Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein

Toolbox
Alt text Citation Bot Disambig links Edit count External links Peer review Redirects Ref Links

Photo removal

Photo removed with comment "Remove photo of child Hitler from text that itself states there is no reason to associate child Hitler with subject of article". Text does not say that; it says "there is no evidence they had anything to do with each other". They are "associated" by attending the same school at the same time. Standing near each other in a class picture does not contradict "there is no evidence they had anything to do with each other". There is a whole section on this issue, and the photo is pretty much what got the issue started. There is little, if any, dispute that they DID attend at the same time, even if it is not LW in photo. Photo should be reinstated. --JimWae (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Pinsent

There is no evidence that W.'s relationship with Pinsent was other than Platonic.Lestrade (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

What a silly commentary. Signpen (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

So does that mean that you do have evidence? Or that it's irrelevant? Or what? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It means that it's a silly and uninteresting commentary, nothing more. Signpen (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we should let Signpen answer, don't you? I'm sure Lestrade is as interested as anyone else. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

He's just interesting in spreading homophobia everywhere in wikipedia. His commentary is silly and uninteresting. Signpen (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Does it matter that Wittgenstein did not, or could not, express physically his feelings towards someone he loved? But I'm not sure why Lestrade's comment is "homophobic". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if he could or not, that's why his commentary is silly and uninteresting. And this stupidity is based on his incorrigible homophobia : for example, his word for homosexuality is "inversion"... (Henry Sidgwick talk page) Signpen (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps any problems you have with this editor's views belong elsewhere. If you think his contribution here is worthless, then I think it's best if you just ignore it. This Talk Page is meant to be about Ludwig Wittgenstien, not about the statements of a single wikipedia editor with whom you personally disagree. Your first edit here deleted the whole GA review section. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, let's ignore him. Signpen (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The words "silly" and "uninteresting" are subjective, private adjectives and may possibly not be used in a truthful description. It is very childish, supercilious, and contemptuous to attempt to use them to dismiss the valid statement that there is no evidence that W.'s relationship with Pinsent was other than Platonic. There were no witnesses and Wittgenstein himself never made a public admission of any kind. It appears that the allegations are mere speculation and rumor.Lestrade (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Lestrade

Again – “Perhaps any problems you have with this editor's views belong elsewhere." But your point seems perfectly valid to me. All that the article seems to currently claim, from Monk, is: "Wittgenstein is also widely regarded to have fallen in love with.. ” Pinsent. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

Toolbox
dashboard disambig links external links See WP:DEADREF for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 09:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Prose: The family wealth was nonetheless diminished by the hyperinflation, and later on, by the Great Depression; although, even as late as 1938, the Wittgensteins owned 13 major mansions in Vienna alone, which indicates the magnitude of their pre-1914 fortune. This sentence seems choppy because of all the commas, but I'm not sure how to fix it.

have shortened Tom B (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Early life: It's a little strange that Ludwig is not included in the list of male children of his parents.

it's because he's immediately in the next sentence but i think it's technically wrong so i've changed Tom B (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, done Tom B (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Referencing: The third paragraph of "Family temperament; brothers' suicides" has only one citation, at the end. Does this citation apply to all the information in the paragraph? If not, the rest needs to be cited.

It applies to all the info Tom B (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Punctuation: It's my understanding that when you quote something at the end of a sentence, the period should be inside the sentence, like "quoted material." not "quoted material". I've changed this where I've noticed it in the article, but I may be wrong; let me know if so.

thanks Tom B (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Realschule in Linz: Could you explain, for reader's unfamiliar with the German school system, what the highest mark was? Was it a five?

yes, i've now written that in Tom B (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Unnecessary detail: He told Hermine he loved the isolation of the Grouse Inn, but was less enamored of the toilet facilities. Is this necessary?

now removed Tom B (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Prose: until it was time for the evening meal in Hall. I don't know what Hall is.

link added Tom B (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Moral Sciences Club and Apostles: Per dons were not to attend, though everyone knew the arrangement was directed only at Wittgenstein was Wittgenstein a don as early as 1912? You should perhaps mention when he became a don, or else when he was forbidden to attend the meetings.

Have done some research, can find a reference to meetings where no dons were present but not a definitive statement backing-up 'starred' meetings. i've edited the sentence in question. he became a don in 1929. Tom B (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Prose: "90 percent of what he shewed us!" - is this meant to be showed? If not, consider using [sic].

shewed is an old spelling, which most people don't use, i've now noted this Tom B (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Vienna Circle: I remember reading some time ago in a book about Kurt Gödel that Wittgenstein was hugely influential as regards the logical positivism of the Vienna Circle. Apparently, however, when he visited them and they tried to talk to him about philosophy he would sit in a chair facing the wall and read poetry out loud to them. Is this important enough to be included in the article?

I've put a reference in. It's not quite as sensationalist! he only read the poetry sometimes apparently and other times he did actually talk to them about philosophy Tom B (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added a separate subsection, and replaced it with the main source, which is Carnap's autobiography. Note that SlimVirgin's edits were probably a bit over-reliant on the Waugh book, which often embellishes or misquotes the sources. Avaya1 (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Summary: Okay, I have added several citation needed tags but I don't think there is any point in my going farther; the article seems to fail GA criterion #2b, "provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged." Many direct quotes are uncited. I also think that the article fails criterion #3a and possibly b, containing an extraordinary amount of detail on Wittgenstein's life, but almost nothing on the content of his philosophy or his influence, legacy, and reception with other philosophers. I don't see much point in doing a comprehensive review until more citations are added and the article is expanded to include these topics, with perhaps some of the biographical info reduced, e.g. the detailed section on Haus Wittgenstein.

i've replaced all tags with citations and moved some detail to the haus article. there used to be more on his philosophy but there was discussion on the talkpage that much should be moved to those articles on the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and Philosophical Investigations. His philosophy is still covered in the article with sections on both and in the lead Tom B (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That said, the biography is astoundingly good, aside from the referencing. Perhaps it is just because Wittegenstein's life was so colorful, but I genuinely enjoyed reading it. The prose is engaging and free of error, and the material presented is delightful. I learned a lot. I am very glad that you have chosen to work on this highly important article, and I would love to see it become a GA. I am going to fail it for now because I think the amount of work needed is significant. However, once the issues are addressed please renominate and I will be happy to conduct a more thorough review if you would like me to.

The result of the review was fail, with encouragement to improve and re-nom. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hitler speculation still excessive

Speculation about Hitler and Wittgenstein becoming acquainted and seriously involved with each other in Linz is just that: lurid and largely fact-free hot air. The present treatment of this speculation needs to be cut down by at least half. Moreover, instead of citing writers possessing little authority as Wittgenstein scholars amd historians, e.g. Goodstein, ahead of more authoritative ones (Monk, Hamann), the ordering should be reversed. The main source of this speculation, Mr. Kimberley Cornish, is an extremely dubious figure and the author of a widely-derided book. Unfortunately, the Wiki article on that book has been mutilated to camouflage the near-universal critical condemnation it received and the Wiki entry on Cornish (which documented his links to Holocaust deniers and revisionists) has been turned into a "redirect" which means it has been effectively erased from view.--217.91.192.177 (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of relevant images

In this and this edit, images of Arthur Schopenhauer and Otto Weininger were removed, without any reason given in the edit summaries. We don't have an abundance of free images of Wittgenstein, so I see no reason as to why these images of Wittgenstein's influences should be removed. Can the deleting editor please give an explanation for these removals? --Eisfbnore ^talk 18:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Reason for removal: incorrigible ignorance.Lestrade (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Lestrade