Talk:Stevan Harnad

Link removed

Removed this link as the target is very badly formatted and did not contain anything on vegetarianism, afaics. http://cogprints.org/2460/01/machine.htm Nurg 05:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the information is very wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.182.30 (talk • contribs) 2008-02-24T21:27:56

Julian Jaynes Reference and the Bicameral Hypothesis

I'm uncertain as to why my reference has been removed twice now? Wikipedia is a community where citations are essential to the integrity of the information, and to simply remove a citation without explanation and contradicting reference is irresponsible and in violation of Wikipedia's editing policy. I've restored the reference. Lenschulwitz (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply from Stevan Harnad: I am Stevan Harnad and I did not make any substantive contributions to the work of my mentor, Julian Jaynes, whom I greatly admire and respect. Please stop adding the suggestion that I did, because it is simply not true. Stevan Harnad 12:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnad (talk • contribs)

Hi Stevan, don't discount yourself, Julian seemed to have thought your contribution was significant enough as to merit a footnote in TOCITBOTBM (which is how I stumbled upon your Wikipedia page in the first place). Your citation certainly suffices in linking your work to Jaynes, but extra citations never hurt. If your humility precludes you from including this citation, I'm fine with that, just don't haunt me if I restore it after your consciousness surceases. Cool beans? Lenschulwitz (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Too many "see also"s

I think there are way too many entries in the "see also" section, as they were in the extrenal links. The size of the article and how section works does not really warrant it. But because I was already attacked earlier (and my non-vandal, (well explained) edit called vandalism [1]) I am reluctant to remove them now, I'll just raise it here, maybe someone else will do it. Tüzes fal (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this a self-promoting article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

By looking at the user page of Harnad or his signature, for example [2], it seems that he is Stevan Harnad or at least he wants to make this impression by linking this article. If it was really the case, then it would be quite strange that user Harnad regularly edits the article about Stevan Harnad. In this case, I would like to point out that Wikipedia is not a way of self-promotion, nor does it have a role of being a homepage of somebody. Let me quote from the What Wikipedia is Not article:

"Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest."

You may also want to read Wikipedia:Autobiography, it states:

"We have biographies here, not autobiographies. Avoid writing or editing an article about yourself, other than to correct unambiguous errors of fact.'"

Or Wikipedia:Conflict of interest:

"Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers. Do not write about these things unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits improve Wikipedia."

Bye, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• It is rather interesting that someone (User:Koertefa) who has been repeatedly deleting my WP additions on the current goings regarding the Constitution of Hungary should elect to challenge me (anonymously) on self-promotion. It is interesting because the only other time I have been challenged for self-promotion (likewise anonymously) was likewise connected with some very unappetizing goings-on in Hungary. I will let readers and wikipedians form their own judgment as to whether my WP entry shows any signs of self-promotion. But here I would just like to point out that were I indeed a WP self-promoter, it is rather mysterious what on earth that would have to do with the additions I have been posting about the Hungarian constitution... Stevan Harnad 15:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Harnad (talk)

Dear Harnad, thank you for your answer and for confirming that this article is indeed about yourself. The potential self-promoting nature of this article has, of course, nothing to do with your additions to other WP articles (apart from the fact that I tried to see your user page and ended up on this article). On the other hand, according to the Wikipedia guidelines cited above, "you should avoid writing or editing an article about yourself'". If your life and achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, someone else will update the article about you. Writing or editing an article about yourself has a danger that you exaggerate your own significance or notability above what third parties would think (according to WP:AUTO). Please, note that I do not claim that this is the actual case here, I just mention that it is a real danger, and hence you should refrain from editing this article. Please, keep that in mind. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for the advice. Now kindly read the link I provided on this topic above. Apologies if the URL failed the first time: I've fixed it now. Stevan Harnad 15:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Harnad (talk)

Thank you for the link. I am sorry to read that you had a bad experience with a user of ScienceInsider, but it does not change my opinion stated above. All the best, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Dear Mr. or Mme User:Koertefa, I think you missed the point. I did not have a bad experience with ScienceInsider. On the contrary, ScienceInsider played an invaluable role in raising the visibility and profile of the current Hungarian government's press and police harassment campaign against the philosophers who were falsely accused two years ago (and much later exonerated, with no apology) because they were critics of the current Hungarian government. I did not even have a bad experience with the anonymous poster(s) who, on that occasion too, tried to discredit the evidence I and others were posting in defence of the accused philosophers on the pretext that I am a self-promoter (rather the way you too did just now, likewise anonymously). It was not a bad experience because such groundless accusations -- so successful in Hungary today -- are often quite transparent FUD to everyone but those who are using them, or in the thrall of (or of the same bent as) those who are using them. And the chief objective of my efforts in defence of the falsely accused philosophers was to bring such antics out in the open, for international scrutiny. [I am not, by the way, accusing you of being in the same thrall or of the same bent. I have no way of knowing, since you are doing what you are doing in Wikipedia anonymously. Just struck by the coincidental similarity in M.O. and context...] --Stevan Harnad 22:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Harnad (talk

Please, read again what I wrote, since I did not say that you had a problem with ScienceInsider itself, but "with a user of ScienceInsider"". And I fail to see what does the issue with Hungarian philosophers you mentioned above have to do with my comments. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• My reply was that I don't have a problem with either ScienceInsider or the anonymous user(s) of ScienceInsider: My stated aim had been to bring precisely those kinds of anonymous smear tactics (if not the identity of the smearer) out into the open, because they were so illustrative of the smear campaign being conducted by the Hungarian government and its vigilantes against the philosophers.--Stevan Harnad 19:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Harnad (talk)

The "smear campaign" part sounds a bit paranoid, but you might even be right, I do not know much about that issue. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

DGG: Stevan has from time to time asked me to look at this article, but my only actual involvement is that two years ago, I removed a number of links that I thought unnecessary. I have been associated with him in the past in the open access movement, but I think his extraordinarily important role in that is covered sufficiently in the articles on that subject. I suspect that his work in cognitive science is inadequately covered in the biography, but I am not expert enough to add to it, as, quite frankly, much of it is beyond my understanding. I doubt anyone would say Stevan does not promote his activities and causes, but this article is not one of the places where he does so. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hi David. Thanks for your kind comments. You are certainly right the no one would say I don't promote activities and causes I think deserve support! But of course what was at issue here was not that, but self-promotion. In another location, however, User:Koertefa has also called into question my recent postings about ongoing developments in Hungary, and there the plaint was not self-promotion but "soap-boxing". Now I do have a point of view on the goings-on in Hungary. But in point of fact, a rather important historic event is taking place currently, about which there is a great deal of international concern and criticism, from both scholars and statesmen. I am posting the pertinent current historical information about this international concern and criticism. Not a word of it is my own; the individuals I am quoting and citing are world figures, and they are making very similar criticisms, but their identities are pertinent too. So I recommended to [User:Koertefa]] that instead deleting my postings as soap-boxing or self-promotion, he might wish to post other points of view on the ongoing historic question. There is no lack of them being aired in the state media in Budapest, to the exclusion of the international views I have been posting. I would be delighted if someone would post the kinds of responses the Hungarian is making to the international criticism! And it would have great historical value, to have the two points of view contrasted in WP... --Stevan Harnad 22:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Harnad (talk)

Please, do not mix these issues, it does not help, but only causes confusion. The only connection between my comments here and my reaction to your political edits (copying the same lengthy political reactions about a current event to several articles) is that I tried to access your user page and ended up on this article. Bye, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

PS: I also thank DGG for his remark. If you read carefully what I wrote, you can see that I did not state that this article is self-promoting, only raised my concerns that if Harnad is really the person this WP article is about, then WP advises him (see the quotes above) not to edit this article (apart from undoing vandalism or correcting obvious errors). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• User:Koertefa, who created a section in the Talk page for this Wikipedia entry entitled "Is this a self-promoting article?" now says "I did not state that this article is self-promoting, only raised my concerns..." (This, amidst busily deleting my contributions on other pages...) --Stevan Harnad 19:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Harnad (talk)

Well, I assume good faith when I answer your comment. Sentences starting with "is this" are not claims, but questions. Moreover, I tried to remove your contributions from only two articles. For one of the articles, I did the removal twice (in 5 days), but you always put your version back immediately. I would not call this "busily deleting my contributions on other pages". Anyway, as I wrote above, this is another issue. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• I suppose one can ask tendentious questions in good faith. But sometimes one must try to adopt a 3rd-person point of view even to test one's own good faith. --Stevan Harnad 21:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Harnad (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest tag by User:Bgwhite

Dear Bgwhite, You tagged this entry for possible Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. This possibility was already checked by User:Obiwankenobi in June 2013 (see above), with the following conclusion:

Obiwankenobi: Harnad has declared himself and the talk page is appropriately tagged (I updated it to note that he has made edits here.) People can edit their own bio, esp if they are open and disclose who they are, but I think only minor tweaks, removal of blatantly false info, and formatting should be allowed. I'd recommend that major content additions be posted here for review first... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)}}

Earlier DGG had posted this:

DGG: Stevan has from time to time asked me to look at this article, but my only actual involvement is that two years ago, I removed a number of links that I thought unnecessary. I have been associated with him in the past in the open access movement, but I think his extraordinarily important role in that is covered sufficiently in the articles on that subject. I suspect that his work in cognitive science is inadequately covered in the biography, but I am not expert enough to add to it, as, quite frankly, much of it is beyond my understanding. I doubt anyone would say Stevan does not promote his activities and causes, but this article is not one of the places where he does so. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you found any major content additions. since that date? (If not, perhaps your tag can be removed?) Thanks --Stevan Harnad 19:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Stevan, aka Harnad, the vast bulk of the article was written by you, and you keep adding to it (a month ago you added 1,500 bytes), and you even uploaded and added the photo, so the COI tag has to stay. Softlavender (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender, can I ask an editor to read the data in my entry? I think they would see that the data are all simple, accurate, true and relevant, and I also think they would see that the data are not self-promoting but modest, compared to many other people's entries. The one big difference is that I did not do anything anonymously. I don't think anyone doubts that many such entries are managed by the person they're about, or their staff or students, and I think that's ok if editors don't judge that they are wrong, inflated or irrelevant. As noted above, there is no rule against a self-identified person doing updates and corrections to the entry about them. Could I ask an editor to review the content of my entry and simply remove or correct anything they find wrong, irrelevant or self-promotional? That would be better than a constant COI tag that simply makes the whole entry sound suspect. I would also ask if you could consult with DGG, who knows me (unless of course he was already the one who suggested you look at my entry) --User:Harnad 23:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The COI tag seems appropriate to me. It is very straightforward. It warns people that you're editing the article. That is an edgy decision on your part, and it imposes a burden on other editors. I'd really prefer that you just leave the editing to others, like most people do, rather than coming here and asking others to try to sort out the bias from the signal. E.g. there are lots of references to your own articles here. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

David ( DGG:), is there anything you can do to have the banner removed from my page? I think you agree that it is not justified, and its only effect is to instil doubt about the validity of my page, which is in fact understated and minimal rather than self-promotional. I'd be grateful for any help you can give me. Best wishes, Stevan --User:Harnad 14:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Stevan, here's the situation. Most biographical articles in WP, including academic bios, tend to be written by PR staff, and are excessive in praise of their subject. But your bio is one of the academic bios that is too modest to the point of being inadequate: it doesn't give a full basic sequence of positions, and it needs more detail, especially about the cognitive science aspects, along with more links to related articles and a list of major publications in that field. I've always meant to expand it, but it would get me started if you could suggest on the article talk page any good third party published descriptions of your key work. (In the last few years we've tightened the rules a good deal, and since you are the subject, you are supposed to put the suggested material on the article talk page; I or someone else will then add it. We've also adopted a more standardized approach to academic bios--I will make the appropriate adjustments.)

As for the tags: The primary sources tag tho now justified can be removed--there are too many links to your talks and statements, which does not take the place of a listing of major works, justified objectively by some factor such as most-cited. I think I know which ones to remove, & I'll remove the tag. The connected contributor tag will have to remain--you are the major contributor, and it's our standard notice. It doesn't imply bias, just an alert to possibly watch for bias. If I removed it, someone else would put it back. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks David, I will provide the materials you request on the talk page for my entry. I was not aware of all those format and content requirements. Best wishes, Stevan --User:Harnad 04:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

yes, best practice has gotten more organized & formal as compared to when you & I started here. DGG ( talk ) 13:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Given DGG's statements above, I think it would be most appropriate to remove the COI tag on the article itself, but retain the notice on the Talk page. That is, as long as Stevan agrees not to directly edit the article any further (he can request edits via this Talk page). If as DGG says the article is neutral to the point of being inadequate, I see no reason for the COI tag to be splattered on the front of it, now that we have an opinion from a reliable editor/admin familiar with the subject. Softlavender (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd be glad if we got to that point, but as I said above, I think the article as currently written needs cleanup before we remove either tag. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

Given DGG's copied July 7, 2015 statements above, to the effect that this article "is one of the academic bios that is too modest to the point of being inadequate", would DGG, Bgwhite, Obiwankenobi, Harnad, Nealmcb, Magioladitis, and any other watchers, agree to the following? (BTW I myself personally agree with Stevan and DGG that the current article per se is very neutral.)

1. Stevan will cease editing the article. If he has specific edit requests, he will post them on this Talk page, or contact DGG.
2. The COI tag can (therefore) be removed from the front of the article.
3. The "Connected Contributor" template will remain on this Talk page.
4. The "Primary Sources" tag will be removed from the article by DGG once he has adequately trimmed those sources.

Please indicate your Support or Oppose (opposition) to the 4 proposals below. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support 1, 2, 3, and 4, as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• Defer 2, 4, and Support 1, 3. I'm glad to see this proposal, but it seems premature to vote on whether to remove the tags until the initial cleanup work is done. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

What specifically do you believe needs cleanup? (It seems clean to the point of boredom.) No one anywhere here has proposed that it needs cleanup or that it contains any puffery or promotionalism; only that some of the primary sources need to be removed, which is a different matter and that tag will remain, per the proposal, until DGG trims those. Softlavender (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

See my comments elsewhere in this page on the sort of cleanup that looks necessary to me, and note that even DGG notes the need for third party published descriptions of what is notable for encyclopedia coverage here. Coverage in third-party sources should drive what is notable and appropriate for inclusion here, and then links to the relevant primary sources can be used to help the reader. And I note that Harnad continues to edit the article. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• Fine with me --User:Harnad 04:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Note to Stevan

A Wikipedia article is not a substitute for having your own official webpage or website. Websites (and blogs) are free nowawadays, and if you want a centralized profile or biography that is exactly to your liking, make one yourself and post it on your own site. Do not expect a user-generated encyclopedia that has strict rules and guidelines to preempt your own responsibility for your own web presence. Sincerely, Softlavender (talk) 06:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I have several official websites and have had them for many years: UQAM, McGill, Southampton1, Southampton2 (User talk:Harnad) --User:Harnad 11:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Those are the websites of institutions that employ you or of which you are a faculty member. An official website would be a website belonging solely to you.

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean. My official institutional websites are my official websites. I don't need or want any more websites! User:Harnad 14:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, please see the note on your Talk page and learn to correctly sign your posts. Although you haven't been very active, you've been on Wikipedia for over 9 years and should have figured this out by now: Type four tildes. Please practice in your Sandbox before posting here again. Also: DO NOT link to this Wikipedia article about you when you sign postings, as I see you've done on other wiki Talk pages. Such blatant self-promotionalism is what is getting you in trouble here. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

1. The WP signing conventions seem to have changed across time. I had thought the signature and time-stamp button would be the right way, but now I have been asked to use 4 tildes instead, so I shall do as instructed.
2. I am not sure what the connection is between the content of the WP entry for me (which is what is under discussion here) and how I sign postings (nor how that is connected with self-promotion), but if 4 tildes solves that problem, that's fine.
3. (Is it now part of WP etiquette to scold people -- "you should have figured this out by now", "blatant self-promotionalism"? I had thought that previously we were asked to be courteous and to assume good faith.) User:Harnad 12:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Stevan, you've still not learned to type four tildes. Is it really that hard for you to grasp? Softlavender (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender, I do not know you personally and I have been courteous in all my interactions; I would ask you to do the same. I signed with 4 tildes, exactly as I said, and I am doing so again now. If it does not come out that way, it's a software problem. User:Harnad 13:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I have also inserted 4 tildes above, retrospectively, for the first of 2 simultaneous replies, where previously I had only put the 4 tildes after the last of the 2 simultaneous replies. User:Harnad 14:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Stevan Harnad and Animal Sentience (journal) entries

Dear User:Duffbeerforme: Soon after User:DGG (David Goodman, whom I have known personally for 30 years) removed the close-connection/NPV tag from the entry for Stevan Harnad (a tag which had been left there since 2014), you have now put the tag on it again, just after putting the same tag on the entry for my journal Animal Sentience (journal). I don't think it is necessarily a symptom of non-NPV if one has a connection with an entry. I don't think anyone reading the text of either entry itself would have thought it non-NPV based on the text alone: it is clearly because I have identified myself that some WP editors sometimes have this suspicion. I think this is unfortunate, because it just encourages users not to remain anonymous. The watchfulness for non-NPV is a good idea but I think the content should be judged on the basis of what it actually says, and whether there is anything in it that might reflect a non-NPV. There is no self-praise in any of these entries; just simple verifiable facts. Can I ask you to reconsider and remove the tags? Best wishes, Stevan HarnadUser:Harnad 07:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted your self-serving edits and removed the tag. In the future, please make edit requests on this talk page rather than edit the article directly. Softlavender (talk) 07:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

harassment

It is an opinion. Harnad uses his wp page to spread his own political views, see above.Phrasing this way is just another mean to disseminate them. participants in political debates tend to see the other's action as "harassing, unlawfull, etc" Why to prefer this vocabulary over the others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.77.133.230 (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The independent citations substantiate that outside of Pálinkás and the government, the consensus is that it is harassment. The nature and tone of your comments, and your location, and the fact that you are a single-purpose account, indicate that you have a grudge against Harnad and a conflict-of-interest. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)