This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy: Epistemology / Continental Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Epistemology Continental philosophy This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Regarding the proposal for deletion, I am a bit perplexed. The topic is an important one regarding an important aspect of Romanticism, and in particular the role of the main English thinker/philosopher behind the Romantic movement. There are various citations from third sources, as well as from Coleridge himself and his works, the focus of the topic, but an article of this nature also is complex and cannot be easily packaged. All topics involving certain ideas require a different approach from issues that are more straight forward. There are many other lengthy articles on Wikipedia involving ideas and concepts. Could you provide some guidance as to what the difference is between an 'article' and an 'essay"?Rudi (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)rudi[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Romantic epistemology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uottawa.ca/~phoenix/imagin.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130529062717/http://kirjasto.sci.fi/coleridg.htm to http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/coleridg.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130727224633/http://www.catherinemwallace.com/Home/coleridge/coleridges-theory-of-language to http://www.catherinemwallace.com/Home/coleridge/coleridges-theory-of-language

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To the author of this article,

Hello and thank you. This is an interesting and often abstruse topic, and I commend you for tackling it so thoroughly.

I have a few brief suggestions that I think would make the article more readable:

1) Give the reader a sense of how the different elements of Coleridge's thought hang together. As there are many such elements - eg. Imagination, Nous, Reason - it was very easy to get bogged down in the dense discussion of each one. I suggest tightening up the individual explanations of each of these terms, so that rather than each being an end or mini essay in itself, it is part of a clear bigger picture of Coleridge's method or schema. As a reader I often felt lost in the weeds of what is obviously a complex topic.

2) Provide very frequent citations. While there is an admirable number of quotes and references scattered around this long article, there are many long explanations of terms where no reference is provided. I am interested in doing my own reading on this topic, but I often didn't know which of your sources (listed at the end) you were drawing from for each lengthy explanation, whether primary, secondary, or your own take. It's unclear to me how wide is the body of Coleridge's writings on these topics, something that would be very good to know at the outset. Again, knowing from which secondary or primary source you're drawing from in explaining each key concept would be helpful for my own reading.

That's it! Thank you again for your article. Good job and I hope you continue to hone your Wikipedia skills to be the superstar philosophy writer you obviously are.

135.23.185.188 (talk) 07:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Josh[reply]

This article has rather confusingly labeled and repetitive, overlapping sections and is not understandable to the average reader. 149.125.101.170 (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hume is presented as an Idealist and an anti-materialist in this article. In his life he was best defined as a skeptical materialist, far from and idealist. I believe Kant should be substituted for Hume throughout this article. 71.90.221.2 (talk) 11:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]