text:
Talk:Democritus

Comments
I am hesitant to update this page, but there are some grammatical issues that make reading it difficult, a source for the void thing would be awesome as I am currently in a course which looks at primary sources of astronomical thought. I will add a milky way quotation.. --[user:smkatz|Sam]

-- I agree that there are pretty severe grammar problems. I'd add that there is a lot of uncited material more related to the philosophy of science than specifically to Democritus. This article needs a lot of work.67.9.139.107 (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

--Would it just be a matter of translating the Dutch page, or is there an existing English document that just needs proofing? --[user:epsas|Epsas]

-- I've made a few changes in sentence structure (mostly dealing with tense or plurality) and I've made an approximation of Democritus's Greek spelling. If anyone can confirm or correct my estimation, I would appreciate it.Comrade42 04:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I've found a source that confirms my approximation: http://www.geocities.com/lucretius5978/biography/democritus.html So it seems that it isn't necessary to go out of the way to check up on my spelling. Comrade42 04:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

-- What is his "distant star theory?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Populer208 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

-- In the section called "Life", paragraph 3, the statement, to wit: "He may have been acquainted with Socrates, but Plato does not mention him..." directly contradicts the statement made in the introduction's second paragraph, to wit: "Largely ignored in ancient Athens, Democritus is said to have been disliked so much by Plato that the latter wished all of his books burned.[6]". So, which is it? I'm not expert enough to correct the contradiction, but know one when I see one. 75.80.37.209 (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Good catch! I checked the original sources on that. Diogenes Laertius is clear: "Demetrius goes on : "It would seem that he also went to Athens and was not anxious to be recognized, because he despised fame, and that while he knew of Socrates, he was not known to Socrates, his words being, `I came to Athens and no one knew me.'" Cicero is less clear: “I came to Athens,” saith Democritus, “and there was no one there that knew me:” I'll make the change. Teishin (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

 * I tracked down p. 349 n. 2 of W. K. C. Guthrie (1965), A History of Greek Philosophy, vol. 2, Cambridge. It doesn't say anything at all like what is claimed it says. Teishin (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Osthanes
An anon removed mention of Osthanes from this article. The only references I could find in a quick search to a relationship between the two is in the works of Henry Cornelius Agrippa, who (though fascinating) is not exactly an encyclopedic source. Does anyone have anything else on this relationship? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Last Paragraph Appropriate?
"Democritus is said to have had a happy disposition, and is sometimes referred to as the "laughing philosopher," as opposed to Heraclitus, who is known as the "weeping philosopher." In the Divine Comedy Dante sees the shade of Heraclitus in Limbo with those of other classical philosophers."

Is it relevant to an article on Democritus that Heraclitus is in Limbo in Dante's Divine Comedy? I shamefully must admit that I have not read Dante's Divine Comedy. Is Democritus mentioned there as well? If he is, I propose we amend the text to state that he sees the shade of Democritus. If not, I propose that this last bit be moved to Heraclitus' article if it is not present there already.
 * I agree that the last sentence of that paragraph is unnecessary, but we need to keep the first sentence. Jxn 21:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

 * No, Democritus is not seen in Limbo, although it is logical that he be there. Perhaps he was napping at the time.

Democritus is seen in Dante's Limbo. He is the first philosopher mentioned after Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates (Aristotle is referred to indirectly as "the Master of those who know"). 72.191.161.213 (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Leucippus and Democritus
on the Leucippus page it says that the only surviving writing is "Nothing occurs at random, but everything occurs for a reason and by necessity." On this page it says that Democritus said this.

 * Huh. That can't be right. Best check the citations. I'm more inclined to believe that Leucippus said it, although it's possible that Democritus took the saying from his teacher and used it himself. T. S. Rice 01:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

wwww

? Democritus ?
Does anyone know Democritus's first name? (or can even give a guess?) In all the sources I have looked in, I have not found any refrence to him even having a first name. --69.251.94.183 02:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Democritus IS his first name. All the ancient philosophers are called by their first name.

 * Ancient Greeks in general had only a single name. Cities were not nearly as large as today (hardly ever having more than 10,000 or 20,000 inhabitants), and apparently there were enough names in use that "X from Y" was enough to identify every person unambiguously. Even if not, philosophers were not that numerous, so it would not be expected that there was more than a single philosopher named Democritus in Abdera, so confusion is statistically unlikely. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hooked atoms
Hi! I'm helping in history of the molecule and have added some references to Democritus fragmenta about atoms connecting through their hooks. But I'm using a French edition and have no official English translation. Does anyone have an English edition and can give the translation of fragments DK 68 A 80, DK 68 A 37 and DK 68 A 43? Thanks, Benio76 15:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

First Section on the Contents
The first section of the article seems to be just a statement put in there randomly. Is there any source (or sources) to back up the first "section" (which I deem to be a statement, rather than a section. --TrekCaptainUSA (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Pseudo-democritus
I started an article for Pseudo-Demikristo (Bolos of Mendes). Does any of this stuff belong there? J8079s (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It belongs in this article, here is a book link https://books.google.de/books?id=wsm8r2oXYp4C&q=gold#v=snippet&q=gold%20Democritus&f=false

Locked
I have some sources to improve this article. The citations needed on the argument between Aristotle and Democritus regarding the Earth, Sun, and Stars is present in Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy, for instance. Also, I have a textbook on pre-socratic philosophy which contains some good information as well as references to back up current text. CABlankenship (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You should be able to edit with the semi-block on. But in any case, I've removed the semi-block all together. Now get to work :) Kingturtle (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I rewrote much of the article. I'll clean up and expand the article tomorrow. CABlankenship (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice work so far. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's my contribution, and I'm sure lots of people can improve and add to it with their own sources.  CABlankenship (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's surprising what a high level of vandalism this article attracts. CABlankenship (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion is Bias
The "Conclusion" section of this article is bias. I assume it came mostly from the pages of Bertrand Russell? It reads like science and good-thinking was murdered by Aristotle only to be reborn after the Middle Ages. This, of course, is a mistaken (but common) over-simplification of the history of science, a history in which the Medieval Church was actually quite important and supportive (see the book "Science and Religion" by Edward Grant).

I am particularly troubled by language like "which led to a decay of vigor and a resurgence of popular superstition" and "It would not be until the Renaissance that philosophy would regain the vitality and independence...." Again, this reads like Bertrand Russell himself. But Bertrand Russell, who was quite bias about science, religion, and philosophy, is probably not the best source for this article on this matter. I would be more inclined to include a historian like Edward Grant on the history of science than an aggressive agnostic philosopher like Bertrand Russell.

Many many many people would argue on much much solid evidence that accepting some things Aristotle says does not at all lead to "a decay of vigor and a resurgence of popular superstition." The sentiment is so hostile and bias for Wikipedia that I almost could not believe what I was reading. This is not at all the kind of statement that belongs in an encyclopedia (at least not without lots of qualification and the opposite view being expressed).

This section expresses what I assume is the conclusion of Bertrand Russell, but, again, his is not the only voice on the matter (and is it even reliable?) and should be balanced by others. Thoughts? Jwhosler (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Do you dispute that the dark ages were an example of "decay in vigor and a resurgence of popular superstition", or merely that Aristotle's teleological approach was partially to blame? And do you dispute that the Renaissance lead to renewed "vitality and independence"? Let's see your sources.  CABlankenship (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Parts of nearly everything intellectual that happened during the Middle Ages can be blamed on the widespread acceptance of Aristotle's philosophy, so my problem is with the assertion that those years were overwhelmed by 'decay' and 'dark'ness. I do not even mean to argue the point here, but simply with to suggest that such a sentiment in an article like this is not called for. There is a time and place for that debate, but the article on Democritus is it. And that is the point: It IS still a debate. Many scholars would contend on solid evidence and reasoning that the Middle Ages were not at all a period of stagnation and darkness (see the book by Grant that I referenced above). The matter is far from settled; thus a Wikipedia article should not come down on one side or the other, but statements in the "Conclusion" section do just that in a rather biased manner. Jwhosler (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right. I rewrote this article because it was in a severely neglected state, and I possessed a few sources that I believed were interesting. My sources could be out-dated or insufficient, and I'm sure that (as an amateur in philosophy) I have made many mistakes. Hopefully a professional philosopher will take an interest in this article and improve upon my modest work. CABlankenship (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

 * The extensive use of Betrand Russels great but very personal history of philosophy as a source is probably to blame. The article should have a section with criticism of Democritus, and the whole idealist vs. materialist discussion could be outlined here. An encyclopaedia article do not need an conclusion. Instead of a lot of assumptions of the superiority of mechanistic thinking, there could be a section with influences (all materialists - Hobbes, Marx... John Dalton for the atom - and maybe (it seems) Russel) Jakosa (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree. CABlankenship, the things you added are good and useful, but in the right context. I like the idea of adding a "Criticism" section, in which much of your "Conclusion" section would do quite well (with the other side expressed, of course :-)). You have indeed done a great job on the article and it is much appreciated. Maybe we could make it even better by deleting the "Conclusion" section and adding a "Criticism" section? Therein we could outline the various conclusions reached by various authors about Democritus (with adequate mention of the eminent Mr. Russell, of course :-)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwhosler (talk • contribs) 01:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I am afraid that I cannot agree with a criticism section, as I have opposed them on every page on which I work. Wiki considers criticism sections to be a sign of a poorly written article, and conclusion sections are very common in encyclopedias. Criticisms of Democritus should be woven into the relevant sections.  I have already included some in each section.  If you have sources with which to expand the conclusion section, that would be great, but I will strongly oppose a section devoted simply to criticism. CABlankenship (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Sounds good to me. I feel rather unqualified to write a balanced conclusion on Democritus, however. I suppose this was a case of noting a problem without being able to fix it :-). Any scholars out there? P.S. I notice the conclusion section has in fact been deleted. Is it to be added back in when it is more even? Maybe I can give it some time now that it is the glorious summer session. Jwhosler (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Mechanist explanation in the Democritus article
This Wikipedia article on Democritus, which is buttressed by frequent citations from B. Russellis, is highly biased in favor of modern scientific positivism and what its author calls "mechanistic" explanation. The author is confident of the authority of this point of view, presumably because it is popular among the public and contemporary empirical scientists. Whether it deserves such authority, however, is questionable. Take the following remark from the Democritus article:

"The history of modern science has shown that mechanistic questions lead to scientific knowledge, while the teleological question does not."

In considering the truth of this remark, first note that teleological questions are certainly far more useful than mechanistic questions as an avenue to biological knowledge, which is the aim of the zoological sciences, such as botany, ornithology, molecular biology, genetics, and so on: in short, of all the sciences of life-forms. Teleological explanations are also more useful in the applied or practical branches of zoological science, including all the branches of medicine. Since it seems quite possible that the cumulative expense and effort devoted to such sciences hugely outweighs that devoted to all other scientific endeavor collectively, the sentence in question, which summarizes the attitude of the Democritus article as a whole, seems manifestly false.

Moreover, it is not clear that "mechanistic" questions are a superior avenue to truth even in the sciences of non-living substances, such as physics or astronomy. Is it not correct to explain the flow of electrons in an electric current toward the positive pole as a "tendency" or "drive," a "seeking," in other words, of that pole? Each and every natural substance, in fact, is inhabited by a "force," or by more than one force, that constitutes its "nature," which in Aristotelian terminology is also its "form." It is in accordance with its nature or form that an electron seeks the positive pole, and this seeking is teleological.

Strictly perhaps we should consider the elements rather than sub-atomic particles as substances, and even the elements are surpassed in substantiality by life-forms, which are Aristotle's favorite example of substances. The very possession of determinate attributes by an elements constitues a nature that endows it with a tendency -- that is, a "drive," or "force" --in virtue of which it is inclined to engage in various determinate actions. In isolation, both pure oxygen and pure hydrogen, for example, have a tendency to explode, given an ignition source. When the Challenger spacecraft exploded, for example, investigators noted that an oxygen tank seemed to be leaking; in view of the tendency of pure oxygen to explode, this was deemed a likely candidate for investigation as the cause of the explosion. Moreover, hydrogen and oxygen tend to unite to form water molecules. Such combinations of elements, such as water, also have a "nature" or "tendency": water tends to flow flow downward, to freeze and boil at particular temperatures, and so forth. All material substances have a tendency to approach one another, varying proportionately to their combine mass and inversely proportionately to their distance from one another; this tendency is called "gravity." It is difficult to imagine how we could explain the nature of these substances without reference to such tendencies; any such reference is a "teleological" explanation.

It ought to be evident, then, that what the author of the Democritus article calls "mechanistic questions" -- the "efficient cause," in Aristotelian parlance -- are by no means the sole, nor perhaps even our primary, avenue to scientific knowledge. A grasp of one or more of the other three causes -- material, formal and final (that is, the "tendential" or "teological") -- is often just as enlightening.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gharnett"

 * Interesting argument, but it doesn't seem to be a very widely held view. Just to take one of many academic papers on this subject: http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~lyman/english233/Teleology_and_Science.htm Quote: "Between the 16th and the 17th Century, that is, teleological explanation is for the first time banished from the precincts of science.  And from then on, it has been banished from every science, except insofar as that science concerns itself with human artifacts...Newton, however, explicitly excluded all consideration of teleology from his explanation of the structure of the cosmos...Newton declares that, as natural philosophy, a theory is superior to the degree that it excludes teleological explanation, confining itself instead to descriptive and physical explanation."

 * To be honest, I find many of your arguments to be somewhat non-coherent, with perhaps a semantically confused notion of what is typically called "teleology". In biology, for instance, my experience is that teleology-like language is used in a purely metaphorical sense.  I'm open to being proven wrong, but your case seems hugely exaggerated to me.  I'm still confident that Russell's position represents the mainstream view in science.   CABlankenship (talk) 05:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments on teleology
comments on teleology It is probably true that most modern scientists, if asked whether teleological explanation is useful, would probably answer that it is not; and would then continue to use it profusely in discussion of the biological sciences especially, as well as in the sciences of non-living things. Remember that "modern scientists" are for the most part students of the various empirical natural sciences, not students of the philosophy of science itself. As for the account of teleology offered in the contribution entitled "comments on teleology in the Democritus article," it does not of course purport to represent the understanding of teleology common among such modern empirical scientists, precisely because that understanding is in error. It represents Aristotle's understanding of what is called the "final cause," which almost no modern empirical scientists knows, because they don't read Aristotle, whose texts are frequently difficult and which all lack the rhetorical flourishes to which modern readers are accustomed. Properly understood in its fullness, Aristotle's account of the final cause really places it in the nature of every substance insofar as it possesses what we call "forces" endowing it with a proclivity to behave in a determinate way with respect to other substances or even with itself as it develops through time. Hence even subatomic particles have a "tendency" to "strive" in one way or another with respect to other subatomic particles; the example of the electron "striving" to join a proton was offered. When explaining the proclivity of atoms to join with other atoms in forming molecules, it is difficult, if not impossible, to avoid mention of this urge or striving. Again, however, why not examine a particular account of a living being, noticing how often it offers the "reason" the lifeform behaves in a particular way; and try to imagine such an account without such explanations of the "why" of animal behavior. Beyond this point, the reader is urged to seek enlightenment in Aristotle's *Physics* and *Metaphysics,* though it will be a long task, for Aristotle's discussions are of a type that moderns are accustomed to call "philosophy," and a comparatively difficult philosophy at that. Gharnett (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gharnett" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gharnett (talk • contribs) 20:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Round Earth
Can "round" in the article be explained further ? "Democritus held that the Earth was round...". Was he referring to a flat circular disc, or a sphere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.33.86.105 (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Etymology
I would like to suggest a alternate translation of his name:

 * Demo-critus as the one who can or does discern "demons"

 * "Demo-" here taken from "Demon" rather than from "demos" = People
 * "-critus" like critique, but rather in the sense of separating — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.153.60 (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

 * You are clearly clueless about Ancient Greek. See Wiktionary for the etymology of the word demon. In the Greek language at Democritus' time, αι (ai) and η (ē) were two entirely different sounds. Please do not attempt etymology as a complete layman. It is a real, serious science when done properly, where hypotheses have implications that confirm or disprove explanations, and languages change in regular enough ways that an "anything goes" approach or attitude is severely mistaken. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 06:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Void hypothesis
I think this text could be improved in two ways:

1. Of course it's useful to know the context of this hypothesis, namely in dialogue with Parmenides/Zeno, but as it is currently explained it seems a little unclear to me due to having to derive it from how it differs with Parmenides/Zeno's theory. At the moment Parmenides/Zeno's theory is the main focus here, while it should be the atomists theory.

2. In the second paragraph, after giving a short pointer on the atomists theory, it continues with its relevance to modern science. Although I agree there is certainly some relevance, I do question the suggestion that the atomists concept of 'void' would match the modern day concept of 'space'.

In the preceding text, the void hypothesis is already mentioned along with some of the reserves of my second point, so perhaps a clearer division should be made on the subject. Reorganising the current text should solve it nicely.

80.101.115.178 (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Puzzled about Plato
"Plato is said to have disliked him so much that he wished all his books burned.[7]"

"He may have been acquainted with Socrates, but Plato does not mention him and Democritus himself is quoted as saying, "I came to Athens and no one knew me."

So... which is it. Did Plato know him or didn't he? You can't have it both ways. 24.20.203.54 (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Many - Father of Modern Science?
This is an exaggeration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.10.9 (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, but more detail should be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.29.112 (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * For instance, everyone has some knowledge of light and gravity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.29.112 (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Metaphors should be avoided, anyway. Science has no father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.29.112 (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Shape of the Earth
I am extremely sceptical of the claim made in the article that "Democritus held that the Earth was round (spherical)," since it flatly contradicts what Aristotle says in Book II of On the Heavens:

 * "Anaximenes and Anaxagoras and Democritus give the flatness of the earth as the cause of its staying still."

I have been unable to find any passage in the two references cited, The Presocratic Philosophers and Early Greek Philosophy, both by Jonathan Barnes, or in any other authoritative source, which supports the claim. In fact, on p.26 of the latter book, Barnes quotes the above-cited passage from On the Heavens, having 2 pages earlier attributed the idea that "The earth is flat and rides on air" to Anaximenes. I strongly suspect that the claim in the article is based on a misunderstanding of some passage which discusses Democritus's ideas on the shape of the world—meaning the universe—, or of the oikumene—that is, the inhabited lands known to the ancient Greeks. Either of these could be held to be "round", meaning "roughly circular" in the latter case, without implying a belief in the sphericity of the Earth. David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Yes, David, a good catch.  Aristotle isn't that specific, it is usually assumed Democritus followed and expanded upon Leucippus' tambourine-like description, with the earth shaped as a disk with a hollow middle.  There is argument as to whether he thought the surface was convex, concave, or whether it tilted down to the South -- but he almost certainly didn't think the Earth was spherical.
 * cf. Panchenko, Dmitri. "The shape of the Earth in Archelaus, Democritus and Leucippus"
 * There is more to add -- I've read elsewhere that Democritus thought the oikumene was oval-shaped -- but for now I think we should remove the spherical claim. --Hillbillyholiday talk 19:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

 * On your last point, one passage I did find in Barnes's Early Greek philosophy (on p.126) was the following quotation from Agathemerus's Sketch of Geography:
 * "The old thinkers drew the inhabited world as round, placing Greece in its centre and Delphi in the centre of Greece (for Delphi holds the navel of the earth). Democritus, a man of wide experience, was the first to appreciate that the earth is elongated, its length being one and a half times its breadth."
 * The Greek word here translated as "inhabited world" is "οἰκουμένην" (oikouménē), and the one translated as "earth" is "γῆ" (or its inflected form, "γῆς", in the first instance). This translation of the second occurrence seems to me to be a rather poor one, since it seems pretty obvious that  "γῆ" is there being used as a synonym for  "οἰκουμένη γῆ", with the "οἰκουμένη" being tacitly understood.
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 22:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Is Democritus's Atomic Theory True??
I HAVE NO IDEA!!!!! I CAME HERE[WIKIPEDIA] FOR THE ANSWER, BUT I CAN'T FIND IT ANYWHERE!!! CAN ANYONE HELP ME????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.229.151 (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The main article for Democritus and others philosopher's ideas on the topic is Atomism. Dimadick (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Page Protection
As this page is constantly getting vandalized by IP address users, I've requested page protection, to limit editing to confirmed users. Teishin (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the request was denied.Teishin (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Editing of the paragraph Mathematics
I'd like to edit the paragraph "Mathematics" but unfortunately the page is write-protected. Here is the paragraph. If you can, please edit the paragraph "Mathematics" like below:--151.45.14.108 (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Mathematics
Democritus was also a pioneer of mathematics and geometry in particular. We only know this through citations of his works (titled On Numbers, On Geometrics, On Tangencies, On Mapping, and On Irrationals) in other writings, since all of Democritus's body of work did not survive the Middle Ages.

According to Archimedes, Democritus was among the first to observe that a cone and pyramid with the same base area and height has one-third the volume of a cylinder or prism respectively. Archimedes pointed out that Democritus didn't provide any proof of this statement, which was instead provided by Eudoxus of Cnidus.

Moreover Plutarch (Plut. De Comm. 39) stated that Democritus had raised the following question: if two planes parallel to the base and indefinitely near to each other cut a cone, are the surfaces of the sections equal or unequal? If they are equal, the cone becomes a cylinder, while if they are unequal, the cone becomes an "irregular cone" with indentations or steps. This question could be easily solved through calculus and it's been suggested, therefore, that Democritus may be considered a forerunner of calculus.

Classification as a Pre-Socratic Philosopher
I am reading through Copleston's History of Philosophy, and in discussing the Atomists (Pre-Socratics) he says the following:
 * Democritus is of considerably later date and cannot with historical accuracy be classed among the Pre-Socratics (ISBN 0-385-23031-1, p. 72)

However, the intro paragraph to this article says:
 * Democritus...was an Ancient Greek pre-Socratic philosopher

I don't think we should replace what's already there (since historians of philosophy seem to disagree on his classification), but it would be nice to at least add a note highlighting this different opinion and the fact that a disagreement does exist.

I have not made many contributions to Wikipedia in the past, so I cannot add this information. Not to mention: I am not sure of the best way to incorporate it. Maybe as a note to this sentence?

Arkensiel (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2022
In the first section as it mentions “Democritus was so disliked by Plato that he LATTER had all of his books burned”

Should be “later” 2607:9880:1F08:F2:249E:B70E:5BBD:3202 (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * the word "latter" is perfectly correct in the sentence you refer to. The author of the sentence is explaining that the second person mentioned in the sentence (i.e. Plato) wanted to burn Democritus's books. Chewings72 (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Error/ unnecessary?
What's with the sentence "He is an Atomists (sic)" at the end of the "Life" section? His atomic theory is referenced in the lead and in the "Philosophy and science" section, so it sits incongruously here and probably ought to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.192.96 (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Thanks for calling that out. Removed - Ttwaring (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Lock symbol
This page is semi-protected but needs the lock symbol... Please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carletteyt (talk • contribs) 06:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ ). BusterD (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Removed entire epistemology section as original research
The entire epistemology section appears to have been written by someone who was trying to read Pyrrhonism into Democritus: it's more or less directly contradicted by the Stanford Encyclopedia, which says that Democritus did not believe different sensations were produced in different people, or that conflicting evidence between senses produces doubt that the senses are accurate. I've deleted the whole section: while we will undoubtedly need a section on Democritus' epistemology, we might as well not have one that completely disagrees with modern scholarship and didn't have any secondary sources supporting it.

I'm going to continue to remove original research from this article as I find it, the whole article may even need to be stubbed based on how bad a state it's in, but I believe it's too soon to tell yet.  - car chasm (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Democritus and Jainism
Why was this deleted earlier?

In the West, the Greek philosopher known as DEMOCRITUS OF ABDERA (4th century BC) is credited as the one who first theorized about the existence of atoms. His school of thought has been called “atomism”, however, the concept of atoms was entirely new to Greece, whereas it was an old concept in India dating back at least to Bhagavan Mahavira (599 to 527 BC) of Jainism. At least 5 different ancient Greek and Roman historians wrote that Democritus traveled to India and studied there (as well as Babylonia and Egypt). These historians include DIOGENES LAERTIUS, SUIDAS, STRABO (while citing Alexander the Great’s historian Megasthenes), AELIAN (Claudius Aelianus), and the early Christian theologian HIPPOLYTUS. In fact, both Diogenes Laertius and Hippolytus specifically stated that Democritus studied under the GYMNOSOPHISTS or “naked sages” of India who have been identified as none other than the naked Jain monks. Hence, it is possible that Democritus of Abdera gained the idea of atomism, which was new to the Greeks, directly from the Jains in India.

Source: Taylor, C.C.W.  THE ATOMISTS: LEUCIPPUS AND DEMOCRITUS - FRAGMENTS A TEXT AND TRANSLATION WITH A COMMENTARY. University of Toronto Press, 1999. 47.138.18.163 (talk) 05:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Democritus the teacher of Protagoras? I don't think sooo
There is no good evidence that Democritus was the teacher of Protagoras, as their wiki pages clame. Also, Protagoras was 30 years older than Democritus, his supposed teacher! Rosopsida (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Opening of article wrong and misleading, please correct!!
"none of his work has survived" must be amended to:

"no complete copy of any of his works has survived, but some parts survive as fragments and quotations in surviving works by other ancient authors." 188.33.232.210 (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Step-like sides
In one of the inserts it states "Democritus argued that the circular cross-section of a cone would need step-like sides, rather than being shaped like a cylinder." Most people turn to Wikipedia in order to satisfy their desire or need to understand something, but what does this mean 'step-like sides. While I appreciate that somebody made the effort to provide the source of this statement, I still lack understanding. hskoppek (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Democritus


text:
Appenzell

Appenzell was a canton in the northeast of Switzerland, and entirely surrounded by the canton of St. Gallen, in existence from 1403 to 1597.

Appenzell became independent of the Abbey of Saint Gall in 1403 and entered a league with the Old Swiss Confederacy in 1411, becoming a full member in 1513. It was divided into Appenzell Innerrhoden and Appenzell Ausserrhoden in 1597 (in a process called the Landteilung) as a result of the Swiss Reformation.

The territory of Appenzell as a geographical entity is known as Appenzellerland. While in political contexts, the two cantons (until 1999 half-cantons) are referred to as beide Appenzell ("both Appenzells").

Foundation

The name Appenzell derives from abbatis cella 'cell (i.e., estate) of the abbot'. This refers to the Abbey of St. Gall, which exerted a great influence on the area. By the middle of the 11th century the abbots of St Gall had established their power in the land later called Appenzell, which by that time was thoroughly Alemannic.

By about 1360, conflicts over grazing rights, taxes, and tithes were causing concern for both the abbot and the farmers of Appenzell. Both parties wanted to protect their rights and interests by joining the new Swabian League. In 1377 Appenzell was allowed to join the League with the support of the cities of Konstanz and St. Gallen (the city of St. Gallen was often at odds with the neighboring Abbey of St. Gall). With the support of the League, Appenzell refused to pay many of the gifts and tithes that the Abbot Kuno von Stoffeln demanded. In response to the loss of revenue from his estates, Kuno approached the Austrian House of Habsburg for help. In 1392 he made an agreement with the Habsburgs, which was renewed in 1402. In response, in 1401 Appenzell entered into an alliance with the city of St. Gallen to protect their rights and freedom.

Independence and joining the Swiss Confederation

Following increasing conflicts between the Appenzellers and the abbot's agents, including the bailiff of Appenzell demanding that a dead body be dug up because he wanted the man's clothes, the Appenzellers planned an uprising. On a certain day, throughout the abbot's lands, they attacked the bailiffs and drove them out of the land. Following unsuccessful negotiations, Appenzell and St. Gallen entered into a treaty. The treaty between St. Gallen and Appenzell marked a break between the abbot and his estates. Perhaps fearing the Habsburgs, in 1402 the League expelled Appenzell. During the same year, St. Gallen reached an agreement with the abbot and Appenzell could no longer count on St. Gallen's support. Appenzell declared itself ready to stand against the abbot, and in 1403 formed an alliance with the Canton of Schwyz, a member of the Old Swiss Confederation that had defeated the Austrians in the last century. Glarus provided less support, but authorized any citizen who wished to support Appenzell to do so. In response, the League raised an army and marched to St. Gallen, before heading toward Appenzell. On 15 May 1403, they entered the pass to Speicher and outside the village of Vögelinsegg met the Appenzell army. A small force of Appenzell and Confederation troops defeated the League army and signed a short lived peace treaty.

Following another Appenzell victory on 17 June 1405, at Stoss Pass on the border of Appenzell town, the new canton continued to expand. During the expansion, Appenzell had even captured the abbot of St Gall and in response they were excommunicated by the Bishop of Constance.

However, while the Bund expanded the Austrians used the peace to regain their strength. On 11 September 1406 an association of nobles formed a knightly order known as the Sankt Jörgenschild (Order of St. George's Shield) to oppose the rebellious commoners of the Bund. Following a defeat at Bregenz, Appenzell was unable to hold the Bund together. The city of St. Gallen and the Canton of Schwyz each paid off the Austrians to avoid an attack, and the Bund was dissolved by King Rupert on 4 April 1408.

As part of the peace treaty, the abbot gave up his ownership of Appenzell, but was still owed certain taxes. However, it was not until 1410 that the area was at peace.

In 1411 Appenzell signed a defensive treaty with the entire Swiss Confederation (except Bern), which strengthened their position against the abbot. Appenzell joined the Confederation as an "Associate Member", and would not become a full member until 1513. Following another battle, in 1429, Appenzell was granted freedom from the obligations in the future. This treaty represented the end of Appenzell's last financial tie to the Abbey of St. Gall, and a movement to closer relationships with the Confederation.

Division of Appenzell
Starting in 1522, followers of Martin Luther and Huldrych Zwingli began to preach the Protestant Reformation in Appenzell. The early reformers had the most success in the outer Rhoden, a term that in the singular is said to mean a "clearing", and occurs in 1070, long before the final separation. Following the initial small success, in 1523 Joachim von Watt (also known as Joachim Vadian) began to preach the reformed version of the Acts of the Apostles to friends and fellow clergy. His preaching brought the Reformation into the forefront of public debate. In October 1523, the Council supported the Protestant principle of scriptural sermons and on 24 April 1524 Landsgemeinde confirmed the Cantonal Council's decision. However, the work of the Anabaptists in the Appenzell region (as well as in Zürich and St. Gallen) in 1525 led to government crackdowns. The first police action against the Anabaptists took place in June 1525, followed by the Anabaptist Disputation in Teufen in October 1529.

To end the confrontation between the old and new faiths, the Landesgemeinde decided in April 1525, that each parish should choose a faith, but that the principle of free movement would be supported, so that the religious minority could attend the church of their choice regardless of where they lived. The entire Ausserrhoden converted to the Reformation in 1529, with the exception of Herisau, whose Catholic priest, Joseph Forrer, convinced the town to remain with the old faith for the time being, whereas the Innerrhoden remained with the old faith, with the exception of Gais. While the majority of the residents of Appenzell town remained Catholic under Pastor Diepolt Huter, there was a strong Reformed minority. In 1531, the minority were nearly successful in getting the town to ally with the Protestant Ausserrhoden. But an armed mob of angry residents from the neighboring village of Gonten prevented the abolition of the Mass in Appenzell. The Catholic victory in the Second War of Kappel in 1531 ended plans for a reformation of the entire Canton of Appenzell.

After the Second War of Kappel, the two religions reached a generally peaceful parity. They remained united by common business interests, the same political and legal understanding, a shared desire to form an alliance with France and a shared opposition to the city of St. Gallen. This shared opposition to St. Gallen was demonstrated in the so-called linen affairs (1535–42, 1579), where the weavers throughout Appenzell supported each other when they felt that they were unfairly treated by the linen industry of St. Gallen. Nonetheless, divisions over matters of religion and foreign policy, especially with regards to alliances between Catholic and Protestant cantons and the foreign powers of Spain and France, respectively, led to the peaceful partition of the canton in 1597. The terms of partition were arbitrated by representatives of both Catholic cantons (Luzern, Schwyz, Nidwalden) and Protestant cantons (Zürich, Glarus, Schaffhausen).

After this time, the term Kanton Appenzell continued to refer to both half-cantons, although this usage has since become outdated. Usually die beiden Appenzell ("the two Appenzells") are spoken of in a political context, and Appenzellerland in a geographic context, if the aim is to refer to Innerrhoden and Ausserrhoden collectively.

From 1798 to 1803 both Appenzells, with the other domains of the abbot of St Gall, were formed into the canton of Säntis of the Helvetic Republic, but in 1803, on the creation of the new canton of St Gall, shrank back within its former boundaries.

Geography
Appenzellerland is an alpine region, particularly in the south, where the Alpstein limestone range (culminating in the Säntis, with an elevation of 8216 ft) is found, though towards the north the surface is composed rather of green hills, separating green hollows in which nestle neat villages and small towns. It is mainly watered by two streams that descend from the Säntis, the Urnasch joining the Sitter (on which is the capital, Appenzell), which later flows into the Thur. There are trams from Appenzell to St Gallen either through Gais or through Herisau, as well as lines from St Gallen to Trogen and from Rorschach to Heiden.

Since 1597 it has been divided, for religious reasons, into two half-cantons, which are quite independent of each other, and differ in many points. The north and west portion or Ausser Rhoden has a total area of 93.6 sqmi, of which 90.6 sqmi are classed as "productive"; forests cover 22.5 sqmi and glaciers 0.038 sqmi, and its population is mainly German-speaking and Protestant. Its political capital is Trogen, though the largest town is Herisau, while Teufen, and Heiden in the north-east corner is the most frequented of the many goats' whey cure resorts for which the entire canton is famous (Urnäsch and Gais are also in Ausser Rhoden). This half-canton is divided into three administrative districts, comprising twenty communes, and is mainly industrial, the manufacture of cotton goods, muslins, and embroidery being very flourishing. It sends one member (elected by the Landsgemeinde) to the federal Ständerat and three to the federal Nationalrat (elected by a direct popular vote).

The south or more mountainous portion of Appenzell forms the half-canton of Appenzell, Inner Rhoden. It has a total area of 66.7 sqmi (of which 62.8 sqmi are classed as "productive", forests covering 12.8 sqmi and glaciers 0.38 sqmi). Its population is almost entirely German-speaking, and predominantly Catholic. Its political capital is Appenzell, which is also the largest village, while Weissbad (near it) and Gonten are the best-known goats' whey cure resorts. Embroidery and muslins are made in this half-canton, though wholly at home by the work-people. But it is very largely pastoral. Inner Rhoden is extremely conservative, and has the reputation of always rejecting any federal Referendum. For similar reasons it has preserved many old customs and costumes, those of the women being very elaborate and picturesque, while the herdsmen have retained their festival attire of red waistcoats, embroidered braces and canary-coloured shorts. Appenzell's annual New Year's Day festivities are still governed by the Julian calendar and are thus currently held on January 14. It sends one member (named by the Landsgemeinde) to the federal Ständerat, and one also to the federal Nationalrat, while it forms but a single administrative district, though divided into six communes.

Landsgemeinden

Both Appenzell cantons had traditions of holding Landsgemeinden, or democratic assemblies held in the open air, in which every male and female citizen (not being disqualified) over twenty years of age must (under a financial penalty) appear personally: each half-canton has such an assembly of its own, that of Inner Rhoden always meeting at Appenzell, and that of Ausser Rhoden in the odd years at Hundwil (near Herisau) and in the even years at Trogen. However, in Ausser Rhoden this institution was abolished by a ballot on 29 September 1997 by 54% of voters (61% of the electorate voted). A measure to reintroduce the institution in 2010 failed, with 70.29% of participating electors voting against it. Landsgemeinden continue to be used in Inner Rhoden, with the closest attempt at abolishing it failing in 1991.

This institution is of immemorial antiquity, and the meetings in either case are always held on the last Sunday in April. The Landsgemeinde is the supreme legislative authority, and elects both the executive (in Inner Rhoden composed of nine members and called Ständekommission, and in Ausser Rhoden of seven members and called Regierungsrat) and the president or Landammann; in each half-canton there is also a sort of standing committee (composed of the members of the executive and representatives from the communes—in Inner Rhoden one member per 250 or fraction over 125 of the population, and in Ausser Rhoden one member per 1000 of the inhabitants) which prepares business for the Landsgemeinde and decides minor matters; in Inner Rhoden it is named the Grossrat and in Ausser Rhoden the Kantonsrat. As various old-fashioned ceremonies are observed at the meetings and the members each appear with his girded sword, the sight of a meeting of the Landsgemeinde is most striking and interesting. The existing constitution of Inner Rhoden dates mainly from 1872, and that of Ausser Rhoden from 1876.

The oldest codes of the laws and customs of the land (Landbücher) date from about 1540 and 1585, the original manuscript of the latter (called the "Silver Book" from its silver clasps) being still used in Inner Rhoden when, at the beginning of the annual Landsgemeinde, the newly elected Landammann first takes the oath of office, and the assembled members then take that of obedience to him, in either case with uplifted right hands.

In fact there are two Landamann: a so-called Regierender Landaman (acting Landamann) and a Stillstehender Landamann (vice Landamann). The terms are for two years and will switch between them after the two year, but they have to be confirmed every year by the voters. In particular the Regierender Landaman has to be confirmed by the voters by actually voting. This actually leaves the voters with the possibility to drop any member of the government during the Landsgemeinde and select someone else.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Appenzell


text:
Naoto Kan

Naoto Kan (菅 直人) is a Japanese politician who served as Prime Minister of Japan and President of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) from June 2010 to September 2011.

Kan was the first Prime Minister since the resignation of Junichiro Koizumi in 2006 to serve for more than one year, with his predecessors Yukio Hatoyama, Tarō Asō, Yasuo Fukuda, and Shinzo Abe either resigning prematurely or losing an election. On 26 August 2011, Kan announced his resignation. Yoshihiko Noda was elected as his successor.

On 1 August 2012, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced Kan would be one of the members of the UN high-level panel on the post-2015 development agenda.

Early life and education
Kan was born in Ube, Yamaguchi, the eldest son of Hisao Kan, the executive director of the glass manufacturing company Central Glass. He graduated in 1970 from the Tokyo Institute of Technology and became a licensed benrishi (patent agent/attorney) in 1971.

Diet career

After graduating from college, Kan worked at a patent office for four years. He actively engaged in civic grassroots movements for years and also served on election campaign staff for Fusae Ichikawa, a women's rights activist.

After having lost in the 1976 and 1979 general elections and 1977 Upper House election, Kan achieved a seat in the lower house in 1980 as a member of the Socialist Democratic Federation. He gained national popularity in 1996, when serving as the Minister of Health and Welfare, admitting the government's responsibility for the spread of HIV-tainted blood in the 1980s and directly apologized to victims. At that time, he was a member of a small party forming the ruling coalition with the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). His frank action was completely unprecedented and was applauded by the media and the public.

In 1998, his image was affected by allegations of an affair, vigorously denied by both parties, with a television newscaster and media consultant, Yūko Tonomoto. After Yukio Hatoyama resigned as the leader of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), Kan again took over the position. In July 2003, the DPJ and the Liberal Party led by Ichirō Ozawa agreed to form a united opposition party to prepare for the general election that was anticipated to take place in the fall.

During the campaign of the election of 2003, the DPJ called the election as the choice of the government between the ruling LDP-bloc and the DPJ, with Kan being presented as the alternative candidate to then Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. His face was used as the trademark of the campaign against the LDP.

However, in 2004 Kan was accused of unpaid annuities and again resigned the position of leader. On 10 May 2004, he officially announced his resignation and made the Shikoku Pilgrimage. Later, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare spokesman apologized, saying the unpaid record was due to an administrative error.

In mid-October 2005, Kan, who turned 60 in 2006, proposed the creation of a new political party to be called the "Dankai (baby boomer) Party". The initial intent of the party was to offer places of activity for the Japanese baby boomers – 2.7 million of whom began to retire en masse in 2007.

He believes the Japan Self-Defense Forces should play a more prominent role on the international stage.

Finance Minister (2010)
On 6 January 2010, he was picked by Yukio Hatoyama to be the new finance minister, assuming the post in addition to deputy prime minister. He replaced Hirohisa Fujii as finance minister.

In his first news conference, Kan announced his priority was stimulating growth and took the unusual step of naming a specific dollar-yen level as optimal to help exporters and stimulate the economy: "There are a lot of voices in the business world saying that (the dollar) around ¥95 is appropriate in terms of trade". Hatoyama appeared to rebuke Kan. "When it comes to foreign exchange, stability is desirable and rapid moves are undesirable. The government basically shouldn't comment on foreign exchange," he told reporters.

Prime Minister (2010–2011)
On 2 June 2010, Yukio Hatoyama announced his intention to resign as the leader of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) and as prime minister, also saying that he had urged his backer in the party, Ichirō Ozawa, to resign as secretary general. The Cabinet resigned en masse on 4 June. Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada and Land and Transport Minister Seiji Maehara, though once considered to be possible successors to Hatoyama, announced their support for Kan. Kan, at the age of 63, won the leadership of the DPJ with 291 votes to 129, defeating a relatively unknown Ozawa-backed legislator Shinji Tarutoko, 50, who was leading the environmental policy committee in the lower house of the Diet.

Subsequently, on 4 June, Kan was designated prime minister by the Diet. On 8 June, Emperor Akihito formally appointed Kan as the 94th Prime Minister, and the 29th postwar prime minister. His cabinet was formed later on the day.

Kan's approval ratings fell in the month of June after he proposed an increase in the sales tax rate from 5% to 10%. His sales tax increase proposal was opposed by Ichirō Ozawa, amongst others in the DPJ, and the proposal was quickly scaled back by Kan. The botched sales tax increase proposal was partially blamed for the DPJ's disappointing results in the July House of Councillors election, where the DPJ lost its majority and was forced to work with smaller, unaffiliated parties (such as Your Party, the JCP, and the SDP) in order to secure passage of bills in the House of Councillors.

In August, Kan apologised to the Republic of Korea on the 100th anniversary of the Japan–Korea Annexation Treaty.

Ozawa challenged Kan's leadership of the DPJ in September. Although it was initially believed that Ozawa had a slight edge among DPJ members of parliament, in the final vote Kan garnered the support of 206 DPJ lawmakers to Ozawa's 200. Local rank-and-file party members and activists overwhelmingly supported Kan, and according to opinion polls the wider Japanese public preferred Kan to Ozawa by as much as a 4:1 ratio.

After the leadership challenge, Kan reshuffled his cabinet, which left many prominent members of the pro-Ozawa faction of the DPJ without important posts in the new cabinet. The cabinet reshuffle also resulted in the promotion of long-time Kan ally Yoshito Sengoku to Chief Cabinet Secretary. Sengoku was labeled by the opposition LDP as the "second" Prime Minister of the Kan cabinet.

On 7 September, a Chinese fishing boat captain was arrested by the Japan Coast Guard (JCG) after his trawler had collided with JCG patrol boats in disputed waters near the Senkaku Islands. China protested the arrest, as it claims the islands as part of its sovereign territory, and demanded the unconditional release of the captain. The captain was released on 24 September, after China had cut off all ministerial-level contacts with Japan and threatened further action. The incident brought Sino-Japanese relations to its lowest point since the Koizumi administration.

The Kan government intervened in mid-September to weaken the surging yen by buying U.S. dollars, a move which temporarily relieved Japan's exporters. The move proved popular with stock brokers, Japanese exporters, and the Japanese public. It was the first such move by a Japanese government since 2004. Later, in October, after the yen had offset the intervention and had reached a 15-year high, the Kan cabinet approved a stimulus package worth about 5.1 trillion yen ($62 billion) in order to weaken the yen and fight deflation.

In November, Kan spoke out forcefully in support of South Korea and in harsh criticism of North Korea in the wake of the latter's bombardment of Yeonpyeong, meanwhile ignoring China's public comments which had not yet included denunciation of the North.

Fukushima nuclear accident response
After the earthquake and tsunami in northeastern Japan on the afternoon of March 11, 2011, Kan flew by helicopter to the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant early the next morning, and was thereafter heavily involved in efforts to effectively respond to the Fukushima nuclear accident. Venting from the Fukushima plant began on the morning of 12 March, shortly after Kan's meeting with Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) management at the plant, and that afternoon the plant suffered its first explosion. That evening, following an order from METI Minister Kaieda to begin pumping seawater into the plant for emergency cooling purposes, Kan expressed concern that the seawater injection plan may lead to re-criticality, in response to which TEPCO directed plant manager Masao Yoshida to stop pumping (an order which Yoshida tacitly ignored). After further briefings on the issue, Kan directed pumping to continue later that evening. Several weeks later, Shinzo Abe circulated information that Kan had ordered pumping to stop, which the Yomiuri Shimbun and other news outlets reported as fact, and opposition leader Sadakazu Tanigaki accused the government of causing the Fukushima meltdowns.

Early in the morning of 15 March, amid rumors that TEPCO intended to abandon the plant and allow a full meltdown that would potentially trigger an evacuation of the entire Kanto region, Kan ordered the establishment of a joint response headquarters between the government and TEPCO, and personally traveled to TEPCO headquarters on half an hour's notice. While this move initially antagonized TEPCO, it was later positively evaluated as improving communications between the plant operator and government agencies such as the Self-Defense Forces and Tokyo Fire Department.

Kan slept in the Prime Minister's Office and did not return home for an entire week after the disaster struck; he wore blue coveralls instead of a suit until the end of March. Kan took an increasingly anti-nuclear stance in the months following the Fukushima disaster. In May, he ordered that the aging Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant be closed over earthquake and tsunami fears, and he said he would freeze plans to build new reactors.

Despite falling popularity, Kan rejected calls to step down while the country continued to suffer from the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear crises of spring 2011. One year into his premiership on 2 June 2011, Kan proposed his resignation, hours before the Diet put forward a vote of no-confidence. The motion was defeated by 293 to 152, bolstering the Prime Minister's position.

In July 2011, Kan said that Japan must reduce its dependence on nuclear energy, breaking with a decades-old Japanese government drive to build more nuclear power plants in the country. "We must scrap the plan to have nuclear power contribute 53 percent (of electricity supply) by 2030 and reduce the degree of reliance on nuclear power," Kan told a government panel. Kan said Japan should abandon plans to build 14 new reactors by 2030. He wants to "pass a bill to promote renewable energy and questioned whether private companies should be running atomic plants". In August, Kan removed three of Japan's top nuclear energy officials in effort to break ties between government and the atomic industry.

When interviewed in 2012, after resigning as prime minister, Kan said the Fukushima accident made it clear to him that "Japan needs to dramatically reduce its dependence on nuclear power, which supplied 30 percent of its electricity before the crisis, and has turned him into a believer of renewable energy." He said that at one point Japan faced a situation where there was a chance that people might not be able to live in the capital zone including Tokyo and would have to evacuate, and that he was haunted by the specter of an even bigger nuclear crisis forcing tens of millions of people to flee Tokyo and threatening the nation's existence. "If things had reached that level, not only would the public have had to face hardships but Japan's very existence would have been in peril". That convinced Kan to "declare the need for Japan to end its reliance on atomic power and promote renewable sources of energy such solar [sic] that have long taken a back seat in the resource-poor country's energy mix". He told a parliamentary investigation in 2012 that the nuclear industry had "shown no remorse" for the disaster, and was trying to push Japan back to nuclear power.

Resignation
Kan announced his intention to resign on 10 August 2011. On 26 August, with passage of a debt bill and the renewable energy bill as final conditions, Kan expected "to see his successor in office [within the] week, according to a Kyodo news report, which cited cabinet ministers". At the same time, Seiji Maehara, who had supported Kan in 2010, was reported to have announced his intention to run to succeed Kan. Maehara was seen as the potential DPJ candidate most popular with the voters at the time, but several other cabinet members joined the race, and the election of the DPJ successor was scheduled for 29 August. At that time, Yoshihiko Noda, most recently finance minister, was elected as the new DPJ leader and, as leader of the largest party in the Diet, became prime minister as well.

Post-premiership
During 16 December 2012 Tokyo gubernatorial election, called due to the resignation of incumbent Governor Shintaro Ishihara, the Democratic Party of Japan itself did not endorse any candidate, but Kan supported Kenji Utsunomiya (leftist lawyer), who shared Kan's anti-nuclear stance. Ultimately Utsunomiya came second in the election, losing to Naoki Inose who had been vice-governor under Ishihara from 2007 to 2012, and then acting governor after Ishihara's abrupt resignation.

In the 2012 general election called by Kan's successor Noda, Kan lost his seat in the Tokyo 18th district, but retained a seat in the diet through the proportional representation system. In the 2014 general election, Kan lost his district seat but was again elected through the proportional block. He joined the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan along with the liberal-leaning members of the Democratic Party following the party split prior to the 2017 general election. In the election, he regained his district seat, defeating the LDP incumbent Masatada Tsuchiya with a margin of 1,046 votes.

In 2023, Kan stated publicly he would not run for a seat in the House of Representatives again. He further said that he would "still probably be involved in politics someway".

Personal life
Kan married his wife Nobuko in 1970. Nobuko, born in Okayama Prefecture, entered a relationship with the Tokyo-dwelling Kan after entering Tsuda College. As the two are first cousins, the engagement was met with parental opposition. They have two sons, Gentarō and Shinjirō. Gentarō is a civil rights activist and lost in elections for the Lower House in 2003 and 2005. Shinjiro is a veterinarian and works at an animal hospital in Nerima, Tokyo.

Kan is nicknamed "Ira-Kan" (Fretful Kan") due to his reputed short temper. His hobbies were go, shogi and origami. Kan built a machine to calculate the complicated mahjong point system and applied for a patent in 1973.

In media
Kan was portrayed by Shirō Sano in the 2020 film Fukushima 50, and by Fumiyo Kohinata in the 2023 Netflix series The Days (in which his name was changed to Shinji Azuma). Both works portray Kan's role in the Fukushima crisis from a highly critical perspective.

The docu-drama The Seal of the Sun (2016, 90 min.), directed by Futoshi Sato, produced by Kaori Otsuka and executive produced by Tamiyoshi Tachibana, shows how the Prime Minister's office and the field struggled following the five days after the Fukushima nuclear accident. The film delves into the 3.11 Tohoku earthquake/Fukushima disaster from Prime Minister Naoto Kan and his cabinet's perspective. In this interview, executive producer Tachibana discusses why he created the film: Naoto Kan has an important cameo appearance in the 2023 Documentary Film SOS - The San Onofre Syndrome: Nuclear Power’s Legacy directed by James Heddle, Mary Beth Brangan and Morgan Peterson. On a recent interview producer Mary Beth Brangan stated that it was the Fukushima accident what set her and her life partner James Heddle into the making of that film. The film documents a very special visit prime minister Naoto Kan paid on June 4th, 2013 to San Diego to participate in a panel entitled “Fukushima: Ongoing Lessons for California” next to Nuclear Regulatory Commission chair Gregory Jaczko, former NRC Commissioner Peter A. Bradford, and nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen, where they discussed nuclear power's risks. In his concluding statement Prime Minister Kan stated:

"After Fukushima, my whole mindset about nuclear power has changed 180 degrees... I began to think there is only one way to deal with this risk.... I realized, we need a society that has no nuclear power."

title: Naoto Kan


text:
Gul Agha Sherzai

Gul Agha Sherzai (ګل آغا شيرزی; born 1954), also known as Mohammad Shafiq, is a politician and former warlord in Afghanistan. He is a former governor of Nangarhar province in eastern Afghanistan. He previously served as Governor of Kandahar province, in the early 1990s and from 2001 until 2003. In October 2013, Sherzai resigned from his post as governor and formally announced himself as a candidate for Afghanistan's 2014 Presidential Election, and served as the minister of border and tribal affairs until the Taliban captured Afghanistan again in 2021.

Early years
Sherzai was born in 1954 in Kandahar province His father Haji Abdul Latif, proprietor of a small tea shop in Kandahar, rose to become a famous Mujahideen commander. Sherzai took the name Gul Agha when he joined his father in the Mujahideen, who were fighting in the southern Afghanistan area against the Soviet and Afghan government forces.

His father was later murdered and he added Sherzai (Pashto for "son of lion") as his last name. He is an ethnic Pashtun from the Barakzai tribe. His father was locally known as Haji Latif Sagwan, ("Sagwan" is a term used for a "dog fighter") which is a derogatory term used for gamblers, who was a well-known dog fighter in southern Afghanistan. Sherzai would later collaborate with then-Governor of Kandahar, General Nur ul-Haq Ulumi, to stage fake attacks on the Afghan military, resulting in the ISI increasing supplies sent to Sherzai, who would sell them in Kandahar with the blessings of the PDPA government.

After the collapse of the PDPA government in 1992, Sherzai served as Governor of Kandahar. He was known outside of Afghanistan as one of the major warlords until around September 1994 when the Taliban began their conquest in Kandahar. Sherzai resigned from his post as governor and remained hidden until late 2001 in Pakistan.

The Karzai administration
Sherzai's capture of Kandahar in late 2001, with assistance from American special forces and Hamid Karzai, marked the first time territory in southern Afghanistan had been captured from the Taliban forces.

According to Matthieu Aikins, writing in Harper's Magazine Karzai appointed a Mullah Naqib to the Governorship of Kandarhar. Aikins reported that American officials favored Sherzai over Karzai's choice, and encouraged him to oust Mullah Naqib.

In August 2003, Afghan President Karzai decreed that officials could no longer hold both military and civil posts, and replaced Sherzai with Yousef Pashtun as Governor of Kandahar.

Political career after Kandahar
In 2004, Sherzai was appointed Governor of Nangarhar Province, after a spell as "Special Advisor" to Hamid Karzai.

In July 2006, Sherzai narrowly escaped an assassination attempt at a funeral outside Jalalabad. The attempt killed five police officers and wounded several more people, including some children. He opened the newly built highway connecting Jalalabad city with Torkham, which is one of the most popular border towns between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Afghan President Karzai and Pakistan's Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz were also present during the inauguration.

In 2008 he met Barack Obama.

In January 2009, an article by Ahmad Majidyar of the American Enterprise Institute included Sherzai on a list of fifteen possible candidates in the 2009 Afghan Presidential election. In May 2009, he announced that he would not be a candidate. Nevertheless, his name was on an August 2009 ballot, and preliminary results placed him 17th in a field of 38.

Sherzai's brother is Abdul Raziq Sherzai, a commander who captured Kandahar airfield in 2001-02 and was subsequently made the Kandahar wing commander of the Afghan Air Force.

On October 2, 2013, Sherzai resigned from his post as Governor of Nangarhar Province and formally announced himself as a candidate for Afghanistan's 2014 Presidential Election.

Since 2021, Sherzai pledged allegiance to the Taliban government and he had also congratulated their victory in the American War in Afghanistan after they took over Kabul.

title: Gul Agha Sherzai


text:
Saikyo

Saikyo may refer to:
 * Saikyō Line, a Japanese railway line in the Tokyo metropolitan area
 * Saikyō Maru, a Japanese ship involved in the Battle of the Yalu River (1894)
 * Western Capital (disambiguation) (西京), several topics

People with the surname Saikyo include:
 * Haruma Saikyo (born 1998), Japanese kickboxer
 * Yuma Saikyo (born 2000), Japanese kickboxer

title: Saikyo


text:
Talk:Gul Agha Sherzai

Untitled
Isn't "Gul" a title or honorific? It's Wikipedia policy not to include titles in article names. RickK 06:03, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. If it is, move this article to Agha Sherzai. Also, if so, there should be an article written for gul. Kingturtle 06:09, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, I only know this from watching Star Trek:DS9 :) RickK 06:14, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Gul Agha is "flower" while Sherzai is "son of lion." --Kralizec! | talk 15:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This para doesn't make sense: In July 2006, Sherzai narrowly escaped an assassination attempt at a funeral outside Jalalabad. The attempt killed five police officers and wounded several more people, including some children. He opened the newly built highway connecting Jalalabad city with Torkham, which is the border town between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistan's prime minister Shaukat Aziz were also present there during the innauguration.[1] Taliban forces took credit for the attack.

Probably last sentence should go after ...some children. But I can't find a source for this Psandman 09:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gul Agha Sherzai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080306071405/http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=gul_agha_sherzai to http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=gul_agha_sherzai

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gul Agha Sherzai