Talk:Euclid of Megara

Untitled
Isn't there something more to write about one of the greatest mathematicians of all time? What about his works? It would be nice to add a link to them somewhere... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aphex~enwiki (talk • contribs) 27 (UTC) February 2006
 * For the mathematician Euclides, see Euclid of Alexandria. This article is about Euclid of Megara. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.4.18 (talk • contribs) 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Where are the citations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.85.89 (talk • contribs) 18 February 2007 (UTC)

ambiguous
Why does Euclides automatically link here rather than to the disambiguation page? Sephia karta 11:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Restored the image
The medieval portrait of Euclid of Megara by Justus of Ghent (Urbino, Galleria Nazionale delle Marche) frequently and mistakenly appears in reference to Euclid of Alexandria. A high quality full image is available at aiwaz.net, and the inscription EVKLIDI MEGAREN at the bottom is clearly visible. However, the copyright status of their image is not clear to me. Therefore, I dared not substitute it for the deficient version at the commons. Arcfrk 06:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It probably is supposed to be Euclid of Alexandria actually. It comes from a set of panels depicting very famous men (Aristotle, Ptolemy, Cicero, various saints, etc.). He's depicted with a pair of compasses which implies he's meant to be a mathematician too. The fact that he's labelled as "Euklidi Megaren" is presumably medieval confusion - I've added a caption to this effect. Singinglemon (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed contribution 8 December
I removed the lengthy contribution added by 76.102.10.239 on the 8 December, for the following reasons:

This page does need more information, both on him, and his philosophy. But we need to know which scholars are asserting this information (inline references to textbook/article with a page number are fine), otherwise noone can tell if the information is reliable or not, and noone will use it. Please see WP:BETTER. Singinglemon (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there were no references. The whole contribution read like an essay, which had been copied and pasted into Wikipedia. Ideally, every fact or assertion should have an inline citation, otherwise the information is liable to be removed. See WP:CS and WP:REF
 * Secondly there were errors, (eg. "Euclid's home became a sort of refuge and discussion center for those followers of Socrates who lost their inspirational figure and feared the wrath of Roman tyrants.") which is why inline citations are so important, without references, people coming to the article for the first time cannot tell if the information is reliable.
 * Thirdly, a lot of what was added was simply restating what was in the article already. Simply saying things like "Most sources record his birth in Megara, ... other sources report his birth to be in the city of Gela" when this is information is already provided in this article with references is strange.
 * Fourthly, the article needs to be focused on Euclid himself. There can be a bit of information on what his legacy was, but since there is already a page on the Megarian school, that's the appropriate page to add information about the legacy of the later school.
 * Right, on the basis that this school project is now well-finished, I've removed all the new stuff which was already duplicated on the page, as well as a lot of the superfluous stuff on the philosophy of the Megarian school. The main bit I've left in is a chunky paragraph on the philosophy of Euclid, which may be worth keeping, although it will have to be integrated and referenced more thoroughly. Singinglemon (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 8 August 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Although Blue Mist makes some interesting points, and it is clear both forms exist in academia, the consensus is nonetheless that the current title is the best one and is correct in Greek, and per common usage. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Euclid of Megara → Euclides of Megara – This move was previously done as a cut-and-paste move which I have reverted. Opening this dicussion here so that those expert in the names of Greek philosophers can discuss it appropriately. It has been stated that "According to published references, Euclid needs to be "Euclid", and Euclides needs to be "Euclides". In current English usage they have been disambiguated by the scholars to be Euclid the mathematician and Euclides the philosopher." Pam D  08:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC) --Relisting.  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment by proposer: Note that Euclides redirected to this article from 2005 to 2007 and was then redirected to Euclid. There are perhaps two more discussions to be had: (1) Is this philosopher the Primary Topic, the name most likely to be sought, for "Euclides"? (In which case that redirect should again point here, at least ...) And if so, (2) Is that the name by which he is most commonly known so that the article should be at plain "Euclides", not "Euclides of Megara"? But I suggest that we leave those two discussions aside for now and stick to the proposed (and attempted) page move. Pam  D  08:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And perhaps a third discussion, not for this page, as to whether the redirect Euclides should continue to go to the mathematician (i.e. is he the Primary Topic for that name?) or should go to the disambiguation page where various persons of that name are listed? Pam  D  08:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Neutral – You raise good questions and I can't form an opinion immediately. However I added hatnotes to both Euclid and Euclid of Megara in order to draw attention to the frequent confusion. — JFG talk 01:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. No evidence that this attempted disambiguation has taken hold. See more comments below. Andrewa (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong support. In fact, there's plenty of evidence that current English scholarly usage is Euclides of Megara. Since Euclides was a personal friend of Plato's, as well as a character in the dialogues, current usage in translations, interpretations, and professional level surveys are the only evidence that matters. Wikipedia editors should have no personal opinions to offer without references on this issue. We're not voting on whether it's E=mc2 or E=mc3. BlueMist (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia exists for all readers, not just University dons. Agree about references, but it's up to the proponents of the move to make a case. Agree that Euclid/e of Megara is an important figure, but he pales into insignificance compared to the other Euclid by both our criteria of primary meaning. Many would know that Euclid had something to do with Geometry, but not that Plato wrote dialogues, and if they do they probably don't associate them with Socrates, let alone with the Euclid/es who is a (relatively) minor player. Andrewa (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Please note the misplaced oppose !vote by User:JamesBWatson below. As there has already been a reply to it, moving it here would now not be worth the messiness that would create IMO, so I suggest we just leave this pointer to it. TIA Andrewa (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't regard the comment as misplaced, because I don't see any reason for regarding the content posted below the "Discussion" heading as different in character from the rest of this discussion: I thus regard the "Discussion" heading as meaningless and unhelpful. However, I will have no objection if anyone wishes to move my comment and the answer to it from down there up to here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose – After thinking of this case for a few days and reading other editors' comments, I feel that readers are better served with the current title arrangement, especially after missing hatnotes have been added. I have taken note of the proposer's BlueMist's argument that current academic discourse calls him Euclides, however "the" Euclid was also called Euclides, they are homonyms. Whether academics choose to use the English declination of the name for the mathematician and the direct Greek transliteration for this philosopher, is irrelevant to Wikipedia: our naming conventions in such cases clearly favor using the English term. — JFG talk 08:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you missed the point of the discussion. Everyone agrees that the name should be the one currently "favored". The disagreement is over the Wikipedia standard of judgment for what the correct English term is. Again, as Andrewa has, you have inserted your personal opinion based on what you think the right name ought to be. This is totally arbitrary and is not encyclopedic, or Wikipedia reliable sourcing. An encyclopedia name has to be based on WP:RS, not on what we think, no matter how many of us say so. The reliable sources say that the currently (please note the historicity factor,) correct name is "Euclides of Megara". BlueMist (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the ping. I agree with most of this, but take issue with two points. First and most important, Wikipedia looks at all reliable sources, not just academic ones. Second, I don't think I have relied on personal opinion any more than you have. Andrewa (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have not given a personal opinion on how this philosopher's name should be spelled: I do not have any. My !vote is based partly on Wikipedia policy WP:ENG and strongly on considering how uninformed readers would be best educated about the topic at hand. I helped raise awareness of the subject by inserting the hatnotes that were missing, so more people looking at Euclid will have a chance to learn about Euclides of Megara too. I know I learned something this week thanks to this move request, and for this I thank you. — JFG talk 02:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your replies. I'm looking at WP:RS and WP:VER, and I don't see where Wikipedia approves of either unsupported personal opinion or Google search counts as reliable sources for encyclopedic purposes. One reason might be, I suppose, is that Wikipedia is actively supported by many professional techies who understand that search engine results are useful for open-ended queries, but for a specific purpose in a specialized area, searches are GIGO. No-one knows what went into a search count without doing the research that should have been done in the first place. BlueMist (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
This is a tricky one but I think the solution is clear. Bear with me. I'm not an expert but I have a little Greek and think I have a handle on this.

Euclid, Euclides and Eucleides are all variations of the same name, depending on how the document has come to us. Euclides and Eucleides are just two different English transliterations of the Greek-alphabet spelling of the name that both would have used during their lifetimes, and which occurs in the texts from that time. Euclid was invented by later scholars, under Latin influence. .

There is more recently still a convention in some English speaking circles to use Euclides to refer only to Euclid of Megara, but for our purposes the primary meaning of all three remains Euclid of Alexandria despite these efforts.

And the common English name of both probably remains Euclid. That's the one doubtful point, it might be argued that Euclides is now the more common name for Euclid of Megara, and so his article should be called Euclides of Megara. I think that's pointless and confusing, as it still can't be called just Euclides. Some academics do choose that option, but in terms of our naming and disambiguation conventions that name is already taken. In English Euclides still refers more commonly to Euclid of Alexandria, and he is also the primary meaning in terms of cultural significance..

So in my opinion, all three base names should point to, or be the name of, the article on Euclid of Alexandria, with hatnotes to the article at Euclid of Megara. And we should have redirs from the other five possible names, three of them to Euclid (of Alexandria) and two to the article on Euclid of Megara.

Sorry I don't have references to hand. Andrewa (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Current Wikipedia naming is based on the obsolete 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica
 * Euclides of Megara is called Euclides in most modern philosophical sources. Here are some examples:
 * Euclides of Megara is called Euclides in most modern philosophical sources. Here are some examples:

Primary sources:
 * 1) Cornford (1957): "Eucleides" --> later edition in Hamilton & Cairns, eds. (1963,1987), Cornford: "Euclides"
 * 2) Burnyeat, Levett (1989): "Eucleides" --> later edition in Cooper & Hutchinson, eds. (1997), Burnyeat, Levett: "Euclides"

Tertiary sources:
 * 1) Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP):
 * a) at main article "Euclides" /euclides/ : "Euclides"
 * 2) Stanford Encyclopia of Philosophy (SEP):
 * a) at /socrates/notes/ : "Euclides"
 * b) at /dialectical_school/ : "Euclides"
 * c) at /diodorus-cronus/ : "Euclides"
 * c) at /diodorus-cronus/ : "Euclides"

This is a Wikipedia misnomer that needs correction. BlueMist (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Wikipedia's standard for naming is to use the form of a name which is most commonly used in English, not the one which is currently fashionable among the small minority of English speaking people who are academics in a small field; Andrewa quite rightly said above "Wikipedia exists for all readers, not just University dons". A Google search for "Euclid of Megara" produced 8990 hits, and one for "Euclides of Megara" produced 2920, which is entirely consistent with my experience that "Euclid" is by far the more common form in English. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * In mathematics, yes, Euclid is iconic. "Euclides" of Megara has historically evolved from Eukleides to Euclid to Eucleides to Euclides. The two standard Plato sources I've listed above say just that. BTW, where, as a Wikipedia Administrator, would you have "experience" with Euclides of Megara? BlueMist (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all sure what you mean by asking where "as a Wikipedia Administrator" I have that experience, but if you mean where have I come across it in the course of my work as a Wikipedia Administrator, then the answer is that I haven't. Is there some reason why experience from the rest of my life is irrelevant in forming an impression as to which form of the name is most commonly used in English? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it's even remotely relevant, but as you raise it and just in case it's any comfort to you, I do have a degree in Philosophy, including a three-unit course (that's a quarter of a normal one-semester load at UNE) on the Platonic Socrates although logic was my main interest. But I tend to downplay the Philosophy major on my resume as it can be seen as a negative qualification, sadly, and stress instead the pure maths subjects which could also count as my major but for some technicalities. Andrewa (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Technically, that !vote is misplaced. But I suggest don't fix it now. See my pointer to it above. (And BTW, very well said, JamesBWatson.) Andrewa (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Replying to BlueMist: It's grossly misleading to say that Current Wikipedia naming is based on the obsolete 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. While our naming conventions (like the content of many articles) may have been based on this originally, firstly they have since been modernised to some extent, and secondly they are based on current English usage, which automatically keeps them current in a sense.
 * If this really is a Wikipedian misnomer that needs correction, there are three ways forward:
 * If it contradicts our current naming conventions, then we should move it. But you seem to be saying that this may not be the case.
 * If our conventions are wrong in this case and you can get consensus for that here, then again we should move it, invoking WP:IAR. We would need a fairly strong consensus here to do that, but it's a good option if that consensus can be built.
 * Or, if our conventions are wrong in this case, you can instead take it up on the policy talk page, with the intention of revisiting this case after changing the policy to better deal with it.
 * That's the process as I understand it. Andrewa (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It is not "grossly misleading" to point out that the current misnomer is based on the obsolete 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. The page, under ==Further reading== says


 * which points to the obsolete Wikisource article that was the source for this page. Encyclopedias are not written in stone. They need to be updated according to current reliably sourced usage. BlueMist (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * True, but it is grossly misleading to misquote me, as you have there - perhaps unintentionally. You stated 'Current Wikipedia naming is based on the obsolete 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, and I replied While our naming conventions (like the content of many articles) may have been based on this originally, firstly they have since been modernised to some extent, and secondly they are based on current' English usage, which automatically keeps them current in a sense. I now see that what you said was ambiguous; You meant the name of this particular article, while I took it to mean our naming conventions, as my answer clearly shows I think.


 * So I admit I misunderstood you, and in that it takes two to communicate I apologise for this.


 * The argument you meant me to understand is however still flawed. It doesn't matter much what the original reasons were for the choice of title (and is only relevant at all if we are to argue no consensus, so no move, as has been done recently in a high-profile RM... let us not go there). Consensus can change. The question is, what should the current title be, by current guidelines, using current evidence? Andrewa (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. The question is, what should the current title be, by current guidelines, using current evidence. If we were not discussing a title, the guidelines would suggest listing all views supported by Wikipedia reliable sources. For a title, a choice must be made.


 * Given that I am the only philosopher present, I am out-numbered. You'll immediately object that my qualifications are irrelevant. But philosophy is a study of high-level abstractions using applied logic, just like math, organic chemistry, and theoretical physics. One difference is that the special, key terms of philosophy employ common words redefined by the philosophers, giving the false impression that philosophy can be understood by the usual Wikipedia reader. Math, chemistry, and physics are fortunate enough to have developed symbolic languages that forestall such an impression.


 * Euclides of Megara is not a pop star, a politician, or a footballer, and has no 'reality' in any other venue than ancient Greek philosophy. The choice of naming has to come from the consensus of the experts. BlueMist (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * So you are the only philosopher present? In view of this post, perhaps you have indeed redefined the key term of philosopher, and in a rather curious fashion. And by my reading of the Apology, I'm very doubtful that either Plato or Socrates would agree with you. So I'm curious... Do they count as philosophers, by your definition? (-> Andrewa (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * According to Plato's Socrates, a philosopher is as a philosopher does. I agree with Plato's strict definition. BlueMist (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And that starts with admitting one's own ignorance? And even to seek and even rely on an adversary's opinion to decide a matter? These are two old (-> and venerated positions taken by some who wished to be regarded as philosophers; Do you accept or, better, strongly affirm them as principles of philosphy, followed by true philosophers? Andrewa (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What's your argument? BlueMist (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm just using a method of the Platonic Socrates to explore the question which you raised, of what philosophers are present. Andrewa (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Who is a philosopher' was discussed at talk:philosopher. There, we decided that practitioners are philosophers but that students of philosophy are not. Are you a practitioner or a student? How are your metaphysics and dialectics? How can both Parmenides and Melissus be correct, yet different from Plato who is also correct? BlueMist (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post RM - are there any philosophers present?
Given that I am the only philosopher present...

I think I should put on record that I strongly object to that! And as the RM has closed, it would be improper to reply in the section above. But the latest post doesn't really help... ''...we decided that practitioners are philosophers but that students of philosophy are not. Are you a practitioner or a student?...''

I have already answered this... several times now. But I confess that my major was and is logic, and of the three major branches of philosophy recognised by my alma mater, it was generally recognised that logic was the easiest. (And ethics the hardest. We also concluded that there were philosophers and students of philosophy, and that by enrolling in Philosophy 1 we had unwittingly demoted ourselves one rank.)

But even so, I recommend logic as useful on occasions, and if ever you consider becoming a student again, I recommend it, given (on the evidence so far at least) that I am the only logician present. (-> Andrewa (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Euclid vs Euclides
just for the sake of accuracy

Euclides means 'son of Euclid' --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al.Qudsi (talk • contribs) 03:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)