Talk:Heraclitus

Reference for cosmos is missing

The paragraph under fire states that

"This quotation is the earliest use of kosmos in any extant Greek text.[5]", but there is no quotation metioning cosmos.

Has that been accidentally deleted and the reference stayed?

Hskoppek (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm removing it, looks like kosmos is in Homer, so even if its used in a different sense than Heraclitus uses it the statement just isn't true. - car chasm (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Removing Mass Amounts of Original Research

After reading this article and a couple of the sources it cites I've realized almost all of the content here is based on WP:SYNTH and other WP:NOR violations. I'm removing anything that I can't verify as I cross-check content with the secondary sources that are cited. I hope this isn't controversial, but given that Heraclitus wrote in Ionic Greek, and there's a lot of debate among classical scholars about what any of his quotations mean, it's really not possible to make conclusions about Heraclitus based on an english translation of the fragments, without citations from scholarly sources. I'm assuming that any existing attempts to do so are probably not going to be verified by any reliable sources. I also knocked the assessment down to Start-class as most of the cited portions of the article are really only held together by some quotes of a source that's over a hundred years old. - car chasm (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

For ancient subjects like this, much of what's worth citing is extremely old, and many things are considered long-settled. In such cases articles do not benefit from efforts to substitute newer sources.Teishin (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is just untrue - most pre-socratic philosophers have been radically re-evaluated in the past 100 years and nothing in this field is considered "long-settled" whatsoever. There are multiple scholars who can be cited such as Martin Litchfield West who have covered interpretations of Heraclitus and other pre-socratic philosophers in detail. Why are you making the assumption that the field has not changed? - car chasm (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Carchasm Sure, there are some new interpretations, but in many cases those have not overturned older interpretations. They're just alternative interpretations. Why are you projecting onto me an assumption that the field is unchanging and then proclaiming that I'm saying things that are "just untrue"? Teishin (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Teishin: - You said many things are considered long-settled - and that's not true at all. Ideas like "Heraclitus' concept of logos" or the idea that he thought the arche was fire are generally not taken seriously by scholars today. The new interpretations often do overturn the old interpretations, especially as we learn more about how certain words were used in Ancient Greek (compare LSJ to Middle Liddell). The old interpretations probably do still merit some inclusion, probably in a criticism/influence section, but they should not be referenced as if they are reliable academic sources. The idea that later ancient commentators had an accurate reading of Heraclitus is basically discredited and certainly no longer assumed. Citing Burnet or Zeller, for example, is probably iffy: if Burnet is analyzed by later secondary sources like West or Kahn, or even better by something like the Oxford/Cambridge handbooks then he should be cited alongside them, but it would be wrong to assume that anything he interpreted was automatically correct. That assumption itself needs to be supported by actually reliable citations.

In academic research it also isn't valid to say anything is "just an alternative interpretation" - there's a misconception often that because humanities and social sciences deal with less objective criteria, that every interpretation is good as every other. This is not the case generally, and it's certainly not the case on wikipedia: WP:V and WP:NOR are fairly clear on this. - car chasm (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Impermanence

So, Carchasm, why don't you think that it isn't WP:OBV that the Heraclitean concepts of panta rei and becoming refer to the concept known as impermanence? And if so, why are you not objecting to how this is treated at more length in our article at Impermanence#Western_philosophy? Teishin (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I am objecting to how that other article treats things - I tagged it for that reason (though I wouldn't need to, necessarily). In philosophy, the fact that two words appear to be synonyms in normal English does not imply that they are the same concept: Being and Essence, for example are often used interchangeably in colloquial english, but I hope we already agree that they are very different philosophical concepts. With Heraclitus especially, the assumption that a specific philosophical concept from Eastern philosophy is the same thing is an even worse assumption to make - considering he lived in the Persian empire, and many of his ideas have a remarkable resemblance to both the early Upanishads and Zoroastrianism, which were probably from around the same time. There are whole books dedicated to the subject and debating which direction the influence went, if both were influenced by a common ancestor, etc. - one book that I happen to own is "Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient" which generally takes the common ancestor view. But you can't just assume that the similarity or apparent resemblance means they are the same - different views, even if they start from the same initial position, often develop over time into distinctly different philosophical viewpoints. I would recommend removing the information about Heraclitus from the article on impermanence and making that article focused on Buddhism. Both articles should probably be linked to each other in a "See also" section, or the potential chains of influence should be discussed (with citations) in the main bodies of the respective articles.

But saying Heraclitus' philosophy of becoming/flux/panta rhei is "the same" as how a Buddhist thinks of Impermanence is just plain wrong. - car chasm (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Carchasm, I would appreciate if you would avoid ascribing to me positions that I do not take and then making a spectacle of declaring those positions "just plain wrong." I never said Heraclitus' philosophy of becoming/flux/panta rhei is "the same" as how a Buddhist thinks of Impermanence. It appears that you are taking the position that anicca and the term commonly used to translate that term into English, "impermanence," are perfectly and exclusively equated with each other and that the English term now excludes all other conceptions of impermanence. As for connecting Heraclitian thought with Eastern thought, regardless of how this happened, there would seem to be no reason to insist here on some directionality nor reason to insist general concepts require siloing by culture. We don't carve up God that way. Why should this topic be uniquely different from God? BTW, "Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient" is a half-century old. Based on the standards you say you have about age of sources, this would seem not to meet your own standards. Teishin (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Teishin: West's book is still heavily cited, and was republished in a second edition in 2002, so I would consider it a reliable source. But regardless, I used it as an example here of why you need to support this assertion and cannot claim "blue sky." I also have no idea what "anicca" even is - but that's irrelevant: wikipedia is not a dictionary and so the fact that Heraclitus' philosophy is similar to the common word "Impermenance" does not mean that those two words refer to the same idea. God is actually split up into several pages and there's a whole field of study on comparative religion that deals with whether conceptions of God are the same. There's been so much discussion about that academically that God needs several subpages even to conclude that conceptions of God aren't necessarily the same. That's very different from a single editor deciding that two words that are similar enough that the underlying concepts and philosophical principles are automatically the same.

As with everything else, I have no actual strong opinion here on what is true one way or another and no interest in discussing that. It might be the case that there's a whole academic book full of review articles on the mutual influences of Buddhism, Hinduis, and Zoroastrianism on Heraclitus that you can add to both articles - if you cite it, I sure won't fight you on that, and would actually like to read that. I care exclusively about what can be verified in reliable academic sources, and what assumptions are or are not valid to make in philosophy without citations. - car chasm (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

So, you "have no idea what 'anicca' is." This would appear to be your basis for being unable to understand WP:BLUESKY. Sorry, but this is not grounds for overturning what is here and demanding other editors take on the burden of proof against what you've overturned.

Yup, there's lots of research on mutual influences among the cultures of antiquity. As I said before, this is not a justification for siloing. It's beside the point.

And as your accusation "That's very different from a single editor deciding that two words that are similar enough that the underlying concepts and philosophical principles are automatically the same" I must point out that the issue here is not that, but that a single editor - who has no idea of what 'anicca' is - has decided that whatever 'anicca' is, it is so utterly dissimilar to the underlying concepts and philosophical principles of some other philosophies that these concepts and principles do not have a sufficient family resemblance such that they can be discussed as parts of an overall general topic as has been Wikipedia's long-standing treatment. Teishin (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Please read the rest of my prior reply @Teishin: - if you support these claims with reliable sources, i have no objection to them whatsoever. Everything in an infobox should be supported by a piece of information with citation in the main body. If you want to start a section on influences for Heraclitus and add a bit about this, and cite some academic sources supporting this conclusion - I encourage you to do so. Until that is written though, impermanence should not be linked in the infobox. As someone with no idea what "anicca" is, like most hypothetical readers of this page, I need to be able to verify claims made in this article. The burden of proof belongs to someone adding material without citation - this is a core wikipedia content policy. - car chasm (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

... inappropriate criticism

criticism secrion contains only praise 109.245.227.67 (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

This was a fair point, I changed it to legacy :). - car chasm (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Re:Zoroastrianism

@LouisAragon: - I reverted your additions from Encyclopedia Iranica - reading the article, it only mentions that Heraclitus may have mentioned the Magi in one of his fragments, not that he was traditionally considered the first to have written on them. From other sources I've read on Heraclitus (such as Kahn 1979 cited in the article), the ascription of this fragment is doubted not due to forgery but because it's not clear where the quotation of Heraclitus begins - Fragment 14 is ambiguous in the original Greek, and it might be the author quoting Heraclitus who is mentioning Dionysians and Magians and then immediately quoting Heraclitus words as "The mysteries practised among men are unholy mysteries." So we can't draw any conclusions of our own from that that diverge from the reliable sources.

Zoroastrian influences on Heraclitus are certainly being investigated by scholars due to the similarities with Fire (such as by West 1971 cited in the article), but we can't really conclude that Zoroastrianism was invented or influenced by Heraclitus from that per the sources. I had added a bit to the wikipedia article in the section on cosmology citing West on it if you want to take a look at it. But as the Iranica article notes, beyond some ascriptions of Heraclitus as a son of an aristocratic family in Ephesus, Further biographical details are derived from traditions of questionable historicity. Let me know if you have any concerns with that! - car chasm (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Carchasm:

• "...it only mentions that Heraclitus may have mentioned the Magi in one of his fragments, not that he was traditionally considered the first to have written on them."

The very first sentence of the Iranica article says this:[1] "HERACLEITUS OF EPHESUS, Greek philosopher traditionally credited as the first to have written on the magi.

• "From other sources I've read on Heraclitus (such as Kahn 1979 cited in the article), the ascription of this fragment is doubted not due to forgery but because it's not clear where the quotation of Heraclitus begins"

Kahn is a 1979 source. The Iranica entry, written by Classicist and Iranologist Josef Wiesehöfer, is from 2003. Not sure why you think it would be prudent to remove Wiesehofer in its entirety just because it doesn't fully overlap with the 1979 Kahn source? Unless you can demonstrate that Wiesehofer is WP:FRINGE, they can perfectly co-exist in this article.

• "So we can't draw any conclusions"

I didn't draw any conclusions. I fully adhered to the Iranica source and even used quotes. Please don't insinuate as if I tried to; it is a violation of WP:ASPERSIONS.

I would like to see sound policy-based arguments that would vet against the inclusion of Wiesehöfer. Thanks, - LouisAragon (talk) 12:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Well no, I don't think Weisehofer is WP:FRINGE at all, but I've read the same sources he's cited (Kahn and West), which I cited for you above. Weisehofer isn't independent of those sources - he's also citing them as his main sources, as you can see at the bottom of the Iranica page. Saying that Heraclitus is a "source of the ancient Iranian religion" isn't accurate and is potentially misleading, as there is a only single mention of the word "Magians" in a paragraph of another ancient writer's work. The quote I showed you is the same one that Weisehofer is citing. I believe that you may have inadvertently performed WP:SYNTH here, I'm not accusing you of doing anything on purpose.

But additionally, Weisehofer is not really a WP:RS here - he's a tertiary source who is writing an encyclopedia article. Like I said above, I've read the books he's citing and cited them in the article, and it's more complicated than you presented it in your edit. - car chasm (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, "traditionally credited as the first to have written on the magi" may be something relevant to an article in an encyclopedia on Iran, so I'm not really faulting Wiesehofer here for oversimplifying a complicated issue - respected scholars do that all the time, especially in works intended for a more general audience. But the actual questions of influence are much more complicated - West spends a whole chapter and part of another of "Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient" on this issue. This article, which is much longer than Weisehofer's but is still lacking quite a lot of content, can afford the space to explain the issue more thoroughly, rather than saying Among other things, the role he assigns to fire as the archetype of constant flux has led scholars to seek Iranian roots in Heracleitian thought. In frag. 14, Magi are mentioned together with various people who engage in Bacchanal rituals; the authenticity of this fragment is, however, debated. we can actually discuss the potential Iranian roots in Heraclitean thought. - car chasm (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I've added a bit more from West in the cosmology section to describe the influences of fire from Zoroastrianism - I hope you see what I'm talking about if I haven't explained it well on this talk page but my objection to the addition is much more about the fact that this is a really complex subject and that it's easy to draw conclusions that aren't necessarily supported by the evidence from an abridgement or summary of the issue, because all the surviving texts are potentially influenced by each other. West develops a fairly neutral theory of mutual influence across cultures from the various scholarly sources he cites on Zoroastrian, Vedic, Greek, and Egyptian cosmologies, but that requires a much longer exposition than Weisehofer - a shorter description of influence is much more likely to be misleading. - car chasm (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Carchasm: I can agree with this. Thanks for expanding the article. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Image tracked down

I tracked down the source of one previous image of Heraclitus, here. Were these based on actual sculptures in the Vatican or some place, or imagined? Perhaps a silly question, but his depiction of Thales seems so standard it seems like there is a real herm out there to be ignored. Cake (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

could you clarify a bit what you're suggesting here? the talk page is for the article itself, but im struggling to find any specific changes to the article you're proposing. - car chasm (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The linked image (or another version of it, this one) was previously in the article, and was presumably removed due to it being unsourced, and/or not from antiquity. I've found the source, and it leaves me wondering if there is a bust of Heraclitus somewhere which the image reproduces. If it's a drawing from a bust in the Vatican (such as we have of Bias of Priene) or similar, then it seems to me a good image for the article. If it's completely from the artist's imagination, I can understand prefering a different one. Cake (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I agree. If we can find any proof that it's not from the artist's imagination, and it's actually based on a bust from antiquity, then that picture (or a picture of the bust itself...) would be fine. If we can't find anything sourcing it though I think we should keep the current picture. - car chasm (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

When I tried to improve upon the article that was previously mostly Greek quotes to work with - which you further improved upon - I had searched far and wide for a sculpture from antiquity somewhere. It's too long ago for me to recall with certainty, but I think the one being used wasn't confidently identified as Heraclitus. I think it was also identified as Democritus or somebody. It's also possible it's fine and I am confusing it with another one. Regardless, the above drawing was the best I found. Sometimes the image is the same but has him crying, which seems to suggest the imagined "weeping philosopher", sometimes it seems not to. Further, the one on commons is on a sheet of several busts, some of which are copied from sculptures like Seneca is Pseudo-Seneca, and some other like Thales which seem so often reproduced for "how he looked" that it must come from some sculpture somewhere, yet I've never seen it. Your parenthetical note is what I am hoping for. That this rambling screed can lead to finding a marble or bronze bust or sculpture. I feel I should expect one somewhere. Cake (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

And after checking, yes, the current profile pic is the one also identified as Democritus, and has no reason I've found for why it's identified as Heraclitus. In fact I found "One need only list the suggested identifications for a portrait from the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum - Demokritos, Solon, Aristotle, Philopoemen, Thales - to see that such a project is fragile at best". Pseudo-Seneca also from the Villa of the Papyri. Cake (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, seems like we probably shouldn't use the current picture then, I've just changed it back to the old one. - car chasm (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It stood out from all the seemingly ancient depictions I could find that weren't "Some philosopher of some kind, possibly Heraclitus" or (at least that I could see) working on a theme like Heraclitus-as-crying or Heraclitus-as-cynic. Unless that line on his face is a tear (it seems less prominent in the original). Tried to avoid using some Dutch painting or whatever but of course it is possible one might be forced. To think Bias has a face but Heraclitus doesn't. I'm sure there are many similar cases but that is an odd one. Cake (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Here is another one I'd like to know more about. Cake (talk) 08:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Here is one source which says there are two busts at least provisionally identified as Heraclitus. Note there's also one of Thales, and those two having busts was my initial suspicion. And no question mark by his name. Cake (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The above is number 2 from the Hall of Philosophers, identified (at least at one point) as Heraclitus. Gotta find 3, which is also him. The one which is used in the article looks an awful lot like Aristophanes, note the headband. It probably used to be identified as Heraclitus, or some such. Cake (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I've sort of figured it out. See this picture. The top two left are said to be Heraclitus, labeled as #2 and #3. Next to Socrates who is 4 (that helped). We have 3. We don't have 2. There is one engraving which seems to use 2. Cake (talk) 06:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Peirce influenced by Heraclitus?

I don't see any sources which state the influence coming from Heraclitus, but marking it down here in case I do or somebody else does, the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce summarized his doctrine of continuity as "Everything swims." Cake (talk) 08:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

GOCE copy edit

Some notes:

• In general, the organization should be reworked. The writings section doesn't seem to have a coherent theme, and other sections also discuss his writings. Some of the sections, such as "Time" and "Aristotle" are stubs and can be folded into something else. It's also not clear to me why "Logos" and "Ethos" are under the "Cosmoloy" heading.
• Not all references are formatted using {{cite}} templates.
• Add transliteration markup.
• Attribute philosophical views to particular philosophers. Don't use "some say" (see MOS:WEASEL).
• The first sentence in the section on "The obscure" comes out of nowhere; what is the "forever" being referred to?
• Punctuation goes outside of the quotation mark on Wikipedia (MOS:LQ).
• Be careful with attributing emotions/feelings to Heraclitus (e.g., Heraclitus "liked" or "disliked").
• The paragraph beginning "Several fragments seem to relate to these two concepts" (and the others like it with strings of quotes from Heraclitus) feel like OR. The quotes should be discussed in the context of secondary literature.
• Left some cleanup tags.

voorts (talk/contributions) 02:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Derveni papyrus?

the derveni papyrus is mentioned in the article, but we don't discuss it in detail. just making a note here that that's something we might want to expand on, there's certainly WP:RS we can draw on from the past 20 years to do so - car chasm (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Almost 😊 136.57.140.205 (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

That was definitely me trying to keep a prior editors work rather than knowing what I'm talking about. What more is there to say about the Derveni papyrus other than it contained B3 and B94? Cake (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

There's been a fair bit of literature on how other content in the Derveni Papyrus might relate to Heraclitus' thought and the link between Heraclitus and Orphism in later classical philosophy that's implied by the fact that those are the principal sources drawn on by the commentator, for example see:

* Sider, David (1997). Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus. pp. 129–148. Retrieved 23 April 2024.

Probably not critical for something like GAN, but it's a more recent area of interest in scholarly work on Heraclitus, and I think it's something we'd want for a comprehensive article. Psychastes (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The parallels between Pythagoras and Orphism like in Russell's History are already over my head. I probably need to read an Orphism for Dummies at some point. I know they like music, at least. Cake (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: MisterCake (talk · contribs) 02:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Patrick Welsh (talk · contribs) 20:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi MisterCake, I'll take this on. It's nice to see the pre-Socratics getting attention on Wikipedia! I have some initial impressions to share, and I will continue to follow up over the next few days. Also note that while I've been on the other side of GAN and have contributed to PR and FAC, this is my first GA review. Please bear with me as I learn the ropes. Cheers, Patrick (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   There are some minor issues with when we are provided with the Greek original and with what Greek terms the reader is expected to know (which should probably be zero), but I see no problem with the English prose and grammar.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig's Copyvio Detector turns up five double-digit hits, but the matches are overwhelmingly Heraclitus' own fragments. I see no reason for concern here.

   See below for the spot-check, which is (edit: mostly/almost) a pass.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   This is a pass per the guidelines. Just as a style suggestion, however, I'd consider cutting back the number of artistic renderings of figures from antiquity.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial impressions

This article looks promising, but I do have some general concerns:

1. The last paragraph of the lead contains Greek terms that will be Greek to many readers. The lead also omits coverage of the Legacy section, which occupies a large part of the article.
2. The Philosophy section is heavy on primary quotes that cannot be expected to speak for themselves.
3. The Legacy section, especially the Modern part, does not have a clear principle of selection and sometimes veers into what looks to me like OR or trivia. For instance:
   1. Even if true, is there good reason to mention that Shakespeare could have had Heraclitus in mind when writing the character of Antonio?
   2. I have not looked at the sources, but it sounds rather fringe to say that Spinoza is basically just an edit of Heraclitus.
   3. Hegel routinely spoke very highly of the many philosophers that he presents as anticipating his own philosophical insights. My previous, unrelated efforts to find evidence of actual influence by Heraclitus, however, turned up nothing. This makes me worry about the rest of the section.
   4. With Wilde as with Shakespeare. I would think it would require conclusive evidence of a major influence for this to merit mention in an encyclopedia article on Heraclitus.
4. The reference format is inconsistent. This is okay per the GA criteria, but would be nice to see cleaned up if anyone were at all inclined. What is important is that the reader is able to locate the claim in the source for confirmation. While sometimes it is appropriate to source something to a whole chapter, article, or even book, many of the claims cited to just Graham 2019, for instance, should have section numbers.

More forthcoming — Patrick (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Apeiron seems to me best left untranslated and linked, but if you think it needs to be also I will try to fit it in. On Hegel's influence on Heraclitus, one might cite the Graham Priest bit on motion mentioned in this article. I'll have to reflect or edit more on other comments. Did my best with the fragment sourcing. Before I ever edited it the Moreelse image was the article's main image. Hopefully this is better. Cake (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Lead

I'll come back to this again at the end, but for now just two notes:

• I believe that MOS:INTRO requires a translation or definition of "apeiron". The format used for "logos" would work nicely, but I leave it up to you.
• I would edit the last paragraph (or just the relevant sentence) to set up the problem of the arche before providing the alternative positions offered by other pre-Socratics. Patrick (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• The claim about fire as arche in the fourth paragraph is at odds with the body of the article. Patrick (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Life

• This section is good on content, which accords with the account in Kirk, Raven, and Schofield (1983), pp. 181–83.

• At least one reference needs a page number. Wheelwright needs additional publishing information. I'm also confused to see Michelangelo and the Pope's Ceiling used as a reference for the life of Heraclitus. It will be a pass once this is cleaned up. Patrick (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• This section is a pass. Patrick (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

On Nature

• The Paul Robert Schuster source needs more bibliographic data. So does Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks by Friedrich Nietzsche.

• Theophrastus could use a descriptor on first mention.

• For consistancy, "asaphesteron" should also be provided in Greek characters.

• Should there be a language template flagging the brief shift to Latin?

• Organization and content are good. This section will be a pass once these minor issues are addressed.

Patrick (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

This section is a pass. Patrick (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Philosophy

• I find the structure of this section confusing. Most conspicuously, there are some very short subsections (Panta rhei, Ethos, Time) that seem like they ought to be incorporated under more general headings (or else expanded into proper sections of their own).

It is not part of the GA criteria, but when I'm editing long or complicated sections of an article, I like to include a section lead to establish in advance the structure/flow/development of its subsections. This helps me clarify my own thought and also prepares the reader. It's also a good way to explicitly establish breadth of coverage (criterion 3), although it is not necessary that you do this so directly.

From an external perspective it would make sense, for instance, to do a general section on opposites and flux and then sections on cosmology and ethics. A better way to proceed, however, would probably be to consult a few overview sources and take your cues from them. The SEP article is one such source. The IEP is another peer-reviewed source with an article on Heraclitus[2] (although in this case they're by the same author, which makes the second somewhat less valuable). The TOCs from longer studies could also be consulted for this purpose without needing to read the full works.

• There are some paragraphs and sections that cite ancient sources without explication from secondary sources, which is required by criterion 2 (and also just by the inherent difficulties posed by Heraclitus' oracular style).

• I'll wait until you have a chance to address these issues with section structure and secondary sources before giving it a closer read. Patrick (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'm going through now and leaving some maintenance tags on items, e.g., page numbers needed, where that seems easier than listing them here.
• Could it be more directly explained how strife is not just necessary, but is justice? I think this would involve stating more directly why justice was identified with harmony, but I'm not sure. Especially since the penultimate paragraph is about violence and war, it would be nice to clarify how Heraclitus's position is different than Plato's Thrasymachus on justice as "the advantage of the stronger" (if it is, in fact, different).
• The final claim about natural law doesn't seem to me to fit in this section. It also seems like it deserves more discussion than it gets. After all, the natural tradition remains alive and well today.

I would also expect it to be closely linked to his concepts of the kosmos and logos. But I could be wrong about this; maybe they actually are not for Heraclitus (or scholars simply cannot agree). In any case, I would either elaborate the claim of this last paragraph to make it clear why it is included here, or else I would move it. Defending the polis because it is divine will seems (at least to me) quite different from, if not at odds with, the more general claims about opposition, conflict, and war. Patrick (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Moving on to "Fire", I think the general problem of the arche deserves a few sentences of explanation at the beginning.
• As with natural law, the first use of "kosmos" seems more important than it is treated in the article. Follow the sources, of course, but if they expand on this, I would consider adding a little bit more.
• Could you fix the blockquote formatting? I started to do this myself and then noticed that the second contains two separate quotes. So it's probably best for you to handle.
• I'm not sure the section on time fits here. Patrick (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• "God and the soul" would benefit from a general definition of psyche to distinguish it from the Christian concept more dominant today. Patrick (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• In "Foreign influences", can you check the punctuation on titles, i.e., what's a book, what's a section, is there some non-standard set of conventions that should be followed? Patrick (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• This section is a pass. Patrick (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Legacy

• Before I go through this section in more detail could you check for material cited only to primary sources? The significance of the comments of subsequent thinkers to Heraclitus' legacy should be established by the existence of a secondary literature (preferably on Heraclitus) that mentions them. Otherwise, we are arguably in OR territory, which is a violation of criterion 2.c.

• I would also consider removing material not supported by scholarly or otherwise high-quality sources. For the purposes of this review, however, anything reliable is good for a pass. Some of this is a matter of editorial judgment, but there is some stuff here for which I doubt there are sources that would

• Also, if you can't get to all this right away, that's fine—just let me know. The way the review process works makes it impossible to block out time in advance. Patrick (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Is Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough. The Theology of Justin Martyr. a reliable source on this matter? If so, it needs a page reference.
• ekpyrosis needs to be defined.
• Pyrrhonism should be briefly defined.
• What is Pyrrho's doctrine "No More This than That"?
• The rest of "Pyrrhonists" still needs support from secondary sources.

more to follow — Patrick (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Actually, I'll just state a general concern and wait for you to tag me when you think the rest of this section is ready before I continue with a close read. Just so you know where I'm coming from, my central concern here is WP:UNDO (e.g., Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all and WP:PROPORTION (e.g., a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.), two subsections of WP:NPOV. (In this case, I would frame the issues I see as WP:OR, but this doesn't matter here because they're both in the GA criteria.) The WP:TRIVA guideline does not apply as directly, but you might also look at this (e.g., Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist. A Wikipedia article may include a subject's cultural impact by summarizing its coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources (e.g., a dictionary or encyclopedia). A source should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item.).
• Unrelated suggestion: Would it make sense to separate Heraclitus' philosophical legacy from his legacy in culture and the arts? Patrick (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• I tried to abide by your advice. Graham's source about criticism of the Ionian philosophy gives at least 3 major schools of thought on Heraclitus. Flux theorists. Constancy-theorists or whatever is the opposite, and his own view, revolutionary theorists who think he is a process philosopher. It's also what he directed me to when I corresponded with him. Graham writing the Stanford article shows his views are well respected, while the other two are well documented by Graham among others. It also shows there's even more than three. I hope I covered them all with the weight they deserve. I've also considered separating the philosophical influence from the artistic influence but it seems awful hard to do. Even medicine for instance was so tied with philosophy in the ancient times. Cake (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Ancient section is a pass. More specifics on my reservations about the Modern section forthcoming. Patrick (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• As far as I can determine, most of my issues with the Modern section fall into a sort of gray area with respect to GA criteria 2–4, with more experienced editors disagreeing upon how strictly to interpret them. I will do my best to flag what is required and what would be above and beyond. But please do say so if you feel I'm pressing for something beyond what is required.
• On a loose interpretation, any claim supported by a WP:RS is A-okay. On a stricter interpretation of 2.c, a claim that something is a part of Heraclitus' legacy that is not cited to a source about Heraclitus and his legacy is WP:OR for making the claim that it is. What counts as unnecessary detail per criterion 3.b is also a matter of editorial judgment.

• For instance, I think the Cartesianism section is technically a pass—even though I think the article would be stronger without it. It's sourced to two counter-histories presenting explicitly non-standard readings of the history of philosophy, one 19th-century source, and a poet. In my own editorial judgment, this makes it potentially misleading to many readers, and distracting or confusing to others more familiar with the history of philosophy.

(Also, Spinoza should not be treated under the heading of Cartesianism, as he is quite famously a substance monist.)

• I feel more or less the same about the section on British empiricism. A very quick search indicates that the claim about Berkeley could easily be supported with a secondary source (which it does need to pass), but I'm genuinely unsure whether this is significant enough to be considered part of Heraclitus' legacy. The Hume connection seems tenuous to me, but I am considerably reassured by the presence of a source on Heraclitus. The claim that Heraclitus is the founder of common sense philosophy is, at least on its face, outrageous. And, indeed, as far as I can determine, the author has no philosophical credentials and the press appears to be a self-publishing print mill. The Peirce claim is more plausible, but the sourcing looks a little weird and I have doubts about its encyclopedic significance in the context of this article.
• From the section titled German idealism, Hegel's affinity with Heraclitus is worth mentioning (even though there is no evidence of actual influence, just late-career praise). No one else mentioned in the section, however, is even a German idealist. I'm quite skeptical, in particular, of those claims relying upon 19th-century sources—even if these do qualify as RS. I'm not sure how it's important that Lassalle wrote a book about Heraclitus that Marx and Lenin did not like. Readers who don't know that Marx wrote his dissertation on a pre-Socratic and that Lenin was more than just a communist revolutionary are likely to be only more puzzled by this report.

Also, the Hegel paragraph mentions the "world-conflagaration interpretation", but this is not discussed or even mentioned in these terms elsewhere in the article.

The paragraphs on Schleiermacher and Bernays, however, seem highly relevant. I would consider giving them their own section with a heading along the lines of "Modern transmission".

• I'll stop here for now so you can either respond with any objections or make edits along the lines suggested—which I think could, for the most part, be extrapolated to the rest of the section.
• Also, as an editor, I'm always focused on parts of the article that either require or might benefit from changes. So I should add that it really seems to be coming into shape and that I am impressed with how responsive you've been to my requests and suggestions.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Back when the infobox had a section to list influences, implying it should be in the article, and the prominent ancient Greeks like Plato or Aristotle would have "virtually all subsequent western philosophy". The same can probably be said by dint of being first with Thales. Heraclitus is somewhere in between both ways of being influential, though "virtually all" would be putting it too strong, and I tried to show all the various lines of thought. On common sense philosophy, one dictum of Heraclitus (though apparently it leads up to a Heraclitus quote (B2) rather than is the quote) is sometimes relayed as "follow the common". It was once the title of a section in this article, many edits ago. Hopefully "French rationalism" covers Spinoza as well as Descartes/Pascal/Leibniz, which is what I meant by Cartesianism, the French idealism. But your point that Spinoza is no dualist is a fair one. Similar for Marx being a materialist, say. So hopefully Post-Kantianism covers what is meant by German idealism. It might deserve a further section heading separating them, but I wouldn't suggest any other separation between the Heraclitean scholars of Schleiermacher, Hegel, and Lasalle; and Bernays and Bywater and Diels. It seems to me a reader deserves some insight into the tyranny of Greece over Germany, as one book puts it. The German scholarship seems to me a part of the story of the German philosophical influence, in a nutshell, and I did my best to show it. Cake (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there anything in the scholarship that treats Heraclitus' modern legacy along the lines of this article? For without strong supporting evidence, the article should not be trying to "show" anything that is not so included. Right now, much of this section looks like WP:OR. I can't promote an article trying to make a point beyond what is included in reliable sources on Heraclitus. I also need page or section numbers where they are still absent.

As a general rule, the speculations of individual scholars do not bear mention unless they given rise to a larger discourse—most especially if they are not scholars of Heraclitus. For instance, why are we hearing about The Merchant of Venice and P. K. Dick's non-expert views on schizophrenia? Or that a 19th-century British idealist held a position that has "been described as Heraclitean"?

Also, I previously flagged two sources in what is now "French rationalism" as low-grade WP:FRINGE and another in "British empiricism" as probably self-published. These are serious issues. Patrick (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the source which was possibly self published (I assume the common sense book) and just used Reid directly. I also removed the source on Descartes. Not sure what to do with Spinoza sources yet. Cake (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @MisterCake, sorry for the delay in my response. I was mostly away from my computer over the long weekend here.

I continue to think that much of the content of the Modern section documents connections that are too tenuous to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. In some cases, it looks like "Heraclitean" is probably just being used as a fancy way to express the general concept of flux or change.

It might be worth mentioning that his name has become an adjective in this way, but I don't think the article needs to catalog otherwise unremarkable instances of the practice.

Here, though, are some more specific comments:

• Renaissance skeptic Michel de Montaigne's essay On Democritus and Heraclitus, in which he sided with the laughing philosopher over the weeping philosopher, was probably written soon after. – secondary source needed Found some.
• A fresco on the wall of Marsilio Ficino's Platonic Academy in Florence depicted Heraclitus and Democritus. – page number needed Source had no page numbers, but found another.
• Gottlob Mayer has argued that the philosophical pessimism of Arthur Schopenhauer recapitulated the thought of Heraclitus. — did he convince later scholars? otherwise I'm not sure why the article needs to mention the existence of such an old German monograph It seems mentioned enough even if in older sources. Nietzsche saw Schopenhauer as Heraclitean, though the pessimism he associated with Anaximander's views on strife being injustice, rather than with Heraclitus. But he thought Schopenhauer was a unity of opposites guy. Probably the most famous pessimist of antiquity and of modernity.
• Flage, D. E. (2019) – needs page number This book doesnt seem to have page numbers but seems a good source. Looking for replacement. Found it
• marxists.org – not a reliable source
• F. Lassalle – needs page/chapter number
• The nationalist philosopher of history Oswald Spengler wrote his (failed) dissertation on Heraclitus. – do we really need this? if so, it needs a secondary source I think so. Spengler was influenced by him a lot, and has led to others reading him. See the source.
• Advocates of presentism include Arthur Prior and William Lane Craig. – do we need this? I guess not.
• ....has been described as Heraclitean — this is not enough to justify this paragraphTried to fix. It definitely should be. Despite Heraclitus only having the enigmatic "Time is a child playing", time flowing vs. time not flowing is probably the time you hear Heraclitus v. Parmenides the most in a contemporary setting.
• Aristotle's arguments for the law of non-contradiction have been in doubt ever since their criticism by Polish logician Jan Łukasiewicz, and the invention of many-valued and paraconsistent logics. — I don't understand why this sentence is here Tried to elaborate. Aristotle's arguments against the LNC are in his mind arguments against Heraclitus. And these days, Aristotle's arguments are considered pretty garbage, leading to philosophers like Priest.
• ....which is arguably Heraclitus' account of flux — this is not enough to justify the inclusion of this paragraph Priest is the most famous dialetheist since Hegel and Heraclitus, and his position on the Liar and on motion seem relevant examples. Also cited the Stanford article on Dialetheism and the book on the LNC.
• https://andrewmbailey.com/ – personal website
• Beall argues for a contradictory account of Jesus Christ as both man and divine. — why is this included? Same for Beall with logical pluralism and contradictory Christ as for Priest. They are real people who take the position Aristotle ascribed to Heraclitus. And it seems natural to talk about Jesus as 2 in 1 after Geach reconciling the Trinity as 3 in 1.

Patrick (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

A few more:

• It doesn't make sense to me to place the paragraphs on Hegel and Lassalle under the heading of Heraclitean studies. Hegel could be moved up to be a second paragraph post-Kantianism or to be the first paragraph of Continental. Lassalle could go under Continental. Heraclitean studies could then be moved up a level in the TOC. Hegel's work seems to be considered part of the Heraclitus specialists. While he is also either a Post-Kantian or a Continental philosopher both, an analogy might be drawn with art history how Hegel comes after Winckelmann for how Hegel comes after Schleiermacher.

• If Hegel did any serious work on Heraclitus, this escaped the attention of his English biographer Terry Pinkard and the two-volume study Hegel's Development by H. S. Harris, in which Heraclitus is mentioned only a few times in passing. Also, although Heraclitus is mentioned occasionally in Hegel's published works, I find no case in which is not just in passing, usually to praise Heraclitus for having obliquely anticipated one of Hegel's own doctrines. Absent a strong supporting secondary source, this needs to be moved under a more appropriate heading. Besides just being, as far as I can tell, not true, it breaks up the first and fourth paragraphs, which actually do describe philological/editorial/scholarly work to retrieve, organize, and understand the fragments on their own terms. Patrick (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'll defer to you on Hegel. He seems to me nicely placed between Schleiermacher and Lassalle, but he can sure fit in post-Kantian too. The fact that Lassalle is considered a scholar and a plagiarist of Hegel seems to imply Hegel was a scholar. As well as for doubting Aristotle. Cake (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• world conflagration (ekpyrosis) interpretation, which had been popular since Aristotle — a description of this interpretation should be included in the Philosophy section, likely in the Fire section. Good idea.
• The caption of the new fire image should be rewritten to accord with the article, which documents doubts about the arche interpretation, not a historical conclusion.
• Because so much time is spent on Heraclitus' legacy, I believe MOS:INTRO requires a paragraph on that. So you'll need to jigger around to keep it four paragraphs. Made longer sentence at least.

• The Legacy section gets about the same amount of article space as the Philosophy section. If it seems weird to include this information in the lead in a loosely proportional way, that might be evidence that the section is unduely long. Patrick (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Well it already has the bit on the weeping philosopher, it just seems to need a sentence to mention pervasive influence. Added Hegel to lead. Cake (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• In External links, Stamatellos, Giannis. appears to be a personal website. Also, the Library resources box displays the same set of links twice.

Patrick (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Spinoza was not French. Also, I just noticed, the paragraph beginning Ever since German philosopher Immanuel Kant, philosophers have sometimes been divided into rationalists and empiricists. appears after these terms are deployed in the headings. That's true. Same for say British Empiricism. I didn't use the terms in the sections, though I suppose I could do. Would have to try and not keep repeating, e. g. "Heraclitus influences German idealism." Leibniz wasnt French either but he wrote in French and Descartes/Spinoza/Leibniz usually grouped together under some heading or other.

• Then why mention nationalities in the headings? Patrick (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• I suppose it's just the usual way the largest categories are divided in early modern philosophy. German idealism, British empiricism, and whatever you call Descartes/Spinoza/Leibniz (Pascal, Arnauld, et al), French idealism, French rationalism, Cartesianism. Cake (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm highly skeptical of the basic effort to categorize a pre-Socratic in terms specific to early modern philosophy for a 21st-century readership. At minimum the headers need to accurately describe the section content. (Or else the section needs a strong secondary source justifying treating Heraclitus' legacy in this way.) Patrick (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Patrick (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

No worries and thanks for the timing. I just suffered a migraine myself so slow going, but trying to implement the suggestions where I can. Cake (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I think I got them all, or most of them. Just to show I am trying to find the connections rather than make them, I'm pretty sure Frege was reading Laertius, but that would be OR on my part. He's been accused of plagiarizing the Stoics, and the morning and the evening star comes from Pythagoras' entry. Who do you think he is referring to with this?: "The discovery that the rising sun is not new every morning, but always the same, was one of the most fertile astronomical discoveries." - On Sense and Reference Cake (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, on Berkeley and Newton. It seems to me it counts as a very interesting secondary source on Newton. I can't say I'm sure what Berkeley is talking about, say his alchemy (as it sounds), or his theories of motion, with the first and third laws of motion possibly connecting to Heraclitus Though some authors note this, it seems dubious. Newton's description of time as flowing is also sometimes said to be influenced by Heraclitus' flowing river image. However, Newton is the poster-boy for absolute time, and whether Heraclitus is talking about absolute or relative time is (like so much) disputed. So I didn't include that. Not sure which secondary source you mean. Kahn mentions Berkely and Newton, but as an analogy to say Heraclitus vs. Greek science must have felt like Berkeley vs. Newtonian science, trying to convey what to him seems an obvious truth (that all is change, or that is all is mental, respectively). Cake (talk) 03:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Not sure of any better spot for the quote on time. Philosophy space and time seems to fit with cosmology. I guess it could also be called commentary on the gods, but who knows? Cake (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Notes

• I appreciate the extra step of separating citations to primary and secondary texts. This is obviously a pass. Patrick (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

References

• Should there be some bibliographic information for the DK source text that collects the Ancient references?

• Otherwise, this looks good. Again, I think readers are well-served by the division of types of sources, especially given the considerable interpretive obstacles they pose. Patrick (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Further reading

• These look reputable, but unless there is some supporting source governing the principle of inclusion, I think the section should probably be deleted. These kinds of lists always attract cruft, and the article already has a bibliography. Patrick (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Flagging the shift to Latin is a good idea. Not sure how to pull it off. An edit which precedes me. Cake (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Your solution looks perfectly good. Patrick (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Did my best to improve the division into sections, and to accompany Heraclitus quotes with secondary sources. Cake (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Should the flux or fire sections get images? Maybe some motion blur or another flame. Cake (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that would fall under the category of the merely decorative, although it could be justified with the right caption. Your call.

Also, having just skimmed the images again, the same could be said of the image of the Halys River. I think it's entirely appropriate for the article to include an image of a river, but making an explicit connection to Heraclitus in the caption would make it a more clear-cut pass with respect to criterion 6.c. Patrick (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

An image of the Kayster River would be best of course, but none available seemed to convey a flowing dynamism rather than standing water. As an aside, the painting of Bywater by Sargent is neat too. Also thanks for your time on this. Cake (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Wonder if I could use this one. Cake (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Spot check

• Kahn, Charles H. (1979). The Art and Thought of Heraclitus. An Edition of the Fragments with Translation and Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-21883-2, pp. 1–3 supports all six claims cited to it in the Life section.
• West, Martin L. (1971). Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient. Clarendon Press. Retrieved 6 March 2022, pp. 113–17 supports the claim in the second paragraph of On Nature, Structure — as well as the endnote and the inclusion of the Sextus Empiricus blockquote.
• Barnes, Jonathan (1982). "The Natural Philosophy of Heraclitus". The Presocratic Philosophers. London & New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. pp. 43–62. ISBN 978-0-415-05079-1, p. 49 supports the claims in Philosophy, Panta rhei.
• Guthrie, W. K. C. (1962). A History of Greek Philosophy: The Earlier Presocratics and the Pythagoreans. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 419 supports the claim in Philosophy, Logos. (The page range could be extended, but this is not necessary.)

I will do two more once the Legacy section is a pass on content. Patrick (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Hussey, Edward (1972). The Presocratics. New York: Scribner. ISBN 0684131188, p. 59 supports the first sentence of the section Legacy/Modern/Analytic/Wittgenstein.
• Lukasiewicz, Jan & Wedin, Vernon (1971). On the Principle of Contradiction in Aristotle. Review of Metaphysics 24 (3):485 - 509 weakly or somewhat supports the claim made in the first sentence of Legacy/Modern/Analytic/Contradiction. I do not, however, suspect any sort of malicious intent.

I have also checked several other citations in the Legacy/Modern section in the course of my review. In general, they support the truth of the immediate claim without supporting its status as part of a distinctly Heraclitean legacy. Patrick (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Graham, Daniel W. (2019). "Heraclitus". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy., §3 does not support the claim of the first two sentences of the first paragraph of Philosophy/Fire, which are also in tension or contradiction with the end of the paragraph and the rest of the section. Patrick (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Final remarks and decision

@MisterCake: It's difficult for me to track responses to my comments just through your voluminous edits, mostly without descriptions, and your selective responses here. I have some suggestions for the lead, but I first need to give the article another read from start to end. Would you please tag me when you consider everything to have been addressed? Thanks, Patrick (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Patrick Welsh: Sorry about that, I probably should have kept it all in one place. Thanks for the help. See if I've missed anything. Cake (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @MisterCake:,

I regret that I cannot promote this article. The reasons for this are basically two:

• First, I am concerned by the sometimes indifferent attitude towards the presentation of Heraclitus' ideas in the Philosophy section. Even just in recent edits, claims about fire as arche have introduced inconsistencies into the article. Also, edit descriptions on 20 May suggest that content in this section is being moved about arbitrarily instead of according to its organization in secondary sources or some other objective principle.
• Second, and more significantly, the Modern part of the Legacy section appears to be unnecessarily detailed (3.b) original research (2.c) actively constructing a legacy that is not show to exist in reliable sources about the subject of the article. Some objections to this in the review process have been met with unpersuasive, original argumentation or speculation/assertion, which only confirms my reservations. Also, there are still claims in this section supported only by primary sources. Further, as best I can determine, the organization of the material is externally imposed in a way that does not make sense in the context of the article.

I considered seeking another opinion, but decided that, if I have made a poor call, this would be best decided without my input. Discussions about the GAN process indicate that there is no stigma against an prompt renomination, and, if this route is pursued, all of my notes above can be freely adopted as work already done.

Please tag me with any specific inquiries, and I will do my best to respond.

Best regards, Patrick (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible improvements

What is Imitation C3? Also, can there be multiple cite ref anchors to the same citation? That would sure help make the sources prettier. Cake (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)