Talk:Archimedes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Correcting the statement of Gauss

The present intro claims: "He is considered by some historians of mathematics to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, mathematicians in antiquity; Carl Friedrich Gauss considered him one of the two greatest ever (the other being Isaac Newton)." This is mostly nonsense, of course. What Carl Friedrich Gauss really said was: "There have been only three epoch-making mathematicians: Archimedes, Isaac Newton, and Ferdinand Eisenstein". Since Gauss himself frequently has been called the greatest mathematician ever, this could be qualified as a rather modest statement. I am going to correct this. Physicists 17:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And the Greatest Scientist of All Time was?

Archimedes? Einstein? Newton? Galileo? Gauss? Someone else? The intros of the articles on Einstein and Newton mention that some consider them to be the "greatest". Others say Archimedes was the one, e. g, this Archimedes site [1] of Jürgen Schmidhuber. For symmetry reasons one could add a statement along these lines. Physicists 18:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Draft. Some of the obvious things here include:

• The "Euureka" thing
• Archimedes' screw
• The principle of the lever
• The buoyancy principle
• Machines invented for the defense of Syracuse
• Books written
• Some info on π.
• Some books that he had written before his death

---

What's the earliest source telling the story that Archimedes discovered Archimedes' principle in a bath house and shouted "Eureka"? Was it Vitruvi? Perhalps we should repeat this story (as alledged, not as fact) a bit more in detail, both here and in the Eureka article. -- Adhemar

---

Someone wrote the following about the statement that the area of a parabola is equal to 4/3 the area of the triangle with the same base and height":

(This proposition must be understood as follows. The "base" may be taken to be a secant line of the parabola, not necessarily orthogonal to the axis of the parabola, but one must construe the word "base" in the formula to mean the component of its length in a direction orthogonal to the axis of the parabola, ignoring the component parallel to the axis; the "height" is the length of a segment parallel to the axis of the parabola, running from the midpoint of the base to the curve.)

Now, the way I remember this, Archimedes himself defined base as the length of the secant line, summit as the point of tangency of a line parallel to the base, and height as the distance from the base to the summit. This also seems simpler and more cogent that the explanation given in the page. While I gather a copy of the original text to double-check, I have moved the questionable content here.Miguel

The "dubious" material that you moved to the talk page is indeed correct. It would be strange for Archimedes to define the base as the length of anything, rather than as the line segment itself. I will put the dubious material back, but phrased more simply and with an illustration. 131.183.73.153 01:35 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The reason I just reverted newly inserted references to "the Roman king" is that there was no Roman king in the time of Archimedes. Michael Hardy 21:31, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

... and besides, Archimedes was killed in the invasion, so no one could have been friendly with him. Michael Hardy 21:32, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Categorisation

I deleted categ:Mathematicians since the existing categ:Ancient mathematicians was/is already a subcategory of Mathematicians. No around the houses - a straight subcategory. Now we have categ:Mathematicians reinstated and so we have both categ:Mathematicians and categ:Ancient mathematicians - redundancy. Is there a general problem in recognising that an Ancient mathematician is automatically a Mathematician??

None at all. If individual mathematicians generally are to be listed in a category, then it would be absurd to exclude Archimedes.

Similar constructs occur in other science categories, without the general need for redundant categorisations. Ian Cairns 01:45, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can I chip in and say that the nationality categorisation of mathematicians is problematic, in some cases, and should not really be pushed to the limits. I have left a note at Emil Artin, for example. For Besicovitch, there is a Category:Russian Jewish mathematicians that applies, and I think one could also say he was British. Multiple categories and redundancy is actually preferable to trying too hard to pigeonhole people. There is in fact little actual harm in having Category:Mathematicians applied to Pythagoras, for example, as well as Category:Ancient mathematicians. Some people using WP will not know Pythagoras was ancient (strange but true). Charles Matthews 09:52, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Footnote to that - it seems there is ongoing debate about the correct way to use categories for Russian or Soviet Jews. We should probably wait for consensus on that. Charles Matthews

Archimedes should also be categorized as a (theoretical) physicist. He founded statics and hydraulics and wrote on cosmology. — Miguel 12:25, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Burning the Roman fleet.

In the article it is stated that during an episode of mythbusters, the theory of Archimedes using mirrors to burn roman ships is disproved. What is not mentioned however are the experiments of the Archimedes enthusiast Sakas. In the year of 1973 he organised 60 men to aim oblong shaped mirrors towards a replica of the roman ships of that period. http://www.editorialbitacora.com/armagedon/arquimedes/arquimedes.jpg Reports say the ship burst into flames within three minutes. I would definitely give this experiment more faith than the one performed on mythbusters. Perhaps if this experiment is sufficient proof for wikipedia then the possibility of the burning of the roman ships given in the article could be changed from highly unlikely to fairly possible? Many ancient historians reported on this event. It therefore seems likely that there must be some truth to the story. Real World 10:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Students at MIT had recently published a paper. They conducted their own experiment detailed at [2]. They had success in causing a fire. They had difficulty in getting the fire going until the sky cleared up and it was difficult to get the mirrors aimed correctly. Fire almost started immediately once the conditions were correct and the team worked in unison. They also found the waxes used did not affect the ignition. I would add this to the article, but i don't have the time right now to write article-quality text. --Klhuillier 02:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The flaw in the Mythbusters experiment was to conclude that Archimedes would have had to construct a large parabolic array, and as such they declared the myth busted because it would have been impractical to build and aim such a device properly. Strangely, they never considered the simpler explanation, which would have required dozens or hundreds of people holding flat, reflective shields, which seems to be the way it was described in the texts anyway. The heating effect of hundreds of mirrors pointed at a ship seems obviously effective, its simply a question of numbers. The more shields that were used, the more heat would be produced. Declaring this myth busted is simply ridiculous. It simply couldn't fail if enough mirrors were used. --Landroo 00:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal History

This article needs some info added on his life, not just his work. Especially since the link from the Sophie Germain article refers to his "fate", yet there is no mention here of personal trials or mode of death.

Walt 20:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

a lot of stuff is supposedly what the public said to popularize him and sort of exaggerations according to other articles. that might need to be checked. like the naked and eureka part...

What is reliably known about his personal life (any marriage, children, political involvement, interests other than the physical sciences, etc)? A-giau 17:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

changed some info saying he was born in syracuse N.Y., he was born in the Kingdom of Syracuse, under the Monarchy of King Heron, whom may or may not have been his uncle. Plato has been quoted as saying they are "of close relation".

Archimedes actual relationship (as in, familial relationship) to the King or royal family is by no means certain. The current version of this article presents this as fact. According to the Palimpsest site, few details are known about his early life and family. I'd assume they have serious Archimedes scholars connected with their work, so it seems like a trustworthy source. -- Myrrhlin 02:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Alexandre Dumas, in the Count of Monte Cristo, he was killed by a soldier of Marcellus whilst in deep concentration of some geometrical problem. Any ideas about this? --144.82.106.62 16:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Syracuse is modern day Sicily

Where does the name "Saracussia" come from? It's Syracusae in Latin and Συρακουσαι in Greek.

Image removed

I removed Image:Archimedes.jpg from the article because it is a lousy reproduction of a portrait dreamed up by 19th century painter Niccolò Barabino. If there is some consensus that a fictitious is better than none, I suggest to pick one from Pictures of Archimedes or Death of Archimedes Illustrations. Rl 15:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Death of Archimedes

I removed the claim that General Marcellus had the soldier who killed Archimedes executed. None of the classical accounts at [3] say this, although Plutarch writes that Marcellus regarded the soldier as a murderer. It is a feature of modern accounts that they sometimes say that the soldier was executed, but it is not an accurate reflection of the classical accounts of Archimedes' death.

Diodorus Siculus says that Marcellus probably ordered the soldier's death. (20:39, 7 November 2006 139.140.174.93)

Most of the accounts of Archimedes' death were written many years later, in some cases hundreds of years after the event. The exact circumstances will probably never be known, although many historians say that General Marcellus was angry when he learnt that a soldier had killed Archimedes.--Ianmacm 21:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, fix the quotation in Greek of his last words. Me can't be used with the imperative, so the verb either has to be in the subjunctive or the negative has to be ou. ( 9 November 2006 139.140.194.70).

I'm not expert enough on Greek to comment on this, but the phrase Μη μου τους κύκλους τάραττε (mi mou tous kiklous taratte) is spelt exactly as it is given at [4]. Any more comments on this would be welcome.--Ianmacm 07:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't find that quote in Polybius, Diodorus Siculus, or Plutarch. He says something entirely different according to Diodorus Siculus: "Αποστηθι, ω ανθρωπε, του διαγραμματος μου."

I'm not knowledgeable enough about classical literature to debate on this, but found similar information about the quote at [5]--Ianmacm 18:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know Modern Greek, but that looks like it might be a modern Greek approximation, considering the lack of accent marks on the monosyllabic words and the transliteration is definitely modern Greek based and not Ancient Greek based. Someone transliterating Ancient Greek would spell it "me mou tous kyklous taratte." Also, someone looking at the transliteration may have just assumed the last "e" in tratte to be an epsilon as opposed to an eta with iota-subscript. Regardless, I still can't find that quote attributed to him in anything.

"X-rays reveal Archimedes' hidden writings"

Quoting MSN.com: "X-rays reveal Archimedes' hidden writings".

The page: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14226275/?GT1=8404

Plato being a source for mythical ship

The page includes this claim:

Faced with war when unable to present the promised amount, Hiero II commissioned Archimedes to develop a large luxury/supply/war barge in order to serve his changing requirments of his navy. It is rumored that the Archimedes Screw was actually an invention of happenstance, as he needed a tool to remove bilge water. The ship, coined Saracussia, after its nation, may be mythical. There is no record on foundry art, nor any other period pieces depicting its creation. It is soley substaintiated by a description from Plato, who said "it was the grandest equation ever to sail."

Note that Plato died (347 BCE) before the birth of Archimedes which makes the statement above impossible.

Cultural depictions of Archimedes

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Details of his death

Archimedes' death is notable and should be documented in the article. You can find reliable sources for it here [6]. Best. --Deodar 05:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

A biography section would be a good addition, I believe. At present there is a mass of material on his contributions, but next to nothing about his actual life. — RJH (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

Archimedes would be pleased to know that he is so famous that some people want to vandalize his Wikipedia article repeatedly, but it is getting a bit boring. At this rate, semi-protection may be considered as an option.--Ianmacm 16:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is currently semi-protected which is a pity, but it was becoming too time consuming to remove silly comments from anonymous IP edits.--Ianmacm 09:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Arquimedes tomb

I have found that he made his frieds carve the sphere and cylinder drawing into his tomb, and that this allowed Cicero to find the tomb 40 years later. Anybody can check this out and add it to the article?

This has now been added.--Ianmacm 17:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Where was he educated?

Where was he educated?

According to some historical accounts, he spent part of his youth in Alexandria, Egypt, and was educated there. Like most of the details of Archimedes' life, this is hard to verify. However, it may be included in the article in an up and coming rewrite.--Ianmacm 18:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What about the myth?

This article is good but it failed to say to tell the reader about the Legend of Archimedes and the Crown. It does tell you he ran out into the streets naked in his exicitement but it does not say why he was exicited. I would appreciate it if that information could be added. Thank You. Miss Amber —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.15.246.92 (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Quite right, the page now gives the story about the crown. The link at [7] is a children's version of the story, but it is fun and detailed enough to show how Archimedes solved the problem.--Ianmacm 21:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The story tells how Archimedes realized that the volume of the displaced water was equal to that of the crown. By weighing the crown and measuring the volume of displaced water, he was able to determine the crown's density. But then the article goes on to say: "This discovery is known in the field of hydrostatics as Archimedes' Principle, which states that a body immersed in a fluid experiences a buoyant force equal to the weight of the displaced fluid." This is incorrect: the discovery related in the story does not involve buoyancy. In the story, at least as related here, Archimedes did not weigh the submerged crown. Did Archimedes in fact ever formulate "Archimedes' Principle"? It would be interesting to see a reference. Nasorenga 19:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting point. The story told by Vitruvius in which Archimedes jumped out of the bath and cried "Eureka!" is usually regarded as a statement of Archimedes Principle, which has its own article on Wikipedia under the title Buoyancy. The problem set by the king is slightly different from the classical statement of Archimedes Principle, but even a sunken object is relatively lighter when it is under water (see the equation in Buoyancy). Archimedes describes the principle of buoyancy in his treatise On Floating Bodies, and the "Eureka!" story may well be apocryphal. At [8] Chris Rorres repeats the criticism that the story told by Vitruvius is not strictly a statement of the principle of buoyancy. My personal feeling is that the current wording of the section is not substantially wrong, but any more suggestions would be welcome. Incidentally, the diagram on the 1983 postage stamp at the bottom of Archimedes shows how the principle of buoyancy works.--Ianmacm 20:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reworded the section about the crown story slightly to take this point into account.--Ianmacm 20:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference to Chris Rorres' page - very interesting! Also, good to know that the principle really is described in Archimedes' writings (Phew!) :-) Nasorenga 23:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The Archimedes Bridge?

Would this actually have anything to do with Archimedes? Apparently it's a tunnel suspended in water, or something - and it's a stub that needs expanding or moving to somewhere relevant. There is a Wikipedia article at Archimedes bridge. Lottie 14:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is a stub, and some more detail is needed before it is mentioned in the main article. Despite its name, and Archimedes bridge does not seem to involve anything directly linked to the work of Archimedes.--Ianmacm 16:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Article cleanup

The article has had a cleanup, which consisted mainly of restructuring the information under a clearer set of headings. Most of the famous anecdotes about Archimedes date from Roman times, for example the story about him jumping out of the bath and crying "Eureka!" comes from an account by Vitruvius. Although these anecdotes may well be apocryphal, no biography of Archimedes would be complete without them.

Another point worth mentioning is that there is a tendency to assume that Archimedes must have invented all of the things that he wrote about. Some scholars believe that he did not invent the Archimedes Screw but merely improved on an earlier design. Likewise, although he is often credited with inventing integral calculus, the principle of the method of exhaustion was known in ancient times, and it is Archimedes' elegant use of the technique to solve a range of problems that is remarkable.

Archimedes is one of the most important biographical subjects in any encyclopedia, and it should be a long term goal to achieve Featured Article status for his entry.--Ianmacm 20:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice job. :) Lottie 15:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Spelling of Greek quote

The spelling of "Do not disturb my circles" in Greek appears in the article as "μή μου τούς κύκλους τάραττε". During one edit, The letter υ in the second word was replaced with a letter that does not appear to be supported in Wikipedia, so it was coming out as a square. As seen above on the talk page, there is some debate about how to spell this quote in Greek lettering, but the one chosen is found in several places on the internet.--Ianmacm 09:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

New image of Archimedes

There is a new picture of Archimedes in the infobox which was taken from Wikimedia Commons. It was painted by Domenico Fetti in 1620 and replaces the old engraving by Niccolo Barabino that was rather dull. The Fetti portrait is the most widely used image of Archimedes in the foreign language Wikipedia versions of his biography, so this brings the English language version into line. The purists may point out that the Fetti portrait contains two modern looking books and a globe, but it is a good picture nonetheless. On the internet as a whole, the most common image of Archimedes is this one [9], which is a sculpture of him that can be found in the National Museum in Naples.--Ianmacm 17:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't we using the statue? --Selket ^Talk 20:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a personal choice of course, but I still prefer the Fetti portrait and think that the sculpture photo is a bit bland. No-one knows what Archimedes looked like anyway, and the Fetti portrait looks good in the infobox.--Ianmacm 21:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Eureka and the motto of California

I removed the information that "Eureka!" is the state motto of California since I felt that it was not relevant enough for the section about Archimedes' discoveries and inventions. "Eureka!" has its own article on Wikipedia, which goes into more depth and also mentions its use as a state motto.--Ianmacm 18:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Burning mirrors

According the legend Archimedes used "burning mirrors", not "burning glasses"! Conone 17:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

A reference would be useful here. However, anything said by Archimedes about burning ships is subject to the limits of historical accuracy. In recent times one of the most interesting parallels is the microwave weapon developed by the US Army as an "Active Denial System", (see [10] for details). This shows that the concept in the "Archimedes death ray" may not have been completely fictional.--Ianmacm 18:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC) On the subject of Archimedes' burning mirrors our main sources are Galen (De temperamentis, 3.2), Cassius Dio (Roman History, XV) and Joannes Zonara. Conone 00:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Education in Alexandria?

I don't think it is known that Archimedes was educated in Alexandria. He certainly communicated with Eratosthenes, and probably traveled to Alexandria, but I believe that's as far as we can go. AxelBoldt 03:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a fair point since our biographical details of Archimedes are slim. Quite a few of his biographies, including ones in "respectable" print encyclopedias, say that he was educated in Alexandria. Although this may be true, it lacks the degree of verifiablity required by Wikipedia standards. I have tried to avoid phrases like "It is said that" or "It is believed that" in every sentence, although this would be an apt description of Archimedes' education in Alexandria. The wording may be looked at again.--Ianmacm 07:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reworded the sentence about his education slightly.--Ianmacm 07:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I like this cautious formulation a lot better. Cheers, AxelBoldt 20:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

On the Sphere and the Cylinder

This theorem apears on the back of the Fields Medal, in the back round. Add this please.--80.201.75.157 01:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, this has been added. Thanks for mentioning this.--Ianmacm 07:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Circa

The Latin word Circa is abbreviated as c. in the article as this is the most common form.--Ianmacm 13:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Year of Archimedes' death

Most sources qualify the year of Archimedes' birth and death with circa. The year of his birth is based entirely on the claim that he lived for seventy-five years, while the fall of Syracuse during the Second Punic War happened in either 212 or 211 BC, although it is usually reckoned to have been 212 BC.--Ianmacm 07:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead needs expanding

The intro will need expanding if its to become GA. Epbr123 00:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• The lead section should adequately summarize the content of the article; see WP:LEAD for guidelines here. Epbr123 10:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

GA fail

I have reviewed the article and have decided to fail it. I will list my concerns and explain as to why I have failed it, rather than placing the article on hold. This is primarily because I feel that edits sufficient enough to bring it up to GA status will take a lengthy amount of time. However once these are done please feel free to nominate the article as a GA candidate again. I felt strongly that this article, as a biography failed to meet the guidelines established for biographies and failed to equate to other GA status biographies.

In regards to criteria WP:WIAGA I believe the article is lacking strongly on point 3 and 2. I also believe that the article is lacking on point 1 and 6, though to a lesser extent. I will explain this now.

• Point 1 a and b. The article is lacking a lead section i.e. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections. Although lead sections do not require any siginificant length as similar to that of featured status, an article of this length needs more than one sentance in the lead.

Furthermore I do not feel that the prose is correct. This is true of sections in the biography where random pieces of trivia have been simply added (see point 2). Furthermore the following:

During the Second Punic War, Archimedes is said to have repelled an attack by Roman forces by using a "burning glass" to focus sunlight on the approaching ships, causing them to catch fire. This claim, sometimes called the "Archimedes death ray", has been the subject of ongoing debate about its credibility since the Renaissance. Rene Descartes rejected it as false, while modern researchers have attempted to recreate the effect using only the means that would have been available to Archimedes. It has been suggested that a large array of highly polished bronze shields acting as mirrors could have been employed to focus sunlight on to a ship, utilizing the principle of the parabolic reflector. In October 2005 a group of students from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology carried out an experiment with 127 one foot square mirror tiles, focused on a mocked-up wooden ship at a range of around 100 feet. Flames broke out on a patch of the ship, but only after the sky had been cloudless and the ship had remained stationary for around ten minutes. Nevertheless, it was concluded that the weapon was a feasible device under these conditions. The MIT group repeated the experiment for the television show MythBusters, using a wooden fishing boat in San Francisco as the target. Again some charring occurred, along with a small amount of flame. When Mythbusters broadcast the result of the San Francisco experiment in January 2006, the claim was placed in the category of "myth" due to the length of time and ideal weather conditions required for combustion to occur. Critics of the MIT experiments have argued that the moisture content of the wood needs to be taken into consideration. However, the flash point of wood is 300 degrees Celsius (572 degrees Fahrenheit), and this is hotter than the maximum temperature produced by domestic ovens. [12] In real life a ballista (catapult) armed with flaming bolts would have been a more dangerous weapon, while the effects of the "Archimedes death ray" might have been limited to confusing or temporarily blinding people on board the ship.

Surely the above can be split into several different paragraphs? Reading through the mathematics section I also feel the explanation of method of exhaustion and Archimeds role is not clear, especially to someone who has only a GCSE/'high school' level of maths understanding.

• Point 2. There are some examples where references would improve this article. Most importantly I feel that this article lacks any significant references in regards to the numerous books published about Archimedes, his theories, inventions and thoughts (of which there are hundreds...). Specifically the biography section. These include:

Archimedes is believed to have spent part of his youth in Alexandria, Egypt, which was the greatest center of learning in the world at the time. WP:REF

He was a friend of Conon of Samos and Eratosthenes. Why is this of importance?

Some of the classical accounts of the life of Archimedes were written long after his death and contain anecdotes of questionable authenticity. WP:REF

Carl Friedrich Gauss, himself frequently called the most influential mathematician of all time, stated that Archimedes was one of the three epoch-making mathematicians, with the others being Sir Isaac Newton and Ferdinand Eisenstein. WP:REF also this reads like it was merely added from a trivia section into the biography, it is not integrated with any other text in the article. This belongs more in a legacy or influence section. The same is also true of There is a crater on the Moon named Archimedes in his honor, along with a lunar mountain range, the Montes Archimedes.

Other references required:

Archimedes is regarded as the first mathematical physicist, and he was the key contributor to this field prior to Galileo and Newton WP:REF

Plutarch describes how Archimedes designed block and tackle pulley systems, allowing sailors to use the principle of leverage to lift objects that would otherwise have been too heavy to move. WP:REF

During the Second Punic War, Archimedes is said to have repelled an attack by Roman forces by using a "burning glass" to focus sunlight on the approaching ships, causing them to catch fire. This claim, sometimes called the "Archimedes death ray", has been the subject of ongoing debate about its credibility since the Renaissance.WP:REF

Although he is often regarded as a designer of mechanical devices, Archimedes also made important contributions to the field of mathematics. Plutarch wrote: “He placed his whole affection and ambition in those purer speculations where there can be no reference to the vulgar needs of life.” WP:REF

On Spirals-In this treatise he defines what is now called an Archimedes spiral. This is the first example of a mechanical curve (a curve traced by a moving point) considered by a Greek mathematician. WP:REF

Stomachion - This is a Greek puzzle similar to a Tangram, and the treatise describing it was found in more complete form in the Archimedes Palimpsest. Archimedes calculates the areas of the various pieces. Recent discoveries indicate that Archimedes was attempting to determine how many ways the strips of paper could be assembled into the shape of a square. This is possibly the first use of combinatorics to solve a problem. WP:REF

• Point 3 - I do not believe this article to be broad in coverage. As a biography it is lacking on many elements of his life. The inventions section for example. The Archimedes screw (surely one of his major, if not in publicly well known inventions) for example is barely mentioned (three sentences) as opposed to his writings section which addresses all of his major writings. I also feel that the philosopher and astronomer parts of his life are not explored. The biography section contains relatively little (two paragraphs) of information on his actual life. Given the books out there this section can surely be expanded. Considering this is an biography article of Archimedes, his actual biographical information is fairly short.

• Point 6 - The images are overall good, but some of the image captions need expanding. For example Archimedes screw - this does not match criteria given at Wikipedia:Captions. The same is true of all other image captions, except the last one.

Archimedes appears on a Greek postage stamp from 1983. He is demonstrating the quadrature of the parabola, while the weighing scale demonstrates the principle of buoyancy. This is a good example of an image caption in line with GA criteria.

The above then is a list of things that this article needs to do in order to reach GA level. As you can see there are quite a few things that need to be accomplished. Although this may seem quite harsh, it is only to bring this article in line with other biographically related GA level articles. If you need further help please contact me on my talk page and I will be happy to assist you in bringing the article to GA. Furthermore good work on all that has been done so far. LordHarris 11:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Article review

It is somewhat misleading to describe this article as a biography of Archimedes in the modern sense. The biographies that we have of Euclid, Archimedes and Pythagoras are sketchy to say the least, while we know virtually nothing about Heron of Alexandria or Diophantus. There is little more to say about the life of Archimedes than what is here already, so please comment on the article as a whole rather than asking for expanded details of his life.--Ianmacm 13:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly I agree that because of the historical nature of the biography and the fact that he lived so long ago, a description of his life in comparison to that of say a living figure is impossible. This does not however mean that there is not more information available than already exists in this article. There is and I believe that the life section can be expanded. Most importantly the point 3 i.e. broad coverage was only one of the numerous comments I made on this article. I would therefore ask you to pay particular attention to the individual comments and the need for references, rather than suggesting that I have not looked at the article as a whole, for I indeed have done. Finally in regards to your comments on my talk page, this is first and foremost a biography. It is not entitled the work of Archimedes or the legacy of Archimedes etc, is about Archimedes himself and that includes all elements of his life - his work, his inventions and his early life, birth, education and so forth. I suggest you look at the term Biography, WP:BIOGRAPHY, Wikipedia:Notability (people) and most importantly Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) for more information. Regards, LordHarris 14:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Renomination

I have addressed the points made by LordHarris and renominated the article. A request: please discuss any suggestions for improving the article on the talk page before failing it. This gives me and other writers the chance to improve the article, which is the object of the exercise.--Ianmacm 19:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

External link to phaser.com

• I find the following external link unnappropriate:

• Archimedes' Pi MAP: A historical anecdote and mathematical study on how Archimedes launched the race to Pi, including an algorithmic tutorial and illustration of his method of exhaustion.

because it is not just a mathematical explanation, but first an introduction to a problem, then a brief tutorial of how a commercial software piece can be operated to solve it. This advertising, disguised as "information", can not be tolerated. If the information (the part before the software tutorial) is free, then I suggest copy-pasting it to another web site, then linking that web site, or finding another site with the same howto, if the info is relevant at all. — Isilanes 12:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the link after looking at it closely. The problem is that the reference to Archimedes is made in the context of a piece of commercially available software. The link would be less likely to be removed if it were presented in a more neutral context.--Ianmacm 13:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments and taking a closer look, Ianmacm. After reading through the external website (the pages about the software and the FAQ, for example), it is proper to note that the simulations in Phaser used to complement and illustrate the related mathematical concepts discussed in the article do not require the reader to buy the software to run and experiment with the simulations. The software can be downloaded/installed/used free-of-charge and as an educational tool for further understanding and exploring the Archimedes' PI MAP and other landmark equations. The context is appropriate, informative, educational, inviting, and non-exclusive. Given those grounds and the relativity of the article, striking the link is wrong. In my editorial opinion, the external article relevantly extends and educates beyond the wiki article itself. For that reason, I do not think it's appropriate to deny visitors to this wiki article the opportunity to learn more about the subject material. Response by: SilverSurfer314 Mon Apr 23 13:26:00 EDT 2007

• Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Advertising is advertising, regardless of the product advertised being free of charge. If you find the information useful, and that info is free to reproduce elsewhere, and the context (commercial web site) and extra content (the instructions regarding the commercial product) are irrelevant for the case, then either copy the information to another (non-commercial, non-self-promotional) site and link that site, or, better yet, find the information in some other (notable, non-commercial, non-self-promotional) site, and link that site. If you can not copy the info elsewhere, then it means the info is not free. If the context it is in is relevant for you, then you are at best biased, at worst spamming. If you can not find a similar explanation somewhere (notable) else, then chances are the explanation is non-notable or original research. —Isilanes 18:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The link is unlikely to comply with WP:EL in its current form, so a rewrite is necessary before adding it again.--Ianmacm 18:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've read through the WP:EL. It's still not clear to me why the link would likely not comply with the external link policy as set forth. At your convenience, would you specifically point out the section(s)/clauses(s)/statement(s) in the policy that you think pertain to the likely non-compliance of including the external link to a relevant article on the phaser.com website? In my construing of the document, it appears that the external link clearly passes a significant majority of the policy guidelines/tests in the WP:EL. Thank you for any clarification! Response/question by: SilverSurfer314 Mon Apr 23 18:01:34 EDT 2007

• Regarding relevance of the external link to the subject matter of Archimedes & Pi, it's interesting to note that google.com (searching on the phrase "Archimedes Pi") finds the phaser.com article more relevant than this wikipedia article, as PHASER Module: Archimedes' Pi MAP is ranked in the top ten results returned (#7) whereas the first wikipedia related article is ranked lower, appearing not even in the top 10, but in the neighborhood of 13. Whatever that means and for whatever it's worth to you folks -- I find it noteworthy. Factoid by: SilverSurfer314 Tue Apr 24 02:04:18 EDT 2007

All of the rules on Wikipedia are subject to interpretation, but adding a number of links to the same website through the same user account will be picked up automatically and by the human users as a likely attempt to spam the site. It would still be better to mention the Archimedes material without the software being involved, and that is all I have to say on the subject for the time being.--Ianmacm 06:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's clear to me now, if I understand you correctly, that the external link with related and extensible information, the contribution in question, is being rejected because [1] I am the contributor, and [2] you have an aversion to the involvement of software in the material; that is, the material would be "better" in your opinion without it -- frankly, I do not understand your position on those points, nor do I understand how maintaing such a position affords others an opportunity to learn more about the subject matter to which you seem greatly dedicated... If that is all you have to say on the subject for the time being, then I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree for the time being. With candor, SilverSurfer314 Tue Apr 24 16:12:27 EDT 2007.

• "At your convenience, would you specifically point out the section(s)/clauses(s)/statement(s) in the policy that you think pertain to the likely non-compliance of including the external link to a relevant article on the phaser.com website?". OK. Let's see: in the aforementioned WP:EL, read points 3. and 4. of links normally to be avoided. In the same policy page, read advertising and conflicts of interst too. In the WP:SPAM policy page, read the bit about external link spamming. Read also the whole Conflict of interests page. Now, please, would you care explaining why the alternatives I give four or five paragraphs above don't suit you? NOTE: Chances are now you'll twist the wording of the policy pages to find a convoluted reasoning for not deleting the links. Please consider using the alternatives I propose, instead. — Isilanes 08:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Isilanes, thank you for the pointers; I will read through them carefully. Meanwhile, I would suggest that you carefully read about Ad hominem. Sincerely, SilverSurfer314 Tue Apr 24 16:35:13 EDT 2007

GA pass

The major points raised by previous reviewers seem to have been addresses, and this is a good article. Considering the available sources, the article is comprhensive and satisfies all GA requirements. The citations could use a little work - prima facae they look like random web pages but are admittedly historical texts - but nothing major; maybe try using citation templates to make the references clearer. The issue with the link to phaser.com should not be a major obstacle to this article being passed. All round: a good job. Nev1 18:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Last week there was a piece in the Daily Mail about a solar powered barbecue which works in the same way as the "Archimedes death ray". The question is not whether a device like this would work (it would), but how effective it would be on a cloudy day or at a distance. The article is at [11]. Myself, I'll be sticking to charcoal.--Ianmacm 19:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Calculus

The reference in the introduction does not seem to support the text. I suggest:

Archimedes produced the first known summation of an infinite series - a method that is still used in the area of calculus today.

I cannot make this change since there is a link that blocks the edit. I don't know how to sort this. Perhaps someone else can do it. Rjm at sleepers 07:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have done this as suggested. The Spam blacklist [12] seems to be playing up at the moment and is blocking innocent edits.--Ianmacm 08:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ta Rjm at sleepers 08:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Renaissance

The article refers several times to the Renaissance as if Archimedes' work was lost during the Middle Ages. As this is obviously false, this should be corrected.--Jack Upland 09:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The article does not imply that the work of Archimedes was lost or unavailable during the Middle Ages. It points out that relatively few copies of it were made that survived through the Middle Ages. The work of Archimedes was studied extensively by Arab scholars during this period.--Ianmacm 10:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection

{{editprotected}} Heraclides --> [[Heraclides Ponticus|Heraclides]]

I did this, but in general you should not use editprotected on pages that are not fully protected. Please don't add any more here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Just following the instructions. There's no obvious reason for semi-protection on this article, AFAICT. -- 146.115.58.152 04:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I take that back, after scrolling back further in the history. I'm surprised the ip vandals are so excited about this article. -- 146.115.58.152 04:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You got me thinking, and then I unprotected the article again. Public schools are almost all out of session in the US, maybe that will translate into less juvenile vandalism. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

As a regular editor of this article, you would be surprised by how much juvenile IP vandalism it attracts. Although semi-protection is not ideal, it does stop bored kids on school computers from adding unfunny comments.--Ianmacm 09:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Image of sphere and cylinder

Thanks to André Karwath for providing this excellent image at Wikimedia Commons.

This image shows the proof which Archimedes had carved on his tomb. It was created by André Karwath (User:Aka at Wikimedia Commons). Thanks are due for providing this image. Check out Aka's other photographic and graphic work at Wikimedia Commons, as it is superb. --Ianmacm 08:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Archimedes, or Archidamus of Sparta?

File:Archimedes naples statue.jpg

Is this really Archimedes?

This photo is of a statue at the National Museum in Naples. It is said to be of Archimedes and has been used many times to show what he looked like, including on postage stamps. However, it appears to be actually Archidamus III of Sparta (died 338 BC). Chris Rorres says this at [13]. Nobody knows what Archimedes looked like, and all the portraits of him are imaginings. See also [14]. --Ianmacm 20:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The "Archimedes death ray"

I added the details of the Sakkas experiment in 1973 to give a contrast with the MIT experiment in 2005. Although similar in many ways, the Sakkas experiment was more supportive of the claim. There have been other tests of the "death ray", notably by Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon in 1740 (see burning glass). The debate about the effectiveness of the "death ray" is likely to continue. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Archimedes was not really “Greek”

The lead states that Archimedes was a Greek. Is this how scholars represent those of Magna Graecia? If not, is it at least an accurate representation of how A would have identified himself? I was under the impression that Ancient “Greeks” identified themselves according to city state and that there was quite a bit of antipathy between some of the Greek city states and Magna Graecia (especially after 415 BC). If not a “Greek,” was A a “Syracusian”?

Archimedes is described as a Greek mathematician in Britannica [15] and in numerous other places on the internet. Archimedes spoke the Doric form of the Greek language. The modern country of Greece is different from Magna Graecia or ancient Greece, but for most practical purposes figures such as Plato and Aristotle can be described as Greek without a major error occurring. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

GA status reviewed

The quality of this article has been reviewed on today. I believe this article remains in the condition when the GA was passed. I think this article can be taken to FAC. (oldid reference #:153183260) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Archimede

The Italian language wikipedia edition of this article includes some fine illustrations that may be useful here. That article is FA status, so it might also be good to see if any of the content needs to be included. — RJH (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I saw the Featured Article star on the Italian version a while ago, and "borrowed" the image of the Method of Exhaustion. I thought about adding the animation of the screw, but at 718KB was worried that it might slow down the page load time, particularly on a dial-up connection. However, it looks much nicer than the aged engraving at [16], so I gave it a go. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)