Talk:Empedocles

message: It seems to me there are way too many  tags here; are there really doubts about all these things?  Why were they put there?  Is someone pressing for any old source that backs them up (e.g. Internet Encyclopedia of Phil, which has several of these claims) or should we be looking for where these claims were first made?  The latter could be an interesting and valuable project, but not central enough to Wikipedia's mission to justify all these  tags.  I'm not sure what is gained by simply including links to other internet encyclopedias to "verify" that Empedocles actually wore purple, was said to have invented rhetoric, or was said to have jumped into a volcano.  As you can see from the google searches, those claims are ubiquitous enough that they are generally accurate (or at least represent long-repeated inaccurate information); what is really gained from a link to another encyclopedia making the same assertion?  On the other hand, a link to whoever first said that Aristotle said that Empedocles invented rhetoric on perseus would be great, but I don't think it is "needed."  It's my understanding that the  tag should be used when a claim is suspect, or simply not that common.  But not for every single fact that isn't linked to source material -- should I put a  tag on this page because there is no source cited for the claim that the sun is the nearest star to earth?  Now, if someone has a reason to suspect these claims are inaccurate, then by all means let's hear about it.--csloat 03:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources where these questions are thoroughly discussed.  Jkelly 04:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sort of situation is not addressed there, to my knowledge.  I don't see anything requiring citations be provided in the text of an article for well known and widely accepted facts.  I don't see the point of citing other encyclopedias to "prove" that Empedocles wore purple, for example, when every encyclopedia contains that information (and the claim may be equally verifiable or unverifiable).  The pages you link to indicate that when questions of verifiability are raised, published sources should be brought to settle such disputes, but I don't see such questions raised here.  The above google links take you to plenty of sources to verify these claims; can we now remove the  tags?  Or do you really insist that we cite other encyclopedias for every sentence here, most of which is easily verified in any such sources?  And where do we draw the line - can you explain why there is no reason to put a  tag next to a sentence like "The first scientific description of fish occurs in Aristotle, who mentions various facts about 118 species." on this page?  While it would be great to have a link to Aristotle on perseus there, or even just a citation, would you advocate putting  tags there, and would you want to see a link to another encyclopedia making the same claim?--csloat 06:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of your Google results are mirrors of Wikipedia.  We do prefer to reference secondary sources over "tertiary" ones such as other encyclopedias. It would be nice to WP:CITE that Aristophanes reference, yes.  The :Template:fact tags are useful pointers to places where references would be appropriate.  A reference to Perseus, as you suggested, would be an aid to both the reader and future editors.  Why not simply add it? Jkelly 06:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I had such links I would add them; and I definitely encourage anyone to do so.  Perhaps it is from hanging around the current events pages, but to me the "fact" tags suggest that a given claim is doubted and should not be trusted until a cite is provided.  I could easily add cites for other encyclopedias (true there are some wikipedia mirrors there but there are also other encyclopedia sources) but does that really improve Wikipedia in any measurable way?  I'd rather see the claims cited with original (or secondary) sources than nothing, but I think I'd rather see nothing than a bunch of links to other encyclopedias that repeat information but don't really verify it.--csloat 07:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have come across a point of agreement.  In our "wore purple" example, we might pay lip-service to WP:V by referencing some random university webpage that mentions the fact, but would fall far short of the improvement that actually tracking down where that bit of trivia originated and referencing that.   "Empedoclephobos wrote that Empedocles was arrogant and wore purple clothes, whereas Empedoclephilos wrote that the philosopher was humble and had quite good fashion sense.", for instance.  Jkelly 17:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: On the subject of "citation needed" tags, I was the one who originally put into the article that "there is some evidence that he actually died in Greece." I did so because that's what it said at the article on Mount Etna (though it no longer does, and I don't know who it was that put it there) and I thought the articles should be consistant. I don't know what evidence there is that he actually died in Greece. Should the statement even remain in the article?
Patricia Curd's A Presocratics Reader includes most, if not all, of the challenged facts. Someone with more skill than I could definitely feel free to put in that source and end this silly debate. 72.144.198.53 20:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Aristotle refers to such an experiment in his Physics, but he doesn't mention Empedocles. The only reason to connect this experiment to Empedocles seems to be because he talks about clepsydras in Fragment 100 when explaining respiration. The evidence that Empedocles was the one who performed the clepsydra experiment is very weak. Singinglemon (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{Tl|Fact}} tags 

message: Can we just pin things down as to whether Empedocles and Pausanias were lovers. I've had to revert edits on this three times now, I think. The line from Diogenes Laërtius, viii. 60 reads:
:ἦν δ' ὁ Παυσανίας, ὥς φησιν Ἀρίστιππος καὶ Σάτυρος, ἐρώμενος αὐτοῦ
which apparently translates as:
:Pausanias, according to Aristippus and Satyrus, was his eromenos.
Have I made a mistake? Naturally one would not expect Victorian translations of Diogenes Laërtius to state this explicitly. I should add that I've no particular interest in Ancient Greek homosexuality, but as I understand it, it was quite common. Singinglemon (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're understanding this properly. There is, I suppose, room to doubt whether Aristippus and Satyrus had good information about Empedocles' relationship, but the erastes-eromenos relationship was common in classical Greece, and what Diogenes Laertius says seems plausible. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pausanias and Empedocles 

message: I will quote the previous discussion on this:
:Empedocles demonstrated the material nature of air using a clepsydra ("water thief"). This was an extremely important early experiment and deserves mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.97.91 (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Aristotle refers to such an experiment in his Physics, but he doesn't mention Empedocles. The only reason to connect this experiment to Empedocles seems to be because he talks about clepsydras in Fragment 100 when explaining respiration. The evidence that Empedocles was the one who performed the clepsydra experiment is very weak. Singinglemon (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Unlike a jstor article, Segan is not a reliable source on anything apart from astronomy, particularly not ancient philosophers or philosophy.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clepsydra 

message: It is noted that there was an Important idea in ancient Greek philosophy which is "Nothing comes from Nothing" and an explicit statement of this along with the further principle that nothing can pass away into nothing was found in Empedocles (490 BC - 430 BC). It is said that the third theorem of Sir Issac Newton, a great scientist explains the same idea that was expressed by Empedocles. 
As for the period of these two stalwarts are concerned, Sir Issac Newton belongs to 18th Century,whereas Empedocles belongs to very early century namely 490 -430 BC. 
It may be astonishing to note that what was advanced by a scientist in 18th century was very easily pronounced by a great Greek thinker, Empedocles in 430 BC i.e. about 2200 years ago without any sceintific instruments for his support. It is in the same breath, I am to add, the declaration of this scientific fact dates back still earlier to Empedocles. In India there was a school of thought namely "Saankya" advocated by a sage called "Kapila Munivar". He announced to the world among other Philosophical ideas that no matter can be destroyed nor be created, the very same idea as Empedocle broke to the world. A deep scrutiny of the annals of Kapila Munivar reveals that he hailed from Tamilnadu, deep South of India and in his later period went North to preach a school of thought known as "Saankya". This is very much corroborated by the name Kapila which means stark black, by the by, you may note that Tamilians are black. Hence this idea was originally permeated in Tamilnadu and a great saying still found in Tamil Saiva Siddhantha literature which goes tersly as, "Illadhu thondradhu(Nothing comes from Nothing); ulladhu sidhaiyadhu (No matter can be destroyed)" testifies to the fact. 
It may be deciphered, rightly therefore, that the scientific fact said above originated in the minds of Tamil sages, travelled to the teritory of Greece as a result of great deluge in the wake of upheavel of sea, along with those travelled in boats to various parts of the world from Tamilnadu and therefrom to Sir Issac Newton in the 18th century. Therefore the seed of the idea is Tamilian. 
Opinions by M.P.Sathiyavel Murugan, http://dheivathamizh.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.186.106 (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  An opinion on the posit "Nothing comes from Nothing" 

message: If we compare the extended quote in this section with this text , p.81, there seems to be a significant difference, viz "in your eyes". Any comment, please? Spicemix (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purifications 

message: Thank you each and every one, for giving me a clear summary of what is known.  Clear writing I find! Praises and praises!  I love and appreciate greatly the links to the secondary sources-- I applaud your tracking to sources like Aelian and Simplicius-- and thanks for taking out the NotVeryUseful notes to "enclyclopedias".  Great job, everybody!  --Rednblu (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applause! Great page! 

message: That is the Latin name vs Greek name.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolorausch (talk • contribs) 09:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wasn't he born in Akragas not Agrigentum? 

message: Russell's so-called humorous quote manifests the lanky logician's superficiality. He misses the enormous importance of Empedocles' attribution of the world's formation as due to love/strife, instead of to mind/intelligence.173.71.86.124 (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Revelation

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Empedocles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061007041300/http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/BA/Kingsley-rev.html to http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/BA/Kingsley-rev.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article introduction contains the statement: "Some of his work survives, more than is the case for any other pre-Socratic philosopher." It goes back to this edit. There's no cite. Now, I haven't counted how many words from Parmenides survive, but unless somebody knows the statement is verifiable, I'll remove it. Objections? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In my copy of Patricia Curd's A Presocratics Reader (), Empedocles has the largest section by page count alone, going from page 75 to 99 (that's 25 pages worth). The next most after that is Heraclitus, from 40 to 53 (14 pages). (Leucippus and Democritus are jointly considered from 110 to 125, or 16 pages worth). So by this metric alone, it looks like Empedocles does have the most extant writing of any Pre-Socratic. Still though, I haven't found anywhere that explicitly says, "Empedocles has the most." I'll let you know if I find anything. Tkbrett (✉) 17:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You inspired me to do a similar count. You're right. And I guess WP:CALC applies. So I will not remove the statement. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Empedocles's surviving work the bulkiest?

message: Lede currently contains (after ref. to Pythagoras): "(so he may have been a vegetarian at some stage of his life)". This is equivalent to: "It is unknown whether he was a vegetarian at any point in his life," which is true of most biographical subjects, and hence does not merit  mentioning. I will delete the parenthesis. Wegesrand (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tendentious nonsense