Talk:Socrates

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2021

The possessive form of the noun 'Socrates' is Socrates's, not Socrates'. Could this please be changed? Thomasrlind (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See [1]. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Spelling error - Intelegence

In the second line of the second paragraph of Source and the Socratic problem the word intelligence is spelt wrong "intelegence". I can't edit yet and unless I'm missing something I thought it ought to be fixed, cheers to anyone who can. Jardsmore (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. You can't yet edit since only autoconfirmed users can edit this article. Cinadon36 11:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2021

I only read the biography and trial section, but this is the worst article I have seen in Wikipedia! Obviously not a native English speaker, but even worse with repeated words, subject and verb mismatch, sentence fragments. ENTIRE piece needs a complete rewrite for spelling, punctuation and grammar. Was edited 23 hours ago, maybe an older version survives? The person who edited this should be prohibited from future edits. 104.184.75.161 (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Disagree with 104.184.75.161 (talk), agree with ScottishFinnishRadish (talk). Show the material that concerns you, and mark the section containing the relevant material, then a rework will be put in place and the article will likely be semi-protected, but only if you show the evidence for your concerns. Please, I stress you mark the section of the material you found. I do not want to read the whole article to find some text which could not exist. ReaIdiot (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Disagree with ScottishFinnishRadish and ReaIdiot, agree with 104.184.75.161 (talk) - Read the article. There are so many instances of bad grammar, misspellings, etc., that you cannot miss them. We do not want to cut and paste the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.170.161.43 (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

In one paragraph,

Sources and the Socratic problem Statue of Socrates in front of the modern-day Academy of Athens

Socrates didn't write down any of his teaching and what we know of him comes from the accounts of others- mainly his pupils the philosopher Plato and the historian Xenophon, his contemporary comedian Aristophanes, and lastly Aristotle, who was born after Socrates’s death. The often contradictory stories of the ancient sources make it incredible difficult to reliably reconstruct Socrates’s thoughts in the proper context- named the Socratic problem.[14]

1.

mainly his pupils the philosopher Plato

should be

mainly his pupils, the philosopher Plato

2.

Xenophon, his contemporary comedian Aristophanes,

should be

Xenophon, comedian Aristophanes (Socrates's contemporary),

3.

make it incredible difficult

should be

make it incredibly difficult

1.

Plato initially tried accurately represent the historical Socrates

should be

Plato initially tried to accurately represent the historical Socrates

2.

naïve representation of Socrates- the latter was a soldier and was unable to articulate Socratic ideas.

uhm, this says that Socrates (the "later") was a soldier and unable to articulate Socratic ideas ...

3.

Aristotle to describe its contemporary newly formed literature genre on Socrates.[30]

huh? not even sure what is being said

4.

Aristotle was not a contemporary of Socrates; he studied next to Plato

No. Aristotle studied UNDER Plato, not with him

5.

Athenian comedians, including Aristophanes, a contemporary of Socrates,

It has already been asserted that Aristopanes and Socrates were contemporaries

6.

Aristophanes limns a caricature of Socrates

"limns" is an archaic word not much in use.

7.

and Phaedo , all

should be

and Phaedo; all

8.

The problem with discerning Socrates' philosophical views

Is it Socrates' or Socrates's? There is inconsistent usage (it is the later)

9.

refers to Socrates in words which make it patent that the doctrine

too wordy. use this:

state that the doctrine

10.

His education was according to laws and custums of

customs, not custums

I am not even a quarter of the way through the article.

These are merely the simple grammatical errors. Composition and construction errors are just as gross.

The article needs a major rewrite, not an edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.170.161.43 (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

11.

bow to public pressure, Socrates stand alone

should be

bow to public pressure, Socrates STOOD alone

12.

Socrates attachment to the law, is the arrest of Leon. As Plato describes in his Apology Socrates and four

misplaced comma. should be

Socrates attachment to the law is the arrest of Leon. As Plato describes in his Apology, Socrates and four

13.

because he did not want to be involved in what he considered a crime and despite the risk of subsequent retribution from the tyrants.[64]

should be

because he did not want to be involved in what he considered a crime, despite the risk of subsequent retribution from the tyrants.[64]

14.

attracting the interest of Athenian crowd and especially youth like a magnet

should be

attracting the interest of Athenian crowds, and especially the youth, like a magnet

15.

having flat turned-up nose, bulky eyes and a belly—his friends used to joke with his appearance

should be

having a flat turned-up nose, bulky eyes and a belly—his friends used to joke about his appearance

16.

also he did consumed much wine

should be

also he consumed much wine

17.

common and accepted in ancient Greece

should be

common and accepted practice in ancient Greece

18.

Politically, he was sitting on the fence in terms of the rivalry between the democrats and the oligarchs in the ancient Athens- he criticizes sharply both while they were on power.

five edits, one sentence

Politically, he sat on the fence in terms of the rivalry between the democrats and the oligarchs in ancient Athens- he criticized both sharply while they were in power.

19.

According to the then custom, he proposed a penalty (in his case Socrates offered some money)

two edits, one sentence

According to custom, he proposed a penalty (in his case, Socrates offered some money)

20.

In 404 BCE, Athenians were crashed by Spartans

should be

In 404 BCE, Athenians were crushed by Spartans

21.

some Athenians organized to overtop the tyrants

should be

some Athenians organized to overthrow the tyrants

22.

But as Spartans left again, democrates seized

democrats, not crates

23.

In such a political tensed climate

tense, not tensed

24.

climate, in 399 Socrates

should be

climate, in 399, Socrates

25.

Meletus, who asked for death penalty

should be

Meletus, who asked for the death penalty

Ok. I quit. I am not even a third of the way through the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.170.161.43 (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Formatting of references sections

I'm confused as to why this article appears to have duplicate sections for sources, one called "References" and the other "Sources". If both contain sources that are used in the article, should they not be merged? Otherwise I think that one of them should be renamed "Further reading" or similar. I noticed this because a recent edit added Vlastos (1991) to the second section, creating an sfn "multiple-target" error since it's already present in the first section. Additionally the first section needs sorting by author, but that can happen once the duplication has been resolved. Ideas? Wham2001 (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Wham2001:. It is because this article is going a reconstruction. I have inserted text using shortened footnote template, and this creates the need of sources. The reason I am using sfn, is because, same books might be used several times, citing different pages. It is much more handy. I hope in a month or so, I will finish my work with Socrates and nominate the article for GA. That is my plan. But most importantly, to try to explain the major thoughts of Socrates and their interpretations- not merely mentioning some well known axioms. Anyway I will fix the ref section problem by then.. Cinadon36 12:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Cinadon36, aha – I see. Looking forwards to reading the final product! I am also very much in favor of sfn for articles that are based significantly on books; most of my editing at the moment is tidying up the use of sfn and the associated source lists. Thanks for the explanation, and let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

kudos to you both for the work on this. TY. — Ched (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Cinadon36 is doing all the work: I'm just making a nuisance of myself Wham2001 (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Moments ago I completed a quick copy-edit of the section Trial of Socrates, however, now that I've read this discussion, I realize that it may conflict with work that is already in progress by other editors. Apologies if this creates an edit conflict.20:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for your comments, and @Waldhorn: thanks for your c/e-ing the article. Pls jump in at any time. :) Cinadon36 04:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

When to remove template

I'd suggest removing the {expansion} template if it hasn't been edited in five days, not three days, since after a three day hiatus, I checked, and the reconstruction was active, so don't be quick to remove it. ReaIdiot (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2021

In "Philosophy" chapter in "Socratic eudaimonism and intellectualism" entry the 5th and 6th sentences are almost identical to the 12th and 13th. Please remove the 5th and 6th to avoid unnecessary information repetition. For reference:

5th, 6th: Socrates total rejection of acting against your impulses or beliefs (named akrasia ) has puzzled scholars. Most scholars believe that Socrates leaves no space for irrational desires, even though some claim that Socrates acknowledge the existence of irrational motivations but do not have a primary role when someone is judging what action would he take.

12th, 13th: Socrates total rejection of akrasia (acting because of your irrational passions contrary to your knowledge or beliefs) has puzzled scholars. Most scholars believe that Socrates leaves no space for irrational desires, even though some claim that Socrates acknowledge the existence of irrational motivations but do not have a primary role when someone is judging what action would he take.

The 12th and 13th sentences are more suitable since they provide the explanation of term "akrasia". Furthermore sentences should not be moved in the 5th and 6th place because they fit the context provided in 11th sentence better. Szary0K (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
References

Well spotted, done. Cinadon36 09:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Grammar issues throughout

Hi there! Thanks for everyone’s hard work on the page. I’ve noticed a number of grammatical errors, particularly in the Philosophy section. Taking this sentence as an example, issues capitalised.

Socrates asks his interlocutor for a definition of the subject, then Socrates will (CHANGE OF TENSE?) ask more questions where the answers of the interlocutor will be in odds (AT ODDS) with his first definition, with the conclusion (THAT) the opinion of the expert is wrong.

Happy to help with these issues and made an account specifically to do so - will be back in time once account is established. MyriadKittens (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@MyriadKittens:, thanks for your willingness to assist in grammar and spelling. I am not a native English speaker, so many of my edits need copy/editing. Glad to help in case you have any questions. Cinadon36 06:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Socrates/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ardenter (talk · contribs) 06:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Beginning

Hello! I'm going to review this over the coming days.

The box

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Stability

The content has been moderately changed recently for this review, but there are no edit wars or disputes. It seems good. Ardenter (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Images

The images for the majority of the article are illustrative. However, there is a lack of images in the philosophy section. I'm going to review 6b once sufficient images are added. Ardenter (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Scratch that. After reviewing the rest of this article, I'm going to mark 6b negatively for now and check 6a. Ardenter (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

All images appear legitimate. Ardenter (talk) 07:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

5 images have been added. [2], [3],[4], [5], [6]. Cinadon36 08:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Manual of Style and neutral point of view at present

There appear to be quite a few Manual of Style issues. The section "Virtue and Knowledge" should be "Virtue and knowledge". A lot have words to watch. "But it contradicts other statements of Socrates, when he claims he has knowledge" would adhere as "In other statements by Socrates, he claims he has knowledge." "It was this sign that prevented Socrates from entering into politics, Socrates claimed at his trial" would adhere as "Socrates claimed at his trial that this sign prevented Socrates from entering into politics." Those should serve as an example. It needs serious clean up regarding words to watch and needs to clearer define who is making points. The article needs a lot of revisions here. I'm going to fail these now. Ardenter (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ardenter:, may I kindly ask, why have you marked negatively on npov, so I could improve the article? No narrative is getting more or less attention, promoted or demoted- I was reflecting literature. Are you referring to "words to watch"? If so, can you point to few examples pls? Thanks! Cinadon36 08:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

NPOV is mostly because of the words to watch policy. For example, "But it contradicts other statements of Socrates, when he claims he has knowledge". I'd just recommend doing a Ctrl+f search for "pointed out", "but", "however", and other words to watch and removing them. I think then the article would have NPOV then. Have a good day! Ardenter (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok @Ardenter: I will try to remove most words, even though I am not too sure that they necessarily introduce a POV perspective. Surely, they are used frequently in order to downgrade an opinion, esp. in controversial articles relating to history, religion or politics but I think this is not the case in this article. (oh! did I just introduce my POV?) I think the cases that introduce a pov, could be detected if the two sentences, are having a different citation. So, a user adds a referenced sentence, another user who wants to disqualify the first, adds a following sentence (referenced), starting with a "but" or "however". Anywayz....I will see what I can do and reply in detail. Cinadon36 05:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

All "however"s have been removed,[7] except one that was part of a quotation. It wasn't hard. Now, going for the "but"s. Cinadon36 06:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I removed many "but"s, [8] but not all. Some where within quotations, whereas others, they introduce an antithesis that is sourced. I do not consider them as inserting POV.Cinadon36 07:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I removed 2 out of three "despite"s [9]. The one left is not producing "implications that are not supported by the sources." (pre MOS:EDITORIAL). Neither the 2 left out I suppose, but they were introducing rather trivial info. Cinadon36 07:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Though, removed [10] Cinadon36 07:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Coverage

The article seems solid in its coverage. It covers each part of Socrates' life in appropriate depth. I'm going to say yes for 3. Ardenter (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I've done some plagiarism checks. Everything seems fine. Checking off.

References

All references are listed and appear reliable. Checking off.

Grammar

There needs a couple grammar revisions. "Irony of Socrates is so subtle and slightly humorous, that often leaves reader wondering if Socrates is making an intentional pun" would fit as "The irony of Socrates is so subtle and slightly humorous, that often leaves the reader wondering if Socrates is making an intentional pun." I think that each sentence should be checked for grammar by the nominator.

Conclusion

I'm going to go with wait for now. A lot of the problems here are, with effort, easily overcomable. Once you think it's ready, notify me and I'll check for the last problems. If you want to have a full list of the problematic sentences, also notify me. Have a good day!

Hi @Ardenter: Thanks for taking some time to review this article. I am not a native English speaker, and even in my own language I rely on others to help me on grammar and spelling. The article is pending a review from Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, but since it seems it s delaying, I will ask from good co-Wikipedians @Ktrimi991 and Resnjari: if they could be kind enough to assist. Mates, can you help, pls? Cinadon36 16:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I will check every sentence of the article tomorrow. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, I just made a bunch of grammar edits, particularly in the "Biography" section. Hope that's helpful. Wolfdog (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

They certainly are helpful. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey, @Calthinus: can you too give some help? Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I can give it a look. --Calthinus (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks Calthinus! If you need any clarifications, pls ask me! Cinadon36 16:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The lead section should be reviewed and updated for errors following the many additions made above in this review. For example, Socrates is stated to "start" the dialogues with the others. This is not the case in the Symposium, for example, where "Socrates is late to arrive because he became lost in thought on the way. When they are done eating, Eryximachus takes the suggestion made by Phaedrus, that they should all make a speech in praise of Eros, the god of love and desire. It will be a competition of speeches to be judged by Dionysus. It is anticipated that the speeches will ultimately be bested by Socrates, who speaks last." The lead section should be corrected and updated based on all the revisions made during the last month by various editors. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This should be a separate section, but nevertheless, here is my answer. Intro should reflect main body of the article. Main body of the article should reflect RS. Our interpretations after reading primary sources, or what other WP articles says, do not matter. I inserted a phrase in the main body that clarifies that Socrates initiates the discussion. Maybe the dialogues do not start with Socrates, but the philosophical essence of the dialogues, starts with Socrates asking what is F-ness? Benson 2011 says so, is enough for me. Cinadon36 18:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Per MOS:LEADLENGTH the lead should be three or four paragraphs (probably four) as the article is 55,052 characters [11]. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Done, 3 paragraphs now. Cinadon36 20:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)