Talk:being-for-others
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
12-year-old contribution of Hazel Barnes's translation of Sartre's definitions. Are these "definitions" used anywhere besides in Sartre's works and commentaries thereon? DCDuring (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- RFV failed. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Weird. Not very clear. Sense 3 is not a definition. Equinox ◑ 16:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- See also being-for-itself by the same editor. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Reference suggests contributor is just reading Hegel. Do we have the sense Hegel uses of (deprecated template usage) being? DCDuring TALK 18:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)