Talk:Theory of Colours

message: Someone needs to pick on color v. colour for this page. I personally prefer color, but the name of the page is colour, so I'm going to set it to that. --Carl 17:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an odd statement. A better explanation than, "Americans are arrogant," would seem to be, "Wikipedia is written by Internet users, and more Internet users are American than British. Thus, more articles will have been written using American spellings." -216.145.255.2 08:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everybody gangs up on the big guy.Lestrade 12:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't really matter who is more arrogant or what variation of English is used by the largest number of internet users. According to the manual of style guidelines, specifically the section National varieties of English, if the topic has no national ties to a particular English-speaking nation then the "existing variety" should be maintained. Whichever version is used by the first major contributor should be the one used. In this article, the original editor used "colour" (edit diff), so that is what should be continued to be used. --BelovedFreak 19:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  I notice that this article is largely made up of quotations, which will make for very inconsistent use of "color" and "colour". The only thing that really struck me was the quote of "The blue of the sky reveals to us the basic law of color" attributed to Goethe. The only source in the bibliography for him uses "colour" in the translated title; therefore, if someone has access to that source, maybe they can check which spelling is used in the translation. --Stomme (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are some book sources for that quote.  Note that there's an alternate translation that avoid the problem, in case you'd like to change it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

text:  No worries. I added the correct source for that translation to account for the use of American English in this case. --Stomme (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color vs Colour 

message: What an odd "catalytic moment" they chose ... In school (in germany) I learned it was another moment ... Goethe was complaining that Newton was forcing the light through a prism, squeezing it and making it reveal its secret. Rather than studying it by observation and contemplation.
This "forcing it", "making it reveal" became the forte of the century to come. This is what Goethe did not like and found to be against nature. He found another way. A more human one. Finally science is starting to pay this justice. 194.208.211.197 (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catalytic moment 

message: to the intro because it seemed relevant here, too. 
Also added Category: Holism. Thoughts on this?
:nice -- i didn't know about the sheldrake connection. 
:i've made the sentence more concise; and retaining meaning.  :)
:Johnrpenner 01:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Goethean's paragraph from [[Holism in science]] 

message: In Newton v. Goethe it is stated the Goethe is "consistently more empirical". It is not clear than who (than Newton?) There are a few more dangling comparatives. I removed them. If Goethe disciples want to reintroduce them it is OK by me, but please make clear what the object or subject of the comparison is.--P.wormer 15:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's not clear to me that Goethe was very empirical at all.  This claim of empiricism is one of the main reasons I added an NPOV tag at the top of the page. --jacobolus (t) 03:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is actually James Gleick quoting Feigenbaum that calls him 'empirical'. However, I've removed the word from the article proper, since Goethe parts significantly with the Kantian Critical Idealism inherent in most of our society. Goethe's 'empiricism' should probably be qualified immediately as an 'empiricism of experience', and not the usual 'empiricism of matter'. In terms of accurately depicting the individual subjective states of his organism, Goethe was rigourous, and hence his use to physiologists. Johnrpenner 20:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Hmm -- this is interesting -- in addition to the Feigenbaum calling Goethe 'Empirical', i just reread the Physics Today article, and was surprised to find it there too, for they say, 'For Newton, only spectral colors could count as fundamental. By contrast, Goethe's more EMPIRICAL approach led him to recognize the essential role of (nonspectral) magenta in a complete color circle, a role that it still has in all modern color systems' -- so, it would seem that the article itself DOES NOT claim goethe being 'empirical' (since i removed it) -- but two of the cited sources DO claim him as such -- if this is the reason for your NPOV tag -- could you please be more specific as to the offending content actually in the article so we can fix them?? Johnrpenner 22:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, by empirical I mean based on more rigorous study than personal observations.  That is, twentieth-century color science took massive numbers of measurements of various human observers, with carefully controlled conditions.  And the mechanisms he imagined (at least those which have been discussed in this article, such as having colors be like magnets) don't seem to have much basis, i.e. were invented without testing to find their faults.  Instead of claiming that Goethe was empirical, particularly if using that as a contrast with Newton, the article should attempt to give an impression of what that means.  Saying "he made meticulous personal observations of color phenomena" or similar would be more accurate IMO. --jacobolus (t) 23:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article (no longer) claims that Goethe was empirical. He was called such by the authors of the Physics Today article, and also by James Gleick citing Feigenbaum. I'm fine with 'meticulous personal observations of color phenomenon' -- and that's why I removed the text that called Goethe 'empirical'. Would you remove the Gleick/Feigenbaum quote as well? He was a physicist, after all... Johnrpenner 04:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparatives 

message: When reading Goethe's Doctrine of Color, it is important to realize that he used the word spectrum in a different sense than the one that most people understand today. For Goethe, a spectrum is an after-image or after-vision (Scheinfigur, Scheingestalt, Scheinbild). It is an image that is seen, but is not a mental idea or representation of an actual material object. For example, if you stare at something for a few minutes and then close your eyes, you will see a ghostly after-image or spectrum. Goethe used the adjective "fading" (abklingendes) to describe the spectrum. Newton, on the other hand, used the word "spectrum" to designate a band, range, sequence, array, spread, or series of colors. As a result of Newton's authority, this is the meaning that is usually understood at present, even though it is not strictly the more correct meaning of "spectrum". This word comes from the Latin word meaning "appearance" or "apparition" and therefore is not specifically related to a sequence of colors. It is more properly related to a phantom, ghost, or after-image.Lestrade 18:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That should instead be described as an “afterimage”, in that case, rather than a “spectrum”, to avoid ambiguity.  --jacobolus (t) 02:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spectrum

message: In agreement with Schopenhauer, I must point out that Goethe's work, Zur Farbenlehre, is translated, in English, as Toward a Theory of Color. Schopenhauer has it as Data for a Theory of Color. If it was supposed to be the theory itself, it would have been titled, in German, Die Farbenlehre.
:As a native speaker of German, I rather understand that title to mean something like "On the Science of Colours", or maybe "[Notes/Contributions/...] to the Science of Colours".
:The translation "Toward a Theory of Color" could not possibly work because "zur" contains the definite article. 129.27.12.58 (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a native speaker but thoroughly acquainted with the language, and the previous comment is correct. What plays a role here is the pretend-modesty that characterised German science later on in the 19th and early 20th century: a scientist would produce a definitive three-volume and its title would read: Einige Bemerkungen zur... "A few remarks about..." A far-cry from modern-day academia, where every trivial fart is passed off as a ground-breaking publication.88.110.124.171 (talk) 10:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: ZUR Farbenlehre

message: The following was produced by a second opinion from another user:
*Manual of Style compliance: most of the inline citations will need to be moved to sit outside the punctuation rather than inside it (so they look like the one at the end of the first para of Historical background).
*It's not strictly a GA criteria, but we recommend editors use the templates on WP:CITET to format references. This lets them be parsed by bots for things like tracking down archived versions of dead web-page links, or converting 10-digit ISBNs to 13-digits.
*There are a few instances of possible editorialising that need to be rewritten (or sourced). For example:
::"Today, Goethe's Theory of Colours is still remarkable for its phenomenological observations." Who says so?
::"His claim that colour arises from the interplay of light and dark has caused almost all of modern physics to reject Goethe's theory as unscientific..." Prove it
*I spotted at least one contraction in the prose ("didn't"). This should be written in full.
*The article is in British English, so spelling should be consistent ("analyzed" could be changed to "analysed", and the same for "characterized" - editors might see this as nitpicky though!)
*Section order: this should be Lead; Main body; See also; Notes; References; Further reading/Bibliography; External links (the See also section needs moving)
*Only full dates should really be wikilinked; there is no need to link years unless it adds depth to the article... which in my experience it never has yet! (there is an instance of this in the lead). Linking decades is fine.
*There are a number of gaps in the referencing (this partly relates to my 'editorialising' comment above). The rule of thumb for GA is currently to have one cite at the end of each paragraph to cover the content of that paragraph, with additional cites where needed (eg quotations, controversial statements etc). For scientific articles the cite-per-pragraph may not always be necessary (some theories etc are commonly accepted), but the content should still be referenced somewhere.
*More wikilinks would help the reader and add depth to the article.
I have put this article on hold for a max of 7 days. Hopefully this article will be ready near the end of the week, but if not feel free to renominate this article when it is ready. If you feel that this review was in error feel free to take it to WP:GA/R. Tarret talk 01:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have failed the article since it has been on hold for 15 days and nothing has changed since then. -Yamanbaiia 07:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2nd Op. GA Review

message: I believe Rudolf Steiner thought highly of Goethe's Theory of Colours and it is still taught in Anthroposophical colleges.
Meltingpot (talk) 10:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. What a strange article this is. "not well-received by physicists"? That is quite the understatement!88.110.124.171 (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Rudolf Steiner

message: At the top of the article there is something that looks like a quote from Kandinsky. The linked source has the quote as body text - not as a quote from the painter. This should be clarified. Opinions? I'll specify the quoting language if no one objects. 
--Dgetzin (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kandinsky Citation 

message: Nice to see some good editing and new references here. Really superb in many respects. :-D  So,I don't want to overshadow this good with nit-picking. However, the two phrases, 'light already contains all the colours and that they mix in it to produce white' and, 'Already early in 1794, he but began...' seem to me to be awkward in English.. :-^  Otherwise - nice work!! :-D
'If my changes make sense and have merit' Johnrpenner (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank You for the hint! — I, generally, use to trust in such criticism, though I, as a poet, also always fear I could simply be misunderstood, resp. be underestimated. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Grammar and Flow 

message: The paragraph which quotes (an English translation of) Steiner about Newton vis-a-vis Goethe would benefit if the passage in Newton's Opticks which corresponds to the quotation from Steiner were identified, or, if there is no such single passage, perhaps some explanation should be put in the main text of the article, or in the footnote?
At the end of the paragraph the quotation had been attributed to Steiner, but at first sight the quotation may be read as from Newton directly. Today's revision has added some introductory words at the beginning.Qexigator (talk) 11:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: --Now further revised by another editor to clarify without ref. to Steiner  (21:51, 26 October 2012). --Qexigator (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Newton and Goethe

message: Beside the question of whether the reddish color should be magenta or red, am I wrong in noticing that the picture caption has the primaries and secondaries reversed? — kwami (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK Goethe did not define a triad of colors at all; attempts to classify his 6 colors to 3 primary and 3 secondary likely are later interpretations. The word “magenta” in a caption apparently is yet another attempt to invent an English name for the Goethe’s schön (antigreen). From theoretical view, it’s a purple color, but it is apparently something between modern magenta and crimson. Goethe himself referred to this color either as to Rot or as to Purpur in different texts, despite the fact that he definitely made a distinction between these two terms and understood that Purpur is extra-spectral. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe different wording, then? It is from Goethe's book, and the red/magenta is physically the primary. — kwami (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  What means "physically the primary"? Express your thoughts tidier. The only "physical primaries" are spectral colors, and they form a continuous (not discrete) family. From the point of view of receptors in retina there are no "pure colors" at all; see chromaticity. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Physically, in paint. He may not have spoken of primary & 2ary colors, but his illustration is of three 1aries blended into three 2aries. It's rather bizarre to say that two 2ary colors are blended to form a primary color. — kwami (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  What (and from where) do you known about compositions of Goethe’s orange, green and "violet" (actually, something with the hue of indigo)? Did he wrote anywhere that these are mixes of dyes? Though, I agree that the opposite statement (that schön is made of neighboring orange and indigo) is much less plausible. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's there in the image: whoever made it mixed RBY to get the others. You can see it in how only RBY bleed off the edges. — kwami (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goethe's color wheel 

message: What is known about English translations made in 19th and early 20th century? These translation almost certainly erased the distinction between Gelbrot (= edel) and Orange, Blaurot (= unnöthig) and Violett. Some could even (mis)translate Purpur as “red”, which led to the [ popular] belief that the complementary to green is red, and that Goethe was the crank who asserted this fool thing. Early translations might have more impact to English-speaking world than Zur Farbenlehre itself and late fixes to erroneous translations. Apparently, the misconception about green and red is specific to languages which were contaminated by such rubbish (from either (mis)translations of Goethe or another sources). I never read nor heard this rubbish in Russian except for Wikipedia, where :ru:Дополнительные цвета refers to a translated book of Bride M. Wheelan. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditional English translations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Theory of Colours. 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/20070128012817/http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2006/12/post_7.php to http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2006/12/post_7.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150610172208/http://web568.rs013.glowfish.de/Joomla/images/ebook/Buch00195-Goethe-auf-www.zenisis.de.pdf to http://web568.rs013.glowfish.de/Joomla/images/ebook/Buch00195-Goethe-auf-www.zenisis.de.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724130144/http://magichourfilms.webhotel.net/index.php?specLan=eng&specPage=filmbasen_showMAX&specMovie=ok&id=36 to http://magichourfilms.webhotel.net/index.php?specLan=eng&specPage=filmbasen_showMAX&specMovie=ok&id=36
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901171149/http://www.arch.ksu.edu/seamon/articles/goethe_essay.htm to http://www.arch.ksu.edu/seamon/articles/goethe_essay.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Theory of Colours. 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/20131213045931/http://www.homodiscens.com/home/ways/perspicax/color_vision_sub/art_color_theory/ to http://www.homodiscens.com/home/ways/perspicax/color_vision_sub/art_color_theory/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Theory of Colours. 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/20141129223556/https://theoryofcolor.org/Theory+of+Colour+Audiobook to http://theoryofcolor.org/Theory+of+Colour+Audiobook
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The text starting with "A study about spectral colours published in 2019" down to the end of the section should be deleted. It contradicts the actual level of knowledge in every detail, see this link: Colour dispute – resuscitation attempts. Because of filtering, I cannot do this myself.--88.70.129.65 (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major deletion required in section "Reception by Scientists" 

message: The text that says that Goethe inspired Miranda has been discussed by the Venezuelan Wikiproject, the information comes from a literary book. I have not been able to corroborate that this information is true, the letter (if it exists) is not available online. --MaoGo (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Venezuela/Colombia/Ecuador flags