Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Wikipedia must be based on reliable sources, and reliable references cannot be deleted without consensus to delete them

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia defines Wikipedia:Vandalism as "On Wikipedia, vandalism is when a user makes changes to pages that make the page incorrect and not make sense." I initally assumed good faith, and I still assume it, but if you keep making changes that are incorrect and make no sense, I will consider that behavior borderline vandalism.

Just to make it clear, Wikipedia is based on Wikipedia:Reliable sources, not the subjective opinion of editors. If reliable sources say X, and an editor adds X, then other editors CANNOT delete X without consensus to delete X. That would be commiting vandalism, as it is a form of hiding objective information that is based on reliable sources.

The Wikipedia pages for Mozart and Bach mention that they are among the greatest composers of all time in the lead paragrah and also include references in the lead paragraph, so it is indeed part of Wikipedia common practice to mention when a composer is one of the greatest of all time with references in the lead paragrah.

The Wikipedia pages in Simple English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Cantonese Chinese, among many others, maention in the lede paragrah that Ludwig Van Beethoven is one of the greatest and most influentials composers of all time, so it makes no sense to hide that information.

Lastly, ALL the sources I added to back it up the claim that "Beethoeven is one of the greatest and most influential composers of all time" are reliable.

My first reference: an article published by the Encyclopaedia Britannica, that happens to be one of the most well-known and reputable English encyclopedias, and so perfectly reliable.

My second reference: an article published by the webpage classical-music.com, that is specifically specialized in classical music, and so perfectly reliable.

My third reference: an article published in a peer-reviewed and academic music journal, that is, Journal of the Royal Musical Association (previously called Proceedings of the Musical Association). Thus, a reliable source.

My fourth reference: a music book published by the composer and professional musician Willard Palmer, so obviously a reliable source.

My fifth reference: an article published by the well-known webpage specialied in classical music Classic FM.

My sixth reference: an article published by Anthony Tommasini the chef music critic of the prestiogous and famous New York Times,

Editors have no business deleting those reliable sources without consensus to delete it on the talk page. Double sharp and I agree on the absolute necessity to include those reliable references about Beethoven and not hiding information (the information that he is acknowledged as one of the greatest and most influential composers of all time). Again, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, to delete those references to hide information you don't like is vandalism.

So please, dear SPECIFICO, and dear Smerus, I must ask you to stop deleting those references and to stop trying to delete and hide the fact that Ludwig Van Beethoven is ackowledged as one of the greatest and most influential compositors of all time. Thank you.James343e (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted your addition. It should be obvious to you that there is not consensus for this. First get consesnsus then add article content after you have consensus. Please be patient and engage on talk.

Also I've asked you previously not to insert line spaces into talk page comments. The Wikipedia software is not set up for that. Please remove your line spaces and don't do that again. SPECIFICO talk 01:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear SPECIFICO, I just do it to separate paragraphs. Could you please provide me a link where it is stated that we cannot or should not insert line spaces into talk pages? If I see it is not accepted, I have no problem to stop doing so.James343e (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I support the additions proposed by James343e. It's not a matter of being respectful to Beethoven, or our personal opinions, which are irrelevant here. It's simply an indisputable statement of fact, backed up by countless reliable sources, that he is and even since within his own lifetime has been considered widely to have this importance. Why else did Brahms make those comments about the giant marching behind? Why else is he the only name inscribed at Symphony Hall? And why else was he so often mentioned within the same breath as Haydn and Mozart in his lifetime? I have no objection to providing quotes from other classical musicians in a section about his legacy, but those will be so overwhelmingly positive that some mention surely must be made of it in the lede. Double sharp (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Double sharp. Thanks for your support. I think it was SPECIFICO who had the idea of including a section for his legacy with quotes from other classical musicians about him. That seems fine with me, as long as the mention of him being one of the greatest is kept in the lede, for the sake of consistency with the rest of Wikipedia articles about Beethoven (the Wikipedia pages in Spanish, Italian, French, German, Japanese and cantonese Chinese for Beethoeven mention him as one of the greatest and most influential in the lead). Not only for consistency, but also to put the most relevant in the lede.James343e (talk) 02:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm at a bit of a loss as to what the core of this dispute is, but I can say I support restoring the version (even if with slightly different wording) of the lead that was in place for many years and appears in other articles. The high ranking of Beethoven (and Bach and Mozart, while we're at it) in the pantheon of composers is easy to support with reliable sources and is emphasized enough in those to be a case of due weight. I don't think there would be anything wrong with using one or more quotes in the lead to illustrate that, as is done in the lead of the article on Mozart. In addition to the quotes, a brief discussion of Beethoven's formal innovations (e.g. his String Quartet No. 14, Op. 131), his contributions to various genres (symphonies, string quartets, piano sonatas—the last of these having been described by Hans von Bülow as "The New Testament" of piano music), and his expansion of the expressive vocabulary of music could all be used to enhance the lead and reinforce that point. We'll certainly do our readers a service by giving them at least a brief overview of why Beethoven is as important a figure in music history as he is and in what ways his music was new and influential (the Bach article contains a good example of such an introduction).

While we're at it (and I realize this is not a talk page for other articles), Wikipedia has not been very consistent with the whole "Western classical music" thing, so there are article leads such as "John Smith is a British composer (of contemporary/Western/European classical music)", or even a medley of those. But that's a topic for another discussion. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Toccata quarta and Double sharp. Since there seems to be general consensus to put some kind of general positive remark in the lede (whatever the exact wording), I am gonna put it back. But I will delete the "of all time" to suit more the taste of SPECIFICO, who does not like very big remarks. I think just putting that "Beethoven is considered one of the geatest classical composers." is not controversial, is it?James343e (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

You do not have consensus for this action, and you should undo it and restore @Smerus:' version. Smerus has provided a satisfactory interim solution while he works on article improvement. You've also misrepresented the statement of the additional editor you canvassed to the article. By ignoring the detailed concerns of other editors and ignoring Wikipedia policy and process, you are prolonging a pointless disruption here. You also appear to be pitching a WP:Battleground stance, thanking another editor as if that account were giving "support" to you personally. For your information, articles do not use every reliable source reference as the basis for article text. A reliable source reference citation is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for inclusion of associated article text. Please review WP:NPOV -- the entire page. Please undo your edit and restore the either the version of Smerus or of @Gerda Arendt:. SPECIFICO talk 14:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't touch Smerus' description in the lede, but I bring it back the reliable refences in the legacy section, to support the claim from the lede that he is among the most admireds and relevant figures of western classical music. Cheers, James343e (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I do not feel my views have been misrepresented, nor would I say leaving a note asking me to contribute to building consensus qualifies as canvassing (assuming, of course, that SPECIFICO's statements refer to my input here). If a shortage of comments or feedback is perceived as a problem (and that is a reasonable stance, given the inclusion of this article at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Artists, musicians, and composers and the amount of traffic it will be getting this year), one might drop a comment at WT:CM and wait for it to develop. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Please guys, the phrase in the lede "his music is amongst the most performed of the classical repertoire and he is one of the most admired composers in the history of Western music." was put by Smerus in the last 24 hours, and still has not been accepted in the talk page. Please, do not put that phrase in the lede unless there is consensus to include it. I do not support including that sentence in the lede unless it is supported by some reliebale sources in the legacy section.James343e (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Normally when it comes to characterizations I say "when in doubt, leave it out" because characterizations are usually not really information, and are put in for other POV purposes. But in this case his prominence both on a world scale and over centuries IS information. And it's not just sourced, it's overwhelming amongst sources expressing such an opinion, which for me is a requirement for insertion of characterization type statements. I'd lean towards putting a broad "Ludwig Van Beethoven is considered among the greatest composers of all time" statement in. And adding qualifiers does confuse that by implying that the statement would not be true without the qualifier.North8000 (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear North8000, Ludwig van [nb: small v] Beethoven is undoubtedly a great composer. The lead makes that clear, both that he is one of the most admired, and one of the most performed. The qualifier "of all time" falls within WP:PEACOCK and is neither meaningful, necessary, nor appropriate for WP. It adds nothing.--Smerus (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I just meant that as an example of a suggest broad statement and didn't intend to suggest that particular wording.North8000 (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harv error

Taruskin 2004 throws error "Harv error: link from CITEREFTaruskin2004 doesn't point to any citation." The reference list shows only Taruskin 2010. Is this the same work and just another edition. Please provide full citation of Taruskin 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimes2 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC) Grimes2 (talk) 05:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Apologies, now corrected ref to Taruskin (2010). Just for clarity's sake, the 2010 edition (which I am using) is titled "Music in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries". On the verso of the title-page it is noted "originally published as: Oxford History of Western Music. Vol. 2 The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries." But that is not the title of the edition I am using.--Smerus (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Typo in sources list

In the sources list, entry for ISBN 9781107015388 is listed as "[...] the Enlightnement to [...]". The word "Enlightnement" contains a spelling error, it should be "Enlightenment". Could someone please correct it? --Kvadropups (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Use wikidata infobox

I think we should start changing all the infoboxes with wikidata information rather than local. The current version of the infobox is almost the same as the one we would have by using wikidata. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afernandez.52 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

No. Wikidata is a steaming turd of a project. Populated with unsupported or uncited material, easily vandalised (with so many less editors to watch articles), the "data" it unthinkingly dumps into articles goes against many of the guidelines we have, and it also includes the fucking stupid pencil icons at each line. That's the initial reaction, but I could list a shed-load of more problems that mean Wikidata baoxes are utterly horrible and should never be used. p.s. Could you please try to remember to sign your comments? - SchroCat (talk) 10:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe we should use local, and please discuss this first, generally. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• As some may have noticed, I am in the (extended) process of rewriting this article, with the hope of getting FA in time for LvB's 250th. I've more or less done the life, will be starting soon on the music. Then I will put my version to peer review. Can I suggest we leave issues such as infobox until then? Best, --Smerus (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  You were not talking to me, no? (Changed indent.) - No, I think the idea to use Wikidata ibox (whether for Beethoven, or - worse - for all) is not good, and we should deal with it now, and not wait. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Well whatever the outcome I am absolutely against Wikidata ibox, here or anywhere!--Smerus (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  So am I, in articles. I'd understand a talk page entry (when no ibox is there, and no warning to add one present) saying: "Wikidata has this" (showing), and then discuss for that article. Every approach to do anything with infoboxes for more than one article is breaking the arbcom ruling to discuss each article individually. (This is also true, imho, for the general advice not to add an ibox to classical composers' articles.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Was Beethoven black?

The real truth Blacklivesmatter20 (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I haven't seen a single reliable source for this yet I have seen dozens that say he was white, I highly doubt that this is true. 87.74.226.64 (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

This subject has been covered (fairly extensively in one case) on this talk page before. [1][2][3] Magic♪piano 00:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Protection

Can we please add protection for this page? SirNonlop (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Beethoven Black

Dear editors and semi-protected edit requestors. Don’t bother asking to even mention Beethoven being black. This is a classic example of WP:UNDUE because it is only a fringe theory and does not belong in this article. Your request will be denied. Thanks, Anon0098 (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

So if there’s concrete evidence that shows he was indeed Black, the article would be changed, right. AfroWorld33 (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Do you have concrete evidence backed by reliable sources? If so, please share. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2020

In the 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence of the article, I suggest this change:

"under whose tuition" ⟶ "under whose tutelage" 96.11.154.131 (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

For this reason: The word "tuition" has several distinct meanings, mainly a *fee* for education. The word "tutelage" is not ambiguous.

 Done Thank you taking the time to make this suggestion. William Avery (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2020

beethoven started doing music at the age of 4 ≈≈≈≈≈

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Add connection to Nannette Streicher

I came across a lovely article by the New York Times talking about Beethoven's favorite piano maker, Nannette Streicher (article: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/06/arts/music/beethoven-piano.html ). I looked through the article and was surprised that she's only mentioned as a housekeeper (which is true). I don't think we need to add a lot of about her (she has her own page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nannette_Streicher ) but I think it would be nice to have a hyperlink to her page from his to note that there is a history between them beyond being his housekeeper. Gardnm4 (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Many thanks, I've expanded this a bit using your citation (whose title is I think a bit misleading since she clearly didn't 'build Beethoven's pianos', but we don't need to go into that).--Smerus (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

People associated with Ludwig van Beethoven

In this category discussion there was consensus that Category:People associated with Ludwig van Beethoven was inappropriate, but a stand alone list may be okay. For anyone willing to start that list article, here is the latest category content:

- Marcocapelle (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

A stand alone list sounds like a bad idea. I can't imagine why anyone would ever find it helpful. And the criteria for inclusion would have to be very well defined, or the list could have hundreds of people and full of OR. Good to hear the category was deleted, let's leave it at that. Aza24 (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Influence

Maybe I'm missing something, but there isn't any discussion of Beethoven's musical legacy in this article, and only a little at Beethoven's musical style which is largely unreferenced and stops at the middle period. This seems like a major omission. Britannica has Reputation and influence for example. As a 250th birthday present (coming on the 16th), perhaps some better qualified editors could knock up a few paragraphs covering his influence, if not a stand alone article? Dark Clouds of Joy (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

No you're right, that is a glaring omission. I think part of this is that Smerus has plans to work on the rest of the page (having just fixed up the bio) but has not gotten to it. Have fun with that though Smerus... I can't imagine a composer whose legacy is more difficult to sum up. Aza24 (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Dark Clouds -- this is pretty obvious. Has *any* composer had more influence on his successors? You could write a whole article on it. (Come to think of it, not a bad idea.) Try to find composers not influenced by Beethoven. Some twisted and squirmed to avoid it. Others just imitated him straight out, and got it over with. I had to page through the article history to see if a section had been deleted (did not find one). Antandrus (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• The whole article needed a rewrite. I started and have got the bio more or less right (I think) but I have been stuck abroad away from my sources since August, thanks to you-know-what. Returning in a couple of weeks. I will be working through music, influence, etc. but alas now no chance of getting it done in time for LvB's birthday.--Smerus (talk) 12:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Beethoven's instruments

An editor has inserted (and I have reverted) several lengthy paragraphs about musical instruments used by Beethoven. Apart from being WP:UNDUE they also extensively violated copyright by including long texts verbatim from their cited sources. I would suggest that such information would be better based in an article such as Beethoven's instruments, taking care to meet WP's requirements on both citation and copyright.--Smerus (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The Broadwood piano may be noteworthy. I believe there's effusive thanks and praise from Beethoven and it was later credited for his piano writing in his final works. SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that's right. I will check.--Smerus (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

Beethoven was a black man. He was called a Moor growing up for his dark skin. The picture by Karl is a white washed misconception that Wikipedia allows to live on. If this page is false I’m sure just about everything published by you all are just as untrue. 2605:6000:170F:A0F0:3023:23BF:3025:86D4 (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Favonian (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

All of Beethoven's immediate family was white. I highly doubt that historians conspired to whitewash an entire family just because one member gained notoriety as a composer. --Kotterdale1 (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Also a very irritating and racist myth that the "Moors" were black. Some maybe, but they were overwhelmingly North Africa, aka BROWN.--2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:B017:D2E0:25F:98FA (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2021

{{subst:trim|1=

He is cool Best guy in 1789

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EN-Jungwon 17:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Featured images for future use

This is a note (for Smerus especially) that we have two rather nice featured pictures (File:Beethoven bust statue by Hagen.jpg and File:Beethoven opus 101 manuscript.jpg) for Beethoven. I would think the article's current state gives little room for their addition, however when/if expanded they may be of some use for the legacy and music sections respectively. Aza24 (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yes wd be good for rewritten/expanded music section - thanks--Smerus (talk) 10:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request 22 January 2021

I would like to add a list of Beethovens most popular and well known pieces in order to make it easier to find his most popular pieces. It's not a huge change just an ease of access change. EointheMed12345 (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request

In the second paragraph (I believe) it is mentioned that Hayden and Beethoven studied together whilst in Vienna. Is it possible to add a link to Haydens Wikipedia page? EointheMed12345 (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. He's already mentioned and linked, as Joseph Haydn, in the first paragraph. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2021

Add missing comma in Life and Career section, heading of Family and early life, after the phrase, "...Beethoven was born of this marriage in Bonn".

In source:

AS WRITTEN: Johann married Maria Magdalena Keverich in 1767; she was the daughter of Heinrich Keverich (1701–1751), who had been the head chef at the court of the Archbishopric of Trier. Beethoven was born of this marriage in Bonn at what is now the Beethoven House Museum, Bonnstrasse 20.

CHANGE TO: Johann married Maria Magdalena Keverich in 1767; she was the daughter of Heinrich Keverich (1701–1751), who had been the head chef at the court of the Archbishopric of Trier. Beethoven was born of this marriage in Bonn, at what is now the Beethoven House Museum, Bonnstrasse 20. Wesley hieu (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done —KuyaBriBri^Talk 04:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Beethoven’s 1795 Vienna public debut and the First and Second Piano Concertos

The Swafford biography (pp. 174-75) states without qualification that it was his first piano concerto (Op.15) Beethoven played and premiered on his public debt on 29 March 1795, contrary to older biographies which seem to just assume the earlier one he composed (Op. 19) was the one he premiered. Swafford relies on the contemporaneous account of Beethoven’s friend Wegeler who was present at the rehearsal and witnessed Beethoven’s frantic efforts to complete the score of the final movement rondo of Op. 15 for the copyists on the day immediately prior to the concert. The Cooper biography, though less definitive, inclines to the same conclusion, pointing out reference to “a completely new concerto” in a contemporary review of the concert and the fact that the score of Op. 19 had been in circulation in Vienna for some time and would have been well known. I suggest the article should be amended accordingly.Almanacer (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• I suggest the best thing here is to expand the existing note, rather than to drag the details into the text.--Smerus (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• I see that Solomon says it was no 1 as well so I will change and give Swafford and Solomon as refs.--Smerus (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2021 Oops, Solomon ref is to a later concert, I will check other refs. (UTC)

I have now rewritten the note. Apart from Swafford, it seems most writers still think that it was 'probably' (rather than definitely) Op. 15 that was played.--Smerus (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• The individual WP articles on the concertos state it was No. 2 played on debut which will need correcting or at least modifying to be consistent with the main article. They cite Grove Online as the source. I'd be interested to see what Grove actually says. I don't have access myself. Almanacer (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

We just missed each other. Grove says 'probably' Op. 15.--Smerus (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Correct self. Oxford Companion says probably op. 15. But Grove is vague: "Beethoven appeared as composer as well as virtuoso, for he played a piano concerto of his own, probably the work in B♭, later published as the Second Concerto (op.19). His old friend from Bonn, Franz Gerhard Wegeler, who was in Vienna from October 1794 to the summer of 1796, witnessed the preparations for this concert – or it may have been the one nine months later in December and the concerto may have been the First (op.15) in C [...]". I have edited the concerto articles accordingly, as there is obviously still no consensus amongst the experts.--Smerus (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the online info. I’m not that familiar with this area of research but I’m surprised at such a conflict of opinion amongst the various sources. However in pursuit of consistency between WP articles I think we need to lose reference to Op.15 as being composed In 1796/7 as cited to Lockwood in Piano Concerto No. 2 (Beethoven). This is inconsistent both with Piano Concerto No. 1 (Beethoven) and List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven which date it to 1795. I will amend the article accordingly. Michael Steinberg has a good article in Op.15 in his The Concerto: A Listener’s Guide (Oxford UP, 1988) where he gives the date of publication as March 1801 and December 1801 for Op.19. I think there should be room to mention this in the main article as it explains why they became numbered 1 and 2 and there is no other mention of Op. 19 in this part of the article. I’m inclined to add a sentence to this effect. Almanacer (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this. The conflict of opinion is because although we know LvB played a concerto at his Vienna 1795 premiere, there is simply no clear evidence which. Both 1 and 2 were written by that time. The extract I give above from Grove is typically vague - Wegeler's comments imply that the concerto must have been no. 2, as he refers to a rehearsal in Beethoven's room, which could not have accommodated the necessary timpani - but he may have been referring to the December concert and rehearsals. In any case, it appears that both were revised and/or rewritten before publication in 1801, no. 2 possibly being given a completely new finale.--Smerus (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The most up-to-date thinking on the chronology of Op. 15 can be found in the 2014 Beethoven Werkverzeichnis, which is summarized at the Beethoven-Haus website: "Initial sketches in 1793, autograph completed late 1794 or early 1795, revised score before April 1800, revised solo part before March 1801." Junggai (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Almanacer (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Funny infobox

Why could someone make an infobox that shows "Baptised: 17 December 1770, Bonn" instead of the separated thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xdude gamer (talk • contribs) 16:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm guessing he was born before he was baptised. And folks are keen to know where people were born. Where they were baptised... not so much. But I think this format arises from the fact there is no record of his exact date of birth. In those days many babies didn't make it as far as the church font. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh that makes a bit more sense. Thanks! Xdude gamer (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

"Van"

My understanding is that he is of Germanic ethnicity, not of Dutch. German aristocrats' names are "von" something or other, while "van" something or other is of Dutch tradition.

Why is this bio article's title named "van Beethoven?" Is this because Dutch, German, all the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.23.87.18 (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Surely you know how to use a search engine such as Google to find out. Carlstak (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

IP see here. But yes, to Carlstak's point this is Not a forum. Aza24 (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

My bad for asking in a wrong place.

And thanx for the info, Aza24.

Actually, perhaps it's an interesting tidbit worth adding to the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.23.87.18 (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The van/von distinction possibly played a role in his legal actions to gain custody of his nephew, and his efforts in those cases to claim noble status. (It is correctly "van" because of his well-documented Dutch heritage.) Magic♪piano 15:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Instruments

I've reverted a section on Beethoven's pianos by User:Dina Khusainova because while it has material of interest it needs extensive copyediting for language and relevance. I am trying, albeit slowly, to bring the article up to GA/FA level (having concentrated so far on the biography section). I will try to recast this section.--Smerus (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The new version of this section looks very professional now. Thank you, User:Smerus, for rewriting it. Have you considered adding an info about Beethoven's Walter piano, too? I did a research and found an evidences proving that he had one in 1801. --Dina Khusainova (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Good idea, I will look this up and add it. Many thanks ---Smerus (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Kopitz (in Beethoven aus der Sicht seiner Zeitgenossen (2009) p.203?) claims that Czerny remembered seeing a Walter piano in Beethoven’s room when he went for his piano lessons in 1801. I guess no evidence he ever played the kazoo, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Two references won't be enough for adding a Walter piano to the list? -Carl Czerny, Über den richtigen Vortrag der sämtlichen Beethovenschen Klavierwerke (Vienna 1963), ed. Paul Badura-Skoda p.10 -Ludwig van Beethoven, Brief an Nikolaus Zmeskall, Wien, November 1802, Autograph --Dina Khusainova (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Patronized vs. courted and among vs. amongst

To me, courted sounds like they're marrying. Patron is used many times throughout the article, so it makes sense to use it in the lead, especially since Beethoven being courted is never discussed, only that the Prince is a patron. Patronize means to frequent (a store, theater, restaurant, or other establishment) as a customer. Also, I think among should be standardized throughout the article. YourJudge (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

You don't think that "among" and "amongst" are interchangeable, do you? Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Amongst is fine, but should they be used interchangeably in a single text? YourJudge (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

As I understand it (though I may be incorrect), the words are largely interchangeable, but "among" is more of an AmE preference. This article seems primarily in BrE, so perhaps "amongst" should be used mostly; though I think that "among" is considered obsolete in BrE or anything. Also I originally thought "patronized" more commonly meant to "look down upon", but the OED seems to support your definition as the primary one (so I have no issue with it being restored). Aza24 (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I will leave the amongs' since they can be used interchangeably. If this were an AmE article, it would all be among. (Shouldn't an article this important be marked AmE or BrE? I don't know how that works.) I will change courted to patronized. YourJudge (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

No, they aren't fully interchangeable - only in some senses. Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2021

Can a link to "Hearing loss" be added to the introduction? Windywendi (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done I don't see anything wrong with this, and it happens to already be mentioned in the lead! Easy peezy. Thank you for your contribution! —Sirdog (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2021

In the second sentence, "transition from the classical period to the romantic era in classical music" should say "transition from the Classical period to the Romantic era in classical music." "Classical" and Romantic" are always capitalized when referring to these specific style periods in Western music. (If "classical" is lowercase here, it means music from ancient times, such as ancient Greek or Roman music. If "Romantic" is lowercase here, it specifically refers to music related to romance and love.) 50.200.146.150 (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2021

In the section on Death, update the sentence regarding the funeral oration to "A funeral oration by the poet Franz Grillparzer was read by the actor Heinrich Anschütz." — Preceding unsigned comment added by TAnschutz (talk • contribs) 21:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2021

Change this external link for Beethoven-Haus Bonn to [4], that currently redirects from [5]. 49.150.100.127 (talk) 05:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Ferien (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2021

Remove this dead link "The Beethoven Gateway" [6] from external links section that displays 404 error. 49.150.100.127 (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

What's the reasoning behind offering an 'English' pronunciation of the composer's name ((/ˈlʊdvɪɡ væn ˈbeɪtoʊvən/ (audio speaker iconlisten), )? It suggests that, somehow, there is a correct way to mis-pronounce the name. It's not clear what didactic or other value this represents. Looking at a few other entries for non English / Anglosaxon composers the Beethoven entry seems to be unique in this respect. PillarOfAshok (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PillarOfAshok (talk • contribs) 17:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2022

change current picture to a more accurate depiction “Frederick Hertz, German anthropologist, in “Race and Civilization,” refers twice to Beethoven’s “Negroid traits” and his “dark” skin, and “flat, thick nose.” (pp.123 and 178.)

Frau Fischer, an intimate acquaintance of Beethoven, describes him thus, “Short, stocky, broad shoulders, short neck, round nose, blackish-brown complexion.” (From R.H. Schauffler, The Man Who Freed Music, Vol. 1, p.18, 1929.)

In speaking of the immortal Haydn who was Beethoven’s teacher, Andre de Hevesy, says: “Everybody knows the incident at Kismarton or Eisenstadt, the residence of Prince Esterhazy. In the middle of the first allegro of Haydn’s symphony, His Highness asked the name of the author. He was brought forward.

“What!’ exclaimed the prince, ‘the music is by this blackamoor? ‘Well, my fine blackamoor, henceforward, thou art in my service.'” IQ89010 (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

You need to suggest an alternative, free, image. Graham Beards (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

No. This is an old, refuted myth. It's not only a hoax contrary to all reliable sources, it has also been explicitly refuted by musicologists and biographers. Wretchskull (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Propose change to first sentence

I say we change "baptised" to "bapt." like William Shakespeare's featured article, so baptised would be shortened and its hyperlink added. This may help with the clutter. YourJudge (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

If clutter is the primary motivator, it would make much more sense to address that by migrating the pronunciation to a footnote, per MOS:PRONUNCIATION. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree completely, in fact, everything but the dates should go in a note IMO. Aza24 (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you agree with the baptised part also? YourJudge (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I've moved the pronunciation to a note, and now there isn't a clutter problem warranting such a change IMO. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Anthem

In 1972, the Council of Europe adopted von Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" theme as its anthem. In 1985, it was adopted by EU leaders as the official anthem of the European Union. 2003:F3:2703:3E99:B975:FE17:783C:4ECE (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Birthplace

Beethoven was born in Bonn, Cologne instead of just Bonn. 24.45.220.165 (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense, it's Bonn, a "Federal city". Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Is there any historical reason why isn't stated that he was born in Bonn, Electorate of Cologne, Holy Roman Empire, rather than just "Bonn". And that he died in Vienna, Austrian Empire. Can somebody explain? SpaceCowboy1207 (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

There is no historical reason. The reason it is stated as such (simply put, as I understand it) is because the use of an infobox is controversial in this article, and to satisfy the side which was against an infobox, one was included which would be 'intentionally concise'. Also, there is the complication of including 'Modern-day Germany' and such, which would make it less concise. I offer no opinion on the matter, and defer to others if I am explaining the situation incorrectly. Aza24 (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

We should normally avoid such complicated and not very informative stuff in infoboxes anyway. I know many articles don't, but they should. "Electorate of Cologne" is especially unhelpful. Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I do not find it complicated, there is consensun that Bonn was part of Holy Roman Empire that year, and Vienna was part of German Confederation, but whatever. SpaceCowboy1207 (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Please change to: (Low German van, High German von; baptized 17 December 1770 in Bonn, Electorate of Cologne, Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation; d. 26 March 1827 in Vienna, Austrian Empire, German Confederation) 2003:F3:2703:3E99:B975:FE17:783C:4ECE (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

No, the English Wikipedia does not include birth/death locations in the first sentence like that. And the 'van' vs 'von' is trivial information that modern secondary sources do not alternate between enough to be a meaningful inclusion. Aza24 (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2022

In the section, LEGACY, could you include your link to Beethoven in film? thanks you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beethoven_in_film Loued007 (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done Since the legacy is rather underdeveloped, there's not a great place to put it at the moment, so I added a see also to the top. Best – Aza24 (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Change "repertoire" in lead to "canon"

Eh? Anyone with me on this? 2600:1012:B01F:AC6A:7D25:7095:4FD3:373B (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Not really—That would change the sentence completely. Saying "his works rank amongst the most performed of the classical music repertoire" implies that they are apart of the canon. Whereas, saying the "amongst the most performed of the classical music canon" implies that Beethoven is more performed than other canonic composers, which is an awkward and perhaps less meaningful observation. Aza24 (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Infobox; compositions section

It is factually inaccurate to label the entire List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven as "notable". As such I have removed the list from the infobox at present. Like all composers, he produced both major and minor works, and some of his compositions have received far more attention/performance than others which remain obscure and rarely performed. (some of them are lost). I personally have no objection to providing a link to the list of works in the infobox as a navigational aid (although strictly speaking including this probably is not in keeping with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes which says content should only be summarizing the article). However, this should be done by removing any evaluative adjective like "notable" onto the list of works. I would support restoring the list once the word "notable" is stripped from the info-box itself. Currently I am not sure that is possible based on the way the template is designed. Any editor willing to work on the template language and modify it accordingly would be appreciated. For the time being we shouldn't keep factual errors/misrepresentations in the article.4meter4 (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Gerda, in looking at your suggested compromise I don't think that works. The list itself doesn't make any attempt to critically evaluate which works are more important than others. There is no attempt at weighing/ measuring notability. Sending the reader to look at a list to discover which works are "notable" is making a promise that the list never fulfills. So again, this is not a workable solution. We really just need to remove the word notable from the template.4meter4 (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I talked to Template talk:Infobox person to get rid of the unspeakable "Notable works" and just have "Works". According to the template documentation, that is possible, but I tried and failed, and even if I'd know what is wrong, I couldn't change it. Can we please wait until someone replies? - The present version was a compromise found in 2015 by the community, and should not be changed easily. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I hear you. I understand that the list was placed there after much discussion and a difficult consensus was reached. However, I am not comfortable with keeping factual errors/misrepresentations in main space as a general rule and a matter of policy per WP:VERIFIABILITY. The WP:BURDEN here is on the people who want to present the content; and while we aren't talking about citations for an infobox we can't be making unverifiable exceptional claims in the infobox not supported by the sources or the content in the article. Things like this don't get fixed if we just let them sit as editors get complacent and move on to other things. I'd rather keep everyone motivated to get it done the right way and present the information accurately. It sounds like you have a plan to get help with the template, and you are doing what can be done at present. I imagine it will not take too long to get the list back into the info-box. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

On a positive note, consider how this change will make it possible to accurately present the lists of compositions in other composer articles. It's definitely worth doing to benefit not just this page, but all composer pages.4meter4 (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Back from a hike, - sorry, even on Christmas Eve I sometimes need fresh air. I couldn't "engage" while in the forest. That's one. - Two: you made a bold edit, revert something that the community had put in years ago, and that had been stable since. I reverted, and it would now have to find consensus here before being put back. That's not edit-warring on my part, just following WP:BRD. Three: In the meantime, the template works as described, so I hope your concern has been met. Merry Christmas. If you know of other cases bothering you please fix accordingly. Sorry, I am needed - correspondence, tree, food, singing in service - to celebrate, which will continue into tomorrow afternoon. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to fix the issue Gerda. Have a very Merry Christmas!4meter4 (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

For the record…. I proposed this like two weeks ago on the info box talk page… I suppose I should have advertised at the CM project page, but was too hesitant in bringing up another infobox-related conversation Aza24 (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Beethoven's full name's pronunciation in IPA + audio

I just was thinking of moving the full pronunciation of Beethoven's full name (in English and then in German) from "[n 1]" into the lead from the footnote. But it will be too long, i.e. almost one full line. For this reason I actually gave up. Please ping me if there will be a probable, likely comment. -- Hamid Hassani (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, cf. Antonio Vivaldi, J. S. Bach, Antonio Salieri, W. A. Mozart, D. Shostakovich, ... on the one hand, and Arcangelo Corelli, Franz Schubert, and P. I. Tchaikovsky from the other hand. -- Hamid Hassani (talk) 11:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

When and where is he born

Ludwig von Beethoven 102.165.196.142 (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Read the article! Favonian (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Include Beethoven's Place of Birth to the Infobox

Beethoven was born in the Electorate of Cologne. Most articles of notable people include the country of birth alongside the city. It is a simple change and will improve the quality of the article if implemented. Is there an agreement? Nikolai Gennadievich Nazarov (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

There is not. See previous discussions (eg) for some of the reasons why. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

There isn't actually any good reasons put forth by the people who discussed this. There should definitely be a more recent discussion regarding this issue. Nikolai Gennadievich Nazarov (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure, let's see if anyone comes up with any good reasons for the proposed change. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Birthdate

Is this a reliable source for his birthdate? https://www.kennedy-center.org/artists/b/ba-bn/ludwig-van-beethoven/ GamerKlim9716 (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

No. There is no author listed, and no scholarly sources cited for the claims it makes. Magic♪piano 00:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hair

As this is a vital article, wouldn't it be better to link to the actual study, rather than newspaper accounts of it? : https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(23)00181-1 Additionally - and this may be a bizarre suggestion - since so much has been written about Beethoven's hair (including a full-length book), might that warrant a separate section or paragraph in the article? (True confession: I cataloged The New York Public Library's lock of Beethoven's hair.) - kosboot (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The study would be nice, maybe a sentence in the autopsy/sentence section... but I really don't think we should really be adding anything substantial to the already massive life section. We need to have as much room as possible for the music and legacy sections, which are currently missing huge amounts of information. – Aza24 (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Birthplace

Under the heading "Family and early life" in the second paragraph the address of his birth is listed as "Bonnstrasse", which is now the Beethoven House, while the text under the picture of the house says "Bonngasse". The latter is correct Wim (talk) 05:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

DNA

DNA study of LvB did not find any relatives in Benelux. --95.24.70.23 (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

This is Hans Gruber Beethoven? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:190:DB40:C5B8:FFC3:FD07:66B6 (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Also known as Louis van Beethoven later in his career...

Beethoven piano concerto 3 (page de garde).png

47.209.251.152 (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

yes, and also Luigi, see dedication for Piano Sonata No. 14. - That was common at the time, not worth writing, if you ask me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2023

Mechelen was never part of the duchy of Brabant, it was a free city, and therefore selected as the capital of the Austrian low countries since is was not related to any duchy or county. 2A02:A03F:8A0D:A100:D1BD:D142:462C:3C46 (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

"Louis van Beethoven" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Louis van Beethoven has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 12 § Louis van Beethoven until a consensus is reached. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

"Luigi van Beethoven" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Luigi van Beethoven has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 12 § Luigi van Beethoven until a consensus is reached. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

DNA analysis of hair lock

Should the DNA analysis of his hair lock, as reported here, be mentioned somewhere? Apparently it explains his liver failure, but not his hearing loss or gastrointestinal issues, and that his biological father was not a van Beethoven. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

"Country" of birth and death

I can't say that the previous discussions around adding the country of van Beethoven's birth and death weren't in good faith, but something seems off about them. It is verifiable fact that Bonn was part of, and the capital of the Electorate of Cologne in 1770, that the Electorate of Cologne was part of the HRE, and that Vienna was part of, and the capital of the Austrian Empire in 1827. Michael Bednarek suggested in 2019 that adding the countries to the infobox would present a diversion into the complicated statehoods of Austria and Germany but, frankly, this is untrue. Consensus in the past has been that adding the countries of birth and death to the infobox would be unnecessary, but as Nazarov pointed out, there seem to have been no real reasons presented for such other than things similar to "Vienna is famous enough that its country doesn't need to be mentioned", but when it comes to the historical, history is complicated enough that I feel it does need to have clarification. MacDoesWiki (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I just don't think anyone really cares, to be honest. I've never seen the "Electorate of Cologne" or "HRE" mentioned in any articles or biographies about Beethoven. So why would we? Wikipedia is fundamentally a reflection of secondary sources. Aza24 (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Another example of the poinless and time-wasting arguments that infoboxes seem to bring with them. Personally I favour infoboxes using just the modern country, which a lot of them still do. Johnbod (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

That would actually work really well. It could be something like "Bonn, Electorate of Cologne (now Germany)" and "Vienna, Austrian Empire (now Austria)", which is a style I believe I've seen before. MacDoesWiki (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Most of the historical biographical articles use the state in existence at the time. After all, Beethoven was a citizen/subject of these states and therefore it would have been of relevance to him and therefore potentially researchers. I don't think it's necessary to add (now Germany) as clicking on the city link will reveal that information. In my opinion the birth style should be: Bonn, Electorate of Cologne, Holy Roman Empire and the death style: Vienna, Austrian Empire. Ecrm87 (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Lede portrait by Joseph Karl Stieler

@Nikkimaria I don't understand why Joseph Karl Stieler isn't mentioned as the painter of the well-known Beethoven portrait in the lede. Other composers such as Liszt, Haydn, etc. have their painters or photographers mentioned in their lede portraits. Even Beethoven's other portraits within the article have their painters named. It's only fitting that this portrait, which is the most recognisable depiction of Beethoven, should have its painter mentioned. What's your rationale for reverting this? Yekshemesh (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I have habitually added notable artists to portrait images in the infoboxes of historical figures. The year is also useful, but I don't see a caption such as "Portrait of xxx" as very useful or informative. Is there really no scope for compromise? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Martinevans123. I don't believe the caption contains excessive information either, just the name of the painter and the year. Lots of biographical articles on Wikipedia follow this format. Yekshemesh (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

This format is discouraged. We could exclude the field entirely if that is felt to be preferable? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, fair enough. 211.24.38.114 (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

It's very disappointing that the four words "by Joseph Karl Stieler" can't be added to the caption for what is a very famous image of Beethoven. It might be different if the painting could be linked to its own article. Stieler is credited in the caption for another painting lower down, but this portrait is not mentioned anywhere else. I'm not sure I understand why crediting notable artists in lead image captions is "discouraged". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 Makes you wonder who came up with this MOS:CREDITS rule and why just adding the painter's name is "discouraged". We can see that Ludwig van Beethoven the Elder's portrait has the painter's name (Amelius Radoux) in the infobox - if no one hasn't changed it yet - so this "rule" is quite inconsistent. Yekshemesh (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Martinevans, good idea - article now created and linked. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I read the guideline (now), and read that the infobox should only contain facts about the subject. Fair. I believe that the fact that this composer was portrayed when by a notable artist is a fact about the composer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course Joseph Karl Stieler should be mentioned the caption. Its highly relevant that a royal court painter produced an image of a "mere" musician: it illustrates Beethoven's unique inclusion into high society, despite his obvious commoner status (although he attempted to use his last name of evidence of royalty). The image is absolutely lacking in crucial context if both the date and painter are not listed.

Beethoven's article included the painter without dispute until an infobox was added. Now the IB is oodly used to justify exclusion via a vague line hidden in the MOS captions page. The only real change here is the IB—nothing has changed for the value of the painter. Aza24 (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you can argue that it's a "key fact" about the subject when it wasn't mentioned in the text until today. But there is now an article available to be linked that provides additional context. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is extremely poor aside from the biography section. Undoubtably, a more developed version would discuss the most famous visual depiction of the most famous Western musician. Aza24 (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

What is a silly policy, when it comes to famous artists, is usually ignored (ie most editors have never heard of it) as it should be. The policy should be loosened. Johnbod (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Great to see that new article, now linked as "Beethoven (1820)" in the caption. I guess it could be "Beethoven by Joseph Karl Stieler (1820)." But still a great improvement, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Nikkimaria! So nice to see this portrait have its own article. And thanks for suggesting this in the first place @Martinevans123. I'll add to the article if and when I can. Yekshemesh (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I had no idea someone would work so swiftly on that! Well done, Nikkimaria. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)