Talk:List of German-language philosophers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
List	This article has been rated as list-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Criteria for inclusion of philosophers 1.1 Discussion of criteria 2 Request Comment: How to determine who is a philosopher 3 Discussion copied from other pages 3.1 Goethe 3.2 Schiller, ok: why Goethe? 3.3 German philosophers, German-language philosophers, or writers of German-language philosophy 3.4 Goethe as philosopher 4 Discussion proper to this version of this page 4.1 early July 06 4.2 Call for Discussion (and Sources) regarding Goethe 4.2.1 Sources 4.3 Call for Discussion regarding this List 4.4 Another idea 4.5 For further consideration 4.6 When adding new articles to the list 4.7 Developing List of German-language philosophers (some from user talk page) 4.8 Quoted from WP:LIST: 4.8.1 Always include list membership criteria 4.8.2 Set clear, neutral, and unambiguous criteria 4.9 Gebser, and discussion 4.10 Proposal for inclusion/exclusion criteria 4.10.1 DRAFT ONE 4.10.1.1 Discussion one 4.10.2 DRAFT TWO 4.10.2.1 Discussion two 4.10.3 DRAFT THREE 4.10.3.1 Discussion three 5 One way to mark as contentious without deleting 6 Citations verifying candidates 7 Potential Criterion Conflict 8 It's possible to take WP:VER too far 9 The Show Goes On 10 Goethe again 11 Criteria again 12 Metzler 13 On recent diverse modernisations 13.1 A middle way 14 Are they philosophers? 14.1 How to cite 15 Internet resources 16 References dispute

[edit] Criteria for inclusion of philosophers

This list currently contains the names of individuals who wrote philosophical texts in the German-language; they are listed in alphabetical order according to surname. Many are categorized as German philosophers or Austrian philosophers, but some are neither German nor Austrian by ethnicity or nationality. Each one, however, satisfies at least one of the following criteria:

1. s/he has been identified as a philosopher in any reputable, reliable encylopedic/scholarly publication (encyclopedic material can include: MacMillan, Stanford, Routledge, Oxford, Metzler, etc.)
2. s/he has authored multiple articles published in reputable, reliable journals of philosophy and/or written books that were reviewed in such journals.

In the case of controversy, discussion among editors and consensus is encouraged. Opinions can be sought at Wikiproject Philosophy.

[edit] Discussion of criteria

I thought we were trying out the criteria sticking to encyclopedic sources, which give a much better chance of our identifying some kind of group consensus on who is/is not a philosopher. Given the recent inclusion of a name not verified by such sources, I fear that the criteria above no longer describe the actual list. We should either make the list fit the criteria (i.e., remove or blank names not verified by encyclopedic sources), or make the criteria fit the list. I would prefer the former, since we've not even finished with Macmillan, nor gotten much into Routledge, or even Meztler. But in the interest of creating a rationale for the latter choice, I'm wondering whether the criteria should read as follows:

1. s/he has been identified as a philosopher in any reputable, reliable scholarly publication, e.g., MacMillan, Stanford, Routledge, Oxford, Metzler, Robertson (1912), Glimm on von Neumann
2. s/he has authored multiple articles published in reputable, reliable journals of philosophy and/or written books that were reviewed in such journals.

Ok, you get the ironic tone, right? More seriously then, the criteria describing who is in the current list seem to be more as follows:

1. s/he has been identified as a philosopher in any reputable, reliable scholarly publication
2. s/he has authored multiple articles published in reputable, reliable journals of philosophy and/or written books that were reviewed in such journals.

And I'm not even sure about reputable or reliable anymore. Well, comments?Anthony Krupp 14:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I can doubly understand the sense of unease with my sudden addition of "scholarly" to criterion 1, but I think it was in good order, as a primary case, to settle the extent of what is available sourcing. "Reputable" and "reliable" are directly linked to the two policies of Wikipedia, and as far as they state, any such "scholarly" sources (those that are not "encyclopedic") fit the terms. And I additionally never thought it feasible let alone right that we should dismiss the thousands of potential sources available. WP:NPOV is a decisive factor here, and there's no reason to put precedence over "encyclopedic" material (which has its own limitations) versus more open-ended "scholarly" ones. So, I strongly disagree with the rationale that would say that the criteria do not accurately describe the list's current state; my addition of "/scholarly" brought it closer to a NPOV and non-biased form. It should also be mentioned that any source that legitimately meets any of the criteria goes before any "consensual" objections against said material (because that would be a biased view). So, any thoughts?Non-vandal 00:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

By "group consensus", I didn't mean consensus among us, although I understand that I was unclear (sorry about that). I meant consensus among philosophers, and editors of philosophers. The reason I prefer the encyclopedic sources for a list like this has to do with this sentence from WP:VER: "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed." And you don't get more peer-reviewed than the construction of an encyclopedia like Macmillan, etc. Journals are another possibility, of course, and books published by scholarly presses (vs. trade ones) also have some peer review, these days usually involving two readers' reports as well as the report of the press editor or series editor. That is, there is more fact-checking with the encyclopedias, then with articles and books published in scholarly journals or with scholarly presses.

In a nutshell, then, you're right to point out that we can't limit the criteria for inclusion to encyclopedias. But we should remain oriented towards publications that are peer-reviewed.Anthony Krupp 13:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Criteria #2. This criteria can include just about any faculty member (professor, assistant, or associate) in a philosophy department at just about any university. Publication is essential for a position and tenure.Amerindianarts 18:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request Comment: How to determine who is a philosopher

This is a dispute about whether Goethe was a philosopher (vs. "a great thinker" or "an intellectual"). See discussion below from several editors. 07:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

(I deleted the redundant parenthetical in this section's title since your statement is sufficient; section titles should be as brief as possible.) I like those criteria you derived from the German-language wiki, and so far we have established well that Goethe fits #3, but some still do not think #1. Would there be any problems with him satisfying only #3? I ask because his influence upon other philosophers in this regard is incredibly significant, and if he were included only on the basis of #3, I would not think it would be determined as WP:OR. This is not to say he doesn't satisfy #1; it is only a "what if".Non-vandal 19:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment; the criteria are still up for discussion, though. I think we should specify those first, then see how this affects various names on the list. And I'm still hoping/waiting for other editors to drop by to add input. Cheers,Universitytruth 18:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion copied from other pages

[edit] Goethe

I'm generally an inclusionist, but the recent inclusion of Schiller and Goethe leads me to ask: why Goethe? (Schiller as philosopher: fine with me.) But on the basis of what texts by Goethe would he be included in this list? I won't remove him, but wanted to ask. Universitytruth 22:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, if we include Goethe, then I think we should rename the list entirely, as well as the first sentence. Instead of "The following is a list of philosophers who wrote in the German language," it would have to read "The following is a list of people who wrote philosophy in the German language." But this is all predicated on someone listing a text by Goethe that would count as philosophy by some reasonable standard. Universitytruth 23:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The introduction to Goethe's Theory of Colours is a contribution to the philosophy of science. This is documented in the late Princeton philosopher Walter Kaufmann's book Goethe, Kant and Hegel. — goethean ॐ 15:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Still, to think of Goethe as a philosopher without further ado doesn't seem right. I'm going to change the opening sentence to "The following is a list of people who wrote philosophy in the German language." Then I have no problem with Goethe being there. Universitytruth 16:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference between a philosopher and someone who writes philosophy? — goethean ॐ 16:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Retroactive social construction. That is, a philosopher is whoever most people think a philosopher is, which is why they might come to one kind of list rather than another. If you want to regard Goethe as a philosopher and Schopenhauer as a writer, fine with me, but I'm not sure how helpful wikipedia lists are going to be if we become completely inclusionistic. Does that make sense? Further discussion always welcome. Universitytruth 17:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose another answer is that a writer is someone who writes (including the occasional introduction that might count as belonging to the philosophy of science), whereas a philosopher is someone who philosophizes. Don't get me wrong: Goethe had a huge influence on many fields in the humanities (and medical sciences, and and and...). But to the extent that he belongs in any list (or, one might argue to absurdity, in every list; or something in-between, which I guess we're trying to figure out), it seems to me that he counts first and foremost as a writer. Does that seem controversial to you? Universitytruth 17:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, neglected to mention that I've redirected the previous list to List of Writers of German-language philosophy. Universitytruth 17:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That seems a bit hasty. You could have just put a little note by Goethe indicating that he is primarily known as a literary figure. I would have let User:igni speak before taking drastic measures. I personally find that Anglo-American academics are accustomed to thinking of academic disciplines as eternally static categories. Was there such solid distinctions in the year 1800 in Germany? — goethean ॐ 17:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind a reversion at all, and think your suggestion to add a note is fine; feel free to do that. Is it necessary to also insult me and a class of people in the process? Universitytruth

(replied on usertalk) — goethean ॐ 18:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I agree, of course, that distinctions around 1800 were not what they are today. I am also a fan of Herder, Goethe, and Karl Philipp Moritz -- that is, those types around 1800 who fit the least comfortably in any pigeonhole. My concerns about Goethe's inclusion on this particular list have nothing to do with how I view 1800, but have to do with how 21st-century wikipedians search for information. That is, while you're correct to ask about distinctions around 1800, I would suggest that wikipedia exists for 21st-century users, and should be user-friendly to them. Universitytruth 19:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schiller, ok: why Goethe?

User Goethean has provided a defense for keeping Goethe in the list, so I redirected the list to a new page, as per talk. Same user then chided me for doing so before waiting to hear from you. I don't mind reverting at all, if a note is added about Goethe being known primarily as a writer rather than as a philosopher. Am open to discussion, as always. Universitytruth

I've left the statement regarding my position on the matter at Goethean's talk page. Essentially, I don't really think a renaming of the list is even necessary; however, like the page shows, it could use more information as concerns context. — ^ignis _scripta 22:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. In fact, here is a precedent that I just participated in. — goethean ॐ 17:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German philosophers, German-language philosophers, or writers of German-language philosophy

Greetings,

Please see my comments on relevant talk pages. Meanwhile, I would ask that you look at this important writer, and consider the grounds for including vs. excluding him on this list (or in this category, should the list be deleted): Salomon Maimon. Thanks! Universitytruth 20:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest looking at Maimon's article, the bottommost part of which indicates he is already included in the category German philosophers. Please view German philosophers for further details. — ^ignis _scripta 22:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goethe as philosopher

Within the realm of evaluative considerations, we oughtn't to be hasty to give too much regard for the user by way of "friendliness" for the mere sake of not incurring any skirmishes in categories; how these categories are in fact tractable and malleable to the contingencies of the eras and placement in which they breathed must be given attention, but these issues must not be subjected to normative modes for those in the 21st century alone—this would in actuality be against Wikipedia's aims to be as informative as much as possible. My reasoning behind Goethe not as philosopher but who was a philosopher is grounded in the contextuality in which he lived, and those that would disregard this simply by way of contemporary conventionality I find to be fundamentally absurd, and they over simplify a matter that scarely lends itself to such an infringement. In short, there is no reason to find Goethe as philosopher nor as non-philosopher—he in essence was a philosopher, and this, brought to us by historicity, cannot be denied, excepting only whilst one ignores the time in which he lived. — ^ignis _scripta 22:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Goethean, if I may address this on a much more basic level, under what circumstances would List of Writers of German-language philosophy even be considerable as a necessary functionary within the Wikipedia dynamic? True, there is already Category:German philosophers—and thus it would appear this blanched list is an exiguous, and altogether superfluous, article—therefore, haven't we obliquely discussed a non-issue undeserving of our attention? Perhaps what ought to be conditioned within the fore of our minds is the list's unreserved deletion; although it could be said that it does well to make matters simpler by way of presentation, I do not find it to be so when the identical category serves as a direct implicative construct for whatever particular article to which it may relate—in other words, the category suits its inferred purpose more than the list does its own whilst their dimensions are thus contrasted. The first step, in rhythm with my proposition, would be to categorise those philosophers—who haven't already as shown in the list—within their respective articles, after which we may go about blotting the list from Wikipedia's memory completely. Do you find this in good order? — ^ignis _scripta 16:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Goethean, see the following on the talk page of the List in question. (I hadn't seen igni's cogitations until now, on your talk page.)

Oh, I see: you meant Category:German philosophers (in the plural). Still, it's not an entire duplication. Your own beloved Goethe, as well as others I've added recently, are not represented there. Also, since that's a list of German philosophers, as opposed to writers of German-language philosophy, there is in fact potential non-overlap between this list and that category. Which makes this list useful, I think. What do you think? Universitytruth 20:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Goethean, that Universitytruth has been misguided in a few particulars regarding this issue, hence his statement "Goethe... are [sic] not represented there [i.e., the category 'German philosophers']", which is entirely untrue and his deletion of the deletion template, which I replaced with the appropriate link to the category, from the list: these are the general features of this misunderstanding (which is in part elucidated by the confused nature of this discussion that is now spread fourfold: here, my talk, original list's talk, and renamed list's talk). In any case, within the category itself I have specified it refers to those philosophers of the German language, so there will be no need to make a new category or to do anything unnecessarily drastic (and we can assume those of German ethnicity—and I don't think the category implied ethnicity anyway—were, for the most part, writers/philosophers of the German language). Be that as it may, we shall eventually see how things flow in this digital hourglass, and the sands will most probably follow the predetermined inclinations with no ado as I had outlined in my previous post above. — ^ignis _scripta 22:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding my supposedly misguided 'deletion of the deletion template': it was a dated prod. The prod clearly stated this: "You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason." Since the prod said I was allowed to remove the message if I improved the article, I did so. But despite the fact that the prod also said "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced," igni replaced it. I would encourage igni (and all of us) to follow wikipedia's guidance where it is available, and especially where it is so clear. Not following guidance is misguided. Universitytruth 17:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "not following guidance is misguided": try reading WP:IAR. Guidance is only guidance - it can be ignored according to circumstances. And I think igni saw it foolhardy, at the time, to keep this list.Non-vandal 15:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion proper to this version of this page

[edit] early July 06

Oh, I see: you meant Category:German philosophers (in the plural). Still, it's not an entire duplication. Your own beloved Goethe, as well as others I've added recently, are not represented there. Also, since that's a list of German philosophers, as opposed to writers of German-language philosophy, there is in fact potential non-overlap between this list and that category. Which makes this list useful, I think. What do you think? Universitytruth 20:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an open call for discussion: should this page be renamed to something like "List of German-language philosophers"? This might be less awkward than the current List name. It still leaves for dispute what is/is not a philosopher, and who is/is not a philosopher, but that can be discussed and debated rationally by editors over time. What do others think? Universitytruth 14:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on recent discussions regarding the category (not the list) of German philosophers, in which users have pointed out that the category is by nationality (rather than ethnicity), I have followed an excellent suggestion there and created a new category, philosophers by language. I have also now included this list in that category, rather than in the category philosophers by nationality. Universitytruth 20:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Call for Discussion (and Sources) regarding Goethe

Wikipedia's article on Goethe begins with unsourced claims that Goethe was "a philosopher." I read through the article to see if any evidence would be listed to support this assertion. The closest thing I found, far into the article itself, is this sentence: "His non-fiction writings, most of which are philosophic and aphoristic in nature, spurred on the development of many philosophers, such as G.W.F. Hegel, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ernst Cassirer, Rudolf Steiner, and others, and of various literary movements, such as romanticism." Please read this sentence carefully. It claims that Goethe influenced some philosophers, not that Goethe was a philosopher. It vaguely characterizes his non-fiction writings as philosophic, but doesn't name any of these works or explain this claim. My great concern here is that the article itself, and now two or three wikipedia editors, have stated "Goethe was a philosopher" and rested on that. If one can say that, why can one not then say "George W. Bush is a philosopher"? Certainly, the latter claim is more glaringly objectionable than the former one. But I am troubled that some editors think is sufficient to state "X was a philosopher" without providing reasons or evidence. That is dogmatic and very unphilosophical. I would be very interested in hearing reasons to include Goethe on this list. Universitytruth 12:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As we discuss this matter, I would urge that we carefully distinguish between the claims "I like Goethe/think he was a thought-provoking writer" and "Goethe was a philosopher." My expression of doubt regarding the second point has nothing to do with the first one. I myself like Goethe, find him interesting, teach his works, and plan to write about him. Universitytruth 13:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, answering your request, I'll throw in my two cents, whatever their worth. To me it doesn't look like this is a simple confusion of "I like"="he's a philosopher" or anything that idiotic. If you read the claim in the opening sentence of the article it says plainly Goethe was a philosopher. Okay, this is fine and all. But the real thing is, as can be seen according to some of the more recent scholars (Nisbet et al.), Goethe's findings in his scientific studies cannot be so simply classified as having a sole bearing upon scientific matters (not only historically speaking). His approach is extremely artistic (ie., aesthetic) and scientific (ie., for him, neo-platonic, empirical, rationalistic), so clearly saying he has philosopher's qualities is not so far off. Not to mention in that time there was such a thing as a Naturphilosophie, a kind of "pre-science" in (what we now call) Germany. And in some key ways he has notable originality in his approaches (the previously mentioned "artistic", etc.) in the fields he participated - which is not too surprising. That's about one cent I can toss in to the well. I guess this lends rather decisive support to the other editors' claims.Non-vandal 14:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right that the article says (plainly, even) that Goethe was a philosopher. But that doesn't mean that it was so. Who regards Goethe as a philosopher (beyond a few wikipedia editors)? That's my question. The one bit of evidence anyone has given so far refers to Walter Kaufmann, who said that the preface to one text by Goethe is considered a contribution to the philosophy of science. Again, that is not the same as Kaufmann calling Goethe a philosopher. See the distinction? Universitytruth 15:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Per my comment below: that Kaufmann said Goethe contributed (legitimately) to the philosophy of science does thereby associate him with philosophy, but I don't have Kaufmann's direct account at hand, so I can't be so sure of his wording. Even so, I don't think the other editors are so misguided: it is not typically noted Goethe was a philosopher (speaking very generally; and this does not necessarily detract from Goethe's status as being a philosopher) but there are some developments that suggest this tide is shifting to give new insights into Goethe's philosophical endeavors (and I think it is solid ground). Consensus is also a strong indication (so far) that Goethe should be included, not to repeat what I've already noted above.Non-vandal 16:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Non-vandal, you say that "it is not typically noted Goethe was a philosopher... but..." You also stated that wikipedia is a tertiary source. That is, no WP:OR. We can't make Goethe a philosopher because "it is given to us by historicity" as per an argument above. My question is what we can legitimately refer to to make Goethe a philosopher. Universitytruth 17:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what I've addressed, and I would assume that igni's argument (which you allude to here) had yet to be elaborated - which means I agree with it. Anyway, like I said, I'll compile some kind of a list to show you these users and I aren't blowing hot air.Non-vandal 17:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You have already been given a reason and citation. The fact that you need to resort to setting up straw men and false analogies only makes my point for me. — goethean ॐ 14:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You are so far the only editor who has given a reason to include Goethe, and I have not denied that. Whether it is a sufficient reason is another question. And a discussion page is meant for discussion, so you should make your own points for yourself, rather than claiming that anything another user does makes your own point for you. Universitytruth 15:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have given one citation to a secondary source for my argument. How many citations have you given for your argument? — goethean ॐ 16:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that Goethean is correct on this point and it only adds to the merit of Goethe's inclusion.Non-vandal 16:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not given citations that Goethe was not a philosopher. I have also not given citations that G.W.Bush is not a philosopher. The burden of evidence for inclusion in a list, it seems to me, has to be on the person who wants to include someone in a list. Thus I have to refute Non-vandal's conclusion directly above. Universitytruth 17:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please excuse me for not being clear here. My implication wasn't such that because you gave no cited objection that Goethean's point "becomes stronger". Actually, I was merely stating that the case as such is this: merit for Goethe's inclusion had been given long ago, and so the idea there was none wasn't all too true. Hopefully I won't allow myself such pitfalls of ambiguity again. Anyway, until next time!Non-vandal 18:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are some fun links:[1][2] — goethean ॐ 16:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I've raised a number of points on this page, several in response to you and to the evidence you've provided so far. See above. Feel free to discuss these points with me and other editors. Universitytruth 15:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Who considers Goethe as a philosopher??? The editors of McMillan's Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and that is good enough for me. He was a great thinker, widely quoted and an influence on later German philosophers. Amerindianarts 16:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems clear that philosophers do not regard Goethe as a philosopher. There is no entry for him in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. In the Columbia encyclopedia he is identified as a "poet, dramatist, novelist, and scientist". I have never seen any member of a philosophy department identify him/herself as a specialist in Goethe. Until evidence to the contrary is produced, I think the presumption must be that he is not to be counted as a philosopher. Dark Formal 16:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the fact I think you put your message in the wrong section (it would be more fitting in the one above), I don't think this is a genuine disavowal. Who are the philosophers that did not regard Goethe as a philosopher? Not everyone, surely. (This isn't even close to validated by these [questionable] on-line resources.) And mere specialty in Goethe isn't a real objection either, especially when taking into account Goethe's thoughts on "specializing" (which he rejects on some very fundamental points, it appears: he was against any systematizing of his ideas, for example). So, Goethe's merit to this list still stands quite firmly, or so it seems to me.Non-vandal 16:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

(OK, I've moved it, and this response --DF) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dark Formal (talk • contribs) 17:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The sources cited so far for Goethe being a philosopher are apologetic and equivocal. "Or we might put it another way, and say that Goethe was a philosopher who expressed adherence to no system of philosophy.."; "Yet Goethe was a philosopher in perhaps the most significant sense of the word..." It is clear from their tone that these writers know that Goethe is generally NOT regarded as a philosopher. If you cherry-pick from Google search results of course you can find a few people who say almost anything. Here: Charlie Brown is a philosopher. James Joyce is a philosopher. I'm waiting for evidence that weighs more than a feather. Dark Formal 17:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That is blatantly false (that there's no evidence): my first statement in this section indicates scholars view him as a philosopher. User:Amerindianarts provides another. To what "weight" do you refer? And those sources Goethean cited are worthwhile, too. Your analogies of Charlie Brown and James Joyce are just that, and hardly relate to this particular case that is much more complex historically and circumstancially.Non-vandal 17:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

About the sources [sic] goethean cites (Kaufman on the Theory of Colors): I don't have that book either, but would ask you to look at wiki's article on theory of colors. Where's the mention of philosophy? Again, in case this isn't clear: I'm not on a rampage to get rid of Goethe; I would just like to see evidence for his reasonably being included in this list. And I'm still waiting for it as well. (Amerindianarts's citation of an encylopedia is getting there.) Universitytruth 17:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The incompleteness of an article is always there, you cannot base these circumstances on some poorly written articles (they aren't even WP:FA yet!). If you aren't satisfied, then what you might be looking for is more views of those who have yet to discuss here. I can only state what I think on this, and I find it reasonable for Goethe to be listed.Non-vandal 17:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Good points, all. I appreciate your involvement in this discussion. Will check back later. Cheers, Universitytruth 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Non-vandal, you say that "my first statement in this section indicates scholars view him as a philosopher." I assume you mean the phrase "(Nisbet et al.)." I think it would be helpful for the discussion if you could mention a book or article title by Nisbet as well as by the others you allude to. Also, I think you're jumping the gun ciricizing Dark Formal, who has given citations to actual publications in philosophy fora. Universitytruth 17:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what kind of bibliography I can compile - it might be rather large, but I also suggest Weimar Classicism be kept in mind here (which has some relevant secondary sources listed there). As for DF, I may have jumped the gun, but I hardly find it adequate to cite a lack as a genuine and accurate declination of Goethe's status as being a philosopher.Non-vandal 17:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Unlike the English page, the German Wikipedia page on Goethe does not list him as being a philospher. But it does describe him as a Kunsttheoretiker, that is, an art theorist, or a theorist in aesthetics. — goethean ॐ 17:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I find this extremely relevant, Goethean, but like I said above, an article's constitution should not mislead us here in determining accurately whether or not Goethe was a philosopher of some sort. And aesthetics is, of course, a branch of philosophy.Non-vandal 18:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a reason the German wikipedia does not list Goethe as a philosopher. I would also agree with user:goethean that he can be considered a Kunsttheoretiker. And since wikipedia has this article, List of aestheticians, I think one could add Goethe there without much compunction. But I also agree with User:non-vandal that we can't rely on wikipedia articles to base our judgements on emerging wikipedia articles. Universitytruth 18:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at some authoritative sources:

• The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an article on Goethe, which states explicitly that Goethe "was not himself a philosopher".
• The "Macmillan" Encyclopedia of Philosophy, cited by some contributors here, does indeed have an article on Goethe, which makes it clear that he regarded himself as an intellectual but not a philosopher: "Although Goethe was not a systematic philosopher, and even asserted that philosophy only ruined him for poetry, he was aware of the philosophical and scientific tendencies and controversies of his time, and while he admitted his 'lack of a proper organ for philosophy', he did not hesitate to express himself on numerous philosophical and scientific questions."
• The Oxford Companion to Philosophy describes Goethe as a "German poet and thinker"
• The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy calls him a "German man of letters".

When reading these and other such references, note that they invariably identify philosophers as such. For Goethe it is noticeable that they always use other descriptions. Dark Formal 01:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

These can only be taken with a grain of salt: online sources aren't paper literature. And plus they're encyclopedias/summaries: they only have so much room to describe a subject and it is not always clear they follow a subject thoroughly. The only one I find quite competent is the "Macmillan" citation, but it underscores (ie., doesn't address) that Goethe described himself as one with a high instinct for philosophy... so he doesn't dismiss himself obviously. (It also confused that Goethe did not say "philosophy only ruined him for poetry": that was Shiller's statement about Kant. Another important point: Shiller & Goethe in their endeavors are extremely interrelated, so it only adds to Goethe's status as philosopher.) Again, give me time and I'll have a host of citations to put most of these encyclopedias/summaries to shame. Oh, additionally, Category:Philosophers has some principles of inclusion (found here), which User:Universitytruth got from the German-language version of it: in my opinion (which will be further vindicated), he is classifiable as a philosopher.Non-vandal 02:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, Non-vandal, that you're not sounding impartial now. Since Schiller was not joined at the hip to Goethe, we do have to consider them as individuals. Dark Formal has done real and serious research to provide evidence that inclines towards removing Goethe from this particular list. If you have primary and secondary sources controverting this, great, bring it on. But it's not enough for you to say that the reference materials are shameful... Also, the principles of inclusion I brought over from German wikipedia are here on the English one for discussion... they are not yet settled markers at all. And if they were, they would likely exclude Goethe from this particular list. Universitytruth 03:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I may be sounding partial but I find the merits of Goethe should not be obscured (not to say they have been by anyone here). I agree DF brings very serious points to issue here, and they are immensely significant. I may be forgiven if I voice my opinion in what I see as shameful, no? I did not mean to say the discussion at Category_talk:Philosophers was an end-all conditon, only this: it is relevant here (as you pointed out below). And lastly, I wasn't saying that Goethe & Schiller became so "united" they are indistinguishible (that's ridiculous!); I'm trying to draw attention to their shared project: Weimar Classicism. Well, that's all for now, I guess.Non-vandal 03:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What evidence is that? I see none. Whether or not an individual considers themselves a philosopher is the least suitable of any criteria stated here. The article in Mcmillan does go into detail about Goethe's philosophical observations and the author of that article states that Goethe was not a "systematic" philosopher, which is not to say that he wasn't a philosopher. There are considerable examples of individuals who do not consider themselves as philosophers but in actuality have written philosophical content and considered by most as philosophers, e.g. in the natural sciences, aesthetics, theology, and mathematics (logicians). Amerindianarts 03:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

These are (mainly) about the cultural theory of Weimar Classicism, which is intensely philosophical and suggests strong support for Goethe's inclusion. Note: this list is not exhaustive.Non-vandal 21:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It's an impressive list you've put together. But it isn't clear to me which of these you've read, and in which of these is stated that Goethe was a philosopher. If you could clarify these points, I think that this would help our discussion. Thanks. Universitytruth 14:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I see it, this source list wasn't even necessary to settle this issue. If you disagree, please concoct reasoning that definitively shows the problems with this as stated in various policies.Non-vandal 20:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Baudrillard, Jean, ‘Towards a Principle of Evil’, Selected Writings, ed. by Poster, Cambridge, 1988.
2. Berghahn, Klaus L., ‘Das Andere der Klassik: Von der “Klassiker-Legende” zur jüngsten Klassik-Diskussion’, Goethe-Yearbook, 4, 1992, 1-27.
3. Best, A., ‘Schiller’s Maria Stuart: Masquerade as Tragedy’, Modern Languages, 53, 1972, 106-10.
4. Bishop, Paul & R. H. Stephenson, ‘Goethe’s Late Verse’, in The Literature of German Romanticism, ed. by Dennis F. Mahoney, Vol 8 of The Camden House History of German Literature, Rochester, N. Y., 2004.
5. Borchmeyer, Dieter, Weimar Klassik: Portrait einer Epoche, Weinheim, 1994.
6. Burt, E.S., ed., Paul de Man: Romanticism and Contemporary Criticism: The Gauss Seminar and other papers, Baltimore, 1993.
7. Cassirer, Ernst, Goethe und die geschichtliche Welt, Berlin, 1932.
8. De Man, Paul, The Resistance to Theory, Minneapolis, Manchester, 1986.
9. De Man, Paul, The Rhetoric of Romanticism, New York, 1984.
10. De Man, Paul, Aesthetic Ideology, ed. by A. Warminski, Minneapolis, 1996.
11. De Man, Paul, ‘The Rhetoric of Temporality’ in Interpretation: Theory and Practice, ed. by Singleton, Baltimore, pp.173-209.
12. Eagleton, Terry, The Ideology of the Aesthetic, Oxford, 1990.
13. Eagleton, Terry, ‘Awakening from Modernity’, Times Literary Supplement, 20 February, 1987.
14. Ellis, John, Schiller’s Kalliasbriefe and the Study of his Aesthetic Theory, The Hague, 1970.
15. Fairley, Barker, A Study of Goethe, Oxford, 1946.
16. Friedenthal, Richard, Goethe. Sein leben und seine Zeit, London, 1965 (Useful for social background).
17. Graham, Ilse, Schiller’s Drama: Talent and Integrity, New York, 1974 (esp. pp. 149-63).
18. Graham, Ilse, Schiller: A Master of the Tragic Form: his Theory into Practice , Pittsburg, 1974.
19. Greenhalgh, Michael, What is Classicism?, New York, 1990.
20. Hahn, Karl-Heinz, ‘Goethes Zeitschrift, “Über Kunst und Altertum”, Goethe-Jahrbuch, 92, 1975, 128-39.
21. Heller, Erich, The Artist’s Journey into the Interior and Other Essays, New York, 1968.
22. Henn, Marianne, Goethes Verhältnis zum Überlieferten in seinem Alterswerk, Heidelberg, 1986.
23. Hoffmeister, Gerhart, Goethe und die europäische Romantik, Munich, 1984.
24. Irigaray, Luce, je tu, nons: Toward a Culture of Difference, trans. Martin, New York, 1993.
25. Irigaray, Luce, Speculum of the Other Woman, trans. Gill, Ithaca, 1985.
26. Jameson, Fredric, Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, London, 1991.
27. Jaszi, A., Entzweiung und Vereinigung: Goethes Symbolische Weltanschauung, Heideberg, 1973.
28. Jencks, Charles, Postmodernism, New York, 1987.
29. Kerry, S., Schiller’s Writings on Aesthetics, Manchester, 1961.
30. Koch, Franz, Goethe’s Gedankenform, Berlin, 1967.
31. Kristeva, Julia, Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art, trans. by Jardine, et al., New York, 1989.
32. Lange, Victor, The Classical Age of German Literature 1740-1815, London, 1982.
33. Lewes, G.H., Life of Goethe, London, 1855.
34. Loewen, Harry, ‘The End as Beginning: The Nature of Maria Stuart’s Transformation’, Seminar, XV, 1978, 165-80.
35. Lyotard, Jean-François, ‘Answering the Question: What is Postmodernism?’ in Innovations, Renovations, ed. by Hassan, Madison, 1983, 71-82.
36. Meyer, Hermann, ‘Schillers philosophische Rhetorik’, Euphorion, 53, 1959, 128-39.
37. Müller, Günther, Die Gestaltfrage in der Literaturwissenschaft und Goethes Morphologie, Halle, 1944.
38. Norton, Robert E., The Beautiful Soul: Aesthetic Morality in the Eighteenth Century, Ithaca, 1995.
39. Portoghesi, Paolo, Postmodernism, New York, 1983, (reviewed by R. H. Stephenson, MLR, 96, 2000, 806-9).
40. Reed, T.J., Schiller (Modern Masters), Oxford, 1992.
41. Reed, T.J., Goethe (Modern Masters), New York, 1984.
42. Reed, T. J., The Classical Centre: Goethe and Weimar 1775-1832, London 1980.
43. Reiss, Hans, ed., Goethe und die Tradition, Frankfurt am Main, 1972.
44. Rippere, Vicky, Schiller and ‘Alienation’, Frankfurt am Main, 1981.
45. Saranpa, Kathy J., Schiller’s Wallenstein, Maria Stuart, and Die Jungfrau von Orleans: the Critical Legacy, Rochester, N. Y., 2002.
46. Schweitzer, Hans-Rudolf, ed., Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten: Texte zur Grundlegung der Ästhetik, Hamburg, 1983.
47. Schweitzer, Hans-Rudolf, Ästhetik als Philosophie der sinnlichen Erkenntnis, Basel, 1973.
48. Simm, Hans-Joachim, ed., Literarische Klassik, Frankfurt am Main, 1988.
49. Siskin, Clifford, The Historicity of Romantic Discourse, New York, 1988.
50. Sprenson, Bengt Algot, ‘Altersstil und Symboltheorie: Zum Problem des Symbols und der Allegorie bei Goethe’, Goethe-Jahrbuch, 94, 1977, 69-85.
51. Swales, Erika, Schiller, Maria Stuart, London, 1988.
52. Swales, Martin, Epochenbuch Realismus, Berlin, 1997.
53. Sprinker, Michael, ‘We Lost it at the Movies’, MLN, 112, 1997, 385-99.
54. Staiger, Emil, Goethe, 3 vols, Zurich, 1970.
55. Stephenson, R. H., ‘The Proper Object of Cultural Study: Ernst Cassirer and the Aesthetic Theory of Weimar Classicism’, Cultural Studies and the Symbolic, 1, 2003, 82-114.
56. Stephenson, R. H.,‛What’s Wrong with Cultural Studies?’, the minnesota review, 58-60, 2003, 197-206.
57. Stephenson, R.H., ‘The Cultural Theory of Weimar Classicism in the light of Coleridge’s Doctrine of Aesthetic Knowledge’, in Goethe 2000, ed. by Paul Bishop and R.H. Stephenson, Leeds, 2000.
58. Stephenson, R.H., ‘Die ästhetische Gegenwärtigkeit des Vergangenen: Goethes “Maximen und Reflexionen” über Geschichte und Gesellschaft, Erkenntnis und Erziehung’, Goethe-Jahrbuch, 114, 1997, 101-12; 382-84.
59. Stephenson, R.H., ‘Goethe’s Prose Style: Making Sense of Sense’, Publications of the English Goethe Society, 66, 1996, 31-41.
60. Stephenson, R.H., Goethe’s Conception of Knowledge and Science, Edinburgh, 1995.
61. Stephenson, R.H., ‘Theorizing to Some Purpose: “Deconstruction” in the Light of Goethe and Schiller’s Aesthetics’, Modern Language Review, 84, 1989, 381-92.
62. Stephenson, R.H., ‘Goethe: Last Universal Man or Wilful Amateur? On Goethe’s Natural Philosophy’, in Goethe Revisited, ed. Wilkinson, London, 1984, pp. 53-71.
63. Stephenson, R.H., ‘The Coherence of Goethe’s Political Outlook’, in Tradition and Creation, ed. by Magill et al., Leeds, 1978, pp. 77-88.
64. Stern, Robert A.M., Modern Classicism, London, 1988.
65. Stokes, Adrian, Inside Out: An Essay in the Psychology and Aesthetic Appeal of Space, Harmondsworth, 1947.
66. Turner, Frederick, Natural Classicism: Essays on Literature and Science, New York, 1985.
67. Trunz, Erich, Studien zu Goethes Altersdenken, Frankfurt am Main, 1971.
68. Vaget, Hans-Rudolf, Dilettantismus und Meisterschaft: Zum Problem des Dilettantismus bei Goethe: Praxis, Theorie, Zeitkritik, Munich, 1971.
69. Vosskamp, Wilhelm, ed., Klassik im Vergleich: Normativität und Historizität europaischer Klassiken, Stuttgart, 1993.
70. Waldeck, Marie-Luise, ‘Further thoughts on the genesis of a key concept in Schiller’s aesthetic thinking’, Forum for Modern Language Studies, 12, 1976, 304-13.
71. Wessel Jr., Leonard P., ‘The Aesthetics of Living Form in Schiller and Marx’, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 1978, 189-202.
72. Wilkinson, Elizabeth M. and L.A. Willoughby, ‘”The Whole Man” in Schiller’s theory of Culture and Society’, in Essays in German Language, Culture and Society, ed. Prawer et al., London, 1969, 177-210.
73. Wilkinson, Elizabeth M. and L.A. Willoughby, ‘Goethe to Herder, July 1772: Some Problems of Pedagogic Presentation’, German Life and Letters, NS15, 1961, 110-22.
74. Wilkinson, Elizabeth M. and L.A. Willoughby, Goethe, Poet and Thinker, London, 1972.
75. Willoughby, L.A., The Classical Age of German Literature 1748-1805, New York, 1966.
76. Witte, W., Schiller, Oxford, 1949.

[edit] Call for Discussion regarding this List

Note the title: it's a list of German-language philosophers. My question is what the noun signifies. Should the list be limited to people who are usually identified (to make a descriptive claim) and/or best identified (to make a prescriptive claim) as philosophers? Or should the list be limited to people who wrote any text that is usually identified (again, a descriptive claim) and/or best identified (prescriptive claim) as philosophical?

My own feeling is that we should limit ourselves to descriptive claims. Otherwise, we're engaging in original research. Still, the question remains: should this list of philosophers contain those usually identified as philosophers? (I think it should, otherwise the list should be renamed.) If the list should contain some other group, what group should that be, and what should we then rename the list? Universitytruth 13:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I would aim for both. "Philosopher" is a widely applicable term. Holding to one view or another seems systematically biased, which does not go well on Wikipedia. Then again, what is describable as "philosophy" is itself hotly debated. And how would we deal with "usually described as..."? That is a weasely way of putting it, which isn't taken very well at Wikipedia (obviously because "usually" is a false premise on any account). So you can only go so far with distinctions, wouldn't you say? I suppose we would then have to go with the instances in which views of so and so say "such and such is..." only. Contradictions in this list wouldn't be such a huge problem then. This concludes my second and last cent.Non-vandal 14:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments (and for your civility). I'm still learning the ropes here at Wikipedia, but I'm not sure I can agree with "you can only go so far with distinctions". My open question to all editors is still this: what is the function of a list? If a list is called a list of philosophers, then who should be included and who should not be included? If you conclude that everyone can be included, then how is it a list of philosophers? Why not just have one large list of people? I am not arguing per se that the list should be kept tiny; I am simply asking other editors to help think about the logic of having a list at all, and about the logic of having a list of German-language philosophers. Other thoughts? Universitytruth 15:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand you're addressing that the problem is how we are to establish a standard of inclusion. It isn't an anything-goes kind of way in which Wikipedia functions. There's a certain level of common sense and then in certain cases one is pressed to consult sources (but overall one should always use sources). Some guidelines and policies are: WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:VER, etc. (I suggest you read as much of these as you can; once you have I think this won't seem too imposing a problem to you. If you still find it problematic, we can discuss further after you have distilled more specific issues for discussion.) I notice above your small note to Goethean: though it may not seem he puts a "significant" point forth, he uses a source, and so it is accountable (among many other reasons) for meriting Goethe's addition to the list as a philosopher, one who contributes to (a branch of) philosophy. It is obvious if you have philosophers, then you may very well have non-philosophers, so not just anybody will be listed here. The question then becomes (more clearly): who is a "philosopher" as such? Then one has to consult scholarly or academic sources to state: such and such a person is a "philosopher" (the points of qualification may or may not be included, for the source itself may go into them at length, which isn't the business of an encyclopedia, unless indicated otherwise). Keep in mind Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not primary or secondary one. It only assimilates what already has been established by others.Non-vandal 15:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say... migrate the list of german-language philosophers to a category and make the standards for the category. else you will have all kinds of junk or pseudo philosophy. --Buridan 16:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Such a category already exists, exact same title to boot. I don't see any real differences between them except (perhaps) a list provides more information. But a counter to this is an article (with the very same category applied to it) can do just as well if not better than a list, because it addresses its subject directly in a wider context. Anyway, I don't really think, as I stated above in this section, any junk or pseudophilosophy will be a problem if attention to Wikipedia's policies is given.Non-vandal 16:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another idea

Another idea would be to have a short sentence or phrase introducing the significance of each figure for philosophy. It would certainly make this article more helpful than if it remains merely a list. We could link Gadamer to hermeneutics and Heidegger, for example. This would also make User:UniversityTruth's disclaimers on the literary figures less obtrusive. — goethean ॐ 16:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I agree with this, but there should be a definite brevity here... it is afterall a "List of...". So, I guess when all is said and done here, I'm at odds with this idea you've managed.Non-vandal 16:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I was intriguted by goethean's suggestion. But I looked at several other lists, and find just as Non-vandal says, that they tend to be either pure lists or are very briefly annotated. See List of historians for an example of the latter. I think something like this could be done, but we'd have to see what it would look like. Goethean, I'm not averse to trying this, if you want to make a start. Otherwise, let's just keep the list a list, and we can discuss inclusion/exclusion here on the talk page. If that is agreeable. Universitytruth

Something like this:

Theodor Adorno, a German sociologist, philosopher, musicologist and
composer who was a member of the Frankfurt School.

— goethean ॐ 16:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems brief to me. But does it not already become pointless if the article does the very same in its intro paragraph?Non-vandal 17:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, but I'll let some of the 23 editors that you have invited over here evaluate my proposal. — goethean ॐ 17:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

May I ask whether there is some problem with this? We have a live issue that could use some group discussion. I was unaware if one was not supposed to ask users interested in philosophy to join a discussion that could profit from their presence. Please let me know if this is not the case. Universitytruth 17:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think that was his insinuation at all. It is only what it appears to say, and I find it an excellent idea to request the opinions of others (obviously, I wouldn't be here otherwise).Non-vandal 17:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you have an incredible amount of good will to believe there was no such insinuation. But that by the by; the important thing is the substantive discussion. Universitytruth 17:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That may be (on both accounts), but WP:AGF always applies. On the last point, I agree.Non-vandal 17:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm moving quite fast, but you mistake me in your haste for User:Universitytruth. I'm not saying mine is the final word, but it is an objection for consideration too.Non-vandal 17:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

oops, sorry. — goethean ॐ 17:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No need for that. I can see it happening easily when all there is here is bland, faceless text to deal with.Non-vandal 17:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, the text on this page won't necessarily repeat what's at the main article on each subject. — goethean ॐ 17:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That is the sort of thing that should be done in the introduction of individual author's articles. What is the purpose of this page... to list german-language philosophers. does wikipedia support such lists? yes, in the form of categories, which automatically creates the list. if you do it with a normal list, then you have have to be very explicit in who is in and who is not. for instance, many german language poets might also be philosophers to some people, because they espouse a philosophy. are you going to include them? --Buridan 19:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Buridan on "the sort of thing that should be done in the introduction of individual author's articles", but on the second point there should be consideration of the weight and influence of a poet's work, e.g. Holderlin and his influence on Hegel. If it wasn't for Holderlin, you have to consider what Hegel, Marx and Engels may or may not have written. Amerindianarts 19:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Holderlin also tried to write some philosophy - how do we regard that? - even if it wasn't particularly successful an endeavor. Anyway, Holderlin doesn't seem to be regarded as a philosopher by anyone, but his influences are there, too.Non-vandal 20:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I see the merit of considering poets like Holderlin when thinking about 19th-century German philosophy (or 20th-century: where would Heidegger be without Holderlin?), but still: isn't this best described as a poet influencing a philosopher? Holderlin may have influenced Hegel, but I would bet that you can find much more (and much more convincing) documentation stating that Hegel was a philosopher than that Holderlin was a philosopher. This is not to say that there should not be a List of German-language writers who are relevant to philosophy, but this is not that list. Universitytruth 19:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Point well taken, but Heidegger, Kierkegaard, and Hegel must have found philosophic content in Holderlin, which is a criteia for this list. My additions to the list were from my own studies, but I cross referenced them with a list in the McMillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy for philosophers whose work appear in the German language. The content of Holderlin's has great philosophic content and he also influenced Dilthey, Jaspers, Cassier, and Guardini. He would have been a lecturer in philosophy, but could not gain entrance into the Weimar-Jena circle. His content rates with Goethe, But I will not add him to the list without other's support. Amerindianarts 20:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You would mention most of this in the individual pages of the people involved. Is Holderlin a philosopher? no. the tendency to want to include him in this list, is why you should not have this list and instead should just use the category.--Buridan 21:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The editors of McMillan, which is a veritable who's who list in modern philosophy would disagree with you, and so would I. Would you also disagree with the inclusion of Goethe, who is included in Jasper's series of Great Philosophers? Let me also remind you of the criteria stated at the head of the article-"This list contains the names of individuals (of any ethnicity or nationality) who wrote German-language texts that have been identified as philosophical. Most are usually classified under the rubric "German philosophers," but within this list some are not German and others may not be generally perceived as philosophers." Holderlin definitely falls into this category. Amerindianarts 21:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

For context: I drafted that description, but then called for this discussion precisely because the inclusivity of the description doesn't necessarily fit the title of the list. So we shouldn't take the description as engraved in stone. That said, I like most of the names you've been adding -- bravo/a to you for doing that! I think Holderlin will be even more controversial than Goethe, but let's see what evidence emerges over the next few days on both poets/authors/writers. Universitytruth 23:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If there are any names that I have added which you don't agree with, let me know. Amerindianarts 00:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For further consideration

I added Einstein because he is considered one of the greatest natural philosophers. Others which may not be considered philosophers but are considered as having philosophical content and impact on philosophers and philosophical history should be considered are:

Rudolph Bultmann (co-authored with Jaspers)

Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976)

Friedrich Hölderlin (1770-1843)

Johann Karl Friedrich Rosenkrantz (1805-1879)

Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920) --- Amerindianarts 18:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Bultmann and Rosenkrantz are non-existent articles. One could make an argument for Heisenberg, since two of his books contain the word "philosophy" in the title (Philosophy of Physics, etc.), but he's not an obvious candidate. I don't think Holderlin fits this list, because influencing a philosopher is not the same thing as being a philosopher.

It seems more and more clear to me that we need to develop agreeable criteria, both for this specific list, and for the entire category for "philosophers." Note that German wikipedia has four explicit criteria for inclusion. I've called for a discussion on the category in general here: Category_talk:Philosophers#Definition_of_philosopher. I think it would be great if all of you would join that discussion. Universitytruth 19:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I take it that one criteria is that it refers to an existing article? Is this a criteria for this list alone? It is not a Wiki criteria that I know of. Amerindianarts 20:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No, just that I wasn't commenting on those, is what I meant. Sorry about not being clear. Although I wouldn't personally want a ton of redlinks. I'm not going to delete them for that reason though. (I am doing so on another list right now, though. Please visit List of German-language authors, noting in particular the letters G and H, to see why!). Universitytruth 20:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I've cleaned up G and H, so you can't see what I mean anymore unless you look at an earlier version. This is exhausting! Must take wikibreak. Universitytruth 21:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When adding new articles to the list

Please add [[Category:German-language philosophers|Lastname, Firstname]] to the bottom of the article in question (replacing with the name of course). After a CfD, it was decided that this category (and its parent category, philosophers by language) should be kept. Universitytruth 16:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Developing List of German-language philosophers (some from user talk page)

Hi; thanks for developing the list further. One caveat though: this list is supposed to be for philosophers who wrote in the German language. Baumgarten, for example, wrote his philosophy in Latin, so shouldn't be included on the list. By all means, keep adding names, but please be sure they fit the identity of this list, which is linguistic. Thanks! Universitytruth 17:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops. My oversight. Baumgarten's work do appear in the German language, but you are correct that he wrote in Latin. Thanks. Amerindianarts 19:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Basedow isn't a good fit (again, someone I've read with great interest). Let me ask you: why Binswanger? I thought he was known as a psychologist. Best, Universitytruth 03:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Of the mathemeticians, I think Lambert is ok because of the New Organon, but what about Weyl? Why would he be appropriate? Maybe I can ask that question in general about other mathematicians on the list. Best, Universitytruth 03:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

RE:Basedow. Philosopher and education reformist. Considered as a "popular philosopher" who's importance as a theoretical philosopher has been underrated by modern historians. Education reform based on Locke, Cornelius, and Rousseau. His experimental school in Dessau was imitated throughout Germany and Switzerland. Educational egalitarian.

I know him as an education reformist as well, but have never heard him referred to as a philosopher, not even as one of the Popularphilosophen (like Garve). Still seems too much of a stretch for this list.Universitytruth 17:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

RE:Binswanger-According to Mcmillan was a phenomenologist. He coined the term "phenomenology" and his school, Daseinsanalyse is an "original amalgam of phenomenology, Heideggerean existentialism, and existential psychoanalysis"

Sounds good.Universitytruth 17:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

RE:Weyl-philosopher of science who's work Philosophie der Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften is considered definitive in the philosophy of science, and Raum, Zeit und Materie is a classic in relativity theory. I left Hilbert and a few others off the list, even though he could be considered a logician. Since Kant's writing on Euclidean geometry, its importance, and the development of other theories of space and their importance to the philosophy of natural science and epistemology in general usually goes unnoticed except by hard core philosophers.

Sounds good.Universitytruth 17:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

RE:Goethe-If he hadn't been on the list already I probably would not have added him, but, if it wasn't for the Goethe controversy, I would not have hesitated to add Holderlin, who did consider himself a philosopher (if self-consideration is a suitable criteria as some users imply). If Holderlin had not been rejected by the Weimar-Jena circle and started feeling sorry for himself, adopting a cynical attitude toward philosophy, he probably would have been an effective philosopher (at least recognized as such by historians).

Well, congenital schizophrenia might not have been caused by Goethe rejecting him... In any case, I think Hoelderlin is only referred to as a poet, even a philosophical poet, but as a poet, in primary and secondary sources. It would be WP:OR for us to make him a philosopher. Universitytruth 17:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Self-consideration" wasn't the point I was making: I was drawing contrasts against some of the material DF cited from Macmillan; it's a non-criterion in my opinion anyway, so it was hardly my intention to suggest it.Non-vandal 21:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion-check my work in Mcmillan, which is a defintive source, written by philosophers, and considers these individuals as philosophers. Do not rely on Wiki articles, many of which are in sore need of updating and limited in their focus (probably sourced from general encyclopedias). I would not argue the removal of any of these names, but I feel their inclusion is warranted. Also, I appreciate your conversation, but I formerly had a notice on this page to limit comments by directing me to the appropriate talk page. I do not like this page's standing in the search engine results and prefer the more private environnment of the article talk pages. Thanks. Amerindianarts 04:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I find this statement encapsulating: "considers these individuals as philosophers". If there is even a definitive ounce of support that they be counted as philosophers, then they by all means should be included.Non-vandal 21:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would be helpful if Non-vandal and Goethean, especially, would state clear criteria for exclusion from the list. How can we ensure that the list not become one of people with ears? Most people have philosophies, according to one way of speaking. Is that the one ounce? Please understand: this is not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely interested in your stating criteria for exclusion (and inclusion). Without such criteria, a list has no identity as such. I think it would help us all, in discussing this, to review WP:LIST (see point 2, "Lists_and_criteria_for_inclusion_of_list_members". Thanks, Universitytruth 03:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been far from partial in my discussions here, Universitytruth. The points of qualification are clearly laid out in WP:NPOV. As such there's little more conflict that can sustainably be put up against the claims that Goethe should be included. The distinction you have drawn between "those who have philosophies" and "those who are philosophers" is by all means an example of reticence to concede to what others have said about Goethe (ie., it's biased). For a very similar example, take Friedrich Nietzsche: on many points one could say he wasn't a "philosopher" but was "one who had a philosophy"; however, this boils down to prejudicial ideations. I think these discussions have come to a clear close. Considering the variations of what "philosophy" and "philosophers" are, we must follow WP:NPOV all the more. So - Goethe should be included in the list. It isn't a mere "ounce", it is definitive and final.Non-vandal 06:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Dark Formal: I agree that, from the evidence presented so far, the conclusion is clear. Goethe is not generally regarded by philosophers as a philosopher. The philosophy references that discuss him (including MacMillan) (and BTW they are NOT online---I had to go the library to read them) consistently use other terms than "philosopher" to describe him, when they always use the word "philosopher" in describing Kant et al. No contrary evidence has been presented! Lists of books that mention Goethe and vague statements that amount to "anyone who thinks is a philosopher" aren't evidence of anything. If someone could provide sources of comparable weight to MacMillan, Routledge, Oxford Companion etc that EXPLICITLY label Goethe as a philosopher then there might be some doubt, but at this point there is none. Dark Formal 03:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realize they aren't online - my post to which you refer is jumbled in that respect. The "vague statements" aren't so vague if you see WP:NPOV. I've put forward all I can, but it seems to be a matter of time until Goethe is placed in this list as he ought to be. The basis of evalutation on how a "philosopher" is determined as such is a nonquestion, even though User:Universitytruth persistently puts it up as though Wikipedia's policies weren't clearly set in this regard. To put it simply, I'm tired of this chatter. Maybe someone else can do all the talking where it is needed. Goodbye.Non-vandal 07:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It is incomprehensible to me that anyone could find this question (how to evaluate who is/who is not a philosopher) a nonquestion, given that this is a list of philosophers. To my knowledge, WP:NPOV says nothing about managing lists or who is a philosopher, whereas WP:LIST does have important guidance regarding list maintenance. Consensus-building involves discussion. If someone needs a break from it, then take it. But I remain hopeful we can work past this current polarization; hopefully others will visit and leave comments which might help us. Cheers, Universitytruth 14:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that we're working with explicit criteria, I guess I'm "back for now" as my post at the topmost section indicates.Non-vandal 19:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed this. It seems that we are repeating work that has already been done. If you combine the various "List of philosophers born in the nth century" articles, and delete the non-Germans, we might be well on our way. — goethean ॐ 21:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I am in sheer astonishment. Excellent find, Goethean; we could imitate a thing or two in it. I'll link the list to See also in this article.Non-vandal 21:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent find! I've pretty much mined the German wikipedia list for further names, so it's the perfect time to look on those lists you found. Just everyone please be sure to include only those who wrote philosophy in German (vs. Latin). And please do participate in the discussion about criteria. Thanks! Universitytruth 22:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

To save people some trouble: everyone who's a German-language philosopher born in the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries on these lists is already included in ours. We should concentrate our attention on those born in the 18th centuries and beyond.Universitytruth 23:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: I've also gone through the 18th-century list and added from it. May have missed some names, either inadvertently or on purpose. Maybe someone else can do this for the 19th-century list? It would be nice to see someone else as engaged in doing some of the work adding names.Universitytruth 14:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quoted from WP:LIST:

[edit] Always include list membership criteria

To avoid problems with lists, the criteria for inclusion must comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. That is, if someone is listed as an X, that person must have been identified as an X by a reliable published source. Also be aware of original research when selecting the criteria for inclusion: use a criterion that is widely agreed upon rather than inventing new criteria that cannot be verified as notable or that is not widely accepted.

Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed. Many lists on Wikipedia have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or whom should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit.

[edit] Set clear, neutral, and unambiguous criteria

Ensure that the criteria for inclusion in the list are neutral and based on widely accepted definitions of terms. Both clear criteria and adherence to these criteria must take priority over any praise or condemnation an editor may feel is implied by membership. Some lists cover characterizations that can be considered negative. Such lists, if not carefully maintained can be used to promote a certain POV. Opponents of a subject may attempt to include it in the list despite that it does not meet the list criteria; and conversely supporters may attempt to remove it despite meeting the list criteria.

(above quoted by Universitytruth 14:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Gebser, and discussion

I recently added a number of candidates to the list, but then removed Jean Gebser, as it smelled to me of pseudo-philosophy. I also said in the edit summary 'let's discuss this if necessary.' User:Goethean added him back to the list, with the edit summary 'you need to widen your definition of philosophy.' Perhaps Goethean would be so civil as to explain why I need this, and what the correct wide definition of philosophy is. Meanwhile: what do others think of Gebser? Universitytruth 17:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've tweaked the introduction to the article. It seems to me that no one would dispute that Goethe was an intellectual, though we are disputing whether he was a philosopher. This leads me to wonder whether there should be separate pages for German-language philosophers and intellectuals. Presumably, the latter page would be more expansive, the former one less so. Does that sound like a way to solve our problem, or does it sound like a useless list duplication? It's a totally open question for me. Cheers, Universitytruth 19:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a good idea. How would we evaluate "intellectuals"? This kind of compromise isn't a fair one in my opinion, and I'm for the previous version of the article's introduction that doesn't have this strange phrase "philosophers per se" (whatever that means).Non-vandal 21:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain your thinking? Why is this a matter of "fair" vs. unfair? Anyone reading this Talk page can see that we're debating some writers (Goethe, Hoelderlin) and not others (Kant, Fichte). My recent rewrite of the intro (which I also wrote most of even in its current form, just so you know) was meant to better introduce a list that would contain names like Goethe et al, as long as they're there. Those were the reasons for my revision. I would appreciate if you explain yours more fully, and please do remember to assume good faith. We're all trying to improve this page. Universitytruth 13:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Now you force me to repeat myself:

"I have been far from partial in my discussions here, Universitytruth. The points of qualification are clearly laid out in WP:NPOV. As such there's little more conflict that can sustainably be put up against the claims that Goethe should be included. The distinction you have drawn between "those who have philosophies" and "those who are philosophers" is by all means an example of reticence to concede to what others have said about Goethe (ie., it's biased [should I note MacMillan, Kaufmann, etc., etc., again and again? This isn't WP:OR, so it qualifies legitimately.]). For a very similar example, take Friedrich Nietzsche: on many points one could say he wasn't a "philosopher" but was "one who had a philosophy"; however, this boils down to prejudicial ideations. I think these discussions have come to a clear close. Considering the variations of what "philosophy" and "philosophers" are, we must follow WP:NPOV all the more. So - Goethe should be included in the list. It isn't a mere "ounce", it is definitive and final.Non-vandal 06:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)"

As far as I can see, there are no claims to support Holderlin's inclusion (so that one is closed); as for Goethe, there are claims to support his inclusion (so that one is closed). Pure and simple. No more words to waste on it.Non-vandal 20:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the intro's last sentence to its previous, less-biased form along the lines I wrote in my edit summary and what I have suggested in the above post.Non-vandal 06:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, what is this talk of bias? Please explain. Universitytruth 13:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think recanting a second time is needed. See my comments above. Have a nice weekend.Non-vandal 20:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Non-vandal wrote above that "one has to consult scholarly or academic sources to state: such and such a person is a 'philosopher'". More and more, I agree. Universitytruth 07:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

RE:Korsch, I can find nothing on him except online, and he doesn't appear to be a philosopher but a political writer. However, you may want to confer with user non-vandal. His comments "Pure and simple. No more words to waste on it", "it is definitive and final", and "I'm tired of this chatter" seem quite authoritarian and senseless to argue over. Amerindianarts 23:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for inclusion/exclusion criteria

I've been reading pages and talk pages for WP:LIST, including archived discussions and ongoing proposals. Some points seem to eternally return:

• verifiability above all
• the reminder that wikipedia (i.e. wikipedia editors) cannot determine who is an X, but rather can only say that such and such reputable source has said that John Smith is an X

I think that it would be helpful to orient ourselves towards this latter point. I've thus proposed something similar to the following at the Category:Philosophers talk page, and submit it here as well for discussion:

[edit] DRAFT ONE

For the purposes of this list, a philosopher is someone who satisfies two criteria:

1. s/he has been identified as a philosopher in several reputable encyclopedic publications, e.g. MacMillan, Stanford, Routledge, Oxford, Metzler Philosophen-Lexikon (1995) (ISBN 3-476-1428-2), ... other German sources could be named here).

2. s/he has been identified as a philosopher in several articles published in reputable journals of philosophy (e.g. ...)

Notable dead philosophers should pass the test of criterion 1 to be non-controversial for inclusion in this list. In the case of notable living philosophers, criterion 1 can be replaced by criterion 2.

In the case of controversy, discussion among editors and consensus is encouraged. Opinions can be sought at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Philosophy.

[edit] Discussion one

What say you all? Universitytruth 15:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Dark Formal: I agree with criterion 1, although I'd stipulate that s/he must be explicitly identified as a philosopher in most reputable encyclopedic publications. It would be interesting to see if we run into a borderline case where reputable sources don't have a consensus view. As for criterion 2, philosophy articles don't generally bother to pin the "philosopher" label on people they refer to, so this may not be a very useful criterion. Also there is the danger that the output of a small cadre with an eccentric view could add up to "several articles". If we want to make sure that living philosophers don't get accidentally excluded by criterion 1, we should stipulate that the person have personally authored a good number of papers in reputable philosophy journals, and/or written books that were reviewed in reputable philosophy journals. I look forward to a robust debate over what counts as a reputable philosophy journal. Dark Formal 21:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DRAFT TWO

For the purposes of this list, a philosopher is someone who satisfies one of two criteria:

1. s/he has been identified as a philosopher in multiple reputable encyclopedic publications, e.g. MacMillan, Stanford, Routledge, Oxford, Metzler Philosophen-Lexikon (1995) (ISBN 3-476-1428-2), ... other German sources could be named here)

OR

2. s/he has authored multiple papers published in reputable journals of philosophy, and/or written books that were reviewed in said journals (e.g. ...)

In the case of controversy, discussion among editors and consensus is encouraged. Opinions can be sought at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Philosophy.

[edit] Discussion two

Here's a new draft, per comments above by DarkFormal. Well, how does this look? It would be great to hear from several editors on this point.Universitytruth 22:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with a few points: #1 & #2 say: "reputable" (much belabored by DF above - and I think any such debates [ie., "what is 'reputable'?"] are not a good idea) but this already violates WP:NPOV so I would change them to "reliable" in line with WP:VER; they also say "multiple", isn't one source sufficient? Sure, there may be eccentric views but that already is in violation of WP:NPOV (ie., we cannot determine what is "eccentric" or not), so we either get rid of "multiple" or say "at least a single". Other than these two problems, I honestly see nothing wrong with the criteria. They are entirely welcome. Additionally, the new lists I added to See also should be looked into further as a solid basis for this article's expansion and improvement. (Like User:Goethean mentioned above, it is already clear stating Goethe was a philosopher isn't "controversial".)Non-vandal 22:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Question: how does "reputable" violate policy, when the three-point policy listed on the link you provide, WP:VER, says the following?:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

As per the same guideline, which is in the singular in 2. and 3., I agree with your second point about getting rid of "multiple." Universitytruth 22:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DRAFT THREE

For the purposes of this list, a philosopher is someone who satisfies at least one of the following inclusionary criteria:

1. s/he has been identified as a philosopher in any reputable, reliable encyclopedic publication(s) (e.g., MacMillan, Stanford, Routledge, Oxford, Metzler Philosophen-Lexikon (1995) (ISBN 3-476-1428-2), etc., etc.).

OR

2. s/he has authored multiple papers or essays published in reputable, reliable journals of philosophy and/or written books that were reviewed in said journals (e.g., ..., etc., etc.).

In the case of controversy, discussion among editors and consensus is encouraged. Opinions can be sought at Wikiproject Philosophy.

[edit] Discussion three

See Draft Three, above. Comments?Universitytruth 22:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, after looking again carefully at WP:VER, I agree, but another to look at is WP:RS. To make sure we aren't using these words ("reliable" and "reputable") in a subjective manner (that would be in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR), I've made changes to the third draft to reflect what I think would be most adequate for these criteria. I think you will agree with them.Non-vandal 23:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the linking to the WP guidelines: nice addition, Non-vandal. One question: what's the difference betwen papers and essays (and articles)? Rather than make readers scratch their heads over this question, would it make sense to pick one commonly used noun? I think the point is clear: article-length contribution in a journal. Maybe the philosophers (DarkFormal?) can help us with this. (Disclosure: I'm not a philosopher.) Cheers, Universitytruth 00:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

One doesn't need any qualifications to edit. Adding "or essays" is merely a stylization and dispells any possible ambiguities - not everyone is aware of the form of "papers" in journals of philosophy, wouldn't you think so? Anyway, if it still seems so incredibly redundant to you, then go ahead and remove it, I have no qualms with "essays", "papers", or "articles". They are only words, and these words are not much to stipulate about their particular connections, much unlike "multiple", "reliable", and "reputable" in this context.Non-vandal 03:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please watch the sarcasm ("so incredibly"...). Let's keep focus on the subject matter. Those of us actively discussing this list clearly care about it, so let's try to remember that rather than sniping at each other. Here's another subject-related question, to which I seek a subject-related answer: what would you suggest doing about "multiple"? Thanks, Universitytruth 12:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You must excuse me if you perceived "sniping" and "sarcasm" in those two words - they merely were for emphasis. Back to substantial matters, I'm thinking instead of "multiple" as stated in #2, we have "notable". What do you think? Even though WP:NOTABILITY isn't a guideline, it could add some depth to the criterion - my central problem with "multiple" is that it doesn't seem to be a sufficient point of inclusion (people are bound to have written "multiple papers ... in journals of philosophy" if they have written any at all). If you don't think "multiple" should be removed, how about adding "notable" to it?Non-vandal 18:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I don't think notable in 2 is a good idea. That will only restrict the list from philosophers to really good philosophers. By getting published at all in a reliable, reputable, etc. journal, one has already passed a certain test of verification, that is, peer review. Philosophers have said 'yes, this article is good enough for our journal.' And this has happened multiple times. I mean, we could pick some number, but that would be arbitrary. I don't know if leaving multiple is the best solution, but I hope this clarifies things. I wouldn't want us to argue over whether living author John Smith's six articles in a journal of philosophy are notable articles. You see? In my reading of criterion #2, Smith would already be a philosopher. Even if the articles are so-so, that would make him a so-so philosopher (but not not a philosopher). Let me know if that makes sense. Universitytruth 19:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, I think that'll do. I agree we should aim for inclusionary rather than exlusionary criteria. So I really see no problems with the criteria now that this has been stated. If anyone sees an issue, I would strongly suggest more voice their ideas. I reworded the intro of the draft to "... at least one of the following inclusionary criteria".Non-vandal 19:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Dark Formal: I do not understand this emphasis on "inclusion" over "exclusion". Being overly inclusive is just as wrong as being overly exclusive. Being unselective is not "NPOV". If a few eccentrics claim that Goethe was a philosopher then it is not "NPOV" to give them the same weighting as a reputable encyclopedia. As a matter of general policy, NPOV is meant to require balance between reasonable legitimate points of view. But it does not allow you to duck the task of filtering out the junk. If we take NPOV to a lunatic extreme then wikipedia would also have to include all the silly wrong statements ever made, as well as all the valid ones.

In draft 3, I think that criterion 1 has been made too weak. There should be a consensus among reputable references on the question. The person should be explicitly identified as a philosopher by several of them. This is not an onerous requirement. Most of the biographies begin with summaries like "American moral philosopher...", "French postmodern philosopher..." etc. Dark Formal 23:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

DarkFormal, I hear you. But I think we could still test according to criterion one. Actually, according to wikiguidance, at WP:LIST#Always_include_list_membership_criteria, it is sufficient. The fact that we have specified it must be a reliable, reputable source should help us out here. I agree that we should not be overly focused on either including or excluding. Lists, by definition, do both. The point is finding a balance.Anthony Krupp 01:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Just because Goethe might fit into this scheme based on "eccentrics" as you call them? That doesn't sound WP:NPOV at all. What a source states amounts to "reasonable legitimate points of view" here, and if you have a definitive contention with "inclusionaly" v. "exclusionary" perhaps User:Universitytruth should elaborate his dicussions at Category talk:Philosophers. (I seriously doubt this contrast between "inclusionary" and "exclusionary" amounts to any bias, as you seem to see it. As a matter of fact, it appears these criteria would be the least biased than any other criteria. If we exclude, that amounts to systemic bias.) Anyway, just one case (Goethe) that has yet to be verified based upon these now-explicit criteria isn't even a genuine indication of these criteria's "weekness". It just sounds like you have a problem with the possible statement "Goethe is a philosopher" seeing you call it "extreme" - that has no connection with WP:NPOV. Nor do supposed "extreme" views violate WP:NPOV. In my opinion, it seems like you've raised a nonissue that has already been curtailed by the current criteria.Non-vandal 23:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk about the actual criteria, and beware of speculating on each other's hidden agendas. I'm sure it won't be productive. I am certain that taking an "authoritarian" (to cite a recent post) tone ("It's a non-issue") won't help our discussion. Give reasons instead. Then we can find our balance. Optimistically, Anthony Krupp 01:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I realize the putative nature of these criteria, so please do not regard my stance as "authoritarian". I'm merely stating my take on how DF has taken the criteria as "weak", and I merely replied that so far this "weakness" has not been established let alone perceived (and if it has then the basis of this is extremely speculative and even misguided, hence it's a "nonissue"). Nowhere do I actually speculate on any "hidden agendas" - again, I'm only giving my take on the issue as DF saw it. My position is no different from yours, I've merely addressed how DF has viewed this as well, while you have not.Non-vandal 02:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

DarkFormal has expressed a valid concern, and I see below that Buridan expressed the very same concern. I think we should keep this in mind, but as I've said, I also think we should test the current criteria to see if they yield acceptable results. My reasons are that the criteria seem to fit official guidance at WP:LIST. If we end up with odd figures on the list, etc., then we should take the discussion about criteria over to WP:LIST, as well as discussing revising the criteria here. But I'm optimistic about the results. The current criteria take seriously the notion that wikipedia is a tertiary source. (That is, we're not going to innovate and name someone a philosopher who is not also named a philosopher -- in the noun form, with the verb 'to be' in the 3rd-person singular -- in a Very Serious Reference.) Does that sound acceptable to the inclusionists and the moderates here?Anthony Krupp 13:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I voiced nearly the same answer to Buridan as DF. To put it shortly, I agree with the criteria as they currently stand. So far they have proved to be in keeping with what is demanded by Wikipedia's policies. If anyone has a problem with the criteria, then it will actually be with policy - and that isn't a good take on them. As I see it, I have been fine with these criteria and have in turn tried to show how it is they are acceptable, so we agree.Non-vandal 18:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

the encyclopedia test does not work well as it will incude non-philosophers like rand, who is mentioned in the routledge encyclopedia. being in several encyclopedias noted as a philosopher is fine, but one is not sufficient. --Buridan 11:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm very grateful that Rand was not a German-language philosopher! So we don't have to have a Rand-based edit war. I think it would be fine to say that Rand was a bad philosopher, but the noun still seems appropriate. (Disclosure: I've only read one of her books, but I read it carefully and all the way through. Found it to be bad.) Still, every grouping will have its Rand-like candidates, I'm sure. Shall we fight about Rudolf Steiner? Cheers, Universitytruth 14:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Buridan, I disagree. One source according to WP:NOR is perfect - one source isn't WP:OR or non-NPOV. It is your opinion that Rand would not be counted as a philosopher simply because "some other" encyclopedia doesn't say she is. As for Steiner - again, if there is a source, like the criteria state, then there's nothing to worry about! Keep it simple: don't take POVs as fact.Non-vandal 16:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, as Krupp's edits show ([3][4]) I think we need to expand what exactly is said by our criteria. Something along these lines in bold for the first criterion:

1. s/he has been identified as a philosopher (this includes developing a specific form of philosophy) in any reputable, reliable encyclopedic publication(s) (e.g., MacMillan, Stanford, Routledge, Oxford, Metzler Philosophen-Lexikon (1995) (ISBN 3-476-1428-2), etc.).

So, what do you all think? It's something of a problem, so it needs to be clarified.Non-vandal 22:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't make this drastic a change yet. We've only been working with Macmillan; let's wait until we look into one or two other reliable, reputable sources. Husserl, it took three seconds to verify. Jacobi as well. Wait, or is he still blanked? If so, it will take five seconds to verify in Metzler, I'm sure. I'm very uneasy at this point about the suggestion to add "this includes developing a specific form of philosophy". How would that be verifiable? What does developing mean? Etc. I would much like to call for restraint here. Good weekend to all. Anthony Krupp 22:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait, I'm sorry; I misunderstood what you were referring to. Sorry about that. Way too tired from editing, you know. OK, I see the problem. Would still urge for restraint. If Husserl and Jacobi don't get the magic sentence (X was a philosopher) in Macmillan, I would urge that we actually look in a few other reliable, reputable sources, according to the existing criteria (i.e., giving them a chance), before we innovate on that count. It's a testing procedure, to be sure, and you're right that Husserl and Jacobi show that Macmillan may not be the best RR source in those two cases, but I think that the criteria might still work. Can we wait until Monday? Gruss, Anthony Krupp 22:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we have all the time in the world - no rush here. I just thought it might be a problem. But I still think it might not be a problem. A little proaction never hurt. We'll see how things take shape later. Have a fine weekend.Non-vandal 22:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One way to mark as contentious without deleting

I got this idea from Non-vandal's blanking of Goethe. What do you all think about this? I just did it with Georg Simmel, who is known as a sociologist, but feels to me like a border case. Since the point is that feeling is irrelevant, I blanked him using the following:

"<!-- blanked pending source naming him a philosopher: [NAME HERE]>"

Maybe people can apply this to cases that are disputable, and then someone can take the trouble to look that person up in MacMillan, etc. How does this sound? Universitytruth 16:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea (if I do say so myself). One problem: it needs to be clearly addressed in the talk page or somewhere so others realize that such a blanked name is pending for verification. The only way they would know is by actually viewing the editing version of a page, and not everyone would bother (since they have no clue) unless they were doing something else to edit the page.Non-vandal 22:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that sounds fine. We could perhaps start a section of the talk page called "Pending verification" or something like that. The more I read in WP:VER about the burden of proof being on the one wishing to include, vs. the one wishing to remove a name, I think that this suggestion is very accommodating. But I don't think that's an awful thing.Universitytruth 22:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations verifying candidates

Hermann Weyl- Macmillan's Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1973, v.8, page 286. Cited as a philosopher of science and p. 287 has a bibliography of Weyl's works which are of importance to the philosophy of science.

Take a look at the list; I added this info. in a blanked note next to his name. I've seen this sort of notation on a few other sites. Maybe that can be useful for us, either for non-obvious names or for all names on the list. Thoughts?Anthony Krupp 18:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Johann Bernhard Basedow- Macmillan's Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1973, v.1, page 251. Cited first as a philosopher, and then a theologian, and thirdly as an educational theorist. Amerindianarts 04:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

See also MacMillan, Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2nd ed. (2006), v.1, pp. 482-483: "JBB, the German philosopher, theologian, and educational theorist... [H]e was appointed professor of philosophy and rhetoric at the Knightly Academy at Soro, Denmark. A heterodox work, Praktische Philosophie fuer alle Staende, led to his dismissal." Thus began his existence as an educational reformer and one of the Popularphilosophen.Anthony Krupp 18:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Further citation for Weyl might be found in the Routledge Concise Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Weyl is listed at Wiki as a philosopher born in the 19th century-I realize this is not a criteria for inclusion here- but there is a note by his name in the WIki article for philosophers born in the nineteenth century stating "Note R: - For more information about this person's contribution to philosophy, see his/her entry in the Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge; 2000. ISBN 0415223644". I do not have this publication, but if anybody does they might check it. I also might ask if family resemblance is a criteria for this article as once suggested, and if so how is it to be interpreted? Amerindianarts 05:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have initiated the grunt work of sifting through some of the articles listed under See also - many of which have referencing. Much help is desired for thoroughness. Also: I have expanded the references system, so instead of using only the "{{fn|}}" system, we can use the "<ref></ref>" system for other references that don't fit the "CRO¹²S" sources. Hope it sounds good. As for Weyl, we can look through some of the other lists, and if he's listed with "{{fn|}}", then we can have him unblanked and referenced accordingly. The "family resemblance" doesn't seem to be a good idea, simply because it problematizes things: all we need are sources (with Wikipedia's policies as back-up and -ground) as the two current criteria state, and that is good enough for me.Non-vandal 05:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing towards WP:CITE. Which begins: "If you don't know how to format the citation, others will fix it for you. Simply provide any information you can." I have provided some information, Non-vandal has been kind enough to fix the formatting.Anthony Krupp 18:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC) Sorry that my citations were "bad" per edit summary. It seems we were editing the page at the same time, so I had gotten to B before I realized that Non-vandal was drawing this to my attention. Let me go get volume two (C-D) and continue, but I'll try to format correctly. Please keep an eye on this, though. I'm still new-ish to wikipedia, and can provide information, but may need help with formatting now and then. Cheers, Anthony Krupp 18:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, Krupp. I'll keep an eye out for any bad formatting, so don't worry about it. You'll be a natural soon enough.Non-vandal 19:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Question: is there a way to have the additional sources -- frankly, I would get rid of the first ones: the work of other people, and not necessarily according to the inclusion criteria here -- and just have one section for sources. I'm also willing to do the work of verifying these, starting with Macmillan and going through other encyclopedias, English- and German-language. Anyway, my question is this: can someone have the sources be "hidden" with one of those little buttons that says "show"? Is this question comprehensible? I'm just concerned that the page will otherwise soon load with tons of citations at the bottom. Would be aesthetically nicer with them hidden, no?Anthony Krupp 19:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I can appreciate the desire to be thorough, but is it necessary to cite all members of the list? It would seem prudent, both aesthetically and economically to provide citations only in the case of a dispute. Most of this can actually be handled on the talk page. Amerindianarts 19:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, in a way. Someone like Goethe would definitely need one - but I would still like citations to be provided... Perhaps instead of using <ref>CITATION</ref> we use {{fn|}} specifically tailored for MacMillan? It would ease up the load on Krupp's handy work, and be more pleasing "aesthetically" and "economically". I know the formatting, so how about it?Non-vandal 19:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with this. It may be preventative in cases of future disputes. Amerindianarts 19:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Amerindianarts, you recently changed Abbt and Buechner's citations from "M" to "a". Since they are referenced in M and a, please include both, okay?Non-vandal 20:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I should also note this is the general order in which references should be placed when there is more than one per name: C, M, a, R, O, b, S, * (commas and spaces aren't necessary).Non-vandal 20:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the 'a' on Weyl's entry before making the changes and was about to ask if there were differences in the entries for the 1973 and 2006 editions. SInce I don't have immediate access to the 2006 edition, then perhaps I should leave the citing to someone who does.Amerindianarts 20:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Krupp added "a" to Weyl - and he also seems to be the one with the 2006 2nd ed., so you will have to take it up with him. If you provided references to which you have no direct access, could you remove them (I noticed you added "M" to several names)? If you have some other edition from which you can provide references, could you tell me so I can make the corresponding emendations to the Sources list?Non-vandal 20:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken. Someone else blanked Abbt and Buchner. I verified them from the 1973 edition with an 'M' and then replaced it with an 'a' after noting the Weyl entry. I deleted nothing. The 'a' on Weyl refers to the 1973 edition, and not the 2006 edition from my interpretation of the notation. Amerindianarts 20:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I checked the previous versions. At first glance it looked like the two where already referenced before because they were blanked, and that diff doesn't show so well, then you went about changing them. Yes, I know what the notes mean (I wrote them), but you've clarified this, so thanks.Non-vandal 21:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Abbt is listed in the 1973 edition. So is Driesch, but he is not specifically listed as a "Philosopher". His entry states "perhaps the outstanding representative of neovitalism", so further evidence may be needed. Binswanger is also in 1973, but also not listed as a philosopher, but as an existential analyst who tried to relate the philosophies of Husserl and Heidegger to the field of psychiatry at his school, which was the "original amalgam of phenomenology, Heideggarian existentialism, and psychoanalysis". So, further citation may be needed. Amerindianarts 21:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Dessoir is in 1973 and I will readd. Einstein is referred to in 1973 as "one of the greatest natural philosophers of all time" Amerindianarts 21:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

1973 does not give a flattering account of Engels and does not reference him as a philosopher-"intellectual companion of Marx...considered inferior to his colleague as a thinker". Amerindianarts 21:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting comparing editions of Macmillan. If Abbt and Dessoir are there with a sentence like "Abbt/Dessoir was a German philosopher," great! I agree that Driesch, Binswanger, and Engels need verification. Good job, Amerindianarts, hunting down the Einstein sentence with the noun form we need.Anthony Krupp 21:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The noun form is also used in 1973 for Goethe, but more inferred than specific--"Goethe was not a systematic philosopher"--so this is open to interpretation. It seems to imply that he was a philosopher, but not systematic. Eckhart is simply referred to as a "mystic". Blanking Eckhart kind of hurts because of his influence on Heidegger and the fact that he was one of the first to truly use the German language as a vehicle for what has been interpreted as philosophic content. Amerindianarts 21:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the implication is a safe one to make as concerns Goethe. Unfortunately for Eckhart, he will have to be blanked until we get a satisfactory source.Non-vandal 21:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The sentence is "Goethe was not a [adjective] philosopher." Can no one find a source that says "Goethe was a philosopher."?Anthony Krupp 22:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

On both Goethe, Eckhart, and other such figures, please see the "Molyneux problem" discussed at the bottom of this page. What do you all think?Anthony Krupp 22:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

After rethinking it, I disagree but on different lines. In this case, not being a "systematic philosopher" is entirely different from not being a "philosopher" (the adjective is more than mere inflection, it is constitutional), and the 1973 edition doesn't specifically state "... was a philosopher" (that is to say "was not a systematic philosopher" doesn't exclude "was a philosopher" as you seem to imply); so he should not be included based on that reference.Non-vandal 22:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Dark Formal: I guess I have to repeat here what I already posted further up. Namely, that the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (condensed version) explicitly states that Goethe "was not himself a philosopher". All the other sources that I looked at, including Macmillan, were careful to always identify Goethe as something other than a philosopher. Even by the weakest version of criterion 1, I think it is clear that Goethe should not be included in this list.Dark Formal 22:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Needless to say, I thoroughly disagree with you based on Routledge's encyclopedia. There are thousands upon thousands of sources and two (even more) have long been found that validate Goethe's inclusion. I think the case is as good as closed by now.Non-vandal 08:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on Routledge, DarkFormal is absolutely correct. I wasn't aware that sources had "long been found" to validate Goethe's inclusion. Goethean had found a reference in Kaufmann to a preface Goethe wrote that counts as a contribution to the philosophy of science, but Kaufmann did not name Goethe a philosopher. The two sources found by you a short (not "long") time ago are the first ones that, I assume from your listing them, state that "Goethe is/was a philosopher." If this is so, and if the sources are reputable, reliable, and peer-reviewed, then indeed the case is closed. But under those conditions, it must be understood.Anthony Krupp 13:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that this footnoting system is a good one, by the way. If some names in the list are there due to verification via Macmillan, Routledge, Oxford, Metzler, etc., then readers can draw their own conclusions about how much consensus there is in the field on whether that person is a philosopher. In the case of long-dead authors, if the name is there because of an atypical reference (but it still must be reliable, reputable, and peer-reviewed per WP:VER), and one could not find verification using the aforementioned sources, then I think they can stay in the list; the reader of the list can of course reasonably conclude that the field has much less thundrously acclaimed to the world: this person is a philosopher. I think that's the very last thing I'll say about Goethe in this forum.Anthony Krupp 13:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

1973 lists Herder, Husserl, and Heidegger specifically in the noun form as "philosophers". Amerindianarts 21:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Great; please unblank.Anthony Krupp 21:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just unblanked Heidegger. Thanks for finding that.Anthony Krupp 22:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Macmillan: I only have vols. 1-4; I suspect the others aren't published yet. At least my library doesn't have them. So I will switch to other sources, most probably a German-language one at this point. (There are a lot of blanked names that I think will become unblanked when we look at a reliable, reputable German-language source.) But that's all for tonight for me. Have a great weekend, all.Anthony Krupp 22:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The entire 2006 edition is available at Amazon. Price is a bit much for me. As for differences in the editions, it could be attributed to a difference in the Editor in Chief. When the 73 edition was released in was at that time considered fairly definitive as far as these types of publications go. Amerindianarts 22:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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."[5] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.'[6] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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: [7]. 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)

[edit] 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,^[specify] 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)

[edit] 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)^{[citation needed]}

Johann Heinrich Abicht (1762-1816)^{[citation needed]}

Hans Albert (1921–)^{[citation needed]}

Georg Anton Friedrich Ast (1778-1841)^{[citation needed]}

Karl Friedrich Bahrdt (1741–1792)

Rudolf Bahro (1935–1997)^{[citation needed]}

Christoph Gottfried Bardili (1761-1808)^{[citation needed]}

Karl Barth (1886–1968)^{[citation needed]}

Bruno Bauer (1809–1882)

Ansgar Beckermann (1945–)^{[citation needed]}

Eduard Bernstein (1850–1932)^{[citation needed]}

Ludwig Binswanger (1881–1966)^{[citation needed]}

Jakob Böhme (1574–1624)^{[citation needed]}

Martin Buber (1878–1965)^{[citation needed]}

Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus (1796-1862)^{[citation needed]}

Hans Adolf Eduard Driesch (1867–1941)^{[citation needed]}

Meister Eckhart (ca. 1260–1327/1328)^{[citation needed]}

Norbert Elias (1897–1990)^{[citation needed]}

Frederick Engels (1820–1895)^{[citation needed]}

Immanuel Hermann Fichte (1797-1879)^{[citation needed]}

Jean Gebser (1905–1973)^{[citation needed]}

Kurt Gödel (1906–1978)^{[citation needed]}

Gotthard Günther (1900–1984)^{[citation needed]}

Johann Georg Hamann (1730-1788)^{[citation needed]}

Moses Heß (1812–1875)^{[citation needed]}

Dietrich von Hildebrand (1889–1977)^{[citation needed]}

Hermann Friedrich Wilhelm Hinrichs^{[citation needed]}

Otfried Höffe (1943–)^{[citation needed]}

Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835)^[specify]

Carl Gustav Jung (1875–1961)^{[citation needed]}

Karl Kautsky (1854–1938)^{[citation needed]}

Hans Kelsen (1881–1973)^{[citation needed]}

Wilhelm Traugott Krug (1770-1842)^{[citation needed]}

Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729–1781)^{[citation needed]}

Paul Lorenzen (1915–1994)^{[citation needed]}

Niklas Luhmann (1927–1998)^{[citation needed]}

Rosa Luxemburg (1870/1871–1919)^{[citation needed]}

Karl Mannheim (1893–1947)^{[citation needed]}

Anton Marty (1847–1914)(Macmillan2)

Reinhart Maurer (1935-) ^{[citation needed]}

Alexius Meinong (1853–1920)^{[citation needed]}

Jürgen Mittelstraß (1936–)^{[citation needed]}

Christian Friedrich Nicolai (1733–1811)^{[citation needed]}

Arnold Ruge (1802–1880)^{[citation needed]}

Lou Andreas Salomé (1861–1937)^{[citation needed]}

Friedrich Karl von Savigny (1779-1861)^{[citation needed]}

Hubert Schleichert ^{[citation needed]}

Friedrich Ernst Daniel Schleiermacher (1768–1834)^{[citation needed]}

Alfred Schütz (1899–1959)^{[citation needed]}

Christoph Wilhelm von Sigwart (1789–1844)^{[citation needed]}

Georg Simmel^{[citation needed]}

Alfred Sohn-Rethel (1899–1990)^{[citation needed]}

Oswald Spengler (1880–1936) ^{[citation needed]}

David Friedrich Strauß (1808-1874)^{[citation needed]}

Leo Strauss (1899–1973)^{[citation needed]}

Jacob Taubes^{[citation needed]}

Johannes Tauler (ca. 1300–1361)^{[citation needed]}

Gustav Teichmüller (1832–1888)^{[citation needed]}

Ernst Tugendhat (1930–)^{[citation needed]}

Eric Voegelin^{[citation needed]}

Otto Weininger (1880 – 1903)^{[citation needed]}

Wilhelm Weischedel^{[citation needed]}

Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker ^{[citation needed]}

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)