89.110.10.202

Welcome to Wikiquote, the free compendium of quotations! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikiquote, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires you to provide no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

• The use of a username of your choice
• The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link.
• Your own user page
• Your own talk page which, if you choose, also allows users to send you messages without knowing your e-mail address
• The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you
• The ability to rename pages
• The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website
• The eligibility to become an administrator
• The right to be heard in formal votes and elections, and on pages like votes for deletion

Please also see What Wikiquote is not for common activities that Wikiquote does not support.

Click here to create an account.

I have reverted your efforts to promote a VERY narrow, and extremely obtuse definition into the article for Understanding which you have been editing. I would have done so a bit more carefully, had I not been somewhat confused myself with some bouts of outright vandalism which were also going on here, at that time, but I stand firm in an assertion that your attempt to radically narrow the definition of understanding to your apparently rather shallow understanding of Hegel is NOT appropriate. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

In reverting your radical change to an introductory definition which had been similar to the one currently found on Wikipedia, I also removed the quote you added:

• In the history that Franklin writes, knowledge and understanding are complementary: One without the other is incomplete. His contribution has been to make history a field of wisdom, devoid of the cult of fictitious glorification of a whole society or the cant of quantitative reductionism that analyzes parts out of context.

• Charles Vert Willie, Five Black Scholars: An Analysis of Family Life, Education, and Career, Abt Books, 1986, p. 13

I initially did this because I could not find it in any online resources, and it seemed that it might be illegitimate, and I wrongly associated it with other false information which was being inserted into articles around that time. I recognize it might perhaps be something slightly misquoted, or not available at all through online resources, because I see that there are similar phrasings found in another work by this author Race, Ethnicity, and Socioeconomic Status: A Theoretical Analysis of Their Interrelationship, though none yet found which matches entirely the quote you have provided. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

What you are calling "gobbledegook" in your edit sommary, is based upon an introduction which, though hardly perfect, is one derived from those which have existed here and at Wikipedia for quite some time. Your attempt to define the term VERY narrowly is, in terms of specific interpretations of Hegelian concepts, without more general considerations is not appropriate. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I have temporarily protected the page from anon IP edits for a couple hours, to permit further reflection on your part, and mine, and others, upon some of the drastic alterations you seem intent on making to the article. You now seem to be also removing quotations which might not accord with your particular levels of understanding. I could agree that the first removals of a couple long passages with relatively little relevance might be appropriate, but the quotes you had more recently removed seemed clearly and directly focused on the subject of forms of understanding. I have a few other things I must attend to here and elsewhere soon, but I will probably attend to this page a bit more soon. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)