Talk:Martin Heidegger/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

Recent changes

This edit 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)

No evidence was provided by either the IP editor or VeryRarelyStable that article was lacking in neutrality or that the changes were improvements.

The "evidence" is the previous state of the article, and the current state of the article. Hallmarks of non-neutral writing include opinions being presented as fact, and puffery being used in place of neutral descriptions backed by reliable sources. In many cases, turning such writing into appropriately encyclopaedic text only requires minor changes, such as those I made. It is absurd to claim that they made the article less neutral; you cannot have properly understood the changes if you think that. Here is a breakdown of each of them.

...Heidegger... was a seminal thinker...

I removed "seminal" because here, it is just WP:FLOWERY. If you replaced it with "influential", that would also be. Every philosopher worth an article on Wikipedia has influenced somebody. What is required to demonstrate influence is an explicit statement of what he influenced, cited to a reliable source. Merely dropping the word in does not comply with NPOV.

He is "widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century.

This text made the mistake of copying and pasting text from a source, and presenting it in the voice of the encyclopaedia. See WP:COPYPASTE. If one wants to quote text like this, the source should be named inline, and it must be clear that the encyclopaedia does not endorse the viewpoint, it is merely reporting it. Better still would be to rephrase it entirely to remove the quote marks.

Heidegger is best known for his contributions to...

This formulation suggests that he made major contributions to A and B, to be contrasted with minor contributions to C and D. No such contrast is forthcoming so the phrase has no use. I replaced with a single word. Conciseness is a virtue.

though, as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy cautions,

This is an egregious violation of WP:NPOV. You simply cannot say "as X says", because it is an explicit endorsement of the point of view of the source. Removing the "as" solves it. Rephrasing "cautions" is also necessary here because retaining it clearly implies that the encyclopaedia believes that caution is necessary. That again is the opinion of the source, being presented as if factual, in violation of NPOV.

His first and best known book

It is certainly verifiable that it was his first. The second claim could be replaced with something objective and verifiable. Does it have the highest sales figures, for example? As it is, the text I removed adds no information. It is an opinion presented as if factual.

In a 1950 lecture he formulated the famous saying...

I've never heard of it. It isn't famous to me. The claim is subjective, and adds no information, so I removed famous.

...is one of the central philosophical works... was an opinion reported as if fact. Addition of "regarded as" converted it from a non-neutral to a neutral statement. The user restored this single change after removing all the others; all the others were made for exactly the same reasons as this one so it doesn't make sense to me to somehow perceive this one as tolerable and the others as not.

I find the editor's comments above about my edits quite baffling. "...remove content properly cited to reliable sources..." - I did not remove any content, I simply changed the wording and presentation of the content; "without explanation" - I explained twice that my edits concerned neutrality. The user's initial response of "Thank you, but that was not an improvement" explained nothing about why they objected. "and based it seems on nothing more than personal opinion" - what personal opinion would that be? 88.217.152.166 (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

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." That means that statements that appear in reliable sources are not simply "opinions". You cannot reject or remove them simply because you dislike or disagree with them. That isn't how Wikipedia works. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

As for your more specific points, you claim that "seminal" and "influential" are examples of WP:FLOWERY language. You are wrong. They have specific meanings. It is not my job to serve as a dictionary for you. It plainly is not true that every philosopher who is the subject of a Wikipedia article is equally influential or could appropriately be described as "seminal". Such terms can appropriately be reserved for especially influential figures of which Heidegger is one, whether you like that or not. You state that, "What is required to demonstrate influence is an explicit statement of what he influenced, cited to a reliable source". The article contained exactly that - an explicit statement of what Heidegger influenced (continental philosophy) and a reliable source - yet you remove it anyway, lowering the quality of the article. The reliable source for "seminal" appears to be the SEP article here. That could have been more clearly indicated, granted. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Your objections to the article's statement Heidegger is best known for his contributions to phenomenology, hermeneutics, and existentialism are baseless. That the lead does not mention Heidegger's contributions in other areas does not make the statement in question either false or not useful; it is a perfectly valid statement. Remember that the lead is only a summary of the article's topic. It does not have to go into full detail and discuss what Heidegger's less well-known contributions are. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Your comments about Being and Time are confused. That the book is Heidegger's best known work is not "opinion presented as if factual". It is entirely appropriate content based on a reliable source, the source being clearly indicated as an article by Douglas Lackey. That a reliable source states this is good enough for Wikipedia's purposes. Whether you personally believe the claim or not is irrelevant. We don't base the article's content on what you personally choose to believe. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

You reject the claim that Heidegger's saying "Language speaks" is famous. Your argument consists of the following assertion: "I've never heard of it. It isn't famous to me. The claim is subjective, and adds no information, so I removed famous." Here we see the problem with your whole approach. It does not make the least difference whether you have heard of Heidegger's saying, because the article isn't based on you and your opinions. Per WP:NPOV, it is based on reliable sources. The only subjective thing here is your irrelevant claims about what you believe and what is "famous" to you. It is content based on reliable sources that is objective. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Your claim that you did not "remove content properly cited to reliable sources" is factually false, perhaps suggesting that you have not thought very carefully about your changes. You removed several examples of reliable cited content, including the reference to Heidegger as a seminal thinker and the reference to one of his sayings as being famous, despite the fact that they are supported by reliable sources, and for no valid reason whatever. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

You believe that anything that appears in a reliable source is a fact? 88.217.152.166 (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

That's an irrelevant question and if you had understood the point of WP:NPOV you would have realized that it is irrelevant. The point is that Wikipedia bases its content on reliable sources. People popping up at random and removing reliably sourced content because they claim that it is "opinion" is just not how the project works. You can claim that reliably sourced content is "opinion" as much as you like, but that's irrelevant. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is an irrelevant question. Heidegger's reputation as a philosopher is based on the opinions of other academic experts and commentators, not on some arbitrary commercial measures such as "book sales", or whatever. As far as I can see, Freeknowledgecreator's points are all perfectly sound and the content he has restored is all based on valid sources. If you really think the article, or the lead section of the article, lacks balance, you might need to quote WP:RS sources that say something like "Heidegger is not considered important for reasons x, y or z", and not just remove words and claims that you personally consider to be too positive. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

It is a highly relevant question. You cannot report opinions as if they are facts, regardless of what source they appear in. Example: Berlin is the capital of Germany. Objective fact. Can be reported as that. Berlin has fabulous food. Not an objective fact. Appears in the same "reliable source" as fact that it's the capital. Cannot be reported as if factual, because it's obviously not a neutral, factual statement. It is an opinion. Do you understand that?

And once again, I did not remove any content. I simply changed the phrasing to make it neutral. Your comments here show that you have not understood this. 88.217.152.166 (talk) 10:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, 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." Your assertions that statements in reliable sources are simply "opinions" is irrelevant. Your claim that you "did not remove any content" is factually wrong, as anyone who looks at your edits can see. When you removed the reference to Heidegger as a "seminal" thinker and one of his sayings as "famous", that was removing content. You appear to be simply confused about what removing content means. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

It's clear that you don't know the difference between opinions and facts. You will be doing a lot of damage to Wikipedia if you can't distinguish them. 88.217.152.166 (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

It's clear that you have missed the point that Wikipedia article content is based on reliable sources, per this site's policies. It matters that a reliable source calls Being and Time Heidegger's best-known book. You calling that an opinion does not matter and your insults against me do not matter either. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

See WP:ASSERT. 88.217.152.166 (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

It states that, something is opinion when it is "subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective". There is no dispute about Being and Time being Heidegger's best-known book. For you to dismiss it as opinion is baseless. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:10, 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)

So you're suggesting that the article here can only mention verifiable material facts about Heidegger, such as his book sales, and not mention the expert opinions of other academics on the quality of his philosophical ideas? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Not even remotely. I'm saying that opinions cannot be reported as if factual. See WP:ASSERT. 88.217.152.166 (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The policy states that something is "opinion" when there is a serious dispute about whether it is correct. There is no serious dispute about Being and Time being Heidegger's best-known book. Probably no one who was properly informed would dispute that it was his best known book. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Read the policy properly. That's not what it states. 88.217.152.166 (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes it does state that: "When a statement is an opinion (e.g. a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective)..." So in other words, "opinion" is defined as "subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective". There is no "serious dispute" about Being and Time being Heidegger's best-known book and nor is that statement "commonly considered to be subjective". Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

That opinions have been made by certain individual or publications are verifiable facts. This does not suddenly transform these opinions themselves into facts. IP 88, please could you detail, one by one, the instances where, in this article, you think "opinions have been reported as facts"? And then we could address them, one by one. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I already did. 88.217.152.166 (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh well, if you don't want to lay them out here individually, for discussion, then never mind. I think Freeknowledgecreator is correct. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:18, 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)

Ah thanks. That might explain the pattern at their Talk page. No further comment is worth making here. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I am presently in a location with unreliable internet service, and will be for the coming week; otherwise I would have commented.

First of all, I don't call this arguing in good faith:

Oh well, if you don't want to lay them out here individually, for discussion, then never mind.

when IP listed the points individually above. "Those points have already been answered, do you have anything else?" might have been in good faith. This was not.

Bearing in mind that the edits touched on the lede, not the body of the article, I didn't see that they removed any content which couldn't be found further down the page. They did make the language somewhat more cautious, less flowery, and more encyclopaedic in tone. My judgement that they were improvements was largely due to this change of tone.

If the objection to the changes in phrasing was due to the reliability of the sources, then may I ask why the same editors involved here have, in the past, resisted tooth and nail Sbelknap (talk · contribs)'s completion of the quote from the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, which, as it stands without said completion, appears to misrepresent that publication's position?

Chiefly, however, my attention was drawn by the fact that Freeknowledgecreator (talk · contribs) – in flagrant disregard of repeated discussions here which have never been adequately answered – reverted the changes on the grounds that the IP editor hadn't got consensus first. Which only applies, as I have pointed out many times before, when there is an existing dispute. My internet isn't good enough right now to go finding, again, the multiple Wikipedia policies that apply, but they should be a short scroll up from here or else in the Talk archive.

That these inappropriate reverts somehow almost always pull in the direction of removing language that happens to sound critical of Heidegger has not gone unnoticed.

—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 07:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

If you look carefully you'll see the IP changes were not limited to the lead. So you're trying to argue from an incorrect premise. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your internet problems. I offered the IP an opportunity to discuss the points further. But they declined. They were then blocked by Favonian before any further discussion could take place. Do you also disagree with that block and Favonian's description of them being "a well-traveled, community-banned editor"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The identity of the editor, what other edits they may have made elsewhere, and what tone they may habitually take in talk pages, is irrelevant to the question of whether this particular set of edits was an improvement to the article.

I'm looking back over the conversation to see what you're referring to by saying you "offered the IP an opportunity to discuss the points further, but they declined". Is that where you asked them to list their points one by one, and they responded by pointing out that they already had? I think I would respond similarly if someone asked me to list my points one by one when I already had. I reiterate that I cannot see good faith in your dismissive response "Well, if you don't want to lay them out individually... never mind." It bears repeating: they had already laid said points out individually. Pointing this out does not constitute "declining" to discuss further. I can copypaste those points again if that would help you see them.

I'll also reiterate: I perceive a bias in the "consensus" of this page towards reverting edits critical of Heidegger. NPOV mandates that this bias be corrected for.

—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I concur with VeryRarelyStable on bias against well-supported assertions that are critical (or even just unflattering) of Heidegger. When this has been pointed out, a herd of editors pounce and form a "consensus." If an edit is well-supported, on-point, and accurate, that is enough. Sbelknap (talk) 03:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

And both of you regularly turn up and make such accusations, other editors in main listen and discuss then offer simple mechanisms, such as RfCs, if your comments are not accepted by the two or three us (hardly a herd) involved. There are three very experienced editors here; myself, Freeknowledgecreator and Martinevans123. Are you accusing any of us as being "biased"? If so provide some evidence or shut up -----Snowded ^TALK 06:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

In the lede, there is this truncated quote that changes the meaning from the original source: He is "widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century." If you look at the source, there is an additional clause that rather significantly tempers this apparent hagiography. When attempts are made to fix this serious error, they are blocked. This particular example is egregious and fundamentally violates the intent of wikipedia. Sbelknap (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

And that was discussed at the time and your view did not prevail. That happens on wikipedia at lot. I repeat are you making specific accusations of bias? -----Snowded ^TALK 20:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I am responding here specifically to your demand that I "provide some evidence or shut up." According to WP:MOS regarding quotations, "Do not omit text where doing so would remove important context or alter the meaning of the text." That is exactly what has happened with this partial quote in the lede. A small number of editors who were engaged with the Martin Heidegger article at a particular time formed a "consensus" that is a clear violation of wikipedia policy. You asked for evidence, I have supplied that evidence. Shall we fix this egregious error now? Sbelknap (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

You want to add "... 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)

WP:MOS instructs us not to remove important context or alter the meaning of the (quoted) text. Perhaps we could follow this instruction and present the entire quoted sentence. Surely, the author of the Martin Heidegger article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy had good reason to add the clause about Heidegger being controversial. The current attenuated quote clearly violates WP:MOS. Sbelknap (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I asked you for evidence of your accusations that other editors are engaged in some form of biased actions to prevent any criticism. All you have shown is that other editors disagree with you on the extent to which a quote used to support a statement should be used. Given that the article contains abundant criticism (although not as much as you would like) you cannot support your accusation. Please focus on content rather than commenting on the motivations of others. Disagreeing with Seblknab is not evidence. -----Snowded ^TALK 07:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I have provided evidence that the content of the article is biased, as partial quotation was used, changing the meaning of the quotation. Res ipsa loquitur. Sbelknap (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

You're saying the entire article is biased since only part of one quotation has been used? Even though the point at issue, that his work was controversial, is clearly and explicitly made only three sentences later? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The bias is specifically a consequence of the use of partial quotation that changes the meaning from the source. Quotation carries an authority that, when abused, misleads the reader. Thus, the problem of misquotation is not solved by the presence of other non-quoted content in the article. Sbelknap (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Are you sating that "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)

The implied assertion of this partial quote is that it accurately represents what is stated in the source. This implied assertion is false. Sbelknap (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

To my mind the qualification applies to Heidegger's reputation as a whole, not just to him being "widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century". I think you are splitting hairs here just to make a point. We should be considering the lead section, and indeed the entire article, as a whole. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, there is a consensus among engaged editors that the lead includes a partial quotation which misrepresents the source. The purpose of WP:MOS guidance on quotation is to assist editors as to proper use of quotations in wikipedia. This is not mob rule. There are standards for how to write a wikipedia article. In this case, some currently-engaged editors want to adhere to the standards and some do not. In my view, correcting this flaw is a high priority. Sbelknap (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

If it's really that important to you, you might want to open an RfC on this, perhaps inviting wider comment via the relevant project Talk page(s). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could achieve a consensus among currently-engaged editors that this egregious violation of wikipedia standards be corrected here and now. Sbelknap (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Even better you could stop assuming that you are the sole arbitrator of bias and 'egregious violation, and use an RfC -----Snowded ^TALK 21:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if I use the word "egregious" again, for the 8th time on this Talk page? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I am suggesting that we work here to achieve a consensus. This is the *opposite* of "assuming that I am the sole arbitrator(sic)." Also, wikipedia provides explicit instructions on how to edit wikipedia pages. Its not mob rule. The question for us now is, do we have a consensus that omitting the finals clause of this quote violates WP:MOS guidance on quotations? Do you agree that the quote violates the guidance? If not, can you explain how this does not violate WP:MOS? Sbelknap (talk) 22:32, 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)

I have nowhere referred to anybody as a mob. Quite the opposite. Instead, I have emphasized that wikipedia is not subject to mob rule and has standards and guidelines that are to be given due consideration beyond the consensus of currently engaged editors. Yes, that is (part of) the relevant guidance on quotation that is in WP:MOS. Respect the source. Sbelknap (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. I wonder could you copy here the other parts of the "relevant guidance on quotation that is in WP:MOS", so that we all know clearly the judgement we being asked to make. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:08, 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.

(from WP:MOS) Sbelknap (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see how any of that guidance about errors is relevant here. The quotations has been verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text has been faithfully reproduced. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The source has this text:"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."

The lead has this text: He "is widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century."

The wording of the quoted text *has not* been faithfully reproduced. Omitting that final clause removes important context, which violates WP:MOS. Sbelknap (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The words used are the same as in the source. Where do you propose that square brackets are required? That part of the MoS guidance is irrelevant. I'd say the one sentence I quoted above is the one that's relevant here. No more than that. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The wording of the source does not have to reproduced in full if it supporting a valid phrase or sentence. We have this to death once already and there are no new arguments -----Snowded ^TALK 23:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The words in the lead are *not* the same as used in the source. The final clause is omitted in the lead. This removes important context that is present in the source. The problem remains: a small group of currently-engaged editors ignore guidance about quotation in WP:MOS and thereby prevent correction of a serious error in the lead. There are dozens of similar serious flaws present in the Martin Heidegger article that are similarly obstructed by this small group of editors. Sbelknap (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

And back to the personal attacks, insisting that you are right and others are wrong. -----Snowded ^TALK 00:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

There have been no personal attacks. This is not a mere difference of opinion among editors. The consensus of currently-engaged editors violates the guidance in WP:MOS on quotations. This is a simple statement of fact. Sbelknap (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

- "best known" falls under puffery, "used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information" WP:PUFFERY - it's marginal as puffery, not as flowery as 'renowned' and similar words - it could be said that "best-known book" falls under WP:BLUESKY, it's so obvious that it doesn't need a citation, but if it is that obvious does it need to be stated? What does it actually tell the reader? - I don't think there's any great harm in leaving it in the article, but if it's not necessary it would be better to remove it - the phrase "best known" also appears in the first paragraph of the article, "Heidegger is best known for his contributions" - this could be shortened to "Heidegger is known for his contributions" - the plainer the language the better - Epinoia (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Eh? The subject of this article is Martin Heidegger. How does the claim that one of his books is more well known that any of his others "promote the subject of this article"? But I'd also see no problem in adding attribution, if required. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

It may be obvious to students of Heidegger but it may not be generally known. Best known relates to philosophy but he is also known for his support of the Nazis so the phrase is approrate -----Snowded ^TALK 20:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Mary Wesley, John Lee, Scott Corbett, Gene Kemp, Anthony C. Winkler, Willard Manus, Anne Holm, Dorothy Hartley, Zane Grey, etc. etc. These all have "best-known books" mentioned. Are those all also examples of "puffery" or "positive bias"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, when I revert an edit, I need to be able to justify every single change in that revert, or else I should keep the edit? Is that the standard here? We don't just hit the revert button if there's things we don't like, is that what you're telling me? Or is this a standard that doesn't apply to the Three Very Experienced Editors (to borrow Snowded's phrase above)?

• "Seminal": this is either flowery or a statement of fact. If it's a statement of fact, one would expect to find large schools of philosophy rooted in Heideggerian thought, mentioned in the body of the article. In the "Influences" section of the body of the article, I find that one Heideggerian idea has made its way into a large school of philosophy, that being deconstruction, via Derrida. I see that Sartre took a lot of ideas from Heidegger but also that Heidegger disclaimed Sartre's use of his ideas and thought he had missed the point. I see a couple of reiterations that Heidegger was one of the most important philosophers of the twentieth century, with references but without supporting argumentation to explain why, if he was so important, the list of influences is so short and thin. That doesn't, to me, suggest that there are large schools of philosophy rooted in Heideggerian thought. Which makes the statement that he was "seminal" a flowery word.
• "Widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers..." well, there's ongoing discussion about this one, isn't there?
• "Heidegger is best known for..." is contentious. I work at a university taking lecture notes in a wide range of topics, and what Heidegger seems to be best known for among philosophy lecturers where I work is (1) being a Nazi (2) being a necessary bit of background for understanding Hannah Arendt (3) using terminology so unnecessarily complicated he trips up his own thinking in it and (4) being a pompous, vacuous fool. (Academia, ladies and gentlemen.) Remove the word "best" and you have the uncontentious statement "Heidegger is known for..."
• "As the Stanford Encyclopaedia cautions..." IP editor is correct. This phrasing – the use of the word as – is an endorsement of the opinion of the source. The status of the opinions of reliable sources as contrasted with factual statements by reliable sources seems to have been a sticking point which I'll address shortly.
• "His first and best known book..." Well, it might be for all I know. Let that one pass.
• "The famous saying..." nope, I'd never heard of it either. A quick Google and it turns out the phrase is actually "Language speaks man" – and variations such as "language speaks you," but the point is the word "speaks" is transitive, which conveys an idea entirely absent from "language speaks", intransitive. I'm sure it's well-known within the field of Heidegger scholars, and it is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page, but it doesn't seem to have become known to the point that people might recognise it without knowing the source, which is what the word "famous" suggests to me. I mean, I've studied linguistics and had whole lectures debunking the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which "Language speaks man" seems to sum up with uncharacteristic succinctness, and I'd never heard of it. Whether or not my experience is typical, IP editor is correct again; the word "famous" here adds nothing but puffery to the article.
• "Central philosophical works..." again, opinion vs fact.

So let's discuss opinion vs fact.

Opinions are mentionable. The fact that well-informed people have such-and-such an opinion on a given topic is a salient fact about that topic, and can be presented as such.

The opinion itself is not a salient fact about the topic, and cannot be presented as such.

It may be discussed, by all means, with the usual standards of reliable sourcing, but it must be discussed as an opinion, not as a fact. It must be attributed to its source within the text, not just by an endnote. It is this that IP editor (and I, and I'm guessing Sbelknap?) find lacking in the article.

As for the pro-Heidegger bias, that's an impression I've got from skimming down the article's edit history – an imbalance between acceptances and rejections of other people's edits according to whether they cast Heidegger in a more positive or a more negative light. If you want me to do a quantitative analysis to justify my impression, well, I can, but it'll take a while. The Three Very Experienced Editors could, of course, refute it fairly quickly by making (or accepting) a few Heidegger-critical edits.

I've even got an idea to start you off. How about you restore the clause "while remaining one of the most controversial" to the Internet Encyclopaedia quote in the lede?

—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 09:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

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? I've got a different idea to start you off - 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? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Heidegger's Nazism is not the most important source of controversy. Instead, it is the (plausible) criticism that Being and Time is specious nonsense that is the source of controversy among philosophers and eminent scholars.Sbelknap (talk) 17:06, 23 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?

OK, here:

• "Seminal": this is either flowery or a statement of fact. If it's a statement of fact, one would expect to find large schools of philosophy rooted in Heideggerian thought, mentioned in the body of the article. In the "Influences" section of the body of the article, I find that one Heideggerian idea has made its way into a large school of philosophy, that being deconstruction, via Derrida. I see that Sartre took a lot of ideas from Heidegger but also that Heidegger disclaimed Sartre's use of his ideas and thought he had missed the point. I see a couple of reiterations that Heidegger was one of the most important philosophers of the twentieth century, with references but without supporting argumentation to explain why, if he was so important, the list of influences is so short and thin. That doesn't, to me, suggest that there are large schools of philosophy rooted in Heideggerian thought. Which makes the statement that he was "seminal" a flowery word.
• "Widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers..." well, there's ongoing discussion about this one, isn't there?
• "Heidegger is best known for..." is contentious. I work at a university taking lecture notes in a wide range of topics, and what Heidegger seems to be best known for among philosophy lecturers where I work is (1) being a Nazi (2) being a necessary bit of background for understanding Hannah Arendt (3) using terminology so unnecessarily complicated he trips up his own thinking in it and (4) being a pompous, vacuous fool. (Academia, ladies and gentlemen.) Remove the word "best" and you have the uncontentious statement "Heidegger is known for..."
• "As the Stanford Encyclopaedia cautions..." IP editor is correct. This phrasing – the use of the word as – is an endorsement of the opinion of the source. The status of the opinions of reliable sources as contrasted with factual statements by reliable sources seems to have been a sticking point which I'll address shortly.
• "His first and best known book..." Well, it might be for all I know. Let that one pass.
• "The famous saying..." nope, I'd never heard of it either. A quick Google and it turns out the phrase is actually "Language speaks man" – and variations such as "language speaks you," but the point is the word "speaks" is transitive, which conveys an idea entirely absent from "language speaks", intransitive. I'm sure it's well-known within the field of Heidegger scholars, and it is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page, but it doesn't seem to have become known to the point that people might recognise it without knowing the source, which is what the word "famous" suggests to me. I mean, I've studied linguistics and had whole lectures debunking the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which "Language speaks man" seems to sum up with uncharacteristic succinctness, and I'd never heard of it. Whether or not my experience is typical, IP editor is correct again; the word "famous" here adds nothing but puffery to the article.
• "Central philosophical works..." again, opinion vs fact.

Can you read that? I can put it in a larger font if you still can't see it.

My job is to produce lecture notes for the benefit of people who, for whatever reason, have difficulties with either writing or comprehension, so please do let me know if there's anything further I can do to accommodate you. In the meantime, let me help you over this little hurdle:

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?

I can see how you might have got that impression from what I wrote, but no. I'm suggesting that there are multiple points of view on what Heidegger is best known for, and this Wikipedia article inappropriately commits to one of those points of view as if it were fact. However, there is no controversy that Heidegger is known for those things as well as other things, and so the issue would be resolved simply by deleting the word "best" in that phrase. Is that clear enough?

—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Balance on view of other philosophers as to whether Heidegger's Being and Time is brilliant or is nonsense

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)

relevant in the criticism section, not the lede -----Snowded ^TALK 16:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Given the prominence of these critiques by other philosophers, surely there ought to be mention in the lede that other philosophers consider "Being and Time" to either be nonsense or possible nonsense? When I studied Heidegger, our professor made this the subject of the first 15 minutes of his second lecture! This point is regularly considered in works on Heidegger. This is not some obscure issue but is at the core of scholarship on Heidegger! Sbelknap (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Some philosophers not all by any means and many talk about the choice between Heidegger and Wittgenstein, for example, You don't like him but we are not here to take sides -----Snowded ^TALK 16:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I have nowhere expressed dislike for Heidegger. I have endeavored to bring balance to this biased wikipedia article. Please let us focus on the content on the article. Sbelknap (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

You could have fooled me on sentences one and two ...-----Snowded ^TALK 00:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sbelknap: I agree. Let's get this discussion back on track (when others try to deflect you from the point, the best comeback is to stick to it). —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

- those who think Heidegger is nonsense may be excellent in their field, but that doesn't mean they are experts on everything outside their field - Russell was a logician so it is no surprise that he couldn't comprehend Heidegger - poets of the New Formalism school think that post-modern poetry is gibberish; they may be excellent at meter and rhyme, but that does not qualify them to judge post-modernism, which has a completely different aesthetic - a classically trained musician may not be able to appreciate Ornette Coleman or think punk rock is just noise - just because someone has a "big name" doesn't mean that their opinion has any value on matters outside their area of expertise - so the opinions of philosophers who are not existentialists (using the term very loosely) are irrelevant to Heidegger - Epinoia (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

There are many philosophers who consider Heidegger's Being and Time to be nonsense. There are some who express high regard for Heidegger. Why does this article (and the lede) reflect the opinion of currently-engaged editors more than the considered opinion of renowned philosophers? Instead, let us edit this article (and its lede) to provide coverage of the range of opinion among philosophers. Sbelknap (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

- there's a whole section on Criticism, so it is not being avoided - there are no other philosophers mentioned in the lead praising Heidegger, so we don't need other philosophers criticizing him in the lead either - neither praise nor criticism is neutral - Epinoia (talk) 03:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. The lede includes a fanboi assertion based on a source that is a poll of philosophers. Some of these philosophers consider Heidegger to be important and some do not. The lede systematically omits information that criticizes Heidegger.Sbelknap (talk) 03:34, 24 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)

I agree with you that Heidegger is worth consideration. I have not expressed antipathy towards him. My quibble is with the lack of a NPOV in this article. The fanboi assertion cites the Baruch poll, stating, "His first and best known book, Being and Time (1927), is regarded as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century." Sbelknap (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Would you agree that it is a violation of WP:MOS to truncate the quote "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" so as to appear in this article as "widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century"? (See discussion above.) Sbelknap (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Certainly the statement that Being and Time is "regarded as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century" oversteps the mark. It might be reasonable to say that it's one of the central works of the Existentialist school of philosophy; I don't know. But one of the central works in the whole field of philosophy, in the century? That's definitely going beyond verifiable fact into the realms of opinion. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

All philosophers of any note are controversial but we don't put in the lede. If you look Honderich's Oxford Companion to Philosophy his notability as the founder of existentialism is established, Being and Nothingness seen as his seminal work. Founding one the major movements in modern philosophy is I think enough. By the way, that source references the fact that his membership of the Nazi parties "attracts controversy (from memory but no more). And in Wikpedia terms a third party source of this nature outpoints primary sources selected and interpreted by individual editors -----Snowded ^TALK 06:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Quite happy to consider the evidence that "Herman Philipse, Roger Scruton, Bertrand Russell and many other philosophers have criticized Being and Time as being nonsense or possible nonsense", particularly that claim of "many other philosophers" although, as Epinoia has pointed out, Russell was primarily a logician, so I don't see that his criticism would be necessarily instructive here; and of course Philipse's 1998 Heidegger's philosophy of being is not itself without criticism. By all means let's see the proposed citations. If there are no on-line sources, it might be beneficial to see a copy of what has been published, particularly that word "nonsense" (wasn't it originally claimed above to be "specious nonsense"?). If there are any changes proposed, I'd suggest that they go in the main body of the article first and only then be considered for inclusion in the lead section. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The assertion that Bertrand Russell's opinion is somehow less valid (invalid?) because he was a logician is profoundly absurd. Russell was a polymath; a founder of the school of analytical philosophy, and an author of well-respected books on the history of philosophy, e.g. A History of Western Philosophy. Sbelknap (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

By all means copy here some examples of Russell's opinion of Heidegger, with their sources. Never mind views which you may find "profoundly absurd". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Why are editors substituting their own judgement for that of eminent scholars and respected philosophers? Why are the wikipedia rules and standards on quotation being ignored on this page? Why is this article so biased against a NPOV? Sbelknap (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

By all means copy here some examples of Russell's opinion of Heidegger, with their sources. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Please stop with the distractions and answer the question: Why are currently engaged editors ignoring WP:MOS guidelines on quotation? How can this possibly be justified? What should be done when currently engaged editors refuse to follow wikipedia standards? Sbelknap (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikpedia rules privilege third-party sources over synthesis of primary sources by editors. I notice you haven't addressed that -----Snowded ^TALK 10:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

You opened this thread with "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)

The main reason that Heidegger is considered controversial is that some other philosophers consider his work to be nonsense. His Nazism and affairs with his female students are also controversial but these are secondary considerations. Thus, the inaccurate (because incomplete) quote from the Encyclopedia of Philosophy is essential to fix. I note that you once again avoid explaining why you refuse to follow the standards and guidelines of wikipedia with regard to quotation, as described in WP:MOS. Please explain how you justify this. Sbelknap (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Note that this thread, which you yourself started, is entitled: "Balance on view of other philosophers as to whether Heidegger's Being and Time is brilliant or is nonsense." I'l ask you just one last time to provide any evidence about Russell. If you again provide nothing, I'll give up on this as a waste of time. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you have forgotten that you and I have already discussed this in this forum? AFAIK, Bertrand Russell only had this comment on Heidegger,

""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)

There is guidance in WP:MOS on quotation. That guidance instructs us not to omit parts of the quote if that changes the meaning of the quote. The repeated assertion that there is information in other parts of the article is entirely irrelevant. Respect the source. Quote accurately. Sbelknap (talk) 00:29, 27 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)

However, they *were not* written as two separate sentences, and for good reason. Here's that sentence again:

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.

The author is using the rhetorical device of concession, 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)

I don't have anything to add but I want to voice my assent to Sbelknap's argument. And reiterate that last question. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

- I disagree, I think the argument is complete nonsense - but if the entire quote is used, we need to change the last line of the first paragraph, "There is controversy..." to avoid twice stating that there is controversy - the quote doesn't say why he is controversial, while the last line does - it wouldn't bother me if the quote were deleted entirely - Epinoia (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That's it from Russell then. Good old Facebook. Was he also "running riot" in his native German? Russell doesn't tell us. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, it looks like nonsense because it's a coded language that is supposed to translate a general "way of thinking" (Denkweg). For instance:"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)

A useful point. But the statement above was "... Bertrand Russell and many other philosophers have criticized Being and Time as being nonsense or possible nonsense." I really don't see how that single statement by Russell, in his Wisdom of the West (1959, not 1989) can be used to support such a contention. We haven't yet moved on to those "many other philosophers". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Russel and Heidegger does not belong to the same philosophical tradition anyway. Many analytical philosophers would qualify continental philosophy as "imprecise", and maybe as "nonsense" at worst (I've yet to see it though, Russel talks about "extreme obscureness", not "nonsense"). A contributor named Gerard-emile on the French WP has done a tremendous work on many articles around Heidegger; among which is one on "Heidegger and Logics" (see fr:Heidegger et la logique; also fr:Heidegger et la poésie). It is a good introduction to the subject. The question is not "is Heidegger's work nonsensical?", but rather "what does it mean?", and especially "what did he mean?" Azerty82 (talk) 12:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Respecting the Source of Quotation

Here is the quote from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy 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)

Yes, I see no issue with that. You should have posted this message in the first place. Azerty82 (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

As I've already commented, I don't see how any of that guidance about errors is relevant here. The words used are the same as in the source. Where do you propose that square brackets are required? That part of the MoS guidance is irrelevant. I won't add this a third time. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

You have, so far, been unresponsive to this query. Instead, you have repeatedly made false assertions or stated opinions without any justification. The words used are *not* the same as in the source, as the terminal clause is omitted. There is no need for square brackets, only to restore the quote to represent the clear intent of its author. Please explain how the quotation guidance in WP:MOS is irrelevant, as it appears to be about as relevant as guidance could be. The author of the quote was using the rhetorical device of concession, where the first clause makes an unsurprising assertion and the second clause makes a surprising assertion. Omitting the terminal clause markedly alters the meaning of the sentence. Sbelknap (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I responded to your query above. Where are square brackets used here? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I read through this again and see no meaningful response. Your "responses" are not on-point. You didn't answer the queries. Square brackets are not used here and are not relevant to this discussion. The question for you is why do you think its OK to violate WP:MOS guidance on quotations by omitting the concession clause that is clearly intended by the author to express contrast? Sbelknap (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

- it seems that now we are just repeating ourselves - frankly I don't even understand why we are discussing this - here is my position on the quotation:

• the quotation consists of two independent clauses, the second clause can be omitted without changing the meaning of the first (the argument given above is based on unfounded assumptions of the intent of the author and the unproved and debatable assertion that it is a concession (and how reliable is the Learning English website cited as a source?) - the assertion that removing the second clause does change the meaning of the first clause is an opinion, not a provable fact).
• that Heidegger is controversial is already stated in the lead - it doesn't need to be said twice - as long as it is noted that there is controversy, what does it matter if it is in the quote or not?
• the quote does not say why he is controversial, just makes a vague statement - the last line of the first paragraph of the lead links the controversy to Nazi involvement, so it is more precise and communicates more to the reader - therefore, it is better to have the mention of controversy where it is
• I don't have a problem with including the whole quote, but if the whole quote is included, the last line of the first paragraph of the lead will have to be changed - I think this weakens the article because the last line gives a reason why Heidegger is controversial while the quote does not.
• I don't have a problem with the whole quote being removed, or paraphrased. - Epinoia (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Sbelknap (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, the complete quotation is suddenly acceptable after months of wrangling—

—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)

(i) this was debated to death months ago (ii) reference supports a statement (iii) there are multiple criticisms in the text already (iv) if you area really hung up on this we can find a quote from another source (iv) compared with other third party sources this article is if anything hyper critical -----Snowded ^TALK 07:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Snowded, and since it seems you're such a very experienced editor that you don't read the headings of talk page sections, now the quote has suddenly been accepted the way some of us have been saying it should have been months ago, but at the expense of dampening down the lede reference to Heidegger's Nazism which we took such pains to iron out.

Which tells me that the problem was never the quote in the first place, but the negativity towards Heidegger, and the reason the change was suddenly accepted was that his Nazism is now nicely obscure again.

—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality

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)

Yes, he was surely a "victim of his time" when he wrote in the Black Notebooks that Jews "auto-exterminated" themselves because they were those who invented the technique, and when he added that they didn't even disappear as they didn't exist as a "being" (Sein), but only as a Dasein. Heidegger stated himself that "Being" is coded word (Denkweg) for "fatherland" (Vaterland) in Sein und Zeit (Heidegger belonged to an Ariosophist group in his youth and stayed interest in esoterism, e.g. he prophetized the end of the American empire 300y after the release of Sein und Zeit). Finally, Heidegger programmed before his death the publication of the antisemitic parts of his works in the early 21st century as he thought they would be better received by the public 70 years after the end of WWII, and never regretted it. (as per Faye, Rastier, and others) Edit: *the Stanford Encyclopedia article was written in 2011, and the black notebooks were published in 2014...* Azerty82 (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The Stanford Encyclopedia quote *contradicts* the apologist claim that Heidegger was a victim of his time. This article *supports* the idea that there is a link between Nazism and Heidegger's philosophical work. Sbelknap (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, I had totally misread the quote! That said, what I wrote could be included in the article, the sources can be easily found on this subject (most of them are in German or French, but some has also been done or translated in English). Azerty82 (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, I've read through the article. Most of the relationship with Nazism focuses on his membership in the Nazi party; that is far from being the relevant aspect of the debate (with the exception of Donatella di Cesare's part, but it doesn't go into details). An increasing number of scholars are convinced that most of Heidegger's work, including Being and Time, is a subtile and coded defence of fascism and a form of "metaphysical antisemitism", which eventually follows a radicalisation path towards the Black Notebooks (the order of publication of the Gesamtausgabe was chosen by Heidegger himself, as stated above). Most of the debates (on this subject) in the article are obsolete as they precede the 2014 release of the Black Notebooks. The related sections should not spend so much paragraphs on his personal relationship with Arendt or Husserl, but should rather focus on the following debate by confronting scholars views: 'was Heidegger's metaphysics contaminated by a fascist worldview, or not?' Azerty82 (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

A very valid point. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The relationship between Heidegger's Nazism and his philosophy is certainly *not* adequately addressed in the current article. Interested editors may find it useful to review the history of prior edits. Sbelknap (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

If anything the articles over emphasizes the Nazi elements if you take the quote I gave above. If there is a body of work which now argues for metaphysics then would report it with due emphasis on weight -----Snowded ^TALK 11:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I pointed out that subject because a) the membership of Heidegger to the Nazi Party is secondary to today's debate. b) most of the views presented on this subject are obsolete. There is currently no scholarly agreement that Heidegger's metaphysics is contaminated by Nazism. This is an ongoing and heated debate that has been going on since 2014 (they accuse each other of "fraud" or "revisionism".) Azerty82 (talk) 11:23, 26 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

Nazism and Heidegger

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)

An accurate summary would require a lede that clearly summarizes this article. How many separate threads are we going to get opened here on the anti-Nazi theme? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a biographical article, and we could therefore endeavor to have it reflect Heidegger's life. I propose to merge the contents of the Heidegger and Nazism article into this biographical article on Heidegger. This artificial separation into two articles obscures Heidegger's Nazism. This is confusing to readers. The goal is to present a balanced view of Heidegger's life. Sbelknap (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I have generalized title of this thread so as to discuss plans of merging Heidegger and Nazism article into this biographical article. Sbelknap (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

It might be clearer if you opened a new thread with a more specific title and/or changed the title of this one and/or made a firm proposal via an RfC. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

You just complained about the number of separate threads on this same theme. Now you want a new one? —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I was just suggesting a thread headed "Merge Martin Heidegger with Martin Heidegger and Nazism" might be clearer. The current heading just looks like another instalment in the "anti-Heidegger Nazism Crusade" series. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The "anti-Heidegger Nazism Crusade"? Can we have some honesty here? Yes, I and others think Heidegger's Nazi affiliations are under-represented in the article (and lede) at present. There exists a school of thought that Nazism was fundamental to Heidegger's philosophy; no-one is suggesting that the article should simply state this as fact (in contrast to the Three Very Experienced Editors' insistence that it must state, as fact, that he was centrally important to twentieth-century philosophy), but we are claiming that it's relevant and under-represented here. The conduct of the opposing side has over time steadily solidified my conviction, which I make no secret of, that their concern is not accuracy but to make Heidegger look as good as possible, not by fabrication but certainly by suppression. I am aware that you disagree, but dismissing us as a "Crusade" does nothing to allay our concerns or make us go away. (There is also, separately, the problem of obscure writing throughout the description of Heidegger's philosophy; the parties involved seem to be roughly the same people but it is not the same issue.) —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The topic here seems to be whether or not two currently separate articles should be merged together. Whoever dreamt you would "go away"? Who has "dismissed" you? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC) p.s. I'm not on any "side", thanks. I'm representing my own views about Heidegger and no-one else's. Why on earth should I want him to "look as good as possible"?

Who is the "anti-Heidegger Nazism Crusade"? Why use the word "crusade" if not to be dismissive? Snowded included you, in an earlier discussion, in the group of the "three very experienced editors" (along with themself and FreeKnowledgeCreator) who are apparently the only ones who can be trusted to keep this article in its proper state.

I have no opinion as regards your motivation, but the three of you show a long-standing pattern of rapidly reverting edits critical of Heidegger (or that clarify the description of his philosophy), demanding that "consensus" be achieved before they be accepted, and then dismissing all arguments in their favour so that consensus cannot, in fact, be achieved. You have twice in the last few days demanded that people present itemized lists of their concerns when they had already done so. Sbelknap quoted a clause in WP:MOS that they believed was being violated; you demanded context for it; Sbelknap provided the paragraph in which the clause occurred; you dismissed the paragraph as irrelevant and queried why they had brought it up, after having been the one who demanded it in the first place. Each time you do things like this, the hypothesis that you are deliberately obstructing discussion gains another plank of supporting evidence.

The pattern of which edits are allowed and which edits are obstructed is equally clear. With regard to Heidegger's Nazism, edits that tone it down pass without comment, while edits that highlight it – even to restore it to where it was before being toned down – are reverted within minutes. With regard to Heidegger's importance to twentieth-century philosophy it's the opposite: edits that highlight it pass, edits that tone it down or question it are reverted. I neither know nor particularly care why any of you would want any of this. If you want me to believe that it's not what you're doing, the way to convince me is to stop doing it.

—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose merge - Heidegger's Nazi involvement is mentioned in the lead and there is a whole section, "Heidegger and the Nazi Party," in the body of the article as well as mentions in the "Freiburg" section and "The Farías debate" section, so his Nazi involvement is adequately covered here - to merge this article with Martin Heidegger and Nazism would make this article too long - the Martin Heidegger and Nazism article is a content fork (Wikipedia:Content forking), "This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." - for the same reason, we have content fork articles on Being and Time, Heideggerian terminology, Introduction to Metaphysics (Heidegger), Contributions to Philosophy, Heidegger Gesamtausgabe, Black Notebooks, etc. - Heidegger is principally known and taught as a philosopher, and that is where the stress of this article should remain - to add more to this article on his Nazi involvement would give undue weight (WP:UNDUE) to his Nazism - his Nazism should be covered here, but proportionally to his status as a philosopher - anyone desiring more information on his Nazi involvement can go to the linked "Heidegger and Nazism" article - this is not an attempt to minimize or obscure his Nazi involvement, but a reflection of the sources - there are many more sources discussing Heidegger's philosophy than his Nazism - "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." (WP:PROPORTION) - Epinoia (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned, there exists a school of thought that Heidegger's Nazism was fundamental to his philosophy. That would be relevant to an article about his philosophy, which this is, but it's under-represented here. No-one's asking that it be stated simply as fact, but we believe it's out of balance. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

- that's already mentioned in the lead, "an ongoing debate on the relationship between his philosophy and his Nazi support and membership" - Epinoia (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

-I personally don't think all of the article's body should be changed, even less that both articles should be merged. On the other hand, the /Heidegger and the Nazi Party/ section should become /Heidegger and Nazism/ and reflect debates on *his philosophy* (how he treated Husserl and Arendt is good for People magazine). That said, I have neither the time nor the necessary expertise to do so. Azerty82 (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

It used to say, much more clearly, "Heidegger was a member and public supporter of the Nazi Party. There is controversy regarding the degree to which his Nazi affiliations influenced his philosophy." That stood for a long time, and then somebody did an edit that obscured it, and now suddenly it's not acceptable to put it back. As it stands, that phrase "his Nazi support and membership" reads like a mention of something that's already been discussed, but in fact it's the only reference to his Nazism in the lede. To a first-time reader it wouldn't even be clear what the phrase means. Does "Nazi support" mean he supported the Nazis or was supported by the Nazis? Without the word "Party" the word "membership" is even more obscure. (We of course all know what it means because we've been editing this page for ages, but that knowledge itself makes us underestimate how obscure it is to a first-time reader – which is the single cause of all bad writing.)

More to the immediate point, that debate is not a side-issue in the study of Heidegger. In some academic quarters Heidegger is "principally known and taught as a philosopher"; in others (including those that I've had direct contact with) he is principally known and discussed as a Nazi. It wouldn't be surprising if the "philosopher" side of the debate took much more interest in the minutiae of his philosophy than the other side, which would then result in an imbalance in attention that would skew the apparent centrepoint of the debate.

—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

-- The wording was meant to say that he was both a member and a supporter of the Nazi party. Being a member of the Nazi party between 33 and 45 for a scholar working in Germany is not suspicious per se as it was mandatory. Now, English is not my native language, so the wording may be improved. Azerty82 (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

He was a NSDAP member, that's a fact. Otherwise he played no role in WW2 or the Holocaust, other than digging trenches, which was mandatory. The Nazi regime could not make propaganda use of his writings, because those were incomprehensible for the average German. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

He justified the Holocaust ("they exterminated themselves as the inventors of the technique") and said Sein was a coded word for Vaterland. I know it's long and confusing because there are many different messages and topics, but try to read the rest of the Talk Page. Azerty82 (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

That isn't a fact, it is just a woolly interpretation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, that's why this discussion is a mess and isn't going anywhere. So I'm going to quote Heidegger himself: 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)

That Physis=Fatherland or Ousia=Fatherland is a ridiculous interpretation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Sein=Fatherland, it's Heidegger's own interpretation. I have never talked about physis or ousia. I give the extended quote about Jews and auto-extermination for the contributors interested in the subject: 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)

I even took the time to write a translation for those who don't speak German: 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)

It still does not follow what you claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

That's because Heidegger is not clear on the origin of "self-destruction" in this quote. You need this one: „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)

You have constructed a straw man of Heidegger's philosophy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:54, 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)

Why would I try to maximise Heidegger's Nazism? The quotes speak for themselves, I just translated them from German. I honestly do not care about this article, it is severely flawed like most philosophical articles on Wikipedia as they are written by non-experts. Azerty82 (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with Heidegger on philosophical grounds. I don't disagree with him for the bogus reason that "he preached racism". Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I have never said that, and I include myself within the non-experts to be clear. The only criticism I held on the approach of Heidegger and Nazism in this article is that it focuses on irrelevant details like his relationship with Husserl. Even the Stanford Encyclopedia's article is irrelevant as it was written 3 years before the release of the Black Notebooks. Today's research is focusing on the question of *whether* (and to what extent) the National Socialist ideology have "contaminated" his philosophical thought. Azerty82 (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Azerty82: - my comments about maximizing Heidegger's Nazism were not directed to you, but to a couple of other editors who for reasons never made clear insist that Heidegger's Nazi involvement is underrepresented in the article - Epinoia (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)