Talk:Kurt Schumacher

Untitled

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;

Kurt Schumacher's Arm Injury Correction

Please see Gordon A. Craig's book, "The Germans", pg. 36. "During the 12 years of the Third Reich, he had sat almost uninterruptedly in concentration camps, as punishment for his biting anti-Nazi speeches that he had made as a member of the Reichstag in the years 1930-1933, and, when he was released he was a dying man, for a serious circulatory disease had gone unattended during his imprisonment." His arm was amputated in 1948 and the final four years of his life were rarely free of pain. Dpmurray (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Rote Kapelle

It is possible that he was in the Rote Kapelle. scope_creep^Talk 22:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Not very likely. The Rote Kapelle (Red Orchestra) was the name the Nazis gave to a wide-ranging Soviet network in Western Europe whose origins went back to the mid-1930s, at a time when Schumacher was in a concentration camp. Moreover, as a concentration camp prisoners, Schumacher would not have been able to offer any information of any value to the GRU. And finally, Schumacher was a socialist of the Marxist type, albeit to achieving change via peaceful means within the democratic system, but he was also an anti-communist. The split that saw the extreme left-wing of the SPD led by Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxembourg break away to form the KPD caused quite a lot of ill-feelings between the two groups that lasted for decades. All your source says that is that Oda Schottmüller, a member of the Rote Kapelle was in a relationship with Kurt Schumacher. That is another guy. Schumacher is a common German surname and Kurt is likewise a common German boys name. The Kurt Schumacher referred to here was a sculptor who was executed by the German state in 1942, not the Social Democratic leader. The source says this Kurt Schumacher was born in 1905, which proves it is Kurt the Sculptor, not the Kurt the Social Democrat, that your source is talking about. I don't mean to sound rude, as I appreciate your good faith suggestion, but I believe you are are mistaken here --A.S. Brown (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• K.Schumacher.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• K.Schumacher.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)