage is done, now is the time to reach consensus rather than just hiding behind guidelines. --Jaysweet 21:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here has presented a single reason beyond personal preference as a reason to switch from American to British spelling, both of which are wholly accurate translations from the German. And your own protestations to the contrary, ENGVAR still very much applies. Raul654 23:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I did. Quoting myself:
Does anyone have access to Walter Scott's translation of the play? Given the period of that translation, it should settle this argument.
Also, the point that ass is ambigous whereas arse is not, is more than personal preference, as Raul654 puts it.. Lastly, there is a Wikipedia article on arse, none on ass with this meaning, instead there is a redirect to buttocks and the article wiktionary:ass is also clear on the primary meaning in its text (and it illustrates the word with a donkey). Michael Bednarek 05:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing ambiguous about the word ass in context. Anyone would know what it referred to just as if I wrote "I read the book yesterday", people would know I meant the past tense of read. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 10:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654 is probably referring to his belief that it is irrelevant what sources say, or what variant is more common, or more etymologically correct, because "arse" and "ass" are both correct, and we usually retain the variety of English used by the first contributor to the article. I disagree with him on this, but I can understand why he thinks some people want to change it for "I like it" reasons. Melsaran (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article called arse and the very first link in ass is to that article. Why are we even discussing this? I'm going to be bold and just change it. — Hex (❝?!❞) 22:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but "I like it" is not necessarily an invalid reason for a copy-edit! It is only an invalid reason to keep an article. --Jaysweet 16:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ILIKEIT is an invalid reason for changing spelling. The arbitration committee has made this clear: When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk ILIKEIT is, almost by defintion, not a substantial reason Raul654 22:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...which means that someone needs to come up with a 'substantial reason', or ass should be there as it was first. And you can't just call IAR here because there's no plausible way that THIS could 'better the encycopedia'. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The original translation was encyclopedically wrong. The German phrase Leck mich im Arsch was made famous by Goethe's drama about the historical figure of Götz von Berlichingen; Mozart clearly refers to Goethe's text. The Wikipedia articles on Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Götz von Berlichingen give arse in their English version of this quote. This is correct. Why? Arsch is a strong profanity in German, so it should be translated as such. If Goethe and Mozart had used Po, Hintern, Gesäß, or Kehrseite, the American English (AmE) variant ass might be a better translation; they didn't. Furthermore, it is anachronistic to translate Arsch as ass in a text from the late 18th century which describes events from around 1500; the current euphemistic usage in AmE didn't appear until 1860 and became popular in the 1930s. Michael Bednarek 12:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above breaks down to: The Wikipedia article (on which we should not rely) about the work this piece references happens to translate it as arse, and arse is an older word than ass. How does either of those matter? Are we writing Shakespeare articles in his language? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*ASS! That's the way it was originally, but people want to change it to make it sound less "bad". Screw the bowdlerizing bastards. If you want it spelled "arse", you should have written the article first. But you didn't. Now get over it. TechnoFaye Kane 00:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is not about the severity of the word, nor bowdlerisation. Arse is not a bowdlerised word of Ass, it is simply an alternate version used by various dialects of English and its severity is arguably exactly the same in those cultures than ass is in America. It is merely a translation issue. DEVS EX MACINA pray 09:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, gotta agree there. That would be like saying it I searched for every instance of "bugger" on Wikipedia and replaced it with "fuck," that I'd be censoring Wikipedia. heh... --Jaysweet 16:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputation of reliable source text of Götz von Berlichingen by User:Melsaran[edit]

Melsaran disputed the reliability of the source text I gave to Goethe's play Götz von Berlichingen, which made this quote famous: http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/G%C3%B6tz_von_Berlichingen/3._Akt.

  1. I can't find anything in Wikipedia:Reliable sources that says Wikisource is unreliable.
  2. That Wikisource article is a proof-read version of the Reclam publication which is the standard edition used in German schools.

Melsaran then replaced my link to the source text with one from the Project Gutenberg: http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/?id=12&xid=859&kapitel=8&cHash=48a97f66532; this link has two flaws: 1. it links to the wrong scene of the play; 2. for reasons I can't guess, Gutenberg uses an expurgated version which replaces the very quote we're dealing with here by dots or dashes, so the reference doesn't prove anything.

I added the link to Wikisource again and corrected the link to the Gutenberg text so it points to the correct scene. However, I suggest the unhelpful reference to the Gutenberg text should be removed. Michael Bednarek 06:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with wikis is that they can usually be edited by everyone and that they have little to no editorial oversight, therefore, there is no way to ensure that the content there is reliable. If this is simply a quotation from the play, then it shouldn't be too difficult to find the same quotation somewhere else on the internet (Wikisource must have gotten it from somewhere), right? I did a Google search on the play and I found the Gutenberg Project link, so I assumed it was the same; if it was slightly different, you have my apologies. Melsaran (talk) 10:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise solution to wording issue?[edit]

In view of the seeming importance of the translation to many editors, and the desire to make it read idiomatically in all varieties of English, I propose that the sentence in dispute could best read "A literal translation of the song's title and lyrics into English would be "Lick me in the ass" or "Lick me in the arse". This solution of providing parallel versions could not be used in every instance of the dispute (such as later appearances of "ass"/"arse" in this article), but it might work on first mention which is probably the most important. Thoughts? Newyorkbrad 17:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is frustrating. I'll try one last time. The discussion should not be about whether the word is ass or arse (and I sure don't know where the cockamaney buttocks came from, as we've not seen that in any reliably sourced translation). The issue is how reliable sources translate the entire phrase, which is much more than just the ass/arse word. The big picture is that we should avoid original research translations on Wiki. The even bigger issue is the way original translations are used to push POV on, for example, politial bios from figures in non-English-speaking countries. I have seen and been involved in discussions where POV pushers ignore reliably sourced translations to alter one word as simple as ass/arse to turn a slogan to the favor of their POV. We should never allow original translations on Wiki when reliably sourced translations are available. This is not about ass/arse! We have various versions of the entire phrase being tossed out here as translations; lick my ass, lick my arse, kiss my ass, kiss my arse, lick me in the ass, lick me in the arse, and it goes on. We have several sources which give us clear translations (and I admit that I've lost track of them) and those are the words we should be using. We shouldn't be opening the door for POV pushers to alter campaign slogans on politician's bios to favor a POV when reliable sources give us accurate translations. In this discussion, we have (IIRC) New Grove, at least three medical sources, and a book which we can track down if this isn't sorted out (Simkin is a musician and a physician who researched the songs). This discussion should not be about ass/arse or ENGVAR; it should be about the policy behind WP:V and reliable sources, so that we don't open the door for misuse of translations on other articles where the difference is more significant than ass or arse. This discussion is not correctly positioned if people think it's about ass/arse. We should use reliably sourced translations of the entire phrase, per WP:V. Should I get the stupid Simkin book, or will it make a difference? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Left off the conclusion: so, Brad, where are you getting those translations? Regardless of whether it's ass or arse, it isn't even clear that the "in the" words are part of the phrase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think there was a broader dispute as to what a word-by-word translation of the title would be, subject to the semantic quibbling. I don't think there is much relationship between the translation of this title and opening a door to POV pushers on political articles. But I am certainly not an authority on 18th century German and its idiomatic translation, nor on the locations where one can source same; forget that I ever said a word here.... Newyorkbrad 17:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that wasn't discussed, then perhaps some of us didn't make the issue clear enough. There are medical and musical sources which translate the names of the songs and historical sources which discuss the origin of the phrases, and several of us have consistently tried to focus the discussion on reliable sources and away from whether it is about ass or arse. And I do think there is a relationship, having been involved in several discussions that involved just this type of original research, where the different translations of one word, such as ass/arse, contribute to POV. It's a policy principle; we don't do original research on translations to English when we have reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How in the world can you even call this an OR issue? Again, this is a came of a variant on the same word. If a source used English Horn, but the person who inserted text used Cor anglais instead, would it need to be changed (as, in this case, the later is the one used on WP, and is the British varient)? Or how about if a source mentioned 'French' horn, but the person didn't like the term as many don't? Etc etc. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 18:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're still focusing on one word. It's not about the one word (ass/arse and now even buttocks, for gosh sakes); it's about the entire phrase. For example, is it lick or kiss? For example, does it include "in the" or not? We need a discussion centered on the reliably sourced translations of the entire phrase, not a silly disagreement over one word, ass/arse. And, the original research concern is not about this article as much as Wiki-wide policy on original translations; it's about making sure we use reliably sourced translations even for only one word in other, more significant issues that arise in other articles. I do not understand why editors keep bringing this discussion back to a one-word (is it ass or arse) issue. If it's only about ass/arse, I click unwatch, done, who cares; if people want to discuss reliable sources, I'll get and read the Simkin book because I can use it to expand the TS article or help with this one. We should put up a list of how the reliable sources translate it, and use the highest quality sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK only Walter Scott translated Goethe's drama Götz von Berlichingen (the source of the phrase) into English. I can't find his text on the internet, and it's not in any library here in Queensland - only in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. Could someone else have a look at their State or University library? There is of course a good chance that it might not resolve this issue if it omits the word altogether, the way the German text used by the Project Gutenberg does Michael Bednarek 05:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More fuel for the fire...[edit]

Well, I was listening to Robert Greenberg's lecture, Great Masters: Mozart—His Life and Music, and he in fact, quoting Maynard Solomon (I believe), uses the word ass. Now, this isn't directly related to the piece, but the phrases "Lick my ass" and "lick my ass nice and clean" and IIRC "anyone who doesn't like it can kiss my ass" (or something)...and well, it was obviously talking about this phrase, at the least. Just something. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an attempt to light a fire under our ass arse buttocks? --Jaysweet 17:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsch[edit]

German link is dead. --MosheA 01:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article in DE has been moved to de:Leck mich im Arsch; see http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leck_mich_im_Arsch&diff=prev&oldid=37585515 . For some reason, they didn't create a REDIRECT which I have now. In the long run, the link in this article here should be changed; this can't be done at the moment because it's protected.

{{editprotected}}

Change [[de:Leck mich im Arsch (Kanon)]] to [[de:Leck mich im Arsch]].

Michael Bednarek 06:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok,  Done. If I broke anything give me a hollar. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New journal study from Jankovic[edit]

Quotes From PMID 17940168

  • Another example of a propensity towards foul language (coprolalia) is Mozart’s cannons titled "Leck mich am Arsch" ("Lick my ass"), composed when he was 26 years old.[34] Joseph Lange, who was an actor with the Burgtheater company and Mozart’s brother-in-law (husband of Aloisia Weber, Mozart’s earliest girlfriend and sister of his wife Constanze) and who had very close relations with Mozart, wrote about Mozart’s vulgar platitudes. However, he believed that Mozart’s inane and immature behaviour was a byproduct of the creative intensity surrounding his process of composition: "Never was Mozart less recognisably a great man in his conversation and actions, than when he was busied with an important work. At such time he not only spoke confusedly and disconnectedly, but occasionally made jests of a nature which one did not expect of him, indeed he even deliberately forgot himself in his behaviour....Either he intentionally concealed his inner tension behind superficial frivolity, for reasons which could not be fathomed, or he took delight in throwing into sharp contrast the divine ideas of his music and these sudden outbursts of vulgar platitudes, and in giving himself pleasure by seeming of make fun of himself".[35] [36]
  • Although coprolalia is a characteristic feature of TS, and recent studies indicate its association with activation of various areas in the brain such as the left middle frontal and right precentral gyri,[37] this language abnormality is not universally present or specific for TS.[38] Some investigators, in fact, believe that the scatological features exhibited by Mozart may simply represent a style of speech and silliness that was acceptable behaviour in the population of the South German middle class or was influenced by his family.[36] [39] Mozart’s scatological language may have been just a reflection of his satirical, hypomanic humour and intentional rather than involuntary or could have been an influence from his mother’s "Salzburgisch" humorous characteristic.[40]
  • 34. Lange J. Reminiscences (1808). In: Deutsch OE, eds. Mozart, a documentary biography . Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1965: 503.
  • 35. Deutsch OE. Mozart, a documentary biography . Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1965.
  • 36. Landon HCR, ed. The Mozart compendium. Ann Arbor: Borders Press, 1990: 102–10.
  • 37. Gates L, Clarke JR, Stokes A, et al. Neuroanatomy of coprolalia in Tourette syndrome using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 2004; 28: 397–400.[CrossRef][Medline]
  • 38. Lawden M. Gilles de la Tourette syndrome: a review. J R Soc Med 1986; 79: 282–8.[Medline]
  • 39. Karhausen LR. Weeding Mozart’s medical history. J R Soc Med 1998; 91: 546–50.[Medline]
  • 40. Davies JP. Mozart in person: his character and health . New York: Greenwood Press Inc, 1989.

(Jankovic is a well recognized TS expert, unlike Simkin.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For consideration[edit]

Articles meeting the featured article criteria and passing WP:FAC in time can be considered for the April Fools' mainpage, as discussed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-03/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Alternative" Goethe lyrics[edit]

I find the lyrics version given under the "Alternative lyrics" heading, using the Goethe/Götz von Berlichingen allusion, extremely implausible. This is almost certainly not an original text by Mozart but a later, humorously bowdlerised adaptation. Note that the collection of canon texts at [7] also contains another passage that only makes sense from a later perspective ("Soll das denn Mozarts Urtext sein?! [...] Nein, der Mozart war ein feiner Mann!"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why implausible? Goethe's drama premiered nine years before Mozart wrote this, and the line in question entered immediately the German language, so much so that in polite society it was sufficient to utter "Götz" to convey the meaning. The top of this article explains how the text was changed from its original (here listed as "Alternative lyrics") to the bowdlerised version (here listed as "Lyrics"). The first line of that expurgated version shouldn't really be there; I suspect the NME score shows it only for identification purposes - it is meant to start with "Lasst uns froh sein". This is all very similar to what happened to Leck mir den Arsch fein recht schön sauber where the two versions are properly labelled. Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Preface of the NMA III/10, p.X [8] (my translation):

"The textual attestation of three canons of the first group (KV 231/382c, 233/382d undd 234/382e) is particularly poor, as their only sources are the textual incipits of the original texts provided in the Breitkopf catalogue. The original texts were replaced with new ones by either Breitkopf or Härtel."

That means none of the texts is original, with either of the two canons. The Breitkopf/Härtel texts are those printed (in small and italics) in the NMA scores. Nowhere does the NMA mention either of the two texts I referred to; these are apparently not even the ones provided in those early editions, but even later adaptations. As for the implausibility: these texts only make sense, especially in the other case ("Is this supposed to be Mozart's urtext?") under a perspective where both Goethe and Mozart were already firmly established as a classical canon of high culture. I am not aware of any evidence that Mozart ever thought about himself in that way (or of Goethe, for that matter), or that he ever wrote texts on such a self-conscious meta level. And why would Mozart have referred to himself in the past tense? The texts are also both far too close to standard present-day German, not the Austrian dialect Mozart would have used. "Rufen wir nun ganz summarisch / hier wird Mozart literarisch"? Good lord, that's the lingo of an early 20th-century middle-class grammar school teacher, straight out of Die Feuerzangenbowle. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I now also read the section about the "rediscovery" of the texts in 1991. First off, the account of that discovery was seriously misrepresented (it wasn't original authographs that were found, etc.) Also, we have no indication of the actual wording of those 1991 texts. There's nothing that points to it being the ones printed in the "Brilliant Classics" booklet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to this article [9], the text found in 1991 reads: Leck mich im A... g'schwindi, g'schwindi! Leck im A... mich g'schwindi. Leck mich, leck mich, g'schwindi etc. etc. etc. Nothing about Goethe and Götz. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're uncovered good research, remember there's still time to polish this off for April Fools' mainpage, but the clock is ticking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, that would be "my" first FA! :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you've got the research, and you're willing to move fast, I'll try to recruit help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A...[edit]

David, can you please elaborate on that's how the edition referred to is set out? I don't understand what it means. Kingturtle (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, the printed text we are quoting apparently contained "A...", rather than "Arsch", so we sould quote it in that form, and comment that "A..." presumably stand for "Arsch", rather than fill it in in the quote. David Underdown (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article explains that A... means arsch, but the article doesn't explain (or explain well) that A... is how the actual text of the document reads. That needs to be addressed. Kingturtle (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well since the article uses Arsch (or equivalent English translation elsewhere) it seems to be the only explanation, and in any case, we are quoting the text as presented in the source available to us (the article), which is what we should do unless someone can actually track down the original. David Underdown (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying change A... to Arsch; I am saying write something in there to let the reader know that A... is how it actually appears in the text being quoted. Kingturtle (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge with redundant article[edit]

This article and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leck_mir_den_Arsch_fein_recht_sch%C3%B6n_sauber should be merged.

Coughinink (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no Disagree — Why should it be merged, and why is that article redundant? The two canons are different works. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complete text[edit]

The complete text (without the etc.) is somewhere on the Internet. I think it was something like:

Leck mich im Arsch g'schwindi, g'schwindi!
Leck im Arsch mich g'schwindi.
Leck mich, leck mich, leck mich, leck mich, leck mich, leck mich, leck mich, leck g'schwindi, g'schwindi, g'schwindi, g'schwindi!
G'schwindi, g'schwindi, g'schwindi, g'schwindi!
Leck mich im Arsch g'schwindi, g'schwindi, g'schwindi, g'schwindi!
G'schwindi, g'schwindi, g'schwindi, g'schwindi!

but I'm not quite sure. (I haven't checked the text recently.) Double sharp (talk) 08:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh – it's available in full on the German article. Double sharp (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

what the...???[edit]

http://pitchfork.com/news/43861-jack-white-collaborates-with-insane-clown-posse-to-cover-mozart-for-real/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.188.13 (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Leck mich im Arsch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leck mich im Arsch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Leck mich im Arsch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leck_mich_im_Arsch&oldid=1203531183"