User talk:Lucretius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello Lucretius, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  BD2412 T 03:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Your user page

Hi Lucretius, I found you via your edit to Numerology, and I hope you won't be offended if I share my thoughts on your user page.

It's a good idea to remove irrelevant material from articles, and I've done so on occasion myself. In my experience, such removals are much more likely to be tolerated by the rest of the community if I go on to find a more appropriate home for the material. For a pertinent example, one might argue that the material you've tried to remove from Numerology and Fine-structure constant really belongs in a separate article, perhaps Numerology in science or something to that effect. If nothing else, it would avoid duplication of content, which is a Bad Thing. Even if that were your goal, it would still be safer to use Template:Splitsection and wait for a consensus before making the move.

And then again, sometimes, what looks like "unmeaningful observations" and "expression[s] of personal opinion" doesn't need to be deleted or moved at all. Regarding unmeaningful observations, Wikipedia has a tradition of including material not just strictly on the topic of an article but also on that topic's historical understanding and uses. Perhaps Riemann_surface#In_art_and_literature has nothing to do with Riemann surfaces, but the material adds interest to the article. As for personal opinion, it's better to try to fix a section to be WP:NPOV than to remove the section entirely. Again, I've broken this rule myself, and I've been properly chastised and reverted. If you suspect that some material is really just pure opinion beyond redemption, you can request references; a couple of templates are available for this purpose at Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles. Hopefully someone will substantiate the content, and in the meanwhile, readers will know not to trust it.

That's enough for now. Happy editing, Melchoir 20:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Reply to Melchoir

Thanks Melchoir for the good advice. I agree that collaboration and consensus are vital, and often they act as a form of quality control. However, I'm not yet sure that the ensuing quality is always good. I mean it is possible for some opinionated amateurs to league together simply to protect their contributions or to promote some mutual point of view. I wonder how much 'vote buying' goes on here. I myself am an amateur on all subjects. However I'm not opinionated enough to enter into any edit wars. I edit my own work more ruthlessly than I edit anyone else's and I even edit my comments on discussion pages (provided of course nobody has replied to them first).

By 'unmeaningful observations' I mean unnecessary wording - why write 3 sentences when the same meaning could be condensed into a single sentence? This is particularly important on article pages, which are the only pages most readers ever consult.

I deleted references to Eddington in the Fine-structure constant article and in the Numerology article because I believe he has received a lot of unfair press over the years - 'numerology' is a handle people have put on him in particular though he is not the only mathematical physicist who has sometimes been more mathematical than physicist. He is the only famous physicist to be mentioned in the Numerology article. What need was there to refer to him again in terms of numerology on a page dedicated to the Fine-structure constant? His theory was already dismissed there in terms of a hoax or a spoof.

According to my pocket Oxford dictionary, numerology means 'divination by numbers;study of occult meaning of numbers'. This is not an apt description of Eddington's work and I don't see any good reason, let alone any compelling reason, why the man should be tagged in this manner. There might be an issue here about the standard of scientific debate - is it right to stretch the meaning of a word to include physicists whose work is more mathematical than scientific? This is to condemn their work by innuendo.

I should add that Eddington's theory about the fine structure constant has been disproved experimentally i.e. it has been shown not to be an integer. Is a theory numerological if it is able to be proved or disproved experimentally? I think not. In fact, string theory is a better candidate for 'numerology' since, as far as I know, it is not able to be tested - at least not yet. Even Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity might be called numerology (who would ever have thought the Pythagorean theorem for right angle triangles could have real physical significance outside geometry?). Of course it isn't dismissed as numerology and that's because it has been verified experimentally. Eddington was foremost among the champions of Einstein's theories and possibly he was dazzled by the new mathematical possibilities that Einstein opened up. But he was nothing like an astrologer or a Pythagorean mystic. He was a scientist.

Once again thanks for your advice. You have provided some practical tips that will prove useful if I continue my interest in Wikipedia. Lucretius 11:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to your comment on my user talk page

See my reply at Talk:Numerology#Unreferenced_assertion_in_.22Numerology.22_in_science. Thanks. Cbdorsett 07:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greek mess

See my answer Talk:Ancient_Greek_units_of_measurement#Mess here and User_talk:Egil#.27Greek.27_Measurements_Mess here. I would be very delighted if you can fix this. The articles need a complete rewrite. -- Egil 12:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solon GA nomination and related stuff

Hi Lucretius. I thought I'd comment here as the Sourcing debate on Wikiproject Classics is not really the place for this. As a (albeit fairly new) GA reviewer myself, to be honest I'd not have passed Solon either, although I tend to prefer putting articles on hold rather than failing them outright - especially where they can be brought up to GA status with only a little additional work. The sourcing issue is an interesting one, and I think your view that ancient sources are admissible where they are uncontested by modern scholarship is eminently reasonable. I suspect that this will be a problem until Wikipedia attracts more historians who understand such issues: hence the constant charges of systemic bias over the years. I don't like to over-generalise, but it's self-evident that contributing to WP requires a minimum level of, not scholarship (unfortunately), but technical savvy... and this attracts a certain breed of editor and repels others.

Regarding the GA nom, I do think Awadewit had a point about the sources, although personally I find them sufficient for GA status (if not FA!). Part of the problem here is that the sourcing criterion is open to personal interpretation. There are however other issues with the article, mainly pertaining to the Manual of Style (which is an ironclad GA criterion): these are easily fixed though and a reason for Hold rather than Quick Fail IMO.

The nature of GA reviews is a subject of debate in itself - I recently raised concerns reflecting yours on the project talk page over there, as many editors (including experienced GA reviewers) have expressed worries about the credibility of GA status where the criteria are being applied unevenly by different reviewers. Some seem to feel that GA review is basically an FA review in all but name, and are extremely strict; others appear to conduct drive-by passes with little understanding of the criteria. I proposed a system of oversight, particularly for new GA reviewers, where an experienced reviewer can quality-check the review and ensure GA criteria are being properly applied. This seems to have stalled at no consensus with understandable concerns about the increased workload, although a few highly-respected GA reviewers said they would be prepared to this on an informal basis - I used this myself for my first reviews.

You could always take the article to Good Article Review, although in its present form it would not pass. Perhaps the best alternative is to correct the MoS deficiencies, wait a month and re-nom. I'd be happy to copyedit per the criteria if that would help. Regards EyeSereneTALK 10:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback ;) Regarding Solon, I thought it might be helpful if I elaborated on my comments above. I have taken each of the six GA criteria and commented in detail below (essentially a 'mock' GA review):
1. Well written: FAIL
a) Prose
Whilst this is largely sound and grammatically accurate, there are passages of text that are possibly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. To pick a couple of examples:
  • "If Athens ever had need of a 'tyrant' to fix things inside its own borders, who better than this?!"
  • "Depending on how we interpret the historical facts known to us..."
  • "Solon stood outside his own home in full armour, urging all who passed to resist the macchinations [sic] of the would-be tyrant. But his efforts were all in vain!"
The problem with these is obviously that they read a bit too much like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article, and there are places where the text is structured in a way that implies the article itself is the vehicle for research, rather than just factually reporting the research of external reliable sources (this could be where the 'original research' comment from the GA reviewer came from). However, from your comments, I suspect you are already well aware of this ;)
b) Manual of Style
The lead section is a fair (if brief!) summary of the article. There are however a few technical issues relating to the way Wikipedia likes articles to look:
  • All inline citations should be outside the end-of-sentence punctuation, with no intervening spaces, eg like this.[1]
  • Whilst the section heading texts follow the MoS, the overall layout does not. One possible layout for a biographical article such as this might be:
1 Life
1.1 Early life
1.2 Reforms
2 Work
2.2 Poetry
3 Legacy
4 See also
5 Notes and references (can be split into two sections!)
6 External links
I have taken a best guess at the most appropriate headings - I'm sure you can improve on them. The general idea though is to tell Solon's life story in chronological order, with additional sections for important events/periods than need to be expanded upon. The final three sections, as per WP:LAYOUT, should follow the order given.
  • It is also recommended (although not policy) that editors use the templates on WP:CIT in the references. Some GA reviewers will insist, others won't. Use of these templates provides consistency and helps with various bot-related tasks like changing over 10-digit ISBNs to 13 digit ones, or tracking down archived web-pages automatically where a site used for reference has gone dead.
  • Finally, a few more Wikilinks would help to increase the depth of the article. For example, links could be provided for 'political', 'economic', 'moral', 'reforms' and 'democracy' in the introduction.
2. Factual accuracy/verifiability: PASS
Like I've already said, I can't see a problem with the sourcing which seems to me to be very thorough and well distributed throughout the article. I believe the 'original research' concern was a function of some of the prose, and can be easily addressed by rewording some sentences.
3. Broadness of coverage: WEAK PASS
Solon's adult life is well covered, and the article does not go off on tangents. The only quibble I have here is that - relating to the layout above - a section on his background and early life would be good (but I'm no expert in the subject, so I don't know if such information even exists... although even this would be worth mentioning).
4. Neutrality: PASS
The rule of thumb I use for NPOV is that, after reading an article, I can't tell where the writer's sympathies lie. Other than the odd sentence (already mentioned above) this article is NPOV.
5. Stablity: PASS
The article is stable with no evidence of recent edit warring etc.
6. Images (where used): PASS
All images used are appropriately captioned and licensed for use. One or two are perhaps only of marginal relevance to the article (the coins and vases), but this is not to my mind an issue worth nitpicking over ;)
I hope this helps explain my earlier reasoning, and will be useful as an copyediting guide. All the best, EyeSereneTALK 12:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lost my buttons

{{helpme}} Whenever I go to edit a page lately, I find that the edit buttons are missing - italics, bold, internal links etc - all missing! So I need someone to do up my buttons for me. I been a good boy I ave and I just dunno wot appened to me buttons. Lucretius 07:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a chance you turned this off through Special:Preferences/editing/Show edit toolbar. It's also possible you no longer have JavaScript for some reason (change of browser). More information is available at Help:Edit toolbar.--Chaser - T 08:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solon

I see that you have been the main force behind the Solon re-write. I found it a huge improvement over the previous version, but still a bit chatty, which probably did not help its GA candidacy. I also felt that it gave short shrift to his contribution to the Athenian pederastic tradition, a matter which I tried to correct. Hopefully, I did not step on any toes. Haiduc (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  • The previous "coverage" of what is a very important topic in Greek culture, as well as the general inappropriate tone of your response, should give you cause to reflect on the gist of your message since it applies to you before it applies to me. Please do not distort Solon´s role in Greek culture to suit your modern opinions, and also be advised that the general tone of the article is not up to encyclopedic standards, as you were already told by others. It is obvious that you are consistently insinuating yourself into the discussion, which is why the article failed GA. I will try to clean up some of the more eggregious editorializing. Haiduc (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your argumentation of the non-signifiance of Solon's pederasty is that it is not true. Everybody agree that some of his laws dealt with it. So, it is important, and not a private fact.

Limitorder (talk) 10:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It is quite possible that these sources are not "reliable", but in that way, think that most of the sources about Antiquity are not "reliable." Don't forget that later sources repeat what contemporary sources said. Solon himself wrote about his love. And if Antiquity's sources that remains said that Solon is important for that topic, we must mention without stating it is not important because it would be "unreliable." You say yourself that it wouldn't be astonishing that Solon had relations with boys, even Plutarch say that and he didn't think that homosexual love was better than heterosexual ; I believe it is the contrary, if my readings are good. So, the only thing I want, is the present the connection between Solon and Homosexuality/ Pederasty as something that is not "unreliable", because in that way, there is a lot of think in Antiquity that could be said "unreliable." That's my problem with your argumentation ; so, If I understand you don't allow anybody to quote every sources dealing with homosexuality in Antiquity, because in your point of view, it is "unreliable", which is a synonym of "false ?" We are not in the christian time here : don't present greek love as an unreliable thing ; the sources about are fully reliable and as reliable as most of known facts in Antiquity. Don't say systematicaly that Sources dealing with homosexuality are false, please, and try to detect what is false in Antiquity sources about other topics. I will say to Haiduc I think he is fully legitimate to discuss entirely this topic, which is documented by Solon's own poetry. And I supose you think the same about Sophokles and Demosthenes, for instance ? None of the sources is reliable ? But there is documentation and you can't say in that case, that the sources are hostile. So, if you are sincere and not one of these people who want to deny homosexuality everywhere it is present, take it into consideration and don't censure Haiduc's work.

Limitorder (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but so, all we know about Solon is gossip, so we can't use the sources ? "Gossip", it is easy to say, but later sources are not tabloids. If even late authors wrote that Solon made laws about it, it is not gossip, but a reliable thing at that time. It is no more gossip than other laws of Solon and we have to take it into consideration. Gossip is unsubstantiated facts ; if people like Plutarch said that what they said about that topic, it is because they had solid documentation to do that. Obviously, a lot of these documents disapeared, but it doesn't make Plutarch's work a gossip, I am sorry. The statements of Plutarch, who was a serious man, are reliable and not "gossip." And there another important thing : nobody has mentioned that Solon's poetry dealt with pederasty. The only thing late authors had to do to conclude that Solon was interested in pederasty was to read his poetry and it is what they do. It would be good to mention that fact. To be complete, it is absolutely not forbidden to add that Plutarch wrote that Solon write about the importance of marriage too.

Limitorder (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid you're wrong. All the speaches in Thucydides are invented and it is not gossip. The use of the word "gossip" is a misrepresentation. And remember that Solon's interest for homosexuality is documented by his own writings, not by unsubstantiated invention. I am sure you understand.

Limitorder (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Limitorder. I'll reply here rather than on your user page. Why are you mentioning Solon's interest in homosexuality? The debate is about his promotion of pederasty. Thucydides was a better historian than Plutarch and he had personal experience of the events he was describing. Even so, no modern scholar would accept the account by Thucydides unless it fitted in with evidence from other sources. There is absolutely no supporting evidence that Solon made any laws about pederasty. I think he was a bit too busy trying to stop a civil war to worry about issues like that. Lucretius (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not really a debate : you're not trying to state falsely that Solon had nothing to do with homosexuality, saying it would be awful, scandalous, stupid, or something like that, denying the historical evidences ; you're obviously not homophobic. But I disagree with your terms : what you're calling "gossip", a tabloid term used today to call the rumours on homosexuality of famous people, is actually a solid "tradition" if you want, based on historical facts -it is not oral tradition, but recorded tradition-, not only known by Plutarch, but by several authors and believed by them. I would add it is not believed blindly, but believed because of Solon's own writings, especially his poetry and certainly his laws. I think that no serious scholars could claim that Solon didn't write on homosexuality, we even have fragment of his poetry ; this fact is not mentioned in the article, I wonder why. It would be good to say, to be complete that Plutarch use Solon writings to state that when he was old, he insisted on marriage rather than homosexuality. But implying that Plutarch and other authors are gossipers is not serious and, one more time, used in the field of homosexuality, I am forced to note that. Have a nice day.

Limitorder (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I will stop the "civil war" when it will be said in the article that Solon wrote poetry about homosexuality and when it will be stoped to present that historical fact as a gossip, a very wrong term. And I write "homosexuality" because my dear, it is a way to avoid your judgement of value about Greek love, that would spoil the debate. I am not an old greek, and that's not my problem if it is good or wrong. I must add that Solon didn't make "laws" promoting pederasty, but laws regulating pederasty, only allowed to citizens and not to slaves, so Plutarch conclude that it is a promotion. And if I mention Solon's interest in homosexuality, it is because old Greek had no problem to discuss it and because Solon had indeed interest for it.

Limitorder (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again Limitorder. I think you are making a very good effort to understand a debate that is in a foreign language for you. But we don't seem to be getting very far and I'm a bit confused about some of the things you are saying. If you are a homosexual, I'm OK with that. But pederasty is wrong. I LOVE Sophocles, Euripides, Aeschylus, Pindar, Aristophanes, Plato etc etc, even though I KNOW they were pederasts, but I still think pederasty is WRONG, just as slavery is wrong, wrong, wrong. There is in fact clear proof that these men were pederasts. It is not certain that Solon was a pederast because the historical sources for that period are very unreliable. His sexuality is not of historical significance anyway even though it seems very important to you. I really don't know what more I can say. You talk about a 'civil war'. My dear fellow, I am always ready to debate things (in fact I talk too much) and that's the only reason I have joined with you in this debate. But I'm not interested in civil war and you can go elsewhere for that. Lucretius (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What is your evidence that Plato was a pederast? Arion (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok this is a tough one. I was speaking in 'shorthand' to get through to someone whose native tongue is not English. I am thinking of the Symposium where the subject is presented in a way that seems sincerely felt by the author. Yes, he was a literary genius, and he could perhaps put himself in the sandals of a pederast, but I think he writes about it like someone who genuinely felt like that himself. That's the only 'proof' I can come up with at short notice, but I still think it's better than the so called 'proof' that Solon was a pederast.Lucretius (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of how many authors and so-called "scholars" repeat an un-truth, that un-truth will still not be tranformed into a truth. The sloppiness of many recent historical revisionists is astonishing. Plato was neither homosexual nor a pederast. For example, Plato in Laws VIII 636b says that the Cretan and Spartan laws, that are otherwise so excellent, fail with regard to prohibiting pederasty.
Some mistakenly believe that Phaedrus in the "Symposium" says what Plato thought. This gets Phaedrus and Plato wrong, for Phaedrus is praising pederasty, not homosexual intercourse in general, and Plato condemns homosexual intercourse in both the "Laws" and the "Republic." The "Laws" (Book VIII) rejects homosexual intercourse because it can render men unfit for marriage and because it is contrary to nature and a shameless indulgence.
The "Laws" recommends that homosexuality, like adultery, fornication and the use of prostitutes, not be engaged in; that if it is engaged in, it be kept private or closeted, and that if it is discovered, it be punished by deprivation of civil rights, a severe penalty. In effect, the "Laws" recommends criminalization.
In the speeches of Phaedrus and others in the "Symposium" Plato portrays Athenian attitudes of the fifth century B.C. to pederasty, but those attitudes were not his own, nor those of Socrates. Arion (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Arion. Thanks for this. I wouldn't be able to prove that Plato was a pederast and I'd be delighted if it could be proved that he wasn't. All the same, the theory of pederasty expressed in Symposium looks very much like a philosophical attempt at sublimation. That indicates some kind of personal ownership of the issue, yet it's only circumstantial evidence. I agree with you that Plato was against homosexuality and you have cited proof of it (though strictly apeaking it's only proof of his later thoughts about homosexuality).Lucretius (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Planck units

Hi there. Regarding your revert of my changes to the above article, please be aware that the revert I made was due to changes made by a banned editor. In reverting my changes, just be careful to note that in doing so, you are endorsing those, and effectively claiming ownership and responsibility for them. Banned editors have no right to edit wikipedia, especially ones that Jimmy Wales has explicitly instructed we "revert on sight - block on sight". I'm re-reverting for the moment and will explicitly add back in your own section on linear equations - Alison ❤ 22:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops - look like we edit-conflicted. I think the article is okay now, but let me know what you think! - Alison ❤ 22:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Lucretius, but Truthnlove (talk · contribs) is the banned editor.[1] I've verified it myself as I'm also a checkuser. I'm really sorry that this had to happen to you, but please understand that he has no right to edit here. By all means, pick through the history and work out what's best to do, but we cannot encourage what he does here on Wikipedia - Alison ❤ 22:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


That looks just great now! Thanks for being patient throughout this whole mess. I'm really sorry to have dragged you into all of this. Well done on getting it sorted out fairly - Alison ❤ 23:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lucretius, I was just wondering why you removed the section I added about the transformation properties of Planck units. I think that this is an important issue which leads to a lot of confusions, also amongst professional physicists. The Plancks length only has the dimension of a length, but is not a length according to our theory, since it does not contract under Lorentz boosts. I think it would be very helpful if people learned about this early on when learning about Planck units. If you don't agree, please at least tell me why. Also, we can have disagreements on how exactly to express these points, and in this case I would be happy to have some feedback. SuperToll —Preceding comment was added at 10:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lucretius! I understand the confusion. What I wrote is *NOT* doubly special relativity, far from it. DSR is highly controversial, even amongst those who believe there is a need for it, what I wrote is not, and also it is basically the reason DSR is controversial. Again: The Planck length is *not* a length, it just has the unit of length. To make it a length one can either change he definition of l_P or totally change the theory such that it does transform as a length. The latter is DSR, the more subtle and more accepted approach is what I described. Can we put the text back in again now? Regards, SuperToll

[edit] Bad manners

Sorry you felt the insertion of my comment was bad manners. I was merely following what seems to be widespread practice on Wikipedia when answering an individual point amongst several: the reply is inserted directly after the point in question and indented. Have to say, don't much care for the practice myself, it can quite effectively destroy the meaning of the original post if done to excess. SpinningSpark 00:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 2008

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to Solon, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Kerotan-Have a nice day :) 01:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Its just about clogging up the pages history making it harder to navigate, also if you want make huge edits to an article, before you start, place this template on the page, {{inuse}} which should warn users not to edit over you.--Kerotan-Have a nice day :) 11:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)