Jump to content

Talk:Kurt Gödel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nationality

[edit]

it is not accurate or meaningul to claim godel was austrian..in fact for most of his life he would have have answered questions about his nationality with "american." if you asked gim about his ethnicity or ancestey he would have stated "german." godel was not "austrian" would never have said he was "austrian " and never considered himself "austrian" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.36.86.173 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did think about whether the section that introduces this article should state his nationality. However, reading this article I see this could be difficult - the article says that he was born in part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, now in the Czech republic, to a German family. Vorbee (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not worth it. His nationality is irrelevant to his work. Really we should drop the habit more generally of leading with nationality, but especially in a case like this, where it's complicated and the complications become an edit-war temptation for nationalists. Just let it be. His nationality is "mathematician". --Trovatore (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just came to say that I was happy to not see any nationality claim in the introduction. IMO Wikipedia should refrain from the habit of writing about nationalities in the first sentence. So, bravo 131.176.243.9 (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very clearly, Kurt Gödel was Austrian. When he was born in 1906 in Brno, the city lay in Austria-Hungary, more precisely in Cisleithania. There was no Austro-Hungarian citizenship in Austria-Hungary. One was either Austrian (in Cisleithania), or Hungarian (in Transleithania). Kurt Gödel therefore had the Austrian citizenship. In 1918, Brno became Czechoslovakian. The German-speaking inhabitants of Czechoslovakia were later referred to as Sudeten Germans and almost the entirety of them was expelled from Czechoslovakia to Germany and Austria (the German-speaking inhabitants of Brno almost entirely to Austria) in 1945 and 1946. In 1929, Kurt Gödel renounced the Czechoslovakian citizenship and became Austrian again. Furthermore, the article tells us, that Kurt Gödel considered himself Austrian and that he studied at the University of Vienna. It is therefore completely correct to refer to him as - if not Austrian - at least Austrian-born. Viennese97 (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cisleithania was a nonformal term. Godel is definitelly Moravian-born or Czech-born, because he was born and spent his childhood in Moravia and had Czech citizenship. I don't understand why among the citizeships of Godel is German, when he obtained German citizenship? I don't understand why you talk about Sudeten Germans, that's a term invented by Nazis to justify anexion of the Czechia. After war the term was forbidden by law and Godel wasn't in Czechia long time before WWII and it's not true that all German-speaking inhabitants were expelled, Czech Jews for example we're also mainly German-speaking and my German speaking Jew grandmother wasn't expelled. Czechia was historically multiethnic country, but after WWII it was unimaginable, that Czechs would live with Germans peacefully in one state. 46.135.96.236 (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He can't be Czech-born because he was born in 1906 in Austria-Hungary with the Austrian citizenship, and not in the Czech Republic. He only got the Czech citizenship in 1918. But he didn't want it, and renounced it, and got the Austrian citizenship again. Second, he did not want to be Czechoslovakian because he neither spoke Czech nor Slovakian, but German. And German Bohemians and Moravians are Austrian and not Czech. I think you don't know the difference between Bohemia and Moravia, and the Czech Republic. Bohemia and Moravia were bilingual Czech/German regions until 1945. And the German-speaking Bohemians and Moravians were/are even called Sudeten Germans by the Czechs. So i summarize: he was Austrian-born, and he later renounced the Czechoslovakian citizenship because he didn't want to be Czechoslovakian. He wanted to be Austrian. He was born in the Austrian part of Austria-Hungary, had the Austrian citizenship when he was born, and additionally he made it clear that he did not want to be Czechoslovakian but Austrian when he renounced the Czechoslovakian citizenship that was imposed on him. And therefore, he is at least Austrian-born, if not Austrian. See also: Sigmund Freud Viennese97 (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to talk about it in the first sentence at all. Discuss it in the body. It's not important enough for the first sentence. --Trovatore (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trovatore, the more interesting question would be, why the mention of him being Austrian bothers you so much. As can be read above, it already bothered you in 2020. For sure, it can't be because of the length of the introduction, because "Austrian-born" just makes the introduction a few letters longer.
In fact, it is very easy: Kurt Gödel was an Austrian who later in life was granted American citizenship, and who was so unlucky that the places where he lived, were first absorbed by Czechoslovakia (Brno in 1918), and second by Germany (Vienna in 1938). Neither of that makes him Czechoslovakian nor German.
The description Austrian-born is already a compromise, since he really was just Austrian, and from 1947 onwards, also American, but this just because he got American citizenship later in life.
Therefore, possible descriptions would either be "Austrian-born" or "Austrian, naturalized American", or "Austrian-American" or "Austrian who later was granted American citizenship".
Since "Austrian-born" is the shortest one, and because this one is correct in any case, it should be chosen for the introduction.
Trovatore, the fact that he was born in the Cisleithanian part of Austria-Hungary alone, makes the statement "Austrian-born" correct already.
Additionally, we can read in the article:
"According to his classmate Klepetař, like many residents of the predominantly German Sudetenländer, "Gödel considered himself always Austrian and an exile in Czechoslovakia".[1] In February 1929, he was granted release from his Czechoslovakian citizenship and then, in April, granted Austrian citizenship.[2]"
It is hence completely justified to refer to him as "Austrian-born", and i repeat, the fact alone that he was born in Cisleithania would be enough for that claim.
Trovatore, as you can see in the article, Kurt Gödel is listed in a category called "Time 100: The Most Important People of the 20th Century".
Now i ask you, is there ANY of those 100 people, the nationality of whom is not mentioned in the first sentence? If it is standard to mention the nationality of an important person in the first sentence, then this should be done with Kurt Gödel as well.
I gotta tell you, it is in fact standard in ANY article about ANY person to state their nationality in the first sentence - wondering if you have ever noticed that.
If there are still any doubts, compare to articles about other German-speaking people born in those parts of Austria-Hungary that later became Czechoslovakian, like Sigmund Freud or Edmund Husserl, and hundreds of others. Viennese97 (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC) Viennese97 (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of this is important enough to put in the first sentence. You could call him, with varying degrees of justification, Austrian, American, German, Czech, or Hungarian. The arguments for some of those, maybe, are better than others.
But so what? He wasn't a politician. He wasn't royalty. He wasn't a military man. Nothing about what makes him interesting has anything to do with nationality (with the minor exception of the little sidelight about the American naturalization ceremony).
It's true that in uncomplicated cases we do generally report nationality in the first sentence. Gödel's case is anything but uncomplicated. To do it justice in the first sentence would make the first sentence mainly about nationality, and that would be just stupid, for such an interesting figure as Gödel, when the reasons he's interesting have so little to do with nationality.
What bothers me is not calling him "Austrian" per se. I don't care if he was Austrian. I don't like nationalists, regardless of affiliation, and I don't like them monopolizing the talk pages with these silly disputes. --Trovatore (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since he was born in the Cisleithanian part of Austria-Hungary with the Austrian citizenship, he was Austrian-born - very easy. If you can't provide any proof that it is not standard to mention the nationality of a person in the first sentence - regardless for what they are known for - your arguments are all invalid. You complain about a problem that you yourself are causing. The unusual thing is not the mention of the nationality in the first sentence, but you trying to prevent that. And this by doubtful means like the very casual mention of nationalities that nobody ever thought about in regards to Kurt Gödel (i explained further above that one had either the Austrian or Hungarian citizenship depending on whether one was born in Cis- or Transleithania) - this is a try to cause artificial confusion that wasn't there before you initiated it - and implying that people who insist on adjusting an article to the standard of all others are nationalists. Albert Einstein's - also a mathematician one might say - complex nationalities are comparable, and still he is described as German-born in the first sentence. I repeat, this is because any article about any person includes the nationality in the first sentence. Your doubtful argument of someone having to be a politician or royal in order to make their nationality worth mentioning in the first sentence is invalid, as probably 95% of all famous people - the nationalities of whom are all mentioned in the first sentence - are not known because they had a state function. So i ask you now: was Kurt Gödel Austrian-born or not? And can you provide an amount of examples of other people's articles who are known for something else than politics or royalty, that neither mention an equivalent for - in Kurt Gödel's case - "Austrian" nor "Austrian-born" in the first sentence, that is high enough to justify that it is common practice not to mention a person's nationality in the introduction just in order to not provide a source for discussions? Viennese97 (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:MOS/BIO and search for Copernicus. For convenience, here's what it says:
Finally, in controversial or unclear cases, nationality is sometimes omitted.
Hope this helps. --Trovatore (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does you claiming that this case is controversial really make the case controversial? It seems more like you are the driving force in making the case controversial.
Czechoslovakian? No, i have never heard that a German only-speaking person born in Austria-Hungary was described as Czechoslovakian, and more importantly, no source says that he was Czechoslovakian.
German? No, there is also no source saying he was German.
Hungarian? No, you are the only one who said he could be regarded as Hungarian.
Austrian-born? Yes, and there is even sourced information in the article that he considered himself Austrian.
American? Yes he was a naturalized American and there are sources saying that he was American.
Result: either Austrian-born (correct) or Austrian-born American (correct)
The queen of sources, Britannica, describes him as "Austrian-born mathematician" in the introduction, and as "German-speaking Austrian" in the section "Early life and career".
So if you have no good arguments against it, one of the descriptions from Britannica should be adopted.
http://www.britannica.com/biography/Kurt-Godel Viennese97 (talk) 06:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think I am the driving force? I have no particular opinion of my own on Gödel's birth nationality. Are you confusing me with the IP contributor above? --Trovatore (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Dawson 1997, p. 15.
  2. ^ Gödel, Kurt (1986). Collected works. Feferman, Solomon. Oxford. p. 37. ISBN 0-19-503964-5. OCLC 12371326.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

About "Legacy" section

[edit]

User:DIYeditor, I removed that section because when I read the article, I found it to be the most distracting section out of all. Biographies should be focused on the people themselves. I know that Godel is an influential mathematician, but it's far better to show why he is influential in the first place rather than listing things that are tangentially related to him. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To me removing the mention of Gödel, Escher, Bach was perplexing and indicates exactly why this "nuking" you have been doing to biography articles in inappropriate. The reader deserves to understand the legacy. Not mentioning that book in an article about Gödel seems very strange to me. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that book is already mentioned in the Further reading section, but I do agree with you about this. Perhaps I should be more careful with my content removal then... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

English variety

[edit]

Hmm, maybe we do need to figure this out. I would have thought the article was in American English per WP:TIES, but then again that applies only when it's clear, and Gödel was American but other things as well. Is there an established variety? I can't find "color" or "colour", "labor" or "labour". "Honor" and "honour" both appear. As far as I can tell, all words that are distinguished between the varieties by -ise versus -ize are resolved in favor of -ize. --Trovatore (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About “Religious views” section

[edit]

The last paragraph of the section attributes the statement “Religions are, for the most part, bad—but religion is not.” to this person. It cites [47] which points (I gather) through [44] to a Google Books copy of Wang 1996, p. 316. I read that page; I didn’t find that subject discussed there and hence didn’t find the quote.

I searched the book for the word “religion”. The closest similar statement I found was on p. 266 in statement 8.4.10, “Churches deviated from religion which had been founded by rational men.”

If there’s no change needed, please accept my apology and delete this message. If change is needed, I don’t know what it is; sorry to leave this work for others.

Thanks for considering my report. SoftwarePM (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kurt_Gödel&oldid=1242909698"