Jump to content

Talk:Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeGottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 24, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 11, 2004, November 11, 2005, November 11, 2008, November 11, 2009, and November 11, 2013.

A Dream of Socrates

[edit]

I would like to write some extra information but to enquire opinions from the fixtures of Wikipedia before the admixture.

I have a Finnish chapter called Antiikin Kulttuuri Historia (the Culture History of Antiquity, 1980) where some intriguing claims concerning Leibniz: the text can be translated something like this:

"Instead Leibniz whose recreations reached abroad (inter alia for the linguistics), was orienteted himself onto Antiquity, likewise of Greek.

The exatc sciences were already waived of for the uncritical faith regarding the mathematicians and natural scientists. Therefore Descartes plus Newton hardly utilized the sources of the Antiquity for their opusses.

Leibniz is apparently the last significant (quantum) scientist, who regarded lean himself on directly to the tradition of the Antiquity."

After the Beginning of Infinity by David Deutchs, Wikipedia should introduce these knowledge, after the commentary, critique plus improvements... Kartasto (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Music

[edit]

Is music really a "main interest" when it is mentioned only twice in the page? 77.201.32.164 (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Sinophology”?

[edit]

This word appears to be ill-formed; it is not explained in the corresponding section, neither does internet search yield any independent results for this word. Should this rather read “sinophilology” or “sinophily”? (I suspect the latter.) — M. L. Juhos 132.231.141.109 (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]