Talk:Franz Liszt/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Why does Liszt not have an infobox?

I don't know if there's a reason for him not having an infobox, but seeing as how this is a Level 4 article, I think he needs one.

Respectfully, Thanoscar21 (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

There once was an infobox, but it was removed. You will find the discussion here. There is also a further discussion higher up on this same talk page, at Talk:Franz_Liszt#Infobox, where consensus for an infobox was not gained. You should also read Wikipedia:WikiProject_Composers#Biographical_infoboxes.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your time! Thanoscar21 (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested merge

There are two articles about Liszt, one being about him in general and the other about his life. It seems redundant to have two articles about the same topic, so I propose that Life of Franz Liszt be merged into a section of Franz Liszt. CrazyBoy826 17:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Both articles are very longwinded on FL's life, going into minutiae often inadequately supported by citation. The main article, covering the principal events of the life, should be sufficient.--Smerus (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I had no idea there were two articles. If I had known, I myself would have proposed merging them. I hope this is an isolated example. I have hundreds of composer articles on my watchlist. It would take a long time to check if any of them also have a "Life of ..." counterpart!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• I recommend delving into the long history of "Life of Franz Liszt", started by User:Jonyungk in 2008, and read Talk:Life of Franz Liszt. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oh. My. God! I see that I must now create articles titled "Life of Hector Berlioz", "Life of Fanny Mendelssohn", "Life of Francis Poulenc", "Life of Guillaume de Machault", "Life of Ralph Vaughan Williams", "Life of Francesca Caccini, etc., etc., etc.! What a fantastic opportunity!! This will certainly help me to gain on User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao for the number-one position in the WP:NOE list!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Fair point, although I wouldn't mind a "Life of Guillaume de Machault"! - Aza24 (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support but cut lots of info per above. If this merging were to take place it would have to be done carefully, that would involve cutting a huge amount of information. The article's existence is unnecessary but I worry that if the merge were done poorly then the Franz Liszt article would become worse, when it is not in a great state in the first place. If the main contributor truly wanted to devote articles solely to Liszt's life, it would be more appropriate to have articles on different parts of his life, such as an "Early life on Franz Liszt" (Similar to the division of Cleopatra or an article like Mozart family grand tour) Aza24 (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "The article's existence is unnecessary" reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but I agree that a merge might make the main article worse. "cut lots of info" – which? An article of well over 10,000 words, longer than the main article, and with 120 citations poses an insurmountable problem for a merge. Does the "Life" article any harm? Is it a notable subject for an encyclopedia? Have we run out of subjects that need articles? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Michael Bednarek, the only thing my comment "reeks" seems to be misinterpretation. Virtually no other "Life of" articles exist and for good reason. Life of William Shakespeare seems to be the exception, and clearly because scholarship of his life is often incomplete and mysterious (especially compared to other writers of his time), prompting many theories over if he was a real person or not – a clear reason to have such an article. Discussing Franz Liszt's life is clearly notable for an encyclopedia, that is why many paragraphs are devoted to it in the Franz Liszt article. I will restate what I said earlier, about how if one truly wanted to devote articles to Liszt's life, a division like that of Cleopatra or a specific event, like that of Mozart is more appropriate. Claiming that the merge poses an "insurmountable problem" is an oddly pessimistic but an understable point. However, I think this community, which has contributed a wealth of well structured and organized articles, will have no trouble sorting out the proposed merge, were it to take place. Aza24 (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Done

Per WP:BOLD and given the consensus above, I have deleted Life of Franz Liszt and replaced it by a link to this article. The 'Life' article was tedious, chatty, and full of unsourced WP:NNPOV. The life section of this article is admittedly not much better, but there you go. Any editor is of course welcome to salvage any of the rambling of the deleted article if they really beleive it is worth it.--Smerus (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. That was a real mess. 50.111.27.64 (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Consensus, structuring, planning

Before starting to seriously work on the article, some consensus should be reached regarding the formatting and style of the article.

• Judging from FA composers that I have seen, virtually all of them use the standard <ref>short-citation xxxx, p. n</ref> format. This article has a mix of ref tags, harv, harvnb, and sfn. For uniformity and consistent citations, one of them should be used. sfn/harvnb would be helpful as that links to the sources themselves, but ref tags seem to be the most common, especially on composers.
• Some images either violate WP:SANDWICH, are in an incorrect section, or flat-out unnecessary. For WP:SANDWICH, expanding the article will probably eliminate the issue. A few images seem to be rather strangely placed. His piano in the "Royal Academy of Music at Budapest" section should probably be on the Instruments section, where expanding the text would also be necessary. The lead image is fine but could probably be improved. It was changed from an old Franz Liszt, which I support, but most composers (FA's in particular) usually have their image during their peak. So perhaps this image or the same but cropped from his waist up (which I personally prefer).
• In the Piano music section, I think it would be a no-brainer to add works such as Liebestraume No. 3, one of his religious/concert etude pieces, and perhaps one of his Transcendental etudes to display his characteristic virtuoso style. The transcriptions could have some of his most performed works, such as his transcription of Schubert's Serenade or Erlkönig, as well as his most performed opera transcription, Robert le diable (Réminiscences de Robert le diable). The later works could have some of his more macabre or avant-grade music.

Any thoughts? Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC) I will ping those who are most active on this article, as consensus is important before making changes: @Smerus:, @Intforce:, @Dina Khusainova:.

• For what it is worth: sfn format, cull the pictures as aggressively as you wish. I personally have found it best in tackling composer article improvements to start with a complete rewrite of the life, taking care not to get carried away with any WP:UNDUE stuff. That generally helps create perspective for the music section, which in the present article is almost worthless. The legacy section here is also feeble. Best, --Smerus (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Cheers. Currently working on a draft for the life section. Wretchskull (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Wretchskull, happy to see you planning to work on this. I agree with the section above on the article's disappointment, almost to that of our Mozart article—IMO at least. Let me know if I can be of any assistance. On the above, I basically agree with Smerus: I always recommend sfn as it benefits the readers with linking to the source; feel free to remove images as you see fit, myself and some other users recently went through a similar process on the Bach article (though it that case, we formed more consensus than is necessary here). I would also recommend looking at Oxford Bibliographies to identify the most important sources; you should have access to it through WP:LIBRARY. I will note that the use of Oxford Bibliographies may be extremely beneficial for Liszt, as there is a rather significant output of scholarly work on him, so this would certainly help narrow that down. Aza24 (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Also, re bullet point #3, I'm not sure if you're talking about adding musical files, but if so, I suspect such decisions may be best (and easier) to decide after cleaning up the article. Aza24 (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Aza24 - Smerus. Alright. After finishing the work for today, I noticed that I am probably writing the most complicated section, the family section (see draft). There are limited sources, contradicting evidence, and confusion. First of, what Franz Liszt should be named in the Life section (contrasted with, for example, Chopin's naming in his life section). Another roadblock was mentioning when List was changed to Liszt to ease pronunciation for Hungarians. In Walkers "The Virtuoso Years" (p. 38), Walker states that the fact that Georg changed the family name was a myth and that it was Adam who changed it. Contradictorily, in his later-collaborated Oxford Grove Music Online Liszt journal (1. early childhood), it says that Georg changed it, but doesn't mention Adam's involvement at all. The journal is also more recent, which makes me even more confused as to which one to believe given the fact that other sources state that Adam may be first, such as this one (last few sentences). Because there isn't much info about the List clan, overusing Walker's citations may become an issue. I honestly did not expect to get in a few sentences into the draft without confusion or accidentally plagiarizing Walker. If anyone could help, that would be highly appreciated. Wretchskull (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

As a sometimes genealogist, I find a good rule of thumb to follow with primary sourcing is that the closer to the actual time of an event, the more reliable the source. Hope that helps to guide you. GenQuest ^"scribble" 14:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. That is true most of the time, but unfortunately not all the time for Liszt. Some of the biggest Liszt biographers during the 19th-century have made quite a few disproven assumptions, and is sometimes biased, as some journals secondary biographers have stated. Basically, anything before Liszt's birth is rather complicated. Thanks for the tip regardless, as plagiarism is no longer a problem. I have found some primary biographies that are agreed upon by secondary ones. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

It's important to present your draft for overview and confirmation before you would launch it to the article.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC))

That is of course an option for Wretchskull if he wishes, but why is it 'important' and who are those who have a right to 'confirm' it? If Wretchskull wants to edit the article, he has every right to do so and doesn't need to obtain clearance. If you, or I, don't like what he has done, we can raise it here.--Smerus (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

KIENGIR: I know your comment is good-faith, but given the amount of consensus about editing and approval of this article being in bad shape, I don't really need confirmation. I have studied Liszt for a long time, and if you are not satisfied with some edits that I add, tell me on my talk page. I thoroughly fact-check and review each one of the sentences that I have on my draft, and before adding it to the actual article, I would make sure to at the least quadruple-check. Wretchskull (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Wretch, for some reason I didn't get your earlier ping! I would advise against the use of ancestery.com (see WP:ANCESTRY.COM). If you are running into contradictions and disagreements between scholars, the best you can do is explain the disagreement in the text and try to give weight to which ever side seems more accepted (if there is one). I did something like this on Orlando Gibbons#Late career—the quote to the of the section. Also, I would recommend this book. Aza24 (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Smerus, you're a bit overracting, if someone wishes to do a general rewrite of an article, it is recommended, so if there would be anything could be discussed then, not necessarily in between intermediary edits. So the answer to your question is: the community. Nobody said the he could not edit the article, btw. Wretchskull, I think the "word" confirmation has been a bit overriden/misundrstood (?), however in case I should use this article's talk isn't it? Anyway would be happy at least you would tell us when your draft has been finished, so we could analyze it, I think is is not devilish before a plan of massive rewriting of an article....(KIENGIR (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC))

Liszt: Present to 2022

Franz Liszt, in my opinion, is a somewhat unfairly neglected composer on Wikipedia. The article is viewed more than fifty thousand times a month (February 2021) and is about a composer dear to my heart. Upon observing the amount of work needed, I began vehemently reading a significant amount about Liszt ever since 2019, and I am committed to improving this article. I originally intended to get this article to featured status by 2022, but arduous work combined with real-life obligations downgraded my goal to good status. I am posting this as a message to anyone willing to collaborate on the effort or perhaps be a helping hand here and there as that would be greatly appreciated. I am well aware of the numerous wizards on Wikipedia who've got multiple composers to FA/GA and the ones who would simply come in handy with their musical knowledge. With the reservoir of freely accessible books, letters, and general information on the internet about Liszt, the work will be greatly facilitated. Wretchskull (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• I agree this is an article that desperately needs rewriting. I have quailed at the prospect but would be glad to cooperate.--Smerus (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I I agree, and I would like to offer my help in re-structuring this article. Thy Pyrometer (talk) 06:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I also agree, but don't know what to do Wilh3lm^{Go here to trout me if I do a stupid} 18:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Hungary

Liszt is generally portrayed as a Hungarian composer and performer, but he didn't speak (or read) a word of Hungarian! His mother language was German. He spoke some French and Italian as well, probably, judging on his whereabouts, but not Hungarian.--Hansung02 (talk) 10:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• The article is about him as a composer/performer born in Hungary, not about his skills in the Hungarian language.--Smerus (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Middle name?

I have often seen the name Franz Joseph Liszt or Franz Josef Liszt being used to refer to Liszt.

Examples:

https://wwnorton.com/college/music/enj10/complete/content/composers/liszt.asp?chap=57

https://www.assignmentpoint.com/arts/biography/biography-of-franz-liszt.html

https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/franz-joseph-liszt-391.php

https://www.alamy.com/franz-liszt-born-franz-joseph-liszt-hungarian-liszt-ferencz-in-modern-usage-liszt-ferenc-october-22-1811-july-31-1886-was-a-prolific-19th-century-hungarian-composer-virtuoso-pianist-conductor-music-teacher-arranger-organist-philanthropist-author-nationalist-and-a-franciscan-tertiary-image344278667.html

Is there any consensus on if Liszt used this name, or was born/baptised with it?

MarcelDuprè1886 (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• He never used this name, nor was he baptised with it. The very doubtful sources you quote are completely wrong.--Smerus (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Early life, language

According to the German version of this article, Liszt's "mother tongue" (Muttersprache) was German. His mother, Maria Anna Liszt, née Lager, was born Vienna in 1788. His birthplace, Raiding, was in the largely German-speaking Burgenland, then part of of the Habsburgian Kingdom of Hungary. After WWI and the dissolution of Austria-Hungary, the Burgenland in 1919 became part of the Republic of Austria (Republik Österreich), as it is today.

During his lifetime (1811-1886), Liszt was known throughout most of Europe – in which he traveled and performed extensively – as Franz Liszt, i.e. by the German form of his name, not as Ferencz or Ferenc Liszt, using the Hungarian forms of his given name. Accordingly, it seems quite misleading to describe Liszt simply as "a Hungarian composer," as the present article rather disingenuously does in the lead.

To comport with the complex ethnographic history of central and eastern Europe, I suggest either "a German-speaking Hungarian composer," "an Austro-Hungarian composer," or more comprehensively "a German-speaking Austro-Hungarian composer, musician and pianist." Such descriptions of the famous Liszt would be in the interest of historical transparency and NPOV editorial integrity, key Wikipedia values. – Sca (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

This article by a US professor at UC Berkeley argues at length that even Liszt's father "instilled in Franz the sense of being Hungarian" years before Liszt himself self-declared as Hungarian. There are only so many ways to try and contort this issue. I vote for "a German-speaking Hungarian composer" because essentially that is what he was.

http://faculty.ce.berkeley.edu/coby/essays/liszt.htm ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 07:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I mean, do you guys even care about our policies? The entire conversation above is the very definition of WP:OR. Reliable sources call him a "Hungarian composer" without clarification. Prove that the majority of reliable sources call him something else, then this discussion can be relevant, otherwise move on. Aza24 (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Please avoid to make this type of modifications without support in the talk page. This specific issue has been extensively discussed for more than a decade and any changes should be backed up by signicant sources and consensus. Alexander Doria (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

In common English usage, Austria-Hungary, did exist during Liszt's lifetime. That it was officially the Austrian Empire until 1867 is merely a political detail. Note that "from 1867, territories connected to the Hungarian crown were incorporated into Austria-Hungary." In general, English speakers of Liszt's era knew there was an Austrian empire that included multiple ethnographic groups, but which was dominated by 'German Austria,' i.e. German-speaking Austria, and Hungary. Sca (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't exactly know where to begin. The issue has been literally beaten to death for more than 15 years making up a sizable part of the archived talk pages. Obviously nationalities are a complicated matter for any person born in central Europe of the time, but Liszt himself settled the matter to a large extent. He had a Hungarian passport at least from 1867 under the given name of Ferenc (reproduced in the 2003 biography of Joséf Óváry, p.29) and made numerous declarations of self-identification as an Hungarian and of support of Hungarian nationalism. Additionally nearly all secondary sources retain a Hungarian nationality. Even with very strong sources, it would be hard to overcome such an overwhelming consensus. Alexander Doria (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sca: Not only do all reliable book sources that I've read simply call him Hungarian, almost none of them state anything else. Also, please do not edit war when you're reverted. Bring it here, as per WP:BRD. Thank you - Wretchskull (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Was Hungarian his mother tongue? Ddid he go by Ferenc? Sca (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

!!! Both questions are irrelevant, you are talking about WP:OR. We follow the consensus of reliable sources; prove that most reliable souces call him whatever you are proposing, or stop! If Liszt was born on Mars but sources called him Hungarian, we would call him Hungarian... Aza24 (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you underestimate how complicated was the relationship between languages and nationalities at the time: Liszt's birth certificate was neither in German or in Hungarian but in the only official language of Hungary at the time: latin (!). Otherwhise, Liszt did use the given name of Ferenc by the end of his life in administrative documents. Alexander Doria (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

"In administrative documents" – but did he use Ferenc in real life? Sca (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Based on his correspondence, he would use François in French, Francesco in Italian, Franz in German and Ferenc in Hungary. He spent most of early adult life in France before moving to Weimar. After the late 1860s he led a vie trifurquée (life in three places) between Budapest, Rome and Weimar, as he held official positions in all theses places while still retaining a Hungarian passport. That's hardly extraordinary for any musician artist with a major international career. Alexander Doria (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

In what language is the title of one of Liszt's most widely known compositions? – Sca (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Well Liszt has written songs in any major musical language of the time: Italian, French, German, Latin, Hungarian, and even Spanish or English. If we apply this logic, I guess that Haendel was italian and Palestrina was a citizen of the roman empire… Alexander Doria (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, most of the great Mr. Handel's compositions after 1712, when he emigrated to England and where he spent the bulk of his career, are known by their English titles. Water Music for example. (He would be known as Georg Friedrich Händel – or Haendel – mainly in German-speaking locales.) – Sca (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Grove begins its article on Franz Liszt - "Hungarian composer, pianist and teacher". End of discussion unless you can find any other source as authoritative that says different. If editors would use their energy to improve the awful article itself, rather than to indulge in this pointless bickering, that would be a benefit to mankind.--Smerus (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

A great many articles and books refer to Liszt blandly as Hungarian, which given modern usage is an oversimplification of a more complicated history. It would take a person versed in musicology – which you apparently are (and I'm not) – to expand and improve the mediocre article. That would be a benefit to humankind. Go for it. – Sca (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sca: Flattery may get you a long way, - but not that far :-)--Smerus (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

What would it take? A fistful of forints under the table? – Sca (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

p.s. you mean this Raiding. But where is the source that actually names his birthplace? (and names it as Doborján, of course)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Probably in Latin, as mentioned above. -- Sca (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes I can confirm :) The birth certificate is reproduced in the bio of Alan Walker (vol. 1, p. 56). The name is not latinized but relies probably an outdated orthograph: Reiding (with an e). Liszt is named Franciscus. Alexander Doria (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Somewhat surprising. I wonder if these details need to be mentioned, with the source. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

According to the logic that some people here apply Listz was therefore an anciant Roman. --BarKochba555 (talk) 09:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Liszt did only know a few words of Hungarian. His mother tongue was German. He simply lived in an area that belonged to the kingdom of Hungary. And yes, he pledged loyalty to Hungary, but this does not change his ethnicity. He simply was a German guy. --BarKochba555 (talk) 09:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

According to the German version (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Liszt) of this page, Liszt was an Austrian-Hungarian composer, but regarded France as his "Vaterland", i.e. as his home country. According to the French version (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Liszt) of this page French, Italian and Slovakian identity was claimed by reliable resources. This English article is NOT NEUTRAL. You are presenting a on sided viewpoint, you are in grave breaching of the NPOV policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C1:B736:F700:4C77:A1A8:AF08:1DBD (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Rewrite of this article

This particular wikipedia article as well as the List of compositions by Franz Liszt article need lots of work done to them. I have access to many sources and documents concerning this matter from various places, including that of Prof. Leslie Howard's, and would be interested in rewriting some of it if others are willing to co-operate. If anybody has any work or help necessary I am more than willing to lend a hand here. MódicaLiszt (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

About the 'diabolic quality' Liszt supposedly inherited from Berlioz (with footnote 8)

In the Franz Liszt Wikipedia article, there is a text that says Liszt inherited a 'diabolic quality' from Hector Berlioz, but there is no explanation on what that means or what is that supposed 'diabolic quality', which is not clear and can be confusing. Here's an excerpt of said Wikipedia article:

"Berlioz's music made a strong impression on Liszt, especially later when he was writing for orchestra. He also inherited from Berlioz the diabolic quality of many of his works."

I suggest to add in said Wikipedia article an explanation about what that 'diabolic quality' is and what it means, in order to prevent confusion from people reading said Wikipedia article. Juan José Gabriel Carlos (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Lede expansion

Liszt’s lede is quite sparse compared to the Wikipedia pages of his contemporaries like Chopin, Brahms, Wagner, etc. I would suggest an expansion of the lede, possibly focusing on the number of works he created and his renown as a romantic era composer, popularity in modern repertoire, etc. RyanAl6 (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Classical Composer

Symphonic Poems 2600:1004:B086:1FFE:690A:91F1:314F:BF09 (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Clarify? GenQuest ^"scribble" 18:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

List was ethnic German

Although born in the Kingdom of Hungary in the Austrian Empire - actually in Raiding in the now and then German speaking Burgenland - Liszt or List was not an ethnic Hungarian but an ethnic German like both of his parents, speaking German as his mother tongue. This should be mentioned somewhere, not least to clarify his relation to German culture. Just as an Englishman born in Shanghai is not (ethnic) Chinese, List an not Hungarian. -2A02:8071:B86:8060:9C70:CB7F:3C47:FFC8 (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Liszt is a Hungarian word (means "flour") His father Ádám Liszt was a Hungarian and his mother Maria Anna Lager was an Austrian. Franz Liszt considered himself Hungarian, which he confirmed in many of his statements. Liszt started the elementary school in Doborján, but the teaching was in German language. Ádám Liszt printed this poster in Pest in 1823:

“Respectable audience! I am Hungarian and I know no greater happiness than being able to present the first fruits of my upbringing and teaching to my dear homeland as a sign of my attachment and gratitude before I travel to France and England.”

Liszt lost his Hungarian father when he was 15 years old, he lived many years in France, in Germany, in Austria, in Italy, in Hungary he mostly speaked French and German. Liszt declared himself to be Hungarian in all his statements about his origins, but he still had problems with the Hungarian language.

He lived in Paris, Weimar, and Rome for a long time, he never acquired French, German, or Italian citizenship, but he was never an Austrian citizen either. He used a Hungarian passport every time during his travels, the place of residence in his passport was Sopron. Liszt's Hungarian passport spelled his name as "Ferencz Liszt". Furthermore Liszt's children were also Hungarian citizens. Throughout his life, he claimed to be Hungarian, rather than German and referred to Hungary as his homeland. When later in his life he gave charity concerts in Hungary, he sometimes appeared wearing Hungarian national dress.

Liszt, Hungarian Rhapsody: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goeOUTRy2es&feature=emb_logoOrionNimrod (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

To claim that Liszt who was obviously ethnically German was hungarian is objectively false.

To claim that Liszt who was obviously ethnically German was hungarian is objectively false. He may have thought of hungary as his homeland but that of course does not make him hungarian. Being actually hungarian would make him hungarian, but he wasn't. I suppose this is just another one of those weird occasions where central-eastern europeans claim obviously popular germans/austrians as "theirs" due to them having worked of lived in the area for a time. Similar to Copernicus or Gerstner, just silly that wikipedia is supporting such obviously blatand lies. 178.24.244.207 (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

And where are you sources that say it's a "blatand lie"? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Demonstrate that the majority of reliable modern sources call him "German" over "Hungarian"—otherwise, no one will take you seriously Aza24 (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, de.wikipedia states that he was Austrian which seems plausible since his mother was Austrian, he was born in Austria, his native language was German, he did not speak Hungarian as a child (learned it in the 1870s). It seems a bit far-fetched to call him German, but simply calling him Hungarian seems not entirely correct either. The de text states (with references, [5] and [6] currently) that nationalists of various sides claimed him. So some modifications to the article might be justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.195.59.71 (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)