Talk:Jürgen Habermas

Habermas on rational action

I have summarized his contribution to the meaning of terms Instrumental and value-rational action. I welcome comments.TBR-qed (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jürgen Habermas. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20160108181837/http://www.uclm.es:80/actividades0304/seminarios/spinoza/pdf/cuadernos/22.pdf to http://www.uclm.es/actividades0304/seminarios/spinoza/pdf/cuadernos/22.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jürgen Habermas. 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/20080601125221/http://www.jesus.cam.ac.uk/contacts/fellows/profiles/thompson.html to http://www.jesus.cam.ac.uk/contacts/fellows/profiles/thompson.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Habermas discredited?

There a number of editors who kept insisting on the pages of Ernst Nolte and the Historikerstreit that the conservatives like Nolte won the Historikerstreit and the leftists like Habermas has been "discredited" since the 1980s. Indeed, any criticism of Nolte gets deleted on the grounds that he is the mainstream of German historiography and this is a BLP violation. I cannot find any RS, but editors like Tadeusz Nowak keep attacking me as a Stalinist for saying that historians like Andreas Hillgruber were discredited in the Historikerstreit with edit summaries like "the ones discredited in the Historikerstreit were the Soviet apologists according to most modern historians". Since if that is indeed the case, why doesn't the article say this about Habermas?--A.S. Brown (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Your position is perfectly correct and generally accepted. But those right-wing bots have never cared about the truth, have they? --89.0.48.195 (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Criticism section

The section on criticism here really needs some attention.

As it currently stands it has no citations is largely useless to a reader.

Aldorath (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Three years later, there is still not a single source for the criticisms. The only sources are to establish the credentials of the critics. I have removed the section. The text should be restored with sources. 85.149.13.48 (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't seem necessary. For me the religion § was sufficient in the context of the whole article to characterize the individual's thought as basically an unoriginal reprocessing of culture rather than a significant contribution to it. 98.4.112.204 (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)