Talk:Thales of Miletus/Archive 2

Phoenicia
The article now says: "The current historical consensus is that Thales was born in the city of Miletus around the mid 620s BC from Phoenician parents[6], although some historians say he was a Phoenician who emigrated to Miletus with his parents.[7]" The word "consensus" is supported by nothing. Some historians say that his father's name (Examyes) might be Carian, his mother's name (Cleobuline) might be Greek; either or both parents descended from Phoenicians according to Herodotus (at least). Nobody says they were Phoenician, or emigrated from Phoenicia along with Thales. How about changing to: "Thales was probably born in the city of Miletus around the 620s BC. Ancient sources suggest he had Phoenician ancestors, and according to one source he was an immigrant." And for cites use Kirk, Raven, Schofield and Nietzche and Diogenes Laertius (let the reader try to figure it out).Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: Changed today, as described. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Even the cites you have pointed out say the same thing, Thales being the son of Phoenicians. There are way more sources saying the same thing than sources that speculate about other origins or far away phoenician descent. Saying Thales was an immigrant without pointing out from where its not very encyclopedic. Nietzche is not an authority in history and he points out the same thing before his speculationViamarisBalbi (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

ViaMarisBalbi: I regret that you reverted my edit, and I hope other editors will also look at it, I believe its sources are better and its phrasing follows the sources more strictly. What Diogenes Laertius actually said was: "Now Thales, as Herodotus and Douris and Democritus say, was the son of Examyes as father and Cleobuline as mother, from the descendants of Theleus, who are Phoenicians, nobles from the line of Cadmus and Agenor ... and he (Agenor) was enrolled as a citizen in Miletus when he came with Neileus, when the latter was exiled from Phoenicia. But most people say that Thales was a true Milesian by descent, and of high family." (That's quoted in one of the sources that you destroyed, along with the original Greek.) Rather than saying "way more sources" maybe you'd like to point to them, I have yet to see any evidence for the "consensus" that the article says is there, in the version that you have reverted to. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hundreds of sources say his parents are Phoenician http://www.greekboston.com/culture/ancient-history/thales-miletus/ https://books.google.se/books?id=cRgwAQAAQBAJ&pg=PT39&lpg=PT39&dq=thales+phoenician+parents&source=bl&ots=h2oFGf2O2l&sig=rQqyJJmJ1csCNEPZfHPUQ3pJX8E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOs5GA9c_WAhViD5oKHWgYCXkQ6AEIRDAD#v=onepage&q=thales%20phoenician%20parents&f=false https://books.google.se/books?id=DA4vAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=thales+phoenician+parents&source=bl&ots=7RgfFU-P-m&sig=5YpS7Q3iD3o92B2SReGTA7DHCDE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiV3fmO9c_WAhUmQZoKHZx3Dx44ChDoAQgmMAA#v=onepage&q=thales%20phoenician%20parents&f=false

Look into Google books and check how many authors agree with the same thing. Just type Thales Phoenicians parents and see. Now type Thales Milesian parents and you will find very little authors saying thatCalinicoFire (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It does not matter what Google says; internet sources are notoriously unreliable, especially websites with domains ending in .com or .org. I have found a print source from a reputable nonfiction publisher which clearly states that Herodotus calls Thales "a Phoenician by remote descent," but that the later historian Diogenes Laertius, after quoting this from Herodotus, remarks that most of his sources agree that Thales was actually from a distinguished native Milesian family. I have adjusted the information in the article to reflect this fact, giving full details of what the source says. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I would like to know why you keep reverting my edit in which I state that Herodotus describes Thales as "a Phoenician by remote descent," but that Diogenes Laertius, after quoting this statement from Herodotus, rejects it, stating that most of his sources agreed that Thales was born of a distinguished native Milesian family. I have provided a good source for this information, but you have provided absolutely no source, explanation, or reason for why you do not think this information should be included. It looks to me as though you are simply refusing to accept any sources, regardless of how reliable those sources may be, that contradict your pre-held conception of Thales as a Phoenician immigrant. I am not trying to attack you, but I would like to know your reasoning. I cannot understand why you seem to regard my information as invalid. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * More sources seem to point towards saying Thales parents were Phoenicians rather than native Milesians. More sources make Thales an immmigrant or of immigrant descent than a native or pure recent Milesian blood. You want to play with words so that readers ignore the fact that Thales was not a greek. Everybody is waking up to the eurocentric bullshit version of greeks being the originators of everything and your ambiguous statements WILL NOT STOP THAT. Diffusion of non biased updated information, genetics and new archaeology is going to be GAME OVER for greek negationists and nationalists like youViamarisBalbi (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not a Greek nationalist; I am not even Greek. You keep saying that "more sources" say that Thales was a Phoenician, but you have yet to provide a single reliable source saying so. The only sources you have cited are a .com website and an outdated history of philosophy from 1837. The edit I wrote does not even deny the possibility that Thales could have been Phoenician; in fact, it states that Herodotus described him as "a Phoenician by remote descent," which is entirely true. This exactly what Herodotus says. I am not playing with words. You are the one who keeps citing unnamed "sources" without listing which sources you are referring to. I, on the other hand, have given several sources that comply with Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources stating that Diogenes Laertius said that most of his sources agreed that Thales was a Milesian. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I have posted some sources if you scroll up. I have dealt with plenty of eurocentrics and greek negationists and you my friend seem to be of the same kind. To people like you unlimited amount of sources can be shown and you will still choose the one ambigious source or the ones that say things in a less blunt way. We are in 2017 my friend where is really hard to bullshit people with washy washy statements. You want to stick with your "remote descent" line to make Thales look more greek european? Go to youtube and read people's comments, now we have google books were people can look for hundreds of sources. Again euro-centrism and Afrocentrism are the joke of the internet nowadays and if you want to play it here in Wikipedia you will face people like me who will stop you in a second.

Game Over for Afrocentrics, Eurocentrics, Arabcentrics about who the real egyptians/builders of Egypt were with the latest study on genetics that came out a few months ago this summer. Take a peak http://observer.com/2017/06/scientists-sequence-dna-ancient-egyptian-mummy-findings/ViamarisBalbi (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Clement of Alexandria and Hyginus make Thales a Phoenician https://books.google.se/books?id=Tpp5B39UlTMC&pg=PA115&dq=thales+herodotus+phoenician&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiF_6Ha_M_WAhUpEpoKHehWCikQ6AEITDAG#v=onepage&q=thales%20herodotus%20phoenician&f=falseViamarisBalbi (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The sources I have given are not .com or .org websites. The sources are books written by reputable authors on philosophy and ancient history that are indexed by Google books.ViamarisBalbi (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * YouTube comments are definitely not reliable sources; they are about as unreliable as you can get. The article you link to from The Observer has no relevance here since it does not even mention Thales of Miletus at all. Larcher's Notes on Herodotus, which you also link to, was published in 1829, thus making it outdated by nearly two centuries. Nonetheless, the information it contains about Saint Clement of Alexandria, Hyginus, and Eusebius is certainly relevant. I will see if I can find a more recent source that contains this same information. If not, I will use this source to provide information about Clement of Alexandria, Hyginus, and Eusebius's statements regarding Thales's ancestry.
 * As I have stated above, I am not a "Greek nationalist" and I did not have any opinion on this issue until today when I first started reading about Thales's ancestry. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I meant read Youtube comments to see how people are laughing at the Eurocentrism they see on History and Discovery Channel or how they view afrocentrism. The article on the Observer was posted to show you that new studies are going be sad news for euro and afrocentrics nothing related to Thales per se but to the distortion of facts and history that its just not going to happen in times like this with genetics and availability of sources on the internet. Read carefully otherwise I wont respect your judgement nor analytical abilityViamarisBalbi (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have adjusted the article to mention that Clement of Alexandria and Hyginus both regarded Thales as a Phoenician and that Eusebius gives conflicting reports, some of which said that Thales was a Phoenician. I am sure that this new, revised version is one we will both agree on, since it provides a comprehensive summary of the reports given by all the ancient sources that we have been discussing and makes it clear that most of those sources describe Thales as a Phoenician. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Kudos for your try at compromise but I see problems with your recent change. (1) You make it seem as if Diogenes Laertius was later than Eusebius, in fact he was probably earlier; (2) Clement of Alexandria actually says "Thales too, as Leander and Herodotus relate, was a Phoenician, as some suppose, a Milesian." but we know that Herodotus only said that Thales was Phoenician by descent so that's not worth anything (Leander is more obscure; probably he's the Leander that Diogenes Laertius mentions in another place); (3) "Examyas and Cleobulina" are written elsewhere in the Wikipedia article as "Examyes and Cleobuline"; (4) The Hyginus quote appears to be an emendation, you've pointed to something that quotes the version "natione fuit Phoenix nec ut Herodotus dicit Milesius" but there's also a different version "Thales ... natione fuit Phoenix ut Herodotus Milesius dicit". -- so one could just as easily quote Hyginus (or more likely pseudo-Hyginus) as confirming what Herodotus said; (5) the bit about "Nileos" (aka Neleus or Neileus) has caused confusion among scholars since the famous Neleus, the founder of Miletus, was long before the time of Thales -- which is why Kirk and Raven's translation "from the line of Cadmus and Agenor ... and he [Agenor] was enrolled as a citizen in Miletus when he came with Neileus" makes sense but "he [Thales] was enrolled as a citizen" etc. does not make sense. (6) Regardless of all that, you and I as Wikipedia editors should not be doing the scholarly investigating, so deferring to acknowledged experts such as Kirk and Raven, or Nietzsche who was in fact a classics professor, might be sufficient. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Additional note: the article now says that Diogenes Laertius said "family of Phoenicians". He didn't say that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

What i believe we have here is two editors that are "confusing" the two versions of Thales origins and adding a third version to confuse the reader and make Thales seem like he could have been a full blooded Greek so that eurocentrics keep on mentally masturbating with their dellusions.

There is no question that by far the majority of the ancient historians agree Thales is of Phoenician descent. The dilema is whether he was born in Phoenicia and moved to Miletus or was born in Miletus to Phoenician parents. But the two of you want to add a third version which is that he was born in Miletus to Milesian parents of far far away Phoenician descent to make Thales seem more Greek by saying he was of a distinguished family without adding the origins of their family.

Again you might fool some idiots into buying your ambiguous half truth bullshit but a guy like me wont play eurocentric faggy games with you.

Its no secret that civilization did not start in Greece so who are you tring to fool here?. Definitely not meViamarisBalbi (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ViamarisBalbi, so far, all of the ancient sources we have discussed say that Thales was born in Miletus and that he was either of Phoenician or Milesian ancestry. Not a single one of them says that Thales was born in Phoenicia. We are not confusing the accounts; you seem to be one who is confused. I am trying to be nice to you, but I would greatly appreciate it if you please return the favor and stop speaking towards us in this crude and derogatory manner. I do not bear any ill-will towards you and I do not think that Peter Gulutzan does either. Regarding the quote from Diogenes Laertius, you cannot change what a direct quote says, regardless of what you think it should say. Since Diogenes Laertius says, "Most writers, however, represent him as a native of Miletus and of a distinguished family," you cannot add the words "of Phoenicians" to the end because that is not what Diogenes Laertius says. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, neither of us are trying to argue that civilization began in ancient Greece. Everyone (or at least mostly everyone) recognizes that civilization began in Sumer roughly 5,000 years ago, approximately 2,500 years before Thales. In any case, the origins of civilization are completely irrelevant to our discussion here about Thales of Miletus. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

"Not a single one of them says that Thales was born in Phoenicia" Are you kidding me? You must be trolling now. This is exactly what the dilema that ancient writers and their "conflicting" sources have, whether he was Phoenician by birth or descent. Name me and cite me the name of ONE ancient historian who claims Thales was of Milesian descent. I dont care if the name of his parents sound Greek, Carian or Japanese. Lots of immigrants change or modify their names in order to assimilate to their new societies. Arrogant greek negationists all over the internet think that everything that was beared with a greek name had to be greek from the beginning, people that go around saying for example that Phoenicians were pelasgians or greeks that invaded Canaan and other outlandish shit just because the city of Byblos had a greek name when in reality it has its previous Phoenician name Jbeil.

"Most writers, however, represent him as a native of Miletus and of a distinguished family," the problem with using this statement is that it says nothing. Who are those "Most writers"? If Herodotus, Darious, Democritus, Clement of Alexandria, Hyginus and Eusebious say he is Phoenician either by birth or descent, who exactly are those "most writers" you think Diogenes Laertius is refering too? "A distinguished family" A distinguished family of what? From where? Its a statement that says nothing which is why it either has to been clarified or it has no place on a supposedly serious and encyclopedic site like WikipediaViamarisBalbi (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius all say that he was either "Phoenician" or a native "Milesian". In the quote from Diogenes Laertius, he literally uses the exact phrase "native Milesian," yet you seem keen to totally ignore that phrase. The writers who refer to Thales simply as a "Phoenician" are talking about his ancestry, not where he was born, which is obvious from the context, since those same sources refer to him as "Thales of Miletus." I do not really want to start up a heated argument here; I am simply pointing out that you seem to be misinterpreting everything the sources say in light of your preconceived notions. In reference the Diogenes Laertius quote, you ask "A distinguished family of what?" The answer to your question is given in the quotation, if you would only read it: "native Milesians." I do not know why you seem so keen to deny any possibility that Thales even could have possibly been of Milesian descent; I do not think his ancestry is really something that is especially important, but you seem fixated on trying to prove that he was a Phoenician. Even if he was, so what? Why does it matter so much to you? --Katolophyromai (talk) 09:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

"I do not know why you seem so keen to deny any possibility that Thales even could have possibly been of Milesian descent" Because no ancient writer has ever said that. You however seem to want to make it sound like they did by confusing the reader with a possible third version of his origins that YOU want to spread. Thales was a phoenician by birth or descent and not of milesian descent. That is why my originial text said the historical consensus says he was born in Miletus to Phoenician parents (which is what those that say he was a native Milesian mean) and that another version say he was born in Phoenicia and emigrated to Miletus.

You came in to add all names of the authors and mix around statements from citations that make it sound like he was less of a Phoenician. But you wont, i will keep stopping you.

Also stop using the name Pseudo Hyginus. He is refered as just Hyginus by everybody. I know you want to add Pseudo to make the naive readers think he might be a pseudo writer or something. I will keep stopping you.

My agenda? To set fact straights, and to give credit to people or a nation that deserves it. To put down history stealing eurocentrics and afrocentrics scumbags like you. Trust me ive dealt with tons of your kind and i know all your laughable tricksViamarisBalbi (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, the ancient Greeks defined "nativity" by the person's ancestry. In Athens, a person was not considered an Athenian citizen unless he could prove that his ancestors were all Athenians as well, sometimes even to the tenth generation. Saying that the term "native Milesian" is intended to mean anything other than a person of Milesian descent is faintly absurd.
 * Second of all, the "Hyginus" we are discussing here is the author of De Astronomica, who cannot have been Gaius Julius Hyginus because part of De Astronomica relies on Ptolemy's Almagest, which was written roughly two hundred years after Gaius Julius Hyginus lived; most authors consider De Astronomica to either be misattributed, or written by a later writer named Hyginus. One of the sources that is cited in the article clearly refers to him as "Pseudo-Hyginus."
 * Finally, you claim that your goal here is "to give credit to people or a nation that deserves it," but there is really no such thing as "nationality." The concept of "nations" is just something we as humans have made up. It should not matter whether Thales was a Phoenician or a Milesian, since these are just names we have arbitrarily assigned to such groups of people and there is nothing about either of them that is inherently different from the other. We are all just people and, ultimately, everyone alive is descended from the same small group of a few thousand people near the very beginning of our history.
 * I think both of us agree that Thales was a great philosopher; it should not matter where he was born, because whether he was born in Phoenicia or in Miletus does not fundamentally change who he was. It should not matter who his ancestors were either; a person is not defined by his ancestry. Another philosopher, Diogenes of Sinope, was famously asked where he came from, to which he replied, "I am a citizen of the world."
 * I have no idea why you seem to think that I am some kind of "eurocentrist" (or whatever else it is you keep calling me). I am perfectly willing to recognize, and even promote recognition of, the accomplishments of the people of the Levant, but, in this instance, you seem to be completely misconstruing what the ancient and modern sources on this subject say. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Because of conflicting accounts on his origin, the article needs to reflect that. Interpretations from newer sources can be added. prokaryotes (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes but we should only rely on modern sources. We should not be citing ancient authors directly. Ancient authors are notoriously tricky to interpret and should only be used through the filter of modern day scholarship that specializes in the ability to interpret them. Khirurg (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless you can cite some policy|guideline that I'm unaware of, I believe citing ancient authors is to be decided case by case. A WP:NOR footnote says ancient sources are primary, but that's not a synonym for non-RS. And WP:MOSQUOTE says "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted." However, of course I am glad that other editors have appeared disputing some of the Phoenicia claims. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I hope you all realize that Diogenes is talking about mythological characters when referring to Thales being of "remote Phoenician descent.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.222.178.0 (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

This is very doubtful that Thales was Phoenician. I will not take Ancient Greek authors (especially Herodote) as an reliable source. The genealogy line attributed by these greek authors to Thales seem mythological. At these time, ancient greeks liked to create link between them and other civilisation (Egypt, Phoenicia, Libya, Babylonia, Persia,...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:5018:7100:C975:1502:DAD:B01 (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Article is strange
This article is strange and unreadable in some places. For instance, in the section "Theories", after a fine, encyclopaedic start, this appears:
 * Physis (φύσις) comes from phyein (φύειν), "to grow", related to our word "be". (G)natura is the way a thing is "born", again with the stamp of what it is in itself.
 * Aristotle characterizes most of the philosophers "at first" (πρῶτον) as thinking that the "principles in the form of matter were the only principles of all things", where "principle" is arche, "matter" is hyle ("wood" or "matter", "material") and "form" is eidos.
 * Arche is translated as "principle", but the two words do not have precisely the same meaning. A principle of something is merely prior (related to pro-) to it either chronologically or logically. An arche (from ἄρχειν, "to rule") dominates an object in some way. If the arche is taken to be an origin, then specific causality is implied; that is, B is supposed to be characteristically B just because it comes from A, which dominates it.
 * The archai that Aristotle had in mind in his well-known passage on the first Greek scientists are not necessarily chronologically prior to their objects, but are constituents of it. For example, in pluralism objects are composed of earth, air, fire and water, but those elements do not disappear with the production of the object. They remain as archai within it, as do the atoms of the atomists.

What's up with all this? How is it related to Thales? I get that it's somehow trying to explain what Aristotle thought Thales' philosophy was, but not a word is understandable. What are phyein, natura, hyle and eidos doing here? Why are we discussing about archai? Where is Aristotle's original commentary that this article is trying to explain? Next up, in the section "Interpretations":
 * In the long sojourn of philosophy, there has existed hardly a philosopher or historian of philosophy who did not mention Thales and try to characterize him in some way. He is generally recognized as having brought something new to human thought. Mathematics, astronomy, and medicine already existed. Thales added something to these different collections of knowledge to produce a universality, which, as far as writing tells us, was not in tradition before, but resulted in a new field.
 * Ever since, interested persons have been asking what that new something is. Answers fall into (at least) two categories, the theory and the method. Once an answer has been arrived at, the next logical step is to ask how Thales compares to other philosophers, which leads to his classification (rightly or wrongly).

This doesn't sound encyclopedic. It sounds like a commentary, or a textbook, or the transcript of a lecture or something like that. Also, the third paragraph in "Influence in others" is full of vague, uncited claims.

(It could be that I feel this because I'm not historian or student of philosophy by any means, and because I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, in which case you are all free to tell me so and I will drop the discussion. This is just a suggestion which I feel will make the article better suited for Wikipedia. Tbh I don't even really know how to fix it, and I'm nervous about doing it myself without asking) Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Greek or Turkish?
In today's terms, wouldn't he technically be considered Turkish since the Ancient Greek colony of Asia Minor is today Turkey? I mean, you don't go around saying Uhuru Kenyatta is British, because when he was born, Kenya was a British colony. ReaIdiot (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Turkey did not exist at the time he was alive, so it's probably best to leave it as is. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  21:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding to that, we should follow RS, and none RS even remotely suggest that he was Turkish. It would be anachronism. Cinadon36 09:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Egypt
Theologian81sp today added a cite for remarks about Thales teaching Egyptian priests. The cite "year=1982" is incorrect, the book came out in 1892. I don't object to old sources but the author doesn't say where this information came from so I fear this is dubious. Anybody know more? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Peter Gulutzan, thanks I have corrected the typo about the year of publication right now. I've experienced some connection's problmes today. Apart from that, the whole section is poorly sourced, starting from the previous proposition which reads as follows: "Thales received instruction from an Egyptian priest". While in the previous oldid of the article, there were no sources about that, now there is a very old one. In my opinion, in this case, to quote a book dated back to 1892 would mean to attest the belief of the Egyptian religion's influence on Thales was at least older than a century and a half.
 * Possibly it can be added a template:cn due to the lacking of the primary source. Untill now, also I haven't found better sources to be cited in the WP article. If older primary or secondary sources there were made available, then I think that the questioned book of Frederic Harrison can be deleted without any problem. Other opinions?.Theologian81sp (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Mathe
Liniare Gleichungen 178.9.212.208 (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)