Talk:Gorgias

BC/BCE changes
Per WP:ERA: "No preference is given to either style" and "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors."

The change from BC to BCE was made without presentation of a substantial reason for the change, nor a discussion in which a consensus for the change accepted by other editors. Therefore I support the recent restoration of the BC dates. Please present a "substantial reason for the change", and gain a consensus to make the change before restoring the BCE dates here. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For BCE format. The change from BC to BCE was made on 2009-09-22T08:06:34 by an ip-editor with the comment "Corrected dates with reference to modern scholarly account" and referring to "Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd. ed. s.v. "Gorgias" (Oxford, 1996)". Note that (i) ip-edits tend to be made in good faith, (ii) ip-editors cannot realistically be assumed to check all relevant rules and policies, (iii) nobody objected to the format change which is tantamount to consensus and (ii) it seems best to follow scholarly standards. Hpvpp (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The IPs comments refer to the numbers that he/she changed. Note that the guidelines don't give preference to any style for any reason, whether one reason claims to be more "scholarly" or not. You're point on it not being challenged is worthy of some consideration, but it doesn't override the others, nor does "ignorance of the rules" excuse those who are aware of them, as you're tying to do. There was in point of fact no "substantial" reason given for changing to BCE, and thus restoring the previous format is valid. Again, you're welcome to give a "substancial" reason, but "scholarly standards" aren't an acceptable reason - both formats are used by equal scholars. - BilCat (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As its been stable with no objections til now with the BCE/CE style, and has no connections to christianity, whats the big deal? It was stable with that version and should be reverted to that version with the CE usage.  He  iro 11:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodicus
The Herodicus who is native of Selymbria is not Gorgias' brother. See http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0092%3Asection%3D316e and http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0091%3Asection%3D448b —Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaChiaraP (talk • contribs) 21:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed picture
I removed this picture of supposedly showing a "Sculpture of Gorgias", since it is, in fact, the bust of Plato in the Capitoline Museum. Pasicles (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"The Nihilist"
An IP is attempting to remove the statement that Gorgias is sometimes called "The Nihilist". I have found and supplied several sources to that effect, going back to the 1880s, and up until 2002. There is of course a debate about the degree to which this is a reasonable description and I think that today most philosophers do not consider it to be so (neither do I), but that does not mean that the other view disappears or can be brushed off as "conjecture". User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That IP admits to not seeing the added references at the end of the introduction, and apologizes for repeated edits due to being unfamiliar with wikipedia editing practices. Said IP appreciates the addition of more sources and acknowledgement that the claim is a controversial one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D44:1970:BD30:755A:B81A:3EF4 (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted. The article certainly can be improved by adding more of the recent scholarship. But the accusation of Nihilism is a claim that is both frequently repeated and contested in the literature so the article has to include it. One recent article even calls him "the King of the Nihilists", whereas deeper engagements usually consider this to be the result of only a very superficial reading of his argument.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that nihilistic interpretations are important to include in the article, and that it is equally important to reflect the perhaps more dominant scholarly view that Gorgias' positive views are not to be read off of his argument in ONB.

Removed reference 17 since Caston actually denies that Gorgias is a nihilist rather than supporting the claim. Quote from Caston's article: "This question alone makes it implausible to think that Gorgias endorses a particularly dark form of nihilism, the result (as some would have it) of philosophical despair and world­ weariness. 1 Gorgias would have to be not merely disconsolate, but quite dull-witted, to have missed the conflict between his presentation and its content. Similar considerations put in doubt any attempt to take Gorgias as a kind of relativist." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D44:1970:BD30:755A:B81A:3EF4 (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you should put it back since the fact that he defends Gorgias against the accusation shows that the accusation exists and is notable in the literature. If you want to you can summarize the debate about his alleged nihilism in the section, including Caston's argument.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Removed the implication that Gorgias' philosophy is one of nihilism, since the only evidence is his work 'On Not-Being' (no such philosophy arises in any of his other extant writings, including the most well-known 'Encomium of Helen' and 'Defense of Palamedes' and that evidence is not trustworthy due to (a) the fact that his original text hasn't survived and (b) the likelihood that Gorgias was putting this argument forth partly as a parody of the likes of Parmenides, and was likely self aware of the self-undermining nature of his work, thus indicating that his goals in writing the text were more complex. In defense of this point, I added a reference to the current state of the secondary literature where this is a consensus against the 'nihilist' reading.

Assessment comment
Substituted at 16:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Birth and Death Dates
A couple months ago I gave more precise years of birth and death with this peer-reviewed source as a citation. It was later reverted as "dubious" and "unlikely". It was also described as contradicting the citation, but I do not see how.

With respect, I believe that a peer-reviewed resource (which is in agreement with other expert sources -- I can pull one off my shelf, if you'd like) should overrule the doubt of an editor. Is there any objection to un-reverting my edits? --73.13.242.253 (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I have reverted further edits which make the unsourced claim that the given birth and death dates are imprecise. The date source gives no indication of this, and presents them flatly as fact. If there is a dispute in the scholarship, we should find a source which explicitly claims that these dates are not known. --73.13.242.253 (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * People keep making edits to suggest that these dates are only approximate. The page has a peer-reviewed citation giving precise dates -- online, so anyone can double check it and confirm this. Please stick to what the sources say. --73.13.242.253 (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Consigny Quotation
The quotation is missing its final quotation marks:

"perhaps the most elusive of the polytropic quarry hunted in Plato's Sophist.

Does the quotation go to the end of the sentence? Anyone also want to explain what polytropic means here? Why is there a hunt going on? Who's the hunter? 2603:7000:3902:B10A:5852:7E3A:8AC3:8E07 (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)