Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Ludwig Wittgenstein is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 28, 2004.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 15, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted
December 29, 2007 Featured article review Demoted
December 8, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former featured article


Toolbox

User:Omnipaedista's recent edit[edit]

I reverted an edit [1] because of several issues:

1. Changes to alma mater and institutions:

|- alma_mater = Technical University of Berlin
Trinity College, Cambridge
|+ alma_mater = Technische Hochschule
Trinity College, Cambridge (PhD, 1929)
|- institutions = University of Cambridge
|+ institutions = Trinity College, Cambridge
Was Wittgenstein affiliated with Trinity college after his PhD? If so, when?

2.Deletion of apparently sound citation

|− They had 11 children—among them Wittgenstein's father. Karl Otto Clemens Wittgenstein (1847–1913) became an industrial tycoon, and by the late 1880s was one of the richest men in Europe, with an effective monopoly on Austria's steel cartel.[1][2] Thanks to Karl, the Wittgensteins became the second wealthiest family in Austria-Hungary, behind only the Rothschilds.[2] As a result of his decision in 1898 to invest substantially in the Netherlands and in Switzerland as well as overseas, particularly in the US, the family was to an extent shielded from the hyperinflation that hit Austria in 1922.[3] However, their wealth diminished due to post-1918 hyperinflation and subsequently during the Great Depression, although even as late as 1938 they owned 13 mansions in Vienna alone.[4]
|+ They had 11 children—among them Wittgenstein's father. Karl Otto Clemens Wittgenstein (1847–1913) became an industrial tycoon, and by the late 1880s was one of the richest men in Europe, with an effective monopoly on Austria's steel cartel.[1][2] Thanks to Karl, the Wittgensteins became the second wealthiest family in Austria-Hungary, behind only the Rothschilds.[2] As a result of his decision in 1898 to invest substantially in the Netherlands and in Switzerland as well as overseas, particularly in the US, the family was to an extent shielded from the hyperinflation that hit Austria in 1922.[5] However, their wealth diminished due to post-1918 hyperinflation and subsequently during the Great Depression, although even as late as 1938 they owned 13 mansions in Vienna alone.[6]


3. Unsourced addition in references

|− *K.u.k. stood for "Kaiserlich und königlich".</ref> In 1903, when he was 14, he began his three years of formal schooling there, lodging nearby in term time with the family of a Dr. Srigl, a master at the local gymnasium, the family giving him the nickname Luki.[7]
|+ *K.u.k. stood for "Kaiserlich und königlich".
|+ *The successor institution to the Realschule in Linz is Bundesrealgymnasium Linz Fadingerstraße (de).</ref> In 1903, when he was 14, he began his three years of formal schooling there, lodging nearby in term time with the family of a Dr. Srigl, a master at the local gymnasium, the family giving him the nickname Luki.[7]

At this point, I stopped trying to check the validty of the changes in the edit and undid it. Could we break up this edit into byte sized chunks and apply the one-by-one? — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Bramann, Jorn K. and Moran, John. "Karl Wittgenstein, Business Tycoon and Art Patron", Frostburg State University. Retrieved 2 September 2010.
  2. ^ a b c d Edmonds, Eidinow, "Wittgenstein's Poker", page 63 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "autogenerated63" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  3. ^ Monk, p. 7.
  4. ^ Edmonds, Eidinow, "Wittgenstein's Poker", page 102
  5. ^ Monk, p. 7.
  6. ^ Edmonds, Eidinow 2001, p. 102.
  7. ^ a b McGuinness, p. 51.
Please be careful. I did not delete any references and the claims I added to the infobox were based on the bodytext (e.g., the PhD claim is based on the sentence: "It was examined in 1929 by Russell and Moore"). I just broke up my edit. Thanks for your comments though. I should have written a more detailed edit summary. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Wittgenstein's grave in Cambridge[edit]

Due to the sheer volume of visiting tourists and others, this edit is essential; PLEASE DO NOT AMEND/REMOVE UNTIL DISCUSSION/AGREEMENT:

"Wittgenstein was given a Catholic burial at Parish of the Ascension Burial Ground in Cambridge.[172] Drury later said he had been troubled ever since about whether that was the right thing to do.[173] The ledger gravestone has recently been refurbished by the British Wittgenstein Society. [174] detailed directions to his refurbished gravestone and grave can be found on http://www.britishwittgensteinsociety.org/wittgensteins-grave"

2.27.130.179 (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but the content of Wikipedia articles is not decided by "sheer numbers of visitors" to anything, graves included. This information may be notable, but please be aware of WP:RECENT, WP:Gazetteer and WP:OR. Just slapping on an unformatted in-line external URL, at the end of a paragraph, in a quality article (indeed in any article), is not advisable. A correctly formatted note, with a supporting secondary source, may be appropriate, if consensus for such can be established here first. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Not appropriate for article text. Perhaps a link in the External links section? e.g.
Sizeofint (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
That sounds perfectly appropriate to me. It might even be appropriate to call it "Directions to Wittgenstein's grave (refurbished 2015)"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Tourists are wandering around a consecrated church burial ground (still being used for funerals) looking for LW's grave; Wikipedia is a global source of information in many languages. The British Wittgenstein Society want to help direct visitors to LW's grave and they have produced their directions video. So by all means 'correctly format' a note but it HAS to help ACHIEVE something seriously important. 2.27.130.179 (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You have perfectly laudable and noble intentions, I'm sure. But Wikipedia is not designed to act like some kind of global noticeboard to cemetery visitors. So, I'm afraid any amount of stern demands from you, about what you might consider "seriously important" won't amount to much. You might want to ask Cambridge City Council and/or the Friends of Ascension Parish Burial Ground, to install decent maps and sign-posting? It's their responsibility, not ours. If you are serious about editing at Wikipedia, create an account. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

"decent maps and sign-posting" is so 20th century, it's now 2016 in the 21st century and tourists wander around with smart phones Martin! Incidentally I have been editing for years and as a result do not have a high opinion of Wikipedia and its editors; ironically in the 20th century, ODNB got the location of LW's grave wrong - I found it by standing on it (by mistake) in 2004 - and subsequently they corrected it. Martin, the difference is people now use ODNB on-line (if they use it at all) but I suspect the vast majority use "google" to access Wikipedia. To summarise Wikipedia HAS to enable people to use its data and I do hope that the article links to the BWS 'directions' video? 2.27.130.179 (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Are yes, "IP2.27", everyone has an smart-phone and Ascension Parish Burial Ground probably has full 4G coverage. How terribly quaint and old-fashioned of me to forget. I've been editing for 8 years, so my opinion of Wikipedia is probably even lower than yours by now? You see Wikipedia as a sort of handy "walk-round-guide-to-the-cemeteries-of-Cambridge", yes? Perhaps we should remove that External link and wait for a stronger consensus to emerge? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC) ... you hope it does? ... by all means pop over to the Huntingdon Road, down to the end of All Souls Lane, through the hedge to Plot 5D31, and let us all know.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ludwig Wittgenstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY Archived sources have been checked N but failed to be useful/working

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Only two of these six work. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Categorically Jewish?[edit]

There are (at least) five discussion threads, since March 2003, which consider Wittgenstein's Jewishness in Archives 1, 2, 5, 9 and 10. It's covered by the article. It's not wholly clear cut. As the article says, he was "baptized as Catholic" and "received formal Catholic instruction". He was also given a Catholic burial. It's true he occasionally described himself as Jewish. Is that really enough to justify the three Categories Category:Austrian Jews, Category:British Jews and Category:LGBT Jews? I think not. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

He self identifies as Jewish in multiple statements in his writings, including in relation to his philosophy. It's quite clear cut - since he both self-identifies, and he is also discussed in sources as such. But Wikipedia always follows self-identification for these categories.Avaya1 (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
So, was that a "self identification" in terms of his own personal spirituality/ religious observance? Or a general self-observation about his psyche and "pattern of thinking" (in German "Muster des Denkens")? clue: already discussed under "Jewish background and Hitler" in the article. You read all five previous discussion threads in the archives, yes? What do you think the "pattern of consensus" was, arising from those? Perhaps part of the problem is that the simple term "Jewish" has a slightly blurred meaning in terms of religion, ethnic origin and cultural identity, etc.? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC) p.s. I have no intention of "edit warring" with you over these categories, which, I suspect, are as useful, to most casual readers, as is a bicycle for a fish. Just hoping for input from other editors. Did you check already, the relative permanence of these meaningless modern pigeon-hole-type "Categories" over the course of the article's history? Perhaps a fascinating social commentary in itself.

Cultural references[edit]

The cultural references section here has gotten a bit out of hand, and I don't think it's particularly useful. I think we should nuke the whole thing. Thoughts? agtx 20:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, maybe it done had gotten. But we waited all of 2 minutes before 4,439 bytes were "nuked"‎? Were you actually expecting a discussion at all?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: If you'll note, I wasn't the one who deleted it. I was planning on waiting a few days. agtx 23:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I guess you're just as surpised, then. But you have raised no objections? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
We're discussing it—not sure what it matters whether it's on the page while we do. If you want to put it back while we're discussing it, I don't mind if you revert it. More importantly though, do you think we should keep the section? agtx 15:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The Jarman film, Coen's dissertation and the Phillip Kerr book look to me like "no brainers" (and plesae don't say "how appropriate"), even if the book needs sources (I mean, that's Ludwig on the cover, isn't it?). Also the Terry Eagleton stuff is all totally relevant. Likewise, Bruce Duffy is a notable author - the book appears in the opening section of his article. I easily could live without the quote-oid from the long-gone TV Burke. And I would dump Ex Machina, which surely does nothing for our understanding of Ludwig. Am not familiar enough with Harwood's work to comment - although the quote at her article is supported and sounds perfectly reasonable. No strong view on the David Markson novel, and it needs a source, but at first sight looks perfectly relevant. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Support nuking and reinclusion of individual items after discussion and consensus.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the nuking bit has been already done. I was foolishly expecting more than two minutes. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Don't all rush at once, now. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)