Talk:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel/GA2

3119:

Hegel’s notion of dialectic, claiming that it amounts to an outright and absurd denial of the law of contradiction. The dialectic has, moreover, been co-opted and developed by some of Hegel’s most impassioned critics such as Marx and Kierkegaard. One of the most controversial aspects of Hegel’s theory of dialectic has been his perplexing doctrine of determinate negation, which has proven to be difficult for even the most sympathetic interpreters to make sense of. Determinate negation is Hegel’s way of referring to the positive aspect of the dialectic which makes the conceptual movement a constructive one and not a purely destructive or negative one."

2541:(9) He does that throughout the entire book. Although it is presented as an introductory text to the philosophy of Hegel, pretty much the whole thing is an indirect polemic against "non-metaphysical" readings of Hegel. Since Beiser doesn't want to touch the Logic, instead he just brings up Aristotle at every possible opportunity—well in excess of what might be useful to any novice reader of Hegel. (Beiser is one of the top scholars in the field, but this particular book is a mess.) Yet, citing to the whole book would be confusing, and putting what I just wrote here into an endnote definitely violates NPOV. 3133:

is the antithesis, a corrective to the mistakes of the thesis which nevertheless misses the aspects of the thesis that are correct. Finally, there is the synthesis, which incorporates the correct aspects of the thesis with the correctives supplied by the antithesis. The synthesis then itself becomes another thesis, again giving rise to another antithesis, and then to another reconciling synthesis that becomes yet another thesis. This process continues until we reach the final synthesis that actually is the full truth and so does not require a correcting antithesis.

3108:

such as human thought, develops in accordance with the pattern "thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis." The problem with these characterizations is not that they are false. In particular, the 'thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis' model does capture the intended general structure of the method reasonably well; Hegel does not, as Kaufmann claims, "deliberately spurn" and "deride" this model in the preface of the Phenomenology of Spirit or any whereelse). The problem is just that such characterizations remain too vague to be of much help.

702:"This is to say that, in Hegel’s technical sense of the term, the concept (Begriff, sometimes also rendered “notion,” capitalized by some translators but not others) is not a psychological concept. When deployed with the definitive article (“the") and sometimes modified by the term "logical," Hegel is referring to the intelligible structure of reality as articulated in the Subjective Logic. (When used in the plural, however, Hegel’s sense is much closer to the ordinary dictionary sense of the term.)" 2510:(3) Honestly, I don't even like this book, which I find overly simplistic (however usefully broad its historical coverage). I'm just reporting that it is widely considered canonical. For evidence, I guess I would just point to the fact the I'm citing a 100th Anniversary Edition. The fact that it is a "classic" makes it less arbitrary for me to mention in the body of the article. If the adjective is a problem though, you can go ahead and delete on your own authority. 2872:, I mentioned two main points that could be improved: there are some very long sentences in the text and the text uses many long quotations. I don't have much experience with the GA criteria so it's difficult for me to judge how important these points are. Fixing some of the remaining long sentences shouldn't be too difficult and I could contribute to it myself if needed. But I'm not sure how to best handle the quotation issue. Some relevant guidelines here are 850:"Also in 1797, the unpublished and unsigned manuscript of "The Oldest Systematic Program of German Idealism" was written. It was written in Hegel's hand, but may have been authored by Hegel, Schelling, or Hölderlin. While in Frankfurt, Hegel composed the essay "Fragments on Religion and Love". In 1799, he wrote another essay entitled "The Spirit of Christianity and Its Fate", unpublished during his lifetime.” 688:"Also in 1797, the unpublished and unsigned manuscript of "The Oldest Systematic Program of German Idealism" was written. It was written in Hegel's hand, but may have been authored by Hegel, Schelling, or Hölderlin. While in Frankfurt, Hegel composed the essay "Fragments on Religion and Love". In 1799, he wrote another essay entitled "The Spirit of Christianity and Its Fate", unpublished during his lifetime." 3223:(!) - which states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." If you can't provide a source for the "widely agreed" part (my brief, inexpert, search didn't turn one up) or amend the statment to one that is sourced, then it can be deleted as a last resort. (We're nearly there, this is the very last point I have outstanding.) Regards, 500: 484: 461: 446: 419: 399: 376: 365: 344: 325: 310: 295: 268: 233: 2096:"This part of Hegel's philosophy is presented first in his 1817 Encyclopedia (revised 1827 and 1830) and then at greater length in the 1821 Elements of the Philosophy of Right (like the Encyclopedia, intended as a textbook), upon which he also frequently lectured. Its final part, the philosophy of world history, was additionally elaborated in Hegel's lectures on the subject." - needs sources IMO. 512: 494: 71: 720:"This part of Hegel’s philosophy is presented first in his 1817 Encyclopedia (revised 1827 and 1830) and then at greater length in the 1821 Elements of the Philosophy of Right (like the Encyclopedia, intended as a textbook), upon which he also frequently lectured. Its final part, the philosophy of world history, was additionally elaborated in Hegel’s lectures on the subject." 506: 2115:"That is, the only "thing" (which is really an activity) that is truly absolute is that which is entirely self-conditioned, and according to Hegel, this only occurs when spirit takes itself up as its own object. The final section of his Philosophy of Spirit presents the three modes of such absolute knowing: art, religion, and philosophy." - needs sources IMO. 1469:(Oh, and incidentally, I think you will find me much more amenable to citationally bulletproofing the later sections of the article devoted to Hegel's influences, thought, and legacy. For a great deal of this material is, unavoidably contentious, and I want to make it difficult for anyone not actually qualified to come in and muck things up.) 741:"In other words, according to Hegel's philosophical interpretation, Christianity does not require faith in any doctrine that is not fully justified by reason. What is left, then, is the religious community, free to minister to individual needs, to forgive one another's inevitable failings, and to celebrate the absolute freedom of spirit." 726:"That is, the only "thing" (which is really an activity) that is truly absolute is that which is entirely self-conditioned, and according to Hegel, this only occurs when spirit takes itself up as its own object. The final section of his Philosophy of Spirit presents the three modes of such absolute knowing: art, religion, and philosophy." 2792:

there is no misrepresentation (to the best of my ability to assess it) or inappropriate copyvio/close paraphrasing relating to them. Are you planning to add any more images, and are there any sections that you're not planning to work further on in the coming days? If I get a bit of time I'll try to make a start earlier than Wednesday.

2265:#"Hegel's earliest writings on Christianity date between 1783 and 1800. He was still working out his ideas at this time, and everything from this period was abandoned as fragments or unfinished drafts" - not verified by Section I of the introduction in Kroner. (I'm looking in a 1961 edition) IMO this should be cited - perhaps to Knox. 1295:"were compiled from the lecture notes of his students and published posthumously. Hegel's posthumous works have had remarkable influence on subsequent works on religion, aesthetics, and history because of the comprehensive accounts of the subject matters considered within the lectures," – needs citation(s) IMO. 1332:? If you are willing to put in the extra work to make suggestions exceeding what is required by GA criteria, I'm sure I will in many cases gladly implement them. But I just want to be sure that we are on the same page with respect to which requested edits are GA-required and which are above-and-beyond. 1030:, which are both good articles, and I don't see any uncited text there that "restate in a potentially helpful way what has already been well-sourced in direct proximity". If we don't agree on interpretations of after a bot more discussion, then there are options that include asking for a second opinion 2208:#"In the Phenomenology, and even in the 1817 edition of the Encyclopedia, Hegel discusses art only as it figures in what he terms the "Art-Religion" of the ancient Greeks. In the 1820's, however, Hegel begins lecturing on the philosophy of art as an explicitly autonomous domain." - needs sources IMO. 759:) before tackling the uncited material. The structure of the article seems reasonable. I would need to assess the article against other criteria (well-written, broad, neutral) after the issues above have been addressed and I'd done some checks to satisfy myself that the sources are used appropriately. 3132:

If there is a single concept that is associated with Hegel, it is dialectics. People with only a limited exposure to Hegel’s dialectics frequently believe that it consists in three steps. First, there is the thesis, a partial statement of the truth that is mistaken for the entire truth. Second, there

3118:

Hegel’s theory of dialectic has long been a source of both endless confusion and bitter debate. It has, for instance, been oversimplified and characterized as the mechanical movement from thesis to antithesis to synthesis. In a similar vein, some philosophers in the analytic tradition have reproached

3107:

Many more interpreters characterize Hegel's method in terms that simply remain too vague. For example, according to Acton, it is "a method in which oppositions, conflicts, tensions, and refutations are courted rather than avoided or evaded." And according to Popper, it is the theory that something,

2101:#"has been controversial from the date of its original publication" - is the (primary) reason for this it's apparent defense of the Prussian state? If so, I'd suggest reworking this para to mention in the same sentence that it has been interpreted as one, and perhaps why that would be controversial. 1335:

For instance, the only thing I would add to the report of what Hegel wrote during this time (which is not "likely to be contested") is a reference to the title under which they can be found in English translation. But this is probably not required by GA criteria and, in any case, is already included

2176:

5. If you're asking for a source here, my response is the same as it is to (1). It would be extraordinary if someone were to challenge this claim—and, if the challenge were in earnest, quite easy to support from almost any of the introductory literature on the subject. This is not me sneaking in an

2172:

4. Really? How does this not follow from the previous two quotes? I even open with a "That is," clause to indicate that I'm just trying to restate a little less technically what Inwood and de Laurentiis were just cited as saying—to which Jaeschke is promptly added. These are all top-notch scholars,

2165:

2. It's been controversial for a variety of reasons, although the appearance of being a defense of the status quo was the first and probably the most persistent accusation leveled against it. I added "autocratic" to describe the Prussian State to clarify why readers would object to the phi right on

2161:

1. I don't think this one needs a source. It's what Hegel explicitly says he is doing, and I have never heard of anyone suggesting otherwise. You could probably find a citation in just about any essay, commentary, or translator's introduction, but it just seems weird to do that for an uninterpreted

1404:

If it's OK with you, I'll compile a handful of examples (say about 5 or 6), both of "factual" and "explanatory" uncited statements from the article, wait for you to comment them, and then seek further opinions from editors (e.g. on the GA talk page). Does that sound reasonable? (Otherwise I'll just

1048:

That's entirely reasonable. I think the article would suffer very little if I simply removed the claims currently marked as in need of citation. That would feel like cheating though. So, if I've got a few days, I will make an effort to track down good citations. (Maybe other editors will also chime

520:

Thanks for the work on the article. From an initial read-through, I think it's going to fail the GA process at this time. There's probably quite a lot to be done for it to meet the GA criteria, particularly in terms of inline citations, but I'll provide some pointers as to areas that I think can be

2791:

Hi, I'm probably not going to have time to look at this properly until Wednesday (UK time), so feel free to continue improving up til then. Unless you you're really keen to make further changes at that point, I can have a proper look then. I've reviewed a couple more sources and I'm confident that

2434:

Thanks again for tackling the article. I'll probably do a couple more spot checks on sources, but as I've not found any significant issues so far, I'm not excpecting to have to go through every source. I'm conscious that I've offered very little in the way of prose sytle improvements, so I'll have

3093:

We must be careful, however, not to apply this textbook example too dogmatically to the rest of Hegel’s logic or to his dialectical method more generally (for a classic criticism of the thesis-antithesis-synthesis reading of Hegel’s dialectics, see Mueller 1958). There are other places where this

3028:

This part of Hegel's philosophy is presented first in his 1817 Encyclopedia (revised 1827 and 1830) and then at greater length in the 1821 Elements of the Philosophy of Right (like the Encyclopedia, intended as a textbook), upon which he also frequently lectured. Its final part, the philosophy of

2836:

Any revisions I initiate (i.e., not in response to someone else's edit), will be in the "Philosophical system" and "Speculation, dialectics, idealism" sections. Possibly I might tweak the Lead as well. But if I'm correct that the source for claims in the Lead is the article itself, then you would

1086:

There are still some issues with broken citations. (FN is the footnote number as at the current version of the article). Either the relevant sources need to be added to the references, or, if the link is broken (e.g. wrong year) then they need to be fixed. I'll need this to be sorted (even if not

1052:

I'm less sure about how to proceed with what are, in my judgment, already well-sourced claims. For here, I think the article actually would suffer if they were simply deleted. Yet, it seems very weird to just re-cite sources from the previous sentence. (Although I guess, if that would resolve the

1386:

I am holding off, however, on adding more citations at the level of individual sentences to claims of fact that are not likely to be disputed. (If I had written this section, I would probably just cite by chapter at the end of each para. Would it be too weird to do this without removing the more

924:

Oh, and this does not have anything to do with the article itself, but I think that the Top-level ranking of this page in WikiProject Christianity / Lutheranism and WikiProject Religion is either a mistake or an act of vandalism. Hegel's thought is relevant to both projects, but almost certainly

625:

good article nominations" (emphasis added by me.) That page suggests "Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles; send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field; and also request peer review at

1270:

I think that "While in Frankfurt, Hegel composed the essay "Fragments on Religion and Love". In 1799, he wrote another essay entitled "The Spirit of Christianity and Its Fate", unpublished during his lifetime." Should have a citation so that a reader would be able to verify this from a reliable

906:

If we are to do a second round of these kinds of edits, it would make it easier for me to respond in a more focused way with corrections (or objections!) if you were either to place “citation-needed” tags directly in the article or else to use a numbered, rather than bulleted, list on this Talk

895:

Some of what you list, however, remains unchanged. In these cases it is because I do not see how these passages do anything more than restate in a potentially helpful way what has already been well-sourced in direct proximity. (I am making every effort not to draw new conclusions from separate

800:

I clarified the relevance of the Delphic oracle. The other two images are strictly decorative. I added them because I thought it was considered good style (and I do actually think they make the page look nicer). Anyone who disagrees and wishes to remove them, however, will get no argument from

2144:

Comment: there is a relatively high proportion of quotes in the section; however I don't think that they are excessive. There are also some short paragraphs in succession, e.g. in "The Philosophy of Spirit". This is, I think, more helpful to a reader than combining short paragraphs that cover

902:

While it is true that a citation can be dusted-up for anything so uncontroversial as not to require a specific citation, by the same token, it would be misleading to attribute such claims to any one (or two, or three) specific sources. There is not a literature-review to cite on most of these

2814:

for a more direct link), "There is no consensus on the reliability of the Encyclopædia Britannica (including its online edition, Encyclopædia Britannica Online). Encyclopædia Britannica is a tertiary source. Most editors prefer reliable secondary sources over the Encyclopædia Britannica when

1483:

OK, let me have a scan through those sections in the next couple of days and we'll see if some end up cited (I'll add "citation needed" tags inline), so that we're not appealing for a third opinion on something we already agree on! Thanks for fixing the issues with broken citations. Regards,

855:

I do not think that anyone mentions this ms without acknowledging the disputed authorship. That is not a claim that, per Knowledge verifiability criteria “is likely to be challenged.” (I did just review the criteria as you suggested.) Nevertheless, I added a source that provides some useful

735:"That is to say, we are not fully satisfied with art; yet, neither can we, finitely embodied individuals, be fully satisfied – fully know or be with ourselves – in the pure universality of logical thought. Hence, according to Hegel, the ongoing need for art as a mode of absolute spirit." 1339:

The last thing I want to do is pick a fight with someone giving so much time to this article. But I don't want either of us to do extra work, either, unless it improves the quality of the article for its readers, e.g., improves readability by editing wording, format, or organization.

683:

I was going to fail the article as I believe that it It is a long way from meeting the good article criterion that the article should be "verifiable with no original research". The reason for this is that there are numerous statements that are not supported by inline citations, e.g.

705:"The idea, in other words, refers to the concept as it is present in natural and spiritual existence, or put differently, it refers to reality according to its varying degrees of rationality, that is, the naturally and historically contentful existence of the concept in time." 896:

sources.) Moreover, I don’t see how any of the outstanding claims could be considered controversial such as would place them in violation of the Verifiability policy. (I do have views that are controversial. But I am doing my very best to keep them out of my Knowledge edits.)

2529:(5) I don't really think this requires a source. But it is an arbitrary list, and the Frankfurt School was just mentioned. So I've deleted it. Anyone who wants to more meaningfully elaborate on Hegel's Marxist influence on others is obviously welcome to do so in the future. 3043:, "Versions of this interpretation of Hegel's dialectics continue to have currency (e.g., Forster 1993: 131; Stewart 2000: 39, 55; Fritzman 2014: 3–5)." - this doesn't contradict the "widely agreed" part, but it does suggest, to me, that the statement might be questioned. 744:"The interpretation of Christianity that he advances, however, is still very much that which he presented in the Phenomenology—only now he is able to expound at greater length and with greater clarity upon what he had covered earlier in such a condensed fashion." 1286:"In 1811, Hegel married ... and Immanuel Thomas Christian (1814–1891)" – the ref used, Pinkard p.773, seems to be within the index. That's adequate for the years (e.g. "1814–1891") but a little unorthodox, and it doesn't verify all of the info that precedes it. 1056:

Hegel is notorious for his jargon, and (again, according to my judgment) the more he can be translated into regular English, the better served visitors to this article will be. (Witness, for instance, the page on what, per Hegel, is his most important work:

1576:

Comment: There are a few statements like "Although he later elevated Aristotle above Plato, Hegel never abandoned his love of ancient philosophy, the imprint of which is everywhere in his thought" where I'm of the opinion that one reliable source is OK for

812:

As to the Primary Citations, these are the best English editions available of works discussed in the article. If they are not cited directly, that is because Knowledge so discourages the use of primary sources. Readers, however, should be able to find them

3245:

As might be evident from the description of my previous edit, I actually thought that I had made a bigger change than I actually did. Only half of my intended edit was executed. Hence my indignance that you wanted the claim pared back (in my mind) still

2680:

I expect you've seen the comment from Phlsph7 at the Peer Review. I noticed that you've made some further changes to the article in the past couple of days - please ping me when the current round of changes is done so I can have another look. Regards,

1911:"The idea, in other words, refers to the concept as it is present in natural and spiritual existence, or put differently, it refers to reality according to its varying degrees of rationality" - I am concerned that without citations, this looks like 1662:"The idea, in other words, refers to the concept as it is present in natural and spiritual existence, or put differently, it refers to reality according to its varying degrees of rationality" - I am concerned that without citations, this looks like 1547:

I'll try to dig something up. (It's definitely true.) In the meanwhile, though, I think the material in the Life and Christianity sections, particularly with the addition of the quotation from the Logic in the endnote, sufficiently buttress this

1816:

I shortened the quoted material just a little bit. I'm really trying not to use my own words in this section, though, because Hegel's are generally incomprehensible and any others are inevitably interpretive. Much better her interpretation than

3160:

do not invoke this language without immediately distancing themselves from it and partially disavowing the interpretation, I would say that "it is now widely agreed that explaining Hegel's philosophy in terms of thesis–antithesis–synthesis is

539:(If it is mostly just a matter of claims lacking secondary sources, however, I can probably supply them in short order. According to my own internalized set of norms, this article is over-sourced—but my norms are not those of Knowledge.) 2981:

Thanks, that looks good. I clarified just one minor point. Although I was rather fond of the tour-de-force of summarizing the whole book in a sentence, you are probably right that breaking it up is more appropriate for an encyclopedia

751:(I think 20 examples is enough.) However, in case fixing this is not as big a task as it looks to me, I'll keep the review open and see how it (and the peer review) progress. I'd recommend going through the policies on verifiability ( 696:"This led to his engagement with the philosophical programs of Fichte and Schelling, as well as his attention to Spinoza and the Pantheism controversy, the mark of which is to be found, in particular, in his Phenomenology of Spirit." 639:

Some of the citations are broken, e.g. Kaufmann 1965, Kaufmann 1966, Kaufmann 1966b, Hamburg 1992 and Siep 2014, don't seem to be in the list of sources; I think Beiser 1993 should perhaps be Westphal 1993; and there are a few other

2609:(11) I guess in this case, the argument is the edited volume itself; so I just cited to that. It's not a controversial claim, however. Everyone in the field acknowledges that this is an matter of ongoing discussion and dispute. 866:

I will continue to supply citations where I agree they are lacking, or else I will either remove the claim or, if I think the claim is true and belongs but I cannot find a good reference, I will flag it in the article for other

1833:"The Science of Logic is Hegel's attempt to meet this challenge by providing an entirely presuppositionless logic" - needs a secondary source IMO. The text following does not include the words "supposition" or "presupposition". 1649:"The Science of Logic is Hegel's attempt to meet this challenge by providing an entirely presuppositionless logic" - needs a secondary source IMO. The text following does not include the words "supposition" or "presupposition". 1865:"Doctrines of Being and Essence," - probably obvious to someone who knows the subject but the introduction of these with a capital D without them being explicitly defined with those names previously didn't seem helpful to me. 1652:"Doctrines of Being and Essence," - probably obvious to someone who knows the subject but the introduction of these with a capital D without them being explicitly defined with those names previously didn't seem helpful to me. 769:

thanks for your work so far on this important article. Hopefully my comments above give some ideas for next steps - feel free to ask me here if you have any questions, or indeed want to challenge any of my comments. Regards,

870:

I suspect, however, even after these edits, passages you flagged will remain, by my assessment, uncontroversial and supported by well-sourced surrounding text (e.g., both of the passages you flag in the section on Objective

2538:(8) This seems to me to follow directly from the immediately above. Do you have a suggestion for an innocuous replacement to avoid ending the section with a blockquote? That's the only reason I'm not happy to simply delete. 616:

It's good to see that the talk page has been used to explain developments to the page and to invite discussion. A peer review has been requested, but I think that this should have been closed before the nomination to GA.

2966:

The same goes for the long sentences. I've shortened the examples mentioned in the peer review. There are still a few rather long sentences out there that could be improved. But I don't believe that this is too serious.

732:"Although Hegel’s discussion of absolute spirit in the Encyclopedia is quite brief, he develops his account at length in lectures on the philosophy of fine art, the philosophy of religion, and the history of philosophy." 1017:

I take the point about tagging in the article or placing inline tags being more useful than a bulleted list. Obviously whilst there are citation needed tags, it can't pass as a GA. (Such tags were the reason that the

891:

I have completed the corrections you suggest and that I agree were needed. (There are three claims I have also marked as in need of citation. None are major but I believe them to be true and to merit inclusion in the

2367:"For instance, in the words of Walter Kaufmann:" - if this can be added to the preceding paragraph, I'd probably not be worried about the lack of a citation after "terms of thesis–antithesis–synthesis is inaccurate." 1283:"Terry Pinkard notes ... accomplished in practice" – this is on pp228-229 in the edition I’m looking at, not just p228. Not a big deal, but it would be helpful to add in more details about the editions of books used. 2895:

I take your point about the block quotes. These are not, in general, good style. If I "translate" them, however, the result is liable to look like (to be?) interpretative "original research." What is your take,

2348:"This sparked a renewed interest in Hegel reflected in the work of Herbert Marcuse, Theodor W. Adorno, Ernst Bloch, Raya Dunayevskaya, Alexandre Kojève, and Gotthard Günther among others." - needs source(s) IMO. 3032:

Although Hegel's discussion of absolute spirit in the Encyclopedia is quite brief, he develops his account at length in lectures on the philosophy of fine art, the philosophy of religion, and the history of

2941:

Sentence length does not register as an issue for me—but perhaps this is because I've spent too much time reading German philosophy. Anyone who wants to break up the prose a little bit more certainly has my

2724:... "Knowledge is a work in progress: perfection is not required". A good article review is at a point in time, against the relevant criteria. There is no ongoing monitoring after that, although there is a 2136:

2166:

this interpretation. (It is supposed to be a philosophy of freedom, after all.) Further criticisms, however, I believe are best left for the Legacy section or the child page devoted entirely to that book.

2699:

As to future changes, I do not see this article ever being finished. There are lots of things that I still hope to improve myself. And I expect that others will step in with their own specializations and

2833:

Thanks for the update. I have no plans to add any more images; I found one of a Hegel stamp in WikiCommons, but it's not clear where it might fit on the page. (I did, though, buy one for myself on eBay.)

2276:

Note P: "This translation follows the commentaries of H.S. Harris" - I think it would be helpful to provide one (or more) example(s) of a Harris commentary, rather than "the commentaries of H.S. Harris"

859:

That he wrote these other texts, however, is without any controversy whatsoever. They have been available in English translation for decades. Am I really supposed to cite a bibliography to support this

1291:"In 1817 ... Prague, and Paris" – I don’t have access to Siep (2021) – is all of this really verified on the single page cited. (Presumaby it’s a biographical summary section, so that may be the case.) 1369:

If this means I need to add a General References section, I can easily do so. I think it would only contain four works (all of which already have many inline citations in support of specific claims).

2662:

If you accidentally change the meaning of something or muddle a technical distinction, I will undo from page history and, if possible, edit section to make it clear why the specific language matters.

2011:"Although this easily reads – and is frequently read – as an expression of the impotence of philosophy, political or otherwise" - I haven't referred to de Laurentiis 2005a - is this supported there? 1694:"Although this easily reads – and is frequently read – as an expression of the impotence of philosophy, political or otherwise" - I haven't referred to de Laurentiis 2005a - is this supported there? 1419:

Sure, that sounds like a good way to proceed. You know far more about Knowledge policy than me, and so it is very possible that I am leaning too hard on article (b) of the GA Verifiability criteria.

76: 2963:

rather challenging so it might be good if someone gave it a close read. There are still a few paragraphs that consist mainly of quotations strung together but the main problem has been addressed.

2869: 2560:(10) In a move all too rare in academia, Pippin repudiates the non-metaphysical position (upon which much of his fame has been based) in the very title of the book. The whole book is the source. 2453:

In response to (2), Harris (1997) is literally a paragraph-by-paragraph explication of Hegel's text. So reference to a "corresponding section" will be entirely clear to anyone consulting it.

3136:

This account of Hegel’s dialectics is itself only a partial comprehension that requires correction. Before criticizing, however, let us first note three features that it perceives correctly.

1542:"This interest, as well as his theological training, would continue to mark his thought, even as it developed in a more theoretical or metaphysical direction" - needs a secondary source IMO. 3167:(The reason, incidentally, that this perhaps apparently minor detail matters is given in the material from Stephen Houlgate immediately following the Kaufmann quote: it implies there is an 3249:

Reviewing and introducing one of the sources in Maybee, however, helped me reach a better solution (I think) than either sourcing or deleting the empirical claim about "wide agreement."

155: 899:

May I respectfully submit that your interpretation of the Knowledge policies to which you directed me is rather more severe than what is to be found actually stated on those pages?

1142:

There are ten "Secondary Sources" that are not used for citations in the article; if still unused after fixes, I think they should be moved to "Further reading" (where relevant).

3085:

I commend you for your fact-checking! Yet, although the SEP is the best go-to source for philosophy on the Internet, this particular article is well below their usual standard.

2399:

10. "Yet, since then, the most prominent non-metaphysical interpreter, Robert B. Pippin, has recanted his earlier position, most notably in Pippin 2019." - needs a source IMO.

1022:

in 2015 failed.) I'm happy to give you time to either either find citations for these or remove the claims, whichever is more appropriate in each case. I had a brief scan of

940: 151: 3094:

general pattern might describe some of the transitions from stage to stage, but there are many more places where the development does not seem to fit this pattern very well.

3088:

The emphasis in the claim you quote should be on "versions of." Indeed, Maybee herself goes on in the very next paragraph to partially disavow or water-down such a reading:

136: 1728:

I added link to sci logic. There are no pages for phi nature or spirit as such. I looked at a couple related pages, but I think linking to them would just be confusing.

81: 699:"There is, however, no scholarly consensus about the Phenomenology with respect to either of the systematic roles asserted by Hegel at the time of its publication." 109: 747:"No Hegelians of the period ever referred to themselves as "Right Hegelians", which was a term of insult originated by David Strauss, a self-styled Left Hegelian." 128: 3175:

to the content. That, however, is gross misrepresentation of Hegel's actual procedure, and it is with this misrepresentation that the terms are most associated.)

3017:

There are some new matches using Earwing's Copyvio Detector. However, looking at the top matches, these are either backwards-copies, titles, or common phrases.

693:"This interest, as well as his theological training, would continue to mark his thought, even as it developed in a more theoretical or metaphysical direction." 2807: 1336:

in the brief discussion of their contents in the Christianity section (with additional bibliographic information available in the Primary Sources listings).

1325:, Thank you for such detailed proofreading/fact-checking! I'm sure you are right about the page errors in Pinkard attributions. I will confirm and correct. 99: 2774:

Please just let me know if at some point you wish me to stop changes altogether for 48 hours (or whatever) so you have a stable document with which to work.

1053:

issue, then...whatever? Not my preferred resolution, though.) Maybe what is "obvious" to me ought to be made explicit for a wider audience in some such way.

2111:"Recht in Hegel's title does not have an English equivalent" - would be it right to say "Recht in Hegel's title does not have a direct English equivalent"? 1274:"In 1801 … Jakob Friedrich Fries ahead of him" there’s a lot of information here, not all of which is verified by the single-page citation "Pinkard p.223" 3285:

Ref 117 - Magee 2010, p. 186. - I'm not sure if this should be to Magee 2001, Magee 2011, or if Magee 2010 is missing from the list of secondary sources.

536:

Thank you for so quickly picking up this nomination! Your initial verdict is disappointing, of course, but I will welcome any feedback you might provide.

438: 1271:

source. (We may disagree on this and other cases. My view is that "All content must be verifiable." (WP:BURDEN]] would apply for details such as these.)

2419:

11. "What remains in dispute, however, is how to properly characterize Hegel's (avowedly post-Kantian) metaphysical commitments." - needs a source IMO.

809:

I’ll look at the missing references you mention. Is there an easy way for me to generate a complete list or highlight them in the body of the article?

674:

These seem to be fine, although a reviewer will want to check that everything there is supported by citations in the body. I haven't checked this yet.

1608:) 19:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC) (I'm not worried about the numbers changing if you reply below the points; it's only for our collaborative purposes. 1920:

Okay. I was trying to repeat in other words what had already been sourced. But I don't think the section will suffer if I just delete this sentence.

738:"Although he did not return to this Romantic formulation, the unification of Athens and Jerusalem would remain a preoccupation throughout his life." 2563:

I still think "the most prominent non-metaphysical interpreter" needs a citation; that would be better than removing it, which is another option.

2273:

Note O: " the corresponding section of Harris 1997 " - is the section in Harris "Christianity in The Phenomenology of Spirit", or something else?

1600:

My intention is to number items for action or discussion, and bulletpoint comments "for the record". Thanks for your prompt attention. Regards,

2053:

Any citation on this would seem rather arbitrary. If I find a good discussion of why "spirit" is preferred, I'll add an endnote with that text.

1019: 2049:"(Some older translations render it as "mind", rather than "spirit.") - I'd prefer a citation, but this is one where I wouldn't insist on it. 1844: 1700:"(Some older translations render it as "mind", rather than "spirit.") - I'd prefer a citation, but this is one where I wouldn't insist on it. 627: 185: 1989:"the Philosophy of Nature and of Spirit – is an ongoing historical project." - I haven't referred to Hegel 1991a - is this supported there? 1267:"Hegel's mother ... but they narrowly survived" – page ref seems wrong (it's page 3 in the edition I’m looking at - 2001 Paperback edition). 1680:"the Philosophy of Nature and of Spirit – is an ongoing historical project." - I haven't referred to Hegel 1991a - is this supported there? 2725: 2249: 2192: 1358: 944: 1034:). I'll read through the article and tag anything else that I see - this may take a few days as I'll be referring to sources. Regards, 874:

All that said, thanks again for your attention to this article. This review process is sure to improve the entry, whatever its outcome.

1723:

Are there some useful wikilinks that could be added to "the science of logic, the philosophy of nature, and the philosophy of spirit"?

1630:

Are there some useful wikilinks that could be added to "the science of logic, the philosophy of nature, and the philosophy of spirit"?

197: 144: 17: 1452:

So, setting my own views on style to the side, this is where I am coming from in terms of Knowledge policy (as best I understand it).

723:"The community of spirit does not become adequate to its free self-concept in the world without impersonal sacrifice of individuals." 1915:. From what little I remember from studying philosophy, commentators can have quite divergent opinions about how to interpret texts. 1666:. From what little I remember from studying philosophy, commentators can have quite divergent opinions about how to interpret texts. 714:"It is, in other words, (at least predominantly, dialectically) an account of what Isaiah Berlin would later term positive liberty." 2395:

9. "Against this, Beiser repeatedly stresses the Aristotelian character of Hegel's metaphysical commitments." - needs a source IMO.

1063:. Based on just a cursory reading, I believe the article is accurate , but it is nevertheless completely, unintelligibly, useless.) 842:

Quite a few, however, are just entirely neutral statements of fact or simple rephrasing of what was just stated with references.

1993:

I take this to be a direct consequence of it being "its own time comprehended in thought." If it's not, I can dig something up.

660:

Not a blocker to being a GA, but these works are presented inconsistently, e.g. some with ISBNs but others not. (You could use

204: 104: 2068:"As is especially evident in the Anthropology," - would be useful to have a few words to introduce what "the Anthropology" is 1703:"As is especially evident in the Anthropology," - would be useful to have a few words to introduce what "the Anthropology" is 317: 3296:

are listed as secondary sources but aren't used to support the article. Optionally, they could be moved to "Further Reading"

2316:

Are all the direct quotes from "The Right Hegelians, in any case ... though the Marxist tradition" from Rockmore 2013 p.305?

1749:

Basically every commentary/companion opens with some such statement. I supplied one rather arbitrarily from a Pippin essay.

55:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3364:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2319:

Note v: "The literature on this is enormous. Marcuse 1999, however, is one classic introductory text." - reword to avoid

1280:"Terry Pinkard notes" – add a couple of words of intro, e.g. "Hegel’s biographer Terry Pinkard" or "Scholar Terry Pinkard" 925:

Low-importance. Not sure how these things work, but someone might want to change this—just for general Knowledge hygiene.

121: 3335:

I'm now satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so I'm passing it. Thanks for all your efforts on the article,

839:

I do agree that some of the passages you flag are in need of (or, at any rate, would benefit from) supporting citations.

711:" It is back to Hegel that Wandschneider would direct philosophers of science for guidance in the philosophy of nature." 3164:

But, if you still disagree, I will not argue the point any further than this. The article would still stand without it.

3036:

Yet, it is now widely agreed that explaining Hegel's philosophy in terms of thesis–antithesis–synthesis is inaccurate.

992: 1383:

All right. I fixed the mistaken page references. (I'm working from the hardback edition, but pagination is the same.)

1425:"Point (b) names five types of statements for which the good article criteria require some form of inline citation: 1328:

With respect to some of your requested citations, however, might I direct your attention to section 2 of this page:

1945:

Glad you agree. I don't love it either, but the book is insanely difficult to summarize in a non-controversial way.

2703:

Can't you just assess as is?—trusting that, if the quality degrades in the future, it will be accordingly demoted?

1390:

I can also confirm Siep does verify that claim. It's a weird source for that fact, but it's perfectly scholarly.

828:

Good. I think the lead is almost innocuously neutral. If anything needs to be fixed, that should be a simple task.

3348: 3308: 3228: 3076: 2938:

Those still there, I think are well-justified as dealing authoritatively with difficult and controversial issues.

2824: 2797: 2767:, as I have not heard from you in a few days, I am continuing to make improvements along the lines suggested by @ 2737: 2686: 2651: 2630: 2596: 2568: 2549: 2518: 2490: 2461: 2440: 2407: 2383: 2125: 1970: 1613: 1605: 1489: 1410: 1303: 1227: 1182: 1039: 1000: 952: 775: 526: 240: 179: 39: 1329: 1066:

I will take another look at other GA philosophy articles, should they provide useful guidance in this respect.

3273:

Excellent. I'll note that ISBN's and edition details aren't included for books, but that seems to be fine by

2478:(1) Subjective idealism is very close, but the Wiki page explicitly distinguishes it from absolute idealism ( 643:

Ten of the primary sources are not actually used as references (or possibly have broken links to them), e.g.

3326: 3263: 3205: 3183: 3061: 2993: 2950: 2905: 2845: 2782: 2754: 2711: 2670: 2643:

Oh, and P.S., feel free to make any prose style improvements on your own authority if comfortable doing so.

2614: 2582: 2245: 2188: 2078: 2059: 2040: 2021: 1999: 1951: 1926: 1901: 1876: 1855: 1823: 1797: 1776: 1755: 1734: 1590: 1564: 1532: 1474: 1460: 1395: 1374: 1354: 1259:*The section is heavily reliant on a single source, Pinkard's biography. However, that’s a reliable source. 1243: 1197: 1074: 966: 930: 915: 882: 544: 281: 260: 1152:

Chalybäus, Heinrich Moritz (1848). Historische Entwicklung der spekulativen Philosophie von Kant bis Hegel.

816:

If it’s an actual problem, the list can be pared down. But I don’t know why anyone would want to do that.

3048:

Against this, Beiser repeatedly stresses the Aristotelian character of Hegel's metaphysical commitments.

2577:

Sure. I replaced the text with a quote from Houlgate's critical discussion of Pippin's interpretation.

2219:"sober-minded commentator" - remove "sober-minded"; or, maybe replace with the name of the commentator? 3344: 3304: 3224: 3072: 2897: 2820: 2811: 2793: 2764: 2733: 2682: 2647: 2626: 2592: 2564: 2545: 2514: 2486: 2457: 2436: 2403: 2379: 2237: 2180: 2121: 1966: 1609: 1601: 1485: 1406: 1346: 1322: 1299: 1223: 1178: 1035: 996: 948: 786: 771: 522: 336: 332: 175: 35: 3239: 3220: 2877: 2816: 2721: 2479: 2293: 3255:

Glad to know we're near the finish line! The article is definitely much better than when we began.

3336: 3322: 3274: 3259: 3201: 3179: 3057: 2989: 2946: 2901: 2841: 2778: 2750: 2707: 2666: 2610: 2578: 2334: 2330: 2241: 2184: 2173:

but I don't think it's a good idea to assume their formulations completely speak for themselves.

2074: 2055: 2036: 2017: 1995: 1947: 1922: 1897: 1872: 1851: 1819: 1793: 1772: 1751: 1730: 1586: 1560: 1528: 1470: 1456: 1437:

counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and

1391: 1370: 1350: 1239: 1193: 1070: 1012: 982: 962: 926: 911: 878: 764: 540: 3352: 3330: 3312: 3267: 3232: 3209: 3187: 3080: 3065: 2997: 2976: 2954: 2927: 2909: 2889: 2849: 2828: 2801: 2786: 2758: 2741: 2715: 2690: 2674: 2655: 2634: 2618: 2600: 2586: 2572: 2553: 2494: 2465: 2444: 2411: 2387: 2253: 2196: 2129: 2082: 2063: 2044: 2025: 2003: 1974: 1955: 1930: 1905: 1880: 1859: 1827: 1801: 1780: 1759: 1738: 1617: 1594: 1568: 1536: 1513:

I'd mention Harris in the text as the sources for the quotes. (I think this is in the spirit of

1493: 1478: 1464: 1414: 1399: 1378: 1362: 1307: 1247: 1231: 1201: 1186: 1078: 1043: 1004: 970: 956: 934: 919: 886: 856:

discussion. For, although not controversial, it is a substantive claim inviting further inquiry.

779: 598:

Most of the images seem relevant and to have appropriate captions. I'm not sure that the Trees,

548: 530: 189: 43: 3278: 3196:

Hegel does not deride these specific terms. It is against such external conceptions of method

2972: 2923: 2885: 2224:"(Werke, XI 151/ 111)" - is there a reason to keep this in the text rather than as a citation. 626:

appropriate Wikiprojects. Please do not spam many users or projects with identical requests."

562:

and had no concerns. The large-percentage matches are mainly titles and attributed quotations.

2008:

Another lengthy quote, from Hegel, in "Philosophy of the Real". Seems approriate in context.

2355: 2338: 2327: 1687:

Another lengthy quote, from Hegel, in "Philosophy of the Real". Seems approriate in context.

1446: 1059: 428: 248: 3071:

Thanks - there is just one of the above that I think is not fully covered by your changes.

2771:. I will, however, refrain from adding new sections or initiating major rewrites on my own. 1149:

Brandom, Robert B. (2019). A Spirit of Trust: A Reading of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit.

3149:

in a very limited context in which he is discussing Kant's use of those terms (pp.297-98).

2352: 1031: 988: 2030:"reminds us of what all the English translators forget," - needs a secondary source IMO. 1870:

I've clarified with parentheticals that these are titles of the books/volumes of the SL.

1697:"reminds us of what all the English translators forget," - needs a secondary source IMO. 3040: 2873: 2435:

another read through later to see if I can add anything else in that respect. Regards,

2320: 385: 244: 208: 1553:

I'd be inclined to remove "with no particular agenda vis-à-vis Hegel" from footnote d.

1167:

Robinson, Paul (1990). The Freudian Left: Wilhelm Reich, Geza Roheim, Herbert Marcuse.

2359: 2342: 729:"Or, rather, what hierarchy there is, is philosophically systematic, not evaluative." 618: 453: 256: 252: 3145:

points out that while Hegel does tend to work in triads, the t-a-s language appears

1786:

I'd mention Wandschneider inline for the quote at the start of the Logic subsection.

1639:

I'd mention Wandschneider inline for the quote at the start of the Logic subsection.

3340: 2968: 2919: 2918:. Could someone check whether these reformulations and paraphrases are acceptable? 2881: 2768: 1912: 1744:"The Phenomenology of Spirit is infamously dense." - needs a secondary source IMO. 1663: 1633:"The Phenomenology of Spirit is infamously dense." - needs a secondary source IMO. 1518: 756: 585: 511: 493: 302: 2696:

I had not seen the comment from Phlsph7. Thank you for calling it to my attention!

2169:

3. I had to read that twice, but yeah, I think your formulation is more accurate.

499: 3039:

I still think this sentence needs a source. According to the Stanford article on

2072:

There is one directly below. This clause could also just be deleted if confusing.

3124:(He goes on a bit, but does not mention thesis, antithesis, or synthesis again.) 2216:"Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik" - I suggest adding a translation in parentheses. 752: 2591:

That's good - just need to fix the link which is currently to "Houlgate 2005".

2371:"For these reasons it is best to avoid this terminology." - needs a source IMO. 1938:

The quote from Pinkard is quite lengthy, but, I feel, justified in the context.

1673:

The quote from Pinkard is quite lengthy, but, I feel, justified in the context.

717:"Or, put differently, it is an account of the institutionalization of freedom." 3029:

world history, was additionally elaborated in Hegel's lectures on the subject.

2157:(Let's try this format to not mess up your lists or create editing conflicts.) 1161:

Houlgate, Stephen (2005). An Introduction to Hegel. Freedom, Truth and History

630:

might be one place you could invite editors to contribute to the peer review.

2482:). I tried a few other search terms, but I'm not finding anything that fits. 2819:, I have no concerns about it being used as a source for the Hegel article. 1887: 1808: 1656: 1643: 1514: 1422:

Let me quote, though, the most pertinent passage of the page I linked above:

1027: 1277:"With his finances drying up quickly … city of Jena" needs citation(s) IMO. 1316:*(Note: Last two paras of Heidelberg, Berlin (1816–1831) not yet reviewed) 1155:

Dein Winfeild, Richard (2011). "Hegel's Solution to the Mind-Body Problem"

1146:

Berlin, Isaiah (2003). Freedom and Betrayal: Six Enemies of Human Liberty.

1330:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:What_the_Good_article_criteria_are_not

1023: 2313:"Some historians present of Hegel's influence" - looks like a stray "of" 661: 505: 2513:

I looked at some definitions of "classic" and I'm OK with the wording.

576: 2728:

process which is sometimes invoked. However, whilst there are changes

664:

to standardise ISBN format, but again that's not a requirement for GA.

2959:

I think the problem with the blockquotes has been solved. I've found

1584:

Good to know. (If you're asking for an edit here, could you restate?)

3113:

The Abstract to Stewart's paper (to which I cannot get full access):

1405:

be producing a longer list which we will respectfully disagree on.)

1192:

Thanks for the full lists! I believe they have all been addressed.

987:

I'm pretty sure that the script showing me the broken citations is

2646:

Probably safer to leave it, there's nothing realy jarring to me.

845:

For instance, this is the first passage you call to my attention:

1449:, but noticeably lower than many editors' personal preferences." 1087:

completely) before I can meaningfully continue with the review.

3156:

the best examples of this interpretation that Maybee can find,

2815:

available." However, given that the Hegel entry was written by

1765:"most comprehensive commentary" - needs a secondary source IMO. 1636:"most comprehensive commentary" - needs a secondary source IMO. 3252:

Let me know if anything about this edit requires further work.

2281:

Note R: "in useful detail" should be removed or rephrased IMO.

995:

for instructions about how to install user scripts. Regards,

2746:

I'll stop unsolicited editing until the process is complete.

792:

Thanks for these comments. Here a few immediate impressions:

570:*Images are all Public Domain or CC, so no issues with that. 2732:

the review, I need to look at the latest version. Regards,

2292:#Is there a suitable wikilink for "mentalistic idealism"? ( 2015:

I will check shortly and add another citation if necessary.

584:*Although the page displays OK on my screen, be mindful of 3099:

It is similarly the case with the three sources she cites.

2351:

I can't think of a reasonable alternative formulation of "

863:

At least one other citation you flagged is of this nature.

3294:

The Descent of Ideas: The History of Intellectual History

3238:

Delightful that this section should be in violation of

3192:

Oh, and Foster's rebuttal of Kaufmann misses the mark.

2960: 2915: 1173:

Wells, John C. (2008). Longman Pronunciation Dictionary

163: 132: 1164:

Popper, Karl (2011). The Open Society And Its Enemies.

575:

Alt text could be added to improve Accessibility. See

1886:

Can the quotation from Longuenesse be summarised per

1807:

Can the quotation from Longuenesse be summarised per

1655:

Can the quotation from Longuenesse be summarised per

1642:

Can the quotation from Longuenesse be summarised per

3219:

Thanks for the detailed reply. My concern is around

3056:

Please see descriptions in edit history for details.

1211:

FN33 Siep, p. xxii. (year of publication is missing)

1170:

Siep, Ludwig (2021). Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit

1158:

Dein Winfeild, Richard (1995). Systematic Aesthetics

2914:I've tried to eliminate a few longer quotations in 941:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard

559: 2985:Thanks again for all your attention to this page! 1387:precise citations, which I would be loath to do?) 1849:is the source. He uses this language ad nauseam. 1713:(New section here to avoid an editing conflict.) 1440:contentious material relating to living persons. 3024:Text that I still think should have citations: 2935:I've eliminated a few more blockquotes besides. 1843:harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHoulgate2006 ( 1708:response to requested revisions of Phi System 588:. Perhaps some of the images could be moved. 558:- I reviewed the several matches found using 8: 3200:that Hegel polemicizes in the PhS Preface. 2808:Knowledge:Reliable sources/Perennial sources 1238:Fixed those—and my apologies for the typos. 1207:Yes those are sorted. A couple of new ones: 437:(images are tagged and non-free images have 2430:Looks fine - the single source is reliable. 3343:for ypur valuable contributions. Regards, 59: 2504:(1) Cannot believe I missed that! Thanks. 708:"what is perhaps his most famous passage" 3290:Subjects in the Ancient and Modern World 1838: 1137:(In note L) Houlgate 2007, pp. xxii–xxvi 193: 2864:Long sentences and many long quotations 2358:" - but if there is one, then re-word ( 1965:Those responses seem suitable, thanks. 1447:absolute minimum standard set by policy 90: 62: 2034:She says this directly in the article. 2475:==Dialectics, speculation, idealism== 836:Here we might, indeed, have problems. 628:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Philosophy 7: 2837:have to wait to do that last anyway. 51:The following discussion is closed. 2726:Knowledge:Good article reassessment 945:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Religion 1445:"This standard is higher than the 432:, where possible and appropriate. 24: 18:Talk:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel 2287:Dialectics, speculation, idealism 606:images are very relevant, though. 3360:The discussion above is closed. 3292:; and Kelley, Donald R. (2017). 3288:de Laurentiis, Allegra (2005b). 3152:All of this to argue that — If, 1119:FN108 Dien Winfield 1995, p. 9, 510: 504: 498: 492: 482: 459: 444: 417: 397: 394:Fair representation without bias 374: 363: 342: 323: 308: 293: 266: 231: 2425:Publications and other writings 207:for what the criteria are, and 3353:20:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC) 3331:18:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC) 3313:18:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC) 3268:13:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC) 3233:10:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC) 3210:23:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC) 3188:23:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC) 3102:Here is Foster (1993), p. 131: 3081:21:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC) 3066:17:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC) 2998:16:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC) 2977:08:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC) 2955:15:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC) 2928:08:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC) 2910:20:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC) 2890:18:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC) 2850:18:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC) 2829:17:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC) 2802:17:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC) 2787:16:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC) 2759:16:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC) 2742:00:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC) 2716:00:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC) 2691:22:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC) 2675:22:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC) 2656:16:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC) 2635:16:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC) 2619:22:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC) 2601:13:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC) 2587:17:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC) 2573:16:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC) 2554:16:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC) 2495:16:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC) 2466:16:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC) 2445:20:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC) 2412:16:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC) 2388:16:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC) 2254:22:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC) 2197:22:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC) 2130:16:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC) 1975:20:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC) 1308:16:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC) 1298:Part now cited; part removed. 1131:FN138 Chalybäus 1846, p. 367. 939:I'd suggest dropping notes at 755:) and "no original research" ( 228:(prose, spelling, and grammar) 44:21:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC) 1: 2333:" - can this be reworded to " 2083:20:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 2064:20:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 2045:20:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 2026:20:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 2004:20:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 1956:20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 1931:20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 1906:20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 1881:20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 1860:20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 1828:20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 1802:20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 1781:20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 1760:20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 1739:20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 1618:19:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 1595:19:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 1569:19:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 1537:19:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 1494:09:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC) 1479:16:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC) 1465:16:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC) 1415:15:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC) 1400:15:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC) 1379:14:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC) 1363:14:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC) 1248:13:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC) 1232:08:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC) 1202:16:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC) 1187:13:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC) 1116:FN89 Magee 2010, pp. 179–84. 1092:FN13 Luther 2009, pp. 65–66. 1079:21:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC) 1044:21:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC) 1005:18:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC) 971:18:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC) 957:09:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC) 935:19:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC) 920:19:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC) 887:16:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC) 780:13:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC) 549:12:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC) 531:11:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC) 190:11:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC) 2932:Yes, those are good. Thanks. 2480:Subjective_idealism#Overview 645:Hegel's Philosophy of Nature 483: 460: 445: 418: 398: 375: 364: 343: 324: 309: 294: 267: 232: 3012:Another look - 21 September 1134:FN140 Mueller 1996, p. 301. 993:Knowledge:User scripts/List 3379: 2091:Philosophical system cont. 1214:FN83 de Laurenttiis 2021. 1113:FN85 de Laurenttiis 2021. 1069:Cheers, and thanks again– 649:Early Theological Writings 3020:The newer images seem OK. 1122:FN123 Hegel 1991, p. 22. 560:Earwig's Copyvio Detector 491: 196: 3362:Please do not modify it. 3158:but even Maybee herself, 3127:And Fritzman (2014) p.3: 1217:FN106 Dein Winfield 1995 1110:FN84 Dien Winfeild 2011 1098:FN31 Siep 2014, p. xxi. 53:Please do not modify it. 3141:Michael Inwood, in his 2544:OK - I'll accept this. 2378:No longer in the text. 1104:FN46 Hegel 2010, p. 29 621:says " may be used for 221:reasonably well written 3138: 3121: 3110: 3096: 1095:FN19 Hoffmeister 1974 852: 452:(appropriate use with 211:for what they are not) 3130: 3116: 3105: 3091: 947:about this. Regards, 848: 426:It is illustrated by 386:neutral point of view 353:broad in its coverage 2120:Now has a citation. 1718:Philosophical system 1625:Philosophical system 2817:Thomas Malcolm Knox 2294:Subjective idealism 1128:FN137 Berlin 2001. 1101:FN32 Kaufmann 1965. 1020:first GA nomination 604:Sermon on the Mount 600:Priestess of Delphi 439:fair use rationales 3041:Hegel's Dialectics 2335:critical theorists 2331:critical theorists 1434:published opinion, 1428:direct quotations, 1125:FN128 Löwith 1964. 414:No edit wars, etc. 277:factually accurate 54: 2777:Hope all's well— 2240:comment added by 2203:Philosophy of Art 2183:comment added by 2177:interpretation. 1349:comment added by 1107:FN79 Hegel 2010. 518: 517: 454:suitable captions 118: 117: 52: 3370: 3337:Patrick J. Welsh 3323:Patrick J. Welsh 3260:Patrick J. Welsh 3202:Patrick J. Welsh 3180:Patrick J. Welsh 3058:Patrick J. Welsh 2472:Otherwise, done. 2450:==Christianity== 2356:Giovanni Gentile 2339:Frankfurt School 2328:Frankfurt School 2256: 2199: 2145:different ideas. 1848: 1365: 1060:Science of Logic 1016: 986: 823:Lead and infobox 768: 669:Lead and infobox 514: 508: 502: 496: 486: 485: 463: 462: 448: 447: 421: 420: 401: 400: 378: 377: 367: 366: 346: 345: 327: 326: 312: 311: 303:reliable sources 297: 296: 270: 269: 235: 234: 212: 194: 168: 159: 140: 72:Copyvio detector 60: 3378: 3377: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3345:BennyOnTheLoose 3305:BennyOnTheLoose 3225:BennyOnTheLoose 3073:BennyOnTheLoose 3014: 2961:this paraphrase 2898:BennyOnTheLoose 2866: 2821:BennyOnTheLoose 2794:BennyOnTheLoose 2765:BennyOnTheLoose 2734:BennyOnTheLoose 2683:BennyOnTheLoose 2648:BennyOnTheLoose 2627:BennyOnTheLoose 2593:BennyOnTheLoose 2565:BennyOnTheLoose 2546:BennyOnTheLoose 2515:BennyOnTheLoose 2487:BennyOnTheLoose 2458:BennyOnTheLoose 2437:BennyOnTheLoose 2427: 2404:BennyOnTheLoose 2380:BennyOnTheLoose 2353:Italian Fascist 2303: 2289: 2262: 2235: 2234:All complete. 2232: 2205: 2178: 2154: 2122:BennyOnTheLoose 2093: 1987: 1967:BennyOnTheLoose 1842: 1710: 1627: 1610:BennyOnTheLoose 1602:BennyOnTheLoose 1510: 1486:BennyOnTheLoose 1407:BennyOnTheLoose 1344: 1343:Best regards, 1323:BennyOnTheLoose 1300:BennyOnTheLoose 1256: 1224:BennyOnTheLoose 1179:BennyOnTheLoose 1140: 1036:BennyOnTheLoose 1010: 997:BennyOnTheLoose 980: 949:BennyOnTheLoose 787:BennyOnTheLoose 772:BennyOnTheLoose 762: 655:Further reading 612:General comment 523:BennyOnTheLoose 383:It follows the 360:(major aspects) 202: 176:BennyOnTheLoose 149: 126: 120: 114: 86: 57: 48: 47: 46: 36:BennyOnTheLoose 29: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3376: 3374: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3339:. Thanks also 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3298: 3297: 3286: 3271: 3270: 3256: 3253: 3250: 3247: 3243: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3176: 3165: 3162: 3150: 3139: 3128: 3125: 3122: 3114: 3111: 3103: 3100: 3097: 3089: 3086: 3052: 3050: 3049: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3034: 3030: 3022: 3021: 3018: 3013: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2986: 2983: 2964: 2943: 2939: 2936: 2933: 2874:MOS:QUOTATIONS 2865: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2838: 2834: 2831: 2775: 2772: 2761: 2747: 2704: 2701: 2697: 2678: 2677: 2663: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2575: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2539: 2536: 2535:(7) All right. 2533: 2530: 2527: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2508: 2505: 2502: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2476: 2473: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2451: 2432: 2431: 2426: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2397: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2373: 2372: 2369: 2363: 2349: 2346: 2324: 2317: 2314: 2302: 2299: 2288: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2277: 2274: 2261: 2258: 2231: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2220: 2217: 2204: 2201: 2153: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2139: 2138: 2133: 2132: 2117: 2116: 2113: 2098: 2097: 2092: 2089: 2087: 1986: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1917: 1916: 1892: 1891: 1867: 1866: 1835: 1834: 1813: 1812: 1788: 1787: 1767: 1766: 1746: 1745: 1725: 1724: 1709: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1701: 1698: 1695: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1682: 1681: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1668: 1667: 1660: 1653: 1650: 1647: 1640: 1637: 1634: 1631: 1626: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1555: 1554: 1544: 1543: 1523: 1522: 1509: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1453: 1450: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1438: 1435: 1432: 1429: 1423: 1420: 1388: 1384: 1381: 1320: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1293: 1287: 1284: 1281: 1278: 1275: 1272: 1268: 1255: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1235: 1234: 1219: 1218: 1215: 1212: 1205: 1204: 1175: 1174: 1171: 1168: 1165: 1162: 1159: 1156: 1153: 1150: 1147: 1139: 1138: 1135: 1132: 1129: 1126: 1123: 1120: 1117: 1114: 1111: 1108: 1105: 1102: 1099: 1096: 1093: 1089: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1067: 1064: 1054: 1050: 991:. You can see 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 922: 908: 904: 900: 897: 893: 889: 875: 872: 868: 864: 861: 857: 853: 846: 843: 840: 837: 834: 829: 826: 821: 817: 814: 810: 807: 802: 798: 793: 790: 749: 748: 745: 742: 739: 736: 733: 730: 727: 724: 721: 718: 715: 712: 709: 706: 703: 700: 697: 694: 690: 689: 676: 675: 666: 665: 652: 651: 641: 609: 608: 581: 580: 564: 563: 552: 551: 537: 516: 515: 489: 488: 477: 469: 468: 467: 466: 465: 464: 449: 424: 423: 422: 404: 403: 402: 381: 380: 379: 368: 349: 348: 347: 328: 313: 301:(citations to 298: 273: 272: 271: 236: 214: 213: 201: 169: 116: 115: 113: 112: 107: 102: 96: 93: 92: 88: 87: 85: 84: 82:External links 79: 74: 68: 65: 64: 58: 49: 33: 32: 31: 30: 28: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3375: 3363: 3354: 3350: 3346: 3342: 3338: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3320: 3319: 3314: 3310: 3306: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3280: 3276: 3269: 3265: 3261: 3257: 3254: 3251: 3248: 3244: 3241: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3230: 3226: 3222: 3211: 3207: 3203: 3199: 3195: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3185: 3181: 3177: 3174: 3171:method being 3170: 3166: 3163: 3159: 3155: 3151: 3148: 3144: 3140: 3137: 3134: 3129: 3126: 3123: 3120: 3115: 3112: 3109: 3104: 3101: 3098: 3095: 3090: 3087: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3078: 3074: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3063: 3059: 3055: 3047: 3042: 3038: 3037: 3035: 3031: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3019: 3016: 3015: 3011: 2999: 2995: 2991: 2990:PatrickJWelsh 2987: 2984: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2974: 2970: 2965: 2962: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2952: 2948: 2947:PatrickJWelsh 2944: 2940: 2937: 2934: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2907: 2903: 2902:PatrickJWelsh 2899: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2887: 2883: 2879: 2875: 2871: 2863: 2851: 2847: 2843: 2842:PatrickJWelsh 2839: 2835: 2832: 2830: 2826: 2822: 2818: 2813: 2812:WP:BRITANNICA 2809: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2799: 2795: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2784: 2780: 2779:PatrickJWelsh 2776: 2773: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2751:PatrickJWelsh 2748: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2731: 2727: 2723: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2708:PatrickJWelsh 2705: 2702: 2698: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2676: 2672: 2668: 2667:PatrickJWelsh 2664: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2644: 2642: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2616: 2612: 2611:PatrickJWelsh 2608: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2584: 2580: 2579:PatrickJWelsh 2576: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2562: 2561: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2547: 2543: 2542: 2540: 2537: 2534: 2531: 2528: 2525: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2511: 2509: 2506: 2503: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2483: 2481: 2477: 2474: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2454: 2452: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2429: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2402:Amended, OK. 2401: 2400: 2398: 2396: 2393: 2389: 2385: 2381: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2370: 2368: 2365: 2364: 2361: 2360:MOS:SEAOFBLUE 2357: 2354: 2350: 2347: 2344: 2343:MOS:SEAOFBLUE 2340: 2336: 2332: 2329: 2325: 2322: 2318: 2315: 2312: 2310: 2309: 2307: 2306: 2300: 2298: 2297: 2295: 2286: 2282: 2279: 2278: 2275: 2272: 2270: 2269: 2267: 2266: 2259: 2257: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2243: 2242:PatrickJWelsh 2239: 2229: 2225: 2222: 2221: 2218: 2215: 2213: 2212: 2210: 2209: 2202: 2200: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2186: 2185:PatrickJWelsh 2182: 2174: 2170: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2158: 2151: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2135: 2134: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2118: 2114: 2112: 2109: 2108: 2106: 2105: 2103: 2102: 2095: 2094: 2090: 2088: 2085: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2075:PatrickJWelsh 2073: 2069: 2066: 2065: 2061: 2057: 2056:PatrickJWelsh 2054: 2050: 2047: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2037:PatrickJWelsh 2035: 2031: 2028: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2018:PatrickJWelsh 2016: 2012: 2009: 2006: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1996:PatrickJWelsh 1994: 1990: 1985:more response 1984: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1953: 1949: 1948:PatrickJWelsh 1946: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1923:PatrickJWelsh 1921: 1914: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1898:PatrickJWelsh 1896: 1889: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1878: 1874: 1873:PatrickJWelsh 1871: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1852:PatrickJWelsh 1850: 1846: 1840: 1839:Houlgate 2006 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1820:PatrickJWelsh 1818: 1810: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1799: 1795: 1794:PatrickJWelsh 1792: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1778: 1774: 1773:PatrickJWelsh 1771: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1757: 1753: 1752:PatrickJWelsh 1750: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1731:PatrickJWelsh 1729: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1715: 1714: 1707: 1702: 1699: 1696: 1693: 1692: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1679: 1678: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1665: 1661: 1658: 1654: 1651: 1648: 1645: 1641: 1638: 1635: 1632: 1629: 1628: 1624: 1619: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1587:PatrickJWelsh 1585: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1561:PatrickJWelsh 1559: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1529:PatrickJWelsh 1527: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1511: 1507: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1471:PatrickJWelsh 1468: 1467: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1457:PatrickJWelsh 1454: 1451: 1448: 1444: 1439: 1436: 1433: 1430: 1427: 1426: 1424: 1421: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1392:PatrickJWelsh 1389: 1385: 1382: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1371:PatrickJWelsh 1368: 1367: 1366: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1351:PatrickJWelsh 1348: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1331: 1326: 1324: 1318: 1317: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1296: 1294: 1292: 1289: 1288: 1285: 1282: 1279: 1276: 1273: 1269: 1266: 1264: 1263: 1261: 1260: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1240:PatrickJWelsh 1237: 1236: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1220: 1216: 1213: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1194:PatrickJWelsh 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1172: 1169: 1166: 1163: 1160: 1157: 1154: 1151: 1148: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1136: 1133: 1130: 1127: 1124: 1121: 1118: 1115: 1112: 1109: 1106: 1103: 1100: 1097: 1094: 1091: 1090: 1088: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1071:PatrickJWelsh 1068: 1065: 1062: 1061: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1014: 1013:PatrickJWelsh 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1002: 998: 994: 990: 984: 983:PatrickJWelsh 972: 968: 964: 963:PatrickJWelsh 960: 959: 958: 954: 950: 946: 942: 938: 937: 936: 932: 928: 927:PatrickJWelsh 923: 921: 917: 913: 912:PatrickJWelsh 909: 905: 901: 898: 894: 890: 888: 884: 880: 879:PatrickJWelsh 876: 873: 869: 865: 862: 858: 854: 851: 847: 844: 841: 838: 835: 833: 832:Verifiability 830: 827: 825: 822: 820: 818: 815: 811: 808: 806: 803: 799: 797: 794: 791: 788: 784: 783: 782: 781: 777: 773: 766: 765:PatrickJWelsh 760: 758: 754: 746: 743: 740: 737: 734: 731: 728: 725: 722: 719: 716: 713: 710: 707: 704: 701: 698: 695: 692: 691: 687: 686: 685: 681: 680: 679:Verifiability 673: 672: 671: 670: 663: 659: 658: 657: 656: 650: 646: 642: 638: 637: 636: 635: 631: 629: 624: 620: 614: 613: 607: 605: 601: 596: 595: 593: 592: 590: 589: 587: 578: 574: 573: 572: 571: 568: 561: 557: 556:Copyvio Check 554: 553: 550: 546: 542: 541:PatrickJWelsh 538: 535: 534: 533: 532: 528: 524: 513: 507: 501: 495: 490: 487: 480: 475: 471: 470: 457: 455: 442: 440: 434: 433: 431: 430: 425: 415: 412: 411: 409: 405: 395: 392: 391: 389: 387: 382: 372: 361: 357: 356: 354: 350: 340: 338: 334: 321: 319: 306: 304: 291: 287: 286: 284: 283: 278: 274: 264: 262: 258: 254: 250: 246: 242: 229: 225: 224: 222: 218: 217: 216: 215: 210: 206: 199: 195: 192: 191: 187: 184: 181: 177: 174: 170: 167: 166: 162: 157: 153: 148: 147: 143: 138: 134: 130: 125: 124: 111: 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 95: 94: 89: 83: 80: 78: 75: 73: 70: 69: 67: 66: 61: 56: 45: 41: 37: 26: 19: 3361: 3293: 3289: 3272: 3240:WP:SYNTHESIS 3221:WP:SYNTHESIS 3218: 3197: 3193: 3172: 3168: 3161:inaccurate." 3157: 3153: 3146: 3142: 3135: 3131: 3117: 3106: 3092: 3053: 3051: 3023: 2878:WP:LONGQUOTE 2867: 2729: 2722:WP:IMPERFECT 2679: 2433: 2418: 2394: 2366: 2311: 2308: 2305: 2304: 2291: 2290: 2280: 2271: 2268: 2264: 2263: 2260:Christianity 2236:— Preceding 2233: 2223: 2214: 2211: 2207: 2206: 2179:— Preceding 2175: 2171: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2155: 2110: 2107: 2104: 2100: 2099: 2086: 2071: 2070: 2067: 2052: 2051: 2048: 2033: 2032: 2029: 2014: 2013: 2010: 2007: 1992: 1991: 1988: 1944: 1943: 1919: 1918: 1894: 1893: 1869: 1868: 1837: 1836: 1815: 1814: 1790: 1789: 1769: 1768: 1748: 1747: 1727: 1726: 1717: 1716: 1712: 1711: 1583: 1582: 1557: 1556: 1546: 1545: 1525: 1524: 1519:MOS:QUOTEPOV 1345:— Preceding 1342: 1338: 1334: 1327: 1319: 1315: 1314: 1290: 1265: 1262: 1258: 1257: 1206: 1176: 1141: 1085: 1058: 989:the one here 979: 849: 831: 824: 819: 804: 795: 761: 750: 682: 678: 677: 668: 667: 654: 653: 648: 644: 633: 632: 622: 615: 611: 610: 603: 599: 597: 594: 591: 586:MOS:SANDWICH 583: 582: 569: 566: 565: 555: 519: 478: 473: 472: 451: 436: 427: 413: 407: 393: 384: 370: 359: 352: 330: 315: 300: 290:(references) 289: 280: 276: 238: 227: 220: 182: 172: 171: 164: 160: 146:Article talk 145: 141: 122: 119: 110:Instructions 50: 3275:WP:CITETYPE 3033:philosophy. 2916:these edits 2870:peer review 2700:priorities. 2532:(6) Better? 2137:philosophy. 1431:statistics, 1032:WP:GAN/I#2O 521:worked on. 253:word choice 133:visual edit 3279:WP:PAGENUM 3198:in general 3143:Dictionary 2501:==Legacy== 1895:(as above) 1508:Influences 337:plagiarism 282:verifiable 77:Authorship 63:GA toolbox 3303:Regards, 3194:Of course 3178:Regards— 2942:blessing. 2706:Regards, 2526:(4) Sure. 1888:MOS:QUOTE 1809:MOS:QUOTE 1657:MOS:QUOTE 1644:MOS:QUOTE 1515:MOS:QUOTE 1455:Regards, 1222:Regards, 1177:Regards, 1028:Aristotle 892:article.) 805:Citations 662:this tool 634:Citations 623:potential 479:Pass/Fail 371:(focused) 173:Reviewer: 100:Templates 91:Reviewing 27:GA Review 3258:Cheers— 3246:further. 3169:external 3154:not only 2988:Cheers— 2982:article. 2945:Cheers— 2840:Cheers— 2749:Cheers, 2665:Cheers— 2507:(2) Yes. 2250:contribs 2238:unsigned 2230:Response 2193:contribs 2181:unsigned 2152:Response 1841:, part I 1359:contribs 1347:unsigned 1024:Socrates 910:Thanks! 877:Cheers, 871:Spirit). 867:editors. 186:contribs 105:Criteria 34:Passed. 3341:Phlsph7 3321:Fixed! 3173:applied 2969:Phlsph7 2920:Phlsph7 2882:Phlsph7 2868:At the 2769:Phlsph7 2341:" (per 2337:of the 2323:issues. 2321:WP:NPOV 903:issues. 813:easily. 640:issues. 577:MOS:ALT 474:Overall 333:copyvio 257:fiction 156:history 137:history 123:Article 3054:Done.' 2730:during 2301:Legacy 2162:fact. 1548:claim. 961:Done. 796:Images 619:WP:PRG 567:Images 429:images 408:stable 406:It is 388:policy 351:It is 275:It is 259:, and 249:layout 219:It is 200:review 1913:WP:OR 1817:mine. 1791:Done. 1770:Done. 1664:WP:OR 1558:Done. 907:page. 860:fact? 757:WP:OR 261:lists 203:(see 165:Watch 16:< 3349:talk 3327:talk 3309:talk 3277:and 3264:talk 3229:talk 3206:talk 3184:talk 3147:only 3077:talk 3062:talk 2994:talk 2973:talk 2951:talk 2924:talk 2906:talk 2886:talk 2876:and 2846:talk 2825:talk 2810:(or 2806:Per 2798:talk 2783:talk 2755:talk 2738:talk 2720:See 2712:talk 2687:talk 2671:talk 2652:talk 2631:talk 2625:OK. 2615:talk 2597:talk 2583:talk 2569:talk 2550:talk 2519:talk 2491:talk 2485:OK. 2462:talk 2456:OK. 2441:talk 2408:talk 2384:talk 2246:talk 2189:talk 2126:talk 2079:talk 2060:talk 2041:talk 2022:talk 2000:talk 1971:talk 1952:talk 1927:talk 1902:talk 1877:talk 1856:talk 1845:help 1824:talk 1798:talk 1777:talk 1756:talk 1735:talk 1614:talk 1606:talk 1591:talk 1565:talk 1533:talk 1526:Done 1490:talk 1475:talk 1461:talk 1411:talk 1396:talk 1375:talk 1355:talk 1304:talk 1254:Life 1244:talk 1228:talk 1198:talk 1183:talk 1075:talk 1049:in!) 1040:talk 1026:and 1001:talk 967:talk 953:talk 943:and 931:talk 916:talk 883:talk 785:Hi @ 776:talk 753:WP:V 602:and 545:talk 527:talk 335:and 279:and 245:lead 243:for 209:here 205:here 180:talk 152:edit 129:edit 40:talk 3281:. 1577:GA. 801:me. 241:MoS 3351:) 3329:) 3311:) 3266:) 3231:) 3208:) 3186:) 3079:) 3064:) 2996:) 2975:) 2953:) 2926:) 2908:) 2900:? 2888:) 2880:. 2848:) 2827:) 2800:) 2785:) 2757:) 2740:) 2714:) 2689:) 2673:) 2654:) 2633:) 2617:) 2599:) 2585:) 2571:) 2552:) 2493:) 2464:) 2443:) 2410:) 2386:) 2345:)? 2296:?) 2252:) 2248:• 2195:) 2191:• 2128:) 2081:) 2062:) 2043:) 2024:) 2002:) 1973:) 1954:) 1929:) 1904:) 1879:) 1858:) 1826:) 1800:) 1779:) 1758:) 1737:) 1616:) 1593:) 1567:) 1535:) 1517:/ 1492:) 1477:) 1463:) 1413:) 1398:) 1377:) 1361:) 1357:• 1306:) 1246:) 1230:) 1200:) 1185:) 1077:) 1042:) 1003:) 969:) 955:) 933:) 918:) 885:) 778:) 647:, 547:) 529:) 509:· 503:· 497:· 481:: 458:: 450:b 443:: 435:a 416:: 410:. 396:: 390:. 373:: 369:b 362:: 358:a 355:. 341:: 329:d 322:: 318:OR 314:c 307:: 299:b 292:: 288:a 285:. 265:: 255:, 251:, 247:, 237:b 230:: 226:a 223:. 198:GA 188:) 154:| 135:| 131:| 42:) 3347:( 3325:( 3307:( 3262:( 3242:. 3227:( 3204:( 3182:( 3075:( 3060:( 2992:( 2971:( 2949:( 2922:( 2904:( 2896:@ 2884:( 2844:( 2823:( 2796:( 2781:( 2763:@ 2753:( 2736:( 2710:( 2685:( 2669:( 2650:( 2629:( 2613:( 2595:( 2581:( 2567:( 2548:( 2521:) 2517:( 2489:( 2460:( 2439:( 2406:( 2382:( 2362:) 2326:" 2244:( 2187:( 2124:( 2077:( 2058:( 2039:( 2020:( 1998:( 1969:( 1950:( 1925:( 1900:( 1890:? 1875:( 1854:( 1847:) 1822:( 1811:? 1796:( 1775:( 1754:( 1733:( 1659:? 1646:? 1620:_ 1612:( 1604:( 1589:( 1563:( 1531:( 1521:) 1488:( 1473:( 1459:( 1409:( 1394:( 1373:( 1353:( 1321:@ 1302:( 1242:( 1226:( 1196:( 1181:( 1073:( 1038:( 1015:: 1011:@ 999:( 985:: 981:@ 965:( 951:( 929:( 914:( 881:( 789:, 774:( 767:: 763:@ 617:( 579:. 543:( 525:( 476:: 456:) 441:) 339:) 331:( 320:) 316:( 305:) 263:) 239:( 183:· 178:( 161:· 158:) 150:( 142:· 139:) 127:( 38:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index