text:
Wikipedia:School and university projects/Piotrus course intro boilerplate/old

This is a boilerplate wiki-syllabi for any course which is going to ask students to do something on Wikipedia. It is divided into several sections. First, 'general instructions' for anybody who stumbles into the page. Second, 'instructions for students' which introduce them to Wikipedia. Third, 'exercises for students', which contains a selection for small exercises that you may want to use to familiarize the students with wikis and Wikipedia. Fourth, 'working paper' which contains instruction specific to a working paper (to be written by a group of students as a major assignment).

All text in <> are examples to be replaced by whatever you want when you copy this boilerplate. Feel free to replace anything else, change anything else, and do whatever you want with this boilerplate.

To use it, click 'edit this page' and copy this boilerplate (from introduction to category) to your project page prior to using it in a specific page (i.e. create a new page at School and university projects/your course name or User:your username/your course name (replacing your course name with, well, your course name!) and paste the content of this page there, then edit it at will.

Introduction

 * Specific introduction for students is in the next section.

At an introductory course to  at the  will ask students to .

There will be around <''how many students? groups? ex. 40 groups of 5 students each''>. Each student will have a separate Wikipedia account, and each group will .

Supervisors: I,  will take care of introducing studends to Wikipedia and ensuring they and the project are working within the bounds of Wikipedia guidelines.

Start date: The project .

Status: <''status of the project. Ex. At that moment it has led to no editing other than that on the project pages. Please direct any comments to my user talk page or to the project talk page.''>

Introduction for students
Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, is an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone. It has over three million editors (Wikipedians) as of 2007, many of whom are students like you. The vast majority of them are volunteers who find editing this site to be an enjoyable experience, even a hobby. Therefore I hope you will enjoy this exercise and the course! After all, there are not many exercises that tell you to do something that over a million people think is 'fun'. :)

Tutorial is the best place to start your adventure with this wiki. Please familiarize yourself with School and university projects - instructions for students and if you have any questions, check the Help:Contents and if you cannot find what you are looking for, ask the friendly people at Help desk - or just

Before making any major edits, it is recommended that you create an account (Why create an account?). You definitely need to have an account before attempting to work on any of the exercises in the next section (otherwise we will be unable to confirm if you have completed the exercise). After you create an account, please find your name in the relevant row of the Completed assignments page and add a link to your user page in the 'Student Wikipedia userpage' column in the row with your name.

Remember that Wikipedia is not a project limited only to the <''your university, ex. University of Pittsburgh>. We are guests here and we should all behave accordingly. Please make sure you read Wikiquette. Our <''course name, ex.'0005 Societies' course> is the first one at our university to use Wikipedia to such an extent, so please try to think what impression you want other Wikipedians to have of our university—and of yourselves.

You should expect that the course leader, TAs, other students, your friends, and even (or especially) other Wikipedia editors (not affiliated with our course) will leave you various messages on your talk pages. When working on the exercises below, you should log in to Wikipedia and check your messages as often as you check your email (I strongly recommend you read 'as often' as 'at least daily'). Whenever you have a new message and are logged to Wikipedia, you will see a large orange message, 'You have new messages', on every Wikipedia page you access. To make this message disappear, you should click on it and read the message. Note that it is customary to leave new messages at the bottom of the talk/discussion pages, and to reply to somebody's messages on their talk pages. If you want to leave somebody a message, make sure you are editing their talk page, not their user page. Remember to sign your talk and discussion messages.

Some other useful tips: whenever you are done with an edit and want to save a page, fill out the edit summary box and view a preview of the page after your edit to make sure it looks as you actually want it to look. Only then click the "Save Page" button. You may find the page history tool and watchlist tools to be very useful when you want to check what changes by other editors have been made to the article(s) you are working on.

Please direct any questions to . You are welcome to send us emails, or drop by to see us during our office hours, and ask about Wikipedia how-to; but please try to find the answer first on the Help:Contents.

Exercises for students
After you familiarise yourself with how Wikipedia works, it is time to put those lessons into practice. This is important; not only will it give you experience in wiki technology before you begin your Working Paper, but the successful completion of the below exercises in itself will impact your quiz/participation score. After you finish doing an exercise, please leave the information at the .

'''Important note: make sure you are logged into your account before making any edits. If you are not logged in, we cannot verify who has done the edits, thus we will be unable to recognize your work and grade you on it. In other words, if you do any edits while not logged in, we will not count those edits toward your grade in this course.'''

As mentioned in the introduction section above, each student should let their Teaching Assistant know what their Wikipedia account nickname is by linking their Wikipedia account next to their name on the . In the same manner, make sure you link the article you are working in during the exercises on that page.

 * Exercise 0

You may want to start with this tutorial, which will take you through the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Create a userpage for yourself. Look at the top right corner, you will see your nickname in red. Click on it; write some text (about yourself, about the course, etc.), save the page. Repeat until you are satisfied. Upload an image and add it to your page.

 * Exercise 1

First, try expanding and improving an existing article. Wikipedia covers nearly every aspect of our life and culture, so you should be able to find something connected to your hobbies and interests, but for this exercise you should preferably find a subject related to sociology. The following pages may be useful to you at that stage: Make sure you have read the guides mentioned in the introduction section and familiarised yourself with how wiki works before attempting to do this exercise. You may want to refresh your memory by rereading this page:
 * WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types - this page contains an extensive list of stub articles, sorted by categories
 * Requests for expansion - this page contains a list of articles that other users would like to see expanded, sorted by categories
 * Special:Shortpages - this page lists all Wikipedia articles deemed too short and thus in need of expansion.
 * How to edit a page

To complete this exercise, it is enough to expand any one article with a single meaningful sentence. Of course, if you feel you can do more, feel free to do so. If you manage to expand (in a meaningful way) a stub article that it no longer qualifies as a stub, then you may receive some additional points. Make sure you mark the exercise as 'done' on the . This exercise should be completed by

 * Exercise 2

After you are familiar with how to expand an existing article, you should try to create a new article. As in the previous exercise, there are several pages that will help you find a subject for your article: However, before you create the new article, make sure it has the appropriate name - it you haven't so far, you may want to read Naming conventions. And if you are unsure how to create a new article, you will want to read Starting a new page.
 * Requested articles
 * Most wanted stubs
 * Most wanted articles

Now that you have created your article, you should make sure it fulfills several important criteria.
 * 1) It is important that an article is not orphaned - i.e. it should be linked from several other articles. To learn more about this, take one of the existing orphaned articles and link them into appropriate places. See Orphaned articles for more details on this.
 * 2) It is important that an article belongs to a category. See Category for more details.
 * 3) It is likely the article you have created is a stub. In that case, make sure you assign it to the appropriate stub category.
 * 4) It is extremely important that the article has references. Please see Cite sources and References. You can use External links as references for this exercise, but bear in mind that for your Working Paper you will be required to use academic books/journals as references as well.
 * 5) If the article is long enough, it should have an introductory paragraph. See Lead for details on what such a paragraph should look like.

To complete this exercise, you should create a new article and make sure it fits the above criteria. If you manage to create (in a meaningful way) an article large enough that it does not qualify as a stub, then you may receive some additional points. Make sure you mark the exercise as 'done' on the Completed assignments page. This exercise should be completed by

There are many other places you may want to check if you want to improve your Wikipedia-editing skills by editing Wikipedia. Feel free to check the following pages:

 * Cleanup
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Translation into English
 * Pages needing translation into English
 * WikiProject Countering systemic bias
 * Collaboration of the week
 * Article improvement drive

 * Exercise 3

It is vitally important to be able to distinguish between primary sources and secondary sources, as well as to be able to properly cite your sources. In this exercise we will concentrate on references. Please find an unreferenced article: you may look through some of the categories mentioned above, or browse the Category:Articles lacking sources. When you find an article that does not follow Citing sources guideline, try to find reference for every important fact in the article. Please try to use academic, primary sources (like academic journals) instead of non-academic, secondary sources (like newspapers or non-academic websites). See also Reliable sources for information on what sources are preffered.

Some examples of well-referenced articles: Katyn massacre, Welding, Section summary of the USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Battle of Austerlitz, Military history of France, Monopoly (game), Astrophysics Data System, Mercury (planet), Søren Kierkegaard, Eric A. Havelock.

Working paper

 * See School and university projects/Piotrus working paper boilerplate for a dedicated working paper boilerplate

A list of short, stub -related articles selected by course leader and/or the TAs will be available here before work on the Working Paper will begin. Each group of students should chose one article and work on it. Make sure you report your choice on the  and cross out the article from the list below (you can cross out the articles by using tags before and after the word to achieve the following effect ). Note that this means that the groups which decide early on their articles will have a wider choice and the groups which wait until the end will have few articles to chose from. If instead of expanding an existing stub you would like to create a new article from scratch, this is possible, however make sure you consult the subject of this article with your TA and receive their approval before stating the project.

You are welcome to use Peer Review and related tools and seek creative comments on your article. If you manage to make your article a Featured Article, you may receive additional points. However, please refrain from voting for each other's articles during this process (note also that anonymous and new user votes are commonly disregarded during FA voting process to prevent any abuses. In additon, please note that any attempt to cheat on Wikipedia will be regarded as seriously as academic plagiarism.

 * <ex.List of all sociology-stubs?. We will chose the most appopriate stubs for our 'Societies' course and list them below for your convenience.

Make sure you mark the exercise as 'done' on the Completed assignments page. This assignment is due by

pl:Wikipedia:Projekty szkolne i akademickie/Szablon wykładu pt:Wikipedia:Projectos/Escolares e universitários/Modelo Piotrus e Vapmachado


text: User talk:24.218.216.223

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

title: User talk:24.218.216.223


text:
Talk:Concern (computer science)

The main issue I had with the previous version is that a cross-cutting concern, once separated and isolated is no longer cross-cutting. A reformulation of the problem or perhaps more expressive programming languages will make previously cross-cutting concerns non-crosscutting.

--Andrew Eisenberg 19:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Disputed: Accuracy, Verifiability Original Research
It appears Edsger W. Dijkstra coined the term Separation of concerns and the concept forms a theme running through many of his papers, some of which I cite here:

http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD02xx/EWD288.html http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD03xx/EWD303.html http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD03xx/EWD316.html http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD03xx/EWD340.html http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD03xx/EWD361.html http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD03xx/EWD389.html http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD04xx/EWD447.html http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD04xx/EWD450.html http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD04xx/EWD454.html http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD05xx/EWD512.html http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD05xx/EWD514.html http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD05xx/EWD526.html http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD06xx/EWD611.html http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD06xx/EWD641.html http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD07xx/EWD709.html http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD07xx/EWD716.html http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD07xx/EWD791.html http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD09xx/EWD932c.html http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD09xx/EWD963.html http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/EWD1013.html http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/EWD1024.html http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD12xx/EWD1298.html http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/obituary.html

The concerns Dijkstra mentions apply to entire systems (even systems of systems -- perhaps even universally) and would concern everyone affected by the system. Thus, when I approach the ATM with my bank card, I am concerned with correctness, performance, availability, concurrency, security, need, relevance, cost etc. I have no concern whatsoever for source code, implementations, design patterns, use cases, any sort of diagram or any grouping of same.

Concerns can have different importance and the importance can vary over time. Thus availability of the ATM is less of a concern when stopping at the ATM while passing by than it is when I have no money in my pocket needing something from a store about to close. Correctness, on the other hand, is always an important concern.

Sometimes one can break down a concern into other concerns. Thus, a concern for reliability might comprise concerns for correctness, availability and durability as one cannot rely on anything incorrect, unavailable or broken.

This article redefines the term from its original meaning and offers no citations for verification. If one has a verifiable source for some redefinition, both the original meaning and the new meaning need mention to avoid POV.

The explanation of the term given in the article seems wrong and the examples of proposed solutions do not seem to address the separation of concerns at all as the separation of concerns is an intellectual discipline more than anything else.

Bob Badour 17:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I reworked this article based on my own experiences with software development and AOP, noting Dijkstra's prior work and trying to find sources for core ideas. 's dispute stood for a year and a half with no major edits nor any discussion. I believe the current version more closely reflects Bob's desired changes, and am removing the dispute tag. Feel free to continue the discussion or to write on my Talk page about this, including the article's place in the greater collection of Software Development articles. mordel (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Behavior
Is behavior something specific to UML? --Abdull 15:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Concern (computer science). 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/20070908073330/http://www2.parc.com/csl/groups/sda/publications/papers/PARC-AOP-RG97/ to http://www2.parc.com/csl/groups/sda/publications/papers/PARC-AOP-RG97/

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) 22:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The first reference - to "Concern Spaces at IBM" appears to be dead. Does anyone have an up-to-date link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dm5037 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Concern (computer science)


text:
Naimon

Naimon, Duke of Bavaria, also called Naimes, Naime, Naymon, Namo, and Namus, is a character of the Matter of France stories concerning Charlemagne and his paladins, and appears in Old French chansons de geste (like The Song of Roland) and Italian romance epics. He is traditionally Charlemagne's wisest and most trusted advisor.

In the Song of Roland, Naimon supports Ganelon's proposal to make peace with King Marsile. He does not suspect Ganelon's treachery. Later, he organizes the divisions of Charlemagne's army and participates in the battle against Baligant.

In Le Pèlerinage de Charlemagne he is included among the Twelve Peers.

In later romances he is given a son, Sir Bertram.

In Orlando Furioso he appears at the beginning of the story, holding Angelica captive.

Naimon's character may be summarized thus:

"This same Naimon, the traditional adviser of the king, this medieval Nestor, this uncompromising advocate of Right against Might, is the most unchanging figure among the heroes. He is the embodiment of good sense, moderation and justice."

title: Naimon


text:
Giovanni Giorgi

Giovanni Giorgi (November 27, 1871 – August 19, 1950) was an Italian physicist and electrical engineer who proposed the Giorgi system of measurement, the precursor to the International System of Units (SI).

Early life
Giovanni Giorgi was born in Lucca on November 27, 1871.

Career
Giorgi studied engineering at the Institute of Technology of Rome, he worked at Fornaci Giorgi in Ferentino, then was the director of the Technology Office of Rome between 1905 and 1924. He also taught at the University of Rome between 1913 and 1939. During World War II he moved to Ferentino. He was an Invited Speaker of the ICM in 1924 in Toronto, in 1928 in Bologna, and in 1932 in Zurich.

Personal life
He was engaged to Laura Pisati, his former master's student who became the first woman invited to deliver a lecture at the fourth International Congress of Mathematicians (ICM), but she died in 1908 shortly before both her talk and their intended wedding.

Death
Giorgi died on August 19, 1950, in Castiglioncello, Livorno at the age of 78.

The Giorgi system
Toward the end of the 19th century, after James Clerk Maxwell's discoveries, it was clear that electric measurements could not be explained in terms of the three base units of length, mass and time, and that some irrational coefficients appeared in the equations without any logical physical reason. In 1901, Giorgi proposed to the (AEI) that the MKS system (which used the metre, kilogram and second as its base units) should be extended with a fourth unit to be chosen from the units of electromagnetism, solving also the presence of the irrational coefficients.

In 1935 this was adopted by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) as the M.K.S. System of Giorgi without specifying which electromagnetic unit would be the fourth base unit. In 1946 the International Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM) approved a proposal to use the ampere as that unit in a four-dimensional system, the MKSA system.

The Giorgi system was thus the precursor of the International System of Units (SI) adopted in 1960, which was based on six base units: metre, kilogram, second, ampere, kelvin, and candela. The mole was added as a seventh base unit in 1971.

title: Giovanni Giorgi


text:
User:Keolah

Keolah is a complete and utter dork who lives in Eugene, Oregon. Theoretically she can also speak French and Spanish, but in practice while she can read many languages, she can speak them only very badly if at all.

Keolah is responsible for various non-noteworthy influences on the Internet, such as the contribution of multiple MUD codebases nobody uses, vast quantities of bad poetry, some crappy art that nobody really looks at, and a number of short stories and novels that nobody actually reads. She participates in National Novel Writing Month when she can be bothered, and writes primarily fanfiction these days. She enjoys speaking of herself in the third person.

She spends entirely too much time playing random games on the internet, such as Urban Dead. She gets annoyed every time she makes the mistake of looking at a Wikipedia discussion page. She also works on very pointless IRC bot far too much. She considers herself something of an expert in random name generators, which is probably not a subject that it is especially useful to be an expert thereof. One day she will probably write a computer program that will automatically write novels for her, at the rate she's going.

title: User:Keolah


text:
Bonin (disambiguation)

Bonin normally refers to the Bonin Islands, a Japanese island chain SSE of the Home Islands in the North Pacific.

Bonin may also refer to:

Places

 * Bonin, Masovian Voivodeship (east-central Poland)
 * Bonin, Choszczno County in West Pomeranian Voivodeship (north-west Poland)
 * Bonin, Drawsko County in West Pomeranian Voivodeship (north-west Poland)
 * Bonin, Koszalin County in West Pomeranian Voivodeship (north-west Poland)
 * Bonin, Łobez County in West Pomeranian Voivodeship (north-west Poland)
 * Bonin, part of the Jeżyce district of Poznań (western Poland)

Other uses

 * Bonin (surname)

title: Bonin (disambiguation)


text:
Reno and Smiley

Reno and Smiley were an American musical duo that was composed of Don Reno (May 17, 1925 – October 16, 1984) and Red Smiley (February 21, 1925 – January 2, 1972). They were one of the most acclaimed duos in country and bluegrass music in the 1950s and early 1960s.

Background
Arthur Lee Smiley, Red Smiley, was born in Marshall, NC. Little is known about his early life, but his musical inspiration is said to have surfaced at the age of seven when seeing two hobos playing in Bushnell, North Carolina. By the late 1930s, he was playing on WROL in Knoxville, Tennessee, with guitar being his primary instrument. In 1942, he joined the Army. After he was discharged, he attended diesel mechanic school in Nashville, Tennessee, where he first saw Don Reno playing on the Grand Ole Opry with Bill Monroe. At this time, he was also performing in East Tennessee and western North Carolina.

Donald Wesley Reno, Don Reno, was born in Spartanburg, SC, but made his home in Clyde, North Carolina. He was known as a showman, vocalist, multi-instrumentalist, songwriter, and composer, although his immediate family was not musical. He was exposed to fiddlers Art Wooten and Tommy Magness through the wife of his older brother Harley, in which she had brothers that had a band. He first picked up the banjo at the age of five and by age eight, he owned a guitar. Reno's musical approach was different than others in bluegrass at the time in that his was more innovative rather than traditional, injecting blues and jazz into his playing. As he wavered between guitar and banjo, he was a star on both. In March 1944, Reno joined the Army and served as company barber in Burma and China. After the war, he operated a grocery store in South Carolina and played jazz and country music at night. In 1948, he heard that Bill Monroe needed a banjo player after Earl Scruggs had left, so he drove to Taylorsville, North Carolina, where he got onstage without invitation and played banjo with Bill Monroe and the Blue Grass Boys. He stayed with them until 1949, when Reno left the Blue Grass Boys because of an occurrence of malaria and formed the first edition of the Tennessee Cut-Ups in South Carolina with his nephew, Verlon Reno.

How they met
The two talents met in 1949 while working with fiddler Tommy Magness and the Tennessee Buddies in Roanoke, Virginia. Red Smiley was already an active member of the group when Don Reno was called to join them. Smiley also joined the group in 1949, playing at WDBJ radio. After hearing that Reno had left Bill Monroe and the Blue Grass Boys, Smiley convinced Magness to call and offer him a job. The first records that Red and Don recorded together were with Tommy Magness in 1951 for Federal Records, a subsidiary of King Records, recording four Reno-penned sacred songs, where they found that their playing worked well together.

Their career together
After Tommy Magness retired, they both joined Toby Stroud's Blue Mountain Boys to play on a radio station, WWVA (AM), in Wheeling, West Virginia. In 1952, Syd Nathan from King Records called and offered to record Reno and Smiley alone. The duo recorded "I'm Using My Bible for a Roadmap" in 1952, which was written by Don Reno in 1950. They went their separate ways, Smiley returning to Asheville to work as a mechanic, and Reno re-joining Arthur "Guitar Boogie" Smith and the Crackerjacks in Charlotte, North Carolina.

When a man from Richmond, Virginia wanted to produce a live show with Red and Don on Easter weekend of 1955, the two went to Richmond, along with John Palmer on bass and Mack Magaha on fiddle, and played together on stage for the first time. After playing the Old Dominion Barn Dance the day before, a radio show in Richmond, the group was offered a regular job at the Barn Dance. They accepted and Reno & Smiley and the Tennessee Cut-Ups were formed, recording their first session in August 1956 while releasing a single record every six weeks, with Carlton Haney as their manager.

The group was popular in the southeast and mid-Atlantic, when the duo started the first early morning country music TV show on December 31, 1956 in Roanoke, Virginia called Top o' the Morning, the show airing every weekday. The show was followed by a Saturday night radio barn dance and a weekly TV show. Due to a heavy TV schedule and the decline in Don Reno's health, their touring schedule was restricted. In November 1964, the group parted ways with Reno keeping the band name and adding his son, Ronnie Reno, on mandolin to work more road dates. The two reunited briefly in 1965 to play a college concert at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. After the split, though, Smiley continued to play on the TV shows as the "Bluegrass Cut-Ups" until Top o' the Morning was cancelled in 1968, which lead him into retirement. When Smiley retired in the late 1960s, Jim Eanes acquired the band, renaming it "The Shenandoah Cutups".

From late 1966 to early 1977, Don Reno traveled with Benny Martin. Red Smiley decided to come out of retirement to join the two and toured with them from 1969-1972. Red Smiley died in 1972 at the age of 47. Don Reno continued to perform with his sons Don Wayne and Dale along, with Bill Harrell, until his death in 1984 at the age of 57.

In 1992, Don Reno and Red Smiley were inducted into the International Bluegrass Music Hall of Honor.

title: Reno and Smiley


text:
Talk:Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge

Current text is largely from the [www.fws.gov/pacific/desfbay/ official site], which I assume to be public domain since it is a US government agency. seglea 19:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * link is dead.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://library.fws.gov/refuges/DEsanfran.pdf

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. 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/20090210041255/http://www.cargill.com:80/sf_bay/index.htm to http://www.cargill.com/sf_bay/index.htm

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) 07:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


text:
User talk:SSB24

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! feydey
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Image Tagging Image:CleaveGag.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:CleaveGag.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag, so its copyright status is therefore unclear. Please add a tag to let us know its copyright status. (If you created/took the picture then you can use to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use  .)  If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know on the image description page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Otherwise, see Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. Thanks so much. --feydey 19:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:SSB24


text:
Egon Olsen

Egon Olsen (born 12 March 1925 (DK), 13 March 1923 (NO)) is a fictional character in the Danish Olsenbanden film series as well as in the Norwegian remake. He is portrayed by Ove Sprogøe in the Danish version and by Arve Opsahl in the Norwegian. In the Swedish version of the series, Jönssonligan, his part was taken by the character Charles Ingvar "Sickan" Jönsson, played by Gösta Ekman (and in the later films by other characters, played by different actors).

Egon Olsen in the Danish series
In the Danish original, Egon Olsen is the small and wiry boss of the Olsen Gang. His two sidekicks are the merry Benny and the timid, pudgy Kjeld. Kjeld's wife, Yvonne, is the only one who Egon has to fight, as she tends to interfere with his plans. Egon Olsen's hallmark is his bowler hat, pinstripe suit, and an extinguished cigar end in his mouth, even when he is gagged. Egon Olsen is one of the typical antiheroes of film history, an eternal loser who wobbles but does not fall over. Some observers have pointed out that "Egon Olsen projects the image of an anarchist, an outcast from the world of established capitalism as well as from the secure world of the middle and upper classes".

Egon's involvement in each film follows a similar pattern. Egon constantly develops new and "genius" plans during his stays in prison. His catchphrase is "I have a plan", which he says to his accomplices in all fourteen films after being released from prison. The plan succeeds through the most intricate machinations (Egon's specialty is the cracking of safes with merely a stethoscope and fine feeling) but Egon always loses his object of desire due to some freak accident at the end of the movie, usually caused by the incompetence of his accomplices. Almost every film, except the fifth, the sixth and the fourteenth, ends with Egon's arrest.

Reception and influence
The role of Egon Olsen was Ove Sprogøe's most successful and also last film role. Sprogøe was honoured with a Bodil in 1975 for Olsen-Bandens sidste bedrifter. The role had a legendary renown in former East Germany, and while many West Germans are unable to associate the name of the franchise with the Danish films, nearly all Eastern Germans can at least cite Benny's catchphrase "mächtig gewaltig, Egon" (Danish "skidegodt, Egon!" - in English literally "shit-good, Egon", or "bloody good, Egon!"). Critics hypothesise that Egon's talent for improvisation impressed East Germans living under a socialist economy of scarcity, more than James Bond did, fighting his enemies with the newest technological gimmicks.

The gaolers of the Vridsløselille prison in Copenhagen, where Egon Olsen went at the end of each film, initiated a renaming of the street right in front of the prison into "Egon Olsens Vej" (55.66111°N, 12.34806°W) in 2004. According to gaolers and the prison warden, "Egon Olsen has always been a very nice criminal who deserves to be honoured", and "Egon has done much for the facility. Up until today, many tourists from Eastern Germany go on a pilgrimage to the prison gate to take pictures".

In the Norwegian series
In the Norwegian series, Egon is quite similar to his Danish counterpart, with the same costumes and mannerisms. He is shown to be quite smart, laying ingenious plans to achieve fortune, and have them ruined by either his companions, poor timing or bad luck, very much like the Danish version where Yvonne is often the cause of his downfall.

In the Norwegian series, Egon was originally set to be portrayed by Carsten Byhring, with Arve Opsahl in the role as Kjell Jensen, his companion. During rehearsal, however, Opsahl disagreed with the casting, and suggested that he and Byhring switch roles, to which Byhring and the directors fully agreed. Opsahl brought a lot of his comic talents to the role, in particular his doubletakes and long (and at the time profane) rants and outbursts, which Opsahl was known for on stage. He played the role in all fourteen films, including the final film in which he did half his scenes with a prosthetic foot, after having it amputated due to diabetes half-way through production.

title: Egon Olsen


text:
Simon van der Stel

Simon van der Stel (14 October 1639 – 24 June 1712) was the first Governor of the Dutch Cape Colony (1691), the settlement at the Cape of Good Hope. He was interested in botany, establishing vineyards Groot and Klein Constantia, and producing a famous dessert wine. He is considered one of the founders of South African viticulture.

Background
Simon was the son of Ariaen or Adriaan van der Stel an official of the Dutch East India Company (VOC) and Maria Lievens, who married in March 1639 in Batavia. His mother, was of mixed-race descent and the daughter of Dutchman Hendrick Lievens and a Malay or Indian freed slave. In effect, Simon Van der Stel, the founding father of the modern Afrikaner national was of coloured race. In modern South Africa where coloureds are classified as black, his heritage will be very interesting and controversial considering the apartheid system that his people instituted. In the same year Adriaan was appointed the first Dutch governor of Mauritius. Adriaan replaced 'Onderkoopman' Pieter de Goijer who was sent by the Dutch East India Company in 1638 with 25 men and cattle, sheep, geese, chickens and rabbits to start the new refreshment station for the Company. Simon was born at sea while his father was en route to take up his new posting on the island; Simon spent his youth there. Adriaan's governorship ended in 1645 when he left Mauritius and transferred to Dutch Ceylon. He was murdered in 1646 by the troops of Rajasinha II of Kandy. Simon, his mother and his sisters returned to Batavia, capital of the Dutch East Indies and his mother remarried in 1648, to Captain Hendrik of Ghent. Little is known of what happened to Simon during this time, other than he returned to the Dutch Republic in 1659.

Career
Simon then went to the United Provinces, where he associated with Willem Six, a wealthy cloth dealer. In 1663 he married Willem's daughter, Johanna Jacoba Six (1645–1700) and they had six children. She was the niece of Thymen and Jacob J. Hinlopen, founders of the VOC and Noordsche Compagnie, besides known as art collectors.

In 1679, he was appointed "Commander" of the VOC's colony at the Cape of Good Hope, through the growing influence of his relative, Joan Huydecoper van Maarsseveen, a mayor and an amateur botanist. Simon was involved in making wine in Muiderberg; when he left the country, he handed the vineyards over to Hendrik van Rheede, the former governor of Malabar region and a famous botanist.

Van der Stel and his wife did not enjoy a very good relationship and her sister Cornelia accompanied her husband to the Cape. Van der Stel never saw his wife again, though he remained devoted to her and frequently sent her money. Johanna Jacoba sent the furnishings and works of art required to fit out the governor's residence at Groot Constantia. These included several art works including The Fisherman, an unfinished painting by Simon de Vlieger, which was one of 13 of his works purchased by Jan van de Cappelle.

In 1685, he was visited by Hendrik van Rheede (with whom he shared in great interest in tropical medicine and botany), and was given Constantia as a reward for 'good and faithful services to the VOC'. In 1685–86, he left for an expedition to the Copper Mountains at Springbok (Namaqualand), where he made topographic and geographic, botanical and zoological observations. In 1691, the VOC replaced the office of "Commander" with "Governor", and Van der Stel was promoted to the new position. His house, Groot Constantia, was well furnished with fine paintings, including The Fisherman. The painting came up for sale at the auction of Van der Stel's estate in 1716.

Every one of his four sons was at one time or another with him in South Africa. Willem Adriaan, after being magistrate of Amsterdam, succeeded his father as Governor of the Cape; Frans "de jonker" became a farmer at the Cape; Adrian became governor of Amboyna (1706–1720); Cornelis was one of the 352 shipwrecked in the Ridderschap van Holland in 1694. An expedition under Willem de Vlamingh was sent out to look for survivors on islands in the Indian Ocean or on the coast of Western Australia.

Van der Stel retired in 1699, and was succeeded by his son Willem Adriaan van der Stel. In retirement, Simon devoted himself to his wine estates (known as Constantia), where he died in 1712. François Valentijn visited his son Frans in March 1714. The estate was sold in parts (also Bergvliet) in 1716; the auction took four days and was very well attended.

Legacy

The town of Stellenbosch (founded in 1679) was named after him and Simon's Town is also named after him, as well as the Simonsberg mountain. An early ship of the South African Navy, SAS Simon van der Stel was also named for him, in 1952.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his Discourse on Inequality, refers to Governor Van der Stel by name in a story about a Hottentot raised by the Dutch who chooses to "return to his equals" rather than remain in civilised society. According to Rousseau, Van der Stel himself raised the "Hottentot" from birth "in the principles of the Christian religion and in the practices of European customs". The frontispiece of the Discourse features Van der Stel and the "Hottentot" above the phrase, Il retourne chez ses Egaux.

Widely known for his development of the South African wine industry, Van der Stel was also the first Cape Governor to be of mixed race-origin, a fact that was largely unacknowledged by the apartheid government.

title: Simon van der Stel


text:
Talk:Arthur Schopenhauer/Archive 1

Ahh, dear friends of philosophy,

I really do have problems to understand most of the discussions below. Does it really matter if Schopenhauer or Einstein were of German "origin" ? Their mothertongue, and more important, their motherwit was German, but both their _thoughts_ were _universal_. So why should we quarrel about (histo-geographical) questions like "where did he come from" and "where did he go to" ? Everyone expresses his thoughts in the language that he feels is the closest to him and his thoughts. So, please, calm down and start to think about your own language, and situation. (Guess what my closest language is ;)

Which revolution? --MichaelTinkler

He might be referring to happenings in Frankfurt/Germany in 1848. I don't know much about this, but there was some form of revolts originating in the working class at the time. Among the demands were freedom of the press, freedom of assembly etc. I'm not sure about what Schopenhauer's philosophy gained from this, but he himself was strongly opposed to the revolution (and afraid of his possessions). Just had a brief look at Rudiger Safranski's "Schopenhauer and the wild years of philosophy". I'll try updating this entry when I get some time to freshen up my knowledge a bit. --LarsErikKolden

Regarding the influence from Schelling, could someone please enlighten me? As far as I have read in a couple of biographies, Schelling was a member of Schopenhauer's hate trio, namely Schelling, Fichte and Hegel. It might be that Schopenhauer read Schelling and had some common views with the German idealists, but I'd be surprised if this influence wasn't mainly from Kant (and actually Plato, but that goes for most of the German philosophers, I guess). I see now that Schelling also had a conception of an irrational will, but only as a part of the Deity, which is something quite different than the role it plays in Schopenhauer's philosophy. --LarsErikKolden

Partitions
http://ecis2002.univ.gda.pl/ecis2002.html?s=magic2 They surrendered only after the king, seeing the hopeless situation, freed them from their obligation of allegiance and left the city. After the 1st partition of Poland, in which the Prussian seized the surroundings of Gdañsk, Joanna Schopenhauer, mother of the philosopher, wrote: "At this morning calamity has fallen like vampyre on my native city, deemed to disaster, and sucked its marrow for long years till the ultimate dilapidation".

http://4.1911encyclopedia.org/S/SC/SCHOPENHAUER_ARTHUR.htm

His father, Heinrich Floris Schopenhauer, the youngest of a family to which the mother had brought the germs of mental malady, was a man of strong will and originality, and so proud of the independence of his native town that when Danzig in 1793 surrendered to the Prussians he and his whole establishment withdrew to Hamburg~ Cautious 13:47, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Schopenhauers were enemies of Prussia.

Portraits of Schopenhauer
You know, now we have three portraits of Schopenhauer: the original drawing, the painting, and the old engraving that I put on my user page in order to have something to do with it. I know he was such a handsome devil and all, but I'm not sure we need quite so many. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:00, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Gdansk/Danzig and Poland
According to the article on Gdansk, which is apparently the subject of a current edit war, from 1772 to 1793 Gdansk was a free and independent city, apparently governed by ethnic Germans, and surrounded by Prussia. It was not part of Poland when Schopenhauer was born. Whatever the city's relations were with the former Poland, that particular polity was on its last legs in the late 18th century, and disappeared for quite some time in 1793. The current phrasing that puts the city in "what is now Poland" strikes me as the best way to put that complicated business. Smerdis of Tlön 19:58, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, does it mean that we should name all people born in the USSR after 1985 as born in Russia just because that country was on its' last legs? Halibutt 01:02, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that Danzig had been governed by its German-speaking elites for centuries before the first partition in 1772. After the first partition, this situation continued, but the juridical position as officially part of the Kingdom of Poland remained unchanged. But this may be incorrect. john 02:15, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * The problem with the article as it currently stands is that to someone who is unaware that Gdansk is Danzig, it suggests that Schopenhauer was born in Gdansk, but that his family fled from somewhere else. I know I am asking for it by even commenting, or saying anything other than that I wish the accursèd city would be swallowed up by a giant sinkhole so that we can methodically blot out any records of its ever having existed, but it seems to me that a subtler solution is needed here than mechanically applying one name or the other based on the date.  Smerdis of Tlön 00:56, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I concur. Personally, I think the city is essentially called "Danzig" for the whole period 1308-1945, and Wikipedia should refer to it as such. But I don't think that'll fly. john k 00:59, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * No, that's against the compromise we reached at Talk:Gdansk. Also, you moved the article a year backwards. I suggest we simply added cross-links to both names (born in Gdansk, fled from Danzig ). This way:

How about that? Halibutt 01:17, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Anyone will have an opportunity to check what is the city in question
 * The explanation will be there, one would only have to point his mouse over the link to get a hint.

My understanding was that the compromise was that we use both names, but primarily "Gdansk". So what's wrong with "Gdansk (Danzig)" in the first use? john k 01:56, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Apparently you took part in a totally different discussion. Both the option that gained the most support and the options we Talk:Gdansk we all (?) agreed upon were about naming the city with one name at the time. I'm worried that you hadn't notice that. Halibutt 08:22, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

To say that Schopenhauer was Polish born and that he was born in Gdank is very misleading. He was an enthnic German and that area was dominated by Prussia and later controlled by it. When Prussia received it, the Schopenhauers didn't move to Poland, they moved to Germany. Schopenhauer was a German, he wrote in German, studied in Germany, was born of German parents, lived and died in Germany. Erwin Rommel's wife was also born in Gdansk, and I doubt that Rommel would have married a Pole. Was this article written by a Polish nationalist, if there is such a thing?

big barrel o' POV
The last section "Common Misconceptions" needs a going over imo.

It seems to gradually shift from NPOV, to that of a book review, and finally to what sounds like a desperate attempt to clear Schopenhauer's name.

 * "Nietzsche seems to have made this misinterpretation and many gain a distorted view of Schopenhauer from reading Nietzsche"
 * "Nietzsche also claimed that Schopenhauer did not recognise that suffering had a redemptive quality, yet his recognition of this seems blatantly clear in part 4 of The World as Will and Representation."
 * "Russell produced a very poor article on Schopenhauer in his History of Western Philosophy."
 * "It has often been thought that Schopenhauer believed in solipsism. He actually said that solipsism could only be believed by those in a madhouse."
 * etc.

-- sidd

I've altered it a little bit, as regards the last two points. I don't think that the section was overly opinionated; Schopenhauer is someone who has been badly misrepresented for a long time. Perhaps, calling Bertrand Russell's article "poor" is inappropriate, but it is not wrong to say that his article was "inaccurate": check for yourself. As for the solipsism bit, I've added a quote to justify the fact that Schopenhauer was not a solipsist, which I always thought was an odd misinterpretation of him. Ed

...this is mistaken. russell claimed that schopenhauer was wrong in equating his asceticism with christian asceticism, not that schopenhauer never equated them. reread the essay, if you like. anyway, i've deleted the section.

Suggest 7 possible wiki links and 1 possible backlink for Arthur Schopenhauer.
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Arthur_Schopenhauer article:

Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"): Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right. Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to — LinkBot 11:33, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Can link conscious mind: ... They arise prior to reflection.  They arise even when the conscious mind would prefer to hold them at bay.  The rational mind is for... (link to section)
 * Can link bad art: ...ror for which most forms of entertainment &mdash; including bad art &mdash; only provided a distraction. A wide range of autho... (link to section)
 * Can link political affairs: ...tes prideful boasts of how little attention he had paid "to political affairs of [his] day". In a life that spanned several revolutions ... (link to section)
 * Can link church and state: ...ifiable content. He also thought that his glorification of church and state were designed for personal advantage and had little to do w... (link to section)
 * Can link heroism: ... of the Idols]]'' is often quoted: *He has interpreted art, heroism, genius, beauty, great sympathy, knowledge, the will to tru... (link to section)
 * Can link Eastern religions: ...]] has the same "inner-kernal" [as he puts it] as those two Eastern religions in teaching the impermanence of all world pleasures and the... (link to section)
 * Can link University of Chicago: ... Modernism and Music: An Anthology of Sources, p.39n34. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226012670.... (link to section)
 * In Wolfgang Schirmacher, can backlink Arthur Schopenhauer: ...a, 1995, 387 pages, Paperback, ISBN 3851650239.  (editor): Arthur Schopenhauer . Schopenhauer: Philosophical Writings. The...

During Schopenhauer's lifetime, the city in which he was born was a predominantly German-speaking city called Danzig, which is the name by which it was known everywhere outside the Slavic world until after the territorial changes of 1945. As a result of colonization begun by the Teutonic Order, the city had been predominantly German since at least the 15th century, although the original settlement in the 10th century was Slavonic or Polish.

The Polish-American historian Oscar Halecki, in "A History of Poland" (1992), discussing relations between the Teutonic Order and the Polish Crown, writes that in 1457: "The German element predominated in … the town of Danzig, in which the majority of the population was at this epoch already German...."

It is true that Danazig, though ethnically German, was under Polish overloardship in the 16th and 17th centuries, but this did not change its essentially German ethnic composition, which continued into recent history. During Schopenhauer's lifetime, Danzig was part of the Kingdom of Prussia, the north-German state that was to unite Germany in 1870. Before the Second World War, the Free City of Danzig, as it was constituted between the world wars, was 96 percent German, according to figures accepted by the League of Nations.

To say that Schopenhauer was "born in Gdansk, Poland," is totally erroneous, because at the time the city was not part of Poland and was not called Gdansk -- except by Polish nationalists. Schopenhauer himself, of course, was German and wrote in German.

One can no more say Schopenhauer was "born in Gdansk, Poland," than one can say Kant was "born in Kaliningrad, Russia," since during Kant's lifetime (1724-1804), and until 1945-46, the city was Königsberg, Prussia, part of Germany.

User:sca 7dec04

The basic problem with saying that he was born "in Gdansk, Poland" -- which seems to be what whoever edits this passage rigidly insists on -- is that English speakers are likely to get the impression that Schopenauer was Polish.

I fail to understand why an entry about someone who lived in a different historical era has to be written using geographic refernces that pertain only to the current era. This Wikipedia policy seems to be imposed on us English speakers by those who have an agenda that has nothing to do with historical accuracy.

If for some reason the name of my hometown, Minneapolis, were changed to "Water City," I would not stop saying I grew up in Minneapolis. Similarly, Schopenhauer was not born in "Gdansk, Poland," he was born in Danzig (like Daniel Fahrenheit, like Gunter Grass, etc., etc.).

Sca 17:39, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Schopenhauer would have called himself German
The problem with saying he came from what we now call Poland, is because Schopenhauer called it Germany. Schopenhauer was a German, he came from Danzig. Danzig, today, is called Gdansk, Poland. Just because things were drawn up wrong (yes, an opinion, but this is a discussion page) after the war doesn't change Schopenhauer's heritage.

Sca wrote, some time ago: ''To say that Schopenhauer was "born in Gdansk, Poland," is totally erroneous, because at the time the city was not part of Poland and was not called Gdansk -- except by Polish nationalists. Schopenhauer himself, of course, was German and wrote in German.''

 * This is incorrect. In 1788, Danzig/Gdansk was, in fact, still officially part of Poland, although it was an enclave not connected to the rest of Poland.  It would remain so until 1793, when it was annexed by Prussia in the 2nd partition.  Since it was, even as part of Poland, inhabited by ethnic Germans who called it something more like 'Danzig' than like 'Gdansk', I think "Danzig" is more appropriate, but you're overstating the case. john k 21:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Whatever. As someone else already remarked, he was a German philosopher. Calling him a Polish-born philosopher in the introductory paragraph is quite misleading—and also completely unnecessary, given that the next paragraph quite clearly states that he was born in Gdánsk in Poland. Why can't people just quit fighting about this? What's the point? Is it important at all? Lupo 08:55, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * If Albert Einstein was a German-born theoretical physicist (and not a Jewish, or American - "German-born" added by German users), so Schopenhauer was a Polish-born (German language philosopher) and not a German philosopher.--Emax 09:15, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * Albert Einstein is quite irrelevant here. But you do make a point: the essential characteristic is that he was a German language philosopher. I've changed the link in the introductory paragraph accordingly. What passport he had (if any!) seems quite irrelevant to me—the man is noteable for his work, not for having been of German, Polish, Prussian, or Klingon nationality. Lupo 09:26, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * And BTW: the "German-born" over in Einstein had been added by an AOL user on January 9, 2005. Lupo 09:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * [] 17:50, Dec 17, 2004 129.187.254.11 (Ulm is southern German city)--Emax 10:27, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * for reference, Encyclopedia Britannica list him as German philosopher, born in "Danzig, Prussia [now Gdansk, Pol.]". All foreign language wikis I checked also list him as german (tysk filosof, deutscher Philosoph, Filósofo alemán, philosophe allemand, filosofi tedeschi, Duits filosoof, ドイツの哲学, tysk filosof), and, guess what, the POLISH wiki also calls him a filozof niemiecki!!! That is, of course, before you're going to change it in the next minute, I assume. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:37, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Just added German philosopher born in Gdańsk, Poland to the intro as an attempted compromise. For me, the dispute is about his birthplace being poland or not, but I insist on the german philosopher. Every reference i checked listed him as german. -- Chris 73 Talk 05:35, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Saying that Schopenhauer was born in Gdansk, Poland, is obfuscation, even though it may be argued that the city -- then populated by Germans and known as Danzig -- was "part of Poland" in legal sense, since it was not yet politically part of Prussia.

Old Danzig was within the geogaphic realm of Germanness -- what the Germans call Deutschtum -- at the time, and Schopenhauer and his family most certainly considered themselves German. If the Poles wish to say he was born in Gdansk, Poland, let them have their say on the POLISH Wikipedia -- thereby salving their nationalistic touchiness -- but not here. This is an English-speakers' page, and as has been noted repeatedly elsewhere on Wiki, the city in question was known throughout the Western world as Danzig until 1945-46, when it was transformed by the ethnic cleansing of war and expulsions, and the settlment of Polish newcomers, into the Polish city of Gdansk.

The fact that the Poles historically always referred to the city as Gdansk, even when it was inhabited by Germans, does not change the fact that it was generally known as Danzig during Schopenhauer's lifetime. Ditto for Kant and Königsberg / Kaliningrad -- though I don't think any Russians are so obtuse as to argue that Kant was born in "Kaliningrad, Russia." Good grief!

Sca 19:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Kant was born in Prussia, Schopenhauer not (so simple, but so hard to understand for some people), dear brutaly explused, poor victim of ethnic cleansing and defender of "Deutschtum" Sca :)--Emax 22:01, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

So, was Schopenhauer German, or not? Let's see, what was the original title of his seminal work? Oh yes, "Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung." Sca 14:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Without taking part in this discussion, I'd like to point out that most probably my thesis this year will have the title of Conocimiento de soldados polacos de las Brigadas Internacionales en Espańa contemporranea. Does it mean I'm a Spaniard? :D Halibutt 23:42, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * One work in spanish does not make you spanish. Writing and speaking only in spanish would - at a time without passports - probably gives you a good change of being spanish. BTW, even the polish wikipedia calls him a German philosoph. I any case, about the city of birth I would support mentioning both names, especially since Danzig was often used at that time, especially in Gdansk. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:01, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * So add the whole history of Gdansk in this article...--Emax 00:08, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, only the time of his birth is of interest, it helps explaining why he wrote in (was) german -- Chris 73 Talk 00:13, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Compromise attempt
There seem to be a few points of dispute on this page: (1) Schopenhauer's nationality, (2) The name of his birthplace, (3) The ethnic mix of his birthplace. As with most disputes, if there is a controversy, it should be mentioned on the article page. I hope this compromise attempt gets somehwere. We can't go on reverting each other forever -- Chris 73 Talk 00:49, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Pretty much all references call him a German Philosopher, including encyclopedia britannica and the polish wikipedia.
 * 2) I am OK with calling it GDansk, if Danzig is also mentined in brackets or so. Danzig is still commonly used in English, this would help people googling for topics related to Danzig. Also, at that time the city was commonly known under that name.
 * 3) The City seems to have a large german population at that time, of which Schopenhauer was most likely a part of. This should be mentioned in the article, maybe not necessarily in the intro paragraph, but maybe in the Life section. This would be helpful for other users to understand where Schopenhauer came from.
 * Addon: Actually, it seems his ethnic heritage was Dutch ( and ). That can also be added. -- Chris 73 Talk 01:16, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, i see that a compromise with you is not possible (and i dont really wonder, since your comments on user:H.J. talk page User_talk:24.7.179.169/Archive, your support of her and now of Sca). We should go back to the version with Polish-born--Emax 01:00, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * My preference would be that the city name be Danzig, everywhere, largely because this is also the English name of the city, contains no characters untypeable on a standard English language keyboard, and creates fewer pronunciation issues than Gdansk. The trouble would appear to arise with Polish nationalists, who are eager to impose their spelling.  Besides, by rights the whole Baltic coastline should belong to Sweden anyways.  Schopenhauer's works suggest that he read English, French, Spanish, and Latin; they give no evidence that he read Polish, but then again I'm not sure that there was a great deal of Polish literature in print in the early 19th century.  Still, it warms my heart that regard for Schopenhauer is so high that folks are eager to claim him for their ethnic group; for too long his philosophy was out of fashion.  I don't care deeply enough about tribal politics to resist one way or another -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt's sidenote
Sorry but I can't resist commenting on Senor Halibutt's sly comment above. Dear esteemed Halibutt: I am quite impressed with your language skills, as I've said elsewhere, but not with your skill at logic. You are Polish not because you can write a thesis in Polish (nor does writing one in Spanish make you Spanish); you are Polish because you grew up speaking Polish with your parents -- it was the language you learned first and foremost, your mother tongue. Also, of course, you are Polish because you grew up in Poland -- BUT -- Suppose for a moment that you had grown up in an ethnically Polish city that for various historical reasons happened at the time to be part of Germany politically? Understand, in this scenario you still would have grown up learning Polish as your first language in the the environment of a Polish family, friends, school, etc., but inside Germany. Now, would that have made you German? Naturlich nicht -- not unless you decided on your own to adopt German nationality, speak German, Germanize your name, and so forth; at that point, you might be termed a Polish-German. (Not, of course, that you ever would do such a thing!)

In the U.S., we have a long history of Polish-Americans, German-Americans, Italian-Americans, etc. These are people who came from one culture and adopted, or adapted themselves to, another. By contrast, consider the case of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who lived in the U.S. for 17 years but never learned English and never adopted American ways. He remained Russian and ultimately returned to Russia.

Now, as far as I'm aware, Schopenhauer never adopoted Polish nationality, never wrote in Polish, and so on. (Ditto for Gunter Grass, also born in what then was Danzig; who was expelled from Danzig, and who today lives in ... Lubeck, I believe.) They both are obviously German personages, though both may be said to have been born in a place to which Poland had some political title at the time of their births (a less clear one in the case of Grass, who was born in 1927 in what then called itself the Freie Stadt Danzig).

But of course, this whole discussion really has nothing to do with Schopenhauer or anyone else born in Danzig; it has to do with the history of Danzig, a city which no longer exists, having been superseded by Gdansk, a different city in the same location. The insistence by some Poles that the Danzig that existed for roughly 600 years, until 1945, should always be referred to as Gdansk because that has been the name of its successor city since 1945 makes as much sense logically as your playful suggestion above that writing a thesis in Spanish makes you Spanish. Naming the city Gdansk and peopling it with Poles who call it Gdansk does not make the former city of Danzig Gdansk retroactively, before 1945. (And don't start in about how Poles always called it Gdansk; that's not the point.)

You yourself have acknowledged in communications to me that you realize old Danzig was predominantly German, even when part of Poland juridically before 1795. Why not tell it like it was in a supposed "encyclopedia" entry? Why obfuscate? Why obscure? It's history! What's done is done! Just be honest about it! Then move on with glorious Gdansk (pardon my lack of accent marks) into the glorious Polish future as part of united EUROPE! Which, by the way, includes Germany.

Sca 04:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Dear Sca, apparently I forgot to make it clear enough: I have no intention of joining this discussion. I have my views on Polish nationality (as opposed to Polish ethnicity), which are probably the results of my own background. However, I don't care much about how the nationality or ethnicity of Schopenhauer is explained in this article. I've read most of his works and I must say I didn't like his style.

 * My comment above was just another example of my favourite game: nitpicking. If you didn't like my example - here's another one. My great-grandpa was born in Poland, near a small town of Pułtusk (70 km north of Warsaw). He barely spoke Polish since he was a Jew, probably of Armenian roots. Also, the city at that time belonged to Russia. So, we can say that he was Russian-born. We might also say that he was a Pole. Finally, he was a Jew. Is there a contradiction between those statements? Not at all. In my humble opionion, the Polish ethnicity is not the sine qua non necessity to be a Pole. But this is getting OT.

 * As to Schopenhauer - I believe his case is very similar to that of my grandpa: he was born in Poland (like it or not, the city's inhabitants themselves decided to join Poland). He was born to a German family. He was born to a family of Dutch descent. So he was a Pole and a German and, if he felt so, a Dutch as well. Or, if you prefer a different wording, to me he was a Polish-born German philosopher of Dutch descent. For me there's no contradiction between those statements.

 * But, as I said above, I don't want my comment to become an argument in this discussion, I support neither version. If you would like to respond to my comment - please do so on my talk page. Halibutt 10:24, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Protected
The page is now protected due to the constant reversions. For the disputed topics, see above. I have also created a subpage Arthur Schopenhauer/Temp where a compromise can be worked out. -- Chris 73 Talk 05:57, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * Pardon ? You dare to "protect" this page ? Are you out of your mind, Chris 73 ? If you do not change this status within 24 hours, you will certainly lose your position as an _editor_ within another 24 hours -- this is a promise ! Hans Rosenthal (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )
 * To the anon user that came from nowhere and made this threat with his first edit: The protection is proper within the guidelines of Wikipedia (see Policies and guidelines). As for loosing my position as editor (???) - I guess I'll take that risk. If you wish further discussion, I would also recommend you to get a login, this makes discussion much easier. -- Chris 73 Talk 10:44, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * I was the "Ahh, dear friends of philosophy,"-guy Now it seems that I have to talk in clear English words: Nimm das zurück, oder Du wirst Deinen Job verlieren. Hans Rosenthal (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )
 * Ok, assuming good faith, let me explain to you a bit about Wikipedia: (1) No personal attacks! (2) All editors here are volunteers, and can't be fired. Banning is a extreme rare case. For any request in that direction you probably would need a login for credibility reasons. (3) The page was protected from editing through the proper channels to stop a back-and-forth revert war on the article page. This protection will not be here forever, but only until a solution to the disputed points have been found. (4) If you want to edit the article, you would have to wait until the protection is lifted. If possible, discuss any changes beforehand here on the talk page to avoid a new revert war. (5) So what is your closest language, dear friend of philosophy? -- Chris 73 Talk 14:41, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * "(1) No personal attacks!" - You yourself have offended other users, dear chris 73--Emax 17:34, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry that I wrote my two earlier comments in the "Grobian" Schopenhauer style, which he is famous for to have used in his works when writing about his favourite philosophical 'enemy' Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. I have a rather good idea of both Hegel's and Schopenhauer's works (in the original German language, which, by the way, may also answer the question which language is the most familiar and closest to me). A typo is also to be corrected: please read 24 "years" instead of "hours". As I am a fundamentally free mind, I will always have severe problems with "protected" entries within the Wikipedia, especially if such an entry is about Schopenhauer. Please note that even the entry about "Adolf Hitler" within the English Wiki is (as up to this moment) freely editable. (Nota bene: The entry about Hitler in the German Wiki is currently "protected", for which reason I have written a comment in the relevant talk page, which, of course, is in German...).

 * I ask you: How can it be that, in the English Wikipedia, the entry about Arthur Schopenhauer is _protected_, while the entry about Adolf Hitler is freely editable ? Would you call this a problem of the contributors or a problem of the administrator ? I leave the answer to the readers of these lines.

 * (Not to forget: My contributions to any of the Wiki talk pages are _never_ anonymous, since at the end of each contribution you will always find my full name and email address.)

 * Hans Rosenthal (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )

 * Apology accepted. Please be more careful in the future. As for protection: I don't like it either. But protection is sometimes necessary to resolve disputes. In this case, there was a constant adding and removing of the mentioning Danzig, which was not leading anywhere. Hence I requested protection to stop the revert war, and to force interested parties to join a discussion here on the talk page. A compromise is currently worked out, and hopefully in the near future the page can be unprotected. en:Adolf Hitler] is not protected, because there does not seem to be a revert war, only occasional vandalism. The german page may have gotten more vandalism and biased edits, making a protection necessary. A protection is always on a case by case basis. There is a (incomplete) list of [[Wikipedia:Protected pages and a Protection policy, if you are curious about this. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:46, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

More compromise attempts
Let me suggest a modest solution to this entire unfortunate and disturbing imbroglio: Let's retroactively  declare Schopenhauer to have been a "Prussian philosopher." Poles could take heart in this terminology by thinking of Royal Prussia, while Germans could heave a sigh of relief by reflecting upon Prussia's German ethos. This solution has the added virtue of classifying him as a member of an entity that hasn't existed for some time, and from which there can be no futher expressions of vox populi, since the Prussians strictly speaking are all dead.

That Schopenhauer himself may have had little love for Prussianism as it later came to be understood, and was not an ethnic nationalist, seems to me irrelevant to this discussion. Indeed, who cares about his stodgy old philosophy anyway? What's important on Wikipedia is that everyone's prejudices, preconceptions and deeply embraced half-truths be pandered to in some way. If the result is confusing to the casual user attempting to obtain "knowledge," so what? Let him consult Britannica and a historical atlas.

I trust this meets with everyone's approval and accept your thanks in advance.

Sca 19:57, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And what next? Calling Copernicus a "Prussian" astronomer? Space Cadet 20:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And all along I thought he was Italian! Didn't he write in Italian or something quite similar? On the other hand, he lived in some place called Frauenburg .... that doesn't sound very Italian. Maybe he was Danish, like Tycho Brahe? I doubt he was Prussian because he's always pictured with long hair. You know, those Prussians all had short, military-style haircuts. All a bunch of proto-fascists, of course.

Sca 20:39, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Everybody, please calm down. I would like to try to solve this dispute by discussion, not by hurling sarcasms at each other. As for another attempt at a compromise: All references I checked (including the polish Wikipedia) either refer to him as German, or do not list his nationality. I think it is safe to say that he is indeed German. If there is a dispute about it, then we could also add this to the article, i.e. ... although some see him as Prussian philosopher... or something to that respect (but that would need a reference). I think the bigger problem is the Danzig/Gdansk mentioning, and to which country it belonged to at that time. Most English language references list his birthplace as Danzig, with Gdansk in brackets, I have not yet seen an English reference that mentions only Gdansk and not Danzig. A compromise would probably include both, possibly with a brief detailed explanation of the city having a German majority and being a rather independent part of Poland. I am pretty much open to include all viewpoints as long as there is a credible English language reference for it (i.e. no blog or newsgroup). -- Chris 73 Talk 03:30, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

I was just kidding about Schopenhauer having been a "Prussian" philosopher. He was German. As to your other suggestions, that would be even-handed, down the middle, balanced, i.e. truthful.

Sca 17:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(1) "Influence" from Schelling; (2) Polish Question
I am pleased that somebody, somewhere is discussing Schopenhauer; however, the issues being discussed are not quite as philosophical as I might like :-)

I hope the editors will take note of the following:

(1) Schopenhauer himself refuted the notion that his work was derivative of Schelling, and he writes about the issue in detail in the _Parerga & Paralipomena_ --admittedly, the latter is an enormous book (thus, this is not a specific citation) but it is neatly organized and (as I recall) his comments on this issue can be easily found in the English translation. Incidentally, I don't think it's fair to say that Schopenhauer *hated* Schelling; if you read the essays on the history of ideas in the _Parerga & Paralipomena_ you'll see that Schopenhauer gave plenty of "due credit" to other philosophers, including some he had little/nothing in common with (and, yes, plenty of overdue insults to Hegel!).

(2) About the Polish question, I believe what has been forgotten here is the existence of a pseudo-national/para-national entity called THE HANSEATIC LEAGUE (there's probably a Wiki article on it!). Schopenhauer's father was associated with the latter, and was without much national affiliation aside from the Hanseatic league itself. Both Schopenhauer and his father were anti-nationalists; incidentally, the name Arthur was selected for him by his father because it was the same in English, German, and French --and Schopenhauer's education and life shared in all three of these languages/nations. In any case, Schopenhauer's mother is strongly associated with Weimar (where she had her "Salon" of authors) but Schopenhauer himself had no strong attachment to any place in Germany, and rather claimed to detest the place --although he never followed his own advice and relocated to India!

I hope you've all enjoyed and learned from this rather strange dispute!

One more point for clarification (Judaism & Chr.)
Just a note for the record: There's some vague mention in the article that Schopenhauer "Despised" Judaism, and despised Jewish elements of Christianity --this is problematic because it is vague, and therefore both misleading and partly inaccurate.

To be precise: (1.) Schopenhauer repeatedly reproaches Judaism as "no better than Protestantism" (including the use of the hyphenated word "Judaeo-Protestantism", to indicate that, philosophically, he thought the two had little difference between them!) (2.) Reciprocally, Schopenhauer reproaches Protestantism as not being any improvement on the old-testament doctrines of Judaism (3.) The reason for his different treatment of monastic Catholicism is clear: unlike Judaism, Protestantism, and Islam, there is an ascetic tradition among monastic Catholics.

Thus, while Schopenhauer was an atheist, his doctrinal endorsement of asceticism extended even to Theistic religion, e.g., Catholic monasticism --and, in the absence of asceticism, he regarded Judaism, Islam, etc., as worthless doctrines.

One can further point out that Schopenhauer was not an anti-Semite, that he favoured the legalization of inter-marriage between Christians and Jews, etc. --which is a bit spurious, but perhaps significant for the editor to consider.

All in the interests of "objectivity", I'm sure!

 * Good points. And yes, we have an article about the Hanseatic League. Please feel free to add your contributions to the temporary page Arthur Schopenhauer/Temp. If you can cite the references, or give links, that would be even better. -- Chris 73 Talk 04:00, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

 * However, he also praised the Shakers in America. I remember him saying "Protestantism is a degenerate Christianity and Catholocism is a terribly abused form of Christianity", but I have not read him say that Protestantism was no improvement on Judaism.  Where does he say that?  From all that I've read of him, he seems to insult Judaism an awful lot more than Protestantism.  I do agree that S was not an anti-Semite in the racist sense and that is something which should always be made clear.

We got already a compromise "German language philosopher born in Gdansk". But chris add the the "Danzig" thing. Im pretty sure that in some time, someone would try to remove "Gdansk". And after that users like Helga or Sca would try to add the information that he was born in Danzig from where germans were brutaly expelled... etc., etc. ;). That's not the best way to get a compromise. --Emax 15:13, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, we do tend to globalize, don't we, Pan Emax?

The issue once again, for the umpteenth time, is that in Schopenhauer's day, it was called Danzig and inhabited mainly by Germans, i.e. people whose mother tongue was German. Sigh. And Schopenhauer, however universal his thought, was originally one of those German-speaking Danzigers.

I have no objection to saying something like, "was born in Gdansk, which is in modern Poland, but which at that time was generally known in the West by its German name, Danzig, and was inhabited primarily by Germans."

Anything untrue about that? If it makes you feel better, we could even lose the last clause, and end the sentence with "Danzig."

As to "users like Sca" -- what would they be like? Nazis? Fascists? I'm not even German. Look at my page. I looked at yours and it does seem to be that of a Polish nationalist. There's room for all of us if we stick to facts and don't try to rewrite history. Even Stalin didn't succeed at that. At least, not in the West.

Do widzenie.

Sca 20:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Should i comment your page? Oh better not :) Aufwiedersehen and keep attention on Polish nationalists, they are everywhere!, everywhere... --Emax 20:55, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

I have incorporated as much historical information as I could find into Arthur Schopenhauer/Temp, listing his birthplace as it is listed on most english language sources. (e.g. the Encyclopædia Britannica) Comments are welcome -- Chris 73 Talk 00:51, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

In terms of the temp version, by 1788, Royal Prussia no longer existed - Danzig was an enclave, completely surrounded by (Hohenzollern) Prussian territory. It was still technically part of Poland, but that connection was essentially meaningless after 1772. Personally, I think the city ought to be referred to as "Danzig" in the early modern period, in any event. It was inhabited by Germans, and is generally known as that in English language historical works. john k 01:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Added your suggestions in the temp page. The history of Danzig is getting lenghty, but I try to avoid any further revert wars after unprotection. Note: Partitions of Poland has maps from that time, although they don't distinguish between Royal prussia and Poland -- Chris 73 Talk 01:31, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * It was still part of Poland, so we have use the Polish name. And only because Kreuzberg, Berlin is inhabited by 90% Turkish people, its not change the name to Turkish. chris version is funny in the context of the sentence: "...had strong feelings against any kind of nationalism"...--Emax 01:46, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

--Emax 01:46, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * Firstly, do Turks have their own name for Kreuzberg? If not, the example is completely irrelevant.  Even if they do, it's not especially relevant.  Danzig was an autonomous German-speaking city-state within the very loosely organized Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.  The PLC was not a state in the modern sense, so analogies to the Federal Republic of Germany are not particularly appropriate. john k 02:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * "Danzig was an autonomous German-speaking city-state within the very loosely organized Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" - Texas is an autonomous state (like the rest of american states), buts its still the USA. Bavaria (freistaatt bayern) is autonomous state, buts still Germany. How the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was organizated is irrelevant. In the same way someone could claiming in 300 years, that Bavaria was not really Germany, but a autonomous Bayrisch-speaking state. You know how important Gdansk for the PLC was, and that Gdansk lost the importance (as a city) after the annexion by Prussia. And BTW "city-state" is not the right term to describe the privilages of Gdansk. And one more thing... is Bremen not part of Germany? (Freie Hansestadt Bremen - Free Hanseatic city of Bremen) or Hamburg? (Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg - Free and Hanseatic city of Hamburg)--Emax 13:38, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * The people in texas call texas texas, as do the people in the rest of the US. Similar for bayern (bavaria), bremen, hamburg, etc, hence there is no need for any lengthy explanation. These places also have very little autonomy, and a very similiar culture to their surrounding states. Danzig/Gdansk, however, did at that time not really have any significant polish culture, rather it was a german city under the souvereignity of poland. In any case, the city is listed as part of poland in the current tmp version of the article. Chris 73 Talk 16:18, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * So in your opinion Gdansk has more autonomy as Bavaria or Texas today? Could You explain that?
 * german city under the souvereignity of Poland - thats simply not true. (wishthinking)
 * Befor the war, some cities have a significant Jewish population - but nobody would claimimg that the cities were not Polish.
 * What about American cities? I never heard that Irish, Polish, English, Spanic or Mexican cities existing in the USA, only because they have a significant population of an ethnic group.
 * I have read some time ago an article about ethnic groups in germany. In 20-30 years ethnic germans will be in a minority in most big cities in germany. But i guess that Turkish people will not come to wikipedia and claiming that - for example - Hamburg is not more a german city, and use the argument that they are now in the majority, and claiming that the city is only under the souvereignity of germany...--Emax 22:39, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

At last we're making progress. Not "for" the Germans, or anyone else; simply presenting history.

For our Polish readers, let me state: I do NOT dislike Poles or Poland. It's the only country outside the U.S. in which I have lived for any length of time, and which I revisited in my last trip to Europe. And by the way, I view the partitions of Poland as grossly unjust.

Sca 01:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah.. after you called 1000 times Poles as nationalists etc., now the statement "I like you Poles!". Its remembered me at Charlie Chaplins "The great dictator" (the scene of Hitlers speech) :)--Emax 01:46, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous / sinnlos / smieszny. Not worthy of a reply. Sca 14:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I am _very_ sure that most of the contributors to this Wikipedia talk page have not the _slightest_ idea of the German language. So either they be silent -- or they start to get an idea of the _language_ of the Philosopher "Schopenhauer", whom which they _believe_ to talk about. (And I tell you: You _first_ have to learn the most difficult German language.*)

 * Hans Rosenthal (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )
 * *) German is not _that difficult_ to learn. It's much easier than Chinese.

By the way, I notice that the entry on Vilnius (ex-Wilna)- which seems to be written from a certain Polish point of view - contains in its history section, in the part dealing with post-WWII border and population changes, the following editorial comment:

"This way the city's population changed completely and most links with the city's past and traditions were broken. This fact is still seen by many people as unhappy, especially of its negative effect on city's community traditions."

Now, someone tell me, why is the Wilna situation different from the forced removal of the Germans from Danzig (now Gdansk) and all the other ex-German places in Poland?

The only difference I am aware of is that the Poles who were removed from then-Wilna apparently weren't subjected to the various physical atrocities the Red Army inflicted on the conquered Germans, about 1.5 mllion of whom lost their lives.

The point is not to raise another controversy (over Vilnius/Wilna) - it's that one can't have it both ways: Ethnic cleansing of another nationality can't be OK if you think it's bad when it happens to people of your ownnationality. Unless, of course, you're an ethno-racist, like the ardent Nazis were.

Sca 22:22, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Does that have something to do with Schopenhauer...?--Emax 22:39, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * The temp article now lists both names, the old english usage (based on German) and the new english usage (based on Polish). Mainly Schopenhauer was born in Sztutowo (Stutthof), Poland near Gdańsk (Danzig). While I would prefer the then commonly used english (German) name to be first, I can live with this order. I also removed the name Gdańsk/Danzig from all points in the article except for this line above. Also, Poland is mentioned twice, once in reference to Sztutowo/Stutthof, and once as Polish Royal Prussia. Hope this is acceptable to everybody. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:04, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Still protected?
How's the conflict here going? It's been a week since the last comment above, and the page has been protected for two weeks. Shall it be unprotected? dbenbenn | talk 00:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * A consensus has not been reached. Two parties revert Arthur Schopenhauer/Temp with little or no discussion. The edit war will most likely continue after unprotection, but since no consensus has been found, protection is not the right tool to solve the problem. This is frustrating, but I would support an unprotection. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:29, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. Good luck.  dbenbenn | talk 01:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To Chris -- and about Emax vandalism
Chris Chris 73,

Thank you for making the article on Schopenhauer free for editing again. Don't worry about the "contributions" of some certain Emax, I think that we have more staying power than he. Keep in mind that Emax is only talking about the name of a city, while we are talking about the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer, of which Emax seems to have not the slightest idea. So lets return to the important issues about Schopenhauer.

Hans Rosenthal (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )

PS: If you don't have time to undo Emax vandalisms, I am happy to help out !
 * There is a vote underway currently at Talk:Gdansk/Vote that should solve some of these problems. So far the vote is making good progress. Unfortunately for you, only users with a regular login can vote. Even if you would create a login now, it would be considered a new login and a vote would be ignored (This is to stop one user from voting multiple times using different just-created- logins). Sorry about that. In any case, there seems to be a strong support to list location names with both names, which is all I wanted for Schopenhauer, so I am happy about the progress of the vote. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:56, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision to Philosophy section, Feb. 27
I hope that everyone can regard the version below as a "Friendly amendment" --I have added two quotations (with citations!), a bit of balance, and a few extra words, as the former version of the article seemed to assume the reader had a pretty solid knowledge of Kantian jargon.

Philosophy
Schopenhauer's starting point was Kant's division of the universe into phenomenon and noumenon, claiming that the noumenon was Will and the most important since it is the inner content and the driving force of the world. For Schopenhauer, human will had ontological primacy over the intellect; in other words, desire is understood to be prior to thought, and, in a parallell sense, "will" is said to be prior to "being". In solving/alleviating the fundamental problems of life, Schopenhauer was rare among philosophers in considering philosophy and logic less important (or "less effective") than art, certain types of chairtable practice ("loving kindness", in his terms), and certain forms of religious discipline; Schopenhauer concluded that discursive thought (such as philosophy and logic) could neither touch nor transcend the nature of desire --i.e., the will. In The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer posited that humans living in the realm of objects are living in the realm of desire, and thus are eternally tormented by that desire (The role of desire in life has a similar role in the religions of Vedanta-Hinduism and Buddhism, and Schopenhauer draws attention to these similarities himself).

While Schopenhauer's philosophy may sound rather mystical in such a summary, his methodology was resolutely empirical, rather than "speculative", or "transcendental":
 * “Philosophy... is a science, and as such has no articles of faith; accordingly, in it nothing can be assumed as existing except what is either positively given empirically, or demonstrated through indubitable conclusions.”
 * Schopenhauer, Parerga & Paralipomena, vol. i, pg. 106., E.F.J. Payne Translation

 * “This actual world of what is knowable, in which we are and which is in us, remains both the material and the limit of our consideration.”
 * Schopenhauer, World as Will & Representation, vol. i, pg. 273, E.F.J. Payne Translation

Schopenhauer's identification of the Kantian noumenon (i.e., the actually existing entity) with Will deserves some explanation. The noumenon was what Kant called the Ding an Sich, the "Thing in Itself", the reality that exists outside of, and the foundation of, our sensory and mental representations of an external world; in Kantian terms, those sensory and mental representations are mere phenomena. Schopenhauer's assertion that Will is this noumenon might at first instance strike some as oddly as Heraclitus's revelation that everything is made out of fire.

But Kant's philosophy was formulated as a response to the radical philosophical skepticism of David Hume and his fellow British Empiricists, who claimed that as far as we could tell there was no outside reality beyond our mental representations of it. When Schopenhauer identifies the noumenon with Will, what he is saying is that we participate in the reality of an otherwise unachievable world outside the mind through Will. We cannot prove that our mental picture of an outside world corresponds with a reality by reasoning. Through Will, we know — without thinking — that the world can stimulate us. We suffer fear, or desire. These states arise involuntarily. They arise prior to reflection. They arise even when the conscious mind would prefer to hold them at bay. The rational mind is for Schopenhauer a leaf borne along in a stream of pre-reflective and largely unconscious emotion. That stream is Will; and through Will, if not through logic, we can participate in the underlying reality that lies beyond mere phenomena. It is for this reason that Schopenhauer identifies the noumenon with Will.

Heraclitus
Hello, I'm confused about the reference to Heraclitus' assertion that everything is made of fire, because I remember a similar assertion made by Thales, whereby everything was made of water. Perhaps Thales' statement was mistaken for Heraclitus'. - -_-

 * The article on Heraclitus says: "He disagreed with Thales, Anaximander, and Pythagoras about the nature of the ultimate substance and claimed instead that everything is derived from the Greek classical element fire, rather than from air, water, or earth."  FWIW, Bryan Magee prefers to restate Schopenhauer's belief that the world is Will in terms of a belief that energy is the fundamental substance: in which case it could be argued that Heraclitus beat him to the punch by a couple millennia.  Smerdis of Tlön 15:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thales supposedly said that water is the basis of all things. He was important because he did not try to explain the world through the use of myths. 152.163.101.14 02:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)Bruce Partington

Immoral Moralist
Buried somewhere above in all that Gdansk talk is the comment that Schopenhauer didn't follow his own morality; that he advocated asceticism but was a voluptuous bon vivant. Well. Schopenhauer answered that objection 185 years ago. In WWR I, § 68, he wrote: "...it is a strange demand on a moralist that he should commend no other virtue than that which he himself possesses."

152.163.101.14 23:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Bruce Partington

Arbitrary Reverts?
Chris73, do you mind explaining and giving a reason for deleting my two edits in which I: 152.163.101.14 17:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Bruce Partington
 * gave the Marquet lawsuit its own paragraph, and
 * quoted the pessimist Schopenhauer's proof that this is the worst of all possible worlds?

Hall Monitor: Have you ever read Schopenhauer? 64.12.117.14 21:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Bruce Partington

Laughter
A good example that proves Schopenhauer's theory of the ludicrous can be seen at The Aristocrats.152.163.101.14 22:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)Mullah al-Smurf

Critique of Kant
To get a taste of where many "intellectuals" learned their Kant, see Schopenhauer's criticism of the Kantian philosophy. Schopenhauer's essay was more easily read than Kant's original books.152.163.101.14 17:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)FriedrichNootzschy

title: Talk:Arthur Schopenhauer/Archive 1