Talk:Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz/Archive 3

The question of nationality
I endeavour here what I hope will be reflected in many other similar articles on the (English) Wikipedia. This article (on Gottfried Leibniz) has (had) a section under the first image titled "Nationality", and this is (was) stated to be German. That is misleading, and not correct.

By a nationality of German, we mean one has citizenship of Germany. By Germany, we refer to the Bundesrepublik Deutschland, a presently existing political entity in the heart of Europe. This State only came into existence in the 1940s, and hence Leibniz couldn't possibly even have heard of it, much less belong to it. Was he German - of course! Was Vivaldi Italian? Yes! (in everyday speech anyway) But to ascribe to them a false nationality based on today's geo-political situation is wrong.

Similarly Kant was German, but he may not be described as a German national. He was born and died in a city that is part of present day Russia.

Apart from the issue of factual accuracy, i.e. ascribing to someone the nationality of a state which did not even exist in their lifetime, (which some might consider as pedantry, but one might think that pedantry is not out of place in a repository of knowledge) there are a few other things to consider:

1. What of those who change citizenships? Shall we call Nietzsche a Swiss philologist because he held a Swiss passport?

2. Multiple citizenships? Can Winston Churchill be described as an American politician?

3. What of those who have no citizenship? Occasionally, renouncers of society have exerted tremendous influence on mankind.

4. Does formal citizenship - possession of a passport, or entitlement to one - really matter when one considers certain human beings? (or even all human beings, states being virtual entities that few people join by choice)

It makes sense to list the nationality of Bill Clinton as American (or US), of Samuel Johnson as English, of Saddam Hussein as Iraqi and of Angela Merkel as German - for these people are deeply identified with their respective states. But we may not list the nationality of the Buddha as Nepali, or of Hitler as German, or Herzl as Israeli. We may refer to Plato as Greek, but not a citizen of the present-day Hellenic Republic. Terribly inconvenient - all those border changing wars and revolutions in Europe, Asia, Africa and America.

I ask that we refrain from mentioning a person's nationality, unless it is without any doubt - i.e., the person possessed a certain nationality during his life, and that nation existed during his lifetime, or at least at some point in his (or her) life. And then only when it is pertinent. This second bit is another, entirely separate issue I hope to tackle some other time. To state it as a set of questions "When does a human being's gender, sexuality, religion, race, political affiliation, celibacy, widowhood or caste etc. need to be stated? Why do we choose certain attributes and leave out others? Do we, according to our bias and cultural conditioning, choose a certain type of human being to be "normal" and feel constrained to list any deviation?)

149.254.120.136 16:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC) SM, Herts, England

// FYI: The words "nation"/"native"/"national..." etc are derived from the Latin language verb "nasci" which is translated as "to be born" in English. "Belong to a collective of humans by being born one of them" does not require a modern concept of "nation state", not even political borders at all, to be a useful concept, and hence is independent of their changes.

The term "German nation(s)" was used already in medieval official political terminology, and it/they was/were certainly considered to have existed BEFORE the establishment of the "Holy Roman Empire" on German soil, and not to have vanished after its - factual, gradual desintegration in the late MA, and then - "official" dissolution by conquering Napoleon, nor did a "Nation" need to be "recreaed" in the 19th century. Therefore there is no problem for an individual to be counted within it at the time of GWL. That makes the major points you rise invalid.

You are right, in your other hints, that it is not an unproblematic or flawless concept - neither are any others used to clssify human collectives ore describe identities. But fact is that it is an inbuilt desire and need for human beings to order the whole world into groups and categories, for all sorts of practical, psychological and mental reasons. Just try to live a single whole day without doing so in ANY way consc. or unconsciously... 147.142.186.54 12:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The isue here, as I see it, is that "German" may mean "belonging to the German nation" or "of German citizenship". I see no problem in stating that Leibniz or Kant were German in the first meaning, as long as they spoke German and were of germanic ancestry, or whatever we use to define the nation. The problem is that, as of today, in the starting line "Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz [...] was a German polymath", the word German links to the article on Germany (that is, Bundesrepublik Deutschland). That is misleading, as it implies the second meaning, which is just anachronistic.

That article itself may clarify the issue quickly, as it presents a history of Germany, but the first impression still associates Leibinz with present-day Germany.

Unlike my peer, though, I do not have a solution to propose for the nation-citizenship confusion. I have found, though, that both Germany (disambiguation) and, particularly, History of Germany, make a better job of separating nation and different political entities (e.g. "Despite the lack of a German nation state before 1871, the country dates back to the era of the Germanic tribes"). Should an article for German nation be created, and Germans not tied to a political entity be linked there instead? And should their citizenship only be mentioned when related to some established political entity, and otherwise only ethnical remarks be given? Or should we assume that the history sections for each country's article will clarify whether nation or citizenship is meant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.159.136.1 (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * His ethnic roots/origins could well be Slavic. His father's surname Liebniz is a clear indication that the surname is of Slavic origin though over time germanised. Of course his family would've intermarried with Germans though nevertheless his ethnicity is patrilineally Slavic (Sorbian?) which makes him Slavic. Catherine the Great was from the Zerbst family clearly indicating her Serbian or Sorbian roots which she herself never forgot and always stipulated. Just something to think about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.252.115 (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Leibniz <= Liubich -- if so it's unlikely due to the fact that the name is from the "roots" heart of croatdom -- Herzegovina/Lika/Zagora. If it stems from Liubanich then it's likely Sorbian, as Liubanich is common among Serbs, Croats, Slovenians (in that order of frequency) and probably most other Slavic peoples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.113.26.24 (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh no another pan-slavist. Yes we know it, all great Germans in reallity were Poles or Brits (like Händel) the only real german is Hitler (despite the fact he was austrian-born) :-( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.156.239.84 (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If the Germans are so eager to claim that Polish astronomer Coppernicus was German because of having German mother, then we are also allowed to search for Polish or other roots of German scientists. No double standards, please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.19.129.114 (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Simple answer. If anyone is a criminal, no problem to call him a "German", end of story. If one is a genius, a famous composer or author, the answer is much more tricky. At first, claim that his work is obviously derived from a american inventor (quote Edison, this will always do the trick). Stage two, claim that he MAY have lived in Germany, but there was no Germany before 1949 (as the idiot above, who did not know even a precise year, believes). Stage three, if there was a Polish puppy in the genius' household, there is evidence to claim the genius was from somewhere Eastern Europe. - There is a discrediting contest running on the American wikipedia ... neutral observers could vomit. --84.141.6.109 (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Another malicious answer given by a German Wikipedia user regarding a nationality of a renowned person. I don't find your answer given in a good faith. You are moaning about double standards, but it can be applied to the German users rather than Polish. Please note that those are German users, not Polish, who are constantly denying any ties with Poles of Copernicus because of his German mother, while in the same time any notes about Slavic or Polish roots of Leibniz are heavily attacked by such a people like you. Your view of neutrality is really bizarre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.68.149 (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly when talking about the 18th century nationality does not mean what it does today, i.e. citizenship. To say that Leibniz was a German citizen would be anachronistic, because there wasn't a German state, but there was perceived to be a German nation, and there is not the slightest doubt that geographically and culturally Leibniz belonged to it. Escoville (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The affiliation of nationality in distinction to family origin needs some clarification. Since this discussions largely concerns the issues of who is Slavonic, Polish, Sorb, German I think it's important to note that a German national or more appropriately Regional identtity does not preclude Slavonic ancestry or family origin. Most inhabitants of modern Germany can trace their family origins to SLavonic (Polabian or Polonian, Czech, Wend, Sorbian) roots. Among these include the Kaiser, von Bulow (direct descendant of Prybyslaw), von Moltke, von Richtoffen, Schopenhauer, Bach, Bismarck, Plank, Mach, Tillich, the bulk of German aristocracy and many others. The key point here is that Germans are largely (excluding those of direct Hunnish or Batavian origin) the descendants of Slavonic ancestors. Thousands of German place names such as Berlin ( the barges ), Leipsig ( the linden tree) Dresden ( the flat lands), the Lech River, Nubgrad (Nuremberg, Gleiwitz, Lubeck, Rostock, Kiel and on and on and on, have Slavonic roots. The majority of the German population is comprised of persons of Slavonic family origins who have for generations adopted a variant of the Batavian or Dutch language as a result of the conversions of the local populations residing between the Rhine and Oder rivers, by Catholic Missionaries of Batavian or Dutch ancestry. At first this Batavian-Dutch dialect was used by the Church and administrators appointed by the Church but ultimately took root among the local German population who abandoned the more highly grammatically structured Polabian and Slavonic dialects for the simpler "Germanic" dialect. Indeed, speaking as a person of German ancestry from the Hanover region, I am aware, from written correspondence, that as recent as 1820 the local inhabitants in and around Hanover, where my progenitors resided, spoke a dialect more similar to Polish and Czech in daily discourse and resorted to my father's German only for "official business". The native German Slavonic dialects were ultimately discouraged by statute, after the administrative language in Berlin was changed from Polish to German around 1657. By my grandfather's generation the majority of us "Germans" had abandoned their ancestral language for the officially and originally Church sanctioned Deutsch. To say Leibniz was German is like saying Obama is American. Both identify REGIONAL affiliations. Leibniz, a member of the enfranchised Polish Gentry, who voted in elections, identified himself as a Sorb and was fluent in Sorb, Polish, Latin and German. It is not wrong to claim that Leibniz was German neither would it be wrong to claim that he derived from the same Slavonic family origins that prevail, throughout Germany, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia and Austria. [Frank Templar] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.233.132 (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ethnic nationalism makes less sense now than ever (well any form of nationalism makes no sense at all come to think of it). Just as most Germans in the eastern part of the country are most likely germanized Slavs, most peoples of former Yugoslavia are slavicized Proto-Ilyrians. Recent genetic studies showed that european "middle-belt" of "proper" Slavs and "proper" Germans have a lot more in common (in terms of ancestry) than what either have in common with Nordic peoples and Southern Slavs (whom apparently, although shockingly, share ancestry). It also shows that not that many generations are needed for melanin generation to adjust to the environment and that the concept of skin-race or hair-race or eyecolor-race is pseudo-science at best, and an evil idiotism at worst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.113.26.24 (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * :| TelCo NaSp   Ve :|   08:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

German people are descendants of Germanic people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.164.33 (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Deleted speculation of Sorbian descent
I deleted the speculation of sorbian descent because there is no concrete proof of sorbian descent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.137.16 (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Since the so-called "speculation" was duly sourced, it could be re-added as a note saying "There is speculation that his father might have been of Sorbian descent, etc." This speculation would be attributed to the same deleted referenced source. I may do it myself later, after studying the context a little better. warshy¥¥ 14:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The speculation may be more appropriate at his father's page Friedrich Leibniz. Tkuvho (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Correct. The problem is that that page is really still a stub, that looks like it was started as a translation of the German, but the editing work on it was not finished. So this apparently simple task turns into a much bigger project, that of making his father's page a complete page according to English WP standards... I will check into it, possibly... warshy¥¥ 17:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Discovered vs Invented
Currently Leibniz's development of Calculus and the Binary System reads that he "discovered" these things, as if they were pre-existing constructs that he uncovered. It seems more accurate to say that he "invented" calculus (as did Newton), and the binary system. It is one thing to say that the zero/one distinction existed prior to Leibniz - which is obviously true - but establishing that as a number system... and later as a "yes/no" distinction... seems clearly an invention.

Gacggt (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you studied calculus much? To me it is natural to talk about calculus being discovered. 99.233.20.151 (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is of course a question that has occupied mathematicians for ages, over which even today no consensus exists - whether mathematical entities are discovered, constructed or invented. See philosophy of mathematics. I don't think there is any doubt, by the way, that Leibniz himself was what we would nowadays call a mathematical realist and would not have hesitated to use the word "discovered". D AVID Š ENEK 08:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, just to illustrate that the question is not so ignorant - go to Isaac Newton's page. You'll see he and Leibniz are credited for "developing" calculus; which is much closer to "inventing" than it is to "discovering". So there is an inconsistency to the terminology between the pages on Newton & Leibniz. Gacggt (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Before deciding whether calculus was invented or discovered, we must clarify terminology. Discovered: The "thing" existed prior to being found, then someone found it. Invented: The "thing" did not previously exist. Someone created it. Clearly, calculus did not exist, prior to Leibniz and Newton, therefor it must have been invented. @ David Šenek You state: I don't think there is any doubt, by the way, that Leibniz himself was what we would nowadays call a mathematical realist and would not have hesitated to use the word "discovered". This may be true, but it doesn't mean that we need to use discovered. I might think that I am a dolphin, but it doesn't make it so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.230.43 (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Leibniz and Newton arrived at the calculus independently. This implies that it had a prior existence. The word 'discover' is therefore appropriate. 206.130.136.162 (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

New Biographical References Needed
The biography section relies much on an old German book epitomized by Mackie more than 150 years ago (available in archive.org). Many details appear to be incorrectly stated, eg. his nobility ('von') or his early alchemical career. Aiton (online Scribd) or Antognazza are two recent and authoritative books that should be checked.91.92.179.172 (talk) 10:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Topology / analysis situs
How does the Mandelbrot / Hideaki quotation contradict the first piece of evidence that GWL said nothing topological? Crasshopper (talk) 08:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

ein Viertel auf sieben
This is getting really ridiculous. An apparently German speaking IP keeps reverting a small detail that is obviously not mathematically possible/correct, whereas the original text in English was/is correct and is perfectly understandable to the English reader. Help! warshy (¥¥) 19:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I just happen to see this remark. Apparently there is some ambiguity in the text, originating from the way the time was mentioned in Germany in that time.Although the information given in the article might be wrong, it may completely well understandable for the English reader. The understandability is no guarantee for the correctness. it all comes down to the meaning off the German: 'ein Viertel uff sieben'. If its meaning is uncertain, there is no point in a firm point of view.Nijdam (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Continuing from below: I agree with you. So the text should stay as it was, because the literal translation is correct. As for the two possible meanings, they can be explained in a footnote. I will try to do that. warshy (¥¥) 20:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Well, I now understand what he/she is talking about. We are talking here about a small, apparently unimportant detail, where there may be a half-an-hour misunderstanding. The original German text says "ein Viertel auf sieben" which means literally "a quarter of seven." Apparently in Germany, depending on the geographical area you are, this could mean either 6:15 or 6:45. In most of the world and also in most of Germany it would mean 6:45. But yes, I understand how for some it could also mean 6:15. However, the original translation just translated literally and correctly, saying it was "a quarter of seven,' leaving the little cultural idiosyncrasies to the reader. There could be a footnote added, explaining these cultural idiosyncrasies, if someone wants that, but short of that the original text/translation was correct and should stay. In no way, I would think, WP's English text should say that "a quarter of seven" means 6:15, with no detailed footnote explaining the possible additional meanings. This is my opinion only, of course. warshy (¥¥) 20:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I just added the footnote as I proposed. Now, if the IP, who apparently does know German much better than I do, wants to redact that to say that the time given, in the historical timeframe of the document being cited, meant most probably "a quarter past six o'clock" he/she is most welcome to do that. My apologies for trying to correct the precise meaning of a German sentence that probably had other cultural meanings at the time... warshy (¥¥) 20:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In German (as in Russian) quarters and halfs are usually said to be from ("auf") the next hour, so "ein Viertel auf sieben", literally the first quarter from seven, means 6:15.

This can be easily checked in Google by searching 'german tell time ein vierteil auf'. (Google translate offers an erroneous translation but they have a disclaimer that should be remembered). 91.92.179.172 (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

"in Aquarius" has been stated in the note made by Leibniz' father - this is a fact and it should not be corrected; the words [the rising of] have been inserted just as the 'NS'; readers of Wikipedia are not supposed to know that a rising sign was meant and might wonder how somebody born in the middle of the year is 'in Aquarius'. Please consider before reverting. Perhaps a comment that Leibniz father is probably mistaken should be added in the note.91.92.179.172 (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It appears that the note made by Friedrich Leibniz is contradictory, so first of all the handwritten original should be checked: the '7' might turn out to be a '9'. Seeing it as a 7 could have been induced by the preceding Latin 'after six'; a 9 would fit Aquarius on the Leipzig horizon. One should consider if the hour and the sign have not been added later, the earlier entry ending with the Latin.195.96.229.83 (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

citation #9 dones't support the sentance it
"There is no complete gathering of the writings of Leibniz.[9]"

and then the citation references a book. presumable the article author got this statement from this book, however no page number is listed.

Also, even if the book made this statement, it's a "temporal" statement, and won't be valid forever.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.88.190.138 (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090522130455/http://www.t.hosei.ac.jp:80/~hhirano/academia/leibniz.htm to http://www.t.hosei.ac.jp/~hhirano/academia/leibniz.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Skull picture
"The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter." This is taken from Wikipedia:Image use policy. Now, the skull picture, recently added, does not seem to serve any informative purpose, relative to the article. Consequently, I propose to take it out.--Auró (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd say it could be relevant if the exhumation event and its reasons were actually described in the article, but I can't find it. Gap9551 (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Cybernetic feedback?
Hello all

I wonder if anyone could provide a citation for this statement:

In 1934, Norbert Wiener claimed to have found in Leibniz's writings a mention of the concept of feedback, central to Wiener's later cybernetic theory.

It seems strange, given that Wiener's interest in feedback comes a good few years later. No doubt Leibniz was a significant influence for Wiener's cybernetics though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klinamen0 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Personal life
Discussing the following addition.

Leibniz was born into a Lutheran family and held strong ecumenical sentiments, that is, the reunification of the Protestants and Catholics. In a letter to Ezechiel Spanheim, written while Leibniz was in Hanover on February 20th, 1699, Leibniz affirms the deity of Christ, calling him "Lord," and discusses the topic of transubstantiation; the presence of the body and blood of Christ in bread and wine, showing fealty to his Lutheran origins on the matter.

The first claim that he was born into a lutheran family is not in the source provided. I don't deny this, but find a source that backs the claim up. This source doesn't.

The second claim is a primary source, and the editor used original research to come to the conclusion that he affirmed the deity of christ. Again, I don't deny this is true, but the source doesn't back this up. S806 (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

There's seemingly an effort underway here to airbrush out Leibniz's Christianity from his bio. That he was a Lutheran with orthodox Christian views is pretty much incontestable. (Sources and written section coming.)Schlier22 (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Primary source needed
Britton et al. 2008, p. 289 (Britton, Andrew; Sedgwick, Peter H.; Bock, Burghard (2008). Ökonomische Theorie und christlicher Glaube. LIT Verlag Münster. p. 289) is inappropriate for supporting the claim that Leibniz used the phrase Natura non saltum facit, since it does not give a citation to a primary source. (The Britton et al. source just says that Leibniz wrote that in 1701-4, publ. 1765. That book is the New Essays written in French, not Latin!) I do not doubt that Leibniz may have indeed written such a phrase, but if he did so where is the primary source? Leibniz is a famous scholar and we should be able to find a reliable source (preferably by a Leibniz scholar, not an economic historian) that provides a citation to a work actually written by Leibniz to support the claim that he used this Latin phrase. The standard Latin translation of the French phrase "la nature ne fait jamais des sauts" (Gottfried Leibniz, New Essays, IV, 16) is Natura non facit saltus as documented by the SEP (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Continuity and Infinitesimals"). Omnipaedista (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * see my comments at Talk:Natura non facit saltus. Let's agree about something there first, and then perhaps come back here. - DVdm (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks! - DVdm (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz Article Secondary Sources
I suggest adding this book by Meyer to the list of secondary sources on Leibniz. This book was used in the Ph.D candidates graduate program in intellectual history at N.Y.U. in the late Sixties. The professor was Frank Manuel. The book is Meyer, R. W., 1952. "Leibniz and the Seventeenth Century Revolution". Henry Regnery Company. Chicago. 217 pages.

It was originally written in German and published in Hamburg in 1948.

RobertBayers (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Similarity between marbles and computers?
At the end of the section on Computation, the following claim is made: "Modern electronic digital computers replace Leibniz's marbles moving by gravity with shift registers, voltage gradients, and pulses of electrons, but otherwise they run roughly as Leibniz envisioned in 1679."

I do not want to understate Leibniz's work on computing machines, but it seems somewhat of a stretch to suggest that there is a comparability, however "rough", between an (imagined) mechanical contraption and the workings of a digital computer as we know it now. It takes many levels of abstraction and the conscious exclusion of several crucial components of computing to claim a parallel between these two. I hesitate to remove the sentence, but perhaps some of the editors of this article should consider whether it adds any information to the paragraph or merely romanticizes Leibniz by slightly overplaying his footprint on current technology. K37b8e4fd (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Philosopher and practical affairs of state
With the possible exception of Marcus Aurelius, no philosopher has ever had as much experience with practical affairs of state as Leibniz. While I don't deny what seems to be the main point of this sentence, that he had a lot of experience with practical affairs of state: more than any other whosoever, only possibly excepting Marcus Aurelius? But then what about Cicero? Seneca? Aristotle as the teacher of Alexander? Or, though they are not chiefly known as philosophers, St. Thomas More, or Goethe? Or if we count him as a philosopher (which wouldn't mean appraising him; Marx certainly was a philosopher at any rate), Lenin? But chiefly, of course, Cicero.--131.159.76.236 (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Infobox cleanup
I have cleaned the infobox, removing unmentioned entries per Template:Infobox philosopher: "Entries in influences, influenced, and notable ideas should be explained in the main text of one of the articles. Those that are not mentioned in the main text may be deleted." So I have kept the entries that are mentioned in and backed by the article. It seems to me that there is also an overload of main_interests, 43 in total. I have trimmed those to 25 in a separate edit, again keeping only entries that are actually mentioned in the article. I think we should have about 10 at most. Any ideas for further trimming? - DVdm (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

changes to monads and computation
The monads section is being rewritten to be more general. Also, the majority of the information can be found in Leibniz's Monadologie (translated to English). Rtvw9 (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding more to he computation section Rtthb (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

added subsection linear systems
Created a subsection under math Rtthb (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Copyedit needed
Under the section Mathematician, insert the word "of" in the phrase: "Leibniz was also one the pioneers ..."

Under the section Geometry, change "a merely" to "merely a" in the phrase: "Leibniz believed that this was a merely property..." 2600:1011:B140:F276:781D:3823:E287:1538 (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Edits were made. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Voltaire
There is no mention here of Votaire - whom I have the habit of calling sometimes Voltie, among friends. That is a miss. Voltie has even written a satiric novel, Candide, in arguing with Leibnitz' "best of all possible worlds". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:4669:D100:519B:234F:467A:4D5E (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Boolean Algebra nonsensical mention
At one point in the article it says "Leibniz's discoveries of Boolean algebra and of symbolic logic, also relevant to mathematics, are discussed in the preceding section.", however this line is the only mention of Boolean Algebra in the article, so it seems this must be referencing a part of the article that has since been removed, which shouldn't be done without removing other parts of the article referencing it. Moreover, the article on Boolean algebra itself says it was invented by (and named after) someone who lived many years later, thus though of course mathematical discoveries often incorporate and require earlier mathematical discoveries, based on a little research I don't think this statement could be considered accurate in saying he discovered Boolean algebra.--68.92.95.26 (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Language
Let's knock any 'EngVar' shenanigans on the head right away, shall we? The Manual of Style, as I understand it, makes it clear that the subject's national ties and own language set the course. Aside from English-English being one of the many languages employed in correspondence between Leibniz and Newton's respective camps, Leibniz himself was pretty much unquestionably German - or at least would have been, if he'd lived long enough to see Germany form. Germany, as is common knowledge, is one of the central members of the European Union, which itself employs several official languages, one of which is English. Since 'Brexit' the English in question is technically Irish-English so, curiously enough 'British English' doesn't get a slice of the action. But whichever way you cut the cake, it's hard to conceive of any justification for an article about this most European of men being written in American English, any more than one would envisage employing Shakespearean spellings to write about Carl Sagan. None of which, of course, in any way precludes the many welcome contributions to the article from across the Atlantic. ByzantiumLives (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There are two guidelines: MOS:TIES and MOS:RETAIN. The former does not apply, as Leibniz was German (the European Union is an anachronism in this context), but the latter does. It's there precisely to avoid edit-warring between speakers of the various flavors of English. I shall therefore revert to the previous, U.S. English version of many years' standing. Favonian (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to (politely, I hope) disagree there. The European Union is far from an anachronism in this context, as it is the result of Enlightenment thought which Leibniz had a part in (legally he actually wasn't German as died 154 years too early, although he spoke German). Edit-warring, I suspect, results from editors who do not stop and consider different perspectives before reverting to their respective comfort zones, so I'm going to resist the temptation to undo further changes for a day or two and encourage you to do the same. While you're mulling that over, you might enjoy having a trawl through some of Leibniz's correspondence, as he occasionally wrote in English himself - and, given his location in both time and space, it certainly wasn't in the American variant. As it happens, his monarch, as Elector of Hannover, also happened to be the actual King of England, so with that and the subject's own choice of English variant MOS:TIES most certainly does apply. As I speak/write in either variant myself, I don't have a personal hobby-horse to ride here - I would genuinely challenge a page about a US subject written in 'British' English - but I think you're going to have to reconsider there. ByzantiumLives (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Variant spelling Leibnitz is common and should be mentioned
It's fine that the article prefers Leibniz, but the alternate spelling Leibnitz is very common and should be mentioned to alleviate confusion. It even appears with the T in images and citations in this very article. Can't quite figure out an elegant place to put it in the lead, but I think it deserves to contain at least a (Leibnitz) somewhere. - Rainwarrior (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Caleb Jeffreys.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rtthb, Rtvw9. Peer reviewers: Jnhkb4, Njanrd.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The Great Vowel Shift
Great Vowel Shift:

The Great Vowel Shift was a series of changes in the pronunciation of the English language that took place primarily between 1400 and 1700, beginning in southern England and today having influenced effectively all dialects of English. Through this vowel shift, the pronunciation of all Middle English long vowels was changed. Some consonant sounds changed as well, particularly those that became silent; the term Great Vowel Shift is sometimes used to include these consonant changes. The standardization of English spelling began in the 15th and 16th centuries, and the Great Vowel Shift is the major reason English spellings now often deviate considerably from how they represent pronunciations. The Great Vowel Shift was first studied by Otto Jespersen, a Danish linguist and Anglicist, who coined the term. 79.71.78.155 (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * ...this is probably not the right place to put that. &#9816;MEisSCAMMER 19:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

"Von"
I just noticed that note [b] in the article says that Leibniz never attached "von" to his name but later on, at the end of the "Early life" section, it says that he frequently introduced himself as Gottfried von Leibniz as an adult. What's going on here? ♘MEisSCAMMER 19:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll have to take a look at the citation for the second claim. I suspect what the note at the beginning means is that Leibniz never added "von" to his name in writing or any official capacity, but I'm not sure. I'll make an edit if I can figure it out. ChristopherPtak (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)