Talk:Aristotle

"the West"?

Near the beginning of the article, the term "the West" is used ("It was above all from his teachings that the West inherited its intellectual lexicon…"). Personally, I find it to be an imprecise and potentially even inaccurate term to use (what is included and excluded in "the West" is debatable). I could see the argument for using it, but I was wondering if anyone thinks there is a more precise replacement. Damiens the Regicide (talk) 04:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The West plus the Middle East (insofar as we are talking about Islamic polymaths from the Islamic Golden Age) perhaps? That might be too wordy though. :D SpicyMemes123 (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it is accurate. Aristotle was not so popular in the Middle East, as opposed to Plato etc. The great Arabic Aristotelian was Averroes, who was a Spaniard. We could say Europe?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yea, it might be better to entirely omit that part, imho.

At this point, I'm sure parts of Aristotelian philosophy has had global impact, so putting out a statement specifically limiting to some region or peeoples group doesn't make sense either, imo. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 11:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I've updated this with the words global and world, as I feel that might be more accurate, especially with regards to someone like Aristotle. Not to mention, Aristotle's protégé Alexander created Hellenic empires that primarily reigned over the Middle East (including present-day Egypt, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, etc), and a small part of western India -- these were regions that comprised the historical spheres of Hellenic literary influence. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 13:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Aristotle's theory of universals

Anti-realists keep asserting that Aristotle's theory of universals originates from Problem of universals rather than from Aristotle, and that therefore all of Aristotle's works fail WP:NPOV for being too pro-Aristotle. I cite [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aristotle%27s_theory_of_universals&action=history Aristotle's theory of

Influence

This section becomes increasingly arbitrary and trivial the closer it comes to the present, which it very much misrepresents. (Rejected in the 20th century only to be rehabilitated in the 21st? By a book published in 1981, no less!) Also, just for instance, I love Joyce, but he's a novelist. How is his opinion of Aristotle relevant? And the fact that Aristotle appeared in an, by all accounts, terrible movie in the oughts?

Is there support for seriously condensing and cutting this section back? If so, are there any suggestions for the principles upon which to proceed? Although I don't think it should be deleted entirely, multiple sources in the section lead present the endeavor of summarizing Aristotle's influence as an almost impossibly enormous task. What is included here, I think, needs to be much more focused. The transmission of his texts via Islamic scholars and Thomas Aquinas should be preserved. Possibly also how much of his work on natural philosophy has been superseded. But all the various assertions that so-and-so said he was boss, in my view, just need to go.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and did one round of edits to remove anything trivial or simply wrong. I'll gladly justify any of the particulars to anyone who disagrees with any part of these sizable cuts to this section.

Some of the works in the bibliography still need to be removed. There is a script that can identify them. I'm going to find it and see if I can figure out how it works. If, however, anyone else reading already knows how to do this, please do! If it just cranks out a list, I'm perfectly willing do the second step of performing the deletions if posted here.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I didn't see this at the time, or would have objected strongly to the unjustified assertions, specially about modern science. The literary quotations are largely a matter of taste: they certainly name Aristotle, so their relevance is not in doubt, but given that they are primary sources (in one sense) their importance can be debated. The scientific statements are however definitely of encyclopedic interest, as they reliably discuss Aristotle's reception in that field. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Chiswick Chap,

Thanks for weighing in! I have some issues with "Modern rejection and rehabilitation", which I lay out here in more detail than my edit descriptions:

Russell's A History of Western Philosophy is notoriously unreliable. His views of Aristotle probably belong only in his own article. Or, if they are to be included here, this needs to be reframed as his position, not the report of a neutral historian. Moreover, no one writing in 1946 is qualified to generalize about the 20th century.

Russell is entitled to his view (whatever other philosophers think of it): and the mere fact that he thought Aristotle worth mentioning is relevant here. The article does not assert or imply that the 1946 source says anything about the second half of the century: that comes across as very close to WP:STRAWMAN. By "serious intellectual advance" Russell may well have meant Galileo and Harvey (say); there's no suggestion he was referring only to the 20th century (let alone the future half of it). Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I removed the sentence suggesting this. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The claim that Aristotle was without major philosophical credibility in the 20th century is false. See, for instance, Kukkonen (2010), pp.76–77 (conveniently online here [1], almost certainly in violation of his contract—but he's the author, so that's on him). His influence just via phenomenology (Husserl and Heidegger) is massive—and that's to say nothing of Thomism.

Eh? The "Modern rejection and rehabilitation" section doesn't say that at all: it's making a different point. But if you want to cover his influence on philosophy, why not. If you want to add something brief from Kukkonen on those strands of philosophy, that would be fine, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I've specified in the header that the topic of the section is natural science rather than philosophy. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

If the claim is that it is Aristotle's credibility in the natural sciences that has been revived in the 21st century (as your comment above suggests), I am concerned we might be in WP:FRINGE territory. Stronger sourcing is needed. I'd be happy to be wrong on this, but I don't think Aristotle is part of the standard science curriculum.

Let's go by what the cited sources say, rather than guessing what I or any other editor thinks, please - it's not relevant. The sources are certainly not "fringe". Nobody is remotely asserting that Aristotle is taught in school science (he certainly isn't): that feels very much like a strawman as well. Dijksterhuis, Medawar, Leroi, and Tinbergen are serious authors in their fields; Leroi and Tinbergen as practising biologists, who treated Aristotle very seriously (and even Medawar felt he had to mention him). The assertion is simply that they are instances of people who see Aristotle as important in their field. There is a deeper point, too, which the article mentions earlier: Aristotle founded biology, and his use of direct observation of animals, specifically, was foundational. The fact that Tinbergen's four questions for 20th century biology map directly to Aristotle is certainly remarkable, and readily verified. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm still pretty sure this is at minimum WP:UNDO. I've posted here in hopes of feedback from someone more knowledgeable. (No argument whatsoever, to be clear, about his historical importance.) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I continue to find the reference to the 2004 Alexander (2004 film) to be odd. I don't think this would be encyclopedic even if it were well-received, which it was not[2]. Is there a specific connection to the Poetics? While I see that the reference to Hollywood is correctly sourced to Kukkonen (2010), p.77, I would like to see something stronger. It reads to me as a rhetorical flourish, not a reported fact about film scripts.

I don't remotely see why your feeling that Kukkonen's reliably-sourced mention of the film is "odd" has anything to do with this article, specially as you agree that Kukkonen is a reliable source. Editors are free to think and feel whatever they like, but it is entirely proper for an encyclopedia article to report what scholars have to say about a subject. I will note that Kukkonen did not just pull the film mention out of thin air; as the article states, the image of Aristotle tutoring Alexander is "enduring", in other words the 2004 film merely stands as a marker along the long road of that "romantic" image's history. That is not a "rhetorical flourish", and it is untrue and demeaning to imply that this is just a "fact about film scripts": it is much bigger than that. Once again, the job of the article is to report what scholars and thinkers have written about the subject, and that is what it properly does. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Kukkonen does not mention the film. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Also "demeaning" is overstated. Intelligent, well-meaning editors disagree all the time about what constitutes due coverage. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Um, overstated or not, I found your comment unhelpful and undue, along with your expressed desire to continue to delete cited and reviewed materials from this article.

We at least agree about Aristotle's importance in multiple domains, including biology, and that means that we require a 20th century section. If it can be beefed up, that will be a good thing, and Kukkonen is one possible source.

I also feel that your wholesale removal of the literary mentions was going much too far. Too long, possibly, but there are very few philosophers who get celebrated in verse by major poets through the ages, so something needs to be said about these literary matters through the centuries. I'm busy with holiday matters now and for the coming period, but will return to consider this after that. Thank you for advertising this discussion on the WikiProject: it will be good to get some other eyes on this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we should err on the side of caution when the discussion is about any significant deletions (at least if the article is not really terrible). I think we also need to err on the side of broad coverage in an article which potentially touches so many fields. A discussion about due balance should not turn into people arguing for more emphasis on their favourite topic. Patrick posted a warning and none of us replied. So I am not complaining about the efforts in the past, but only note my thoughts in order to consider where we go next.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Andrew Lancaster,

As to broad coverage, I of course support this. I'd add just two general points.

First, the best way I know to ensure that the coverage of an article is properly balanced – especially on a large article like this, on a topic with an overwhelmingly enormous literature – is to check it against a variety of other high-quality introductory level treatments, even if only at the level of the TOC. For, just because something has a supporting source does not mean that it belongs in a general-level article. Giving a large amount of attention to a view widely deemed marginal misrepresents the subject.

Second, material that is included needs to be contextualized so that it contributes to our understanding of the subject. The fact that James Joyce or Any Rand or Karl Marx said something about Aristotle will usually need further discussion to explain its relevance. Otherwise it's just a piece of trivia (to which future editors will surely add).

I haven't reviewed all my September edits, but these would have been the primary principles behind them.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you have to be careful about deciding what is "marginal" too individualistically on an article which can be important to so many fields. Wikipedia does not aim at creating introductory texts, and so using texts with that aim is not to get around the need to build consensus concerning major editorial judgements. Questions of due balance are not simply questions of whether something can be sourced or not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Andrew Lancaster,

You have my near total agreement. (Only quibble is that a top-level article like this should be accessible to a general audience and, in that sense, introductory.) In particular, an article should not include even peer-reviewed material that runs against the scholarly consensus, at least without special reason and having its (at least currently) marginal status clearly flagged (cf. WP:ONEWAY).

My primary concern has been with the claim that Aristotle has been "rehabilitated" in any meaningful way in the natural sciences. Although I would still support the section's removal, I'm not going to push for that any further myself. @Chiswick Chap has made some productive edits in response to this discussion, and I appreciate that. (Thanks!)

If anyone doesn't like my new headings, btw, by all means go ahead and change to anything similarly neutral.

Is there anything specific you're concerned about? We've gotten a bit meta, and I'm not sure what we're discussing anymore with respect to improving the article.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I would like to add a comment here which is I will acknowledge largely restricted to biology and natural sciences as it is my area of expertise and the opinion here could be contrued as OR in a way as it directly ties to my own work. So take it for what you will and it should not go in the article but may help some of the decision making here.

As a taxonomist and in particular specialising in nomenclature Aristotl's influence is both profound and largely forgotten. This rests with the decision of the nomenclatural codes to begin in 1756 with Linnaeus. As such all names prior to this but used by Linn wereacredited to Linn. Linnaeus copied many names from older texts including many of Aristotle'. For example the Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas and the Greek Tortoise Testudo graeca are Aristotle names copied by Linn in 1756. However they are thus attributed to Linn. not Aristotle. Hence he had a profound impact that has been forgotten by science.

Another point here is that the classification system used by Biology and adhered to by the Nomenclatural Codes is based on Aristotlean Logic, ie heirarchical sets. So all Phyla are contained by a Kingdom etc. When Linn developed this nomenclatural system he was adhereing to the teachings of Aristotle when he did it. Again this shows significant influence but largely unacknowledged in the modern world. When Biological Classification is taught at University we teach it as going back to Linnaeus not to Aristotle. This is because Linn developed it for the purpose of nomenclature and applied it to a method. Aristotle never did this.

What I am getting at here is there is a lot of Aristotle's teachings in what we now accept as Biological Science, but it is the developments of Linnaeus, Darwin, Huxley and many others from that source that is credited. Should this be the case, I do not know, throughout science there are people who have taken ideas already around and then developed them to a usable product and its they who get the credit, from that point of view Biological Nomenclature is correctly applied to Linnaeus. This is a philisophical argument, how far back do you take these developments to give the credit. I for one would love to see species named byAristotle, names still used today, being acredited to Aristotle. But that cannot happen. Its not unique to Aristotle there are numerous species named by Seba also in 1735 whose names are attributed to later authors. Even Aristotle did not probably invent the names for the Green Sea Turtle, after all Chelonia mydas is just ancient Greek for Sea Turtle. It had probably been around for hundreds of years before Aristotle.

My view is Aristotle should be acknoledged from a philsophical point of view where he can be, but his influence on modern science is minimised by the developments of those that built on his ideas and developed them to fruition. Hope this makes sense to people. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 20:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Faendalimas,

Thanks for chiming in! My knowledge in this area is limited, but what you say syncs up with what I do know. Does the coverage at Aristotle#Biology and the child article Aristotle's biology cohere with what you know about the subject? If anything there strikes you as wrong, flagging this on the talk page would be productive—even if you do not have a source at hand to justify an immediate edit.

However, the disagreement here, as I understand it, is not about Aristotle's great influence, but about his standing in current zoological science. An earlier section header suggested a "rehabilitation" in the 21st century, and I am objecting that this is a mighty strong claim that appears to be held only by a small, non-representative group of scientists.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Aristotle myth theory

Chinese nationalist historians are now starting to deny Aristotle existed at all, and they claim all works by him and other “ancient” Greeks were actually forged much later during the Renaissance. While this is undoubtedly a fringe belief, it seems to be part of a broader trend within Chinese academia these days, and might be worth a sentence or two. It reminds me of similar ideas in nationalist Russian circles, e.g. Fomenkoism. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:7B67 (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Not a good article

The article has deteriorated considerably in both style and content. Currently we have half a page about Aristotle's life, studies and a lot of not very primary information, not to mention gibberish ("global impact"!!!), all of which can be read by scrolling down the article. What was important and well written about method, ideas and influence has been unfairly replaced. Please restore the article to its previous form, as this was changed without consent. 2003:A:A0B:4100:E5C9:284F:979D:29A5 (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. The "global impact" wording was recently added, see a thread above; I've removed it: people should not be editing the lead without reference to the article body, as it's just a summary. I agree with you about quite a bit of the recent deletions; Aristotle's influence extends to many fields that are not today considered "philosophy", like law and biology, and the article is certainly right to discuss these. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Is there a version we should consider reverting to? (Or, use as a reference point for reworking.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Era

The current academic norm in philosophy, as elsewhere, is use BCE/CE rather than BC/AD. The article should be changed to reflect the practice of these high-quality sources. For instance, just online, see both [3] and [4].

Also, it is contextually inappropriate to place ancient figures on a timeline expressed in the language of a religion that did not yet exist.

More generally, although Wikipedia policy is agnostic on this decision, it makes sense to use non-exclusionary language when possible.

Further discussion can be found here. I am also placing a note on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philosophy.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

So you are saying "BCE" is Greek, and not anachronistic? What do you think defines the "common era"? The movements of stars? I find it very hard to understand how people get worked up about either option. Count me with the agnostics. There are more important things in life. There are even more important things on Wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Totally fine to be agnostic! I thought nothing of it when I made the change as part of a series of edits in December. Whatever the outcome, it would just be nice to have a consensus on record to help avoid future exchanges like the one linked above.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Cherry picking sources that happen to use BCE/CE rather than BC/AD does not equate to a "current academic norm", but even if BCE/CE were the academic norm, this does not translate to a valid reason to employ them on Wikipedia. We do not have a guideline specifically encouraging the use of euphemisms that may be considered academic norms, but we do have a guideline WP:COMMONNAME which prefers using terminology most commonly used, as determined by "prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources". BC/AD are commonly used, and arguably are more generally understood by the population at large; this Ngram data shows BC/AD as more prevalent. They are also the terms that arose organically as part of the slow, cumulative development of the year numbering system of the Julian and Gregorian calendars, whereas BCE/CE were created specifically as an alternative to the pre-existing organic terms because of Before Christ/Anno Domini's perceived religious offensiveness; Wikipedia is not censored for terms deemeed to be "offensive" to religious sensibilities or otherwise. Also, saying that it is "contextually inappropriate to place ancient figures on a timeline expressed in the language of a religion that did not yet exist" is no more a convincing argument than saying we shouldn't write the article using Modern English since it "didn't exist yet", or even BCE/CE since they didn't exist yet either. It is no more "contextually inappropriate" to use BC/AD on Aristotle as it would be to use Wednesday (a term meaning Woden's Day) or January (a term meaning month of Janus), terms that are also "in the language of a religion". English Wikipedia uses various standards such as Modern English, Arabic numerals, and the Gregorian calendar (which employs BC/AD as part of its year numbering system); there is no more "exclusion" in using BC/AD than there is using any other Western, English-language standard. In terms of a desire to not use "non-exclusionary language", I would argue that "Common Era" is more exclusionary than Anno Domini because it makes an explicit POV declaration that the Christian-derived Gregorian calendar year numbering system should be the "Common" era, to the exclusion of all others, rather than BC/AD which are simply the Gregorian calendar's organically-determined English-language demarcation terms tied directly to the objective reason for which the era begins 2,023 years ago.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 20:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I cited to the two freely available, peer-reviewed online encyclopedias of philosophy that you will find linked at the bottom of basically every philosophy article on Wikipedia.

Also, I am hardly claiming that the more current terms are perfect. They are just a small improvement that is extremely easy to implement. So let's! You are making this way too complicated.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I see that PatrickJWelsh has also gone to The Plato talk page and the WikiProject Philosophy talk page but, as WP:FORUMSHOP says, "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus." And PatrickJWelsh is the only one who needs consensus, because WP:ERA says what Crumpled Fire says and since the earliest edition of this article that I can find has BC. Also PatrickJWalsh's claim that BCE/CE "seem to be standard in the recent academic literature that articles are supposed to reflect" is rather different from what I read in MOS:FAQ: "Wikipedia defaults to preferring general-audience sources on style, especially when a specialized preference may conflict with most readers' expectations, and when different disciplines use conflicting styles." I thank Crumpled Fire for taking the trouble to oppose change here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Peter Gulutzan,

Thanks for weighing in—and welcome to WikiProject Philosophy! We look forward to your future contributions in this area.

The most salient issue you raise pertains to standard usage in current sources. Wikipedia is indeed — and for impeccable reasons – written for a general audience. I am always glad to be edited or entirely reverted on prose not intelligible to your average 7th grader.

I think, however, that there is no such danger of confusion here. So, we follow reliable sources as is contextually appropriate (see WP:RS and WP:ERA).

I am not, to be clear, proposing that Wikipedia follow academic norms as a matter of general principle. Reliable sources on Aristotle and his philosophy, however, mostly come from professional academics. And any that don't are still unconditionally welcome if they help improve the article (in the most general sense of "improve").

In response to your other comments, I believe that bringing the issue to the attention of editors at the most relevant WikiProject is entirely appropriate. If I missed another relevant board or general forum, please do share with the same disclosure. Not trying to exclude anyone here! I have not contacted anyone individually, on or off Wikipedia. I'm looking for consensus on something upon which I am well-informed, but not a subject-matter expert. The default assumption is that we are all trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Aristotle and other Ancient Greek philosophers. If I'm in the wrong here, I genuinely want to know, so that I can graciously accede to the unforced force of the better argument.

To achieve meaningful consensus, we need multiple, informed voices. In some other context, I would indeed prefer to individually argue the case on its own merits, but that is not how Wikipedia works—and for good reasons, which I support, even if I do not love all of the implications. Raising the same issue on the Plato talk page was not a great call, but just on account of the redundancy, not, as far as I see, any sort plausible recruitment strategy. I did it because it seems like, whatever the consensus here may be, it should apply there as well, and for all of the same reasons—but which @Crumpled Fire would insist also appear independently on that talk page. And I don't want to be doing this at all, much less repeatedly for every individual article to which the same facts apply. I am, however, going to close that discussion out, subject to their revision for which no reasons need be provided.

Look forward to your further considered thoughts on the issue —

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

If you go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, put "wp:era" in the "Search archives" box, and read all the discussions about this, you'll see that there have already been "considered thoughts on the issue". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh no! I'm not suggesting a change to Wikipedia policy. What is directly at issue is what is most appropriate for this individual article.

The policy @Crumpled Fire cited to justify their change says either style is fine as long as it is employed consistently. It also says, "An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content"(my emphasis). The fact that it previously used a different style is not dispositive.

Hence my reference above to the two major online philosophy encyclopedias and general academic practice. If BCE has become the preferred term by folks publishing on Aristotle, as I believe it has, that would be a strong content-specific reason to justify restoring the previous version of the article. Or if I am missing something, could you please explain what specifically?

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

With apologies to everyone for not simply letting this go, here is an overview (as I see things).

The policy at issue is WP:ERA. It's unusually narrow and contravenes the more general and frequently cited WP:BOLD. Made aware of this, however, by someone who did indeed very much wish to dispute the style on this page, I created this thread. I also notified the most relevant project noticeboard, where, contrary to my intention, much of the discussion took place.

What is frustrating to me is that the policy explicitly states that both styles are acceptable. It says, "Either convention may be appropriate for use in Wikipedia articles depending on the article context." It also links out to a related policy that I would summarize as "please don't muck around with existing styles in a way that is needlessly disruptive".

In particular, it does not say what @Crumpled Fire presents on the WikiProject talk, namely their argument "only that we shouldn't change the established uses of BC/AD to BCE/CE", where by "established", I understand them to mean the oldest instance of either term that can be found in the article history (rather than what is "established" by the reliable sources upon which the article is based). They also seem to be saying that they are only interested in changing styles in one direction, rather than implementing the policy in a universal way. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

This discussion has indeed become needlessly disruptive. However, I would submit that the primary reason is that some participants refuse to keep the discussion, to the extent possible, focused on what style is most appropriate to the context of this article, as is required by the policy they invoke. It would seem instead, that they would like to re-litigate the general policy they invoked to start what has become rather a mess of a discussion.

I do not think anyone is engaged in actual self-contradiction. It is, however, not great practice to cite a policy, in order rehash general arguments against that same policy, in a venue that does not determine policy. Hence my characterization, "needlessly disruptive" and "mess of a discussion".

To close, I will just point briefly in what I do think would be a productive direction, in the unlikely event anyone actually has any patience remaining to further pursue this in a way consonant with the existing policy.

In the top post of this thread, I pointed to the practice of the two top online philosophy resources that are freely available online.[5][6]. Both use BCE in their articles on Arisotle. These are not "cherry picked". WikiProject Philosophy literally has templates specifically designed to make them (very, very slightly) easier to cite. These are the kinds of high-quality sources in terms of which this discussion should be taking place. I do not, to be clear, pretend that this decides the matter, but I present this just as the sort of consideration relevant to arriving at a sound editorial decision.

With respect to the real concerns about accessibility, I note that Brittanica, which is written at about a 5th grade level, also uses BCE in their article on Aristotle.[7] Wikipedia's own Common Era article also reports that the newer style has become increasingly common in US textbooks since at least 2005, which actually means that some people under 30 might not recognize the old style! (See the article for info about other countries.) So I have no real concern in either direction. (Moreover, if there is good evidence about this, it should probably be introduced elsewhere as a general policy consideration against whichever style might be shown to be widely confusing.) As for my own anecdotal self, I was taught to use the newer style—and this was more than 25 years ago at a Catholic middle school in the United States Midwest. Never been challenged on it until now!

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to say that, as a professional historian, I am also agnostic as to CE BCE. The reason is that we have no standard. Besides, CE and BCE are only disguised conventions applied to the Gregorian Calendar. So happy with BC and AD if this helps the majority of readers to understand. 86.6.148.125 (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in! The emerging consensus does seem to be "what is wrong with you people and why are you arguing about this?"...

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)