Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche's view of Søren Kierkegaard

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 October 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was withdrawn.

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 February 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles

Philosophy

This redirect 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.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Germany

This redirect 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles

Denmark

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark 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.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles

Untitled

This is the archived discussion of a merged page. Please see: Talk:Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche

Untitled

"Both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche condemned Christian churches for perverting Christianity and straying from the values of Jesus. " This may be true of Kierkegaard but it is definitely not true of Nietzsche so I think this point needs to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.241.85 (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is true of Nietzsche . . . he did say that there was one true Christian, the creator of new values, Jesus himself, that died on the cross. the difference was that Nietzsche believed that the entire religion based on Jesus; teachings were a perversion; he wasn;t interested in preserving or reforming them as much as dismissing them. 70.186.172.214 (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Both philosophers wrote in a fairly unsystematic way and with similar literary style" - what is the point of this? they wrote in the same time frame and on the same subject of religion and philosophy. This statement should be included, for it is not only a bit subjective, but also draws the first time reader to the bias that the two are quite similar from the start of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.189.140 (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OR or just plain extraneous?

I don't see how this article falls into the scope of the project. The body and purpose of the article is clearly the points of comparison section, which is completely uncited and appears to be entirely OR (and subject to some debate throughout the life of the article). It would appear that the article should be either trimmed and cited (along with a demonstration of the need for the article) or it should be deleted and any relevant and verifiable information merged back into the appropriate articles. 130.207.77.85 (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may not have footnotes, but the list is clearly sourced to something called Kierkegaard and Nietzsche by someone named J. Kellenberger. The citation style could be improved (a full citation should be given, including page numbers), but that doesn't mean it's unreferenced. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Written like an essay

This article seems written like an essay assignment to compare Nietzsche and Kierkegaard. In general, it seems to want to state the true relationship between the two. We can note that scholars have discussed their relationship and what they have said, but as written the article is an example of synthesized original research that does not preserve a neutral point of view. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 21:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. PPdd (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change article title to be title of cited book, and have article be about cited book; this resolves OR, Synth, and Notabillity problems repeated in this talk page

This article seems to be almost completely OR synth (except for one not notable book by one author). It is unquestionable that Kierk is notable. It is unquestionable that Nietzshe is notable. But this article is the first time I have ever heard the expression "Kierkegaard and Nietzsche", as if they go together other than in an OR synth in a few people's minds. As stated in an above section, the article reads like a homework assignment to compare and contrast K and N. "Kierkegaard and Nietzsche" is not notable, and the article is OR Synth. PPdd (talk) 05:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result of its AfD was a withdrawn nomination, based on a large literature on this subject. That was over a year ago. I do not doubt that there is more than just one book on Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, but that hasn't been added yet. The best thing to do may be to reduce this down to a stub, removing all the synthetic statements. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose changing article title to be title of cited book, and have article be about cited book; this resolves OR, Synth, and Notabillity problems. (Note - I came to this article because the lede photo pair in the existentialism article had a picture of Kierk and Sartre together at the top, replaced by a picture pair of Kierk and Neitz, as if this better characterized existentialism, with reference to this article.) PPdd (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the book passes WP:NBOOK. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't either, but it is more legitimate for dealing with OR and Synth than the current article, and any notability of "K&N" is derivative from the book, so the book is more notable than the topic. PPdd (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Making the article about a book it uses as a source would limit its scope in an unhelpful way. I have moved it to Friedrich Nietzsche's view of Søren Kierkegaard, on the basis that the lead and first paragraph make that its actual topic. Since most of the article was not about comparing Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, there is no reason why it should have a title that suggests that it is dedicated to making that comparison. Anarchangel has objected to my removal of the comparison content on the grounds that "if Philosophy Teacher's renaming of the article fit the content, then his deletion of content that did not fit the new title might have been unnecessary", which I find pedantic. Comparing Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, and discussing Nietzsche's view of Kierkegaard, are two different things, and there is no reason why one article should try to do both. Philosophy Teacher (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

Shouldn't this be merged with Philosophy_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche? There's really only a few sentences in there actually about his view of Kierkegaard, the rest mostly seems to attempt to establish a tangential relationship (better for an essay probably) but regardless, all this would fit pretty well in the article on his philosophy.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. "Nietzsche's views on X" would warrant an independent article only if WP:LENGTH or WP:SUMMARY recommended one. I don't see enough material here to justify a separate article. Instead, the sub-guideline WP:AVOIDSPLIT seems appropriate. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 02:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Especially considering the article basically says "Nietzsche had no views on x, but here are some things he probably read that had a connection to x.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge, for reasons stated. PPdd (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Unless the Philosophy of. article is extremely long, this should definitely be merged. To merge, all you do is carefully cut and paste this page to the main page and replace this page with a redirect to the appropriate section in the main article using: #REDIRECT [[Philosophy of Freidrich Nietzche#Views on Kierkegaard]]. The talk page would be basically lost in the process, so you should also move over all talk page archives, or just leave them but add {{merged-from|Source page name}} to the main talk page. Full explanation at WP:MERGETEXT. Ocaasi (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, ok, I'll give it a shot when I have time (although anyone's free to take the reins and go for it themselves)--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post-AfD

Firstly, the second AfD was proposed too soon after the first, particularly when the issue of giving time to allow the article to develop was raised by two of the three voters in the first AfD.

Second, if Philosophy Teacher's renaming of the article fit the content, then his deletion of content that did not fit the new title might have been unnecessary, no? Especially when his reason for the new title was in order to fit the content.

03:45, 12 February 2011 Philosophy Teacher (talk | contribs) m (4,659 bytes) (moved Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche to Friedrich Nietzsche's view of Søren Kierkegaard: Judging from the way the article is written, this is its actual topic.)

03:51, 12 February 2011 Philosophy Teacher (talk | contribs) (3,611 bytes)(deleted points of comparison - out of place, given that the article's actual topic is Nietzsche's view of Kierkegaard, to judge from the first paragraph)

This is not the only unhelpful change during the AfDs in my opinion. This is the article at its best and this is the diff between that and the day of writing The major differences are obvious. I call your attention to the farcical replacement of an easily verifiable statement "Most researchers believe that Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) knew little of" with the tie-me-to-the-mast-and-damn-the-torpedos stance of "Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) knew little of", all because of the WP crusade against weasel words. I am reminded by a lesson that I learned from probably the most contentious and biased editor I know on WP...even a stopped clock is right once a day. He said that the lead does not have to have citations. The rest of the article is the verification for it. In the same way, unsupported claims, however weaseloid, can inform the reader quickly and cleanly and be verified elsewhere.

If the article is restored, I recommend moving the comparison of the two philosophers' approach to Christian topics out of the lead to a separate paragraph in the Points of Comparison section. Anarchangel (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second nomination was too soon? A year and 4 months later is too soon? RJC ^Talk_Contribs 04:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]