Talk:List of German-language philosophers/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Potential Criterion Conflict

While I think it's a great idea to bring in a footnote system, I must note that the system used on some of the other lists (documenting a person's "contribution to philosophy") is not the same as the one we've been discussing (documenting a person's being listed as a philosopher by a reliable, reputable reference source). For example, the scientist and politician Molyneux presented a question to Locke about perception, and since then, this problem has been called the "Molyneux problem."[1] The point? Both these statements are true:

Molyneux made a significant contribution to philosophy.

Molyneux was not a philosopher.

So I think we can't simply assume that other wikipedia editors of other lists have already done our work for us. I think we have to check out the reference materials on these names ourselves, and make sure that they are identified as philosophers. Look for sentences of the type: "John Smith was a significant philosopher of X," "John Smith, a Serbo-Croation philosopher,..." etc. Do not look for apologetic sentences: "While Smith was not really a philosopher, still..." Cheers, Universitytruth 14:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I currently have no access to those references under Source, so someone else who does is invited to recheck what is stated about them - once we see that those referenced are counted as "philosophers", then I will reword what is said in Source. Keep in mind these other lists that use these referencesNon-vandal 16:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC):

• List of philosophers born in the eleventh through fourteenth centuries
• List of philosophers born in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries
• List of philosophers born in the seventeenth century
• List of philosophers born in the eighteenth century
• List of philosophers born in the nineteenth century
• List of philosophers born in the twentieth century
• List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy

Whew, the attention to detail here is astounding. With respect to criteria for inclusion, every individual included must of course qualify under Wikipedia:Notability. The question then remains as to whether an otherwise notable person who also wrote philosophical text in German should be included in this list. My opinion is that their contribution to German-language philosophy would itself have to be notable. If you were a famous German artist, and wrote one page of philosophy that scholars of German philosophy generally disregard or never even heard of, then no, the artist should not be included in the list, unless that page of philosophy was notably popular (philosophy doesn't necessarily need to be accepted or adopted as such by the scholastic community, as the public is fully capable of adopting philosophies as well). --Polar Deluge 19:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Perhaps what emerges from this list could be useful to other philosophical list and category discussions. In response to your point about a notably popular page of philosophy, my only concern has to do with verifiability. Also, this is not a list of people who generated philosophy, but rather people who are listed as philosophers (per WP:VER) and whose works are in the German language. Certainly, the list would be longer if it had a wider definition, and no one is I think opposed to such a list existing. But in the interest of peace, if nothing else, I think we should not do WP:OR, but instead respect wikipedia as a tertiary source. Cheers,Anthony Krupp 19:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I raised the same idea (on notability), but like Krupp says, and as I agreed with User:Universitytruth who replied to this idea I previously brought up, it just doesn't work, because it may lead to WP:OR and it could be (systematically) biased. This could also be a factor as to why WP:NOTABILITY isn't accepted as a guideline/policy but as a formal idea relating to such guidelines and policies. So we should just stick with WP:VER (and all those other pivotal guidelines and policies that are implied) as stated in the current criteria, which follow WP:LIST.Non-vandal 03:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Quick question for Polar Deluge and Non-Vandal: I'm not understanding this term inclusionary. Can you explain further? In our case, it might often be a matter of fulfilling (1) OR (2), not both. That is, (1) seems especially good for dead philosophers, (2) for living ones. Really notable living ones will of course make (1) as well. It's just that I've never heard of "inclusionary criteria" before, so am perhaps misunderstanding a technical term here. Thanks for any illumination you can provide. Gruss,Anthony Krupp 14:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't a technicality - and I understand why you would say criteria both exclude and include (maybe it goes without saying). But the point with "inclusionary" here is (stylistically, perhaps) to make it clear that when either of the criteria are satisfied then that individual can be included in the list. See? I won't argue over it being there or not (that would be somewhat pedantic on both accounts) but I would prefer it being there just so this point remains clear to the readers.Non-vandal 19:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think precise language is pedantic. Thanks for clarifying, and see edit summary. If it's a technical term after all (maybe Polar Deluge meant it this way?), then someone please explain it to me, and reinsert if the term is warranted. I just think it's confusing to repeat two phrases ("at least one," and "inclusionary") that mean the exact same thing. Having them both there leads the reader, I believe, to assume they mean two different things, in which case "inclusionary" becomes confusing. Cheers, Anthony Krupp 20:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that would be pedantic either, but, hey, if you think it's unclear and could confuse people, it should definitely be removed. I agree with such a take. So, nice job catching that one.Non-vandal 08:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Anthony, let me paraphrase it: "criteria for inclusion" = "qualifications for being listed". If a philosopher doesn't meet the qualifications, then obviously you guys won't allow him or her to be listed. --Polar Deluge 03:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That part made sense. It was the "inclusionary criteria" of the former wording that threw me. Is now fixed. Cheers,Anthony Krupp 13:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's possible to take WP:VER too far

I think a lot of people go overboard on WP:VER, and I suspect that they for the most part use the policy discriminately rather than generally, as a license to axe anything they don't like. The censors of profane articles are a prime example (see List of films that most frequently use the word fuck), which has somehow survived 4 AfDs and a continuous onslaught of WP:VER attacks. Original research couldn't hurt in the case of that article, where many of the editors have those movies in their DVD collections and can simply check the truth of any claims being made. My point though is that verification is only made a big deal of for that article because certain people want to get rid of it.

Another type of overboard editor is the one who lives by WP:VER as gospel, and I've been running into these more often as of late. They go in and indiscriminately hack articles down to the bone, removing anything that hasn't been verified. This is insane, as it overlooks the value of the data. These folks should find the references rather than be lazy and delete the hard work of others.

Fortunately, the need to verify is not as strong on pages overseen by individuals well-educated in the subject matter - whatever is common knowledge amongst them easily becomes consensus, without the overwhelming urge to find sources. So even when a verification nut comes along and demands to enforce WP:VER, they override him since they know that the article is already fairly accurate. The List of major philosophers is a good example of an article where sanity prevailed, and obvious members of the list weren't deleted just because they didn't yet have sources cited for them.

Wikipedia is set up to take the advantage of what people know. They can just start typing and contribute information right out of their heads. Rarely does someone know where all his knowledge came from, so Wikipedia is for the most part unverified. The vast majority of Wikipedia's pages have no sources listed. If WP:VER were to be applied rigidly all across Wikipedia and all unverified info purged, there wouldn't be much left, and the public would suffer a great loss.

Therefore, with respect to verification, I'm an eventualist. By bias is: unless it is especially dubious, to leave data intact so that others can come along and verify it later. If you know something, add it, and if you come across something that you know is false, delete it. If you have time, look up sources. If you don't, leave it there for someone else who does have the time. If something seems really doubtful, or too good to be true, and not merely beyond your experience, move it to the talk page for discussion. So, rather than undoing the work of other editors who have come before, build upon that work. A piece of information can't be verified if it is no longer there. The benefit of leaving unverified information in an article is that someone may come along who knows where a good reference is, and we should take advantage of this form of collaboration. In the meantime, grains of salt go well with reading Wikipedia.

My two cents' worth. --Polar Deluge 03:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

(Applause.) Okay, now that I'm pleased to see this said, we should definitely keep these points in mind when adding individuals - especially with consideration to what sources are actually available (they are infinite). In a word, everyone should just relax. Do things like you would, and eventually, when real problems crop up, we can deal with them. I guess that's how matters should stand.Non-vandal 03:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I can certainly empathize with your sense that WP:VER can be part of a "bad ethos," that is, a tool for those who would purge and purge, but not also add. For my part, I'm both spending hours (just look at my contributions) looking up sources and blanking names (many of which I myself have added) I can't verify as I go along. And when I'm done with Macmillan, I'm moving on to Routledge, Oxford, Metzler, etc., to go through the blanked names again and again, until I verify that each one is (here, "is" means "has been named in a reliable, reputable scholarly source as being") a philosopher, and thus unblank them, or fail to so verify them, and leave them blanked.

I think that WP:VER and similar policies are all the more important because consensus doesn't always work. For evidence, see the pages of discussion on Goethe, above. In any case, thanks for your comments. Anthony Krupp 13:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The Show Goes On

Until further issues arise, I would recommend the following: I'll continue with Macmillan, starting with the letter M and going to Z, and then I'll go on to Routledge. This will take some weeks. If anyone can access Oxford, Metzler, etc., maybe s/he can go through the list as well from A-Z and footnote appropriately. Otherwise, I think we do have to figure out a way to verify living philosophers. I'm much happier with the system as it works for dead ones and especially long dead ones. Non-vandal, would you be willing to work on how to practically verify living philosophers? You seem the most internet- and computer-savvy of us all. My reference to a google scholar search on the Hans Albert case was very provisional, and I'm not sure it's the right form of verification. If you could think about this for a while, I think that would be very great for this list. Thanks!Anthony Krupp 14:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, a link like Albert's doesn't do anything, because it doesn't directly refer to anything. Could you add a note to the ref to say what exactly should be found? I think something like that could help garner some sort of verification of his status for this list. The same could be done for other (possible) philosophers, but I'm not that sure, because the potential material for verification is itself the unknown. (So I agree with the dissatisfaction you feel with criterion 2 but we'll go along with it.)Non-vandal 02:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Goethe again

I said recently I was done referring to Goethe here. I was mistaken. The following source has been recently listed in favor of including Goethe on this list. I have provided the full citation:

Nicholas A. Vonneuman, "The philosophical legacy of John von Neumann, in light of its inception and evolution in his formative years," in Glimm, James, et al., The Legacy of John Von Neumann (1990): "To the question: which philosopher did John follow? the general answer is that he was a pragmatist, and that in itself is an indication of an underlying philosophy. But from my perspective he followed, or at least considered, one specific philosopher: Goethe. After all, Goethe was a philosopher, among many other professions. We studied Faust in school very thoroughly, both in the original and in Hungarian translation" (p. 19). "Well, that's it. But I repeat that all of this was merely from my own perspective, but nevertheless part of an overall scenario which may become of interest to John's future biographers. What I said about Goethe was also only from my perspective" (p. 24).

Sigh.

Does this really seem to pass WP:VER, WP:Reliable sources, WP:reputable sources and the rest? Really? If so, then I think I am too depressed to continue working on wikipedia. Another question: does the last statement not self-exclude its author per WP:OR? I've never seen a clearer admission of original research. Sigh. --Anthony Krupp 20:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not just about Goethe, BTW. (If the other quote checks out, I'm fine with that.) This is about using what I would consider common sense in fact-checking and verification, and has ramifications for the future development of this list in general. I will look forward to reading a reasonable defense of or attack upon relying on the sort of quote above. Best, Anthony Krupp 20:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How about that! Well, I'll get a google account so I can verify sources. I don't want this to happen again: it is not a genuine source. Please don't become discouraged. Mistakes can occur. I'll remove it immediately. I'm especially glad you checked it carefully. The last I would like to see (I mean, I wouldn't like to see it at all) is this article become based upon potential falsehoods.Non-vandal 02:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Quickly for now: thank you for the note! I was editing at the end of my work day yesterday; very stressful. More soon. :)--Anthony Krupp 10:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Criteria again

I don't understand why this article uses different criteria than this one. — goethean ॐ 14:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Why might the criteria on List_of_philosophers_born_in_the_eighteenth_century differ from those here? I would suggest you compare the respective talk pages and page history. With all due respect to KSchutte, who did a great service in starting that list, there has been no group effort evident there to determine good criteria. It is also called a list of philosophers, but the footnotes clarify that those on the list are persons who have contributed to philosophy. Thus, that list does make a distinction, although it also simultaneously confuses it.Anthony Krupp 12:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Another way of putting it is that User:KSchutte didn't make a distinction between contributors to philosophy and philosophers, a distinction that I see as spurious. — goethean ॐ 16:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand that this is your point of view. See discussion above on Molyneux: "While I think it's a great idea to bring in a footnote system, I must note that the system used on some of the other lists (documenting a person's 'contribution to philosophy') is not the same as the one we've been discussing (documenting a person's being listed as a philosopher by a reliable, reputable reference source). For example, the scientist and politician Molyneux presented a question to Locke about perception, and since then, this problem has been called the 'Molyneux problem.'[2] The point? Both these statements are true:

Molyneux made a significant contribution to philosophy.

Molyneux was not a philosopher."

Feel free to comment on this.--Anthony Krupp 18:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Change above to "mostly spurious". Basically, I don't think that this is a real issue. — goethean ॐ 19:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

To an extent I don't understand "why" either. So many other people were profound influences upon philosophy - not having them seems incredibly misguided, because they guided the course of philosophy. Surely we can include them without saying they "are/were philosophers" (according to our criteria)? Well, for now, it's something to keep in mind.Non-vandal 03:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I do think this question is worth considering. There are several ways one could go, but I would just want to ensure that the list's title matches the list's contents. Thinking out loud about options: (A) create a List of influences on German-language philosophy, perhaps annotating that list, unlike here; thus including the name Goethe, then under his name indenting and listing some titles or something; Hoelderlin and his essays on being and judgment, etc. Then having a link to that list at the very top of this list; I see some advantages and some disadvantages to this idea; (B) add a list of names to the bottom of this list, as an Appendix of sorts, including Goethe, Hoelderlin, Friedrich the Great, Napoleon (crucial for Hegel, no?) and whoever else we can document as being important for German-language philosophy; or (C) renaming this list somehow, and adding in Goethe, Hoelderlin, etc., but identifying them as persons who influenced philosophy rather than as philosophers. Engaged discussion of alternatives is welcomed.Anthony Krupp 12:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll think about it. The first two that automatically came to my mind were A and C. I'll get back to you later. (By the way, I only now realized you also have the account User:Universitytruth so I have to do a lot of shifting in my mind - not that that's a problem.)Non-vandal 13:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently leaning towards (A) myself, at least as an experiment. (One can always delete it if it seems it warrants being aborted.) It would be a good place for a number of individuals who get articles in the Encyclopedias of Philosophy, but who are not there named philosophers. It would be interesting to see that list develop. I know that one could say that it is 'artificial' to separate Hoelderlin from Hegel, Goethe from Gadamer (Dichtung und Wahrheit und Methode), etc. But still: the list is called what it is called, and per list rules, as well as truth in advertising, this list can only include philosophers. Another thought: all three options I've articulated -- (A), (B), and (C), above -- do make a distinction, and the same one, so I don't think that A would be any more or less artificial or demeaning or whatever than B or C would be.Anthony Krupp 18:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't option (A) be our current list with others added? If it is a separate list how are we to distinguish philosophers from people who influenced philosophy? In other words, how can you enumerate a list of individuals who influenced German language philosophy and not include the verified philosophers? I would think either (B) or (C) is preferable. Amerindianarts 18:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a good point. I guess a List of people who are not philosophers but who influenced German-language philosophy is perhaps not what we want. :) On the other hand, is it not possible to have another list that would function as an Appendix to this one? The introductory sentence to this list could point to that one, and vice versa. The one could be the Herr to the Knecht of the other, or whatever. It could be called Appendix to List of German-language philosophers or something. Maybe Non-vandal could say whether there is precedent for something like this on wikipedia. --Anthony Krupp 23:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think if the list were called "German-language philosophy," then we wouldn't have this issue. (Various people who are not called philosophers in Macmillan nonetheless have articles in Macmillan's Encyclopedia of Philosophy.) But what kind of structure would that list have? What would it be called? Maybe we can have a spinoff develop from these discussions and concerns.--Anthony Krupp 23:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

At first, renaming this article to "German-language philosophy" seemed like a good idea, but then "List of Individuals(/People) in German-language philosophy" sounds better, because the main subject here are the people involved within it, not the philosophy itself. After renaming, and following option (B) which seems most functional, the article's name to this, we can then divide the article into two major sections: "Philosophers" and "Major influences". So, what do you think about this? The "Philosophers" section will follow the admissions criteria we already have (and can still change), while the "Major influences" section can have something different altogether. For example, for the "Major influences" section we can have as criteria that such individuals must be listed as major contributors to (a branch of) philosophy by such and such means/methods or what have you. I think this is the best option at our disposal.Non-vandal 23:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Even better, I think it would be best to divide this into "Philosophers" and "Non-philosophers" instead, because "Major influences" obviously could include philosophers. Any better distinctions here are welcome.Non-vandal 02:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Having slept on it, I think it would not be a good idea to rename this article. After all, the three of us have worked quite hard on it, we seem to have good criteria for verifying dead philosophers, and we can start working on finding a good way to verify living ones. Also, the title (List of...Philosophers) and the contents match. I think this list could even be a model, in some ways, for other similar lists that have not yet developed criteria through discussion. Would anyone object to trying the idea of having a link to an Appendix: persons who influenced German-language philosophy at the top? Obviously, this second list would have to develop different criteria. That's why I think that they should be two linked lists. Currently, this would be my strongest preference. Thoughts?--Anthony Krupp 11:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

But why two lists? The topic is "German-language philosophy", there's no accountable reason to have separate lists other than "manageability" and even that isn't a good argument for them. I still think that having one article by renaming this one is our best option. It is no big deal that we've already worked on this article that so happens to be named such and such. Even after renaming the article the contents would still match. User:Amerindianarts has already raised a reasonable objection to option A - and I've made this new proposal that is similar to B and C. So, could you acceptably respond to this proposal seriously rather than reassert your previously stated predilection? It's not as though having two kinds of individuals could potentially damage the list's value, quite the opposite. And yes, we've come a long way thanks to this collaborative system we have here - let's not destroy it now - so in that sense this list may serve as a model, but only because few take an interest in such matters. I suggest we take advantage of this while we still can before silence leaves this list developmentally flawed.Non-vandal 18:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement in my post above was striked because I'm having misgivings about it. Mainly the alphabetical issue that deals with lists would inevitably conflict with a dual-list format - or so it seems. So maybe A is the best option after all. I'm not sure at this point, but my other thoughts above still deserve proper hearing.Non-vandal 19:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The alphabetic issue was on my mind as well. Another thing to consider: this List is the main article for the Category: German-language philosophers. Renaming this list will have implications on the category system as well. For that reason, I have misgivings about renaming this list. That brings me back again to the idea of having a separate list as an Appendix to this one. But maybe a list of a totally different structure would be called for. Like a text-based list, as opposed to a person-based one. Then one could have a list with texts like "Critique of Pure Reason," "Oldest System-Fragment," "Theory of Colors," etc., perhaps still arranged alphabetically by author. I'm not sure. Maybe this can help us deal with some of the concerns that several editors on this page have had. What do you all think of this?--Anthony Krupp 15:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the list is a good idea, but how to do it or what the title should be needs more input.Amerindianarts 23:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In regard to the addition of criteria #3, my point is that criteria #2 in and of itself might be too general. Professors of philosophy have been omitted from the list because they were not specifically referred to as "philosophers". Given the criteria states "at least one" there is still a consensus issue, I think, if criteria #2 can be considered sufficient in itself. You may have covered this in prior discussion-I haven't had time to read everything posted here, so if I'm off base let me know. Amerindianarts 00:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You're not off base at all. We've just been focusing on using criterion #1 for our first pass through the list of names, and it works well for long-dead philosophers and totally famous living ones. We do have to figure out something more reasonable for living philosophers. The current criterion #2 was my first suggestion, but it doesn't seem great. I'm not sure how to improve it, and would love to hear suggestions. Would listing in the Philosophers' Index be appropriate enough? Are there other such sources? Maybe the philosophers amongst us would have some idea.--Anthony Krupp 13:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What we might need here is a fuller fleshing out of both criteria to address the verbal (ie., "such and such says X was Y") issue, not just for #2. To do this, what may be further required is to eliminate the "at least one" element, and to develop two distinct meanings by which "philosopher" is being advanced within our criteria. Further thoughts might be useful here.Non-vandal 23:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I remember the Philosopher's Index, but it has been awhile. If I remember it was informative but I wasn't using it at the time for a list. I don't think you mean such publications as The Index to American Philosophers do you? That publication lists all current faculty members in philosophy depts. of universities in the US, but also indicates a broad definition of "philosopher". I have appeared in it at different times but I wouldn't refer to myself as a philosopher in the context we are needing. If there is, however, a similar publication for German philosophers, it might prove handy. Amerindianarts 13:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Metzler

I've just ordered this through interlibrary loan. Will be very helpful, I think.

Metzler Philosophen Lexikon: von den Vorsokratikern bis zu den Neuen Philosophen, 3rd ed., Bernd Lutz (Stuttgart: Metzler, 2003). ISBN: 3476019535

Non-vandal, can you set this up at the bottom of the page as note MPL3 or something (to not conflict with Macmillan, which we now have listed as M1, M2, etc.) --Anthony Krupp 16:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Done.Non-vandal 23:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There are several names R-Z which I could not verify in Macmillan 1973, but did not blank pending verification.Amerindianarts 20:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

On recent diverse modernisations

Francis Schonken recently made 8 edits to this page; I think 7 of them were good. But 1 of them was quite radical. In any case, this diff shows the last version he left us: [3]. I do assume good faith, but the product is simply ugly. I don't know another way to put it. Just look at the weird numbered/alphabetized reference system under References at the bottom of the article. I would also like to stress something, since Francis Schonken stated that he was making these changes based on the Talk page of the list guideline. I think that one should make changes based on (a) the list guideline itself (WP:LIST), and (b) the talk page of this article. What do other editors think? --Anthony Krupp 00:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• De gustibus et coloribus non disputandum
• The {{fn}}/{{fnb}} system is deprecated, see Wikipedia:Footnote2
• The new standard is ref-tags as explained at Wikipedia:Footnotes whether you like the layout that creates or not. --Francis Schonken 07:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I based on WP:LIST, what do you think? E.g. references for intro and for entries, as currently recommended by that guideline.

I only pointed out that some prior discussion regarding this list in particular had taken place at Wikipedia talk:List guideline, I'll detail here:

• Wikipedia talk:List guideline#A test case (and subsections)
• Wikipedia talk:List guideline#Lists and criteria for inclusion of list members (revisited)
• Wikipedia talk:List guideline#Statement of list membership criteria: two points (not specific about German-language philosophers, but philosophers in general are used as an example throughout this section)
• Wikipedia talk:List guideline#Organizational ideas (specific about the references used in the List of German-language philosophers)
• Wikipedia talk:List guideline#Question about section 2.2 (lead section) (philosophers used as example)

If you want I copy all of that to here. --Francis Schonken 07:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

1. At WP:FOOTNOTE, one can read this sentence: "So, tread lightly, and seek consensus first, before converting citation styles." Do you think you've sought consensus, Francis Schonken? Please do not avoid answering this question.
2. I read about the 'deprecation' and the "new standard" you mentioned. Thanks for those links. They do make clear that one can use either system, so there is no mandate that we must switch. (Thus please avoid the thuggish language of "whether you like it or not," since wikipedia does allow choice here.) I would argue that the system that results in the most user-friendly and good-looking article is the one we should use. Please feel free to invite others to look at this. I will also do so.
3. Thanks for clarifying what in particular you were referring to at List guideline talk. That makes more sense now. Again, I assume good faith, but think that you behaved in a unilateral manner here. Please seek WP:CONSENSUS before making such a huge change in the future.--Anthony Krupp 13:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. As I said above, I thought other edits were good. I should have waited to revert until I had time to reinstitute them, since I was only quibbling with the fn vs. ref system. Have begun to reintroduce several of FS's edits, including adding cats and converting blanking to fact tags. Have gotten to N, can't work more until much later today. If someone wants to pick up at the letter P, please do so! Meanwhile, let's discuss the relative virtues of the different reference/footnote systems that we are allowed to use.-Anthony Krupp 13:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A middle way

If I understand matters correctly, there is some disagreement on the reference style to use. I do not find the old {fn} style all that wonderful, but I find this particular application of the <ref> tag even worse. When you get it to notes labeled (3)(bj) something is deeply wrong; moreover, on my screen it requires horizontal scrolling even to see the list of note letters, which is definitely anathema.

What I believe would be better than either approach (as for many scholarly topics), is to simply adopt Harvard referencing here. The note references become self-descriptive, and all the issues of technical mismatches go away. So for example, we could have:

Thomas Abbt (1738–1766) (MacMillan)

Elsewhere—either at top or bottom (though I tend to prefer top in this case)—we would describe the reference in full, e.g.:

For more information on this philosopher and his/her contribution to philosophy, see his/her entry in MacMillan's Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd ed. (2006). ISBN 0-02-865780-2

There is a whole moderately complex system using {ref_harvard} that can turn all those refs into hotlinks, but if you have 45 links to the same reference, you wind up with that same "(MacMillon) a b... bj" type thing. Just naming the reference seems much clearer for this. LotLE×talk 15:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I could accept this. Francis Schonken, other editors: what say you?-Anthony Krupp 16:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ref tags are not the sole option as Francis Schonken states (like it or not). Ref tags and inline citation should work.Amerindianarts 16:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing the article and Schonken's edits, the page is ugly. Did he add names which are in need of citation, prescribing the need for citation himself? This makes little sense. I am in favor of blanking or removing names in need of verification.Amerindianarts 16:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm also in favor of removing names in need of verification. One might move them to the Talk page, to give others a chance to look for appropriate citations and then move them back to the list. I think that would be a friendly way to go. Although I plugged for blanking names a while back (when this page was seeing heavy, almost hourly, editing), I see the value meanwhile of using fact tags instead. They act as a goad for someone to either (a) verify the name, or (b) delete it. If they are blanked, then one can completely forget about them (as I have for a while now). Short version of long answer: shall we move unsourced names to Talk page?--Anthony Krupp 19:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You might also consider using the {specify} tag rather than {fact}. It is a bit less obtrusive, and it is good for facts that an editor does not really think are untrue, but that simply need... well specification of a citation. See Template:Fact for some discussion of related tags. LotLE×talk 19:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This is good. They could also be blanked so that those ignoring the talk page could see the current situation of the entry if they try to add it. Amerindianarts 19:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It is too bad that the {fn} style has been deprecated, but that is not the same as obsolete. It works for this type of list with only a few references. The {fn} style has a replacement, with the use of <ref name=?></ref> Amerindianarts 16:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's useful for this type of page.--Anthony Krupp 19:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If the Harvard style is to be retained its editor should correct the numerous spelling errors. Amerindianarts 21:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I caught the Macmillon-->Macmillan. Are there others?--Anthony Krupp 22:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So sorry. It turns out that "replace all" can make one spelling error/typo much worse :-(. Thanks for fixing it. LotLE×talk 04:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I had another question: since we have the birth and death dates in parentheses, is there an acceptable way to have the Harvard refs in a different font or something? And with a space between the close parenthesis of the date and the open parenthesis of the reference? I fear doing it myself, lest a punctilious editor revert 45 minutes of my good faith labor again.--Anthony Krupp 22:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As amends for my typo, I'll do that right now, hopefully with a better job of automation. LotLE×talk 04:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, added the space. What would you want for typography? For Template:Ref_harv, we setup a superscript for the reference name. I don't really like the look of that myself:

Thomas Abbt (1738–1766) ^(MacMillan)

But I'll happily make whatever typographic change the editors here prefer. Maybe just itals for the ref. How does this look?

Thomas Abbt (1738–1766) (MacMillan)

Or maybe this:

Thomas Abbt (1738–1766) [MacMillan]

Just let me know. LotLE×talk 04:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, Lulu. This is very helpful. I don't mind the superscript myself, but the italics would offset the reference nicely as well. I suppose that would be my choice if anyone at all didn't like the superscript, and you don't, so there's my vote. What do other editors think?-Anthony Krupp 12:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I might not mind them for this one-per-line list. I find them distracting where they occur in the middle of paragraph text, especially since it often makes line heights uneven, depending on whether a line does or does not have a citation in it (it depends on web browser, default font, screen resolution, and so on as well). Absent any contrary opinion, I'll add the itals tonight or tomorrow morning. LotLE×talk 14:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Superscript in the text has its shortcomings, but footnoting is necessary and often essential and its effect on line height is a necessary evil. However, for a list format such as this I think the Harvard style is preferable, saving superscript notation for instances such as the Goethe entry. Amerindianarts 17:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Harvard italics it is, then. Great! And thanks!--Anthony Krupp 18:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I only just now read the above conversion and didn't realize what you were referring to as superscript. I was thinking numerical but obviously you meant, e.g. ":Thomas Abbt (1738–1766) ^(MacMillan)'. Yes, This is cumbersome and distractive. Harvard italics, then. Amerindianarts 19:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Another typographic/list question: is it required to have bullet points? If not, I'd prefer to just indent with : instead of with *. -Anthony Krupp 12:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the simple indent, sans bullets; but it feels like most editors don't share my parsimony (of course, each article has its own set of editors, and makes somewhat different decisions). LotLE×talk 14:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I also prefer the simple indent, sans bullets. If you have some easily automated way of doing that, please do so as well. Otherwise, I'll get to it in the next few days and do it manually. Thanks, --Anthony Krupp 18:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Are they philosophers?

The following are names of people who might be German-language philosophers. Any editor who checks a reliable reference to verify that this is the case should feel free to add the name to the List with an appropriate reference. Please note that names added without references will be either tagged or removed. Please note that the existence of an article about a particular person in Routledge, Metzler, etc. is not enough to justify inclusion on this List. Rather, the article should state that the person is a philosopher. For example, Macmillan has an article on Lessing, but the article explicitly refers to him as a dramatist and critic; it never refers to him as a philosopher. For that reason, his name is not on this List.

Jacob Friedrich von Abel (1751-1829)

Johann Heinrich Abicht (1762-1816)

Hans Albert (1921–)

Georg Anton Friedrich Ast (1778-1841)

Karl Friedrich Bahrdt (1741–1792)

Rudolf Bahro (1935–1997)

Christoph Gottfried Bardili (1761-1808)

Karl Barth (1886–1968)

Bruno Bauer (1809–1882)

Ansgar Beckermann (1945–)

Eduard Bernstein (1850–1932)

Ludwig Binswanger (1881–1966)

Jakob Böhme (1574–1624)

Martin Buber (1878–1965)

Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus (1796-1862)

Hans Adolf Eduard Driesch (1867–1941)

Meister Eckhart (ca. 1260–1327/1328)

Norbert Elias (1897–1990)

Frederick Engels (1820–1895)

Immanuel Hermann Fichte (1797-1879)

Jean Gebser (1905–1973)

Kurt Gödel (1906–1978)

Gotthard Günther (1900–1984)

Johann Georg Hamann (1730-1788)

Moses Heß (1812–1875)

Dietrich von Hildebrand (1889–1977)

Hermann Friedrich Wilhelm Hinrichs

Otfried Höffe (1943–)

Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835)

Carl Gustav Jung (1875–1961)

Karl Kautsky (1854–1938)

Hans Kelsen (1881–1973)

Wilhelm Traugott Krug (1770-1842)

Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729–1781)

Paul Lorenzen (1915–1994)

Niklas Luhmann (1927–1998)

Rosa Luxemburg (1870/1871–1919)

Karl Mannheim (1893–1947)

Anton Marty (1847–1914)(Macmillan2)

Reinhart Maurer (1935-)

Alexius Meinong (1853–1920)

Jürgen Mittelstraß (1936–)

Christian Friedrich Nicolai (1733–1811)

Arnold Ruge (1802–1880)

Lou Andreas Salomé (1861–1937)

Friedrich Karl von Savigny (1779-1861)

Hubert Schleichert

Friedrich Ernst Daniel Schleiermacher (1768–1834)

Alfred Schütz (1899–1959)

Heinrich Christoph Wilhelm Sigwart (1789–1844)

Georg Simmel

Alfred Sohn-Rethel (1899–1990)

Oswald Spengler (1880–1936)

David Friedrich Strauß (1808-1874)

Leo Strauss (1899–1973)

Jacob Taubes

Johannes Tauler (ca. 1300–1361)

Gustav Teichmüller (1832–1888)

Ernst Tugendhat (1930–)

Eric Voegelin

Otto Weininger (1880 – 1903)

Wilhelm Weischedel

Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker

How to cite

Looking through the list of the above "need citation" names, a lot of them really jump out as "no shit" names. I'm not disagreeing with the need for citation, but I'm a little unsure exactly what best to use as citation. For example, someone like Simmel or Salome are sort of at the edges of philosophy. Probably we can find a reputable source that says "X is a philosopher who...", and that helps clarify.

But others, like Sloterdijk (whom I just moved back to the list with a citation), or Leo Strauss or Sohn-Rethel would be hard to call much other than philosophers (e.g. they're not sociologists who "sort of do philosophy", like Weber, Simmel, Mannheim). For a lot of those "no shit" philosophers, I have read many books with "Philosophy" on the cover that put the thinker in its bibliography. On the other hand, citing some specific secondary philosophy text that happens to discuss <whoever> feels like an awkward style of reference.

Maybe I don't really have a specific question here. Just a vague, "What do y'all think?" LotLE×talk 03:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's just say we had a month of intensive discussion (all on the page above) about this very topic. Where we landed was in agreement that one must cite a reference work (at least this seems to work for dead philosophers; living ones are harder for us to know how to verify) stating that person X was a philosopher. So far, we've gone through Metzler, or started to (I still have to go through volumes from N-Z, I think, so that might already take care of the 'no shit' names.) Meanwhile, Routledge and Oxford and others could also be thumbed through. Given how busy I've become with classes starting, I'll be working on this, but it's going to be slow. But we want to comply with WP:VER in a strict way. Or at least that's the point of agreement we reached this summer. Good job catching the Sloterdijk, BTW. Cheers,-Anthony Krupp 12:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the above thread, but thought one of the editors might (as you have, to an extent) provide the "quick synthesis". You like the Goethe-Insitut, right? It's online so easier: if I can find a mention by them on other above names, that's not subject to complaint, is it? (Obviously, presuming the articles says "A philosopher"). LotLE×talk 14:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Internet resources

These are mentioned at the Goethe institute but confirmed as philosophers elsewhere. SO, what internet sources shall we consider as reputable?

• Günther Anders-verified at (http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/anders.htm)
• Theunissen, Michael-(http://www.radicalphilosophy.com/default.asp?channel_id=2188&editorial_id=10290), googling this German writer produces some respectable results. Amerindianarts 18:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If Goethe-Institut supports these, I'd give a footnote that lists both sources. But these sources look good to me. LotLE×talk 21:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to say generally that I'm happy with these recent developments. Macmillan etc. is great for dead guys, but living philosophers have been almost non-existent on the List. Looking good, you all. Thanks! --Anthony Krupp 22:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

References dispute

Y'know, somebody could've just "called" me to check the references with more scrutiny. It took me less than a day to do it for ya. KSchutte 22:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Small Text

Tugendhat

Excuse me, but this reference thing is a bit nonsensical? Do we need Radical Philosophy (a good marxist journal, but not in any! german library last time I checked) to tell us Theunissen who taught since the 60s or 70s, and was (with Tugendhat) the leading philosopher in Berlin for 20 years is a philosopher? I just added Tugendhat, see his wikipedia entry. Tugendhat is now a, or even the leading german analytical philosopher, although there are Stegmüller, von Kutschera and many more. Dieter Henrich was very important (Kant, theories of self+ consciousness). Blumenberg (history of philosophy, frühe Neuzeit). Important earlier 20th century philosophers (a lot of them if not all now with entries in the german wikipedia): Josef König (very original thinker, but very serious philosopher), Bruno Liebrucks (politically "problematic", but important on Hegel, language, Kant), Erich Heintel (from Vienna, on Hegel, german idealism, language), Heimsoeth, like Heintel a very important historian of philosophy, also the leading commentator on Kant, Julius Ebbinghaus (also very important on Kant). the leading Nazi philosopher was Alfred Bäumler. Arnold Gehlen started out as a nazi sympathiser, but later unquestionably the most important guy in phil. anthropology. Nearly all the guys in the 40 years old 3 volume Meiner paperback thing Deutsche Philosophie in Selbstdarstellungen (from the 70s?) were very important then. An interesting analytical philosopher now is Hrachovec (has a large website) from Vienna (Frege, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, film). If somebody teaches philosophy for 20 or 30 years at a (german) university, esp. at places like Berlin, Frankfurt, Köln, Münster, Heidelberg, Freiburg, München (Wien in Austria), but sometimes also at Bochum, he is a philosopher (if not necessarily an interesting thinker) --Radh (talk) 06:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)