Talk:List of Heidelberg University people

Layout

What do you think about a table with additional information instead of a list? See for example also: List of University of Oxford people in British public life 84.168.87.90 (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looks good, but looks like lots of work to do as well. I don't believe we will be very successful in finding out the years at Heidelberg, except for those I imported from the German list (about a quarter), so shouldn't we better waive the column?. 88.64.183.59 (talk) 12:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be afraid of difficult tasks! I agree that it will be hard to find all the years at Heidelberg, but showing some is still better than showing none. And it may or may not be that in some months or even years, the list will be complete. If we don't try, we will never know. 84.168.117.16 (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's see what we can do. 88.64.183.59 (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who's Who?

1. Who should be listed on this page? It seems there are some people who are not really that notable compared to others. So what are the criteria? Personally, I think about 25% of the names listed here could be deleted.

2. What should be written in the Notes/Importance column? There are specifically three points I would like to discuss:

a) Research in a certain field usually always leads to new discoveries etc. but that is not a distinguishing feature of notable people. I would suggest to note only such research/discoveries which has its own wikipedia article, e.g. Bernoulli's principle, and not just write e.g. "Research in Physiology and Embryology" (Theodor Ludwig Wilhelm Bischoff).

b) Becoming a professor at another university, I think, is also not a distinguishing feature of notable alumni, even if it is Harvard, Stanford, etc. This list should give an impression about what Heidelberg people achieved or what they became known for. Becoming a professor at another university may be a sign of good research, but it is not a noteworthy achievement in itself (see also a)).

c) Should being member of a more or less known society/association (e.g. the International Political Science Association or the Freemasonry) be included?

Concerning 1., I would suggest that only those persons be listed who achieved something noteworthy that should be listed in the Notes/Importance column (see 2.). 84.168.113.77 (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, basically, you're right, making the decission who to include or not is not that easy.

ad a)I think deleting all people whose research achievements didn't get an own wiki-article (yet?!) would go too far. As yet, I decided by the impression of their notability I got from reading their article. I already deleted some people who didn't meet my personal criteria (eg. a simple researcher at SETI). Simply writing "research in soandso" doesn't constitute notability for sure, but if it led to significant new insights, it should definitely be included, even if the result has not an own article. Furthermore, as a lawyer, I am unfortunately not in a position to be able to judge about the notability of scientific achievements, so it's difficult. But basically, I think if people are notable enough to have an own article, and the article suggests notability of scientific achievements, I would rather include than delete them, especially regarding other universities' alumni lists, which obviously include lots of people.

There's a similar problem with the philosophers, historians, writers etc. Would you wish to delete eg. von Eichendorf just because his books have not an own wiki-entry?

ad b) Solely becoming professor at a (noted) university doesn't constitute notability either, but if the criteria ad a) are fulfilled, there's no reason not to mention it.

ad c) Including simple membership in a professional association is not a good idea, I think. Some people are members in 50 or more associations, so it would break the mould. If someone was a (co-) founder or president, it should be included, of course. Membership in the Freemasonry is not noteworthy from my point of view. Firstly it is not very difficult to become a member, as far as I know (we have 2 or 3 freemason circles in Heidelberg); second, it has that certain conspiracy theory aftertaste.

Apart from that, I considered including some more people which I feel are notable, but have no english wiki entry, such as justices of the federal constitutional court (which is certainly the highest achievement for any jurisprudent), or even some federal ministers. How about that? I've seen, you didn't fill in the notability section of some faculty, eg. Karl-Otto Apel. I can assure you, he is one of the greatest contemporary philosophers, level with Gadamer and Habermas. But as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to describe philosophies in short, we should simply include the magnum opus books in the notability column. Any reader who has an idea about philosophy will understand the notability, I guess. 88.66.26.98 (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have checked some arbitrary chosen faculty I know what you mean. There are certainly some people we should delete. 88.64.189.164 (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you say. By the way, I deleted Karl-Otto Apel because it seems that he was actually never at Heidelberg. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rodolphus Agricola

It is not true that the Heidelberger Gelehrtenlexikon lists Agricola as member of the faculty. Agricola is rather listed in the "Verzeichnis von Personen die in der Literatur mitunter als Mitglieder des Lehrkörpers der Universität Heidelberg bezeichnet werden, ohne dass sie in den Quellen als solche nachzuweisen sind", i.e. Agricola was one of the people who's membership to the faculty is often assumed but cannot be proven. I will therefore undo the latest changes. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, just skimmed the article 88.67.242.100 (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found an encyclopedia entry stating that he lectured at Heidelberg from 1482 onwards (not saying that he held a tenured position, if that existed then anyway) Going to add that. 88.67.242.100 (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Names

The following persons have been removed from the list:

If you disagree, please discuss.

I deleted Sebastian Harnisch; if we list him, we must list all our profs. Could it be, he is you teacher? Fred Plotz (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Warburg

I believe Carl Warburg attended the University of Heidelberg. Can anyone help me check this more definitely? thanks --Roland Sparkes (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Heidelberg University people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]