This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoroastrianism, which is a collaboration of editors who thrive to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Zoroastrianism-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
Friedrich Nietzsche is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up and guide Wikipedia articles relating to atheism. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Friedrich Nietzsche is within the scope of the Composers WikiProject, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!
Remove POV; i.e., what Nietzsche's position is, on many topics, is highly debatable, and thus his views must not be slanted or implied without secondary sources (this means quotations of his works will amount to original research, especially when consensus is indicative of this);
The lead is inconsistently referenced. For eg, notice how there's a ref for "metaphor" but nothing else in that sentence. Or how there's one for Emerson in the infobox but nobody else. Further there's really nothing that those refs are citing that's remotely controversial or actively contested. Therefore, per WP:LEAD, since there isn't "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" I believe we can "avoid redundant citations in the lead". I propose that we remove the citations from the lead.—indopug (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
There is no point in worrying or complaining about "inconsistency". The proper question to ask is whether each individual ref serves a useful purpose. The ref for "metaphor" obviously does, because there is nothing else in the article that backs up the statement that metaphor was an important part of Nietzsche's philosophy; as such, it is a good example of the kind of statement that clearly does need to be backed up by a ref. I already removed the Emerson ref from the infobox, as I agree it is unnecessary. I think it is a serious mistake to assume that the remaining refs are unnecessary or harmful in some way, and they definitely should not be removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
on pure conjecture of Nietzsche's personal life
I had removed two lines of dubious conjecture on Nietzsche personal life... I believe they were about him frequenting male brothels and contracting his syphilis from male prostitutes. I left the conjecture of homosexuality in, but removed these rather questionable and unsubstantiated claims which originated in only one book, by an author not notable enough to have a wiki page. Within minutes another editor reverted my edit. Rather than engage in an edit war, I tried discussing the issue on that editor's talk page and tried to assume good faith. I encourage other editors to address this issue of pure conjecture, in an attempt to find consensus. This was the discussion there to date:
== nietzsche conjecture ==
I see you did a simple undo of my edit down of some controversial views, not commonly held my most Nietzsche scholars about his sexuality. I am doubtful you read my reason for the edit, as a consensus is not required to remove large chunks of unsubstantiated conjecture about a historical figure. I did not remove the spirit of the comments, but when speculation overshadows fact, it must be put in context. Random comments about him seeing male prostitutes from which he got syphilis are conjecture and have no basis in history. There is no basis for such claims and no Nietzsche scholar holds this as anything but gossip; save the one author. I don't feel like getting into an edit controversy over this, but unless YOU can find some basis for these claims, it is YOU that must find a consensus. Discussions of the author of the conjecture belong on a wikipage about that author, however he is not considered notable enough to have one. That alone speaks volumes about the quality of that content. Can you explain your interest in keeping an inordinate amount of this sort of conjecture about a Nietzsche's life which has no factual basis for being made?Cinebuns5000 (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Please read WP:AGF and WP:CONSENSUS. I did indeed read your reason for the edit. I simply was not convinced by it. You are mistaken to claim that consensus is not needed to remove such material. Consensus would be required to remove almost any material that is not a violation of either WP:BLP or copyright. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I have read them and suggest that you please re-read WP:BLP, because that is EXACTLY the point I was making. There no way to VERIFY that Nietzsche contracted syphilis from male hookers. That author was not there, there are no documents pertaining to it. It pure conjecture. Conjecture and NOT acceptable per WP:BLP. Thus, it should be removed. So again, I must ask: "Can you explain your interest in keeping an inordinate amount of this sort of conjecture about a Nietzsche's life which has no factual basis for being made?" I will drop this issue, but I don't believe that unsubstantiated claims by questionable sources have a place on wikipedia. Do you?Cinebuns5000 (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
BLP is biographies of living people and it applies only to the living. Nietzsche has been dead for more than a century. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I know what BLP is.
YOU are the one who quoted it above first, not me. see your comment before mine.
Are you saying pure conjecture is allowed on Wikipedia just because someone is dead?
I guess I could say anything about anyone then as long as they are dead.
I am trying to believe you are acting in good faith, but you are not addressing the issue here or answering my question.Cinebuns5000 (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I am not going to remove it, but for future reference, it's not a good idea to repost a discussion that occurred on one page (in this case, my talk page) on another page. The material to which you object is clearly reliably sourced, per WP:VERIFY, and I see no reason it should be removed. The sources used are a published book and an academic article and they seem completely acceptable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request (Disagreement about the amount of unsubstantiated conjecture to include about Nietzche's sex preference and cause of syphilis):
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Friedrich Nietzsche and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.
I am assuming that the dispute refers to this. The source cited is a fine one, published by Yale University Press, which is about as good as it can get. Furthermore, this opinion about homosexuality and frequenting brothels is attributed to the author (Koehler) as required by WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Furthermore, it is prominently stated that this version is not favoured by Nietszche scholars generally, again with a good academic source cited. This kind of describing disputes is a fine example of WP:NPOV. In my opinion, the text is fine, though it is perhaps possible to trim the thesis of Koehler a bit since it takes a bit too much space by itself, which seems a bit disproportional. Kingsindian♝♚ 02:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I have partially reverted your edit. I accept that the edit was well-intentioned, and I think parts of it were an improvement. Unfortunately, you removed so much material about syphilis that the section discussing it ceases to make sense in your version. What you added reads, "Köhler argues that Nietzsche's syphilis is equally likely to have been contracted in a male brothel, while also suggesting Nietzsche may have had a romantic relationship as well as a friendship with Paul Rée." That is simply confusing, because it does not answer the question, equally as likely as what? It also leaves the reader guessing why the syphilis and the friendship with Paul Rée are being discussed together in the same sentence, as these facts seem to have nothing to do with each other. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I see what you are saying. I think it would be better if "Cologne or Leipzig" and "Genoa" were removed, so a direct quote may not be the way to go. I don't see how the location of the brothels would in any way be useful to the readers. That was one of the reasons I altered what/how I did, but it did make it a bit confusing. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The question of style is so essential for Nietzsche
that using the expression "being fond of"
in this context either displays "unwareness" of this fact,
or intent to mislead,
either way, the expression has to be removed.
My attempt at correcting this problem:
"displaying a highly developed, rhetorical, rhythmical prose style, rich in metaphor and irony"
has been rejected.
Regarding "intent to mislead", please read WP:AGF. I'm afraid I simply wasn't convinced that your change was an improvement, and frankly I see nothing in your comment above to make me change my mind. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Someone made crazy changes... can it please be returned to a previous version?
The article has been edited maliciously by some bad-taste spammer. "Friedrich Whatzup Nietsche" where it should be Friedrich Wilhelm "Death of Starbucks", should be death of God, etc. Very tiresome, isn`t it. I came here to learn something, I`m not sure I can edit the article back. Can someone just replace with a previous version? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)20150402 otto (at)japaninfo.nl
Hi there, I've reverted the article back to its previous version. Someone had (obviously) vandalized it a little while ago, probably for an April Fool prank. Thank you for pointing the vandalism out! In the future, you can undo bad edits like this by going to the "View history" tab at top and clicking "undo" on the offending edit. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi thanks for restoring the text. And thanks for your instruction, now I know what to do in cases like this!220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC) 20150402 otto( at)japaninfo.nl