Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Leucippus/archive1

Leucippus

 * Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Leucippus was the first person to propose that matter is made of microscopic particles called atoms. What makes this impressive is that he lived over 2,000 years before atoms were actually discovered. Of course, Leucippus's atoms were quite different from the ones we know to exist: he contended that they were totally indivisible, and that they came in infinitely many shapes and sizes. Using his concept of atoms, he developed explanations for the creation of the world and the existence of a physical soul. Despite his importance in the history of philosophy, almost all information about his life and his writings has been lost, and what we know comes from second-hand accounts. He has since been overshadowed by his more famous student, Democritus. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 18:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Pinging everyone who provided feedback as I'm now caught up on everyone's comments:, , , , . Thanks for all the input so quickly after I nominated this for FAC! Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 20:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto

 * Comment: I have little experience with FAC, but here are a few comments based on a quick once-over:


 * It would be beneficial to add descriptors to philosophers so that readers can, at minimum, easily distinguish between Leucippus' near-contemporaries and much later philosophers like Leibniz and Cassier.
 * Quite understandably, much is made of his status as a "precursor" theorist to modern theories of the atom. But could this be developed a little bit more? Specifically, in what ways is our current theory different? Are the similarities anything more than an accident? This might be elaborated, for instance, by explaining why, contrary to what one would expect, Heisenberg considers Plato to provide a more accurate theory of reality than Leucippus.
 * Doesn't the MOS require the Life section to appear Philosophy? (I believe I've been chastised for trying to reverse this at some point in the past...) Additionally, should the first paragraph of the Legacy section also precede Philosophy in some form?
 * The sources look to be of high-quality and include those I would consult as someone who is trained in philosophy, but not at all a scholar of the period. I was a bit frustrated, however, to have to find n. 44 (Kirk & Raven 1957, p. 412) in the second edition at p. 419, where it finds only qualified support for the claim it is cited to support. Also, is my recollection incorrect (entirely possible!) that it is standard to include the passage number even when citing to the commentary? (This would also make using the first edition less of an issue.)

I will try to check back in later in the process after reviewing the specific FAC criteria. Overall, though, great work! Thanks for doing so much to contribute to the coverage of the history of philosophy —

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I think it's reasonable to include the basics of his ideas in the philosophy section and then the subsequent study of those ideas in the legacy section. I've made edits to address all of your other comments, adding context for some of the names, expanding on the comparison to modern atomic theory, and switching the life and philosophy sections. Regarding your fourth point, I wasn't able to verify some of that information in other sources, so I trimmed it down to what is in the main text of Kirk & Raven without any need for the footnote. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 21:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Correction: I verified it with more detail using another source. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 23:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks on 1-3! I remain concerned about 4, however.
 * I cite from a phone-quality text scan of the second edition of the work you cite:
 * "Since there are innumerable atoms and an infinite void, there is no reason why only one such world should be formed; Leucippus and Democritus therefore postulated innumerable worlds, coming-to-be and passing away throughout the void (563 init., 565). They are the first to whom we can with absolute certainty attribute the concept of innumerable worlds (as opposed to successive states of a continuing organism), one which is reached entirely on the a priori grounds described above. The doxographers, however, certainly attributed the idea of plural worlds (whether coexistent or successive) to some Ionians, conceivably by an error initiated by Theophrastus (see pp. 123ff., also pp. 379f.). Democritus, according to 565, seems to have embellished the idea by observing that there is no need for each world to have a sun and moon, and so on, or to have waters and give rise to life: the random nature of the cosmogonical process 563 would not always produce the same result. (p.419, my emphases)"
 * Shouldn't this qualification be included in the article? Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * One other suggestion: have you considered adding section leads to Philosophy and Legacy? I don't believe this is mandatory, but they might help readers absorb and process the content—especially as it has expanded during this process. Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I forgot to add: the Furley citation is currently generating a Harv error. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , I fixed the Furley reference and added the part about Ionians. I'm not aware of section leads as a common practice, and I suspect some reviewers would count it against the article for introducing redundancy. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 01:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Generally I think that this is pretty inaccessible to non-specialists: a lot of it left me feeling like I was missing some fairly fundamental details. For instance, we are told that Leucippus' atomism followed on from Empedocles' philosophy - but as a reader who has no idea what Empedocles' philosophy actually was that leaves me more rather than less confused! More specific comments: Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Twice the earth is described as a "titled disc"; should they read "tilted" instead?
 * Fixed.
 * "other worlds must exist as cosmos are formed elsewhere": the minor point here is that I would expect "cosmoses" for the plural; the more substantive point is that I find this whole explanation of Leucippus' cosmology to be hopelessly confusing.
 * I rewrote the cosmology section to explain things more simply. Let me know if it's still unclear.
 * "Leucippus agreed with these conclusions, but..." This doesn't sound very much like Leucippus agreed with the Eleatics conclusions! I suppose what is meant here is that he thought the Eleatics' reasoning was valid but their premises were false?
 * Correct. I reworded it.
 * "Leucippus asserted the existence infinite atoms and a void that extends infinitely." - should this read "the existence of an infinite number of atoms"?
 * Fixed.
 * "He was born in the first half of the 5th century BCE, but the exact dates are unknown. He presumably developed atomism during the 430s BCE" - in the lead he is described as pre-Socratic, but these dates make him pretty much a contemporary of Socrates?
 * It took some digging, but I found a source that explains this and I added it.
 * "Most historical sources describe Leucippus as ... but Epicurus has also been recorded denying the existence of Leucippus." A lot of words telling us virtually nothing useful.  Who are these some sources/other sources?  Are the "most historical sources" from antiquity?  Why do they think Leucippus was a student of Zeno?
 * I went through and attributed what I could. I changed it to "Leucippus is traditionally understood to have been a student of Zeno of Elea", because unless I'm missing something, that's all we really know.
 * "One proposal is that he was born in Miletus ..." again, whose proposal is this and why should i care?
 * Attributed to some of the people who proposed it.
 * "Aristotle's record of Leucippus and Democritus's philosophy is the oldest such record that still exists in the modern day": repetition of record. Surely there's a more concise way of saying this.  How about "Aristotle's record of Leucippus and Democritus's philosophy is the oldest surviving source"?
 * Reworded.
 * That should be all of the specific comments addressed. I can't really judge what else might be clear or unclear, but I can do more rewording wherever it's necessary. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 04:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Generally looking a lot better. It looks like the dates on some of your citations have got messed up though – all of the Augustin/Pello, Furley, and Kirk/Raven sfns are not correctly linking through to the bibliographic entries. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Fixed. A reviewer below had me switch the years to the most recent editions. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There seems to be something wrong with your citations to Barnes 1982 - none of the page numbers seem to match up with the version on archive.org. I've spotchecked a couple other sources and there don't seem to be the same issues, but I checked several citations to Barnes and they all appear to be wrong. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , good catch! It looks like the version on archive.org is a reprint. I've matched up all of the cited passages to where they appear in the reprint and changed the page numbers accordingly. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 22:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , just checking in to see if you have any more thoughts on the article since it's been a couple weeks. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 00:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Apolgies for the delay in getting back to you - I was ill when you pinged me and then real life got in the way. I don't have any more notes for you, so  Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Image review

 * Suggest adding alt text


 * Note this guidance regarding captioning


 * File:Pinacoteca_Querini_Stampalia_-_Leucippus_-_Luca_Giordano.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Leucippus._Line_engraving_by_S._Beyssent_after_Mlle_C._Reyde_Wellcome_V0003528.jpg


 * File:Magna_Graecia_ancient_colonies_and_dialects-eu.svg: see MOS:COLOUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not clear what specific changes you want me to make regarding the map (sidenote, I didn't realize this image was "in the article" or even existed until you listed it). I've made all other suggested changes. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * There are a few options: for example, you could add a non-colour-based marker to distinguish the sections, or you could simply remove/replace the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Removed. The change affected a few hundred pages, but the image wasn't exactly doing much good, even before the accessibility issue. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 00:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

UC
Will be along in a bit for a proper review. Generally, I'd echo what Caecilius and others have said above: there are a few places where we need to go a little slower and explain the steps of thought. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

A few quick Parthian shots:


 * : some of our readers don't speak German: I would always translate non-English phrases.
 * Added a translation
 * Would italicise after the transl. template (honestly, it looks pretty odd to my eyes, but I think that's just a personal reaction rather than anything wrong with the implementation). UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Is that common practice? My understanding was that only the foreign language term is italicized, while the English term is not.
 * It follows from MOS:WORDSASWORDS, since we're invoking the English word for the problem, not the problem itself. However, there is also the  template, which (per MOS:QUOTE) advises casa house. Note the single quote marks used here.  UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * : the fastest compared with what? It sounds like L. thought everything was spinning?
 * I rewrote the entire cosmology section to simplify it
 * I'm still finding it tough going, though probably best to let those with more expertise guide the improvement here. In particular, terms like "the void" and "membrane" might perhaps benefit from some explanation. We seem to explain the void later when we get to the Eleatics.
 * The Eleatics are the first point that the void is mentioned in the body. The sources don't go into detail about what the membrane was, partially because there isn't total agreement (like with the bit about the philosophers disagreeing how it was constructed).
 * : typo.
 * Fixed with the section's rewrite
 * : there are a couple of statements like this: I worry that they give a false impression that we would expect there to be. There is very little biographical evidence about anyone in antiquity that survives from their own lifetime.
 * I removed this specific instance. No others stood out immediately, but I can change more if needed.
 * When you have two SFN templates in a row, you can bundle them with SFNM, improving readability.
 * How did I not know that this existed? I used to to replace the groups of three, I don't see much purpose in going through all of the groups of two just to make them a tiny bit shorter.

A few more:


 * : What are these sources, and when are they from? What does Aristotle say?
 * I switched it to "Leucippus is traditionally understood to have been a student of Zeno of Elea", because that's all we really know. I removed the part about Aristotle because as far as I can tell it's simply a lack of evidence rather than saying anything about it.
 * : we were previously rather cagey about whether this was true. Likewise, later:
 * Which part is cagey? "Leucippus developed atomism along with his student, Democritus" is basically the one thing we're most confident about.
 * It seems odd to "confirm" Democritus as a student of someone we're only mostly certain existed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * All of the sources speak to this as a fact without raising any serious doubts about it.
 * That isn't the impression I get later on: see . Avoiding the question is not speaking to his existence as a fact. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * : explain briefly who Aristotle was and when he was writing (as for other philosophers)
 * I added that he's a Greek philosopher, and I put similar descriptions with other names.
 * I would clarify ancient Greek, and give a rough date. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added ancient Greek and pre-Socratic Greek to names where appropriate. I'm hesitant to add information that isn't covered in the sources, and I think the context makes it clear that Aristotle was after Leucippus. I've added the century.
 * Aristotle is first linked on second mention.
 * : I'm not sure what this means or why it would be true.
 * Reworded, I hope it's a little clearer now.
 * Is "dividing points" the same as "divisible points"? Strictly speaking, it's possible for something to be divisible without it ever dividing. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Changed to "divisible" per the cited sources.
 * : the meaning of this isn't totally clear to me.
 * Removed. Not particularly relevant, and the one source that mentions it doesn't give it serious consideration.
 * That should be all of the points addressed so far. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 20:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

A few more, plus a couple of replies above:


 * Transliterated Greek (e.g. Megas Diakosmos) should be in the transl|grc template.
 * Done.
 * I would give an orig-date to McKirahan so that people are aware it's fundamentally a 1994 book, not a 2011 one.
 * Done.
 * : could one of the footnotes clarify whose translation this is, and perhaps supply the Greek text? Presocratic fragments are often laconic and up for interpretation in the translating process.
 * The Greek text is in the "Works" section. Several sources repeat various translations, but not a single one that I've seen attributes any of the translations. I've used the one where the same wording appears in two different sources.
 * It would be useful to have a link to it here: I wonder if moving the Greek to a footnote (since few of our readers can understand it) and linking it from both places would be a good way forward. A section link would be another option. UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 10:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * : as with Aristotle, a rough date would be useful.
 * I added the century.
 * : again, a date would help: we're nearly a millennium after Aristotle and in a very different world.
 * Added the century.
 * : we should explain, perhaps in a footnote, what these paradoxes were and how Leucippus claimed to resolve them.
 * I added that they "held that indivisibility made motion impossible".
 * : this is contradictory: unless they published a joint work, only one can be first.
 * Fixed.
 * : I'd write the plural as vortices, but this might be an AmerE thing.
 * A search suggests that they're both correct but vorticies is more common, so I switched it.
 * : again, we really need a date.
 * Added.
 * : we need some explanation here as to why it would be expected to explain that, and perhaps why Aristotle thought it didn't (did he think it incompatible, or simply incomplete?)
 * Reworded.
 * : weren't these pretty much the same thing, to Leucippus at least?
 * Changes to "concept of atoms".
 * , I've replied to everything and made the appropriate changes. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 20:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your replies, time and changes so far. Just to put it on record, I'm going to leave this one as comments: I don't feel I sufficiently understand the subject matter to put my weight behind a support or oppose. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 10:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Source review
I'm happy to see another philosophy article at FAC. I'll get started with the source review. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * replace "p." with "pp."
 * replace "p." with "pp."
 * replace "p." with "pp."
 * in the section "References", "Gregory, Andrew (2013)..." should come after "Graham, Daniel W. (2008)..."
 * in the section "References", I would suggest splitting "Zilioli, Ugo (2020)..." and "Gregory, Andrew..." into two independent items since other chapters in books also get their own item (like "Graham, Daniel W. (2008)..."). Both can have the same parameters for title, editor, etc. They differ concerning their parameters first1, last1, and chapter.
 * the citation-templates are not consistent in their use of title case vs sentence case. I suggest using title case everywhere, for example, "The atomists" -> "The Atomists" and "The founders of Western thought: the presocratics a diachronic parallelism between Presocratic thought and philosophy and the natural sciences" -> "The Founders of Western Thought: The Presocratics a Diachronic Parallelism Between Presocratic Thought and Philosophy and the Natural Sciences"
 * the books and journal articles are all from high-quality publishers, such as Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, and Routledge
 * WP:EARWIG shows one match with https://pantheon.world/profile/occupation/philosopher/country/greece. However, the same page copied the lead sections from various Wikipedia entries, such as Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates and they also mention Wikipedia once. I guess it's safe to assume that they copied from this article as well rather than the other way around.


 * I've made all suggested changes to the references. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, how is this going? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , Phlsph7 responded below Special:Diff/1203330591. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 21:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks TBUA, apologies Phlsph. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response. Continuing the review: Phlsph7 (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * you can remove the first reference of [44] since that sentence is already covered by the second one.
 * the same applies to:
 * very short spotcheck
 * supported by Augustin & Pellò 2021, pp. 615–616
 * supported by Augustin & Pellò 2021, pp. 617–618
 * supported by Graham 2008, p. 335
 * the relevant passages from Graham 2008, p. 339 seem to be: and . The second part of igniting through friction is more weakly expressed in the source than in our article. Maybe there is another source that supports the stronger claim or it could be reformulated.
 * supported by Augustin & Pellò 2021, pp. 617–618
 * supported by Graham 2008, p. 335
 * the relevant passages from Graham 2008, p. 339 seem to be: and . The second part of igniting through friction is more weakly expressed in the source than in our article. Maybe there is another source that supports the stronger claim or it could be reformulated.


 * , I've removed the redundant citations, and I changed the sentence about the stars. I removed the bit about friction and replaced it with a description of the stars' formation, which was given more attention by the sources. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good, the source check is a pass. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason you use url and subscription for the publisher’s link instead of just consistently using doi? Barnes 1982 could have and that would allow you to put a convenience link in url like to Archive.org  if you so chose. To me it seems redundant to have the URL repeat the destination the DOI provides. In general you seem inconsistent in your use of DOIs. Umimmak (talk) 09:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I've added DOIs and Archive.org URLs where applicable, and I removed URLs duplicated by DOIs. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 23:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I gave you the DOI for Barnes 1982 above, or are you finding that's not the right identifier for your source? In addition Gregory 2020 is . Kirk & Raven 1957 has a second edition, which you might wish to consider citing instead? ; Laks 2018 is . And Zilioli 2020 is an edited collection; you've already got a separate citation for Gregory 2020 in Zilioli 2020. This citation for Zilioli 2020 really should be for just Zilioli's "General Introduction" . When linking to Archive.org registration might be worth considering if you need to make an account to check out the book. Also you are including an ISBN-13 for works where that's anachronistic; per WP:ISBN However, if an older work only lists an ISBN-10, use that in citations instead of calculating an ISBN-13 for it. This is because ISBNs are often used as search strings and checksum differences between the two forms make it difficult to find items listed only under the other type. Is it standard in this field to have the full date when citing journals? Also Augustin and Pellò was published online on July 12, 2021, but in general you should cite the final version when possible, I think, no? So the final published version with page numbers appeared in 2022? But maybe this is field-dependent. Umimmak (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've made the changes, though the references section no longer reflects the versions of Kirk & Raven 1957 and Augustin & Pellò 2021 that are actually used in the article. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 03:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean… can you not just use the most current version of these sources in the article? Don’t cite something you’re not using, but you should use the most current version of a source unless there’s a reason to not do so. Umimmak (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The danger of citing a different version is that the page numbers may not fit and the text may also be slightly changed. I'm not aware of an FA requirement to always cite the latest version, so I would suggest sticking with the version that was used when writing the article. If it's important to mention the new version in a specific case, what about adding the more recent source in parenthesis in the reference section, something like:
 * Barnes, Jonathan (1982). The Presocratic Philosophers. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203007372. ISBN 0-415-20351-1. (later republished in/as: ...)
 * Phlsph7 (talk) 09:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue is that Kirk and Raven (1957) was revised throughout for the second edition Kirk, Raven, and Schofield (1983). Citing an edition rendered obsolete forty years ago by its original authors raises my eyebrows.
 * Also, the page numbers are different, and so citations must be given to the edition actually being cited.
 * That said, I'm not going to stand in the way of the nomination on these grounds—especially as there does not appear to be a copy available anywhere online. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments from JM
Really fantastic to see this here. Leucippus is the sort of person I don't know about but probably should.


 * I know it's obvious to you, but I really think the two images should be clearly captioned so that we're not giving the false impression that they may be accurate likenesses. Maybe something like 'A fanciful 16th century portrait of Leucippus by [whoever]' or something
 * There were captions, but they were reduced for the image review.
 * I wasn't aware of that guideline. I agree with what it says, but would argue that the need to avoid giving a misleading impression is more important. Or, put another way (to quote MOS:CREDITS) maybe the author of the image is relevant to the subject of the article, precisely because the author is so far removed from the subject of the article. (I could see an argument for saying that we shouldn't use either image in the infobox, but that's not my belief.) Do you have a view on this? Josh Milburn (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the simplest solution would be to simply say it was a later interpretation (though I'd suggest a different word than "fanciful"). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Made a change. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Why 'cosmos' rather than 'universe'? Is it worth linking to cosmos? (I assume you're using 'world' and 'cosmos' interchangeably?)
 * Cosmos is used pretty consistently in the sources. Links added.
 * Is it worth specifying in the lead that (probably?) neither Aristotle nor Theophrastus were contemporaries of Leucippus? That really helps underlie how little we know about him for sure.
 * Added.
 * The first paragraph of the 'life' section is a little choppy. I like short sentences, but perhaps it could be smoother? Working to remove some of the passive voice might help. (Example: 'Epicurus has been described as a student of Leucippus, but Epicurus has also been recorded denying the existence of Leucippus.' to 'x describes Epicurus as a student of Leucippus, but Epicurus is recorded by y as denying Leucippus's existence.' (Or maybe you want to avoid s's -- I know some people don't like it!) It might help if you cut back on the passive voice throughout.
 * Reworked it a bit.
 * "Two works are attributed to Leucippus: The Great World System and On Mind" A 'works' section would be nice. Normally it appears at the bottom of the article. I'd also love to see 'the sentence' prominently, especially as it's so evocative; maybe even in the lead (along with the titles of the works?) I also suspect any classicists reading would expect to see the Greek titles alongside the English titles (as you do with Leucippus's name in the lead); and perhaps even for 'the sentence'. (At least: Whose translation is that?) No doubt there are other translations out there.
 * Good idea. I added a works section including the Greek names and I added the titles to the lead.
 * I've added lang per MOS:LANG; I've used 'grc', which is for 'Ancient Greek' (see List of ISO 639-2 codes). There are several other possible candidates at Template:Lang/doc. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ' but he asserted that the void did exist, and he was therefore able to accept the existence of motion and plurality' Philosophers often take an accusation of assertion as a criticism (or, at least, I do). Is it mere assertion?
 * I hadn't considered it that way, but I changed it to "said".
 * "Simplicius of Cilicia contradicted Aristotle's account, attributing this idea to Democritus" Could you spell this out? What exactly did Simplicius say, and how did it contradict Aristotle? (I also wonder if it might be worth situating Simplicius and others a little better chronologically; I think it's easy for people to imagine that all these ancient philosophers were in a room talking to each other ala School of Athens, rather than referring to each other centuries apart.)
 * The source doesn't elaborate; he just attributed it to Democritus instead of Leucippus. I reworded it a little bit.
 * "The 20th century philosopher Ernst Cassirer considered Leucippus to be the third and final philosopher involved with the shift from Eleatic analytic logic to causal logic, following Empedocles and Anaxagoras.[42]" This needs spelling out; neither Eleatic logic nor causal logic have yet been mentioned.
 * I decided to just remove this one. It's a throw away comment from the one sources that doesn't really go anywhere.
 * "a theory of thought and perception" Some wikilinks would be good. We have both perception ad philosophy of perception, but there's only thought (with philosophy of thought redirecting to philosophy of mind).
 * Linked.
 * "According to Epiphanius, Leucippus said that reasoned knowledge is impossible to obtain and only unreasoned belief exists" That would make him an epistemological sceptic; have you seen him described in those terms? I wonder if that's worth linking (and I assume we'll have a category).
 * I have not seen the specific label. I was iffy about including this at all, because I didn't see it in any other sources and some say he didn't have any epistemology.
 * "making him the first known philosopher to propose the existence of other worlds besides Earth" This is where the world/cosmos/universe etc. gets confusing; do you mean to say he's the first to propose other planets, or the first to propose other universes? Or neither? (Strictly speaking, his view sounds somewhere between the two.)
 * It more or less means other planets, but the sources use the phrase "other worlds". I was hoping that the first half of that sentence would clarify what it meant.
 * "Modern understanding of Leucippus's role in the development of atomism comes from the writings of the ancient Greek philosophers Aristotle and Theophrastus.[" Is it worth saying what writings?
 * I thought about this, but I leaned against listing specific texts, especially since none of the sources list them all out like that.
 * "It is unclear whether Leucippus's contemporary Diogenes of Apollonia responded to Leucippus or if Leucippus responded to Diogenes.[68] According to Diogenes Laertius, Diogenes of Apollonia's interpretation of the void may have been inspired by Leucippus.[69][70]" Interesting, but a bit out of place?
 * I removed the first of these sentences, as it's only in the one source and doesn't really add anything. I kept the "interpretation of the void" because it's relevant to how Leucippus's philosophy was applied.
 * I don't feel very strongly about it, but my impression is that the use of Ill is discouraged at FAC. Why would a reader understand [de] to mean 'click here to read about him in German'?
 * I hadn't heard of this. If anyone else concurs, then I'll remove them.
 * "he is not known to have produced any writings on ethics[77] or epistemology.[78]" Maybe -- though, as above, it sounds like he defended epistemological skepticism, so he at least addressed epistemology, perhaps?
 * I'll quote the sources. It's even worse than it seemed:
 * Leucippus insists that we have belief, but no more (Epiphanius, 67 A 33) ... The Atomists, however, do not even allow reasonable belief: their arguments against knowledge, in so far as we know them, are equally arguments against reasonable belief. We have beliefs: that is an incontestable empirical fact. Our beliefs do not amount to knowledge: that is the argument of the Abderites. Yet our beliefs are not even reasonable: being atomically caused, they are not founded on reason; and the physics of the cognitive processes assures us that no impressions of external reality are accurate. If there is no room for knowledge, by the same token there is no room for reasoned belief: everything is by belief—but that, far from being a consolation, is only a cause for despair. (Barnes 1982 p.447)
 * Nor do [Leucippus and Democritus] accept the Parmenidean position that tangible experiences are but "the opinions of mortals in which is no true belief at all".28B1(30) On the contrary, they believe that sense experience, however limited, constitutes objective knowledge of the physical world through which one can approach the truth. (Vamvacas 2009 p.211)
 * While we have no evidence to suggest that Leucippus was concerned with epistemological questions, there is abundant evidence of their importance for Democritus. (Taylor 1999 p.189)
 * To my eyes, this could mean Leucippus's ideas being attributed to Democritus, Democritus's ideas being attributed to Leucippus, Parmenides's ideas being attributed to Leucippus and Democritus, or any combination thereof. If you have any suggestions for what to do with this...
 * Interesting. Maybe you could say something like 'Although [whoever] argues that there is little evidence that Leucippus, unlike Democritus, addressed epistemology, other writers have variously interpretted him as arguing that we can have belief, but neither justified belief nor knowledge, and that objective knowledge can be achieved through sense experience.' We could just spell out the controversy. Probably, as you suggest, this all comes down to the way L and D are 'bundled' (or not), but I think trying to cut through that is going to verge into original research... Josh Milburn (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "The 20th century physicist Werner Heisenberg argued that Plato's theory of forms was closer to reality than Leucippus's conception of atoms, saying that modern atoms are more like the intangible Platonic forms than the discrete material units of Leucippus.[81]" 'Reality' is unfortunate here; I assume you mean 'the findings of 20th century physics' or something."
 * I assume Heisenberg considered himself to be talking about reality, but I changed it.
 * "No significant work on the historicity of Leucippus has been produced since the early 20th century.[63]" I think this needs to be dated. 'In [year], [whoever] observed that...'
 * The source for this is "The last 75 years or so have seen no serious contributions to the question; recent scholarship tends to avoid the question as much as possible" (Graham 2008 p.333). I don't see anything beyond that.
 * Thanks, good quote. I've made a change to the article; see what you think. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You often use 'modern' to mean something like 'contemporary'; but historians of philosophy normally distinguish the two." The first person who pops into my head when I read 'modern philosophy' is Hobbes (who, incidentally, would like Leucippus).
 * This article uses modern to refer from anything between the 16th century and today. For more specific time periods, the century is used.
 * "die Leukipp-frage (transl. the Leucippus problem" Brilliant topic to end on; I even wonder if it belongs in the lead?
 * The lead already mentions the dispute, it probably doesn't need the specific German term, at least in my opinion.
 * "Most modern philosophers agree that Leucippus existed," Just to clarify: That's what your source says? You're not just citing someone who believes he exists, or mentions lots of people who believes he exists? (That would constitute synthesis.
 * The exact wording is "Most recent contributions fall into the third group". In his groupings, the third group is scholars who say "Leucippus is the historical founder of atomism, but is difficult or impossible to distinguish him from Democritus in a systematic way". For reference, the other groups are "Leucippus is an invention", "Leucippus can be distinguished from Democritus in a systematic way", and "the question is undecidable". (Graham 2008 p.337)
 * Could I recommend you include a further reading entry or external link for the Leucippus's entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy? If I get time, I plan to read through that one and see how it compares to this article! (I'm seeing other professional philosophy encyclopedia articles -- e.g., -- but Stanford is the one I always gravitate to, not least because it's free!)
 * Added as an external link. I actually used SEP to check for comprehensiveness while writing the article.

I've genuinely learnt a lot. I have a lecture where I mention Democritus in passing; I'll mention Leucippus next time I do it! Josh Milburn (talk) 07:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I replied to each comment. I made most of the suggested changes, though there are a few that are a little more complicated and I'm curious how you'd approach them. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 23:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A few more replies. In cases where you've pushed back/explained and I've not replied, assume I'm happy! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , I'm assuming the epistemology was the only part where a change was needed right now. I made an effort to get it all organized, though I'm not sure if it makes sense as written. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 17:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , just checking in. Is there anything else here that needs a closer look? Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 05:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I hoped to take another look at the article (perhaps placing it alongside the Stanford article) before offering support, but the directors shouldn't feel obliged to wait for me; finding a spare hour or two for this sort of thing is increasingly challenging! Josh Milburn (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Josh, without wanting to nag, I wondered if you have had any further thoughts on this one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please don't hold up the review on my account; if there's a consensus to promote, please go ahead. I'm very busy in the dreaded real world at present, so finding a couple of hours for this is proving a challenge. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Shapeyness
Very interesting article! Some comments below. Shapeyness (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * This is a slightly confusing wording imo - would something like this work: "The atoms postulated by Leucippus come in infinitely many shapes and sizes, although the size and shape of each atom is fixed and unchanging. They are in a state of constant motion and continuously change arrangements with one another."?
 * I used your wording, but I kept the reasoning of "no reason why not" because that's an explicit part of his philosophy.
 * I'm not 100% sure I understand what this is saying.
 * Honestly I had to read the sources a few times to get a sense of what they were saying. I reworded it to this: "Leucippus's atomism kept the concepts of reality developed by the Eleatics, but it applied them to a physical explanation of the world." Hopefully that's a little clearer, or at least in the right direction?
 * Since Diogenes of Apollonia is not mentioned up to this point in the article, this comes a bit out of nowhere and seems a little confusing - maybe if the sentences were flipped it would make more sense, e.g. "According to Diogenes Laertius, Diogenes of Apollonia's interpretation of the void may have been inspired by Leucippus, although it is unclear which of the two wrote on the subject first."
 * I've simply removed the part about who influenced who, since it's redundant and the other sources don't acknowledge it.
 * This is supported by the source, but are there any other sources that discuss the differences between Leucippus's atomism and modern atomic theory? I would associate mass–energy equivalence and fundamental forces more with relativity and particle physics than with emergence of atomic theory. If not, then no need to change anything about this!
 * This was the source that broke them down and compared them. Personally I think it's relevant to list continued advances after the development of modern atomic theory.
 * Personally I don't think this list is necessary, but feel free to ignore this one :)
 * I don't either, but reviewers took issue with people not being named.
 * , I've replied to the comments. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 01:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks ! Looking through the SEP pages for Leucippus and the ancient atomists, this article seems to cover all the same major points. The only other thing I noticed is in the lead is not actually mentioned in the main body of the article. Shapeyness (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , I removed it. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 17:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Last thing, there seem to be a number of citation errors due to dates not matching up between the citations and source list - specifically for the Kirk & Raven and Hurley sources. Shapeyness (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That was an effect of a reviewer above telling me to use the most recent years instead of the ones from the versions I consulted. I've updated the years. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I had one last look to check if there are any other sources that could be used to talk about differences/similarities between Leucippus and modern atomic theory and couldn't find anything better than the source already used. I'm not an expert, but based on the sources I've read, this article seems comprehensive and accurate. It's also well-written and structured, and meets the other FA criteria, so I'll support for FA. Shapeyness (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Have you actually consulted the newer editions? Maybe and I disagree on this, but my sense is that if you're citing an edition, it should be one you actually used. And if there's no difference (e.g., we're talking about a reprinting rather than a new edition) you should cite the original, not the most recent. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't love using an edition that was superseded forty years ago, but the first edition is still easily a RS. The impetus of my original objection was that there was a qualification in the second edition of a claim made in the article, which I wrongly assumed had only been introduced in the second. Since that has now been sourced to the first edition, which was used in the creation of the article, I no longer see any content-based reason to object to its current state. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood, and I agree that there are good reasons to favour updated editions over originals all else equal. Could you confirm that the article doesn't presently contain references to any sources you haven't used? Josh Milburn (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you mean to tag ? Shapeyness (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , yes, they all now correspond to the versions that I used. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 15:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

PJW
I have just re-read the article and made a few minor edits with descriptions. Please revert if they do not make sense.

I have also reacquainted myself with the FAC criteria, and so can offer the following assessment:

(Edit: This is in addition to my comments above, which have been addressed to my satisfaction. I did not realize I was supposed to create a section header for myself, and so it has been somewhat obscured that I did in fact weigh in at the beginning of this process—although, to be sure, not so thoroughly as some of the other editors, who I would encourage to weigh in with their own recommendations. I stand by my own confident motion of support, but am qualified only to be a member of a deciding body, not the decider-in-chief. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC))

The article is well-written, coherently structured, and introduced with an accessible, well-crafted lead. It appears to be neither longer nor shorter than the topic merits. The bibliography is shorter than most of the high-quality articles upon which I have worked — the reason for this, however, is clear from the content of the article itself. What is important is the quality of the sources used, and they are of high quality. The use of a citation template, although not required, is much appreciated.

With respect to its comprehensiveness, I read it against the treatment in a source not used for the article, W. K. C. Guthrie's multi-volume history of Greek Philosophy, in which poor Leucippus receives a meager four pages. Nothing contained in them has been omitted in this article.

For these reasons, I fully support the promotion of this article.

I would also like to add that I am happy to see how an already good article has improved as a result of this review. I don't in general love the GA/FAC processes, but this is an instance of them benefiting Wikipedia. For all of their hard work my thanks to Thebiguglyalien, especially, and also to everyone else who took the time to contribute with their comments and reviews.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley
Dudley Miles (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Leucippus's atoms come in infinitely many forms and exist in constant motion. This creates a deterministic world". This is a non-sequitur.
 * Reworded.
 * "Epicurus has been described as a student of Leucippus, but Epicurus has also been recorded denying the existence of Leucippus." This is an odd sentence on two counts. As Epicurus lived 100 years later he can only have been a follower of Leucippus, not a student. Also, if he really denied Leucippus' existence, that would surely be decisive as he would have known. Maybe "said to have" instead of "recorded".
 * Changed.
 * You say that he held that all things are made of microscopic particles and that they came in infinitely many sizes. These statements contradict each other.
 * Not necessarily. Infinite doesn't always mean all-encompassing.
 * "while Leucippus is credited with the philosophy's creation, Democritus is understood to have applied it to natural phenomena on a larger scale". I am not clear what a larger scale means in this context.
 * Reworded.
 * I do not think it is correct to describe Constantine Vamvacas as a biographer. A quick check suggests that he wrote about the thought rather than the lives of philosophers.
 * Replaced with writer. I could not find another more specific descriptor.
 * "that Leucippus disagreed. He wrote that Leucippus". This is grammatically confusing.
 * Reworded.
 * Vamvacas and Taylor were both born in the 1930s. I do not think it is correct to describe them as 21st century even if you are citing 21C works in this particular case.
 * Fixed.
 * I suggest linking epistemological.
 * Done.
 * "Ancient biographers". As above, I do not think it is correct to describe someone discussing philosophical beliefs as a biographer.
 * Fixed.
 * "Aetius also wrote a history of Leucippus". history is an odd word for a person. Do you mean a study of his thought?
 * Changed to "wrote about"
 * "since the earliest records". The earliest records date to long before Leucippus.
 * Clarified
 * "Such was the problem's enormity". "enormity" is an odd word here. I am not sure what is better but maybe "The dispute was considered so difficult to resolve".
 * Reworded.
 * , I've replied to everything above. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 18:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)