Talk:Potentiality and actuality/Archive 1

Greek characters
Is it really necessary to use Greek characters in Aristotle's technical terms? E.g. why not write metabole instead of μετάβολε? This will make the article accessible to Greekless readers at I think minimal cost to Greek experts. If there are any cases of potential confusion both the Greek and the transliteration could be given. Crust 19:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Besides, "metabolé" should have an accute accent at the last eta (which is a long 'e', not an epsilon). If Greek characters are to be used (don't know how, and I think they could be an added bonus, not a necessity), spelling should be checked. Perseus Project has the Greek-English Lexicon on the web. Dave Meta 02:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried to check each one against perseus. Apologies if I missed something. Personally... I'm not sure we need the Greek at all, but I'd be in favor of the Greek original, and the English translation, rather than transliteration. Sjcodysseus 05:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

There is enough space for all Greek original, transliteration, translation - at any order. Why leave information out?--FocalPoint 11:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sjcodysseus, what's your argument for favoring the Greek original (as opposed to a transliteration in the Roman alphabet)? I think that can be unneccessarily intimidating for many people. For people who do read Greek it's only a slight disadvantage (unless their English is poor; but hey, Wikipedia is a multilingual resource). I think it's helpful to keep the Greek versions of key technical terms, as otherwise there can be genuine confusion. FocalPoint, I think including all three is overkill. Crust 14:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the introduction
The introduction on 4/23/06 reads: "...Potency refers, generally, to the capacity or power of a virtual reality to come to be in actuality. Potency is a capacity, and actuality is its fulfillment."

I disagree. My source is De Anima Book II, part 1. Actuality is also a capacity and can exist without fulfillment. Aristotle creates a distinction between "first actuality" and "second actuality." First actuality is the ability to perform a certain function, such as an axe's ability to cut or an eye's ability to see. Second actuality is when the the function is a actually performed, such as when an axe actually cuts or an eye is actually seeing. This article on potentiality and actuality is not correct (specifically where it says, as quoted above, "actuality is its fuflfillment") and cannot be considered complete without an explanation of first and second actuality. I'm hoping that somebody more qualified than myself can add this to the main article. .Avi 05:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC).Avi

I believe what you call first and second actuality can be translated into the terms already in this article. Specifically: what you call first actuality is what Aristotle calls active potency in Metaphysics, IX (I don't have the reference right now; I believe it's chapter 3 or 4). What you call second actuality may be undestood as the realization (I use the word fulfillment). As I understand it, this is all part of the account of transitive acts (kineseis) already explained here; Aristotle explains it more technically in Physics I-III and Metaphysics XI. I'll try to make it more clear and introduce first and second actuality. In most Aristotelian manuals, however, "first actuality" is understood as Substance (as the first act of a reality), and second actuality as an act of that substance (as you well put it, seeing, for instance). In any case, even when an active potency depends on a first actuality (the ability to see needs first a substance that can have it), actuality is not a capacity: that is the fundamental distinction Aristotle establishes between potency and act (a distinction first established in the realm of physics, of kinetic motions, as David Ross and many other Aristotelian Scholars -Jaeger, Düring, etc- explain). I appreciate your comment, anyway, and I'd like to know the passage you are reading, to include it in the article. Dave Meta 15:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Potency vs Potentiality
Is there a difference? If not shouldn't there be a standard term or at least an explanation of why it switches back and forth?Sir Akroy 21:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Enteléxeia vs Entelécheia
Why "x" instead of "ch"? Greek letter chi looks like an "x", but that's in the Greek alphabet. Won't half-way transliteration confuse the general reader? Especially considering that in "hexis" in the article the "x" transliterates the Greek letter ksi, not chi.The Tetrast (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC) I changed it, and made various tweaks in that section.The Tetrast (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Love
It would be interesting if we could analyze how certain ancient or medieval philosophers have interpreted love in terms of Aristotle's philosophy of potentiality and actuality. Similar analysis would also be welcomed with the concept of Desire. ADM (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge
This article is a better merge target than Actus et potentia (which also has merge tags from Energeia and Dunamis).—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Using it as a base, I have added material from the other articles in this merge proposal and made a draft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality/Draft . If this is considered good enough someone can paste this draft into the article and replace all the others with redirects?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There some relevant discussion regarding Energeia and Dunamis at Talk:Energeia. The more I think about, I'm wondering if merging the two stand–alone topics isn't a bad idea. I think the merge should proceed only for Actus et potentia at this time.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I should mention that two sections in the current article, Senses of Act and Potency and Possibility, are in the current draft, but I think they need a lot of work or else removal. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me just finish reading the draft all the way through. I'd prefer that as much detail as possible of the merge (of the final draft) be easily viewable in the article's edit history. I'd be willing to try to cut and paste it part by part to make that a little more transparent. Come to think of it, for that reason and for licensing, it's probably better not to edit the draft too much because its revision history will be lost. (I've only changed the lead section so far).
 * Just so–as we know... this article has about twice as many links as Actus et potentia, (which has one redirect Actus et Potentia). Potentiality and actuality has the following redirects so far:
 * Potentiality and actuality (Aristotle)
 * Potentiality
 * Potentialities
 * Actualities
 * Actuals


 * Thanks everybody.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Starting to merge Actus et potentia per Talk:Energeia... please be patient, it will take some time. Thx—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Still editing (but have at it)... but I'd consider the merge from Actus et potentia to be complete since, due to lack of inline citations, I can't tell what in that string of bits (from an early Catholic Encyclopedia) might have been referring to what. I will add some Thomas Aquinas as, presumably, it would have revolved around his commentary on the subject... But first Neoplatonism and after Modal logic in Scholasticism and later.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone needing to make sense of the whole history may need to also look at the more busy talkpage of energeia. Other articles not merged in but under discussion include entelechy and dunamis.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

One more merge step done: dunamis turned into a dab page. I believe this was agreed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not really a "merge step", (see WP:FMERGE & WP:SMERGE). I don't recall you mentioning turning it into a dab page, but you may have. It would be here or buried somewhere on Talk:Energeia, either way.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I checked, BTW, I don't see where you mentioned a dab page for Dunamis beforehand. I think it's very important that links to Dunamis continue to go to a proper article, not a dab. As I've said, how would someone who isn't familiar with the subject know to click on "potentiality and actuality"?

 The word Dunamis, originally Greek, is used in several ways in modern English:


 * For the Roman Client Queen of the Bosporan Kingdom, see Dynamis (Bosporan queen).
 * For the philosophical term, originating with Aristotle, contrasted with energeia or entelechy, please see potentiality and actuality
 * For the mathematical usage, as per Euclid, often translated as "power", see exponentiation.


 * It looks to me like almost all links to Dunamis were intended to go to the Dunamis article, not Dynamis (Bosporan queen) or exponentiation or a dab. The other links on that line, (some presumably temporary?) make for a lot of blue prior to the humble name of Dunamis' merge target.
 * Similarly for Talk:Energeia, Energeia should go to an article, not a dab.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you have re-opened discussion way back here and also on energeia. Anyway I answered a similar point there. Obviously if there are no notable multiple meanings, then simple redirects are better than a dab. That way people end up at the main article they need. If there are multiple meanings I guess a dab is a very standard solution to this type of situation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

some proposals
Thanks to Machine Elf for the article as it now exists after the merger with Actus and Potentia. Some proposals:-
 * I think it might make sense to move the sections about Energeia and Dunamis upwards so that they are the first and second sections. The reason is to start with basic definitions before going on to complicated stuff.
 * The current second section on being is mainly made up of discussion of other aspects of Aristotle's metaphysics. Seems to make sense to me to reduce that and have a reference to a main article? I would also suggest that the section starts with something about energeia and dunamis rather than building up to it later.
 * Similarly, the common sense section is mainly about other related subjects. At the least I would propose moving the most relevant part upwards in that section so that it is the starting point for that particular discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The "Energeia and Dunamis" sections, if you're referring to the obvious ones, are NOT meant to be "basic definitions", they're meant to be the in depth ones. I think they should be basically defined in the lead or in the first section.
 * Please use section names. Do you mean Being is said in many ways? I agree. The subject does need some grounding in logic, metaphysics and ontology but it's not a good overview... Great place to give "basic" definitions of P&A if you like.
 * Potentiality and actuality was just a bare start on a section for psychology and ethics uses of P&A, of which there were quite a few. I'd rather not be expected to guess what you're referring to as "the most relevant part".—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, due to edits you've made more recently than my above posting I can now see a structure where there is a basic definition and later there are sections where it seems there is supposed to be in depth discussion. I have tried to work within this structure this morning, but I have doubts about your approach. The so called in depth sections read like draft notes, and draft quality material should really be brought up to scratch BEFORE being inserted in a real article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

the definition of energeia in English
This is what is currently sitting in the position where it is implied that this is the translation into English of the term energeia in the context of its contrast to dunamis "activity, (act, action, actuality), operation, vigor, workmanship, perfection, determination, force". This is quite simply wrong, and is clearly a translation from Latin actus? The articles being considered for merging had/have better information. If anyone thinks otherwise please comment.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "In the context of it's contrast to dunamis"? That's what this article is about!
 * You mean the translation? What is "quite simply wrong"? The Latin is a translation, (and Actus et potentia was, of course, merged to this article). I suggest you click the link to view it in Wiktionary and if you find better info that's sourced, (do you speak Ancient Greek?), you know what to do.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * First, Wiktionary is not a source we can refer to but another wiki. However, I did click it and it does not agree with you.
 * Secondly, while you ask about my Greek, you are defending a translation from Latin. And that raises a question. Why has your version effectively removed any discussion of translations direct from Greek to English and replaced them with a pseudo translation into English of a possible Latin translation of the Greek? I suggest a simpler approach. Simply explain the English translation from the Greek as a highest priority and if necessary comments about traditions and Latin can also be added as a lower priority but in a careful way so that they do not create confusion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was did I?
 * Really? And what is your definition of "does not agree with me"? 'Cause what I see looks pretty darn close to what was there...
 * No, I'm not.
 * WHAT? Can't stop with the accusations huh?
 * Why don't you give an example and talk about your source? Even if its only the other article. OK?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't follow this as a constructive response. All I can make out is that you seem to be questioning my description of what the Latin wiktionary entry that you told me to click on says, and whether you removed reference to direct translations to English from Greek, but you or anyone else can check and see I was just describing reality.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, well I'll document it then... Actuality, in Greek ( energeia ) and in Latin   , means activity, (act, action, actuality), operation, vigor, workmanship, perfection, determination, force.
 * Here is what I had for energeia:

Entelechy, in Greek ( entelécheia , from  telos : "end" or  entelēs : "complete" and  echein : "to have") and in Latin   , is an actual instance (a substance), used interchangeably with engergeia, often regarding the soul, a complex hylomorphic substance. Later, Neoplatonic commentary would syncretize this with possibility (dunamis). It is the condition of something whose essence is fully realized; actuality. In some modern philosophical systems it is a vital force that motivates and guides an organism toward self–fulfillment. ... According to David Bradshaw, both  energeia  and  entelécheia  were neologisms coined by Aristotle: "For the ergon is the telos, and the energeia is the ergon, therefore the word energeia derives from ergon, and points toward complete reality." See also, the etymology of, ( ergon : "work").
 * Here is what I had for "Entelechy"/entelécheia:

===Pronunciation===
 * Here are the WIKT entries you're accusing me of making counter–factual statements about (amongst other things):
 * (Classical): IPA:
 * (Koine): IPA:
 * (Byzantine): IPA:

===Etymology===

From the adjective ἐνεργός "active", in turn from ἐν "in" and ἔργον "work" (cognate to work, urge).

===Noun===

ἐνέργεια (genitive ἐνεργείας) f, first declension;  (energeia)


 * 1) activity, operation, vigour
 * 2) workmanship
 * 3) supernatural action, cosmic force
 * 4) the active principle in Aristotelian ontology (Latin actus)

References

A Greek-English Lexicon ("LSJ") Bauer lexicon Strong's concordance number: G1753 ...


 * kjv G1753: Definition


 * 1. working, efficiency
 * 1. in the NT used only of superhuman power, whether of God or of the Devil


 * King James Word Usage - Total: 8
 * working 4, effectual working 2, operation 1, strong 1


 * kjv G1753:

===Etymology===

Ancient Greek: en “in,” + telos “goal, or end,” + ekhein “to have,” “to be,” + eia (alt. ia) “quality or condition,”

===Pronunciation===
 * IPA:

===Noun===

entelech (plural entelechies)


 * 1) The complete actualization and final form of a potency or potentiality, or of a conception. [Aristotelian philosophy.]
 * 2) The final form as already in the potency or matter and awaiting actualization.
 * 3) A particular type of motivation, need for self-determination, and inner strength directing life and growth to become all one is capable of being. It is the need to actualize one's beliefs. It is having a personal vision and being able to actualize that vision from within.
 * 4) Something complex that emerges when you put a large number of simple objects together.

Actuality, was ( energeia ) in Greek and was a neologism of Aristotle based upon ergon  ( ergon ), meaning "work". Energeia was once frequently translated by Latin  , (act, action, doing) and actuality is a traditional translation into English. On the other hand, it has been notoriously difficult to translate consistently into modern English. The neologism "being at work" has been one recent proposal. Entelechy, in Greek  entelécheia , was another neologism of Aristotle from  telos : "end" or  entelēs : "complete" and  echein : "to have") and in Latin   , is a word used by Aristotle interchangeably with engergeia, often regarding the soul. Energeia is the condition of something whose essence is fully realized; actuality. In some modern philosophical systems it is a vital force that motivates and guides an organism toward self–fulfillment.
 * Mr. Lancaster, here's what you had:

For that &#x007B;&#x007B;&#x0063;&#x006E;&#x007D;&#x007D; tag, it's.
 * How strange you used the references and material I provided if it was "simply wrong". :No reply is necessary.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 10:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

See WP:POINT. The above goes into a lot of side issues which are simply irrelevant to anything I said. Here are the only real points I think... Am I wrong?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I just said that the definition given for the word energeia as it is used in English when referring to Aristotle, is wrong. For example vigor, workmanship, perfection, determination, force are all irrelevant here. That is still demonstrably correct. Whether there are other post Aristotelian meanings in Greek which are not used in English is irrelevant to the opening lines of this article.
 * It was you, not me, who gave as a first defense a reference to the Latin actus article in Wiktionary. Me replying that this article was neither a relevant source, nor a source which mentions vigor, workmanship, perfection, determination, force etc as translations of actus is also still correct.

Here is the LSJ definition as per Perseus:
 * A. activity, operation, opp. ἕξις (disposition), Arist.EN1098b33, al.; “ζῴου” Plb.1.4.7; “ἡ χαρὰ καὶ ἡ εὐφροσύνη κατὰ κίνησιν ἐνεργείᾳ βλέπονται” Epicur.Fr.2; opp. ἀογία, Hierocl. in CA19p.461M.: pl., παντοδαπαὶ ἐ. Polystr.p.30 W.; “ἐ. καὶ σπουδή” PTeb.616 (ii A.D.); physiological function, Gal.6.21; performance, “τῶν καθηκόντων” Ph.1.91; activity, of drugs, Gal.6.467; force, of an engine, D.S.20.95 (but, mechanism, 'action', Hero Aut.1.7).
 * b. workmanship, Aristeas 59.
 * 2. esp. of divine or supernatural action, Ep.Eph.1.19, al., Aristeas 266; “ἐ. θεοῦ Διὸς Βαιτοκαίκης” OGI262.4 (Syria, iii A.D.); magical operation, “ἱερὰ ἐ.” PMag.Par.1.159.
 * 3. pl., “ἐνέργειαι” cosmic forces, Herm. ap. Stob.1.41.6.
 * 4. Gramm., active force, opp. πάθος, D.T.637.29, A.D.Synt.9.9 (pl.), al.; ἐνέργειαι καὶ πάθη active and passive forms, Alex.Fig.2.14.
 * 5. Rhet., vigour of style, Arist. Rh.1411b28.
 * II. in the philos. of Arist., opp. δύναμις, actuality, Metaph.1048a26, al.; opp. ὕλη, ib.1043a20; ἡ ὡς ἐ. οὐσία, substance in the sense of actuality, ib.1042b10; opp. ἐντελέχεια, as actuality to full reality, ib.1050a22, 1047a30; ἐνεργείᾳ actually, opp. δυνάμει, ib.1045b19, al., etc.

All the classical meanings derive from Aristotle's basic meaning of something busy doing its function, being at its work, in its operation etc. The post classical meanings are all derived from these in turn but sometimes one step away.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

on and on
Reply to 10:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC) and 11:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * AL:
 * Mr. Lancaster, you invited folks to go have a look for themselves to prove you're right... you just keep talking yourself deeper into that hole.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What hole? Am I right in saying this is really what I said or not?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * AL:
 * Wrong, as I indicated with the strikeout.
 * That is a very convincing way of proving your point. Using formatting was of course a debating technique which would have been unknown to Aristotle. LOL.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * AL:
 * I'll bite, demonstrate. You first, I have a source to backup what I'm saying. Demonstrate vigor, workmanship, perfection, determination and force are irrelevant to this article.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop biting. I think it is great if you want to get back to the subject. I already started a new section below which gives the LSJ definition of the Greek. If you are interested in the actual topic, and not personal confrontation, let's talk there. I notice you never respond to direct stuff like that though. Over on energeia you got annoyed at me suddenly for trying to make you explain things. Soon you'll be making a new post with new discussion about me? Let's not talk about each other. We do not know each other. Let's talk about the subject.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * AL:
 * It was explicitly not the opening lines of this article.

No problem with that slight adjustment to what I said.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not try to cook up criteria to explain away "simply wrong" and expect me to take you seriously. Here's your post (emphasis mine):
 * Wrong, I didn't take it from Latin actus.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You told me to click on the Latin term in order to see that the definitions were not wrong. I understood you to mean that the Latin wiktionary was your source, which we have now established that it was not. Still wrong though.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * AL:
 * Wrong, I did not say I that, and I have no reason to be on the defensive Mr. Lancanster. You will cease making counter factual statements about me. Understand?
 * See above. If you want to get me to understand you, then try to explain things.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact is, you wound up using the material from this article, some of which I added myself, as well as the citations I added.
 * I'll believe you, if you are so very certain that these figments of your imagination must be true, that you're willing to argue about them at length.
 * Sorry but I have no idea what this refers to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Be advised, however, that I will not spend my time responding to this barrage of posts, I will not cater to this counter factual behavior, and I will not be manipulated by either.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am the person responding. You started this "barrage" here. I replied in order to try to restore communication, no other reason. I am finding it very hard to coordinate with you since that posting and quite honestly I am still quite surprised at how suddenly you began writing so aggressively. I think you got annoyed after your attempt to move the draft had problems and I reversed your removal of the tags? Whatever, but let's get past it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * AL:
 * You've been corrected about this already... I didn't say ANY article was an wp:RS, much less "actus".
 * I did say you could look up entelechy/energeia in WIKT because you didn't seem to know what the words mean...
 * I also said you can find most of the entelechy/energeia there, (because that's what you referred to, and that's where I initially paraphrased them from). I can't say I'm terribly surprised you're still implying I asserted WIKT is an wp:RS however.
 * That is how I understood your initial response. It is clear you did not mean that so get over it, but it is still your only real defense of your edits? Why not just please give a more clear explanation?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I do have an wp:RS that covers vigor, workmanship, perfection, determination and force, but you do your demo first. Thank you.
 * But my understanding is that this source is for Biblical Greek?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't even want to know what you think a relevant [sic] source is...
 * I have, for starters, cited the LSJ. But please, just find one source relevant to Aristotle which disagrees with me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding your last final question, perhaps you can acknowledge the answer?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Which question do you mean? How can I follow all this? It strikes me that many disputes on Wikipedia happen because of people assuming others understand them almost like mind readers, and then get very offended when they don't - thinking perhaps that their interlocuters are just pretending to misunderstand.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I want to re-factor my response. There is a lot of repetition and dwelling upon misunderstandings above, and I think these are the main real points:
 * 1. I fully accept that Machine Elf did not intend to cite the Latin wiktionary entry as his source. It seemed to me like that was how he wrote, but this must have been a misunderstanding.
 * 2. I have seen more recently how Machine Elf has another source he can cite, but it is apparently one which is specific in some ways at least to later Greek, and in other ways it is context specific (for example energeia can mean force for an engine, because that is the work or function of an engine).
 * 3. I have in the meantime also tried to post from LSJ and discussion could continue you there concerning correct translations for energeia.
 * 4. Concerning the last question of Machine Elf, which asks what my answer is to my last question. I do not know what it means, or whether it is important, but I hope the answer is clear from my points 1-3. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll bite... "No need to bite! Please stop biting." Genuinely amused! =) Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good thing then. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * At 11:48, 18 August 2010 you deleted the links to WIKT that were being discussed on the grounds of "no need to use two alphabets". That's debatable but I repeat: You deleted the links to WIKT that were at issue less than an hour after your initial reply!—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean those Latin links which are NOT your source? Why don't you give a real diff so I can see what you mean?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The potentiality and possibility section
As it now stands this section is clear WP:OR. It is an argument about how to interpret Aristotle. This needs to be re-worked, and I would suggest the easiest way is to take it back to basics. Arguments by published non-Wikipedians can be cited as arguments, but the that is not the current presentation. Perhaps material from the old dunamis article can help.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please let me take a look at it first. I know how much you prefer the other articles and I'll keep that mind. Thanks.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really like any of the articles, but my biggest concern is whether any of them, or the mass of them as a whole, will inform a normal reader what the terms mean, at least in a basic sense. At the moment there is a definite tendency to off topic waffle and over-complication. My priority is simplification and structure, not getting any old version ahead of any others.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this article has a definite tendency to waffle off target. I improved the Megarics, I think, (Potentiality as distinct from actuality §). I imagine bringing in one (or more) academic outlines will help clear up the Senses of being §. But opinions really do vary. I haven't gotten around to reviewing the potentiality § yet. Maybe some of it can be spruced up, but some of it should definitely go.
 * Cool. I think your Neoplatonism, Scholaticism, Thomism (?), Modern (?), structure following the Aristotle sections will help. I just commented out material if I wasn't sure it might not fit in later.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Dunamis qua "dab" page?
The word Dunamis, originally Greek, is used in several ways in modern English:


 * For the Roman Client Queen of the Bosporan Kingdom, see Dynamis (Bosporan queen).
 * For the philosophical term, originating with Aristotle, contrasted with energeia or entelechy, please see potentiality and actuality
 * For the mathematical usage, as per Euclid, often translated as "power", see exponentiation.

Currently all of these point to the above "dab" page rather than to "a Dunamis article". That could be very confusing, not everyone is going to know that Dunamis is connected to "potentiality and actuality".


 * 1) Hesychasm
 * 2) Panentheism
 * 3) Plotinus
 * 4) Aristotelian view of God
 * 5) Talk:Theosis
 * 6) Index of philosophy articles (D–H)
 * 7) User:Jondel
 * 8) Nicomachean Ethics
 * 9) Hexis
 * 10) Energeia
 * 11) Essence–Energies distinction
 * 12) Potentiality and actuality
 * 13) Talk:Potentiality and actuality
 * 14) Nikolai Lossky
 * 15) Talk:Essence–Energies distinction
 * 16) Talk:Entelechy
 * 17) User:Kennethayes/Sandbox
 * 18) Henosis
 * 19) WikiProject Philosophy/To do
 * 20) Talk:Dunamis (philosophy)
 * 21) Talk:Energeia
 * 22) Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Philosophy articles by quality/9
 * 23) Index of ancient philosophy articles
 * 24) List of Saint Seiya Episode.G characters
 * 25) User:Andrew Lancaster
 * 26) WikiProject Philosophy/Cleanup listing
 * 27) User:Rursus/Phragmentes
 * 28) Template talk:The Works of Aristotle
 * 29) User:B. Wolterding/Merge by project/Page 2
 * 30) Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences
 * 31) Absolute (philosophy)
 * 32) Talk:East-West Schism/Archive 2
 * 33) User talk:ADM/Archive 4
 * 34) Dynamis (Bosporan queen)
 * 35) Neoplatonism
 * 36) Talk:Libertarianism (metaphysics)/Archive I
 * 37) Proposed mergers/Log/May 2008
 * 38) WikiProject Philosophy/Ancient/Popular pages
 * 39) Theory of Forms
 * 40) User:Gregbard/old watchlist
 * 41) Portal:Philosophy/All philosophy articles

From WP:FMERGE, it looks like we shouldn't use the old "Dunamis" (now renamed Dunamis (philosophy) and redirected here) as a "dab", its history+talk should "point" here for Wikipedia's licensing requirements. So I created Dunamis (disambiguation), copied User:Andrew Lancaster's "dab" text and redirected "Dunamis" there.

The Dunamis (philosophy) article was copied in its entirety between the comment markups &#x3C;&#x21;&#x2D;&#x2D; MERGE CONTENT &#x2D;&#x2D;&#x3E; near the top of the page.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Making some changes
Potentiality and actuality: remembering what the topic is, moving the relevant paragraph to intro of section
 * Moving the final paragraph to the top doesn't work, it says "However, unlike the other three,"... and it doesn't make sense, there's an order to it. I created §Overview to address the concern about this section not giving basic info.

I'd like to format the follow: Being as  katà symbebekós  ( per accidens ) and being as  kath' autó  ( per se ). Being as something accidental (Greek  katà symbebekós , Latin  per accidens ) and being itself, or being as such, (Greek  kath' autó  Latin  per se ).

I just notice you're back online. I still have these changes I want to make and a few others... Could you work on adding the new sections like §Christianity from Dunamis?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 06:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello
 * 1. Yes of course the move to the top would require a few slight changes of words, which I already did. I think it improved the article. So I do not see the problem. But of course if you have another even more clear way to make the article actually stay on subject and be legible to a non expert, I am open, and I'll watch what you do in practice. However, please do not be offended if openly say that I have my doubts. My practical concern is that we please should not insert "draft quality" material into the real article and then think of ways to fix it, and this does appear to be your approach? We should only insert material or changes which improve the article, not changes which need more changes before they might one day lead to an improvement. I do understand your intentions are good but maybe you should make a new draft article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No that won't work and you didn't do a good enough job. I do see the problem. Look in the edit history and see the wp:EDSUM where I pointed out the passage you thought wasn't sourced and read the passages it's following in Meta. Δ.
 * Please, enough with the "expert"/"normal reader" thing OK? One would wonder if you think the article is too intellectual or too low quality or both.
 * I just had to revert you. Is that how you want to do this? Or, are you going to start making some compromises? You certainly didn't just "watch what I do in practice".
 * The material in this article is long standing and the article was rated C class, so please consider that it might not be as bad as you (once again) are implying it is. (And, of course, as a result of this merge zealotry, starter class material is being merged into it). On the other hand, some of the changes you're making are less than draft quality.
 * I think you should worry much much less about fixing this article (and changing everything I do) and worry more about the Dunamis article which is offline. I think you should look at the list I prepared and ask yourself if those pages really need a dab or if they should go directly to an article. Once again, a user won't necessarily know they should choose "potentiality and actuality".
 * A new draft article? NOW THAT IS FUNNY. Thanks for that Mr. L, that's freaking hilarious. Why don't you move Dunamis back where it should be so we can't forget all this merge insanity; if not, maybe... work on Dunamis?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Had a look and I changed parts. The move from top back to bottom really does not work. If that is really the only way you can accept it then the whole section should be taken out because it appears to be about Aristotle's metaphysics overall, his theory of being, and not potentiality and actuality except as a side issue. As mentioned, your objections above were already fixed by changing a few words. Please look at it again and consider what I am saying about staying on topic? It could well be that this section might fit better in another Wikipedia article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that was a very quick revert. However this leaves us stuck because your only explanation (above) for wanting not to mention anything to do with the article's subject in this whole complex, waffling and long section until right at the end is that the paragraph includes words that would not fit. But those words were already adjusted so that this is no longer a problem. So what is the new reason please?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You've responded out of chronological sequence above. Anyway in the meantime I have re-written the section, and I ask that you consider it and do not simply revert by knee jerk. I note your objection to the idea of working on drafts; just as I noted your previous objections at Talk:Energeia to having to actually explain your proposals or reasoning, and . So what can I do? I'll just keep working based on basic principles such as avoiding content forks, and removing material which is of draft quality. If you keep in mind that other Wikipedians will always tend to do these things this may help you work with others. I know it is difficult.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2. Yes I can look at the Dunamis material to see if there anything else to recover, but just so there is no misunderstanding, I did already do this. I saw nothing else worth keeping at first sight. Again, keep in mind my very basic idea that only material which is not "draft quality" is worth keeping unless someone can bring it up to scratch. (And remember this has been requested for a long time.) I did not blindly cut and paste when making merges and it would help communication if you kept that in mind.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I had a look, and I see nothing worth keeping in its present form. That texts written in Greek by Christians use the Greek word dunamis, which is all that seems to be explained so far, is not notable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, if there really is some special other meaning of dunamis (I do not see it in the text removed) then logically this would fit as a separate article coming from the dunamis dab page which now exists. Different people coming to dunamis will presumably be looking for different meanings, if there are multiple notable meanings. I know of one main meaning which is the Aristotelian one and to discuss that one needs to discuss energeia and entelecheia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Try to make sure that English words are at least referred to somewhere?
Machine Elf, can you please explain why you have now twice  removed all references to English translations of the classical terms per se and per accidens? By the way you also removed the Greek for per se although you left in the Greek for per accidens. I am tempted to think these are collateral damage from overhasty reverts, aimed at changing other things, but please explain it yourself if you want. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Collateral damage? No. I explained in the wp:EDSUM. I didn't remove all references to English translations, only the sloppy ones. It's ridiculous to put Greek and Latin in front of every word (although you only seem to be concerned about that particular section I edited; you even added Greek words to the section headers...) All the Greek is linked, so a reader can go see them. The Latin phrases are common enough in English. I removed a term because it wasn't properly formed and couldn't be looked up. Maybe it's time you settled down a bit?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am calm, believe me. It is true that the article now contains no English translation of per se or per accidens, or are you saying I am wrong? You did revert very quickly also, or are you saying this is also wrong?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm saying I reverted your un–sourced definitions.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, this has nothing to do with sourcing. You did not even describe it that way yourself above. You decided to take out English equivalents of Latin terms because, in your words "The Latin phrases are common enough in English." Are you now saying that the translations into English were wrong and could not be sourced? Really?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not believe "per accidens" is a common term in English by the way, and I believe per se is poor style. Jargon is to be avoided I believe, wherever it is not really needed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

More on merging
There has not yet been much discussion of the pros and cons of merging on this particular talk page. There was more at Talk:Energeia where discussion eventually got stuck, to put it lightly. However, this has now been raised again here in the context of a particular edit above where Machine Elf has now accused me of merge "zealotry" and suggested I reverse all merges, including the one from the old Dunamis article. I think it needs to be pointed out that Machine Elf originally agreed with all merges, then recently expressed doubts only about merging Energeia into the others. By my reckoning Machine Elf has never explained why, although he claims he has, and he has also never explained how this would not simply be a WP:CFORK in violation of a basic common sense WP policy. If he would give an explanation, then discussion would be possible. In any case, even with all this in mind that Machine Elf now claims to have objections to the merger of dunamis into this article is surprising to me and I think he never expressed such doubts before. I have no problem with people changing their minds, but it is getting confusing because these changes of mind are being accompanied with this new accusation of "zealotry" against people who have not changed their mind. If Machine Elf wants people to follow why he changed his mind, he should explain. Note, I am not demanding that he needs to, just that it would help. From what I can see, and no one has tried to explain where I am wrong, energeia, dunamis and entelcheia are words in Aristotle (and his derivatives) which need to be explained all together. Certainly in the existing articles, the same basic core material was simply explained different ways. The only ways I can imagine someone wanting to explain them separately is they wanted to create a WP:CFORK for some reason. But if I am wrong, someone should just explain why?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I had these points raised as tags and as sections on talk pages of the involved articles (the ones I knew of anyway) for a long time. Until recently I only ever received friendly agreement. I have not rushed anything, nor pushed others to accept things without discussion. I have asked people to explain any concerns over a long period and I believe I am right in saying I have received no coherent discussion about any errors in my reasoning.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

From WP:MERGE:-
 * There are several good reasons to merge a page:


 * 1) Duplicate – There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope.
 * 2) Overlap – There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
 * 3) Text – If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there.
 * 4) Context – If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it. For instance, minor characters from works of fiction are generally covered in a "List of characters in ", and can be merged there; see also WP:FICT.

Also a reminder here, to make sure there are no misunderstandings, the above proposals were serious proposals which I believe would improve the present article for the reasons explained. The policy citation above seems to me to tell us what to do. Please note that I have slowed down work on this to a stop already several times because of unclear concerns, but that is not enough to justify doing nothing. I think there are three ways to fix the problems with the present set of overlapping articles: simple redirects, disambiguation pages, or a structure where there is a main article with minor satellite articles. The choice can simply be made depending upon whether there are several quite distinct subjects or whether energeia and entelecheia can only really be discussed in the context of each other.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

more bold and shocking proposals
OK, I just titled that to get attention. I think it is not too controversial to say that everything from "Potentiality and actuality" down in this article is currently not really of a finished article quality. Some of it certainly seems to be repeating things already stated above, and I suspect some of it can never really be brought into a coherent article because it is too off track and waffling. In any case with most of it it is difficult to actually see what the original point being made was, and so there is a challenge here. This leads me to propose that we take another path for the time being which is to develop and expand the work started in "Potentiality and actuality" and "Potentiality and actuality" and deliberately trying to make the below material redundant, or in other deliberately trying to re-do it in the earlier sections, so that we can eventually see more clearly and then keep anything needing to be kept. Does this make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No! and slow down.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In terms of what I specifically think needs to be done to allow us to eventually even try to link to, and keep anything from, the problematic latter sections, I think that within "Potentiality and actuality" we need to expand out a more clear explanation of how energeia and entelecheia all presuppose a theory of formal cause. This is clearly something which needs to be explained carefully first, before we can even attempt to get involved with more complicated things? It could in fact increase the value of the problematic sections, or in case let us judge them more clearly. Again, does this make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not very specific and I suggest you leave the § that grounds the discussion in Metaphysics and Ontology alone. I'm sorry you're just talking to talk: "a more clear explanation of how energeia and entelecheia all presuppose a theory of formal cause"...


 * No! and slow down.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Slow down" for what please? This has been stretched over years, and you refuse to explain any reasons for "slowing down", nor any proposals about what you would do with the extra time. I think you are just nervous of change? Remember be WP:BOLD. Don't panic. If an edit improves an article that is a good thing right? What reason can we have for keeping someone's old note-form material in a mainspace article? If you really have a good reason for asking all work to stop while you do whatever it is you will do, then in the meantime we should at least delete any material which is not coherent. It will not be lost because it can kept in a draft or recovered from the article history, and then you can work on it more slowly, if that is what you intend. But you can not ask fellow Wikipedians to stop forever without giving any reason at all?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Slow down so other users, (that would be me), can... collaborate. No, someone suggested a merge in 2008. A suggestion that was ignored until I made the mistake of mentioning it.
 * What do you mean I "refuse to explain any reasons for 'slowing down'"!! On second thought, I could care less.
 * Blah blah blah... harping on the article again and again and again, as if you know what you're talking about.
 * I can ask you to stop lying about what I've said.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please. You are now into the mode of pretending you understand nothing in order to get yourself annoyed? You can of course ask for anything you like, but you can not ask it and expect them to take you seriously if you continue to act like you are acting. If you are not asking for work to stop, which is certainly what all your recent reverts, edit summaries, blanked messages into the article, rude replies, bold red capitals, etc, imply when taken together with this discussion, then please just start explaining what you are asking for? If you want to be deliberately uncommunicative and emotive, please note that this will simply lead to a situation where you are ignored. Why would you want that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This knew jerk revert of some fairly small (in my mind) adjustments to your many reverts, does make it appear as if you are simply going to demand I do no editing? Did you even look at the changes?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This knew jerk revert of some fairly small (in my mind) adjustments to your many reverts, does make it appear as if you are simply going to demand I do no editing? Did you even look at the changes?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is another concrete proposal: deletion for now of all the following sections. "Being is said in many ways", "Aristotle on potentiality and actuality" (including sub-sections). If someone thinks that they can be turned into something relevant to the subject of potentiality and actuality coherent, which is not already covered in other parts of the article, then maybe one day they can return. Obviously only constructive responses are worth making please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that most of "Being is said in many ways" could better be used to form the basis of an article on Aristotle's theory of being. We could then link to that as the main article and have this article focus on what it is supposed to be about?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder, to make sure there are no misunderstandings, the above proposals were serious proposals which I believe would improve the present article for the reasons explained. I do obviously like any Wikipedian working on an article intend to make edits which improve the article. I also post here first and try not to rush in order to see if anyone has a clear concern or question about it. But eventually I also edit. I do not wait forever and like anyone working on Wikipedia I can not expect to ever agree with every Wikipedian who wants to make any comment at all, and so some types of comment are likely to be taken more seriously than others. I really hope not to see a continuation of previous trends where I am unfairly blamed for being too fast.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

BAD ATTITUDE
The egregiously bad attitude displayed in the WP:EDSUM of removing excessive un-needed blanked out material (I have looked twice, I see nothing moer worth saving) and tweaking with the real text is not welcome. That material was copied here in compliance with merge policy. As you indicated you have finished with integrating it. So just remove it without all the ridicule and refusal. Please see for further explanation.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Machine Elf, the edit summary was just a summary to explain why I was removing stuff you had re-inserted. There is no hidden message and nothing rude about it. Presumably you are assuming bad faith simply because my explanation seems unnecessary? But I felt it might be necessary because you had re-inserted it after I had merged the materials and said that I could see nothing else worth keeping, and specifically I had also already asked you and others whether they thought I was wrong. In other words, it was my second removal of this material, and so I was being extra explanatory. Please remember to assume good faith.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Reinserted? That's not true.
 * Who said anything about a hidden message?
 * Yes, it is rude. Now, you are accusing me of assuming bad faith "simply because" you fail to understand what I'm saying.
 * I'll go ahead and put it this way: when you say I "reinserted it" and you talk about your "second removal" you are flat–out lying. I'm not saying you're doing so out of bad faith. In fact, so as far as I can tell, you simply can't help it, or you just don't know the difference.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * When I said you reinserted it what I meant was that the material had been merged to here and worked on previously by me and some had been discarded. I then asked if anyone could see anything missing from what I kept. You THE re-inserted it. The "re-" does not mean you inserted both times, because obviously the first merge was done by me. Your (re-)insertion of material I discarded after I did the merge was odd (not some normal procedure) and it implied you were questioning my merge. That was why I put in a special explanation about it which has now worried you. Sorry? If any of your other accusations are important, explain them so that I can at least get your point. Otherwise I intend to ignore such stuff.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I see you've begun to merge both Energeia and Entelechy please see the discussion in .—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have not begun to merge them. I have (some time ago) proposed a merger and tried to get discussion about it. Please give constructive comments about that proposal?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever you think a merge is... Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 08:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please try to communicate. What do you think is a merge? What actions are you calling merges? Are you saying that working simultaneously on three overlapping articles is the same as merging? What is you point please?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Machine Elf, just please reflect. Starting a new section which is only about a fellow editor, giving it a title in block letters. What does that say about editing "attitude"? Your recent chain of edits, with their aggravated and personal edit summaries and blanked inserts into the lines are also really a distraction. Please snap out of it and just let's work on improving the articles in discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Andrew Lancaster, get a clue. Adding a bunch of crappy comments to the article and saying I won't use the talk page when I've wasted countless hours responding to such prolific and inane babble as no one could or should have to keep up with.
 * It's not personal, but my comments are directed at the only other person working on this. Unlike yours.
 * YOU BET I'M AGGRAVATED! And don't revert my structural changes and lie about it "not being a revert"!—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I see no reason to take such demands seriously. If you are unable to discuss things I'll work on the basis of trying to improve the article, not on the basis of inexplicable demands from you. I remain open to sensible discussion though, and would far prefer it should it be possible.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't expect you to see reason but why don't you try waiting more than a few seconds for a freaking response if you are so open to discussion and would prefer it?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure I get what you mean. Why would I wait for a response by someone to their own response? How would that help discussion? I guess you are referring to something else, but I wonder if that other case is also how you think it was.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hard to see any demonstration of good attitude in this revert?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * STOP THE CRAP!—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 08:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Various points of apparent disagreement needing discussion
From edit summaries etc I can make out a few points of disagreement between myself and Machine Elf, which might not be big points, but which I think it is best to go over here, on the Talk Page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Insertion of remarks about influence upon later modal logic authors in intro.

Machine Elf has inserted the following into the introduction:-


 * Aristotle's logical work in this area is considered to be anticipations of modal logic and its connection with potentiality and time. Modal logic as a self–aware subject owes much to the writings of the Scholastics, in particular William of Ockham and John Duns Scotus, who reasoned informally in a modal manner, mainly to analyze statements about essence and accident.

He posted this text blanked out into the article:-
 * Although Aristotle's logic is almost entirely concerned with the theory of the categorical syllogism, there are passages in his work, such as the famous sea-battle argument in De Interpretatione § 9, that are now seen as

I have replied:
 * This seems very undue for this section. That Aristotle's work influences all later logic is clear, but why is there a special remark, the only one in this intro, about the link from actuality and potentiality to something in modal logic? Why not fill this intro with comments on everything influenced by Aristotle? Maybe Machine Elf is interested in modal logic? I don't know. Also, please use talk pages. This form of communication is silly.

Any comments please?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Accusation of WP:OR

Machine Elf has tagged the following as WP:OR by me:


 * As explained above, within the works of Aristotle himself, the terms energeia and entelecheia, often translated as actuality, differ from what is merely actual because they specifically presuppose that all things have a proper kind of activity or work which, if achieved, would be their proper end. This is an aspect of Aristotle's theory of causality and specifically of formal and final cause. In essence it means that Aristotle did not see things as matter in motion only, but also proposed that all things have their own aims or ends. For this reason, Aristotle is often referred to as having a teleology, and sometimes as having a theory of forms.

Once again there is the unusual discussion within blanked text in the article itself which I now move here:-

Machine Elf:
 * see Talk:Potentiality and actuality, glad you read Meta. Δ 7, 1017a ff. User:Andrew Lancaster, your analysis needs to published in an wp:RS before it can appear on WP... -->

My reply:
 * Machine Elf why can't you use Talk pages? That's what they are for. On Talk:Entelechy you are in a discussion which cites a source so much that you have claimed to be worried about COPYVIO. It does not seem credible to claim on this article that you know of no source. I hope you'll be deleting all this stuff from the article? Or moving it to a talk page somewhere? I thought you were worried about losing records of things.-->

Again, any further comments?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * True... I hope you're going to give me at least a few minutes to respond... Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * True... I hope you're going to give me at least a few minutes to respond... Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course. I actually tend to leave big gaps between bursts of work, and in between those gaps I try to use talk pages to see if I can understand what others think. May I suggest you also do not rush for example, when you do reverts? I think it would really help. Personally I do not believe the material we are discussing should be this controversial. When we've had discussion, we've never had enormous disagreements. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)


 * True... I hope you're going to give me at least a few minutes to respond... Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * True... I hope you're going to give me at least a few minutes to respond... Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It might be easier to just refer to the diff: (copied from Modal logic#Development of modal logic) That was part of what I copied from the modal logic article that I'm thinking shouldn't be in the lead at this time (but maybe once the article is more developed).
 * First, if for now it should not be there, why have you put it there? Secondly, I can imagine this being discussed in the article, but why (ever, even in the future) in the lede?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * First, if for now it should not be there, why have you put it there? Secondly, I can imagine this being discussed in the article, but why (ever, even in the future) in the lede?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously, I disagree about it being undue or else I wouldn't have added it to the lead.
 * No, it's not "all later logic" it's modal logic in particular which is immensely relevant to potentiality and actuality. It's OK that you don't know that. But I do. And degrees don't matter on WP, but for what it's worth, (zero), I have one in philosophy, so I know things like that. I assure you it's not out of a passion for modal logic (which I find a bit tedious). Now you know.
 * "Modal logic" would be part of "later logic" according to my understanding. It might be immensely relevant, but (1) what is inserted into the present article does not show how, and I am really only talking about the article and how to improve it (not theoretical versions of the article which do not yet exist) and (2) there are lots of immensely relevant subjects connected to this article, but we can not put them all in the lede?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you mean communication between the two of us via comments in the article, I agree that can sometimes be silly, but when two people are collaborating, sometimes it's not. There's one comment I added because {SectOR} wasn't linking to the talk page section like it should (and this talk page has become somewhat packed). I'd be glad to remove that comment however.
 * Still responding...—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Still responding...—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, still a quick on the draw there... Slow and steady... Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC) (still responding...)
 * If you post a reply to a particular point, what else do I have to wait for? Are they like drafts? How long should I wait for the final version? Sorry but this is honestly one of several themes I do not understand in your remarks.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to wait for a complete response... or not apparently. Let me get back to you on how long you should wait. Agreed, there is much you don't understand in my remarks.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 11:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't get it: You seem to have time to now slip in this meaningless and snide comment saying that you will answer later, but no time to just give a straight answer. Wouldn't it be faster (less time wasting) to just talk straight sometimes? It is you who keep raising this issue of me being too fast, so that's the only reason I asked. I do not want to annoy you, but if the choice is between annoying you and stopping editing guess what? Please tell me how I can know when a post if final. Is there a manual for talking to Machine Elf somewhere?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't get it: You seem to have time to now slip in this meaningless and snide comment saying that you will answer later, but no time to just give a straight answer. Wouldn't it be faster (less time wasting) to just talk straight sometimes? It is you who keep raising this issue of me being too fast, so that's the only reason I asked. I do not want to annoy you, but if the choice is between annoying you and stopping editing guess what? Please tell me how I can know when a post if final. Is there a manual for talking to Machine Elf somewhere?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)


 * If you want to think of it as an accusation...
 * Yes I tagged your complete rewrite (of a section you don't like) as OR in addition to restoring that other section separately.
 * As I said, I added that comment because {SectOR} wasn't linking to the talk page section like it should (and this talk page has become somewhat packed). I'd be glad to remove that comment however.
 * Yes, frankly, I'm deliriously happy you read the passage I referred you to. One more reason why I don't think you're editing 'in bad faith'.
 * You know, you do selectively fail to respond to my messages on talk pages being an example, so climb down off that cross. Before you say it... I haven't gotten around to responding to your last post there because I had started a reply yesterday but have been given pause after looking at your article edits... for whatever reason, I think you dismiss any input from me regarding WP, and so it's pointless and a waste of my time to try to be informative about your misunderstandings thereof.
 * Yes, I wonder if what was pasted on Talk:Entelechy isn't excessive to the point of being wp:COPYVIO.
 * Here's where you stop making sense: What does something you copied to Talk:Entelechy have to do with your rewrite of (a portion of) that section you don't like? (You continue...)
 * I'll delete the comment next to the SectOR tag, (why wouldn't I, since you've read it). I am very concerned that "records of things" will be obfuscated, be unintelligible via diffs or just fall through the cracks of merges. Those concerns are magnified when you'll argue with me ad nauseam about what I've said, invite others to see for themselves and delete or change beyond recognition the very thing I was talking about. Again, I don't think you're being evil... (and if you are, you're not very good at it) but I'm not here to speculate about you, I'm here to contribute to an encyclopedia and, Devil take me, so are you.
 * Yes, asking for "any further comments" each time you've only just posted something seems really needy, so for a more inviting online persona, you might want to avoid those egregious cries for attention. You asked.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is mostly OT, so I'll divide answer between your talk page (concerning your points about you and me) and the shorter bit for here, because you do not say much about the actual article (meaning your reply could have been and should have been a great deal shorter in my humble opinion)...
 * Here's where you stop making sense: "It does not seem credible to claim on this article that you know of no source." What does something you copied to Talk:Entelechy have to do with your rewrite of (a portion of) that section you don't like? (You continue...)
 * What I am saying, is that anyone looking at your own edits and talk page comments and able to follow the subject will see that not only do you probably not disagree with me about what you are calling OR, it is also not likely you would find it particularly clever or controversial, and also, more remarkably, it seems pretty clear that you also know some good sources just like I do, and you've been discussing them just recently with me. It is just a matter of one of us pasting in a footnote or two at some point, which frankly is a lot more than can be said about quite a lot of stuff in this or any of the related articles. If this is not true then I really can not understand why, instead of all the indirect remarks etc, you did not yourself come to this talk page and post an explanation of why you think this paragraph is OR. I think you create a lot of stress for yourself by not coming to your points more quickly? (I will not take rational and direct criticisms as "rude".)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No response to this point, but you did once again revert me. What is it: you do not have time to consider it, or you have had time to consider it? Surely you can not be doing knee jerk reverts AND also complaining that you do not have time to ever give a straight answer? Your revert claims that you are sure this is OR. Really? So when I put it in again with a ref attached you'll leave it? Please confirm.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll delete the comment next to the SectOR tag, (why wouldn't I, since you've read it). I am very concerned that "records of things" will be obfuscated, be unintelligible via diffs or just fall through the cracks of merges. Those concerns are magnified when you'll argue with me ad nauseam about what I've said, invite others to see for themselves and delete or change beyond recognition the very thing I was talking about. Again, I don't think you're being evil... (and if you are, you're not very good at it) but I'm not here to speculate about you, I'm here to contribute to an encyclopedia and, Devil take me, so are you.
 * Yes, asking for "any further comments" each time you've only just posted something seems really needy, so for a more inviting online persona, you might want to avoid those egregious cries for attention. You asked.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is mostly OT, so I'll divide answer between your talk page (concerning your points about you and me) and the shorter bit for here, because you do not say much about the actual article (meaning your reply could have been and should have been a great deal shorter in my humble opinion)...
 * Here's where you stop making sense: "It does not seem credible to claim on this article that you know of no source." What does something you copied to Talk:Entelechy have to do with your rewrite of (a portion of) that section you don't like? (You continue...)
 * What I am saying, is that anyone looking at your own edits and talk page comments and able to follow the subject will see that not only do you probably not disagree with me about what you are calling OR, it is also not likely you would find it particularly clever or controversial, and also, more remarkably, it seems pretty clear that you also know some good sources just like I do, and you've been discussing them just recently with me. It is just a matter of one of us pasting in a footnote or two at some point, which frankly is a lot more than can be said about quite a lot of stuff in this or any of the related articles. If this is not true then I really can not understand why, instead of all the indirect remarks etc, you did not yourself come to this talk page and post an explanation of why you think this paragraph is OR. I think you create a lot of stress for yourself by not coming to your points more quickly? (I will not take rational and direct criticisms as "rude".)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No response to this point, but you did once again revert me. What is it: you do not have time to consider it, or you have had time to consider it? Surely you can not be doing knee jerk reverts AND also complaining that you do not have time to ever give a straight answer? Your revert claims that you are sure this is OR. Really? So when I put it in again with a ref attached you'll leave it? Please confirm.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What I am saying, is that anyone looking at your own edits and talk page comments and able to follow the subject will see that not only do you probably not disagree with me about what you are calling OR, it is also not likely you would find it particularly clever or controversial, and also, more remarkably, it seems pretty clear that you also know some good sources just like I do, and you've been discussing them just recently with me. It is just a matter of one of us pasting in a footnote or two at some point, which frankly is a lot more than can be said about quite a lot of stuff in this or any of the related articles. If this is not true then I really can not understand why, instead of all the indirect remarks etc, you did not yourself come to this talk page and post an explanation of why you think this paragraph is OR. I think you create a lot of stress for yourself by not coming to your points more quickly? (I will not take rational and direct criticisms as "rude".)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No response to this point, but you did once again revert me. What is it: you do not have time to consider it, or you have had time to consider it? Surely you can not be doing knee jerk reverts AND also complaining that you do not have time to ever give a straight answer? Your revert claims that you are sure this is OR. Really? So when I put it in again with a ref attached you'll leave it? Please confirm.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

refs to google books versus perseus
Yesterday I started adjusting several of the refs to Metaphysics by changing links to google books to links to Perseus. I may have done it clumsily because the format of those particular footnotes was complex. (I would like to register a preference for low maintenance formatting is easy for people to adjust. Nothing here is supposed to belong to anyone.) They are apparently Machine Elf's (judging from his reaction ) therefore Machine Elf, can I put out to you that these links you are using do not actually go to any part of the Metaphysics, at least for me, but only to the title page. I have not checked thoroughly but the problem may well be that Google books blocks some functions for people outside the US? That would seem to make it less appropriate for use in this international website. Anyway, your concerns about Perseus, seem resolvable. Perseus linking can be down to a pretty fine level and can even be set-up to show searches for key words I believe? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't give me any CRAP about OWN, I'm the one who put the time and effort into making those references and NO BODY hot–swaps ref names to a completely different source like that. HOW DARE YOU CITE WP:OWN! THAT IS COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT. What a freaking sense of entitlement you have... nothing less than TOTAL control of these articles. You are on notice that I'll consider you're appearance on any other articles I edit to be wiki stalking.
 * You can make your own freaking references, why the hell would you possibly need to screw with mine?
 * In fact, you've added, what two, so–called "low maintenance" references to the article just fine. There's nothing preventing you from continuing to do so.
 * So I hear you saying your Google Books won't go to a page in a completely full view copy of the Metaphysics available for download? Cry me a river and download the PDF.
 * We are going to use multiple sources and multiple translations. Deal with it.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by using the word "mine" Machine Elf, and why is it relevant that you put a lot of work into something? Pardon me for thinking this is exactly the type of explanation which WP:OWN is written to address. It is not meant to be an insult to refer people to such WP pages though. We all have to remind ourselves of these things some times. Anyway, what you refer to as your google links do not appear to link. I made no google links. Can you fix your google links please? Thanks. (As you know, you've reverted my possibly poor attempts to fix them because they are "yours".)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * NO I WON'T PARDON YOU. YOU'RE THE ONE WHO THINKS HE WP:OWNS EVERY ONE OF THESE ARTICLES.
 * I won't say it again, download the PDF and use the freaking Bekker numbers. That's what they're there for. I'm not your personal tech support.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not about me, for me at least. I have several translations here on my desk. I am thinking about how to improve a Wikipedia article. I propose that Perseus-linking as opposed to Google-Books-linking to the same book of Aristotle is better for readers of this article, because -- that would actually work better. This in turn would appear to be an improvement to the article. It is a kind of simple proposal. As usual, when I propose something it means I'm thinking of doing the necessary edits unless someone can explain why those edits would not improve the article. I do now notice your point that the two refs have different translations but this can also easily be fixed. (I had been working at that time on Perseus with their Greek text in the left main column, so I could not double check the translator name and I made an assumption I forgot later.) There is nothing important about keeping the Ross translations, or do you claim otherwise?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And after due consideration of this points, what is your response Machine Elf? Can the links be adapted in your opinion? Do you see any problem with that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How many times do I have to say. Stop the brow beating. Try a little compromise, the edit history will attest to the fact that certainly have!—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How can I compromise if you will not state your position? Can the refs be adjusted so that they work, or is there some reason not to which would presumably lead to you once again reverting any attempt to make them work? Just give a straight answer.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Concerning "his" google books refs, Machine Elf has made a claim while defending his edit warring at. As it contains some precious explanations of content relevant to this article which had never given before, it should be quoted here:
 * In the 2nd revert [made by Machine Elf] he [Andrew Lancaster] was trying to hot–swap those 7 references for a translation of Aristotle's Metaphysics that only includes BK numbers for the starting line of each chapter. This after I had so painstakingly identified specific BK numbers to use for inline cites to support the original material in the article. Additionally, it would reduce the diversity of translations being referenced in the article and there was absolutely nothing stopping him from creating separate references for the website he wanted to use and, in fact, I had created 4 references to that website myself for that translation (including BK numbers). Moreover, he didn't bother to change the name of the translator. I have no sympathy for the excuse that his Google Books won't go directly to a page. It's a public domain translation and he can download the PDF then use the BK numbers to look things up (like in paper books). Last I checked, he started accusing me OWN over it, was undaunted in his insistence that Google Books not be used and, as always, demanding response after response.

The new explanation about why "his" footnotes should not be fixed so that their linking works, for anyone who missed it, is that using Google books, which has a translation even older than Perseus, means this article has more "diversity of translations". I would like to ask if anyone sees such diversity as a valid thing to aim for on its own. What I mean is that obviously multiple translations are sometimes given where there is a special translation complexity, but when we are dealing with two old translations that just happen to be the ones available on line, and there was no specific variations between them being required for any specific purpose, is it an aim to just generally use several translations for no particular reason other than "diversity". My understanding is that the standard approach of most editors and teachers would be that basic quotations should all be made from ONE translation is possible?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, just to see how Machine Elf can say his argument is several things at the same time, and also how he simply does not think through what others are saying, on his own talk page and concerning this subject, Machine Elf has repeated his assertion (also made above) to an admin, to defend his edit warring, that me wanting the links to work is "For a completely selfish reason" and "He can download the Ross PDF and use the Bekker numbers. Why should I compromise that?". This repeats previous assertions that because I tested the links by clicking on them myself, the only problem is for me, and so this is not relevant for Wikipedia. If anyone can make sense of it, let me know. As I said above, ''It is not about me, for me at least. I have several translations here on my desk. I am thinking about how to improve a Wikipedia article. I propose that Perseus-linking as opposed to Google-Books-linking to the same book of Aristotle is better for readers of this article, because -- that would actually work better.''--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Dude, you rule.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Machine Elf. Just to make sure you understand: No one outside the US can download from the link you were using nor read it. I do not need a PDF of Ross but even if I did I could not follow up your suggestion and either can most people on the planet. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Concern about a definition
New text of Machine Elf which makes a definition in the lede: "energeia, entelecheia or "entelechy": an action, process, work or possibility coming–to–be in complete reality." I have some concerns.
 * action, process, work. As Aristotle makes clear, for some types of process we say they are present even when they are only potentially present. Energeia does not refer to those. In English we can make the distinction clear by saying that something is in action, undergoing a process, at work
 * Simply equating "work" with "possibility coming-to-be" does not sound right to me, but that's what the text says. I do of course understand how someone can interpret it in a way which is right, but that is not clear. Indeed I'd argue it is not correctly written.
 * "coming to be" is in contrast to "complete"
 * "complete" would apply, if I understand the intention, to "entelecheia" but not all energeia?
 * "coming to be" would apply to activities which are energeia in the sense that they are already at their work with respect to that activity, but not yet an entelecheia in its stable end or complete work. If they are not at any work at all, then they are not an energeia. So coming to be is not right here?

Comments please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Restoring my reply, thank you for admitting what a waste of time and energy you're creating for me!—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Good! Questions that are sensitive to nuances in the material. And not not even wrong... there may be hope for you yet Lancaster ...
 * The nuance about process is a detail to be expounded in the "actuality" detail sections of the article, no? The lead thus leads the reading in the right direction, yes? Besides, it's qualified with "in complete reality".
 * It's doesn't equate work with "possibility coming–to–be" and that's not what it says. It says: "an action, process, work or possibility coming–to–be in complete reality".
 * I disagree about the lack of contrast you see there (between coming–to–be and complete reality). Realize that non–eternal "complete realities" do come–to–be and for their final cause all the way along and whereas it's typically said that substances come to be and pass away, it's one of those things that are said in many ways.
 * It makes no distinction between energeia and entelecheia (or for that matter entelechy).
 * Allow me be a bit obtuse: in the lead, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the terms were used interchangeably by Aristotle, but that, and the apparent fact that scholars really wish he had made a distinction... are two things, at least, about which there's a scholarly consensus. I agree that Sachs is generally a good guide to follow in the article (from what I've seen, his analysis isn't nearly as peculiar as translation) but more nuanced insights we'll want to "take with a grain of salt" and include additional opinions/approaches etc. A lot of Aristotle is that way... there's no telling when or where he changed his mind about things or what material in the Metaphysics was pedagogical (or his attempts at refuting himself, which was part of his process). So... I think the job of the actuality detail sections will be: to paint a picture of the various contrasts, in various works, noted by various scholars, in various ages—between energeia and entelecheia.
 * (I think we agree various ages should be handled in separate high–level sections and I'm fine with mixing more the physical/metaphysical works in with the more psychological [biological] and ethical works.)—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just got your user talk of the above talk page section... ( I'll read it next ). Believe it not, I've been responding to your messages this entire time. But there's a catch–22 about the more I write... know what I mean?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I'll read it.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Good! Questions that are sensitive to nuances in the material. And not not even wrong... there may be hope for you yet Lancaster ...
 * Reckon these types of asides waste time energy and focus. Imagine if I spent more time answering them all.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The nuance about process is a detail to be expounded in the "actuality" detail sections of the article, no? The lead thus leads the reading in the right direction, yes?
 * Well no. I honestly think it misleads a bit by treating energeia as the same as entelecheia and equating them too simply in turn to some other terms. Furthermore it seems to get into this problem because it is trying to half deal with things which are dealt with later.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Besides, it's qualified with "in complete reality".
 * The qualification is not clear I think? And there's your problem. You could keep making it longer to make it clear, or you could make it simpler and then not need all the qualifications. One of the problems is that too much is being fit into this particular bullet point. The structure is one of two lists which are both being simply equated. Actually there is a slight difference between some of these terms. I propose making this bullet point simpler in the lead. Anyway, I think a tweak can do it. I dare not do it myself yet of course because I am officially in "WAIT" mode.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's doesn't equate work with "possibility coming–to–be" and that's not what it says. It says: "an action, process, work or possibility coming–to–be in complete reality".
 * The "or" implies an equation, surely? If we can avoid that implication it would be better if it can be done? And it can be done just by tweaking I believe?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree about the lack of contrast you see there (between coming–to–be and complete reality). Realize that non–eternal "complete realities" do come–to–be and for their final cause all the way along and whereas it's typically said that substances come to be and pass away, it's one of those things that are said in many ways.
 * But as a very simple point, if different people (you and me) are able to see this as being able to be read in different ways, then we should surely see it as a good aim if we can try to make it more clear?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It makes no distinction between energeia and entelecheia (or for that matter entelechy).
 * Allow me be a bit obtuse: in the lead, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the terms were used interchangeably by Aristotle, but that, and the apparent fact that scholars really wish he had made a distinction... are two things, at least, about which there's a scholarly consensus.
 * Actually that is fine by me. But think about what it means. It means there is no agreement either way. This means we can not put either proposal into the lead without comment like this. Better to find a wording which makes no claim either way in the lead?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that Sachs is generally a good guide to follow in the article (from what I've seen, his analysis isn't nearly as peculiar as translation) but more nuanced insights we'll want to "take with a grain of salt" and include additional opinions/approaches etc. A lot of Aristotle is that way... there's no telling when or where he changed his mind about things or what material in the Metaphysics was pedagogical (or his attempts at refuting himself, which was part of his process). So... I think the job of the actuality detail sections will be: to paint a picture of the various contrasts, in various works, noted by various scholars, in various ages—between energeia and entelecheia.
 * Fine by me. Thought that's what I was doing. Of course there might be more authors to cite, and someone might insert something about those... one day...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (I think we agree various ages should be handled in separate high–level sections and I'm fine with mixing more the physical/metaphysical works in with the more psychological [biological] and ethical works.)—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you explain this a bit more? Are your talking about creating sections for Plotinus, Christian interpretations etc? Fine. What about modal logic though? And are we still going to have this agreement but then "waiting"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just got your user talk of the above talk page section... ( I'll read it next ). Believe it not, I've been responding to your messages this entire time. But there's a catch–22 about the more I write... know what I mean?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is to write less, but (inserted:which would mean) faster. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I'll read it.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Despite ending the above with "now I'll read it" which is pretty indecisive, you have now below claimed, with respect to a similar problem where you have again reverted me, that my trying to ask your explanation was "Just astonishing. We've talked about this". I am thinking it must refer to this discussion above? Does this mean you consider the above a finished discussion where you've left all points clearly answered? A straight simple answer like yes or no would be appreciated.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Section currently titled "Actuality and action"
Some concerns about this section below. Once again I discuss here, but there have been edits and reverts already... Comments?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The above named section is one I have proposed for deletion.
 * A section already exists which has the same basic subject. It is titled "Actuality". It is longer than this later section and contains sub-sections called "Energeia" and "Entelecheia". I do understand that there is an idea to eventually perhaps have a section which goes into more depth about actuality than the FIRST section about the same subject, but at the moment this is just an idea and not the case.
 * The title is a concern anyway, and attempts to change it have been reverted by Machine Elf. The problem is that "action" is simply not a normal translation for "energeia" or "entelechia" or "actualitas".

Is it non neutral to that "Aristotle uses energeia interchangeably with entelecheia."
Another revert from today was that my adjustment of
 * "Aristotle uses energeia interchangeably with entelecheia."

...to...
 * "Aristotle uses energeia and entelecheia as words with meanings which converge."

...was reverted. There is no official explanation because was done as part of a knee jerk revert which accused my edit incorrectly of being a simple revert and treated that as a good enough explanation. It was not a revert, it was a re-write of the sentence. Before I made that re-write, I had removed an equivalent or identical one and Machine Elf had reverted that and the edit summary of that re-insertion shows that he knew he was inserting something at least arguably wrong, and that he knew from previous edits I would have a concern about ("This was supposed to be a basic §Overview... At any rate, stop removing other cited viewpoints. I'm glad you read Sachs but there are other commentaries too..."). So now I ask here on the talkpage whether this revert (re-insertion) of Machine Elf was really a thought-through improvement of the article, and if so why? Machine Elf has accepted or even insisted several times now that energeia does not necessarily mean exactly the same as entelecheia, so why would we allow the Wikipedia article to pretend there is a simple equation, and that this is the only mainstream opinion on the matter? If Machine Elf knows there is disagreement on the field why is he insisting that Wikipedia takes a side? Simplification is not a valid answer because simplification is nothing to do with taking a side. You do not need to say two words are the same in meaning in order to say something simply. Less strong words can be chosen, which is what I did. (My choice of words is from Aristotle himself, as I suppose Machine Elf knows from the discussion at Talk:Entelechy where this has been mentioned at some length.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just astonishing. We've talked about this... your "re-write of the sentence" changes the meaning.
 * And deleting the section on the Megarics is stooping pretty low for retaliation/attention... Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We discussed it but you never even tried to justify why you would want to over-rule Aristotle himself. 1047a30, in the Sachs translation: "the phrase being-at-work, which is designed to converge in meaning with being-at-work-staying-complete". You've stated outright that you know the sentence you've chosen is debatable. It is not enough to say we've discussed something. You have to actually make real as opposed to tendentious answers. By the way, you need so much time to answer me, but it take you no time to revert? If you have no time to explain your position on a talk page how are you so confident of your position that you can revert within a few seconds?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it is easiest if you just post a simple diff of your explanation. Is that possible please?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe the new version resolves this issue about identity or convergence.
 * Concerning the Megarics, that is another subject, but for now the material which was in the old articles was not clearly linked to the subject matter in a way that made its notability clear. Aristotle discusses this in what amounts to an aside to help explain his definition to contemporaries who presumably knew more about the Megarics and could make sense of it, and it was not a big issue in post Aristotelian discussion either. It is possible that it might fit in future versions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What to do if a section is tagged as OR
Find supporting references and use inline citations.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Is Potentiality and actuality tagged appropriately as original research WP:OR? (See also: Talk:Potentiality and actuality).—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Why have you started a new section for this instead of just answering my very basic question? This is apparently a reply to my last posting about your OR tag which was asking a different question? At first I remarked that you know of sources I can put in, because we've recently discussed them. You gave no straight answer as usual but you have not denied that, and you only response was on the revert you did later when I tried to remove the tag, after our discussion, and a long wait. Tagging something as OR in that situation is simply tendentious surely? So the practical question I asked is if I put a source in, will you again revert? It is a simple question, so just give a simple answer. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We posted at the same time, but the RFC tag you have added here is disingenuous. You know this was discussed by us in several places, and you are not giving diffs. You now the question is NOT one of basic OR procedures, because what I proposed to you some time back was that you reverted even though you personally do not believe this is OR. In other words this is an edit warring issue, where you've used the fact that refs were not yet added to tendentiously tag material as part of a bigger edit war. (Put simply, you are currently reverting pretty much all my edits, right?) My question above stands, which is whether you will stop reverting a tag removal when I put in a source? I just want that simple point confirmed. I want you to state you have no other reason for the OR tag that can not be fixed with a simple bit of referencing. No other questions are open here and so the RFC is not for the wrong question.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Update on this article
A couple of things to note about events relating to this article:
 * 1. As can be seen on the article, this article is going to be blocked for editing for a few days. This is one result from the edit warring of Machine Elf yesterday. He was also asked to stay away from the article for a week, in reply to which he has said he will stay away permanently. That's an unfortunate way for the road block in discussions to end, but at least that is over for now.
 * 2. While the article is blocked, it is time to try to get a vision together about this article and the ones that overlap with it. Obviously I have my own ideas, which continue to change, and obviously I intend to improve this article and the over-lapping ones so while the article is blocked I have set up a working draft on my user space. I learned last time I tried a draft in this complex case that it is possibly sometimes naive to ask others to work with me on such proposals, so I'll work on it myself during the block, and I hope I can this time bring it alone to a point where the target is more clear and I create less panic. I suggest comments be made here on this talk page.
 * 3. There are obviously lots of open questions and proposals by me on this talk page. To move forward though I will also try, if I can find the time, to write an analysis of differences between my draft and other versions, including old and draft versions, of this article, and the other articles in discussion (entelechy, energeia, Actus et potentia, and dunamis.

I hope that makes sense to others.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe the above-mentioned draft would be a definite improvement on the current version and indeed to use it here when editing starts again. I think it resolves a lot of issues that have been raised not only by me but also by others. Comments welcome.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussions with the only active editors on this, appear to show no concerns about the draft for re-starting work on improving this article at least, now that it is unfrozen. I shall continue.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. That is done and now we can discuss the material here and try to improve it further. I think that it would be good if the two other interested users would join discussion on this talk page concerning any remaining issues. With the updates I have just made on this article two obvious questions which are now important are whether this article now effectively covers everything we so far have concerning entelechy and energeia. (Note how I am referring to getting the material we have together and focused. In my opinion, unless someone is doing concrete work right now, this is quite a separate point from whether there is so much to say about potentiality and actuality that it might one day need splitting if lots of stuff is one day added to Wikipedia?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

How gracious, it takes two to edit war Lancaster; as demonstrated by the result.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

re-starting merge discussions for remaining candidates
The remaining candidates for merging into this article are entelechy and energeia. The latest version of this article tries to cover both of them. Please note energeia, like dunamis, was created by me in 2005, before this article was created, but I would never have created it if this article already existed. That would have been against WP:CFORK.

Please note: subsequent tagging for merging in this case started in 2008. So I am not "rushing". Discussion can not be blocked forever, which I will discuss further below.

I believe there is no disagreement that Actuality/energeia and Potentiality/dunamis are a dichotomy, like flammable and non-flammable, and can not be explained without contrasting them. The most relevant Wikipedia policy, I think, is this one:
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability. WP:MERGE

What other policies might also be important here?


 * 1. User:LoveMonkey has raised a concern that this article could become too long. Currently though, with everything added in, it is only 27K. See the guidelines:
 * < 30 KB 	Length alone does not justify division WP:SPLIT
 * It might become too long one day and need splitting. That would be great. It is however impossible for Wikipedians to edit this current article based on something which does not yet exist, even if one of us is currently visualizing doing this one day. The rest of us need a solution for organizing the material we have now, so that readers can read it now, and editors can edit it now.


 * 2. Followers of discussions will know I have raised concerns about this policy:
 * A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided. WP:CFORK
 * Obviously of course, if the article gets longer, splitting the article can have a justification, but we are a long way from that now?


 * 3. I guess I have to mention something which has played a role in holding up discussion, which is refusal to explain. By this I mean that several times at critical moments discussion was stopped with someone saying that they did not have to explain their reasons for a preference, they just had to say they did not agree. I suppose the idea here is that merging needs a consensus, so as long as any editor refuses to agree, they can stop others? I want to point out that this is a misunderstanding of WP rules. See WP:Democracy and WP:Consensus.


 * When called upon to explain something, especially if someone is showing you how your preference violates policy, if you refuse to answer or discuss, you can most often expect to simply be ignored. I am not saying this to be rude but simply to avoid problems which seem to keep happening. (People may be thinking they can block editing in situations when they can not.) The message is that you must work with others on Wikipedia.

So, please everyone, if there is a response to the above, it needs to be made. The present situation confronts users of Wikipedia with a choice of articles about the same subject. They can come to different articles depending upon what search term they put in. I think it is clear to everyone how this violates WP:CFORK policy, and also common sense. Or am I wrong? Is there any way to really argue that this there is not currently a fork?

The merge proposal is two years old and it is starting to look like people are trying to maintain personal versions (POV forks or cases of WP:OWN) that they can work on alone, and that is not acceptable on WP. So if that is not what is happening what is it? There must have been time by now for any realistic policy-consistent proposals to be made?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE. In discussions on our talk pages User:LoveMonkey agrees with the energeia merge. Discussion of the entelechy merge continues on Talk:entelechy with User:The Tetrast. I shall act on that basis.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. Energeia is now a redirect, so please discuss any issues concerning it here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)