Template:Did you know nominations/Humboldtian education ideal


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 23:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Humboldtian education ideal

 * ... that Jürgen Habermas was an active promoter of the 19th-century Humboldtian model of higher education (pictured)?
 * ALT 1: ... that Humboldtian model of higher education  came from Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835), the founder of the Humboldt University of Berlin (pictured)?
 * ALT 2: ... that Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835) created the revolutionary education concept of the Humboldtian model of higher education   (pictured)?
 * ALT 3: ... that the creator of the Humboldtian model of higher education has been deemed the most influential education official in German history? Hafspajen (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ALT 4: ... within 16 months a privy councellor in the Prussian ministry of interior used the Humboldtian model of higher education to become the most influential education official in German history?


 * Reviewed: Quid pro quo done with my previous account. Take Chateaubriand sauce
 * Comment: The funny thing is that one still may find major and highly important topics (Humboldts ideals were of importance for universities globally, including the US Ivy league) which have not yet being dealt with in Wikipedia at all. So far the German and Scandinavian interwikis linked to Humboldtian science, which is a family business (by the education Humboldts brother) but a complete different story.

Created by Serten II (talk), Hafspajen (talk). Nominated by Serten II (talk) at 11:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC).


 * Sorry, but the article needs a good copyedit. I made a few but got stuck on this, "He tried to strengthen science aims at providing intellectually fascinating results and benefitting society via them long term and did not aim for quick measurable results." The sentence may be grammatically correct (though I am not sure how) and without having the source I can't tweak it. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Why havent you read Antti Hautamäkis blog which is to be found under the weblinks, just google may have provided something like The ‘Idea of a University’ today? Hanfspajen and I know what we are talking and writing about, the humboldtian ideal was such a central gamechanger for the History of European research universities that we - maybe under the spell of Humboldt himself - in writing the article may have gone into poetic mode ;) Serten II (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That may be so--but you're not writing for an audience of poets... Look, I'm trying to help you. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your help being appreciated - I changed the wording. I expect DYK to be a fun game and no GA or FA level issue however, and some areas of WP I recently edited direly need some poets and more of the Humboldtian approach towards humanities. Serten II (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I am a humanities scholar, so that works, but that doesn't prevent me from being a very strict proofreader. I will pitch in to help when I can. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg New (11th), long enough, neutral, no copyvio found via spot check. A noble effort, but there are many issues. First, yes, this type of thing is normally described in flowery, poetic language, but that isn't encyclopedic language. Readers come to WP to cut through the poetic language. There isn't a clear sense of what exactly this ideal is from the article. Second, the article doesn't actually say what the ideal entails. It vaguely sets up what it may be in the lede, doesn't explain it there, and doesn't explain it in the first section because it's assumed to be covered in the lede. (The lede should be a summary of the prose, so it should actually be explained in both the lede and that first section.) The QPQ is not a full review, so I don't believe it counts as a QPQ. The image is not described with "(pictured)" in the hook, and I'm not sure how it relates. Lastly, I'm with Drmies in that this article needs a full copyedit. It's not the easiest of topics to tackle in the first place, but it's important that it actually handle the material lucidly. I can't even help with this because so many of the sources are offline! Please ping me if I don't respond. czar ⨹   04:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Since Drmies first comment, a lot of copyediting has happened, take . I doubt being "flowery" may be deemed as being "not" serious, Humboldt allowing students to choose flowery topics laid ground to tekkie playgrounds as nuclear fission and rocket science. The lede "seeks a holistic combination of research and academic education, combining the arts and sciences" is a definition, its being explained by the principles of the Berlin university.  user:czar, if you base your review on the first version of the article, just read it again. I am not willing to go for a GA level here or, as in the case of the Chateaubriand review, which was a review, to accept higher stakes. This is DYK. Most of the sources "are" online, and there is much more available. I ask to forward the article. Serten II (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Does the definition really get no more specific than that? My review was based on the current version of the article. czar ⨹   07:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Does it have to? As said, its a flowery topic and Humboldt's responisibility for education took only some months. You ask for a false positive and I won't produce it. As said, its a DYK proposal. Serten II (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess we have try to sort out the issues raised. DYK is a tricky thing and the demands are higher and higher for every day, I am affraid.   will you help with the language? Serten is German, I am Swedish. I am affraid that we might need help. Or from an editor like   who can read the German sources and is an experienced DYK-er. Hafspajen (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Added (pictured) - since nobody wanted to help with such a simple task either. Hafspajen (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Added English references, tried to explain on a more common level. Hafspajen (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ideally, I should have more time. Nominated an article yesterday (!), have to deal with requests, not speaking of a promised explanation and "my" articles. Try without me or wait, please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As said, Czar, if you want a featured entry about the topic, no prob, hundreds of books and studies, its all there, start writing it, but thats nothing to bother around at DYK. I wont't redraw the nomination or call the firefighters again (which have been there before), I ask to modify the review. Serten II (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * - IF YOU CAN TAKE THIS, WILL BE JUST E´WONDERFUL. wE ARE CERTAINLY HAVE NO ISSUES WAITING. (Sorry it went caplock) Hafspajen (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * * Nice to have you shouting ;) Yep, we are happy to wait. Serten II (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Serten II (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * On the indomitable hand-wringing, I actually offered to help, but said that the sources were offline and not in my language. (For what it's worth, I saw more sources under the Humboldtian "model" than "ideal".) Moreover, I'm not even holding you to anything rigorous—this is basic DYK criteria. The article I read was impossible to parse—that's minimum legibility, not "featured" article requirements or "high demands". Adding "(pictured)" as currently in the hook makes little sense because that image is not an image of the ideal but of a university. It needs to be more specific about the relation, which is why I didn't "simply" add it myself. Have a little faith in the DYK process. czar ⨹   17:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For what its worth, the pic is about the first University built along Humboldts ideal - call it the model, if you like, but better start reading the article or get a basic picture of the topic before you write a review. Serten II (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you requesting another reviewer? Because I said I read the article. czar ⨹   19:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry Czar, I had one or two bad experience lately. I withdrawn several nominations too, because of this. It is nothing personal against you. did you noticed the latest changes? Added references in English, rather a lot of them. Hafspajen (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I did, but it still reads rather jumbly and in need of a copyedit. Also don't feel compelled to change the sources to English—non-English are really fine, but I just won't be able to check them if they're inaccessible to me. As for the intro, perhaps the sources don't lay it out clearly enough but, at least in the lede, it would be good to start with a firm definition about what this ideal is and perhaps an example of how it was interpreted and said to be put into action. Haven't seen the other noms you mention, but it might make future noms go smoother to have someone copyedit or otherwise check them in draftspace before taking them to DYK. I know topics like this aren't exactly the easiest to translate into English either. czar ⨹   22:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You have a point, the hook as it looks now should have a picture of Haberman ... Hafspajen (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A photo of Habermas would seem to be much more relevant, absolutely czar ⨹   22:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I looked once and don't see the article name supported by sources, looking at the first two. "Humboldt's idea of a university" seems closer. I would like sources properly formatted: no bare url, title, date or access date, where available author and publisher. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Format refs - we will. Humboldtian education ideal - that can't be changed. It is what it's called. Unfortunate that the first two refs mentioned it this way, but I added loads of references quite recently and in a great hurry. Just keep on reading, and all will be revealed. What we need is copy-editing, I never said new reviewer, I think Czar put a lot of work into this, it would be unfair. But copyediting that - we do need, to satisfy his demands... Hafspajen (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Its not easy at all to translate "Humboldtsches Bildungsideal". I agree with some of the points after reading the current version myself ;) Point is, we should be fair to reviewed and reviewers at DYK. I would like to have a sort of "Wait and see" Button here, that would allow articles which develope quickly to be presented here in due time but would reduce the sort of unhappiness coming from discussions like this. Serten II (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * We should not translate, but use what sources say, then perhaps add a literal translation. If sources say nothing we should use the German original. What sources say is more obvious when the refs are formatted ;) - I hope I don't add to unhappiness here. I like clarification that deserves the name ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I think I can fix the refs, you Germans fix the title ... and hope sombody will copyedit. I just want to add that I did found LOADS of references calling it in English Humboldtian education ideal. Even if the first two mention it differently. Hafspajen (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm, so now the title is in German? That is a surprize. I think I preferred it in English, rather. Hafspajen (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ALT5: ... that Jürgen Habermas was an active promoter of Wilhelm von Humboldt's 19th-century concept of holistic academic education called Humboldtsches Bildungsideal? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - what do you say now ? Hafspajen (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a few questions about clarity and legibility for DYK, and one last one about verifiability in general. (1) Why isn't there a clear and direct articulation of what the tenets of the ideal are? Additionally, it would help to have some frame of reference for how it compared with other universities before/after. (2) What is the difference between the "ideal" and the "model"? I see plenty of sources for the "model" but next to nothing for an "ideal" other than that it's the direct translation of the term. (3) I'm still seeing major copy issues, such as, "The Humboldtian concept of education asks for autonomous and independent research, no matter of the funding, and requires science and teaching to keep up with the frf reontiers osearch, that the freedom of inquiry by students and faculty members is essential and that there should be close contact between teacher and student." Essentially, it's hard to follow along if I'm reading it out loud to myself. (4) With the hooks, "revolutionary education concept" is an exceptional claim and I don't see where it's sourced in the article. Similarly, the claim "most influential" means nothing on its own and needs to include the name of the source to qualify the opinion. I'm guessing it's not Berglar's determination either. (5) The refs to dictionary definitions of "freethinker", "free thought"—what are they doing? They apparently have nothing to do with claims about Humboldt. Some other sentences are sourced to entire books, which makes it impossible for me to attempt to verify. Do you have page numbers? czar ⨹   22:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Humboldt had a) (ideal) an ideal and b) (role model) founded a real life university with the most prestigeous appointment list of brilliant scholars any German Minister of education ever had. The superlative is appropriate. and confirmed. I shortened some clumsy sentences. Hafspajen may kill me later for cutting down on the flowery aspectSerten II (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Serten that sentence "The Humboldtian concept of education asks for autonomous and independent research, no matter of the funding, and requires science and teaching to keep up with the frf reontiers osearch, that the freedom of inquiry by students and faculty members is essential and that there should be close contact between teacher and student." was you doing. I wrote that slightly differently. I think we sould ask  to give a hand, because the above is rather valid. Hafspajen (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This WAS my lead: (UNCE UPON A TIME):''The Humboldtian education ideal. seeks a holistic combination of research and academic education, combining the arts and sciences, alongside with the acquisition of comprehensive general learning and cultural knowledge. The Humboldtian education ideal's came from Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767 –1835) a German (Prussian) philosopher, government functionary and diplomat. Humboldt has been deemed the most influential education official in German history. He became famous for reforming the Prussian school and university system according to humanist principles and for appointing a unique list of scholars. Humboldt strived to create an educational system based on knowledge and insight pure and unbiased, combining research and studies and allowing students to choose their own curriculum. He was the founder of the University of Berlin, later named after him and his brother, naturalist Alexander von Humboldt.''

''Humboldt believed that teaching should be based on research, while research should unbiased and independent, be free from state, politics, ideological influences or economical, political or religious interests. The Humboldtian education ideal strives for unconditional academic freedom in the intellectual investigation of the world, belives that studies should be characterized by humanistic ideals, and free thought, while knowledge should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, or dogmas.'' ''The Humboldtian concept of education is based beside the ideal of autonomous and independent research, no matter who is finacing the project, that science and teaching should keep up with the last research, that the freedom of inquiry by students and faculty members is essential and that there should be close contact between teacher and student. These ideas were  playing a vital role in developing a tolerant European society, alongside with the liberal ideals that prized important individual freedoms, such as the freedom of speech and of association, an independent judiciary and public trial by jury. The Humboldtian education ideal's cultural-historical background was based on the work of Wilhelm von Humboldt, which answered the demands of the Prussian bourgeoisie for enhanced general knowledge, (Allgemeinbildung),  the general education and knowledge to generate a new knowledge society during the Prussian reforms of the early 19th century. ''
 * Hafspajen (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: careful with German sources and their translated terms. They translate "Stadt" to "city" whatever size, "Evangelisch" to "Evangelical" and "Schloss" to "castle", - in short: often misleading. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * - I have tried to downsize the lede and to reduce doublings and overlong sentences, but I have had a slight problem with "These ideas were  playing a vital role in developing a tolerant European society" - youre Swedes kept neutral since you helped to found the Gustav-Adolf-Werk, but Europe, and especially Germans have been less than tolerant since (Lets discuss content on the talk page, OK?, I am lost here.,  the name discussion has been lead here so far. Lets move that to the talk page as well. Serten II (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, just tried to make the lead clear, per WP:Lead, so it can give a concise summary, the lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects.'The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies -and the rest could be academic and so. That tolerant European society - well, maybe as you say. But that's just one thing. Hafspajen (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC).

Moved again:


 * ALT6 ... that Jürgen Habermas was an active promoter of the 19th-century Humboldtian model of higher education? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - are there more issues? Hafspajen (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is much improved, but I still see copy issues. There are a number of really awkward sentences, outstanding claims without direct citations (e.g, that the Univ of Berlin was universally regarded as the model institution of the 1800s), and unattributed claims (as mentioned above, but that the list of appointments was "proud" cannot be a blanket truth and is according to whom?) Additionally, while I do think switching from "ideal" to "model" was the right choice based on the sources, I'm seeing a scope issue. The article is a mishmash of snippets from Humboldt's philosophy, his influence in the Univ of Berlin, and the influence of the "German model". What parts of this article are a summary style expansion from Humboldt's own and what parts are cobbling together a fork of several others (history of Euro research univ, Humboldt, etc.)? This is to ask how the "Humboldt model" is distinguished from the "German model", which has many more sources written about it, and of which Humboldt's influence is just a component. Additionally, the original QPQ full review is not resolved (needs to be more than just leaving an icon and brief comment on a page but an actual review of a hook's criteria) and the original hooks need work (per some of the comments I made about them above) in order to be considered. czar ⨹   11:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

All other hooks would need to be reworded, as they use a name which is not the article title nor a good translation, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I think I just give up. Hafspajen (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , are you withdrawing the nom? czar ⨹   22:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I never give up but I doubt this discussion is about DYK. First there are complaints about ofline xources, now about online sources (snippets). Of cause the article has to involve Humboltd's philosophy - he used it for the concept. If you don't want the article, since articles about creeks in canada are less boring or so muchmore important for the majn page, start telling us from the start. This sort of commenting is neither helpful nor does it allow any reasonable improvement. And as said, it has nothing to do with dyk. . Serten II (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There's been a whole lot more complaining than improving. The relevant DYK policy is #3 "within policy", as in meeting core guidelines, which this article does not for reasons I just described. The ongoing invocation of GA or FA standards is a smokescreen. The article still needs much work before it goes on the front page. Also that facetious Canadian creeks comment was unnecessary and needlessly insulting. I hope that your future DYK reviews will be more pleasant. czar ⨹   15:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , I really wasn't trying to offend you. You are so much better at articles than we are. At least, like I am, for sure. It will be difficult to raise to that level for us. Maybe it is simply under our capacity.  Hafspajen (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I suggest a different reviewer looks at this also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Request a  different reviewer. We are stucked. This is a simple article, we are not going for GA otr FA. It is only a DYK. And about hooks, please leave them, let the next reviewer chose. Some of them might be useful still. Let the next reviewer strike the one s/he chose. Hafspajen (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You changed them, something I never do, because the following discussion often makes no more sense after a change. Instead of major a change (other than a typo or a comma), I word a new ALT. I also think it would be more attractive for a new reviewer not to have to look at six alternatives, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ps: the model is never pictured. In the first hook, it should be Habermas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, here is the diff that I changed in the hooks, if somebody want's to check. Remove pictured. Hafspajen (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg fine by me czar  ⨹   15:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * some aspects of the discussion are about dyk in general. One could interpret czars comment as a sort of trading offer - be more polite about fish water and I will be more friendly about your pets. I won't take that deal. WP is imho far from being complete or perfect. am happy to proof that. DYK must not be about conveying a polished image of wp. The  main page won't attract new users if we tell readers everthing is done. Serten II (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Serten II, if you'll look at the timestamps (one of which you partially deleted and I've restored), Czar said "fine by me" to Gerda's and Hafspajen's request for a new reviewer on January 22, only 25 minutes after the latter's call. That was the end of it. The subsequent comments later that day and into the next by Gerda and Hafspajen are completely unrelated to what he said, even if they were placed before it, and I'm AGF that you missed the timing. If you really want to attract a new reviewer, then you're going about it the wrong way: revisiting earlier issues and inserting comments after the "review again" icon are a sure way to delay this even further. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I have read the discussion above. Length and date correct: Article created December 11 and within one day it was expanded 5X (and within a few days it was twice that; it is now 10K). Sources, neutrality, originality, and hook verified. The best hook by far is ALT 2, the only one that makes me want to read the article. As soon as a proper QPQ is immediately done this is good to go. Note: Will one of the nominators please review my humble nomination below which is also stuck? Cheers all. Prhartcom (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Prhartcom, if you believe that a proper QPQ has not yet been done (that Template:Did you know nominations/Chateaubriand sauce is not adequate), then you should not give the nomination a tick. The tick means that the nomination is ready for promotion, which it is clearly not if a different QPQ needs to be supplied. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank-you, BlueMoonset, I have made that correction. Will the nominators first provide their QPQ as suggested. Prhartcom (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Review donated: Lulu Wang
 * In ALT2, I don't like the life data and the repetition of "education", and the model is not pictured. How about


 * ALT 7: ... that Wilhelm von Humboldt created a revolutionary model of higher education at the University of Berlin (pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Nominators are off the hook as the QPQ is confirmed. ALT 7 is the one. Good to go. Prhartcom (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)