"

Here, from the talk page, three other editors confirming my judgment of just how ""embarassing"" the current article is, and which contributes to the common conception among academics that Wikipedia is primarily written by intellectually disabled kindergartners and high-school dropouts on a power-trip: 
'm sorry but the introduction is an embarrassingly crass articulation of what Heidegger's project is about. It is embarrassing and needs to be fixed!

I agree, especially with sources. From what I understand of Heidegger, the three paragraphs in the introduction are roughly accurate, but they require edits to become smooth and easily understandable. But most importantly, there are no references!! I find the biography and following subjects are for the most part thoroughly cited, but the intro is not? I will keep my eye out for references, but anyone who is knowledgable and wellread on the subject should consider adding references to the introduction. Jdanbeck (talk) 
I'd say the second paragraph is inaccurate, and in fact absolute nonsense. It neither reflects Heidegger's position, nor is coherent in itself. There used to be a decent intro. Revert to it? KD Tries Again (talk) KD Tries Again

And then, have a look at the fact that 4 editors supported me, before a single WIKILAWYER arrived at the scene, to mass delete. How exactly can I ""lose"" an argument about Heidegger by calling you Hitler? Whether or not you or I or anyone is an idiot or a Nazi or whatever has no reflection on whether or not the current article ACTIVELY SPREADS MISINFORMATION, as I have repeatedly stated and showed. Goodbye. I hope someday you all have the experience of reading Heidegger, as it is an electrifying experience which I hope no one will deny themselves due to this abortion of a 3rd grader's Wikipage. Truly sad to see how little you actually care about your pages being informative, true, or approrpriate to their topic's importance. Despicable, in fact.  "