Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Influences/influenced redux

I recently overhauled the influences/influenced part of the infobox. I've narrowed down Influences to:

Schopenhauer, Frege, Russell, Moore, Sraffa, James, Freud, Ramsey, Kierkegaard, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Kant, Hertz, Boltzmann, Loos, Kraus, Weininger, Goethe, Spengler

Most of these are referenced in H.L. Finch's The Vision of Wittgenstein (Vega, 2003). The others are obvious. As for Influenced, I've expanded it somewhat to include:

Analytic Philosophy, Vienna Circle, Logical Positivism, Ordinary Language Philosophy, Russell, Anscombe, Malcom, Rhees, Ayer, Ryle, Hacker, Habermas, Putnam, Rorty, Kripke, McDowell, Davidson, Dummett, Dennett, Wright

Any thoughts on these inclusions? Grunge6910 (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've never been certain that Boltzmann should be listed as an influence; beyond being a recipient of the adulation of the very young Wittgenstein, Boltzmann had no clear impact on Wittgenstein's life, and there are even fewer signs of his impact on Wittgenstein's philosophy. As for influences; A.J. Ayer is a minor philosopher, and is easily subsumed under logical positivism; Malcolm and Rhees are primarily noteworthy as acolytes of W (in opposition, to, say, Anscombe); do they deserve mentioning? As for the current philosophers... I suppose this is the difficult part. Why Dennett and Rorty, but not Dreyfus or Sluga? I'd also replace Dummett with Searle, and think about adding Bourdieu. The Rhymesmith (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd also cut Hacker - given that space is a premium, I think it best to exclude anyone who is not a major philosopher, anyone who has not been significantly influenced by Wittgenstein, and also anyone who is primarily known for exegesis of Wittgenstein. I think you've noticed the Wittgenstein template which I created; there's a section there for philosophers who have devoted a substantial amount of time to interpreting Wittgenstein. I also think that if we do retain, say, Dummett, we may as well include Hintikka and Strawson. I also think Augustine should be included as an influence (granting that 'influence' in W's case worked somewhat differently to normal. The Rhymesmith (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The new W. template is very helpful indeed. Augustine is perhaps worth re-instating. I have read that Wittgenstein did read the Confessions. Boltzmann appeared on a list Wittgenstein drew up of writers who influenced him. (I can provide a citation if you'd like.) I think that's about as cut-and-dry as that gets.

Agree on Ayer subsumed into positivism. Hacker I merely retained from previous edits. I agree that he's non-notable. Rhees is probably the same. Malcom, on the other hand, is probably besides Anscombe the most frequently cited W. acolyte. For that alone, perhaps, he's worth keeping. Bourdieu should be included, as he's a major thinker who's clearly expressed his influence and comes from a different tradition that bears mentioning (much like Habermas who I've included). I think Rorty is worth mentioning because of W.'s influence on neopragmatism and because of connections between his own work and pragmatism (a very interesting area of scholarship by the way). I'm not sure why you're opposed to Dummett; he's a major contemporary thinker and has done significant work on Wittgenstein. Searle is worth mentioning. Dreyfus I simply don't know as well; I'll leave that up to those who know him better. Sluga I don't think is as significant a thinker. Grunge6910 (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

W. is reacting to what he sees as Augustine's picture of language in PI, and he quotes Augustine in enough other works that an influence is not too audacious to draw. I know the list you're talking about with Boltzmann, and have also read Wilson's Hertz, Boltzmann, and Wittgenstein Reconsidered (can't find a link); my point is merely that if we listed every influence and influenced on the basis of self-reporting without some other kind of winnowing criterion we'd never be able to stop. I don't oppose Rorty. (I also agree with your comment about connections between W. and pragmatism; that was the first thing I noticed when I came across W.) The criteria I actually seem to be using are:

• Notable for own philosophical contributions distinct from exegesis (of anyone, not just W.)
• Has acknowledged Wittgenstein as an influence
• Influence of Wittgenstein visible in works.

Dummett certainly fulfulls the first and second criteria, but the source you supplied suggests that the primary period of his Wittgensteinianism was before his major academic work, and it's very difficult to find traces of Wittgenstein in what he has published. Frankly, there's probably no analytic philosopher of Dummett's repute anywhere who has not read and been influenced by Wittgenstein to some degree, and if we have Dummett, we'd either have to include Hintikka (similar to Dummett, particularly in this) and a horde of other modern analytics, or consign ourselves to being inevitably arbitrary. I cited Sluga inasmuch as Sluga is probably Dummett's most influential student, is clearly more influenced by Wittgenstein. Sluga, on the other hand, fails my point one, inasmuch as much of what he does is exegesis of others. (Dreyfus I believe should be included because Wittgenstein has profoundly influenced D's exegesis of Heidegger, and because D's exegesis of Heidegger is sufficiently his own and has had enough of an impact on cognitive science and AI that it stands distinct from mere commentary as a work in its own right.) The Rhymesmith (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with the way the sections look now, with the possible exception of the addition of Godel. I've rarely if ever seen Wittgenstein's name linked with his. Grunge6910 (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Source requests

The article references Hamann, pp. 15–16, no other details. I've looked up the one I thought it was, but entering the text in search doesn't bring it up. Does anyone know what this refers to? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the last sentence of the lead is OR/SYN.

Despite these differences, similarities between the early and later periods include a conception of philosophy as a kind of therapy, a concern for ethical and religious themes, and a literary style often described as poetic.

Could someone post here what Barrett says on p. 138 that allows us to make that claim (that similarities between the early and later periods etc)? Do either of the sources describe the literary style (the early and later) as poetic? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I am really not sure why you're so concerned with this claim. What Barrett says on that page and others is that Wittgenstein holds the same conception of value in his early and later periods. That concept of value is expressed in his ethical and religious thinking, as Barrett and others have made clear. He said infamously himself that he saw "every problem from a religious point of view" (Malcom, Recollections, pp. 79). This aspect of Wittgenstein's thought has been emphasized a lot in recent scholarship. Another RS on this issue is the IEP:

Wittgenstein had a lifelong interest in religion and claimed to see every problem from a religious point of view, but never committed himself to any formal religion. His various remarks on ethics also suggest a particular point of view, and Wittgenstein often spoke of ethics and religion together. This point of view or attitude can be seen in the four main themes that run through Wittgenstein’s writings on ethics and religion: goodness, value or meaning are not to be found in the world; living the right way involves acceptance of or agreement with the world, or life, or God’s will, or fate; one who lives this way will see the world as a miracle; there is no answer to the problem of life–the solution is the disappearance of the problem.

As for Wittgenstein's poetic style, I didn't mean to provide Barrett for that claim. The best source on that claim is Perloff, Marjorie. Wittgenstein's Ladder: Poetic Language and the Strangeness of the Ordinary. University of Chicago Press, 1999. Cf. the introduction in which she speaks of Wittgenstein's "poetry of ideas". Also Gibson, John and Wolfgang Huemer (eds.). The Literary Wittgenstein. Psychology Press, 2004, pp. 2. "...it has often been pointed out that the fascination of Wittgenstein's works lies to a considerable degree in their literary quality; like few other philosophers he succeeded in creating a harmony between the literary form and philosophical contents of his texts."

I think this clears up both claims.Grunge6910 (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, this is very helpful. It wasn't that I was particularly objecting to it; it's just that I'm going through the article trying to make sure that everything's sourced, as there's a fair bit of OR in it. Many thanks for the references. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Russell quote

Grunge, is there a reason you want to keep the full Russell quote in the lead? I'm trying to get the article back up to FA status, and the usual thing is not to add long quotes to leads unless they're in some way distinctive. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is pretty distinctive. It's colorful and illustrative, and the way it had been paraphrased seemed to me pale by comparison. Plus it's phrase-length, so not overly long. Grunge6910 (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've made the following tweaks to the lead:

• Wittgenstein surely dismissed professional philosophy at Cambridge (his distaste for the don culture is notorious), but philosophy itself? How can this be proven when he lectured and wrote constantly in the field while he taught in that department? It seems contradictory unless properly sourced and/or explained.
• A "dark hothouse of soil"? What does this mean? Why is it germane to the article subject and its lead?
• Wittgenstein's work is usually divided between early/late. The reason we talk about the similarities/continuity at the end of that paragraph is because the polarity between early/late has been challenged by recent scholarship (some of which we proceed to cite). The early/late dichotomy is but one interpretive strategy.
• Early Wittgenstein is indeed concerned with correcting misconceptions about language -- through logic. That's why I want that phrase ("through logical abstraction") to remain. Why has this been removed without justification? Grunge6910 (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The only kind of philosophy he engaged in at Cambridge was professional, so it seems superfluous, and he didn't argue that only professional philosophy was meaningless. "Dark hothouse" is an interesting phrase, and we need attribution because of the list of names. His work is always so divided, including by those who argue that it ought not to be. I can't see the need for logical abstraction, but I have no objection to it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

On philosophy at Cambridge, that's simply not true. Much of what he wrote while he taught there -- On Certainty is a good example -- were solitary, private notes. "Dark hothouse" is an interesting phrase because I don't know what it means. The fact that we write that this is a city and time that produced Wittgenstein and Freud seems to speak for itself. His work is actually not always so divided -- see for example his entry in Audi, Robert, ed., Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (Cambridge, 1999), that speaks of the divide as more or less arbitrary given the under-studied "middle period." I see your point, but by including "usually" we demonstrate that it's just a scholarly tool, not a metaphysical divide. Grunge6910 (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It's professional philosophy, whether as notes or otherwise. He was a lecturer, fellow, and professor there. Did he ever indicate that professional philosophy was bad, but other kinds good?

I agree that the divide may be arbitrary, but it's nevertheless always made, and those who repudiate it have to say that's what they're doing. But okay, I'll restore usually. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Reception

I've thought for a while that this section is pretty woeful. It neglects a lot of important philosophers influenced by Wittgenstein, overlooks his broad influence in analytic philosophy as well as the renewed interest in continental thought, in favor of a bunch of (in my opinion) trivial examples. Will the article overhaul include this section? The discussions above (Influences/influenced) may provide some illuminating names. Grunge6910 (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it needs a lot of work. It's not something I'm planning to do immediately, but if we want to get the article's FA star back it will need to happen. If you have ideas, please feel free. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Morons on the loose again in Wikipedia

Anonymous editor, fix your language please
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yeah I know, so what else is new? This time someone -- I don't have the time or desire to find out who -- dug deep into the version history of the Wittgenstein article. They found a 1901 group photograph of little Adolf in a classroom together with other pupils. An extreme-fringe author, Kimberley Cornish, author of the extreme-fringe (and much derided) book The Jew of Linz, uploaded a cropped version of the photograph to the English Wikipedia and labeled two pupils in the picture "Adolf Hitler" and "Ludwig Wittgenstein". The fact that Wittgenstein started to attend the Realschule in Linz only in 1903 did not bother Cornish, and now the editor re-introducing this garbage into the Wittgenstein article is equally untroubled by mere chronology. The moron editor thought to be on the safe side by captioning the picture with a "no consensus" disclaimer. I suppose next we will have to include a painting of men and dinosaurs walking side by side into the Dinosaurs article, with a cautionary note that there is "no consensus" on their contemporaneity. I would ask what motivates a person to do this, but I fear that peering inside their skull would only expose a crock of shite... which stinketh much.--82.113.121.55 (talk) 10:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Hello, "SlimVirgin".--82.113.106.30 (talk) 09:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC) It is a terrible thing for Wikipedia that someone like "SlimVirgin" is a Wikipedia Administrator and according to a box on her user page, "#87 among active Wikipedians" (though she may well be among the top ten most powerful WP editors). By now, she is edit-warring with full abandon, not even bothering to supply edit summaries, in her crazed quest to insert extreme-fringe hypotheses. That this goes counter to WP policies (WP:WEIGHT, WP:BRD) does not trouble her. As one of the "special ones" on WP, she can count on any number of administrators and editors to back her up, sight unseen.--82.113.106.30 (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Please stop removing that material, or changing the writing. You may strongly dislike it, but it's properly sourced and something that's discussed a lot. I'm trying to get the article back up to FA standard, and adding writing such as "they would have had nothing to do with each other due to being two grades apart" isn't going to get us there. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC) As you show every indication of wanting to continue with your edit-warring, I have reported you on Wikipedia's relevant noticeboard. Do you think you are intellectually suited for the task of editing and encyclopedia? For example, Hitler's Vienna was indeed, as you put it in your article edit, published a year after the FOCUS article quoting Hamann. But the original German book -- Hitlers Wien -- came out in 1997. Did that not even occur to you?--82.113.106.30 (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC) You're editing warring on an article that is currently being rewritten, so it can't be perfect overnight. You're adding poor writing, breaking references, adding formatting that isn't MoS-complaint, and removing material that is very solidly sourced. Whether you like it (or I like it) is irrelevant. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks but I already fixed the reference formatting that I had broken inadvertently. Nobody is talking about "LIKE" except you. I can find lots of stuff that is sourced and claim it belongs in an encyclopedia. That doesn't make it worthy of inclusion. Address my example of "walking with dinosaurs" (for which I could find plenty of sources in the Young Earth Creationist literature) and explain whether or not it belongs in the Dinosaurs article and why. There is no requirement for editors to hold off correcting misinformation or removing questionable material at any time. I notice you requested semi-page protection to get rid of me, so if your wish is granted you will soon return to what you were doing before.--82.113.106.30 (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC) I'll return to it regardless of whether the page is protected, because it's directly relevant to a bio. It has been widely discussed, and there's further material to be added about tests that the police in Australia conducted. There's no point in ignoring it, because it will be conspicuous by its absence, so what we do is find the sources who've addressed it and tell our readers what those sources say. That's all we ever do. The section is not finished yet, and edit-warring while it's being written is not smart. It's easy to turn up and call people morons when you're otherwise making no contribution. Please look at the way this article read until the rewrite began a few days ago. There has been significant improvement, which will continue. All you're doing is slowing things down. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 11:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC) SV you are a nutcase. "tests that the police in Australia conducted" just proves it as (if proof were still needed). The only person who claimed that he had the photograph examined by a police forensic examiner in Australia is the extreme-fringe Kimberly Cornish. No police examiner in Australia has ever stepped forward to confirm the claim. Even if one had, we already know it is impossible for Hitler and Wittgenstein to appear in the 1901 photograph together. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the article, which is supposed to be about Wittgenstein's work and his life. If you must, then create a new article called Unsubstantiated claims about Hitler and Wittgenstein. Then you can put in all sorts of fringe stuff to your heart's content. With your recent gazillion changes, it is hard to tell what all has changed. It looks superficially better because you have tightened up formatting and done some copy-editing. However, I do not feel that it informs me any better about W's writings. The exposition of W's work is still inadequate and much more needs to be done. If you feel qualified to do that, then do so. Ramming in extreme-fringe stuff is not helpful. Mention of Cornish's extreme-fringe hypotheses can still be found on the Web, essentially for two reasons: (1) The book's publisher gave it a big publicity push at the time and even managed to get the Sunday Times to run excerpts before the book's publication. (2) Various mirror websites of Wikipedia, and websites scraping from them, are still stuck on older versions of Ludwig Wittgenstein and The Jew of Linz when User:Kimberly Cornish was busily editing Wikipedia as IPs and under his name to promote his book. Again, explain why your treatment should not be applied to Dinosaurs, too. And read WP:WEIGHT. Before you got busy on Ludwig Wittgenstein, the article included the barest mention of Cornish's book (with a Wikilink). That was more than enough for a book overwhelmingly derided and ridiculed. P.S. I need to turn my attention to Real Life for a while. Registered editors, please do not let SlimVirgin get away with inserting extreme-fringe content into Ludwig Wittgenstein, even if it is accompanied by a disclaimer.--82.113.106.30 (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Case brought before Fringe Theories Noticeboard.--82.113.106.29 (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What case? your comment at the ftn, is that you think the material is fringe and has undue weight put on it. as a part of the article, it doesn't really seem that way to me, as two or three paragraphs in a quite long biographical article are not excessive. Though the relevance of the material is a bit of a question. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

not clear on this revert

SlimVirgin: I trimmed down the section on early schooling here, removing a lot of trivia and speculation, and you reinstated it here. the edit summary doesn't explain the revert: was this a mistake, or is there a substantive reason for keeping this material in the article? --Ludwigs2 17:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You removed a lot of material from reliable sources without saying why, Ludwig. I'm trying to get the article back up to FA status, because it lost its star a few years ago, so it has to be comprehensive. What I'm currently doing is adding the biographical material the sources discuss most, then when I have a first draft, I'm going to go back through it to trim and tighten. What did you not like about the sources you removed? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I did say why, but only in an abbreviated form in the edit summaries. it boils down to the following points:

• The picture I removed seems to have issues about its authenticity: it claims to depict someone who might be Wittgenstein, but also seems to have been taken two years before Wittgenstein entered the school. Its only solid connection to Wittgenstein, in fact, is that it was used by someone advocating the theory that Wittgenstein and Hitler were acquainted, which (see next) has its own problems
• Much of the material I removed was debate about speculations that Wittgenstein and Hitler were acquainted. This has (as far as I can tell) only two possible uses on Wikipedia:
  1. To merely make the claim that H and W knew each other. This deserves mention in the article as a notable claim and interesting possibility (the same way that W's acquaintance with Klimt, Brahms, and Mahler is mentioned), but is basically trivia and should be limited per WP:NOTDIR. In the same vein, I'm considering deleting some of the material about Brahms as excessive detail.
  2. To make the claim that Wittgenstein and Hitler were somehow influences on each other's lives. This as far as I can tell is a highly speculative assertion made by one or two authors - it is insignificant in the scholarly world, and only really draws prurient attention because it involves Hitler. I doubt this claim passes wp:UNDUE.

Whether it's social trivia or scholarly fringe, it has too heavy of a footprint in the article, IMO. do you see what I mean? --Ludwigs2 18:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You won't be able to tell how heavy the footprint until the first draft's ready, because lots of material is going to be moved, removed, expanded, shifted around, and tightened. I'm less than a quarter way through that process. As for its being trivia, it's definitely not that. You said earlier it was speculation, but there is always speculation involved in the construction of a history. For example, psychiatrists speculate about whether he was autistic; philosophers and historians speculate as whether his brother Rudi killed himself because he feared he had been identified as gay. You didn't remove either of those issues.

What we do is make sure the sources doing the speculating are good ones. In your edit you removed the views of several very good sources, including:

• Monk, Ray. Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius. Penguin, 2001. (professor of philosophy, and a key Wittgenstein biographer)
• Hamann, Brigitte and Thornton, Thomas. Hitler's Vienna: A Dictator's Apprenticeship. Oxford University Press, 2000 (historians)
• Goldstein, Lawrence. Clear and Queer Thinking: Wittgenstein's Development and his Relevance to Modern Thought]. Duckworth, 1999 (professor of English literature)

The fact is that this issue is discussed by reliable sources, with people coming down on various sides, so we just repeat that discussion. And Hitler is far from trivial in W's life. There is more to come about what happened when W applied for Mischling status, which our article currently doesn't cover well.

I worry that you're editing in accordance with the recent anon, who was mixing up some basic issues (Hitler and W going to school together, and whether they knew or affected each other), with a conspiracy theory written up by an Australian writer some years ago, who went a great deal further. I forget his arguments, but they involved Wittgenstein working for the Russians, and Hitler adopting Wittgenstein's theory of mind. None of that is in the article, and is a separate issue entirely. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Long on my watchlist (though not a participant here), I noticed the intense activity recently and that this article is already very much improved again already (and I recognize the process is frequently not without some discomfort of course). On balance, IMO, it's moved back in the general direction of FA quality. I also happen to be among those who question the relevance of extensive inclusion of the Hitler material at Realische. This approach, as of today, is sensible in my estimation. It's generally a good way of breaking up the multiple aspects of this early and important educational and personal experience about which many scholars and commentators have discussed. It allows the relevance and content of the Hitler material to be discussed more-or-less separately, and I support breaking up the Realische section into brief subsections. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, K. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

SV: I made my edit because of precisely the reasons that I gave above; there is no sense suggesting otherwise. I'm more than happy to wait until you're done editing. I had no idea you were involved in a major revision (there's no {{underconstruction}} tag or equiv.). let's see what it looks like when you're finished, and revisit the issue in if needed. --Ludwigs2 18:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no requirement to hold off on reverting damage introduced by SV until she declares that her handiwork is done. If she wants to edit undisturbed, then she can set up a sandbox in her userspace. I have inserted a "disputed section" tag, please do not remove it while discussion is ongoing. Especially egregious is the prominent citation of Laurence Goldstein, a borderline figure at best when it comes to Wittgenstein biography, in the very first paragraph. Worse, the current version does not name Brigitte Hamann, who is a million times more credible and reliable, and who has said numerous times that W. and H. would have had nothing to do with each other, until the very end of the section.--82.113.106.31 (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind logging in to make your edits? It is clear that you're Goodmorningworld (talk · contribs) from the German Wikipedia, because you've been editing about this single issue for a long time, as well as for some reason removing that Wittgenstein was Jewish. You're also editing as 82.113.106.16 (talk · contribs), 82.113.106.28 (talk · contribs), 82.113.106.29 (talk · contribs), 82.113.106.30 (talk · contribs), 82.113.106.31 (talk · contribs), 82.113.121.51 (talk · contribs), 82.113.121.52 (talk · contribs), 82.113.121.53 (talk · contribs), 82.113.121.54 (talk · contribs), and 82.113.121.55 (talk · contribs). Splitting your contributions makes it harder for admins to see that you've been posting about this issue frequently, and that you've been very rude to people about it.

The material is widely discussed, and in our article is well-sourced, and placed in context. There's no reason to remove it, and I can't imagine why anyone would even want to. Laurence Goldstein is a professor of English who has written a book about Wittgenstein; his opinion is not one we're going to single out for censorship. He believes Hitler would have taken against Wittgenstein for the reasons he explains. Against that view, Ray Monk, a philosopher who has also written a book about Wittgenstein, writes that there's no evidence they had anything to do with each other. We express both views. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well looky there. SV finally decides to talk and no longer upholds her outrageous and false insinuation that I hurled a sexist insult at her. As far as being rude about her fitness to co-write an encyclopedia, I very much stand by my rudeness. The evidence is there for all to make up their own mind. Her "FOX NEWS" style is the death of any encyclopedia. Did dinosaurs walk the earth together with humans? There have been sources that claim they did, others disagree. Did Neanderthals hunt down and eat homo sapiens sapiens? Some say yes, others no. Did Hitler have Jewish genes? Some say yes, others no. "We report, you decide. But to help you make up your mind, we will mention the outlandish minority view first."

I have nothing to add beyond the arguments already made in my edit summaries, here on the Talk page, and on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. Registered editors will have to fight it out with SV from here on out. Good luck to you all. --82.113.121.52 (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

IP: You know, you really make my life difficult. I'm personally willing to give your opinion credit - I think it may have some merit, though it needs to be discussed - but I really don't want to be seen as supportive of someone who spouts out the kind of vituperative drivel you spouted out in your last post. If you would contain yourself within polite, civil discourse, then we could all have a decent discussion that might actually make the article better. As it stands, I hope it's true that you have nothing further to say, because frankly you're just not helping your own cause.

emotional lemmings, I swear... --Ludwigs2 04:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What I find odd is that anyone would want to exclude this material.

Think about it: you're born into the wealthiest family in the Austro-Hungarian empire, and an extraordinarily talented one too, and therein lies your downfall, because your dad wants the boys to be captains of industry, not pianists or thinkers, and forces you into an intense home education that just doesn't work. While Europe's finest are popping in for tea to tell you how wonderful you are, your own mum and dad have very little to say in your favour and won't even let you go to school. Added to which you're having to deny to yourself who you really are: that you're gay, and maybe even Jewish, and that you're never going to be that iron and steel salesman dad has set his hopes by.

The situation takes its toll and two of your brothers kill themselves, so dad tries to save you by sending you to school. Unfortunately, your education has been so spotty you fail the exam for the posh school, and instead get sent to a working-class backwater where you stick out like a sore thumb with your high voice, your high culture, and your high collars. And just when you thought things couldn't get any worse, who does the school bully turn out to be? Adolf Hilter! SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to exclude the material, but I do think it needs to be kept in check. Frankly (despite the fact that it's presented as scholarship) this is mostly tabloid material. Objectively, we have two 14/15 year olds who attended the same school (briefly, though in different grades), and later became famous in very different areas of life. However, there is no objective evidence that they knew each other, no objective evidence that they had any influence on each other, no objective evidence that they even remembered that they went to school together in later years. There is merely a speculative argument with salient dramaturgical elements (the troubled, tragic figure of Wittgenstein in composition with the intractably diabolical agent Hitler - variations on Othello and Catcher in the Rye). My sense is that this theory is a more significant as a titillating bit of gossip about famous people (with the extra added spice that any mention of Hitler gives such things) than as mainstream scholarship. To the extent that it tries to place Wittgenstein as a factor in Hitler's antisemitism it smacks of historical revisionism; to the extent that it doesn't it smacks of trivia.

In other words, I think the idea is noteworthy, but I also think it falls under Fringe guidelines. Have any of its proponents demonstrated anything more than that W&H attended the same school? has the idea of some Hitler/Wittgenstein cross-influence been picked up as valid by general scholarship? is the idea floated mostly by seedy public interest in anything Hitleresque? My sense is 'no', 'no' and 'yes', in which case it ought to be cut back in the article to a bare minimum. --Ludwigs2 16:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that we're not a scholarly project, and this isn't a scholarly article—and it's not clear what's meant by mainstream scholarship when it comes to Wittgenstein's life, because no historian has written a full-length treatment that I'm aware of, so the bios that we have (which are excellent) are written by academics in other faculties.

That they were at the same school is not in dispute and is discussed by the sources who write about Wittgenstein's schooldays. The separate issue of whether Hitler had a view on W is only mentioned in our article in two paragraphs:

There is much debate about the extent to which Wittgenstein and his siblings saw themselves as Jews, and the issue has arisen in particular regarding Wittgenstein's schooldays, because Adolf Hitler was at the same school for part of the same time. Laurence Goldstein argues it is "overwhelmingly probable" the boys met each other: that Hitler, vicious and aggressive, would have hated and envied Wittgenstein, a "stammering, precocious, precious, aristocratic upstart ..." Other commentators have dismissed as irresponsible and uninformed any suggestion that Wittgenstein's wealth and unusual personality may have fed Hitler's antisemitism, in part because there is no indication that Hitler would have seen Wittgenstein as Jewish. ...

Wittgenstein and Hitler were born just six days apart, though Hitler had been held back a year, while Wittgenstein was moved forward by one, so they ended up two grades apart at the Realschule. Monk estimates they were both at the school during the 1904–1905 school year, but says there is no evidence they had anything to do with each other. Hitler referred in Mein Kampf to a Jewish boy at the school, but there were 17 Jews there at the time: "At the Realschule I knew one Jewish boy. We were all on our guard in our relations with him, but only because his reticence and certain actions of his warned us to be discreet. Beyond that my companions and myself formed no particular opinion in regard to him." Several commentators have argued that a school photograph of Hitler (see above right; Hitler is on the top right) may show Wittgenstein in the lower left corner, but Hamann says the photograph stems from 1900 or 1901, before Wittgenstein's time.

I can't see why that would be regarded as too much in such a long article. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

My concern would be with the latter half of the second paragraph, starting with "Hitler referred in Mein Kampf to...", and with the associated picture. The problem with this section (in terms of using it on wikipedia) is that it adds no substantive, verifiable information about Wittgenstein. it's only purpose is to support the thesis that H&W knew each other, but that theory has already been presented adequately in the paragraph above; adding in a supportive argument verges on advocacy. Likewise, it is unclear whether the picture actually has LW in it - even those who don't argue that it's from the wrong date will not say definitively that that is LW. That places the picture a couple of steps above an image of bigfoot. This section does a good job of giving the impression that H&W had some sort of relationship, but all in the "could it be that...?" implicative mode that is never a substitute for actual scholarship. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Also, that 'Monk estimates...' line seems redundant with the same information given in the above paragraph. minor issue, but just so it's said. --Ludwigs2 19:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The point of mentioning the picture is that it's mentioned a lot as a photograph of Wittgenstein, so I added what other reliable sources have added—namely that it seems to have been taken before Wittgenstein started at the school. I'm a little perplexed that my contradicting of a tiny-minority-view is being called a tiny-minority view.

I didn't follow your last point, Ludwigs. I thought you said you were going to wait until I had a first draft ready? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'm objecting to the over-indulgence of the tiny-minority viewpoint in the first place. We have to be careful that critiquing it doesn't give it undue prominence through the back door. Why introduce the picture in the first place if what that means is that we have to go out of our way to explain that the picture is largely considered specious?

and sorry, I thought you were done with this section, which is why I brought up the last point. ignore it if it's inappropriate. --Ludwigs2 19:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Not even close to being done. Once I've got a first draft ready I'm going to go back through the article and tighten everything so that it's not too long, so most of it will change. Or at least that was my plan. To be honest this is putting me off. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin asked me to take a look at this issue, and, frankly, I'm baffled. The section about his Jewish identity and possible brush with Hitler is fascinating, well-written, NPOV, discussed in reliable sources, and important in understanding Wittgenstein's history and background. I cannot understand what objections there are to it. It's clearly not a "tiny-minority viewpoint" that Wittgenstein had significant Jewish ancestry and came from a famous Jewish family that repressed/denied their Jewish heritage, that he went to the same school as Hitler at the same time, and that Hitler commented in Mein Kampf on at least one Jew he went to school with there. Maybe the comment was about Wittgenstein, but there were 16 other Jews there, and Hitler may not have identified Wittgenstein as one. Maybe that photo shows the two of them together; more probably not. The article makes this clear in a neutral way. So what is the "tiny-minority viewpoint" to which people are objecting? And even more bizarrely, why is there a "factual accuracy" tag on that section? Is there a single word in there that is not factually accurate? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't put the factual accuracy tag there, and I would have removed it except I didn't know why it was there. and the 'tiny minority' viewpoint I'm concerned about is the assertion that Wittgenstein somehow contributed to Hitler's antisemitism, which seems to have almost no scholarly support. Are we clear on this?

Slim, why don't you let me know when you're done and we can pick it up then if there's a need. I wouldn't have discussed it now if you hadn't opened he conversation, and I don't know why you posted the two paragraphs you posted above if you weren't prepared to discuss the issue. I'm not in a hurry, so finish what you're doing first. --Ludwigs2 22:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't open it again, L. The anon/Goodmorningworld posted about it again, and I responded to him, then you posted and I responded to you. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. my bad. won't happen again. --Ludwigs2 23:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Terry Eagleton called him the philosopher of poets and composers, playwrights and novelists.

Is this so relevant to be included in first secion of article?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 05:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Is relevant to put, in article about philosopher, scientist, artist, writer geographical coordinates of his grave?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 05:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say no as a rule, except in exceptional circumstances (e.g. E.A. Poe's grave, which is a tourist attraction of sorts in its own right). I mean, I don't suppose it would harm anything, but it seems about as superfluous as including their shoe size. --Ludwigs2 23:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Legacy

I'd like to start work on a legacy section, and specifically a subsection that deals with his manuscripts. But I find I can't understand what's going on.

I know that he left his manuscripts to Rhees, Anscombe, and von Wright. And I've read this very interesting article in the Atlantic Monthly. But I'm struggling to understand the current relationship between Michael Nedo and the Cambridge Wittgenstein Archives; the Norwegian Wittgenstein Project, abandoned in 1987 (they produced the CD collection of his works published by Oxford University Press in 1988, though it seems it's no longer available); and the Wittgenstein Archives at Bergen.

Is anyone able to shed light on it? And who are the trustees, now that the three original ones are deceased? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

G. E. Moore context and links?

Hi, I'm new to the page (and Wittgenstein himself) so I was not aware who G. E. Moore is. However once you get to the "Work on Logik" section he's an important figure, only mentioned in passing previously as a member of the Cambridge Apostles, and then at the beginning in reference to his wife.

I can't seem to edit, so could someone at a minimum link his name to his page? Better would be to provide some context with how he came to be important to LW enough to be invited to be his "secretary"... Spopejoy (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've linked it on first reference; the reason it wasn't linked is that the part of the sentence it was previously in was removed. You're right that we need something about who Russell and Moore were, and why they were so influential. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Influences/Influenced???

Why is there no section on Wittgenstein's influences/influenced? He is one of the most influential individuals in history, especially in recent times. --96.253.50.139 (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Because you haven't written one. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) The article is undergoing revisions, so that may be on its way. wait for a bit.

that being said, though, W in not as influential as one might think. In academic circles, at any rate, Wittgenstein is acknowledged but not used all that much. People who want to work with Analytic Philosophy tend to stick to Russell (I think they avoid the Tractatus because Wittgenstein overtly rejected it), and nobody much works with Wittgenstein's 'therapeutic' approach because it assumes that most philosophical ideas are dysfunctional to start (not a comfortable stance for a professional academic philosopher). Wittgenstein doesn't have the popular appeal of someone like Einstein, and he's not notorious or controversial the way Neitzche or Marx were, his approach was never really adopted by a school (I think mostly because of the dominance of the Vienna School at that time and the rise of post-modernism in philosophy), and frankly it's just very esoteric material. We are accustomed to objective theories, and it's hard to know what to do with a theory that is fully and self-consciously self-reflexive.

Plus, what Slim said. --Ludwigs2 16:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

How long does it take? It's only the influences. --96.253.50.139 (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Out of what? 5, 10, 20, 100?

"In his leaving certificate, he received a top mark only once, in religious studies; a 2 for conduct and English, 3 for French, geography, history, mathematics and physics, and 4 for German, chemistry, geometry and freehand drawing." jnestorius^(talk) 15:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the lowest mark would have been; I'll look to see if a source mentions that. Other sources compare it to A, B, C, and D, so I assume anything below 3 (C) was a fail. I believe he did fail his written German, and it seems that was a 4. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It may be an ordinal scale rather than an interval one (1, 2, 3, 4 equivalent to A, B, C, D), so it may not be 'out of' anything at all. --Ludwigs2 22:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Is his marks really relevant for one general article? We can also put number of his passport and general data. I understand this article as general introduction in Wittgenstein life and work, not reinterpretation of some good book about him (like Monks biography). --Vojvodae please be free to write :) 06:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Some Influences

I know that Wittgenstein was influenced by Hume, Kant, Marx, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Einstein, Frege, and Russell. Can we please put this back up with all of the other influences?--96.253.50.139 (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I put in the influences/influenced section. Those are all the people I know who influenced, or were influenced by Wittgenstein. Please add more if you know of them. --96.253.50.139 (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You'll need sources for the influenced-by part, and it doesn't make sense to add people he has influenced, because it's basically everyone. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Slim. --John (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you please tell me why it is only the Wittgenstein article that needs sources for all of the influences while I cannot think of any other article where that is the case? There aren't sources for everything on wikipedia, and you know when reading Wittgenstein, taking philosophy courses, and reading books about him, who he influenced and who he was influenced by. I also know that he has had an incredible influence in intellectual thought. However, if you go to the article on Nietzsche, who has had just as big an influence or even more than Wittgenstein, it says he influenced Wittgenstein without a source, it also said he was influenced by Pascal without giving a source. If Wittgenstein is somehow too important to add lesser intellectuals on his page that influenced him, then I suggest deleting the influence sections on Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche, and even Kant's pages. Plato had a larger influence than any other philosopher, but it still states in his 'Influenced' section: "Most of subsequent western philosophy", along with names like Aristotle, Descartes, Nietzsche. Heidegger, etc. --96.253.50.139 (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If someone questions if Wittgenstein was influenced by Frege, I'm not impressed by their skepticism as much as convinced that they didn't check. It seems like common sense to include what we know that's not contested and bring in the cites for disputes. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems pointless to try to list the people Wittgenstein (or Plato, Aristotle etc) influenced, because it's just about everyone in the field, never mind outside it. So to narrow it down you would need a clear definition and a good cite for each one, and I can't see the benefit of it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Gay

"and was probably gay" That's really immature. Also, notice how the shrinks argue about what kind of crazy he was. Can't anyone be famous and sane? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.161.131 (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing from the lead: "He was gay long before it was accepted, as was at least one of his brothers, three of whom committed suicide, with Wittgenstein and the remaining brother contemplating it too."

Could the anon/new editor explain, please? It was a major issue for him and his brothers, being gay during a time when this was not safe, and the suicide of three brothers, at least one whom killed himself because he feared he was going to be outed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the new edits is twofold: (a) by removing that it was not acceptable then to be gay, we're removing the point of mentioning it in the lead; and (b) it's adding another quote to the lead, and not clearly an important one: "he was commended by the Austrian army for 'courageous behaviour, calmness, sang-froid, and heroism.'" We already have the quote from Russell (which I'd love to remove), so I think any other quotes should be distinctive in some way, hard to paraphrase. With this one, there's no need at all to quote it exactly. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is extremely vague/unencylopedic, possibly misleading. For starters, "gay long before it was accepted" sounds like you're talking a fashion trend. Who arbitrates whether being gay is "accepted" or not? Is being gay "accepted" now? In W's pre-WW1 Cambridge milieu, homosexuality was extremely common, even the norm. Yet within that milieu, W, unlike most of his friends, was not openly homosexual. In his second Cambridge phase, he was far more open (having - apparently consummated - homosexual relationships), however even there many of his friends (e.g. Fania) knew nothing of it, being sure that he was a-sexual or celibate. I think we can probably agree that he was homosexual, rather than bi-sexual (although he lost his virginity to a woman when he was 18, and later proposed to one when he was in his 50s). But he certainly wasn't "openly gay", in the sense that so many of his friends at Cambridge were. We can't verify (although we may speculate) that it "was a major issue for him", insofar as he never seems to explicitly refer to it in his writings or diaries.

I think the WW1 quote is quite important. If we remember the entire tradition in the Ancient world that "Philosophy is the practice of learning how to die". Such a commendation by the army would stand, at least in the eyes of the Ancient world, as a verification of one's status as a philosopher. 82.26.0.138 (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The gay issue: it now reads "gay long before it was socially acceptable." He lived in Cambridge for around 20 years in all, and not all at once, so we can't judge his entire life by Cambridge norms, and even there his friends insisted that he wasn't really gay, in the sense that he was only fantasizing. As for the military quote, we can easily paraphrase. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Both the statement, and the emphasis given to it in the lead (i.e. "long before it was accepted"), are simply misleading, since they imply that he was openly gay, in a way that bravely contravened the morality of his social class. In fact he was almost the opposite: even in the most openly gay environment in the world, he apparently kept his sexuality secret. Your statement would be true of someone like e.g. Truman Capote. It would already be misleading in the case of Oscar Wilde or Keynes, since being gay was accepted in their social background.

The statement is also extremely imprecise and vague, which should matter in a biography of Wittgenstein. What does "long before it was socially accepted" mean? In many circles (particularly those in which Wittgenstein moved), homosexuality was perhaps more prevalent and socially accepted in the 19th century than it is now.

A better description would be to call him "homosexual", since the word "gay", in addition to sexual behaviour, also connotes a certain social identity. And rather than saying "he was homosexual", we should probably say "he had homosexual relationships", since W's philosophy is usually against the reification of a practice into an identity.

Finally, it's a biographical fact, which isn't central to his philosophy (as it is to some philosophers - e.g. plato). So it's place in the lead is also questionable. 82.26.0.138 (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

We don't say he was openly gay, but he didn't hide it either. Do you have a source that says he kept his sexuality a secret? And anyway that's not really the point. The point is that it's something that caused problems for the whole family, hidden or otherwise, with at least one other brother killing himself over it. It was a notable aspect of his life.

If it's the lack of precision you don't like, we can try to find different words, but just to say "he was gay" raises the question of "why are you telling us?", so we have to make clear why we're mentioning it (e.g. it was not a safe thing to be). As for W's philosophy, he isn't editing WP, so how he would write the lead is not an issue. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's fine just to say that he was homosexual - we can assume that our readers are informed enough to know that being homosexual is not always socially accepted (few schoolchildren don't know this). By assuming that our readership isn't completely illiterate, we can avoid writing such simplistic statements in the lead. After all, it's not actually true that being homosexual wasn't a safe thing to be in Wittgenstein's time and place - in some cases it wasn't, in many cases it was. Possibly Wittgenstein was tormented by his sexuality, but this might well have more to do with his own idiosyncrasies than with social acceptance - again this is all speculation.

Also the claim that his brother killed himself because of his sexuality is speculation, presumably on behalf of a biographer (ray monk?) 82.26.0.138 (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

If you read the section here, second and third para, you'll see the sources are Monk, Jahrbuch für sexuelle Zwischenstufen, and Bartley. But I'm not aware of anyone who says otherwise. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The Prater

I don't feel that the Bartley material about W.'s alleged conduct in the Prater park is worthy of this article; he is the only person to ever make those claims, and they are unsubstantied--Bartley provides no real evidence other than hearsay, and the interpretation of the quoted remark in the section is hardly obviously one of an admission of casual sexual activity. We know for certain that Wittgenstein had homosexual relations (with Ben Richards, which he remarks on in his diary, quoted in Monk; and probably with Pinsent as well) but the alleged Prater incidents have never been established. Some of the Wittgenstein executors and friends went too far in completely denying his homosexual activity (as his diaries show), but their protestations do not mean they are covering something up. I intend to remove the Prater material, unless someone here can convince me otherwise. I'll give it a day or two for someone to respond. Enigma00 (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

William Warren Bartley is a reliable source, Enigma. He was a philosophy professor who travelled to Austria to speak directly to the sources, and there's no reason within policy to remove his material. Wittgenstein's executors used to say that all his gay relationships were fantasies only, which is a sad reflection of the times. If he engaged in casual sex he was hardly alone in that, and it's no reflection whatsoever on his life or work, just a part of it like any other. So we simply repeat what the reliable sources say, without judgement. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said I agree that the executors and friends were wrong. It is clear from his diaries he had homosexual relationships and sexual relations. But the Bartley material is really not reliable at all. Monk disputes it, and Bartley was the only one to ever make those claims and he provides no real evidence. The fact that he was a philosophy professor is not germane, and he says he spoke to sources but why are we to believe what he says? The claims Bartley makes are not echoed by any other source on Wittgenstein, and as I said are disputed by authorities on the man such as Monk. Not to mention the fact that, to my mind, such behaviour seems inconsistent with Wittgenstein's personality (of course that is speculation). The point is, this Bartley material is basically hearsay, has been called into question by other scholars, and is not worthy of an encyclopedia for that reason.Enigma00 (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's as reliable as any other biographical material on Wittgenstein. For Wikipedia to decide that Monk's view is worthy of inclusion, but Bartley's isn't, would be highly POV. It was Bartley, I believe, who first wrote about Wittgenstein hitting his school pupils. Ought we to censor that too? The point is that we don't know who is correct, because we weren't there ourselves to witness it (nor were Bartley or Monk). And there was a great deal of interference in the past from Wittgenstein's executors, who seemed to want to create a certain narrative, not necessarily the truth. So all we can do is choose the sources with good academic credentials who have focused on Wittgenstein, and tell our readers what those sources say, without passing judgment. That's the essence of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR.

I'm intending at some point to add Monk's criticism of Bartley's interpretation of the coded notebooks, but I haven't fully understood it, which is why it's not there yet. If you have a better grasp of it, you'd be welcome to add it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

OR

This was recently added to the lead—"the author of the two most widely recognized philosphical [sic] works of the 20th century"—and is both OR and unclear. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I see Shrinkrap has restored his changes without comment. [1] Problems:

• The addition to the first sentence of "the author of the two most widely recognized philosphical [sic] works of the 20th century" is unsourced original research, unclear in its meaning, and it contradicts the second paragraph, where we say in more detail, with a source, how professional philosophers have ranked them.

• The addition to the second paragraph: "Soon after publication, the Tractatus was recognized as an outstanding work of genius and had a strong influence on western philosophy for the next several decades. However, its significance has faded since then" is repetitive, unsourced, and repeats the "genius" meme, which is already in the first sentence of that paragraph.

• " ... that the world man apprehends through the senses is mere appearance, and though it is man's only access to reality it is not total reality ..." is odd writing, and doesn't improve what's already there.

• "Monk writes he returned to it shortly thereafter in his first major philosophical work; the Tractatus, where his views on idealism and realism collided." Wrongly punctuated, and not an improvement on what's already there.

• The description of the Tractatus: again unsourced OR, and not an improvement.

We have to stick closely to the academic sources, and be careful not to add repetitive material. Shrinkrap, if you still want to add some of this, please come here to discuss. It might help if you read our content policies too: WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Further reading

(copied from SV's talk page)

Hello. You removed, without discussion, a citation to Dr. Sara Ellenbogen's dissertation and published book on Wittgenstein in the Ludwig Wittgenstein article in the Further Reading section.

• Ellenbogen, Sara, Wittgenstein's Account of Truth: A Novel Perspective on the Semantic Realist/Antirealist Debate, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, 1998. (published by State University of New York Press, 2003)

I don't see exactly why you did so. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I removed it because its an unpublished PhD thesis. Even if it had been published, there's so much out there about Wittgenstein that we can only include the old faithfuls, or material that sheds a new light on some interesting aspect. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If someone wants to create Ludwig Wittgenstein resources or Ludwig Wittgenstein bibliography, we could list his works and works about him, though I'd still argue that an unpublished PhD thesis wouldn't be appropriate. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Some Wittgenstein-related research papers

Does anyone have a view as to whether we could include material from this academic paper, and its references? Among the references I was thinking of Kurz & Salvadori 2001 and Sen 2003. These and perhaps some other papers seem to constitute a literature on Wittgenstein's relationship with maths and economics, that isn't really covered in the biographies. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed this. By all means writing something up if you think it would be interesting. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Soldier? I don't see why one of his occupations is listed as "soldier". He was not a professional soldier, he merely served in war-time, albeit in a distinguished manner. Thousands of other famous men have served in the armed forces, but "soldier" is not listed as one of their occupations simply for this reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.255.176 (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

What's with the title?

Why is the title of the article page (not this talk page) currently "Talk Mediawiki:Ludwig Wittgenstein"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.51.18 (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It isn't, though I know old material was recently moved into the article. Can you post a screenshot of what you're seeing? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw this also. The title banner at the top of the page was 'MediaWiki talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein' even though the page was still called Ludwig Wittgenstein. I tried to make a null edit to fix this, but meanwhile the page has fixed itself and my edit does not show in the history. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see now. Graham moved it briefly, then moved it back. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Faith vs religious belief

I dislike replacing talk of Wittgenstein's "loss of faith" with talk of "loss of religious beliefs" for two reasons. First is that Wittgenstein himself emphasized the importance of religion in his life and his thought. He famously remarked: "I am not a religious man but I cannot help seeing every problem from a religious point of view" (Rush Rhees, ed., Ludwig Wittgenstein, Personal Reflections, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984, pp. 94). Second is that this religious strand of Wittgenstein's thought is getting emphasized a lot in recent Wittgenstein scholarship. So we have the recent article on him in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy remarking:

Wittgenstein had a lifelong interest in religion and claimed to see every problem from a religious point of view, but never committed himself to any formal religion. His various remarks on ethics also suggest a particular point of view, and Wittgenstein often spoke of ethics and religion together. This point of view or attitude can be seen in the four main themes that run through Wittgenstein’s writings on ethics and religion: goodness, value or meaning are not to be found in the world; living the right way involves acceptance of or agreement with the world, or life, or God’s will, or fate; one who lives this way will see the world as a miracle; there is no answer to the problem of life–the solution is the disappearance of the problem.

Another good source, although not especially recent, is Norman Malcom's Wittgenstein: A Religious Point of View? (London: Routledge, 1993). Undoubtedly religion in Wittgenstein is highly ambiguous and complex and he was by no means conventionally religious. But he clearly had religious beliefs, of one sort or another. So saying he "lost" them makes no sense, I maintain. Grunge6910 (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The quote that article refers to, in which he remarks that he cannot help but see every problem from a religious point of view, is very often cited. It is also true, it should be noted, that he also spoke of his Catholic friends/students/disciples as believing things he was not capable of believing, and that he did experience the loss of specific, perhaps not wholly elucidated beliefs. However, I feel what we are discussing when we are discussing this issue is less this loss and more the ongoing crisis of faith that was a major feature of Wittgenstein's inner life. Also, the edits that accompanied this change did not appear to me to be well-thought-out (which is why I re-re-reverted them) - I would be more open to considering the change if it were part of a sustained and cogent argument. -- Zhuravlei (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Wittgenstein changes

[copied from SV talk]

Kindly provide reasons for your reversion to previous c., as I did for my suggested changes. My changes were with regard to general encyclopedia policy. In addition to the appropriateness of the previous c., is the matter of their truth. As a philosopher and former Ph D student of Professor Malcolm, I attest that some of your comments there are false or misleading, and that Professor Malcolm would have been very unhappy with use of him as reference for them. Alethe (talk) 07:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Alethe, I reverted some changes that had rmvd relevant material, added OR, and brought the page to over 16,000 words, which is too long. Which of those changes were you referring to? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

§Thank you for replacing "homosexual" with "gay". However I think that the 2d half of the 2d paragraph should be removed altogether, as it strongly slants the article from the first. 1. LW should not be characterized by his sexual orientation. It would be no more appropriate to remark in the 2d paragraph of the article on Bertrand Russell that he was heterosexual. If that turns out to be a relevant part of either's encyclopedia biography, it can come later in the article, from context (for example in LWs relation with Pinsent Hume), or in a footnote. 2. Likewise, the suicide information does not belong there, or at all. Its prevalence in his family suggests depression, which is known to have genetic factors. Depression, for which thoughts of suicide are typical, has high incidence in modern times. Furthermore, as a web look will show, many remarkable people have been depressive. This includes Lincoln, who said he would not take a knife with him on his long walks. Such "thoughts" have no place in an encyclopedia article, unless linked to content, as they are in the J. K. Rowling piece. 3. Your response above to the query about R. Rorty is that he is a reliable source. As a philosopher I have little confidence in Rorty's reliability on many things: it would be a question of what, & I would not count him as an authority on LW. Next, even if he were, why cite only Rorty? I have known philosophers who knew Wittgenstein, some of whom would agree with Rorty, some strongly not. But why do readers need anyone's summary comment about a whole life in the introduction, or at all? 4. Out of context--one should at least read all of Malcolm's memoir--is the "angry" remark, also literally false. The Ms Moore anecdote is trivial, also out of context. It has no place in the introduction.

I have written at this length because, as a teacher of philosophy and Wikipedia contributor, I am concerned about young people approaching a great philosopher's work through the portal of a negative character assessment, or any character assessment at all.Alethe (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the introduction could use some work, and that some of what is currently there should not be in an introduction to an article but rather in the main body. I'm thinking of the references to his sexual orientation, the quote from Rorty (surely we can get a similar statement from a someone who actually knew him, like Malcolm, Russell, or von Wright), and perhaps the story from Moore's wife. Additionally, I think the introduction is grammatically wanting in a couple of places. Enigma00 (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that there are trivialities in the introduction. The story about Moore's wife strikes me as totally useless; much as I love Rorty (sorry, Alethe!) it sounds a little strange quoting him talking about Wittgenstein's person.

And if I may, it really annoys me that these inclusions are privileged over the description of Wittgenstein's actual thought, the summation of which has been steadily whittled away. I'm thinking of the recent edit removing reference to Wittgenstein's descriptions of ordinary language in the Investigations, which was removed without explanation. But if one were to remove a story about a jam factory, that would get reverted. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Also, I would like to reiterate that I'd like to see a reference to Wittgenstein's position in analytic philosophy. When the lead states that he's important to OLP and logical positivism, I think that drastically short-changes his influence. Those were both very short-lived movements; his influence has been far broader and more far-reaching than those two movements. Grunge6910 (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The story about Moore's wife is a widely repeated anecdote among philosophers, regarded as highly illustrative of W's outlook. I'm surprised at someone saying they teach philosophy (at least in England) arguing otherwise.

That he was gay was clearly something of central importance to his life, because it caused him a lot of problems. His personality was distinctive and in many ways wretched, primarily for him, but also for others, so that's also something worthy of mention up front. The problem with relying on Malcolm et al is that the lead, and article generally, would turn into hagiography. That's why it's important to source it from outside the Cambridge circle too. For in-text attribution in the lead, we currently cite Russell (Cambridge philosopher), Rorty (philosopher, not Cambridge), and Eagleton (formerly Cambridge, not philosopher). That's a good balance.

Alethe, could you say what is wrong with the way Malcolm's book is cited in the lead? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

One point worth bearing in mind. This is a biography. It's not about his philosophy, which has its own series of articles. He spent a great deal of his adult life (most of it?) not working as a philosopher, and not living in Cambridge. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead material changes, cont'd

§§ Re (ec) I don't find any of the arguments I offered @§ seriously addressed. I make one more effort. In order:

I’m not a professor of philosophy in the UK. As a philosopher, I don’t repeat trivial anecdotes about central people in my field, not even to undergraduates. That includes the one about him allegedly waving at Popper with a fire poker etc. Besides:

That anecdotes are widely repeated is not a reason for retailing them. Encyclopedia articles are not places for focusing on anecdotes. That particular anecdote is not given in context; instead it is assigned another context. Imagine if someone wrote an encyclopedia article on us or anyone we cared about featuring a single comment once made, say, in someone's kitchen. "regarded as highly" describes all successful gossip.

It is generally true of gay people, esp. until recently, that sexual orientation was of central importance in their lives, causing them many problems. That doesn't constitute sufficient reason for mentioning in encyclop. articles, unless it is clearly related to the reason why there is an article on that person.

A great many of the people of whom one is justified in writing Wiki articles about fit the description of the first two three clauses. But again, that doesn't constitute sufficient reason for mentioning in such articles, unless it is clearly related to the reason why there is an article. Experience teaches us caution about summing up other people’s lives. Neither the Wiki article on Stalin nor on Hitler use such anecdotes or begin with character summaries.

The term "hagiography" was used by Ayer in his rev. of Malcolm's memoir. Not a nice exchange ensued. No one has suggested "relying on Malcolm". It would be better to rely on no-one, including R. Rorty. There is no need to. Readers should be given pertinent information and can draw conclusions for themselves. . We can accept this sophism as humor, not needing reply.

As stated. Having studied LW with Professor Malcolm, I assure you that your use of details from his text in characterizing LW make you lucky he is no longer living.

There would be no biographical article on LW were he not a philosopher. Much of the article is about his philosophical activities. The relevance of the last sentence to the issue under discussion escapes me.Alethe (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's almost certainly false that we'd have no article on Wittgenstein had he not become known as a philosopher. We have one on his father, several articles on Paul and his work, one on his sister Margaret, and one on the house he helped design. They were a notable and interesting family.

The jam factory and poker anecdotes were widely repeated in Cambridge by people who knew him, or by people who knew people who knew him; the poker incident even merited its own book. The incidents were seen as illustrative both of his attitude to philosophy and his personality. And, with respect, no one's in a position to say what Malcolm intended with his words; we have only the words themselves. It's widely known that Wittgenstein wasn't keen on his students becoming philosophers, and Malcolm writes (Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir, p. 28): "Wittgenstein several times renewed the attempt to persuade me to give up philosophy as a profession. He commonly did this with other students of his."

That's the only point in the lead that relies (in part) on Malcolm, and you still haven't said what's wrong with it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Alethe on this one. Mention of his sexual orientation in the lede leads one to believe it somehow was relevant to his thought and place in philosophy. This is certainly not the case. Same goes for judgments on his temperament. These find a better relative emphasis further down in the body. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The lead has to comply with WP:LEAD by including notable controversies. People who write biographies of Wittgenstein focus on these issues. I accept that you disagree with this, but it remains true. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's accurate to describe the controversies in the lead as notable. Wittgenstein is notable first for his philosophy and the anecdotes are derivative of that. I have an advanced degree in philosophy myself, and I think it's accurate to say that we aren't measuring the portions quite rightly. As written, I think W's prominence would be more mysterious than explained for a non-specialist, and that's not good. Can't we move the gossip down to a later place? The real controversies of W's important work have nothing to do with jam or pokers. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I object to this. The current lead has four paragraphs, three about his philosophy, and one about him. You're proposing to remove or reduce even that one, which isn't right. The page can't be turned into the kind of hagiography that's unfortunately too common about W, trying to airbrush him away to the point where he doesn't even sound human anymore (e.g. his friends saying he didn't really have sex, only fantasized about it).

If you want to write a page that focuses only on his philosophy (e.g. Philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein) that would be extremely helpful, and it could act as an umbrella article for the articles about the rest of his work, explaining how they're connected. But that isn't this article, which is about his life. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

§§§ Regarding SV's last paragraphs in this discussion, they again don't appear to me to address editing arguments I presented. My remarks about Professor Malcolm aren't substantive among these. More important is what they bear on: that the lead paragraph in question consists of four sentences, three of which are negative, containing strong character judgments about the subject and implying others, while suggesting nothing positive. There appears to be no controversy represented there. Norman Malcolm would have been unhappy about them, and especially unhappy with being cited in a footnote supporting them. (Btw self-loathing is an unlikely explanation why LW didn't like to hear of various of his students' plans of pursuing philosophical professional careers, notably in postwar England.) However that's not the editing issue. I suggest comparison with other Wikipedia articles' leads. I suggested Stalin and Hitler. For Wiki policy towards forming a judgment, there are many other articles to consult, including those about notable figures who were/are personally very controversial. Anecdotes are easy to find about most people--including all of us. This is all a question of what is helpful in and suitable to an encycl. reference.Alethe (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep raising Malcolm. He is used a source in the lead for one point only; there is a citation in the footnote; and he clearly says on the page we cite that W didn't want his students to become philosophers. And of course he's not the only person to have said this.

Once again, this is a biography. It is about W's life, background, family, relationships, jobs, personality, beliefs, feelings. That includes his philosophy, but that isn't the focus of this article, and the lead must summarize this article, not some other. What we do on Wikipedia is discuss each issue summary-style, linking in each section to other articles that deal with that issue more comprehensively. You're therefore very welcome to create Philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein, where you can deal summary-style with the 20 or so articles we have on his work, and in that lead you could summarize his philosophical ideas. That would be a very valuable thing to do. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Once again, this is only one way to look at it that might very reasonably find objection. Biography leads, to my understanding, are to say why the person is significant and what they did. W is notable for his philosophy, and he's not a marginal figure in his century (which is mentioned, of course). To express his importance and notability, I don't see why we're talking about his sexuality and personal minutiae. I would think those matters would come in the part of the article where the superfluous or personal aspects of his life are mentioned. The idea that this is some kind of effort to put a bogus gloss on Wittgenstein is unsupported by a comparison to other bios. Obviously, no mention of his sexuality would be made if he were heterosexual since his preference on that is irrelevant to his notability. I don't see mention of Hitler's sexual issues in his bio lead and I think it's obvious how bizarre that would be. Would we mention it if a general thought that a career in the military was a bad idea or a boxer thought that boxing was a waste of time? Yes, but only if they were notable for holding that view. It's not a controversy and it's unrelated to W's prominence. This seems like a poor exercise of editorial judgement to me but my mind is ready to be changed by something persuasive. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to register agreement with SlimVirgin that information on life, relationships, beliefs, et cetera ought to be included. It is reasonable to expect that you would find these in a biographical study of any length, and it seems very peculiar to me to argue that because a friend/colleague of the biographical subject would not like or would disagree with something, this material should therefore not be included. The lead, in summarizing the article, should provide a reflection of topics addressed in a substantive fashion within. A significant amount of debate has surrounded Wittgenstein's homosexuality, his attitude towards it, and its effect upon him, and therefore it's reasonable to expect this to figure prominently in an article on him. However, that said, I do see the point that perhaps its representation in the lead that stands is disproportionate? This might be resolved by balancing the lead with more information on other major topics discussed in the article, including philosophical topics. Just my input. -- Zhuravlei (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

§§§§ Remark on Malcolm was in response to SV's request: "on Malcolm, and you still haven't said what's wrong with it."

Comments §-§§§ have offered a series of editing arguments, none of which SV has addressed. The body of the article as it stands, notably incl. Russell's testimony, provides much evidence regarding the psychological, social etc. lives of a notably complex figure. Readers will be able to form hypothetical interpretations on that basis. I suggest that editors read the second paragraph of the lead and decide whether it is fair and not gratuitous. Mention of suicides in a person's family, their & sibling's sexual orientation, exaggeration of "angry when any", 3d hand anecdotes about trivial action, Rorty's opinion are clearly not the stuff of encycl. leads. My view, acc. to Wikipedia rules, is that, as it stands, that paragraph is biased and needs rewriting or excision. I hope that other editors read it and offer their judgments.Alethe (talk) 07:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Z, there's no one saying that "that information on life, relationships, beliefs, et cetera" should be excluded. In fact, everyone agrees on that. This is a discussion about where and how to proportion the material. Again, to state the obvious, W is notable for his philosophy, not for his role as a homosexual, not for his family's sexuality, his career advice, etc. The only reason we are interested in these matters is because of his work in philosophy. That is just very obvious. Looking at the lead of the man who some say revolutionized philosophy twice in his short life, what do we find? Not a word about the philosophical controversies that he played a part in. As a point of comparison, I've reviewed the leads of all the Featured Articles from the Philosophy project listed here:

Featured articles

• Adi Shankara
• Bernard Williams
• Blaise Pascal
• Galileo Galilei
• Georg Cantor
• Hilary Putnam
• Isaac Newton
• Ludwig Wittgenstein
• Mahatma Gandhi
• Mary Wollstonecraft
• Max Weber
• Michel Foucault
• Søren Kierkegaard

With one exception, none of these leads mention the sexuality of the person or have personal anecdotes. But they usually mention the philosophical ideas that made the person notable and sometimes how and why those ideas were notable. The exception is the Wollstonecraft article, because her unorthodox lifestyle affected her reputation (yes, it was controversial). The more I look, the more convincing it becomes that the Wittgenstein lead is distorted and poorly edited. Does anyone who's looked at the above articles disagree? --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I 100% agree with you. Wittgenstein would be the first to say that his philosophy was intricately bound up with his biography. This article underemphasizes his philosophical work, especially in the lead. For the record, I contributed the majority of the last lead paragraph on his philosophy; parts of it have been removed, others tweaked (understandably). I think that paragraph is unfortunately not proportionately emphasized. Wittgenstein was perhaps the most important philosopher of the twentieth century. Might we still have an article on him because of his family's notability and his other accomplishments had he not been a philosopher? Yes. Do any of his other accomplishments, or his family's notability, equal the notability his philosophical work? Not. Even. Close. Yet we talk more about jam factories in the lead than about his place in analytic philosophy, and more about World War I than the Investigations. Grunge6910 (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a side point, but I'm very skeptical we'd have an article on Wittgenstein without his philosophy. Are there other examples of kindergarten teachers from prominent families that we consider notable? The family seems notable because of him, not the other way around. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious to know where you're getting your information about Wittgenstein from. We've had people post here that he's not noted for trying to persuade his students not to study philosophy, or that the poker and jam factory stories (and others along the same lines) aren't notable. But anyone who has studied Wittgenstein in Cambridge, especially if they were there when his friends were still teaching there, will be able to confirm that these stories are indeed notable, in the sense of often told and apparently highly illustrative of him. You see the same material in his biographies. So Ring, can you let me know what you're basing your views on? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me, but anecdotes about famous people are not more important than their life's work, even if they're repeated in Cambridge. I'm certain the stories told about Shakespeare, for example, retold as they have been for a few centuries, are still not more notable than his 39 plays. Do you know the one with the punch line, "William the Conqueror came before Richard the Third"? The man was a wit! I would be shocked to find it in the lead section of the article on Shakespeare, however, and would be unmoved even if it was repeated daily at the River Avon. Moreover, we are not debating inclusion of this material, which is fine; rather, we are discussing why we lead with it. (FYI, I consulted The Encyclopedia of Philosophy and found nothing on jam or pokers under W. I checked W in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and found nothing on jam or pokers.) I'm curious what level of evidence you would require before you change your mind, Slim. I am looking for anything that supports your view. The more I read the wronger the lead looks. What's your strongest argument? --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If you read his biographies they will give you a good overview, then we'll have something to discuss. It's difficult to do that without you doing that reading, because my saying "these stories and anecdotes are notable and often cited" isn't enough. You have to read the sources for yourself. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Is your strongest argument that you read the stories in biographies? --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course, that's always the strongest argument. We base our biographies on the biographical material reliable sources have published. Our article must highlight what they highlight, and our lead must summarize that, per WP:LEAD. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if that's your strongest argument I don't think you've got any case at all. First of all, neither the Encyclopedia of Philosophy nor the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy lead with anecdote, and neither includes jam or poker even though both include some personal material. Now, you might say that's because they are targeted on Philosophy. Fair enough. But then we should find cases that support your position among the Philosophy project FAs right here on Wikipedia. We don't. And I will gladly repeat my boring Shakespeare example that it seems you will have an extremely difficult time answering. We have anecdotes on the man but obviously that's not what you put in the lead. Perhaps you can explain why other philosophers don't have bios replete with anecdote. Perhaps you can explain why Shakespeare's bio has no revealing personal stories. Until you can, the material you read in the W biographies belongs in a different part of this article. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ring, I'm not seeing any indication from your posts or contribs that you've studied Wittgenstein, or read his biographies, and both are needed to be able to edit this article, or comment meaningfully. I don't mean to be a dick in writing that, it's just a fact. Two people who have read the material can disagree about where the focus lies, but when one person hasn't read it, it's hard to know how to proceed. All I can do is recommend you begin with Ray Monk's Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius (1990), and perhaps glance at some of the sources he cites himself, then come back and let us know whether you still feel this article doesn't offer a good summary of what's out there. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you're not trying to change the subject to avoid answering directly. So, back to the matter at hand: I notice you haven't explained why your approach is so out of step with everyone else who does FA bio's in this area. This leaves open the question whether or not you could. Until you've read the FA articles I linked to above I doubt you can help any more. Of course, I am open to the idea that this article should take a completely different form from other biographies in its area. But without addressing why those articles are so different, I think you will continue to look like someone who's trying to change the subject. Thanks for your thoughts --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

§§§§§ Lest discussion fall off right margin, this 'carriage return'! I plan no changes to the body of the text, myself, leaving decisions about that to editorial consensus. (Btw, Donagan's name is misspelled in a footnote.) My view has been that the paragraph under discussion is in violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view green Pillar. It appears to me to be gratuitous, negative and insufficiently based on identified sources. Judgment about this editing suggestion should not require knowledge of the subject of the biography. In addition, as this thread shows, the existing paragraph introduces unnecessary value judgments about sexual orientation and depressive tendencies--the latter being very common to outstandingly original people, as web sites, incl. some in Wikipedia, show. Where a bio. subject has been a focus of much gossip--for example, in the case of Oscar Wilde--it may be appropriate to include this in the body of the text, less so where this is posthumous. Even then, editorial composition should not itself be framed in terms of gossip and confirmingly selective choice of citationsAlethe (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Break

We seem to have the situation here that Brian Duffy described in the New York Times in 1988:

I suspect the widespread discomfort over Wittgenstein's sexuality - this difficulty in squaring the priestly image with that of the homosexual - partly explains why, in a world where almost every minor personality is mythologized, there was, until several months ago, no biography of the man who is arguably this century's greatest philosopher. This squeamishness in discussing his life, this continuing tendency to gloss over certain obvious questions or else treat them as unworthy of consideration - these were among the first qualities I detected in the literature, and I found them most evident in the various memoirs. In their effort to put forth a plain, unvarnished record of what Wittgenstein did and said, some of these memoirs have almost the feeling of gospels - hushed, reverential, proprietary. Wittgenstein once made a distinction between what could be shown but not said, and this seems to be the case with these accounts. In their pronounced reticence and discomfort in speaking about the man, they show more compellingly than they could ever describe the almost planetary force that Wittgenstein exerted and, by all appearances, still exerts over those who knew him and indeed even over his own memory. [2]

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I find this disturbing, that people who have studied him want to reduce him to boring flatness, when he was so fascinating; and that other people who know nothing about him have arrived here to edit as though they do, and make no apology for their lack of knowledge, as though it doesn't matter. But for the sake of examining balance in the lead, let's look at it sentence by sentence:

1. Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein (26 April 1889 – 29 April 1951) was an Austrian philosopher who held the professorship in philosophy at the University of Cambridge from 1939 until 1947.

   Focuses on him as a philosopher; neither positive nor negative.

2. Wittgenstein is known for having inspired two of the century's principal philosophical movements, logical positivism and ordinary language philosophy, though in his lifetime he published just one book review, one article, a children's dictionary, and the 75-page Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1921)

   Focuses on him as a philosopher; neither positive nor negative.

3. His work is usually divided between this early period, exemplified by the Tractatus, and his later period, articulated in the posthumously published Philosophical Investigations (1953).

   Focuses on him as a philosopher; neither positive nor negative.

4. The early Wittgenstein was concerned with the relationship between propositions and the world, and saw the aim of philosophy as correcting misconceptions about language through logical abstraction.

   Focuses on him as a philosopher; neither positive nor negative.

5. The later Wittgenstein rejected many of the conclusions of the Tractatus, calling language a series of language-games in which the meaning of words is derived from their public use.

   Focuses on him as a philosopher; neither positive nor negative.

6. Born into one of Austria-Hungary's wealthiest families in Vienna at the turn of the century—a city and time Bruce Duffy described as a dark hothouse of soil that also produced Sigmund Freud, Karl Kraus, Theodor Herzl, and Adolf Hitler—he gave away his inheritance, and at one point had to sell his furniture to cover expenses when working on the Tractatus.

   Focuses on him as a person; neither positive nor negative.

7. He was gay, as was at least one of his brothers, three of whom committed suicide, with Wittgenstein and the remaining brother contemplating it too.

   Focuses on him as a person; that he was gay is neither negative nor positive; that three of the brothers committed suicide, and two others thought about it, is negative about the family.

8. Bertrand Russell described him as "the most perfect example I have known of genius as traditionally conceived, passionate, profound, intense, and dominating," while Richard Rorty wrote that he took out his intense self-loathing on everyone he met.

   Focuses on him as a person; one positive, one negative view.

9. He grew angry when his students said they wanted to teach philosophy, and was famously overjoyed when G.E. Moore's wife told him she was working in a jam factory—doing something useful, in Wittgenstein's eyes.

   Focuses on him as a person; neither positive nor negative.

10. He tried to leave philosophy himself several times, commended for his courage during the First World War on the front-lines with the Austrian Army; teaching in schools in Austrian villages, where he found himself in trouble for hitting the children; and working during the Second World War as an orderly in Guy's Hospital, London, where only a few of the staff were told that the new porter was the professor of philosophy at Cambridge.

    Focuses on him as a person. War commendation positive; hitting children negative; Guy's hospital neutral or arguably positive.

11. Despite the differences between his early and later philosophy, the similarities include a conception of philosophy as a kind of therapy, a concern for ethical and religious issues, and a literary style often described as poetic.

    Focuses on him as a philosopher; neither positive nor negative.

12. Terry Eagleton called him the philosopher of poets and composers, playwrights and novelists.

    Focuses on him as a philosopher; arguably positive.

13. In 1999 his Philosophical Investigations was ranked as the most important book of 20th-century philosophy.

    Focuses on him as a philosopher; positive.

Thirteen sentences in all. Eight sentences about his work as a philosopher. Five about the rest of his life. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the way the lead is set up a lot more now. My only quibble now is that I don't think Wittgenstein is strictly "known for" his place in logical positivism and ordinary language philosophy. He's really known for his ideas and the startling originality of his approach to philosophy. LP and OLP were minor movements that took their inspiration from him and they fizzled out decades ago. Most think they misinterpreted, or were at least narrow in their interpretation of, his philosophy. His influence has been extremely wide, both since those movements were en vogue and when they were. Broadly speaking, Wittgenstein's influence has been widest in the Anglo-American tradition, or analytic philosophy as it is loosely called. I think we'd do well to note this. I should add that I've never denied how interesting a person Wittgenstein is (nor do I consider myself ignorant about him, but that's beside the point), and it's a point well taken that he's often viewed as a kind of secular saint. The starkness and strangeness of his writing and the mystique surrounding his person and biography makes him amenable to such a canonization. It is of course not strictly an accurate perception of his life. The other thing going on here is that a lot of philosophy acolytes, myself included, tend to want to downplay the important of biography to thinkers. We prefer to think of them as purely philosophers in some sense. I'd be the first to admit that this is frequently a mistaken point of view, but it is nevertheless one a lot of us unconsciously hold. Grunge6910 (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think these are good points. Everyone wanted to own him, philosophers for philosophy, Cambridge for itself, his friends for a narrower circle still. My aim is to write for non-specialists who want to know about his life, and to direct them from this page to more specialist articles about his philosophy. I wish someone would consider creating Philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein for a more focused narrative. What we do need is one sentence at the end of the second paragraph, something sourced to a modern writer, to explain succinctly to the non-specialist why he matters, either to philosophy or more broadly. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Squeamishness? No, Slim, that is your invention. Again, please consult the FA articles on philosophers. Or consult bio's on other significant historical figures to refine your sense of how best to balance the personal with the creative. (If you mean to imply that I'm unqualified to edit here, perhaps you should find a good mirror.) We probably have too much on Wittgenstein the person now, given his powerful influences on philosophy and beyond, but in time I think we can find the right proportion. Perhaps it's difficult to do justice to the nuance of his thought in a limited space. We can do worse than consult our predecessors to see how they handle that problem. Thanks for the contributions. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

§6 The topic under discussion in this string is whether the second header paragraph of this article should be removed or revised. SV's March 5 responses on this issue may be divided into three. The first two are ad hominem, hence of no relevance to the editing suggestions. 1) There is attribution of motive to some editors, beginning, "we seem to have the situation", which situation is of a "discomfort" described by a NYT article 23 years ago. SV then attributes the mental state of wishing "to reduce" the subject "to boring flatness". These comments are impertinent in two senses, logically irrelevant to the case. 2) There is a statement about "other people who know nothing about" the article's subject. But the editing objections offered to that paragraph are of a sort requiring no knowledge of the subject. They are routine editing objections complying with Wikipedia policy about bias. They are of a sort that authors expert in topics receive from copy-editors, for whom this response is not appropriate. Furthermore, since the article is written for people who are not knowledgeable about the subject, it is useful to know if the paragraph seems biased to one such. Such input should be welcomed.

3) The longest part of the reply is an example of ignoratio elenchi, although it at last addresses the issue: bias in the second paragraph. To argue lack of bias, SV dissolves that paragraph and mixes its sentences with others in the lead. Editing takes place at word, clause, sentence, paragraph, section and whole work levels. The objections here have been focused on a paragraph in a section. Secondary objections have been made to sentences, but these have not mainly concerned their internal normative content. The reply doesn't address the paragraph, but, as it states, "thirteen sentences in all". Therefore it doesn't address the objections. In conclusion, the March 5 remarks again fail to address editing arguments for revision of paragraph two. Alethe (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Alethe's note above seems to suppose that the only previous objection was about negativity, not proportionality between work and personality. I'm not entirely in agreement if indeed that's what she means. The article today, including my effort to reorder the material, still seems to have problems. Some require professional help. Some are more quotidian. In any event, I don't think we're well expressing W's place in the world. I feel a little bit like it's Shakespeare without the plays. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Except that, aside from the plays, we know very little about Shakespeare. This is not the case for Wittgenstein. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

We know less about Shakespeare, but there are anecdotes and any number of facts and speculations about Shakespeare's sexuality (bi, anyone?) that could be mentioned. For obvious reasons, it's not important enough. I haven't come across a bio of a world leader in his field that gets into issues of sexual preference in the lead. I'm completely ready to go along with Slim if that kind of evidence can be produced in volume. As things stand, she can't, she can't answer her critics, and that speaks volumes. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

We know literally 1,000 times as much about Wittgenstein's life as we do about Shakespeare's. Obviously speculation based on almost no information wouldn't get as much prominence in a biography as actual known facts. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I agree. Still, there's no excuse for bringing in Wittgenstein's sexual preference in the lead. He is not notable for that reason even a little bit. It's absurd. Note that even Picasso's sexuality gets no mention in his bio. Cf. Hitler, Sinatra, Laurence Olivier, Madonna. No mention of sexuality despite some interesting things to say. And I'm prepared to concede the point as soon as the many examples are brought out where the contrary is the case. All the FA articles on philosophers ignore matters of sexuality except in the one case where it caused a controversy. So that's 100% compliance in the area. For me, that's persuasive. You don't agree? --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it seems that in his lifetime Wittgenstein's fame had nothing to do with his sexual orientation, and even after his life his sexual orientation was not an issue. Unlike for example Alan Turing whose sexual orientation lead to his unfortunate untimely death. His article mentions the later outrage about this fact at the end of the lead. But I don't think such a situation is true for Wittgenstein, in the case of Wittgenstein his sexual orientation is irrelevant, at least for the lead. Note that even the lead of Michel Foucault does not mention his sexual orientation. Mahjongg (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

§7 As a control, I checked Richard Montague stub, as that's the most shocking case, re sexuality, in the profession that came to mind. Article seemed about right for a gen'l encyclopedia. I heard add'l rumors at time about his death, but would hope that development of stub would happen at top, not bottom. Alethe —Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC).

Overhaul?

Type "Ludwig Wittgenstein" on Google and the top return is this Wikipedia article. Read that and you'll discover, e.g., that article subject's eldest sibling, "Hermine, was so nervous of Brahms that, when once invited to sit with him at dinner, she spent most of the evening vomiting in one of the bathrooms." that "He told Hermine he loved the isolation of the Grouse Inn, but was less enamored of the toilet facilities." that when dying "He was prescribed oestrogen, which gave him diarrhea, hot flashes, impotence, and swelling of the breasts." With apologies to Albee, the subtext title is "Loo Story"? The piece also includes a ¶ on the possibility that its subject may or may not, when very young, have been a classmate of Adolf Hitler (illustrated by photo of Hitler's class, which is then said not to include subject). Und so weiter. This piece, which has a surprisingly low reader hit count, needs restructuring, with such material either rewritten, deleted or moved to footnotes. As it stands, the article contains a valuable, relevant history of the subject, with much material that might be kept. But the hard job remains to be confronted: to indicate to general readers what is interesting and distinctive about an influential intellectual figure of modern times. This is a job for philosophers to begin cooperatively. Alethe (talk) 09:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article should better explain to non-philosophers W's prominence. Can we be specific about what's missing? From reading the article today, what would not be understood about W's importance to philosophers, etc.? --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In general, I agree with A that this article is too biased towards the gossipy and anecdotal. I attribute this to the undue amount of weight put on Alexander Waugh's gossipy and silly book as a major source, when there are plenty of other biographical sources about LW that are under-exploited. It may be amusing to know that LW's sister was so nervous of meeting Brahms that she puked, but it doesn't tell us anything about LW himself. (If we want to talk about LW vis á vis Brahms, what would have been illuminating would have been his remark quoted somewhere in the book Recollections of Wittgenstein that in Brahms he could 'hear the sound of machines', i.e. that even Brahms' music was too modern-sounding for him.) I disagree with A that philosophers should be put in charge of editing this article (just as I disagree with Plato that philosophers ought to be put in charge of running nation-states). This article is a big, baggy mixture of good biographical writing, good analysis of LW's work and irrelevant gossip. It is not enough merely to say that LW was gay, as if that meant the same thing as saying that (say) Derek Jarman was gay, when LW's own gayness, indeed the very fact that he had any kind of sexual life at all, seems to have been profoundly problematic for him. I am a general reader, without any philosophical training, who happens to have been reading LW's work (and reading books about him) for twenty years. The unfortunate fact is that LW's family was, shall we say, colourful. This should not be allowed to get in the way of a clear and direct understanding of the significance of his work, and how it related to his life. Every single juicy factoid does not deserve to be in the article. Lexo (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

My experience with WP tells me that this article will never be improved if we start debating about how best to improve it. Someone has to go in there and start cutting, and if nobody else will do it, I will. Cuts can always be restored. Lexo (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Photo removal

Photo removed with comment "Remove photo of child Hitler from text that itself states there is no reason to associate child Hitler with subject of article". Text does not say that; it says "there is no evidence they had anything to do with each other". They are "associated" by attending the same school at the same time. Standing near each other in a class picture does not contradict "there is no evidence they had anything to do with each other". There is a whole section on this issue, and the photo is pretty much what got the issue started. There is little, if any, dispute that they DID attend at the same time, even if it is not LW in photo. Photo should be reinstated. --JimWae (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hitler speculation still excessive

Speculation about Hitler and Wittgenstein becoming acquainted and seriously involved with each other in Linz is just that: lurid and largely fact-free hot air. The present treatment of this speculation needs to be cut down by at least half. Moreover, instead of citing writers possessing little authority as Wittgenstein scholars amd historians, e.g. Goodstein, ahead of more authoritative ones (Monk, Hamann), the ordering should be reversed. The main source of this speculation, Mr. Kimberley Cornish, is an extremely dubious figure and the author of a widely-derided book. Unfortunately, the Wiki article on that book has been mutilated to camouflage the near-universal critical condemnation it received and the Wiki entry on Cornish (which documented his links to Holocaust deniers and revisionists) has been turned into a "redirect" which means it has been effectively erased from view.--217.91.192.177 (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Add a philosophical summary?

This is a huge article, mainly dedicated to a detailed personal history of Mr. Wittgenstein. Can we maybe get a brief one or two paragraph summary of his core philosophies and contributions? The closest things are the introduction and legacy sections, which just feature quotes by other thinkers about how great W. was. I think most people who look up a philosopher on Wikipedia would prefer a summary of his ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.26.147 (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Pinsent

There is no evidence that W.'s relationship with Pinsent was other than Platonic.Lestrade (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

What a silly commentary. Signpen (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

So does that mean that you do have evidence? Or that it's irrelevant? Or what? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It means that it's a silly and uninteresting commentary, nothing more. Signpen (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we should let Signpen answer, don't you? I'm sure Lestrade is as interested as anyone else. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

He's just interesting in spreading homophobia everywhere in wikipedia. His commentary is silly and uninteresting. Signpen (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Does it matter that Wittgenstein did not, or could not, express physically his feelings towards someone he loved? But I'm not sure why Lestrade's comment is "homophobic". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if he could or not, that's why his commentary is silly and uninteresting. And this stupidity is based on his incorrigible homophobia : for example, his word for homosexuality is "inversion"... (Henry Sidgwick talk page) Signpen (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps any problems you have with this editor's views belong elsewhere. If you think his contribution here is worthless, then I think it's best if you just ignore it. This Talk Page is meant to be about Ludwig Wittgenstien, not about the statements of a single wikipedia editor with whom you personally disagree. Your first edit here deleted the whole GA review section. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, let's ignore him. Signpen (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The words "silly" and "uninteresting" are subjective, private adjectives and may possibly not be used in a truthful description. It is very childish, supercilious, and contemptuous to attempt to use them to dismiss the valid statement that there is no evidence that W.'s relationship with Pinsent was other than Platonic. There were no witnesses and Wittgenstein himself never made a public admission of any kind. It appears that the allegations are mere speculation and rumor.Lestrade (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Lestrade

Again – “Perhaps any problems you have with this editor's views belong elsewhere." But your point seems perfectly valid to me. All that the article seems to currently claim, from Monk, is: "Wittgenstein is also widely regarded to have fallen in love with.. ” Pinsent. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes Wittgenstein was homosexual. It is very childish, supercilious, and contemptuous to come here and make just one unintesting commentary that is "There is no evidence that W.'s relationship with Pinsent was other than Platonic" by people who produced homophobic statements before. That seems indeed to be a sad obsession. [[194.153.110.6 (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Your continued problem with another editor's point of view is not really helping to improve this article. You have made your position quite clear and I don't think you really need to keep repeating it. But it's not clear from the content of this article that Wittgenstein was homosexual. The evidence seems to suggest that he was, if any label is required, bisexual. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I also don't believe that Lestrade contributes in good faith - but let's leave that aside as I agree that we must instead focus on the article. Although Wittgenstein was involved in a relationship with Marguerite Respinger (a young Swiss woman he had met as a friend of the family), his plans to marry her were broken off in 1931 and he never married. Most of his romantic attachments were to young men. There is considerable debate over how active Wittgenstein's homosexual life was, inspired by W. W. Bartley's claim to have found evidence of not only active homosexuality but in particular several casual liaisons with young men in the Wiener Prater park during his time in Vienna. Bartley published his claims in a biography of Wittgenstein in 1973. Wittgenstein's estate and other biographers disputed Bartley's claims and asked him to produce the sources that he claims. What has become clear, at least, is that Wittgenstein had several long-term homoerotic attachments, including an infatuation with his friend David Pinsent - who was killed in a military flying accident in 1918 - and long-term relationships during his years in Cambridge with Francis Skinner and Ben Richards. I proposed to update the main text to reflect. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with such an update, provided sources are clearly given. But did Bartley ever produce his sources? What kind of "evidence" did he find? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I now see that you have added the suggested material. Is that all really supported by Monk? Should you not also give Bartley as the source for these new claims? (And who's was the "no children" marriage condition?) Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely - should definately reference Bartley. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

This section began with a categorical statement of fact that I made on 15 December 2011. The reason that I made the statement is that I believe that the article should contain only factual information, not speculation or rumor. It seems to me that no one has ever produced photographs of Wittgenstein’s bedroom activities. Also, Wittgenstein, himself, never made any public statements about his physical contacts. How, then, can anyone pretend to know with certainty what occurred after Wittgenstein turned off his night light? Wittgenstein took the problem of certainty very seriously. The book of his notes, titled Über Gewißheit [On Certainty], contains remarks such as "From it seeming to me—or to everyone—to be so, doesn’t follow that it is so." (§ 4) Here we have a man whose book on certainty contains 676 sections of extremely serious investigations about evidence, knowledge, belief, probability, credulity, reasonable doubt, seeming, judging, sureness, etc. We must have learned very little from Wittgenstein if we label a rational statement regarding certainty as "silly" and "uninteresting". Lestrade (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Lestrade

I'm really not sure that his philosophical stance on certainty had anything to do with his sexuality. But maybe it did. And I would not really expect to see, or even hear of, photographs as the only proof of his sexual preferences. But you are quite right that it would be prudent to apply some of Wittgenstein's own rigour in establishing certainly as far as possible for the content of this article. Some of the questions I have asked of Contaldo80 above have yet to be answered. It seems perfectly feasible to me to include in an article such statements as "it has been claimed that" or "so-and-so has suggested that". I think Contaldo80 should ideally give page numbers from the Bartley book for the claims made there. But your personal "categorical statement of fact" does not trump all other suggestions, not stifle any possible debate. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You say, "I'm really not sure that his philosophical stance on certainty had anything to do with his sexuality." Here is the connection: The article claims with certainty that Wittgenstein’s friendships with various men were venereal. In the spirit of Wittgenstein’s own researches on certainty, I suggest that such a claim is moot. The article dogmatically states, as proof, "What has become clear, at least, is that Wittgenstein had several long-term attachments with other men, including an infatuation with his friend David Pinsent." This statement might refer to Platonic friendships. It does not provide certainty that Wittgenstein’s friendships were not Platonic. What happened behind closed doors was known only to Wittgenstein and his friends. At a great remove in time and space, we can't pretend to know with certainty what private matters did or did not occur. The article would be more encyclopedic and less Wikipedic if such sordid suppositions were not included.Lestrade (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)Lestrade

I tend to agree with Lestrade - if Wittgenstein had thought we should know he would have told us. He didn't. No reason to speculate about what he didn't tell us. Let's just stick with the facts. What the article miss is an account of his thinking not more details about the history of speculations as to his sexuality.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to moderate the latest addition by slightly re-writing. I have also added tags where citations are needed. If these cannot be provided, then I think those claims should be removed. Bartley seems to be on his own over this. I quite agree that the article should include more on Wittgenstein's philosophical thinking. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Martinevans123 for seeking a thorough and balanced approach. I have now added some references which I hope go some way to meeting your concerns. I'm afraid I can't provide the specific page references to Bartley as I don't have direct access, but the issues are rehearsed under McGinn and Monk so it's safe to assume they have been made. Separately, I am content to engage in a discussion to improve the article. However, I am not prepared to engage in a discourse with other users who in my opinion offer thinly veiled homophobia and use words such as "sordid" to refer to homosexuality. As for the 'smoking gun' of an engaged (non-platonic) sexuality perhaps we can lay this one to rest once and for all and look at Wittegenstein's own words, as McGinn relates in the LRB: "One such ‘lapse’ is reported in Wittgenstein’s notebooks, and incidentally shows Redpath to be wrong in his belief that there was nothing more ‘lurid’ between Skinner and Wittgenstein than a close male friendship. The two were vacationing together in Norway and Wittgenstein reports himself as being ‘sensual, susceptible, indecent’ with Skinner: ‘Lay with him two or three times. Always at first with the feeling that there was nothing wrong in it, then with shame. Have also been unjust, edgy and insincere towards him, and also cruel."’ (talk) 09:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I guess the details of his private life might have been considered "sordid", by some, in the early years of the 20th Century. Else the actual investigation, by a nosey biographer, might have itself been considered sordid by some other biographers. But there is no excuse to have such value judgements made about Wittgenstein's sexuality here in 2012. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is any reason to associate reluctance to speculate about intimate details of a philosophers sexual life as homophobic. I would certainly say the same if they were speculations about what he might have been doing in bed with any particular woman - those kinds of speculations that invade others privacy for the sake of one's own curiosity are sordid. This is an encyclopedia not The Sun.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I can see it all now... in broad Geordie accent: "Day 36,500 in the Big Brother House and Ludwig and David are locked in a another heated discussion over logical positivism, yet again, behind the gazebo." What you say is quite fair. But I think modern readers are genuinely interested in getting a fully-rounded picture of a historical figure's personality, as well as their academic stance and contribution. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

snunɐw· - the problem is that it's never seemingly enough to accept edits that simply note someone is gay. Some users will then insist that we need absolute proof otherwise it's "just speculation". We then have to go digging around to find concrete examples of "bedroom antics". I note that no-one asked for confirmation that Wittgenstein's infatuation for Margaret Respinger was genuine - that was taken on face value, so there are double standards in my opinion. I want to reiterate that there is nothing sordid about homosexuality; and furthermore there is nothing sordid or prurient about covering details of someone's sexuality. This a mature and approriate issue for an encyclopaedia, and comparisons with the Sun are not helpful. I recognise that some people are personally uncomfortable with hearing about sex and sexuality, but I can't help that. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all you can't "prove" that someone is gay by reference to their actions. You can show that it is probable that he had a sexual relation with one or more men. Being gay is a question of identity and not actions. If Wittgenstein did not identify as gay then he wasn't gay. There is something sordid about covering details about someone's sexuality unless there is a specific reason that is interesting - now in this case the only reason that any biographer has been interested in Wittgenstein's sexual life is the possibility that he may have been homosexual. As you say if he had just married a woman, nobody would have been looking through his letters to find out what they did in bed. Now since sources includes these possibilities, and because all biographers acknowledge that his relationships with men were of tremendous importance to Wittgenstein's emotional life of course we should include that information. But this can be done in ways that are matter of factly and in ways that deserve to be compared to The Sun. The guideline as you suggest should be to include no more speculation, or detail than you would if the relation had been to a woman. That is usually quite little in biographical articles, and is generally restricted to neutral, non-sexual language.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Will I did that. I did it in way that was based on sources, avoided excessive speculation or recourse to rumour, maintained neutral non-sexual language, kept to the facts and was proportionate. So I don't know why we had to pretend at any stage that even a simple discussion of the issue was "sordid" and betrayed the dignity of the article. I noticed Lestrade shut-up about "platonic friendships" when I presented that direct quote from W's diary. Anyway, enough said - job done. Move on. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I said: "I'm really not sure that his philosophical stance on certainty had anything to do with his sexuality." Lestrade said: "Here is the connection .." No, I was looking outside the wonderful world of wikipedia. I meant a personal connection in Wittgenstein's own mind/ mental make-up, e.g. his uncertainty about his own sexuality (perhaps even guilt, from that candid diary entry of his) causing him to have special concerns about "certainty". Sorry for raising this particular piece of speculative WP:OR, but I was trying to dismiss it. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The diary regarding the vacation in Norway with Skinner is apparently solid evidence. One wonders, though, why a man like Wittgenstein, who kept such deeply serious notebooks, would also keep a schoolgirlish diary. Is there any possibility that his “Dear Diary” entries regarding his alleged boyfriend were edited and published by Konrad Kujau or Clifford Irving?Lestrade (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Lestrade

Can I be clear - are you saying that Kujau and Irving were responsible for editing and publishing Wittgenstein's diaries? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 09:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Tractatus: Changed English version of proposition 7 to the official wording in the 1961 edition.Victor50 (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Prose: The family wealth was nonetheless diminished by the hyperinflation, and later on, by the Great Depression; although, even as late as 1938, the Wittgensteins owned 13 major mansions in Vienna alone, which indicates the magnitude of their pre-1914 fortune. This sentence seems choppy because of all the commas, but I'm not sure how to fix it.

have shortened Tom B (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Early life: It's a little strange that Ludwig is not included in the list of male children of his parents.

it's because he's immediately in the next sentence but i think it's technically wrong so i've changed Tom B (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, done Tom B (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Referencing: The third paragraph of "Family temperament; brothers' suicides" has only one citation, at the end. Does this citation apply to all the information in the paragraph? If not, the rest needs to be cited.

It applies to all the info Tom B (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Punctuation: It's my understanding that when you quote something at the end of a sentence, the period should be inside the sentence, like "quoted material." not "quoted material". I've changed this where I've noticed it in the article, but I may be wrong; let me know if so.

thanks Tom B (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Realschule in Linz: Could you explain, for reader's unfamiliar with the German school system, what the highest mark was? Was it a five?

yes, i've now written that in Tom B (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Unnecessary detail: He told Hermine he loved the isolation of the Grouse Inn, but was less enamored of the toilet facilities. Is this necessary?

now removed Tom B (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Prose: until it was time for the evening meal in Hall. I don't know what Hall is.

link added Tom B (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Moral Sciences Club and Apostles: Per dons were not to attend, though everyone knew the arrangement was directed only at Wittgenstein was Wittgenstein a don as early as 1912? You should perhaps mention when he became a don, or else when he was forbidden to attend the meetings.

Have done some research, can find a reference to meetings where no dons were present but not a definitive statement backing-up 'starred' meetings. i've edited the sentence in question. he became a don in 1929. Tom B (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Prose: "90 percent of what he shewed us!" - is this meant to be showed? If not, consider using [sic].

shewed is an old spelling, which most people don't use, i've now noted this Tom B (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Vienna Circle: I remember reading some time ago in a book about Kurt Gödel that Wittgenstein was hugely influential as regards the logical positivism of the Vienna Circle. Apparently, however, when he visited them and they tried to talk to him about philosophy he would sit in a chair facing the wall and read poetry out loud to them. Is this important enough to be included in the article?

I've put a reference in. It's not quite as sensationalist! he only read the poetry sometimes apparently and other times he did actually talk to them about philosophy Tom B (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added a separate subsection, and replaced it with the main source, which is Carnap's autobiography. Note that SlimVirgin's edits were probably a bit over-reliant on the Waugh book, which often embellishes or misquotes the sources. Avaya1 (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Summary: Okay, I have added several citation needed tags but I don't think there is any point in my going farther; the article seems to fail GA criterion #2b, "provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged." Many direct quotes are uncited. I also think that the article fails criterion #3a and possibly b, containing an extraordinary amount of detail on Wittgenstein's life, but almost nothing on the content of his philosophy or his influence, legacy, and reception with other philosophers. I don't see much point in doing a comprehensive review until more citations are added and the article is expanded to include these topics, with perhaps some of the biographical info reduced, e.g. the detailed section on Haus Wittgenstein.

i've replaced all tags with citations and moved some detail to the haus article. there used to be more on his philosophy but there was discussion on the talkpage that much should be moved to those articles on the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and Philosophical Investigations. His philosophy is still covered in the article with sections on both and in the lead Tom B (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That said, the biography is astoundingly good, aside from the referencing. Perhaps it is just because Wittegenstein's life was so colorful, but I genuinely enjoyed reading it. The prose is engaging and free of error, and the material presented is delightful. I learned a lot. I am very glad that you have chosen to work on this highly important article, and I would love to see it become a GA. I am going to fail it for now because I think the amount of work needed is significant. However, once the issues are addressed please renominate and I will be happy to conduct a more thorough review if you would like me to.

The result of the review was fail, with encouragement to improve and re-nom. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The question mark at the end of that sentence suggests that he is asking, not saying. I think you should interpret that as Lestrade humourously suggesting that wittgenstein's diaries could be fake. I don't think we have to seriously entertain that suggestion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I did indeed interpet it in that manner. However, I find it far from humorous (particularly as Kujau was responsible for faking the Hitler Diaries); and rather see in it another slightly ungracious attempt to trivialise discussion of Wittgenstein's homosexuality. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Well at least the pretense has been dropped, and we've come full circle, returning to Signpen's prescient dismissal. Ninahexan (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

Shouldn't infobox contain more information? It's not even say he is a philosopher, let alone what's his main interests, important works are, or what he is known of. Almost every known philosopher in Wikipedia has a little information on the right side, so reader can get quick and short information about the philosopher as well as what to expect when reading the article. I think most people on Wikipedia, first look his/her main interests or ideas, and then make a decision about reading the article if the article in question is about a philosopher. Last old infobox look like this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ludwig_Wittgenstein&oldid=502665711 78.191.230.65 (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, too much seems to be missing. So I have restored the earlier version to which you linked. Was the shorter version added just to allow collapsing of Influences/Influence? Isn't this still possible for all the list items? Apologies, but I have not searched the history to see when or why the change was made. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for late reply. Yes, I get the chance of thoroughly exploring history from today to the link above, and the shorter version only have 'show/hide' choice in 'influenced by' and 'influenced' section on infobox. I am not sure about other list items, but usually collapsing only at influence section in other similar articles. I don't see any reason why collapsing could not be possible at other sections though. 78.191.180.61 (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of relevant images

In this and this edit, images of Arthur Schopenhauer and Otto Weininger were removed, without any reason given in the edit summaries. We don't have an abundance of free images of Wittgenstein, so I see no reason as to why these images of Wittgenstein's influences should be removed. Can the deleting editor please give an explanation for these removals? --Eisfbnore ^talk 18:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Reason for removal: incorrigible ignorance.Lestrade (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

Literary influences

There is nothing or nearly nothing here about what Wittgenstein read. Which writers did he say he most admired? What were his favourite books growing up? He must have been reading something. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

“As a boy of sixteen Wittgenstein had read Schopenhauer and had been greatly impressed by Schopenhauer’s theory of the ‘world as idea’ (though not of the ‘world as will’); Schopenhauer then struck him as fundamentally right, if only a few adjustments and clarifications were made. It is very much a popular notion of Wittgenstein that he was a latter-day Hume; but any connections between them are indirect, and he never read more than a few pages of Hume. If we look to Wittgenstein’s philosophical ancestry, we should look rather to Schopenhauer; specifically, his [Wittgenstein’s] ‘solipsism’, his conception of ‘the limit’ and his ideas of value will be better understood in the light of Schopenhauer than of any other philosopher. … For the rest, Wittgenstein’s philosophical influences are pretty well confined to Frege and to Russell, who introduced him to Frege’s writings.” (An Introduction to Wittgenstein’s Tractatus, G. E. M. Anscombe, Introduction)

Should certainly be added, in summary form, even if only Anscombe's view. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

According to Bryan Magee (The Philosophy of Schopenhauer, Oxford University Press, 1997, ISBN 0-19-823722-7), Wittgenstein read very little, if any, of Kant. He learned about Kant’s philosophy by reading Schopenhauer’s Critique of the Kantian philosophy. This is also true of Nietzsche and Tolstoy.Lestrade (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Lestrade

You can't find a much better source on Schopenhauer than Magee and I guess he's equally reliable on LW. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Too much in "Known for" listing

I would like to see the list smaller. Perhaps someone more familiar with L.W.'s philosophy would know what to remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JesusCrispusAttucks (talk • contribs) 23:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Navbox mania

Editors have gone bonkers with navboxes on this page. There's a Wittgenstein footer, a Wittgenstein sidebar, and an infobox with lots of subject links. And then a general philosophy sidebar plus six philosophy footers. Is someone having trouble making choices? RockMagnetist (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Obnoxious remark removed

I removed the reference to ".....apparent self flagellation". It is an insulting perpetuation of the myth of the supposed self flagellating Jew. There is no place for such remarks in any decent society, and certainly not in an encyclopaedia. Historygypsy (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Wittgenstein’s attitude toward self–flagellation had nothing to do with Hebraism. It was a result of his reading Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Representation, Volume I, § 68, regarding ascetic self–torture[Selbstpeinigung].Lestrade (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Lestrade

What does the source say exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

hello Lestrade. You have missed the point. It does not matter who was quoted or what the source. It is an abominable myth, it has no place here or anywhere else Historygypsy (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Objection

Someone reverted my edit. The explanation given was that "Self-flagellation was not meant literally". Yes is was. That phrase is a core teaching of the Christian polemic about the Jewish people. It is a myth, there is no such thing among Jews. The myth is obnoxious, deliberately demeaning and has no place in an encyclopaedia, nor anywhere in a respectful discourse. This principle applies to the discussion and /or teaching about any religion. It must be removed Historygypsy (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Without deleting or changing the meaning of the text, "at times as part of an apparent self-flagellation" to "at times as part of apparent self-punishment". If there are not objections after people have had time to comment, I see no problem with making this change.--I am One of Many (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Self - punishment? For what? Please keep your religious mythology out of this encyclopaedia Historygypsy (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I've met Jews who call people of Jewish background who abandon Jewish culture "self-hating Jews", sure it is meant to be offensive, but the discourse exists and that Hans Sluga has interpreted Wittgenstein's ambiguous relation to Judaism in this way is notable and apt for inclusion. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, please read my first posting "Objection". It is not that I find the passage offensive (I do) but it is a nasty myth that cannot be perpetuated in an encyclopaedia. Your own reported personal meetings are irrelevant, even if your claim is true. I have had friends in every one of the major religions, I have served on national interfaith organizations, I can quote any number of negative attitudes that I have heard from "lapsed" members, but I would never quote them here, nor would I ever agree to have them to be part of Wikipedia, in the text or in the talk Historygypsy (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

What is a nasty myth? That Wittgenstein was doubtful and ambiguous about his relation to Judaism? Because that is what Hans Sluga is saying. Even if he had said that Wittgenstein was a Self-hating Jew then that would still be notable and apt for inclusion. We even have an article on the stereotype and its surrounding discourses. You don't have a valid reason based in policy for removing this quote. It is not as if the stereotype goes away if it doesn't appear in wikipedia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Read my objection, the origin of the myth is there, keep religious polemics out of this.Historygypsy (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You have not made any justifiable objection to mentioning Hans Sluga's notable evaluation of Wittgenstein's relation to Judaism as being characterized by self-doubt. This has nothing to do with the myth you are talking about. I am reinserting it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Whenever something distasteful is said about a Jewish person, there is going to be some overlap with the myths perpetuated by racists, whether or not those groups are part of a "Christian polemic". But the debate here surely hinges on who we are quoting. We're not quoting some unknown fringe racist, or some right-wing political bigot, we are quoting this guy, who is evidently proud to have been a pupil of Isaiah Berlin. With all due respect, Historygypsy, your personal experiences serving "on national interfaith organizations" are also not relevant here in any way. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Also I don't see what is distasteful about it - it is obvious to anyone who read's Wittgenstein that he was deeply ambiguous and doubtful about his Jewish roots. He almost only ever refer to his Jewish background in a negative context. Sluga, who as Martinevans notes is not just anybody, is merely noting this observable and comparing with a similar case - while clearly avoiding referring to the stereotype.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Also note that I have removed the reference to "self-flagellation", not because I agree with Historygipsy's rationale, but because it doesn't seem to add anything to the paragraph anyways, so we might as well avoid the conflict.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

A wise move, I think, although I had certainly assumed that Sluga was using that phrase in a purely metaphorical and non-literal way. I know it would be WP:OR, but I am quite tempted to actually email him and ask him what he meant! - he seems quite amenable to email contact. (Or maybe he's reading all of this and laughing.) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Well from what I have read about Wittgenstein as a person he might well at some point have engaged in actual non-metaphorical self-flagellation. But probably not while he was writing those particular passages about his relation to Judaism.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Was Wittgenstein in the left hand corner of a school photograph with Hitler?

I agree that Wittgenstein's possibly having been at the same school, and at the same time, as Hitler is (possibly) worth a (passing) mention. I also agree that whether the fact is mentioned here has little bearing on whether it is mentioned in the Adolf Hitler article (and vice versa). However, in an encyclopaedia article on one of the leading philosophers of the 20th century, is it really appropriate to have all this on the details, including the distance between their birthdays, whether Hitler and Wittgenstein met at school, whether Hitler probably (would have) liked Wittgenstein if he did meet (had met?) him, and whether they are both on the same school photograph?:

Adolf Hitler was at the same school for part of the same time. Laurence Goldstein argues it is "overwhelmingly probable" the boys met each other: that Hitler would have disliked Wittgenstein, a "stammering, precocious, precious, aristocratic upstart ...". Other commentators have dismissed as irresponsible and uninformed any suggestion that Wittgenstein's wealth and unusual personality may have fed Hitler's antisemitism, in part because there is no indication that Hitler would have seen Wittgenstein as Jewish.

Wittgenstein and Hitler were born just six days apart, though Hitler had been held back a year, while Wittgenstein was moved forward by one, so they ended up two grades apart at the Realschule. Monk estimates they were both at the school during the 1904–1905 school year, but says there is no evidence they had anything to do with each other. Several commentators have argued that a school photograph of Hitler may show Wittgenstein in the lower left corner, but Hamann says the photograph stems from 1900 or 1901, before Wittgenstein's time.

--Boson (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article is exceedingly detailed for a page about a recent, nonenglish person of philosophy. Speling12345 (talk) 7:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC) So what are you suggesting is done? How are Wittgenstein's nationality and dates relevant? Perhaps the articles for other "recent, nonenglish persons of philosophy" have some catching up to do? Or even the "nonforeign" ones? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC) The Baruch Poll mentioned in the lead and the final section is in fact just a survey by mail of american university and college teachers. Some 400 replies were gathered, representing a modest 4% of the profession in the US. The definite article, as it is explained by the author, was used just because by the end of the century everybody was conducting a poll, survey, or something, and this one was conducted from Baruch College, hence the name. It may look as something important but this is not really the case. So I toned it down.195.96.229.83 (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Um, is this the same concern, or part of the same concern, voiced by Speling12345? Or is this a separate issue? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Wittgenstein's nationality and dates are totally irrelevant. I don't think this new user really understands what Wikipedia is. Before you run around all kinds of talk pages suggesting lots of things like delete the article Christmas tree, please study Wikipedia:Notability, and other usefull pages. :   Do maintain a neutral point of view:   Don't edit where you have a conflict of interestand other pages like those. Wittgenstein is a giant among philosophers, please, do not suggest things that are just not common sense. You may soon start suggesting let's delete Leonardo da Vinci, too old and not English, eh? Hafspajen (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC) By the way, Speling12345’s account was blocked for disruptive editing, so, the topic is of. It could have been useful to read certain pages like Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot; before starting useless discussion treads all over the place. Hafspajen (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Translation quote

About the translation of the quote: "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen." It is currently: "That we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence." Isn't "Whereof one can not speak, thereof one must be silent." a better translation? The translation of 'man' to 'we' seems odd to me. There is no one to one equivalent in English that I know of, although 'one' might be a (singular) alternative. The meaning doesn't change much, and less than if translated by 'we' I think. Furthermore, 'pass over in silence' isn't literal enough if you'd ask me. I'll look up what the (official) translation of Tractatus says. Stanford encyclopedia notes both translations. --Epitectus (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The latter is the correct translation (one must be silent) from the Ogden/Ramsey translation. There are two major English translations - Ogden/Ramsey made by a Cambridge LW colleague and a close personal friend of LW - and the Pears/McGuinness translation printed 10 years after LW died. Pears/McGuinness arguably has some benefit in its entirety however for the text cited it is completely misleading. As a result I have updated the translation and relevant citation. Jaydubya93 (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Ashford for claims

Concerning [3]. Where does the Ashford piece back these claims? For example, the claim about Augustine? Ashford actually says the opposite: "Wittgenstein cites [Augustine's view] as illustrative of a particularly widespread misunderstanding of language." (p. 360). And that's all he says about Augustine's influence on Wittgenstein. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Realschule section

I changed the order of the Realschule section. The part about Weininger should probably precede the part about W's Jewishness. The Sluga quote mentions Weinginger. But also, when W. talks about what it means to be Jewish, it typically looks like he understands "Jewishness" in the (distinctively negative) way Weininger does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.139.56.146 (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Fania Pascal

As Avrum Stroll notes in his 2001 Twentieth-Century Analytic Philosophy, Pascal taught Wittgenstein Russian and wrote Wittgenstein: A Personal Memoir about her acquaintance with him in the 1930s. She mentions that she and her husband wondered whether Wittgenstein was homosexual and judged that he was not, or at least that she could not imagine it. Stroll's reading of Monk (1991) is that Wittgenstein did have sexual relationships with Pinsent, Skinner and Francis, "over a period of 30 years or so". So, on balance, the scholarly analysis here seems to outweigh the personal opinion of Pascal. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if WP:UNDUE permits any mention of Pascal, since she was only a friend who knew him on a professional basis. But am open to the opinions of other editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I dont think we need to mention her lack of imagination.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

You can find the passage in the Stroll book via Google-books. It is only a paragraph. Although some bits are quite quotable. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Representation

The image by which Wittgenstein is represented is just ugly. Can't we get a better one? I'd rather have this cutout: http://philo-sophia.co.kr/files/attach/images/77/732/heunmun1_154.jpg than the monstrosity that's now shown. That's not Wittgenstein, rather an interpretation of him and a bad one at that! The background destracts from the person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1812:1185:CF00:7525:A05:436E:3A8F (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Historical, not philosophical

I had a quick read through this article after a similarly skimmish read of an article on the current state of Wittgenstein scholarship, and while it is a pretty good historical reference of what Wittgenstein did in terms of his life history (covering matters like his education, his military service and later war service in Guy's Hospital, his lovers, his travels around Europe and so on), but in terms of its coverage of the interpretation and influence of Wittgenstein's philosophy it is pretty thin gruel.

It just seems a bit strange that given the influence of Wittgenstein—and the differing interpretations thereof—that the article doesn't cover that particularly well. I'll try and expand it soon, but I thought I'd post it here in case I forget or get distracted or something else, so someone else can at least think about doing likewise. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding an external link

Hi, I seek advice and guidance. I'm involved in the development of a non-commercial "hobby-site", 'Wittgenstein' at http://www.wittgenstein.org.uk/. I think that this is at least as deserving of a place in the 'External links' as the current items (which seem to be a very small and quite arbitrary selection from the wealth of Wittgenstein material on-line). However, I suspect that if I try to add the link, the wrath of Wikipedians will descend upon me. Can I ask others to look at the site and decide whether it's worthy of inclusion? Geoffw1948 (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Translations in Publication of the Tractatus

Is this an officially transcribed translation from Wittgenstein, or did an editor here provide the English?

I ask because the translated text is not precise. For example,

> Der Satz ist eine Wahrheitsfunktion der Elementarsätze.

Is translated as

> Propositions are truth-functions of elementary propositions.

Satz, Wahrheitsfunktion and Elementarsätze are given, however, with their singular pronouns, and would be more precisely translated as

"The proposition is a truth function of the elementary proposition."

I'll hopefully check back in a month or two, if someone knows and can answer that'd be great. Otherwise I think it'd be a good idea to improve the translations.

Wolfraem (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Austrian-British?

Is it ridiculous to call Wittgenstein "British"? The article says this: "After G. E. Moore resigned the chair in philosophy in 1939, Wittgenstein was elected, and acquired British citizenship soon afterwards." I have searched the archives, but have found no previous discussion on his nationality. Albert Einstein, who had German-American nationality, has been suggested as a comparable case. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Britannica labels him "Austrian-born British". Favonian (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

That seems perfectly sensible. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, does it? So I guess Einstein is a German-born American scientist. Many Europeans - particularly Jewish Europeans - fled Nazi Germany and Nazi-occupied Europe, acquiring US/UK/Argentinian citizenship. As a general rule, if someone is a fully-grown adult when they do so, the history books don't record them as having all of a sudden changed their nationality/ethnicity. Wittgenstein has always been referred to as an Austrian philosopher - a quick perusal of any library, online or otherwise - will demonstrate this. It's highly misleading and revisionist to characterize him as "Austrian-British" in the opening sentence. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

1. Could you show us any Wikipedia policy guidance on this?

2. We currently have a very clear source, from Encyclopedia Brittanica, describing him as "Austrian-born British", so your statement that he "has always been referred to as an Austrian philosopher" is rather obviously wrong. Could you provide any of counter-examples that you say are available via "a quick perusal"?

3. You reverted the article with the edit summary "you don't own this page. why you would want to debate whether someone born and raised in Austria who moved to Britain to escape the Nazis, is therefore actually British, is beyond comprehension..." I'm very sorry about your limited comprehension, but his taking British nationality in 1939 is a simple fact, as I said at the outset. Are you saying this counts for nothing? I really don't see haw escape from the Nazis helps us decide.

4. 14 of the articles Categories describe his as Austrian or "from Austria". 13 describe him as British or "from UK".

5. I've never claimed to "own this page", but you have reverted the article, twice now, away from it's stable state - it's been like that for three and a half years?

6. Currently consensus on this Talk Page is against you. But let's hear what other editors have to say. We can open a RfC if required. Until a firm consensus is established, or re-established, however, the article should not be changed away from what was previously the stable version agreed by consensus. I believe that is required by policy. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

User:ZinedineZidane98 you just breached WP:3RR? Your edit summary was "2 vs 2 is not a consensus. see sources." But I don't see "2 vs 2" at this discussion. Is the anon ip going to comment? And see which sources, exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Stop playing games. Google is your friend. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22austrian+philosopher%22+wittgenstein&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, games. I see that the "anon ip" is based in Moscow and has an interest in Zinedine Zidane. What a coincidence. I'm sure there are many sources we could use, not just Google Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Google is not a source. Now do you need a lesson on differentiating between sources (i.e. the ones that showed up in your search vs the high-quality biographies that showed up in mine)? Or you still wanna play games? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so a biography is to be preferred over a copy of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus itself, or a study by Robert Skidelsky or The Philosophy of Popper by T. E. Burke? It's not a question of playing games, I'm afraid. The article has had "Austrian-British philosopher" for three and a half years. We don't change articles based on the relative number of Google hits. I'm awaiting input from other editors. As should you. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a policy on nationality designation. I'm surprised no one has pulled it up. If W. became a citizen of England then it's not wrong to call him British, quite clearly. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

See this bit on nationality...--Ring Cinema (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"If notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's not actually possible to officially "become a citizen of England". It's just "British citizenship", as the article correctly says. But that policy seems quite clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Cause of death

Was Wittgenstein's cause of death notable? Should it be in the infobox? It has been made notable for some in the media. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I dont see why it would be in the infobox - it is fine to have in the biography section, but not infobox material.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

As it is condsidered by many to be a basic fact about a person? Template:Infobox philosopher offers no guidance as to why it should or should not be used. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that is a good enough reason to add it. In cases where cause of death is particularly notable then maybe, such as Giordano Bruno, but not in general.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

If Wittgenstein's cause of death were abnormal, relevant to his work, more significant in his life course than other causes of death, or discussed by other notable sources as significant, it would be worthy of inclusion in the infobox. Most personal infoboxes do not include cause of death, and including it here suggests that Wittenstein's prostate cancer had a significance that it did not. Martinevans123, the notion of a "basic fact about a person" is clearly a matter of taste, judgment, and precedent. The standard we should use here, I think, is what similar pages do. Nietzsche, Habermas, and Heidegger do not have cause of death in the infobox. Plantagenarian's edit was in good faith and enhanced the quality of the article. Ring Circle's statement that it was a "conclusion searching for a reason instead of the other way round," is condescending and not helpful in determining what should be in the infobox. I have undone the undo accordingly. —Acone (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's taste, judgement, and precedent at Wikipedia, I guess. But that was Cinema not a Circle, I think. I found the edit summary pretty accurate. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of an infobox is to provide a quick overview of the most relevant facts about an individual. There is nothing gained by cluttering the box with minor facts that are of little relevance to understanding the significance of the biographed person and their work just for the sake of standardization.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

First, 'notability' is the wrong standard. Notability is the minimum standard for a subject matter's inclusion as an article in WP. For example, people who are not notable don't get an article. But all the facts in all the articles are not required to be notable. In fact, almost none of them are; they are there to explain their notable subject matter. Secondly, my criticism of P. was factual: he didn't want the cause of death in the article and he looked for a reason, instead of the other way. Thirdly, I don't think the arguments above against including W's cause of death are very good. The field for cause of death is included in the infobox for philosophers, so apparently these are the fields we use for information found in the article. The parameter guideline says that those "not mentioned in the main text may be deleted." However, we do cover W's cause of death in the article. The other articles mentioned above are somewhat misleading as examples. Nietzsche's cause of death is not known. Habermas's cause of death is not in the article, so can't be in the infobox per the guide, and the same is true of Heidegger. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no fixed rule that cause of death must be included when known and mentioned in the article. Consensus will decide whether it is to be included in this case. I have reverted your change.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. If the cause of death is in the article, then it belongs in the infobox. Sorry. Thanks for correcting your mistake on your own. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

What is the reason that cause of death should be omitted from the Infobox? Why would this be a point of contention? The Infobox should be used. Unless there is a good argument for omission I think we should err on the side of inclusion. Bus stop (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You could start by reading the arguments given by three different users above before you decide to unilaterally insert the version that Ring Circle has been editwarring to insertover the past few days.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that the omission of such information calls for a justification. I just don't see any. The Infobox gets "cluttered" by too much information? An Infobox is designed to be easy to see at a glance. We should not be thinking for the reader. A cause of death of prostate cancer may be of interest some readers. We require no more justification than that to include information of this sort. Bus stop (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes we do require one more thing. Consensus. Favorite color or names of his pets may be of interest to some readers but as they are utterly irrelevant to the biography and work of a major philosopher we "exclude" them. Excluding by the way is not the same as choosing not to include something. And yes it is the basic job of every wikipedian to think for the reader.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not the "basic job of every wikipedian to think for the reader." Bus stop (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly the reason we are writing an encyclopedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The guidelines are as optional as choosing your favorite color? That's a failed argument, too. In fact, the guidelines are the product of consensus. Let's note that there isn't a valid reason offered to ignore guidelines. There have been attempts to ground resistance in guidelines -- a clear sign of their validity -- but those efforts couldn't withstand scrutiny. Any good arguments you can offer, Maunus? If you still have none, I think we should follow the guidelines, which is the usual practice unless there is a good reason to ignore them. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you point to a guideline stating that the cause of death should be included in the infobox for philosophers? I am aware of none, and judging by a quick sampling, the 'consensus' seems to be not to do so - in fact I'm not even sure there is a consensus to include an infobox... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be to follow the guidelines. The guidelines say they should be in the infobox when discussed in the article, and I am unaware of any other exception but this one. As I quoted above: those fields "not mentioned in the main text may be deleted." Therefore others may not be deleted. And you might ask yourself this question: why is the field included in the philosophers infobox? It must be to include the cause of death. But we know that infoboxes are designed to summarize information that appears in the article. So when the cause of death appears in the article, this field is employed. That is apparently the practice on every philosopher's page but this one. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You have cited no guideline that I can see: This however, from Template:Infobox person (from which Infobox philosopher is derived) seems clear enough: "Do not use all these parameters for any one person. The list is long to cover a wide range of people. Only use those parameters that convey essential or notable information about the subject...". Clear and unambiguous... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

This discussion could be added to Lamest edit wars. We should not be thinking for the reader. We are compiling something called an Infobox. Verifiable fields such as "cause of death" should be filled in if known. We haven't the foggiest idea the reason that the reader has come to this article, nor what their unique interests are. An Infobox is easy to read. As editors we should be completing most applicable parameters unless a good reason can be advanced for leaving one or two out. In this case, cause of death being prostate cancer, there is nothing to argue about. There is no substantial argument for leaving that out. Bus stop (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

While I wouldn't question your evident personal experience when it comes to lame edit wars, I would point out that I have started an RfC, and the community can decide for itself what constitutes an 'easy to read' infobox, and which parameters to include. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• I typed in the following philosophers: Jean Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, David Hume and Maurice Merleau Ponty, Bertrand Russell, G. E. Moore, A. N. Whitehead, Gotlob Frege, Martin Heidegger, Herbert Marcuse. None of them have cause of death in the infobox, not even Camus who famously died in a car crash. Not a single philosopher whose name out of the first ten I could think of (not counting Hilary Putnam who to my surprise is not dead) had cause of death in their article. Clearly any statement that this is the norm for philosopher articles is false.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Again you fail to understand the guidelines. If the cause of death is in the article (A), then it belongs in the infobox (I). So ~A-->~I. For some reason, you just look at the infobox, instead of checking if the cause of death is in the article. I have explained this several times and I don't think it's that hard. So, yeah, you found exactly one exception to the guidelines in ten tries. I think that shows the guidelines are normally followed. Since you seem to be saying that I should accept the argument that this article should be like others, I assume you will now agree that the cause of death should be in the infobox. Great! --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

It is clear that you are being wilfully obtuse to the point of outright trollin now so this shall be my last response to you: the cause of death is in the article of the majority of those articles. Camus=car crash, Merleau-Ponty=Stroke, Sartre=Lung edema, Hume=Abdominal cancer, The exceptins are Russel, Moore and Frege whose deaths are not described.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Three omissions, then. Thanks for pointing those out. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Likewise Karl Marx - bronchitis and pleurisy, Karl Popper - "complications of cancer, pneumonia and kidney failure", Ayn Rand - heart failure/lung cancer, Michel Foucault - "neurological problems compounded by HIV/AIDS", Roland Barthes - chest injuries sustained in a traffic accident, Simone de Beauvoir - pneumonia. All from article. None in the infobox. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC:Should the infobox include a cause of death?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There's consensus that the cause of death should not be mentioned in the infobox. Kraxler (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Should the infobox for this biography include a 'cause of death' entry? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• No. From a sampling of biographies of other philosophers, I can see no evidence that inclusion of a cause of death is normal practice. And there is nothing of any particular significance in Wittgenstein's cause of death. Adding such non-essential details detracts from the purpose of an infobox - to summarise important details regarding the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

A poor point, Andy. When the philosopher's cause of death is in the article, then it should go in the infobox. The cases cited above don't have the philosopher's cause of death in the article. From this perspective, then, this article is the exception since it is the only one that fails to follow the guidelines. Since W's cause of death is in the W article, his cause of death belongs in the infobox. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You have as yet to demonstrate that there is a guideline concerning adding the cause of death to infoboxes on philosophers. And I have no idea why you think 'The cases cited above' are relevant, since as I clearly stated that I had made a sampling of my own. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding guidelines, from Template:Infobox person (from which Infobox philosopher is derived): "Do not use all these parameters for any one person. The list is long to cover a wide range of people. Only use those parameters that convey essential or notable information about the subject...". Seems clear and unambiguous to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I demonstrated it above, twice. You have not responded in either case, so for now my argument stands. I know of no other philosophers infobox that does not follow the guidelines. So, since you seem to have said above that you want to base this practice on the practices of other pages, you should definitely want us to follow the guidelines as apparently all other pages do. Therefore, we should include the cause of death, since the guidelines say that we should when it's discussed in the article, which this article does. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a RfC. Please allow others to respond. When the RfC is closed, the closer will determine consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I know how it works, but your claim doesn't hold water. Your reasoning was that other articles on philosophers decided not to include the cause of death. That's faulty logic, since they wouldn't have been following the guideline if they had. Since your reasoning was clearly mistaken and your evidence indicates that you should take the opposite position, I assume you want to correct your mistake. Unless you have other reasons that you haven't stated. -- (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Do not include its not especially relevant and its not the norm ----Snowded ^TALK 06:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the norm is to follow the guideline, which states that when the cause of death is in the article, it is in the infobox. So, yes, let's follow the norm. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• No strong view. No real objection to its inclusion, as I don't see it as "clutter". Andy makes some very good points, however. I agree it has no bearing on Wittgenstein's work or career, but then, like most people, neither does his birthday, although date of birth is regarded as "an essential fact". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Andy's points have all failed under scrutiny, actually. Other articles have not covered cause of death because it was not in the article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not that bothered. I think the other editors would like to see some examples of philosophers whose cause of death is both mentioned in the article and appears in the info box. Although why philosophers have got their own infobox is another question. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Do not include not essential information. There is no guideline that suggests it needs to be included much less a rule that requires it, in spite of confused hand waving to the contrary.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you say there is no guideline that says it should be included when you know that is false. But are you saying that we should follow the guidelines? If so, I welcome your change of heart. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

There are no Wikipedia guidelines stating that the cause of death must be included in infoboxes for biographies of philosophers. And I suggest you stop hectoring contributors who post here - it will achieve nothing beyond making your case look weaker. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"Not waving, but drowning", apparently. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Completely false. The guidelines are clear and other articles on philosophers have followed them. The infobox is a summary of what's in the article. When the cause of death is not in the article, of course it's not found in the infobox. But when it is, then it belongs in the infobox, if you want to follow the guidelines. I appreciate that several editors committed to their position for fallacious reasons. That's unfortunate, and admitting error is difficult. Fortunately, this is a minor issue and it doesn't matter much of you're all too embarrassed to rectify your mistake. You've provided a really funny example of why Wikipedia gets things wrong. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of facts, could you tell me what percentage of philosopher articles include cause of death in the infobox? Fact 1. In a random sample of ten philosophers I checked yesterday it was 0%. That is a fact. Fact 2. there is no actual guideline that says inclusion of any parameter is necessary, but there is one that says explicitly that it isn't. Fact 3. Guidelines are not rules, they are suggestions only and can be overruled by consensus. Fact 4. following or not following a guideline is not about "getting it wrong", and there is no inaccurate information being presented to the reader regarding Wittgenstein's cause of death. So quit waving now please.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The person closing this RfC will no doubt take note of the fact that at no time have you provided any link to any guideline that states that that the cause of death must be included in infoboxes for biographies of philosophers, and discount your hectoring accordingly - though if you keep this up, I may raise the matter at ANI, and ask that you be topic-banned until the RfC closes. This is a discussion open to community input - it is not your personal blog, and your opinion as to what is 'funny' is of no relevance here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I asked you to respond to my arguments above and you didn't. Instead, you continued to repeat incorrect information about the guidelines. So, apparently, you are taking the position that the guidelines should be followed, after which you misstate the guidelines. I quoted the relevant passage for you and you still maintain your incorrect position. I'm certain it is considered a good thing to correct mistakes, especially critical errors of the type you are making and repeating. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You have quoted no passage in any guideline that states that the cause of death must be included in infoboxes for biographies of philosophers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, include - summoned by bot. The infobox should cover the basics of someone's biography. If cause of death is available and specific (such as a certain type of cancer), I don't see why it should not be included. Someone's death is always relevant to their life. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, include - we have decided to have an Infobox in this article, therefore we should use it. I think the argument for the Infobox being "cluttered" by "Cause of death: Prostate cancer" is questionable. Bus stop (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• No, remove - It is hard for me to imagine anyone visiting this page and finding this detail useful. It seems much more likely it would displace more important details, like "main interests" and "notable ideas," especially on smaller screens. All of the other details in the infobox help us understand who Wittgenstein was, what he did, and why we should care. The time and place of his birth and death, for example, help us understand the context in which Wittgenstein lived and worked. The only exception is the signature and picture—these give the article a personal touch, which people (speaking at least for myself here) seems to find useful when learning about other people. Cause of death serves no such function. Arguments that it should be included seem to revolve around the idea that it is a basic biographical fact. But that seems like too loose a criterion. Chronic medical conditions, height, weight, eye color, and hair color are also basic biographical facts, and I believe all of those to be more relevant to Wittgenstein than his cause of death. Yet if someone were to include those, I would want them removed. Acone (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• No, remove. There is no guideline that requires or prohibits inclusion of this information in the infobox, so it is a matter of editorial judgement and consensus. Inclusion of a cause of death like "prostate cancer" would be appropriate for a surgeon like Julius Hackethal, as is the cause of death (aplastic anaemia) for Marie Curie, but no such special relevance or particular noteworthiness applies here. Similar considerations are applied to other information, such as religious and political affiliation. --Boson (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• No, remove - summoned by bot. It doesn't add anything in this particular case, as per Julius Hackethal above. Flat Out (talk)
• No, remove – There is a guideline at Manual of Style/Infoboxes (MOS:INFOBOX). Contrary to Ring Cinema's repeated but unsubstantiated assertions that guidelines call for including this information, what the guideline actually says is this:  "keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. ... wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." The circumstance of dying from an ordinary disease is not a "key fact", it is an unnecessary distraction for the reader's first glance at the article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: I tend to agree with the latter commenter. He wasn't Elvis after all. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Blue and Brown Suede Shoes? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Otto Weinenger

While it is undeniably the case that Wittgenstein had a heavy and active interest in the philosophy of Otto Weinenger. This subsection seems to explain none of his interest or influence from the philosopher. The subsection is just a brief summary of Weinenger's philosophy, which seems gratuitous in this article. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Philosophical importance underplayed in the article.

His writings put an end to the fussing about, "What is truth?" Because he saw language realistically, and philosophy ended with him, in the sense of searching for "Truth", which he rightly saw as defined by the dictionary entry.

Nobody cares about all of that other minutia regarding his personal life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.119.6 (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Photographs of Wittgenstein

The photographs of Wittgenstein by Moritz Nähr will enter the public domain at the end of 2015. Kaldari (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Very cool! Sizeofint (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You big tease, you. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Main image

What's the rationale for changing the main image thus? The edit summary was just "commons image". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

No need to use the fair use image. --WikedKentaur (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was a better image. But doesn't that mean the fair use image in redundant and must be deleted? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

So now File:Ludwig Wittgenstein by Ben Richards.jpg has been removed by a bot. What was the reason? Do we need to ask User talk:Carnildo? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Martinevans123, Wikipedia's policies on fair use says that we should only use copyrighted images if there is not a free image available. However, there is a good amount of Wittegenstein's photos on Commons; look. We have to choose among those. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I was guessing that. It's just awkward that once an image, like an article, has been deleted, it's difficult to know why, unless one directly asks the editor who deleted it? Some kind of brief placeholder message, saying "this image was deleted because .... " might be useful? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

yep, the file deletion reason is not directly visible from article history. Currently one has to take additional step and search deletion log for file name: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=File%3ALudwig+Wittgenstein+by+Ben+Richards.jpg&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= --WikedKentaur (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. If only the bot could have simply posted that link here when it deleted? Then we'd all know why. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Where was the Tractatus completed?

Does anyone know where the Tractatus was completed? On this page it reads:

"in the summer of 1918 Wittgenstein took military leave and went to stay in one of his family's Vienna summer houses, Neuwaldegg. It was there in August 1918 that he completed the Tractatus"

But on the Tractatus Logico Philosophicus page it says that:

"Wittgenstein wrote the notes for the Tractatus while he was a soldier during World War I and completed it when a prisoner of war at Como and later Cassino in August 1918"

So can anyone confirm where the Tractatus was completed? Was it completed at Como and later Cassino? Or did Wittgenstein complete it at his family's Vienna summer house? Christian Roess (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ludwig Wittgenstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090305151112/http://www.wittgen-cam.ac.uk:80/cgi-bin/text/biogre11.html to http://www.wittgen-cam.ac.uk/cgi-bin/text/biogre11.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Omnipaedista's recent edit

I reverted an edit [4] because of several issues:

1. Changes to alma mater and institutions:

|- alma_mater = Technical University of Berlin
Trinity College, Cambridge

|+ alma_mater = Technische Hochschule
Trinity College, Cambridge (PhD, 1929)

|- institutions = University of Cambridge

|+ institutions = Trinity College, Cambridge

Was Wittgenstein affiliated with Trinity college after his PhD? If so, when?

2.Deletion of apparently sound citation

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

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

3. Unsourced addition in references

|− *K.u.k. stood for "Kaiserlich und königlich".</ref> In 1903, when he was 14, he began his three years of formal schooling there, lodging nearby in term time with the family of a Dr. Srigl, a master at the local gymnasium, the family giving him the nickname Luki.

|+ *K.u.k. stood for "Kaiserlich und königlich".

|+ *The successor institution to the Realschule in Linz is Bundesrealgymnasium Linz Fadingerstraße.</ref> In 1903, when he was 14, he began his three years of formal schooling there, lodging nearby in term time with the family of a Dr. Srigl, a master at the local gymnasium, the family giving him the nickname Luki.

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

Please be careful. I did not delete any references and the claims I added to the infobox were based on the bodytext (e.g., the PhD claim is based on the sentence: "It was examined in 1929 by Russell and Moore"). I just broke up my edit. Thanks for your comments though. I should have written a more detailed edit summary. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Wittgenstein's grave in Cambridge

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

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

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

Sorry, but the content of Wikipedia articles is not decided by "sheer numbers of visitors" to anything, graves included. This information may be notable, but please be aware of WP:RECENT, WP:Gazetteer and WP:OR. Just slapping on an unformatted in-line external URL, at the end of a paragraph, in a quality article (indeed in any article), is not advisable. A correctly formatted note, with a supporting secondary source, may be appropriate, if consensus for such can be established here first. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Not appropriate for article text. Perhaps a link in the External links section? e.g.

• Wittgenstein's grave

Sizeofint (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly appropriate to me. It might even be appropriate to call it "Directions to Wittgenstein's grave (refurbished 2015)"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100213064904/https://www.wittgen-cam.ac.uk:80/biogre6.html to http://www.wittgen-cam.ac.uk/biogre6.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081218032638/https://www.wittgen-cam.ac.uk:80/cgi-bin/text/biogre1.html to http://www.wittgen-cam.ac.uk/cgi-bin/text/biogre1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523143901/https://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/paper_hanna_kant_wittgenstein_and_transcendental_philosophy_may11.pdf to http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/paper_hanna_kant_wittgenstein_and_transcendental_philosophy_may11.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100213064904/https://www.wittgen-cam.ac.uk:80/biogre6.html to http://www.wittgen-cam.ac.uk/biogre6.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071103154319/https://www.wittgen-cam.ac.uk:80/cgi-bin/text/biogre8.html to http://www.wittgen-cam.ac.uk/cgi-bin/text/biogre8.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130706044815/http://www.wittgen-cam.ac.uk:80/cgi-bin/forms/home.cgi to http://www.wittgen-cam.ac.uk/cgi-bin/forms/home.cgi

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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) 20:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Categorically Jewish?

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

He self identifies as Jewish in multiple statements in his writings, including in relation to his philosophy. It's quite clear cut - since he both self-identifies, and he is also discussed in sources as such. But Wikipedia always follows self-identification for these categories.Avaya1 (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Cultural references

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

Yes, maybe it done had gotten. But we waited all of 2 minutes before 4,439 bytes were "nuked"‎? Were you actually expecting a discussion at all?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: If you'll note, I wasn't the one who deleted it. I was planning on waiting a few days. agtx 23:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess you're just as surpised, then. But you have raised no objections? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

We're discussing it—not sure what it matters whether it's on the page while we do. If you want to put it back while we're discussing it, I don't mind if you revert it. More importantly though, do you think we should keep the section? agtx 15:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The Jarman film, Coen's dissertation and the Phillip Kerr book look to me like "no brainers" (and plesae don't say "how appropriate"), even if the book needs sources (I mean, that's Ludwig on the cover, isn't it?). Also the Terry Eagleton stuff is all totally relevant. Likewise, Bruce Duffy is a notable author - the book appears in the opening section of his article. I easily could live without the quote-oid from the long-gone TV Burke. And I would dump Ex Machina, which surely does nothing for our understanding of Ludwig. Am not familiar enough with Harwood's work to comment - although the quote at her article is supported and sounds perfectly reasonable. No strong view on the David Markson novel, and it needs a source, but at first sight looks perfectly relevant. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Support nuking and reinclusion of individual items after discussion and consensus.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the nuking bit has been already done. I was foolishly expecting more than two minutes. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't all rush at once, now. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)