Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Conatus


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:21, 5 May 2007.

Conatus
Self-nom: I brought this article up from nothing with the great help of Lacatosias (see the peer review), and now I think it is ready to be promoted from a GA (the review) to a Featured Article. If you have any objections that are even theoretically fixable, I shall of course do my best to address them. Thank you for reading it: we need more philosophy FAs. -- Rmrfstar 00:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Just some initial comments here that are not necessarily objectionable. Please don't hide the table of contents: if a user chooses to hide it, he has the option to do so. Is there any reason you prefer the Harvard citation style over the ref style? I would say that 99% of FAs these days are done using the ref style and I personally think it is not only much easier but decreases the general clutter during a read. Your "Related terms" section needs to be fixed: the images conflict with the text.  JHMM13  04:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm.. I was going to mention that myself. But I thought that this Harv thing (which I loathe) had become the new standard or something.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't hide the table of contents, it was aligned to the right... I thought it looked better that way, but someone undid that. I have plenty of reasons that I used the Harvard style, the most important of which is this article is heavily referenced with page numbers for almost all citations. I also really don't like giant whitespace created by the ref style; I think this one is far easier (I've used both)! And Lacatosias seems to have removed the probematic images. -- Rmrfstar 01:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You can use page citations in the ref style. Almost all recent FAs have them. I'll abstain from the "vote" then.  JHMM13  05:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the article looks more cohesive and professional without that huge list at the bottom. And according to a number of pages of citation policy and guidelines, this style should be accepted alongside the ref/note one. Perhaps this is no longer true because practically everyone that I've ever seen uses the latter. -- Rmrfstar 12:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Though I disagree with your reasons, I respect your right to abstain from "voting". -- Rmrfstar 21:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that the ref system is in, I find nothing else wrong with this article pending fixing of the current issues by other users. Support.

'': "In ancient Greece, Cicero, Laertius and Aristotle each alluded". Maybe I am not so familiar with the orology here but "ancient Greece" and "Cicero" together? Is he another Cicero who lived in ancient Greece? And IMO "Related terms" should be prose; it looks listy to me, but again this may be a personal preference. Apart from these issues, very nice indeed.--Yannismarou 11:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh! And avoid disamb links (e.g. Louis Dumont, you want me to go to the sociologist or the political writer?). The same with will.--Yannismarou 11:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the ancient Greece section and disambiguated those two links... I don't think the "related terms" are interrelated enough to put them in one section, nor significant enough to put them in separate ones. I'll play around with it though... -- Rmrfstar 12:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've redone the related usages section. you can flip back if you like, expand or whatever.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll definitely not change it back; it's very much improved! -- Rmrfstar 22:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support.--Yannismarou 08:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Ref style and Harv style can be merged, please see the article Rabindranath Tagore which also is heavily referenced with page numbers for almost all citations. The style which this article (Conatus) uses at present is causing a general clutter during a read. This can be decreased. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment -- Eh, why not after all? --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 17:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, I am familiar with alternatives to the Harvard style, including a combination of Harvard and Ref/Note: please see the Featured Articles Sylvia (ballet), Roman Vishniac, Atomic line filter (this uses the combination mentioned above) and Hippocrates (this one too), all of which I worked on. I do not like the way these look. The ref/note style creates huge, ugly whitespaces and makes multiple references of the same source difficult, redundant and/or uninformative. It also stops working on many mirrors of Wikipdedia. It also looks less professional IMHO.


 * Second: The Harvard referencing page and a few significant other ones describe the Harvard reference style as "recommended" along with the more common footnotes. I prefer the current version, yet recognize it is atypical. If the general consensus is against me, and against current guidelines, then the combo can be implemented. However, then, I think, the matter should be brought up with the larger Wikipedia community whether the Harvard style is ever acceptable or preferable. Our encyclopedia's guidelines and FAC criteria should be descriptive, and its readers shouldn't be encouraged to spend time following them if they are not. Notably, the FAC criterium 1c does not specify that only the ref/note style is accepted; but, it instead cites WP:CITE (sorry) as the place for recommendations for styles. This page, of course, lists Embedded Links, Harvard Style and Footnote systems all as acceptable. If the second (and maybe the first, too) is not (or is only acceptable when used in conjuction with footnotes), then we must change the guidelines or the criterium. *phew* -- Rmrfstar 21:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe, I liked the *phew* at the end :) Yes, of course the style in the article is acceptable per WP:CITE, otherwise people would have objected in stead of writing comments. It's just that the style appears rather less aesthetic (to me). It's a matter of personal choice. Anyway, this cannot be a ground for objection.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it's hideously ugly (links "light up" and so on) and cumbersome to use. It seems obvious that most people seem to agree with me on this. You don't WP:OWN the article, of course, so I will change to cites.php style. This will also give me a better idea of what is lacking in the article in terms of content and references. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine... but then the encyclopedia guidelines and FA critera must be fixed... -- Rmrfstar 12:46, 21 April 2007 (UT

Support: there are a few awkward phrasings here and there. Otherwise, the article is comprehensive, factually accurate and very well-referenced. It's about as well as one can possibly do with an article of this nature (i.e on a single, relatively abstruse, metaphysical term). Doesn't seem over-technical to me (but non-philosophers may differ). Nice work.---Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments This is a good article on a difficult topic. I have a few comments, most of which are on the prose. I certainly feel that I am close to supporting.
 * The history of the term conatus is the story of a gradual evolution. - vague - from what to what? Since its meaning disintegrates, perhaps "evolution" is not the best term.
 * Evolution just means change, but the process was not gradual now that you mention it.Revised and precisified. FF


 * I would link your use of "vulgar" to wiktionary since your usage is not what the lay reader would recognize as the common definition.
 * Done.FF


 * Today, conatus is rarely used in the technical sense, since modern physics and evolutionary biology use concepts that have superseded it. - such as?
 * Fixed. FF


 * but the concept of the conatus was first developed in the Greek language by the Stoics before the Common Era. - can you develop a concept in a language? the diction seems odd to me here
 * Fixed. FF


 * expanded this principle to include a repulsion from destruction - "repulsion from destruction" sounds odd as well - a "fear of destruction" perhaps?
 * aversion to destruction. Fixed. FF


 * extended the primitive Greek notions and applied them to all objects, animate and inanimate - why are Greek notions "primitive"?
 * Changed to ancient. FF


 * In other words, the cause for human desire is our conatus, and the natural inclination for a body to augment itself in accordance with its principles. - last clause is missing something, I'm not sure what, though - I couldn't quite follow this sentence; the "and" suggests both of these clauses are reasons for human desire but that doesn't seem right
 * I think I've taken care of this. I've removed the ambiguity, but let me know if I have distorted the meaning intended in some way. FF


 * noting the inconsistency between Aristotle's discussion of projectiles, where the medium keeps projectiles going, and his discussion of the void, where the medium would hinder a body's motion - please mention what the medium is for those unfamiliar with Aristotle
 * My fault. Fixed and clarified. FF


 * There are various pages to choose from as a link for "Scholastics" in the "Descartes" section. I urge you to choose one.
 * Done. FF


 * A question: How can Descartes not endorse a teleological view if he endorsed a God-centered conatus and innate ideas implanted by God?


 * Ok, here's a short and simplified answer to this question: first of all, innate ideas has nothing to do with the natural world. The mind is a seperate ontological categeory which does not obey the stricly mechanical cause-effect laws of nature (interchange and displacement of atoms in the material plenum of nature). Motion and rest are properties of the interactions of atoms according to eternally fixed mechanical laws of nature. God only sets the whole thing in motion at the start and later does not interefer except to maintain the dynamical regularities of the mechanical behavior of bodies. Hence there is no real teleology (purpose) in the movements of bodies since the whole thing reduces to the law-governed collisions of atoms and their constant reconfigurations. The conatus is just the tendency of bodies to move when they are collide with each other and so on. God sets it in motion, but thereafter no NEW motion or rest can be created or destroyed.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. If you don't understand it now....FF
 * Does God know what is going to happen after he sets the system in motion? Is there free will in Descartes' system? Awadewit 21:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, he/she/it is omniscient. Yes, free will does exist for Decsrates. But this is taking us into Descartes' philosophy of religion. I don't remember how he reconciles the omnipotence/free will problem, but such views are obviously common even now. I don't have the knowledge/respirces to go there at the moment, to be honest.  I've run into many articles arguing that Dscartes cannot entirely eliminate telology from even his mechanical system.  Descartes clearly insisted otherwise. His physical/biological system (excluding mind)was intended to be as mechanistic as possible (animals are automatons, for example). The system was at least mechanistic enough to help inspire the rise of mechanism with La Mettrie (Man the Machine) and so forth. The only thing relevant for this article, I think, is to point out that Descartes' use of conatus is ambigous and, sometimes, contradictory. The two main interpretations of Descartes' view of conatus are the one I have described, and another one which suggests simply that the introduction of conatus and related forces are a throwback to Scholasticism and undermine the non-teleological, non-qualititive project. It's rather complex and subtle. But that's the best I can do without getting too heavily into the free will/omniscience problem (should be deal with elsewehere) and without going beyond my sources.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm more curious than anything - just trying to understand all of the complexities. Awadewit 23:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This law is very closely related to Isaac Newton's better-known Law of Inertia, which was developed fifty years later. - but did he have the math? I know Descartes was a phenomenal mathematician, but what made Newton's laws such a breakthrough was that he could prove them.
 * Galileo. FF
 * Looks like a Galileo/Newton thing. Did anyone really accept Galileo's idea, I wonder? Newton's laws of motion Awadewit 21:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, Hobbes describes emotion as the beginning of motion and the will as the sum of all emotions. This "will" forms the conatus of a body[14] and its physical manifestation is the perceived "will to survive" - This sounds a little like Hume - desires drive the will which drives the reason. Is there a connection here?
 * Hume has no concept of conatus and Hobbes was earlier anyway. What's the point of mentioning Hume?FF
 * I was more curious than anything. Knowledge and all. Awadewit 21:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "When referring to psychological manifestations of the concept, he uses the term voluntas (will). When referring to the overarching concept, he uses the word appetitus (appetite). When referring to the bodily impulse, he uses the plain term "conatus"." - Why are we bolding now? Seems unnecessary - italics are fine. (Other words get bolded throughout - no need to do that.)
 * Fixed. FF
 * Yea, I did that because Spinoza uses appetitus and voluntas as synonyms for the eponymous conatus, and both terms are redirects to Conatus. I think it best that their boldness is reinstated. -- Rmrfstar 00:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That is perfectly understandable in the text - it is confusing why certain terms are bolded, though. You might ask others. Awadewit 01:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sometimes he expands the term and uses the whole phrase, "conatus sese conservandi" (the striving for self-preservation).[28] - Latin should be in italics.
 * Fixed. FF


 * Spinoza asserts the existence of this general principle of a "conatus" in attempting to explain the "self-evident" truth that "nothing can be destroyed except by an external cause" (IIIP4). - What is this reference to?
 * Book III, proposition 4... I don't understand what's wrong with the statement; but perhaps that is because I'm too close to the material... What exactly doesn't make sense?
 * That is far from clear, actually, to people who don't read Spinoza. I thought it was Book III, paragraph 4 (as it is in Locke). But, actually, from my perspective the error was far more egregious. You did not mention which text you are citing. We do not all have Spinoza memorized. :) Awadewit 01:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I presume this is the Ethics, but I'll look it up to confirm.FF
 * Done. FF


 * This resistance to self-destruction is formulated by Spinoza to equal an anthropomorphic endeavoring to continue to exist - "anthropomorphic" is unclear - a little explanation would be helpful
 * how's this: "to equal a human endeavoring to continue to exist"?
 * Better - "the human desire to continue to exist"? Awadewit 01:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As he states in IIIP8 - what is this text?
 * Fixed. FF


 * Spinoza, extending the concepts of his predecessors, used the term conatus to refer to rudimentary concepts of inertia, as Descartes had even earlier. - how can he be expanding if Descartes had already done it?
 * Fixed. FF


 * There are inconsistencies in verb tense in the "Spinoza" section - carefully choose when you use the past tense and when the present tense. There were some present tenses that should have been past tenses.
 * Fixed. FF


 * Spinoza's view of the relationship between the conatus and the human affects is not clear. - "affects" links to a disambiguation page - which link do you want?
 * Fixed. FF


 * Spinoza states in IVP18 of his Ethics - perhaps just "Spinoza states in his Ethics"?
 * Fixed. FF


 * "conatus" should always be italicized.
 * Done. FF


 * Leibniz did do much to develop the concept of a conatus, incorporating it into the principles of the integral calculus. - please explain
 * I changed the wording around a bit to try and make the significance of that statement more clear. Conatus as a differential and in Leibnizian dynamics is described in the second paragraph.
 * Leibniz did do much to develop the concept of a conatus, incorporating it into the principles of the integral calculus; he thus made significant contributions to the early science of physical dynamics, adapting the meaning of the term conatus, in this case, to signify a mathematical analog of Newton's "force". - I'm afraid that I still don't understand - this sentence still does not explain how Leibniz "incorporated" the conatus into integral calculus. Awadewit 01:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. FF


 * The second paragraph of "Leibniz" could be explained in greater detail.
 * What in it? I consider this paragraph a basic summary, if concise, of the signicance of the conatus principle in Leibniz's mathematical and physical theories.
 * I don't think that the links are sufficient - you are relying on them to explain concepts that very few people know (also two of them are red links!). I cannot make out what you are saying and I actually do know a bit about Newton, Kepler and the late seventeenth century philosophers. I'm sorry to be difficult - it's just that I actually do want to understand the page and want it to be understandable to philosophy non-experts. Awadewit 01:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe FF has dealt with this now. -- Rmrfstar 23:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps in the "Modern significance" section you could explain that it was not just replaced but that the new theories are based on an entirely different methodology, namely the scientific method?
 * It shall be done.


 * In general, I think that the article should have more dates to anchor the reader who may have a poor grasp of history or may only have a grasp of certain sections of history.
 * A bunch of these were added before you read it; where are they still lacking?
 * Medieval section, Descartes and Spinoza don't have birth/death dates like Hobbes, all works should have publication dates, "Related usages" could use a lot more dates, etc. Awadewit 01:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My fault. I will restore them. Not a problem. FF
 * Done. FF


 * There are some page numbers missing from some of the footnotes and some page numbers missing from some of the article citations in the Bibliography and the Further Reading. Awadewit 22:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately my referencing is not perfect: sometimes I could not get the page number for various reasons (say the source didn't have pages...). The most painful instance of this is for the nietzsche material which is on my todo list.
 * I also would discourage the use of the book template that joins citations together so that you can't quote page numbers. I found footnote 2 particularly annoying. But that is a personal preference. Awadewit 01:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC
 * The reason that citation doesn't have page numbers is because it's from the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which has no pages. -- Rmrfstar 22:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I assumed that the source was a book. Usually people link to web sources in the notes if they are using web sources as a courtesy to the reader. You might do that. Awadewit 23:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope I've helped out here. I will get to Descartes non-teleological notion a bit later. Hopefully, User:Rmfstar can answer some of the reference questions. I'll deal with the non-telelogical view of Descartes later on.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those answers. Awadewit 01:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, what's left and necessary for a "support"? -- Rmrfstar 23:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A few very small things and then I will support.
 * This law is a generalization of the principle of inertia, which was developed and demonstrated earlier by Galileo, and later adopted by Isaac Newton as his first Law of Motion fifty years later. - I still have a problem with this sentence. First, it uses "later" twice; and second, according to the Newton's laws of motion page, Newton was the first person to prove the law, so I would not say he just "adopted" it - he "proved" it, perhaps? Awadewit 23:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That article is a mess and is not referenced at all. It certainly doesn't even assert that he "proved" it. Here's a good explanation of what really happened. Let's not start with the racist stuff here. Galileo proved it (insofar as such a thing is even possible with the inclined plane and the moving boat. Descartes generalized and Newton came up with the other two laws, making the three laws of motion. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a random site with very little information. According to the "Introduction" in my copy of the Principia (Cohen and Whitman translation):
 * "sometime in the 1660s, Newton made a series of computations, one of which was aimed at proving that what was later known as the outward or centrifugal force arising from the earth's rotation is less than the earth's gravity, as it must be for the Copernican system to be possible. He then computed a series of forces. Cartesian vortical endeavors are not the kind of forces that, in the Principia, are exerted by the sun on the planets to keep them in a curved path or the similar force exerted by the earth on the moon. At this time, and for some years to come, Newton was deeply enmeshed in the Cartesian doctrine of vortices. He had no concept of a 'force of gravity' acting on the moon in anything like the later sense of the dynamics of the Principia. These Cartesian 'endeavours' (Newton used Descartes's own technical term, 'conatus') are the magnitude of the planets' endeavors to fly out of their orbits. Newton concludes that since the cubes of the distances of the planets from the sun are 'reciprocally as the squared numbers of their revolutions in a given time,' their 'conatus to recede from the Sun will be reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the Sun.' Newton also made computations to show that the endeavor or 'conatus' of receding from the earth's surface (caused by the earth's daily rotation) is 12 1/2 times greater than the orbital endeavor of the moon to recede from the earth. He concludes that the force of receding at the earth's surface is '4000 and more times greater than the endeavor of the Moon to recede from the Earth.' In other words, 'Newton had discovered an interesting mathematical correlation within the solar vortex,' but he had plainly had not as yet invented the radically new concept of a centripetal dynamical force" (14-15) - So it seems to me that Newton was applying Cartesian math as well as philosophy but that he still was the one who brought it all together in the end. It's the bringing together that is so hard in science, as I am sure you know. Awadewit 09:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats says nat a word about the specific phenomenon of INERTIA. You don't want me to whip out my original Italian vernacular copy of Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi and show excatly where Galileo discusses proves inertia (an empirical phenomenona which cannot be proved mathematically,BTW, with the experiments of the  inclined plane and the moving boat). It will take days to find and translate this. Let's see of I can find something more authoritative in English, though I thought this was obvious.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the FAC for Conatus, not Isaac Newton. But I will remove the first later as it is redundant. -- Rmrfstar 10:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We are obviously not getting anywhere with this. I just thought that the Newton sentence was misleading, but let's that go and focus on the citations. Awadewit 17:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Footnotes without pages numbers (that are not websources): 11, 16, 27 (? - is Osiris a database?), 40, 41, 50 (is this in a database?), 54 (is this in a database?), 57, 62, 66, 68 - the Thomson/Gale document number is not clear to me - is this a typical way of searching some database? I use Thomson/Gale's Eighteenth Century Collections Online database, for example, but one would never reference a document by number, as far as I know, or search by number. Awadewit 23:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not today. holiday in Italy. FF
 * You can find Thomson Gale documents using their numbers: see . The number is redundant anyway: if you can't use it, ignore it. And not every short journal article needs page numbers. Those found by me with the Thomson Gale system are purely digital and do not have page numbers. -- Rmrfstar 10:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "You can also make note of this number to return to the record in a later session, since searching by document number is often a search option in Advanced Search, if Advanced Search is available in the collection you are currently using. When Advanced Search is not available, some collections offer a document number search as its own search page that you can link to from the search path bar." - Which database are you referring to? Does it have this ability? Also, what if someone doesn't have access to the database but wants the article anyway? Then they would need the original publication information. This is a basic courtesy to the reader. Awadewit 17:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I have included the basic publication information for those that can't use the Thomson Gale database. But for those who can, I have provided the number for ease of use. -- Rmrfstar 01:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (back out) Let us look at an example.
 * Arthur, Richard (1998), "Cohesion, Division and Harmony: Physical Aspects of Leibniz's Continuum Problem (1671-1686)", Perspectives on Science 110 (1), Thomson Gale Document Number:A54601187. This is what I mean. What database is this in? Thomson/Gale publishes hundreds of databases. To me, this citation looks like Perspectives on Science is a journal and you are referencing the 110th volume and the first issue. Why not just give the page numbers as well so that those who cannot access whatever database you are referring to have the most precise information? I can't understand the resistance here. It is standard practice to cite journal article page numbers. Also, if someone wants to request a journal article through interlibrary loan, they usually have to have the page numbers. Awadewit 01:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It still looks to me like there are journal articles without page numbers in the "Bibliography" and the "Further Reading" and not all of the citations are formatted the same way. Awadewit 23:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Might need some help from the nominator here and with the previous. FF
 * All of the citations use the one Template:Citation and so are completely consistent and standardized. If there are not page numbers for items in the Further reading section, it's because (I intended) the whole work should be read, or there is no especially relevant section. -- 10:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * By "citations" do you mean the footnotes? That's fine if you are referring to whole works in a footnote, although that is often difficult on a reader. What I was referring to was journal articles without page numbers (I've never seen this in a bibliography - what if you are getting the journal in paper format? wouldn't the page numbers be nice?). Also, the bibliography and further reading sections are not all cited the same way; for example, some books have the places of publication and some do not. Standardization of these small elements is easy and makes the page look more professional. Awadewit 17:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you not get a better source for the Buridan than that website? It looks a little sketchy when you go to it - just text typed in by a professor for his Astronomy 203 class. Awadewit 23:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. Quickly fixed. FF


 * Spinoza, Baruch & Samuel Shirley (1677), in Morgan, Michael L., Ethics, at 66-67 - I find this reference confusing. Awadewit 23:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

For example, one needs to say: last = Spinoza, first = B. translator = Curley, E. But thus has to be either last2, first2 or editor. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Quickly fixed FF
 * What was changed? -- Rmrfstar 10:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing yet. FF
 * There's a problem with translations. They don't seem to be accomodated by this Citation template.
 * That's why I don't use the templates. They are crap. I just write out everything myself.
 * I enjoy their ease of use, and the inter-article standardization it brings. -- Rmrfstar 01:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Groopman, Leonard Charles, The concept of conatus in the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes - a publisher and a year at least, please! Awadewit 23:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Quickly fixed. FF
 * What was changed? -- Rmrfstar 10:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, no, I couldn't find anything on this one. Do you have the dates, etc..? FF
 * I don't. But it's only Further Reading, so the page numbers or the whole citation could be deleted. -- Rmrfstar 01:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it looks to me as if their are differences of opinion over reference issues. The only thing I will say is 1) I'm not (and I don't think anyone else is) going to rewrite all the references so that they can include the translator and so on. The CITATION template format stays. If that's not acceptable, those who don't like will have to abstain or something. 2) I will work on finding specific page numbers, but I can't promise anything since I don't have access to most of these documents.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There are no differences of opinion over reference issues. If you want to use the citation template, that's fine. I was just expressing my personal opinion that it is sometimes difficult to use. The issue at hand is that the page's "Bibliography" and "Further reading" do not have all of the necessary information. Page numbers are de rigeur for journal articles. There is inconsistency in the way the page cites books (some have places of publication and some do not). I realize that the editors of this page have been burned by citation issues above (I feel that the demand to switch from Harvard was completely inappropriate, by the way), but that does not make my requests illegitimate as well. I assume that both of you are academics (one of you at least says so on his/her userpage). You must then know that this kind of citation doesn't fly in the philosophy world. My current stack of Locke books, for example, cites books and articles consistently and gives as much information as possible. Could we simply offer the same courtesy to our readers on wikipedia that we do when we write books and articles for the academic world? Really, I don't understand the problem here. Awadewit 15:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine, no difference of opinion,then. As I noted above, the problem for me is that I do not have access to all of the books and papers that are referenced here. I've done subtanstial work to try to dig up some of these and have tried to correct many of the inconsistencies. Just look at the edit history!! But I can't do it all, because I don't have access to a library with all of these English books and papers at the moment. In fact, I am not well at the moment and have no access to anything except what is on the Internet or my bookshelves. That's the problem for me. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Last, but most assuredly not least, Thomas Gale can kiss my tail!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a few tiny things still.
 * Duchesneau, Francois (Spring-Summer), "Leibniz's Theoretical Shift in the Phoranomus and Dynamica de Potentia", Perspectives on Science 6 (2): 77 -109, Thomson Gale Document Number: A54601186 - year please?
 * 1998... I fixed this.


 * Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, Freiherr von (1988), "Exposition and Defence of the New System", in Morris, Mary, M.A., Leibniz: Philosophical Writings, at 136
 * Is that what you are referring to? "London, J. M. Dent & Sons (Everyman's Library), 1934. (English trans.)" - whole line is unclear - what does "at 136" mean? It could be that Morris' translation was published in multiple editions; if that is the case, which one did you use?
 * That's page 136. I don't believe that's the edition; it's from the wrong year. -- Rmrfstar 00:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So say "p.136." What about the rest? What publication are you using? This is very confusing. Who published this? See how incomplete data leads to confusion? That is the Morris translation I found on the web. Awadewit 01:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe I found more information on that exact publication. I included this in the article and fleshed out the reference so there should be no more ambiguity there. -- Rmrfstar 02:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, Freiherr von (1695/1989), in Ariew, Roger & Daniel Garber - incomplete
 * There was a typo. -- Rmrfstar 00:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Spinoza, Baruch (2005), in Curley, Edmund, Ethics, Penguin Classics, at 144-146 - New York, right? I tried to add it in myself, but I didn't want to mess up your template.
 * I don't know. I'd rather not guess. It seems unimportant to me, as the ISBN is listed. -- Rmrfstar 00:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Because of the vast number of people who look things up by ISBN. ISBNs change for hardback and paperback and reissues anyway. It's really not that helpful. Awadewit 01:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is exactly why the ISBN is helpful: it pinpoints the exact publication. Other information is redundant. -- Rmrfstar 02:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Right and when that EXACT publication isn't available to a reader but the reader still wants to read that book? This is why publication information is more helpful than ISBNs. If a book has been issued in multiple editions, the publication information will help a reader find that book whereas the ISBN will not. Awadewit 02:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Garber, Daniel (1994), "Descartes and Spinoza on Persistence and Conatus", Studia Spinozana 10, Walther & Walther - is this an independent volume or does it need an issue number and page numbers for the article?
 * I believe it this is an independant volume. -- Rmrfstar 00:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine. Awadewit 01:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Rabouin, David (June/July 2000), "Entre Deleuze et Foucault : Le jeu du désir et du pouvoir", Critique: 637-638 - is this a journal that should have a volume and issue number?
 * As I remember, I could find neither. That's why the months for which it was publisher was included: June/July 2000 defines which issue and number. -- Rmrfstar 00:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine. Awadewit 01:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Youpa, A. (2003), "Spinozistic Self-Preservation", The Southern Journal of Philosophy 41 (1) - pages? Awadewit 00:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is further reading; no pages are suggested. -- Rmrfstar 00:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's an article in journal. The article's pages (not suggested pages) should be here. Awadewit 01:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? Any reader with the journal will not need the page numbers to find the article within. -- Rmrfstar 02:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is just unreal. As I stated earlier, it is a courtesy to the reader to provide as much information as possible. Also, as I mentioned earlier, when requesting articles from interlibrary loan, most libraries REQUIRE the patron to have the page numbers. Awadewit 02:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm....unreal, eh?? Don't want to go there. Have a scan through Dbuckner's radically abbreviated list of atrocities (note that these are VITAL philosopy articles):

I evaluated the articles listed in the philosophy section of WP:VITAL, and here is the result:

That's REAAAAAAAAAL. It's all to frighteningly real all over Wikipedia. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Beauty – this is actually not bad
 * Ethics – no tags, and not a bad article
 * Epistemology – not so bad, but still has an unsourced claims template.
 * Belief – 'may contain original research or unverified claims'
 * Knowledge – 'Some information in this article or section has not been verified and may not be reliable. Please check for inaccuracies, and modify and cite sources as needed'. Begins 'Knowledge is what is known'.  Indeed.
 * Truth – suffered a severe bout of trolling about a year ago, and is now a shattered relic of its original self
 * Dialectic – begins 'This article may contain original research or unverified claims.' Quite so.
 * Logic – I recruited an expert to tidy this up last year, but he disappeared, and the project was never completed. It's a mess.
 * Metaphysics - this has a well-deserved cleanup tag.  Starts off OK but rapidly gets worse.
 * Existence – I tidied this up a year ago, but was vandalised late last year. I haven't had the energy to revisit it.
 * Ontology – good God I never spotted that one on troll patrol. Complete nonsense.  An abomination.
 * Reality – as the title suggests, this was going to be complete nonsense, and it was. 'This page has been temporarily protected from editing to deal with vandalism.'


 * FF, comparing a philosophy FAC to other philosophiy articles is never cause for support. Just because other articles are bad, doesn't mean that this one meets the strict criteria. -- Rmrfstar 12:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't actually think I was arguing that, do you? Oh, why the hell do I bother? If I was "arguing" anything at all, it obviously had something to do with the use of the term "unreality" (meaning, I suggest "unbelievable", "shocking", "absurd", etc..). My point was to show that the lack of a few page numbers is NOT unreal, shocking, outrageous, absurd, or what have you, espcially in the context of an extroardinary mess of an Encyclopedia like this one. But, I see what you are trying to do here. Don't push it!! The fucking work that I, unnecessarily, have put in, and continue to put in,  trying to ameliorate some tiny part of the madness and nonsense that dominates this place is still appreciated by a very few people, I suspect. You're obviously not one of them. But your welcome anyway!! Good day. Please take any other comments to my talk page. End. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 13:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My "unreal" was directed at the resistance displayed to fix tiny issues that could have easily been fixed and should have been fixed before this article was ever submitted to FAC. I had to spend an inordinate amount of time making arguments for formatting to people who should obviously know better. (By the way, whatever you meant to argue, it is clear that your prose did not adequately convey your thoughts as two people misinterpreted your post.) Awadewit 18:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure why you are comparing your article to a whole host of "start" and "B" class articles (I clicked on every single one - there is not a GA or A class among them). I would not expect a "start" or "B" class article to reach the same standards as an FA. I believe that is why we have a differentiated rating system. Also, I do not understand why you did not spend the time it obviously took you to type in this enormous list of "start" and "B-class" articles to fix up this article or improve one of those articles. Please note that a featured article "exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation." WP:FACR That is what I was trying to achieve here. Finally, Support. Awadewit 09:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Why I did not....?" That was just a cut and paste operation. But this is a  discussion that will take us too far afield. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I don't like that Foreign Language philosophy terms template at the bottom, it seems like an indiscriminate bundle of links. Any chance it could be removed?-- Nydas (Talk) 12:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I hate almost all templates. So I can support this motion. FF


 * I removed it. -- Rmrfstar 14:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.