Talk:Socrates/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Multiple edits

An editor has made very many edits recently. This seems to have resulted in new sections consisting only or mainly of a quote. Also, some sections now begin with a quote for no apparent reason. I've added a quotefarm tag. Myrvin (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

i think it would be just fine to remove every quote i added if you feel it's necessary (since i see Myrvin your listed in the Top 10, which at least indicates something reliable) , i added the quotes to fill headings i thought particularly relevant, intending to find more material later, so the current state wasn't intended as a finished state. Xenophon (is the main offending section), and, The arguments of Socrates in my own opinion is the flawed section, all the material i added to this section. Whalestate (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I have also added several cn tags. These did not necessarily result from these edits. Myrvin (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

i wouldn't ever add material without an inline citation, since as far as i'm aware the law states it's necessary to provide the correct attribution, at least under English law Whalestate (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Myrvin: I wonder whether we need to go back to the version of this article dated 24 February 2015. A lot of OR by one contributor since then??--Chewings72 (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Whalestate: the layout has also suffered (see WP:MOS). Perhaps a rollback to 24/2 is indeed warranted, but I'd like to see a response from the editor responsible for all these edits first. --Randykitty (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC

i scan read (only scan read) WP:MOS and sorry i couldn't see anything from that which indicates the current layout is wrong. I'd like to know specifically how the current style is contrary to MOS.I'll look through it again before the end of today in any case Whalestate (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

it's not really possible to revert the article to pre-21st March, at least if WP:5 stands for anything. which it must :"All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources..." and of course the article is now not a patent load of nonsense as a result of additions i made, so revertion would result in a genuine loss of valid material//information. Alternatively it would be difficult for any other editor to trawl through all the edits i made to see exactly where the flawed additions are.

so, what i suggest is, for some-one to read the article to see if there is anything which isn't necessary to the article and either remove it there and then, and hopefully replace this material with more important or significant information,

EDITORS LISTED IN THE TOP 10 FOR EDITS:

Users: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paul_August (Holder of Advanced Degrees!) is still active - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Paul_August

Across the synapse - i couldn't find for now as i had to eat dinner

Wiki alf is retired - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wiki_alf

yourself Myrvin (from top edits) i think is a better indication of reliability of quality of edits than text added. In any case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Heah is not active 12 July 2012 (UTC) - Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

i'd like to see the opinion of Paul August on the matter really before proceeding with anything, other than if you'd like to remove quotes, which i don't object to.

i intended just to stay away from this article for a period in any case, since i have made many edits and it's not comfortable for anyone to have one lone editor seeking a dominant influence, though the temptation to continue to add material proved too great for a little while. Thanks ! 19:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whalestate (talk • contribs) 19:13, 9 April 2015

• Given this rambling and badly formatted response, I would not be opposed to restoring the previous version of the article. Sorry, Whalestate... --Randykitty (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

okay, well what exactly is wrong with my actual additions, putting aside your criticisms of my response? other than the quotes and the layout ? your suggest approximately 43,000 bytes of information should just be removed? like .... what??? without anyone reviewing the additions, your seriously suggesting that? what exactly of entirely approx 43,000 bytes is currently wrong? ... that isn't pertaining to the subject Socrates, since everything is referenced? Whalestate (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Randykitty i would object far less if i saw you listed in the Top 10 contributors of either text or edits, have you even contributd anything to this article? I for one would like to get the opinion of Paul August who i'm going to message now, i would seriously consider the likelihood someone would disagree if there isn't some authority involved, what right have you or anyone to just remove about 43,000 bytes from this article? - Randykitty > "My editing interests are rather broad, but I currently spend most of my time editing articles on academic journals. A secondary interest are biographies of scientists, especially neuroscientists." i'VE STUDIED THIS SUBJECT, HAVE YOU? Whalestate (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

editors whose opinions likely have authority

The first editor on Plato User :Atethnekos is inactive since 19:19, 22 July 2014 ‎

I've messaged the prior first editor of Socrates, Paul August, to request his involvement Whalestate (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The idea that some editors' opinions have more authority than others is un-Wikipedian. Based on your posts to the talkpage alone I would lean toward reverting to an earlier version. I have not examined the text you added in detail, but so far I'm not impressed. For instance, the article now presents as fact the idea that Aspasia instructed Socrates in rhetoric--I would be very surprised if any current scholar sees this as anything but an ironic (irenic?) claim in the Menexenus. Nor am I happy to see a section labelled "detracters" which contains only the text: "Meletus and Anytus levelled accusations at him, [53] as did Lycon.[54]

Diogenes in Lives provides a statement of Anytus being the prōtagōnistēs,[55] and instigator of hostility toward Socrates, [56][57] and so the most influential. [58]" How is this helpful to a reader? The sentence "Interpretations might be formed by recourse to the logical content of the arguments and pragmatics of the text" is gibberish. A fairly basic problem with the article (and this predates your edits, but I think you've made the problem worse) is that it does an extraordinarily job of explaining Socrates' philosophical impact, but instead picks arbitrary categories such as gymnastics and music and gives quotes from Platonic dialogues on those subjects without explaining the substance of those quotes, why they might be important, and how they fit into a body of philosophical thought. I see barely any discussion of ethics here and no discussion of epistemology; there is no serious attempt to separate Plato's Socrates from the historical Socrates. Again, the article had serious problems before your edits, but I think your edits make the article worse, not better. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Paul August is in the top 2 of editors in all 3 articles Socrates, Plato, Aristotle which would indicate he has a greater understanding and knowledge. I think being un-wikipedian isn't really the issue, it's the quality of the article, and I would dearly value his opinion on that basis. Whalestate (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Jowett > Socrates himself has turned rhetorician, having learned of a woman, Aspasia, the mistress of Pericles (3rd paragraph of the Introduction)

Jennifer Larson is Professor of Classics at Kent State University, Ohio > Plato's Menexus ... is factual in it's description of the woman's reputation as a teacher of rhetoric amongst the Athenians. - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BDLonn2LfegC&pg=PT199&dq=Socrates+himself+has+turned+rhetorician,+having+learned+of+a+woman,+Aspasia,+the+mistress+of+Pericles&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_VwnVcb5JM_xaovugNAK&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Socrates%20himself%20has%20turned%20rhetorician%2C%20having%20learned%20of%20a%20woman%2C%20Aspasia%2C%20the%20mistress%20of%20Pericles&f=false

what sources Akhilleus do you have or know of that indicate evidence otherwise? Whalestate (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I had reached about 20% of text added and being the most high percentage on both text and edits decided to stop because i had no influence or criticism from other editors was working alone. Whatever the argument for or against i can't reasonably proceed to add much more in any case unless other editors contribute something in the form of material to the article also Whalestate (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

reverting to a previous version with unreferenced material included is contrary to WP:5 - "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources" in any case, so the article would have to (i hope) be reverted to 01:30, 24 March 2015, which i still don't agree with unless Paul August concurs, which i'm sure he won't do to the extent your suggesting because i know i've added a few crucial pieces of information which i wouldn't be able to leave out i.e.

concept of the soul Socrates understood the concept of the soul (psyche) in a way akin to the modern understanding, his conceptualization was the nascent factor of our presently ordinary concept . [80][81][82][83] (in other words Socrates was the person who's notion of the soul became the modern Western worlds understanding) - perhaps someone wants to re-write this

the after-life Gorgias contains Socrates elucidation on the way in which the soul departs postmortem to one of two realms. [84][85][86] Whalestate (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time now to review all the above, let alone all the recent changes made to the article nor the present state of the article. But so far, I would tend to agree with Akhilleus' comments above. I think a revert might be in order, followed by detailed discussion on the talk page about specific problems with the article and possible fixes, to include the recent changes being suggested by Whalestate. Paul August ☎ 13:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I support Paul August's suggestion. A revert to the version dated 24 February 2015 would be a good starting point and then the discussion can start on the need and nature of any future changes. --Chewings72 (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Whalestate, you mentioned Jennifer Larson, who is a fine source. But you seem to have misunderstood the book you were citing. Greek and Roman Sexualities: a Sourcebook is a sourcebook, that is, a collection of excerpts from primary sources. The bit that you were quoting is from Plutarch's Life of Pericles 24.4--Larson is by no means endorsing the idea that Aspasia instructed Socrates in rhetoric! The fact that you didn't understand you were quoting an ancient source, not a modern scholar, makes me even more concerned about your edits. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response but i was sleeping. I didn't initially add the Aspasia factor, i just found that on checking the source a plain text reference to Menexenus. and sought out therefore linked sources. I'm not aligned to any position other than that to which is indicated by evidence, I go with the strongest, most conclusive, evidence like anyone who is interested in the truth, obviously. Putting any of my failings aside (if possible) in any case, as I mentioned before I requested Paul August' opinion which we all now have, so i'll concur to reverting to support the consensus and to proceed with a discussion. Whalestate (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

@Myrvin: :@Akhilleus: One thing I haven't seen is a suggested amount of time expected for editors to find sources for unreferenced work, this is in regards to the current body of material which is unreferenced. I might dig through the edits to find when the material was added, since adding tags doesn't date to that addition. I would prefer to mercilessly remove unreferenced work, period. Whalestate (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

We don't remove material just because it's not referenced. Much good material was added when working practices were looser; it has taken years to work out the implications of the five pillars and to develop policies based on them. I recommend reviewing WP:CHALLENGE and WP:PRESERVE, which are both Wikipedia policy. NebY (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@NebY: will do, thanks Whalestate (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@NebY: I found this in the v.first passage of WP:V - Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[1 - This principle was previously expressed on this policy page as "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." See the essay, WP:Verifiability, not truth.] WP:VNT : The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" meant that verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material.||With regards to Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, I'm thinking these things i've demonstrated an indication unreferenced should be removed , but your disagreeing, would you mind telling me why? WP:V again - verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.|| Do you feel the two pages Challenge and Preserve are in conflict with WP:V? Whalestate (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Instead of wasting your energy fighting with other editors about removing things, why not take the time to find some good sources to back up what's here? Some of the things you removed were uncontroversial, and could be found in even basic descriptions of Socrates. For example, in this edit, the first sentence you removed was "Through his portrayal in Plato's dialogues, Socrates has become renowned for his contribution to the field of ethics, and it is this Platonic Socrates who lends his name to the concepts of Socratic irony and the Socratic method, or elenchus." Do you think this sentence is wrong? Or are you just mechanically removing it because there's no citation? Do you really think this sentence needs citation, since it's basic knowledge about Socrates found in many sources about him? And if you do think the sentence needs citation, why not just find one, since you claim to have studied the subject and you're adding (presumably cited) material to the article anyway? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

No, those sections are part of Wikipedia policy and in accord with the five pillars. Far from being in conflict with WP:V, WP:CHALLENGE is the first section of it. You can try to change Wikipedia policy, but this is not the place for that. In the meantime, if you edit according to your own interpretation of the five pillars and in disregard of policy then you will be disregarding the existing consensus.

I should add that it sits ill to see you pleading accordance with the five pillars when you are still, as I pointed out on your talk page, in breach yourself. NebY (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I just want to say. before any of this discussion proceeds, i think no-one likes to be found in error, or to be found to have made a mistake, myself or any of us, but in the interests of the article it's necessary to identify flaws, if they exist, in each others arguments and preconceptions, and our own arguments and preconceptions also, that's all. Whalestate (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Akhilleus: your finding some kind of hostile intent (fighting) in my words when that isn't my motivation. If you don't mind me mentioning it's melodramatic to write that, just because editors don't agree, there is fighting and conflict. Discussion, you must know this, this is a dicussion. To answer your question why not take the time to find some good sources to back up what's here? (and if you do think the sentence needs citation why not just find one) The reason is The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, WP:BURDEN, so as i understand it, that task is now the responsibility of Myrvin. The answer to your other set of questions, is i removed the material because it was uncited,that's all, in accordance with the reasons given in 14:55, 13 April 2015.I don't want to cast doubt on my own capacities to edit,so of course i won't be proceeding now on the basis of these reasons until I've better understood the principles. Whalestate (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

A good principle to follow: if you'd like other editors to think that you're interested in constructing an article, rather than doing a hatchet job, try to verify material instead of removing it. You might do well to read all of WP:BURDEN, particularly the sentence "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it", with the link to WP:PRESERVE. Removal is the last resort, not the first. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Akhilleus: I had to check the meaning of < hatchet job > first - a malicious or devastating verbal or written attack or A severe criticism or malicious verbal attack meant to ruin someone's reputation - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hatchet+job. I'd like to just proceed to the suggestion : < detailed discussion on the talk page about specific problems with the article and possible fixes, to include the recent changes being suggested by Whalestate. Paul August ☎ 13:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC) > so i'm proceeding firstly to check < Socrates received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. > (after finishing writing this response) & to then look to identifying problems with the article (inc. I see barely any discussion of ethics here and no discussion of epistemology; there is no serious attempt to separate Plato's Socrates from the historical Socrates. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)). I won't be doing anything to the article without firstly communicating with editors here to discuss changes. Whalestate (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

(Drive-by comment:) I'm one of the folks who routinely weighs in over at the Verifiability policy talk page and we've had repeated epic battles there over the issue of removal of unsourced information, with the result always being that though it's not considered to be the best practice that it is acceptable to simply remove unsourced information, rather than {{citation needed}} mark it or seek sources for it. Do do so is third in the hierarchy of best-to-least favored practices, but can be used as a first action; it does not have to wait until the others have been done or tried. (There's a statement in the policy that you "should" only do that if you believe that it cannot be sourced, but it's up to each individual editor to decide the basis on which to come to that belief or not, so that statement doesn't mean much. And discussion at V has established that there's no obligation to search or check to see if there are sources — unlike at AfD, for example, where there's an actual obligation to look for sources — it's just a matter of what you believe off the top of your head.) There's a general feeling at V — I can't say that there's consensus on it, unlike what I've said above — that editors who make a practice of going from article to article deleting unsourced information as a routine or habitual matter may be subject to sanctions (at least those editors who don't do much else), but that's more for not routinely following best practices and thus not being here for the benefit of the encyclopedia than it is for removing unsourced material in any individual case. And Whalestate is right that BURDEN does, in fact, specifically prohibit restoration of material which was removed because it was unsourced. That includes restoration of information which was removed only because it was unsourced. Oh, and finally, if you're not aware of it, PRESERVE was never particularly binding and has been substantially reworked in the last few months to make it even less so, after discussion at its talk page. I express no opinion about anything which has actually happened here so far, I'm just trying to make sure everyone understands the policy and will end by noting that there may (or may not) be other considerations which apply here other than just the issues I've discussed in this post. Just passing through ... regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Myrvin: :@Akhilleus: :@NebY:  :@Chewings72:  :@Paul August: TransporterMan seems a kind of authority on issues of this nature. I've concluded from the factors above, as anyone might also, although knowing I am biased in thinking this, that proceeding to re-delete is the best course of action, since BURDEN does, in fact, specifically prohibit restoration of material which was removed because it was unsourced, and for other reasons given by this same administrator. I can't proceed though for thinking another editor might revert my deletion if they feel strongly enough on this issue, and for proceeding to delete but being blind to the fact of deletion being the third of 3 favourable choices is something some might deem unfair and rather tyrannical, but if no other editor provides the other two more favourable choices, then the only remaining is the third choice. I for one don't see it in any way preferable to add unsourced material per se, and i see policy supporting this, though other editors might perceive policy which contradicts my understanding. I refrained from mentioning at the time of discussion prior to revert my concerns about restoring the unsourced material in order to keep the peace, i.e. maintain civility, and through lack of understanding of the relevant policies, thus relying in good faith editors were aware thoroughly of the correct course of action. On the basis of TransporterMan's opinion i might just like to proceed to delete the material within a day or two, though any deleting isn't the best of three course of action. Does this seem a reasonable suggestion ? Additionally there has already been a discussion @ [1], though it might complicate the issue further, since i don't know if the administrator there has the same weight of opinion, that administrator seems to contradict TransporterMan in some areas, and also suggested a time-frame for finding sources of say two weeks, though that editor identified that time-frame for different editorial conditions than made perhaps explicit here. Whalestate (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not support your deleting this material again under any time frame. You seem determined to delete this material and uninterested in any understanding of policy that conflicts with your desire to remove it. Absent from your contributions to this discussion is any concern for whether the material you want to delete is accurate. Any cooperative and civil effort to remove material from this article should start with an effort to verify whatever material is in question, and the editor who wants to remove the material should take a lead role in trying to find sources. I can't help but notice, though, that you appear to have zero interest in trying to do this--you're demanding that other editors do research, find sources, etc., or you're going to try to delete the material again. You seem much more interested in talking about Wikipedia policy than in finding out about Socrates and writing a good article about him.

In your last post you mention the opinion of administrators. Since you've only been editing for a few months (or at least that's what your account history shows), you might not understand what Wikipedia administrators are. I'm one, and so is Paul August. All this means is that we have certain abilities that other editors do not--for instance, we can view the histories of deleted pages. But being an administrator does not give one special authority over the interpretation of policy--so you would be well advised not to treat TransporterMan's opinion as an authoritative ruling that carries some special weight. In fact, it doesn't even look like TransporterMan is an administrator--but my point is administrative status doesn't matter in a dispute like this, all editors are on the same level. You might, however, want to give some credence to the fact that some of the participants in this discussion have been editing Wikipedia for a long time--some for over a decade! So the users here have well-developed ideas about policy, especially one as important as WP:V, and well-developed ideas about how to write a good article. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Akhilleus i'll explain. If someone is to turn to the article to learn about Socrates, that person would then read much information , including some which has no reliable identification attached to it. This unsourced information seems so valid and true that it is convincing and therefore the reader is convinced it is true, and editors acting in good faith would of course not want to add false or misleading information on such a vital subject as Socrates. But, in life there is no way to rely on that information, because such unreferenced material doesn't have the seal of an authority attached to it, therefore it isn't trust-worthy. Also persons who made the effort to add the unsourced material might have inadvertedly made an error in the copying, so, there is subsequently no way for the reader to check the original, there is no way to verify if it trusted, since the reader then has to trust a wikipedia editor, and their work firstly, as you know, isn't attached to any editor in referencing so that a reader might check on the qualities of any particular editor, and secondly, the qualification and authority of editors isn't at the same level as a professor in a university (of course we both know this). So i feel it's imperitive to remove this material as it is a risk to readers (a small risk albeit, since in good faith persons would trust it, but a risk never-the-less). Your suggesting readers trust material which can't strictly be trusted, while i dig out sources. I would prefer to move the material to here and find sources then return it with sources.But since we can't agree I'll proceed to find sources now, even though:

< The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material >

i.e. Myrvin.

and i see 1,355 administrators. listed, so equally as all administrators are trusted, there are 1,354 other than yourself, so i wouldn't really feel comfortable in being instructed on how to proceed by one individual if there are other equally trusted opinions on the issue. But to appease you i'll proceed to locate sources while concurrently looking for other points of view on this issue from other administrators or editors. Whalestate (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I've been asked by Whalestate at my talk page to explain what I meant by "what it is that are the two more preferable choices than to remove un-sourced material from an article, in the hierarchy of best-to-least." They are, first and best, to find and add reliable sources yourself (or, at the very least, to make a good faith effort to determine that there are no such sources before removing it and to assert that search in the edit summary or, preferably, on the talk page when you remove the material) and, second, to {{citation needed}} tag the material, wait a reasonable time, and then delete the material if a source has not been provided. What a "reasonable time" might be isn't defined by policy (at one time the policy said 30 days, but that's long gone), but the common sense answer is that it depends on how actively the article is being substantially edited. To respond to Akhilleus, I do not, indeed, claim any special authority and I am not an administrator. My posting above was simply to inform everyone here about the consensus about removal of unsourced material which is well-established at the Verifiability policy, and which can be confirmed by checking the talk page there, where the issue comes up again (and again and again and again...) with the same result, i.e. the one which I set out, above. I did so merely as an editor who is intimately familiar with those discussions. There is no doubt that this is a controversial issue, else it would not come up there so often, and there are many people who believe that it is, or should be, the other way around. But it is not. Without repeating it verbatim, just let me again invoke the "other considerations" disclaimer which I made at the end of my foregoing post. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Myrvin: :@Akhilleus: :@Paul August: I'm making edits again per 12:22, 16 April 2015 agreement i.e. locate sources. I just messaged to inform of the situation and for your viewing these edits, and comment obvs. if it's felt necessary. I'm keeping mainly to the boundaries of locating sources for the unsourced, but have made two additional introductions of fresh material while seeking out these sources. I think info of 22:49, 16 April 2015 is possibly/likely not conclusive (from briefly viewing another source). I haven't looked for sources to expand on info of 18:54, 16 April 2015. Whalestate (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

possible problems

sentence

He has been depicted by some scholars, including Eric Havelock and Walter Ong, as a champion of oral modes of communication, standing up at the dawn of writing against its haphazard diffusion.[13] - Ong, pp. 78–79.]

- if anyone knows what the < its > is referring to, that would be useful/helpful, and < haphazard diffusion > would no doubt have profound and significant meaning in the original text, but out of context here just seems meaningless. Plus < champion of oral modes of communication > might be true, but i don't know if it's easy to accept since it isn't supported directly elsewhere in the article. How was he especially championing it? His reliance on this mode isn't necessarily an indication of his strongly advocating it. Whalestate (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Timon of Phlius

"not a very reputable witness" - in a text written by G.C. Field shown - p.216 Whalestate (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

my reason for cutting the sentence - "According to Timon of Phlius and later sources, Socrates took over the profession of stonemasonry from his father who cut stone for the Parthenon." is that i've found no mention of Sophroniscus in relation to the Parthenon, and his father's profession is already established elsewhere, plus, since Timon has the reputation of abusing and ridiculing non-Pyrrhonist philosophers > as shown here at lines 6 & 7 of 2.1 The Shape and Character of the Silloi, i'm thinking it's unlikely i'll find any effort by this source to provide biographical details, so concluded the sentence was actually falsified (unless contrary evidence emerges, which seems unlikely, considering Timon's apparent motivation in writing) Whalestate (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

other relevant sources I viewed during the inquiry with respect to Timon - "satirist" - AA Long, p.265 , "his philosophical targets" - DL. Clayman, p.128 Whalestate (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

source (T.Buckley) - used to justify deletion of a sentence by edit 20:39, 18 April 2015

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BWiPAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA257&dq=guilt+of+all+eight+Generals,+proposed+by+Callixeinus.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lKkyVfTKLcKCPcyKgIAP&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=guilt%20of%20all%20eight%20Generals%2C%20proposed%20by%20Callixeinus.&f=false Whalestate (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Citation style

Whalestate, I'm very pleased to see that you are busy improving the article based on academic sources. But the citation style you've adopted is very odd. It is not standard on Wikipedia (or anywhere else) to put author's credentials in the footnotes. Aside from anything else, this introduces a maintenance problem--when an author changes positions or institutions, who's going to update the footnote? But really, why do you think the qualifications are necessary in the first place? Especially when no Wikipedia article does this, and this is not done in academic literature?

A second, and even more problematic feature of the footnotes you're creating is that there are no page numbers! This is effectively saying to a reader that if they want to verify the information in our article, they're going to have to read an entire book. I really don't see why, if I want to verify Cohen's quote "an idol, a master figure, for philosophy. A Saint, a prophet of the 'Sun-God', a teacher condemned for his teachings as a heretic", I have to search through the entire work. We need the precise page on which this quote (which appears to have been transcribed inaccurately, why is "A Saint" the beginning of a new sentence?) appears, and we need precise page numbers even for the citations that aren't direct quotes. This is standard practice in the academic literature you're citing, and it's standard practice on Wikipedia too. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't have all this bio guff in the footnotes. However, it is common practice to have a very few words on who the cited person is. But inline, not in the footnote, and nowhere near as much. And we definitely need page numbers. As it happens, the "A saint ..." quote is correct. It is in page 5 of the source. But I had to search for it. Myrvin (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I have rewritten the Cohen quote and ref. in a better style. Perhaps W can use this as a template. I also added a link to the Google book page, which helps readers to find the ref. quickly. Myrvin (talk) 08:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Akhilleus: : @Myrvin: well, i took the liberty of doing so because, I'm thinking, it demonstrates to the reader the sources to be authorities, apart from reputable publishers, it's a quick way for the reader to see that the source is reliable. I wouldn't have necessarily thought independently to do so, but that for google books already providing this information, for some reason, which now is the same reason I thought to provide it here. I added the publishing year at the end of the description or else occasionally the prefix some time - lecturer or professor at such-and-such a place. Additionally, dealing with doubts arising from the Socratic problem-question, seeing and reminding oneself, that there are infact sources which are reliable helped to restrict the development of a some time paralysing and perhaps unreasonable doubt (for me at least) as to whether any of the sources information are reliable at all, it adds credence to see qualifications (qualifies the information immediately).In this latter respect, i'd see my doing so as a stop-gap measure to aid my own inquiry, to help me continue against doubts from the Socratic problem, and not primarily to benefit others, and it adds support to my own efforts, i.e. my choice to do so is self-supporting, since i'm not as qualified as the primary sources. I suppose in this respect they wouldn't strictly be deemed necessary, but if they are no use, why should the c.v. details be provided in google books? Names alone don't demonstrate authority, and the reader would have to know to scroll down the google-books page to find about the author, if naive readers aren't aware of the existence of this info within google-books, then, they wouldn't necessarily be made to feel confident in the information provided to the full extent possible. Older publications show such details, for instance - Joseph Priestly L.L.D. F.R.S. (meaning of LLD , Fellow of the Royal Society) or ...by Dr. G.Wiggers for example. Google books provide the info at their location, but to not do so within wikipedia, requires a reader to find that information at a different source, wouldn't that seem to discredit wikipedia some what? If there is a wikilink to an article on an author within wikipedia i'd link a source to that, as others do, if not, then provide no info at all? Apart from finding open-web c.v. descriptions and adding a link to that, there wouldn't be any other choice than to provide a description. Whalestate (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer no such risks or dalliances. Whalestate (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

by the way, out of interest, i've come across one reliable source which seems to be in error, but this doesn't relate directly to this article. Whalestate (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course reliable sources can be in error. I don't really see the relevance here. However, I'm skeptical that you've located a genuine error, and even if it were, it doesn't seem like a serious one. Are you claiming it's wrong to say Mercury tricked Apollo? I'd say sneaking in to, ahem, enjoy Chione's favors before Apollo does qualifies as tricking Apollo. However, you can't make a case either way by simply comparing two snippets of different translations of Ovid; you've got to read the whole episode in Latin, if possible, and see what other scholars say about it. Anderson's commentary on the Metamorphoses is a good starting place to see what scholarly opinion is on particular passages, though of course the commentary is several decades old at this point, and plenty has been published on Ovid since then...

But the point of this section is what the footnotes should look like. If you think it's important to have an author's qualifications in the citations, then you might want to start a discussion at WT:CITE and gain consensus for this change in Wikipedia practice. Until then, this article should stick with the method that is common on Wikipedia—don't put the qualifications in footnotes. Quite frankly, footnotes such as "C Roberson (academic chair of the Graduate School of Criminal Justice at Kaplan University ), S Mire (assistant professor of criminal justice at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette) - Ethics for Criminal Justice Professionals (p.24) CRC Press, 8 Dec 2009 ISBN 1420086723 [Retrieved 2015-04-16]" make the article look less reliable to me, because it looks as if major sections were written by a person who is unfamiliar with academic writing. If someone can't get fairly straightforward matters like citations correct, can we trust that they have understood the much more complex substance—evidence, arguments, etc.—of the works they're drawing upon to write the article?

Also, if this article is written by looking at snippets on Google Books, it will reflect only a snippety, soundbite-like knowledge of the subject. It's much better to do some research by sitting down and reading some authoritative sources in full. It's not like there's a lack of such sources on Socrates… --Akhilleus (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, on Myrvin's point: some articles do include info about who a source is in the main text. But this isn't universal, and my impression is that it usually happens on articles where there are fierce conflicts about even basic facts. Socrates isn't that controversial, so I don't think it's necessary here to write such things as "According to Mitsotakis Professor in the School of Humanities and Science at Stanford University Josiah Ober..." Maybe "classical historian Josiah Ober" would be ok, but I don't see that it's necessary. Any attention focused on the qualifications of a source used in the article distracts the reader from the subject at hand--Socrates. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Some Good Article reviewers are really keen on including brief details of a writer - as I have found to my cost. But you are right, the emphasis is on 'brief'. Your short example is OK. Myrvin (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

page numbers

@Akhilleus: i added an indication of the location of the relevant info on the link to the source not inside the article Whalestate (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

reasons for citations to inc. bio

@Akhilleus::@Myrvin::@Paul August: I've looked at external definitions of verifiable. Isn't that it is to ascertain the truth of something?

If there is not a link via an inline ref. available, then a reader hoping to seek out the truth of a statement would have to copy and paste some part of the wikipedia article into a search box somewhere, which might not bring the result immediately, or at all - certainly not from the text from which the information in the wikipedia article was taken, since, it would need to have been re-worded to comply with plaigarism guidelines. Further-more, to detach the information from it's original source, is to divorce both the reader and the actual editor from the reality of the existing literature on the subject.

How would an interested editor, such as myself be able to remember every text they took the information from, unless the source is recorded there and then, and why should readers be expected to root out the truth of a statement themselves, when it's possible for them to check a ref. immediately? Whalestate (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Socrates isn't common

@Akhilleus::@Myrvin::@Paul August:

There is no common sense version under the subject title Socrates, London is the capital of England, New York is a city in America, these are common knowledges. What sentence ever began "Socrates ..." which might be classified as common? For those familiar with the topic, the well laid out familiar facts seem now common-sensical, but for beginner students, looking to find out for the first time something about Socrates, having no anchor to a ref., when they have no strong foundation of surety and experience in learning about Socrates or philosophy, makes it more problematic for them. Why make the situation more difficult,frustrating and time consuming for readers?

One or another editors feelings or preferences on the article have no bearing on the greater good to humanity of knowledge of Socrates.

Any connection to date of publication i.e. the relevancy of the material, whether the material represents recent or more older scholarship, the publishing house, whether it is a reputable publishing house, a private or university publishing house, the author - whether they have studied enough to know the information, if their publicatons info might be thought trustworthy and valuable, plus the context of the sentence in the original shows how the info in this article related to existing sources, and also opens up the subject for further investigation and inquiry.

Readers (and editors) are able to pick up the thread with references. Do you see anywhere in sources online, in google books, any source written by a legitimate organisation or author, with a Ph.D or otherwise that doesn't provide either an inline citation, a ref. to an author or a ref. in the ref. list? anywhere, infact in most cases the author is the source in at least if they have a Ph.D? The articles sources might/would be lost unless the editer adding material made the effort to record which source they found the info. Editors might remember sources in their own life-time, but would they still remember them after they had died? Who would remember their exact sources then? Whalestate (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I would say that if a piece of information appears in many reliable sources, it is common knowledge in the sense used on the Harvard webpage I linked to earlier. You apparently missed a crucial bit there: "Other facts that count as common knowledge—for instance, that Franz Boas, the distinguished American ethnologist, held the first academic appointment in anthropology in the United States—are widely known to some groups of people (professional anthropologists) but perhaps not to you. Nevertheless, you would not have to cite the fact about Boas..." Obviously, even many well educated people are not familiar with Franz Boas and his occupational history, but among people who are familiar with the subject matter (anthropology) this is a commonly known fact. Among people who are familiar with ancient philosophy, the Socratic problem is a well known issue, and this is easy to verify for Wikipedia editors who are not familiar with ancient philosophy--just look at a selection of works about Socrates, and you'll find fairly similar descriptions of the Socratic problem in them. Choosing just one source for a sentence as anodyne as "The Socratic problem refers to the difficulty of distinguishing the historical Socrates from his portrayal in the texts that have come down to us" would be misleading, because many sources say something like this. And if every sentence has a footnote, even for material that is uncontroversial and commonly known by experts in this area, there will be so many citations that no reader will be able to follow them up to the original sources. That's not very useful for readers; I would find it incredibly frustrating to read an article that had as many footnotes as you seem to want, and very frustrating to edit one as well.

The best thing to do with citations, as with many other issues that arise in writing Wikipedia articles, is to follow the practices used in the sources you're reading. Look, for instance, at The Trial of Socrates" in Fear and Loathing in Ancient Athens", the source you've used for footnote #4. On p. 147, where the Socratic problem is mentioned, there are several footnotes, but hardly one for each sentence. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

An analogy - my chair is dead, Socrates lives on (in professors minds)

@Akhilleus::@Myrvin::@Paul August:

I bought an antique chair recently, and was told the auction house would never provide the info on who the seller was, that info is unavailable. That is how it works with antiques, dead wood. The auction house won't ever (i was told) provide the information to the dealer to provide to me or anyone.

Socrates is dead also, but does that mean we should forget about where we received him from? where we learnt about him? I don't need to know who owned my chair in order to own my chair, but material in Socrates, the article on wikipedia, on the internet being read by who-ever in the english speaking world. Would i or anyone else be expected to be in possession of the information fully without knowing about the informations sources? I'm not an antiques dealer of sources dealing with information about Socrates, and Socrates is not dead wood, because he only exists in the minds of living professors and students in their brains, the knowledge in their minds. You suggest I forget their minds ever existed, for all time? What would those professors say or think when they came to the end of their lives and faced dying and thought "oh , i'm to be cremated, and a flame put to my corpse and i will be turned to ashes, and some editor on wikipedia maybe used my material then didn't bother to include my name as the source...." would that be fair to them? and readers not to know, to be kept in the dark?

If one day, some-one should destroy my chair (made around 1750, with legs made of Ash, and the body made of Elm, and the seating made of reeds, which i like terribly) who would really care when it were gone, perhaps only me? Knowledge of Socrates is more important than future generations knowledge of my chair, i'm pretty sure of that, who would care if some part of the knowledge of him is destroyed? Whalestate (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

in a nut-shell

It's simple here - all i need to do is look at my chair and i like it, the shape and construction, but also knowing it is old makes it more likeable

It's complicated there - looking at the name of a source doesn't suffice to trust the source, neither does knowing some information about that source, a person has to investigate and check, and formulate opinions and evaluate sources, the more info the better Whalestate (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Whalestate, please stop opening up so many discussion sections at once. It makes it impossible to have a conversation.

I don't find your chair analogies useful. Please look at citation practices in other Wikipedia articles and much more importantly in the scholarly literature that you're citing. There are established conventions for citations which you're disregarding in favor of something idiosyncratic and unhelpful. You're creating a lot of extra work for your fellow editors, and if it continues, it's going to get to a point where the best solution is another mass revert. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I have reduced as much of this biography stuff as I can. W has also used them in very large ref names - for no apparent reason. I have left these, as a change can have knock-on effects. W - Please don't do this again. Myrvin (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Akhilleus: Ok i'll look to view citations in other sources before proceeding with edits Whalestate (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Myrvin: I won't be continuing to add bio- info Whalestate (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Akhilleus: I found WP:CITEDENSE and noticed :

"Wikipedia does not have a "one inline citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rule, even for featured articles"

and also

"Using inline citations, even for statements that are not absolutely required to have inline citations, helps Wikipedia maintain text–source integrity. Using inline citations allows other people to quickly determine whether the material is verifiable."

the former quoted wikipedia material seems to agree with your thinking on the issue

the latter (bolded by myself) seems to be in agreement with mine

I found WP:CITECONSENSUS but didn't read it fully. Also i looked at Wikipedia:When_to_cite Whalestate (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:When_to_cite > When a source may not be needed > Subject-specific common knowledge - I see demonstrates your statement, although the wording of the essay is < may > which is, as we both know, not indicating an imperative, rather a matter of discretion. Whalestate (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Socratic problem section

The first sentence of the section "The Socratic Problem" is "This concept is alternatively expressed elsewhere as the Socratic question."

I don't understand what "This concept" refers to. Surely we need a concise description of what the Socratic problem is at the beginning of this section. That's easy enough to write, but a deeper concern is why would this sentence need a citation. The Socratic problem is a widely discussed matter in classical studies/ancient philosophy; there must be hundreds of sources that describe it in similar terms. Why, then, pick out one particular source to cite here, and why Fear and Loathing in Ancient Athens: Religion and Politics During the Peloponnesian War? I can see that it pops up on the first screen of a Google Books search for "The Socratic problem ancient sources" (and this search is in the URL included as part of the footnote for this item), but that's not a good reason. Is there some specific reason why this source is the best one to cite in this sentence? I don't see a reason to cite any source at all; because the Socratic problem is so widely discussed, its definition is a matter of common knowledge (see http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page342055), and should not be cited--a citation would misleadingly imply that the information is an original claim by the cited source, rather than knowledge found in many sources.

A lot of the claims in this article will be of the same nature. It seems that a lot of recent editing has been guided by the belief that every sentence needs a citation. This is simply not the case; every bit of information in the article needs to be verifiable, but that is not the same thing as having a citation after every period. Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#RFC:Should all claims have a citation? might be worth reading. One should also consider what to do when it takes more than one sentence to describe a complex argument, e.g. Vlastos' developmental schema of Plato's dialogues. If it takes five sentences to describe Vlastos' argument, do we want an identical citation to Vlastos after each one? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Akhilleus: I didn't know about the word concept until I studied art, where I found [2]. The term < concept > as i've understood it, is to refer to the general thing "The Socratic Problem", as a distinct classifiable thing, based on the fact that it is an idea behind which lies something true. The words < The Socratic problem >, is the form of the concept, those words are the identifier, a person sees the words and they see a description of something - an expression of something. The details and facts, and to explore the underlying information is to form a conceptual understanding. It's like an intangible thing. The Socratic problem is one way of expressing the concept,(in words), another way of expressing the concept is The Socratic question. Maybe I was at fault to make the choice of word, but for now (at 04:16 hours) I can't really think of another word which is adequate Whalestate (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a very strange response, Whalestate. You seem to have completely misunderstood the nature of the problem. The problem with this sentence is not anything to do with the word "concept." The problem is that the section does not explain what the Socratic problem is. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Akhilleus: yes, i realized you were indicating something else other than that which i thought you'd meant initially, when i woke this morning, and thought to move the sentence to the end of the section as a solution.In any case i've made a minor re-word to it in it's current position. Whalestate (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggested mentorship

User:Whalestate:I do not think you can see what a mess you are making of the Socrates articles; this one and Socratic problem at least. I assume this is because your first language is not English and you are new to the English Wikipedia. Other editors are going to have to spend a lot of time cleaning up after you - as I have done. I suggest that you find yourself a Wikipedia mentor. Please look at these Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user Wikipedia:Mentorship, and get someone to help you in your endeavours. Myrvin (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Myrvin: what exactly is the mess you are making referring to? we have already reached an agreement on the bio- info in the references, and also i'm in discussion about citations as to the nature of how to site correctly, and have told Akhilleus this. I'm not objecting to your suggestion per se, but on what grounds am I about to continue to make a mess of things. I'm thinking the problem is resolved now, isn't it? or not? Whalestate (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, W, you cannot see what you are doing. Your level of English is not up to the task of making large changes to the English Wikipedia. I am now copy editing the whole article. Perhaps, if you look at the changes I am making, you will get some idea of what you are doing wrong. Seriously, you need help. Myrvin (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Myrvin: I've already messaged 2 adopters on the list. Anyways, yes, I see the changes you've made and understand now, but i might have made these changes eventually myself. I know my additions aren't wholly worded correctly, i'm insuring a sufficient degree of legibility in the wording of the addition, but I agree with you that my English and choice isn't the best. It's just I'm making an effort to source material primarily, the facts and information on the subject are the article, the body of the article, how well the body of the article functions together, i.e. how well it's written, is important also, but without any body to work on, then there is no article. I wouldn't say i'm making a mess of the article. Mess is being created as a side product of my work. Sorry you've had to clean my mess up (like a mother would do possibly after her thoughtless child). It's difficult to be one lone editor on an article. It's already written that the editing wikipedia isn't necessarily meant to perfect, and it is a work in progress, the article suffers yes, but also, you have worked to improve in this, so an editorial process has ensued. If i'd not made my flawed editions, then no change at all would have been made, and i've improved the article in some way by doing so, as we both have. Whalestate (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC) :@Myrvin: please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Whalestate#Mentorship Whalestate (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

References

section entitled Philosophical beliefs

search : Socrates taught by " Prodicus the rhetor " - in google books Whalestate (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Over-citing

User:Whalestate: Please don't overdo the citations. I know I asked for citations in that section, but we don't need 4 references for the one sentence "Socrates considered exercising the power of reason to be basis for ethics, a term known as phronēsis, he apparently thought phronēsis and virtue to be synonomous." Just one will do.Myrvin (talk) 09:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Myrvin: Yes I thought you might mention this, but at the time of looking at sources, I did infact look at all the sources shown, and used all of those sources, so I just couldn't really leave any of the number shown there out, as much as I might have felt reservations about including too many. Sincerely, what do you suggest that I should do if I need to look at 3 or 4 or 5 sources to understand a factor for inclusion, to subsequently find I have to therefore by necessity include that number of references in the article ? Perhaps I might integrate somehow sources together within one reference, if at all possible, there just doesn't seem to be another solution.....? Whalestate (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Citations are not about showing your work. They're for the reader's benefit. They allow the reader to verify the information in the cited text. If you are finding a piece of information in 3–5 sources, that strongly suggests that it's common knowledge in the field and doesn't need to be cited at all.

You should also be aware that many assertions in this and other articles about Socrates and/or Plato will ultimately go back to one of Plato's dialogues, in which case it's much more useful to direct a reader to the Republic or the Phaedo instead of some modern scholar. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

However, we must be aware that Wikipedia should mainly cite secondary sources - see WP:PSTS and Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources. "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." For articles like this one, we should be aware that Plato may well be considered to be a primary source. We also often need secondary sources to explain what someone like Plato (or Socrates) is saying. Also, we must not assume that the reader knows about the sources in the field. Some statements may seem well-known enough to not require a source, but we can't assume that a reader will not want to verify it. A case in point is "I know that I know nothing". This is found in many sources. But, the very famous dictum may not be by Socrates (or even Plato) at all. We need other sources to explain it. Myrvin (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Trial of the generals

lay-out of different versions Whalestate (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

versions

19:54, 18 April 2015

During 406, he participated as a member of the Boule,[35]

and his tribe the Antiochis [36][37]

held the Prytany on the day it was debated what fate should befall the Generals of the Battle of Arginusae, who abandoned the slain and the survivors of foundered ships to pursue the defeated Spartan navy.[37][38]

Socrates was the Epistates for the debate [39]

(Delebecque and Hatzfeld thinks this to be an embellishment, the reason given by Hatzfeld is Xenophon composed the information after his death [40])

and resisted the unconstitutional demand for a collective trial to establish the guilt of all eight Generals, proposed by Callixeinus.

Another version of the story is; while the commanders were seen to have failed to unphold the most basic of duties, the people decided upon capital punishment, when the prytany responded by refusing to vote on the issue, the people reacted with threats of death directed at the prytany itself, they relented, at which point Socrates alone as epistates blocked the vote. [41]

His Prytany ended the next day, whereupon the Generals who had returned to Athens were condemned to death.

20:39, 18 April 2015

During 406, he participated as a member of the Boule,[35] retained

and his tribe the Antiochis [36][37] retained

held the Prytany on the day it was debated what fate should befall the Generals of the Battle of Arginusae, who abandoned the slain and the survivors of foundered ships to pursue the defeated Spartan navy.[37][38] retained

Socrates was the Epistates for the debate [39] retained

(Delebecque and Hatzfeld thinks this to be an embellishment, the reason given by Hatzfeld is Xenophon composed the information after his death [40]) retained

and resisted the unconstitutional demand for a collective trial to establish the guilt of all eight Generals, proposed by Callixeinus. retained

Another version of the story is; while the commanders were seen to have failed to unphold the most basic of duties, the people decided upon capital punishment, when the prytany responded by refusing to vote on the issue, the people reacted with threats of death directed at the prytany itself, they relented, at which point Socrates alone as epistates blocked the vote. [41] retained

See also: Trial of the generals added

no significant changes Whalestate (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

21:52, 18 April 2015

During 406, he participated as a member of the Boule,[35] retained

and his tribe the Antiochis [36][37] retained

held the Prytany on the day it was debated what fate should befall the Generals of the Battle of Arginusae, who abandoned the slain and the survivors of foundered ships to pursue the defeated Spartan navy.[37][38] retained

Socrates was the Epistates for the debate. [39] retained

(Delebecque and Hatzfeld thinks this to be an embellishment, the reason given by Hatzfeld is Xenophon composed the information after his death [40]) retained

The commanders were seen by some to have failed to uphold the most basic of duties. The people decided upon capital punishment, when the prytany responded by refusing to vote on the issue, the people reacted with threats of death directed at the prytany itself, they relented, at which point Socrates alone as epistates blocked the vote, [41] changed from previous version

which had been proposed by Callixeinus. [42] change from previous - deletions

The reasons he gave were because "in no case would he act except in accordance with the law". [43] change - this is an addition

The outcome of the trial was ultimately judged to be a miscarriage of justice, or illegal, [44] change - this is an addition

but in truth Socrates' decision had no support from written statutory law but was instead reliant on favouring a continuation of less strict or formal nomos law. [42][45] change - this is an addition

changes from 20:39, 18 April

source 42 "and resisted the unconstitutional demand for a collective trial to establish the guilt of all eight Generals, proposed by Callixeinus." (to) "which had been proposed by Callixeinus"

c.f. - quote

Ecclesia, "one vote instead of six votes"

material added

The reasons he gave were because "in no case would he act except in accordance with the law". [43]

The outcome of the trial was ultimately judged to be a miscarriage of justice, or illegal, [44]

but in truth Socrates' decision had no support from written statutory law but was instead reliant on favouring a continuation of less strict or formal nomos law. [42][45]

section entitled Knowledge

@Akhilleus:

" One of the best known sayings of Socrates is "what I do not know I do not think I know"." isn't a true statement. Who has taken a survey of philosophers or philosophy students, or philosophy professors, the general population... to find if it is "the best known saying" ? There is a better way of using this quote in the article. Someone might think it is common knowledge that it is one of the best known sayings, but where is the evidence for it? Whalestate (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

in any case I concluded by changing the first sentence, which for now seems to be a stop-gap measure, until editors are able to understand better Socrates in respect to this issue, which I know I don't (understand), but at least know that I don't Whalestate (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

"The conventional interpretation of this remark is that Socrates' wisdom was limited to an awareness of his own ignorance." - is too simplistic an interpretation of the meaning via interpretation, esp. ignorance - the following quotes are taken from here (The Human Record: Sources of Global History, Volume I: To 1500 By Alfred Andrea, James Overfield - "Now the Pythis replied that there was no one wiser ... What ever is the god meaning, for I am aware that I am not wise to any degree.What then does he mean to say that I am the wisest? ...I proceeded to investigate him as follows ... I went to one who had a reputation for wisdom .... as i went away i thought to myself, I am wiser than this man; for neither of us knows anything fine or good, but this man thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas I, as I do not know anything, do not think I do either. I seem then, in just this little thing to be wiser than this man at any rate, that what I do not know I do not think I know either ... on each ocassion those who are present think i am wise when i confute someone else, but the fact of the matter is gentlemen, it is likely that the god really is wise and by his oracle means this: "Human wisdom is of little or no value"." Whalestate (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the following is a closer indication (but not a full explanation by any means) of the meaning of Socrates's understanding (taken from here)- "the relationship of the passions to reason, are that the passions arise in a rational mind as a result of a mis-perceiving or misunderstanding of reality. Inwood describes this as when the mind makes errors about the values of things , R Bett as caused by defective belief ". (- Bett p.546).[B.Inwood - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Index (Taylor & Francis, 1 Jan 1998) ISBN 0415073103 Whalestate (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

please view - Socrates#Virtue & "Socrates stresses that virtue is the only thing worth having, in a particulalry strong and uncompromising way ... virtue is the only thing which is good..." (Virtue and Vice, Part 1 By Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred Dycus Miller - p.46) Whalestate (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Stoicism seeks to aid a person from the ways of the vices, to freedom within a life characterised by virtue, de Ira posits this as achievable by the development of an understanding of how to control the passions, [ref. R Bett - A Companion to Ancient Philosophy] Whalestate (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I concluded to change the second sentence to - "He knew he was ignorant by a proof in his own mind ascertained through questioning others to identify a differential factor between himself and others. This factor was, that others claimed and thought themselves to be wise, but Socrates discovered through questioning they actually were ignorant, where-as Socrates knew he was ignorant in matters of wisdom, so at least was not ignorant of his own ignorance." via this. My first guess which i'm hazarding to make on the consideration here (though I don't have evidence for or against currently) is - I think Socrates in the modern understanding has shown others he questioned were in some way delusional. (based at least on definition 1.1 (This is the Oxford Dictionary definition of ignorant, by the way) Whalestate (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.[1 - http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=delusion] - is the first sentence of the wikipedia article on the subject. Whalestate (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why I'm pinged at the beginning of this section. In any case, the usual formulation of this statement is "I know that I know nothing." Harold Tarant in A Companion to Socrates says that this is Socrates' most famous claim, based on a passage in Plato's Apology; Gail Fine, in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 35 (2008) disputes this understanding of Plato's text. Our article should stick more closely to the usual version of this statement. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I have tried to sort this out. It is true that the well-known phrase doesn't appear in Plato. I am not very happy with it. Is this a good translation? Myrvin (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems OK. It's in the Loeb edition too. Myrvin (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I just re-worded this slightly:

" However. the phrase does not appear in any writings about Socrates, the closest to it being "

to

" However. these exact words do not appear in any writings about Socrates, instead he is shown to have said "

because, I think since it's likely the translations will all show what I do not know I do not think I know either with little variation. Suggesting closeness, as perhaps implying the closeness of translation to the original, isn't really a necessary implication.

@Myrvin: Rv un-English edit Myrvin - that sentence (He knew he was ignorant by a proof in his own mind ascertained through questioning others to identify a differential factor between himself and others. This factor was, that others claimed and thought themselves to be wise, but Socrates discovered through questioning they actually were ignorant, where-as Socrates knew he was ignorant in matters of wisdom, so at least was not ignorant of his own ignorance.)

I stumbled on the same factor He knew he was ignorant as in the previous edit which I'd attempted to resolve, although the sentence made sense to me at the time. Also < he knew he was ignorant because he had proved this to himself via a period of going to others and questioning them > is ok, < to identify a differential factor between himself and others > is false, because I'd already demonstrated here in talk, he went out to investigate the Pythia's statement not to identify something so I made a mistake, not in my english, but in the actual factual content of my writing.

Socrates questioned others who thought themselves wise and through questioning found out they were actually foolish. Thus Socrates realized that he was wiser than others simply because he knew he lacked knowledge and wisdom about certain things, the nature of truth, of goodness, and knowledge. Others thought themselves wise but were wise in less important or valuable matters, and still foolish in matters of wisdom. Socrates was foolish in his own life, the study of wisdom, but the fact his study was of wisdom led him to conclude he was wiser than the persons he had questioned.

nature of truth, of goodness, and knowledge is shown in the ref. (The Love of Wisdom: A Christian Introduction to Philosophy By Steven B. Cowan, James S. Spiegel) Whalestate (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

" Socrates believed wrongdoing was a consequence of ignorance and those who did wrong knew no better " > google-books search results Whalestate (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

" the art of love " > google-books search results Whalestate (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

" and which he connected with the concept of "the love of wisdom" " - search results for criteria - the love of wisdom Socrates within google books Whalestate (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

- (p.187-188) - eros (erotic love) [the author name is not available in the google books copy - edited by Ann Ward Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 26 Mar 2009 ISBN 1443808709]

- source looked at prior to edit but didn't use directly - Douglas Soccio - "... the ancient sophos. Socrates' love of wisdom was rare in his own day ... " Whalestate (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

phronēsis & virtue

material true of edit - 02:03, 24 April 2015‎ was as follows:

Socrates considered exercising the power of reason to be basis for ethics, a term known as phronēsis, he apparently thought phronēsis and virtue to be synonomous. Socrates believed wrongdoing, that is non-virtuous choices, were a consequence of ignorance and those who did wrong knew no better.

Whalestate (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Myrvin: The ref.'s might still be inc. like this Whalestate (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

and this is important: - < For Jaeger, Socrates made the ordinary understanding into an important philosophical concept. "For Socrates,phronēsis was, quite simply,the ethical power of reason...." > (in ref. - CP. Long) Whalestate (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

taken from A History of Greek Philosophy: Volume 6, Aristotle: An Encounter By W. K. C. Guthrie, William Keith Chambers Guthrie - "phronesis and moral virtue ... are closely and reciprocally related, in the sense that neither can exist without the other" Whalestate (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Google searches

I notice a large number of recent citations are to Google Books. Several incorporate the search terms, so for example we find this incorporates the search term "Socrates believed wrongdoing was a consequence of ignorance and those who did wrong knew no better", this incorporates the search term "He never actually claimed to be wise" and this incorporates "all sources for Socrates". This gives the uncomfortable impression that the sources have not been read thoroughly, and even that parts of the article's text have not been based on the sources but composed first and justification sought later, while sources that ran counter to the statements have not been seen let alone considered. NebY (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

References

I think you may be worrying unnecessarily NebY. I don't know if you link to Google books in this way, but, in order to point to the exact page you want, you often need to quote a string of characters as a search string, otherwise the reader gets a selection of passages to choose from. I think that is what Whalestate is doing here. Being W, he might overdo it a bit, but it's OK really. I can't see W (or anyone) dreaming up a whole sentence and then doing a Google search for it.

I was probably part of the cause of your doubt about what the author or Aristotle thought about Socrates and phronēsis. The text here [3] is oddly written. Engberg-Pedersen writes that A wanted to show that others believed virtue involves phronēsis. Then EP writes "Socrates, for example, did." So EP says that S believed virtue involved phronēsis. Then he writes "He even claimed the virtues to be types of phronēsis". It's not easy to see who "He" is - S or A, but it is EP talking. Saying that virtue would "require or even consist of phronēsis", seems to be going further than the text. W should note that editors don't usually put a "Retrieved" date on Google books - we probably assume that they will stay the same. Myrvin (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I think NebY raises a strong reason for concern here--the speed with which Whalestate is adding text and references to the article strongly sugggests that s/he is not reading these sources, understanding what they have to say, and then editing on that basis. Rather, Whalestate becomes interested in some word or theme, performs a related search on Google Books, and then integrates snippets of the results into the article. This is neither a sound way to write a Wikipedia article nor a good way to develop an understanding of a subject--especially when some rather complex philosophical concepts are involved! --Akhilleus (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You may both be right, but the Wiki way is to assume good faith. I think that W is learning as s/he goes along - as did I way back when. W, and everyone else, should be careful about what they add. Myrvin (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Myrvin, sadly the search terms used are not for phrases in the book; they are for phrases that then existed or still exist in the article.

I can't agree that EP is jumping between Aristotle's view of Socrates and EP's own. Throughout this paragraph and the next (e.g. "Socrates was only right in so far as ...") EP is presenting Aristotle's view. NebY (talk) 10:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about the searches then. I still assume good faith.

If it true that only Aristotle thought that about S, what did S actually think? Isn't the Meno a better guide - suggesting a more nuanced or confused answer? Myrvin (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting bad faith and withdraw the suggestion that the same editor has composed fresh text and then sought justification, at least on the showing of the searches I've described above. Rather, it appears the searches have simply been conducted to find material related to the existing text. That's not editing in bad faith but it's not a sound approach, for the reasons Akhilleus and I describe. NebY (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

We need a secondary source, which I'd suggest should be one that takes a broader view of Socrates rather than one that just discusses how he's depicted in the Meno. NebY (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh I agree. I meant a discussion of the Meno. The more I look into this, the more confused it seems.Myrvin (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Socrates' beliefs

There is a real problem with the portions of this article that discuss Socrates' views and positions. As the article correctly notes, it is very hard to separate Socrates from Plato.

It is therefore not acceptable to go on to use Plato (and sources deriving from Plato, like Aristotle) to discuss Socrates' viewpoints. This is a particular problem with the sections titled "knowledge" and "virtue", but happens even in the section that mentions the Plato issue (e.g. "Socrates also questioned the Sophistic doctrine that arete (virtue) can be taught.").

Note that many of the sources that are being cited in the article do not fall into this trap - they carefully talk about "Socrates in Plato" or "Plato's Socrates." For example, the sources for Socrates' views on love are cited to Reeve's book (which is about Platonic philosophy). Furius (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

As you can see above, I agree. With time, we can go through all the Plato/Aristotle/Xenophon refs and replace them with secondary sources. However, primary sources are not banned, they need to be used carefully - see WP:USEPRIMARY. My ref to the Theaetetus is a place-holder I put there because there was nothing to support the text. Also as you can see above, some editors would prefer Plato to later sources. Myrvin (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I have now added Guthrie as a source. Myrvin (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Similarity

I just thought I'd bring to the attention of who-ever concerned - the second passage in Socrates, 109 Success Facts - Everything you need to know about Socrates By Willie Snyder is a re-wording of

In Plato's Theaetetus (150a), Socrates compares his treatment of the young people who come to him for philosophical advice to the way midwives treat their patients, and the way matrimonial matchmakers act. He says that he himself is a true matchmaker (προμνηστικός promnestikós) in that he matches the young man to the best philosopher for his particular mind. However, he carefully distinguishes himself from a panderer (προᾰγωγός proagogos) or procurer. This distinction is echoed in Xenophon's Symposium (3.20), when Socrates jokes about his certainty of being able to make a fortune, if he chose to practice the art of pandering. For his part as a philosophical interlocutor, he leads his respondent to a clearer conception of wisdom, although he claims he is not himself a teacher (Apology). His role, he claims, is more properly to be understood as analogous to a midwife (μαῖα maia).

(ref. 72. - Boys-Stones, G., Rowe, C. & ref. 73 - Vander Waerdt, PA in wikipedia). Snyder published (31 May 2014), Socrates wikipedia , 1 January 2013 shows the same passage as currently. Whalestate (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not an uncommon phenomenon W. Anyone can take and publish anything from Wikipedia. Think of it as a bit of an honour. Myrvin (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)