Talk:Epicurean paradox

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religion This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Classical Greece and Rome This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Philosophy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article contains a translation of Paradoxo de Epicuro from pt.wikipedia.

The request to rename this article to Epicurean paradox has been carried out. If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

Epicurus' paradox → Epicurean paradox – A quick review of sources shows Epicurean paradox as the clear common name of the topic. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – per nom, also "Epicurus'" is incorrect per MOS:POSS. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created by a now-banned hoaxter, Drekmikc76. None of the sources I checked actually talk about anything called "Epicurus' paradox". It may be the same thing as the problem of evil, which already has an article. I did find a blog here [1] but that's not RS. The strange ref style makes it hard to know what's a source and what's not, and I'm going to try to fix that. But I suspect this article should just be deleted. @Seraphimblade: GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even a brief Google search leads to sources that demonstrate beyond question that this article is not a hoax. Our own article on the problem of evil cites one of the sources given here for the specific logical process and its questionable, if widespread attribution to Epicurus. And a cursory examination of that article demonstrates that the scope of that topic goes far beyond what is or should be covered here.

The only question, then, is whether anything here is not duplicative of the content at "problem of evil", or could not be conveniently covered there. If there is too much to cover regarding Epicurus, his formulation, or the question of his authorship of this logical conundrum, in "problem of evil", or if what is there seems too detailed and perhaps deserving of splitting, then this article should remain, irrespective of who started it.

I do think it may be necessary to review the sources that come up to ensure that there are no copyright violations. The editor who started it does not seem to have understood basic Wikipedia policies, and may not have been able to write clearly or effectively in English. It could be that subsequent editors have greatly improved the prose, but there may be passages lifted from some of the original author's sources with little change. If so, the issue can probably be resolved by rewording with attribution.

If you're concerned with the title being original, I don't see that as an issue. Either sources that mention it use a common name for this paradox, or they don't. If they don't agree on what to call it, then any reasonable, logical description of it is a suitable title for this article. And unless Epicurus is said to have posited some other, better-known paradox, either the current title, or the proposed one in the previous section, will do. I don't believe that MOS:POSS covers this, because the possessive of Epicurus could be pronounced equally with or without an additional 's'. As a plural, I might expect "Epicurusses", but much less so as a possessive. However, "Epicurean" would avoid that problem. P Aculeius (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]