Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

CALLING: Nietzsche scholars for Collaboration

Building a new article on wikipedia and I am looking to collaborate with a Nietzsche scholar. The focus is specifically geared towards unravelling N.'s last two works: Twilight of The Idols and The Anti-Christ. I have to be extremely judicious (conservative) in my attribution of themes to Nietzsche, so I'd like to have someone more tapped into the peer-reviewed, manistream consensus of standard Nietzsche scholarship to mediate and provide guidance to the claims I am about to make. Either contact me here->

--  SKY_child  07:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Or by electronic mail: scott (at) infinitelogic (dot) ca THANKS!

Influenced

In the influenced section of the info box, do only other philosophers belong there? Or does anyone he influenced belong there? Because I know musican Marilyn Manson's lyrics has influenced by his philosophy. So I was wondering if only philosophers belong there. KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 15:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Technically, only philosophers should be there. But it is arguable that Manson is a philosopher. Zazaban (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see our previous discussions on this topic. The current policy (by consensus) for this article is that only philosophers are to be in the "Influenced" category of the infobox. Nietzsche is a major figure and has influenced the work of many well-known people, both in academia and pop culture. While Manson may be one of them, he would not meet the definition of philosopher we currently use for this article.Fixer1234 (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The current policy (by consensus) for this article is that only philosophers are to be in the "Influenced" category of the infobox.

Why on earth would we limit a list of Nietzsche's influences to a single discipline? I can't think of a single valid reason to do so, and can think of many reasons why such a limitation is pointless and unworkable. For starters, Nietzsche was not a typical philosophy professor. He took pride that he had been trained as a philologist and had thereby avoided the prejudices of the philosophers. 2nd, Nietzsche is seen by some like Harold Bloom as more important as a literary figure than as a philosopher. And his influence has been at least as great on literary figures. We already have Alfred Adler and Freud listed who were psychologists, not philosophers. If we are going to go with this absurd departmental policy, maybe we should remove all of the literary figures who influenced Nietzsche. — goethean ॐ 16:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I added Nikos Kazantzakis in the influenced sectionGreco22 (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC) kazantzakis was also philosopher,read the article in wikipedia...pls dont remove it.thank youGreco22 (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Atheism

I have read in several articles that F.N. was "never actually an atheist", but just a rejectionist of theology and religion. Perhaps we need to find some sources that back it up and not categorize him under atheists but rather as agnostic? pictureuploader (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean sources that call him an atheist or places in his writings that make it unmistakeably clear that he was an atheist? E.g., Ecce Homo II 1, where he claims that atheism is a matter of course for him, an instinct. WP:UNDUE militates against including every point of view in cases of fringe or incompetent theories. I think that an entire peer-reviewed article devoted to nothing other than the claim that Nietzsche was not an atheist that was in turn discussed in other peer reviewed articles would be necessary in this case—passing remarks or articles that are ignored won't do. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"where he claims" - RS makes it clear that first hand accounts are not to be treated as a reliable source or "truth" on the matter. Furthermore, his use of atheist is quite different from our modern use. There are many works that say he created his own new religion based on the removal of polar attributes. Until the early 20th century, atheist was simply used to describe someone against the -dominant- religion. Now it is used to describe someone against -all- religion. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS has no problem using primary sources as evidence for a their author's opinion. WP:RS#Statements of opinion. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." Saying that it is the author's opinion and saying that atheism in his use (which isn't even his word) is equivalent to modern use would be original research. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"I do not by any means know atheism as a result; even less as an event: it is a matter of course with me, from instinct. I am too inquisitive, too questionable, too exuberant to stand for any gross answer. God is a gross answer, an indelicacy against us thinkers—at bottom merely a gross prohibition for us: you shall not think!" (EC II 1). "Perhpas I am even envious of Stendhal? He took away from me the best atheistical joke that precisely I might have made: 'God's only excuse is that he does not exist.' I myself have said somewhere: what has been the greatest objection to existence so far? God." (EC II 3). "It was atheism that led me to Schopenhauer" (EC "Untimely Ones" 2). In BGE 53, he asks "Why atheism today." Atheism was Nietzsche's word. In any event, this is all very academic. Where are the peer-reviewed pieces that argue that Nietzsche was not an atheist? And has anyone taken them seriously? RJC ^Talk_Contribs 18:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that it was translated from German, right? And that the above are not his actual words but a translator's interpretation? Seriously, if you can't even get that right then you shouldn't make arguments about reliability. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't be serious. "Ich kenne den Atheismus durchaus nicht als Ergebniss, noch weniger als Ereigniss: er versteht sich bei mir aus Instinkt." "Er hat mir den besten Atheisten-Witz weggenommen." "Der Atheismus war das, was mich zu Schopenhauer führte." Excuse me if I don't entertain your questions anymore. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 18:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

RJC, I already pointed out that the word meant very different things. Furthermore, the only one trolling here is yourself, since you are trying to promote a claim that goes against our guidelines and doesn't even mean anything. Before you call people a troll, recognize that I have written far more articles and proven myself as a contributor here than you ever have. You claimed that the book was a reliable source. No, that was wrong. It was a translation. Then you claim that the primary source can be treated as fact. No, it cannot. Furthermore, it is original research to claim that our use of a term is the same as the use of a term by a German 100 years ago. That is utterly absurd and ridiculous, especially with the use of "atheist" changing during the 20th century. I already explained that the term back then merely meant to be against the organized religions. It does not have the connotation of not having any theological system. Nietzche most surely did, which anyone reading any of his works would see, especially with what values he had dominating. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

OED - from 17th to 19th century, athiest had the connotation of "impious". It also had a connotation of someone who just doesn't practice their moral obligations towards God. Neither mean that they are not religious or were unwilling to come up with a theological structure. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

So if an atheist did not mean one who believes there is no God, then what word would have been used? Or did everyone believe in God before the 20th century? 76.93.149.242 (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Most intellectuals, including those like Darwin, believed that Aristotle was correct in Physics and Metaphysics about the necessity of a prime mover. This view could be a pantheistic view, a deistic view, a traditional theological view, or anything really. Nietzsche was quite accepting of Aristotle and believed that traditional religions were constructs that added far more than was logically acceptable to the Aristotelian base. Instead, Nietzsche promoted the stripping away of it in order to unlock human potential once humanity no longer had restrictions or guilt. In essence, he practiced a religion of ultimate humanism, in which creation centered around humanity and human potential. Humanity as a whole replaces traditional divinity. This is definitely not something that can be described in the modern sense of "atheism". Anti-theistic? Perhaps. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Nietzsche was quite accepting of Aristotle" -> This is a lie, of course. Where does Nietzsche discuss Aristotle's ontology or theology? He doesn't: as a matter of fact, his discussions of Aristotle are rare almost to the point of being nonexistent.[4] N. clearly expresses in the Twilight of the Idols: he rejects a worldview based on actions produced by agents - a worldview that he believed was forged, inauthentically, by grammatic functions. He even says that we might wound up believing in God only on account of grammar. And as an empiricist, he was critical of the use of logic to unveil the reality of the external world: logic, he says, oversimplifies the things it represents and doesn't take into account that things change through time. As for the prime mover theory, it is based on an assumption that Nietzsche rejected entirely: namely, that there are stable units of matter that needed to be put into motion by an external force (or mover). But Nietzsche rejected stability; instead he put that all things are in eternal movement, in a play of forces. It is on this that his fondness of Heraclitus is based: Heraclitus was the first philospher, or perhaps the only one before N., that rejected stability. As for that other comment on N's philosophy - that he put humanity as a whole in the place of divinity as the center of a new, quasi-religious, worldview - it is equally inane and unfounded. Mere misinterpretation caused by idiosyncratic worldview and undisciplined reading. It only goes to show the very base level of wikipedia editors' scholarship.Guinsberg (talk) 07:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This thread's been dead for nine months. Contributing to this discussion just increases the amount of time before this thread is archived. Also, please don't draw conclusions about the whole editorship of Wikipedia from the comments of a user the community has banned. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we say that Nietzsche was a German philosopher?

If Nietzsche was born before the unification of Germany and the foundation of the modern german state can we say that Nietzsche was a german philosopher withour incurring in some form or anachronism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robskin (talk • contribs) 16:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's really a problem of anachronism here - the German nationality existed long before the German state, and in describing Nietzsche as "German," we're describing his nationality.VoluntarySlave (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

We've also had this discussion before, check archives 10, 11, 12, and 15. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 18:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Another book review

I added a book over at the reference section and here is a review if anyone is interested (to validate whether the book can be potentially useful to expand upon the article etc.). [5]. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Although I should point out and stress this point that I am in no way trying to push a POV or anything of that sort (I only realized that the review I got the book from is from A Christian Review - whereas when I first read it I only went as far as "Books and Culture"). Either way I hope there are Nietzsche experts here that can tell whether that book is good or not etc and do with it as you please. I just thought of being bold and adding it in the refs but again, if no good, do as you seem suitable.Calaka (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Name Audio

Can someone please supply Nietzsche's wiki page with an audio aid which corretly pronounces his name. A lot of people in America pronounce it like 'nee chee' but others say it is more correct to pronounce it as 'neech-eh' . This would help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.104.208 (talk) 09:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey budd, the name is Polish so it is pronounced like a lot of Slavic names and words. 'nee-scha'. Hope that helps. Teetotaler 21 December, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.81.197 (talk) 01:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

IPA for this name

I have never heard the pronunciation [vɪlhəlm] in German. I corrected the IPA to [vilhεlm]. Do others agree?CecilWard (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

Existentialism and postmodernism are mentioned as fields heavily influenced by Nietzsche, and I wonder if not nihilism should be mentioned there, as well; Nietzsche's connection with nihilism is more widely known than with postmodernism, for example. Revan ltrl (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

IPA again

The pronounciation is given as German pronunciation: [ˈfʁiːdʁɪç ˈvɪlhεlm ˈniːtʃə]. A change was reverted, because tsch is spoken as (German pronunciation: [tʃ]. That is correct and that is why I pointed out his name is Nietzsche, not Nietsche. The correct version is German pronunciation: [ˈfʁiːdʁɪç ˈvɪlhεlm ˈniːtsʃə]. -- Zz (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The other Wikipedia language projects that I checked seem to have tʃ as well (unfortunately, the German article doesn't say). I'm not sure I have ever heard it pronounced differently, although the presence of an s sound before an sh would certainly be too subtle for me to discern (non-native speaker). Is it the presence of the z in the spelling that is at issue, or are you a native German speaker? RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I am a native speaker. Granted, most Germans do not care either, but tsʃ is the correct version. The IPA here used to be wrong on another sound, too, and I am afraid it got copied into articles in other languages. -- Zz (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the Pentagraph page “tzsch” is [tʃ] and not [tsʃ]. Either that page is incomplete or this one is wrong :) -- 201.52.39.16 (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Influenced

There is a message in the article stating, "The policy for the article, by consensus, is to include only philosophers in this category. Please see the talk page if you have questions or wish to comment." Yet the influenced category includes several people who are obviously not philosophers (Adler, Freud, Jung, Harold Bloom and Camille Paglia) and some others who only marginally count as philosophers (Bataille and Baudrillard). Can these simply be removed, or will someone object? UserVOBO (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I will remove Paglia; she was not influenced by Nietzsche. I support limiting the list to figures who are mentioned in the article (or a sub-article) and cited to a reliable source. However, it seems ahistorical and plain dumb to pigeon-hole historical figures into contemporary departmental categories. — goethean ॐ 00:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this has to be determined on a case-by-case basis. And I agree about pigeonholing. I think a person should be included as long as their work/subject is at least somewhat proximate or relevant to Nietzsche's. And I think this should also be balanced with how significant Nietzsche was for them. I would say that the works of Freud and Baudrillard are significant to Nietzsche, as both of them contain systems that are capable commentary-responses to N's (primacy of will to power vs. death drive, the nihilism of simulacrum). Even someone like Frank Herbert I would say should not be on the list, even though he was influenced at least some by him, isn't significant to the topic of Nietzsche. Perhaps a "Minor Influences" section could be used to give a list and explanation of certain non-significant figures who were influenced by N? SSBDelphiki (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that agreement on which figures are major would be quite difficult to obtain. — goethean ॐ 03:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I oppose a minor influences section; I don't think it would work, and I don't know of any article that has one. All I am saying is that the article should be consistent - if the message saying that only philosophers should be listed is retained, the non-philosophers should go. UserVOBO (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This page has the idea. But I'm not that big on the idea either. VOBO, I would say that the message should go. It's too limiting to only allow inclusion of philosophers. I think anyone whose work is significant in the same areas as Nietzsche's could be added. And N can definitely be considered a psychologist, for example, and a social critic. A few of the people listed have no mention of N in their own articles: George Santayana, Judith Butler, Muhammad Iqbal. I say we should remove them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SSBDelphiki (talk • contribs) 07:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That message was put in because of the number of random links that were added to the Nietzsche page, especially politically charged ones. And Nietzsche's popularity was such that every literate person for a time could be said to have been influenced by him. The inclusion of psychologists isn't a big deal, given that psychology hadn't fully distinguished itself from philosophy. But a list of social critics, musicians, poets, politicians, painters, etc. would be unmanageable, even if relegated to a "minor influences" section. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but the departmental policy is still ahistorical, arbitrary, and untenable, especially given Nietzsche's own explicit prejudices against philosophers. Better to make a list of major influencees regardless of their discipline and stick to it. — goethean ॐ 15:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't interpreting "philosopher" as "in a department of philosophy." I just would like to avoid having cult leaders, heavy metal bands, installation artists, mass murderers, etc. inserted into the list as they were before we began discouraging them. If someone wants to add a political theorist, I'm fine with that. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 01:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you consider it acceptable to have the founder of the Church of Satan listed there? UserVOBO (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 04:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What about Harold Bloom? His entire edifice of literary criticism is based on Nietzschean ideas. Freud should be there too, a number of people, including Zhou Guoping, actually consider Nietzsche the precursor of Freudian psychoanalysis. Wandering Courier (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

When I was working on the "Influence and Reception" article about Nietzsche I was looking for good sources to turn to for his influence on Freud. I'd be interested to see more references to works that discuss this, as – to me at least – it seems very likely that Freud drew heavily on Nietzsche's work, and that N. provided the core basis for Freud's approach. Not to mention that Freud decided to dally with Nietzsche's former lady friend (always a sign that one man separated in time from another wanted to learn something about the other). A list of good references dealing with this (these?) issues would be helpful. I should say though that I think the "Influence and Reception" article is the place to deal with this. If we can put together acceptable content dealing with this subject there, we can (perhaps) put some summary statements here in the main article and link to the fuller treatment elsewhere. I rewrote most of the Influence and Reception article, but I stopped short at the psychoanalysis material because I did not have enough solid citations and time to deal with them. --Picatrix (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I support Freud staying on, and Jung. Since Nietzsche does put forward at least a semi-complete psychoanalytic interpretation, his work does precede modern psychoanalysis. The focus on philosophy shouldn't exclude other disciplines where N is relevant. I think we should look into the Freud/Nietzsche relationship, as I've never encountered any solid statements on the matter. Freud's own statements seem to say that he read N, but too late to be a large influence. But Jung, at least, did some major work on N, and was definitely influenced by him. And I'd like to repeat that George Santayana, Judith Butler and Muhammad Iqbal seem to have no connection with Nietzsche. Any contest to their removal? SSBDelphiki (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Freud fits. There are links between Santayana, Butler, Iqbal, and Nietzsche, but we want our criteria for inclusion to exclude at least someone. I'm not sure we can say that Harold Bloom's entire career was built upon Nietzsche, seeing as he isn't mentioned a single time in the Bloom article. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Freud and Nietzsche have a complicated relationship. Also I agree that (H.) Bloom's theory is thoroughly Nietzschean. — goethean ॐ 20:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The status of Harold Bloom would have to be verified by sources. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 08:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That's easily done with 5 seconds of Googling. [6]

Could you please explain this edit? How is the article improved by having a partial and arbitrary list of people influenced by Nietzsche? — goethean ॐ 18:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a loaded question, considering that it is not how I would describe my position. The way I would defend that edit is to repeat all the arguments I have made on this issue in the last couple of days. I was in agreement with another editor regarding an issue that had been discussed on the talk page and acted upon it. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 19:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure every list will be necessarily arbitrary and incomplete, that's completely beside the point. I agree with removing LaVey and Bloom. They aren't significant to Nietzsche, and so I don't think they need to be mentioned in his article. I think the policy should read " ", and that we should remove anyone who isn't sourced (Wittgenstein, Baudrillard, Iqbal, Butler, Santayana, Adorno) or significant to Nietzsche (Robakidze). I think Jung should be returned, but not Freud without a source. All in all, I feel it's better to remove people from the list, and if they can find sources they can come back. But I do think that the policy should be changed or removed. If a person's ideas are relevant to Nietzsche and they themselves are notable, that should be enough for inclusion. SSBDelphiki (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to understand how the statement that x is 'relevant to Nietzsche' can be anything but a subjective matter, considering that all of these people came after Nietzsche. On what grounds (other than personal preference) is Jung more relevant to Nietzsche than Harold Bloom? — goethean ॐ 18:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Who has decided on the 'consensus' that only so called philosophers should be included in this section? Nietzsche's influence on XX-century culture has been beyond measure and 'editing out' writers, poets, composers and others reminds one of 'Thought-Police’. Perhaps, the only sensible consensus would be – on how many of each category could be included, as space is limited. 16.05.10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.104.28 (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've always considered myself more a member of the Dream Police, but thank you for your thoughts. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 21:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Just have a look at Schopenhauer’s page (especially the ‘influenced’ section), and the most wonderful freedom of REASON (not of DOMINATION) becomes apparent. The world is ever so beautiful without the ‘Thought-Police’. I am bowing out. Yours for ever, EMC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.104.28 (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Infectious disease deaths

I have removed the category, as there is no consensus about the nature of Nietzsche's illness, or whether it was due to infectious causes or not. UserVOBO (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Is this the consensus of the ‘herd’ or consensus of geniuses (which would be impossible!)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.104.28 (talk) 07:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see the policies on civility (WP:CIVIL), and talk pages (WP:TALK). Comments like the one you made above aren't appropriate here. UserVOBO (talk) 05:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The Nazis

I recently added the words "Nietzsche has also been widely considered the philosophical inspiration for Nazism and fascism." to the lead. This is an absolutely crucial fact about Nietzsche, and it must be in the lead, which is the only part of the article many people will read. It was removed by RJC, with the edit summary, "remove Nazi influence from intro; most scholars dispute fairness of link; perception addressed in article, but too much credence given to association if put up here"

I can understand why RJC did that, but it was a mistake. It is true that the Nazis distorted Nietzsche's ideas, and there is probably general scholarly consensus about that. That does not alter the fact that the idea that Nietzsche was responsible for Nazism has been very widely held, and the article is doing its readers (not all of whom would know this) a disservice if it cannot inform them of that. If necessary, add further information to show that the connection has been disputed, but please don't remove this basic, crucial fact. UserVOBO (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It is true that the Nazis distorted Nietzsche's ideas, and there is probably general scholarly consensus about that.

That is severely understating the case. It's hard to imagine who you might have in mind who holds an opposing view. — goethean ॐ 20:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the man who compared anti-Semites to dogs. And I don't think you can really call him 'responsible for nazism', that's a bit hyperbolic. I'd say a mixture of extreme nationalism, racial romanticism and gross misapplication of darwinist theory are more responsible. The article Nazism does mention Nietzsche, but briefly, and mentions a lot of stuff in between such as the Thule Society. Zazaban (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, I didn't say that Nietzsche was responsible for Nazism. I said that he has widely been seen as an influence on Nazism and fascism, which is true - he is. It's a basic fact that should be covered properly in the lead. What is in the Nazism article at the moment is not relevant. UserVOBO (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, I missed a few words in your post where you were talking about the idea that he was responsible. Apologies. Zazaban (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you arguing that the connection with Nazism/fascism should not be mentioned at all, simply because the Nazis might have distorted Nietzsche? It can also (and has been) argued that existentialism or postmodernism distorts Nietzsche, but we aren't going to remove the connection there, surely? As I've said, it would be fair to add that the Nazi connection has been disputed, but not fair to remove it entirely. UserVOBO (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be helpful here to remind ourselves of Derrida's view on the issue of Nietzsche's alleged influence on Nazism. According to Christopher Norris, "Derrida accepts, up to a point, the arguments commonly adduced in Nietzsche's defence: that his writings were subjected to a crude and myopic misreading, encouraged by his sister's deluded proselytizing zeal. But the question remains: why did Nietzsche's texts lend themselves to treatment in this manner....[Derrida] insists that it cannot have been by chance - or owing to some wholly unforeseeable accident of history - that Nietzsche's texts took on their bad eminence in the Nazi period." (Christopher Norris, Derrida, p. 200). Derrida's view is hardly exceptional. Leszek Kolakowski said something similar - that it wasn't a coincidence that the Nazis told their supermen to read The Will to Power. UserVOBO (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The Will to Power is rather discredited as a dubious document selectively put together without Neitzsche's input. I would agree it was a very crude and myopic misreading on their part. Zazaban (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not relevant. All the notes were written by Nietzsche. The point here is that there's no consensus among scholars that Nietzsche didn't influence the Nazis - respectable scholars, Kolakowski included, hold that the adoption of Nietzschean ideas by the Nazis wasn't any kind of accident. So, this should be mentioned and properly covered in the lead. UserVOBO (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The article on Richard Wagner doesn't mention his anti-semitism in the lede. The article on Helena Blavatsky doesn't mention her influence on the Nazis (or should I say National Socialists?) — goethean ॐ 21:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That's completely irrelevant. This is the Nietzsche article - how does what might true of Wagner or Blavatsky have any relevance here? UserVOBO (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is a question of whether the association is mentioned or not. I think it is a question of whether it is misleading to highlight it in the first few paragraphs. The man said that the Jews were the strongest race in Europe, that next to them the Germans weren't even a race, and that if anything the Germans were the least Aryan people in Europe. He attacked German nationalism, devotion to the state, and socialism. It is difficult to see anything in the National Socialist program of which he approved. Historically, it is true, his sister convinced various people that Nietzsche would have been a Nazi, but no one respects her analysis. Linking him with the movement in the introduction obscures rather than reveals his thought. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 23:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What you appear to be saying is that, in your view, Nietzsche didn't really influence the Nazis, so the connection that others have seen shouldn't be in the lead. That's a POV argument. Please see WP:NPOV. We need to cover what reliable sources say, and there should be plenty of sources to show that it is not an accident that the Nazis picked up ideas from Nietzsche. UserVOBO (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that mentioning right off the bat will drastically mislead people unfamiliar with Nietzsche. Of course it should be mentioned, but not as one of the first things said about him. And nobody is saying it is 'an accident' that his ideas were picked up by the Nazis. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. Zazaban (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is clarified by WP:UNDUE. We are not debating whether his being co-opted by the Nazis should be mentioned at all. It is discussed. It is in the section on Nietzsche's reception. An article that begins "Nietzsche was a German philosopher and may have influenced the Nazis," on the other hand, gives undue weight to a minority perspective. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 06:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that it is a minority perspective that Nietzsche influenced Nazism and/or fascism? There's probably widespread agreement that the Nazis distorted Nietzsche to some degree, but it's far from obvious that there is a consensus among scholars that Nietzsche didn't influence the Nazis in any way, or indeed that their views have nothing in common with his. You need would need sources to make that case. In any event, the alleged influence of Nietzsche on the Nazis is a crucial fact that should be mentioned whether the influence was real or not - I can understand that it would need to be qualified, but I simply cannot see how anyone can justify removing it from the lead completely. (And NB, I am not proposing adding "Nietzsche was a German philosopher and may have influenced the Nazis" to the lead - it would be something more like, "Nietzsche has widely been seen as the philosophical inspiration for Nazism and fascism, but others argue that the Nazis distorted his ideas"). UserVOBO (talk) 06:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe we could just refer people to the existing WP content about Nietzsche and Fascism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_and_reception_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche#Nietzsche_and_fascism Also, I found this resource, but don't know if it would be considered "reliable" or not. http://nietzsche.thefreelibrary.com/ Pammalamma (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

We already do direct people to that article in the "Reception" section of this one. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 23:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Now your claim has to do with what most scholars believe, and you will need to find a source for that, rather than merely finding a source which says that Derrida, for example, thinks that the connection is non-coincidental. — goethean ॐ 15:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Nietzsche has widely been seen as the philosophical inspiration for Nazism and fascism, but others argue that the Nazis distorted his ideas

It would be more along the lines of: "Although Nietzsche explicitly denounced anti-Semitism and political movements of all stripes, his work was used by the Nazis to further their movement" or somesuch. — goethean ॐ 15:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No. That's not an acceptable wording. It's a POV suggestion that denies that Nietzsche exerted any influence whatever on Nazism or fascism, a claim that no one has produced any reliable sources to support. The proper, neutral way to deal with the issue would be to say that Nietzsche has been held to have influenced these movements but that others have disputed the connection. A wording that pours scorn on the idea of a connection, before even explaining what the connection is supposed to have been, would be completely wrong. UserVOBO (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to 'pour scorn' on the idea that Nietzsche has been associated with Nazis by the uneducated and supposedly educated alike. Editorial scorn should be reserved for the suggestions of editors who arrive and argue vehemently for the inclusion of garbage that throws the opening paragraph of the article out of balance. And what is adduced in support of this recommendation? We have cryptic statements by a no less obscure (if sometimes interesting) kabbalist than Derrida (whose "view" is authoritatively announced based on an interpretation by one Norris - let's not even wade into that mess) and a bit about how it couldn't have been a coincidence that the Nazi's made use of Nietzsche (as though this 'proves' anything - and in the context of Derrida's "view". Hah!). The latter twaddle is as useless as it is ambiguous. But scorn should really be reserved by editors for controversial suggestions based on what the scholarly consensus "probably" is. While the gang of current Nietzsche article regulars is heterogenous and everybody has their particular angle of interest as regards the man, among them there's a pretty broad familiarity with the literature on Nietzsche, and one that enables many participating editors to make statements based on more than probability. I cheerfully suggest you go wading through all the studies for and against his relationship with Nazism (and what particular emphasis either view might receive). Maybe then, upon your return, you'll be as bored as many here with crusaders who want to make sure that Nazis and Nazism receive front and center mention based on an altruistic desire to see that the public has a chance to be 'informed'. Even a minimum of (acceptable) comprehension of Nietzsche, resulting from a minimum of education about him reveals what a waste of time this whole debate amounts to. The whole argument is something of a sophomoric cliche. -Picatrix (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Picatrix, you have said, "Editorial scorn should be reserved for the suggestions of editors who arrive and argue vehemently..." and "But scorn should really be reserved by editors for controversial suggestions..." but that is not what WP guidelines say. The WP guidelines clearly state, in great detail, that experienced editors are not to "bite" newcomers. In this case the newcomer arrived only last month. Here is the article, in case you have not read it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DONTBITE Perhaps instead of lashing out in frustration, you should consider why the same issue keeps coming up over and over again. Does that fact not indicate that the article needs to at least account for why there is so little association in this article between Hitler and Nietzsche? Do you not find it a bit odd, from the reader's perspective that, in the "Influence and Reception" article we have an enamored Hitler gazing into the eyes of his beloved Nietzsche, but this article, which refers to it, stops just short of saying that he never even heard of the guy? After all, he never read his books, though he did give them out to others, but that doesn't mean he agreed with the ideas in the books, right? Something is wrong with this picture. I think that there is basically conflicting information between these articles, and the point of view does not seem neutral with the amount of distance that this article places between Nietzsche and fascism. Clearly, I'm not the only one who senses that, and that is why this issue will keep cropping up until it's rectified. Pammalamma (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comment is a borderline personal attack, and devoid of any substantial content. I'd advise not participating further in any discussion here if you can't say anything sensible. UserVOBO (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User:UserVOBO, since you absolutely reject my proposed wording, I will have to oppose your suggested change to the lede. — goethean ॐ 15:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely rejected your proposed wording because it violates WP:NPOV. For you to reject my wording, which would be compatible with WP:NPOV, without giving any proper reason, is not constructive. I'm going to spend some time thinking about the proper wording for a request for comment; if you have any worthwhile suggestions, I'm open to them. UserVOBO (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I offered a very generous compromise formulation, one which other editors here (RJC, Picatrix) don't seem inclined to accept (because it is too close to your position). Your response was an absolute rejection of my compromise position, full stop ("No. That's not an acceptable wording.") In addition, you imply that I am being unreasonable ("...if you have any worthwhile suggestions..."). Allow me to suggest that the one who is not being reasonable here is the brand new editor whose has spent no time in the trenches and who is insisting that his changes to the lede of this major article be immediately accepted, and who starts throwing around accusations and escalating things when they are not. — goethean ॐ 20:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether you see your compromise as "generous" or not, I don't think it is compatible with neutral point of view. It implies that there absolutely could not have been any influence whatever by Nietzsche on nazism or fascism - I don't see how that is reasonable, or what sources there are that would support such a view. I am not "insisting" that my proposed changes be accepted; I am discussing the issue on the talk page and trying to find a way to resolve it, for which I've been rewarded with personal abuse. UserVOBO (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me everybody, could we all calm down? This is starting to derail into the uncivil. Zazaban (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. How about we leave this aside for a week? RJC ^Talk_Contribs 23:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to have an artificial break if editors agree to discuss this complex issue politely and constructively, and in general act like grown-ups. UserVOBO (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

In general, I don't know that people who are hunting angry mastodons can agree to flip the switch back to civility. Temporary Disengagement tends to work well. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 02:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I can happily disengage if needed. — goethean ॐ 19:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for writing in such a way that other editors felt that I was 'biting' a newcomer. I would like to point out, however, that my post is not a borderline personal attack, nor is it devoid of substantial content. Before turning to the issue of substantial content, I'd like to point out that my 'scorn' was for "editorial suggestions" and for "controversial suggestions based on what the scholarly consensus 'probably' is". I referred to a quote of a published author's work, that was cited, as "useless", "ambiguous" and as "twaddle". The reader will note that these observations pertain to suggestions and citations, not to any editor involved in this discussion. It is therefore something of a stretch to imagine a personal attack (borderline or otherwise). As for implying that someone is a "crusader", if that qualifies in anyone's eyes as a borderline personal attack, then I really don't know what to say. Moving along to the issue of "substantial content" I suppose it will be necessary to rephrase the same observations, as nobody seems to have understood me the first time around:

1. Discussion of N. being associated with Nazis being included in the opening paragraph would give this issue undue weight and thereby throw the lead out of balance.
2. Justification of the need to include this material is based, by the editor proposing its addition, on a judgment of what scholarly consensus "probably" is. This strongly suggests that the editor proposing the change has not yet bothered to do the background research necessary to justify such an addition.
3. The one or two citations provided as justification are ambiguous and therefore insufficient to establish putative "consensus" in any way shape or form.

On one hand we have the suggestion that Nietzsche was "widely considered the philosophical inspiration for Nazism and fascism" followed by the somewhat confusing (in the light of the previous statement) assertion that "It is true that the Nazis distorted Nietzsche's ideas." We are left to wonder how Nietzsche could have been the inspiration (not an inspiration mind you, but the inspiration) if it was first necessary to distort his ideas. Nietzsche's work being exploited by a group is a very different thing from it being an "inspiration". For example, was the work of Jesus the inspiration for the Spanish Inquisition? It has been asserted that people once believed that the earth was flat; is it therefore appropriate to assert in the opening paragraph of the article on geography that people once believed the earth was flat? Misconceptions can be noted in an article, and perhaps should be, but do they belong in the lead? As for the assertions of RJC, myself, and other editors, that the inclusion of this material in the opening paragraph would give it undue weight, this seems an ineluctable conclusion, as the editor who made this suggestion has himself or herself indicated that this portion of the article is "the only part of the article many people will read". In short, the editor in question seems to be suggesting that we need to be sure that we perpetuate a misconception in the portion of the article that most people are likely to read. This is also a place in the article where precisely the degree of attention and breadth of citations necessary to ensure NPOV cannot be brought to bear. It is worth pointing out that this article already discusses the issue of Nietzsche's appropriation by Nazis. As RJC observed, "Linking him with the movement in the introduction obscures rather than reveals his thought." As other editors have accurately observed, this is not an NPOV issue at all. It's an issue of undue weight. (And/or if NPOV plays a role it is trumped here by undue weight.) As for another editor's suggestion (as regards this article and the "Influence and Reception" article) that "there is basically conflicting information between these articles" I have to ask what on earth he or she is talking about. I recently extensively rewrote the "Influence and Reception" article so I am entirely familiar with it. Nothing in this article conflicts with the information in "Influence and Reception". The difference is one of emphasis, which is entirely appropriate: the article about Nietzsche and his thought does not discuss the reception and distortion of his ideas to the same extent as the article on the man's influence and reception.--Picatrix (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Indeed, perhaps no opinion in Nietzsche scholarship is now more widely accepted than that the Nazis were wrong and/or ignorant in their appropriation of Nietzsche." (Bernd Magnus, Kathleen Marie Higgins (eds.), ‪The Cambridge Companion To Nietzsche, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p131) I'd be more than happy to provide many recent citations that show a weight of contemporary scholarly opinion favoring the idea that Nietzsche was unjustly appropriated by the NSDAP. That way we could at least raise this discussion out of the current silliness about what scholarly opinion "probably" is. Based on some familiarity with sources and scholarship, rather than "probability", I am certain that this remark in the "Cambridge Companion" will be borne out. --Picatrix (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Nietzsche's being a (real or alleged) influence on the Nazis and fascists is an issue of fundamental importance, and it should not be excluded from the lead. By all means, include whatever disclaimers or qualifications are necessary, but don't exclude obviously crucial facts. The purpose of the lead is definitely not only to explain Nietzsche's thought - it should also be to explain how people have been influenced by Nietzsche and how they have seen him; if they have seen him wrongly or the influence has been based on misunderstanding, that's all the more reason for dealing with the issue. Doing so properly is not perpetuating a misconception, and I see no reason to believe that "precisely the degree of attention and breadth of citations necessary to ensure NPOV cannot be brought to bear" in the lead. Let's remind ourselves that Nietzsche has been dead for more than a hundred years, and that this is therefore not a BLP issue, which it certainly would be if he were still alive. UserVOBO (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As for Tracy Strong's essay in The Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche, you quote it rather selectively. In context, it's fairly clear that she is arguing that there's nothing inherently absurd about associating Nietzsche with the Nazis, on the grounds that, for instance, a serious thinker like him couldn't possibly have any connection with a bunch of dolts like them. She dismisses the idea that Nazism per se is incompatible with serious thought, giving Heidegger and Schmitt as examples of intellectually serious Nazis, then comments, "Nor can Nietzsche's obvious importance in and of itself exclude him or differentiate him from evil." Shortly after the passage you cite, Strong observes that while Nietzsche rejects anti-semitism, he nevertheless made comments about Jews that would be considered utterly unacceptable now (eg, "the priestly instinct of the Jew [had] committed the...great crime against history.") UserVOBO (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't quote it selectively at all. She is not "arguing that there's nothing 'inherently' absurd about associating Nietzsche with the Nazis". I would suggest you look more closely at what she wrote, or read the entire article.

Strong writes:

"I am not ultimately interested in the questions "Who owns Nietzsche?" or "Who are Nietzsche's legitimate and bastard children" Instead, I am interested in asking what it means to ask such questions. Indeed, I want to argue that Nietzsche's writing serves to break the hold that such claimed genealogies might have on us."

and

"I need to be clear here: I am not trying to argue that "Nietzsche was (would have been) a Nazi," but I am also not trying to exclude that possibility on the grounds that his texts "show" us that he wasn't (or would not have been). Such "refutations" depend on showing that the Nazis misread Nietzsche's texts. For a text to be misread, one has to assume it contains a meaning, or at least does not contain certain meanings, in this case the ones that the Nazis claimed to find. Refutation here requires only that one bring to light a "correct" reading; from this it would follow that the Nazis were wrong or desperate in their reading of Nietzsche, and the question of the relationship would be closed."

We can see here that the author is not entering into the 'meaning of the text debate' at all, which is precisely why the ambiguity in interpretation is underlined (which is in keeping with the entire thrust of the article, which focuses on why Nietzsche lends himself to such a wide range of interpretations. But the author immediately indicates:

"Such a 'meaning of the text' approach has met with some success. Indeed, perhaps no opinion in Nietzsche scholarship is more widely accepted than that the Nazis were wrong and/or ignorant in their appropriation of Nietzsche. Credit in the English-speaking world for having demonstrated this, and thus for having again made possible the serious study of Nietzsche, is generally accorded to the late Walter Kaufmann."

and

"Nietzsche is available to a wide range of political appropriations, indeed perhaps to all."

and

"Nietzsche's texts, therefore, are written in such a manner that if one seeks to find out what they "really mean," to appropriate them, one will only project one's own identity onto them."

In any case the author's own argument in this particular essay is less important (given that it introduces more subtlety in interpretation and more ambiguity) than the affirmative statement I quoted at the outset. The point is not whether the author claims a Nazi relationship, the point is that a reputable scholarly publication written to a high standard provides us with a citation that unequivocally states " Indeed, perhaps no opinion in Nietzsche scholarship is more widely accepted than that the Nazis were wrong and/or ignorant in their appropriation of Nietzsche." I did not offer the quote to establish whether the author (Strong) felt an argument could be made for Nietzsche being a 'proto-Nazi'. I offered the quote as a first citation establishing scholarly consensus regarding Nazi misappropriation of Nietzsche. The title of this article is, after all, "Nietzsche's political misappropriation". Given that the author asserts that Nietzsche is "available to a wide range of political appropriations, indeed perhaps to all" how then is it possible to pretend that he or she could make an argument for or against any particular affinity between Nietzsche and Nazism over any other political stance? The quote stands as a solid contemporary citation in support of the assertion that scholarly consensus favors the idea that the Nazis misappropriated Nietzsche. --Picatrix (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

We should be specific about what's under discussion. To tap that issue once more: There is (apparently) no lack of editorial consensus that Nietzsche's appropriation or misappropriation by the Nazis should be discussed in the article. Indeed, it already is discussed in the article. If you want to expand it, that's fine with me. While there are definitely scholars who still feel that his appropriation by the Nazis was 'no accident' (whatever that, ultimately, means), they are today in a minority. Giving voice to a minority view in the lead without extensive qualification will throw NPOV out of balance by loading it with undue weight. Adding the necessary explanation and qualification to the lead will bloat it out of lead shape. The historical fact of the outdated view that Nietzsche's thought somehow contributed to the rise of Nazism, or that the selective use of his ideas by Nazis made him a 'proto-Nazi', while interesting, doesn't warrant placement in the lead without extensive qualification and contextualization to avoid giving the highly-charged issue of associating anyone with Nazis the attention it deserves.--Picatrix (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It might help if you didn't write such long, flustered comments. Also, I can read you and understand your points well enough without boldface type, thanks. Strong does indeed argue, among other things, that there's nothing inherently absurd about associating Nietzsche with the Nazis, and it's beyond me how you think those lengthy quotations from her essay show otherwise. Your effort at showing that Strong does not argue that Nietzsche should be associated only with Nazism is a wasted one, since I never suggested such a thing. UserVOBO (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What it means to say that Nietzsche's use by the Nazis was no accident should be clear enough - aspects of his rhetoric, and arguably some of his ideas, were similar to theirs, so they used him. You offer no convincing evidence that there is a scholarly consensus against this view, which deals with an altogether different issue from whether Nietzsche himself was the kind of thinker who would endorse Nazism. The lead guideline states that an article this long should have a lead consisting of three or four paragraphs; the lead currently only has three paragraphs, so there's no reason it can't be expanded. UserVOBO (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

And it might help if you didn't indulge in speculation regarding my mental state. I'll thank you not to. Leaving aside my "flustered comments", Strong does not argue that "there's nothing absurd..." etc. The author simply makes that observation. The thrust of this study, and hence what the author is arguing, is that "Nietzsche is available to a wide range of political appropriations, indeed perhaps to all." and "Nietzsche's texts, therefore, are written in such a manner that if one seeks to find out what they "really mean," to appropriate them, one will only project one's own identity onto them." The point, therefore (if not underneath my hat) is: why does the ongoing academic debate regarding Nietzsche and Nazis deserve mention in the opening paragraph? We leave aside here the question of what scholarly consensus is today regarding any claims related to the accuracy of him being the "philosophical inspiration for Nazism and Fascism" (your words). And again, in your words, "This is an absolutely crucial fact about Nietzsche, and it must be in the lead". What is the justification you provide for this? How is it a critical fact? I'm not asking your opinion here. I'm asking for a citation that establishes that this is a critical fact, and that this aspect of his (possible) 'influence' deserves special mention at the outset of any consideration of the man and his thought. Special mention, I should hasten to add, that will cause the smear of association with Nazis to loom larger in the mind of all future readers than any other possible or proposed influence or appropriation. Are you suggesting that it is critical that we should mention this fact so that readers should be warned away from him?

Can we also show in the lead how everyone has appropriated Nietzsche and how today we have many Nietzsches (read Aschheim)? If we're going to be balanced we'll definitely need to mention that he was also controversially appropriated (misappropriated?) by Zionists, Feminists, Anarchists, Marxists and most influentially in recent times, Post-Marxists. We should also probably cover the fact that there is no consensus regarding what ground or context any analysis of any possible or putative relation between Nietzsche and these movements should be framed within. There will need to be extensive footnotes. Participating editors will actually have to read.--Picatrix (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I commented about your comments, not about you. You were fairly emphatic about the difference when it was suggested that you were engaging in a borderline personal attack. Frankly, I find your comments so unpleasant that I'm disinclined to comment further at this point. UserVOBO (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Users goethean and Picatrix are correct. Some Nazi intellectuals (if I can use the term) claimed Nietzsche as a precursor of Nazism. This appropriation was neither official nor universal even at the time, and was based - as indicated briefly above - not on what Nietzsche himself published but on selective compilations taken largely from his unpublished writings by editors with political agendas. I am not aware of any serious dispute about these facts: an excellent source is the part of Hans Sluga's Heidegger's Crisis devoted to Nietzsche (begins page 42). There may be a minority support for the view that Nietzsche had an authentic influence on Nazism, but that should not be respresented in the lede. User VOBO raises a concern that the position I'm putting forward here violates POV, but I am not sure why. There are plenty more sources; what I don't see here (although the name of Leszek Kolakowski was thrown out) is a reasonably current source to support the language VOBO advocates. Do you have anything?KD Tries Again (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

You've misunderstood what I was trying to achieve (which you wouldn't have done if you'd read the discussion above carefully). The text I added to the lead was, "Nietzsche has also been widely considered the philosophical inspiration for Nazism and fascism." The distinction between saying that Nietzsche has been seen as the philosophical inspiration for Nazism and fascism and that he actually was the philosophical inspiration for Nazism and fascism should be easy to understand. That Nietzsche has been seen as being the inspiration for such movements is a fact, and most certainly should be mentioned in the lead, since it has always affected the popular view of him. UserVOBO (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As the article on Nietzsche's influence makes clear, he has been associated with any number of political movements. If we wish to put his influence on the Nazis in the lede without biasing the case, could we say something like, "Nietzsche's philosophy has been associated with such disparate political movements as anarchism and authoritarianism, leftist intellectuals and German militarists, National Socialism, post-structuralist Marxism, neoconservatism, and multiculturalism." RJC ^Talk_Contribs 00:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Nietzsche in the popular mind is associated overwhelmingly with the Nazis, and with little else. That's why it would be appropriate to discuss the issue in the lead, and explain that the Nazis distorted him. Numerous other movements might include some thinkers interested in Nietzsche, but that in itself hardly seems a reason to mention them in the lead. UserVOBO (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it has been your experience that Nietzsche is associated in "the popular mind" (whatever that might be) with the Nazis and with little else. That has not been my experience. In any case editorial decisions should not, of course, be driven by your experience or mine. Yet again, do you have any citations that support your assertion that today Nietzsche is overwhelmingly associated with Nazism in the "popular mind" and with little else? Do you have any citations supporting your assertion that this is a "critical fact", and in what context? I recognized and noted in the discussion above that the claim of influence and the historical fact of the perception of influence were two separate issues. Now you appear to be trying to slide over from the historical fact of the Nazi association into a claim of contemporary relevance based on your highly personal and in any case questionable assessment of the "popular mind". Based on the complete absence of citations to support your assertion that today Nietzsche is associated in the "popular mind" with Nazism, you appear to be supporting your suggestion based on the following chain of reasoning:

1. I think most people think Nietzsche was a Nazi, so I'll say (based on a habit of claiming what scholarly consensus "probably" is, rather than actually providing citations) that this is overwhelmingly the popular association.
2. Nazism is bad.
3. Readers should know that Nietzsche was associated with Nazism.

While I won't argue the second point, or the third (as already noted the association is already discussed in the article), you'll forgive me, I hope, if I ask that you provide citations that support the first. I asked you above if you perhaps might be motivated by the desire to ensure that readers were 'warned' about Nietzsche. I note I received no response. Steven Aschheim, certainly a formidable scholar with a very extensive, subtle, and thorough knowledge of Nietzsche's work and its reception, noted:

"precisely because of its immense emotive and symbolic power and its relevance as a governing metaphor of 'evil,' the accusation of or comparison with Nazism and Nazi-like behavior and intentions is employed by virtually all sides of many political and cultural debates as a potent "label," the ultimate critique and form of political outlawing" - Aschheim, In Times Of Crisis (2001) pp 52-53

Aschheim, by the by, seriously examines the various ways in which Nietzsche has been associated with Nazis. I recommended his work to you once already. Here's one example of his thoughts on Nietzsche and Nazis:

"During the Third Reich, then, Nietzsche and Nietzschean categories were fundamental axes around which grasping, defining and critiquing the era revolved. Even when the relationship was adversarial, there was a perceived need to confront its claims, to conduct arguments within its terms. A widespread sense prevailed that, in a profound if inchoate way, Nietzsche's "authentic metaphysical domain" was somehow bound up with the essence of the Nazi project. These hermeneutical questions and the nature of the Nietzsche-Nazi relationship have been the subject of heated and unresolved debate and reflection from the 1930s through our own time. They hold up a mirror to Nietzsche's ongoing role as a peculiarly sensitive symbol and seismometer of our own crucial existential and cultural concerns." – Aschheim, The Nietzsche Legacy In Germany, 1890-1990 (1994) p271

However, this same scholar, and the one that most unflaggingly makes convincing arguments for continuing to associate Nietzsche with Nazism based on more than misappropriation notes:

"[…] We have also examined the role that Nietzschean impulses played within the increasingly fractured, crisis-ridden worlds of German religion and socialism and their multifunctional infusion into a host of currents, marginal as well as central. These included the artistic avant-garde, the Stefan George circle, vegetarians, sexual liberationists, the Youth movements, feminism, Zionism, expressionism, völkisch groups, conservative revolutionaries, and, of course, national socialism." - The Nietzsche Legacy In Germany, 1890-1990, p308

We can see here the same sort of thing we see in Strong's assessment quoted above: "Nietzsche is available to a wide range of political appropriations, indeed perhaps to all."

"The paradigmatic Nietzsche of the 1930s, 1940s, and early 1950s, then, was the Nietzsche regarded as the thinker most crucially and intimately definitive of the Nazi order. […] This perception began to shift in about the mid-1950s and, although there have always been counter-challenges, it has proceeded so apace that, for many younger people educated from about the 1970s on, the identification seems virtually incomprehensible. Not only Nietzsche's de-Nazification–and a corresponding de-Nietzscheanization of Nazism–but also his disassociation from the political right has become close to a fait accompli within English-speaking countries and France. […] the Nietzsche(s) of our own times could only arise, like those of other times, because changed circumstances induced and encouraged him to be read and emphasized in this particular way. Nietzsche has simultaneously influenced but also been appropriately reconstructed to fit what his champions take to be our own age of radical ideological and epistemological indeterminacy. Like other constructions–including my own–all interpretations of Nietzsche are particularly and historically conditioned." - In Times of Crisis, pp 15-20

You will note in this quote that Aschheim specifically states that the association of Nietzsche with Nazism has decreased, and that among the educated today, the Nazi identification might seem "incomprehensible". I have provided citations supporting the assertion that today the scholarly consensus tends towards the idea that Nietzsche was 'missppropriated' and should not be seen as a proto-Nazi ("Indeed, perhaps no opinion in Nietzsche scholarship is more widely accepted than that the Nazis were wrong and/or ignorant in their appropriation of Nietzsche."). I have provided a citation that shows that in English speaking countries and in France, the Nazi association is no longer dominant. I have provided many, many citations (here and in the Influence and Reception article) showing that he appealed to a broad and often contradictory range of social and political movements. I have even given you a champion you could mine for citations (if you felt inclined to share more than your personal opinions) in the form of Aschheim, who's a damned fine scholar. And what citations have you provided?

If we mention his appropriation (whether mis- or not) in the lead paragraph we should also mention his appropriation by other movements in the same sentence (as I myself and RJC have previously suggested). I would weigh in for Anarchism, Zionism, Marxism (post, though there are earlier currents) and Fascism (including, of course, National Socialism). I emphasize, however, that I have yet to see any compelling reason for cramming any of this into the lead paragraph. I would also recommend (again and yet again) that 'we' stop sharing our opinions here and start sharing citations. --Picatrix (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

VOBO, I am surprised I need to remind you of WP:CIV after my first intervention in this discussion. I did read carefully, I did understand your proposal for the lede, and the distinction you make is indeed easy to understand. Unfortunately, it seems I failed to be sufficiently clear about the problem you face. It is arguably true to say that Nietzsche once was considered an inspiration for Nazism, and perhaps that is what the slightly ambiguous "has also been" is meant to signify. The point made by myself and other editors here is that this is no longer the case, and has not been for some time. I agree that it is of sufficient historical interest for inclusion in the article, but outdated scholarship is not suitable for the lede. In case it's still not clear, I am not arguing about whether the Nazis understood Nietzsche or distorted Nietzsche or anything like that. I am disputing that Nietzsche was an inspiration to Nazism at all. Several interested individuals (Elisabeth Fortster-Nietzsche, Friedrich Gundolf, Alfred Baumler, etc) lobbied to make Nietzsche a Nazi icon; they foisted tendentiously edited texts on the public; Hitler was persuaded to have his photo taken alongside a bust of Nietzsche; but ultimately they were unsuccessful. Rosenberg remained the official philosopher of the movement. The full details were not, I think, well known during the years that casual connections between Nietzsche and Nazism were drawn.

In other words, I think the following would be an accurate statement: "In the past, Nietzsche was widely considered, quite wrongly, the philosophical inspiration for Nazism and fascism." It's surely evident that that's not a lede-worthy statement. Incidentally, I am convinced the article should be based on reliable sources and not popular opinion. Quite possibly many people think Nietzsche was a Nazi. That's not our concern.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

To reply to Picatrix: I don't believe that I need to explain the expression "the popular mind." Your demand for sources would be appropriate if I were insisting on adding any material at this stage, but as you may have noticed, I am not. I am taking my time over the issue, so your long, near-hysterical comments are uncalled for. Regarding your question about my motives ("I asked you above if you perhaps might be motivated by the desire to ensure that readers were 'warned' about Nietzsche"), I did not answer it because it was rude and inappropriate. And I'm aware of who Steven Aschheim is, thanks. UserVOBO (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

To reply to KD Tries Again: I do not think that I am the one being uncivil here. With respect, I disagree with you about this issue. The historic association of Nietzsche with nazism and fascism is certainly an important enough issue to be addressed in the lead, which does not mean, again, that I'm insisting on adding anything about it immediately. I never proposed basing the article on popular opinion, and you're seriously misreading me if you think I was. Finally, may I suggest that you remind yourself that Wikipedia is a project aimed at educating a popular audience - it benefits from academic contributors, but it isn't aimed at academics who believe, rightly or wrongly, that they already understand a subject. So what many people think should and must be a concern. UserVOBO (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been reading both of you, and I don't think either of you are being particularly uncivil, apart from accusing each other of being so. A bit into it, maybe. Zazaban (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

This discussion has been going on for quite some time and I think we're repeating arguments. Has anyone been persuaded that the Nazis should be mentioned in the lede? If this is the position of one editor, after the arguments have been exhausted, then it might be time to move on. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Me too. At times like these, I think it's best to just agree to disagree. Zazaban (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Nietzsche as a composer

I am only an amateur Nietzsche reader, but I've noticed that in this article Nietzsche's musical compositions are barely mentioned.

Whilst I do appreciate that his music pales into insignificance next to his philosophy, I think that it would nevertheless be worth mentioning at some point, if only for the biographical value (particularly when one considers the emphasis Nietzsche himself placed upon his music).

Unfortunately, I am not particularly well-versed in this subject. This lecture (http://www.virtusens.de/walther/n_komp_e.htm) seems reputable, but that's not something I can confirm. Are there any Nietzsche scholars who can validate the aforementioned lecture, and/or give some suggestions as to the incorporation of Nietzsche's music into the article? I'd be happy to have a go at condensing the lecture, although, not being particularly well-versed in the subject, I don't know how well it would turn out.Naviduk (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

I'm surprised there´s a whole page on his reception and no page whatsoever on criticism on him! He must have detractors and critics, why nothing of that is shown in a heading of its own? Undead Herle King (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Two things...

Ambiguous sentence in "Youth"

This, from the end of the second paragraph of the Youth section: "At Schulpforta, Nietzsche received an important introduction to literature, particularly that of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and for the first time experienced a distance from his family life in a small-town Christian environment" seems to be able to be read two ways: it could read "experienced a distance from his family and its small-town Christian environment" or that he "experienced a small-town Christian environment which was distant from his family."

I assume it means away from his Christian family, but I hardly know a thing about the environment of Schulpforta, so I thought someone else could make the change. SSBDelphiki (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Reading & Influences

Seems to me that the "Influence from Heraclitus" section could be merged with the following section, which could be renamed "Influences." SSBDelphiki (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Lots of new names

Can we have some evidence please, for all the names which have just been added? --Snowded ^TALK 10:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Wagner

In order to understand N's break with Wagner, one must read N's The Case of Wagner, as well as Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation, Volume I, Book 4. I know that this is an extremely difficult demand to make on anyone. If, however, they are read, it will then be evident that N was rejecting the attitude that the world is an evil place that must be avoided and hated. N took this to be the Christian attitude. If these two writings are not read, then it will not be clear why N broke with Wagner.Lestrade (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Nietzsche was rejecting far more than what he saw as the Christian, and Buddhist view of the world. He also argues that 'the word 'spirit' in the NT is a mere misunderstanding', and also says we must 'resist our ambition which would found religion', an ambition to answer the question of who redeems mankind. This is before his creation of the Zarathustra figure, which is arguably a religious icon. - ML —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.159.190 (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yet again, on Nietzsche's ancestry

Max Oehler's "study" on Nietzsche's ancestry needs to be taken with a grain of salt. First of all Oehler was a Nazi party member, and as curator of the Nietzsche-Archiv he worked as much as possible to popularize his Nazi view of Nietzsche in speeches and essays.

I've also added Nietzsche's own Self-concept, yet to have them both, removed by an editor that seems to the gatekeeper of this article.

Please do discuss here before reverting.

Thanks Likeminas (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Being Polish

Can this be doulbe check, becuase I been talking with alot people and none heard he claim to be polish descent before ? As you can tell i did not destory anything and one can put it back. It just alot people I ask claim they never heard of it before.(Danny Boy 17:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC))

It is sourced; this is not based on original research, it is irrelevant if you've never heard of it. And it is generally frowned upon to delete large chucks of sourced text without any discussion. Zazaban (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that we know that Nobel–Prize winner Herta Müller is from a Romanian town called Nitzkydorf or Niţchidorf, we might suspect that Nietzsche's name is Romanian, not Polish or German. He looks Romanian.Lestrade (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Nieczy is a Polish surname, pronounced in a similar fashion to the German rendering of it which is Nietsche. I'm amazed by comments which attempt to deny Nietsche's Polish roots. Anyone familiar with German history realizes that it would indeed be difficult to identify a German who did not have Polish ancestry. The Prussians are descended from Poles who have embraced a dialect of the Batavian (Deutsch) language as a result of the influence of the Catholic Church whose priests derived from the Low Countries. As the influence of the Church spread eastward across the Rhine, the Dutch or Deutsch dialects spread with it. Wherever the priests proselytized and crusaded as they moved across Germany they created administrative enclaves and encouraged and insisted on the adoption of their language. The numerous German cities with Polish or Slavonic names, Berlin ( "the Barges"), Leipzig (the Linden Tree), Dresden (the Flat Lands), Naumberg (Nubgrad), Rostock, Lubeck, Kiel, Chelmnitz ( they probably grew hops there)bear witness to the origins of the culture and people who identify themselves as Germans today. The Irish, Scots and Welsh are Celts who have largely abandoned, for whatever reason, their highly structured, ancestral Celtic languages for the simpler English and the Germans are largely Poles, Czechs, Sorbs and Wends who have, for somewhat different reasons abandoned their highly structured Slavonic languages for the simpler Deutsch. The characterization of Nietsche's association with his conspicuously Polish roots as "fictive" is naive and disingenuous. 205.232.233.166 (talk) Frank Templar, A German who,like Nietsche, KNOWS his nation's origins.

Notes on citizenship, nationality and ethnicity

Nietzsche is commonly classified as a “German” philosopher by professionals and non-specialists alike. The modern unified nation-state called Germany did not yet exist at the time of his birth, but the German Confederation of states did, and Nietzsche was a citizen of one of these, Prussia – for a time. When he accepted his post at Basel, Nietzsche applied for the annulment of his Prussian citizenship. The official response confirming the revocation of his citizenship came in a document dated April 17, 1869. Thus, officially he became stateless.

Nietzsche's feelings about his national identity were clearly complex. In Ecce Homo, he writes:

Even by virtue of my descent, I am granted an eye beyond all merely local, merely nationally conditioned perspectives; it is not difficult for me to be a "good European." On the other hand, I am perhaps more German than present-day Germans, mere citizens of the German Reich, could possibly be—I, the last anti-political German. And yet my ancestors were Polish noblemen: I have many racial instincts in my body from that source—who knows? [...] When I consider how often I am addressed as a Pole when I travel, even by Poles themselves, and how rarely I am taken for a German, it might seem that I have been merely externally sprinkled with what is German.

A later revision of the same passage was discovered in 1969 among the papers of Peter Gast. In it Nietzsche is even more adamant about his Polish Identity. “I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood.” On yet another occasion Nietzsche stated “Germany is a great nation only because its people have so much Polish blood in their veins... I am proud of my Polish descent.”

A later revision of the same passage was discovered in 1969 among the papers of Peter Gast. In it Nietzsche is even more adamant about his Polish Identity. “I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood.” On yet another occasion Nietzsche stated “Germany is a great nation only because its people have so much Polish blood in their veins... I am proud of my Polish descent.”

I have to clear up this misunderstanding: Nietzsche had no Polish ancestors. I've found an article (unfortunately in Hungarian) where contemporary philosophers talk about his fictive ancestors whom he created for himself. I'll try to find an English article.

Let me chum the shark-infested waters here and suggest that it would be possible to refer to Nietzsche as a Prussian philosopher. :-) AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

But seriously, folks, why not just call him a European? He renounced his Prussian citizenship and went off to live in Italy and Switzerland as a stateless person. Yet he also called himself Polish. So, why not just call him European? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

We hashed this out in archives 10, 11, 12, and 15 (links below). RJC ^Talk_Contribs 20:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you contact me somehow user RJC? Thanks -> --Skychildandsonofthesun (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC) (new-ish to wiki-editing so not sure how to contact you, thanks)

"Nietzsche" is Germanized form of "Nitzky."Lestrade (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

The sources mentioned below contest this. The editor of the KGB simply dismisses it in his notes; the scholars who have looked into Nietzsche's family tree contest the genealogy Nietzsche's sister put forward to support it; two recent biographies say that it is not true. I am waiting for someone to provide a contemporary secondary source that gives credence to the myth before reverting an editor's changes that suggest that it is true. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious that the German name–ending "sche" is a variation of the Slavic ending "ski." It occurs in many Germanized Slavic names.Lestrade (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

Nietzsche as Polish (Again ... again ... again)

The question of whether Nietzsche was Polish has come up again. This has been discussed multiple times in the talk archive (e.g., here, which also points to discussions on the German Wikipedia). Quoting everyone who says that Nietzsche was Polish seems to give undue weight to that view; quoting Nietzsche to that end also gives undue weight and constitutes original research (we can quote primary sources only for uncontroversial biographical facts). As such, I have reverted some edits that attempted to substantiate the fact that Nietzsche was Polish and cast doubt upon contrary evidence. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a nice try, but (we can quote primary sources only for uncontroversial biographical facts) that only applies to Biographies of living persons, see BLP.

Yet it is really ludicrous to say that Nietzsche's own writing cannot be considered reliably when it comes to Personal identity.

If his own views of himself cannot be considered reliable, I don't know what can. Likeminas (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems hyperbolic. Nietzsche's reconstruction of his family's ancestry is not on a par with the name of his mother or whether he considered himself an atheist. Nietzsche's own words fall under WP:PRIMARY, from which we can draw evidence for his opinion but not evidence concerns facts (which would presume that his opinion was correct). By your interpretation of what we can take from primary sources, a man's claim to be the messiah cannot be supported by his own statements while he is alive but can once he's dead. I do not think that was the intention of including the guidance about using self-published claims in WP:BLP but not WP:PRIMARY.

Leaving aside accusations of my bad-faith references to policy, you have not responded to the issues raised in the past on this topic. Oehler's reliability is on point, but aside from aspersions on his character what evidence is there that he was wrong? What about the Muller article mentioned in the talk archive I pointed to, or the sources mentioned in the German Wikipedia discussions (one quotes from Janz's biography extensively on this subject)? It seems these secondary sources are matched by original research from primary sources in these discussions: how is your point different? RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Addendum. One editor has summarized the case (in German) here. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(un-indented)Let me start off by saying this is the English Wikipedia, so I’ll stick to it regardless of the ongoing or past discussion that might have taken place in the German, Polish, Spanish or any other language Wikipedia for that matter. So if you wish to present information in another language (to be used as reliable source) please do so by pointing to the original source and its proper translation as required by the English Wikipedia.

Now it seems to me that you are claiming two things here: 1)That Nietzsche’s self-concept of his own ancestry should not be included because “Nietzsche's own words fall under WP:PRIMARY”

Well, I can only hope you’ve read WP:Primary because it clearly states that; “A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge.”

My edits don’t claim he WAS Polish. They only describe how Nietzsche felt about his ancestry. I’ve added no interpretation or synthesis to it. So I don’t really see how they can possibly violate that Wiki rule. If anything, I’d argue that by not including his own statements on his own ancestry would amount to a violation of WP:NPOV.

(See the debate on the ancestry/race debate on the Barrack Obama article for a nice example.)

You also for some reason continue to think that WP:BLP applies to this article.

Here's what I found this on that policy:

This policy does not apply to edits about the deceased, but material about the deceased may have implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of the recently deceased, so anything questionable should be removed promptly.

In other words, that policy should not be quoted again. It just doesn't apply, despite poor Messianic analogies.

As for Oehler's reliability, I haven’t not removed it from the article. In fact -I think it should definitely stay- but just not as a “matter of fact” as it was previously presented.

Oehler was associated with the Nazis in an era where the concept of the “Ubermensch” was a hot seller; thus, finding Nietzsche to be entirely German on his “study” was not a big surprise, if you asked me.

Now, I’m not saying that his claims are entirely incorrect, but they should not be presented as “facts” unless other reliable sources agree with it, and more importantly they should be presented within its proper historical context. So far, I’ve seen nothing on his studies but a single (offline) source on it. If it is so widely accepted by scholars, one would expect more sources on it, don’t you agree?

Likeminas (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine, English first on the English Wikipedia. I apologize if I just assumed that someone who held themselves forwards as a Nietzsche expert would speak German. To summarize the evidence summarized here, the critical editions of Nietzsche's works and Janz's biography of Nietzsche claim that the Polish ancestry bit is a foundationless myth.

• Hans von Müller wrote a manuscript entitled "Nietzsches Vorfahren" in 1935-37 which debunked the myth; it was reprinted in Nietzsche-Studien Band 31 (2002), pp. 253-275. It attacks Nietzsche's sister's account. For example, she speaks of a "Niëtzky" ancestor in 1716 whom records show living in Germany as "Nietzsche," i.e., without the Polish spelling. And so far from being a noble, that ancestor's father (baptized 1662 as "Nietzsche") was a butcher.
• The evidence leaves the possibility that the 1716 ancestor married a Polish woman. Even Oehler was willing to admit some non-German ancestors, being criticized by other scholars just for refusing to admit that they might be Polish. But a Nietzsche's marrying a Pole is quite different from Nietzsche being a Polish family.
• Looking to what the editor of the Kritischen Gesamtausgabe of Nietzsche's letters has to say, his comment on "my ancestors were Polish nobility; even my grandfather's mother was Polish" (to Heinrich von Stein, December 1882, KGB III 7.1 p. 313), is that this was a Fehlmeinung, a mistaken belief. To Nietzsche's claim that "my ancestors were Polish nobility (Niezky)" (to Georg Brandes, 10. 4. 1888, KGB III 7.3/1 p. 293), the editor comments that "this legend spread by Neitzsche tends to be without foundation."
• Pia Daniela Volz: Nietzsche im Labyrinth seiner Krankheit (Königshausen und Neumann, Würzburg 1990) comes to the same conclusion, as does Nietzsche's biographer, Curt Paul Janz: Friedrich Nietzsche. Biographie (Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, München 1981).

So again we are back to the situation where all the secondary sources say the the myth is false while proponents of the Polish thesis rely on unreliable primary sources and tortured interpretations of when they can and cannot be used. Unless I see a reliable secondary source and responses to it such as to prove that there is ongoing controversy about Nietzsche's heritage, I will restore the language about Nietzsche's claims to Polish heritage being a myth and remove the references to primary sources that give undue weight to that myth's credence. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the language from WP:BLP is repeated verbatim in WP:SPS, except without the "living person" restriction. Nietzsche's comments about his ancestry go against conditions 1 ("the material is not unduly self-serving," as in claims to nobility), 2 ("it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)," as in claims about long-dead ancestors), and 3 ("it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject," again as in long-dead ancestors). So, can we drop the policy discussions and focus on the substance? RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Like RJC, I too have seen all realible sources calling Nietzsche's "Polish ancesty" a myth. I did not go through all of the edits performed in the section after I last edited it, but I believe the current version - last edited by RJC and FeanorStar7 - is really good and should not be changed in favour of a Polish bias. It seems that this discussion is part of several ones taking place in many biography articles - where disputes are fought over whether someone should be called "Polish" or not - and it concerns me a bit that some editors are going to great lengths to present a person as "Polish", although this is in conflict with the sources. Tropical wind (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

(un-indented) I don’t know how you come up with that non-sense of me trying to appear as a “Nietzsche expert”. I've never said or even implied to be one. But leaving snobbish stuff aside, I hope you can forgive my ignorance for not knowing German and requesting that you present English material in the English Wikipedia as it is normally required… Anyways, I digress.

Please notice, that nowhere I ask for the removal of the material that claims Nietzsche was pure German, I don’t even disagree with the inclusion of the so-called “study” done by the Nazi sympathizers. I just don’t personally agree with all that material being presented as fact.

Like I said before, removing almost all descriptions of Nietzsche’s own self-perception gives undue weight to one side of the issue.

And by the way; trying to equate WP:BLP with WP:SPS seems just like a desperate attempt. WP:SPS 1) is not self-serving; the guy is dead, he’s got nothing to gain from such claims, especially when “most scholars” have refuted them, right? 2)Which third parties? Please name them. 3), 4), 5) comply very nicely with article.

So, in view that the current version of the article has an unbalanced POV and omits relevant information on the subject, I will tag it accordingly. Likeminas (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I answered these questions: you can go back up and read them. Claims to nobility are self-serving; for an anti-German German to claim he is not German is also self-serving. The claims involve other parties, viz. his ancestors, where they came from, what religion they were, why they left, etc.; they do not involve where he went to school, by contrast. And what happened to his ancestors some centuries ago involves a claim not directly related to him. So 1, 2, and 3 of WP:SPS have been failed. And you might want to check the diff: my "unbalanced" version of the section preserves the information you had added (other than the fact that Oehler was a Nazi). Would you mind removing the template? RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

RJC, Your initially attempt at using WP:BLP as an enforceable policy on an article of a dead guy, tells me you might not be very well aware of WP policies or perhaps, you have (conviniently?)misinterpreted WP:SPS this time.

So, in order to avoid a tedious and rather unproductive back & forth, I suggest you request clarification by opening a WP:RFC. If I’m on the wrong, I will quietly accept it and remove myself from your article.

As for the template, I think it should stay. Important information on the subject has been removed. Likeminas (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'll open an RfC. Just for the record, though, you brought up BLP: I said only that primary sources can be used only for uncontroversial information. And I assume that the important information you refer to is that Oehler was a Nazi. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

WAS NIETZSCHE INFLUENCED BY POLISH LINGUISTIC GENIUS IGNACY PIETRASZEWSKI ?

Polish orientalist, Ignacy Pietraszewski(1796-1869), was a philosophy professor at Berlin University, expert on Zoroastrianism and the Avesta, i.e. the sacred language of Zoroastrianism. In his "Das slavische Eigentum seit dreitausend Jahren, oder nicht Zendavesta, aber Zendaschta, das heisst das lebenbringende Buch des Zoroaster" ("Slavic Heritage of Three Thousand Years, but not Zendavesta only Zendaschta, Being the Lifegiving Book of Zoroaster," 1857 (?)), he claimed the Polish language is closely related to the Avestan language, i.e. the sacred (Iranian) language of Zoroastrianism (in the Avestan language Zoroaster is called Zarathustra). For his views Pietraszewski lost his job at Berlin University (due to Polonophobic sentiment?). It seems highly lkely that Pietraszewski's works had a strong influence on Nietzsche, but, characteristically, this subject does not seem to have been ever investigated by so-called experts on Nietzsche (due to their Polonophobia, or anti-Polish racist attitude?). To the author of the entry on Nietzsche: I hope you don't remove also this post of mine. You already took off my post pertaining to Nietzche's Polish extraction - a post containing no abuse of any one, only pertinent points and questions. Are you a Polonophobe, i.e. anti-Polish racist, by the way? I understand you're American, aren't you? Of what origin? The modern anti-Polish racism comes almost exclusively from the USA.