Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Friedrich Nietzsche/archive1

Friedrich Nietzsche
A pretty decent article on a philosopher widely misunderstood in popular culture. I have not edited this article.--Pharos 19:44, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * comment pretty decent, I agree. keep in mind "FA" does not mean "perfect". The intro could be a tad longer, and there should be a section on "reception". dab (&#5839;) 20:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I give this a no vote for now. The quotes (like most of the quotes in Wikipedia and Wikiquote) need sources, and it is very incomplete - no mention of eternal recurrence in the article (and Eternal return is fairly scanty), no working definition of nihilism, no strong discussion of Thus Spoke Zarathustra (and again, the Also sprach Zarathustra is scanty), and few sources for citations in the article to name just a few problems.  Its also still constantly being edited, with major revisions happening all the time.  So no, too little and too unstable.  -Seth Mahoney 20:34, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * There have been a lot of changes since that vote, but I still vote no, on pretty much the same grounds. -Seth Mahoney 04:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Doesn't go sufficiently in depth on his actual ideas, missing a discussion of his controversial attitude toward women, fails to be specific on his vast influence on later philosophers/culture, etc. In general I think it needs to be much longer and more comprehensive. I would love to see this be a featured article at some point, but it has much more potential as it stands. --Tothebarricades.tk 20:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No reason to vote against this article of interest being 'Featured' so as to attract more brainstorming rather than brainwashed. This seems no matter of decency but sort of grace. Yet decency might need a bench mark; I would suggest Chapter IX of Will Durant's The Story of Philosophy whose first section The Lineage of Nietzsche starts reading: "Nietzsche was the child of Darwin and the brother of Bismarck. It does not matter that he ridiculed the English evolutionists and the German nationalists: he was accustomed to denounce those who had most influenced him; it was his unconscious way of covering up his debts." --KYPark 17:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No reason except that its just not up to par. There's really very little talk about his philosophy.  There are other places more beneficial for the article where it can go: Collaboration of the week sure, articles needing attention, sure.  Featured article, no.  -Seth Mahoney 20:45, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose. One sentence does not a lead section make. As mentioned above, lacking in depth - famous concepts like his Übermensch ("superman") get no more than a one-line mention. Needs more discussion of Nietzsche's influence on subsequent developments in philosophy and culture (and not just vis-a-vis the Nazis; by the way, the text about that particular aspect is basically apologism and needs to be more neutral, as the issue is far more complex than its current presentation). --Michael Snow 23:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a terrible treatment of Nietzsche except for its biographical stuff. The treatment of his thinking is standard postmodernist junk. The analytic philosophers have taken an interest in him, but you would not know that from the article Not2plato 04:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your bias against postmodern philosophy and apparant bias for analytic philosophy doesn't really count as a good reason to discount the article. -Seth Mahoney 04:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you knew Nietzsche well, you'd know that the depth of his thought surpasses that of any 'postmodern' or 'analytic' philosopher by leaps and bounds. Their discourse is frankly boring and fetid. The only other philosopher that I can imagine Nietzsche would be intrigued by would be Yamamoto Tsunetomo. -- Chris 22:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)