Talk:Euclid/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Recent additions to References

Several entries have been added recently to the References section, but without adequate bibliographic citations. Please see WP:CITE for guidance on how to cite sources, and provide full citations in proper form. Numbered Web links are not proper form in a list of references. References should be listed in alphabetical order by author, and author is the first element of any citation (last name first). Consider using citation templates to be sure that all information is provided and in proper form. For books, Wikipedia favors inclusion of ISBN numbers. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 08:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

User:finnel , you have removed cn tags without giving any reason. I request you to restore those tags.Tags are required unless references are cited for each of those "claims" . Further there are several research papers written by scholars who dispute existence of "Euclid" himself.-Bharatveer (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I explained my removal of the {cn} tags in the edit summary. Further, the most reliable sources do not dispute Euclid's existence or the content of this article. Some unsourced fringe position does not make generally accepted facts a POV and does not warrant a neutrality dispute tag; there is no genuine dispute among legitimate scholars. Finell (Talk) 10:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Person Data

States birth-death date aswell as he was greek, cite references please. --Tales23 (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The article does not state a birth or death date. Reliable sources differ even as to the circa dates. What is said in the article, including Euclid's nationality, is supported by the References. You can help improve the article by adding footnotes with specific sources throughout the text, but Wikipedia policy only requires in a few instances, such as direct quotations. Finell (Talk) 05:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Euclid and his origins

I have read with interest the comments on Euclid. I find it strange that the authors of Wikipedia are refusing to deliberately recognise the fact that Euclid is African, worked in an African environment because that environment [Alexandria] was, if you like, a centre for academic excellence in those times. The fact is that Alexandria was a main city of Egypt which is in Africa!

Let us tell the truth and be objective. The sooner media like Wikipedia begin to educate the public as to the truth about Africa, the fact that Africa produced the first advanced and developed societies and communities and universities and libraries including Timbucktu amongst others the sooner that true development for mankind will continue.

It is unfortunate that the gains and the contribution of the African has been deliberated obliterated and submerged for centuries. I am not interested in the raison d'etre but the fact that NOW is the time to put an end to the chicanery and the lies. We need each other to reach the top of our station and achieve true potential. If we want to live in deceit, that is a matter of choice. I choose not to.

Wikipedia can increase its standing and reputation and in fact seal its status as a reliable research tool by acknowledging truth. I was amazed that the authors found it very difficult to accept that Euclid was of Alexandria and insist on him being referred to as 'Greek' when the evidence available does not refer to him as being Greek apart from his name! Amazing.

What I find even more disturbing is that there is a purported drawing of Euclid painting him as a European sage. Pray tell, who is the author of this purported picture? Is it correct to say that Egyptians of that period 300BC et al actually looked like that? Does it make sense that a Greek would relocate to Egypt and live all of his life there? I think it is time to stop giving the impression that everything good came from Europeans only. The truth is actually that every major progressive advancement in science mathematics and technology came from Africans. That is the truth.

The fact that Africa has fallen so far from its original station and the systems in place in the world make it difficult for Africa to rise and fulfill its true potential today does not change this fact. Without the African the modern West cannot exist. Europe and America owe their development growth and progress to Africa. It is fact.

I would commend the Wikipedia authors who I must say are doing an incredible job to properly research into Africa starting from Egypt and Mediterranean regions heading on to Ethiopia and beyond.

Without Africa, the Rest of the World would not be. It is time to give credit where it is due. If Wikipedia would not do it, others would rise up and will do so. It is only a matter of time.

Sincerely

Sage Esq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sage Esq (talk • contribs) 12:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not with Wikipeida or Wikipeida's editors. All reliable sources agree that Euclid was of Greek nationality and descent, not African or Egyptian. This has been discussed here over and over to death. I suggest you do some reading on the history of Hellenistic Alexandrea or on Euclid himself. Finell (Talk) 03:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

many greek mathmatitons lived in alexandria due to the fact that many sages and mathmatition lived there. they could discuss varies achademic topics together also, i am sure wikipedia has a very accurate page on timbuktu, which i will check, but in case you didn't notice, timbuktu was inspired by muslims in the middle east. you all sound like rather dimm black suppremist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.141.238 (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

same person as last comment. here is a quote. "Very little is known about the life of Euclid. Both the dates and places of his birth and death are unknown. It is believed that he was educated at Plato's academy in Athens and stayed there until he was invited by Ptolemy I to teach at his newly founded university in Alexandria. There, Euclid founded the school of mathematics and remained there for the rest of his life. As a teacher, he was probably one of the mentors to Archimedes." also, the egyptains were more middle eastern than african. alexandria was also founded by greek settlers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.141.238 (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Propose removal of picture "Artist's impression of Euclid" - think it misleading

After reading this article today, and this Talk page, I was about to go away when I noticed the picture "Artist's impression of Euclid" at the front of the article. This seems at odds with what I have read here - namely that very little is known about Euclid. The source of the picture is a broken web link so I cannot check it. If the picture was not drawn by an artist from Euclid's time who had seen him then unless the artist had some physical description of Euclid available to him, I think the label of the picture is misleading. I propose to remove the picture from the article. Does anyone object? --AlotToLearn (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Not seeing any objections, I've removed the image--AlotToLearn (talk) 06:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to reply so late. Thank you for doing that. I was planning on doing it myself as a part of the revision I've been attempting to do. NittyG (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Historical Evidence suggest Elements is Uclides Work

The hypothesis of the key to geometry is very lickly, as this would be the reason for the painting of the school of athens.

C.K. Raju, who has done considerable historiographical research on mathematics, suggests that the attibution of Elements to Euclid rose from a translation error from the Arabic uclides, literally ucli (key) + des (direction, space), or "the key to geometry". Raju goes further in showing that Elements and Proclus' Commentary was edited by the Vatican to make it "theologically correct". Ideas such as "irrefragible demonstration" were added to Commentary, though it did not align with Proclus' philosophy of mathematics, which held that proofs "vary with the kind of being". Interestingly, according to Raju, Proclus, in the same tradition of Theon and Hypatia, believed that mathematics was a window on the soul, being a meditative process, whereas the Church wanted to create a "universal means of persuasion", and mathematics was thus divorced from the empirical, which continues to this day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27s_Elements#History

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_School_of_Athens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_School_of_Athens#Reason_for_the_Existence_of_the_Image

The Mathematical Collection of Pappus of Alexandria (c. 290 – c. 350), contains, results obtained by his predecessors, and notes previous discoveries.

Books VI and VII consider Euclid's work. In Book VII Pappus writes about the Treasury of Analysis

The so-called "Treasury of Analysis", my dear Hermodorus, is, in short, a special body of doctrine furnished for the use of those who, after going through the usual elements, wish to obtain power to solve problems set to then involving curves, and for this purpose only is it useful. It is the work of three men, Euclid the writer of the "Elements", Apollonius of Perga and Aristaeus the elder, and proceeds by the method of analysis and synthesis.

Pappus then goes on to explain the different approaches of analysis and synthesis

in analysis we suppose that which is sought to be already done, and inquire what it is from which this comes about, and again what is the antecedent cause of the latter, and so on until, by retracing our steps, we light upon something already known or ranking as a first principle... But in synthesis, proceeding in the opposite way, we suppose to be already done that which was last reached in analysis, and arranging in their natural order as consequents what were formerly antecedents and linking them one with another, we finally arrive at the construction of what was sought...

Pappus mention Euclids work:

"Data_(Euclid)" - Data (Greek: Δεδομένα, Dedomena) is a work by Euclid. It deals with the nature and implications of "given" information in geometrical problems; the subject matter is closely related to the first four books of the Elements.

"Optics" - Pappus refers to it to show that the circle of contact has a smaller diameter than the sphere, only to add a lengthy argument to demonstrate that the error committed in Ptolemy's construction is nevertheless negligible.

"Elements" - Part of Pappus's commentary may exist in an Arabic translation, namely that on Book X of the Elements. http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Pappus.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pappus_of_Alexandria --Tales23 (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Tales - You're summary of Pappus' writings are good and complete, but this is not about Pappus and his work, this is about Euclid. It is important that we stick to the subject completely and avoid anything but the topic. You can discuss Pappus' work elsewhere. In the interests of this not being overloaded with off topic material, I suggest that you remove anything that is not about the topic. I know you did mention Euclid's name a few times, but all of the other material is completely unnecessary. Specifically, I would suggest that you rewrite your comment to include the pertinent information, and then I will also delete this comment afterwards. I appreciate your response, and I hope that we can work on this article together (eg going through the transcribed writings of Pappus' mentioning of Euclid). Thanks.

NittyG (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Nitty, i think i summed it up. And i have this on my watch list and might edit more later, thanks (Tales23 (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC))

For the record, if I had not made this clear yet, the ideas that this originated out of have nothing to do with this, and fought it from the beginning. Please read in more detail the discussions around this addition, here and elsewhere. Actually, Tales deleted everything on his discussion page, which he/she has done repeatedly. Look through the history. one example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tales23&oldid=264092628 NittyG (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Revert of some recent changes

I've reverted some recent changes to the article by user:Gigogag. The chief issue is with the new dates given for Euclid's life. I'd like to see a source for these. Paul August ☎ 22:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I haven't had time to devote to this article lately. The best anyone can say is that he flourished around 300 BC, and even that date has a wide range of approximation. Since no information about Euclid's birth or death survived antiquity, there are no reliable approximations of these dates. Some sources do publish circa birth and death dates, but they are just guesses based on how old he might have been when he wrote Elements (which date is also only a rough approximation) and what an average life expectancy might have been; they don't even qualify as approximations. I wrote the paragraph that begins "The date and place of Euclid's birth", which you restored, in an attempt to stop well-intentioned editors who added birth and death dates, and also images. Whether to have any image in the infobox has been debated here; I added the caption to the present one. —Finell (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm skeptical of any more precise date being given for Euclid's life. I know of no one more authoritative on ancient Greek mathematics in general and Euclid in particular than Thomas Heath. And, for example, my edition (1981) of Heath's A History of Greek Mathematics says: "Practically all that is known about [Euclid] is contained in a few sentences of Proclus's summary". He goes on to write that this "passage shows that even Proclus had no direct knowledge of Euclid's birthplace, or of the dates of his birth and death; he can only infer generally at what period he flourished. All that is certain is that Euclid was later than the first pupils of Plato and earlier than Archimedes. As Plato died in 347 B.C. and Archimedes lived from 287 to 212 B.C., Euclid must have flourished about 300 B.C., a date which agrees well with the statement that he lived under the first Ptolemy, who reigned from 306 to 283 B.C." (And I now see, my edition of Heath's translation of Euclid's Elements, written a bit later, says much the same). Heath (and more) informed my skepticism and revert. Of course more modern scholarship may tell a different story (for example the reference by Archimedes to Euclid, in Proclus, which is used to date Euclid earlier than Archimedes is now considered suspect). Paul August ☎ 13:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe this article says all that can reliably be said about Euclid's life aside from his writings. I doubt that future scholarship will reveal more. However, as you know, the future is one of the hardest things there is to predict. —Finell 18:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

WHEN I PUT UP THE BIRTH/DEATH DATES, I KNEW WHAT I WAS DOING. I GOT THE DATA THAT PAUL AUGUST SO KINDLY DELETED FROM AN EXPERT ON THE TOPIC. I'LL PUT IT BACK UP AND REMEMBER TO PUT CITATIONS UP THIS TIME. :-) Gigogag (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't shout. I know that there are sources for various date ranges, but they do not agree among themselves on the dates. Further, we have definitive sources cited in the article, which in turn are based on the only sources that survived antiquity, that these dates, and the facts surrounding Euclid's birth and death, are not be known. Further, your edit is against the consensus of this article's editors. Again, you are welcome to discuss this issue with other editors here on this talk page, including your sources, but please do not edit against consensus again. Thank you. —Finell 01:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the point is that no one knows by any means when Euclid lived. It can only be a range, so a date of "371 BC" is too precise, and misleading. Please read the biographical information in the article - it says the only brief references that were ever written of Euclid, and there is really no biographical information in the sentences. Gigagog - by the way, despite your :), Finnel was responding to the fact that everything was in caps, which by convention means shouting... :)NittyG (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Giogag, you said you would "put it back up" with "citations", however you changed the dates again but did not provide any sources. A reliable source is the key point here. I'm happy to consider the possibility of more refined dates, but you need to provide a source. Paul August ☎ 04:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Citations

I'm sorry about that mishap. I had gathered lots of information from scholarly sources, but I forgot how to type their links on the page Gigogag (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC):-)

Put it between the tags "<ref>" & "</ref>". It can be generated from the rightmost button above the editing window. You can find templates here, but don't worry about being exact. If you can get a distinctly identifiable source inbetween the tags, other people can clean up the formatting as needed. Good content is more important than the polishing that can follow. Novangelis (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Uclides - The Key to Geometry

Proclus Lycaeus "Wherever there is number, there is beauty."

C.K. Raju, who has done considerable historiographical research on mathematics, suggests that the attibution of Elements to Euclid rose from a translation error from the Arabic uclides, literally ucli (key) + des (direction, space), or "the key to geometry". Raju goes further in showing that Elements and Proclus' Commentary was edited by the Vatican to make it "theologically correct". Ideas such as "irrefragible demonstration" were added to Commentary, though it did not align with Proclus' philosophy of mathematics, which held that proofs "vary with the kind of being". Interestingly, according to Raju, Proclus, in the same tradition of Theon of Alexandria and Hypatia of Alexandria , believed that mathematics was a window on the soul, being a meditative process, whereas the Church wanted to create a "universal means of persuasion", and mathematics was thus divorced from the empirical, which continues to this day.

It is this “theologification” that has made mathematics difficult to learn or teach. The remedy is to “de-theologify” or secularize mathematics and teach it in the cultural and practical context in which it developed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27s_Elements#Uclides_-_The_Key_to_Geometry

Dear NittyG do you want me to change anything in particular? Thanks. --Tales23 (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As a comment, for editors who have an interest in this area, the above material has been placed in a new article called Uclides. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello so someone suggest i delete the ucledis wiki stateing this is a fork, well currently there is no mentioning of the hypothesis uclides originateing from an translation error. Also NittyG you want me to rework the text, i ask you once more please tell me what in particuar you want me to change as this is not your work and Raju is pricely .. so please lets add somewhere the info and also i suggest to change the wiki name to Elements. And than everybody can belive either in euclides vatican version or the persian connection. Thanks. --Tales23 (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This is all interesting speculation, but is still just WP:FRINGE, and therefore not sufficiently encyclopedic for Wikipedia. Finell (Talk) 05:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, if I had not made this clear yet, the ideas that this originated out of have nothing to do with this, and fought it from the beginning. Please read in more detail the discussions around this addition, here and elsewhere. Actually, Tales deleted everything on his discussion page, which he/she has done repeatedly. Look through the history. one example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tales23&oldid=264092628 NittyG (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion to add further historical information to the wiki article. Reliable source http://perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Aabo%3Atlg%2C1799%2C001&query=elem.%3A1%3Adef. --DuKu (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Finell seems to have no intrest in science - he makes a lot of claims and trys to play down the scientific evidence. In the following i include the data from above link to create a sub section for the wiki of euclid - to complete the historical information which comes from oriental origin.

Removed copied text potentially exceeding fair use. (Novangelis (talk))

The oxfford journal, reviewed the book here - http://philmat.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/extract/17/3/378

Google Books http://books.google.com/books?id=RzwNuNRePZUC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=Zenarchus&source=bl&ots=8Sc9UysxNs&sig=hq1abwgK2aOv9ykjWvygNObrp9U&hl=en&ei=ds9jS5L9GND-_Aali7XrAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CCoQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Zenarchus&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=RzwNuNRePZUC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=Thusinus&source=bl&ots=8Sc9UyszJu&sig=MgSrEA-vBR9oGHGD1d_qEFBoamA&hl=en&ei=GNBjS6TaH8v8_AbHjrn4Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Thusinus&f=false The provided info now debunks above claims of just a fringe theory or unrelaible sources. --DuKu (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Major problems:

1. Don't cut and paste long sections of copyrighted materials. This is from a source where 1956 edition as far as I can tell, so long sections will exceed fair use if permissions are not appropriate. I have removed it. Please do not restore it if you are unsure of the copyright status.
2. Even if permissions are appropriate, the wall of text doesn't make a concise point. (Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines)
3. The section you bolded said that "key to geometry" is a mistranslation.
4. Do not make personal attacks. Comment on the edits, not the editors.Novangelis (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If you read my earlyer post you can see that the intention is to substract data from the source. I did nothing in regards to your statement of "persoanl attacks", stop makeing things up (As you did with your statements of undo reaso). I will work something out and will post it later for submission discussion, for you all to enjoy. --DuKu (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

And further for the statement that Uclides is "Just" a translation error is irrelevant, because it is historical scientific data. The situation is that we have little information on euclid, though every bit is worth to mention to find the root - even if it means that uclides would be a translation error. --DuKu (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus and Opinion on adding link to Perseus and beyond

The user Finell and Novangelis do not seem to like links, which mention historical data of euclid, which is not considered of western origin. There is very little information on euclid's origin, which makes it more importend to add all there is. Since at least 12 month both user suppress any information in those regards. Almost the complete talk page focus on euclid's origin. Today i tried to add a link to Perseus - http://perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Euc.+1 Which is one of the world's leading ressources on historical data. The link provides a rich ressource on euclid aswell as further readings. The author seems to be very well infromed "Editions and translations: Greek (ed. J. L. Heiberg) | English (ed. Thomas L. Heath)". I also intended to find another ressources instead of C.K.Raju's, since this was questioned first by Novangelis/Finell.

What is the opinion now? Can we add a link to Perseus, which presents one of the richest historical databases worldwide and here in specialy about euclid? "About Perseus Perseus is an evolving digital library, engineering interactions through time, space, and language. Our primary goal is to bring a wide range of source materials to as large an audience as possible. We anticipate that greater accessibility to the sources for the study of the humanities will strengthen the quality of questions, lead to new avenues of research, and connect more people through the connection of ideas." This makes it ideal for linking and in the way wikipedia was created. Further to enhance the wiki, the provided information on Perseus about euclid, should be substracted and be added to the wiki. And the talk page should be cleaned up from all this edit wars, which seems to be going on for a long time. --DuKu (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The link is there, in "References". Perseus is just one of many online libraries.Novangelis (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

First i provided a link, than you removed the link and added the reference. The idea of the link was to direct the user to this rich source of information and provide infos which are not yet covered in the wiki of euclide's. There are especialy infos on Tyre and the translation of arabic historians "ucli des" which are worth to be mentioned. Above this the website of Perseus has a huge collection of all the related knowlegde we can find on the matter. (Which i found btw only, because C.K.Raju was not accepted here). And since Raju published a book, which got reviewed by the oxford journal, his source gained enough relaibility to be mentioned on the wiki aswell. Beside this there should also be a google books link. --DuKu (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Develop the article, not the links. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. There's one more relevant policy you need to review: no original research. Your interpretation of data (for example, what you want people to infer from a source) is original research. Please do not try to interpret sources.Novangelis (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Remember you deleted the content i added here on the content page,so it could be worked out for a wiki entry? However, your argument is irrelevant, because it is common to link related websites - especialy if it contains information on the subject, which has not been mentioned yet. The link of Perseus actualy is original research - maybe read again my first comment in this topic? You seem to have no intrest in improving the wiki with relevant historical data. --DuKu (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Perseus is not a source. It is a digital library. The source that you were linking was Chapter 1 of Heath's edition of Elements, which is Heath's biographical summary. I provided a correct citation; it belongs in the Reference section because the article uses that chapter (from the Dover reprint) as a source, but I provided the link to Perseus based on what you added to External links. When you link a web site, you provide the title (at least) and other identifying information. You don't give your own characterization of what you think the source means.—Finell 03:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Please provide the nessassary information in regards to your opinion on wikipedia's external links policy. Following your assumption most external links on wikipedia should be removed. In the sense of the wikipedia it is to provide knowledge of a certain topic and external links can direct the user to a related ressource. However i tried to compile an article for the wiki in the first place, which got interrupted by deleting the content i provided. And lets not forget that we know little, so every bit of information in regards to the subject is vital. --DuKu (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)This debate is somewhat confusing. The Perseus site seems to be be a reprint of T.L. Heath's 1908 translation and commentary on the Elements of which many copies can be found on the internet. Heath's work is scholarly and a reliable reference as far as what was known in the early 1900's, though I don't see why it would need to be included twice which is what Duku is apparently trying to accomplish.--RDBury (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. If you look at DuKu's remarks here, and also on my talk page, and his edits to the article itself (all of which have been reverted), and his edit comments, this very new editor (who is not fluent in English) apparently does not understand that the Perseus page is actually the text of Heath's Chapter 1. Further, instead of just identifying the link with a citation, he characterized it in his "External links" entry as "Rich information on Euclid - Uclides oriental origin" (and a few variations). There is nothing like that in Heath; DuKu has been pushing an anti-Western POV here (see his recent addition to the year-old discussion under #Uclides - The Key to Geometry above and the discussion on my talk page). On the other hand, a long time ago, I used and cited the Dover reprint of Heath's Elements, including the biographical Chapter 1, in working on the article. Adding a citation to a free, online source of the same Heath text is a convenience to the reader; we can thank DuKu for inspiring that addition (but not for edit warring).—Finell 01:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

+1 Adding the perseus link to the an online version of Heath's book is perfectly fine (as it currently is under References), but there is no need to add it again under external links.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I find no reason why not to add the external links, as internet user rather visit a link, instead of buying a book. The commentary from heath's is missing in large parts from the euclid wiki and the Perseus link contains further historical links. --DuKu (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Heath is now in public domain so you don't have to buy it. I downloaded the PDF from Google Books and refer to it often.--RDBury (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Data missing in Euclid's wiki

These are some of the commentary from Heath. The link to the source cites sources and from reading it is not contradicting the wiki. It just means more historical data about euclid.

We read15 that “Euclid, son of Naucrates, grandson of Zenarchus16 , called the author of geometry, a philosopher of somewhat ancient date, a Greek by nationality domiciled at Damascus, born at Tyre, most learned in the science of geometry, published a most excellent and most useful work entitled the foundation or elements of geometry

15 Casiri, Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis, I. p. 339. Casiri's source is alQifti (d. 1248), the author of the Ta'rīkh al-H<*>ukamā, a collection of biographies of philosophers, mathematicians, astronomers etc.

“Basilides of Tyre, O Protarchus, when he came to Alexandria and met my father, spent the greater part of his sojourn with him on account of their common interest in mathematics. And once, when [p. 6] examining the treatise written by Apollonius about the comparison between the dodecahedron and the icosahedron inscribed in the same sphere, (showing) what ratio they have to one another, they thought that Apollonius had not expounded this matter properly, and accordingly they emended the exposition, as I was able to learn from my father. And I myself, later, fell in with another book published by Apollonius, containing a demonstration relating to the subject, and I was greatly interested in the investigation of the problem. The book published by Apollonius is accessible to all-- for it has a large circulation, having apparently been carefully written out later--but I decided to send you the comments which seem to me to be necessary, for you will through your proficiency in mathematics in general and in geometry in particular form an expert judgment on what I am about to say, and you will lend a kindly ear to my disquisition for the sake of your friendship to my father and your goodwill to me.”

The idea that Apollonius preceded Euclid must evidently have been derived from the passage just quoted. It explains other things besides. Basilides must have been confused with basileus, and we have a probable explanation of the “Alexandrian king,” and of the “learned men who visited” Alexandria. It is possible also that in the “Tyrian” of Hypsicles' preface we have the origin of the notion that Euclid was born in Tyre. These inferences argue, no doubt, very defective knowledge of Greek: but we could expect no better from those who took the Organon of Aristotle to be “instrumentum musicum pneumaticum,” and who explained the name of Euclid, which they variously pronounced as Uclides or Icludes, to be compounded of Ucli a key, and Dis a measure, or, as some say, geometry, so that Uclides is equivalent to the key of geometry! http://perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Euc.+1 --DuKu (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That's from Heath pp. 5-6 and if you look at the preceding text you'll see that he calls the whole thing a "fable". Having a reference doesn't mean you can quote out of context to push your own point of view.--RDBury (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Again RDBury, as i state this is not contradicting to the wiki. Maybe you tell me what you mean i push my point of view? Just more historical data. Following your logi you could get rid of wikis like "Pseudo Gerber" aswell. --DuKu (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Strange

It seems to me that someone making a contribution to an article about Euclid (as a historical personality, that is) should know about the Hellenic Era, Alexander's conquests, and all those rather important details- do you not agree? How must we respond to such historical philistinism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.13.52.180 (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting fact

Here's an interesting thing,the main picture is terrible,you can't tell who is who.Where is the legendary portrait of Euclid?The one with a hat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.47.11.31 (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 April 2012

Umm, First of all Thales Was considered the "Father of Geometry" not Euclid.

108.209.200.236 (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Euclid is also often referred to the "Father of Geometry". See [1][2][3] Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 22:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 May 2012

Eucld was born in 325BC and died in 265BC

202.0.106.130 (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: Please provide a reliable source that supports these dates. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Physical appearance

In the rather limited biography of Euclid, two sentences deal with his appearance:

"No likeness or description of Euclid's physical appearance made during his lifetime survived antiquity. Therefore, Euclid's depiction in works of art is the product of the artist's imagination."

While I don't find the information as such in any way objectionable, I'm a bit puzzled as to why it's necessary to explicitly state this fact. It's a statement that rings true for more than 95% of famous ancients, but you usually don't see it explicitly stated. This seems to me to be a "spill-over" effect from a discussion concerning the inclusion or exclusion of specific depictions.

As for the actual issue of what depictions to use, historical manuscript illustrations and famous historical paintings (e.g. the School of Athens) should have precedence over modern works. As for modern works, they would have to be in agreement with whatever existing data there is (e.g. the archetypal "Greek philosopher" look) and of some cultural relevance (e.g. commissioned by some important or relevant institution). Any personal take on his appearance by modern artists are irrelevant and nothing more than a waste of space.

Abvgd (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I see no need for that unsourced statement.Novangelis (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

please remove the m from "whom was killed". it hurts my eye.

85.250.190.137 (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Historicization of Euclid

I see now that there has been some considerable discussion about Euclid's nationality, and some authors of this article over the years want this to be discussed before putting it in the article. I did use reliable sources, and I would also challenge others to provide reliable primary sources (quoted from the texts) that Euclid came from Alexandria. I think that it is far more in the interests of Wikipedia that other opinions on the matter be welcomed, and so it be worded in the article something to the affect of, as I have written, "it is unclear where Euclid was born or lived". The beauty of Wikipedia is that people have to rely on solid sources rather than the history that is produced for social and political purposes. When looking at the evidence for Euclid and commentaries on the works attributed to him, there is little weight behind Elements being written by him, or any biographical information about "Euclid". Evidence should be provided for Euclid being a native of Mainland Greece, and having lived in Alexandria, just as much as any evidence should be provided that is contrary to the claim. As Orwell said, "Who controls the present controls the past. Who controls the past controls the future." Wikipedia is an opportunity for people to write a history that is not for the purposes of racial domination. I am not trying to fight with anyone on this subject, rather invite others to make a well-rounded, unbiased, quality article. While I cannot prevent people from removing what I wrote, I hope that instead, for the sake of equity, what I wrote be not taken down, rather the additions be left, and the subject be discussed separately. I'm sorry if I have caused any contention with people who have written and care about this article, I don't mean to undo what you did in any way, rather add to the article constructively. I'm also sorry if I violated any established norms around the editing of this article, but I do think this is a necessary addition. I also spent a considerable amount of time making this addition, so I also care about the article and am willing to put in all the time necessary to help make it complete.

As for the quote from Proclus Commentary, I do think it's necessary it all be left, because it holds all the key references made to Euclid, with the exception of what is from Pappus of Alexandria.

Most of my information comes from the work of C.K. Raju, which i don't know how to footnote more than once without having it be repeated. I'll figure that out shortly.

NittyG (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edit seems to have introduced strange characters into the text. You may wish to check. Ian Cairns (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about specifically? I only quoted Proclus' Commentary directly as it was written by Morrow. NittyG (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I gave up and tidied out your characters - see [4]. Whatever it was, you need to check your editing environment... Ian Cairns (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh! I was also wondering what that was about. I thought it wasn't me, but I guess something weird happened along the way while I was editing. I just assumed they were there before and they meant something I was unaware of related to lack of inline citations or something. Thanks a lot. NittyG (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I just looked over the discussions below "nationality". I appreciate the concern people have about quality and reliability (especially Finnel), as well as all the comments people made about the origin, residence, and identity of Euclid. Indeed, Heath does not have any primary evidence for Euclid being from Alexandria, and so the same should be asked of him. If one were to look at where sources originate, as was explained in my addition, there is no biographical information that is more than a conjecture. I have done my own digging, but before removing anything, at this point one will have to refute what is in the additions on historicization. As far as I have read, it looks as though Heath has no primary grounding, which C.K. Raju shows Heath also admits. Heath wrote at a time when many Western historians, especially those under Western states and institutions, tried to ascribe all scientific and technological accomplishments to whites and the West. There quotes where he dismissed non-white sources in a clearly racist tone. We need to understand the history of history as much as history, and ask why we validate sources in the first place. Though I obviously feel a certain way about the subject, I have, as you can see, written the entry very objectively, separating fact from conjecture and leaving things open for further inquiry, which I certainly haven't done yet either. I only did what I know is right given what I've read thus far. NittyG (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Racism yes it is, but its importend to make a diffrence, because the understanding of the historical world is today relative simple and science has advanced. Todays racism is not comparable. There is some insight on this in Cicero s wiki.And Sparta had a big influence on this, they brought also up the word of Bar Bar s.(from blabla as they could not understand foreign people - so they became bar bars) Please tell me why do you belive that euclid been in Alexandria AND born there? See Hypatia which edited/simplified euclids and his theons of alexandrias work. Its importend to be concious of peoples intention and motives. And if not even rasicm everyone has thoughts, so everzone working on history alters it somehow. So you need to read more inbetween and be aware that the source is modified. But still there are honest parts too :) (Tales23 (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC))

I don't entirely understand what you are saying, could you please clarify a little bit more?

Some questions:

• What exactly do you mean history is "not comparable"?
• I do not necessarily believe that Euclid is from Alexandria, and that is what I put into the article. Was that unclear?
• What exactly are you saying about Hypatia and Theon?

I do agree that history is only written by the writers and they necessarily affect it. In any case, the ethic is accuracy, and if Euclid did not exist, or was historicized as a mainland Greek, that should be mentioned.

I don't think that all inaccuracies are racist, rather, things are often written for racist motives, and that must be undone. Entire histories have been written for this purpose, and are still taught in textbooks today. It is everyone's responsibility, including authors of wikipedia to be accurate, and discount anything that is not substantiated.

I certainly appreciate your response, but if you can, could you please be more clear in the future with your posts? Thanks

NittyG (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I see i wrote this topic in the hurry and its a major issue ever since ... actualy i have just little thoughts on the topic as i was focusing on euclid and im just about learning the acnient history. So the topic of racism was a major topic and sparta and all this, well actualy i have to read more before i can make a statement. If you agree we can delete my comment, thanks ... (Tales23 (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC))

Please Discuss

Finnel - I know I did not discuss this previously, as you had established before. So, it is fair that people have taken issue with what I have put up. However, what I wrote was almost entirely referenced with valid sources, and I did not outright say that Euclid does not exist, rather I referenced scholarly writings and primary sources for why others question his existence. Accordingly, I will not revert your undo, but we will have to discuss it, and work together constructively. I did say before that I would appreciate it if it was discussed before the addition is taken down, but as I did not do likewise, I will discuss this to be fair. If there is no constructive discussion, I will have to revert back to my addition. I understand your desire to hold true to the accuracy, reliability, and rules of wikipedia. I have the same interest in mind, so I hope that we can work together to make this article complete. To begin, responding to your reason for reversion:

• Mostly unsourced - everything was sourced. Please indicate otherwise.
• Contrary to consensus - it was shown that there is no consensus as to any biographical information about Euclid, or even his existence
• Contrary to the most reliable sources on the subject - I showed how people have claimed that the sources that were considered reliable are not entirely reliable

- some writers show how, for one, the sources those writers used were not reliable, as they were transcribed and possibly interpolated

- they also show how those sources may have been biased, in fact theocratic and racist.

-- some people claim that the foundation of the history of Euclid, and much of history today, was written during a time when inequity between Christians and non-Christians and later Whites and non-Whites was the dominant mindset. Then it was the predominant mindset, and within many institutions, consensus, that, for example, Blacks were in every way inferior to Whites. The fact that Thomas Heath, the most cited historian on Euclid, discounts Arab accounts as being the "Arab tendency to romance" (which you can read in my reference), suggests something about him being a reliable source. It was fine in Heath's time (1861-1940) to say such outrageous comments, because such feelings were held in common. Regardless of whether the history of Euclid was written with these mindsets, it is at least pertinent that varying and valid scholarly opinions be added to the article. As I said before, if it is asked what the sources are for Euclid's history being partially or entirely false, it should be asked, what are the sources for everything about Euclid's history being true? If we can do both, then we can make a good, well rounded article.

• Weasel words (In the article Euclid's Elements - it is better that we discuss in one place) - if there is not a consensus on Euclid having written Elements, it is most commonly believed. In any case, you can use other words to describe the wording, but these are not "weasel words".

NittyG (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

While I wait for Finnel (and whoever else) to gather their case to discuss, I wanted to mention that I did make some mistakes in the addition. Just a couple:

- There were some grammatical errors

- I wrote the Uclides comment as being C.K. Raju's idea - it had actually been brought forth as a joke by Heath, but Raju conveys that it should be taken seriously.

There are some other issues, but I just wanted to say that everything in the addition was not perfect, and it needs to be revised. If people could comment on the add as it is, we can start from there.

NittyG (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I just invited people from the Nationality discussion to join, including SamuelTheGhost, Ahmedettaf, DBaba, and 3rdAlcove. Feel free to invite anyone I missed. A note to the above invited - you have already said your opinions above. Make sure you're not redundant. You may want to first wait for Finnel's response. NittyG (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't had time for Wikipedia lately (too much work), so I apologize for not responding sooner. By consensus, I meant consensus of Wikipedians; this article has been stable for a long time, which is how it should be considering the importance and age of the subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Therefore, its articles should reflect reliable sources on the article's subject. SamuelTheGhost and Ahmedettaf have already been through this before regarding nationality. See the discussion of #Nationality above. The questioning of Euclid's existence is not mainstream scholarship on Euclid. Furthermore, your conclusions, or my conclusions, on weighing and balancing other sources, especially sources that are not biographies of Euclid (in this case), is prohibited as WP:OR. You can find revisionist critiques about most everything, but that does not make them encyclopedic. I really don't have the time to discuss historiography. Finell (Talk) 05:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand - this takes a lot of time. I am also not able to do work on this for a while. I will get back to the topic soon. It's possible that we will have to have a drawn out discussion. NittyG (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

To begin afresh

I have moved this down to the bottom in order to make it easy to continue.

I would like to change the article to include the revisions I had made. The fact is that there is neither a scholarly nor a wikipedia consensus on this issue. Finnell is the only one who has been defending a view that several people have objected to, often on reasonable grounds. I will discuss this with anyone ahead of changing the article in order to gain a consensus that should be concluded in the article. The fact is, as there is no consensus, that is precisely what should be included in the article - varying, reliable opinions on the subject. This is exactly what I have done in my revision, with great attention to detail (though there are a few mistakes I noticed later, as I noted above). I have made my points, point by point, to the reversion Finnel had made above. There were hardly any replies made on Finnel's part, more than simply stating that it was the consensus of wikipedians. If Finnel or anyone wishes to elaborate more on any problems with the revision I have made, please go over what is below this heading (Historicization of Euclid), and respond to the points I made. There is nothing I have not put that is not backed by strong evidence, using sound historical research from reliable scholars. We should discuss this until we come to an agreement, which I think we can. Just a reminder - this is about the quality and reliablility of this article, not about personal opinions. We need to be objective, and stay on topic. I understand that this takes time - I certainly spent considerable time on my revision. However long it takes, we need to do it at what pace is mutually acceptable to the participants of the discussion. On that end, I'll wait a few days to receive a reply, or I'm going to proceed in making the revision. After that, instead of reverting, the issue should be discussed here. I have been and am being completely fair and reasonable on this, and given that my revisions are sound, have equal status as anyone else on this article. If reversions are made after I have made the revision, I will simply re-revert. From there, the article may go on to higher mediation. I would of course prefer to just discuss it here, constructively and objectively. Thanks

The article with my addition before reversion

The article before my addition

The comparison

Additional note: The primary source used in the article is very difficult to read. It took me a considerable amount of time to read it, though it is short. Here is another article on the subject, which is better written, but more relating to the revisions I made to the article on Euclid's Elements. Computers, mathematics education, and the alternative epistemology of the calculus in the Yuktibhâsâ

NittyG (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear NittyG: This is an important article on one of the most important figures in the history of mathematics. It represents the consensus of many Wikipedians who put the article together (I am not one of the article's primary authors; I have made a few additions in the article and have done some copy editing). That is the consensus to which I have referred. The material that you wish to add is contrary to that consensus and, more importantly, contrary to what the most reliable sources on the history of mathematics have written. Mainstream scholarship does not doubt Euclid's existence, his authorship of Elements, that he was Greek, or that he worked at the Library in Alexandria. In its present form, the article is essentially consistent with leading general encyclopedias and histories of mathematics, which is as it should be.

Your main source, C.K. Raju, is not known as an authority on Euclid or on the history of ancient mathematics. There was no article on him in Wikipedia until you created one, and then wikilinked that article when you inserted ‎Raju's idiosyncratic views into Euclid. Further, Raju's writings promote his own fringe theories. For example, he claims to have discovered an error in Einstein's relativity equations, although no reputable source has corroborated his claim. Raju is also on a campaign magnify India's contributions to the development of mathematics, beyond considerable credit accorded to Indian mathematicians by mainstream sources, and correspondingly to diminish the contributions of Western Europe. Raju's fringe views about Euclid are part of that campaign. Promoting those viewpoints on Wikipedia would violate our core policy of writing from a neutral point of view.

According to your user page, one of the things you like to do on Wikipedia is to "connect the dots". While that is a good practice in original writing and in other endeavors, it is not what Wikipedia does. To the contrary, what you call "connect[ing] the dots" is forbidden by Wikipedia's core policy against original research. While your contributions to Wikipedia are welcome, it is important that you conform your contributions and your conduct to Wikipedia's policies. I see that in the past you created your own article on Uclides (was it an alternative to our Euclid article?), which was deleted by the Wikipedia community. Also, you impermissibly distorted the discussion on this Talk page by deleting posts that you disagreed with. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and comply with them.

I hope I have provided you with a satisfactory explanation. If you restore the changes that you previously made to this article, they will be reverted in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, by me or by others. If you have other contributions to make to the article, and they are verifiable and supported by reliable sources, they will be welcome additions, but, like everything else on Wikipedia, subject to revision by other editors. Finell (Talk) 18:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

To begin, let's stay on topic and refrain from attacking each other. Let's focus on the article.

I will however comment on the deletion and establishment of Uclides. Actually, Tales23 wrote all the stuff about Uclides. He/she pushed it hard, and I fought against it. People deleted the things that were put up partly on my suggestion. He took what I had wrote about Uclides, misinterpreted it, and flew off the handle with it. Tales got banned for a period from Wikipedia. The article Tales wrote was deleted, so I thought it was therefore right to delete all that Tales had written here and everywhere about Uclides. That was wrong, which was pointed out to me, and I understood completely. I would like to more formally request to have it removed. NittyG (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Tales deleted everything on his discussion page, which he/she has done repeatedly.

Look through the history.

one example:

[5]

NittyG (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Building Consensus

One is correct in saying that this is a minority viewpoint according to mainstream scholarly opinion. I am willing to make a compromise on what to include. I know this is exasperating for many, and you have spent incredible amounts of time on it. But as you said, this is an important topic, and the responsibility takes that kind of work sometimes. I have a glimpse of this firsthand - dealing with the info Tales has put was a lot of time spent for me. Lets work on this together constructively.

Until we build trust, I will only add anything to this article that may be questionable to its primary authors and defenders after discussing it here.

I'm sorry to have caused so much contention - i hope that we can work on this article as partners now.

To build consensus, let's forget about the "existence questioned" and other major parts referenced from CK Raju for now, and all the minor wording changes. We should item by item decide what should be included in the article, starting with:

• The parts that I cited from elsewhere than C.K. Raju should be included
• The depiction of Euclid be noted where it comes from or be removed. If we can simply put up a depiction from some artist 1500 years after Euclid, I should be able to draw a picture of him and put it up 2300 years later. We should at least note where it comes from and that it's a depiction.

What do you think?

As for the discussion of CK Raju's work, I have opened up a discussion in the Fringe theories article. We should look at this as an opportunity to expand the policies of Wikipedia, not as a battle.

NittyG (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem if you want to remove or explain the image. The sources say that no image of Euclid survives, and all depictions of him in art are purely the artist's conception. In the past, I have added captions to that effect to images of Euclid in this and related articles.

You are not, as you claim, "begin[ing] afresh". Rather, you are merely restating the points you made in January and that I answered back then. You still have no reliable sourcces that support what you want to add or change in the article. Further, "building concensus" means gaining support for changing the article here, from editors who have worked on the article, not taking the issue to a policy page. In terms of policy, the last thing in the world that Wikipedia needs is to lower its standards of reliability and verifiability. Likewise, discussions about article content belong on the article's Talk page, not on user's Talk pages (as you proposed on my Talk page); so let's keep all the discussion here.

Comment on an editor's conduct or editing is not a personal attack. I have no doubt that you are well intentioned and that you believe what you say. The problem is that, in the case of Euclid and C.K. Raju, your editing does not conform to accepted policies that are designed to assure the reliablility of material published on Wikipedia.

Finally, putting Raju aside for now, as you suggest, I don't recall what changes that you proposed that were sourced to anyone else. If you want to see if you can build a new concensus to change the Euclid article, please list those proposed changes individually with your reliable sourcces for each statement, and we can discuss each separately. It what you propose is to add languge that casts dobut on statements that reliable sources uniformly support (that is without no support or only fringe for the qualifying statements), that is contrary to Wikipedia policies, and therefore will not be accepted. Finell (Talk) 15:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said. I'll come back with each point shortly.

Why I said "beginning afresh" was indeed to continue after a long silence. I thought it would be easier for everyone involved to talk at the bottom of a page rather than somewhere in the middle.

NittyG (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• I will change either add a caption to the image of Euclid, move, or remove it. I think it would add to the article to show how he was depicted or conceived of during the Renaissance

Actually, most of the cited sources I made were not from Raju. I can understand why it appeared that way, given that that part stood out the most, as I overemphasized it. Nonetheless, once again, lets forget about Raju for now.

• We should put the following information in the article (of course not written exactly as so):

Proclus' Commentary on the Elements is the key source on Euclid that is considered primary, and it was written seven centuries after Euclid was believed to have lived. There are various other mentionings of Euclid, the most important being Pappus' commentaries about Apollonius having studied with Euclid, which was also written centuries after Euclid.

First see for an overview: [6]

Next, see Heath, pg 202: [7]

• We should include that the comment made Proclus' is considered "questionable", as written in Ian Muller's forward to Glen R. Morrow's edition of Proclus' Commentary on the Elements on page xxx[8]
• We should include the following information as well.

Work done by Johannes Hjelmslev showed that there was only one reference to Euclid made by Aristotle is not genuine, as it was written in a style that was not characteristic of the time. The fact that this is not considered genuine or unreliable is widely understood.

The basic idea: [9]

More on Hjelmslev: [10]

• We should include the actual inferences made by people that Euclid was from Alexandria. As far as I know, Heath was the first to claim that Euclid was from Alexandria. I could be wrong - this is something we all need to find out together. It should also be included what references claimed that Euclid was (1) of Greek culture, and/or (2) of Greek "ethnic origin" or "race".

- On this note, we should include the fact that Arabs thought Euclid was from Tyre, and that Europeans for centuries thought he was from Megara, as they confused him with Euclid of Megara, and the reasons that Heath believed he was from Alexandria. Apparently, from what I can see, he bases it on the the statements of Pappus that Apollonius studied with Euclid's pupils in Alexandria. If this is what the notion that Euclid is from Alexandria is based on, that should be mentioned.

- As far as his "ethnic" or other identity, that it should be included that Arabs thought he was Arab, and Europeans thought he was Greek. We must go a bit deeper - we have to remember that identities are created, which get more complicated as the identities of now get applied to the identities of the past. The whole notion of the identities people took in 300 bce Greek civilization (if it was called that at the time) needs to be examined. This is something I have little to no understanding of, and needs to be discussed as well.

- Lastly for now, we should include on what grounds Heath dismissed notions that Euclid was from Tyre, the "Arab tendency to romance". This is important, because it gives a basis for bias. We can discuss this here, but this part of the discussion I am continuing in the discussion we opened up in the article on fringe theories.

NittyG (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to mention (of course I'll keep thinking of things):

• We should include how Elements, the Commentary, and other works were translated - by the Arabs, then by the Europeans, how, when and by whom
• We should include that the primary texts of the elements do not mention Euclid, and that they are said to be "from the edition of Theon"

NittyG (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

First, as a matter of format for a discussion, this is way to hard too follow, and does not make it easy to discuss each of your many points. New material that pertains specifically to Elements belongs, if anywhere, in that article, not here; that article mentions Arabic and other translations. Also, it is not reasonable to ask everyone to follow all your web links: Deal with each proposition here in an organized way and cite reliable sources that support each proposed change. Furthermore, the Web is rarely the best way to find reliable information on old subjects; please consult the standard works on math history and biography before you start suggesting so many changes. Given that, as you say, the source material on Euclid is quite limited, there is most likely little that can be added to the article. The subject of Euclid's ethnicity has previoulsy been discussed at length on this Talk page, including the archive; there is nothing to add other than speculation. Some of what you propose, such as reexamining and criticising the reliable sources' bases for their conclusions, violates Wikipedia's policy against original research. Speculation, fringe sources, and revisionism have no place in this article, or on Wikipedia. Finell (Talk) 02:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I made it very clear and easy to follow. Because there is a lot of information, if you simply skimmed it, it may seem that it's not. The first 4 points I made would be good improvements to the article, by the standards the authors have set, including yourself. I suppose I just wanted to get the whole process out, but the first 4 are what we should focus on now, in the interest of moving things forward.

You need to actually take a look at the links. If I were making valid additions, they have to be cited, and I provided them with links to them to make it easy. Everything I have given is from reliable sources, by the standards of the authors of this article. Nothing, once again, is from Raju, as we are setting him aside. All but one of the links I gave was from a "standard work on math history and biography", some of which were already cited in the article. They would be cited as the book, not simply the link to the google book. This includes one site from the MacTutor History of Mathematics archive on Euclid. The one that is not a good source was a page from a professor from Clark University, while I simply added to help people get an outline of the idea without having to dig through the books.

I'm sorry, but I can't take your comments seriously if you did not actually look at mine objectively. If I made these changes, they would be considered welcome additions. Please look at the first 4 points again, and tell me if you have any problem with them.

I understand that I caused anxiety before, but please realize that I am not fighting with you in any way at this point, I am working with you on improving this article.

NittyG (talk) 02:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

First four points added

Sorry for the very long delay... I added the first four points, and the point about the Elements. This is completely in line with the consensus of the article, using the sources that have been established as the most reliable and authoritative. It may require a little rewording and clean up, but I feel that what was added here is neutral and should stand.

NittyG (talk) 07:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Raju

Regarding Raju's claim to have disproven one of Einstein's relativity equations, by accident I came across the following statement: The "most common crackpot missives received by scientists and science magazines" include "claims to have proved [Einstein's] theories false.... Like cannibals seeking the strength and life spirit of thier victims, these misguided amateurs seem to think that by outdoing or disproving Einstein they will acquire all his presteige and acclaim. Of course, all that they disprove is their own competence in basic relativity." Collins, Graham P. (2006). "Toppling the Giant". Scientific American Special Edition: Frontiers of Physics: 18. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Raju's claim should lead rational individuals to distrust what he has to say. Finell (Talk) 03:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we please drop Raju, as we discussed before, in the interests of focusing on improving this article constructively?

NittyG (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess we should take Collin Graham seriously because he's a journalist for a science magazine?Monticores (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Apology

Finell - The changes have stuck, and it appears that we have reached a consensus for now. I thank you for the productive aspects of the discussions we had. However, I would like it if you apologized for the accusations you have made of me, particularly the claims that I have posted subjects on "Uclides". I would like it if you apologized in every separate forum where the accusations were made. It is fine that we have had differences of opinion, but often the tone and especially the accusations made against me were never once taken back. It is the responsibility of people to take back any attack on someones reputation. I was entirely cordial towards you and everyone the whole time, and expect likewise.

NittyG (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)