Talk:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Hegel's racism

So his racism is well documented, why is there nothing about it in the article? --LH7605 (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The academic article you cited concedes his racism wasn't unique in historical context ("The source of his racism can be traced to the general ideology of the nineteenth century") and that passages from his works are "rather ambivalent" about race when viewed in isolation (only revealing themselves as racist when studied holistically). That said, if someone feels confident making a case that his racism was contextually unique and/or has a particular & fundamental bearing on his philosophy, I'd say go for it. Deadseaweed (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

If someone wants to add this to the Legacy section, I would recommend chapter 4 of Allegra de Laurentiis's 2021 Hegel's Anthropology as a strong contender for the most scholarly and objective treatment of the issue in that text. That said, however, think the only real reason to include this would be to push back against hyperbolic claims sometimes leveled against Hegel by scholars in other fields. (The only people who actually read Hegel's Anthropology are serious enough not to be taken in.)

If such a subsection could also be extended to treat Hegel's East-to-West historical narratives, esp. in the Phi World History, but also Phi Art and Phi Religion, that would make it much more valuable. This aspect of Hegel's work is problematic in a way that I think might have philosophical implications that his (at least seemingly) one-off racist comments in the Anthropology probably do not. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

My earlier dismissal of racist claims in the Anthropology as "one-off" now reads to me as embarrassingly glib. There is a middle ground between giving Hegel a total pass and passing categorical judgment upon him by today's standards. I will try to put together a short section on this.

With respect to the integrity and success of his philosophical enterprise, however, I continue to believe that the racist/imperialist, East-to-West structure common to his Berlin lectures is more significant than his more generalized racist attitudes – which, although he (like Kant, in his lectures on anthropology) was in a position to overcome, failed to do so – that were entirely typical of his time.

I do not know this part of his philosophy very well, however, and do not have secondary sources immediately at hand. Anyone with recommendations of good sources on racism/imperialism in Hegel's philosophical histories, if you do not wish to simply edit directly, please do offer your suggestions here.

Thanks— PatrickJWelsh (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Notes, Citations, References

Could anyone provide any illumination as to what would be best practices for these sections of the article? I looked briefly through Wikipedia guidelines, but they appear to be flexible from one article to the next—provided only internal consistency.

I believe that, mostly through the information provided under the Citations heading, readers will be able to find the sources cited—which is, of course, that most important thing.

Nevertheless, this part of the article is a big, ugly mess.

Is there not some way to enter references so as to auto-generate a proper Works Cited section?

Also, none of the works listed as Primary Sources under References are primary sources on Hegel. If there is to be such a list, it should contain references to the editions of Hegel cited in the article and, possibly, also to Kant, Fichte, etc.; Karl Popper, e.g., is a (decidedly third-rate) secondary source on Hegel. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I added references to the best English editions of Hegel's major works and moved the non-primary sources into the secondary sources category. Even though most of the Hegel texts are not cited directly in the article (per bonkers Wikipedia on "original research"), they are referred to throughout and so it makes sense to include the bibliographic information in the article.

Primary sources could be divided into Hegel and non-Hegel categories, but right now the only non-Hegel entry would be the First Critique, so I just listed it as secondary. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hegel's Christianity

After weighing multiple options without finding anything satisfactory, I realize that Hegel’s Christianity requires its own top-level section following "Philosophical System."

I am reluctant to do this because I fear editing wars, but Christianity was important to Hegel throughout his entire intellectual life. It appears frequently even in parts of his philosophy not that do not directly concern religion (and so it cannot be relegated to a separate page on his LPR).

As I draft this section, I am doing my very best to acknowledge controversy while maintaining a neutral point of view.

I do believe, however, that there should also be a separate section on Hegel’s interpretation of Christianity in the Controversies section (or the equivalent in this section)—for this dispute is very much a part of Hegel's ongoing historical legacy. To this day, well-credentialed experts have strongly held positions in direct contraction with one another. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

First draft of the new section is now up. It was hard to write, and I am sure I will return to make further improvements.

Rather than sit with it, however, it seemed best to put it out for public consideration. (Also: I want to move on to other things...)

However much revision it might require, however, I believe that the heading structure (at least) will benefit the article going forward.

As to the earlier section that I deleted, a few remarks:

--I do not know Jon Bartley Stewart's work, but he does appear to be a credible authority. The quote, however, would require several paragraphs of explication to be made intelligible to anyone who does not already know Hegel's logic and phi religion. I think what I wrote about the Trinity captures most of what this was intended to express. I would, however, welcome the re-addition (in more readily comprehensible prose) of anything that I missed.

--Kaufmann's position here flies in the face of all available biographical and textual evidence as to Hegel's religious identification. K. is projecting his own atheism onto his subject. (I am, for the record, also an atheist not infrequently embarrassed at having to explain Hegel's theological language. No axe to grind on this. But just look at the evidence with any semblance of impartiality.)

--The content of the Pinkard reference is captured by one of my Hodgson references, which was almost certainly one of Pinkard's sources, and which will provide any reader who follows it with a more detailed and substantial discussion. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Hegel's philosophy of art

Okay, I have just added a top-level section on this. (The difficulty I had deciding whether or not to put it instead in Philosophical System is reflective of the sometimes awkward place of the philosophy of art in Hegel's own presentation.) It needs to be fleshed out and probably divided into subsections, but it is a start.

Structurally, I believe that the article is now complete. It could be arranged differently than it is, of course, but I believe that any additional top-level headers on this arrangement scheme would mostly likely be going too much into the scholarly weeds. I hope that more experienced editors speak up about what needs to be clarified or expanded to meet the Good Article criteria. Cheers– PatrickJWelsh (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Archiving and cleaning up Talk page

I archived this Talk page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel/Archive_4 and then deleted topics that appear to be resolved. (I also accidentally created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel/Archive_4, which I cannot figure out how to delete. Help?)

If anything appears to have been inappropriately removed, please do restore. This page was just getting very long, and much of it was effectively just me justifying and talking myself through recent revisions. Anyone who wishes to discuss any of those, however, may also (as they prefer) just start a fresh thread here. I will be monitoring the page in at least the near future and am very happy to discuss ideas for further improvements. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

"Good Article" aspirations

The Wikipedia article ranking criteria are quite new to me. It would be great, however, if we could get this article up to "Good Article" status.

These are the criteria: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria.

Here is a list of current Good Philosophy Articles, which might be useful as models: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Philosophy/Good_articles.

There is also an open request for peer review of this article. I have no experience with this process, but it looks like input from this process will appear on a separate page, which you can access from the link at the top of this Talk page. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and put in the request. The article seems to meet the criteria now, and I still have some additional improvements I intend to make. (Apparently it sometimes takes months to pick up a reviewer...) PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 11:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

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 worked on. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

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.

(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 Wikipedia.) PatrickJWelsh (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Copyvio Check - I reviewed the several matches found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector and had no concerns. The large-percentage matches are mainly titles and attributed quotations.

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

• Alt text could be added to improve Accessibility. See MOS:ALT.

*Although the page displays OK on my screen, be mindful of MOS:SANDWICH. Perhaps some of the images could be moved.

• Most of the images seem relevant and to have appropriate captions. I'm not sure that the Trees, Priestess of Delphi and Sermon on the Mount images are very relevant, though.

General comment

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. (WP:PRG says "[Peer review] may be used for potential 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 appropriate Wikiprojects. Please do not spam many users or projects with identical requests." Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy might be one place you could invite editors to contribute to the peer review.

Citations

• 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 issues.
• Ten of the primary sources are not actually used as references (or possibly have broken links to them), e.g. Hegel's Philosophy of Nature, Early Theological Writings

Further reading

• Not a blocker to being a GA, but these works are presented inconsistently, e.g. some with ISBNs but others not. (You could use this tool to standardise ISBN format, but again that's not a requirement for GA.

Lead and infobox

• 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.

Verifiability

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.

• "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."

• "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."
• "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."
• "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."
• "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.)"
• "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."
• "what is perhaps his most famous passage"
• " It is back to Hegel that Wandschneider would direct philosophers of science for guidance in the philosophy of nature."
• "It is, in other words, (at least predominantly, dialectically) an account of what Isaiah Berlin would later term positive liberty."
• "Or, put differently, it is an account of the institutionalization of freedom."
• "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."
• "The community of spirit does not become adequate to its free self-concept in the world without impersonal sacrifice of individuals."
• "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."
• "Or, rather, what hierarchy there is, is philosophically systematic, not evaluative."
• "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."
• "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 [bei sich sein] ourselves – in the pure universality of logical thought. Hence, according to Hegel, the ongoing need for art as a mode of absolute spirit."
• "Although he did not return to this Romantic formulation, the unification of Athens and Jerusalem would remain a preoccupation throughout his life."
• "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."
• "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."
• "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."

(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 (WP:V) and "no original research" (WP:OR) 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.

@PatrickJWelsh: 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, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @BennyOnTheLoose,

Thanks for these comments. Here a few immediate impressions:

Images

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 me.

Citations

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?

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 Wikipedia so discourages the use of primary sources. Readers, however, should be able to find them easily.

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

Lead and infobox

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

Verifiability

Here we might, indeed, have problems.

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

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

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

"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.”

I do not think that anyone mentions this ms without acknowledging the disputed authorship. That is not a claim that, per Wikipedia 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 discussion. For, although not controversial, it is a substantive claim inviting further inquiry.

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 fact?

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

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 editors.

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 Spirit).

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

Cheers, PatrickJWelsh (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

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 article.)

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 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 Wikipedia edits.)

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

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 issues.

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 page.

Thanks! PatrickJWelsh (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

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 Low-importance. Not sure how these things work, but someone might want to change this—just for general Wikipedia hygiene. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest dropping notes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion about this. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@PatrickJWelsh: I'm pretty sure that the script showing me the broken citations is the one here. You can see Wikipedia:User scripts/List for instructions about how to install user scripts. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@PatrickJWelsh: 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 first GA nomination 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 Socrates and Aristotle, which are both good articles, and I don't see any uncited text there that "restate[s] 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 WP:GAN/I#2O). 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, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

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 in!)

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 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.

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: Science of Logic. Based on just a cursory reading, I believe the article is accurate [up to the point at which it just stops, that is], but it is nevertheless completely, unintelligibly, useless.)

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

Cheers, and thanks again– PatrickJWelsh (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

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 completely) before I can meaningfully continue with the review.

1. FN13 Luther 2009, pp. 65–66.
2. FN19 Hoffmeister 1974
3. FN31 Siep 2014, p. xxi.
4. FN32 Kaufmann 1965.
5. FN46 Hegel 2010, p. 29
6. FN79 Hegel 2010.
7. FN84 Dien Winfeild 2011
8. FN85 de Laurenttiis 2021.
9. FN89 Magee 2010, pp. 179–84.
10. FN108 Dien Winfield 1995, p. 9,
11. FN123 Hegel 1991, p. 22.
12. FN128 Löwith 1964.
13. FN137 Berlin 2001.
14. FN138 Chalybäus 1846, p. 367.
15. FN140 Mueller 1996, p. 301.
16. (In note L) Houlgate 2007, pp. xxii–xxvi

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).

1. Berlin, Isaiah (2003). Freedom and Betrayal: Six Enemies of Human Liberty.
2. Brandom, Robert B. (2019). A Spirit of Trust: A Reading of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit.
3. Chalybäus, Heinrich Moritz (1848). Historische Entwicklung der spekulativen Philosophie von Kant bis Hegel.
4. Dein Winfeild, Richard (2011). "Hegel's Solution to the Mind-Body Problem"
5. Dein Winfeild, Richard (1995). Systematic Aesthetics
6. Houlgate, Stephen (2005). An Introduction to Hegel. Freedom, Truth and History
7. Popper, Karl (2011). The Open Society And Its Enemies.
8. Robinson, Paul (1990). The Freudian Left: Wilhelm Reich, Geza Roheim, Herbert Marcuse.
9. Siep, Ludwig (2021). Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit
10. Wells, John C. (2008). Longman Pronunciation Dictionary

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the full lists! I believe they have all been addressed. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes those are sorted. A couple of new ones:

1. FN33 Siep, p. xxii. (year of publication is missing)
2. FN83 de Laurenttiis 2021.
3. FN106 Dein Winfield 1995

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Fixed those—and my apologies for the typos. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Life

*The section is heavily reliant on a single source, Pinkard's biography. However, that’s a reliable source.

• "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).
• 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 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.)
• "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"
• "With his finances drying up quickly … city of Jena" needs citation(s) IMO.
• "Terry Pinkard notes" – add a couple of words of intro, e.g. "Hegel’s biographer Terry Pinkard" or "Scholar Terry Pinkard"
• "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.
• "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.
• "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.)
• "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.
  • Part now cited; part removed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

*(Note: Last two paras of Heidelberg, Berlin (1816–1831) not yet reviewed)

@BennyOnTheLoose, 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.

With respect to some of your requested citations, however, might I direct your attention to section 2 of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_the_Good_article_criteria_are_not? 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.

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

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.

Best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickJWelsh (talk • contribs) 14:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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). PatrickJWelsh (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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 precise citations, which I would be loath to do?)

I can also confirm Siep does verify that claim. It's a weird source for that fact, but it's perfectly scholarly. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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 be producing a longer list which we will respectfully disagree on.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

1. direct quotations,
2. statistics,
3. published opinion,
4. counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and
5. contentious material relating to living persons.

"This standard is higher than the absolute minimum standard set by policy, but noticeably lower than many editors' personal preferences."

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

Regards, PatrickJWelsh (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

(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.) PatrickJWelsh (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Influences

1. I'd mention Harris in the text as the sources for the quotes. (I think this is in the spirit of MOS:QUOTE / MOS:QUOTEPOV)

Done PatrickJWelsh (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

1. "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.

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 claim.

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

Done. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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 GA.

Good to know. (If you're asking for an edit here, could you restate?) PatrickJWelsh (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

My intention is to number items for action or discussion, and bulletpoint comments "for the record". Thanks for your prompt attention. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 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. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)_

Philosophical system

1. Are there some useful wikilinks that could be added to "the science of logic, the philosophy of nature, and the philosophy of spirit"?
2. "The Phenomenology of Spirit is infamously dense." - needs a secondary source IMO.
3. "most comprehensive commentary" - needs a secondary source IMO.
4. I'd mention Wandschneider inline for the quote at the start of the Logic subsection.
5. Can the quotation from Longuenesse be summarised per MOS:QUOTE?
6. "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".
7. "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.
8. Can the quotation from Longuenesse be summarised per MOS:QUOTE?
9. "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 WP:OR. From what little I remember from studying philosophy, commentators can have quite divergent opinions about how to interpret texts.

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

1. "the Philosophy of Nature and of Spirit – is an ongoing historical project." - I haven't referred to Hegel 1991a - is this supported there?

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

1. "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?
2. "reminds us of what all the English translators forget," - needs a secondary source IMO.
3. "(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.
4. "As is especially evident in the Anthropology," - would be useful to have a few words to introduce what "the Anthropology" is

response to requested revisions of Phi System

(New section here to avoid an editing conflict.)

Philosophical system

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

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. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

1. "The Phenomenology of Spirit is infamously dense." - needs a secondary source IMO.

Basically every commentary/companion opens with some such statement. I supplied one rather arbitrarily from a Pippin essay. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

1. "most comprehensive commentary" - needs a secondary source IMO.

Done. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Done. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

1. Can the quotation from Longuenesse be summarised per MOS:QUOTE?

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 mine. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

1. "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".

Houlgate 2006, part I is the source. He uses this language ad nauseam. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

1. "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.

I've clarified with parentheticals that these are titles of the books/volumes of the SL. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

1. Can the quotation from Longuenesse be summarised per MOS:QUOTE?

(as above) PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

1. "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 WP:OR. From what little I remember from studying philosophy, commentators can have quite divergent opinions about how to interpret texts.

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. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Glad you agree. I don't love it either, but the book is insanely difficult to summarize in a non-controversial way. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Those responses seem suitable, thanks. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

more response

"the Philosophy of Nature and of Spirit – is an ongoing historical project." - I haven't referred to Hegel 1991a - is this supported there?

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. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

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

"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?

I will check shortly and add another citation if necessary. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

"reminds us of what all the English translators forget," - needs a secondary source IMO.

She says this directly in the article. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

"(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.

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. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

"As is especially evident in the Anthropology," - would be useful to have a few words to introduce what "the Anthropology" is

There is one directly below. This clause could also just be deleted if confusing. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Philosophical system cont.

1. "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.

#"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.

1. "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"?
2. "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.

• Now has a citation. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

1. 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.

• 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 different ideas.

Response

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

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 fact.

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 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.

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

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

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 interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickJWelsh (talk • contribs) 22:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Philosophy of Art

#"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.

1. "Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik" - I suggest adding a translation in parentheses.
2. "sober-minded commentator" - remove "sober-minded"; or, maybe replace with the name of the commentator?
3. "(Werke, XI 151/[LFA] 111)" - is there a reason to keep this in the text rather than as a citation.

Response

All complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickJWelsh (talk • contribs) 22:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Christianity

#"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.

1. Note O: " the corresponding section of Harris 1997 " - is the section in Harris "Christianity in The Phenomenology of Spirit", or something else?
2. 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"
3. Note R: "in useful detail" should be removed or rephrased IMO.

Dialectics, speculation, idealism

#Is there a suitable wikilink for "mentalistic idealism"? (Subjective idealism?)

Legacy

1. "Some historians present of Hegel's influence" - looks like a stray "of"
2. Are all the direct quotes from "The Right Hegelians, in any case ... though the Marxist tradition" from Rockmore 2013 p.305?
3. Note v: "The literature on this is enormous. Marcuse 1999, however, is one classic introductory text." - reword to avoid WP:NPOV issues.
4. "Frankfurt School critical theorists" - can this be reworded to "critical theorists of the Frankfurt School" (per MOS:SEAOFBLUE)?
5. "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.
6. I can't think of a reasonable alternative formulation of "Italian Fascist Giovanni Gentile" - but if there is one, then re-word (MOS:SEAOFBLUE)
7. "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."
8. "For these reasons it is best to avoid this terminology." - needs a source IMO.

• • No longer in the text. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
• 9. "Against this, Beiser repeatedly stresses the Aristotelian character of Hegel's metaphysical commitments." - needs a source IMO.
• 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.
  • Amended, OK. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
• 11. "What remains in dispute, however, is how to properly characterize Hegel's (avowedly post-Kantian) metaphysical commitments." - needs a source IMO.

Publications and other writings

• Looks fine - the single source is reliable.

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 another read through later to see if I can add anything else in that respect. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

==Christianity==

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.

OK. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Otherwise, done.

==Dialectics, speculation, idealism==

(1) Subjective idealism is very close, but the Wiki page explicitly distinguishes it from absolute idealism (Subjective_idealism#Overview). I tried a few other search terms, but I'm not finding anything that fits.

OK. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

==Legacy==

(1) Cannot believe I missed that! Thanks.

(2) Yes.

(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.

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

(4) Sure.

(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.

(6) Better?

(7) All right.

(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.

(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.

OK - I'll accept this. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

(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.

I still think "the most prominent non-metaphysical interpreter" needs a citation; that would be better than removing it, which is another option. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure. I replaced the text with a quote from Houlgate's critical discussion of Pippin's interpretation. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

That's good - just need to fix the link which is currently to "Houlgate 2005". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

(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. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

OK. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Probably safer to leave it, there's nothing realy jarring to me. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

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.

Cheers— PatrickJWelsh (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

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, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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 priorities.

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

Regards, PatrickJWelsh (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

See WP:IMPERFECT ... "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Good article reassessment process which is sometimes invoked. However, whilst there are changes during the review, I need to look at the latest version. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Cheers, PatrickJWelsh (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose, as I have not heard from you in a few days, I am continuing to make improvements along the lines suggested by @Phlsph7. I will, however, refrain from adding new sections or initiating major rewrites on my own.

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.

Hope all's well— PatrickJWelsh (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

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 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. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (or WP:BRITANNICA 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 available." However, given that the Hegel entry was written by Thomas Malcolm Knox, I have no concerns about it being used as a source for the Hegel article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

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.)

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 have to wait to do that last anyway.

Cheers— PatrickJWelsh (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Long sentences and many long quotations

At the peer review, 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 MOS:QUOTATIONS and WP:LONGQUOTE. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

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, @BennyOnTheLoose? PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I've tried to eliminate a few longer quotations in these edits. Could someone check whether these reformulations and paraphrases are acceptable? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, those are good. Thanks.

I've eliminated a few more blockquotes besides.

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

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 blessing.

Cheers— PatrickJWelsh (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

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 article.

Thanks again for all your attention to this page!

Cheers— PatrickJWelsh (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Another look - 21 September

• 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.
• The newer images seem OK.

Text that I still think should have citations:

• 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.
• 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.
• Yet, it is now widely agreed that explaining Hegel's philosophy in terms of thesis–antithesis–synthesis is inaccurate.
  • I still think this sentence needs a source. According to the Stanford article on Hegel's Dialectics, "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.
• Against this, Beiser repeatedly stresses the Aristotelian character of Hegel's metaphysical commitments.

Done.' Please see descriptions in edit history for details.Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks - there is just one of the above that I think is not fully covered by your changes. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  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.

  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:

  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 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.

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

  Here is Foster (1993), p. 131:

  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, 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.

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

  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 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."

  (He goes on a bit, but does not mention thesis, antithesis, or synthesis again.)

  And Fritzman (2014) p.3:

  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 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.

  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.

  Michael Inwood, in his Dictionary points out that while Hegel does tend to work in triads, the t-a-s language appears only in a very limited context in which he is discussing Kant's use of those terms (pp.297-98).

  All of this to argue that — If, not only the best examples of this interpretation that Maybee can find, but even Maybee herself, 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 inaccurate."

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

  (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 external method being applied 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.)

  Regards— Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, and Foster's rebuttal of Kaufmann misses the mark. Of course Hegel does not deride these specific terms. It is against such external conceptions of method in general that Hegel polemicizes in the PhS Preface. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply. My concern is around WP:SYNTHESIS (!) - 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, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Delightful that this section should be in violation of WP:SYNTHESIS.

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 further.

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."

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

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

Cheers— Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

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

• 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.
• de Laurentiis, Allegra (2005b). Subjects in the Ancient and Modern World; and Kelley, Donald R. (2017). The Descent of Ideas: The History of Intellectual History are listed as secondary sources but aren't used to support the article. Optionally, they could be moved to "Further Reading"

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Fixed! Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm now satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so I'm passing it. Thanks for all your efforts on the article, Patrick J. Welsh. Thanks also Phlsph7 for ypur valuable contributions. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further reading

Per suggestion of GA review editor, I have standardized the format of these and edited the list to (i) be more reflective of sources relied upon in the article and (ii) to exclude outdated references or those not likely to be useful to an introductory audience. I have, however, retained reference to some good volumes not currently used as references in this article. (For if these are not allowed, there truly is no justification for this section to exist.)

My own view, for what it is worth, is that we should simply delete this section entirely. Any list will be arbitrary and contentious. Just look at the Chitty bibliography linked at the bottom <https://users.sussex.ac.uk/~sefd0/bib/hegel.htm>. (And there's some good stuff he has so far missed!) Plus, does anyone actually rely on this for reading suggestions?

By all means, however, do restore your favorite author if I have axed your favorite Hegel source. Just please keep the format consistent. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I am deleting this section. Per WP:Further_reading, it is optional and "many good articles, and more than half of all featured articles, omit it. As of 2016, this section was present in fewer than 3 percent of Wikipedia's articles."

My primary reasons are first, as stated above, every possible list will be contentious, and, second, stuff that clearly does not belong will be added so long as there is such a list. I have been intermittently checking in on this page for several years now, and I can attest that really bizarre stuff shows up that is in no way useful to the general reader. So let's just sidestep altogether pointless debates about what does and does not merit inclusion.

Anyone who wants to find an introductory volume on Hegel's philosophy would be better served by searching Amazon and perusing user reviews (or other such equivalent procedure).

(The External links, by contrast, I think are useful and should continue to be curated and maintained.) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Technical notes on Hegel's terminology and method

(Edit: renamed section "Dialectics, Speculation, Idealism") — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickJWelsh (talk • contribs) 16:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

This to the attention of @BennyOnTheLoose, in particular:

Providing an account of Hegel’s positions on major issues, I have made every effort to avoid his technical vocabulary. For, too often (in past versions of this article and elsewhere), once introduced, definitions of technical terms tend to overshadow the content of Hegel’s actual philosophical contributions.

However – with respect, not just to GA criteria pertaining to appropriately "broad coverage," but also to reasons for which ordinary readers might find themselves at this page – I do acknowledge that something ought to be said about Hegel’s core technical terminology. (Hence my introduction of this edit in the middle of a GA-article review. All my apologies for any inconvenience it may cause.)

The article should say something, for instance, about "Hegel’s dialectic”—even if it is less of a real thing than is claimed by many secondary (or tertiary) sources. For there are definitely plenty of people who arrive at this page for clarification of just such (sometimes altogether phony) methodological/terminological issues.

This section could go on forever. (There are three book-length, English-language dictionaries on Hegel’s technical vocabulary – two of which are frequently cited in the article – that anyone with a serious interest might consult.) We do not want, however, for there to be a section just listing and defining all of Hegel's technical vocabulary.

Yet, if I have omitted anything that seems essential, please do, yourself, emend or else call to my attention.

I have had a hard time deciding how best to include this information (or I would have done so earlier). Please share if you have suggestions for anything more felicitous—or any other kind of suggestion for improvement.

Cheers– PatrickJWelsh (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)