text:
Talk:Edmund Husserl

Biography
I think the entry on Husserl needs some updating and improving. I will try to improve matters, which will lead to a more extended and organised page. I will start by providing some categories and reallocating the existing information to those.

As Husserl's life and works are closely connected I deem a chronological approach the clearest one. I propose a division in 5 headings:
 * his time as a student (done)
 * the period at the university of Halle (partially done)
 * at Goettingen
 * at Freiburg
 * his works after his retirement

The reworking of this entry will probably bring several new empty entries (noesis, noema, Munich phenomenology, etc.). I will try to provide at least a stub to begin with for all those new entries. Help and criticism is greatly appreciated.
 * Cat 15:38, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I would suggest we keep this entry for the biographical issues; the outline you make above is good. As for entries like 'noesis' etc, better to just point to the Phenomenology article.  AdamDiCarlo 16:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Continental Philosophy?
I noticed that Husserl recently has been placed in the category "continental philosophy". That is debatable, as Husserl can be placed before and above the alleged rift between so-called continental and analytic philosophy. As has been repeatedly argued in the literature, the entire School of Brentano is quite analytic and scientific in its approach and could be better classified under the header Austrian Philosophy (including i.a. Brentano, Meinong, Husserl and all their schools and pupils), as opposed to German philosophy such as German idealism, Kant and Neo-kantianism, Karl Marx and Heidegger. Alternatively, in view of his considerable influence on cognitive science and philosophy of mind, couldn't he be placed in two (or more) catagories?
 * Cat 15:38, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I have an interesting solution; perhaps (in this article) "Category:Continental philosophy" should be left UNBRACKETED for philosophical reasons. MPS 19:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Phenomenology?
no phenomology mentionded in article

Better description of Phenomenology
What is "phenomology"? I can't make any sense of the sentence that contains "...combine mathematics, psychology and philosophy with as main goal...."

Ideen Summary
Husserl's Ideen(Ideas) needs a thorough description in a seperate article.

Logical Positivism a misunderstanding of phenomenology?
This is outrageous, one thing is to say Carnap misunderstood Husserl. A quite different one is to say such a movement, which preceded Carnap's attending Husserl's lectures, could have been originated, even in part, by a misunderstanding of a such a different kind of philosophy. YoungSpinoza 21:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Is it ourageous or is it false? If it is true that logical positivism originated within the Vienna Circle during the 1920' that would combine very well with Carnap attending lectures of Husserl's in 1924-1925. Furthermore, what do you mean by "such a different kind of philosophy"? Husserl was a trained mathematician, strived to give a secure foundation to all formal sciences and worked ceaselessly to answer the question how knowledge is possible, combining insights from language, psychology and logic ... not so different from current analytical philosophy IMHO. Cat 21:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

 * It is "outrageously" false. Firstly, the Vienna Circle (which is not all logical positivism) started meetings around 1922, under Moritz Schlick, not Carnap, if it originated then it doesn't mean the foundations of its principles weren't laid quite before, in the member's readings of mach, kant, the marburg school members, frege, russell, wittgenstein and others. Secondly, the fact that Carnap read, heard and misunderstood Husserl, does not mean Husserl was influential on Carnap's own ideas. Up to here, enough to say the statement is false (maybe it was user-invented or maybe it came from some not cited phenomenology-worshipping author trying to show analytical philosophy has its origins in phenomenology and thus end the Cont-Anal controversy- I've read parts of some of them, and the most recurring theme is Austin and the Oxford school being deemed as "language phenomenologists", but I never heard this logical positivism issue). Now, considering, whether there is a relationship between Husserl and logical positivism (which is something I mentioned not really as an argument for the falsity of the "origin" connection), it is true Husserl originally tried to give a non-empirical foundation to mathematics, just like Frege wanted. Yet, he easily departed from that task both in the style and in the content appropriate to such an endeavour and topic. As u said, he was a "trained mathematician", yet not a "mathematician" in the sense that he made any lasting contribution to mathematics. In fact, little if any of his work can be considered of a "mathematical" nature. So right away in about the third of his logical ivnestigations he lefts any "analytical" approach (when he considers statements, thought geometrical figures and so on) and starts with the old-essence-ideas-subject unity-metaphysical jargon. Well, he worked to answer how knowledge is possible? I really think that was not even his purpose. Rather, he tried to "create knowledge" of a new type of "entity" that was unconsidered before him. As regards the "insights", hardly anything he wrote has reference to mainstream linguistics, psychology (even though he may have influenced quite a bunch of psychologists) or logic. Yet, my point is not to discuss this, rather, to indicate the falsity of such a statement placing the origin of logical positivism in Husserl (rather in a "misunderstanding", which, due to its negative connotations, may be regarded as incidental POV). YoungSpinoza 02:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You appear to be quite biased against the mere possibility that phenomenology and analytical philosophy might just share an ancestor or might have influenced each other at some point. Let's start out by building some common ground here, based on solid, demonstrable facts. Hence I would ask you to reconsider your rant about Husserl not being a "true" mathematician and your claim that his style and method would not be "appropriate". Once we agree on some common ground, we might tackle the real issue at hand, regarding Carnap's understanding of Husserl and the influence it had on the development of Logical Positivism. Moreover, the "analytic-continental" shift didn't even exist at the time, and besides Peirce and Dewey there was no "anglo-saxon" philosophy outside of Great Britain either. Heidegger's philosophy and everything that followed might be considered "phenomenological", but not Husserlian Phenomenology, which is at stake here, so don't confuse postmodernism or anything like that with Husserl, whose ideals, like those of many members of the School of Brentano, were quite in line with what today is called analytical philosophy. A paper that might interest you could be David Woodruff Smith How to Husserl a Quine - and a Heidegger, too in Synthese 98 (1994) pp. 153–173 Regards, Cat 12:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Schlick started out by being anti-positivistic and opposed to Mach. (Cf. Joia Lewis Schlick's Critique of Positivism in PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1988, Volume One: Contributed Papers (1988), pp. 110-117)
 * 2) Carnap was influenced by Husserl, quoting the phenomenological method of transcendental reduction as akin to his own. (Cf. Review by Bas van Fraassen of R. Carnap, The Logical Structure of the World, in Philosophy of Science 35 (1968), pp. 298-299)
 * 3) Logical Positivism and Husserl's (early) phenomenology share very important traits. (Cf. Thomas Mormann Husserl's Philosophy of Science and the Semantic Approach in Philosophy of Science, Vol. 58, No. 1 (Mar., 1991), pp. 61-83)
 * 4) Austin himself spoke of his endeavours as "linguistic phenomenology": in A Plea for Excuses he remarked that "I think it might be better to use, for this way of doing philosophy [i.e. Austin's own linguistic approach], some less misleading name [...] - for instance, 'linguistic phenomenology' ''.
 * 5) Austin (and Grice and Searle) were anticipated by Anton Marty, his student Karl Bühler and by the Munich phenomenologists Johannes Daubert, Alexander Pfänder and Adolf Reinach. In particular, the latter developed a detailed theory of social- and speech-acts. Reinach's work was based mostly on Edmund Husserl's analysis of meaning in the Logische Untersuchungen, but also on Daubert's criticism of it. Pfänder had also been doing research on commands, promises and similar speech acts, but it was Reinach's work Die apriorischen Grundlagen des bürgerlichen Rechtes that was the first systematic treatment of social acts and speech acts. (many articles on this topic)
 * 6) Husserl was very much a mathematician: he studied mathematics with some of the most prominent mathematicians of the time: Karl Weierstrass, Kronecker and Königsberger. He obtained his PhD in mathematics with a technical mathematical dissertation on the calculus of variations and worked for a year as an assistant with Weierstrass. He then strived to combine his mathematical and philosophical knowledge in his first works, treading in the footsteps of his mentor Weierstrass, who was also very interested in giving a solid foundation for mathematics. Furthermore he wrote several articles on logic and amthematics in the 1890's, entering in fruitful discussion as a peer with people like Helmholtz, Riemann, Schröder, Sigwart, Frege etc.. He was also an esteemd colleague and friend of Cantor and Hilbert and was able to integrated their discoveries and insights into his own work.

 * 1.	What does that mean? What does it matter to the content of logical positivism what Shlick “started out” thinking about positivism? Or even Mach, an individual who, by the way, had strange mystical ideas (like immanentism) that wouldn’t fit into LP? Ryle started out as a promoter of Heidegger in Britain and ended up dismissing as a particular kind of nonsense any philosophy that plays around “reference-less” concepts such as his famous “mind”. What does his own philosophical path tells us about the Oxford School or about ordinary language philosophy? Nothing.
 * 2.	Well, this shocked me, can’t check the source to see in what “sense” it is akin and I can’t check either whether he changed his views afterwards. Above all, I can’t know whether he referred to 1901 Husserl or to 1913 and afterwards Husserl. Nevertheless, as above, Carnap is but a name.
 * 3.	Well, they do share some traits, Husserl considered his Phenomenology to be “true positivism”, there is a common interest in Erlebungen, etc. I haven’t checked the reference, and attempts to draw such parallels are common, as I said.
 * 4.	A well-known cliché, Austin does not refer to Husserl and post-Husserl phenomenology, he only uses the word to express the relationship between language and phenomena, maybe in resemblance to the saying “a phenomenological theory” in physics, as distinct from a “representational theory”. Moreover, he uses the term just as a preferred suitable way to address the OS, not in any grandiloquent sentence.
 * 5.	Yes, way too mentioned by people trying to show “correlations” (correlations that are not quite parallel, and rather try to showing LP as a “deviated branch” of Phenomenology). It even made me want read Reinach, yet, the fact the topic was studied earlier doesn’t mean such an earlier study was a cause to the works of the Oxford School. Even Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations can’t be said to have spurred such an interest (which is easily contested through dates-check, even though many people think of Wittgenstein as having originated ordinary language philosophy). By the way, we were talking about LP not OS, nor OLF.
 * 6.	I never meant Husserl was not a true mathematician, I said he made no contributions to it. My college math teacher is a mathematician, yet he made no contributions to it. I believe his (my teacher) thesis was also on something related to calculus. Well, the “mathematical content” in Logical Investigations and all the content in Philosophie der Arithmetik would not classify as “in the style” of a math research article. Now, this has a reached a point of senselessness. Keynes was friend with Virginia Woolf and with Bertrand Russell. Does that make Keynes a mathematician or Woolf an economist?
 * It was a mistake to take this discussion to the analytic-continental shift, it takes us off focus. Thus, your (true) statement “besides Peirce and Dewey there was no "anglo-saxon" philosophy outside of Great Britain either" adds little to the topic in question (given that LP was not even Anglo-Saxon in origin).

Now, you do re-address the issue when referring to “regarding Carnap's understanding of Husserl and the influence it had on the development of Logical Positivism”. I do agree Brentano, neo-kantism and other late XIX century groups or thinkers may bear a resemblance to LP, and/or OLF and/or philosophy of science and/or many other sub-disciplines related to APh. Husserl may also have, though I believe less, resemblances of such a kind. Putnam said “well, when you come to think of it, even Plato may have been an analytical philosopher”. Of course, that doesn’t mean any kind of philosopher may classify as such (i.e. Hegel). Yet, parallelism is one thing, saying something “is partly originated by” is quite another (not to mention the original version said something quite encyclopedic like “the whole bunch of LP was a deviated branch of Phenomenology”). Going into individual “who influenced who” topics is much the “continental” way of talking about (or even doing) philosophy, which, you may imagine, I don’t really like to indulge in in my free time (not that I despise it at all, though). I suggest this: first, open (you) a new paragraph with title “parallelisms with analytical philosophy” and pour whatever parallelism you think appropriate; second, if you find an author (any, though I suggest not yourself, even though you may have published material on it) that speaks of LP or APh as being “partially originated by (early) Phenomenology”, then state it and cite “according to X, […] [reference]”. I’m sorry if I gave the impression I was an APh fanatic trying to dogmatically reject any parallelism, I just got over excited about a statement in the introduction that was blunt, POV and ameliorated after a clear “ideological philosophical vandalism”. I’ll try to get that article you mentioned, best regards. YoungSpinoza 18:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Editing
I plan on adding and re-editing a lot of this when I get the chance. I plan on discussing noema and noesis, etc. As well as "hyletic data" (though maybe not so much). I also plan on elaborating on the natural standpoint.

 * I already did some very minor edits. I added the Philosopher InfoBox template, switched "natural attitude" to "natural standpoint", and I took out the parenthetical "noesis" and "noema" which were inappropriately placed (the noema is not really the "object" of perception, or however it was phrased, it is the meaning through which perception is framed; the "object" would be an inner intentional object which Husserl denied the existence of).

Kevin L. 05:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Re HALF FULL.  Right, Kevin, it is NOT the "object". But it is NOT the "meaning through which perception is framed" either. It is the sinnverleihende Akt, the act that lends meaning. It's NOT about being framed. It's all about ACTING. There can be no Abschattung without the sinnverleihende Akt.

I am not sure I completely agree with you. Husserl does talk about "acts" (and please note I only have read selections from Ideas) in terms of "acts of perception". However, and I am only saying this with partial certainty while in a pre-sleep dose, I do not take it that the noema itself is the act itself. In this language (and I might indeed be confused in some sense), it seems more fitting to say that the noesis is the act particular to the perceiver. However, the noema is the objective (in the sense that it is in all thinkers when they are in that noetic experience, as opposed to the noesis which is subjective and particular to the thinker) meaning attached to the object (I must be careful here, for many reasons) that sets up the framework through which hyletic data is ascertained (this, I take it, is what Husserl means when he talks about "filling" [or it might have been "fulfillment", I forget at this moment]). I do not doubt that you know much about Husserl and Heidegger, among others, but in this particular instance I feel inclined to respectfully disagree with you. Please correct me if I am indeed wrong. Kevin L. 06:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Husserl has to be read closely, Kevin. Husserl's language is not Heigibberish. Husserl wasn't trying to fool anybody.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Re ABSCHATTUNG. Dear Kevin, you're quite obviously a decent and intelligent person. So I hope you won't be offended when I tell you that I can't discuss Husserl's terms with you. We would never be able to find common ground because we would not be talking about the same text. That's what I was trying to bring across with my remark. We could, however, talk about Husserl in a more general context. Take e.g. your strange statement that I "know much about Husserl and Heidegger". This is, of course, a classical syllepsis (or more loosely: a zeugma). What is strange about it is not so much that your schooling prevents you from seeing your figure of speech for what it is, but that it prevents you from realizing that other people consider the yoking of these two names as ridiculous. Or am I only imagining this?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 13:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

 * My so called figure of speach was not so much to group together Heidegger and Husserl, but to make an overall statement referring to both to your knowledge of Husserl, and to your separate knowledge of Heidegger, which I only refer to because I recall a previous interaction on the gestell talk page regarding Heidegger. This, however, seems to be quite irrelevant for the immediate purpose of making an acceptable article on Husserl.

 * Your suggestion that we take Husserl in his general sense is intriguing. Exactly what do you have in mind? It would be improper to completely gloss over such key concepts as noesis noema and the natural standpoint. Perhaps it would be best to have an extremely broad and encompassing defintion (and very short) that makes the reader aware of the controversy. Perhaps an added section to the article as a whole on the difficulty of reading Husserl? This however would be outside my personal range, as such a task would require one to be acquainted with a larger amount of Husserl's work than I. My abilities in this respect only include more specific elaborations on the concept of the natural standpoint, noema, noesis, and fulfillment (or filling? again, the correct term escapes me at the moment). As such, I would expect only someone well acquainted with the multiplicity of Husserl's works (such as you) to be qualified to at least begin the section on the more general part of Husserl (as previously stated, I feel the current version is somewhat inadequate). However, to sit and quibble about things such as improper linguistic constructions within the talk page is merely to talk of immediately irrelevant (although helpful outside the context of this article) facts that contribute nothing to the article at hand (or so it seems to me). That said, I thank you for your comments, and hope a great article on the founder of phenomenology can be conjured. Kevin L. 20:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Re IRRELEVANT. You mean to say that you would NOT think it is ridiculous to describe someone as knowing a lot about Beethoven and Britney Spears? Then how about Mozart and Mickey Mouse? Still not ridiculous? César Franck and Frankenstein? No?

You are mistaken, Kevin. This is neither irrelevant, nor can it be called quibbling. We are right at the center of the problem. Your problem. If you can't see that "Husserl and Heidegger" sounds ridiculous in ANY context it is because you believe that Heidegger was a philosopher. But as long as it is not 100% clear to you that Herr Professor Heidegger's writings are nothing but a monstrous pile of garbage, your opinions about Husserl's philosophy will not have any weight. Yes, Kevin, I do think that talking about trigonometry doesn't make much sense as long as it's not clear to all parties concerned what is and what is not a triangle. What's more, there is another point that in your shoes I would try to make clear BEFORE setting out to write a great article on Husserl: What makes an article great? I could of course give you my answer to this question. But I don't want to waste your time with yet another discussion that you feel is irrelevant to the matter at hand. I wish you lots of luck with your work. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Perhaps we have extracted the essence of this discussion? I believe I have clarified that my statement of "Husserl and Heidegger" was in no way a grouping with respect to Husserl and Heidegger themselves, but with respect to you. Your mistake is that this is not linguistic confusion on my part, but on yours. It is not ridiculus to describe someone knowing about Beethoven and Britney Spears in two senses; one, that the person may indeed know quite alot about either separately, and two, it may be a comment on that persons wide range of knowledge. You have sucessfuly shown that you are unable to perform the "epoché", or bracketing of the natural standpoint, as you have shown to be somewhat infatuated with the properties of objects themselves. Could you not see that my statement was with respect to the ego, to the person's knowledge and perception, and had not a thing to do with the objects (viz. Husserl and Heidegger) themselves (except insofar as they were related, perhaps independantly, to the person's ego)? However, I take back the statement for two reasons; one, so as to rid ourselves of something irrelevant (and you have in no way shown otherwise). Two, you have shown that you do not know much about Heidegger. It is most often the case that someone is quite mistaken to consider the whole of another's work to be "a monstrous pile of garbage" (aside from the fallacious, and overly-emotional language). Heidegger's notion of intentionality (at least insofar as I am familiar with it through secondary sources) is ingenious and, I think, correct. While his writing may be quite terrible, his writings (at least some) are both intriguing (while many times disagreeable) and sometimes useful. Of course, a more concise, and perhaps pragmatic, reason to ignore this is that the article in question here is about Husserl, and not about Heidegger. While I respect your concern for my knowledge and formulation of ideas, you go off to discuss Heidegger when that is inappropriate in this context.

 * As for the definition of a "great article": Forgive me for the incorrect wording. While the question you raise is a good one, for the purposes of this article the answer is this: An article conforming to the great majority of standards set forth in Wikipedia guidelines, as well as being exceptionally informative and well formulated (along correct, concise, clear, and intelligent grammer and wording). This does not answer your question in general, but that is all that is pertinent for us here. I will attempt to further this article in this direction (although I must say it is at this time still quite "good) when I have the sufficient amount of free time to do so. I thank you for your good wishes, and I wish you luck with your own work. --Kevin L. 05:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

HELP!!!
Re BASIC QUESTION. Hey, YoungSpinoza, will you do me a favor? Next time, you are in the library, please get a copy of what Heidegger had to say about Die Grundfrage der Philosophie (The Basic Question of Philosophy) in the summer semester of 1933. The first two pages will do. But please don't cheat. Read them in the original German. Pay attention to the rhythm. Imagine you're sitting in class, listening to the Herr Professor hammering it in. Listen to the students stamping madly (noted in some editions) whenever Heidegger hits the right key. Don't worry, your German is good enough for this particular Heidegger text. As a matter of fact, your German is good enough for any Heidegger text. Heidegger's "philosophy" is revealed only in the texts that you can read. Forget about anything written in the usual Heigibberish.

When you are through with the two pages, please explain to the people here what kind of philosophy the students (Kevin's "secondary sources"!) were taught by the Herr Professor. And explain to them also why there can be no serious discussion about Husserl or any other philosopher of his time without this text. Sorry, but I haven't got the strength.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 10:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

death?
how did he die? Being a jew in nazi germany i can think of a few possible causes but its not mentioned, other than to say that he lived until 1938. WookMuff 11:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * He died of a good old natural death. He was quite old and had been ill. Cat 11:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Brittanica Article?
Was Husserl's famous exposition on phenomenology in the Encyclopedia Brittanica currently in the public domain? That'd be a nice thing to reproduce?Balonkey 15:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Not Public Domain AFAIK, but it is online here. Cat 19:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Czech Jews
Yes, Husserl was Jewish, but no where does it suggest he was a Czech, and one cannot redefine the term "Czech Jew" to mean anyone born in Bohemia and Moravia who was Jewish. If this category is to be added it needs to have a rename that is appropriate in its use of words. 141.211.251.69 22:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

He wasnt Czech. He was German. Redy

 * Germany exists from 1871, he was born in a place which now is Czech, but at his born time was part of the Austrian empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.233.106.139 (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The term "Czech Jew" has long since gone from this article. He's now described as "a German" and his nationality seems to be fully explained, although I see that the de.wiki article describes him as "Austrian-German". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Could Husserl be tagged as all four: Czech, Jewish, German, and Austrian? MaynardClark (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "tagged". Of course, "Jewish" is not a nationality, so that's ok. I guess the Czechs would want to claim him, because of where Prossnitz is located today, and as far as I'm concerned, why not. Another thought, though - do you think the artcoe currently lends enough support to the category Category:Converts to Protestantism from Judaism? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC) p.s. I made a suggestion for Austrian in the thread below headed "Nationailty".
 * Prossnitz is not only now located in Czechia but was since the time it was founded. In the time he was born the official term was Margaviate of Moravia and Kingdom of Bohemia but still one cultural and historical whole as it was hunders years before Austrian empire was created and after. The problem is he didn't want to be considered Jew, so he presented himself as a German and wanted to be seen that way, Prossnitz was a jewish city, he keeps his origin in secret from his children and couldn't continue if they saw the town. He hadn't no problem with being a Czech - he consider all Czech philosophers in Germany his fellow countrymen, he was married to woman also from Prossnitz, his family lived in Czechia for generations, he intended to escape to Prague before WWII. 46.135.26.202 (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Influences
Is there a reason Kant isn't listed as an influence? I was about to add him to the list of influences, but figured it would be best if I asked here first whether or not there are any reasons for his name being absent. Josh.passmore 17:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Simone de Beauvoir should absolutely be listed as a philosopher influenced by Husserl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leparadis (talk • contribs) 06:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Gottlob Frege section
The section about Frege's influence on Husserl seems out-of-context and overly specific/specialized. It looks like someone copied and pasted their philosophy mid-term into the article. Does anyone have any particular reason it should stay, or can it go?Binkyping 01:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

would you supply a few inline references?
Hello, I'm working on Georg Cantor, and would really like to include parts of the section copy/pasted below. I can't, however, because I have no full references for the assertions. Can anyone supply full references? Thanks: Husserl recognized a logical third stratum, a meta-logical level, what he called a "theory of all possible forms of theories"... It is, in formal ontology, a free investigation where a mathematician can assign several meanings to several symbols, and all their possible valid deductions in a general and indeterminate manner. It is properly speaking the most universal mathematics of all. Through the posit of certain indeterminate objects (formal-ontological categories) as well as any combination of mathematical axioms, mathematicians can explore the apodeictic connections between them just as long as consistency is preserved.

This view of logic and mathematics accounted, according to him, for the objectivity of a series of mathematical development of his time, such as ... Cantor's set theory among others.

Thanks Ling.Nut 00:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK these points are made in Husserl's Prolegomena. IIRC most of them are inspired by Bolzano. Search Google Scholar for articles on Husserl's concept of "pure logic". Cat 19:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

logic
These two redlinks appear on this page, and are being addressed as part of the improvement project on logic articles.

 * formation rules
 * transformation rules

The two redlinks appear only in this article. If there is no objection, I'm going to link both to formula (mathematical logic) tomorrow. Rick Norwood 14:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Odd Language
I'm not sure why, but in the section on Husserl's critique of psychologism, there is a sudden digression into another language. Vandalism, I assume, but I don't know what language it is. Here's an example: μετάβασις εἰς ἄλλο γένος. If anyone could translate it back to the original, that would be great. Tiger Khan (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

 * It's all Greek to me, but a translation of the text immediately follows in the article. Hgilbert (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

 * The first Greek section may be translated parenthetically, but I don't believe the second Greek word(s) are. Also, why would Greek be necessary? Husserl may have written in German, but is there any reason he would have a thought he could only express in Greek? (Note: this is not an attack on you, thanks for your help; this is just something I'm wondering) Tiger Khan (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I transliterated the Greek words into Latin alphabet as a quick fix. However, since the quotation does not cite a source (and I don't believe Husserl uses the Aristotle quote himself), I think the section should be rephrased. 80.221.53.44 (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Feedback from a non-specialist
I came to this page with almost no idea about Edmund Husserl, I'd been recommended to read about his work by a friend/ uni lecturer. So I represent an ordinary wikipedia user, not a specialist.

The article obviously has the potential to be great. The writers obviously have a very detailed and comprehensive knowledge. But, the big problem is for an encyclopaedic purpose it gets much too technical and detailed too early on - the initial summary explanation needs expanding and clarifying a lot!

Thanks. 82.32.0.13 (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Here here, to much showing off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.35.81.18 (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

remark about Czech Republic
I made a slight change in the opening bio discussion - it had mentioned where he was born, then continued with a barbed comment about the expulsion of the German population in 1945. This I find problematic - not only did Husserl leave well before this time and not for this reason, but the German expulsion happened after his death. In terms of accuracy, Prostějov ceased to be part of the Austrian Empire in 1918, not 1945. A small point, admittedly, but I just wonder why an article such as this would serve as a forum for unrelated cultural politics. Hm. Br.locke (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Relativity
Hi! Are there any sources stating how much exposure did Husserl have to the findings of physics at the turn of the 20th century? I am asking because (it might sound naive, I know), concepts like relativity of time may have helped push him toward studying the phenomenology of time and maybe even the transcendental reduction. -- 213.6.6.112 (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Leibniz influence on Husserl
Huh? Leibniz hasn't influenced Husserl and the latter hasn't been influenced by him? I find this a bit odd... Is there anyone, please, that would like to discuss it in private? Thanks for your attention. science.is.based.on.curiosity@gmail.com Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

 * My first thought was to agree with you, but then I went and checked. Page 138 of Vol 1 of the L.U. in the 2001 Routledge paperback edition.  He expressly credits Leibniz as a past philosopher who influenced his new conception of logic.  I was surprised, but there it is.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Copyediting and clarity
I gave up on the psychologism section, but the next copyeditor may find these comments useful.

Is Psychologism totally a thing of the past? Who says? Needs a citation. Will make it present tense until some citation shows it doesn't exist any more. Stipulation is the wrong word, but that's not a copyediting problem, that's a content problem. What are the opposing views? Who states that logic exists outside of the human mind? That would be good as a counter-point. At any rate, the section on psychologism needs lots of work, besides just copyediting.

I strongly object to the terms "psychologism," "biologism" and "anthropologism" (the latter two merely thrown in with not even the merest attempt to discuss them) appearing without citations, without accompanying articles, without other points of view. I know the overall argument, most people who've taken up the finer points of logic know the overall scope of the "psychologism" argument - but let's not decide in advance who is correct. Make it neutral!

The article is under-referenced and makes sweeping claims about entire disciplines, without even linking to sections of wikis to show that the claims have any basis at all. Psychologism isn't even a word, and if it is one of the philosophical 'isms it needs its own page.

Using a passive tense instead of "we" (when there is no "we" in the article, Husserl is not a group of people) makes the unsubstantiated weaseling more obvious. It needs to be fixed. If Husserl said what this article says he did, surely there should be secondary literature on it. In fact, I have two volumes just on Husserl on my shelf, and several encyclopedias that would be sources - although they do not say exactly what is said here and I am not here to improve content, just to clear up the copyediting issues so progress can be made on other things.

 * I agree the section is written like a personal essay. However, I'm reluctant to just jettison it, as it's essentially correct.  Psychologism is indeed a defunct doctrine, and I might find a reference in Dummett for that.  The section can be written based on textbooks on Husserl, but it won't be a quick task.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Grammar quibble
I usually ignore this, but for some reason I found the over-use of "student of X" rather than "student of X's" in this article to be annoying. E.g., so-and-so "was a student of Faber." That's not incorrect, but more idiomatic would be "was a student of Faber's." The former is more appropriate to someone who studies Faber, the latter to someone who studied under Faber. It's the difference between "a student of me" and "a student of mine."

Nationailty
Since Prostějov was part of the Austrian Empire in 1859, when Husserl was born there, should his nationality be given as Austrian instead of German, or even Czech? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Arguably it should be Austrian rather than German, but both The Oxford Companion to Philosophy and The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy give Husserl's nationality as German, and as I pointed out, we certainly can't link the name of his nationality to Czech Republic. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes, I agree. They must both be considered very strong sources for an article such as this. Prostějov was only briefly part of Germany, of course (we know why. But Husserl obviously lived in German most of his life, and studied and wrote in German. But was he a German citizen? The article doesn't really tell us. Certainly, after leaving Prostějov, he lived the early part of his life in Vienna and then Olomouc. Later of course, in Freiburg, he resigned from the Deutsche Academie in protest against the racial laws. As a footnote I notice that the de-wiki article gives him categories of German, Austrian and Prussian! The ru-wiki page calls him German and gives him a Category of "German philosopher". While the fr-wiki says he was "of Austrian and Prussian birth" but also categorises him as "German philosopher". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Edmund Husserl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040807142614/http://www.hiw.kuleuven.ac.be/hiw/eng/husserl/ to http://www.hiw.kuleuven.ac.be/hiw/eng/husserl/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051119191924/http://www.husserlarchiv.uni-freiburg.de/husserl.html to http://www.husserlarchiv.uni-freiburg.de/husserl.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Kiepenheuer Institute for Solar Physics
Did Husserl have any connection at all to this place? Or is that image just a clever photoshopped spoof? There is nothing about in the article text. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

University of Freiberg library ban
Was he banned or not? The article currently says both "yes" (for just a week) and "no" ("incorrectly rumoured to have been denied the use of the library"). Which was it? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Arabic translation
, I'm failing to understand or find rationale for your deletion of the Arabic translation of one of the most important works of Husserl. FWIW, the translation was also winner of Sheikh Zayed Book Award. Nowhere did neither the cited MOS:SECTIONORDER, its relevant subsection (MOS:BIB), nor its parent (MOS:WORKS) mention anything to justify such deletion. I've re-inserted the material in case it was mistakenly deleted while restructuring. Assem Khidhr (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the English Wikipedia. Why should we have translations of Husserl's works in any language other than English? --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Where would we stop? Which language(s) would "not deserve" to have a translation of "one of his most important works"? We generally have works in a writer's native language. Did Husserl have any special affinity with Arabic? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's also Husserl's biography article. Translations of a work of his, let alone a magnum opus, into other languages gives readers an impression about its global notability. This certainly serves an encyclopedic purpose. The idea of enWP not discussing thematically relevant subjects satisfying notability requirements based on just not being in English strikes me as severely lacking worldview. Why do we have those transliteration and translation template parameters after all? Assem Khidhr (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a "thematically relevant subject" - it's the same work, translated. If RS sources say the translation into Arabic is particularly notable, then that could be included, possibly with the details of that translation. One might expect to see a statement like "Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy has been translated into at least 14 languages, including Arabic, Chinese, Tamil and Finnish" etc. or whatever? Just because that Arabic translation appears at Sheikh Zayed Book Award, doesn't mean it should also appear here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Winning a notable award can amount to the pretty subjective "particularly notable", although it'd be contradictory not to think the same of the still included anthologies just because they're in English. They too aren't backed by RS mentioning their "exceptional notability", nor do they have to (lest this be understood as WP:POINTy), in my opinion, so long as they're serving an encyclopedic purpose (as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Whether to introduce it in the prose or as a list item is, to me, a matter of how much details we have, with the least amount of details -- namely a mere citation, corresponding to a list item. I can see you just dismissed the discussion of global notability and the encyclopedic purpose I've alluded to, so I'll basically drop the stick and leave this to others who can probably address deletionism better than I do. Assem Khidhr (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Omnipaedista & Martinevans123 on these points. Husserl's many works have been translated into many languages. Why mention only this specific one & not all the other ones? Mentioning it on the Arabic Wikipedia would make sense but not here. Phlsph7 (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If we had an article specifically for this book then mentioning the translation there might be justified, but not in a general article on Husserl. Phlsph7 (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

 * I'm very sorry if you think I've "just dismissed the discussion of global notability". But no, I don't see why a particular Arabic translation is necessarily notable. even if it's won a prestigious prize; it's the original work that's "globally notable" (perhaps). We have the English translations listed (even if they have never won any prizes), since the original works were in German: because this is English Wikipedia not "World Wikipedia"? I quite understand if you now wish to stop the discussion. Thanks for discussing and not edit warring, anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear, I must point out that your civility is inviting. I've been here for a while now, so I understand the limitations (and inevitability) of consensus and I have no intention to edit war whatsoever. Here are some notes: Though I was admittedly disappointed, my intention to stop was partly to avoid bludgeoning as well, since I feel like we've been circling in an otherwise straightforward matter. In case other arguments are there, I'll be happy to reply. Assem Khidhr (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your very clear exposition. I have no intention of bludgeoning anyone. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * p.s. I guess if we had an article for Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy (First, Second and Third books combined?), it might belong there, either as a sepaarte text etntry or as a reference. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Jewish atheist?
Some time ago, the article was edited by User:Pashute to say in the heading that Husserl was a Jewish atheist. Although citations were added in support of this change, I have checked them and none seem to mention him being an atheist. As for being Jewish, although he was born Jewish, he later converted to Christianity, and so whatever affiliation he had with Judaism seems too attenuated and complex to be mentioned in the heading (the article's body does describe this, at sufficient length).

For now, I will undo Pashute's edit, but will mention him here so that he may defend it. LunaticLarry (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Due to nazism and the dispute about Heidegger's conduct and evidence about the discourse around him as Jewish in his later days, his official religion as Christian as opposed to the Jewish religion is irrelevant to the fact that he was continuously considered Jewish as a nationality. He even said he saw the persecuted Jews as his brothers. And as we now know he Was persecuted himself and from his being ... what? JEWISH. Then ther is the question of atheism. That was iianm the original saying about his religious beliefs. It is clear by saying a Jewish Atheist that was not a Jewish religion believer in any way. I find it hard to believe that someone still thinks we should categorize Jews in modern times (and proud ones at that) solely in accordance with their attitude towards the Jewish religion. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Biography or doctoral thesis?
This page has been blown completely out of the category "Biography." The bulk of the text reads like a philosophical thesis, intermittently interrupted by disconnected references to the political climate, the debatable merits of philosophical theories and a lot of details about the lives of other philosophers. Some aren't even connected to the Hesserl, they're simply philosophers in the same circle who have entire sections devoted to their lives. The biography should mention his family, colleagues, mentors and students. But they aren't the focus. They have their own Wiki pages. From an editorial pov, the page is also disorganized, repetitive, uses inconsistent tense (Hesserl says, said, is saying) and passive voice. In the passive voice it sounds like: "this lecture, given by Hesserl in 1931, being a departure from what he had done before, was received badly by those who had been interested in his work previously." That's an exaggerated example of the writing. Active voice: "Many former admirers of Hesserl's work condemned the new ideas he presented in a 1931 speech..." The information may be accurate, but the delivery is just as important. MandieJ1975 (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Ambiguous modifier mired in ambiguous soil
In his early work, he elaborated critiques of historicism and of psychologism in logic based on analyses of intentionality.

Do you mean?

In his early work, he elaborated critiques of based on analyses of intentionality.
 * historicism
 * psychologism in logic

Or do you mean?

In his early work, he elaborated critiques of in logic
 * historicism
 * psychologism
 * based on analyses of intentionality.

This is the kind of thing that keeps people from outside the fence permanently outside the fence, rather than inviting them in.

The Humanities are notorious for some of their Gordian shibboleths. If you've ever wandered over from the slide-rule side of campus and tried to unpack "romanticism" or "modernity" (or "socialism") you've had that "holy fark, Batman, how do these people even tie their shoes" moment. Then you see a word like "historicism" and your intestines begin to writhe. Should I check that out? Or would I rather do something else—possibly productive—with the whole of my Saturday morning? Does it have a handle you can find quickly where you can at least stick a pin into a rough cognitive map, or is it yet another one of those Houdini kaleidoscopes with about as much of a permanently fixed address as a sand dune in the Sahara?

'Psychologism' is similarly opaque from outside the fold. Was it applied retroactively to something classical? I'm sure they had words for things we now call psychology. For a crash course in how the old becomes new again, check out Husserl's own use of the word 'noema'. If you can't date 'logic' back to at least Euclid, you're not trying very hard.

So in the grand philosophic Venn diagram of all things classical as rehashed for 2000 years, the Bayesian prior is strong for some overlap between this unknown flavour of psychology and logic, and probably quiet a bit weaker for some overlap between logic and some unknown paradigm of historical treatment, but far from zero.

Thus a definitive parse of the above is entirely unavailable to anyone from the slide-rule side of campus with better things to do with their entire Saturday morning.

Steven Pinker calls this the curse of knowledge. I know that many people on the other side of campus have heard of Pinker, because a bunch of you signed a big petition to the effect that he was an ass, containing many false individual accusations, but never mind, it's the Gestalt that counts.

Moreover, Pinker wrote that entire damn book about why people on campus can't write very well, for precisely this kind of reason. That can't have helped his cause, either; nor is pointing this out likely helping mine, but it felt good to get this off my chest, and it ticked a box in my canine lived experience of barking at cats. — MaxEnt 16:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Edmund Husserl


text:
Talk:Lost in Space

FILMING TECHNOLOGY
Why can't someone who knows put a small category on type cameras and film used. I think these were studio 16mm? Arriflex? Not sure. Anyone have this information?--2603:8090:1300:F468:106A:8D20:C8D9:48D5 (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't say with authority exactly which brand of camera was used, but I am confident that production used 35mm film. Lost In Space was a high budget series. At that time 35mm was the standard for such productions. Even Star Trek was shot on 35mm, and it was produced on a much smaller budget. It's also safe to expect that they didn't use Arriflex. Here's a fan site with some production photos: https://www.iann.net/lis/behindscenes/gallery/ There are a few pics of cameras in use. They're quite large, definitely not Arriflex. I think probably they used Mitchell cameras. Mitchells were very sturdy and had excellent registration of the sprocket perforations during film transport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.102.146.203 (talk)
 * Indeed, I believe you are correct, they appear to be blimped Mitchell 35mm studio cameras. In those days, cameramen were often called upon to do repairs, and were intimately familiar with their Mitchells. A number of cameramen were amateur machinists, and they would construct required mounting equipment for the blimps and cameras and also adapt random lenses found around the studio to fit the Mitchell blimp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:24 (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Lost in Space


text:
Talk:Cultivar

Two different meanings
The two different meanings within the code of nomenclature seem to me to have too much emphasis, which is getting in the way of explaining what a cultivar is to those who don't know. I'd like to trim the lede to remove that discussion from that part of the page (leaving it below under "Formal definition"). As it stands I hesitate to do what I had intended, which was to list "cv." as an abbreviation, link to it from CV, and from Malus (the last of which needs some cleaning up about how it formats cultivar names, but that would require a clear definition of cultivar and cv.). Nadiatalent (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the opening paragraph explain in some detail exactly what a cultivar is? I'm not sure what you are alluding to when you speak of "two different meanings" - which paragraph contains this emphasis?  Perhaps ypou have edited it already. By the way, a subtle point re the use of cv. is that it is no longer used in front of a cultivar name e.g. Populus nigra cv. 'Italica' is incorrect. However Populus cv. is fine.  Granitethighs   21:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I haven't edited it. The main problem seems to me to be that the lede is so long and detailed. Do you have any suggestions about how to link "cv." with the CV page? I'll work on Malus, which is a mess due to confusion, apparently over whether all domesticated apples are one cultivar or many (definitely the latter). That may be something that this page could clarify if one had time to work on it. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Cultivar group
Granitethighs, re: this revert and this note – I put the link back in, at least (important concepts like cultivar group should be linked at first occurrence). I don't agree with your capitalization of "Group" as a term itself; just because it is capitalized when used as part of scientific name, immediately after the group name, does not mean we would capitalize it outside of that context. It looks silly and it's simply grammatically wrong, like writing "I founded a software Company", mistaking the capitalization immediately after a company names (e.g. The New York Times Company) for a general requirement to always capitalize it. And decapitalizing it doesn't change the meaning, since "group" in the context of cultivars doesn't have some magically different meaning when the case is changed. I don't care if the article calls it a "group" or spells it out as "cultivar group". Our article is at "cultivar group", so if you want to change it, you'll need to take that up with editors at that article. Also, "grex" shouldn't be capitalized, either. In one place it was (I fixed it), while it wasn't otherwise. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  08:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: The essay WP:SSF explains why we should not attempt to impose on Wikipedia articles any weird stylistic ideas that fly in the face of basic English grammar, from journals and specifications and other insider specialist writing venues. This particular article is an unencyclopedically dense, geeky mess, as others have complained about, for a reason, and that essay gets right at the heart of it.  No one cares if some botanists actually like to capitalize "group" for no reason even when it doesn't follow a group name, any more than we care that a lot of comic book collectors insist on incorrectly capitalizing things like "Near Mint Condition".  Insisting on such things has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia and is "user-hateful". — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  08:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Hi again SMcCandlish you are correct about grex, as used in the ICNCP it has a lower case first letter and the use of a capital in the article was an error. The other matter is more tricky. We need to distinguish between the word group in common usage (as in "there was a group of flower pots on the porch" and the word Group as the the designation of a formal classification category like species or genus (but in the case of Group with a capital like a proper name). To add confusion, before the 2009 ICNCP the formal category now known as Group was termed the Cultivar-group (with hyphen) and that is why the article is so named - but this is no longer accurate and it needs updating but I don't know how to do that. All this presents immediate problems when people wish to refer to a cultivar group, as you apparently do, in a common usage sense or to use the word group in a similar way. It is simply more practical and less confusing to use the caps, otherwise there is always the uncertainty about the intentions of the person using the word. Put this another way - I appreciate your frustration but I have to work with these terms and, believe me, this is not a "weird stylistic idea" it is a practical approach operating to everyone's benefit. If you are still unconvinced perhaps you could isolate a case for discussion. Please first familiarise yourself with the latest 2009 ICNCP, it should be easy to access on-line.  Granitethighs   00:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This article deliberately spoke clearly and unambiguously about the Group. In the interests of avoiding "weird stylistic ideas" you now suggest it includes the ideas of: 1. Group 2. group  3. cultivar group  4.Cultivar-group  5. cultivar Group.  All of these are technically different entities. In a campaign for political correctness you sadly do not have the interests of the wikipedia reader at heart.  Granitethighs   01:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

 * . And where do you see politics entering into this?  I'm not running for office, campaigning for new legislation, calling for a revolution, or dipping my hand into the county coffers.  If you have multiple and independent,  reliable published sources that confirm your assertion that all five of those are different "entities", distinctly, reliably and consistently, then this article had certainly better cover that in enough detail that the average encyclopedia reader can understand the difference, because no one aside from the super-geekiest of horticultural nerds is ever going to understand it otherwise, and not only would I bet real money that various agri-horti-botanits would completely disagree about the details you are silently assuming, I say all this as someone with an entire bookshelf on horticulture, a whole roomful of epiphyllums, and a varied garden of plants that should not even be able to survive in my climate.  Please take note that I am skeptical and critical of specialist snootiness and insider geekery that presumes too much and is dismissive and haughty toward those who will not play the secret insider knowledge game; I am not skeptical or critical of botanists or horticulturalists generally, or I'd have to doubt myself.  Criticism of academic or technical omphaloskepsis does not require one to be a rube; it's difficult to accurately peg where nerds of a particular kind are dropping the ball without being one of them.

 * If there are provable and encyclopedically meaningful distinctions between all five terms, we have a duty to properly document them here at perhaps the only article on the system where it is appropriate to do so. I have the interest of no one but WP's general readership at heart, and wish that a large number of self-important "Sheldons" would get with the encyclopedic program or take their leave and get out of everyone else's way.  A micro-distinction no one can document is a perceived distinction, not encyclopedic information, and Wikipedia is not here for people to make up their own individual interpretation of things.  The baseline common sense assumption here is that English words in English prose mean what they mean to the average English speaker; if some special, arcane meaning is intended, this requires explanation one way or another, be it an article on the topic, or a link to a section in one, or some in situ prose drawing the necessary distinction, or whatever.  I know you understand this already, so please stop playing games and address the issue raised.  This isn't a fencing match.  PS: In anticipation of one possible argument, I have to suggest that the idea that "group" means one thing but "Group" capitalized means the same thing but only as exactly defined by a book that happens to capitalize it is nonsense. There is rarely one single universal authority about anything, and that situation never lasts when it does occur.  Whether any alleged authority or group of authorities assign a capital letter to something in their own publication has no bearing how applicable it is in the real world and whether it supersedes other, similar concepts. Every other specialist of every field in the world rebels against this basic reason, from acting teachers who insist upon the uppercasing of Method Acting to comic book collectors who feel, somehow, that labeling a graphic novel Near Mint imbues it with a special cache. It's all very silly bias, the notion that "what I do is magically more important and special than others, deserving a unique style that everyone else in the world must learn, know and respect".  WP:MOS exists to stop that inanity, and does so plainly: "Do not capitalize for emphasis." — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  05:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I see you believe in never using 1 word when 3967 will do ... in an incomprehensible tirade. I suppose the obvious response is to reply in like fashion by telling you to stick your epiphyllums up your proverbial.  But I wont do that. Instead I suggest you resolve your own mess by working with the last two ICNCPs to sort it all out. Geekman.  Granitethighs   08:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Actually you just did reply in that fashion. If I wrote (as I am in fact writing now) "I could tell you 'Stop posting like a total WP:DICK' but I won't", that doesn't mean that I didn't just pointedly refer you to WP:DICK (and yes I realize that it's WP:DICKish to do so, but it's sometimes necessary to snap people out of their gamesmanship). Don't be passive-aggressive; just say what you mean and don't pretend you are saying something else. I don't need to work out anything with ICNCP. You are simply failing completely to understand the argument I'm making, so I consider it to remain unchallenged on logical grounds. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  23:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Following WP:MOS
I've waited almost four months for a reasoned response to the capitalization abuse issue raised above, and not received one, so I'm going with what MOS says and clarifying the messy, confusing use and misuse of the term and capitalization of it in this article. I've changed it to not refer to anything but cultivar group by the word "group" herein, and to capitalize that term, per MOS:CAPS, only where the actual standard is to do so, i.e. when it is used in a name. If anyone has an issue with that, take it up at WT:MOS, because it's going to be about how this term is treated site-wide, not just in this article. Actually, I've done this already at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, as more than two editors' input here would be helpful to arriving at a consensus. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  23:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree. It's definitely a generic noun, so I don't see why it would be capitalized. Tdslk (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Creating confusion
As I stated before, the capitalized word Group has a very specific meaning ib Cultivated Plant taxonomy. You clearly do not understand this field of study where precision of word presentation and use is critical. In the interests of avoiding "weird stylistic ideas" you have suggested modifications that will result in the following botanical entities:

 * 1. Group
 * 2. group
 * 3. cultivar group
 * 4. Cultivar-group
 * 5. cultivar Group.

Amazing though you might find this claim it is absolutely true. All of these are technically different entities. In a campaign for political correctness you sadly do not have the interests of the wikipedia reader at heart or the interests of plant science. The logic of this claim is absolutely clear - what is also perfectly clear is that you have no intention of listening to reason. As noted in the article the capitalisation of Group is specified in the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants so you can check this out for yourself - click on the link. (Cultivated Plant Code Art. 3 Brickell 2009, pp. 10–12).  Granitethighs  06:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

 * So long as there are relatively few people interested in alternate translations of elite English jargon into standard English jargon, there will always be public displays and other publicly available and often intentional confusion spread to the innocent mind of a reader who genuinely respects the truth and therefore deserves to know it. That is a tragedy, and a trampling of a human beings most basic rights. It has absolutely nothing to do with differences in opinion and everything to do with actions that provide indisputable proof of animous thinking. Which does not align with un-animous beings and un-animous rights and pretty much signifies that the spiritual house one will reside in for the majority of lives is animal, that long term un-animous housing is not feasable - Dirtclustit (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Brilliant!  Granitethighs  06:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Two Meanings
Can someone explain in plain English what the difference is between the two definitions? --Bod (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

 * I can try, but I don't know what two definitions you are referring to. "Cultivar" is a technical term in the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, and has one definition. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

 * The Cultivated Plant Code notes that the word cultivar is used in two different senses: first, as a "classification category" the cultivar is defined [...] as follows: The basic category of cultivated plants whose nomenclature is governed by this Code is the cultivar.[16] [...] The Code then defines a cultivar as a "taxonomic unit within the classification category of cultivar".  --Bod (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Ah, right, I see. It's the same with many other words that can mean either the rank or category itself (compare "he was promoted to corporal", where "corporal" = "the rank of corporal"; "she was elected president", where "president" = "the office of president") or an actual instance of the rank or category (compare "a corporal entered the room", where "corporal" = "a person holding the rank of corporal"; "I saw the president in the lobby", where "president" = "the person holding the office of president"). So "cultivar" can be used both to mean the category and an instance of that category. It's a subtle but sometimes important distinction: the first use is abstract, the second concrete. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Addendum: once, at least in the UK, we used capitals in text to make such distinctions, writing "the office of president" and "the President entered the room". Unfortunately, in my view, this useful convention has increasingly been abandoned elsewhere and is banned in the English Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Thank you for explaining. If that is correct, then I now understand the different "senses" of the word. That is why it says "is a plant or grouping of plants"... I may try to clarify this in the article. --Bod (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that cultivar can refer to an individual plant... Under "taxonomic unit", which I still don't know the meaning of... It says this sense is most often used:
 * A cultivar is an assemblage of plants that (a) has been selected for a particular character or combination of characters, (b) is distinct, uniform and stable in those characters, and (c) when propagated by appropriate means, retains those characters.[1]
 * --Bod (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not an individual plant I agree; an instance of the category of cultivar is that group of plants that constitute one particular cultivar. So, on reflection, my examples where the instance is one individual person aren't the best. Perhaps "committee" works: sometimes it has a 'status' meaning as in "They got together and formed a committee" or "I don't believe in rule by committee"; sometimes it has an 'instance' meaning as in "The committee is ruining this organization".
 * "Taxonomic unit" here just seems to be a general term for 'ranks' such as "cultivar", "cultivar group", "species", "genus", "family", etc. – these are all "taxonomic units".
 * All the nomenclature codes, ICZN, ICN, ICNCP, etc., are very difficult to write about, in my experience, because over the years they've been written in more-and-more dense legalistic language understood only by the experts who write them. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

 * If it is not an individual plant, then I will change the lede. --Bod (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Cultivar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.hort.purdue.edu/hort/courses/HORT217/Nomenclature/description.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050306203301/http://www.hcs.ohio-state.edu/hcs/TMI/HORT234/Nomenclature.html to http://www.hcs.ohio-state.edu/hcs/TMI/HORT234/Nomenclature.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cultivar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141126034200/http://www.ishs.org/sci/icra.htm to http://www.ishs.org/sci/icra.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cultivar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051015035630/http://www.ishs.org/sci/icracpco.htm to http://www.ishs.org/sci/icracpco.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cultivar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051226124519/http://www.rhs.org.uk/learning/publications/plantsman/0605/opinion.asp to http://www.rhs.org.uk/learning/publications/plantsman/0605/opinion.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051226124519/http://www.rhs.org.uk/learning/publications/plantsman/0605/opinion.asp to http://www.rhs.org.uk/learning/publications/plantsman/0605/opinion.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Cultivating the lead
Which of the following passages, as the beginning of the introduction to this article, is more readily understood by a general, non-specialized reader?

From Wikipedia:

 * "A cultivar[nb 1] (cultivated variety) is an assemblage of plants selected for desirable characteristics that are maintained during propagation. More generally, a cultivar is the most basic classification category of cultivated plants in the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP). Most cultivars arise in cultivation, but some are from wild plants that have distinctive characteristics."

From Study.com:

 * "Cultivars are, simply put, types of plants that have been cultivated and bred by humans. Cultivars are created when people take species of plants and breed them for specific traits, such as taste, color, or resistance to pests. The plant is bred purposefully until the desired trait becomes very strong and noticeable."
 * (https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-a-cultivar-definition-types.html)

It's no contest in my opinion: the Study.com text is far more easily understood by anyone who is not already familiar with the term cultivar and botany in general. I plan to rework the opening sentences using the Study.com text as a guide in achieving the goal for the introduction to this, or any article: to be instantly comprehensible to non-specialized people, who form the majority of this site's readership. Comments invited. DonFB (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

 * I agree that the text could be simplified, but without the reference to the ICNCP, the Study.com text is simply inaccurate. It does not distinguish a "cultivar" from a cultivar group, a grex or a landrace. Its definition is actually of a cultigen, not a cultivar. As the text below says "all cultivars are cultigens, because they are cultivated, but not all cultigens are cultivars, because some cultigens have not been formally distinguished and named as cultivars." A cultivar is a distinguished and formally named cultigen that meets the requirements for naming under the ICNCP. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

 * I am primarily interested in making the first two or three sentences an easily comprehensible explanation. That's why I quoted only the first few sentences from each place. I'm not opposed to including the ICNCP definition in the introductory section, but it can be shown after the first two or three sentences tell readers in clear and plain language that cultivars are plants bred by people to have desired traits. A phrase in the very first sentence like, "characteristics that are maintained during propagation" is all but incomprehensible to a general reader. That kind of multi-syllabic jargon belongs in a textbook; it is not appropriate for the beginning of a Wikipedia article. I'm not campaigning for the Study.com article in its entirety (I can't see all of it anyway, not being a subscriber), but the few sentences I quoted offer a good guide for a clear-language start to ours. I will offer suggested revised wording in a subsequent post. DonFB (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * this is an encyclopedia, so there's absolutely no reason not to use words like "characteristics" and "propagation". However, by all means simplify, so long as the opening clearly explains that a "cultivar" is a subcategory of "plants bred by people to have desired traits" (which are cultigens), namely those with stable characteristics that have been formally described and named under the ICNCP. Anything else is simply wrong. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

 * My proposal to revise the opening paragraph (footnote also modified):
 * "A cultivar is a set of plants that people breed for desired traits, which are reproduced by a method such as grafting, tissue culture or carefully controlled seed production. Most cultivars arise from purposeful human manipulation, but some originate from wild plants that have distinctive characteristics. A cultivar is the most basic classification category of cultivated plants in the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP). Horticulturists generally believe the word cultivar was coined as a term which means "cultivated variety"."
 * DonFB (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

 * well, I would prefer to add ", and which has been formally described and named" before the end of the first sentence to distinguish a cultivar from a cultigen. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Let's include the phrase in the ICNCP sentence (third in the paragraph), rather than overloading the opening sentence:
 * "Cultivars are formally described and named in the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP), in which they are the most basic classification category."
 * I'm pretty sure readers will not stampede the site with complaints that the first sentence fails to indicate a difference between cultivar and cultigen, since that arcane distinction is unlikely to be known to any typical general reader. If both terms were actually used in the opening sentence, it would require an explanation or a link to enable a general reader to comprehend the meaning, defeating the whole purpose of simplifying the lead sentence, so that its meaning is understandable on sight.
 * I want to modify my proposed first sentence, like so:
 * "A cultivar is a set of plants that people have bred for desired traits, which are reproduced in each new generation by methods such as grafting, tissue culture or carefully controlled seed production."
 * I'm copying my modified nb1 footnote here, since it does not seem to show up otherwise:
 * Cultivar (English: /ˈkʌltɪˌvɑːr, -ˌvɛər/) has two meanings, as explained in Formal definition: it is a classification category and a taxonomic unit within the category. When referring to a taxon, the word does not apply to an individual plant but to all plants that share the unique characteristics that define the cultivar.
 * DonFB (talk) 05:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, but I still think it's wrong. If you start a sentence with "A cultivar is ...", the implication is that the sentence is a definition, and on this basis, it's wrong. You could say something like "A cultivar is a subset of those plants" followed by your words, but to say that it's "a set of plants" qualified by your words is simply not a correct definition. It's a subset of "set of plants that people have bred for desired traits, which are reproduced in each new generation by methods such as grafting, tissue culture or carefully controlled seed production". A subsequent sentence can then clarify which subset is meant. An encyclopedia must be accurate as well as accessible.
 * Another approach would be to say something like "A cultivar is a kind of cultigen. Cultigens are plants that people have bred for desired traits, which are reproduced in each new generation by methods such as grafting, tissue culture or carefully controlled seed production. Cultivars are cultigens that have been formally described and named under the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP)." Peter coxhead (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Instead of "set", other possible expressions could be "collection" or "type of". Does your objection hinge entirely upon use of the word "set"? The quibble is whether the very first sentence must establish that cultivar is a subcategory. However, even the existing opening sentence does not make that distinction. Here is a revised proposal:

 * "A cultivar is a type of plant that people have bred for desired traits, which are reproduced in each new generation by a method such as grafting, tissue culture or carefully controlled seed production. Most cultivars arise from purposeful human manipulation, but some originate from wild plants that have distinctive characteristics. Cultivar names are chosen according to rules of the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP), and not all cultivated plants qualify as cultivars. Horticulturists generally believe the word cultivar was coined as a term which means "cultivated variety"."
 * The term "cultigen" is introduced in the third paragraph; let's leave it there. The first paragraph, and certainly the first sentence, do not need the addition of yet another unfamiliar word in order to express a simple and basic idea: cultivation of plants for desirable traits. DonFB (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

is there anything below cultivar?
Hello, I am asking if is there a taxonomic rank below cultivar? like subcultivar? if there are more then one please tell me! also below cultivar is there format? BloxyColaSweet (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't answer your question directly, but the article Cultivated plant taxonomy refers to categories or ranks named "Group" and "grex" which may or may not be instances of what you call "subcultivar". Blanchette (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Group = cultivar group is a rank above cultivar. Grex is also a rank above cultivar, used only for orchids; it refers to all cultivars derived from a cross between particular parents. There are no ranks below cultivar, because it refers to one unique cultivated variety. Similar cultivars can be placed in a Group. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cultivar


text:
User:Matt Borak/chars

 * Czech characters:
 * Á = &Aacute; — á = &aacute;
 * Č = &#268; — č = &#269;
 * Ď = &#270; — ď = &#271;
 * É = &Eacute; — é = &eacute; — Ě = &#282; — ě = &#283;
 * Í = &Iacute; — í = &iacute;
 * Ň = &#327; — ň = &#328;
 * Ó = &Oacute; — ó = &oacute;
 * Ř = &#344; — ř = &#345;
 * Š = &#352; — š = &#353;
 * Ť = &#356; — ť = &#357;
 * Ú = &Uacute; — ú = &uacute; — Ů = &#366; — ů = &#367;
 * Ý = &Yacute; — ý = &yacute;
 * Ž = &#381; — ž = &#382;

 * Other characters:
 * ½ = &#189; — ¼ = &#188; — ¾ = &#190;
 * ° = &#176; — ± = &#177; — ² = &#178; — ³ = &#179;

Links

 * Table of Unicode characters, 128 to 999
 * Table of Unicode characters, 1000 to 1999

title: User:Matt Borak/chars


text:
USS Prairie

Two ships of the United States Navy have been named USS Prairie, after the grassland prairie.
 * The first USS Prairie (AD-5) was an auxiliary cruiser purchased in 1898 for the Spanish–American War, and in periodic service until sold in 1923.
 * The second USS Prairie (AD-15) was a destroyer tender in service from 1940 to 1993.

title: USS Prairie


text:
Wikipedia talk:Self link

''Please note that the content below relates to a time when self links in articles appeared as links (before February 15, 2004).

Are ALL self-links unwanted?
Self links are listed on the maintenance page as if they were a Bad Thing which generally I guess they are. The relevant maintenance page simply says: The following pages contain a link to themselves, which they should not. However a number of pages contain deliberate self-links, for example List of group theory topics and List of musical topics. In these cases an author has left a note (on the page itself in the case of the former, and on the latter's Talk page) asking that the self-link not be removed, as it is needed to help with page or topic maintenance.

I feel that the current situation is a bit messy in that someone wanting to help by tidying up can accidentally thwart the plans of people who are trying to maintain a page or topic area. This happened just now at List of musical topics. Could we please have a clear policy on this? I would have thought it either needs to be that self-links are just not allowed, in which case maybe a clearer note on the maintenance page could clarify this (plus maybe something in the style manual etc somewhere??) or, if they are allowed (where they are a deliberate action of page maintainers and not just a mistake), this should be made clear on the maintenance page, in the same way that the spelling page tried to make it clear that not every apparent misspelling needs to be corrected - that there are in effect false positives too. Maybe there could even be a standard statement that people would be encouraged to use in that case - the List of group theory topics has a nice clear statement: Since the page is a maintenance page, the interested parties also want to know when changes are made to this list as well; so please do not remove the self-link.

Apologies if all this has already been covered 93 times in here or in an FAQ or something. Thanks, Nevilley 11:50 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

Normally a self-link is unconvenient for the user: a link promises related info, but all you get is the same again. However, I understand that it can be useful in connection with the use of Related changes (no need to check the history of the page itself additionally) and then the statement above is a good solution, especially because the self-link occurs in this statement itself only. It is clearer than in List of musical topics. - Patrick 12:23 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

A clear short version of the statement, best put at the end of the article, is also:

This self-link is for technical reasons (use of Related changes), please do not remove.

Patrick 12:58 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

Self-linking?
Is it just me, or are all new articles claiming to link to themselves (ie the article appears in the "what links here" list)? Worse, if you move the page, the article continues to claim to link to the old location, now a redirect page. See Fulbert Youlou, and its "What links here" page. Niteowlneils 05:43, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I've been seeing this as well. Except for the move part, because I haven't moved anything. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:30, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Is it all articles or just stubs? The stub msg was recently changed to include an link that opened an edit window for the article. older ≠ wiser 12:11, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's it. Niteowlneils 02:46, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Self link


text:
Poetic justice

Poetic justice, also called poetic irony, is a literary device with which ultimately virtue is rewarded and misdeeds are punished. In modern literature, it is often accompanied by an ironic twist of fate related to the character's own action, hence the name poetic irony.

Etymology
English drama critic Thomas Rymer coined the phrase in The Tragedies of the Last Age Consider'd (1678) to describe how a work should inspire proper moral behaviour in its audience by illustrating the triumph of good over evil. The demand for poetic justice is consistent in Classical authorities and shows up in Horace, Plutarch, and Quintillian, so Rymer's phrasing is a reflection of a commonplace. Philip Sidney, in The Defence of Poesy (1595), argued that poetic justice was, in fact, the reason that fiction should be allowed in a civilized nation.

History
Notably, poetic justice does not merely require that vice be punished and virtue rewarded, but also that logic triumph. If, for example, a character is dominated by greed for most of a romance or drama, they cannot become generous. The action of a play, poem, or fiction must obey the rules of logic as well as morality. During the late 17th century, critics pursuing a neo-classical standard criticized William Shakespeare in favor of Ben Jonson precisely on the grounds that Shakespeare's characters change during the course of the play. When Restoration comedy, in particular, flouted poetic justice by rewarding libertines and punishing dull-witted moralists, there was a backlash in favor of drama, in particular, of more strict moral correspondence.

title: Poetic justice


text:
USS President

USS President may refer to the following ships of the United States Navy:

 * USS President (1800), was a 44-gun American frigate, launched in 1800 that the British Royal Navy captured in 1815. The Royal Navy took her into service as HMS President.
 * USS President (1812), was a 12-gun American sloop, purchased in 1812 that the British captured in 1814. She served simultaneously with, but separately from, the first President.

title: USS President


text:
Corylus avellana

Corylus avellana, the common hazel, is a species of flowering plant in the birch family Betulaceae, native to Europe and Western Asia. It is an important component of the hedgerows that were, historically, used as property and field boundaries in lowland England. The wood was traditionally grown as coppice, with the poles cut being used for wattle-and-daub building, and agricultural fencing.

Common hazel is mainly cultivated for its nuts. The name ‘hazelnut’ applies to the nuts of any species in the genus Corylus, but (in commercial settings) a hazelnut is usually that of C. avellana. This hazelnut or cob nut, the kernel of the seed, is edible and used raw or roasted, or ground into a paste. The cob is round, compared with the longer filbert nut.

Description
Common hazel is typically a shrub reaching 3–8 m tall, but can reach 15 m. The leaves are deciduous, rounded, 6–12 cm long and across, softly hairy on both surfaces, and with a double-serrate margin. The flowers are produced very early in spring, before the leaves, and are monoecious with single-sex wind-pollinated catkins. Male catkins are pale yellow and 5–12 cm long, while female flowers are very small and largely concealed in the buds with only the bright red 1–3 mm long styles visible. The fruit is a nut, produced in clusters of one to five together, each nut held in a short leafy involucre ("husk") which encloses about three-quarters of the nut. The nut is roughly spherical to oval, 15–20 mm long and 12–20 mm broad (larger, up to 25 mm long, in some cultivated selections), yellow-brown with a pale scar at the base. The nut falls out of the involucre when ripe, about 7–8 months after pollination.

It is readily distinguished from the closely related filbert (Corylus maxima) by the short involucre; in the filbert the nut is fully enclosed by a beak-like involucre longer than the nut.

Taxonomy
The scientific name avellana derives from the town of Avella in Italy, and was selected by Linnaeus from Leonhart Fuchs's De historia stirpium commentarii insignes (1542), where the species was described as "Avellana nux sylvestris" ("wild nut of Avella"). That name was taken in turn from Pliny the Elder's first century A.D. encyclopedia Naturalis Historia.

Distribution
Corylus avellana occurs from Ireland and the British Isles south to Iberia, Italy, Greece, Turkey and Cyprus, north to central Scandinavia, and east to the central Ural Mountains, the Caucasus, and northwestern Iran.

Ecology
The leaves provide food for many animals, including Lepidoptera such as the case-bearer moth Coleophora anatipennella. Caterpillars of the concealer moth Alabonia geoffrella have been found feeding inside dead common hazel twigs.

The fruit are possibly even more important animal food, both for invertebrates adapted to circumvent the shell (usually by ovipositing in the female flowers, which also gives protection to the offspring) and for vertebrates which manage to crack them open (such as squirrels and corvids). Both are considered pests by hazelnut growers.

The roots of C. avellana are also commonly used as the host for ectomycorrhizal fungus such as Laccaria laccata (Deceiver), Russula ochroleuca (Ochre Brittlegill) and Paxillus involutus (Brown Rollrim), which are the most commonly recorded mycorrhizal fungi in Great Britain. In the Mediterranean, the Black Truffle (Tuber melanosporum) is found on the roots.

Biochemistry
In 2003, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recognized edible nuts as “heart healthy” foods. Frequent nut intake is associated with low risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer (Surh 2003; Hertog et al. 1993; Ness and Powles 1997). The prevalent phenolics accumulates in Corylus avellana kernels and its by-products are catechin, gallic acid, sinapic acid, caffeic acid, p-coumaric acid, ferulic acid, their esters and flavonoids.(Shahidi et al. 2007; Del Rio et al. 2011) Various other bioactive phenols have also been characterized in hazelnut leaves and foliar buds (Oliveira et al. 2007).

Cultivation

There are many cultivars of the hazel, up to 400 cultivars (in 2011) of C. avellana have been named. The list of cultivars includes; Barcelona, Butler, Casina, Clark Cosford, Daviana, Delle Langhe, England, Ennis, Fillbert, Halls Giant, Jemtegaard, Kent Cob, Lewis, Tokolyi, Tonda Gentile, Tonda di Giffoni, Tonda Romana, Wanliss Pride, and Willamette. It also includes Polish hazelnuts cultivars; Kataloński and Webba Cenny.

Some of these are grown for specific qualities of the nut including large nut size, and early and late fruiting cultivars, whereas other are grown as pollinators. The majority of commercial hazelnuts are propagated from root sprouts. Some cultivars are of hybrid origin between common hazel and filbert.

The following ornamental cultivars have gained the Royal Horticultural Society's Award of Garden Merit:-
 * 'Contorta' (corkscrew hazel, Harry Lauder's walking stick)
 * 'Red Majestic'

Uses
According to the New Sunset Western Garden Book, the European hazelnut is among the most widely grown hazelnut plants for commercial nut production.

This shrub is common in many European woodlands. It is an important component of the hedgerows that were the traditional field boundaries in lowland England. The wood was traditionally grown as coppice, the poles cut being used for wattle-and-daub building and agricultural fencing.

Hazelnuts

Hazelnuts are rich in protein and unsaturated fat. They also contain significant amounts of manganese, copper, vitamin E, thiamine, and magnesium.

Common hazel is cultivated for its nuts in commercial orchards in Europe, Turkey, Iran and Caucasus. The name "hazelnut" applies to the nuts of any of the several species of the genus Corylus. This hazelnut or cobnut, the kernel of the seed, is edible and used raw or roasted, or ground into a paste. The seed has a thin, dark brown skin which has a bitter flavour and is sometimes removed before cooking. The top producer of hazelnuts, by a large margin, is Turkey, specifically the Giresun Province. Turkish hazelnut production of 625,000 tonnes accounts for approximately 75% of worldwide production.

title: Corylus avellana


text:
Talk:Dioscorides

no born-died?

--Yak 14:53, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Merge
I just noticed something funny: Pedanius Dioscurides has three articles dedicated to him, that need to be merged (probably under the full title Pedanius Dioscurides (not the less common Dioscorides): Dioscorides, Dioscurides, and Pedanius Dioscorides. He also has Vienna Dioscurides but that's a separate article.

I am building up the Pedanius Dioscorides article, and am deleting bit by bit the others. Help welcomed. Alexander 007 03:21, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dioscorides


text:
Blue chip (stock market)

A blue chip is capital stock of a stock corporation (contrasted with non-stock one) with a national reputation for quality, reliability, and the ability to operate profitably in both good and bad times.

Origin
As befits the sometimes high-risk nature of stock picking, the term "blue chip" derives from the card game poker. The simplest sets of poker chips include white, red, and blue chips, with American tradition dictating that the blues are highest in value.

In the United States, blue chips were traditionally used for higher values such that "blue chip" used in noun and adjectival senses are attested since 1873 and 1894, respectively. This established connotation was first extended to the sense of a blue-chip stock in the 1920s. According to Dow Jones company folklore, this sense extension was coined by Oliver Gingold (an early employee of the company that would become Dow Jones) sometime in the 1920s, when Gingold was standing by the stock ticker at the brokerage firm that later became Merrill Lynch. Noticing several trades at $200 or $250 a share or more, he said to Lucien Hooper of stock brokerage W.E. Hutton & Co. that he intended to return to the office to "write about these blue-chip stocks". It has been in use ever since, originally in reference to high-priced stocks, more commonly used today to refer to high-quality stocks.

United States
The most popular index that follows United States blue chips is the Dow Jones Industrial Average, a price-weighted average of 30 blue-chip stocks that are generally the leaders in their industry. All companies in the Dow Jones Industrial Average are blue-chips, but the Dow Jones Industrial Average is an index that does not include all companies that are blue chips. Nevertheless, it has been a widely followed indicator of the stock market since October 1, 1928.

title: Blue chip (stock market)


text:
HMS President

Five ships and one shore establishment of the Royal Navy have been named HMS President, after the office of president meaning "one who presides over an assembly". In the case of the first two British ships, the name may have applied to the Lord President of the Privy Council.

This ship-name lapsed from 1660 to 1806, when it was revived by the capture of the FRENCH FRIGATE Président, and then perpetuated by the 1815 capture of the American super-frigate USS President (1800). These captures were commemorated by a new *HMS President (1829), which survived from 1829 till 1903, and which passed the name to a series of Presidents of which three survive to this day.

 * HMS President (1646) was a 26-gun ship purchased in 1646, known as Old President after 1650, and sold in 1656.
 * HMS President (1650) was a 42-gun fourth rate ship launched in 1650, renamed Bonaventure in 1660, rebuilt 1666, and broken up 1711.
 * HMS President (1806) was a 38-gun fifth rate ship, originally the French FRENCH FRIGATE Président, captured in 1806, renamed Piedmontaise in 1815 and broken up in the same year.
 * HMS President (1815) was a 44-gun fifth rate, originally the American frigate USS President (1800), captured in 1815 and broken up June 1818.
 * HMS President (1829) was a 52-gun fourth rate launched in 1829, used as a drill ship of the Royal Naval Reserve after 1862 and sold in 1903. She was briefly known as Old President for part of 1903.
 * HMS President (shore establishment) is the home of the London Division of the Royal Naval Reserve. It has been a shore establishment near Tower Bridge overlooking the entrance to St Katharine Docks since 1988. Ships that have been previously renamed HMS President whilst serving as the home of the London Division of the Royal Naval Reserve include:
 * HMS Gannet (1878), an Doterel-class sloop screw sloop, launched in 1878 and renamed HMS President in 1903. She was sold in 1911, but survived to be displayed in Chatham Historic Dockyard.
 * HMS Buzzard (1887), a Nymphe-class sloop screw sloop launched in 1887 and renamed HMS President in 1911. She was lent away in 1919 and sold in 1921.
 * HMS Marjoram, an Anchusa-class sloop sloop was to have been the next HMS President, but she was wrecked before she could be refitted.
 * HMS Saxifrage, an Anchusa-class sloop launched in 1918 instead became HMS President in 1921, serving as such until 1988. She is now permanently berthed in the River Thames on the Victoria Embankment.

Battle honours

 * Portland 1653
 * Gabbard 1653
 * Scheveningen 1653
 * Java 1811
 * San Sebastian 1813.

title: HMS President