Talk:Kurt Schumacher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

WikiProject Echo has identified Kurt Schumacher as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the German language Wikipedia.

Please keep your POV out of Public Articles. If you want to say that he had strait A's, that is fine with me, but calling someone brilliant is always POV. I do not want to resort to getting an admin to lock the page. Thank you. See http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Problem%20users#User:Adam_Carr for more information.

The phrase "brilliant student" is problematic in terms of its neutrality. I believe it expresses a judgment which is inevitably subjective. A neutral way to show that he was a brilliant student is to state what facts have led to that evaluation, e.g. instead of "He was a brilliant student", something like "He was first in his class" (or whatever). It's the same reason we don't need to write "Saddam Hussein is a bad, bad man" - in such cases, the facts speak for themselves. -- Cyan 03:20, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This debate shows an ignorance of historiographical issues among Wikipedia users. In a learned journal articles are expected to be the result of research in primary sources, and an author is required to reference and document every statement that might possible be constroversial. An encyclopaedia entry, on the other hand, is not a piece of primary research. It is an epitome, a summarisation of other people's writing. Each statement does not need to be documented. So when I say that Schimacher was a brilliant student, that does not mean that I have read his hochschule diploma. It means that I have read several biographical accounts and have summarised their accounts. This will be the case for virtually all historical writing at Wikipedia. Adam 04:51, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I would say that the debate shows an ignorance of accepted historiographical methodology (certainly I am ignorant of it). While I agree that the course you describe is sensible, and have little problem with the term "brilliant" on my own behalf, another user finds that the term is POV, and I believe he is technically correct: because it is your summary, it is subjective.

A simple rephrasing such as "As a student he excelled at x-y-z, but when the First World War broke out..." avoids the subjectivity problem by adding particulars, and thereby becoming closer to a claim of fact. If I say, "Khranus was a brilliant Wikipedia contributor", well, I'm entitled to my opinion, but if I say, "As a Wikipedia contributor Khranus excelled at factual accuracy and collegial attitude," my position is easily falsified.

I'd like this issue not to erupt into another hotspot between yourself and Alexandros, and since I perceive that he is technically correct, I am arguing his case (while hopefully still keeping my cool). Cheers, Cyan 00:52, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"Top student" is a statement about his performance relative to other students, which is information I don't have. "Brilliant student" is a judgement made by the historians whose works I consulted, which I have repeated. I really don't see why this is worth such a fuss. Adam 05:32, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree and am changing it back. "Top student" indicates academic performance, while "brilliant student" does not necessarily indicate that he received high marks, just that in the judgment of someone he was, well, a brilliant student. I do think it's important information, and I agree with your comment that "top student" doesn't convey the same information. --Delirium 05:36, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

I have deleted the reference to Schumacher's academic brilliance. This is a piece of information which the reader is now deprived of. The interests of readers, however, seem to take a low priority for many WP users (I was going to say "contributors" but I am not aware of any useful contribution some users have made). Defending the reference would entail another round of futile argument with Alexandros, which would serve no useful purpose since he is not open to persuasion on any point about which his mind is made up. This is a good example of one of WP's fundamental weaknesses: that the monomaniac, no matter how ignorant or even malicious, will usually win out eventually, because non-monomaniacs have better things to do than argue with them. Adam 01:05, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

'Tweren't the resolution I was hoping for, but it is one way to defuse a situation, I suppose. Since that was one of my goals, I will chalk this up as a qualified failure. Your statement about monomaniacs is so eloquent I am going to post it on Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great. -- Cyan 01:13, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

i like "He was considered a brilliant student, " . I think this works. Alexandros 01:24, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I will say he was a brilliant student because of your arguments;