Talk:Martin Heidegger/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Recent alterations

Jonathansamuel (talk · contribs) has made a number of recent alterations that have been reverted by Mtevfrog (talk · contribs). Can we go through what specifically is in dispute here? Thanks, Skomorokh 19:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Gladly.

The other editor objects to what he feels is too much emphasis on Martin Heidegger's Nazi era activities. Whenever possible, he attempts to delete additional information being added, claiming that the new information is "unneccessary"

I attempt to engage him in specific complaints about specific material, and usually modify it to halfway address his concerns. This works for awhile, but eventually he begins blanket reverts without further substantive comments. His reverts often go back several days and wipe out additional comments made by third parties, typos corrected by good Samaritan readers, etc. He doesn't seem to care about destroying the work of third parties in addition to my own work.

As I noted, it is difficult to engage this individual regarding what sorts of information about Heidegger's Nazi party membership, pro-Nazi speeches, etc. he is willing to include. I can say this.

He seems to object most vehemently to quotations by famous people, including Heidegger himself, which place Heidegger in a bad light. His recent series of blanket reverts began when I quoted from a 1933 proclamation whiheach Heidegger issued upon becoming Rector at Freiburg. In the quote Heidegger refers to Hitler as "the Fuhrer" and says something to the effect that the Fuhrer is the future of Germany.

He also objects to quotes by other philosophers criticizing Heidegger.

The above is my take on what disturbs the other editor, named mdev*. I cannot say for sure, because his complaints are usually very general and non-specific, rolling back a dozen thought-out changes with a single sentence insulting me and containing no other information.

Jonathansamuel (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Having read the other editor's point of view on his own talk page, I will respond as follows:

The best solution would be for the article to continue to evolve as it has been. I do not substantively change portions of this article which deal with Heidegger's philosophy and do not intend to start. I do change portions which deal with Heidegger's life, in particular his political life from 1933 to 1945.

It is unclear what the other editor's objections are. He has never alleged that the article in its current form unfairly represents Heidegger's Nazi-era political activities. He has never alleged that there is exculpatory information missing from the article.

If exculpatory information about Heidegger's Nazi years exists then I or others should provide it. Personally I do not know of any, but perhaps others could add some.That would help address the other editor's concerns about what he calls POV.

Jonathansamuel (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I have yet to examine this matter fully, but I want to make this clear: Heidegger's links to Nazism must not be whitewashed, but nor must they be given undue scrutiny. History does not remember Heidegger primarily as a prominent Nazi intellectual/professor, but as a philosopher of some significance. Wikipedia policy on this is clear: we ought to apportion a similar distribution of focus to subtopics of Heidegger as the majority of reliable sources do. It would be instructive to consult biographies and obituaries on this point. Thanks to Jonathan for engaging in discussion here, and to Mtevfrog for voicing their concerns (link for posterity's sake:[1]). Skomorokh 01:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, with one caveat. Heidegger died in 1976, and at that time far less was known about his Nazi involvement than is known today. Awareness of the subject exploded a decade after Heidegger's death, first in France and then around the word.

So obituaries of Heidegger, being more than three decades old, do not represent current thinking about the significance of Heidegger's involvement with Nazism. Indeed, Wikipedia in 2008 cannot be bound by what people considered significant in 1976.

I have in my possession a short 173-page paperback from 1998 entitled "Introducing Heidegger" by Jeff Collins. The index entry for "Nazi party" shows that the subject is discussed on pages 12, 95-101, 107-112 and 128. In addition, Nazism is discussed heavily in pages 101-107. So this particular book discusses Heidegger's involvement n Nazism on 20 of its 173 pages. The subject of Nazism also appears in the one paragraph blurb on the back cover,

Moreover, the bibliography section "For Further Reading" contains 5 paragraphs, of which one is devoted to sources of information on Heidegger's Nazi past.

I would also refer to Rudiger Safranski's well-known 1999 biography entitled Martin Heidegger: Between Good and Evil. The title of this work is a clear reference to Nazism and demonstrates that awareness of Heidegger's Nazi past is a major focus of this generation's writings about Heidegger.

Heidegger's Nazi past should therefore also be a major focus of Wikipedia's writings about Heidegger.

Jonathansamuel (talk) 02:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, great work by the way, about Heidegger and Nazism, but Wikipedia does have an article Heidegger and Nazism. I think that would be a better place to put it as its focus is Heidegger's involvement Nazism, and it would be greatly improved with your knowledge! 204.209.209.129 (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, but I completely and totally disagree.If you purchase a modern biography of Heidegger (in the past 15 years) it will contain, integrated into the text, descriptions of Heidegger's Nazism.

No one would be satisfied if they purchased a biography of Heidegger and it stated that one would need to purchase some other book to read about Heidegger's Nazi years.

The title of this article is "Martin Heidegger," indicating that the article is biographical. The title is not "Heidegger's Non-Nazi Years" or "Heidegger's Philosophy."

Segregating information about Heidegger's Nazi past into a separate article (that few would read or even know about) is absolutely the wrong approach.

I count 35 sections in the Martin Heidegger article, of which 8 deal wholly or primarily with Nazism. That is less than one quarter.

Heidegger was a world famous philosopher for 50 years. He was a member of the Nazi party for 12 years, about one-quarter of that time. Heidegger is the only well-known philosopher who was a Nazi. Of course people are going to talk and write about it in the Wikipedia article on Martin Heidegger.

Jonathansamuel (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I googled "Martin Heidegger" and the 2002 book by Timothy Clark entitled "Martin Heidegger," published by Routledge, came up. It has seven chapters, of which the last is "Nazism, Poetry and the Political." We are probably dealing with a situation in which biographies of Heidegger from the past 15 years are devoting 10 to 20 percent of their space to discussion of Heidegger's relation to the Nazis.

It is certainly acceptable to me if someone in authority (whatever that is) wants to declare that no more than x percent of content or headers should relate to Heidegger's Nazism. However, the current, unregulated situation is that 8 out of 35 headers deal with Nazism, and that is not so different from other current biographical works about Heidegger. Jonathansamuel (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The other editor has now responded on his page to what I posted above. Since this interaction is about as close as I will ever get to a dialogue with this fellow, I will now respond. I place his remarks in triple quotes:

"""I would suggest that the responses by the user in question on the Heidegger talk page vindicate what I have said: arguments based on book titles,"""

Perhaps the other editor should read what the Wikipedia official mediating this dispute wrote on this discussion page. The Wikipedia official said that one should consult obituaries and other mainstream works to determine the level of attention which other works give to Heidegger's Nazism. I did so and do not apologize for it.

"""on counting up chapters,"""

And my point stands. Modern biographies of Heidegger appear, and this is a rough estimate, to devote between ten and twenty percent of their texts to discussions of Heidegger's relationship with the Nazis.

"""and on googling."""

It is odd that a contributor to Wikipedia would complain about Google.

"""The user lacks knowledge of the subject and lacks insight, but in spite of this remains insistent on imposing their [sic] changes."""

Ad hominem and irrelevant. If what I wrote stands up to scrutiny then it should remain.

"""Furthermore, the user claims not to be interested in making changes to the sections which describe Heidegger's philosophy, yet already has done so,"""

I have rarely done so. Early on I made some changes. The other editor reverted them, and I concluded that in that particular instance his reversions had merit.

My memory of other non-Nazi-related changes are as follows:

(1) The article referred to other philosophers having been "directly informed" by Heidegger. First of all, the original was in the passive voice. More importantly, "directly informed" is academic gobbledygook. Like the other editor, I also have a doctorate, and I don't know what that means. I changed the sentence to say that other philosophers "analyzed" Heidegger's work. I am not about to get into an edit war on this matter. If the other editor wants to reinsert "directly informs" he has my blessings.

(2) I changed a reference to Heidegger's "insights" to "observations." That was in keeping with my understanding of NPOV.

(3) Analytic philosophers tend to be hostile towards Heidegger (and Derrida). The existing article makes that clear. I added a quote by Roger Scruton, a fairly well-known philosopher, to the section on Heidegger's reception among analytic philosophers. This change does not relate to Heidegger's philosophy, "being-in-the-world" and all of that, which I do not discuss. I am merely discussing Heidegger's reception among analytic philosophers. What I wrote was in keeping with what was already there.

"""in ways which are intended subtly to cast doubt on the work."""

I doubt that replacing "insights" with "observations" casts doubt on anything.

"""In other words, the comments by this user not only demonstrate their (sic) lack of competence on the topic,"""

The lack of agreement between "this user" (singular) and "their" (plural) in the other editor's writings is odd. That is the second time he has made this error in a few paragraphs. His use of the English language is idiosyncratic, and perhaps some of his views are as well.

"""but also are not wholly honest about what they have done thus far,"""

"Wholly honest" is a high standard. I am honest. I wrote that I "rarely" change sections dealing with Heidegger's philosophy , and that is honest.

"""nor about their future intentions."""

I have no intention of modifying statements about Heidegger's conceptions of "being-in-the-world" and so on. It is not my intention to change what others have written.

"""It is this kind of thing, which to me gives the clear appearance of game-playing, which makes the situation difficult to deal with. Unless other users are able to perceive what is going on and are willing to make clear that such behaviour will not be tolerated, it is virtually impossible for me to singlehandedly prevent corruption of the article. Mtevfrog (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)"""

The other editor's basic attitude is that he has homesteaded (if you are not an American you might want to google this term) Wikipedia's article on Heidegger, and that Wikipedia should privilege him by banning material which does not conform to his vision of what Wikipedia's article ought to look like.

To put in in another way, I have neighbors who have mowed and tended to public land which abuts their own property. If I walk my dog on the public land they become irate, claiming that the public land is like their own property because they tend to it.

The other editor's contributions to the Heidegger article are, I am certain, both major and positive. But my understanding of how Wikipedia works is that everyone's contributions are treated the same. If he chooses to stop contributing because Wikipedia won't privilege his self-perceived role that is too bad. My guess is that the sections dealing with Heidegger's philosophy (as opposed to his life) will indeed go downhill. But it will not be by my hand.

Jonathansamuel (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...

Why doesn't Mtevfrog respond?

Surely he's noticed that this article has been locked.

Shentino (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Heidegger vs Martin Heidegger

Summarizing the long discussion under this section's heading with essentially "...the nays have it..." is abuse by neglect. I assume that that summary is equivalent to "A hatnote on the character from FFVII will not be included", and that the wp:Dab HatNote wp:Hatnote in question would have linked to Heidegger either Characters of the Final Fantasy VII series#Heidegger or a Dab page; if i am mistaken, someone should say so.
--Jerzy•t 16:59 & 17:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was

2 for, 3 against, the nays have it for now. Shentino (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Just felt like mentioning that the term "Heidegger" could IMHO refer to either of them without the reference being immediately obviouis.

I would prefer it if a "for the FFVII character" or "for other uses" link to appear at the top, so that those who are looking for information on heideger of FFVII aren't staring at page on some guy they've never heard of.

I propose that, as FFVII's heidegger and martin heidegger are equally notable, interlinking for the purpose of disambiguation would be productive.

I should also add that my attempts to do so have been slammed by Mtevfrog, in spite of my numerous attempts to compromise. I also left a message on MTevfrog's talk page requesting clarification...a message that went unanswered.

Just for fun as a questionably scientific method, I ran a googlefight on this.

Martin heidegger: 1,580,000 final fantasy heidegger: 24,000

Hmm...not as close as I'd hoped, but I can't honorably defend my position while ignoring evidence on either side.

Personally I see no harm in adding a disambiguation header to the article, as it is both nondestructive as well as mostly unobtrusive to do so.

Shentino (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Shentino writes: "my attempts to do so have been slammed by Mtevfrog, in spite of my numerous attempts to compromise." -- MTevFrog is the same editor who I have crossed paths with. Is there some commonality between MTevFrog's reverts of my work and MTevFrog's reverts of Shentino's? Perhaps. I googled "Heidegger Final Fantasy" and got the following: """An obese man with a large, black beard, Heidegger looks more like an odd, Russian Santa Claus than a man of power. He laughs often and loudly, a habit that irritates Rufus. He also has a temper fit for a rhinoceros, and will use any nearby soldier as a punching bag.""" Perhaps MTevfrog feels that suggesting that one could confuse the philosopher Heidegger with the Final Fantasy Heidegger is disrespectful to the philosopher. Or, more likely, MTevfrog might object to a game designer naming a comic character Heidegger. There is no way to know.Jonathansamuel (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. It could be that I'm out of touch or wikilazy, but I asked him on his talk page to explain his reverts of my edits, and he didn't respond. He also used inflammatory/condescending edit summaries while doing so.

Alas, he has even wiped a disambiguation page I created and changed it to a redirect. Disambiguation pages by their nature are IMHO supposed to have multiple links on them.

scratch that, an admin has stepped in and clarified. Shentino (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I've never even heard of martin heidegger. Not a statistically significant fact, but I suspected that the general population may not have heard of this guy. I'm almost certain he was not mentioned even once in history class. However, in this modern age, Heidegger of FFVII stands a good chance of being recognized.

I don't for one minute believe that the two are confusable, merely that the term "Heidegger" is by itself ambiguous.

Shentino (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

As there is a dispute on whether or not a FFVII disambiguator should appear at the top of this article, I'm holding a vote. Should consensus reveal a marked preference one way or the other, I shall be happy to abide by it.

poll

For

jonathansamuel, Shentino

Against

MtevFrog, Skomorokh, Zara1709

Comments

FFVII was one of the top selling games in its day, so IMHO its characters carry some importance. I've never heard of Martin, though it could be that I'm just ignorant. Shentino (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, questions regarding Wikipedia articles are not settled by votes. Secondly, WP:SNOW is reserved for proposals that have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding; I wouldn't be so pessimistic about your proposal ;) Skomorokh 21:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know exactly how else to measure consensus. I read that votes are ok for testing consensus. Shentino (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hatnotes are for disambiguating between different articles. As far as I can see, there is only one Wikipedia article on a subject called "Heidegger" – this one. If there are other notable Heideggers out there, we should write an article on them and include a hatnote here; until then, no hatnote is required or desirable. Skomorokh 21:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think he's not listed in his own article because he is part of a set, namely, characters in FFVII. Were Heidegger for some reason to exist, even without FFVII, he'd probably have an article of his own. I've seen plenty shorter articles by themselves, for example. Shentino (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I've seen plenty of what I now know to be "hatnotes" refer to articles that instead wind up as redirects to subsections of other articles. What about those? Shentino (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Since there appears to be a genuine disagreement, I started an RFC. I'm curious what the general community has to say :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shentino (talk • contribs) 03:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is Heidegger of FFVII notable enough to warrant a hatnote for disambiguation purposes?

Is Heidegger of FFVII notable enough to warrant a hatnote for disambiguation purposes?

This is a tough one. Just because many people don't know anything about Final Fantasy VII, but a little about 20th century German philosophy, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't inform them that there is a character with the name in FFVII. However, seeing that the FFVII character doesn't have his own article I don't think that this is the case here. I had to search the entry in the Characters of FFVII article myself. If the FFVII character was important enough in the storyline of FFVII to warrant an own article, than we should probably link that article. Zara1709 (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to hazard a guess that it once WAS notable enough, but was later merged into FFVII characters. I judge this based on links to Heidegger of FFVII, whereas Heidegger of FFVII is now a redirect to the heidegger section of FFVII characters. Interesting how time affects things. Shentino (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Summary of consensus

A hatnote on the character from FFVII will not be included Zara1709 (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Stuff from mtevfrog's talk page

Response to Skomorokh on the Heidegger article

(copied from mtevfrog's talk page)

Thanks for the comment on my talk page in relation to the article on Martin Heidegger.

Before I get to that, however, I would first like to comment on your renaming of Heidegger (Gesamtausgabe) as simply Gesamtausgabe. Gesamtausgabe, of course, just means "Collected works," and is a title given in German to the collected works of numerous authors. Perhaps you think that Heidegger's Gesamtausgabe is so well known under that name that it does not need further qualification, but personally I think the qualification is necessary. Another possible title option would be Heidegger Gesamtausgabe or Martin Heidegger Gesamtausgabe. I will leave that in your court.

As for the question of the Heidegger article itself, I feel it necessary to point out a couple of things by way of introduction. One is that I am a scholar with a doctorate in that specific field. In saying this, I do not mean to imply that what I want to add to the article is unquestionable, but on the other hand I do believe it is a relevant fact, as I will explain shortly. Another thing I would like to mention is that I have over 5000 mainspace edits, including over 500 edits to the Heidegger article, over a period of more than two years. In that time I have had very few problems on Wikipedia involving interactions with other editors. In saying this, I do not mean to imply that this means I am necessarily right in the current dispute, but on the other hand I do believe it is a relevant fact, as I will explain shortly.

The first edit I made to the Heidegger article was on November 13, 2006, as can be seen here. A casual glance at the state of the article at that time shows it to be quite poor, and the vast majority of the improvements to the article made since then have been by me (if I do say so myself). A detailed look at the history will show this. The article had, until recently, reached a state where, although it still had some problems, it was a respectable article which in fact possessed some genuine virtues as an encyclopedia article on this philosopher.

The reason for the parlous state of the article two years ago is the same as the reason for the current dispute. Heidegger is a very important philosopher who also has a very big problem: his involvement with National Socialism. As is well known, this has been the source of great contention between philosophers ever since. It also means that the Wikipedia article on this philosopher attracts editors who know of this involvement, but do not actually possess any great knowledge, let alone understanding, of his philosophy. Such editors are frequently and unsurprisingly ill-disposed toward Heidegger, and often feel that the best thing they can do is to add more material which shows Heidegger in a poor light. Feeling this way, and lacking knowledge or understanding of the work, they frequently make unconstructive edits which they genuinely believe are important additions to the article.

The other problem with an article such as the Heidegger article is that there are very few experts in the field who are prepared to bother themselves with editing a Wikipedia article on the topic. There are several reasons for this, and it is unfortunate that such is the situation, but it is most certainly the case that, other than myself, there are very few, if any, contributors to this article who possess any expertise on this philosopher's work. This means that defending the article against corruption from largely well-meaning but wrongheaded contributors has been a battle which has been fought nearly (but not entirely) singlehandedly.

This is usually a bearable situation, because most of those with a bias against the philosopher soon lose interest in inserting their viewpoints into it. What makes the situation very difficult is when there is an editor who wishes to do so and is also persistent, and is also clever enough to avoid some of the more obvious mistakes which might undermine their influence on Wikipedia. User Jonathansamuel is such an editor: he has calmly, but very persistently, added more and more destructive content to the article. It is very difficult for one editor to prevent these changes from being made. For example, a Wikipedian might point to the importance of talking things out on the talk page, etc., but in fact there are only two participants in this struggle, and it is quite clear that this user, while he does respond to specific points, is very obviously motivated by his antipathy toward the subject, and is quite determined to find ways of undermining the article. Pointing out the subtle ways in which this is done is not necessary here.

I do not write this as someone infatuated with Heidegger: quite to the contrary. Nor do I think Heidegger's involvement is minor: it is an extremely important, but extremely complex, issue in philosophy and beyond philosophy. But I certainly do believe that Heidegger is an important philosopher, and that the complexity of his work and his Nazi entanglement mean that it is important for Wikipedia to have a scholarly and encyclopedic article on this subject. I have succeeded for a period of two years in raising the standard of the article and maintaining it there. But this one editor has already succeeded in significantly changing the article in a negative way. My fear is that the Wikipedia ethic of talking things through, compromises, etc., (an ethic I approve and agree with) will in fact play into the hands of this point-of-view-pushing editor. It will do so because there are simply no editors who are both capable of seeing what this editor is doing, and willing to resist it. That there are no such editors is due to the reasons I have pointed to above.

If you are able to assist with this situation, naturally I would be very grateful. If not, I do understand, but I also fear that this article will certainly succumb to an inevitable decline, which I will be more or less powerless to prevent. I am not inclined to enter into infinite negotiations with a POV-pushing editor whose agenda I quite clearly see, and who I judge to be uninterested in creating a genuinely encyclopedic article on this topic. The reasons I do not wish to do this are simply that the reward is outweighed by the cost: in other words, and despite working on this article for over two years, the demands of such a situation are simply not worth the effort. What is required to fix this situation is for committed and discerning Wikipedians to simply refuse to allow this subtle but destructive POV-pushing.

Sorry to bother you with such a long response, but I hope it at leasts enlightens you to the way in which I perceive what is going on here. Thanks. Mtevfrog (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Gesamtausgabe, disambiguation in titles is frowned upon unless there are other articles that could be confused with the one in question. As long as it is made perfectly clear in the opening line that it is Heidegger's collected works and not those of another that is being examined, there shouldn't be a problem. WP:NCDAB is the relevant guideline. I'll reply to the issues witht he Heidegger article shortly. Regards, Skomorokh 16:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that the responses by the user in question on the Heidegger talk page vindicate what I have said: arguments based on book titles, on counting up chapters, and on googling. The user lacks knowledge of the subject and lacks insight, but in spite of this remains insistent on imposing their changes. Furthermore, the user claims not to be interested in making changes to the sections which describe Heidegger's philosophy, yet already has done so, in ways which are intended subtly to cast doubt on the work. In other words, the comments by this user not only demonstrate their lack of competence on the topic, but also are not wholly honest about what they have done thus far, nor about their future intentions. It is this kind of thing, which to me gives the clear appearance of game-playing, which makes the situation difficult to deal with. Unless other users are able to perceive what is going on and are willing to make clear that such behaviour will not be tolerated, it is virtually impossible for me to singlehandedly prevent corruption of the article. Mtevfrog (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't got the time to devote to this; it does look as if your concerns are justified. I'll try ask around to see if any suitably informed editors are willing to take a look at the dispute. Regards, Skomorokh 04:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathansamuel (talk • contribs)

I am not sure why this isn't being discussed on the so-called Gesamtausgabe talk page, but I am surprised there's even a dispute here. It makes as much sense to have an article on Heidegger's Gesamtausgabe called just "Gesamtausgabe" as it would to have an article on Charles Dickens' collected works called "Collected Works". I am a Heidegger scholar (yeah, Mtebfrog's not the only one), but it would never occur to me to search for the article under its existing title. It's most unhelpful to readers. If anyone wants to play the search engine game, try putting "Gesamtausgabe" into search engine at Abe books: over 10,000 hits, and only 800 refer to the Heidegger set.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Third opinion

I have removed the request for a third opinion as this appears to be a dispute between more than two editors. If you are looking for broader attention on this discussion you can add a request for comments instead. —BradV 23:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Unclassified Comments

It is unfortunate that Skomorokh, below, communicated his information about this page directly to the other editor, instead of placing it on the Heidegger talk page where everyone would see it. I have added Skomorokh's comment below.

I welcome the assignment of a new Wikipedia official to this matter and hope that we will all have the ability to discuss specific matters with this editor. Presumably Skomorokh has now withdrawn.

I also wish to reiterate that Skomorokh himself instructed me as follows on this page: "Wikipedia policy on this is clear: we ought to apportion a similar distribution of focus to subtopics of Heidegger as the majority of reliable sources do. It would be instructive to consult biographies and obituaries on this point."

Unfortunately, the other editor has drawn negative inferences from my counting chapter headers in Heidegger biographies. But that is a reasonable way for one to determine "a similar distribution of focus to subtopics."

Jonathansamuel (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Update. It appears that Skomorokh is not a Wikipedia official, but is simply another editor like the rest of us. In that case he can post his comments wherever he wants. That also means that his suggestions about how to resolve this dispute (examine obituaries, biographies et al) may not have been official Wikipedia policy. However, I had thought that he was a Wikipedia official and was enunciating Wikipedia policy. Jonathansamuel (talk) 04:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

I've protected the page due to edit warring. Please use this talk page to seek a resolution that doesn't involved reverting each other. If needed, there are some dispute resolution tools, like third opinion or request for comment.   Will Beback  talk  00:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

User Will Beback, thankyou for your intervention here. I understand that page protection is not an endorsement of any particular version, but it is of course disappointing that you chose to protect at precisely the moment user Jonathansamuel deliberately chose to violate the WP:3RR policy (something I had no intention of doing myself, despite what Jonathansamuel wrote in his edit summary). In this context, it is difficult not to see the decision to protect with the disputed material included as in some sense rewarding Jonathansamuel for violating policy.

I have been an editor involved with the Martin Heidegger article for a long time now, contributing hundreds of edits and substantially improving the article (if I do say so myself). The article is to some extent specialised, due to the nature of Heidegger's writing, but of course all editors are welcome to contribute positively. Currently there are no other editors with specialised knowledge contributing regularly to the article, although of course there are numerous more occasional edits by a variety of editors. Due to Heidegger's infamous involvement with National Socialism, however, the article also attracts users with little knowledge of the subject, but with strong antipathies to Heidegger. This frequently negatively affects their contributions to the article.

User Jonathansamuel is one such editor. He appeared on the scene in late 2008, and he uses the Jonathansamuel account essentially for the sole purpose of editing the Heidegger article (he has a handful of other edits to other articles). From the moment of his appearance, it was clear that his intention was to insert a great deal of material condemning Heidegger for his Nazi involvement. His campaign was persistent, and he revealed clearly (to me, at least) in what he wrote on the talk page that he was essentially unfamiliar with Heidegger's work, and interested only in his biography (for more on this, see my comments above). Some of his contributions were accepted into the article, in spite of my objections.

Unwilling to engage in a protacted battle with what I considered an unreasonable user, I eventually decided to withdraw from editing Wikipedia altogether for a period of 2 or 3 months. After that time, I noticed that user Jonathansamuel had not edited for a couple of months himself, and so I tentatively resumed contributing, hoping to restore the article to a better state. Unfortunately, the user also returned.

The disputed material is being persistently added by user Jonathansamuel to a short section of the biographical component of the Heidegger article. The Nazi involvement is described briefly in this sub-section, because the entire issue is treated at length in a much larger section (itself divided into several sub-sections), further along in the article. In my view, it is important to keep this earlier biographical section concise, and not to allow it to become a battleground for including all manner of material intended to show Heidegger in a negative light. Prior to my involvement with the Heidegger article, the entire section on his Nazi involvement was a big mess, precisely because editors with one view or another were simply adding bits and pieces in a very un-encyclopedic manner. I spent considerable time and energy bringing this section to an acceptable state, where it remained for quite some time. Note that I have no interest in whitewashing Heidegger. On the contrary: it is precisely BECAUSE Heidegger's involvement with Nazism is so critical to an understanding of his work and its significance that Wikipedia MUST strive to present this issue in a balanced, neutral and factual way.

It is my view that the current section of the article devoted to describing the details of his involvement in general succeeds in this aim. If anything, too much third party opinion has been included by editors who wish to paint Heidegger in as negative a light as possible. Some of this third party opinion has been introduced by Jonathansamuel. While there is a place for the commentary of others, in an encyclopedia article this ought to be kept to a minimum, and I do not believe Jonathansamuel has been balanced in the way he has introduced this material.

In terms of the specific material in question, it most certainly does not belong in the biographical section where Jonathansamuel is persistently inserting it. It is very doubtful that it belongs in the article at all. I can only hope that other editors who care for this article and for Wikipedia will intervene to prevent this biased editor from continuing his ill-judged and uninformed campaign to reduce the quality of the article. Mtevfrog (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Mtevfrog and couldn't have it expressed much better. KMJagger (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

To provide a further outside opinion: I have moved the disputed material to Heidegger and Nazism, where it would belong, although one would have to structure that article better. For this article here, I support the revision of Mtevfrog. Zara1709 (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

To Will Beback: It would be useful if you understood the importance of Heidegger's proclamation to the students of Freiburg (of which he was rector.) While supporters of Heidegger don't object to general allusions to Heidegger's Nazism, they do object to quotes by Heidegger himself, made while Heidegger was a Nazi party member, describing Heidegger's own Nazism. Hence the attempt to ban this quote, or segregate it in some other Wikipedia article.

Heidegger's Freiburg proclamation was particularly vivid in its endorsement of Nazism. Hence the animated excitement here in favor of banning it. It is significant, important, and belongs in this article. Note that I do not object to moving the quote to another part of this Martin_Heidegger article, and have repeatedly asked editor MdevFrog to do so if he wishes. He refuses. jonathansamuel —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC).

To Will Beback. I will now respond to the comments which MtevFrog made about me to you.

It is true that I do not understand Heidegger's philosophy, do not claim to, and make few changes (and in recent months, none at all) to sections dealing with his philosophy. I made no changes once MtevFrog temporarily dropped his campaign to suppress some info about Heidegger's Nazism precisely because no one at that point was excising this info.

You are surely aware that a Wikipedia article entitled "Martin Heidegger" deals with Martin Heidegger the man, and as such both biographical and philosophical information must be included. I consider myself competent to discuss Heidegger's involvement with Nazism. I understand that MtevFrog would like for knowledge of Heidegger's philosophy to be a prerequisite for discussing Heidegger's Nazism, but I try to stick to the facts of this involvement. These facts are what they are. Knowledge of Heidegger's philosophy, while of course always helpful and providing background, is not strictly necessary. Nor is ability to speak and read German, ability to place Heidegger in philosophical traditions, etc. I am glad that MtevFrog has this knowledge, but in dealing with Heidegger's Nazism it is only weakly relevant. jonathansamuel

Bust

The image of a scuptured bust of MH is a bust. It is so crude that it could be an image of anybody, or even just a mere lump of metal. Progressive modern art is so wonderful, isn't it? Lestrade (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Outside (more or less) Opinion

I have edited this article in the past, but certainly not recently. For what it's worth, I do have "specialized knowledge" of Heidegger's philosophy. MtevFrog's work on the article has clearly been of exceptional value. If I understand rightly - and correct me, please, if I don't - the disagreement here is about whether Heidegger's remarks on the führer should appear in the brief biographical section or in the longer section on his involvement with National Socialism later in the article. Reluctantly, because I admire Heidegger's philosophical work enormously, I would support keeping a brief quote in the biographical section - "The German people must choose its future, and this future is bound to the Führer" would be sufficient - simply because the depth of his involvement in Nazism is something casual Wikipedia readers need to know, in very simple terms. I would (and indeed I will) tone down some of the judgmental language in that paragraph.

Having said this, I would strongly oppose any attempts to drive the article generally in the direction of a Heidegger witch-hunt. The facts are bad enough, but there is an appropriate place for them. It should be emphasized that this has been an enormously controversial topic within "specialized" Heidegger studies for some years now, and there are credible arguments on each side of the debate.KD Tries Again (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I have trimmed back the comments about the Rectorate too, because the story wasn't complete as drafted. I do agree that random comments about "hiking" are inappropriate here. Not only Nazis favored hiking.KD Tries Again (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The changes which KD Tries Again made are ones that I can live with. I hope his changes resolve the matter. I feel that the Heidegger article now sufficiently informs readers of relevant information about Heidegger's Nazism, and do not currently plan to add to it. Hopefully MtevFrog can also live with the proclamation quote as it is now. (Jonathansamuel (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

What should be made clear is Heidegger's complete and utter silence on the Holocaust afterWWII, when all the world recognized that Auschwitz and Belsen represented a zero-point in human history, to paraphrase George Steiner. This is the mystery about him that is incomprehensible and damning.Uniquerman (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

To enlarge on my thought, it has to be noted that Heidegger felt compelled to speak out against urbane sophistication and the cosmopolitan nature of the modern city, yet he barely seemed bothered about the SA, a gang of sociopaths and perverts, or the SS, a coterie of cold-blooded functionaries. Given his emphasis on sorge, the conceptual disconnect seems obvious.Uniquerman (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Martin Heidegger's Photo

That bust/sculpture is the best photo you could find of the man?? That thing looks decrepit and gross! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.254.78 (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You are encouraged to find a better picture that conforms to Wikipedia's guidelines. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Heidegger's symbology.

It might be helpful to the general reader to include something about Heidegger's symbology. His extensive use of pastoral, boreal, and agrarian images implies an approach to metaphysics that demands disintellection, that this bears a strong relation to a kind of agrarian irredentism and pastoralist myth-making, a longing for life in the putative pre-Homeric idyll: life in a state of grace with Being. Adding his fascination with etymology potentiates this view, particularly in his later writings, where he ventures into a brand of frankly mystical determinism: the notion that language speaks through humankind rather than vice-versa.

This formulation is extremely difficult to reconcile with any approach to free will and distinguishes him clearly from most of the "existentialists", for whom free will is the default state of the human condition.

In this sense Heidegger is an extreme reactionary, taking dissatisfaction with the dehumanization of industrial culture back to the beginnings of civilization.

This is important to note clearly.Uniquerman (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• • You seem angry at Heidegger, and perhaps you should be. I don't agree with everything you say (Heidegger doesn't pretend to reconcile his thought with free will in the sense an existentialist might mean it; and "care" is not a moral category), but why not frame some language about these issues and support it with citations? Many books have been written on these topics.KD Tries Again (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

To quote that famous philosopher John McEnroe: "You cannot be serious." Before one has an emotional attachment to or detachment from someone, it is first wise to consider what they are really about. The article doesn't cover these issues, which are part and parcel of Heidegger. I don't like or dislike him. I find him extremely curious. I don't edit articles.

The fact that Heidegger does not recognize free will should be made evident. And although Sorge is a metaphysical category, a helpmeet to understanding, so to speak, the holocaust is not simply a moral issue. It has been recognized time and again as an existential problem.Uniquerman (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should add, I don't edit articles for the same reason I won't play league 8-ball. Win or lose, I make my own shots.Uniquerman (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Saying "Heidegger does not recognize free will" is a statement that has to either be qualified in some meaningful way, or proven with citations from secondary literature or from Heidegger himself. Can you elaborate on that claim a bit? Grunge6910 (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Uniquerman, if you're not proposing edits the danger is that this just becomes a chat forum about Heidegger. I agree with some of your points, but some editor or other has to do the work.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I am suggesting edits. Like Bartleby, I prefer not to do it myself. For the same reason it is inappropriate for me to play league 8-ball, it is inappropriate for me to edit directly on Wikipedia. It is not my intention to make this a forum for discussion as a fait accompli.Uniquerman (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

But Bartleby didn't ask others to do his work for him. I guess this isn't going anywhere.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Rectorship

Notice, incidentally, that this selectionally introduced contextual descriptor of why Heidegger gave up his rectorship can be defined in such a way as to impose problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. Conversely, the systematic use of complex symbols suffices to account for the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol, such as the nature of the organizations under whose auspices Heidegger served. Analogously, most of the methodological work in modern Heidegger studies does not readily tolerate the traditional practice of grammarians. Furthermore, a descriptively adequate historical statement is rather different from an abstract underlying order. However, this assumption is not correct, since the theory of what motivated Heidegger to resign developed earlier is not to be considered in determining the strong generative capacity of the theory. JSirgento (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

National Socialism

Jonathansamuel appears intent on changing "National Socialism" to "Nazism." As I tried to explain, the terms "Nazi" and "Nazism" are better avoided in most cases, since they are informal and have emotive connotations (the word "Nazi" in particular is often used simply as an insult, which is why it is better to avoid using it in serious discussion when possible). Jonathansamuel responded to this simply by announcing that his changes are correct; but announcing that you are correct is not an argument or a reason for making a change. UserVOBO (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It was originally Nazism, not National Socialism. Here are the changes that have been made in the last two weeks. Why has User:UserVOBO and User:Jsp722 insisted on changing Nazism to National Socialism? No rationale whatsoever has been offered. — goethean ॐ 18:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Nazism appears to be a term used by scholars[2], contra the dozens of edit summaries which claimed it to be inaccurate. — goethean ॐ 19:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Which term is best depends on the context. I've never said "Nazi" should never be used, only that "National Socialist" or its equivalents is usually better. I gave my reasons. UserVOBO (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Both terms have validity, in this case I think National Socialist is correct, given the time periods involved. --Snowded ^TALK 19:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"Nazi" is far more widely used in English, including scholarly and popular discourse. Google has 29M hits for "Nazi" and 1M for "National Socialist." Many Wikipedia readers won't even know what "National Socialist" is. Both should be used in this article, with the more common term, "Nazi," predominating. --User:jonathansamuel 10 February 2010. —Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC).

It is senseless to decide which term to use based on Google hits, and Wikipedia readers can find out very easily what "National Socialist" means. UserVOBO (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think most readers understand what "National Socialist" means, and one of the whole points of Wikipedia is to educate. Heidegger was clearly involved with the National Socialist Party, the degree to which he was a Nazi (which has other associations) is a different and more complex issue.--Snowded ^TALK 06:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes but what the sentence says is: "Heidegger remains controversial due to his association with" x. What fits x better: "National Socialism" or "Nazism"? I say Nazism. — goethean ॐ 05:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That one phrase is marginal but overall I would say National Socialism --Snowded ^TALK 08:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"National Socialist" and "Nazism" mean the same thing for most people. However, the word "Nazism" is far more common in both academic and popular discourse. Jonathansamuel (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your argument until now has been based on the claim that people would not understand what "National Socialist" or "National Socialism" means. Now you claim that they mean the same thing as "Nazi" to most people. Could you please make up your mind what you are claiming? Anyway, if they mean the same thing, it does not matter which term is more common. UserVOBO (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Some readers of Wikipedia know what "National Socialism" is. Some do not. Among those who know what "National Socialism" is, most think it means "Nazism," which is what I also think. It certainly matters which synonyms are used if the meaning of one synonym is known to all English-speakers, and the meaning of the other synonym is not known to significant numbers of English speakers. Jonathansamuel (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your argument does seem to be shifting around a bit. While for many people "National Socialism" and "Nazism" are the same thing, they are not especially in the 20s and early 30s. NS is the more accurate term in this case and I think nearly every reader of the Wikipedia will know what that means. Some may read it as a synonym others may not. Whatever accuracy is important and the only argument that would be valid is if "National Socialism" is an obscure term which it is not. --Snowded ^TALK 08:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I consistently state that at least for me, and for many people, "Nazism" and "National Socialism" have the same meaning. I consistently state that "Nazism" is far more widely used in English than "National Socialism," both in academic and popular discourse. And I consistently state that a significant proportion of Wikipedia readers don't know what "National Socialism" means. If someone wishes to show, via mainstream dictionary definitions, that "Nazi" and "National Socialism" have different meanings then he should do so. No one has shown that.96.240.143.90 (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you a new editor, or simply an existing one who has not signed in? Nazi means (dictionary) a member of the National Socialist German Workers Party OR a member of an organisation with similar ideology OR a person who holds and acts brutally in accordance with extreme racist or authoritarian views. It has a wider meaning than National Socialist and its inappropriate for the article on Heidegger. --Snowded ^TALK 17:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

By your own admission, one of the definitions of "Nazi" is "National Socialist." I have lost track of what we are discussing. 96.240.143.90 (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly - are you a new editor or are you Jonathansamuel? Secondly what part of "it was a wider meaning than..." do you not understand? You ask for a definition of the difference so you are given one. You then say that you have lost track of the discussion. If you can't keep track of a response to your request and a simple either/or option then maybe you should move on? --Snowded ^TALK 22:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your argument that "Nazism" has a wider meaning is pretty weak. By the same token, "National Socialism" also has a wider meaning. As the Wikipedia page on "Natonal Socialism" states "Several other political parties have used the name National Socialist Party or National Socialist Movement, and the name has been adopted by neo-Nazi groups in various countries.".

Your real argument appears to be that "National Socialism" is a more appropriate term than "Nazism" because it has fewer "emotive connotations". Since several dictionaries claim that National Socialism and Nazi are synonyms, it seems strange that one word has fewer "emotive connotations". Perhaps there are fewer "emotive connotations" because fewer people are familiar with the term "National Socialism"? Given that they mean the same thing, that would seem to be the most obvious explanation.

The most widely used term to describe members of the National Socialist Party is "Nazi". It is hard to believe that this is disputed. It is as if you are arguing that Wikipedia should not refer to dogs as "dogs", because the word has a wider meaning with additional emotive connotations. Rather, wikipedia should use the term "member of the genus Canis". And if some Wikipedia users don't know what that means, too bad. In UserVOBO's mind, they are probably idiots anyway.

Does that sum up your arguments properly?

Brain.wilson (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't and the debate has moved on anyway --Snowded ^TALK 20:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Really? Thanks for your substantive reply. What part of your argument did I get wrong?

And the debate has not "moved on". You have done your best to stifle the debate. But stifling debate does not make it "move on".

There is no debate among serious scholars as to whether or not Heidegger was a Nazi. This debate is merely about whether or not Wikipedia is going to try to obscure the fact that Heidegger was a Nazi. If you win this debate, you have merely served to make Wikipedia weaker. Congratulations!

Brain.wilson (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Do tell me, the above two comments are your only edits of the WIkipedia. Have you been watching this debate and just decided to get involved and created an ID or have you previously edited under another name? --Snowded ^TALK 05:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. I will tell you. I have been watching this "debate" and after seeing the ridiculous tripe that is used to justify soft-pedaling Heidegger's Nazi ties, I just decided to get involved.

I am confused, however, as to why I need to justify myself to you in order to get a substantive reply. Now that I have told you, do tell me what part of your argument I got wrong?

Brain.wilson (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The term "National Socialism" is the historically correct and professional term (as used in Encyclopedia Britannia, etc). In Germany the Social Democrats (Marxists) were nicknamed Sozis as a sort of derogatory slang when they emerged. And when the National Socialists came onto the scene, Nazi-Sozi was used as a slang form for them. For instance Joseph Goebbels used the phrase in, The Nazi-Sozi: Questions and Answers for National Socialists. Political opponents used the term "Nazi" alone as an epithet, according to Marc Linder.[3] It is essentially in the same category as "Commie", apart from it is a deeper intent by political opponents to give a skewed view of their politics. Aside from looking tacky and amateurish, it is a violation of the WP:NPOV to use an opposition epithet to describe something when a more full and correct designation is available. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It is neither more historically correct, nor more professional. Scholars routinely use the term "Nazi". You cite the Encyclopedia Britannia as evidence of your claim. But, in fact, the Encyclopedia Britanica uses Nazi an order of magnitude more often than National Socialism. In the online version of the Encyclopedia, there are 10,200 references to Nazi and only 1020 references to "National Socialism". And in the title of the entry for "National Socialism", they write "also called Nazism or Naziism".

Your claim that use of the term "Nazi" is amateurish is a slur on the overwhelming majority of scholars who routinely use the term. The claim that "National Socialism" is a "more full and correct designation" is inconsistent with the fact that the two phrases are synonymous. And while it is true that "Nazi" can be used as an epithet, so can "dog". Do you also recommend that Wikipedia refrain from using the word "dog" to describe dogs?

It is interesting that you use Linder as support for your argument. The particular passage that you link to is an explanation by Linder as to why he will use the term "Nazi" rather than "National Socialist" throughout his book. I fail to see why this is evidence that Wikipedia should do the opposite.

I am curious about your statement that use of the term Nazi arises from a deeper intent by political opponents to give a skewed view of their politics. What part of Nazi politics do you feel has been skewed by their political opponents?

Brain.wilson (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been following this conversation with some care and, without imputing bad faith on any part, I have to say I've seen this desire to rebrand Nazis as National Socialists as a recent phenomenon, tied up with political developments of the last few years. There has been a politically inspired from of revisionism in both the US and parts of Central and Eastern Europe to make the crimes of the Nazis and those of Communism somehow analogous, or stemming from the same authoritarian ideology. The current Government of Lithuania is quite famous for doing this; meanwhile there is a libertarian strand in the US which tries to reframe fascism as just socialism by another name. Jonah Goldberg's book 'Liberal Fascism' is a part of this trend, and there he quotes (early) Mussolini claiming he is a 'socialist and always will be'.

Therefore, though the motivation may be unconscious, and the suggestions made in good faith, I cannot fail a political aspect to this attempt to constantly invoke the Nazis as 'Socialists' (try telling that to Reinhold Niebuhr) Moloch09 (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"Idiots who don't know what it means can find out if they care"

An editor reverted a change with the above explanation. He felt that rather than use the widely-understood term, "Nazi," a less widely-used term should be used.

It is contrary to Wikipedia's standards to consider users "idiots" if they don't know the meaning of a fairly-specialized term. As I point out, "Nazi" is orders of magnitude more widely used in English than "National Socialist." If Google hits are any indication, it's a ratio of about 30 to 1.

Wikipedia is written for the English-speakers we have, not for imaginary English speakers who some editors wish would know and use the term "National Socialist." Calling Wikipedia readers "idiots" surely weakens this editor's case considerably. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathansamuel (talk • contribs) 22:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not call Wikipedia readers in general idiots. I suggested that adults who do not know what the term "National Socialism" means are idiots; I stand by that. As I observed, those who wish to learn what it means can very easily find out. UserVOBO (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Heidegger's Speech As Rector

Many months ago, I placed in this article quotations from Heidegger's speech as Rector. It is this speech which Mtevfrog correctly states was "notorious" for its defense of Nazism. We agree on that.

After repeated reverts and reverts of reverts, a third party stepped in. He removed all but one of the quotes from the Rectorship speech. He stated, wisely, that Heidegger's participation in Nazism is a matter of considerable controversy, and readers of this Wikipedia article should know more about it.

This Good Samaritan third party stated that he would oppose insertion of further quotes, but he left in Heidegger's quote "The German people must choose its future, and this future is bound to the Führer."

It is the above quote MtevFrog now seeks to remove, in violation of the consensus that existed for months. Note that Mtevfrog engaged in no prior discussion on the Talk Page about this unilateral action on his part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathansamuel (talk • contribs) 22:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The Good Samaritan who resolved last April the matter of quotes from the Rectorate speech was KD Tries Again (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again . You can read his comments on this very Talk Page. The matter was resolved to the apparent satisfaction of all concerned. Mtevfrog, who was a party to the dispute, did not object in public to the consensus at that time or until a few days ago.

It is this consensus which editor mtevfrog is violating by removing the quote which editor KD Tries Again left in. I want to again emphasize that mtevfrog took this action unilaterally and without prior discussion on this Talk Page. He did not object to the consensus when it was reached last April. Jonathansamuel (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is what KD Tries Again stated about the consensus in a 01:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC) posting on user mtevfrog's own Talk Page:

I am strongly in favor of a balanced article which emphasizes Heidegger's contribution to philosophy. I think a simple, unequivocal indication of his support for Hitler is justified in the biographical section; one can then defend all the more rigorously the need to keep detailed discussion of this hugely complicated issue in the appropriate section.

The quote from the Rectorship speech, which KD Tries Again left in as the compromise consensus, was the "simple, unequivocal indication of his support for Hitler [which is] justified in the biographical section." It boggles my mind that editor mtevfrog would seek to remove this quote and then argue that its inclusion violated a consensus. Its inclusion WAS the consensus.Jonathansamuel (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That something was the consensus months ago doesn't mean it is the consensus now. Mtevfrog's version is better than yours (which I suppose could be expected, since he is a Heidegger scholar). UserVOBO (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

...he is a Heidegger scholar.

Somehow that makes sense. — goethean ॐ 05:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Until such time as mtevfrog takes issue with KD Tries Again's consensus edit, and until mtevfrog posts something on the Talk Page showing why this consensus is no longer acceptable to him (he surely knew about it months ago. It resolved a conflict between him and me) the consensus remains. Let mtevfrog discuss his proposed change here on this Talk Page. Jonathansamuel (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I again call on editor mtevfrog to explain his reasons here on this Talk Page for opposing the reasonable consensus edited and reached by KD Tries Again regarding the single quote from the Rectorate speech. He refuses to do so and insists instead on going back to a version from months ago. Jonathansamuel (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"Nazi and Postwar Period" or "National Socialism and aftermath" ?

Mtevfrog, who has yet to deign to comment on the Talk Page but persists in reverting content that has been here for months, objects to the former and strongly prefers the latter. Part of this is his idiosyncratic aversion to the word "Nazi."

Other than that I see no reason for him to prefer the latter to the former, but I am just guessing since he refuses to discuss the matter like Wikipedia editors are supposed to do on the Talk Page. "Aftermath" was the title of an album by the Rolling Stones. "Postwar Period" is more specific as to what is being referred to. But we can only guess what mtevfrog's reasoning is, since he refuses to discuss it on this Talk Page Jonathansamuel (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have tried replacing references to "Nazism" with references to the "Nazi Party" to see if that calms the edit warrers who object to other word "Nazi." I doubt it will, but you never can tell. Jonathansamuel (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It would help if you bothered to answer the points raised above, especially as your question was answered. The party was called the National Socialist Party. --Snowded ^TALK 22:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an entry for "Nazi Party" none for "National Socialist Party"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

It is clear that there is no policy in Wikipedia that prefers the term "National Socialist" to "Nazi." It is also clear that the term "Nazi" is widely used in Wikipedia both as subject titles and within articles. It is unlikely that those who object to the term "Nazi" will be able to impose their views on the Wikipedia community.

Why don't these individuals go to the Wikipedia article on the Nazi Party and object to that? Heidegger was a member of the Nazi Party for 12 years. Why is referring to the controversy over Heidegger's association with Nazism even an issue? He was a Nazi Party member. For. 12. years.Jonathansamuel (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the third time you have opened a new section on the same subject, without first answering or engaging in the previous discussions. Please stop playing games and respond to other editors. Also please confirm or deny if the IP above is you. --Snowded ^TALK 22:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

On the Proper Usage Of Dictionaries

Certain editors do not know how to use a dictionary, so I will now explain it.

Words can have multiple definitions. For instance "train" can be a mode of transportation, or it can be a verb meaning "teach."

In order for a word to be used correctly, it is merely necessary that one of the definitions apply within the context of the sentence within which the word is used.

For example, one definition of "Nazi" is "National Socialist." Heidegger was a member of the National Socialist Party. Since one definition of "Nazi" is "National Socialist," Heidegger was thus a member of the Nazi Party. Jonathansamuel (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yet another new section? How many more will you create? The point made above is that Nazi has a wider set of meanings than National Socialist and that the latter is therefore a more appropriate term. Please note the word "appropriate" - its what the discussion is about.

Your comment above is insulting and a failure to abide by WP:AGF. You still have not answered the question as to wether the IP above is you or not. --Snowded ^TALK 22:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not answerable to you regarding my IP address. Jonathansamuel (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Then you may be answerable to WIkipedia in respect of running a sock puppet. --Snowded ^TALK 23:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Then you may be in complete misunderstanding as to what a sock puppet is. Jonathansamuel (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Editing under your own name and as an IP can give the impression that there is more support for the position you are taking and that is sock puppetry. It is perfectly reasonable to ask if that IP is you, and to expect a response. Your general behaviour here (3 reverts in two hours, opening multiple sections, not engaging on talk page, editing under your own name and an IP, failing to abide by WP:AGF) is building a very negative pattern. You already have had one block for edit warring on this article, and you seem to spend little time anywhere else. None of this bodes well --Snowded ^TALK 23:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are permitted three reverts, but not more than that, on a single article in a 24 hour period. I have abided by that rule.

It is perfectly reasonable for me to state, correctly, that I am not answerable to you regarding what my IP address is or is not. Jonathansamuel (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It is extremely unlikely that a consensus will ever exist within the Wikipedia community that the phrase "Nazi Party" should not be used to describe membership in the Nazi Party. As I have pointed out, there is a wikipedia entry for "Nazi Party." Since no consensus on banning the phrase "Nazi Party" can exist, those who repeatedly attempt to expunge the phrase from this article are simply tilting at windmills.Jonathansamuel (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Response on your talk page - you need to read up on policy in particular the one which says 3RR is not an entitlement. --Snowded ^TALK 06:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Compromise

Apologies for yet another section, but the plethora created above gives me little alternative. I made a series of compromise changes this morning:

• I left Nazi in the lede as this clearly links to the controversial aspect, per Goethean's comment above. I thought it was marginal at the time, but on reflection Nazi is probably better here.
• I have consolidated the disputed title into the Freiburg section - this describes his history by location anyway, and I have also used the formal and official name of the party there
• I have retained the quote from his journal article, but have made it clear he endorsed Hitler per the comment from KD Tries Again above
• I have moved the quote into the main section further down the article where it fits better with the other material

Overall in the controversial areas that means ONE "Nazi Party", ONE "National Socialist Party" and ONE "Hitler" rather than THREE "nazi" or THREE "national socialist. --Snowded ^TALK 06:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for an additional "compromise" (which in this case is no compromise at all, it deletes the Rectorship quote from the Biographical section.) KD Tries Again's compromise from 4/20/09 filled the bill nicely and continues to do so at this moment. See below.Jonathansamuel (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Its not an additional compromise, its a compromise. The quote is still there and is better situated with the rest of the Freidburg material. You seem unwilling to make any movement which is far from helpful. Such a confrontational attitude almost always leads to unnecessary grief. Given that there is no dispute about the factual accuracy of either option then two for and one against means that I have restored the compromise pending the involvement of other editors. I left a note on KD's talk page asking him to take a look--Snowded ^TALK 20:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I continue to prefer Mtevfrog's version of the disputed section, and I see no good reason to change "National Socialist" to "Nazi". UserVOBO (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Restoration of KD Tries Again's Compromise

Here is what KD Tries Again wrote on this Talk Page earlier this year (KD Tries Again (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again):

If I understand rightly - and correct me, please, if I don't - the disagreement here is about whether Heidegger's remarks on the führer should appear in the brief biographical section or in the longer section on his involvement with National Socialism later in the article. Reluctantly, because I admire Heidegger's philosophical work enormously, I would support keeping a brief quote in the biographical section - "The German people must choose its future, and this future is bound to the Führer" would be sufficient - simply because the depth of his involvement in Nazism is something casual Wikipedia readers need to know, in very simple terms.

This compromise lasted for months, and is a wise one. For that reason, I am restoring it. The rectorship quote belongs in the biographical section, as KD Tries Again said it does and as it has been for months since KD Tries Again's compromise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathansamuel (talk • contribs) 14:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I again ask the editor who keeps undoing the KT Tries Again's compromise to stop removing KT Tries Again's work, which has been here for months and which mtevfrog did not express opposition to at the time. Jonathansamuel (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

User mtevfrog has twice in an hour attempted to remove the compromise material edited by KT Tries Again, which has been here for months. User mtevfrog has consistently refused to discuss this matter on this Talk Page, in violation of recommended Wikipedia procedures. Jonathansamuel (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please remember that there is an entire section in the article on "Heidegger and National Socialism." It already contains the material you're trying to add. There is no need at all for the quotation to be in the article twice. UserVOBO (talk) 05:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please remember that the compromise proposed by KT Tries Again, and not objected to at the time, was that the Biography section would contain the quote you are trying to expunge. Moving it to another section is in violation of this consensus, which had been reached months ago. The quote you are attempting to remove from the biography section has been there for months.

It is not a question of me adding anything, but of you deleting material that has been here for months. What you falsely claim I am adding has been here all along. You just started deleting it for brief periods a few days ago. Jonathansamuel (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I never moved the quotation to another section. The quotation already is in that section. You are unnecessarily adding the quotation to another section as well, so that the article repeats itself. That is silly and pointless, whatever was agreed upon months ago, which is not binding now. Could you please stop?UserVOBO (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Reposting: "Outside (more or less) Opinion on Heidegger" from KT Tries Again, as posted on mtevfrog's User page

The following was posted on 20 April 2009 by KT Tries Again on User Mdevfrog's My Talk page:

Outside (more or less) Opinion on Heidegger

Hello. I have tried to respond to your call for help from editors who have some understanding of Heidegger. You may not entirely agree with my view, but I wanted to assure you that I am strongly in favor of a balanced article which emphasizes Heidegger's contribution to philosophy. I think a simple, unequivocal indication of his support for Hitler is justified in the biographical section; one can then defend all the more rigorously the need to keep detailed discussion of this hugely complicated issue in the appropriate section.

If I've misunderstood the situation, and the article has been attacked or compromised in other ways, please let me know. I do appreciate the effort you've made here, and understand from personal experience how difficult it is to hold the fort against (I assume) well-meaning administrators who don't actually know what the issues are.KD Tries Again (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Note KT Tries Again's statement that "a simple, unequivocal indication of his support for Hitler is justified in the biographical section." It is this indication in the biographical section, namely the quote from Heidegger's proclamation, which mdevfrog is now attempting to remove! The text mdevfrog removes is what KT Tries Again edited.

And here is how Mtevfrog replied at the time on Mtevfrog's own My Talk page. Note that Mtevfrog is now objecting to KT Tries Again's compromise, yet he seemed to accept it at the time.

Thanks for your intervention, KD Tries Again. Mtevfrog (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Jonathansamuel (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This is getting really tedious

• Please STOP creating new sections constantly when we are talking about the same subject. Please spend some time learning how to edit
• KD's compromise is not sacrosanct and is satisfied anyway. The support for Hitler is in the first line of the lede
• The quote is in the article, Hitler is in the lede, we have a balanced use of Nazi/Hitler/National Sociallist
• You are in danger of being reported for edit warring (you went past 4 yesterday) and disruptive editing in general which could get you blocked.

--Snowded ^TALK 06:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The quote from Heidegger's proclamation was part of the Biography section for months. That was part of KT Tries Again's compromise which was acceptable to all at the time. You keep removing it.

The quote was there so that a casual reader of Heidegger's biography would see that Heidegger had made pro-Nazi statements. He didn't simply join the Nazi Party and then disengage from Nazism. Heidegger was a committed Nazi, at least in 1933-34. Stop trying to dispute what is a scholarly consensus on the subject.

Read what KT Tries Again wrote, and see if you can refute it. Merely insisting that it goes someplace else is your opinion. Clearly other editors, including KT Tries Again, disagree with your opinion, since they wrote and or edited the section you seek to remove. Jonathansamuel (talk) 07:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

One can assume that readers of the article who care so much about Heidegger will in fact read the entire article. If they aren't so interested as to want to read the entire article, what justifies forcing that particular quote on them? It would be easy to explain there that Heidegger made pro-Nazi comments without including it. Just a sentence would do. UserVOBO (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No, one cannot assume that readers of the article will read it in its entirety. Perhaps they only wish to read the Biographical section. No law has been passed requiring Wikipedia readers to read entire articles rather than portions of them. Jonathansamuel (talk) 09:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You didn't hear me: I said that readers who really care about Heidegger will read the whole article. UserVOBO (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed details on Heidegger's Denazification hearing

The existing passage in Freiburg Years concerning the details of Heidegger's denazification hearing, which resulted in his temporary firing from Freiburg, may not be accurate. I am planning to move some material from the "Heidegger and Nazism" Wikipedia article into the "Freiburg Years."

In September 1945, the Denazification Committee published its report on Heidegger. He was charged on four counts: his important, official position, in the Nazi regime; his introduction of the Führerprinzip into the University; his engaging in Nazi propaganda and his incitement of students against "reactionary" professors. He was subsequently dismissed from university the same year. In March 1949, he was declared a "fellow traveller" ("Mitläufer") of Nazism by the State Commission for Political Purification.

The Wikipedia citation for the above information is " 1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u Heidegger and the Nazis, review of Victor Farias' Heidegger et le nazisme by Thomas Sheehan, in The New York Review of Books, Vol. XXXV, n°10, June 16, 1988, pp.38-47"

It is reasonable to suspect that certain editors will object to the inclusion of this material in "The Freiburg Years" despite it being essential to understanding why Heidegger was not, in fact, teaching at Freiburg during six of those years (1945-51.) It is my hope that those certain editors will discuss this matter here, like good Wikipedia citizens, instead of ignoring this Talk Page, waiting for me to move it to "The Freiburg Years" and only then complaining.

I want to emphasize that Heidegger did not teach at Freiburg from 1945-51. That is a biographical matter and it belongs in the biographical section. And there needs to be some explanation of why that was. Simply announcing that he was banned and allowing the readers to guess why he was banned is not acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathansamuel (talk • contribs) 23:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit War

3rr report made here --Snowded ^TALK 07:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for the reports to the noticeboard. Administrators will examine the history of the article and the parties involved. For now, the article has been reverted to January 24, 2010 to the last stable version before the edit war started and protected. This is NOT an endorsement of the January 24 version. Poor Yorick (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - sensible action and appreciate your prompt attention. This one was getting out of hand. --Snowded ^TALK 08:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I too thank you, Poor Yorick Jonathansamuel (talk) 09:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Were are we?

Aside from the edit war which is now being handled elsewhere I think we are in the position where my compromise position above was accepted by three editors and is represented by the state of the article at this point. Although the position is pretty clear from the various edits made to the main article . I suggest we take a quick poll to validate those conclusions - no discussion just a statement please. --Snowded ^TALK 09:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support the above Dif as the consensus version --Snowded ^TALK 09:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I will comment more fully later. I've just read the above quickly. I can confirm that I too had the impression that the earlier consensus satisfired mvetfrog, so I have no idea why he would have changed it (assuming he did). The scholarship in this area has advanced significantly over the last two or three years, so maybe it does need a fresh look. I agree that there is a scholarly consensus (a minority disagree) that Heidegger's commitment to National Socialism was more extended than he himself admitted, and - more importantly - that it is reflected in lectures he gave during the early 1930s (this material has been emerging gradually). The main dispute now is whether Heidegger's National Socialism negates his significance as a philosopher - and that is a dispute which is nowhere near resolution in the philosophical community: we certainly can't take sides here, only reflect the existence of the dispute. On the National Socialist v Nazi question, I am fairly certain that National Socialist is consistently used in the works dealing with this topic - most of which I've read. Nazi, after all, is slang. But this is far from the most important or difficult issue.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

My position

Firstly, I would like to reiterate everything which I have previously written and which appears above at Talk:Martin_Heidegger#Stuff_from_mtevfrog.27s_talk_page, in particular the fact that the current problems are still caused by the same persistently disruptive editor. It remains clear that this editor is pursuing an agenda, and that the pursuit of this agenda comes at the expense of the article itself. This can be summarized as the attempt to insert mention and details of Heidegger's involvement with National Socialism at every point he can think of in the article, in a way designed to slant the presentation of this involvement. Again, I believe that Heidegger’s Nazism is an extremely important issue that must be presented in an encyclopedic manner: I myself am responsible for introducing most of the detailed facts of that involvement into the article.

Now, Heidegger's Nazi entanglement is mentioned in the opening paragraph, in the biographical section, and discussed very extensively in the "Heidegger and Nazism" section. The latter is the appropriate place to include the factual details of these complex and controversial events. Of course, the biographical section needs to mention the bare bones of this issue, in order to make sense. But the wish of Jonathansamuel to introduce details of this issue into the biographical section is just a creeping problem that in fact only undermines the integrity of the article.

In relation to the "consensus" to which Jonathansamuel repeatedly refers, this was a compromise adopted a year ago, and which I accepted as a way of preventing Jonathansamuel from doing further damage. It did not at all mean it was the best version of the article, but merely the best that could be achieved as long as this editor continued to maintain his interest in pursuing his POV-pushing agenda.

I accepted this compromise, and this did indeed manage to achieve a period of reasonable calm. A dispute then arose between Jonathansamuel and some newly arrived editors about whether or not all mention of "National Socialism" should be changed to "Nazism." Jonathansamuel then began his new disruptive campaign of attempting to make that change, a change I then weighed in on, in order to oppose it. The notion that there is something wrong with referring to “National Socialism” rather than “Nazism” is absurd.

In the course of that dispute, another editor (user Snowded) proposed a compromise solution that also included moving one detail from the biographical section to the "Heidegger and Nazism" section. It also included reorganizing the section headings in a way that in my view was likely to minimize future problems. I therefore supported Snowded’s compromise solution as a genuine improvement to the article (subject to one modification in the opening paragraph, which I made without objection). My support of Snowded’s solution was then objected to by Jonathansamuel on the grounds that I had previously supported a “consensus” that was working just fine. My argument is that the earlier “consensus” was merely an attempt to prevent further edit warring caused by Jonathansamuel himself, and that when he began an entire new round of edit warring, the preferable solution became actually fixing the article into a better state, and hoping that Jonathansamuel can be prevented from edit warring by other means.

As I have stated previously, it is not worthwhile entering protracted negotiations with an editor like Jonathansamuel, because it is clear to me that he does not have the best interests of this article at heart. If other editors do not agree with this position, then I will reluctantly withdraw, my only concern being that I feel that in those circumstances the likelihood of the article falling into an inferior state is very high. I would again remind editors that with a specialized but highly controversial subject such as this article, the risk of uninformed but single-minded editors undermining the article is very real. The best if not only means of preventing this is to identify such editors and make clear to them that their contributions are not going to stick. Mtevfrog (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for restating your position, Mtevfrog. I would like to read a civil reply from Jonathansamuel on the points Mtevfrog raised. Poor Yorick (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me to respond, Poor Yorick. I will address mtevfrog's points sequentially as I have the time. One thing is clear. I never alleged, as mtevfrog incorrectly states, that all references to Nazism should use the word "Nazi" and not "National Socialist." I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT. Nor have I ever attempted to remove all references to "National Socialism." I am more than happy for both terms to be used in this article. That is the case in other Wikipedia articles dealing with Nazism as well. Certain other editors insisted that Heidegger should not be referred to as having Nazi associations, only "National Socialist" ones, and I took issue with that. Jonathansamuel (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Alas, Poor Yorick, I have reviewed the rest of mtevfrog's article (his first post ever on Talk Page, I might add) and am unable to identify substantive points to which I can respond, other than the claim I responded to above. Most of the article consists of aspersions of me, my motives, knowledge, etc. Is there some specific claim that mtevfrog has made about me or the article to which it would be useful for me to respond? Jonathansamuel (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Mtevfrog. For myself, I would welcome clarification, not of what editors have or have not done, but as to what the outstanding issues are. Jonathan - can you be specific about what you would like to see changed?

Comment: I'd just like to expand briefly on my earlier remarks. The disagreement here does reflect an authentic and unresolved disagreement in current Heidegger scholarship. At one extreme, commentators such as Faye believe Heidegger sought intentionally to reduce all philosophy to Nazism (a close paraphrase from p91 of the English translation), that his philosophy is Nazi through and through, and that the dissemination of his work effectively preserves and spreads Nazi doctrine; from this viewpoint, Heidegger should not be regarded or studied as a philosopher at all. The opposite view is that not only is his pre-1930s and post-1930s philosophy untainted by Nazism, but that - whatever the failings in his conduct - even the 1930s lectures mount a critique of Nazism (for this see Julian Young, Heidegger, Philosophy and Nazism). And there are many nuanced positions taken between those extremes (e.g. Bambach - that Heidegger might well be the greatest philosopher of the century, but he must be read in full awareness of the Nazi tendencies of his thought). This dispute cannot be resolved on Wikipedia, and indeed won't be resolved anywhere while volumes of Heidegger's work, and tranches of correspondence, are still being published and reviewed for the first time. The question is how the article should best reflect the dispute. If an editor (and I don't know if this is Jonathan's position) wishes to relate everything in the main article to Nazism, then we favor the Faye extreme. To confine any reference to Nazism to the separate article on Heidegger and Nazism would favor the opposite viewpoint. That article, by the way, is both thin and out of date. I am opposed to any individual editor insisting that this article reflects either of the extreme positions. Let's try and agree a way forward (and get the restriction on editing lifted).74.64.107.49 (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Comment: Thank you, KD Tries Again, for your constructive engagement with this topic. You asked me, Jonathan, what I would like to see changed about the article from its present state.

The simple answer is, nothing! I am well-pleased with the article as it was prior to 1/24/10. The editing record shows that I made very few changes from the time of your compromise until mtevfrog and others started reverting your edited compromise.

You will note that the final paragraph of the "Freiburg Years" is partially defective. I discuss my reasons in a separate section above. Note that the 6-year-ban on Heidegger teaching at Freiburg is biographical. The appropriate place for info about that ban is in the Biography section under the "Freiburg Years" section:

(1) We know what year governmental authorities banned Heidegger from teaching at Freiburg. It was 1945. There's no need to fudge the date by simply calling it after the war.

(2) The (now reverted, thankfully) edits made by certain other editors during the past several weeks resulted in a "Freiburg Years" section which stated that Heidegger was banned, but did not state WHY. The reader was left to guess that Heidegger was banned for having been a Nazi sympathizer. That many readers would have correctly guessed that this was the reason is not sufficient. The biography section ought to state why Heidegger was banned. Wikipedia ought not to be a guessing game.

(3) I myself wrote the reference to the French Occupation authorities, but I provided no source. I should either find the source and enter the source, or replace the info with what I can source.

I would finally like to make a general comment, since you are clearly knowledgeable. Heidegger studies are, like all academic fields, affected by the general culture. We in North America, and to a slightly lesser extent the UK, are in a strongly anti-Nazi culture. Far from fading from the minds of English-speakers, people today are even more aware of, and interested in, the crimes of the Nazis. One need only look at the success of Tarantino's film Inglorious Basterds, the construction of the US Holocaust Memorial, and so on.

The prevailing cultural trends mean that whether within Heidegger studies itself (recall the article about about academic views of Heidegger's Nazism in the NY Times some months ago) or in pop-oriented media such as, yes, Wikipedia, as soon as readers get a little info about Heidegger's Nazism their ears will pick up. They will want to know the basics about Heidegger's Nazism. What did he do exactly? Did he send anyone to concentration camps? (The answer is no, or if he did inform on others in a manner that resulted in their imprisonment, we don't know about it.)

It's all very nice for the Heidegger Biography section to dwell on whether Heidegger was a Catholic or a Protestant, whether he was the biological father of all his children, and so on. But the information that many will want to know about concerns Nazism. Having been a Nazi in 2010 is as bad as having been a child molester. I am glad about that. But even if I were not glad about it, the culture is what it is, and the culture wants info about Nazis, including, yes, Nazi Party member Martin Heidegger, one of the foremost philosophers of the last century.

So it is not, and cannot be, sufficient in the Biography section simply to state that Heidegger joined the Nazi Party and leave it at that, or to say that he was banned from teaching at Freiburg for six years (a long time when a teacher is in his prime!) but refuse to say why. He was banned from teaching because denazification proceedings determined that Martin Heidegger was a "fellow traveller" with the Nazis. To try and leave out the info from the Biography(!) section dealing with Freiburg is small-minded to say the least. I hope that is not what mtevfrog has in mind, and that he will not object to the inclusion of some additional info in the final paragraph of the "Freiburg Years" biographical section. Jonathansamuel (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't disagree that his ban from teaching needs to be included in the biography section, and if we include it I can see no grounds for omitting the reason. The story is complicated and the current version is not accurate. Heidegger was banned from teaching by the regional denazification commission in December 1946. The "Mitläufer" comment, as far as I can discover, comes from a later statement by the authorities - March 1949. He was permitted to lecture again in the winter semester of 1950/51. I am referring to Hugo Ott pp312-351. The article certainly doesn't need every detail of this story, but I am in favor of a succinct statement of the facts once we can all agree to edit in a consensual way and get the block lifted.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Thank you for the correction. So Heidegger was in fact banned from teaching at Freiburg in 1946, not 1945 as I thought. In the event that I were to make any changes to the final paragraph of the "Freiburg Years" section, I would notify you on your talk page. You would not, however, be responsible for any uncorrected errors, which would remain my own.

I would certainly examine Ott pp312-351 before making any changes. Jonathansamuel (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It was a very drawn out process, with decisions being issued by the Freiburg Senate and then various committees, but De3cember 1946 looks definitive - I am open to correction.KD Tries Again (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

As a casual reader of Wikipedia, and somebody who is pretty well-informed about this subject, I noticed it was "locked" and so found myself reading through this discussion page, and I also had a look at the history of the article. I have to say that Jonathansamuel doesn't know what he's talking about. It also seems pretty clear to me that he's much more interested in Nazism than he is in Heidegger, and much more interested in sticking stuff in about Nazism than he is in making a really good article about Heidegger. Its actually a very good article, by Wikipedia standards. Its obvious that the Nazi stuff isn't in the biographical section in detail BECAUSE ITS BEEN GIVEN ITS OWN SECTION, in other words, in recognition of the fact that its important. This seem s right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.5.247 (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that doesn't really help, because there is an authentic scholarly dispute about whethe Heidegger's politics can be treated separately from his philosophy, and the dispute has nothing to do with any of the editors participating here.173.2.230.224 (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Finding Consensus

Administrators have ruled that Jonathansamuel has violated 3RR and has been blocked for 1 week.

Call me optimistic, but I would like to find a consensus that will satisfy both viewpoints proffered by mtvefrog and jonathansamuel. I've got a few questions for the article's participants.

1. Is the article acceptable the way it was on January 24, regarding the disputed portions?

2. Regarding the first, and easier point, the article as it was on January 24, does indeed contain references to both Nazism and National Socialism. The scholarship seems to use both terms almost interchangeably. An inspection of the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy uses both terms [4], as does Timothy Clark's Routledge book on Heidegger as does David E. Cooper's Continuum Book and Charles B. Guignon's Cambridge Companion to Heidegger. On this point, both Nazism and National Socialism will be used. There should not be a favouring of the former or the latter. The question is: Are the choice of words throughout the article now, acceptable? If not, will clarifying the article with the sentence: "Heidegger remains controversial due to his association with Nazism (National Socialism)" OR "Heidegger remains controversial due to his association with National Socialism (Nazism)" be acceptable?

3. Is the biography section with the quote regarding Heidegger's direct quote supporting Hitler acceptable as it is now? If not, will an indirect paraphrase summarizing the quote and Freiberg dismissal be acceptable, with the direct quote and details of the Freiburg dismissal placed in the "Heidegger and Nazism" section?

Poor Yorick (talk) 06:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

For myself, I don't care about the National Socialism v. Nazism issue. I don't see any merit in paraphrasing the quote. As for the circumstances in which he lost teaching rights (and later had them restored), I am in favor of summarizing them succinctly in the biography section. Any extended discussion, if necessary, should come in the later section.KD Tries Again (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I think the balance of use between National Socialism & Nazi was about right. Given that a range of other minor changes were made which improved the article I would suggest restoring to the version before the last revert by JS to create a starting point. The Bibliography Biography can then say that his position was terminated due to his participation in National Socialism without extended quotes etc. Those stay in the later section which deals exclusively with his Nazi links. I would also suggest a new section on the academic debate of the relevance of this issue to his philosophical work. --Snowded ^TALK 06:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Biography, right? Not Bibliography.KD Tries Again (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

oops, never edit before the first coffee of the day --Snowded ^TALK 07:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The article needs to use either "National Socialist" or "Nazi" for most references to this movement. I prefer National Socialist as the more formal and accurate term. It would not be an improvement to say "Nazi" with National Socialist in parentheses, or the reverse. The direct quotation from the Rektoratsrede should be in the section on The rectorate, since as Mtevfrog has argued, it's a complex issue that needs to be placed in its proper context. UserVOBO (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses reliable sources, and reliable sources use both terms. We cannot just change every or almost every reference to National Socialism or to Nazism if reliable sources do not support using just one term. Poor Yorick (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Do reliable sources address how Wikipedia articles should be written? If not, your argument is irrelevant. UserVOBO (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes in fact they do. "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view." Poor Yorick (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The reliable sources policy concerns what sources can be used. It isn't a style guide, and this is only a style issue. It is preferrable to use mainly one term for the sake of consistency and style, and I just don't think that the RS policy indicates otherwise. Since the terms mean basically the same thing, this is not a neutrality issue. UserVOBO (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There are reliable sources that use both terms, so it is a balance issue. As far as I can see this version had the support of all engaged editors other than our JS who is under a one week block. I suggest that the block on editing the article is lifted and we restore to that version, then we can start to improve from there. --Snowded ^TALK 20:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that both terms are used in reliable sources is not a good reason for the article to pointlessly alternate between two terms that mean essentially the same thing. The RS policy would only be relevant if the question of what term should be used affected the article's neutrality, but it doesn't. UserVOBO (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of any suggestion of pointless alternation. Using Nazi at the start linked to the reason for his controversial nature seems reasonable (we could add NS after in brackets). Thereafter use NS other than in one case where the source referenced Hitler, hence by change to Hitler at that point. --Snowded ^TALK 20:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to use that MOS argument, you will need to make explicitly clear that the terms are being used interchangably in this article, and that would require the first sentence to read either Nazism (National Socialism) or National Socialism (Nazism). Because it is not immediately apparent they mean the same thing, and is thus a balance issue. For example, there are reliable sources that do not use those terms synonymously; for example, National Socialism refers to the ideology, and Nazism refers to the applied National Socialist ideology by Hitler. Poor Yorick (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is sufficiently clear that the terms mean the same thing. They certainly mean the same thing to most people, and so readers are likely to assume that they mean the same unless there is some indication otherwise. Are there any Wiki articles that are written in the way you suggest this one should be? As for reliable sources, please produce the sources in question, if you want to make a serious argument. UserVOBO (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not wish to become an involved editor of this article. The problems of this article stemmed from the fact that are indeed disagreements on both sides; one believing National Socialism should be the prevalent term, another believing Nazism should be the prevalent term as well as placement of the controversial quote by Heidegger regarding Hitler. I am merely acting as an administrator in this conflict and I do not intend to take sides. I am merely stating the conditions that are required in order to proceed. First, the Nazism/National Socialism debate must reflect reliable source usage if it is a balance issue or be made explicitly clear it is a Manual of Style preference. Second, as discussed by another administrator regarding this issue

"Heidegger's links to Nazism must not be whitewashed, but nor must they be given undue scrutiny. History does not remember Heidegger primarily as a prominent Nazi intellectual/professor, but as a philosopher of some significance. Wikipedia policy on this is clear: we ought to apportion a similar distribution of focus to subtopics of Heidegger as the majority of reliable sources do."

As I said before: Is the biography section with the quote regarding Heidegger's direct quote supporting Hitler acceptable as it is now? If not, will an indirect paraphrase summarizing the quote and Freiberg dismissal be acceptable, with the direct quote and details of the Freiburg dismissal placed in the "Heidegger and Nazism" section? Do reliable sources discuss the quote in a subsection regarding Heidegger's Nazi connections or do they include it in their biographies?

Poor Yorick (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Per above discussions: Biography should say he was dismissed. The quote etc. should go into the "Heidegger and Nazism" section where it has better context. --Snowded ^TALK 20:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Snowed. Can you provide page numbers of reliable Heidegger sources which show that the controversial quote is discussed in detail in a place other than the Biography section? Poor Yorick (talk)

Why? The only books which deal with non-philosophical aspects of Heidegger will be biographies. The point is that biographical data is not just in that section in the article, its also in a specific section on the Nazi issue. So the question is where does it best fit. --Snowded ^TALK 21:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) To elaborate a bit. Blackburn in the Oxford Dictionary references the Rektorsrede without any quote, just the call for Germany to move itself into a new state of being led by the Nazis. Kenny in his history (page 86) again gives no quotes but references the call to the German People to carry out its historical mission. It also mentions his exclusion from th e the University Library of all Jewish faculty members and the penance that prevented him for teaching for five years after the way. So both of those support a summary not a quotation at that point in the article --Snowded ^TALK 21:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Do other editors disagree with these sources Snowed has provided or wish to provide other opposing sources? Poor Yorick (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources, then it would be easier to ensure the change is stable. If no reliable sources are provided, then we must follow consensus building. How would you edit the article once it is unlocked? Other editors please feel free to comment on Snowded's proposed edit or propose your own edit. Poor Yorick (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

We did the consensus building, after a lot of going back and for I proposed the compromise (see above) and it was accepted by all other active editors except for our now blocked friend. --Snowded ^TALK 21:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Understood, and please remember Wikipedia:What is consensus?, that this edit is not permanent, other future editors will be free to change the article as they see fit. Poor Yorick (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

To editors, mtvefrog, snowed, user:vobo, jsp722, jonathansamuel, do you wish to unlock the article and proceed with Snowed's proposed edit and sources? Poor Yorick (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, Snowded is proposing having the biography mention that Heidegger was dismissed, but leaving the quotation from the Rektoratsrede for the section on Heidegger and National Socialism. That seems OK, and I don't object to unlocking the article. UserVOBO (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

---

If there are no objections from the majority of the active editors, I have scheduled the article to be unlocked in the next 12 hours. Poor Yorick (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the unlocking. I am reluctant to get into the National Socialism/Nazism debate, where I am sure any reasonable solution which makes it clear that Heidegger joined that party, known by both those names, will be fine.

I am happy to get into the sourcing issue, and with respect to Snowded I have a stack of stuff. I do disagree that only biographical sources on Heidegger mention his Nazism. That's no longer the case: in fact an extensive bibliography now discusses the philosophical implications of his political committment. This is a developing and fast-moving area of scholarship (which makes it that much harder for Wiki to cover). Whatever the merits of Jonathansamuel's editing style, the POV he has been described as pushing is beyond question one legitimate point of view. I don't necessarily share it, but it's easy to list accredited scholars who do. That POV - that Heidegger's philosophy cannot be discussed without immediate reference to his Nazism - should be recognized. To do otherwise is to misrepresent the current scholarship. It is not, however, the only point of view. This is why I advanced the previous compromise, which makes it absolutely clear that Heidegger spoke out in unequivocal support of Hitler at an early stage in the article. Of course the details can be addressed in the appropriate section, or the linked article specifically on Heidegger and Nazism. But failing to mention at all in the early stages of the article would put Wikipedia out of step with current scholarship. So I support keeping the sentence currently in the lead, and not whitewashing or paraphrasing that quote. No need to have dozens of incriminating quotes, but it would be misleading not to have at least one blunt indication of his position. I will be back with sources shortly.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

This is user jonathansamuel. I have been blocked for one week. My usual IP address has also been blocked.

I am responding because administrator Poor Yorick mentioned me by name, and asked for my response. He seems to hope for a response within the next few hours.

I favor the "Freiburg" section of Biography as it is, where it is and was on 1/24/10. This current text is similar or identical to that proposed by user KD Tries Again last April. This text avoided edit warring on the Heidegger article for a period of 9 months.

I object to the alternate text provided by user Snowded. The Heidegger quote which user Snowded expunges from the Biography section is "The German people must choose its future, and this future is bound to the Führer." This quote is 15 words long. The Biography section is hundreds of words long. There is ample room in the Biography section for this 15-word quote. It should remain where it is, in the Biography section.

The title of this section of the Talk Page is "Finding Consensus." I find no consensus in user Snowded's text, and politely ask him to withdraw his text in favor of the existing 1/24/10 text first provided by user KD Tries Again.

If user Snowded remains adamant in his opposition to the current 1/24/10 text, then I ask that the Heidegger article remain frozen in its current form until the matter can be resolved. 64.241.37.140 (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No need to be confrontational. Snowded and I and other editors have worked on numerous philosophy articles, and consensus will be forthcoming if we all take a co-operative attitude. The Freiburg passage to which you refer just needs to be corrected and properly sourced while remaining succinct. I do agree that the quote is needed, and now I'll explain why.

The main biographical source for this article has to be Ott, Martin Heidegger: A Political Life, the authoritative work in German or English. If necessary, we can use Sarfranski's bio to confirm anything questionable. However, it is no longer the case that Heidegger's political involvement is treated by scholarship as a footnote to his biography. For better or worse, it is the main topic in current Heidegger scholarship and many works now treat it thematically - as a topic of philosophical analysis - and not just biographically. Among these are Charles Bambach,Heidegger's Roots; Hans Sluga Heidegger's Crisis; Julian Young, Heidegger, Philosophy and Nazism; Farias, Heidegger and the Nazis; the expanded edition of Poggeler, Heidegger's Denkweg; Faye, Heidegger (etc); papers by Kisiel, Sheehan and many others; and collections such as Margolis & Rockmore (eds) Heidegger and Nazism; Wolin (ed) The Heidegger Controversy and Neske and Kettering (eds) Heidegger and National Socialism: Questions and Answers. There are works by Derrida and Lacoue-Labarthe too, but I think we have enough. (I have most of these, and get at all of them quite easily.)

I am not suggesting any summary of this material needs to be included here. The Heidegger and Nazism article needs to be updated, but that's a different matter. I am listing these works to illustrate the increasing centrality of the political issue to Heidegger studies. This situation has changed in the last ten years, and is changing still. Some of the above works defend Heidegger, some attack him, and some (my POV) are wacko; but they can't all be dismissed, and the issue can't be confined to a subsection of the article. In short, do mention it briefly but quite unequivocally (e.g. using that quote) upfront - save the detail for the appropriate section.KD Tries Again (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Could you please clarify why you believe that including the quote from the Rektoratsrede is necessary within the biography section? I understand that Heidegger's politics is considered important to his biography, but why the need to include that particular quote, and why there, when it could go in the Heidegger and National Socialism section instead? The way things are developing, I'm not sure that the article should be unlocked, despite what I said above. UserVOBO (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not wedded to that quote. There are, sadly, many we could choose. From memory, the section has been drastically shortened, many damaging quotes removed, and (a compromise) it was left with just one, unequivocal statement. I tried to explain why above. Wikipedia's job is not to take a stance, but to report the current state of scholarship. Twenty - even ten years ago - one could argue that confining Heidegger's Nazism to its own section in the article reflected mainstream scholarly opinion. But the scales have shifted, and it would be misleading not to acknowledge the growing weight of opinion that Heidegger's Nazism needs to be fully acknowledged before (or at the same time as) his life and philosophy are explained; for an increasing number of mainstream scholars (not just the wackos), it is as important as any other fact about him. Taking the view that Heidegger is a major philosopher (who was briefly, contingently a Nazi) would have been defensible in the past. No longer - as I think would be clear to anyone keeping up with current publications, and the steady emergence of previously unpublished seminars and correspondence.

A simpler answer - find me any source, any source at all, that treats Heidegger's rectorate as anything other than a crucial episode in his involvement with Nazism and outspoken (whether or not sincere) support for Hitler. We will make progress, I think, if we talk in terms of where current scholarship places its emphasis, rather than just trading personal opinions. (Having said that, the article could be a lot clearer about the connection between the Rectorate and his support for the party.)KD Tries Again (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I think it is important to make something clear which seems to have been a little lost in the back and forth. The fact that there is a section called "Heidegger and Nazism" that is separate from the biographical section, has nothing to do with taking a position on the relation between Heidegger's political activities and his philosophy. It is simply a recognition that the importance of Heidegger's Nazi entanglement means that it is necessary to treat this matter differently than the rest of his biography, that is, it needs more detailed treatment than the rest of his biography. Whether one believes Heidegger's politics is of crucial importance to his philosophy or not, it would still be necessary to have a detailed treatment of the facts of the rectorate. Hence the separate and extensive section on "Heidegger and Nazism." The reason to keep unnecessary details of that involvement from intruding into the biographical section is also clear: the article attracts editors more interested in attacking Heidegger than in constructing a genuinely encyclopedic article, and such editors try to insert such material at every point they can think of. Having an appropriate section for this information is not a way of taking a position on the relation between Heidegger's work and his life, but a mechanism for creating the best possible treatment of the facts of the situation. In other words, it really isn't a matter of reflecting the position of the latest scholarship on the debates about the significance of Heidegger's involvement: it is, rather, just a matter of presenting the factual material in the best possible way, and secondarily of preventing editors with an unhelpful agenda from degrading the article. For those reasons, I am opposed to inclusion of the quotation in the biographical section: the essential biographical facts are that he was elected rector, joined the party, and then resigned. All the (very important) details of what took place during that period and afterward, belong in the "Heidegger and Nazism" section. My suggestion is that perhaps there should be some kind of "For more detailed treatment, see the Heidegger and Nazism section," to direct readers from the biographical section to the other section. All that said, I am in favour of unlocking the article now, restoring to the version editors other than Jonthansamuel agreed to, and proceeding. I believe the version created by Snowded with my one modification was a strong foundation that made clear how these matters should be treated as the article develops. Mtevfrog (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You put your finger on a genuine problem, an unavoidable one, and one I suggest beyond our control. The Heidegger article is bound to attract POV editors who wish to attack Heidegger, regardless of whether it degrades the article of not. That is the case whatever we decide in the current discussion. My sense is that confining discussion of his statements and deeds to a sub-section within the article will encourage rather than discourage such attention - although frankly, it is going to happen anyway. You talk about keeping details of his political involvement from "intruding" in the biographical section of the article: but all the published biographical material about Heidegger, for the last twenty years, focusses primarily on that political involvement as essential to understanding him (honestly, do you know of an exception?). To entirely resist its inclusion in the biography section here would make Wikipedia's treatment an outlier. And such an approach will never lead to a stable article.

I am suggesting a minimalist approach: offer up one or other of his really embarrassingly horrible pieces of cheerleading for the fuhrer in a prominent part of the article, and thereby have some grounds for resisting the accusation of whitewashing. Nobody could be more sympathetic than I am to the position that what is most interesting thing about Heidegger is his philosophical work. But I can't in good faith defend an encyclopaedia treatment which doesn't give the casual reader at least an indication - in the general part of the article - of the seriousness of the issues involved.KD Tries Again (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I am pleased to see serious discussion in the hours leading up to the article unlock. I see there are still issues to be worked out and legitimate concerns raised, but as long as we continue to discuss these matters in a civil matter, and prevent further degradation into another edit war, I will ensure the article is unlocked on schedule. Poor Yorick (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The lede mentions his association KD, how about we restore to the version per my and Mtevfrog proposal, and then you add in some material at that point? --Snowded ^TALK 10:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I don't see you, me and Mtevfrog edit warring. I am going to see if I can find any encyclopaedia entries on Heidegger sufficiently recent to be relevant and how they handle it. Because so much material has been released in the last two or three years, most print encyclopaedias likely lag well behind.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Agreed, we never have before! I will make that change when the article is unblocked and we can take it from there. --Snowded ^TALK 18:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Biographical Treatment of Nazism

Here's an example. The Internet Encyc. of Phil., in addition to mentioning the Nazism issue in its lede, incorporates the following language in the "Life and Works" section; the title of the speech cited serves the same purpose as the quote I proposed retaining in this article - to make clear that his support for Hitler at the time was unequivocal and outspoken.

During his tenure as rector he produced a number of speeches in the Nazi cause, such as, for example, “Declaration of Support for Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist State” delivered in November 1933. There is little doubt that during that time, Heidegger placed the great prestige of his scholarly reputation at the service of National Socialism, and thus, willingly or not, contributed to its legitimization among his fellow Germans.

KD Tries Again (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

That is very similar to the wording in Kenny's History and also the Oxford Dictionary. Its the right level, leaving the more elaborate quotes for the later section. --Snowded ^TALK 18:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sure I can find something along the same lines, so we aren't just reproducing the Internet Encyc. Let's see how Mvetfrog feels.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I see the page has been getting edited back and forth again. I have a stack of books, and I will try this afternoon or tomorrow to insert something appropriate into the Rectorate section and correct the account of the teaching ban. I hope editors will discuss my proposals here rather than just reverting them.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I've been waiting for you to put something in! --Snowded ^TALK 18:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Corrections: Heidegger did not become Rector on April 21, 1933. That was the date of his election. He assumed the Rectorate about a month later (oops, no, the inaugural address was a month later), joining the Nazi party in the meantime. Also, the "Mitläufer" (fellow traveler) finding - which dates from 1949 - was not the grounds for banning him from teaching; on the contrary, it exonerated him to the extent that he was not deemed a wholehearted Nazi and paved the way for the lifting of the teaching ban. I've tried to get the facts right (it is complicated), with sources. On the issue in dispute, I regard a statement of Heidegger's public support for Nazism, and specifically for Hitler, as the bare minimum for the biographical section of the article. All biographical, and most book-length philosophical/thematic studies of Heidegger from the last twenty years focus primarily on this political commitment, and Wikipedia should not be out of step (or indeed out of step with current philosophical encyclopaedias). Personally, I would still support the inclusion of an illustrative quote, but I am offering this bare minimum in the hope of finding consensus.KD Tries Again (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Much improved. I would support a short quote as part of the text (before it was highlighted in indented) --Snowded ^TALK 06:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Let's see how that holds up.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I wish mvetfrog would discuss here, but I am okay with his changes. Per his edit summary, no: Heidegger & Nazism just is not part of the Bio section - anyone can see that. Puzzled.KD Tries Again (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Poor introduction

The introduction is narrow-scoped and the explication of ideas lacks context -- if you're going to include pithy expositions they need to be sufficiently general that they sit in context with his broader thought, not just one work. As such, it's misleading to readers who might want to acquaint themselves with the thinker. The controversial elements need to be mentioned -- but the breadth of influence of his ideas suggest that his very questionable political activity and failures in his personal life can, at least in part, be evaluated separately from his philosophical output. To make the introduction more representative, his philosophical project and breadth of work needs to be outlined more fully, including mention of his influence on subsequent philosophy. 184.148.136.17 (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

overlapping lists of students

There is duplication in the lists of Heidegger's students at Marbug (unsourced) and Freiburg (two sources). If there is a mistake in the first list, it should be corrected; if students followed him, that should be stated explicitly to avoid interpreting the duplication as an error. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

"Biography" and "Personal Life"

What is the difference, and why are they considered separate segments? Is the same or similar logic applied to other parts of this article? 32.221.207.102 (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. These should be integrated. There is a strong case to make for continuing to maintain the Nazi stuff as its own section, but at least some of this material would probably fit better under a unified Biography section. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

REFSPAM issue

Nader El-Bizri or someone close to him appears, unsurprisingly, to be responsible for the large number of references to his work. I notice, in particular, the activity of Levantine, who I suspect is the author, and AcademeEditorial, who I would guess is a well-meaning student. But I'm not familiar with all the forensic tools used to determine such matters with greater certainty. For now, I am just going to scrape at least most of the offending references. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Reception in France

Does anyone have any thoughts on this section? Right now it is disproportionally long, and I believe it will remain so even as the treatment of Heidegger's philosophy expands. My suggestion would be to make use of WP:SS, that is, to break it off into its own article, which this article would summarize in about a paragraph with a link out to the "main article". Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

On closer reading, aside from being poorly sourced, much of this was either too much about Sartre' existentialism or redundant with material already covered in the Nazi section. I have condensed and integrated under the head of European reception.

For the time being, I am moving the material on the The Farías debate up to the Nazi section. It can be determined later how much to keep in what form. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

"language speaks"

Because it has two good sources, I'm storing the below for later reintegration as its own section. (Neither this nor the stand-alone Language speaks explains what this supposedly famous saying means. Also, nothing on language as "the house of being"? That's the one I would have nominated as Heidegger's most famous on this topic.)

In a 1950 lecture Heidegger 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. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Ideal TOC for Philosophy section?

At present, this article is quite disappointing in its treatment of Heidegger's philosophy, which — since this is is the only reason he has an encyclopedia entry — is a serious shortcoming.

My knowledge of the secondary literature is limited and surely outdated, but I know Being and Time reasonably well, and I can improve coverage of this part of his philosophy in neutral language sourced at least to his own writing.

I can also produce a short section on his work on the "essence of technology" and maybe some of his work on language. Possibly also his stuff on the work of art, although my assessment of this part of his philosophy is rather low—readers would probably be better served by a more sympathetic editor.

The whole project of producing a history of being requires someone else to step up. Based on my limited reading of the relevant texts, I am highly critical of this project. It belongs in the article, but I am not willing to do the research necessary to do an adequate job of presenting his positions. Even absent proper coverage, however, it would be helpful to create a place-holder section in the TOC.

What else needs to be covered? Just having a good TOC in place encourages productive edits. And the further away we get from Being and Time, the less I know. Suggestions for what needs to be covered (if possible, with good secondary sources!) in what sort of order are most welcome even if you cannot commit to making the edits yourself.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I've done some reorganization, and I've just added a new section "Being-in-the-world" that I think, together with the "Fundamental ontology" section, covers most of the major claims of Division I of BT.

I am hoping to write two more sections on BT: one on authenticity and das Man, and one on historicity.

Comments and suggestions most welcome!

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

This edit has just been posted. Review of the material on authenticity would be particularly welcome. What is there is well-sourced, but some readers will probably be curious for more. I tend to side with the scholars who find all the anxious being-towards-death stuff among the weaker parts of BT, so someone more sympathetic might improve the overall neutrality of the section—just in case my inclusion of Zimmerman does not go far enough.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I am going to cut back the section on "The Turn" because it is more of a debate about how to organize the scholarship than it is about Heidegger's actual thought, much of which remains absent or obscure in this article.

Besides the history of being section, I think we need sections on the three items mentioned above: technology, language, and art. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

A lot of the material at Heideggerian terminology is more detailed than what appears on this page, and it also covers important concepts not covered here at all. Very little of it is sourced, which is unfortunate, but I still call attention to it as a potential resource. (My understanding of Wikipedia policy is that it is fine to copy material like this as long as you acknowledge it with a hidden HTML comment. I've also see notes to this effect added to the yellow box thing on the Talk page, which I'm guessing is more for more extensive borrowings, but I don't know the exact rules.) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)