Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein

Translations in Publication of the Tractatus

Is this an officially transcribed translation from Wittgenstein, or did an editor here provide the English?

I ask because the translated text is not precise. For example,

> Der Satz ist eine Wahrheitsfunktion der Elementarsätze.

Is translated as

> Propositions are truth-functions of elementary propositions.

Satz, Wahrheitsfunktion and Elementarsätze are given, however, with their singular pronouns, and would be more precisely translated as

"The proposition is a truth function of the elementary proposition."

I'll hopefully check back in a month or two, if someone knows and can answer that'd be great. Otherwise I think it'd be a good idea to improve the translations.

Wolfraem (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Austrian-British?

Is it ridiculous to call Wittgenstein "British"? The article says this: "After G. E. Moore resigned the chair in philosophy in 1939, Wittgenstein was elected, and acquired British citizenship soon afterwards." I have searched the archives, but have found no previous discussion on his nationality. Albert Einstein, who had German-American nationality, has been suggested as a comparable case. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Britannica labels him "Austrian-born British". Favonian (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

That seems perfectly sensible. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, does it? So I guess Einstein is a German-born American scientist. Many Europeans - particularly Jewish Europeans - fled Nazi Germany and Nazi-occupied Europe, acquiring US/UK/Argentinian citizenship. As a general rule, if someone is a fully-grown adult when they do so, the history books don't record them as having all of a sudden changed their nationality/ethnicity. Wittgenstein has always been referred to as an Austrian philosopher - a quick perusal of any library, online or otherwise - will demonstrate this. It's highly misleading and revisionist to characterize him as "Austrian-British" in the opening sentence. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

1. Could you show us any Wikipedia policy guidance on this?

2. We currently have a very clear source, from Encyclopedia Brittanica, describing him as "Austrian-born British", so your statement that he "has always been referred to as an Austrian philosopher" is rather obviously wrong. Could you provide any of counter-examples that you say are available via "a quick perusal"?

3. You reverted the article with the edit summary "you don't own this page. why you would want to debate whether someone born and raised in Austria who moved to Britain to escape the Nazis, is therefore actually British, is beyond comprehension..." I'm very sorry about your limited comprehension, but his taking British nationality in 1939 is a simple fact, as I said at the outset. Are you saying this counts for nothing? I really don't see haw escape from the Nazis helps us decide.

4. 14 of the articles Categories describe his as Austrian or "from Austria". 13 describe him as British or "from UK".

5. I've never claimed to "own this page", but you have reverted the article, twice now, away from it's stable state - it's been like that for three and a half years?

6. Currently consensus on this Talk Page is against you. But let's hear what other editors have to say. We can open a RfC if required. Until a firm consensus is established, or re-established, however, the article should not be changed away from what was previously the stable version agreed by consensus. I believe that is required by policy. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

User:ZinedineZidane98 you just breached WP:3RR? Your edit summary was "2 vs 2 is not a consensus. see sources." But I don't see "2 vs 2" at this discussion. Is the anon ip going to comment? And see which sources, exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Stop playing games. Google is your friend. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22austrian+philosopher%22+wittgenstein&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, games. I see that the "anon ip" is based in Moscow and has an interest in Zinedine Zidane. What a coincidence. I'm sure there are many sources we could use, not just Google Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Google is not a source. Now do you need a lesson on differentiating between sources (i.e. the ones that showed up in your search vs the high-quality biographies that showed up in mine)? Or you still wanna play games? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so a biography is to be preferred over a copy of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus itself, or a study by Robert Skidelsky or The Philosophy of Popper by T. E. Burke? It's not a question of playing games, I'm afraid. The article has had "Austrian-British philosopher" for three and a half years. We don't change articles based on the relative number of Google hits. I'm awaiting input from other editors. As should you. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a policy on nationality designation. I'm surprised no one has pulled it up. If W. became a citizen of England then it's not wrong to call him British, quite clearly. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

See this bit on nationality...--Ring Cinema (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"If notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's not actually possible to officially "become a citizen of England". It's just "British citizenship", as the article correctly says. But that policy seems quite clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Cause of death

Was Wittgenstein's cause of death notable? Should it be in the infobox? It has been made notable for some in the media. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I dont see why it would be in the infobox - it is fine to have in the biography section, but not infobox material.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

As it is condsidered by many to be a basic fact about a person? Template:Infobox philosopher offers no guidance as to why it should or should not be used. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that is a good enough reason to add it. In cases where cause of death is particularly notable then maybe, such as Giordano Bruno, but not in general.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

If Wittgenstein's cause of death were abnormal, relevant to his work, more significant in his life course than other causes of death, or discussed by other notable sources as significant, it would be worthy of inclusion in the infobox. Most personal infoboxes do not include cause of death, and including it here suggests that Wittenstein's prostate cancer had a significance that it did not. Martinevans123, the notion of a "basic fact about a person" is clearly a matter of taste, judgment, and precedent. The standard we should use here, I think, is what similar pages do. Nietzsche, Habermas, and Heidegger do not have cause of death in the infobox. Plantagenarian's edit was in good faith and enhanced the quality of the article. Ring Circle's statement that it was a "conclusion searching for a reason instead of the other way round," is condescending and not helpful in determining what should be in the infobox. I have undone the undo accordingly. —Acone (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's taste, judgement, and precedent at Wikipedia, I guess. But that was Cinema not a Circle, I think. I found the edit summary pretty accurate. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of an infobox is to provide a quick overview of the most relevant facts about an individual. There is nothing gained by cluttering the box with minor facts that are of little relevance to understanding the significance of the biographed person and their work just for the sake of standardization.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

First, 'notability' is the wrong standard. Notability is the minimum standard for a subject matter's inclusion as an article in WP. For example, people who are not notable don't get an article. But all the facts in all the articles are not required to be notable. In fact, almost none of them are; they are there to explain their notable subject matter. Secondly, my criticism of P. was factual: he didn't want the cause of death in the article and he looked for a reason, instead of the other way. Thirdly, I don't think the arguments above against including W's cause of death are very good. The field for cause of death is included in the infobox for philosophers, so apparently these are the fields we use for information found in the article. The parameter guideline says that those "not mentioned in the main text may be deleted." However, we do cover W's cause of death in the article. The other articles mentioned above are somewhat misleading as examples. Nietzsche's cause of death is not known. Habermas's cause of death is not in the article, so can't be in the infobox per the guide, and the same is true of Heidegger. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no fixed rule that cause of death must be included when known and mentioned in the article. Consensus will decide whether it is to be included in this case. I have reverted your change.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. If the cause of death is in the article, then it belongs in the infobox. Sorry. Thanks for correcting your mistake on your own. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

What is the reason that cause of death should be omitted from the Infobox? Why would this be a point of contention? The Infobox should be used. Unless there is a good argument for omission I think we should err on the side of inclusion. Bus stop (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You could start by reading the arguments given by three different users above before you decide to unilaterally insert the version that Ring Circle has been editwarring to insertover the past few days.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that the omission of such information calls for a justification. I just don't see any. The Infobox gets "cluttered" by too much information? An Infobox is designed to be easy to see at a glance. We should not be thinking for the reader. A cause of death of prostate cancer may be of interest some readers. We require no more justification than that to include information of this sort. Bus stop (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes we do require one more thing. Consensus. Favorite color or names of his pets may be of interest to some readers but as they are utterly irrelevant to the biography and work of a major philosopher we "exclude" them. Excluding by the way is not the same as choosing not to include something. And yes it is the basic job of every wikipedian to think for the reader.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not the "basic job of every wikipedian to think for the reader." Bus stop (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly the reason we are writing an encyclopedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The guidelines are as optional as choosing your favorite color? That's a failed argument, too. In fact, the guidelines are the product of consensus. Let's note that there isn't a valid reason offered to ignore guidelines. There have been attempts to ground resistance in guidelines -- a clear sign of their validity -- but those efforts couldn't withstand scrutiny. Any good arguments you can offer, Maunus? If you still have none, I think we should follow the guidelines, which is the usual practice unless there is a good reason to ignore them. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you point to a guideline stating that the cause of death should be included in the infobox for philosophers? I am aware of none, and judging by a quick sampling, the 'consensus' seems to be not to do so - in fact I'm not even sure there is a consensus to include an infobox... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be to follow the guidelines. The guidelines say they should be in the infobox when discussed in the article, and I am unaware of any other exception but this one. As I quoted above: those fields "not mentioned in the main text may be deleted." Therefore others may not be deleted. And you might ask yourself this question: why is the field included in the philosophers infobox? It must be to include the cause of death. But we know that infoboxes are designed to summarize information that appears in the article. So when the cause of death appears in the article, this field is employed. That is apparently the practice on every philosopher's page but this one. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You have cited no guideline that I can see: This however, from Template:Infobox person (from which Infobox philosopher is derived) seems clear enough: "Do not use all these parameters for any one person. The list is long to cover a wide range of people. Only use those parameters that convey essential or notable information about the subject...". Clear and unambiguous... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

This discussion could be added to Lamest edit wars. We should not be thinking for the reader. We are compiling something called an Infobox. Verifiable fields such as "cause of death" should be filled in if known. We haven't the foggiest idea the reason that the reader has come to this article, nor what their unique interests are. An Infobox is easy to read. As editors we should be completing most applicable parameters unless a good reason can be advanced for leaving one or two out. In this case, cause of death being prostate cancer, there is nothing to argue about. There is no substantial argument for leaving that out. Bus stop (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

While I wouldn't question your evident personal experience when it comes to lame edit wars, I would point out that I have started an RfC, and the community can decide for itself what constitutes an 'easy to read' infobox, and which parameters to include. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• I typed in the following philosophers: Jean Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, David Hume and Maurice Merleau Ponty, Bertrand Russell, G. E. Moore, A. N. Whitehead, Gotlob Frege, Martin Heidegger, Herbert Marcuse. None of them have cause of death in the infobox, not even Camus who famously died in a car crash. Not a single philosopher whose name out of the first ten I could think of (not counting Hilary Putnam who to my surprise is not dead) had cause of death in their article. Clearly any statement that this is the norm for philosopher articles is false.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Again you fail to understand the guidelines. If the cause of death is in the article (A), then it belongs in the infobox (I). So ~A-->~I. For some reason, you just look at the infobox, instead of checking if the cause of death is in the article. I have explained this several times and I don't think it's that hard. So, yeah, you found exactly one exception to the guidelines in ten tries. I think that shows the guidelines are normally followed. Since you seem to be saying that I should accept the argument that this article should be like others, I assume you will now agree that the cause of death should be in the infobox. Great! --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

It is clear that you are being wilfully obtuse to the point of outright trollin now so this shall be my last response to you: the cause of death is in the article of the majority of those articles. Camus=car crash, Merleau-Ponty=Stroke, Sartre=Lung edema, Hume=Abdominal cancer, The exceptins are Russel, Moore and Frege whose deaths are not described.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Three omissions, then. Thanks for pointing those out. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Likewise Karl Marx - bronchitis and pleurisy, Karl Popper - "complications of cancer, pneumonia and kidney failure", Ayn Rand - heart failure/lung cancer, Michel Foucault - "neurological problems compounded by HIV/AIDS", Roland Barthes - chest injuries sustained in a traffic accident, Simone de Beauvoir - pneumonia. All from article. None in the infobox. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC:Should the infobox include a cause of death?

Should the infobox for this biography include a 'cause of death' entry? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• No. From a sampling of biographies of other philosophers, I can see no evidence that inclusion of a cause of death is normal practice. And there is nothing of any particular significance in Wittgenstein's cause of death. Adding such non-essential details detracts from the purpose of an infobox - to summarise important details regarding the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

A poor point, Andy. When the philosopher's cause of death is in the article, then it should go in the infobox. The cases cited above don't have the philosopher's cause of death in the article. From this perspective, then, this article is the exception since it is the only one that fails to follow the guidelines. Since W's cause of death is in the W article, his cause of death belongs in the infobox. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You have as yet to demonstrate that there is a guideline concerning adding the cause of death to infoboxes on philosophers. And I have no idea why you think 'The cases cited above' are relevant, since as I clearly stated that I had made a sampling of my own. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding guidelines, from Template:Infobox person (from which Infobox philosopher is derived): "Do not use all these parameters for any one person. The list is long to cover a wide range of people. Only use those parameters that convey essential or notable information about the subject...". Seems clear and unambiguous to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I demonstrated it above, twice. You have not responded in either case, so for now my argument stands. I know of no other philosophers infobox that does not follow the guidelines. So, since you seem to have said above that you want to base this practice on the practices of other pages, you should definitely want us to follow the guidelines as apparently all other pages do. Therefore, we should include the cause of death, since the guidelines say that we should when it's discussed in the article, which this article does. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a RfC. Please allow others to respond. When the RfC is closed, the closer will determine consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I know how it works, but your claim doesn't hold water. Your reasoning was that other articles on philosophers decided not to include the cause of death. That's faulty logic, since they wouldn't have been following the guideline if they had. Since your reasoning was clearly mistaken and your evidence indicates that you should take the opposite position, I assume you want to correct your mistake. Unless you have other reasons that you haven't stated. -- (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Do not include its not especially relevant and its not the norm ----Snowded ^TALK 06:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the norm is to follow the guideline, which states that when the cause of death is in the article, it is in the infobox. So, yes, let's follow the norm. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• No strong view. No real objection to its inclusion, as I don't see it as "clutter". Andy makes some very good points, however. I agree it has no bearing on Wittgenstein's work or career, but then, like most people, neither does his birthday, although date of birth is regarded as "an essential fact". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Andy's points have all failed under scrutiny, actually. Other articles have not covered cause of death because it was not in the article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not that bothered. I think the other editors would like to see some examples of philosophers whose cause of death is both mentioned in the article and appears in the info box. Although why philosophers have got their own infobox is another question. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Do not include not essential information. There is no guideline that suggests it needs to be included much less a rule that requires it, in spite of confused hand waving to the contrary.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you say there is no guideline that says it should be included when you know that is false. But are you saying that we should follow the guidelines? If so, I welcome your change of heart. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

There are no Wikipedia guidelines stating that the cause of death must be included in infoboxes for biographies of philosophers. And I suggest you stop hectoring contributors who post here - it will achieve nothing beyond making your case look weaker. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"Not waving, but drowning", apparently. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Completely false. The guidelines are clear and other articles on philosophers have followed them. The infobox is a summary of what's in the article. When the cause of death is not in the article, of course it's not found in the infobox. But when it is, then it belongs in the infobox, if you want to follow the guidelines. I appreciate that several editors committed to their position for fallacious reasons. That's unfortunate, and admitting error is difficult. Fortunately, this is a minor issue and it doesn't matter much of you're all too embarrassed to rectify your mistake. You've provided a really funny example of why Wikipedia gets things wrong. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of facts, could you tell me what percentage of philosopher articles include cause of death in the infobox? Fact 1. In a random sample of ten philosophers I checked yesterday it was 0%. That is a fact. Fact 2. there is no actual guideline that says inclusion of any parameter is necessary, but there is one that says explicitly that it isn't. Fact 3. Guidelines are not rules, they are suggestions only and can be overruled by consensus. Fact 4. following or not following a guideline is not about "getting it wrong", and there is no inaccurate information being presented to the reader regarding Wittgenstein's cause of death. So quit waving now please.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The person closing this RfC will no doubt take note of the fact that at no time have you provided any link to any guideline that states that that the cause of death must be included in infoboxes for biographies of philosophers, and discount your hectoring accordingly - though if you keep this up, I may raise the matter at ANI, and ask that you be topic-banned until the RfC closes. This is a discussion open to community input - it is not your personal blog, and your opinion as to what is 'funny' is of no relevance here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I asked you to respond to my arguments above and you didn't. Instead, you continued to repeat incorrect information about the guidelines. So, apparently, you are taking the position that the guidelines should be followed, after which you misstate the guidelines. I quoted the relevant passage for you and you still maintain your incorrect position. I'm certain it is considered a good thing to correct mistakes, especially critical errors of the type you are making and repeating. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You have quoted no passage in any guideline that states that the cause of death must be included in infoboxes for biographies of philosophers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, include - summoned by bot. The infobox should cover the basics of someone's biography. If cause of death is available and specific (such as a certain type of cancer), I don't see why it should not be included. Someone's death is always relevant to their life. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, include - we have decided to have an Infobox in this article, therefore we should use it. I think the argument for the Infobox being "cluttered" by "Cause of death: Prostate cancer" is questionable. Bus stop (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• No, remove - It is hard for me to imagine anyone visiting this page and finding this detail useful. It seems much more likely it would displace more important details, like "main interests" and "notable ideas," especially on smaller screens. All of the other details in the infobox help us understand who Wittgenstein was, what he did, and why we should care. The time and place of his birth and death, for example, help us understand the context in which Wittgenstein lived and worked. The only exception is the signature and picture—these give the article a personal touch, which people (speaking at least for myself here) seems to find useful when learning about other people. Cause of death serves no such function. Arguments that it should be included seem to revolve around the idea that it is a basic biographical fact. But that seems like too loose a criterion. Chronic medical conditions, height, weight, eye color, and hair color are also basic biographical facts, and I believe all of those to be more relevant to Wittgenstein than his cause of death. Yet if someone were to include those, I would want them removed. Acone (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• No, remove. There is no guideline that requires or prohibits inclusion of this information in the infobox, so it is a matter of editorial judgement and consensus. Inclusion of a cause of death like "prostate cancer" would be appropriate for a surgeon like Julius Hackethal, as is the cause of death (aplastic anaemia) for Marie Curie, but no such special relevance or particular noteworthiness applies here. Similar considerations are applied to other information, such as religious and political affiliation. --Boson (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• No, remove - summoned by bot. It doesn't add anything in this particular case, as per Julius Hackethal above. Flat Out (talk)
• No, remove – There is a guideline at Manual of Style/Infoboxes (MOS:INFOBOX). Contrary to Ring Cinema's repeated but unsubstantiated assertions that guidelines call for including this information, what the guideline actually says is this:  "keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. ... wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." The circumstance of dying from an ordinary disease is not a "key fact", it is an unnecessary distraction for the reader's first glance at the article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: I tend to agree with the latter commenter. He wasn't Elvis after all. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Blue and Brown Suede Shoes? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)