Talk:Martin Heidegger/Archive 6

Heidegger's opinion of Heidegger
1. Heidegger thought Heidegger was the "greatest thinker in the Western tradition since Heraclitus." Encyclopedic, or no?

is Heidegger's opinion on Heidegger's importance of encylopedic interest? Anyone with an opinion?World Champion Editor (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What is the source and context of that statement exactly?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ok I retract the request. I had never actually looked into this (it's just part of the Heidegger lore that he allegedly thought this), so I tried to look it up, and found some sources, but it seems like rather dubious and more an attempt to slander Heidegger than something he actually ever said.

Sources are here: https://books.google.com/books?id=BakfCdRPPswC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=heidegger+greatest+thinker+since+Heraclitus&source=bl&ots=GDsVofG_D5&sig=Eumtjw-guPo29lmnVoHPa9Emems&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjstOGA9ZPKAhUClR4KHZuiCTcQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=heidegger%20greatest%20thinker%20since%20Heraclitus&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=AbtKCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=heidegger+greatest+thinker+since+Heraclitus&source=bl&ots=tebL2206HM&sig=Bt1G_y8MXfsh7hG-Hv2VzSeXhnA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjstOGA9ZPKAhUClR4KHZuiCTcQ6AEIIDAC#v=onepage&q=heidegger%20greatest%20thinker%20since%20Heraclitus&f=false


 * Yeah, then I dont think it should be included.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * For those who are curious, it looks like this notion traces to the book Heidegger's Crisis, where it is stated that "One of his colleagues complained that "Heidegger had given the impression with the speech that he considered himself the spiritual leader of the new movement and the only great and outstanding thinker since Heraclitus." There does not appear to be any evidence that this was H's actual stated view.World Champion Editor (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Now that World Champion Editor has been indefinitely blocked, I may as well point out that the account is probably a sock of User:Kingshowman. The user name is very similar to SuperFriendlyEditor, a previously blocked sock of Kingshowman, and the behavior (including the vicious personal abuse directed against other users) is also very similar. A case could be made for reverting all of his edits to this article, on the grounds that they are part of a long-term pattern of disruption, but personally I cannot be bothered. Perhaps they should be left to stand. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That someone is blocked is not a valid reason for removing contributions. If it can be demonstrated that are problems with the editors contributions here they can be removed, otherwise they should stand.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Edits that a user makes while evading a block are very often rolled back and there definitely would be a case for doing that here, but as I said, I cannot be bothered. Since you seem to think the edits are generally an improvement, I am content with fixing some minor issues with them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I dont have an opinion about their edits which I havent reviewed in detail. But I think that rolling back good edits punitively is not in the interest of the encyclopedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Snowded and others might want to express opinions. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Commodification of nature
I think we should refer to this Wiki article here and probably at The Question Concerning Technology: commodification of nature. Do we agree? I don't know this article well enough to know where best to put it. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Lead
The first paragraph of the lead contains quotations from the Internet Encyclopedia and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I believe these should be removed, and replaced with different content. It's very poor form for an encyclopedia to contain such prominent quotations from other encyclopedias. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I have replaced the middle paragraph of the previous lead, which was difficult to understand
If someone would like to discuss my replacement text, please be my guest and offer suggestions or criticisms here. But I hope we can agree the paragraph that was there should be replaced. It was quite unclear and did not give adequate overview of Heidegger's thought, in this editor's opinion. World Champion Editor (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

BA in Philosophy, Berea College, concentration on Heidegger. The lead as it stands today works for me. However, I find this sentence a bit too "expert" for the average reader: " The consequence of this is that our capacity to think cannot be the most central quality of our being because thinking is a reflecting upon this more original way of discovering the world." May I fix it a little? Soltera 149.168.37.8 (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Adjusting his main interests
He had a clear interest in Christian Philosophy, not to include that on the page is to hide information about Heidegger. User:WhiteKnight138 —Preceding undated comment added 07:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Martin Heidegger. 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/20111107062318/http://www.stanford.edu/dept/relstud/faculty/sheehan/pdf/88-nazi.PDF to http://www.stanford.edu/dept/relstud/faculty/sheehan/pdf/88-nazi.PDF
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111011200609/https://www.filmsdocumentary.com/design-for-living-martin-heidegger to http://www.filmsdocumentary.com/design-for-living-martin-heidegger

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martin Heidegger. 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/20120611205518/http://web.alfredstate.edu/library/Antigone/Antigone.The%20Ode%20on%20Man.pdf to http://web.alfredstate.edu/library/Antigone/Antigone.The%20Ode%20on%20Man.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Conscription
Are there any published facts about how he avoided being drafted into the Wehrmacht from 1940 to 1945?173.72.63.96 (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Scott Buddenbrook


 * I don't know. Maybe it's because he was considered too old (51), maybe because his work as professor exempted him from military service. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

"According to my copy of the 1945 U.S. War Department Handbook on German Military Forces, p.55, "In time of peace all German males were liable to military service from their 18th birthday until the 31 March following their 45th birthday. In east Prussia liability was extended until 31 March following their 55th birthday." By the end of the war liability was extended in both directions -17 (those born in 1928) to 61(the class of 1884)."

- Mark Jepperson

"Most of the younger boys and older men were inducted into the Volksstrum created late in the War (1944). As a last ditch effort to stave off defeat in October 1944, all males aged 16 to 60 were required to join the Volkssturm, or Home Guard. The Wehrmacht now disgraced in Hitler's eyes."

- World War II: Conscription and the Age of Soldiers


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * See also http://www.wikiberal.org/wiki/Parabole_de_Saint-Simon Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that the Volkssturm Wikipedia article lists Heidegger as a "notable member." 173.72.63.96 (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Scott Buddenbrook
 * It's unsourced, so I've removed it. Well spotted, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In Der Spiegel interview he complained that he was forced to dig trenches, while top 500 intellectuals were exempted from it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In the current version, Heidegger is back in the list of notable members of the Volkssturm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.29.112 (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

First paragraph
The first paragraph says that Heidegger is known for his contributions to phenomenology and existentialism. While it then goes on to state that an encyclopeadia of philosophy states that Heidegger should only be thought of in associations with such movements with extreme caution, should it not say that Heidegger denied that he was an existentialist?Vorbee (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Basically, Heidegger was an irrationalist. He inherited this from Nietzsche and has passed it to postmodernism. Heidegger could be seen as the father of postmodernism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Nazi sympathies
He was known for a fan of Ernst Röhm, so obviously became suspect to the regime when Röhmians were eliminated. So, the effect of the Night of the Long Knives was genuine: he knew that he could be next. So he decided to keep a low profile, but quitting NSDAP would have amounted to treason. Besides all works trying to fit Nazi racism into Heidegger's philosophical works have failed: we he did not believe that biological differences matter that much, to him race was subordinate to culture, not the other way around. I.e. what the Dutch sociologist Willem Schinkel called culture-ism. His detractors tried to paint him as a monster, since he was a NSDAP member, but belief in an ideology is not in itself a crime in a state of law. As a propagandist for the regime, they did not trust him enough to give him such role. So, yeah, being a NSDAP member was part of his biography and biography for philosophers simply means gossip stuff. He simply wasn't an ideologue of racism. He also wasn't a soldier, a camp guard or a bureaucrat (except for one year of being a rector), so he had no impact on the war or on the genocide. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What is this in response to? Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: there is no en.wiki article for Willem Schinkel, but there is one at nl:Willem Schinkel. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * This page is for discussion of changes to the article, not discussion about Heidegger. If you have sources for the above and can rewrite it in encyclopaedic language, feel free to edit the article to include it. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree with WP:NOTFORUM, but sometimes editors have to be reminded the difference between hard facts and mere opinions. It helps a lot in writing the articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Nader El-Bizri
I was looking at the contributions of a Lebanese IP, and noticed an edit to this page where the only purpose appeared to be the promotion of the work of Nader El-Bizri. I've removed that, and a couple of others that appeared to be the work of the same person. The page now has 23 mentions of El-Bizri. I was thinking of removing some or all of those too, but thought it best to seek consensus here before doing so. As the history of the page on him shows, El-Bizri has been the subject of a concerted effort of promotion here, and I'm concerned that the apparently excessive weight given to his views in our article are a consequence of that. As far as I can see, his published work on Heidegger has received few citations, which I interpret as only minimal interest from other academics. Do his views merit inclusion in this page, and if so, how extensively should they be covered? Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Removed the content about Heidegger and the Nazi Party from lead
Removed the content about Heidegger and the Nazi Party from lead for 5 reasons; 1) the lead provides a summary of the article's contents, this content was too detailed for the lead, see MOS:LEAD; 2) it is not what Heidegger is best known for, yet takes up a substantial section of the lead, see WP:UNDUE; 3) Heidegger's affiliations with the Nazi Party are treated at length in the article and there is a whole article, Martin Heidegger and Nazism dedicated to the topic, so it does not need extensive treatment in the lead; 4) the book cited, Grondin, Jean (2012). Introduction to metaphysics: from Parmenides to Levinas. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231148445, does not contain the phrase "the inner truth and greatness of National Socialism" (seached both in Google Books and Amazon.com See Inside feature); 5) the views of Victor Farías (Heidegger and nazism. Temple University Press) are not widely accepted and cannot be taken as a reliable source (see The Farias and Faye controversies) - Epinoia (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am reversing your removal of this content for these reasons:
 * 1. The lede after removal of this material does *not* accurately summarize the material about Nazism in this article on Heidegger.
 * 2. The google search on terms "Heidegger" and "Nazi" returns about 1 million hits, while the google search "Heidegger" "ontology" returns about 1.1 million hits; his Nazism is clearly an essential part of his biography.
 * 3. The lead ought summarize the main article for this particular article, not for other articles. Your point that there are other articles is not relevant.
 * 4. The sentence of interest reads, "in his 1953 book Introduction to Metaphysics (based on lectures he gave in 1935) he retrospectively praised “the inner truth and greatness of National Socialism" accurately reporting that this quote is from Heidegger's book, "Introduction to metaphysics" and not from the Grondin. This seems perfectly clear, though it seems reasonable to add a cite of Heidegger's book right after the quote, so I will do that.
 * 5. The particular points mentioned in the lede here are not controversial in any way and are accurately described in both Farias's book and Ott's book.Sbelknap (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Heidegger's Nazism is of central importance and requires a paragraph in the lede. It is WP:UNDUE to emphasize his philosophy in the lede and deemphasize his Nazism. Sbelknap (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Obscuring Heidegger's Nazism
I've reviewed the edits for this article. I expect that when others do this, they will understand that there is an effort by some editors to obscure Heidegger's Nazism. The result is that confusing language is used in the main text of the article and that discussion of Heidegger's Nazism is inappropriately minimized in the lead. Whatever one thinks of Heidegger's philosophy, his Nazism is an essential part of his biography. This ought to be reflected in summary in the lead and discussed in some detail in the article.Sbelknap (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with . —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 03:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You need to stop making personal attacks on other editors and edit warring. Nothing in the original text minimises his Nazi past and no editor involved has anything in their edit history which justifies your attack.  Carry on with this and it's an ANI report given sensitivities on this subject.   Make the case for your change on the talk page without personal attacks please -Snowded TALK 07:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I haven't made any personal attacks on other editors. I agree with  that the present text can easily be misread to say that there is controversy over whether Heidegger was a Nazi at all, whereas in the alternative text no such misreading is possible.  I can find no advantages in the present text in clarity, ease of reading, tone, or register.  I'm sticking my oar in because otherwise people might get the false impression that  is the only one who supports these changes, which is not the case.  —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Reference is to Sbelknap and I've put a notice on their page - apologies if you thought it was you. That said given two other editors had restored the stable text (and one other at least liked that restoration) your  contribution should be on the talk page not by reverting. The existing text clearly states he was a member of the Nazi party and that makes him a controversial figure.  There is no use of the English language which would allow that to be interpreted as saying his membership or support is in any way disputed  -Snowded TALK 08:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The first sentence of Sbelknap's preferred version of the lead begins,


 * "Martin Heidegger (/ˈhaɪˌdɛɡər, ˈhaɪdɪɡər/;[12][13] German: [ˈmaɐ̯tiːn ˈhaɪdɛɡɐ];[14][12] 26 September 1889 – 26 May 1976) was a German philosopher, a seminal thinker in the Continental tradition and philosophical hermeneutics, a dues-paying member of the Nazi Party,[15] and is "widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century.


 * It's distasteful to have to even comment about why that is bad writing. A basic principle of writing that isn't totally tendentious is that you group related facts together. What does Heidegger's being "a dues-paying member of the Nazi Party" have to do with his being "a seminal thinker in the Continental tradition and philosophical hermeneutics" and his being "widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century"? I agree that Heidegger's Nazism does have to be mentioned in the lead, but slapping "a dues-paying member of the Nazi Party" in the middle of a discussion of Heidgger's significance as a philosopher is gratuitous. Again, that's really terrible writing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I am actually quite sympathetic to some of what Sbelknap seems to be trying to accomplish with his edits, the proper coverage of Heidegger's Nazi history in the lead. I suggest, however, that Sbelknap needs to go back to the drawing board, as they say. A paragraph Sbelknap added starts with,


 * "Heidegger joined the Nazi Party in May 1933, shortly after he was elected rector of the University of Freiburg and remained a member until the unconditional surrender of the European Axis powers in May 1945. After the War, in 1946, the Denazification Committee of the French occupying force convicted Heidegger because he, "in the crucial year of 1933…consciously placed the great prestige of his scholarly reputation and the distinctive art of his oratory in the service of the National Socialist Revolution…thereby doing a great deal to justify this revolution in the eyes of educated Germans."


 * That material obviously deals with an important issue and arguably a lot of those details should be mentioned in the lead. But not everything. I can see why someone might want to include the quotation from the Denazification Committee of the French occupying force, but it is too much detail. Things need to be summarized more simply and more elegantly than that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * First of all, I'm a native English speaker, and the words
 * Heidegger's membership in and public support for the Nazi Party has been the subject of widespread controversy...
 * —do always, at first glance, appear to be saying that it's controversial whether Heidegger was a member or supporter of the Nazi Party. Then the sentence clarifies that, but does so by stumbling into stylistic clumsiness:
 * ...regarding the extent to which his Nazism influenced his philosophy.
 * —because, a moment ago, the "subject" of the controversy was his "membership in and public support for the Nazi Party", and now it's been retrospectively refocused on "the extent to which his Nazism influenced his philosophy". Yes, I can figure out what's being said after a moment or two, but making your readers take a moment like that before they know what you mean is the essence of clumsy style.  By contrast,
 * Heidegger was a member and public supporter of the Nazi Party. There is controversy regarding whether his Nazism influenced his philosophy.
 * —is crystal clear on first reading, and also less wordy. I might be tempted, in the name of precision, to pad out the second sentence to
 * There is controversy over the extent to which his Nazi affiliations influenced his philosophy.
 * —but it is far clearer than the text as it stands.


 * (One might also note that there are now two separate references to Heidegger's Nazism in the lede section, and the first is, in my opinion, broad enough to render the second redundant; the details about the University of Freiburg can be left for the main body. But if someone were to take that opinion as an excuse to delete the second reference without clarifying the first as  and I have suggested... well, I would know what to think.)
 * —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (PS, this discussion is on the more recent change, not that earlier sentence. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC))
 * (PPS, this comment is going further and further out of date as each time I try to post it someone has changed the page and there's an edit conflict.)
 * Thank you, VeryRarelyStable, but it is rather pointless to try to micro-manage talk-page discussions. I hadn't commented on Sbelknap's edits on the talk page before, and this is where I'm choosing to do it. Sbelknap's best bet now would be to try to develop a simplified and streamlined version of his additions. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I still don't see how even a non-native speaker of English could think there was anyway the existing sentence said his actual membership and support were controversial. But I'm more than open to alternative wording but not the one Sbelknap has been pushing - and he should withdraw the personal attacks -Snowded TALK 10:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I just explained above how I found that the existing sentence appears to say his actual membership and support were controversial. And I don't see any problems with the alternative wording Sbelknap has proposed for this particular sentence, whatever problems there might be with other edits they have suggested and whatever other injudicious remarks they might have made. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * A reasonable person might consider a "personal attack" to be "personal" (directed at a particular person) and an "attack" (doing violence to that person). There was nothing "personal" and there was no attack, so…? The *effect* of making such accusations is to distract from the topic at hand (whether or not that is the asserter's intent). I would strongly encourage interested editors to review the entire history of edits to the Martin Heidegger wikipedia article, perhaps focusing on multiple attempts to improve the clarity and detail of content about Heidegger's Nazism. I expect that editors who do this will have a perspective that is similar to mine: there seems to be an effort by some editors to obscure content that clearly describes Heidegger's Nazism. This is contrary to the spirit of wikipedia. It is also fascinating, given the topic. Perhaps fans of Heidegger's philosophy are being meta?Sbelknap (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Was he a member of NSDAP? Yes, definitely. Did he write Nazi philosophy? Nope, he is the father of postmodernism, not the father of Nazism. He even had Jewish lovers. He didn't write racist philosophy, he wrote culture-ist philosophy, see. Those who admired him in the sixties weren't the Neo-Nazis, they were ecological leftists. For Neo-fascism Julius Evola's philosophy is relevant, but Heidegger's isn't. He did not advocate killing the Jews, nor racial/ethnic purity. I have read many of his works and he nowhere appears racist or bloodthirsty. Trying to fit Nazism into his philosophy is a far-fetched interpretation, i.e. it is a subjective opinion, not a hard fact. Why is it a matter of interpretation? Because there is no smoking gun, obviously. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would certainly support the inclusion of facts in the article. "Facts are stubborn things." It would be of interest to learn your views on the actual topic at hand in this section.Sbelknap (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed to death at Talk:Martin Heidegger and Nazism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that is false. The discussion at Talk:Martin Heidegger and Nazism is about the Martin Heidegger and Nazism page. That is not the issue here. Instead, we are discussing the Martin Heidegger page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs)
 * Well, then I don't know what you advocate. He was forced to dig trenches, which he saw as a humiliation. That's his only involvement in WW2/Holocaust. He wasn't even found good enough for making propaganda for the regime. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To determine what I propose, you might check out the title of this subsection, "Obscuring Heidegger's Nazism." The questions to ask are, "Does the current lead and main article obscure Heidegger's Nazism?" If one believes that this is the case, as this is an encyclopedia, obscurantism is undesirable and perhaps could be remedied. There are specific edits and counter edits in the edit history for the article, and perhaps interested editors could review those.Sbelknap (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

- I do not believe there is any attempt to hide or minimize Heidegger's Nazi affiliations - to suggest otherwise is POV pushing - it is treated at length in the body of the article and there is a whole article about it, Martin Heidegger and Nazism, so it is not in any way hidden or minimized - the debate over biography and work has been ongoing for some time now - there are those who want to stress that Ezra Pound was an anti-Semite, which is true, but he was also an influential poet - it's true that Heidegger was a Nazi, but he was also an influential philosopher - the weight given to various aspects of a person's biography is decided by WP:CONSENSUS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV - as it says at WP:AXE, "Got an ax to grind? Try the hardware store, not Wikipedia. If you do want to advocate for a cause, consider starting your own blog." - Epinoia (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps other editors who are knowledgeable about Heidegger's biography will have a different perspective when they read the lead for the "Martin Heidegger" article and when they review the edit history for this article, with particular attention to edits involving Heidegger's Nazism.Sbelknap (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No one here tries to hide that he was a member of the NSDAP, but in respect to Nazism having contaminated his philosophy, there is no smoking gun, just a woolly interpretation. AFAIK, for him race was subservient to culture, not the other way around. So for him culture trumped race. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Given your assertion that "no one here tries to hide that he was a member of the NSDAP", then perhaps short, clear declarative sentences could be used in the lead to accurately describe those facts about Heidegger's Nazism which are not in dispute and which rise to the level of being essential elements of the lead. I note that for many readers, use of the term "NSDAP" will be obscure and incomprehensible. Perhaps you are being humorous? Editors ought to consider the plight of the reader, who may have little or no knowledge of history, Heidegger, or philosophical discourse.Sbelknap (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not advocate for changing "affiliation with Nazism". Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sbelknap you either justify those personal attacks with specific diffs or I'm making an ANI report on your behaviour -Snowded TALK 15:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Heidegger's opponents have as evidence his Nazi party membership. Membership of a mass organization does not mean much, e.g. Richard Sorge was also a Nazi party member. The leap of faith to "Heidegger's philosophy was contaminated by Nazism" is tempting, but there is no hard evidence to support it. So, his opponents have to rely upon their own interpretation of his philosophy in order to make such point. The common ground between Heidegger and Sorge is that they both had their own political ideas, which differed from those of their own party. The most pertinent view is that Heidegger wrote no political philosophy. If he would have written racist philosophy, his party would have loved it and the state would have loved it. So, during most of the Nazi regime, he would have had much to gain and little to lose from doing it. In the public life everyone would have either approved of him or kept their mouth shut about him. He would have had to agree that Röhm was a traitor, but that were an easy choice. Heidegger's philosophy could be described as somewhat-Luddite passéistic irrationalism, but certainly not as fascism or Nazism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not even proven that Heidegger advocated for militarism, which is a necessary ingredient of fascism and Nazism. AFAIK, he wasn't obsessed with conquering France or with the thousand years Reich. He also lacked Hitler's faith in technology. Heidegger's emphasis on authenticity is not friendly to mass conformism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, unless anyone specifically objects, I am going to change the sentence
 * Heidegger's membership in and public support for the Nazi Party has been the subject of widespread controversy regarding the extent to which his Nazism influenced his philosophy.
 * to the two sentences
 * Heidegger was a member and public supporter of the Nazi Party. There is controversy over the extent to which his Nazi affiliations influenced his philosophy.
 * which don't contain any factual assertions that anyone has disagreed with here, and are clearer, briefer, and better English than the text as it stands. I will also remove the sentence
 * Heidegger is a controversial figure, largely for his affiliation with Nazism, as Rector of the University of Freiburg for 11 months, before his resignation in April 1934, for which he neither apologized nor publicly expressed regret.
 * as being redundant given the aforegoing and more detailed than is needed for a lede section.
 * The only further comment I wish to add here is that the point about Wikipedia not being the place for those with "an axe to grind" clearly goes both ways.
 * —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I support these two changes to the lead. Sbelknap (talk) 02:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think 'degree' would becbetterl than 'extent' but open to the proposed wording and agree with your final sentence :-) -Snowded TALK 05:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

We have a rather daunting task ahead of us as we aim to restore a NPOV to this Heidegger article. There are so many errors and distortions, that it seems overwhelming taken as a whole. Lets do this one-by-one, and eventually we'll get there. One quite glaring distortion is the quote in the lead about Heidegger being widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers. Note that this is a partial quotation, that chops off mid-sentence, and fails to acknowledge the full quotation, thereby radically changing the meaning of the quote compared to the cited source. Here is the full quote from the original source:

"Martin Heidegger is widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century, while remaining one of the most controversial. His thinking has contributed to such diverse fields as phenomenology (Merleau-Ponty), existentialism (Sartre, Ortega y Gasset), hermeneutics (Gadamer, Ricoeur), political theory (Arendt, Marcuse, Habermas), psychology (Boss, Binswanger, Rollo May), and theology (Bultmann, Rahner, Tillich). His critique of traditional metaphysics and his opposition to positivism and technological world domination have been embraced by leading theorists of postmodernity (Derrida, Foucault, and Lyotard). On the other hand, his involvement in the Nazi movement has invoked a stormy debate.  Although he never claimed that his philosophy was concerned with politics, political considerations have come to overshadow his philosophical work." Sbelknap (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I really don't agree with your starting premise. In respect of that sentence I don't see any problem. This is the lede not a full essay.   The issue of membership of the Nazi party is in the lede so it's not disguised. -Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 05:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You are correct that the detailed material about Heidegger's philosophy is important. However, it does not belong in the lead! Instead, the lead ought to include "essence" and serve as a way to inform the causual reader, while drawing them in so that they will move on to the main article.Sbelknap (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The original source has this quote, ""Martin Heidegger is widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century, while remaining one of the most controversial." The final clause of the quote is essential to understanding the meaning of the source; the author of the source is stating a *contrast* not stating a naked assertion. By omitting this final clause, the entire meaning of the quote is changed. Sbelknap (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've read through almost the entire article checking all those sources to which I could obtain access. The article is rife with distortion and error, similar to the two examples I have given here on the talk page. If we need to go through these one by one, so be it. If so, it is going to be a long, tough slog. But we'll get there. Sbelknap (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is egregious that the lead does not mention his affairs with Hannah Arendt and Elisabeth Blochmann, which began when they were students of his at Marburg. Both of these women had Jewish ancestry, which is an essential and paradoxical element of Heidegger's story, given his Nazism. This article is primarily a biography of Martin Heidegger, it is not primarily a philosophical treatise! It is fascinating that there is a separate article on Heidegger's Nazism, as if that is some entirely separate matter that need not require full explication in his biography. These choices that have been made as to how Heidegger is presented in wikipedia are fascinating. Sbelknap (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Break to ease navigation

 * I agree with you on the affairs - and without Arendt he would not be as influential as he is. Can I suggest getting the main body of the article right and then discussing what is needed in a new lede here once that is complete? -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 14:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, that makes sense. w/r/t to source on this for the main body of the article, Cf review in the New York Times of Elzbieta Ettinger's book, HANNAH ARENDT, MARTIN HEIDEGGER: The Banality of Love  Sbelknap (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * A review is OK, I'm pretty sure it is referened in the Cambridge Companion which is a better one - but I am away from my study at the moment so I can't check -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 15:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

- Re: "It is fascinating that there is a separate article on Heidegger's Nazism, as if that is some entirely separate matter that need not require full explication in his biography." - the article Martin Heidegger and Nazism is a content fork, "as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." - Re: "It is egregious that the lead does not mention his affairs with Hannah Arendt and Elisabeth Blochmann" - according to MOS:LEAD, "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources", so the deciding factor on whether or not it should be included in the lead is the weight or prominence it is given in the published sources - Re: "This article is primarily a biography of Martin Heidegger, it is not primarily a philosophical treatise!" - all articles on philosophers, thinkers, theologians, etc., contain summaries of their work and thought - Epinoia (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Misquote in lead
The quote in the original source is: "Martin Heidegger is widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century, while remaining one of the most controversial."

The quote in the lead is truncated to: "He…is widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century."

Thus, the quote in the lead emphasizes that Heidegger is a philosopher and deemphasizes that he is controversial. This violates WP:NPOV. I will add that tag to the page. Sbelknap (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like adding this tag is beyond my abilities.Sbelknap (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We've already discussed this and its not a misquote, the source supports a statement. The controversy is already there in the lede it doesn't need to be in multiple times. There is no justification for a NPOV tag so I won't help you with that I'm afraid.   Per the above discussion lets deal with any issues you have in the main body then we can talk about the lede again.   -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 18:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems clear to me that the truncation of the quote from the original source radically changes the meaning of the quote. This error ought to be corrected. You claim that the source supports the quote, which it does not. Perhaps other editors can share their opinion. Sbelknap (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The controversy does not qualify the statement, his originality and importance is not controversial.  -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 18:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have firm opinions on the matter, which appear to be contrary to the conventions of English grammar. The word "while" is here being used as a preposition and the clause, "while remaining one of the most controversial" is a subordinate clause. Omitting the subordinate clause severely mischaracterizes the quote. Sbelknap (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I managed to add the point-of-view tag to the page. Lets hope we can get this misquotation issue resolved quickly, so as to move on to the many other bias problems with this article. Sbelknap (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If other editors don't support you in the next few days it gets deleted -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 04:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

NPOV discussion regarding the lead
I propose this shorter, clearer text for a new version of the first two paragraphs of the lead:

Martin Heidegger (26 September 1889 – 26 May 1976) was a German philosopher "widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century while remaining one of the most controversial." Heidegger was a member and public supporter of the Nazi Party. There is controversy over the degree to which his Nazi affiliations influenced his philosophy.

Heidegger is best known for his contributions to ontology, phenomenology and existentialism. His first and best known book, Being and Time (1927) is considered one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century. In its first part, Heidegger addressed the fundamental question of being, proposing that the essence of being is caring, in opposition to such Rationalist thinkers as René Descartes who located the essence of man in his thinking abilities.

Heidegger also made critical contributions to philosophical conceptions of truth, arguing that its original meaning was unconcealment, to philosophical analyses of art as a site of the revelation of truth, and to philosophical understanding of language as the "house of being." Heidegger's later work includes criticisms of technology's instrumentalist understanding in the Western tradition as "enframing", treating all of Nature as a "standing reserve" on call for human purposes. Heidegger joined the Nazi Party in May 1933, shortly after he was elected rector of the University of Freiburg and remained a member until the unconditional surrender of the European Axis powers in May 1945. After the War, in 1946, the Denazification Committee of the French occupying force convicted Heidegger because he, "in the crucial year of 1933…consciously placed the great prestige of his scholarly reputation and the distinctive art of his oratory in the service of the National Socialist Revolution…thereby doing a great deal to justify this revolution in the eyes of educated Germans." The Committee suspended him from teaching and this ban was not lifted until 1950. Heidegger never disavowed his Nazism; in his 1953 book Introduction to Metaphysics (based on lectures he gave in 1935) he retrospectively praised “the inner truth and greatness of National Socialism.”  After the Second World War, many of Heidegger's supporters and Heidegger himself promulgated the view that Heidegger became University rector and shortly afterwards joined the Nazi Party only to protect the University of Freiburg from Nazification and that he withdrew his support of Nazism in 1934 after resigning his rectorship at University of Freiburg. Despite this attempt at reputation repair, there is overwhelming evidence that he remained an active dues-paying member of the Nazi Party until the end of the war. Also, there is strong evidence that Heidegger never acknowledged the horror of Nazism, and he never made any public apology to his followers for his efforts in support of the Third Reich. Sbelknap (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, why would he have had to apologize for committing no crimes? I mean he was responsible for his personal actions, he wasn't collectively guilty. Individual responsibility is a cornerstone of our ethics and legal system. Simply having faith in an ideology isn't a crime. He had caustic comments about the Nazi regime, but he kept those for his close friends. If he spoke too much during the totalitarian regime he would have been executed for treason. He wasn't a hero, but AFAIK he did not kill anyone. In common parlance "Nazi" is akin to "child murderer", but Heidegger was no murderer. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What you write is interesting. Perhaps your opinions are based on careful analysis. How are these opinions of yours not original research? Wikipedia ought to reflect the synthesis present in secondary and tertiary sources. That requires that the material presented in these sources be reported accurately. The current version of the Martin Heidegger article does not do so. When there is controversy or disagreement among quality sources, then present the controversy. That is all that is needed to be done here. Sbelknap (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course we present the disagreement among sources. But since there is no hard evidence that Heidegger murdered anyone or advocated murdering anyone, it is a subjective opinion that he would have been a bloodthirsty monster. If there were evidence for that, we would know it by now. He was a disgruntled Nazi since Röhm was killed. This is not controversial. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sbelknap you are coming over as an editor on a mission here. Your proposal is unbalanced and again you are focusing on getting your point over in the lede - which (I repeat) only summarises the main article -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 04:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. Lets start by restoring this quote to the meaning in its cited source: Martin Heidegger is "widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century while remaining one of the most controversial."Sbelknap (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Controversy" references the man not his status as a philosopher and the reference supports a primary statement about his status as a philosopher. We already have it the controversy later in the lede, enough is enough. You seem to want everything we say about him qualified with a reference to his his Nazi associations and you seem only to be concerned about the lede.  Sorry I don't agree that you have made the case for NPOV or the change. -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 18:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * One distraction after another! Please, let us avoid distraction. Your deletion of the subordinate clause in the quote does not follow Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE, which states, "Do not omit text where doing so would remove important context or alter the meaning of the text." Also, we have this: "The quotation should be representative of the whole source document; editors should be very careful to avoid misrepresentation of the argument in the source." Wikipedia:Quotations Please stop reversing my corrections of this error. What you are doing w/r/t this particular quote amounts to vandalism, in my view. Sbelknap (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - be cautious about throwing around charges of vandalism - see WP:VANDAL - "you should avoid using the term "vandalism" unless it is clear the user in question means to harm Wikipedia" - the problem is not vandalism, it is making changes to the lead without consensus - Epinoia (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please review the edit history for the Martin Heidegger article, with particular attention to edits involving "Nazi" and "Nazism." There appears to be an effort by some editors to omit, obscure, or minimize inclusion of relevant material about Martin Heidegger and Nazism. That would appear to constitute vandalism under the definition given at WP:VANDAL link you sent, which states, "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge." The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of: neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. For example, selective omission of the bolded clause in "(Heidegger is) widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century while remaining one of the most controversial" would appear to qualify as malicious removal of encyclopedic content and deviation from a neutral point of view, and thus a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Also, there are repeated accusations that I am pushing an agenda, or have an axe to grind, or other such nonsense. I don't. Instead, I believe that editors ought to respect the sources they cite, and set aside their opinions and agendas. That is what I am doing. This article is a biography, not a treatise on philosophy. It is about a man's life. He happens to have been a philosopher and he also happens to have been a Nazi. *Both* ought be reflected in the article and the lead. Sbelknap (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The effort to obscure Heidegger's Nazism goes back to 2002. There is widespread mischaracterization of sources, omission of high-quality scholarship on Heidegger, insistence that discussion of the issue be relegated to a separate article on Heidegger and Nazism, claims that Heidegger's accomplishments as a philosopher somehow nullify an attempt to honestly describe his Nazism. This is egregious. Many editors have attempted to improve the discussion of Heidegger's Nazism and failed. Something ought to be done to restore a NPOV to the Martin Heidegger article.Sbelknap (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * According to Alasdair Palmer, "Heidegger used to lecture in military uniform, in a hall that he arranged to be decked out with swastikas and other Nazi flags." Why is this (and other related information) not mentioned in the Martin Heidegger article? Sbelknap (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

- there is no attempt to obscure Heidegger's Nazism - it is mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead of the Martin Heidegger article - there is a whole section devoted to it in the article at Heidegger and the Nazi Party and it is also mentioned at The Farías debate - in addition, there is a content fork article at Martin Heidegger and Nazism where the topic is treated more fully than in the main article - in sheer number of words, his Nazism is given more ink on Wikipedia than his philosophy - Epinoia (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sbelknap your previous topic ban came about in part because you insulted other editors and used made unsubstantiated insinuations about unnamed editors mortivations. You are heading for another if you carry on like this -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 04:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * More distractions! Let us please focus on content. The actual text of the lead and the edit history are content.Sbelknap (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * IThe lead ought accurately quote the source for this quote. This is the edit I propose: Heidegger was a German philosopher "widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century while remaining one of the most controversial." Sbelknap (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Opposed for reasons already stated -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 16:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Alastair Palmer is a columnist for The Daily Telegraph. Among the topics he writes about are "... crime, immigration, the police, social services, justice and the incompetence of state and other authorities." I've got nothing against Palmer, or his column, or of course his newspaper. But he's not a historian. If you can provide the source(s) on which he bases his claim that "Heidegger used to lecture in military uniform, in a hall that he arranged to be decked out with swastikas and other Nazi flags" I'd be genuinely interested to see them. Evenso, I think such a claim is a little wide of the mark as a useful summary of Heidegger's life as a philosopher or of his general political modus operandus? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, like how, where and what to speak would be free choices in a totalitarian society... Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh? Are there actual sources or has Palmer just made that bit up? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know. The story is plausible. But it would be far fetched to affirm that it was all by Heidegger's choice. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is plausible. Some such stories have really good sources, like this one. But I tend to agree with you about Heidegger's likely scope for "choice" there. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Other academics in Nazi Germany were certainly coerced or intimidated in expressing support for the Nazis and for Hitler. However, to assert that Heidegger's Nazism was coerced misstates the available evidence. Heidegger's lecture in military uniform and with Nazi regalia is mentioned on page 116 of Yvonne Sherratt's book, "Hitler's philosophers." This is one of many scholarly works that are not cited in the Martin Heidegger article. Sbelknap (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Heidegger put all his money on Röhm. So, Heidegger's admiration for Nazism did not last long. He could not quit the party, otherwise he would have been considered a traitor. The Gestapo knew that he supported Röhm, but since Heidegger wasn't a conspirator, they let him be. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Upon reading from Heidegger's black notebooks (1931-1941), German philosopher Günter Figal resigned as chair of the Martin Heidegger Society, citing his discomfort with Heidegger's anti-Semitism. Heidegger fully supported the anti-semitic ideology of the Nazis. Heidegger's letters to his brother further demonstrate Heidegger's fascism and anti-semitism. There is a wealth of scholarship on this, which (in my view) is not adequately covered in the Martin Heidegger article. Also, the current lead does not adequately cover even what little information is presented in the main text of the article about Heidegger's Fascism, Nazism, or anti-semitism. This article is one of the most biased ones I've read on wikipedia. Sbelknap (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Did he had racial prejudices? Yes, as we all do. Even black police officers are more likely to shoot at a black suspect than at a white suspect. But his prejudices did not enter his philosophical work. As stated before, he was culture-ist, not racist. He had love relationships with Jewish women because they had been Germanized, for him they were (culturally) German women of Jewish origin. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Some scholars would dispute this, particularly in light of the material found in the black notebooks and in Heidegger's letters to his brother. To what extent did Heidegger's philosophy influence his anti-semitism and Nazism? To what extent did Heidegger's anti-semitism and Nazism influence his philosophy? These matters deserve coverage in this article. See: Is Heidegger Contaminated by Nazism? Sbelknap (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, he was engaged in a Kulturkampf against liberal internationalism. He wasn't engaged in a DNAkampf. It all makes sense if you consider that in the eyes of most Germans liberal internationalism was championed by the Jews. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think your proposed new paragraphs for the lead section seem a little unbalanced. There may be a good case for mentioning his political alignments a little more in the lead, provided the claims are all fully expounded and sourced in the article main body. Maybe you should direct your efforts there first, although you may need more scholarly sources than Joshua Rothman's article in The New Yorker? As far as the lead section is concerned, I think Heidegger is more well known for his ideas in philosophy than for his Nazi sympathies. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Rothman agrees that Heidegger's philosophy wasn't contaminated by Nazism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * At this point, I'm pessimistic that any such effort to increase discussion in this article about Heidegger's Nazism and anti-semitism would succeed, no matter how well-supported by scholarly citations. Prior efforts by editors to improve the Martin Heidegger article's discussion of Nazism and anti-semitism, no matter how well-crafted, eventually get deleted, minimized, or garbled into unreadability. Sbelknap (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's maybe because you concentrate upon the wrong article and the wrong part of the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In your view, what is the right part of the article to make edits so as to improve the discussion of Heidegger's anti-semitism and Nazism? Sbelknap (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The lead section is the wrong choice. You edits would be appreciated at Martin Heidegger and Nazism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The point has been made that the current main article already has information about Nazism. The current lead does not reasonably summarize this information from the current main article. That is the problem. Sbelknap (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a problem of "how much is too much?" Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The current lead has four paragraphs. I propose that a fifth paragraph be added that addresses Heidegger's Nazism and antisemitism. Sbelknap (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

- MOS:LEAD says that the lead should have four paragraphs, so the lead should not be longer - Heidegger's Nazism is given adequate weight in the lead - if he was only a Nazi, he would have been completely forgotten - if he was only a philosopher, he would still be influential - so the major weight in the lead is his philosophy, the minor weight is his Nazism per WP:WEIGHT - his Nazism is well covered in the body of the article and elsewhere - there is no objective formula to determine appropriate weight, so we go by consensus - Epinoia (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What scant attention is given to Heidegger's Nazism in the article's body is *not* adequately summarized in the lead. Heidegger's anti-semitism is barely mentioned in the body and not at all in the lead. Note that the posthumous distortion of Nietzsche's work by his sister warrants the entire last paragraph of the lead of his wikipedia entry. Yet Heidegger's undeniable anti-semitism - the subject of dozens of scholarly tomes - goes unmentioned in his lead. Sbelknap (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Which is a controversial issue itself. I think Tgeorgescu is right here you are currently focused on the wrong article and the wrong part of this article -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 04:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As I tried to suggest above, if you think the coverage in the article's body is "scant", then need to get a consensus to add more there, not start inflating the lead to achieve your perceived lack of balance? Better still, as Tgeorgescu suggests, your efforts might be appreciated more at Martin Heidegger and Nazism, which article should be summarised in the appropriate section(s) here? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Straw poll on proposed new lead
Should this proposed text become the new lead for the article, yes, no, or IDGAD:PiCo (talk) 04:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * ''Martin Heidegger (/ˈhaɪˌdɛɡər, ˈhaɪdɪɡər/;[1][2] German: [ˈmaɐ̯tiːn ˈhaɪdɛɡɐ];[3][1] 26 September 1889 – 26 May 1976) was a German philosopher "widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century while remaining one of the most controversial."[4] Heidegger was a member and public supporter of the Nazi Party. There is controversy over the degree to which his Nazi affiliations influenced his philosophy.


 * ''Heidegger is best known for his contributions to ontology, phenomenology and existentialism. His first and best known book, Being and Time (1927) is considered one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century.[5] In its first part, Heidegger addressed the fundamental question of being, proposing that the essence of being is caring, in opposition to such Rationalist thinkers as René Descartes who located the essence of man in his thinking abilities.


 * Heidegger also made critical contributions to philosophical conceptions of truth, arguing that its original meaning was unconcealment, to philosophical analyses of art as a site of the revelation of truth, and to philosophical understanding of language as the "house of being."[6] Heidegger's later work includes criticisms of technology's instrumentalist understanding in the Western tradition as "enframing", treating all of Nature as a "standing reserve" on call for human purposes.[7][8] Heidegger joined the Nazi Party in May 1933, shortly after he was elected rector of the University of Freiburg and remained a member until the unconditional surrender of the European Axis powers in May 1945. After the War, in 1946, the Denazification Committee of the French occupying force convicted Heidegger because he, "in the crucial year of 1933…consciously placed the great prestige of his scholarly reputation and the distinctive art of his oratory in the service of the National Socialist Revolution…thereby doing a great deal to justify this revolution in the eyes of educated Germans." The Committee suspended him from teaching and this ban was not lifted until 1950. Heidegger never disavowed his Nazism; in his 1953 book Introduction to Metaphysics (based on lectures he gave in 1935) he retrospectively praised “the inner truth and greatness of National Socialism.”[9][10][11] After the Second World War, many of Heidegger's supporters and Heidegger himself promulgated the view that Heidegger became University rector and shortly afterwards joined the Nazi Party only to protect the University of Freiburg from Nazification and that he withdrew his support of Nazism in 1934 after resigning his rectorship at University of Freiburg. Despite this attempt at reputation repair, there is overwhelming evidence that he remained an active dues-paying member of the Nazi Party until the end of the war. Also, there is strong evidence that Heidegger never acknowledged the horror of Nazism, and he never made any public apology to his followers for his efforts in support of the Third Reich.[12][13]


 * NoPiCo (talk) 04:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My chief concern is to restore the clause, "while remaining one of the most controversial" to the quote "widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century while remaining one of the most controversial." Sbelknap (talk) 05:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - the last sentence of the first paragraph mentions controversy, no need to say it twice - Epinoia (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And the quote from this authoritative source is a misquote of that source, misrepresenting the meaning found in that source. Sbelknap (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * No - Epinoia (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No. I think the current lead is a fair summary of what is currently in the article main body. Also I think your proposed third paragraph is too long. But instead of just a copy of your entire proposed new lead section above, other editors might find it easier to judge if you highlighted in some way, perhaps using colour or other emphasis, what exactly you are proposing to add or change? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No-<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 18:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing
Just a note to other editors. In the last 24 hours Sbelknap has canvassed five editors, this adds to the edit warring and personal attacks. -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 16:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There has been no edit warring. There have been no personal attacks. I have brought the discussion on this talk page to the notice of some editors who previously have engaged in discussion or edits about Heidegger and Nazism. My understanding is that such invitations are in fact encouraged by wikipedia policies and my observation is that this sort of notice is widely practiced on wikipedia. I communicated in an entirely open manner (as can be seen in my contributions stream) that is consistent with WP:CANVAS. Frankly, I feel harassed and threatened by snowded, who has repeatedly and inappropriately deleted my edits, threatened to refer me to ANI, and who has repeatedly made false assertions. I've asked snowded to stop harassing me. Specifically, I have asked snowded to stop posting on my talk page, as his posts contain false assertions and threats. If there is some genuine error that I've made, I would be grateful if that would be brought to my attention, as I would apologize for that and make whatever adjustments necessary. If we could focus on content, that would seem to be a more productive approach Sbelknap (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC).
 * Try taking it to RfC. PiCo (talk) 04:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (EC) If you don't suggest that experienced editors are part of a long term conspiracy to disguise his Nazi associations if you don't selectively approach other editors to contribute to this article and if you don't edit war, there would be no need for notices. I've restored the article several times as (more evidence above) you do not have consensus for the changes you are making. In response to the discussion on your  previous (unanimous) topic banyou used phrases like "I am entirely compliant with this policy" not to mention "I feel threatened by jytdog, who exhibits extreme ownership behavior of the finasteride article, has harassed me with wikilawyering, and has gotten me briefly banned from editing." and "If jytdog is so angry at men ...".  A pattern you are repeating above.   When I found that case I decided to hold off an ANI report on failure to comply with WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS as second offenders tend to get harsher treatment and used your talk page to make the point instead.  -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 04:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please review the edit history on the Martin Heidegger article. Your accusation about edit warring seems unwarranted. There were no personal attacks. I have not suggested a "long term conspiracy." The Martin Heidegger article does not reflect the large body of scholarship about Heidegger's anti-semitism and Nazism. Other editors have (unsuccessfully) tried to remedy this. Any editor can confirm this by reviewing the edit history of the article going back to its inception. I openly invited editors who previously make edits or comments about Heidegger and Nazism to read this talk page, which I've seen other editors do and which appears to me to be consistent with wikipedia policies. Have you not noticed that instead of reverting your edits, I am engaging in these discussions on this talk page? Your threats seems way over the top. Sbelknap (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Edit summary here is a direct accusation that I have a history of obscuring the Nazism of Heidegger, I take that as a personal attack and so would most people. -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 06:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Seriously? The text of the comment was this: "Going back through the history, I notice that several edits of the Heidegger article by this editor obscure the Nazism of Heidegger. In this case, many readers will interpret this sentence as implying that there is controversy as to the Nazism of Heidegger. There is no such controversy. In previous edits, this editor replaced "Nazi" with "National Socialist", which is an unfamiliar term for many.)" It strains credulity to interpret that as an attack. "National Socialist" is in fact a less familiar term than Nazi. Elsewhere in the edit history and on the talk page the acronym NSDAP is used. Surely you do not expect that every wikipedia reader is familiar with the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or would recognize the acronym NSDAP? Sbelknap (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * QED -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 12:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Use of the name Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or the acronym NSDAP, might provide an educative function for many readers, if not every one. As to the "Nazism of Heidegger", I think we can agree he was a Party member and at one stage spoke and wrote to students in support of Hitler. The lead section plainly states "Heidegger was a member and public supporter of the Nazi Party." You also suggest that this private notebooks published in 2014, show he was anti-semitic. But what's the other evidence, apart from what is already in the article, that you would add, of his "Nazism", i.e. direct "Nazi actions"? I mean, for example, he was drafted in to dig those tank ditches along the Rhine in 1944. He didn't exactly volunteer? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That educative function is admirably executed by the existing Nazi Party article, and there is a hyperlink to that article in the first paragraph of the Martin Heidegger article. The term "Nazi" is familiar to most readers, and using that term serves the interest of comprehensibility. The terms "National Socialist" and "NSDAP" are more obscure, the latter much more than the former, but each likely to confuse at least some readers. I'm pleased that you are mentioning the sentence "Heidegger was a member and public supporter of the Nazi Party." This improvement (which I suggested) was distilled from this convoluted sentence, "Heidegger's membership in and public support for the Nazi Party has been the subject of widespread controversy regarding the extent to which his Nazism influenced his philosophy" - a brilliant display of obtundity. Sbelknap (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We are to assume good faith in our fellow editors, so let us not speculate as to why mentions of anti-semitism and Nazism in this article seem to be presented in obscurantist fashion (when they are mentioned at all). Instead, lets fix the misquotes, make the language clear, and provide a NPOV. Sbelknap (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Your suggestions now seem perfectly reasonable. I'm all for sticking to plain facts, wherever possible. Even in the lead section. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * NSDAP is obscure, National Socialist is not and pretty clear as its the name of the party he joined. Whatever using National Socialist is not in any way obscuring the association of Heidegger with the Nazis -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 18:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Removal of POV tag
The POV template may be removed whenever any one of the following is true: There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

However: There is no consensus on the talkpage that the issue has been resolved. It is clear what the neutrality issue is. There is active discussion on the talk page regarding the issue.

Thus, continued use of the POV tag is appropriate. Sbelknap (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Where is the consensus that there is a "neutrality issue"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * - see WP:NPOVD - "ideologues, when presented with an article that has exemplary neutrality (as per our policy), will consider the article biased precisely because it does not reflect their own bias enough." - from the lengthy discussion, I believe it is safe to say that the consensus is that the article meets WP:NPOV - if you disagree, you may want to investigate the Dispute resolution process - Epinoia (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from insulting other editors. Thanks. Sbelknap (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello Epinoia. I assume you were replying to Sbelknap? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - yes, sorry for the confusion - it is a direct quote from the WP:NPOVD guideline - as there seems to be only one editor relentlessly pushing this POV against apparent consensus, it appeared to be applicable - Epinoia (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Yes, it does seem a bit like that, doesn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Philosophy can make the previously unthinkable thinkable – Rebecca Brown | Aeon Ideas Sbelknap (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I wonder would you care to expand on why you think the Overton window may be relevant to this article? You might consider opening a new thread for that discussion. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The aeon essay I hyperlinked explains this. It seems to me that one way of thinking about what Heidegger accomplished in "Being and Time" was opening the Overton Window in philosophical discourse. As the essay says, "Widening the Overton window can yield opportunities for ideas that many find offensive, and straightforwardly mistaken, as well as for ideas that are well-defended and reasonable." (I do *not* mean to imply a link between Heidegger's politics and his philosophy. Instead, I am suggesting that the same mindset that led to a reconceptualization of Being may also have made him vulnerable to the persuasions of the Nazis.) However, this specific essay does not mention Heidegger, I don't know of any scholarly work that makes this connection between Heidegger and the Overton Window, and I'm leery of inserting my unvetted "original research" into wikipedia. Do you see some way we could address this issue in a way that *would* be relevant to the Martin Heidegger article? Sbelknap (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (EC)Policy is fairly clear - one editor cannot assert a POV position against all other engaged editors -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 18:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you might allow some reasonable amount of time to elapse, and permit recently engaged editors to opine, rather than again removing the tag without discussion on the talk page, as you did. Sbelknap (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You have zero support, if any emerges then maybe. For the moment its flyby tagging which is discouraged on wikipedia -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 18:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is clearly not drive-by tagging. I've been engaged in discussion on this page, have clearly stated my critiques of the article, have made what I consider corrective edits, and some of these edits have been accepted. Sbelknap (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What others have agreed to is a small rewording of the WP:LEDE (a minor change). Certainly not a WP:NPOV issue. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The WP:NPOV issue is that the Martin Heidegger article obscures Heidegger's Nazism and anti-semitism. This is done by using abstruse sentence structures and obscure terms, by decontextualizing key facts, and by omitting a large body of recent scholarship. What you consider a minor change, I consider a significant improvement. I can certainly understand that admirers of Heidegger's philosophical work are repulsed by his anti-semitism and appalled by his jejune politics. Sbelknap (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That is your opininion and you are entitled to hold it, but not to impose it on the other editors. As far as I can see his association with the National Socialists is fairly convered and the anti-semitism is held to be controversial on the other article more directly on the subject.  The change is not necessary.  You are imputing motives to other editors without justification. -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 21:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You do understand that inference is not the same as implication, yes? I only have access to the *effects* of edits made by others, and do not have access to their motivations. My critiques have all been directed at content. For purposes of improving wikipedia, it is the *effect* of edits that matters and not the *motivations* of the editors. Sbelknap (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You keep making comments on the motivations of other editors - it is inuendo and you should not discuss it - but focus on content only -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 21:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not done this. You have repeatedly made this assertion and repeatedly failed to provide any evidence for it. Sbelknap (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * See your comment of 19th May above about your 'understanding' and the edit summary I referenced earlier. You keep implying a cover up which is a slur on other editors - just stop it, drop the bone and focus on content -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 07:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You threatened to deplatform me from wikipedia, made repeated false assertions, and you want me to "drop the bone?" We disagree on editing the Heidegger article. I am focusing on the content. I have nowhere slurred other editors. Instead, I have identified a problem with the Heidegger article: a large body of legitimate scholarly work on Heidegger is not represented in this article because there is a bias towards emphasizing Heidegger's philosophy and deëmphasizing his politics in this article. But the title of this article is not "Heidegger's philosophy", it is a biographical article about Heidegger, which surely ought to contain a more complete discussion of Heidegger's politics. The insistence that discussion of his politics be relegated to a separate article is actually part of the bias exhibited by currently-engaged editors. I am respecting the choices of currently-engaged editors on this. However, the current consensus is objectively biased. I've got a half-dozen scholarly works, some of which I've attempted to cite, which are not represented in the current article. Perhaps some future group of editors will correct the serious flaws in this article. Sbelknap (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Without taking a stance on the NPOV question or other edits, I have to say I can't see where is supposed to have made accusations about other editors.  Others in this dispute seem to be reading things into it that aren't there.  I also note that other editors who are so passionate about defending Heidegger from charges of personal complicity in Nazism that they inappropriately use this Talk page to do so, have gone un-reprimanded for it except once by me quite a long time ago.
 * I have found that if one really wants others in a dispute to focus on content and not make personal attacks, the best way to accomplish this is often to focus tightly on content oneself and make no response to the personal attacks. Civility is a two-way street.
 * The one remaining thing I have to say is: I don't enjoy having my watchlist bloated with personal quarrels.
 * —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not bound to defend Heidegger despite everything. We He was a Nazi. That is a fact. We love facts. But there is no smoking gun that he was a bloodthirsty monster. Heidegger's politics? What exactly would that be? Conservative revolutionary? Röhm adorer? Patron saint of ecological leftists? Abstaining from writing political philosophy? Ideologue of "cultural Marxism"? A case can be made that Heidegger did not love the liberal democracy based upon technological progress. But there is no evidence that he personally supported killing the Jews. Another case can be made that his "racism" was cultural, not biological. He did not buy the claim that Jews are a biologically different race from Germans. I have the History of Political Philosophy by Strauss and Cropsey. They have an article about Heidegger's political philosophy. It is very interesting to read. But in the end it is more about the suppositions of its writer than about Heidegger. It is just elevated guessiology, nothing firm and certain, no hard facts, no smoking gun. Did Heidegger predict that something nasty was about to happen? Yes, he did. Did he enjoy that? AFAIK this cannot be answered. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm going to say again, as I'm pretty sure I said before, that this Talk page is not the place for this kind of discussion. If you think there are incorrect assertions on the page itself, correct them with appropriate citation.  —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Separate Section for Black Notebooks
I created a new subsection to cover the black notebooks and added some material that is clearly relevant to a biography of Heidegger. These edits and a supporting citation have now been removed by another editor. Multiple high-quality scholarly sources conclude that Heidegger's antisemitism is relevant to his philosophical work. This issue is also discussed in more accessible (but still credible) sources, such as the New Yorker, The LA review of books, and others. For example, here: What is the opinion of other editors? Perhaps we could add two sections, one for the "Black Notebooks" and one for "Heiegger's Apologists"? Sbelknap (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Heidegger's anti-semitism is already covered in the article and, in addition, there is a separate article focused on it. The primary focus of this article is his notability as a philosopher. -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 21:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This article's title is 'Martin Heidegger'. This article's title is not 'Philosophy of Martin Heidegger'. Thus, this is a biographical article about 'Martin Heidegger.' Both his philosophy and his foibles are relevant. The relationship (if any) between Heidegger's philosophy and his personal views is a topic of great interest, judging by the dozens of scholarly articles and books that address this relationship. I favor merging the 'Martin Heidegger' article and the Martin Heidegger and Nazism article into a single article. The fact that there are two separate articles is telling.Sbelknap (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * - there is already an article covering the Black Notebooks so all that is required in this article is a summary - if we are here to build an encyclopedia and maintain a neutral point of view, a section on the Black Notebooks should cover not only Heidegger's anti-semitism, but the other topics he addresses in the notebooks, such as the collapse of the German university, the superficiality of the sciences, the nihilism of Christianity, the barbarism of modern culture, the dangers of Bolshevism, Americanism, and modern liberal democracy, etc. - also, it should provide scholarly perspectives on his anti-semitism and how it affects his philosophy, something not everyone agrees on, such as Faye, Trawny, Gilman, Mendieta, Bergo, Marder and others - some outright condemn Heidegger and others accept his statement that his views on world Judaism were not a racial question, but a metaphysical one, that he was concerned that world Judaism, like American world dominance, was a threat to his vision of German superiority - whatever postion one takes, Heidegger's anti-semitism, while it should be condemned, needs to be understood in the context of his philosophy so we don't fall into the same errors again - also, the article Martin Heidegger and Nazism is a content fork which are "acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage" - so having a separate article for "Martin Heidegger and Nazism" is in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines - Epinoia (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Martin Heidegger wikipedia article is distinctly odd when read in the context of other wikipedia biographies of philosophers. Editors might find it interesting to apply Hume's guillotine to the comments on this talk page: "all that is required", "should cover" "should provide scholarly perspectives on…", "should be condemned" (really? in an encyclopedia??) Considering that the subject is Heidegger, it does not seem impossible that some editors might be engaging in meta-humor… Sbelknap (talk) 03:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Commenting on other editors again I see. There is nothing 'telling' about there being two articles, its normal in Wikipedia.  You completely miss the point on philosophy - his notability is as a philosopher; there are doubtless many Philosopher Professors were were members of the Nazi Party but they don't warrant articles here. -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 07:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Heidegger's notability is that he was a philosopher *and* a Nazi. Heidegger gave lectures wearing a military uniform with Nazi regalia hanging in the lecture hall. The article on Arthur Schopenhauer gives due regard to that philosopher's interest in Buddhism, and notes the overlap between his doctrines and the Four Noble Truths. Similarly, many scholars discuss the relationship between Heidegger's concept of the "irrational" and his anti-semitism, yet these connections are not reflected in the Martin Heidegger biography on wikipedia. Why exactly is that? Why are the ungrounded assertions of wikipedia editors substituted for the peer-reviewed opinions of philosophers and scholars? It seems very odd and inconsistent with the spirit of wikipedia. Sbelknap (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We've done this to death and you are not listening. His anti-semitism is relevant, it is covered and an appropriate level for the article.  If you have a specific edit to propose on "irrational" which is not yet another attempt to start every paragraph of it with a comment on anti-Semitism please feel free to propose it here -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 15:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I added relevant edits with citations that were then deleted for specious reasons. I have nowhere attempted to start every paragraph with a comment on anti-Semitism. I have made edits that are unrelated to anti-Semitism. I am reading the comments of other editors carefully, as may be obvious from my own comments. Making false assertions about my actions or attitudes does not advance the discussion. Sbelknap (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I tried to fix this clause: "a seminal thinker in the Continental tradition and philosophical hermeneutics" which is ungrammatical. OK w/u to fix this? Sbelknap (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough I don't think they were 'specious' and you really need to acquire a sense of humour/perspective, hyperbole is legitimate rhetorical technique in this case. OK with that one phrase -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 17:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Context for Heidegger's delivery of his most famous speech the Rektoratsrede
I am seeking consensus on adding the following text to description of delivery of Rektoratsrede. When I added this (with citation) it was reverted. The supporting citation is from an peer-reviewed article by a scholar with expertise in Heidegger. Here is the text I propose to add: Heidegger delivered his inaugural address, the Rektoratsrede, on "Die Selbstbehauptung der Deutschen Universität" ("The Self-assertion of the German University") on 27 May 1933. In attendance were several hundred university staff, their wives, students, and also Nazi party officials who had received invitations with the words for the Sturmabteilung anthem, the “Horst Wessel” on the back. The professors in the audience wore full academic regalia. Heidegger's address was delivered in a hall illuminated by candlelight and on a stage adorned with red and black swastikas and featuring members of the brown-uniformed Nazi paramilitary, the Sturmabteilung. Sbelknap (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I feel not all the details here are entirely necessary, but you're right, the Nazi presence is notable context. Perhaps something like
 * Heidegger delivered his inaugural address, the Rektoratsrede, on "Die Selbstbehauptung der Deutschen Universität" ("The Self-assertion of the German University") on 27 May 1933. The address was delivered in a hall adorned with Nazi symbols and attended by Nazi party officials and members of the Sturmabteilung in addition to university staff and students.
 * —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 04:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * (although, looking at that again, the repetition of "delivered" and "address" is clunky; the wording could do with further improvement)—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 04:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd be OK with this "Heidegger delivered his inaugural address, the Rektoratsrede, on "Die Selbstbehauptung der Deutschen Universität" ("The Self-assertion of the German University") on 27 May 1933. The hall was adorned with Nazi symbols and attended by Nazi party officials and members of the Sturmabteilung in addition to university staff and students" and combine some of the single sentences into paragraphs


 * The hall was... attended by Nazi party officials doesn't quite sit right; a hall isn't something you attend. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you check there is an 'and' there so they didn't attend the Hall, they attended the Address -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 12:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I shortened the text as per this discussion and made an edit but this edit was immediately reverted. Sbelknap (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is the proposed edit: On 27 May 1933, Heidegger delivered his inaugural address, the Rektoratsrede, on "Die Selbstbehauptung der Deutschen Universität" ("The Self-assertion of the German University") in a hall illuminated by candlelight and on a stage adorned with red and black swastikas. Also in attendance were members of the brown-uniformed Nazi paramilitary (the Sturmabteilung) and prominent Nazi Party officials who had received invitations from Heidegger featuring the words for the Sturmabteilung anthem, the Horst Wessel Song. Sbelknap (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You didn't edit per the text above you added and enhanced without agreement. I'm not sure any change is strictly necessary but I can see value - but my above-simplified form of VeryRarelyStable's suggestion is I think enough. Nazi symbols covers the swastikas and there is no value in adding candle light.  The fact that Nazi Party members and the Sturmabteilung were there is mentioned - how they were invited is excessive for this article.  Please get agreement to a revised text here before editing -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 18:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree with User:Snowded. I guess Sturmabteilung should be linked. Here's an online JSTOR link for the the Philosophy & Rhetoric paper by Matthew Sharpe: Rhetorical Action in Rektoratsrede: Calling Heidegger's Gefolgschaft on JSTOR. I guess it would be possible to more accurate with the page numbers? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - I feel that this falls under WP:NOTEVERYTHING, adding detail without improving the article - it adds to the length of the article without accomplishing anything, it doesn't provide any insight into Heidegger or his philosophy - Heidegger's association with the Nazi Party is well represented in the article and there is no need to add more detail - from similar previous discussions on this Talk page, I believe it is safe to say that the consensus among editors is that there is no biased attempt to minimize Heidegger's Nazism, that his Nazism is given due weight in the article as it stands, and that those who wish to explore the topic further can refer to the content-fork article Martin Heidegger and Nazism - however, if there is consensus that there is some significance to the edit, I would prefer something like 's short version, but I think "members of the Sturmabteilung" is covered in "Nazi party officials", so "attended by Nazi party officials in addition to university staff and students" is enough - Epinoia (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - I wonder, were the Nazi symbolism and presence of Nazi officials typical of all inaugural addresses at all German universities at the time, or particular to Heidegger? - Epinoia (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the presence of the Nazi officials is notable context which has a bearing on the question (which is clearly still live and of interest) of the degree of Heidegger's personal commitment to Nazism, that in turn being relevant both to his life and to his philosophy. It would certainly be good to clarify whether Nazi officials were routinely invited to public academic addresses in 1933, or whether this was an initiative of Heidegger's.  Any details are worth mentioning (or not) insofar as they bear on that question.
 * On the matter of wording, the sentence
 * The hall was adorned with Nazi symbols and attended by Nazi party officials...
 * —has only one subject, that being The hall. The word and by itself isn't sufficient to import as subject the phrase his inaugural address from the previous sentence.
 * —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This was still early in Nazification of the Universities. It was also in May 1933 that the Deutsche Studentenschaft began sacking the University libraries, removing the books by Jewish authors, and burning the books in the town squares. At that time, Heidegger's dramatic candlelit speech, with brownshirted paramilitary thugs sitting on the stage, and red and black swastikas festooning the hall, was an academic innovation to be sure. Why try to water this down in the wikipedia article? I suppose that calling a swastika a "nazi symbol" is accurate, but it is also obfuscatory. It is understandable that those who admire Heidegger's philosophy might prefer to abstract away the unpleasant aspects of his biography. Sbelknap (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * JUST STOP these constant assertions that people who disagree with you are trying to abstract something away which is clearly and explicitly covered in the article. We are agreed on a sentence which is appropriate it does not need embellishment -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 05:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * VeryRarelyStable - the subject is the address which took place IN a hall and which was ATTENDED by - the meaning is clear but open to amendments -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 05:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * No. The address is (semantically) the topic of the paragraph, but that does not make it (grammatically) the subject of the sentence.  The subject of the sentence
 * Heidegger delivered his inaugural address, the Rektoratsrede, on "Die Selbstbehauptung der Deutschen Universität" ("The Self-assertion of the German University") on 27 May 1933.
 * is Heidegger. The subject of the sentence
 * The hall was adorned with Nazi symbols and attended by Nazi party officials and members of the Sturmabteilung in addition to university staff and students.
 * is The hall. Yes, the reader can probably infer what's actually meant, and with two sentences in isolation it's not very difficult.  But when these subject-complement mismatches pop up in a larger text they slow the reader down like potholes in a road.  They need to be smoothed out.


 * OK, I see what they were talking about – that did come across as a snide personal accusation. If it was not (yet?) standard practice in 1933 for academic addresses to involve Nazi officials and regalia, and especially if the Nazi theme was Heidegger's idea and the officials and stormtroopers were there at his uncoerced invitation, then this tells us something significant about Heidegger and should go in the article.  But this is an encyclopaedia, not a novel or an editorial essay; atmospherics ("red and black swastikas festooning the hall") are inappropriate.  This is a place for stating relevant facts in plain language, not building up imagery.


 * —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I assume good faith on the part of other wikipedia editors and expect them to provide me the same courtesy. Heidegger apologists are a real phenomenon beyond wikipedia. As we are to assume good faith among editors, let us assume that wikipedia editors are consulting outdated, no longer relevant sources and are unduly influenced by the writings of Heidegger apologists, who have been prolific over the past 70 years or so. However, recent scholarship renders Heidegger apologism untenable, in the view of most scholars. This is reflected in other tertiary sources, For example from the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, we have :

"Here is not the place to enter into the historical debate over exactly what Heidegger did and when he did it. However, given his deliberate, albeit arguably short-lived, integration of Nazi ideology with the philosophy of Being (see above), a few all-too-brief comments on the relationship between Heidegger's politics and his philosophical thought are necessary. (For more detailed evidence and discussion, as well as a range of positions on how we should interpret and respond to this relationship, see e.g., Farias 1989; Neske and Kettering 1990; Ott 1993; Pattison 2000; Polt 1999; Rockmore 1992; Sluga, 1993; Wolin 1990, 1993; Young 1997). There is no doubt that Heidegger's Nazi sympathies, however long they lasted, have a more intimate relationship with his philosophical thought than might be suggested by apologist claims that he was a victim of his time (in 1933, lots of intelligent people backed Hitler without thereby supporting the Holocaust that was to come) or that what we have here is ‘merely’ a case of bad political judgment, deserving of censure but with no implications for the essentially independent philosophical programme. Why does the explanation run deeper? The answer is that Heidegger believed (indeed continued to believe until he died) that the German people were destined to carry out a monumental spiritual mission. That mission was nothing less than to be at the helm of the aforementioned transformation of Being in the West, from one of instrumental technology to one of poetic dwelling. In mounting this transformation the German people would be acting not imperialistically, but for all nations in the encounter with modern technology. Of course destining is not a fate that compels, so some divine catalyst would be needed to awake the German nation to its historic mission, a catalyst provided by the spiritual leaders of the Nazi Party." Sbelknap (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You are making far too many assumptions and are obvious on a mission - both dangerous things in Wikipedia. This idea you have that anyone who opposes your rhetorical flourishes is an apologist is arrant nonsense. We are working on a sentence to incorporate relevant data please try and work with other editors.  But if these accusations continue and/or you don't work with other editors but simply edit war then its going to ANI -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 17:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * With respect, WP:AGF applies to you as well. You are not accurately reading my mind and I am not on a mission. I am not arguing about mere rhetorical flourishes; instead I am suggesting that we favor plain language ("swastikas") instead of abstract language ("Nazi symbols"). I am proposing that this article on Martin Heidegger be updated to reflect the current broad consensus among scholars that the Heidegger apologists were (mostly) wrong and the current scholarly consensus regarding Heidegger's Nazism and antisemitism and how these influenced his philosophy. Sbelknap (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It does and I'm doing my best to maintain it in the face of a series of insinuations from you over several edits. You are not proposing plain language but a high rhetorical style.  Nothing in that last edit linked his Nazi practice to his philosophy.  -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 20:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think we'd need to see some concrete linking of his philosophy to the Nazi cause, especially in the longer term. Most commentators seem to agree that his "support" lasted only about a year. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, we have a Wikipedia article for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. But we don't have one for Prof. Michael M. Wheeler. You're saying he must be right because he wrote this in 2011? But please be careful here, Sbelknap; your statement that "Heidegger apologists are a real phenomenon beyond wikipedia" suggests that the problem begins with Wikipedia. Fellow editors may start to ask you to identify these so-called "Heidegger apologists". That might start to look like a personal attack on whoever you choose to name? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Stanford Encyclopedia article is one example of a tertiary source that more accurately reflects the scholarly consensus than wikipedia does. Wikipedia did not exist 70 years ago, so it is difficult to imagine how somebody might mistake my meaning as being a reference to wikipedia. when I refer to 70 years of Heidegger apologism. Sbelknap (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Are you merely suggesting that "Heidegger apologists are a real phenomenon outside Wikipedia"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Or *were* a real phenomenon. Heidegger apologetics seems mostly a thing of the past among scholars. Also, the word "apologist" is being used in the intellectual sense, as in Christian apologetics In this sense, "apologist" lacks the strong negative connotations of common usage.Sbelknap (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making that clear. Are none of the sources cited by Wheeler significantly notable for separate mention? I'm still he means by "from one of instrumental technology to one of poetic dwelling" and how that movement would have been supported by Nazi ideology. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't read all of sources in the Stanford Encyclopedia article on Heidegger, though I have read (more recent) articles and books by each of the authors of these cited sources. The main problem is that these articles predate the publication and/or general awareness by scholars of the contents of the Black Notebooks. There are two recent books, both by Peter Trawny, that would serve well as timely and reliable sources for the wikipedia article on Heidegger. The first is written for readers who have previously encountered Heidegger and who have an understanding of critical theory and the various critiques of postmodernism. The second is a collection of essays responding to Heidegger's anti-semitism, as disclosed in the Black Notebooks. This tome is edited by Andrew Mitchell and Peter Trawny. Sbelknap (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. Well you seem to be quite well-informed. But I note that Wheeler mentions antisemitism only once in that 2011 encyclopedia article (obviously before the Black Notebooks were published): "In 1933 Heidegger joined the Nazi Party and was elected Rector of Freiburg University, where, depending on whose account one believes, he either enthusiastically implemented the Nazi policy of bringing university education into line with Hitler's nauseating political programme (Pattison 2000) or he allowed that policy to be officially implemented while conducting a partially underground campaign of resistance to some of its details, especially its anti-Semitism (see Heidegger's own account in Only a God can Save Us)." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A Heidegger biography is a tough topic to get right - and not solely because of the recondite philosophy. There is also a new book by Mahon O'Brien (due to be published in October, e-book pub due soon) that promises to fairly describe the relationship between Heidegger’s philosophy and his political views Sbelknap (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Senior Lecturer at Sussex, yes? I assume that will be his third book on Heidegger, which was originally due to appear in 2017? Quite happy to wait until October. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the e-book will be available by the end of July. Sbelknap (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite happy to wait until the end of July. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We will also need to see what the critical response is when published as well if we are to do more than "O'Brian has suggested that ...." type statements -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 05:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed edit: On 27 May 1933, Heidegger delivered his inaugural address, the Rektoratsrede, on "Die Selbstbehauptung der Deutschen Universität" ("The Self-assertion of the German University") in a hall decorated with swastikas. Also in attendance were members of the Nazi paramilitary (the Sturmabteilung) and prominent Nazi Party officials who had received invitations featuring the words for the Sturmabteilung anthem, the Horst Wessel Song. Sbelknap (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Sturmabteilung could be linked? And you might want to convert the source to the format with a url to the JSTOR Philosophy & Rhetoric by Matthew Sharpe? It might also be helpful to add the appropriate page number(s). I'm unsure about that invitation detail, as to me it looks a bit WP:UNDUE. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * On 27 May 1933, Heidegger delivered his inaugural address, the Rektoratsrede, on "Die Selbstbehauptung der Deutschen Universität" ("The Self-assertion of the German University") in a hall decorated with swastikas and with members of the Nazi paramilitary on the stage. Also invited and in attendance were prominent Nazi Party officials; their invitations featured the lyrics for the Sturmabteilung anthem, the Horst Wessel Song. Sbelknap (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Is there a tool you recommend for generating the citeweb form for this source? Sbelknap (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I still think there are WP:UNDUE issues. How about:  "On 27 May 1933, Heidegger delivered his inaugural address, the Rektoratsrede, "The Self-assertion of the German University" in a hall decorated with swastikas and with members of the Nazi Party on the stage." -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 18:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No objections. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC) p.s. I generally use this tool to generate cite webs. You just need a bare url to start with. Thanks.
 * - agree with 's suggestion - Epinoia (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Sturmabteilung were on the stage. The prominent Nazi Party officials were in the audience.
 * How about: "On 27 May 1933, Heidegger delivered his inaugural address, the Rektoratsrede, "The Self-assertion of the German University" in a hall decorated with swastikas, with members of the Sturmabteilung on the stage and with prominent Nazi Party officials in the audience." Sbelknap (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sbelknap, you make it sound as if Heidegger had personally made the arrangements for this event, perhaps even writing out the invitations himself. Was this in fact the case or was it not all arranged by the University? Is it not more likely that he found himself at the centre of an event over which he had almost no control? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Heidegger personally arranged the staging for his Rektoratsrede, including the black and red swastikas, the invitation to prominent Nazi officials (featuring Horst Wessel Lied on the reverse of the invitation), and arranged for members of the brown-shirted Sturmabteilung Nazi paramilitary to sit on the stage during his lecture. When he taught classes, he wore a Nazi uniform and began each class with a Nazi salute. As Hannah Arendt famously stated, ""(Heidegger's) enthusiasm for the Third Reich was matched only by his glaring ignorance of what he was talking about." Heidegger was among the first academics to emerge as a leading National Socialist intellectual and was an early and vigorous supporter of the Führer. Heidegger was an early leader in aligning the German university system with the National Socialist movement. This is all on Heidegger. None of this is speculative or controversial. Facts are stubborn things. Sbelknap (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Happier with my proposal above - and we are spending far too much time on this -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 14:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * After all your efforts, let us aim to make this single sentence a factually correct sentence. Sbelknap (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything factually incorrect and its more than sufficient to make the point in this article. You may (subject to sourcing) have material for the one specifically on his ant-semitism that might be better renamed to cover the wider issue of his involvement with the Nazi's. -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 23:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That proposed version states, "with members of the Nazi Party on the stage", which does not accurately reflect the cited source. There were *prominent officials* of the Nazi Party in the *audience* and members of the *Sturmabteilung* on the stage. Sbelknap (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And were officials of the Nazi Party and members of the Sturmabteilung not members of the Nazi party? Happy to get rid of 'on the stage' and replace with 'prominently present' -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 05:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

"Prominent officials" of the Nazi Party are very different than "members" of the Nazi Party. According to the wikipedia article, the Sturmabteilung was "the Nazi Party's original paramilitary. It played a significant role in Adolf Hitler's rise to power in the 1920s and 1930s. Its primary purposes were providing protection for Nazi rallies and assemblies, disrupting the meetings of opposing parties, fighting against the paramilitary units of the opposing parties, especially the Red Front Fighters League (Rotfrontkämpferbund) of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD), and intimidating Romani, trade unionists, and, especially, Jews – for instance, during the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses."

Watering this down to "members of the Nazi Party" does not accurately represent the description in the cited source. Sbelknap (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * - but what does it add to this article? This is an article about Heidegger, not about the rise of the Nazi party. It is well established that Heidegger was a Nazi, adding more detail does not give any insight into the influence of Nazism on Heidegger's philosophy, which, as noted in the discussion above, is what is important as his philosophy is not overtly fascist - Epinoia (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a *biography* article on Martin Heidegger. The scope of this biography article is *not* limited to Heidegger's philosophy. Repeated statement of a false assertion does not render that assertion magically true. Based on these discussions on this talk page, some people interested in Heidegger are unaware that Heidegger was an enthusiastic supporter of the Nazi Party, that he led the effort to align German Universities with the Nazis, that this support was uncoerced, and that Heidegger explicitly expressed connections between his philosophy and both his antipathy toward Jews and his admiration for the Nazi Party. Thus, this sentence, which is supported by the given citation is directly relevant and within the scope of this article. Sbelknap (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If the aim of your suggested addition is to make readers aware that Heidegger "led the effort to align German Universities with the Nazis", I think you might need to offer something more substantial than the currently proposed text. Also, please feel free to answer my earlier questions. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * An excellent point. However, I would say you are being far too ambitious, given how difficult this is proving to be. Let's start with this one sentence. Given the degree of interest in this topic, we need to hammer this out one sentence at a time. Sbelknap (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's something that I assumed you were aiming for, not me. I'd be happy to add the shorter sentence suggested by User:Snowded. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The shorter sentence does not respect the meaning of the source. Sbelknap (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to use "members of the Sturmabteilung on the stage", but am perfectly content to go with consensus, as I have no agenda here. I also agree with User:Snowded that this has now been discussed enough. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is a proposed sentence that attempts to meet all (stated) objections: "On 27 May 1933, Heidegger delivered his inaugural address, the Rektoratsrede, "The Self-assertion of the German University" in a hall decorated with swastikas, with members of the Sturmabteilung on the stage and with prominent Nazi Party officials in the audience." Sbelknap (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No objections (although see my previous comment regrading consensus). You might want to give just the appropriate page number(s)? An online link might be useful, but I see that a download at JSTOR costs $19. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We use sources to support statements unless we are quoting direct. But but by way of copromise: "On 27 May 1933, Heidegger delivered his inaugural address, the Rektoratsrede, "The Self-assertion of the German University" in a hall decorated with swastikas, with members of the Sturmabteilungand prominent Nazi Party officials present."  I think we also need to be clear that is the appropriate level for insertion of material in this article - I'd probably go with Martin if I had any confidence that this approach was now accepted by Sbelknap-<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 06:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, so I'll put this version in: "On 27 May 1933, Heidegger delivered his inaugural address, the Rektoratsrede, "The Self-assertion of the German University" in a hall decorated with swastikas, with members of the Sturmabteilung and prominent Nazi Party officials present." Sbelknap (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The essence of technology
Below I copy a section from the phenomenology page that did not really fit. It's sourced though, and since you don't have coverage here, I thought it might be incorporated. I leave the specifics to those actively involved on the page.

Cheers,

The "essence of technology"
According to Heidegger, the essence of technology is the way of being of modern humans—a way of conducting themselves towards the world—that sees the world as something to be ordered and shaped in line with projects, intentions and desires—a 'will to power' that manifests itself as a 'will to technology'. Heidegger claims that there were other times in human history, a pre-modern time, where humans did not orient themselves towards the world in a technological way—simply as resources for our purposes.

However, according to Heidegger this 'pre-technological' age (or mood) is one where humans' relation with the world and artifacts, their way of being disposed, was poetic and aesthetic rather than technological (enframing). There are many who disagree with Heidegger's account of the modern technological attitude as the 'enframing' of the world. For example, Andrew Feenberg argues that Heidegger's account of modern technology is not borne out in contemporary everyday encounters with technology. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Patrick. I think your first paragraph simplifies Heidegger's characterization of our present technological age. The claim that the modern essence of technology "sees the world as something to be ordered and shaped in line with projects, intentions and desires—a 'will to power' that manifests itself as a 'will to technology'" is not quite what Heidegger says. I don't think he uses the phrase "will to power" at all, which I'd refrain from employing due to the metaphysical implications of the phrase in Nietzsche's philosophy (of course Heidegger often alludes to this Nietzschean notion in many of his works, and a fruitful treatment of Heidegger's engagement with it should fall outside the scope of a wikipedia entry). You're not entirely wrong, but I don't think Heidegger would deny that previous, pre-modern technological ages also saw the world in terms of "projects, intentions, and desires". The "enframing" that Heidegger's talking about hearkens back to a certain "revealing", which concerns his conception of truth as unconcealment. It is in a certain "revealing" that the enframing of nature comes about. And the "revealing" that occasions an "enframing" does not start with modern physics, but earlier; the latter is merely the coming to fruition of an earlier revealing. I'd have to scour the text, but he probably traces it back to the ancient Greeks. - Angjelin 184.147.147.11 (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Angjelin, I moved this section here from phenomenology (philosophy), where it did not fit in that article as it stood. This material should be included in this article, however. If you wanted to draft something up, that would be great!
 * I think that the most important concepts to include in the general article-treatment of Heidegger are enframing and standing reserve. But I don't yet have any specific vision for how to present them, and I'm not sure off-hand what else might deserve inclusion.
 * Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)