Talk:Black Notebooks

Goethean, thanks for starting the article, but it's almost empty of content at the moment. Can you add something to explain why the notebooks are controversial? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposing merger with Heidegger and Nazism article
Unless the article for the Black Notebooks is going to be expanded significantly I propose that it be merged with the article on Heidegger and Nazism. Mfhiller (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)mfhiller

Entry/link
Regarding

March 26, 2014 Greg Johnson in Counter-Currents: Heidegger’s Black Notebooks: The Diaries of a Dissident National Socialist

I question whether it is appropriate to list this article and a link to it in the section on the reception of the publication of the Black Notebooks.

The first published article on Schwarze Hefte is this one: http://laphilosophie.blog.lemonde.fr/2013/12/05/heidegger-la-preuve-du-nazisme-par-le-cahier-noir/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifi1975X (talk • contribs) 14:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

German Version
Many thanks!!
 * Schwarze Hefte
 * Filinthe (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Reception section
Goethean, I think a case could be made for removing the "reception" section outright. In its current form, it is simply not encyclopedic. I understand that the list of links could be used to improve the article, but if editors need them, they can always find them through the article's revision history. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

First Notebook
What happened to it? In more words, what's the provenance of the extant notebooks and are there any theories as to what happened to the first or what it contained? An unremarked absence is bound to give rise to conspiracy theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.215.96.64 (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Links to bookseller
The links in the bibliography to a ANY bookseller should be removed.

It goes against the ethos of wikipedia. Hesweeney (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I have deleted the links to Amazon's front page. They served no purpose. The question now is should the 5 ot points that they were attached to be removed from "External Links" ... seeing as they now have no links? Dinkenfunkle 01:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Some significant edits done, and more needed.
I've just finished doing some work on the format, mainly in breaking up the lead and moving some of that content into 2 new sections. I think it better and more clearly lays out the article, and leaves the much reduced lead as just that, an introduction.

Also started some copy edits. A great deal more copy editing needs to be done.

In particular, the section on "Controversy" is much to long. It devolves into a general defence of Heidegger re alleged (to be tactful) anti-semitism, way beyond what needs to be said about the Notebooks. Obviously there should be mention of that in the article, but there already exists an article on his attitude. (Martin_Heidegger_and_Nazism) so I plan to reduce it to more specifically address the Notebooks.

Then there are all the "GA" references scattered in-line. Yes, I get that GA is a way of pointing to the Heidegger Gesamtausgabe, but it's a clumsy and non standard referencing system for WP. Perhaps some of them could be changed to "Notes", but the way they are now is a little bit 'original research', I think. Dinkenfunkle 02:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I have a done what feels like too many edits to this article. Last one was to add an article-level Refs needed tag, but that's certainly not the end of work needed. So I'll step back for a while until some other, wiser eyes have looked at the changes so far. Dinkenfunkle 01:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)