Talk:Euclid/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The fraudulent Euclid

Is there any reason why this article claims that maybe Euclid did not exist at all, and that the Elements were rewritten to align with Christian theology, and that Theon and Hypatia may have been the real authors? The whole paragraph sounds incredibly WP:FRINGE to me. Pasicles (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No, there was no reason to have kept it. It was based upon a self-published source.Novangelis (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 April 2013

Euclid was an acient greek who invented the wheel — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiTroll121 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Euclidean vs. Non-Euclidean Geometry Needs Clarification

I don't know enough about the subject to fix it, but the discussion of Euclidean and Non-Euclidean geometry at the end of the section about Elements needs to be more descriptive. Exercisephys (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Misleading sentence

The first sentence reads. Euclid (/ˈjuːklɪd/ EWK-lid; Greek: Εὐκλείδης Eukleidēs), fl. 300 BC, also known as Euclid of Alexandria, was a Greek mathematician, often referred to as the "Father of Geometry". It suggests that qualified scholars call Euclid the "Father of Geometry". The is wrong. Geometry goes back before Plato, before Pythagoras, and probably before Thales. There were axiomatically organized geometry texts used in Plato's Academy. Euclid did not father anything in geometry; he simply wrote a great book using materials and style available before he started.

The first sentence should be changed. CHANGE often referred to as the "Father of Geometry" TO often improperly referred to as the "Father of Geometry": geometry had been practiced for centuries before Euclid was born. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BOOLE1847 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Name

the name's meaning is "having good glory"(exact in greek), not "good glory" which is feminine, the reference(4) says "renowned" (exact in english). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.49.233 (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, 5 December 2013

Can I please edit your paper because there are a few errors in this article?

165.155.200.99 (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. --Stfg (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2014

In the discussion of Euclid's purported biography written in Arabic, the word "fictituous" should be "fictitious". Please correct it. Von Lorenz (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Nationality

According to the Heath,the leading English language scholar on the subject (in the works cited in the article), and as confirmed by leading general reference works, including Encyclopedia Britannica, Euclid was of Greek nationality. That is also the consensus of the editors who have worked on this article over the years. Please do not change this statement in the article without citing reliable sources to the contrary, and without first discussing it on this Talk page. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 14:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[Copied from User_talk:Finell]:

Dear Finell I was wondering what your objection to changing the nationality of Euclid is. As it is known, Euclid was probably born in Alexandria. He taught and died in it. No one can confirm that he is purely Greek while what is more confirmed is that most of his life was spent in Egypt. He is even called "Euclid of Alexandria". In the hellinic period the Egyptian and Greek civilizations were strongly mixed with each other and each of them influenced the other. Euclid and many other scientists of Alexandria in the Byzantine age are results of that mix. So it is fair to claim both nationalities for them. So I do not understand why this insistence on claiming a doubtful piece of information (i.e. that he is purely Greek) while refusing something that might have greater evidence? Please note that I am saying he is a Greek/Egyptian and I am not claiming that he is only Egyptian. I linked the NAHSTE website in external links.
If you did some search in the internet you would find many evidences that support my claim. Best wishes, Ahmedettaf April 5 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedettaf (talk •[{Special:Contributions/Ahmedettaf|contribs]]) 15:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Correction to my last message: I meant the two civilizations (Egyptian and Greek) were strongly interacting with each other during the Ptolemaic empire and not the Byzantine age. Sorry about that Ahmedettaf (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ahmedettaf: Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for contributing.

I have no personal investment in Euclid being Greek; I have no Greek ancestors. I recognize the achievements of Ancient Egyptians in astronomy, mathematics (e.g., through the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus), and the engineering and architecture of the Pyramids. Likewise, I recognize the major contributions of Islamic culture to mathematics (among other things), including its role in developing the system of numerals now used worldwide, invention of algebra, and preserving much of Europe's culture after the Roman Empire fell and the great Library of Alexandria was sacked: much of what we know about Euclid's work, for example, is through Arabic editions and translations. The Arab world and took over as the beacon of light and learning during Europe's five centuries of Dark Ages. I have a deep respect for the history of knowledge (less so for the history of wars and monarchs), and I give credit where it is due.

My only concern with the treatment of Euclid's nationality here is accuracy, as determined from the historical evidence by the most reliable sources on the subject. For the same reason, I have removed statements when people add them about the years of Euclid's birth and death: even though various years have been published, scholarship shows that they are pure guesswork; they do not even qualify as circa years.

When Euclid is called "Euclid of Alexandria", it is to distinguish him from Euclid of Megara. Conversely, Plato is not called "Plato of Athens" (and likewise with Socrates and Aristotle) because no such disambiguation is necessary for them. The leading authorities on Euclid and on the mathematics of his era conclude, based on what historical evidence there is, that he was Greek. Standard reference works likewise state that he was Greek. I am not aware of any body of reliable scholarship that supports the proposition that he was Egyptian. I looked at the NAHSTE Web page when it was first mentioned. NAHSTE is a project to catalogue archival collections of materials that are important "to a full understanding of the history of science in Scotland" [1]. The NAHSTE site has several biographies, but not one of Euclid. The linked NAHSTE page is a listing of archival collections that contain works related to him. Yes, the title of the page says "Egyptian mathematician", without any discussion of why or citation of authority, and along with giving fictitious birth and death years without even a "circa" qualification. That does not counterbalance all the reliable scholarship on the subject. You don't identify the other Web sites to which you refer; there is lots of misinformation on the Web. As with all sources, Web pages can be used to support facts published in Wikipedia only if they meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources.Finell (Talk) 21:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Finell: Thank you very much for your warm welcome. I am very grateful too for your instructive reply. I deeply appreciate you interest in the history of science and your good attitudes towards the contributions of different human civilizations. Please be sure that I share this passion and respect with you. My recent contributions to Euclid's page has indeed no racial themes. Also I will not be happy if I inserted a piece of fake information. Accordingly I will be glad if we can discuss further this topic and reach the correct conclusion.

I am afraid that there are no such "reliable" sources that resolve the controversy over Euclid's nationality (whether he is Greek or Grecko-Egyptian). The earliest bibliographical sketch for Euclid was written at least seven centuries after Euclid's death. Accordingly information regarding his identity might have been influenced by speculation rather than strong evidences. The only piece of reliable information we have is that he had taught in Alexandria Bibiothica and that he died there. However, even if we assume that he was of Greek nationality (and I do not object to this at all. As you might have noticed I did not change his nationality under his picture) there are a couple of reference I came across that claimed he was born in Alexandria. Please check The Britannica Encyclopedia and [2] So it is probable that Euclid was Alexandrian by birth (Actually he is listed in Wikipedia as well in the list of Ancient Alexandrians [3] and also in the list of Hellenistic Egyptians [4]) Please dear Finell note that I am not depriving Euclid of the Greek nationality. What I am claiming is that he has an Egyptian part in his identity as he was probably born and has spent most of his life there. You would find such controversy of identity listing everywhere with People of Greek and Roman Egypt (e.g. Claudius Ptolemaeus, Hypatia and others)As for the point that his work was in Greek, I found it natural as the formal language of Egypt at that time was the Greek beside a late form of the ancient Egyptian language. I hope I have clarified my point. Best Wishes, Ahmedettaf Ahmedettaf (talk) 03:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to comment on some of the things that have been said above, in the hope of clarifying the situation and perhaps even getting agreement on what to put in the article. Mr. Finell wrote: "as confirmed by leading general reference works, including ... Encyclopedia Britannica, Euclid was of Greek nationality." I've just read the article on Euclid in the 15th edition of Britannica, published 1978, the article signed by van der Waerden. He says " ... almost nothing is known of its (Elements') author's life" and "Of his life it is known only that he taught at and founded a school at Alexandria ...". He says nothing at all about Euclid's "nationality"; the article is not harmed by that omission. Mr Finell goes on to say "That is also the consensus of the editors who have worked on this article over the years." That's a slightly odd use of the word "consensus", since there are several records on this very page of editors arguing this issue, and no assumption can be made about the attitude of those who have edited only those parts which do not touch on Euclid's nationality. Mr.Finell also says (26 September 2006, when asserting the alleged "consensus") "Euclid came to the university to teach mathematics; he was not born there." If this is taken to mean that he was not born in Alexandria, there is not a shred of evidence to support it, nor any scholarly support either.

Moving on to a more positive approach, let's consider what Euclid's "nationality" might mean, and what possibilities there are.

• It could be that he was Greek, born in Greece. This is possible, but there is no evidence to support it.
• It could be that he was of consciously Greek ancestry, but born elsewhere, such as Tyre (as claimed by al-Qifti) or Alexandria. This seems to be the likeliest possibility, but not certain.
• He could have been originally non-Greek, learnt the Greek language and joined the Greek-speaking academic community in Alexandria. In particular he might have been an Egyptian. This is possible, but less likely, partly because his name is Greek, and also because if he had been non-Greek someone would probably have mentioned it.

The crucial question, however, is what to put into the wikipedia article. Again I will quote Mr. Finell, but this time with more agreement: "If there exists differing verifiable responsible scholarship published by reliable and reputable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia's official policies, it may be added to improve the article. Speculation, however, is not permitted." That's entirely right. We should stick to the facts. We should provide sources even for those facts which are not disputed (and this issue is not one of them). We can present and discuss opposing interpretations of evidence. But where there is nothing to go on, and the matter is not really important anyway, the wisest option is often silence.

I can't see how a policy of silence can reasonably offend anyone. If we present what is certain, and say nothing else, people can have their faith in wikipedia confirmed. If they have strong prejudices about Euclid's nationality, whatever they are, they will neither be supported nor provoked. Those who find it possible to keep an open mind (as I try to do), will also be satisfied. In this case the policy would mean deleting all explicit reference to Euclid's "nationality". The reader would still know that he worked in Alexandria, spoke Greek, was part of Hellenistic civilization and worked on Greek mathematics. That should be enough for anyone.SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. SamuelTheGhost: I can not agree more. I highly value your contribution. Certainly what we should add to the Wikipedia has to be based on evidence and not speculations. This is particularly true with Euclid's nationality as I mentioned above and as what you have described in more detail after that. I do not have any particular interest in provoking Euclid as ethnically Egyptian. Nevertheless I am afraid it can not also proven that he was Greek. For example, if he were so, we should have known more about him as Greeks at that time tend to keep records of which Greek cities they were born in and preserved their own cities nationalities. Also writing or teaching in Greek at that time was natural as Greek had become one of the formal languages in Alexandria and Egypt. So I agree with you that there is muck controversy about Euclid's nationality which can not be 100% settled. This is why I did not omit his Greek nationality but just added the other probable nationality he might have belonged too. I think it might be O.K if we agreed on deleting what is related to Euclid's nationality altogether in the favor of stressing more certain facts like what you have mentioned (e.g. he taught in Alexandria). Another option, which I prefer, is to put a section on Euclid's Nationality where we might discuss different speculations about him (similar to what you have presented above). I would be glad to know what you, Mr. Finell and the others think about these two suggestions. Again, please be sure that there are no offenses to me in revealing the truth and sticking to the agreed on facts. Best wishes Ahmedettaf (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My first post that began this section linked to the page of Britannica Online that says he was Greek; I did not cross-check the print version. W.W. Rouse Ball, A short Account of the History of Mathematics, p. 52, says: "Of his life we know next to nothing, save that he was of Greek descent ..." Heath also says he is Greek, doesn't he? I am sure it would be easy to find other WP:RSs that say he is Greek. I am not aware of equally reliable sources that say he is Egyptian, or anything else, and so far no one has cited any. Greeks ruled Alexandria during the Hellenic period, and its culture was Greek. So if Euclid had been born there that would not make him Egyptian; but no scholarship says that he was born there, only that he lived and worked there as an adult. Wikipedia does not require proof of truth. According to the first two sentences of Wikipedia:Verifiability (boldface in original): "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiability' in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." As a matter of Wikipedia policy, editors may not delete verifiable statements because of their personal doubts or speculations. Nor may they add alternate facts based on their own reasoning, without support in reliable sources. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and some of the related policies linked in it, such as WP:NOR. We've been all over this before. Please do not belabor this non-issue. Thanks.Finell (Talk) 00:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

However all these sources do not say that he is for sure Greek since there are no references that can be traced continuously to the time when Euclid was born. The first bibliographical source that was written about Euclid was at least 7 centuries afte Euclid's death. All the sources you have stated are of course respectable dear Mr. Finell. Nevertheless they do not have any verifiable evidences of their claim and one can easily say in this case that they are speculative or consistent with what most people might think. A clear cut truth is not there. As for the point that Alexandria was a part of Greek civilization as was Egypt at that time, I do not object. I was just pointing to what you had said in an earlier post: "No source was cited for the recent additions to this article to the effect that Euclid was an Alexandrian or Egyptian or African by birth or nationality". Now I have presented two references that say Euclid might have been born in Alexandria including the Britannica Encyclopedia itself. So if we depend on that source for one thing, we should equally rely on it for another. After all,I am not claiming that Euclid must have been of Egyptian Descend. Please remember that even if the Greek were the rulers of Egypt at that time, they tried to mimic the Egyptians at least in the early period of their ruling. The rulers were titled as Pharaohs and were even dressed as them. They encouraged marrying from the natives in order to assure stability during the first part of their ruling. Accordingly what I am saying here and as Mr.SamuelTheGhost mentioned, there is a controversy about Euclid's nationality. No single verifiable evidence (that is an evidence which dates back to the same time around which Euclid was born) exists that says he was for sure Greek. It is very easy to claim Euclid was Greek, may be based on his name or the language he wrote the Elements in, but that is not enough. He was certainly a part of the Greek civilization but this does not mean that he was Greek. This is similar to many Persian and Minor Asian scientists who flourished in the period 800-1200 A.D and wrote their work in Arabic language. This did not make them Arabs by ethnicity but indeed they were a part of the Arabic civilization.

As for the "verifiability versus truth" issue raised here, I would think then that we must state Euclid was Alexandrian by birth ([5] ,[6],[7] [8]). However I see that a good solution would be to devote a section on Euclid's Nationality. We can then try to gather the different pieces of information supporting the different speculations. This is important for the sake of scientific honesty. The article as it is now, rules out all other legitimate possibilities for Euclid's nationality. Best Ahmedettaf (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've really enjoyed this exchange, it's a fascinating question. Finnell, I see that you have said that you "have no personal investment" on account of not being Greek, although I'm sure that was not called for; but, are your sources of European ancestry, and writing in Eurocentric epochs and languages? Is it not odd that a man we know to be living and working in Egypt, which is in Africa, is not described as an African? You don't have to answer that, I know he spoke Greek and worked in the Greek tradition, but the point is that he was an African, literally, undeniably, and not in some abstract, contrived sense. As one scholar asks in speaking to Euclid's heritage, "Are English-speaking Nigerians Englishmen?" The axis on which we evaluate Euclid's work is inevitably an English-language, Eurocentric axis. This is one of those things that's appalling and that we intuitively want to resist conceding, but it is quite real. And I'm not disagreeing with you per se, rather challenging our shared view of the world, or something, ha.

OK, back to talk that's relevant to Wikipedia. Here are some citations that say Egyptian. This does not mean that he was not also a Greek, in another sense (but we typically emphasize Greek and not African or Egyptian because of our own cultural orientation, even if all are true in their own way). [9][10][11][12] I agree that he should not be described as either Greek or Egyptian, except to note where he lived and what language he spoke. DBaba (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mr. DBaba for this valuable contribution. Actually one of the major things I liked about this discussion is the civilized

tone in exchanging our arguments. Our goal after all is seeking the truth without prejudice. Now we have references supporting both points of view, so I suggest that we either state both identities for Euclid or devote a special section on his nationality and state the respective references. Best Ahmedettaf (talk) 08:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"I know he spoke Greek and worked in the Greek tradition, but the point is that he was an African, literally, undeniably". Certainly -geographically-, but does that tell us anything about the context he worked in? Obviously not. In any case, I believe that any arguments about Euclid's 'ethnicity' (or 'nationality', but that'd be an anachronism, surely?) are misguided, hence why I changed to a version -a few days ago- that read as [Greek mathematics|Greek mathematician] rather than "[Greeks|Greek] mathematician" or "[Greeks|Greek]/[Egyptians|Egyptian] mathematician". If anyone is too sensitive to Euclid being described as a "[Greek mathematics|Greek mathematician]", it can be changed to [Greek mathematics|Hellenistic mathematician] which imo should dispel all concerns about 'fair representation'. 3rdAlcove (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"I believe that any arguments about Euclid's 'ethnicity' (or 'nationality', but that'd be an anachronism, surely?) are misguided" then why should we claim him as Greek? As I mentioned before Euclid is listed in another Wikipedia Document under the category of "Egyptian Hellenistic" [13]. I am sorry that you thought this discussion is motivated by sensitivity towards describing Euclid as Greek !. No one has said that, and no one asked for depriving Euclid of his Greek ancesty -which is probable. However the question is: We have sources claiming he was Greek and sources claiming he was Egyptian, what is the problem then in describing him as both? Why do we always prefer to describe him as "Greek" only? What is the harm in describing him as Greek/Egyptian or Ancient Alexandrian or Egyptian Hellenistic, as long as there are some arguments supporting those claims? Ahmedettaf (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe you've misinterpreted my post. I didn't use '"Greek" mathematician' in an ethnic sense (I suppose this answers your "Why do we always prefer to describe him as "Greek" only?" question. As far as I understand -please correct me if I'm wrong- it's because the Elements represent(s) a culmination of the Greek geometric tradition.); take a look at the "change to a version..." section. The 'misguiged' part was in response to Euclid's possible ancestry: his work is what matters in the end, so who cares what he was? "Hellenistic" covers it (with a link of the [Greek mathematics|Hellenistic mathematician] kind, since [Greek mathematics|Greek mathematician] might seem as an 'ethnic' designation) because it refers to a cultural context and not ancestry necessarily and as such would be a way of completely avoiding any argument of that sort. 3rdAlcove (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

3rd, suggesting that to be honest about Euclid being Egyptian was a sort of condescension to "sensitive" types, this sort of abrasiveness does not help build consensus, and seems to indicate that you haven't understood the conversation. Clearly, he is a Greek mathematician in once sense, and an Egyptian mathematician in another. That's fact, not "sensitivity". DBaba (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"Sensitivity" as in "sensitive about fair representation" which, sure, I am too. Euclid was "Egyptian" in the sense that he worked in Alexandria, in Egypt and "Greek" in the sense of the mathematical tradition and culture. We know nothing about his birthplace or his ancestry, hence why I proposed what I did. I've completely understood the conversation so, perhaps, you should ask for further clarification before reaching conclusions. In any case, does "Hellenistic mathematician" cover it all? If Finell agrees, we could even change it to "Greco-Egyptian" or even "Greek or Egyptian" (though I prefer the "Hellenistic" solution to any 'ethnic' designations, personally, since it provides us with the only thing we know for certain) and be done with it. 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. 3rdAlcove. Thanks for the clarification about the "sensitivity" context and I hope there are no hard feelings. I totally agree with you that Euclid was a part of the Hellenistic civilization. I am also sure that you know we all admit that there is a kind of controversy about his nationality due to a lack of trusted sources. However, I am afraid Mr. Finell once said that we could not change verifiable information in Wikipedia as well as we could not add any information without being verified. Now given the current situation of the article in which Euclid is listed as a "Greek" and that this claim is supported in some sources (And hence "Verifiable" in the sense Finell was describing), we can not delete it from the article (As I understood from Finell in his comment on the post of Mr. SamuelTheGhost but please correct me if I am wrong). On the other hand, we now have another piece of information that is "verifiable" in some sense too and which can expand the article and add to it in a useful way. According I can see that the suggestion to list him as Greek/Egyptian would be a fair solution if we agreed on. Of course what matters most for us is his work and I deeply appreciate that. However, this does not contradict with our right to discuss and state various postulates about his biography. Best wishes Ahmedettaf (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. 3rdAlcove: The references are required for verifiability. The listed references are written by recognized specialists (including university professors) and hence are reliable in the sense of wikipedia. None of them is from the 18 th century (and I do not know what is wrong with that even if that was the case). So please do not delete the references in order not to violate the verifiability criterion. Best Ahmedettaf (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but those sources were of generally low quality or generic ones (proverbs for students from the 19th century?). We don't need a source for everything, especially matters that are generally accepted. 3rdAlcove (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Finell raises an interesting point when he says

Wikipedia does not require proof of truth. According to the first two sentences of Wikipedia:Verifiability (boldface in original): "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiability' in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."

This section of Wikipedia policy is clearly devoted to the case where editors include material which, they claim, is true, but is not sourced. This situation implies that they know the truth by means of original research, which is banned. But what of the converse situation, where something is apparently reliably sourced, but not true? Clearly if that happens, we must have decided that the "reliable" source wasn't reliable after all. Therefore, Wikipedia policy is, effectively, that material must be both true and reliably sourced. In this particular case, it seems that Rouse Ball went a little beyond the evidence. Therefore we can say that, just on this occasion, he loses his status as "reliable source".

As for Mr. Finell's remark "Please do not belabor this non-issue." - what excellent advice! SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. SamuelTheGhost: My only reservation was that we insisted on calling him Greek and showing objection to acknowledge that he might have been Egyptian. Both claims lack strong evidences since there are no sources that can be traced continuously in time backward to the time when Euclid was living (Also was not it starnge that we know everything about a lot of other Greek scientists who lived before ad after Euclid but know nothing about "Greek" Euclid?). When I raised this point I was faced with (Verifiability vs truth) issue so I understood that it is a matter of referencing. I was not convinced but I had to abide by the policy. Now, I can see that the article is looking more reasonable by stating what we are sure was true. Personally I still believe that he might have been Greek or Egyptian (Thinking in terms of probability theory). Nevertheless, I am agreeing to the state of the article as it is now as long as there is no insistence on preferring some doubtful material to other doubtful material. As for "Please do not belabor this non-issue" I think this applies to anyone who insists on including a material he believes in and refusing equally probable material just because it is inconsistent with the mainstream point of view. But after all it is a good advice for everyone of us :) Best Ahmedettaf (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is becoming positively amusing. Mr. Finell reverted the recent update saying "Ptolemaic Kingdom is an era in history, not an nationality; the references cited support the statement that he was Greek, regardless of second-guessing by non-experts". Well, it is absolutely clear that the Ptolemaic Kingdom was Euclid's political master, which would certainly therefore be his "nationality" in the modern sense of the word. The United States of America is also just "an era in history". There is no WP:RS that Euclid was Greek in anything other than language. There is a reasonable presmption that he was Greek in ancestry, which could be discussed if we chose to introduce a section in which to do so. I have been doing my utmost to avoid "second-guessing". As for "non-experts", Mr.Finell has no knowledge of the expertise of the participants in this discussion, so to use that epithet is an unfounded personal attack. Please do not belabor this non-issue. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the Ptolemaic Kingdom article, that term refers to a particular era in the history of Egypt, the time when Egypt was ruled by Ptolemaic line of kings. The expression is similar to Ming Dynasty. There never was a nationality called the Ptolemaic Kingdom. If you still contend otherwise, please supply a reliable source that says Euclid's nationality was "Ptolemaic Kingdom"; until someone does, that statement does not belong in the article. Furthermore, why do you assume that the leading scholars simply "presume" that Euclid was of Greek ancestry, rather than assuming that the leading scholars actually know what they are talking about? Have you actually read the references cited in the article? Since when is "political master[y]" the sole criterion of nationality? When Germany invaded Poland, did the Poles instantly become Germans? And then Poles again after World War II ended? Ditto for the French? Finally, yes, it is true, I am assuming that the Wikipedians who contribute to this article, myself included, are not experts, as compared with Heath and Ball and the other sources who say that Euclid was Greeek; that is hardly a personal attack. If I am wrong about this, and some of you indeed meet Wikipedia's criteria for a WP:RS (I know that I don't), please come forward, identify yourselves, and supply your CV and your bibliography of published writings on the subject at hand. Finell (Talk) 10:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

'Nationality' refers to (1) ethnicity, or to (2) the protection of and allegiance to a state. There's nothing to say about Euclid's ethnicity; but clearly he resided in (the political dominion of) Ptolemaic Egypt. That doesn't mean he wasn't 'Greek' in another way, which is not a question of nationality. It just seems you're misappropriating the term to say... well... What? Can't you see how absurd it is to hyperlink his nationality to Greece? DBaba (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Heath in his books has no sources supporting that Euclid was Greek. Brittanica Encyclopedia is citing Heath and hence we are in a circular argument situation. References are cited that Euclid was Egyptian. As per Wikippedia Verifiability article, books published by known publishing houses are considered verifiable sources. Please Finell do not assume from your self that the sources are not WP:RS and explain your reservations here first. I think that the ultimate solution for this dispute is either to devote a section on Euclid's nationality or to assume that he was a mathematician in the Hellenistic period and that is it. According to Wikipedia policies, all recognized minor opinions must be stated and there are supports that Euclid might have been Egyptian as well as Greek. None of these two claims is true or false since we do not have enough resources to verify either. Hence whenever reputable scholar or encyclopedia is claiming either of them, we should acknowledge that these are just speculations. A final word: Greek/Egyptian is not ambiguous. In other Wikipedia articles you might find designations as: Grecko-Egyptian (As in Hypatia's article), Egyptian American (As in Ahmed Zewail's article), German born with American and Swiss citizenships (As in Einstein article)...etc. Dual or multi nationalities are used all over the place. Best (Ahmedettaf (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

Why is it that every post regarding something that Europeans value is challenged by Islamocentric ideologies that reorient all learning and civilization in middle-eastern races and cultures. This argument is racist, Ahmedettaf, is merely attacking western culture out of his own cultural and racial bias'. Europe has always recognized contributions from the middle east and from Islamic civilizations, yet the onslaught continues, Muslims try to get credit for every achievement that other people have done, especially Western achievements. It doesn't matter what "race" Euclid was, he was a geometer at Alexandria, all evidence points to him being Greek, only middle-easterners and Islamocentric people want him to be ethnically Egyptian, all other scholarship (not just European) points to him being Greek. Only for middle-easterners is this a contention, because of some ethnocentric idea that they get "credit" for what people did in the past. Euclid was Euclid, no one but him gets credit for his achievements. Other people of middle-eastern ethnicity within the Greek world were openly noted as such, especially Greek philosophers, like Porphyry and Ammonius Saccas as being from the orient, to think that they would not mention it for someone as influential and prominent as Euclid is ridiculous. TheBookishOne (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Please!

I know you all mean well, but by adding statements about Euclid's nationality that are not based on sufficiently reliable sources, you are damaging Wikipedia's own reliability. Please read WP:RS. We use the most reliable sources that are available on a topic. Therefore, when we have the leading historians of mathematics or a general reference like Britannica to rely upon, a schoolmistress writing for children or a dabbler writing outside his field is not a sufficiently reliable source. Further, while we must cite reliable sources, reliable sources themselves need not; they are the ones to whom we look. Also, if you are going to add sources to the article, please provide full citations in proper form. See WP:CITE for guidance. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 15:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Parallels

Some parallels for consideration.

• There've been arguments about Buddha & Buddhism, because (what has been believed since at least the 3rd century BC to be) the Buddha's birthplace has been since 1860 in Nepal.
• According to the Bible, Jesus was born in Bethlehem, which is now in the West Bank. Was he a Palestinian?
• Was Muhammad a Saudi?
• Kant lived all his life in a city now in Russia, but is always called German.
• Bartok was born in Transylvania, then in Hungary, now in Roumania.
• Were Thales & Herodotus Turkish?
• Was Archimedes Italian?
• Until 1867, Austria was just 1 of the many statelets making up Germany. Why then is Bach usually described as German, but Haydn, Mozart & Scubert as Austrian?
• Franck is often called a Belgian composer, tho' he was born before Belgium was invented & spent most of his life in France.

Peter jackson (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

These parallels are clearly in a non-Euclidean geometry. It's a hyperbolic geometry, I think, with an infinite number of parallels all missing the point. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

They're not meant to reach any particular point. Rather they're questions to think about in considering what we mean by nationality & whether we have any consistent idea of it. Here are some more.

• Before 1948, everyone in the British Empire had the same legal nationality. More precisely, anyone born in the dominions of the monarch was the same, apart from children of diplomatic & enemy military personnel. This meant that Sir William Herschel, being born in Hanover in the period of the Hanoverian dynasty of the British monarchy, didn't need to be naturalized to receive a knighthood. It also means there was no difference legally between British, Irish, Australian & Indian.
• Stravinsky was successively a Russian, French & American citizen, spent years living in Switzerland & asked to be buried in Italy.

Peter jackson (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Those of your parallels which refer to anachronisms are those which miss the point, since that issue does not arise here. To try and get a handle on this seriously, we have three questions.

1. What do we know about Euclid? Virtually nothing.
2. What do we know about the political/national/ethnic environment at the time in which he lived? Enough for our purposes.
3. How do we best describe the one in terms of the other? That's the question.

Looking at those points in greater detail.

1. There is no contemporaneous or even near contemporaneous information on Euclid. It is clear from his writings that he read and wrote Greek. The first documents which mention his life, from Proclus and Pappus of Alexandria, are six or seven hundred years later than Euclid's presumed own time. They give his approximate date and the fact that he was active in Alexandria. Much later still there is the account of the Arab, al-Qifti. He describes Euclid as a Greek, domiciled in Damascus, born at Tyre. It is interesting that T. L. Heath discounts al-Qifti's evidence on overtly racist grounds - "the Arabian tendency to romance" etc. etc., even though there is nothing in it that he might have found objectinable.
2. There are few problems in describing the environment. Alexandria is in Egypt and always was. (Both names are Greek.) it was the capital of the Ptolemaic Kingdom. People with Greek ancestry are reasonably described as "Greek", wherever they live, but in those days it was common to describe oneself in terms of a city, so "Alexandrian" or whatever. "Citizen of the Ptolemaic Kingdom" seems to me a perfectly acceptable alternative description of an Alexandrian. (In New Testament times, "Greek" seems to be used to mean "not a Jew", but that was three hundred years later, and may have been a specifically Jewish usage.)
3. My preference for the wikipedai article is to say as little as possible. If we stick to what is certain, nothing is lost. People who want to fill out the picture from their own imagination or prejudices can do so. If we feel the need for adjectives, the word "Hellenistic" summons up the right overtones, in implying Greek language and an inheritance of Greek culture, but no necessarily exclusively so. The alternative is to say more, being careful to make clear the uncertainties involved.

The point which really interests me is the extent to which Euclid drew on ancient Egyptian sources, as well as Greek ones. I think he must have done. The Egyptian written language was still understood (witness the Rosetta Stone, which is a little later in much the same place). The library at Alexandria was said to be crammed with ancient wisdom. It seems entirely natural that Euclid should have done his homework and put together his information from all sources available. Unfortunately, however, there is no evidence available about this, and no-one seems to have researched it, so it wouldn't be possible to say anything in the article. A pity.

To return to the main point, I think that, given a little common sense and willingness to compromise, it shouldn't be too hard to come up with a formulation which everyone agrees is fair and accurate. Unfortunately those conditions do not exist at the moment. When one editor is obsessively determined on his own extreme viewpoint, those other editors with a sense of proportion tend to wander off and do something more productive. I suggest you have a go, and you'll see what I mean. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. To run along just a few of your "parallels":

• To call Jesus a Palestinian seems to me very apt
• Kant was a Prussian
• Thales & Herodotus were Asian
• It's hardly accurate to refer to the Habsburg Monarchy/Austrian Empire as a "statelet"
• I'm surprised you didn't ask about Handel

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Historicization

I figured I'd write something here as well for the sake of continuity. I very much appreciate Finell's adherence to quality and reliability, as well as others comments on Euclid's nationality/ethnicity/race/origin. I made a major addition that is discussed below under "Historicization". Please continue the discussion there.

NittyG (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Greek accentuation

The Greek name designating Euclid as the author of the Elements should be accented on the last syllable, Στοιχειωτής, since it is an agent-noun from the verb στοιχειοῦν, 'to reduce to elementary principles'; the rule may be found in Henry W. Chandler, A Practical Introduction to Greek Accentuation, second edition, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1881 (reprinted New Rochelle, NY: Caratzas Publishing Co., Inc., 1983), para. 51, pp. 15-16. You will find that most of the texts available on the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae website have it right. Leofranc Holford-Strevens, 24 August 2015.80.177.167.155 (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Euclides

  Εὐκλείδης Eukleidēs Ancient Greek: [eu̯.klěː.dɛːs]; 

From my knowledge, limited as it may be, Εὐκλείδης in Greek means SON OF EUCLID So shortening the name to Euclid is actually calling him by his father's name.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al.Qudsi (talk • contribs) 17:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Not se: if it were a patronymic, it would mean 'son of Eucles'; but the -ides/-ades suffix, though it is undoubtedly a patronymic in the context of mythologcal heroes and of ruling dynasties, is not used that way in the names of ordinary people. Thucydides, after all, was not the son of a Thucydes or Theocydes; his father's name was Oloros. Leofranc Holford-Strevens, 24 August 2015.80.177.167.155 (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2016

Ramcherukupalliraghu (talk) 05:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Blank request — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Page move of Euclid of Megara to Euclides ...

In case anyone here is interested, see Talk:Euclid_of_Megara#Requested_move_8_August_2016. PamD 08:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2016

hello i would love to continue to help wikapedia become as honest and true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:404:c100:21c1:ac51:4b81:73de:4b08 (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Correct image of Eculid

Please replace the main image of this page. The article is of Euclid of Alexandria, but the main image is of Euclid of Megara. It should be replaced with a correct image, such as this one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Euklid-von-Alexandria_1.jpg

The painting is titled "Euclid of Megara", but according to the description given here, it was meant to be a representation of this Euclid, hence the compass. Paul August ☎ 00:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Euclid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100127080511/http://perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/ to http://perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Arabian sources of Euclid

Sir Thomas Heath's "arabian sources" is actually Al-Qifti, egyptian author of History of Learned Men https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qifti I could only find History of Learned Men (Tarik Al-Hukama) (written in 1249) in german https://archive.org/details/TarikhAlHukama and in arabic http://www.rarebooksocietyofindia.org/postDetail.php?id=196174216674_10152950659341675

Al-Qifti is himself Egyptian, and despite of it, he claimed Euclid was born in Tyre. Heath's comments on Al-Qifti and dismissal of the legitimacy of his work due to “the Arab tendency to romance” etc is not based on real evidence. Considering that during the Golden Age of Islam the arab world were responsible for translating ALL the greek and ancient works in Toleto and Baghdad very few arabian authors/translators really every claimed that "lots of greek authors were actually arabic, semitic or phoenician" that is pure nonsense coming from Thomas Heath. Out of the probably hundreds of greek authors that were translated that has been said probably of 3 or 4 authors.

Heath’s attempt to brand all (inconvenient)Arab sources as unreliable is clearly racist according to Indian mathematician C. K. Raju (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._K._Raju) in his book "Cultural Foundations of Mathematics"(p. 13) https://books.google.se/books?id=jza_cNJM6fAC&pg=PA13&dq=C.+K.+Raju+euclid+tyre&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWvqWk7bzXAhWjFZoKHVZcCcoQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=C.%20K.%20Raju%20euclid%20tyre&f=false and in his essay "Good Bye Euclid!" http://ckraju.net/IndianCalculus/Good_bye_Euclid_journal.pdf (page 2)ViamarisBalbi (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You are critical of Heath as a source, but what about O'Connor and Robertson? In any case these are the only sources which have been so far offered, and all of these are much more skeptical of the Arabian sources than just that their evidence is "uncertain".

• O'Connor and Robertson:

"There is other information about Euclid given by certain authors but it is not thought to be reliable. Two different types of this extra information exists. The first type of extra information is that given by Arabian authors who state that Euclid was the son of Naucrates and that he was born in Tyre. It is believed by historians of mathematics that this is entirely fictitious and was merely invented by the authors."

• Heath 1956, p. 4

In view of the poverty of Greek tradition on the subject even as early a Proclus (410-485 A.D.), we must necessarily take cum grano the apparently circumstantial accounts of Euclid given by Arabian authors;

• Heath 1981, p. 355 [discussing Arabian sources on Euclid]

... This shows the usual tendency of the Arabs to romance. They were in the habit of recording the names of grandfathers, while the Greeks were not; Damascus and Tyre were no doubt brought in to gratify the desire of the Arabians always showed to connect famous Greeks in some way or other with the east (thus they described Pythagoras as a pupil of the wise Salomo, and Hipparchus as 'the Chaldaean').

These sources may not be ideal but they are the best we currently have. If you have other sources which give more credence to the Arabian sources please provide them. Paul August ☎ 02:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree. This user cannot pick and choose what information to present from these sources while adding his own OR based on unspecified sources. Dr. K. 02:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Al-Qifti is not a modern scholarly source. We can only rely on modern scholarly sources such as O'Connor Robertson and Heath to interpret ancient sources. Khirurg (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Main image is wrong Euclid

This image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid#/media/File:Euklid.jpg

is Euclid of Megara, you can see it, if look on non-cutted version, for example

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Portraits_of_Euclid#/media/File:Euklid2.jpg

MBP~ruwiki (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It's Euclid of Alexandria (he is doing geometry) but the caption is wrong since at the time some people got confused. You can find print editions of Euclid's elements from the Renaissance with the same mistake on the title page. 164.67.233.160 (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2018

why are you letting people change the wiki every one trusts it they think that it is true but it will low he no: of people seeing it s he trust of people will be gone so, now it is your wish that what do you have to do. 27.6.201.23 (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 11:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Conjectured Proper Ancient Greek Pronunciation

Euclid's pronunciation is often rendered as "Yoo-klid" when said aloud. I believe it is far more likely to be rendered as "ew-klid" reminiscent of the interjection "ew" said to indicate disgust, but that idea is likely unrelated to what I suspect is the true pronunciation of Euclid.

Notice in the classical art the subtle Star of David he has rendered. His facial hair does indeed look rabbinical. It is quite possible that Euclid is the world's most famous Jewish mathematician of antiquity. The scholarly codification work at the Library of Alexandria uniquely positioned him to create a classic for teachers throughout the classical world.

Modern education seems to have mistaken ideas of axioms and postulates however, which is to say, things which are assumed to be true temporarily and to examine what must logically follow from those assumptions if those conditions are true in some circumstance. Scholars ought to observe the language of the original Elements to indicate if the Postulates were written to be unbreakable requirements, or more likely, indications of what would have to be true if those condition were satisfied in flat space in the cosmos. Jakewayd (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2020

Page entirely dedicated to Euclid that might be interesting. https://www.euclides.org/en Bertuuk (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Excuse Me?

Can you add the "In Culture" Part where it talks how the SCP Foundation talks about how the object class of Euclid is named afther him, what it is and etc? --StaleGuy22 (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Euclid born c. 325 BC died c. 270 BC

MODERATORS: This article refers to Euclid's approximate year of birth and death as born c. 325 died c. 270 BC. This should be stated at the beginning of the article and in the summary box at the right. 73.85.201.138 (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

These dates need a source. Paul August ☎ 16:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

If those dates "need a source", then why are they in the article at all? Either they should be at the beginning like all articles on historic figures, or they should be deleted completely because they're not sourced. 2601:580:8:5EDE:8166:68A2:75CB:4F91 (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Blond?

The current image of Euclid on this page portrays him as blond. It appears to be a coloured version of "Les vrais pourtraits et vie des hommes illustres frecz, latins et payens", which can be found here: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b86246591/f133.image This link should be in the public domain (see the conditions for use when downloading). I appreciate that there is little contemporary information about Euclid, but it seems highly implausible that he was blond. If this image is going to be used, can the original, uncoloured version be used? 86.175.29.37 (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It is not that "there is little contemporary information about Euclid." We could handle that. The problem is that, aside from what has survived of his writing—for which we have no original source, and which we know mainly from translations into Arabic, and translations of those translation—we know nothing about the man, except that he was a mathematician (because that is the main subject he wrote about) and that he flourished (was alive or active) around 300 BC in Alexandria. No image of him in any form and no description of him survives. All images that purport depict him depend entirely on an artist's imagination. We really should not use any image of him because any image of him is pure fiction. Whenever the question of whether to use an image has been discussed, over a span of decades, the consensus has been not to use any. But then someone adds an "image of Euclid" because a purported image was erroneously so labeled.—Finell 06:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2021

Gwapo ako

No edit requested, closing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

old bc/ad used instead of bce and ce.

You should use B.C.E. and C.E. instead of BC and AD as these are old, and should not be used in this article to make it modern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saralizt13 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Changing the portrait

From a layman's perspective, the current portrait of Euclid isn't revealing or provides what may be seen as an accurate depiction of the artist. Though the romantic/dramatic element isn't bad, it seems de Ribera made the portrait intentionally dark— which, on a webpage, makes it difficult to see. I propose switching the portrait to something like Euclid statue, Oxford University Museum of Natural History, UK - 20080315.jpg instead. GuardianH (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure really what you mean by "accurate depiction", which would be essentially impossible in this case. I would prefer the current portrait, by a well established artist, rather than a rather random statue. In addition, since I don't trust readers to read the image captions, I suspect that have a marble statue (which evokes the ancient Greek sculpture) might make some assume they're seeing an authentic portrayal, where as a painting makes it obvious they are not. Then again, my first point is the crux of my disagreement. Aza24 (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

That is really close to my reasoning, and that's why I changed the image in the infobox. No portrait is a real portrait of Euclid, but this one at least is from a well-known artist. Artem.G (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)