# Talk:Hugo Krabbe

Hello and thanks for your article. 
You mention he was in the civil service. Did he do anything notable? How does that impact his later writings? His Doctorate is on the civil service so I would think some more discussion on what he did during that time is warranted. Why was he chosen to be chief commissioner at the Ministry of the Interiors? Why were his reformations to the electoral system opposed? "Die Lehre der Rechtssouveränität ...  one of the most controversial works in Dutch legal science" can you source that? What is the controversy over?Czarking0 (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


### buidhe comments
Citation issues: La Torre 2010, p. 18. is giving a harv error.
Citations to Carl Schmitt and other contemporaries should probably be replaced by modern scholars writing about Krabbe. Unless it's specifically for attributed opinions of the author. You can probably access many recent sources using WP:TWL.
Other issues: the content gaps mentioned above by Czarking have not been resolved or responded to. I would also suggest potentially splitting up sections based on contemporary responses to Krabbe and long-term influence that continues to the present day. The article is quite short so there is room to expand it with more information.
Gitz6666 (t · c) buidhe 18:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Buidhe, thank you so much for the time you spent of Krabbe! It's also very helpful, thanks.
La Torre 2010  Done
Actually replacing Carl Schmitt with others contemporaries might be questionable. Carl Schmitt is an exceptionally important jurist of the time as well as a very controversial author (he became the leading jurist of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1936). Schmitt's views on Krabbe are in itself relevant from the viewpoint of history of ideas and legal doctrines, and the very fact that Schmitt wrote about Krabbe makes Krabbe more notable (in fact Krabbe is a relatively minor author, incomparably less known than Carl Schmitt and Hans Kelsen). But you're right: the reader doesn't understand why Schmitt's views are mentioned here. Therefore I added a bit of text, in particular the following sentence: Carl Schmitt, who was the representative of an anti-bourgeois, anti-liberal, anti-democratic and thoroughly authoritarian theory of the state, saw in Krabbe the revival of "the old liberal negation of the state vis-a-vis law", coupled with a stale and uninspiring sociological methodology: I hope it's an improvement!
The content gaps highlighted by @Czarking0 have been addressed during the peer review, here. To put it shortly, I don't have any information about Krabbe's activities as civil servant. Perhaps something could be found here and here. As I don't read Dutch, I'm now wickedly trying to force a fellow user, @Nederlandse Leeuw, to take a look at this (sorry for the ping, Nederlandse Leeuw: I meant no harm).
Re expanding the article, splitting it into separate sections (contemporary debates + long-term influence), etc., I'd be very happy to comply, but unfortunately there aren't many sources about Krabbe. As I said, this is quite a minor author, surely relevant in the context of 1920s debates on international law, but nowadays almost forgotten. I might be wrong, but I think that vast majority/near totality of works about Krabbe are already quoted in this article.
Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Hmm. I double checked and most of the sources I'm finding in English either don't have much coverage or are already cited here. (t · c) buidhe 20:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


### Life section
I've been taking a first look at the article, and made some changes. As said in the edit summary, the Gelderland and North Holland appointments happened after his 1883 graduation. 'Academic career' is too vague. Translations of titles to English is risky, as all of these Dutch titles are defunct and have neither clear modern Dutch nor English equivalents. To be on the safe side we should leave them untranslated. (I'm not even sure if griffier is a law clerk or court clerk, but the difference between these various kinds of commies mostly seems to be in rank rather than function).

Much of the text appears to be based on inaccurate machine translations, and that detracts from both the text's quality and aesthetics, as some things are just said differently in English. E.g. De idee der persoonlijkheid in de staatsleer ("The idea of personality in the state doctrine") may be better rendered as "The Idea of Personhood in Public Administration Theory", as it is probably personhood that Krabbe refers to, and staatsleer is an obsolete Dutch word for nl:bestuurskunde, which links to public administration theory on English Wikipedia. I don't know whether 'state doctrine' means anything in English, but if it does, it seems quite a different issue than 'public administration theory'.
There are few cases (which I haven't yet marked as such) where a claim is not in the citation given, such as that minister Tak van Poortvliet should be grouped with (progressive liberals), or that the bill if approved, would have extended the right to vote to the whole adult male population. Neither Kranenburg 1937a nor Kranenburg 1937b actually says either of those things, so this seems WP:SYNTH. The reader may find these things if they click on Johannes Tak van Poortvliet, but that article is completely unsourced as well. It's important to back up your own claims and not rely on links to do the work for you, because they don't necessarily do the work for you, as this case shows.
Finally, I must also say that I find the Harvard citation style to be rather inconvenient, as I've switched to sfn style which makes it far easier to identify author, date, and page(s) for verification without having to look up which citation ':4' stood for again. With your permission, I'd like to convert all citations to sfn; if not, that's fine, but I will be less motivated to continue the review, as it is really annoying.
Those are just a few remarks for the first two paragraphs. It seems to me there is a lot still to be done, so I'll leave it hear for now, hoping this will help you make further improvements. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, Nederlandse Leeuw, I'm happy I succeeded in forcing you to take care of the article... I will reply to your comments asap, but to speed up the process I wanted to make it clear that I’ve nothing against changing the reference system – so please go ahead and change it as you think it’s best. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
@Gitz6666: I've converted the harvard refs as agreed, except for the 7 cases in which you used them in footnotes. Normally I would convert these to Template:efn and put a Template:Notelist at the bottom, but that may be more trouble than it's worth. The goal of making verification and correction easier has been achieved, so I'll leave it here. :) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much, that's great. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
You're welcome! On interlanguage link practices, see H:FOREIGNLINK. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Gitz, that will make it a lot easier for me to carry out some changes myself. Incidentally, I've been reading some of De idee der persoonlijkheid in de staatsleer (1908) from this printed book that you linked to, and I must say that it is quite interesting. Krabbe claimed that at the time he spoke (in 1908), the prevailing idea was collectivism, that state policy should coincide with the supposed 'interest of the community', and that the lives of individual members should be completely subjected to contributing to their community's interest. What Krabbe is arguing for is that, instead, the primary concern of the state / public administration should be to ensure that the individual human person can flourish in life. Human personhood, that is, the rights and interests of the individual human person, should be put front and centre in society, as opposed to the supposed 'rights/interests' of 'the community', which are neither clear nor uniform. Democracy is a good principle, but it is not good enough on its own, because what the majority wants is not always necessarily what is good/healthy for the majority, let alone always good/healthy for some or all individual members of the 'community'.  (It reminds me of the 'tyranny of the majority' idea of Tocqueville, although Krabbe hasn't invoked it yet). He regarded ancient Greek ideas about public administration as collectivist and bad for individuals. Although crediting Christianity with the 'realisation' that individual personhood exists, Krabbe argued that the Church distorted the idea by creating theocracy, another collectivist idea. Monarchical absolutism as well as Rousseau's social contract and popular sovereignty were, according to Krabbe, yet more iterations of political collectivism that negated individual personhood and the rights/interests of individuals. The core of what Krabbe is arguing for seems to be found on page 11:
"This individualism now gives rise to a view of the state that can be considered the antipode of the Greek idea of the state. No longer is the state or the community the natural bearer of intellectual/spiritual/mental (geestelijk) life, but the individual, who demands freedom to be able to develop [themselves]. Any hindrance to that freedom is in principle an evil, so that, given the recognition of the indispensability of the community, the restriction of that freedom must be reduced to the smallest possible dimensions. A certain degree of freedom is given up in order to benefit all the more from the remainder. And the principle is that the smaller the reduction which the community makes to the freedom of the individual, the greater the gain, because the smaller the percentage of freedom that must be surrendered to make the inevitable community possible, the further the intellectual/spiritual/mental (geestelijk) life of a human being can develop."
What I am reading seems to me to foreshadow ideas of personal human rights (not just the rights of citizens), although it may be early to speak of 'human rights' in Krabbe's 1908 speech as we have come to know them since the 1948 UDHR. If more information can be found in secondary souces about Krabbe's possible contribution to the development of human rights (based on this speech and perhaps other works), that could be quite interesting and relevant material to add to this biography. Just a recommendation. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
PS: This quote alone demonstrates that we must be careful how to translate pre-war Dutch texts to English. The phrase geestelijk leven (compare German Geistesleben) in modern Dutch has an almost exclusively religious meaning, but that doesn't seem to be what Krabbe is talking about. It is about all parts of life that happen in the human mind, the thoughts, emotions and reasoning of people, not just their religious beliefs (if they have any). So it could be variously translated as intellectual/spiritual/mental life. intellectual seems most appropriate, as Krabbe focuses on the development of the individual human mind, and that seems to be intellectual development: an individual human person's developing understanding of how the world works and how to live in it, the protection and stimulation of which is to be the primary purpose of the state. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm happy you find Krabbe's work quite interesting. I think that your reading is entirely correct and that Krabbe's work has much to do with the emergence of human rights discourse in international law. However, the problem is always the same: sources. We need to avoid WP:OR and we must find a reliable source dealing with that aspect of his work. Unfortunately I didn't find it yet, because Krabbe is a relatively minor author, as I said. Who knows, maybe in the near future he will be rediscovered by the critics and his work will be popular and fashionable again. If that will happen, I'm sure academics will find this article quite useful: for the time being, it is the most complete and accessible presentation of his life and thought. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
on Tak van Poortvliet. We have Kranenburg 1937a: en had als zoodanig een groot aandeel in de voorbereiding van het bekende ontwerpkieswet Tak van Poortvliet (and as such he had a large share in the preparation of the well-known draft electoral law of Tak van Poortvliet) and Kranenburg 1937b: hij had in die functie een belangrijk aandeel in de voorbereiding van het bekende kieswet-ontwerp Tak van Poortvliet (In that position he played an important part in the preparation of the famous Tak van Poortvliet electoral law draft). However, we need references for the claim that Tak van Poortvliet was a progressive liberal and for the claim the bill if approved, would have extended the right to vote to the whole adult male population. I found the following ones:
Eyffinger, Arthur (2019). "The Context of the Hague Conferences". T.M.C. Asser (1838-1913) (2 vols.). pp. 694–731. ISBN 9789004397972.: Mr. J.P.R. Tak van Poortvliet (1839–1904) was a progressive liberal
Congleton, Roger D. (2011). Perfecting Parliament. Constitutional Reform, Liberalism, and the Rise of Western Democracy. Cambridge University Press. pp. 441–442. ISBN 9780521764605.: In 1893 Tak van Poortvliet proposed allowing all persons who could read and write and who were self-supporting to be eligible to vote. That proposal, however, was too large of an expansion for moderate liberals and conservatives at that time, and so it was withdrawn
I'm adding these two sources and I'm also modifying the text so as to make it identical to Congleton (instead of "whole adult male population" we'll have "all persons who could read and write and who were self-supporting", although I'm quite sure that those "persons" were actually men and not women). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Looks good. I did a little googling and found this on Parlement.com (widely held to be reliable on Dutch parliamentary history): [Tak van Poortvliet] Diende in 1892 een ontwerp-Kieswet in, waarbij een aanzienlijke uitbreiding van het mannenkiesrecht (circa 75% van alle mannen) werd voorgesteld. Vereisten voor het verkrijgen van kiesrecht waren volgens dit voorstel: het kunnen lezen en schrijven en het niet van de bedeling leven. "[Branch van Poortvliet] Submitted a draft Electoral Act in 1892, proposing a significant extension of male suffrage (approximately 75% of all men). According to this proposal, the requirements for obtaining the right to vote were: being able to read and write and not living off poor relief." So it's indeed not women (who at the time had no legal right to paid work, and until 1901 girls were not required to go to school and thus lacked access to education), nor was it all men, but about 75%. 'Self-supporting' thus means 'not living off poor relief'. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
That's great. I would then write "male citizens" instead of "persons" and add the source you found. Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Translation of De idee der persoonlijkheid in de staatsleer. Much of the text appears to be based on inaccurate machine translations. This I find both inaccurate and a bit harsh... I'm sorry, but this is my area of expertise, it's what I do for a living: my bread and butter. "De idee der persoonlijkheid in de staatsleer" cannot be translated as "The Idea of Personhood in Public Administration Theory". "Personality" is the standard way of referring to legal subjectivity (capability of bearing rights and duties). Many references could be provided, e.g. [1]. "Staatsleer" is identical to the German Staatslehre and cannot be translated as Public Administration Theory (Staatslehre also dealt with constitutional law and with international law as well). "State doctrine" is quite a common and uncontroversial translation for Staatslehre in academic writings (e.g., [2] [3] [4] [5]). However, if that expression sounds puzzling and weird to you, we may use an equally common and uncontroversial translation for Staatslehre: "theory of the state". So the "De idee der persoonlijkheid in de staatsleer" translates as "The idea of personality in the theory of the state". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be harsh. I'll admit that despite being a native Dutch speaker, I am not a legal expert; my training is in history and so I may well be mistaken in this case. nl:staatsleer currently redirects to nl:bestuurskunde, which is therefore probably wrong. "theory of the state" sounds fine. I ran into "political theory" as another alternative, but that may not be specific enough; although 'political' derives from polis (ancient Greek city-state), 'politics' is a very broad term, and we're talking about what states are supposed to be for, so "theory of the state" is probably better. I'll also admit that, while reading Krabbe 1908, most times persoonlijkheid seemed readily translatable as 'personhood', but at other times that was not possible and 'personality' was more accurate. E.g. on page 22 and 23, where he argues every individual has a unique persoonlijkheid and thus should sometimes not be treated the same because that could be unfair. 'Personhood' would not make sense in this context, I think, so you are probably right. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, no harm done! "Political theory" is not accurate because Staatslehre was often meant to be a purely juridical science: the legal methods as applied to public law (e.g., Paul Laband, Carl Friedrich von Gerber, Georg Jellinek). In fact, another viable translation for Staatslehre is simply "public law": "the idea of personality in public law". However, I think that "Theory of the State" is more accurate and more common. For example, Jellinek's Allgemeine Staatslehre is usually translated as General Theory of the State. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm re-reading some texts. Does personality/persoonlijkheid refer to the state of being a judicial person (Dutch: rechtspersoon)? This is what Krabbe appears to mean when writing (p. 20): 'the contraposition of government (overheid) and subject (onderdaan) has been replaced by an equalisation of both as autonomous persons (zelfstandige personen), subjects of/to [the] law (subjecten van rechten), because each possesses its own legal value, not derived from each other'. I'm sorry if this is a really basic legal question; I thought I understood the text, but now I am confused. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Maybe I almost got it: a legal person (rechtssubject) may be a natural/human person (natuurlijk/menselijk persoon) or a judicial/juridical person (rechtspersoon); the latter may include states/governments, companies, NGOs etc.. All legal persons have rechtspersoonlijkheid or juridische persoonlijkheid. So, a subject/citizen and a state/government are both legal persons, in that sense they are autonomous persons, equal before the law, but not the same because they are unique and have different rights and obligations. Am I getting that right? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me that you understand it perfectly, although the concept of juridical person (better than "judicial") is perhaps too narrow, because it applies only to corporations. A better translation of "rechtspersoon"  is perhaps legal person: an entity that is recognised by the law as holder of rights and duties. That includes both natural (or physical) persons and juridical persons - that is, both individuals and corporations. So basically Krabbe is saying that the contraposition between ruled and ruler (or, to put it with Léon Duguit, between those who govern and those who are governed) is now replaced with the equalisations of all legal persons (or legal subjects) before the law. So the policeman, the MP, the President and even a corporation such as the State are no longer my "rulers": they are just legal persons like me, and like me they should operate within the confines of the law. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
You got it perfectly right! Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Now it all makes sense. I first thought that Krabbe was arguing from the point of view of individualism (school of natural law), because in everyday parlance 'individual' and 'personal' are synonymous, but "legalese" has once again proven to be a language on its own. ;) Krabbe is in fact arguing that the concept of personality in law (specifically, theory of the state) solves the ongoing struggle between collectivism/community/state/government and individualism/individual/subject/citizen, recognising that both have their place in society, they are equal but not the same, with different rights and obligations, complementing each other rather than being superior or inferior to one another. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


### Main themes section
rechtssouvereiniteit: is rechtssouvereiniteit best translated as "sovereignty of the law"? I think "sovereignty of law" is better, without 'the'. 'The law' (Dutch: de wet) usually refers to legislation (Dutch: wetgeving), below the level of constitutional stipulations, whereas 'law' (Dutch: recht or rechten; depending on context, these can also mean "right" or "rights") refers to any legal stipulation, no matter the level. To quote Kiewiet 2018 (himself quoting Schmitt): 'His [Krabbe’s] theory of laws rests on the thesis that it not the state but law that this sovereign.[97] (...)'. Stella 2016 p. 65 says: 'The first of these (Krabbe 1906) frontally took on the question of the sovereignty of law: It was published in Dutch and immediately translated into German under the title Die Lehre der Rechtssouveränität (The theory of legal sovereignty: Krabbe 1906).' Further, the phrase 'sovereignty of law' appears 16 times in Stella 2016 (including other chapters of that book), but 'sovereignty of the law' never. (And although she herself translated Rechtssouveränität as "legal sovereignty", that phrase doesn't appear anywhere else in that book). The word 'law' in English without the article 'the' in front it it also took me quite a while to understand, and I've often incorrectly added 'the' to it myself (or always translated recht(en) as "right(s)", e.g. "I want to study rights" instead of "I want to read/study law", a common mistake Dutch people make), but now I know the difference. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I think you're right. English is not my mother tongue (obviously) and I'm happy to leave the final judgment to a more proficient speaker than myself, but I think you have a point there. I see that "Sovereignty of the Law" is used (very authoritatively) by William Blackstone [6]  but it might be a bit archaic. Moreover, I see that Martti Koskenniemi translates "Kelsen’s Rechtssouveränität" as "sovereignty of the law" in this book [7]. But I also see that "sovereignty of law" is quite common, e.g. [8] [9] [10] [11], so I think that both options are viable and the choice is a matter of style, which I'd leave to others. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
rechtsbewustzijn: Legal normativity is founded on "legal consciousness"[17][18][19] or "juridical conscience"[20] (rechtsbewustzijn, also translated "sense of right"[21]), which is common to all mankind. Legal consciousness is a normative feeling inherent to human psychology, which explains and justifies the binding nature of the law. This is a difficult one. Strictly speaking, bewustzijn in modern Dutch means either
(mostly biological) 'the state being awake' or 'conscious/aware of what is currently happening outside (and inside) one's body' (as opposed to being asleep or unconscious). It has to do with how (well) the brain functions in a given moment, how well a person is able to perceive/observe things that are happening); or
(mostly educational) 'the situation in which one has knowledge of something', 'being informed', 'knowing', 'being aware of a fact' (as opposed to ignorance, unawareness). If you say Ik ben me daarvan bewust, it means 'I am aware of that' or simply 'I know (that)'.
I think Krabbe meant the second, but I'm not sure. When Krabbe talks about 'a capacity for abstract thinking' (Stella 2016 p. 69), he could mean the ability of the brain to function well when observing things or thinking about things (1), or a person having knowledge of how law is supposed to work (2). It's kinda both. If we can't decide which one Krabbe meant, both are probably best translated as (legal) awareness.
"sense of right" is probably incorrect, unless we change it to "(having) (a) sense of what is right (and wrong)", which aligns more closely with the second meaning of 'knowing'. When compared to what I said above about 'law', an alternative could be 'sense/awareness/knowledge of law'. If we're talking about one's own subjective ideas about law, or what is right and wrong, the word 'sense' is neutral because those ideas might not be correct. If we're talking about what a person has heard or read about (prevailing) law, or (prevailing ideas about) what is right and wrong, 'awareness/knowledge' is a better word, because that describes something objective or normative.
"conscience" is better translated from geweten, which isn't the word Krabbe used. If Krabbe did mean it, it is about what a person knows they themselves should or shouldn't do, either because'(1) they feel it's wrong, (2) they feel/know that the community will find it wrong, or (3) they feel/know that it is (probably) illegal. The first two better translated as something like moral/ethical conscience, and (3) is probably rendered as "sense/knowledge/awareness of law", because it has little to do with one's conscience. Whichever way we look at it, "legal conscience" doesn't seem to be a thing. I have no idea what it could mean, and it's probably not what Krabbe meant.
I hope this helps illuminate some things, although I'm still uncertain if 'legal awareness' is the best way to translate it. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually the concept was not invented by Krabbe. In German, Rechtsbewußtsein was quite a common notion during the XIX century, and it played a prominent role in the work of the Swiss jurist Johann Kaspar Bluntschli. I'm quite sure that also Friedrich Carl von Savigny uses Rechtsbewußtsein somewhere. Its translation in French and Italian is well-established: conscience juridique, coscienza giuridica. If I had to chose, I'd say that the best translation in English is "legal consciousness", which I think is also the most common rendering of Bluntschli's concept (e.g., here [12] [13]). I think, however, that the solution I found for this article is good: I provided all the translations in English I encountered, including the bad translations - "sense of right" and "juridical conscience" - so that if somebody bumps into these expressions and googles them, they might find out that they refer to rechtsbewustzijn/Rechtsbewußtsein/legal consciousness. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hugo Krabbe/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Johannes Schade (talk · contribs) 10:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Good day Gitz6666. I propose to review your GA nomination "Hugo Krabbe". Admittedly, I am only an apprentice-reviewer. I must also warn you that my English is 2nd language and that I am no subject-matter expert. I will propose corrections and suggest optional improvements. The corrections rely on the GA criteria (WP:GACR). Some are tentative. Please tell me whenever you disagree with a correction. I am probably wrong. You can ignore my suggestions. They have no effect on the article's promotion. Should I lack in respect, do not hesitate to complain (see WP:CIVIL).
I will start with the preliminaries and then go through the article's section, sometimes returning to previous sections when needed. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, @Johannes Schade, for your willingness to review my article. It's very appreciated. Please not that also for me English my second language and it is far from perfect. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Dear Gitz, thanks for your quick reaction. I just discovered the discussion "GAN comments" on the article's talk page and am quite confused. This discussion seems to refer to a previous GA nomination (GAN), but the one started here between us is marked GA1 and not GA2. User:Buidhe was involved and User:Nederlandse Leeuw. I also looked at the peer revuew by User:Czarking0. Any comments? Thanks ans best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
This is not a second attempt. Apart from that, I don't know much about the procedure since GANs are entirely new to me. My guess is that the review process hadn't been formally initiated until now. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
That's fine.


### Before the article content
Optional Short description, parameter |birth_date= – I would add the lifespan in years as "(1857–1936)" (see WP:SDDATES) and omit the "public" (I see that the article International law mentions the term "public international law" but "public lawyer" does not seem to be widely used).
Optional Infobox, parameter | – I suggest (but am not very sure about it)
Optional Infobox, parameter | – Please remove, it has no effect
I believe you do not want the frame around the image.

Optional Infobox, parameter |image= – I would use the template "CSS image crop" to ged rid of the frame; e.g. | image = {{CSS image crop|Image=Portret van Hugo Krabbe, hoogleraar Rechtsgeleerdheid te Leiden Icones 323.tiff|bSize=450|cWidth=220|cHeight=250|oTop=75|oLeft=140|Location=center}}
Optional Infobox, parameter |discipline= – I would believe the discipline is "law" or "international law" and not "public lawyer". Johannes Schade (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 Done. In the infobox I replaced "public lawyer" (which didn't make any sense) with "public law". Public law comprises international law, constitutional law and administrative law, and these were the disciplines HK investigated and taught. Is the most comprehensive and yet precise indication ("law" is too generic, "international law" too narrow). The template:CSS image crop is amazing, thank you. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


#### Infobox (continued)
Optional Infobox, parameter |discipline= – The lead calls his discipline "public international law" and links it to the article International law. Which one is right? Whatever you choose, link it also in the infobox. Links in the lead, the body, and in each entry in the infobox are considered separate (MOS:REPEATLINK).
Optional Infobox, parameter |Institutions= – Link "Leiden University" (MOS:REPEATLINK)
Optional Infobox, parameter |Notable ideas= – Wikipedia has an article Monism and dialism in international law link the word "monism" to it.


### Lead
The lead should probably also mention that Krabbe was a professor at the universities of Groningen and Leiden.

Optional. 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. ... (3 February 1857 – 4 February 1936) ... – I know many or most biographies do it so, but please consider also the option to give the years only, i.e. (1857–1936) in the lead and then give the full dates in the body. Besides, as I understand it, you cannot give the dates only in the lead, as you do. With very few exceptions, everything in the lead should summarise more detailed information in the body.
Optional. 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... Hans Kelsen ... – The juxtaposition of the name Hans Kelsen at the end of the 2nd sentence and the beginning of the 3rd sentence is awkward. I would think that most readers never heard before of either Krabbe or Kelsen. I feel that Kelsen should be introduced further down and the immediate repetition of the name should be avoided, but there are obviously also other solutions.
Optional. 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. ... identified state and law ... – I would guess you mean "identified the state with its laws" or in other words "identified the state and its laws with each other". I wonder whether there is not a better verb for "identify".
We will probably have to return to the Lead after a first traverse of the text.  Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Two questions:
I removed the full dates from the lead. Do you think we should report them in the body of the article or should we rather leave them in the infobox and in the infobox only? It is not an essential piece of information and in order to include it in the body I would have to add a sentence on purpose.
Yes I think they should appear in the body. I think they are essential in the Life section, which should go from the cradle to the grave. Johannes Schade (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I think that "...identified state and law" is OK. I made a quick research and I can see that the expression is used in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy[14] and elsewhere. A viable alternative, however, is "...identified the state with the law", which is used by Stanley L. Paulson (the US authority on Kelsen) here [15] and by others [16], Finally, also " claim(ed) that the state and the law are identical" is also possible (e.g. Somek here [17] and others). I opted for Paulson's solution but I am open to suggestions.
Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I think this is fine.


### Life
Optional. 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. Born ...  University – The first sentence brings us from his birth to university. in one long sentence. I would break that sentence at least into two. Beyond the length of the sentence, the reason to break it is that in the 2nd sentence to jump back to the time when he already worked while still in highschool. A biography should as far as possible present events in chronological order.
Optional. 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. ...  his diploma ... – "his diploma" sounds very vague. Do you mean his matric?
Optional. 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. While in collage ... – I believe this is based on Kranenburg (1937b) "terwijl hij reeds als ambtenaar in de practijk der administratie werkzaam was, aan deze Universiteit gepromoveerd", meening that he was employed by the Dutch state (in fact the courts) at a time near the end of his studies before his thesis. The work "college" in English can mean either a highschool or a college as part of a university (see College). So please reformulate this sentence to make this clear that he was studying at the university at the time.
Optional. 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. On 2 July 1883 he obtained his doctorate ... – Peletier tells us that his Ph. D. advisor was Johannes Theodorus Buys. It would be nice to mention him as the Dutch (quite short) and the German (with some more detail) Wikipedias have articles on him.
Optional. 1st paragraph, 4th sentence. Krabbe was subsequently ... – The parentheses in this sentence serve purposes that are too disparate. Please try to do without them or at least use them less. You are probably right to give these three Dutch administrative ranks without translation. It seems all three mentioned rank names are now obsolete.
Optional. 1st paragraph, 5th sentence. In 1888, he became ... – Please reformulate to make it clear that his move from Justice to the Department of Home Affairs is more important than the change in the name of his rank. I suspect that the names commies-chef and hoofdcommies mean the same rank, only that Home-Affairs styled it more Dutch and Justice more French. These are low ranks. I would guess his move to Home Affairs was a clever career move with some help from his liberal friends, among which, Professor Buys.
Optional. 1st paragraph, 6th sentence. Under the direction of the minister ... – I feel this should be treated with a bit more detail. The reader must understand that the Dutch democracy at that time was quite plutocratic and elitist, which was not an exeption in Europe at the time. Give a date for when this reform of the electoral system was proposed and finally rejected.
Optional. 1st paragraph, 7th sentence. Partly through Tak van Poortvliet's ... – I suggest to start a new paragraph with the beginning of this sentence as we enter now the subject's university career. With thanks and greetings, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 Done Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


### Before the article content – revisited
I forgot to ask you to add an English-variant choice. I suggest: {{Use British English|date=February 2023}}, but you can of course choose a different one. This template should be inserted between {{Short description}} and {{Use dmy dates}}.
Optional Infobox, parameter | – Please remove, it has no effect
Optional Infobox, parameter |notable works ...= – Despite WP:NOBR, the use of the break tag is often difficult to avoid entirely. In Wikipedia always use <br />, not <br> or <br/>. However, for the infobox parameter "no_works" use a list, e.g. .
With thanks Johannes Schade (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't understand which parameter you'd like me to remove from the Infobox. With regard to "notable works", I used <br/> because I didn't understand how to create a list (some text is missing after your "e.g."). I also used italics for his works - I hope it's an improvement. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


### Life – revisited
Optional. 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. ... and Maria Adriana Machteld Scholten. – I suggest you insert "his wife" before her name as you cite (rightly so) his mother's maiden name in this place.
Optional. 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... Stedelijk Gymnasium in Leiden – Wikipedia has an article about the school Stedelijk Gymnasium Leiden. I suggest you link to this rather than to Gymnasium (school).
Optional. 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... De werkkring van den staat ... – The word werkkring "work ring" is difficult to translate. I think your translation comes from the German version of the article, which uses office (besides, in the plural: "Büros"). Krabbe's speech is available at Google Books at https://www.google.com/books?id=uQpWAAAAcAAJ. I had a look and I find that Krabbe's speech focuses on the question of how far the state should intervene and how far it should refrein from action— the "laissez-faire" of the liberal economists—and unsurprisingly answers it with: "as far as the law gdictates it". I therefore think that the German translation is quite misleading. I thought of "The State's Scope of Action", but perhaps you can find better.
Optional. 3rd paragraph Krabbe was the teacher ... – The various components of this 3rd paragraph should be moved to where they belong in the chronoloy of the "Life". As already said, a biography goes from the cradle to the grave and that is where it stops. His marriage should also appear in the Life section in its chronological place.
 Done


### Illustrations
His full portrait, aligned left at present, should appear on the right-hand side of the text so that he looks inside (see MOS:PORTRAIT). In order to equilibrate the page, it would be nice (in my opinion) to find a third picture that could appear on the left side, perhaps showing one of the buildings of the University Leiden? Perhaps you have a better idea.
 Done

Yes, your image of Leiden University in 1897 is relevant and pritty. Well done.


### Citations
The article should have a consistent citation style, in this case {{Sfn}} in the text and the {{Cite book}} etc. in the list of sources. Cited sources should be separated from those that are not. The cited ones go into a list of sources; the others into a "Further reading" section (see WP:Further reading). "language=en" (or "language=English") is assumed in the English Wikipedia. It should not be stated explicitly. Please remove. Otherwise please consistently use the international two-letter abbreviation for the languages, not the names. Change KRABBE to Krabbe, even if it is used so in the book. Treat it like a quotation (MOS:CONFORM). Regularise the spacing. Spaces should appear before all the pipe characters (|) except when preceded by the template name. At least that is the rule I apply. You seem to do the same but sometime you disregard it. I know it has no impact on the text as displayed, but the code looks better and reads more easily. It is the hallmark of well-done work (in my opinion). Greetings, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Dear Gitz, the infobox parameter that you should delete is |image_size=. In haste, sorry, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, done!
I've implemented all your suggestions under "Life – revisited" but I'm having some issues with the last one: The various components of this 3rd paragraph should be moved to where they belong in the chronoloy of the "Life". This proposal raises several difficulties. First of all, the sources don't tell us when Krabbe met and supervised his remarkable pupils. It was probably in Laiden instead of Groningen, but I don't know for sure because I lack a precise year to refer to. Secondly, if I were to include this kind of information in the paragraph above, I would overemphasise it: "in 19XX Krabbe supervised his pupil Roelof Kranenburg, in 19YY he met Ernst van Raalte, etc." It seems to me that it's better to gather this kind of information in the concluding paragraph of the section "Life", which is thus devoted to the legacy of Krabbe's teaching. Alternatively, we could eliminate the legacy of Krabbe's teaching altogether, but that would perhaps be a pity. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Re Citations - consistent citation style, in this case {{Sfn}}. I had originally decided to use template:harvnb because it is more flexible. It allows you to bundle citations (see footnote No 17) and it is also much easier to add quotes or additional comments into the footnote (see footnote No 35). But a fellow user didn't like that template and replaced it with sfn (e.g. [18]). That was fine with me, because I thought using both sfn and harvnb was acceptable. However, if I was wrong and we have to go back to harvnb that's fine, but I wanted to ask you first @Johannes Schade, because the change of citation style here has to be done manually (since I'll have to add <ref></ref>) and before doing so I want to be sure: since you said in this case {{Sfn}}, is it OK for you if we switch to template:Harvnb? Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Re: Last paragraph of the Life section. Dear Gitz, I find that this last paragraph does not perform well as a "concluding paragraph". It rather looks (in my opinion) like a mixes bag of pieces of information that you did not know what to do with. In the case of the two remarkable pupils, the Biografisch Woordenboek van Nederland gives the full dates needed: 29 May 1908 in Leiden for Bruins (https://resources.huygens.knaw.nl/bwn1880-2000/lemmata/bwn2/bruins) and 7 May 1909 for Kranenburg (https://resources.huygens.knaw.nl/bwn1880-2000/lemmata/bwn1/kranenburg). I think a short notice would not over-emphasise these events. Both pupils are clearly notable. You also have forgotten to mention his marriage (1886) in the Life. His influence on others, also included in the last paragraph of the Life section, probably should move into the Doctrine section.
Re: Citations. I agree with User:Nederlandse Leeuw and prefer {{Sfn}} over {{Harvnb}}. Sfn seems to predominate in high-quality articles. Look at the GAs and FAs (I have not made statistics but that is my impression). Grouping does not seem essential in Citation [17]. Quotes can be included in Sfn using the |ps= parameter (see e.g. Antoine Hamilton). Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, @Johannes Schade, I have some problems with footnote N° 43. I don't see how to remove the Harvnb template there, because if I use the Sfn template I can't include another Sfn template after the ps parameter. None of the solutions provided here looks satisfactory to me. Apparently Template:Harvnb is more flexible than Sfn. I'd be inclined to use more than one citation template, since the resulting text is identical and thus not unpleasant for the reader. If this is unheard of and unacceptable in GA, then I'm open to your suggestions on how to solve this issue - thanks.
Dear Gitz. I think it is fine to use Hrvnb as a once-off for such an exceptional case. As they say in German, "Einmal ist keinmal."
Re Grouping of citation, I see that here the possibility of using the companion template Sfnm is suggested (under the heading "3.1.4. Bundled citation: {{harvnb}} or {{sfnm}}"). Don't you think it would be an improvement compared to the four footnotes in a raw (now ft 17-20, and also 21-23) which to me look very much like a case of WP:OVERKILL?
Dear Gitz. I think it is an overkill only if the various sources all say the same, but this is a rare. I think when we use more than one citation at the end of a sentence or a paragraph then there are good reasons to do so. Usually, the citations support different parts of the content. The case of the 17-20 is perhaps different. I find it strange that you cite entire books. Why are there no pages given for Stella, Kiewiet and Navari? Do these citations really support the statements made in the paragraph in question? It almost feels as if you suggest further reading. Perhaps you need an Efn rather than Sfns?
Dear @Johannes Schade:, actually I'm not citing entire books there: Stella 2016 is six-page chapter; Kiewiet 2018 is a 16-page article (but I will now add a more precise indication of the pages where the author presents Krabbe's work); Navari 2021 is 14 pages (ditto). The reason for these references is that these sources provide an overview of Krabbe's thought: not just biographical information, but a theoretically informed presentation of his main thesis. The whole "Main themes" section is based on them - they identified the main themes and I summarised their conclusions. Thank you for the "Einmal ist keinmal" with regard to Harvnb; I will avoid "ein zweites Mal, ein drittes Mal, usw.", so I will not use either Harvnb or Sfnm and I will not "bundle" my citations if you do not deem it appropriate. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Finally, I'm creating two sets of sources: "sources on Krabbe" and "other sources". Keeping them separate looks reasonable to me and useful to the reader, but if you don't like this we can have just one list + further reading. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Dear Gitz. If you feel this is helpful for the reader, I do not object to it.
 Done


### Life – revisited again
The "Life" section once consisted of three paragraphs but is now one huge continuous piece of text. I believe it should be broken up into several paragraphs again (at least three?). I think this would make this section more readable.
One of these paragraphs could cover his marriage and children. This is a topic that would perhaps merit more detail. His wife's father, Johannes Tavenraat (1809–1881), was a painter of romantic landscapes. The Dutch and the German Wikipedias have articles about him. Krabbe's daughter, Maria Krabbe (1889–1965), became a speech therapist and feminist. She wrote a book "Beelddenken en woordblindheid", "word blindness" being an old term for dyslexia. The Dutch Wikipedia has an article about her.

Optional. Only paragraph, 4th sentence. ... Ill ... – I suggest to also link to the Dutch article to offer the reader the choice of the language, thus: {{Ill|Johannes Theodorus Buys|de|Joannes Theodorus Buys|nl|Johannes Theodorus Buys}}. Ill can link to more than one language in the same invocation (see Template:Interlanguage link). Strangely enough, the Dutch article had in error been called "Joannes Theodorus Buys". I renamed it to "Johannes Theodorus Buys". Besides I would think that in English His second firstname should be Theodorus and not Theodoor. What do you think?
Optional. Only paragraph, 5th sentence. ... of Gelderland and North Holland, – I suggest: "... first of Gelderland and then of North Holland," to make it clearer that these were two successive steps.
Optional. Only paragraph, 8th sentence. ... that, if approved, would ... – I suggest: "... that, had it been approoved, would ..." to make it clearer, from the beginning that this endeavour failed.
Optional. Only paragraph, 11th sentence. ... intercession, in 1894 Krabbe was appointed ... – I suggest: "... intercession, Krabbe was in 1894 appointed ..." placement after the auxiliary verb.
Optional. Only paragraph, further down. ... Laiden ... – Leiden.
Optional. Only paragraph, further down. ... an important constitutional lawyer ... – I suggest simply: "... a constitutional lawyer ..." (encyclopedic style).
 Done Excellent suggestions, thank you. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


### Main themes revisited
Optional. 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. Soon before ... – I suggest: "Shortly before ...". Soon is used with future tens or "future in the past".
Optional. 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. ... a theory of law and state which was ... – I suggest: "... a theory of law and state that was ...".
3rd paragraph, 1st sentence. Legal normativity ... – GACR Rule 1a "understanding"; I have some difficulties to understand what Legal normativity is. Do you thin a link to the article Normativity would be helpful?
 Done. Thanks. As explained in this edit summary, I replaced legal normativity with "binding force of law}}. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


### Theoretical and normative background
Optional. 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. These two strands of jurisprudence ... – Perhaps better: "Both these strands of jurisprudence ...".
Optional. 1st paragraph, 4th sentence. Gerardus Heymans, who was a personal friend of his ... – I they were friends, why does the article Gerardus Heymans not mention Krabbe? I suggest: "Gerardus Heymans, who was a friend of his while in Groningen ...".
Optional. 1st paragraph, 4th sentence. ... and helped him to translate his works ... – I suggest: "and helped him translate some of his publications int German." This almost surely concerns the "Die Lehre der Rechtssouveränität", but Kranenburg does not say. Krabbe, indeed states in his preface that a friend, who wants to stay anonymous, has translated the work. It is hard ro believe that a colleague from a different discipline found the time to translate a work of 250 pages, but so they say.
 Done


### Theory of souverainty and state
This section consists of one huge continuous piece of text. I believe it should be broken up into paragraphs to make it more readable.

Optional. Only paragraph, 1st sentence. ... Dutch law science ... – Is law a science? Perhaps Dutch jurisprudence?
Optional. Only paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... The fact that ... – I think it is Microsoft Word that always tells us we should avoid "the fact that". They are right.
Optional. Only paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... two well-established American academics ... – You probably mean "well-known' or "renowned".
Optional. Only paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... Krabbe's international acknowledgement ... – You probably mean "standing". Best regatds, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
that's brilliant, Johannes, thank you. It will take me a few days to implement your suggestions. Best wishes, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 Done. That was excellent, Johannes, thank you. Please note my comments/questions above about citations and bibliography. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


### Life – revisited 2nd time
Dear Gitz thanks for breaking the Life section up into paragraphs.

2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... {{Ill|Johannes Theodorus Buys|de|Johannes Theodorus Buys|nl|Johannes Theodorus Buys}} ... – The German link does not work. This is my fault: the article in the German Wikipedia is called "Johannes Theodoor Buys" (not Theodorus). So it should have been {{Ill|Johannes Theodorus Buys|de|Johannes Theodoor Buys|nl|Johannes Theodorus Buys}}.
2nd paragraph, 4th sentence. ...  {{Ill|Johannes Theodorus Buys|de|Johannes Tavenraat|nl|Johannes Tavenraat}} (1809-1881), ... – The {{Ill}}'s label should have been Johannes Tavenraat (not "Theodorus Buys"). The two years in the lifespan should have been separated by a n-dash (not a hyphen), as always in ranges in Wikipedia.
3rd paragraph, 1st sentence, citation. ...  {{Sfn|Kranenburg|1937a|pp=155–160}}. – The page range is excessive. Please do not make readers or reviewers read through 5 pages if you can point them directly to the right page (see the essay WP:CITATIONUNDERKILL). The passage supporting the statement is entirely on page 155. Your citation should therefore read: {{Sfn|Kranenburg|1937a|p=155}}. There are probably other citations with excessive ranges that should also be amended.
3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence, citation. ...  {{Sfn|Eyffinger|2019|p=709}}. – Access to the source seems to be restricted. This needs to be made explicit in the source description, possible by the use of a parameter like |. Besr regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 Done (for all restricted references, I used the "url-access" parameter) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


### Life – revisited 2nd time (continued)
3rd paragraph, 2nd 3rd sentence, last citation. ...  {{Sfn|Congleton|2011|pp=441–2}}. – Always give full page numbers in ranges, hence "441–442", see MOS:PAGERANGE. This problem might also occur elsewhere. Please fix it everywhere. You should also adopt and observe a fixed order for the parameters of {{Cite book}} and the other Cite templates. I suggest to adopt the order given in Template:Cite book in the horizontal and vertical lists of the full parameter sets. Also, |date= should be used for the publications dates of books. The |year= is meant for the year of a periodic in {{Cite journal}}, as I understand it. In the documentation see "Date" under "Description", which discourages the use of the |year=, also see "Title and year" under "Examples", where you will see that |date= is used for the year of publication. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
5th paragraph, 2nd 3rd sentence, 1st citation. ...  {{Sfn|Kiewiet|2018|p=67}}. – The DOI, given in the description of Kiewiet (2018), opens the website of the cited journal, which indeed shows the cited article, but in continous HTML text without facsimile of the printed text and the page numbers are therefore missing. Worldcat calls the Utrecht Journal for European and International Law (ISSN=2053-5341) an "ejournal", it probably does not get printed at all. Eventually most journals might go that way. After some searching around, I found that one can download a PDF from that website that shows the page numbers. It would be helpful for the reader or reviewer to alert them to the availability of this download. Perhaps in form of a comment after the Cite book, e.g. " – Download PDF to find the page" or similar. I use such comments quite often to explain some particularity of a source; see e.g. Charles Vavasour, 1st Baronet, of Killingthorpe. Perhaps you have a better idea how to help the reader. I have encountered similar problems with references for books or journal articles published without page numbers. It sometimes then becomes inpossible to find the relevant passage. I would appreciate your comment.  Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
That makes sense, @Johannes Schade. I'm not at all sure this would be better, but another option would be to place the text "Download PDF to find the page" after the page number rather than after the reference. Compare
Kiewiet, Jeroen (2018). "Legal Unity as Political Unity? Carl Schmitt and Hugo Krabbe on the Catalonian Constitutional Crisis". Utrecht Journal of International and European Law. 34 (1): 56–72. doi:10.5334/ujiel.453. ISSN 2053-5341. (Download PDF to find the page)
with
Kiewiet, Jeroen (2018). "Legal Unity as Political Unity? Carl Schmitt and Hugo Krabbe on the Catalonian Constitutional Crisis". Utrecht Journal of International and European Law. 34 (1): 56–72 (download PDF to find the page). doi:10.5334/ujiel.453. ISSN 2053-5341.
perhaps the second one is a bit clearer? I'm not sure. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
5th paragraph, 3rd sentence, 2nd citation. ... {{Sfn|Elzinga|1990|p=72–73}} – This source does not seem available of the web. How could you read it?
@Johannes Schade: It's a second-hand citation from footnote 95 in Kiewiet 2018: Besides Roelof Kranenburg, other constitutional scholars were also inspired by Krabbe. Elzinga mentions E. van Raalte, F.J.A. Huart and I. Samkalden. I would add to this list J.J. Boasson who wrote on theory of the legal consciousness (‘leer van het rechtsbewustzijn’) the well-wrought book J.J. Boasson, Het rechtsbewustzijn. Een onderzoek naar het leven der rechtsidee in het individueel bewustzijn (Martinus Nijhoff 1919)
Is it OK or should I remove reference and text? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Dear Gitz, This is a case of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, which prescribes that second-hand citations should be handled as:
Elzinga (1990), p. 72–73, cited in Kiewiet (2018), p. 67
Unluckily, SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT does not tell us how to achieve this. I looked around and your {{Harv}} seems to be the best solution (I do not think that SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT intends to prescribe the use of parentheses around the years):
<ref>{{Harvnb|Elzinga|1990|pp=72–73}}, cited in {{Harvnb|Kiewiet|2018|p=67}}</ref>
I have also tried {{Sfnm}} but did not get it right to suppress the semicolon separator as the |ps= serves to provide the extra text and to suppress the semicolon, but does not seem to be able to do both at the same time.
{{Sfnm|1a1=Elzinga|1y=1990|1pp=72–73|1ps=none, cited in  |2a1=Kiewiet|2y=2018|p=67}}
As I understand it, there is no inconsistence between the use of {{Sfn}} on one hand and that of <ref>{{Harv}}</ref> on the other hand. The former is just a short for the latter. The long form is more flexible as you say. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
5th paragraph, 5th sentence, 1st citation. ... .{{Sfn|Krabbe|1927|p=407}} – This source is listed under the heading "Writings" in the section "Essays and lectures" and only there. I feel this article should appear twice, once under his works and once in the list of sources. Its URL is given as: https://www.dbnl.org/tekst/_gid001192701_01/_gid001192701_01_0061.php#257
I wonder where the #257 comes from as the article starts on page 407.

@Johannes Schade: I removed the #257 (it was not necessary) and I tried to create a second reference in "Sources" but this creates a conflict in the template:Sfn. The most I could do is to create a reference that looks simillar to those created by the template:cite journal, e.g. the following one:
* Krabbe, Hugo (1927). "Staat en recht". De Gids (in Dutch). 91: 407–418.
Can you came up with a better idea? I don't like this reference because imitating the template looks artificial to me and the result is not aesthetically pleasing either. Perhaps if the template:Sfn prevents us from creating duplicated references, we should refrain from doing so? If we can't have duplicated references, then I think it's better to have it in the "Writing" section because the topic of the essay is theoretical rather than biographical (there is only a passing reference to his activity as a teacher). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Dear Gitz6666, you are right, the duplication of the {{Cite book}} causes an error. I think the list of works should not use the template. Read MOS:WORKS in detail and look up some of the examples cited. This also allows to omit the "Hugo Krabbe". Best rehards, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 Done
Please note that I've renamed the section "Other quoted sources" to clarify the subject of the bibliography. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
5th paragraph, 5th sentence, 2nd citation. ... .{{Sfn|Peletier|2013}} – This is an article of the Biografisch Woordenboek van Nederland. The argument of the |first= should be spaced "W. M." not "W.M.", see MOS:INITIALS.
 Done


### Main themes – revisited
1st paragraph, end, citations. ... [17][18][19][20] – What needs to be supported at the end of this introductory paragraph is where the summary of Krabbe's thought in 5 themes comes from. Unless this is found in more than one source, a single citation should suffice. - or did you invent these 5 points?
Yes, I invented the 5 points, meaning that no RS says "Some of its main ideas can be summarised in these five points". However, based on the sources [17][18][19][20] I summarised the main ideas that the sources attribute to Krabbe. Perhaps I could have avoided the reference to [17][18][19][20] as each point has its own specific references, but I thought it was useful because [17][18][19][20] are the sources you should look to if you want to have an introduction to Krabbe's work (i.e., they don't deal with the biography, but with the ideas). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
2nd paragraph, end, 2nd citation. ... .{{Sfn|Krabbe|1922|p=46ff}} – This citation refers to the source description under "Writings". But this source should also be listed under "Sources". Please remove the useless "mode/2up/" at the end of the URL here and elsewhere wherever it occurs.
Re listing the source under "Sources", see my question and observation here above following your "I wonder where the #257 comes from". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
3rd paragraph, end, 2nd citation. ... .{{Sfn|Stella|2016}} – his refers to all the 6 pages of Stella, This range is probably excessive.
 Done


### Theoretical and normative background – revisited
Headings should always be preceded by an empty line.

Only paragraph, 2nd sentence. The translation ... – Expand to: "The English translation ...".
Only paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... and professor od political science ... – Expand to: "... and the professor of political science ...".
 Done


### Theory of sovereignty and State – revisited
The capialisation of the heading should probably be "Theory of sovereignty and state". I do not think there is a good reason to uppercase "State".

2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. ... <ref> ... </ref> ... – It looks to me as if this is not a citation that support some content in the text before it but some additional statement. I feel it should be brought up to the same level as the text around it in this pargraph. Otherwise, it could be an {{Tl:Efn}}. Efns open a second more technical or critical level of reading. Quotations must be supported by citations. I do not know what is supported by {{Sfn|Stella|2013|p=61}}; the source does not seem to be available on the web. In addition it is in Italian, which most readers can probably not understand. Is it essential or could it be replaced by another source?
 Done

@Johannes Schade: Stella 2013 mentions "supranational law". I've done what you suggested and I think it's an improvement - thank you again. However, to do so I had to make a few changes to the whole paragraph, so please have a look again and check if everything is OK. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Dear Gitz, well done but I would suggest "milestones on the road" (paths seldom have milestones) and "culture rather than power". Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 Done Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


### Writings
See MOS:WORKS which recommends "Works" or "Publications" as title for the list of writings. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 Done

Dear Gitz, in the descriptions of his works, I believe, titles should not be linked to the URL of the online reference but to  possibly existing Wikipedia articles about the book. See the section "Bibliography" in the article Isaak Azimov (an FA), which is given as an example in MOS:WORKS (even if the heading "Bibliography" is not recommended). I must admit  there are articles in Wikipedia that do it as you do. Like you I found a link to a source on the Internet is essential. I found Samuel Rawson Gardiner as an example, but it is only rated C-Class. Perhaps you can find a better example. I think all the entries under Works should follow the same chosen pattern (and not use Cite Book). Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I believe external links are very useful and, in a way, they are the showpiece of the article. This article is not only the richest source of information on Krabbe ever published online or in print, but it is also a repository of links to the online editions of his works. Providing this kind of links is a best practice that, if generally followed, would make Wikipedia articles useful for researchers and experts in the field: finding this kind of information is relatively easy, but time consuming. I’d be happy to remove the link from the title, but we need to find an alternative solution, so that the links are not lost. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Dear Gitz, I do of course agree with you. The link to the full text on the Internet is essential. I have spent some more time looking for good examples and have not had much success. I saw John Neal (writer) (FA), Honoré de Balzac (FA), J. D. Salinger (GA), and F. Scott Fitzgerald (GA). In the first, the link to the text is labelled "full text", the others abuse the citation footnote for this purpose. I still maintain that the way it was done in Samuel Rawson Gardiner is the best I can find. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 Done Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Dear Gitz, we are getting very near now. You citation [50] is rather a comment or explanation. I would make it an Efn and cite Canihac with an Sfn inside it. The Citation [53] throws an error "Harv error: link from CITREFKrabbe1919 does not point to any citation". I think that means you need to add a Cite book for Krabbe (1919). I think this is all. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I've created two explanatory footnotes, but to be honest I'm not fully convinced: they don't explain anything, they just add a bit of information which, being tangential if not irrelevant, could not be included in the body of the article; however, the Efn makes them very visible and draws the reader's attention to something that is, indeed, tangential if not irrelevant. In this case, having only one type of footnotes seems preferable to me, but I might be wrong and on this I rely on your judgment (compare with these two articles of mine in the Italian Wikipedia, where I used explanatory notes with no regrets: it:Gregor Brück and it:Discorsi a tavola). Anyway, I couldn't replace Harvnb with Sfn because if I use Sfn within Efn I get a footnote instead of a reference.
Thank you also for pointing out CITREFKrabbe1919. I've also removed three sources that weren't quoted in the article: a few days ago I installed User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js which shows you these unused references as errors; I don't know if they are truly "errors" or possibly useful information for the reader, but after installing that tool I can't ignore them and must remove them. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Dear Gitz. I would think the difference between "explanatory" footnotes and citation footnotes is quite clear in most cases. The word "explanatory" is to be taken in the largest sense: a comment, clarification, historiographical remark, any statement written by the wikipedians in a note. The citation footnote typically is just a reference to something written elsewhere but may of course include a quote (I tend to use this a lot).
The explanatory note should use Efn and will, as it is written by a mere wikipedian, often need to be supported by a citation, typically in form of an Sfn. The writer decides what should go into a note rather than the main text. The writer also decides what is irrelevant and will simply be omitted and left to the reader to think. The article Frederick the Great has 6 explanatory notes called "Information notes". They are all supported by citations. Also see Help:Explanatory notes
The second-hand citation is a special case of the citation where we cannot use Sfn. I still think that your Note [51] should become an Efn. Best regard, Johannes Schade (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Dear Johannes, two questions:
You say I still think that your Note [51] should become an Efn, but you didn't mention Note [51] before - you mentioned Note [53], which is now Efn [b]. Would you like also Note [51] to become en Efn? To me Note [51] (Schmitt 2005, p. 24. Schmitt is quoting from Krabbe 1919, p. 39.) looks purely bibliographical: it supports the statement in the text (as Carl Schmitt noted in 1922, Krabbe did not subscribe to the neo-Kantian epistemological and methodological assumptions of Kelsen, and was rather engaged in a sociological investigation...) and clarifies that that the quotation made by Schmitt from Krabbe ("[w]e no longer live under the authority of persons...") is taken from Krabbe 1919, p. 39.
I think I just reacted to how odd it looks on the list of citations. I see "Schmitt is quoting from Krabbe 1919, p. 39" as a comment of yours upon what Schmitt wrote. This comment explains that Schmitt cites Krabbe which otherwise would not be clear to the reader. You could of course also move this sentence into the main text by saying "where Krabbe says and is cited for it by Schmitt 'we no longer live ...'[citation]"
Re Sfn vs Harvnb in the Efn. If I use Sfn, I get this:Canihac also mentions Walther Schücking, de:Hans Wehberg, de:Erich Kaufmann, Max Huber and de:Alfred Verdross as advocates of "peace-through-law movement". If I use Harvnb, I get this: Canihac 2019, p. 721 also mentions Walther Schücking, de:Hans Wehberg, de:Erich Kaufmann, Max Huber and de:Alfred Verdross as advocates of "peace-through-law movement".
I very much prefer the second: it's simpler and more accessible; moreover, it immediately makes it clear that Canihac is a source; finally, it supports the text in the body These ... ideas [were] typical of the interwar "peace-through-law movement". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Dear Gitz, I tend to agree with you, but as I understand it Wikipedia prescribes otherwise. See WP:CITE on in-text attribution. WP:INTEXT insists that the indirect or direct speech attributed must be followed by an inline citation. Read and form your own opinion. See the examples given. See the remark in WP:INTEXT "It is preferable not to clutter ...". I think that pertains to mentioning Canihac in the text of the note. Just say "The 'peace through law movement' was advocated by ... [citation]" or something of that sort. You will know better than me how to formulate this. I feel one should avoid to mention the authors of the sources, surely so in the main text and perhaps at a lesser degree in the notes, unless there are good reasons to do so (as with Schmitt above). See also how User:Wtfiv strictly observes these rules in Frederick the Great, but then uses Harvnb in the way you propose to do in his/her more recent FA Joan of Arc. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, Johannes, for this explanation. I see your point, and you're right, obviously, but I think that the solution adopted in "Joan of Arc" here is preferible for the following reason. The Efn sentence the "peace-through-law movement" was also advocated by Walther Schücking, Hans Wehberg [de], Erich Kaufmann [de], Max Huber and Alfred Verdross [de] + fn leading to Canhihac 2019 is not satisfactory because Canhihac's list is seriously incomplete. One should add at the very least Hans Kelsen and others, like William Howard Taft and the founders of the French Association de la paix par le droit, such as Frédéric Passy. Mentioning Alfred Verdross (who was a Nazi sympathiser) and omitting Kelsen and Passy doesn't make any sense. I could provide sources on the "peace-through-law movement" to complete Canhihac's list but unfortuntately they do not mention Krabbe, so we would be in the WP:SYNTH territory. However, what is now in the article is fully verifiable and informative: These cosmopolitan and progressive ideas, typical of the interwar "peace-through-law movement"... + Efn leading to Canihac 2019, p. 721, who also mentions Walther Schücking, Hans Wehberg [de], Erich Kaufmann [de], Max Huber and Alfred Verdross [de] as advocates of "peace-through-law movement" (obviously Canihac also mentions Krabbe). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I have promoted. Thanks for your amazing collaboration and patience. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The odds are good this is a notable book, I recommend redlinking it per WP:RED. I thought about stubbing it but I think most sources are in Dutch? Btw, here's a ref for the translation of the title to English. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Piotrus. I made this edit [19] because I think that Die moderne Staatsidee translates as "The Modern Idea of the State" (which is also the title of the English translation of Krabbe's book, here) instead of "The Idea of the Modern State" or "The Modern State Idea" (as translated by Navari). I'm adding a red link to the book, as you suggest. As I worked on the article on Krabbe, the really big gap in the Encyclopedia that I noticed is that we still do not have an article on Alfred Verdross, who is far more influential and controversial than Krabbe: he was a famous internationalist, a judge of the European Court of Human Rights, but in interwar Austria he was also a conservative Catholic close to Othmar Spann and then a Nazi sympathizer. I've started working on a sandbox here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
@Gitz6666 Nice, hope we can look fwd to another GA in few weeks or months :) Our social science coverage is full of gaps. The recent debacle that you are aware of interupted my blue-linking of Template:American Sociological Association presidents, among other things :( Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)