This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 12 |
This by VeryRarelyStable restored several changes, most of them to the article's lead section, by an IP editor who alleged that article lacked neutrality. No evidence was provided by either the IP editor or VeryRarelyStable that article was lacking in neutrality or that the changes were improvements. The changes the IP made were thoughtless and far from being in accord with WP:NPOV, as was claimed, they actually violate it, and as such lower the quality of the article. VeryRarelyStable should not have restored them.
I note the changes.
1. One altered a sentence stating that Heidegger is a "seminal thinker in the Continental tradition of philosophy" by removing the word "seminal". This appears to simply be a case where someone decided that they did not like a statement in a Wikipedia article and removed it for that reason. That is of course unacceptable and exactly the opposite of neutral editing. Removing "seminal", which simply means influential and was properly cited and therefore neutral, downgrades the quality of the article by hiding the fact that Heidegger is an especially influential thinker in the continental tradition, rather than simply one thinker among others.
2. Another altered "He is 'widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century' " to "He has been described as "one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century". The original version was a quotation from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which should be a fully acceptable reliable source for Wikipedia. Again, this is simply a case where someone decided that they did not like a statement in a Wikipedia article and removed it for that reason. Basing articles on reliable sources is neutral and in accord with WP:NPOV; removing reliably sourced content because you don't like it is not.
3. Another altered "Heidegger is best known for his contributions to phenomenology, hermeneutics, and existentialism, though, as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy cautions, 'his thinking should be identified as part of such philosophical movements only with extreme care and qualification' " by removing the "best known for" part and changing "cautions" to "argues". Again that is removal of appropriate article content for no properly explained reason. That "Heidegger is best known for his contributions to phenomenology, hermeneutics, and existentialism" is properly cited information and there is no good reason for removing it.
4. Another altered "His first and best known book, Being and Time (1927), is one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century" to "His first book, Being and Time (1927), is regarded as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century". The statement that Being and Time is Heidegger's best known book was both properly cited and objectively true, and there was no reason to remove it.
5. Another altered "In a 1950 lecture he formulated the famous saying " Language speaks", later published in the 1959 essays collection Unterwegs zur Sprache, and collected in the 1971 English book Poetry, Language, Thought" by removing the word "famous". Again the "famous" part was properly cited, and therefore neutral. Again its removal was obviously based on nothing more than personal dislike and disagreement with it.
Almost all of the IP's changes lower the quality of the article. The IP's claim that they enhance the neutrality of the article is simply wrong. Neutrality here means basing article content on reliable sources, not censoring or removing material because you personally don't like it. The IP editor appears to simply not understand or care what WP:NPOV actually requires. Anyone who disagrees and believes the changes were improvements should provide detailed reasons for their views. Simply asserting that they are improvements or make the article more neutral is not good enough. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 21:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Snowded, you've taken an interest in the Heidegger article in the past, do you have any comment? The IP editor has repeated the edit I have criticized, with the comment, "User cannot have understood the text I changed if they think it made the article *less* neutral". I understand the text perfectly well and I stand by my position that the IP's edit makes the article less neutral. Per WP:NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The IP's edits unacceptably remove content properly cited to reliable sources, without explanation, and based it seems on nothing more than personal opinion. That is not neutral editing. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 04:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Martinevans123, do you have any comment? Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 06:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
you might need to quote WP:RS sources that say something like "Heidegger is not considered important for reasons x, y or z" - that is an incredible misunderstanding of the point. If you wanted to write in Berlin that is has fabulous food, you think that if I found that non-neutral, I should I add some sources saying that it does not have fabulous food? 88.217.152.166 ( talk) 10:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The bellicose IP is an incarnation of WP:LTA/BKFIP, a well-traveled, community-banned editor, who appears to be currently residing in Germany. Favonian ( talk) 11:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh well, if you don't want to lay them out here individually, for discussion, then never mind.
"... while remaining one of the most controversial"? Although the first paragraph concludes: "There is controversy over the degree to which his Nazi affiliations influenced his philosophy." Cam't we trust readers to read whole paragraphs? Maybe a source should be added for that last sentence? Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
"He is "widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century"is not a true statememt? That has not changed/ Martinevans123 ( talk) 15:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Could you kindly stop characterising those with whom you disagree here as "a mob"? Are you referring to this MoS guideline: "Do not omit text where doing so would remove important context or alter the meaning of the text"
? Or to some other(s)? Thanks.
Martinevans123 (
talk) 22:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
(from WP:MOS) Sbelknap ( talk) 18:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)Quotations must be verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced. This is referred to as the principle of minimal change. Where there is good reason to change the wording, enclose changes within square brackets (for example replacing pronouns with nouns that aren't identified in the quote: "Ocyrhoe told [her father] his fate" instead of "Ocyrhoe told him his fate"). If there is a significant error in the original statement, use
[''[[ sic]]'']
or the template{{ sic}}
(produces the note [ sic ) to show that the error was not made by Wikipedia. However, trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment (for example, correct basicly to basically and harasssment to harassment), unless the slip is contextually important. Use ellipses to indicate omissions from quoted text. Legitimate omissions include extraneous, irrelevant, or parenthetical words, and unintelligible speech (umm, and hmm). Do not omit text where doing so would remove important context or alter the meaning of the text.
I concur with Sbelknap. The relevant WP:MOS guideline has already been given here twice, but let me give it again for clarity:
Do not omit text where doing so would remove important context or alter the meaning of the text.
It doesn't say "It's OK to omit text where doing so removes important context, as long as you mention the context elsewhere in the paragraph without attributing that context to the work you are quoting."
(The paragraph in WP:MOS where it is found has already been demanded by one editor, then provided by another, then dismissed by the editor who had demanded it as an irrelevance on the part of the editor who provided it.)
Whilst I note the amusing irony of personal attacks that consist of accusing others of personal attacks, the fact remains that the quotation as presented in the lede of this article misrepresents the position of the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Certainly, the lede of this article itself points out that there is controversy about Heidegger; but it leaves the impression that the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy did not consider this controversy quite major enough to be worth mentioning in the same sentence as Heidegger's importance. That impression is false, and, given the authority conveyed by the use of quotation, misleading to the reader.
Just to make this super clear, since it seems to be a sticking point: the problem is not that the truncated quotation directly misleads the reader about Heidegger, since after all the fact that he is controversial is mentioned a few sentences later in the lede. The problem is that the truncated quotation misleads the reader about the weight placed on said controversy by the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, and thereby indirectly about the weight attributable to the controversy.
Yes, this discussion has been held here several times; and that point has been disregarded several times. And the discussion will continue to be held until the point ceases to be disregarded.
Perhaps I might ask: what exactly is so offensive about the clause "while remaining one of the most controversial" that it must be omitted from the lede paragraph at the cost of (a) misleading the reader about the source's characterization of Heidegger and (b) sparking endless argument in the Talk page? I mean, I can see the virtues of brevity and simplicity in quotation, but the zeal some editors have shown for expunging this clause seems disproportionate to the value gained in terms of brevity and simplicity.
— VeryRarelyStable ( talk) 09:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
VeryRarelyStable, would you like to discuss each of the points one by one? Perhaps we could start with the claim that Being and Time is Heidegger's "best-known book". I'm not sure how this affects the presentation of an "unbiased description," but you reverted it, so I assume you disagree with it. Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 08:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
instead of building a case that the article is biased and certain folks are "to blame," why not discuss each of the points separately, one by one, and try to get consensus?
You're suggesting the article should start with "Heidegger is best known for being a Nazi" in line with the philosophy lecturers where you work?
Herman Philipse, Roger Scruton, Bertrand Russell and many other philosophers have criticized Being and Time as being nonsense or possible nonsense. This view is hinted at in the body, though attempts to introduce a fuller discussion have been defeated by a group of engaged editors. The view of numerous philosophers that Heidegger's most prominent work may be nonsense is not reflected in the lede, and vigorous efforts by currently-engaged editors prevent this serious omission from being corrected. Sbelknap ( talk) 16:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- do you mean "widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century."? That's hardly praise and is probably true, but I wouldn't have a problem with removing the quote entirely. Like him or not, he is an important philosopher; he has had a significant influence - anyone dealing with the development of later 20th century philosophy has to take Heidegger into consideration, and some mention of his significance should be included in the lead - but don't remove the quote on my say-so - thanks - Epinoia ( talk) 03:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
"Herman Philipse, Roger Scruton, Bertrand Russell and many other philosophers have criticized Being and Time as being nonsense or possible nonsense."I've asked you to provide direct examples of this from Russell's work and you call this "a distraction"? You seem to want to turn each separate thread here into a discussion about the use of an existing quotation. Either Russell said this about Being and Time, or he didn't. Please provide the evidence. Martinevans123 ( talk) 11:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
""Martin Heidegger's philosophy is extremely obscure and highly eccentric in its terminology. One cannot help suspecting that language is here running riot. An interesting point in his speculations is the insistence that nothingness is something positive. As with much else in Existentialism, this is a psychological observation made to pass for logic."
— Bertrand Russell (1989), Wisdom of the West, p. 303" Sbelknap ( talk) 04:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- that Heidegger is considered controversial because some other philosophers consider his work to be nonsense is an opinion - is there a reliable source that says Heidegger is considered controversial because some other philosophers consider his work to be nonsense? - every philosopher comes under criticism, it's normal, not controversial - that Heidegger is controversial is mentioned in the lead, we don't need to say it twice - the quote says he is controversial without specifying why, but there is established controversy over his Nazi involvement and so that's where the controversy belongs - Epinoia ( talk) 21:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- the quotation is composed of two independent clauses and could be written as two separate sentences, "Martin Heidegger is widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century. He is also one of the most controversial." - so the second clause can be left out without affecting the meaning of the first clause. - Epinoia ( talk) 01:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The author is using the rhetorical device of concession [1], where the first clause makes an assertion that is expected and the second makes an assertion that surprises the reader. This rhetorical device may spark the reader's curiosity, assisting him in digesting and collating the facts and arguments that the author is making. What is interesting about Heidegger is that scholars are sharply divided on Heidegger's philosophy (essential or meaningless?), on his politics (how could an intellectual be a Nazi?), and on his character (how could he justify having intimate relations with female students?). Among many other ill-considered editing choices, the currently-engaged editors do violence to the intent of the author of this sentence by omitting the second clause, obscuring the concession, and ultimately rendering this article biased. There are *good reasons* for the policies on quotation that are in WP:MOS. Why are some currently-engaged editors ignoring those good reasons, violating the rules of wikipedia, and resisting correction of this error? Sbelknap ( talk) 03:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)Martin Heidegger is widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century, while remaining one of the most controversial.
"If, for Heidegger in 1934—35, the Fatherland [Vaterland] is Being [Sein] itself, it is because the Fatherland is the world [Welt] of the Volk. The world in which the German people carries out its mission of thinking the question of Being is itself the clearing of Being.— James Phillips (2005), p.178, Standford University Press. Heidegger's work is not clearly worded because he conceived it as an esoteric work: you shall not read what you are reading, and he gave you the "decryption key" of his major work 7 years after its publication. Azerty82 ( talk) 08:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Here is the quote from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy [2] that is under dispute:
Martin Heidegger is widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century, while remaining one of the most controversial.
Here is how this is "quoted" in this article:
Martin Heidegger is widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century.
Here is the relevant guidance from WP:MOS:
Quotations must be verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced. This is referred to as the principle of minimal change. Where there is good reason to change the wording, enclose changes within square brackets (for example replacing pronouns with nouns that aren't identified in the quote: "Ocyrhoe told [her father] his fate" instead of "Ocyrhoe told him his fate"). If there is a significant error in the original statement, use
[''[[ sic]]'']
or the template{{ sic}}
(produces the note [ sic ) to show that the error was not made by Wikipedia. However, trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment (for example, correct basicly to basically and harasssment to harassment), unless the slip is contextually important. Use ellipses to indicate omissions from quoted text. Legitimate omissions include extraneous, irrelevant, or parenthetical words, and unintelligible speech (umm, and hmm). Do not omit text where doing so would remove important context or alter the meaning of the text.
I ask currently engaged editors for approval to restore the truncated final clause to the lede of this article. Those who disagree are asked to justify why they do not support following wikipedia guidance or why this guidance is irrelevant to this case. Sbelknap ( talk) 21:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
—at the expense of reducing the lede reference to Heidegger's Nazism from
Heidegger was a member and public supporter of the Nazi Party.
to
the relationships between his philosophy and his Nazi support and membership.
Yes, my edit to that could have been a bit more graceful, but as it stands the reader is getting their first intimation that Heidegger had anything to do with Nazis as a kind of throw-away comment a propos of something else.
And by pure, innocent coincidence, I'm sure, that goes along with the long-awaited acceptance of the phrase "while remaining the most controversial" by one of the Three Very Experienced Editors. Who then continues the long-established pattern (perhaps another pure innocent coincidence, who knows?) of reverting any edits that draw attention to Heidegger's Nazism – even though these edits were merely restoring the attention that had been there before Azerty82's edit.
There is a limit to the assumption of good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary, and for me this reversion has crossed it.
If the Three Very Experienced Editors wish to refute the argument that they are maintaining a pseudo-consensus to revert edits critical of Heidegger, I invite any one of them to prove it by editing the lede to restore the fact of his membership and support of the Nazi Party to its former prominence.
Until that is done the accusation stands.
— VeryRarelyStable ( talk) 00:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
This article does not reflect the balance of opinion in high quality tertiary sources. Here is one quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
There is no doubt that Heidegger's Nazi sympathies, however long they lasted, have a more intimate relationship with his philosophical thought than might be suggested by apologist claims that he was a victim of his time (in 1933, lots of intelligent people backed Hitler without thereby supporting the Holocaust that was to come) or that what we have here is ‘merely’ a case of bad political judgment, deserving of censure but with no implications for the essentially independent philosophical programme.
Sbelknap ( talk) 16:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
SEP notes that Heidegger rejected "biologically grounded racism". He did adhere to linguistic-historical heritage. In order to restate myself, there is a Dutch sociologist, nl:Willem Schinkel, who speaks about culture-ism. Heidegger was a culture-ist, not a racist. He loved some Jewish women because they were of linguistic-historical German heritage, he did not consider "race" an impediment. Those women were already culturally Germanized, and that's all he cared for. These being said, Heidegger had nothing to fear for expressing racist views during the Nazi regime, the regime would have appreciated him doing that, and it was even expected from a German professor to express racist views during those years. Those who would have dared to criticize him publicly for expressing racist views would have faced immediate trouble. It would have made no sense for him to play the closeted racist when the whole state was openly racist. There is no convincing reason why should have he hidden his racist views during the Nazi regime, only to publish those in 2014. At a certain point it became evident that Germany will lose the war, but that moment wasn't 1939. So he could not have handled with such foresight. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 08:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
References
There was no quid pro quo agreement to obscure the Nazism info in the lede. This article is about the man's life and his Nazism is an important aspect of his life. An accurate summary would require a lede that clearly describes his membership in and support of the Nazi Party. I note that here, and throughout the article, convoluted sentence structures and decontextualization have been used to obscure Heidegger's Nazism. This article is clearly not reflecting a NPOV. Sbelknap ( talk) 19:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Das 'Vaterland' ist das Seyn selbst, das von Grund aus die Geschichte eines Volkes als eines daseienden trägt und fügt.(Hölderlins Hymnen ‚Germanien‘ und ‚Der Rhein‘. Vorlesung Wintersemester 1934/35, GA 39, S. 121.).
Wenn erst das wesenhaft 'Jüdische' im metaphysischen Sinne gegen das Jüdische kämpft, ist der Höhepunkt der Selbstvernichtung in der Geschichte erreicht [...](Anmerkungen I-V, Schwarze Hefte, 1942–1948). My translations: (a)
The 'Fatherland' is the Seyn itself, which carries and adds from the bottom up the history of a people as one being.&
When only the essential 'Jewish' fights against the Jewish in the metaphysical sense, the climax of self-destruction in history is reached.Azerty82 ( talk) 18:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Der Anti-christ muß wie jedes Anti- aus dem selben Wesensgrund stammen wie das, wogegen es anti- ist – also wie‚ 'der Christ'. Dieser stammt aus der Judenschaft. Diese ist im Zeitraum des christlichen Abendlandes, d. h. der Metaphysik, das Prinzip der Zerstörung. Das Zerstörerische in der Umkehrung der Vollendung der Metaphysik-d. h. Hegels durch Marx. Der Geist und die Kultur wird zum Überbau des 'Lebens'-d. h. der Wirtschaft, d. h. der Organisation-d. h. des Biologischen-d. h. des 'Volkes'. Wenn erst das wesenhaft 'Jüdische' im metaphysischen Sinne gegen das Jüdische kämpft, ist der Höhepunkt der Selbstvernichtung in der Geschichte erreicht; gesetzt, daß das 'Jüdische' überall die Herrschaft vollständig an sich gerissen hat, so daß auch die Bekämpfung‚ des 'Jüdischen' und sie zuvörderst in die Botmäßigkeit zu ihm gelangt.(written between 1942 and 1948, full reference above) Azerty82 ( talk) 18:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The Antichrist, like every Anti-, must come from the same reason of being as that against which it is anti - that is, like 'the Christian'. This one comes from the Jewish community. In the period of the Christian Occident, i.e. metaphysics, this is the principle of destruction. The destructive in the reversal of the completion of metaphysics, i.e. Hegel, by Marx. Spirit and culture become the superstructure of 'life'-i.e. the economy, i.e. the organization-i.e. the biological-i.e. the people. When only the essentially 'Jewish' fights against the Jewish in the metaphysical sense, the climax of the self-destruction in history is reached; set, that the 'Jewish' has completely taken over the dominion everywhere, so that also the fight against the 'Jewish' and it reaches it first of all in the botanicality.Azerty82 ( talk) 18:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
„Der reine Blödsinn zu sagen, das experimentelle Forschen sei nordisch-germanisch und das rationale dagegen fremdartig! Wir müssen uns dann schon entschließen, Newton und Leibniz zu den ‚Juden‘ zu zählen.["The pure nonsense of saying that experimental research is Nordic-Germanic and the rational, on the other hand, is alien! Then we have to decide to count Newton and Leibniz among the 'Jews'.] (Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis), GA 65, S. 163) Bonus:
. Zu fragen wäre allerdings, worin die eigentümliche Vorbestimmung der Judenschaft für das planetarische Verbrechertum begründet ist. Die planetarischen Hauptverbrecher der neuesten Neuzeit, in der sie erst möglich und notwendig werden, lassen sich gerade an den Fingern einer Hand abzähle.[One would have to ask, however, what the peculiar predestination of Jewhood for planetary criminality is based on. The planetary main criminals of the newest modern age, in which they first become possible and necessary, can be counted precisely on the fingers of one hand.] (Die Geschichte des Seyns, GA 69, 77 f.) Azerty82 ( talk) 18:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- I don't understand this push to maximize Heidegger's Nazi involvement - yes, he did belong to the Nazi party and it is important to note that he was - during WWII many German companies contributed to the war effort and used forced labor, including Bosch, Blaupunkt, Daimler-Benz, Philips, Siemens, Walther, Bayer and Volkswagen, and German subsidiaries of Ford and General Motors (see Economy of Nazi Germany#Forced labour and Forced labour under German rule during World War II) - these companies are still in business today and are not thought of as Nazi companies - Germany is now part of the European Union - the world seems to have moved on, we should too - not that the atrocities of WWII should be minimized or forgotten or denied, it is important that they are remembered - Heidegger was a member of the Nazi party, but did not participate in any atrocities - his philosophy is not overtly fascist, it seems that his support of the Nazi party was from his strong sense of German nationalism and belief that Germany would lead the world into the future rather than a dedication to fascism - and yes, he did minimize Nazi atrocities and never apologized for joining the Nazi party and it is important to note that - but it is as a philosopher that he is most important, not as a Nazi - so, yes, it is important to establish his Nazi affiliations, but in proportion to his importance as a philosopher - WWII ended 74 years ago and people are still fighting it - Heidgegger's Nazi involvement is adequately covered in this article and the content fork article Martin Heidegger and Nazism - it's well established, not obscured, hidden or minimized - as it says in the guideline Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs - (and just some personal perspective, my father fought in WWII - he was in the front lines, among the first allied troops to reach the Rhine after the Battle of the Rhine - he was at the liberation of Bergen-Belson concentration camp and the only time in my life I saw him cry was when he told me what they found there - so I have direct knowledge of Nazi attrocities that I am not likely to forget and I am not one to obscure, mimimize or deny Nazi involvement) - Epinoia ( talk) 19:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 12 |
This by VeryRarelyStable restored several changes, most of them to the article's lead section, by an IP editor who alleged that article lacked neutrality. No evidence was provided by either the IP editor or VeryRarelyStable that article was lacking in neutrality or that the changes were improvements. The changes the IP made were thoughtless and far from being in accord with WP:NPOV, as was claimed, they actually violate it, and as such lower the quality of the article. VeryRarelyStable should not have restored them.
I note the changes.
1. One altered a sentence stating that Heidegger is a "seminal thinker in the Continental tradition of philosophy" by removing the word "seminal". This appears to simply be a case where someone decided that they did not like a statement in a Wikipedia article and removed it for that reason. That is of course unacceptable and exactly the opposite of neutral editing. Removing "seminal", which simply means influential and was properly cited and therefore neutral, downgrades the quality of the article by hiding the fact that Heidegger is an especially influential thinker in the continental tradition, rather than simply one thinker among others.
2. Another altered "He is 'widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century' " to "He has been described as "one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century". The original version was a quotation from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which should be a fully acceptable reliable source for Wikipedia. Again, this is simply a case where someone decided that they did not like a statement in a Wikipedia article and removed it for that reason. Basing articles on reliable sources is neutral and in accord with WP:NPOV; removing reliably sourced content because you don't like it is not.
3. Another altered "Heidegger is best known for his contributions to phenomenology, hermeneutics, and existentialism, though, as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy cautions, 'his thinking should be identified as part of such philosophical movements only with extreme care and qualification' " by removing the "best known for" part and changing "cautions" to "argues". Again that is removal of appropriate article content for no properly explained reason. That "Heidegger is best known for his contributions to phenomenology, hermeneutics, and existentialism" is properly cited information and there is no good reason for removing it.
4. Another altered "His first and best known book, Being and Time (1927), is one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century" to "His first book, Being and Time (1927), is regarded as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century". The statement that Being and Time is Heidegger's best known book was both properly cited and objectively true, and there was no reason to remove it.
5. Another altered "In a 1950 lecture he formulated the famous saying " Language speaks", later published in the 1959 essays collection Unterwegs zur Sprache, and collected in the 1971 English book Poetry, Language, Thought" by removing the word "famous". Again the "famous" part was properly cited, and therefore neutral. Again its removal was obviously based on nothing more than personal dislike and disagreement with it.
Almost all of the IP's changes lower the quality of the article. The IP's claim that they enhance the neutrality of the article is simply wrong. Neutrality here means basing article content on reliable sources, not censoring or removing material because you personally don't like it. The IP editor appears to simply not understand or care what WP:NPOV actually requires. Anyone who disagrees and believes the changes were improvements should provide detailed reasons for their views. Simply asserting that they are improvements or make the article more neutral is not good enough. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 21:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Snowded, you've taken an interest in the Heidegger article in the past, do you have any comment? The IP editor has repeated the edit I have criticized, with the comment, "User cannot have understood the text I changed if they think it made the article *less* neutral". I understand the text perfectly well and I stand by my position that the IP's edit makes the article less neutral. Per WP:NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The IP's edits unacceptably remove content properly cited to reliable sources, without explanation, and based it seems on nothing more than personal opinion. That is not neutral editing. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 04:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Martinevans123, do you have any comment? Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 06:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
you might need to quote WP:RS sources that say something like "Heidegger is not considered important for reasons x, y or z" - that is an incredible misunderstanding of the point. If you wanted to write in Berlin that is has fabulous food, you think that if I found that non-neutral, I should I add some sources saying that it does not have fabulous food? 88.217.152.166 ( talk) 10:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The bellicose IP is an incarnation of WP:LTA/BKFIP, a well-traveled, community-banned editor, who appears to be currently residing in Germany. Favonian ( talk) 11:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh well, if you don't want to lay them out here individually, for discussion, then never mind.
"... while remaining one of the most controversial"? Although the first paragraph concludes: "There is controversy over the degree to which his Nazi affiliations influenced his philosophy." Cam't we trust readers to read whole paragraphs? Maybe a source should be added for that last sentence? Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
"He is "widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century"is not a true statememt? That has not changed/ Martinevans123 ( talk) 15:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Could you kindly stop characterising those with whom you disagree here as "a mob"? Are you referring to this MoS guideline: "Do not omit text where doing so would remove important context or alter the meaning of the text"
? Or to some other(s)? Thanks.
Martinevans123 (
talk) 22:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
(from WP:MOS) Sbelknap ( talk) 18:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)Quotations must be verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced. This is referred to as the principle of minimal change. Where there is good reason to change the wording, enclose changes within square brackets (for example replacing pronouns with nouns that aren't identified in the quote: "Ocyrhoe told [her father] his fate" instead of "Ocyrhoe told him his fate"). If there is a significant error in the original statement, use
[''[[ sic]]'']
or the template{{ sic}}
(produces the note [ sic ) to show that the error was not made by Wikipedia. However, trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment (for example, correct basicly to basically and harasssment to harassment), unless the slip is contextually important. Use ellipses to indicate omissions from quoted text. Legitimate omissions include extraneous, irrelevant, or parenthetical words, and unintelligible speech (umm, and hmm). Do not omit text where doing so would remove important context or alter the meaning of the text.
I concur with Sbelknap. The relevant WP:MOS guideline has already been given here twice, but let me give it again for clarity:
Do not omit text where doing so would remove important context or alter the meaning of the text.
It doesn't say "It's OK to omit text where doing so removes important context, as long as you mention the context elsewhere in the paragraph without attributing that context to the work you are quoting."
(The paragraph in WP:MOS where it is found has already been demanded by one editor, then provided by another, then dismissed by the editor who had demanded it as an irrelevance on the part of the editor who provided it.)
Whilst I note the amusing irony of personal attacks that consist of accusing others of personal attacks, the fact remains that the quotation as presented in the lede of this article misrepresents the position of the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Certainly, the lede of this article itself points out that there is controversy about Heidegger; but it leaves the impression that the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy did not consider this controversy quite major enough to be worth mentioning in the same sentence as Heidegger's importance. That impression is false, and, given the authority conveyed by the use of quotation, misleading to the reader.
Just to make this super clear, since it seems to be a sticking point: the problem is not that the truncated quotation directly misleads the reader about Heidegger, since after all the fact that he is controversial is mentioned a few sentences later in the lede. The problem is that the truncated quotation misleads the reader about the weight placed on said controversy by the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, and thereby indirectly about the weight attributable to the controversy.
Yes, this discussion has been held here several times; and that point has been disregarded several times. And the discussion will continue to be held until the point ceases to be disregarded.
Perhaps I might ask: what exactly is so offensive about the clause "while remaining one of the most controversial" that it must be omitted from the lede paragraph at the cost of (a) misleading the reader about the source's characterization of Heidegger and (b) sparking endless argument in the Talk page? I mean, I can see the virtues of brevity and simplicity in quotation, but the zeal some editors have shown for expunging this clause seems disproportionate to the value gained in terms of brevity and simplicity.
— VeryRarelyStable ( talk) 09:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
VeryRarelyStable, would you like to discuss each of the points one by one? Perhaps we could start with the claim that Being and Time is Heidegger's "best-known book". I'm not sure how this affects the presentation of an "unbiased description," but you reverted it, so I assume you disagree with it. Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 08:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
instead of building a case that the article is biased and certain folks are "to blame," why not discuss each of the points separately, one by one, and try to get consensus?
You're suggesting the article should start with "Heidegger is best known for being a Nazi" in line with the philosophy lecturers where you work?
Herman Philipse, Roger Scruton, Bertrand Russell and many other philosophers have criticized Being and Time as being nonsense or possible nonsense. This view is hinted at in the body, though attempts to introduce a fuller discussion have been defeated by a group of engaged editors. The view of numerous philosophers that Heidegger's most prominent work may be nonsense is not reflected in the lede, and vigorous efforts by currently-engaged editors prevent this serious omission from being corrected. Sbelknap ( talk) 16:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- do you mean "widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century."? That's hardly praise and is probably true, but I wouldn't have a problem with removing the quote entirely. Like him or not, he is an important philosopher; he has had a significant influence - anyone dealing with the development of later 20th century philosophy has to take Heidegger into consideration, and some mention of his significance should be included in the lead - but don't remove the quote on my say-so - thanks - Epinoia ( talk) 03:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
"Herman Philipse, Roger Scruton, Bertrand Russell and many other philosophers have criticized Being and Time as being nonsense or possible nonsense."I've asked you to provide direct examples of this from Russell's work and you call this "a distraction"? You seem to want to turn each separate thread here into a discussion about the use of an existing quotation. Either Russell said this about Being and Time, or he didn't. Please provide the evidence. Martinevans123 ( talk) 11:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
""Martin Heidegger's philosophy is extremely obscure and highly eccentric in its terminology. One cannot help suspecting that language is here running riot. An interesting point in his speculations is the insistence that nothingness is something positive. As with much else in Existentialism, this is a psychological observation made to pass for logic."
— Bertrand Russell (1989), Wisdom of the West, p. 303" Sbelknap ( talk) 04:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- that Heidegger is considered controversial because some other philosophers consider his work to be nonsense is an opinion - is there a reliable source that says Heidegger is considered controversial because some other philosophers consider his work to be nonsense? - every philosopher comes under criticism, it's normal, not controversial - that Heidegger is controversial is mentioned in the lead, we don't need to say it twice - the quote says he is controversial without specifying why, but there is established controversy over his Nazi involvement and so that's where the controversy belongs - Epinoia ( talk) 21:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- the quotation is composed of two independent clauses and could be written as two separate sentences, "Martin Heidegger is widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century. He is also one of the most controversial." - so the second clause can be left out without affecting the meaning of the first clause. - Epinoia ( talk) 01:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The author is using the rhetorical device of concession [1], where the first clause makes an assertion that is expected and the second makes an assertion that surprises the reader. This rhetorical device may spark the reader's curiosity, assisting him in digesting and collating the facts and arguments that the author is making. What is interesting about Heidegger is that scholars are sharply divided on Heidegger's philosophy (essential or meaningless?), on his politics (how could an intellectual be a Nazi?), and on his character (how could he justify having intimate relations with female students?). Among many other ill-considered editing choices, the currently-engaged editors do violence to the intent of the author of this sentence by omitting the second clause, obscuring the concession, and ultimately rendering this article biased. There are *good reasons* for the policies on quotation that are in WP:MOS. Why are some currently-engaged editors ignoring those good reasons, violating the rules of wikipedia, and resisting correction of this error? Sbelknap ( talk) 03:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)Martin Heidegger is widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century, while remaining one of the most controversial.
"If, for Heidegger in 1934—35, the Fatherland [Vaterland] is Being [Sein] itself, it is because the Fatherland is the world [Welt] of the Volk. The world in which the German people carries out its mission of thinking the question of Being is itself the clearing of Being.— James Phillips (2005), p.178, Standford University Press. Heidegger's work is not clearly worded because he conceived it as an esoteric work: you shall not read what you are reading, and he gave you the "decryption key" of his major work 7 years after its publication. Azerty82 ( talk) 08:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Here is the quote from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy [2] that is under dispute:
Martin Heidegger is widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century, while remaining one of the most controversial.
Here is how this is "quoted" in this article:
Martin Heidegger is widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century.
Here is the relevant guidance from WP:MOS:
Quotations must be verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced. This is referred to as the principle of minimal change. Where there is good reason to change the wording, enclose changes within square brackets (for example replacing pronouns with nouns that aren't identified in the quote: "Ocyrhoe told [her father] his fate" instead of "Ocyrhoe told him his fate"). If there is a significant error in the original statement, use
[''[[ sic]]'']
or the template{{ sic}}
(produces the note [ sic ) to show that the error was not made by Wikipedia. However, trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment (for example, correct basicly to basically and harasssment to harassment), unless the slip is contextually important. Use ellipses to indicate omissions from quoted text. Legitimate omissions include extraneous, irrelevant, or parenthetical words, and unintelligible speech (umm, and hmm). Do not omit text where doing so would remove important context or alter the meaning of the text.
I ask currently engaged editors for approval to restore the truncated final clause to the lede of this article. Those who disagree are asked to justify why they do not support following wikipedia guidance or why this guidance is irrelevant to this case. Sbelknap ( talk) 21:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
—at the expense of reducing the lede reference to Heidegger's Nazism from
Heidegger was a member and public supporter of the Nazi Party.
to
the relationships between his philosophy and his Nazi support and membership.
Yes, my edit to that could have been a bit more graceful, but as it stands the reader is getting their first intimation that Heidegger had anything to do with Nazis as a kind of throw-away comment a propos of something else.
And by pure, innocent coincidence, I'm sure, that goes along with the long-awaited acceptance of the phrase "while remaining the most controversial" by one of the Three Very Experienced Editors. Who then continues the long-established pattern (perhaps another pure innocent coincidence, who knows?) of reverting any edits that draw attention to Heidegger's Nazism – even though these edits were merely restoring the attention that had been there before Azerty82's edit.
There is a limit to the assumption of good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary, and for me this reversion has crossed it.
If the Three Very Experienced Editors wish to refute the argument that they are maintaining a pseudo-consensus to revert edits critical of Heidegger, I invite any one of them to prove it by editing the lede to restore the fact of his membership and support of the Nazi Party to its former prominence.
Until that is done the accusation stands.
— VeryRarelyStable ( talk) 00:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
This article does not reflect the balance of opinion in high quality tertiary sources. Here is one quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
There is no doubt that Heidegger's Nazi sympathies, however long they lasted, have a more intimate relationship with his philosophical thought than might be suggested by apologist claims that he was a victim of his time (in 1933, lots of intelligent people backed Hitler without thereby supporting the Holocaust that was to come) or that what we have here is ‘merely’ a case of bad political judgment, deserving of censure but with no implications for the essentially independent philosophical programme.
Sbelknap ( talk) 16:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
SEP notes that Heidegger rejected "biologically grounded racism". He did adhere to linguistic-historical heritage. In order to restate myself, there is a Dutch sociologist, nl:Willem Schinkel, who speaks about culture-ism. Heidegger was a culture-ist, not a racist. He loved some Jewish women because they were of linguistic-historical German heritage, he did not consider "race" an impediment. Those women were already culturally Germanized, and that's all he cared for. These being said, Heidegger had nothing to fear for expressing racist views during the Nazi regime, the regime would have appreciated him doing that, and it was even expected from a German professor to express racist views during those years. Those who would have dared to criticize him publicly for expressing racist views would have faced immediate trouble. It would have made no sense for him to play the closeted racist when the whole state was openly racist. There is no convincing reason why should have he hidden his racist views during the Nazi regime, only to publish those in 2014. At a certain point it became evident that Germany will lose the war, but that moment wasn't 1939. So he could not have handled with such foresight. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 08:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
References
There was no quid pro quo agreement to obscure the Nazism info in the lede. This article is about the man's life and his Nazism is an important aspect of his life. An accurate summary would require a lede that clearly describes his membership in and support of the Nazi Party. I note that here, and throughout the article, convoluted sentence structures and decontextualization have been used to obscure Heidegger's Nazism. This article is clearly not reflecting a NPOV. Sbelknap ( talk) 19:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Das 'Vaterland' ist das Seyn selbst, das von Grund aus die Geschichte eines Volkes als eines daseienden trägt und fügt.(Hölderlins Hymnen ‚Germanien‘ und ‚Der Rhein‘. Vorlesung Wintersemester 1934/35, GA 39, S. 121.).
Wenn erst das wesenhaft 'Jüdische' im metaphysischen Sinne gegen das Jüdische kämpft, ist der Höhepunkt der Selbstvernichtung in der Geschichte erreicht [...](Anmerkungen I-V, Schwarze Hefte, 1942–1948). My translations: (a)
The 'Fatherland' is the Seyn itself, which carries and adds from the bottom up the history of a people as one being.&
When only the essential 'Jewish' fights against the Jewish in the metaphysical sense, the climax of self-destruction in history is reached.Azerty82 ( talk) 18:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Der Anti-christ muß wie jedes Anti- aus dem selben Wesensgrund stammen wie das, wogegen es anti- ist – also wie‚ 'der Christ'. Dieser stammt aus der Judenschaft. Diese ist im Zeitraum des christlichen Abendlandes, d. h. der Metaphysik, das Prinzip der Zerstörung. Das Zerstörerische in der Umkehrung der Vollendung der Metaphysik-d. h. Hegels durch Marx. Der Geist und die Kultur wird zum Überbau des 'Lebens'-d. h. der Wirtschaft, d. h. der Organisation-d. h. des Biologischen-d. h. des 'Volkes'. Wenn erst das wesenhaft 'Jüdische' im metaphysischen Sinne gegen das Jüdische kämpft, ist der Höhepunkt der Selbstvernichtung in der Geschichte erreicht; gesetzt, daß das 'Jüdische' überall die Herrschaft vollständig an sich gerissen hat, so daß auch die Bekämpfung‚ des 'Jüdischen' und sie zuvörderst in die Botmäßigkeit zu ihm gelangt.(written between 1942 and 1948, full reference above) Azerty82 ( talk) 18:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The Antichrist, like every Anti-, must come from the same reason of being as that against which it is anti - that is, like 'the Christian'. This one comes from the Jewish community. In the period of the Christian Occident, i.e. metaphysics, this is the principle of destruction. The destructive in the reversal of the completion of metaphysics, i.e. Hegel, by Marx. Spirit and culture become the superstructure of 'life'-i.e. the economy, i.e. the organization-i.e. the biological-i.e. the people. When only the essentially 'Jewish' fights against the Jewish in the metaphysical sense, the climax of the self-destruction in history is reached; set, that the 'Jewish' has completely taken over the dominion everywhere, so that also the fight against the 'Jewish' and it reaches it first of all in the botanicality.Azerty82 ( talk) 18:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
„Der reine Blödsinn zu sagen, das experimentelle Forschen sei nordisch-germanisch und das rationale dagegen fremdartig! Wir müssen uns dann schon entschließen, Newton und Leibniz zu den ‚Juden‘ zu zählen.["The pure nonsense of saying that experimental research is Nordic-Germanic and the rational, on the other hand, is alien! Then we have to decide to count Newton and Leibniz among the 'Jews'.] (Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis), GA 65, S. 163) Bonus:
. Zu fragen wäre allerdings, worin die eigentümliche Vorbestimmung der Judenschaft für das planetarische Verbrechertum begründet ist. Die planetarischen Hauptverbrecher der neuesten Neuzeit, in der sie erst möglich und notwendig werden, lassen sich gerade an den Fingern einer Hand abzähle.[One would have to ask, however, what the peculiar predestination of Jewhood for planetary criminality is based on. The planetary main criminals of the newest modern age, in which they first become possible and necessary, can be counted precisely on the fingers of one hand.] (Die Geschichte des Seyns, GA 69, 77 f.) Azerty82 ( talk) 18:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- I don't understand this push to maximize Heidegger's Nazi involvement - yes, he did belong to the Nazi party and it is important to note that he was - during WWII many German companies contributed to the war effort and used forced labor, including Bosch, Blaupunkt, Daimler-Benz, Philips, Siemens, Walther, Bayer and Volkswagen, and German subsidiaries of Ford and General Motors (see Economy of Nazi Germany#Forced labour and Forced labour under German rule during World War II) - these companies are still in business today and are not thought of as Nazi companies - Germany is now part of the European Union - the world seems to have moved on, we should too - not that the atrocities of WWII should be minimized or forgotten or denied, it is important that they are remembered - Heidegger was a member of the Nazi party, but did not participate in any atrocities - his philosophy is not overtly fascist, it seems that his support of the Nazi party was from his strong sense of German nationalism and belief that Germany would lead the world into the future rather than a dedication to fascism - and yes, he did minimize Nazi atrocities and never apologized for joining the Nazi party and it is important to note that - but it is as a philosopher that he is most important, not as a Nazi - so, yes, it is important to establish his Nazi affiliations, but in proportion to his importance as a philosopher - WWII ended 74 years ago and people are still fighting it - Heidgegger's Nazi involvement is adequately covered in this article and the content fork article Martin Heidegger and Nazism - it's well established, not obscured, hidden or minimized - as it says in the guideline Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs - (and just some personal perspective, my father fought in WWII - he was in the front lines, among the first allied troops to reach the Rhine after the Battle of the Rhine - he was at the liberation of Bergen-Belson concentration camp and the only time in my life I saw him cry was when he told me what they found there - so I have direct knowledge of Nazi attrocities that I am not likely to forget and I am not one to obscure, mimimize or deny Nazi involvement) - Epinoia ( talk) 19:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)