Talk:Aristotle

Unabashed Aristotle

"Aristotle's own attitude towards Persia was unabashedly ethnocentric."

Why wouldn't it be? Was this attitude unusual at the time? Why should he be abashed? 2A02:AA1:1647:94F7:3DF9:7FE4:DD00:548B (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Why do these questions seem purely rhetorical? Remsense ‥ 论 19:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Spelling mistake, it should be 'Taught'. 81.79.56.23 (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2024

Ckingw (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) To fix some grammar that's incorrect

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Favonian (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Repeated re-addition of large volume of references, despite objections

User:Michel Laurin has repeatedly re-added references, despite other editors' specific objections.

In an edit comment he said "It is always useful to have more sources, especially when the point is about a prevailing opinion." -- a view which is patently false: it is easy to refbomb an article especially on a subject like this one which has a *massive* secondary literature. User:William M. Connolley commented that "...this isn't a game of add-my-pet-links. that opinions differ isn't controversial."

After being reverted again, Laurin now wrote "I will remove some older references but leave the most recent ones, which typically cite older ones anyway. For this, I need to start from the most complete version".

His next edit then moved a few references, actually *increasing* the byte count, thus flatly contradicting his promise to remove references: at least, certainly none of the 1,328 bytes of material which he himself had added, and which include a citation to a whole book by Laurin himself (without indication of which part is supposed to be relevant), or at least by someone of the same name.

When I removed the most egregious of the added refs, Laurin's own book - the citation indicating the entire book without any indication of pages he felt to be relevant to the context - he replied in haughty tones "Unwarranted removal of a relevant reference. Obeivouly, the editor who did this is unaware of the ontents of that reference." Well, the onus for anyone adding a ref is to make it clear how it is relevant, most obviously by indicating the relevant chapter by title or the relevant page range: it is not for other editors to have to guess the un-indicated location within the work. As for his claim of its being a "relevant reference", that could apply to any of a thousand books, and we certainly shouldn't cite all of those; and the lack of any concern about indicating a page range speaks volumes about Laurin's lack of concern for Wikipedia, given his evident Conflict of Interest here. Was the removal warranted: on multiple grounds, yes.

I'm minded simply to revert all Laurin's recent edits as unwarranted overcitation, accompanied by frank authorspam (or call it non-neutral editing, point-of-view editing, conflict of interest, please take your pick), and, frankly, edit-warring, as he added the 1,328 bytes three times on 13 and 14 November, and has done nothing to slim that material down since. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I indeed intended to remove some of the references that you thought were superfluous, but I then realised that they were very relevant to another part of the page. Your accusation of overcitation is insulting; only a small part of the references that I add are from my me (often partly, as a co-author). Just check it out and you will see for yourself. I happen to have published original research on many of the topics for which I edit on Wikipedia. Very few of my colleagues bother to do so; no doubt, such unpleasant experiences may explain part of this disinterest. Michel Laurin (talk) Michel Laurin (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's COI policy is unusually expansive, and I see this has been brought to your attention previously. You really need to provide specific justification for self-citation in response to challenges. It's fine to share your whole CV and talk yourself up on your user page, but possibly gratuitous citations to your own works looks extremely promotional, particularly since you appear to WP:SELFCITE with some regularity. Patrick (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Patrick. I am aware of Wikipedia's COI policy. Obviously, Chiswick Chap did not realise that the book that he wanted to suppress is about taxonomy and its history, and as such, Aristotle is discussed fairly extensively therein. I assumed that before editors decide to remove material, that they would check it first; I was clearly wrong on that point.

Indeed, I often happen to incorporate references to my own work, and this is not by mere coincidence. I only edit pages on topics that I am very familiar with, meaning on which I have published relevant papers. When I edit the page, I try to include everything that I feel important and relevant, among the matters and references that are not already on the page. I am always careful to present the variety of points of view and of sources, but I don't self-censor my own publications; when they are relevant, I cite them. If this still does not somehow conform to Wikipedia's COI policy, I can simply stop contributing to Wikipedia (at least, the English language version) and spend my energy where my work is appreciated.

Last, you are correct, I once went into arbitration over precisely that issue, several years ago, and the ruling was in my favor. The editor who had objected to my edits appeared to think that all self-citation was abusive, but that is not so. In some cases, and in an appropriate circumstances, it is appropriate. At least, this is how science works. Pick up an scientific paper or book with a proper bibliography, and you will see that self-citation is not rare! It becomes a problem when it is abusive. ~~~ Michel Laurin (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I also happen to be a McGill alum who has since earned a PhD. Self-citation on Wikipedia, however, is different than it is in a paper or monograph with authorship credit. If your citation here is appropriate, please just provide a justification in response to the challenge. As it stands, I think @Chiswick Chap is in the right. No one is "suppressing" your work.

Salut! Patrick (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Patrick, thanks for the feedback. I thought that I did provide a justification, but obviously, not enough. I try again. The book that Chiswick Chap had removed is about nomenclature, taxonomy, and the history of these fields. It has an extensive section on Aristotle. The sentence where it is cited reads: "Philosophers of science have generally concluded that Aristotle was not interested in taxonomy, but zoologists who studied this question in the early 21st century think otherwise." The book does argue that Aristotle not only had an interest in taxonomy, but that he had a deep, long-lasting impact in the field. How is that not relevant? Am I still missing something? By the way, not many zoology books have covered this par of Aristotle's work in detail recently. For an opposite point of view, it might be good to insert a citation to Pierre Pellegrin's book dedicated to this topic (discussed in my own book, as it should be), which is not cited on that page (though some of his co-authored publications are). But Chiswick Chap might object because this would still add some bytes to the page... ~~~ Michel Laurin (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, that sound legit. Maybe specify the section of the book in the reference? If there's still a problem, Chiswick Chap should elaborate. (Bytesize is irrelevant unless someone is adding egregiously large amounts of material, which does not appear to be the case here.) I know Aristotle's writings on ethics, politics, and metaphysics, but am almost totally ignorant of zoology, ancient or modern—am not qualified to arbitrate this on the basis of content. Patrick (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Patrick; this was concrete, specific advice, which was helpful, so I followed it. The reference now includes the section number. I hope that this fixes the problem. I might add Pierre Pellegrin's book (which is probably one of the most important sources of the older point of view that Aristotle was not interested in taxonomy, and it is older than the cited references), once the dust settles on this, and if Chiswick Chap is not against it.~~~ Michel Laurin (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The conduct here was frankly abysmal; the contested changes should have been discussed per the rules at WP:BRD from the outset. I'm glad it has been resolved without making the article too much longer, we need to watch the weight or we'll attract unwanted attention from the GAR bunnies. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)