Talk:Walter Kaufmann (philosopher)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I'm Thinking about changing the article so that Kaufmann's philosophical interests are stressed slightly more so that it is made clear that his works of philosophy are just as important, or perhaps moreso, than his translations. What I'm hoping to accomplish in this is making it so that the reader doesn't see that Kaufmann is, seemingly, "just a translator."

hmmm...Why don't we argue about whether we should crack eggs on the top half of bottom half of the shell? Like any other artist, WK's philosophy is one thing and his translation of Friedirech Nietzsche should be viewed entirely separately. WK's opinions on Nietzsche's writing only serve to limit the infinite perspective expreessed in Nietzsche's philosophies (or philologies, oftentimes). The power of his work was coopted by various nationalist movements and they succeeded in bastardizing his philosophy, to the point where the only translation at all was done by someone with what I view to be an insufficiently stubborn mind to appreciate Nietsche's true points. F.N.'s used a hegelian dialectic to hold conflicting ideas in concert with one another and then developed pragmatic solutions. WK will be remember for the translations, if anything. DavoudMSA (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to read at least one example of Nietzsche's use of "Hegelian Dialectic" to hold conflicting ideas in concert with one another and then develop pragmatic solutions. As far as I know, Nietzsche did not use any such "Dialectic," hold any such ideas, or develop any such solutions.Lestrade (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Kaufmann discusses the influence with regard to Nietzsche's development of the concepts: sublimation and self-overcoming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's easy to provide citations, if they exist.Lestrade (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

makes sense[edit]

I notice that the Princeton website says: "Kaufmann was a philosopher, teacher, translator, poet, and photographer." In other words, they put "philosopher" first. His philosophical book on Nietzsche seems to have been hugely influential. (Quote is from: )

Kaufmann and Judaism[edit]

Saying that Kaufmann "rejected" Judaism is stretching things a bit I think. In fact, a reading his later works of the 1970's, especially Religions in Four Dimensions and the Man's Lot trilogy shows pretty much the opposite. I think its safe to say that he was an atheist (though that itself may be up for debate), but he clearly had a great deal of respect and affection for Jewish thought, from the prophets to the 20th century.


It appears we differ on the use of "rejected." I think it fits perfectly, if Kaufmann was an atheist. I have a lot of respect for a number of religions, but I reject them all as a basis for my beliefs. Alan Nicoll 01:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Kaufmann would disagree with the idea that disbelief in god is incompatible with Judaism. In this way, Judaism is different from Catholicism and Protestantism (for example). Rituals, folkways, customs, and social groups form a large part of Judaism and do not require belief in god. --goethean 15:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Did Kaufmann practice the rituals, follow the folkways and customs, and participate in the social groups? Also, can you support your claim that Kaufmann would disagree? Alan Nicoll 14:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know the extent to which Kaufmann participated in Jewish ritual, because he never wrote about that. Yes, I can document my claim with references to his books, but that will take some time. And I'm not sure why I'm supposed to prove something that anyone who has read Kaufmann would know. Have you read Kaufmann? Or are you just talking out of your ass? --goethean 15:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
If you can push Kaufmann as a believing Jew, then I have to wonder how much of his work you've read. I've read his Faith of a Heretic and Critique of Religion and Philosophy multiple times, and other of his books as well. I agree that he had "a great deal of respect and affection for Jewish thought"--he clearly has great respect for the prophets; I do also. But given his strong criticism of Judaism and Christianity in the books I mention, it seems to me very misleading to suggest that he was a believing Jew. I've never heard of a kind of Judaism without God. I have not, however, read the books you mention. I see no reason to put this discussion on a personal basis--surely we can disagree like gentlemen? Alan Nicoll 02:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
You've mentioned only his earliest works from the 50s. Kaufmann was invariably an atheist, but if you read his last works (Man's Lot and Religions in Four Dimensions), it is clear how deeply he felt that the Hebrew prophets were extraordinary human beings. I would claim that there is a definite "turn" in WK's thought from the purely anti-religious writings of the early years (for example, inFaith of a Heretic), to his understanding of the different "dimensions" of religion beyond simple belief. --rl
Our areas of agreement are large. We're disagreeing very little here, over a question of emphasis and choice of words.Alan Nicoll 16:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Having read much of Kaufmann, I would suggest that his affection for the Jewish faith has more to do with its sympathies and cultural leanings, than with any metaphysical beliefs. While Kaufmann did reject much of the metaphysical truths of traditional Judaism (e.g. divine authorship of the Hebrew Scriptures, binding force of the Commandments, etc.), he found in the Jewish faith a way of looking at life with which he was in great sympathy: A tragic view of man, without the anti-humanistic elements of the Christian faith, or the abstractness of faiths such as Buddhism. I believe that Kaufmann was deeply affected by the spirit of the Jews and their faith, more than by any specific dicta therein. 16:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Maybe this will help the perplexed[edit]

In 1973, I bought a used copy of WK's Critique of Religion and Philosophy, and it changed my life. In it, Kauffman makes clear that Judaism is not centered on "faith," on "salvation," on correctness of beliefs about the supernatural. It is very difficult to become a Jewish "heretic." In this respect, Judaism differs fundamentally from Christianity and Islam. Judaism is more focussed on rituals and traditions, on loyalty to a historical human community that happens to have become very accomplished in recent centuries, on moral reflection, on debate and discussion. It does not claim to be applicableé to all peoples at all times. Judaism is very tolerant of metaphysical doubt even unto atheism, of the notion that the Tanakh is literary and mythical. I have been repeatedly impressed by the way in which Jews write that Jews are not Biblical literalists. Note how a large majority of Israelis do not belong to a synagogue and yet think of themselves as fully Jewish. It is also clear that for millions of Jews in the 20th century, being Jewish meant struggling to make the human society around them a better place than they found it. In practice, this all too often meant a tragic commitment to some form of Marxism or socialism. Kauffmann wrote very little on Marx and political philosophy; did he see those subjects as lightning rods? I note that Kauffmann intellectually came of age during the McCarthy era, and did not become an American citizen until 1960.

Kauffmann was a German Jew by ancestry, whose powerful secular education made it impossible for him to take Judaism literally. Nevertheless, he was strongly attracted to Leo Baeck, Martin Buber, the tragic themes in existentialism, and to a philosophical approach to literature (now curiously out of fashion). I gather from remarks above that Kauffman near the end of his life became powerfully drawn to the Old Testament prophets. Kauffmann splendidly embodied the Socratic dictum "the unexamined life is not worth living."

I know of no obituary essay in the academic literature devoted to Kauffmann's life and work, and am surprised that this entry cites no such essay. This lacuna raises the distinct possibility that no such essay exists.

Final remark: Kauffmann's translation of Goethe's Faust has not attracted the attention it deserves. 15:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Let us become perplexed again... *shall we open our eyes? I note that I should read Kauffmann, and his English translation of Goethe (might well not be a bad idea!) For the rest of it, let us be careful about religion, and about "tragic commitment to some form of Marxism of socialism". This is not a billboard, although sometimes it does look like one. Cheers 202.36 (thirty-six!thirty-six! ) (eh! how's in Greek "the unexamined life is not worth living." ?) Lapaz

A stupid question: on Judaism[edit]

Sorry in advance for my ignorance. But is it really possible to "become a Jew" ? I understand one would want to convert himself to Judaism, but I thought (my ignorance) that one was born Jewish, and from a Jewish mother. I didn't know one could convert himself to Judaism. Please correct me if I'm wrong — Lapaz 03:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong :) It is certainly possible to convert (see, for example, Wikipedia's Conversion to Judaism article), and regardless, WK was Jewish by heredity anyway, which as it turns out, is what mattered to the Nazis anyway. RobLinwood 04:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The essence of jewishness is the law, the Torah. Following the Torah is what truly makes one a Jew. It has nothing to do with any specific eschatological belief, at all. I find WK's translation to be good but his interpretation of the material is obviously from a perspective the Nietzsche himself would characterize as being based in 'slave morality'. I believe WK did as well to translate WK's works as well as he did, considering the situation from which he came. Unfortunately, the result of the Shoah was to timidify German culture and I find WK's analysis to lack the perpsective of a Master. I remember one of WK's laments was Nietzsche's position on women. I don't think WK and others ever stop to think that feminism is just a construct of the military-industrial complex to get womens' productivity into the scam banking system and take more of their wealth through price inflation. Nietzsche understood how easy it was for women to be corrupted and its fairly obvious his positions on women are not violent, merely natural.

At any rate, I believe that the first edits of Nietzsche's work were distorted by the anti-semitism of his sister, whom he despised precisely for her Anti-Semitism. Nietzsche realized that Anti-Semitism and violent Jewish Nationalism reinforce each other by relying on chaos amongst harmonious individuals.

The title of 'Also Sprach Zarathustra', when translated as 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra', strikes me as a deliberate red herring. It simply should be translated, 'Zoroaster Also Spoke'. The fact that 'Zarathustra' is never translated into 'Zoroaster' is simply POOR SCHOLARSHIP. The manner in which the academic community chooses to collectively ignore this obvious fact is an indictment of modern scholarship with regards to Nietzsche's works. It is unfortunate that everything Nietzsche wrote was coopted and we are only left with tertiary edits designed to produce intentional distortion throughout the work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavoudMSA (talkcontribs) 10:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Unsigned. The German word "also" means, in English, "thus" or "so." You can't translate the title as Zoroaster Also Spoke. If you want to say the English word "also" in German, say "auch."Lestrade (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Old Comments[edit]

Is anyone else interested in this subject? --RobLinwood 01:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am interested; why do you ask? Also, I question some parts of the article. I see no reason for the "so-called" in reference to existentialism. And the talk of his conversion leaves the impression that he continued an adherence to Judaism. At least in 1959 (the Harpers article) he explicitly rejects Judaism. Alan Nicoll 21:21, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'm interested in Kaufmann, too. I assume that by "so-called" existentialism, the author means that many question whether some of the authors (Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Rilke) are in fact best described as existentialists. --Goethean 21:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In reference to the 'so-called' description preceding the word existentialism, you may wish to refer to

RobLinwood's question is the dumbest that I've ever read on Wikipedia. Everything about Kaufmann and his writings is interesting to certain people. I advise RobLinwood to return to his can of Bud, his football game, and his copy of People magazine. 13:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)TetchySmurf
Thanks for your obnoxious and useless remarks. My question (which has obviously been answered) was owing to the fact that WK is not the most well-known or mainstream figure in philosophy. I've certainly added as much to this entry as anyone else, and this discussion page, in which you've felt free to advertise your phenomonal lack of civility, did not exist until I created it. Enjoy. --rl
Hello. Kaufmann was indeed an extremely prominent philosopher during his career; he was one of the most important--if not the most influential--expositors of the Continental tradition in Modern Philosophy in the United States. From his esteemed position on the Princeton faculty, he wrote a series of books unique in American thought. Tragedy and Philosophy, The Faith of a Heretic, and Critique of Religion and Philosophy are still wonderful books, well worth your time. They tie in disparate strands of culture, from Greek tragedy, to European Philosophy, Religion, Jesus, Shakespeare, Freud, in a way which profits the reader immensely, with not only erudition, but great human insight, and a style of expression that is so affecting. I have read some of them three or four times, with continued learning and appreciation. He was much more important than you are aware. Try any of those books some time. You won't be able to put it down. 16:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth
I would like to kill this discussion by stating that I do not and never have questioned Kaufmann's revelevance or talent. My question, ill-stated though it was, was just meant to find other people interested in him, not to express skepticism as to the value of his works. I am an enormous fan of WK, and have read all of his writings -- I would not have contributed to this article otherwise. When I posted that comment, there were no other comments on this talk page, and I was keen to find others who shared my interest of Kaufmann's works. Please take note of dates when posting and reading comments. I am moving this to the bottom of the page to reflect both its age and general lack of relevance. Thanks. RobLinwood 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect item in bibliography[edit]

I don't have time to investigate it, but the entry

“Some Typical Misconceptions of Nietzsche's Critique of Christianity,” Philosophical Review v. 63, no. 1 (January 1954), pp. 3-18

is incorrect. That citation should be for “Hegel's Early Antitheological Phase,” which appears earlier. I don't know where the 'misconceptions' article is, or if it even exists.

I think what User:droptone found at Resource Exchange must be it. trespassers william (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Nietzsche criticism[edit]

Thanks to User:Danny lost for supplying the page number for the quote criticizing Nietzsche.[1] Now that I've been able to look it up though, I see that it needs to be removed. Immediately after the part quoted in the article he goes on to say: "...because he had no system. Yet this argument is hardly cogent." Thus I will remove it. It also throws into question the other criticism supposed to be from the intro to his translation of Zarathustra. Does anyone have access to this? Someone who could also verify? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I checked the "Editor's Preface" at The Portable Nietzsche, 103-111 (It ends with the quoted conclusion, but doesn't open with [2]). There are some sentences to the proposed effect:
  • "We might wish that he had taken out his histrionics on Paneth and spared us some of the melodrama in Zarathustra...But often painfully adolescent emotions distract our attention from ideas that we cannot dismiss as immature at all."
  • "After all has been said, Zarathustra still cries out to be blue-penciled; and if it were more compact, it would be more lucid too...What distinguishes Zarathustra is the profusion of 'sapphires in the mud." But what the book loses artistically and philosophically by never having been critically edited by its author, it gains as a uniquely personal record."
  • "This overflowing sense of humor, which prefers even a poor joke to no joke at all..."
  • "Nietzsche's writing, too, is occasionally downright bad, but at its best-superb."
Indeed, there is no philosophical criticism here, only stylistic one. See also Thus_Spoke_Zarathustra#Translations, which suggests that Kaufmann tried to fix details in the book. trespassers william (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I've removed the verification template as, per your entry, the stylistic criticism seems valid. At some point though I think this topic needs to be expanded and balanced with more specifics. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In Nietzsche, Kaufmann pegs one of Nietzsche's arguments against hedonism as fallacious. You can find less direct criticisms throughout this work as Kaufmann's interpretive method seems to depend identifying the problems Nietzsche encountered in his early work and only later resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

So the full quotation is exactly the following? (Please edit my below text if necessary.) Bo99 (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"it also seems that as a philosopher [Nietzsche] represents a very sharp decline [from Kant and Hegel]
because he had no system
[such first part of this whole Kaufmann comment is on the internet somewhere -- where?, i can no longer find it -- and it misled me and is misleading anyone who comes across such fragment].
Yet this argument is hardly cogent."
<ref>Kaufmann, ''Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist'', Princeton UP, 1968: p. 79 </ref>
(I don't have such book and am trying to piece the quotation together from what others have posted.) Bo99 (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"It is evident at once that Nietzsche is far superior to Kant and Hegel as a stylist; but it also seems that as a philosopher he represents a very sharp decline—and men have not been lacking who have not considered him a philosopher at all—because he has no 'system.' Yet this argument is hardly cogent. Schelling and Hegel, Spinoza and Aquinas had their systems; in Kant and Plato's case the word is far less applicable; and of the many important philosophers who very definitely did not have systems one need only mention Socrates and many of the pre-Socratics. Not only can one defend Nietzsche on this score—how many philosopher today have systems?—but one must add that he had strong philosophic reasons for not having a system." Kaufman, Walter (1974). Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist'. Princeton University Press. p. 79. ISBN 0691019835. Retrieved December 17, 2008. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for e.g. finding, typing, and posting the above quotation. To correct the partial and effectively untruthful quotation of Professor Kaufmann that i'm 95% sure i saw somewhere on the Internet, i propose simply to graft into or near the end of the article's biography-section's penultimate paragraph something roughly like the following paragraph: (Bo99 (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC))
"Aside from Nietzsche's style, regarding Nietzsche's substance, Professor Kaufmann wrote that superficially "it also seems that as a philosopher [Nietzsche] represents a very sharp decline [from Kant and Hegel] ... because [Nietzsche] has no 'system.' Yet this argument is hardly cogent. ... Not only can one defend Nietzsche on this score ... but one must add that he had strong philosophic reasons for not having a system."" Bo99 (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Please post-below any objections. Thanks. If there are none after a reasonable interval then i will do such proposed grafting/drafting. Bo99 (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I made the above-contemplated additions to the article. Bo99 (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Heidegger the seducer - Oh, come on...[edit]

The proposition "Kaufmann was also immune to the seductions of Heidegger" is non-objective and pejorative. Therefore it should be altered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I made the above-contemplated style-change to the article's cited sentence. Bo99 (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


Kaufmann never mentioned Schopenhauer in a positive manner. He always tried to show that Hegel had a greater influence on Nietzsche, despite Nietzsche's own admission of Schopenhauer's extremely strong influence and Nietzsche's meager mentioning of Hegel. It is very possible that Kaufmann was reacting to the few passages in Schopenhauer's works in which he criticized or flouted Jews. After what happened in Europe 65 years ago, any such remarks now appear to be ominous. It could also have been possible that Kaufmann, as a professional philosopher, was joining his colleagues' practice of ignoring Schopenhauer, who vehemently castigated professional philosophers. However, Karl Jaspers also criticized philosophy professors and he was not ignored by Kaufmann. Objectively, however, Kaufmann's dismissal of Schopenhauer seems to be in opposition to factual reality. Lestrade (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Kaufmann was no naive defender of professional philosophers --- on the contrary, he was more often an outspoken critic of the profession. More likely (if you simply take Kaufmann at his word) he simply found Schopenhauer's lengthy resentful diatribes against Hegel to be embarrassing and undignified (who wouldn't?).
this edit is quite funny. There are people who think that Heidegger's writing is clear?! — goethean 14:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I made the change in accord with WP:NPOV. It is the purpose of this article to describe Kaufmann's views, not to issue verdicts about Heidegger. UserVOBO (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


Is it true that WK realized his descent after his aunt presented him with a Spiegel from Wertheim's?Lestrade (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

Cause of Death[edit]

Kaufmann died ahead of time, 59.

Here is information on the likely cause of death: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Michael Tanner quotation[edit]

Tom baldwin has tried to remove the following from the article: "Michael Tanner called Kaufmann's commentaries on Nietzsche "obtrusive, self-referential, and lacking insight". The user has alleged the existence of a copyright violation, stating, "Please provide evidence that publisher or author has approved the citation. This is a copyright violation". I would like to note that Tom baldwin has failed to provide evidence that any publisher or any author has approved any citation in the article, and appears focused exclusively on that single quotation from Michael Tanner. As such, his position is illogical and inconsistent. What valid reason could there possibly be for removing only the Tanner quotation when there is no evidence anything cited in the article has approval from a publisher or author? Tom baldwin, you may wish to see WP:CFAQ, which notes that, "Under certain conditions, you may copy a copyrighted work without a license from the original author" and that, "Quotations are a very well known and widely used form of fair use and fair dealing and are explicitly allowed under the Berne convention." If you have some other reason besides copyright for wanting to remove the Tanner quotation, perhaps you had better say what it is? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

to Tom Baldwin and anyone else who would like to vitiate Tanner’s vitriol against Kaufmann: Tanner’s criticism conflicts with everything i’ve ever heard or read about Kaufmann and by Kaufmann. I don’t know who Tanner is, and he has no Wikipedia page. In the past i for one tolerated leaving the Tanner quotation in the article because Tanner’s view appears erroneous even according to the other quotations in the same paragraph. But if you want to go further and to find justification to delete the Tanner quotation, to demote it to a footnote, to downplay it using paraphrasing rather than quotation, etc, then here’s a possible way, if you have a bit more time than i do: do a search to confirm whether or not Tanner’s view of Kaufmann-on-Nietzsche is a tiny-minority view, small-minority view, or whatever, and whether or not the large majority view is longstanding worldwide admiration or whatever. Then, we and Wikipedia are required to ‘Ensure that the reporting of ... a tiny minority view ...’ is tiny, ensure that the reporting of a small-minority view is small, and so on. Bo99 (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Arguing about the accuracy or lack of it of Tanner's comment is completely pointless. That simply isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to work. WP:TRUTH is a useful essay that points out that, "Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue." You provided a partial quotation from a paragraph of WP:NPOV; the whole paragraph reads,
"Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field."
Are you suggesting that Tanner's suggestion that Kaufmann's commentaries in his translations of Nietzsche are not very good is such a fringe view that it can be compared to Holocaust denial? If so, that is in no sense a reasonable comparison. There is no evidence that a majority of scholars disagrees with Tanner's comment, let alone that it is a fringe view comparable to Holocaust denial. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Tom_baldwin, this posting is to draw your attention, and that of anyone else who wants to further vitiate Tanner’s vitriol against Kaufmann. For that goal, my posting a bit above describes a valid approach. Bo99 (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
No it doesn't. You selectively quoted WP:NPOV and unconvincingly tried to argue that it would justify removal of the quotation from Tanner. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Reading precisely and thinking precisely, multiple times, are good. And don’t fear, because probably no one is going to do the work right now to delete or demote Tanner’s unusual view. Bo99 (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
If all you can do is to insult me, there is no point in your commenting here at all. There is no evidence that Tanner's view of Kaufmann's commentaries in his editions of Nietzsche's books is a fringe view, as you suggested. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Pls read more carefully. But pls consider dropping the topic, because probably no one is going to do the work right now to delete or demote Tanner’s unusual view. Bo99 (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Telling other people to re-read your comments does not make your comments any more accurate or compelling. If you cannot make a convincing case, it serves no purpose for you to comment here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
No; i did make a convincing case but you need to read more carefully. It’s unpleasant that your conduct generates work for me and others. But you should stop fighting, because until someone gathers all the evidence contra Tanner and in accord with Tanner, no one is now deleting or demoting Tanner’s unusual vitriol that you champion. Bo99 (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
If all you can do is to reassert that you think you are right without explaining why that deserves no response. Ponyo, Tom baldwin is continuing to edit war at this article to remove content and make unsupported accusations in edit summaries. Something really needs to be done about this. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Whether to include the sourced snippet in relation to possible WP:NPOV concerns is up to editorial discretion and consensus can be determined through discussion here. I have no opinion as to whether the quote should be in the article, but Tom baldwin edit warring to blank the sourced content claiming, only in edit summaries with zero article talk page participation, that Wikipedia requires the author's permission for it to be included is just disruptive. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    Tom baldwin has kept up a constant stream of accusations against other editors, visible in edit summaries like this one. That's disruptive as well. User needs to be told to discontinue this. If an editor thinks it's appropriate to make one accusation after another instead of discussing issues respectfully, that's a problem. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
[The following deals only with the posting two paragraphs above, dated 22:46, 9 October 2018:]
No; i did explain why, in my first posting above, but you need to read more carefully. It’s unpleasant that you don't read that text carefully, yet you demand still more text. But you should stop fighting, because until someone gathers all the evidence contra Tanner and in accord with Tanner, no one is now justifiably deleting/demoting/downplaying Tanner’s unusual vitriol that you champion. Bo99 (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
In other words, all you have to say is more "I am right because I say so" nonsense. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Of course not; my first posting above contains an explanation, with citation to the Wikipedia neutrality rule, but you need to read more carefully. No one else has questioned that posting. You don't read that text carefully, yet you demand more text. But you could stop fighting now, because until someone gathers all the authors divergent from and in accord with that Tanner person, no one is now justifiably deleting/demoting/downplaying Tanner’s unusual vitriol. On the other hand, do keep running up your posting tally, so that you might unwittingly draw the attention of people who might deal with the vitriol that you champion. Bo99 (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
"Of course not; my first posting above contains an explanation" is an example of what I mean by "I am right because I say so" nonsense. Per WP:UNDUE, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". There is no evidence that Tanner's book is not a reliable source, no evidence that Tanner's viewpoint is not significant or the view of a tiny minority. What I am seeing from certain editors here is a demand that the article portray Kaufmann and his work in only the most flattering light. That isn't at all in accord with WP:NPOV. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Grossly illogical. My first posting above is right not because i say so but because it contains an explanation comprised of Wikipedia rule and citation. The Wikipedia rule of neutral or proportional presentation of authors must be applied to the vitriol of the Tanner person. So there is nothing to be discussed until someone gathers the evidence on all relevant authors, to see if the Tanner person is in a one-person minority, a tiny minority, a small minority, or whatever. But do keep running up your posting tally, so that you might unwillingly draw the attention of someone who has the time to deal with the vitriol that you champion. Bo99 (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
If you want to exclude Tanner's view because you claim it is a tiny minority or fringe view it is up to you to show that that's what it is. You haven't done that, and I assume cannot. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Illogical; the investigation into the Tanner person's vitriol has not even begun. People will have to gather the evidence on all relevant authors, to see, as required by Wikipedia rule, if the Tanner person is in a one-person minority, a tiny minority, a small minority, etc. Bo99 (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
No, it's your comment that is illogical, because you are attempting to shift the burden of proof, as you have done throughout this discussion, and you are singling out Tanner's comment while ignoring all other views of Kaufmann's work mentioned in the article and refusing to apply the same standard to them. If you claim that Tanner's view is somehow fringe, it is up to you to show that. Otherwise, since his view appeared in a book published by a respectable publisher, there is no reason it should not be referenced in the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Grossly illogical; the Tanner person's negative view can stay in, in some form, until people gather the evidence on all relevant authors, to see if the Tanner person is in a one-person minority, a tiny minority, a small minority, etc. All quoted authors are subject to that Wikipedia rule. Bo99 (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
No. That is not how Wikipedia's policies work. Nowhere do we have a policy that says that we have to "gather the evidence on all relevant authors". You are making this up as you go along. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
(refutation exdented to left margin)

Grossly illogical; the Wikipedia rule of neutral or proportional presentation of authors requires knowing the proportions, e.g. knowing if an alleged author such as the Tanner person is in a one-person minority, a tiny minority, a small minority, and so on. That tautologically requires evidence on all relevant authors. Until people gather that evidence, the Tanner person's negative view can stay in, in some form. Bo99 (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Nothing in WP:NPOV says that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
It was already explained to you, in my first posting above, that such rule of neutral/proportional presentation of authors requires that articles ‘Ensure that the reporting of ... a tiny minority view ...’ is tiny, ensure that the reporting of a small-minority view is small, and so on. Bo99 (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm familiar with WP:NPOV and do not need you to explain it to me. What you said above, "the Wikipedia rule of neutral or proportional presentation of authors requires knowing the proportions, e.g. knowing if an alleged author such as the Tanner person is in a one-person minority, a tiny minority, a small minority, and so on. That tautologically requires evidence on all relevant authors", isn't in NPOV, as I noted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Obviously the 4 lines in your paragraph immediately above are not verbatim in the rule of neutral/proportional presentation. The 4 lines are a paraphrasing. Bo99 (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

to all: Please state your agreement or disagreement with the following narrow, square-bracketed proposal: [The article's New Yorker plaudits and Jones plaudits should be deleted from the article.]
reasons for such deletion, in my view:
- The criticism by Tanner is out of the article, so the plaudits should be out too, based on that same rule of neutral presentation.
- Such plaudits (and criticism) are too micro, and such micro things are generally excluded from the professional bio of this same professor at the Encyclopedia Of Philosophy.
- ‘A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge ... .’ That is the general inclusion/exclusion criterion, and is an express statement of an ‘accepted knowledge’ criterion, and an implied statement of a ‘macroscopy’ criterion i.e. the omission of micro matters. Arguably both such criteria would exclude both the plaudits and the criticism.
- Thank you in advance.
- Bo99 (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

improvement guide[edit]

Someday, this bio would benefit enormously by using a professional bio as a guide, e.g. the bio of this same professor at the Encyclopedia Of Philosophy. Bo99 (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)