User talk:Harnad

User:Harnad is Stevan Harnad

Hello there. About transdisciplinary vigilantism: a couple of points. While this is potentially of interest about the workings of academia, the proprieties of non-peer review, it is not really adequate to leave the reader in suspense about the cases you cite. Second, if this is a neologism, you should know that Wikipedia is not a neologism-friendly place. A more laborious article title may be needed. Charles Matthews 19:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi —

I've just listed the article Categorical perception as a possible copyright violation. Wikipedia is lisenced under GFDL, and cannot include any copyrighted works, including article abstracts taken from the web. If you disagree with this, feel free to let me know on my talk page. If you actually want to work on the article, I've been slowly preparing the article myself in my sandbox (I wrote my batchelor's thesis on CP). You can feel free to collaborate there, or re-write your own article without taking from the web.

Thanks, — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 15:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Urgent: If you are, in fact, the author of the article in question -- and solely hold the copyright to it, I strongly advise you to read the GNU Free Documentation License article and the text of the GNU Free Documentation License before you commit yourself. You are, in effect, donating your writing and your copyright to the project, and would no longer have control over what is done with it. Please read the article and the licensing text for more precise detail, and please be certain it is what you want to do. --Calton | Talk 01:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: Article has been nominated for proposed deletion. — RJH (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The OA articles have been moved back to the right pages and mostly restored. I have a little more to do on Monday and, probably, Tuesday. DGG 08:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As part of Project Wikify, I am taking a look at the Categorical Perception article you started. This article is well-formatted, and someone cleaned up the references, but it still needs internal links pointing to other Wikipedia articles where appropriate. In my opinion, this is all that is needed to remove the Wikify tag, and I figure you're going to do a better job of it than I would since you wrote the article. Adam 16:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I tried to stay in agreement with your papers. I'm just wondering if you read what I wrote in the "Symbol Grounding" discussion area and if you think that should make a difference to what you think is incoherent where I believed to be attaining better coherence. Just for my information, in order for me to gain a better understanding of your edits. Valeria B. Rayne 03:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi: It's a tricky and subtle problem, and you really have to think about it carefully, and a lot. A sure clue to the fact that you are getting lost or fooling yourself is if the language gets complicated or ritualistic: Symbols are like words, to a first approximation. Words have referents, objects they stand for. And combined in sentences, the sentences are descriptions that are either true or false (or ill-formed or undecidable). The symbols inside a robot that can do with words (and the things they refer to) just as we do, are grounded. Whether they are also meaningful depends on whether the robot also feels. We can objectively test grounding, but we cannot objectively test feeling. That's all there is to to it. Harnad

• "Lost" meaning a degree of interest of course. Cognitive science is such a large domain with many variously interested subdomains and their development programs, and "meaning" itself is a nontrivial notion by accounts prevalent in the literature. It only makes sense, in the interests of empiricism, logical validity, and the acknowledgment of the multiplicity of programs, that a grounded symbol system has meaning autonomy, with conscious autonomy a separate if unrelated problem. Your papers explicitly indicate an understandably and logically modest pardon of consciousness, so denying mindspace a larger meaningspace, one not presupposed (for how else do we determine grounding if not for meaning autonomy, unless grounding is related neither to meaning nor to consciousness?), just wasn't expected. Valeria B. Rayne 04:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• For instance, you say, "If the meaning depended on an external interpreter, then the system would not be autonomous." Yet you insist on being the very external interpreter who identifies an autonomous grounded symbol system that imputes meaning to its symbols. Hence, for meaning – which is precisely what makes the system autonomous precisely according to you – to depend on you is to beg the question. I hope you might read what had been my final revision charitably. Valeria B. Rayne 04:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see my note on moving the main article to Open access (publishing). This is in conformity with your correct opinion that Open access publishing, the previous title, is ambiguous, and can mean the method of publishing open access journals, as well as repository archiving. (There was multiple objection to using just "Open access", as was originally the case., and that is not really one of the options any more.) But there is an additional question. "self-archiving" does not seem to me to be an adequate term for the general process of "green OA" -- and I think you have said pretty much the same on your list recently---it hardly describes the compulsory process of depositing archival copies of the preprint or the postprint in centralized repositories, carried out now often by the publisher, as with the NIH method, or by the university in an institutional archive. I do not see what is "self" about it. Can you think of a more general term? DGG (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• The mandates (by funder or employer) are on the fundee or employee who is the author of the paper whose deposit is mandated, no one else. Whether the mandated deposit is done by the author, the author's spouse, the author's secretary, the author's student, the author's librarian or the author's publisher is completely irrelevant: it is all self-archiving, of the author's own paper, at the author's own (mandated) behest, whether done by the author's own fingers or by proxy fingers, because the "self" refers to the (mandated) author (whose own paper it is being mandated must be deposited). I'm the one paying my own credit card bills even if I authorize an automatic electronic transfer from my bank. Harnad

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Scholarly Skywriting, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

neologism

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

I have also proposed Student Skywriting for deletion for the same reason.

Dialectric (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved. If you need to move a page in the future, all you have do is click on the "move" tag at the top of the article; that should bring you to a page where you can type in the desired new name. You may occasionally run into problems with some pages (for example, if you want to move "Page X" to "Page Y", but "Page Y" already exists), but those can be brought to an administrator's attention. Most pages you should be able to move without difficulty. Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Attention Wikipedia editors: There is a very controversial, current paragraph in the Ágnes Heller entry. The prior version was extremely biassed toward the right wing view, portraying Heller as being guilty of fraud. In reality, she is only being accused of fraud (by the right-wing government, of which she is a severe critic). According to the left-liberal and international press, Heller is the target of a systematic harassment campaign and is not guilty of anything. I inserted two current references to that. Wikipedia editors should not allow those to be removed, again unbalancing the paragraph.Stevan Harnad 03:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

See this: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.224.79.8 (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Harnad. Thanks for your message. The reason I removed that section is not because I have an issue with criticism of OA, its simply because it is not written and sourced in a manner appropriate for an encyclopaedia. The section is editorial in tone and form, not neutral and descriptive. Who says it is natural to raise questions or that it is fair to say time will tell? It is not our place to make such assumptions.

• Darren, I'll re-write it, once. I don't agree at all with what you say about tone and form, nor about "our place" (who on earth are "we"). But I have enough command of the english language to be capable of making the same point in another tone and form... Stevan Harnad 22:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If Poynder is a notable critic (and you would have to make a very good case that he is, given it is sourced to a blog and they are very rarely considered to be a reliable source) then state what his criticism is, explicitly, and attribute it to him.

• See DGG's assessment of Poynder in User talk:Crusio in the thread on PloS ONE. -- But I will write out the criticism longhand (or rather, even longer-hand, since it is already written out longhand in the text as it is) -- one more time. Stevan Harnad 22:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If someone else notable states that "time will tell" then attribute that to him or her - encyclopaedias describe what other notable people say, we don't adopt their opinions ourselves.

• Time will tell whether or not pay-to-publish will significantly reduce peer-review standards; the evidence to date is not yet enough to be able to draw a firm conclusion. Now how do "we" say that, Darren? I'm happy with any locution you find appropriate in "tone and form." I'd just like to get the literal propositional content (viz. "it's too early to tell") out there. Poynder has gathered valid empirical evidence of peer-review lapses in PLoS ONE. The fact that authors are paying for publication and the journal is selling publication to the author for a fee (unlike a subscription journal) is a valid reason for prima facie concern about a causal connection. But it is still too early to know for sure whether there is indeed a causal connection, and how strong. I think "it's too early to tell" says this clearly, but less long-windedly. But I am happy to spell out the obvious -- one more time. Stevan Harnad 22:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Finally, I would note that it appears the second source is to an article written by you. It is rarely a good idea to quote yourself on Wikipedia. If a number of editors have been querying this section, its probably a good idea to listen to them, as there is a potential conflict of issue here.

• If you look at the article's history, you will see that the reason a number of editors were querying this article was not because of the reference to my D-Lib paper on no-fault peer review, because my paper was not cited until I did this very edit, trying to restore the Poynder criticism (which was being cited, and then deleted and then restored and then deleted). The deletions were on the grounds that it was just a blog article -- even though it is written by a distinguished evidence-based journalist with extensive experience analyzing and chronicling open access who happens to be blogging his work -- instead of continuing to sell it to magazines as work for hire -- on principle. But Poynder's article also happened to be critical of pay-to-publish journals in general (and hence of PLoS ONE in particular). That it was deleted simply because it was a blog article is made unlikely by the fact that another blog article -- by Heather Morrison -- was not called into question. It is much more likely that what set off the quest for grounds for deletion was the fact that it was critical, suggesting that pay-to-publish may compromise peer review standards. There may indeed be a "conflict of interest issue" there, but it is not about my article; it is about Poynder's criticism of pay-to-publish journals. It was for that reason that I restored the Poynder citation, counterbalanced (for neutral POV) by another article of my own, suggesting why and how peer-review standards could easily prevented from being compromised by pay-to-publish: no-fault peer review (in other words, pay-for-peer-review, regardless of outcome, not pay-to-publish. Stevan Harnad 22:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to re-write this section to for tone and content then please go ahead. But If it remains written in the current form, I will remove it again in a few days. Rockpocket 20:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oh dear. I shall certainly endeavour to do my very best to do what's proper and fitting, Darren, mindful of your awesome powers! Stevan Harnad 22:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the article now adopts an encyclopaedic tone. The great thing with the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit is just that: anyone can edit it. Awesome powers are not required. Rockpocket 17:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I do always sign with Stevan Harnad 02:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC) but for some reason it does not always register. Here, I'll do it again now. Stevan Harnad 02:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:SIGLINK, your signature must include a link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page, so that people know where to find and respond to you - there's no way for an editor reading a comment to know that Stevan Harnad has a user page and talk page at User:Harnad. (You left a comment on my page and I had to dig through the page history to find out what your actual username was, so that I could come here and respond to you.) --McGeddon (talk) 11:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ágnes Heller. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The Ágnes Heller article urgently needs editorial attention and arbitration. There are ongoing political events in Hungary on which opinion is highly polarized. Individuals are being vilified "Hungarian Academicians Blast Government Over Inquiry Into Research Funds" American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) ScienceInsider 4 February 2011 without factual basis or justification. This happens in the Hungarian partisan press, and the practice is now spreading to Wikipedia entries. There are far more people ready to smear -- and smear hidden behind a mask of anonymity Quod Erat ad Demonstrandum (QED) -- than there are people able to defend against smears. Stevan Harnad 03:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(1) I've added 4 out of the 3010 references to ROAR in Google Scholar (1,140,000 references on Google) as evidence of notability. (2) I've undone your redirect, because you inadvertently redirected ROARMAP to ROAR and those are two different registries, and entries. harnad (talk) Stevan Harnad 16:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi -- I just want to express appreciation for the improvements you've made. I intend to continue working on this as time permits, and any further improvements are welcome, as is any feedback that might occur to you -- it's very difficult around here to get expert feedback. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Looie496, thanks for the feedback. Actually, what inspired me to have a go were all the recent traces of the useful and timely edits you yourself were doing on Consciousness. The "See also" items include some very closely related ones that could also use your touch (to shake up some of the philosopher-jargon stiffness and to shake _out_ some of the sci-fi and spookophile voodoo). (I have a question for you whose answer would interest me very much: since you are obviously a person with expertise and qualifications, why do you prefer to edit anonymously rather than using your name? In special cases I can see the usefulness of anonymous editing -- to avoid collegial retribution or to avoid hurting feelings -- but on scholarly topics I do not otherwise understand why one would prefer to edit anonymously!) harnad (talk) Stevan Harnad 11:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I haven't only edited on academic topics. I basically chose anonymity when I registered for three reasons: (1) abundance of caution, (2) I perceived that an academic reputation is not actually all that helpful on Wikipedia, and can even work against you in a dispute in some cases, (3) most importantly, it is hard to write neutrally about ideas that are associated with your name in print -- the urge to advocate for them becomes almost overwhelming. My first editing was about the hippocampus, my own primary research topic, and I saw that it would be hard to neutrally portray mainstream ideas that I think are actually wrong if I were writing under my own name. In any case, my name is not really a secret: I am Bill Skaggs, a behavioral neuroscientist who has published mainly on hippocampal electrophysiology. Other than the consciousness article, which is a longstanding interest but outside my academic domain, most of my serious editing has been on basic neuroscience articles. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

responded to your note on my talk page Mattsenate (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bjorkspring.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe this has been resolved. I made the figure. I hold the copyright. I released it into the public domain. harnad (talk) Stevan Harnad

OK; have you sent an email to OTRS, as outlined at the deletion request at Commons? That will leave us without doubt that you own both sites. I'm truly sorry about the hassle; I and all of us value your contributions and don't want to frustrate you off the project with superfluous deletion requests. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I have now. harnad (talk) Stevan Harnad

I find this strange: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.150.50 (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth is an anonymous "unperson" honoring me with the information that they find an article in the Hungarian press about a cancelled debate between philosophers "strange"? Are Wikipedia talk pages for people to air (anonymously) their every momentary impression? I have no interest in anonymous opinions about Hungarian politics. harnad (talk) Stevan Harnad

I agree. Nevertheless, I remember hearing in Klubradio the named liberal philosophers stating that Janos Boros is not a person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.224.79.8 (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I am a person; I presume the person named above ["JB"] may likewise be a person. On the other hand, what is "unsigned" and why does he she or it keep regaling me with his, her or its opinions, in which I have not the slightest interest? harnad (talk) Stevan Harnad

Dear person: it is certainly fine that you do not have the slightest interest in the so called Hungarian philosophers' affair. BTW Boros indeed is a person, but I know that you are not ineterested in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.224.79.8 (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say I was not interested in the Hungarian philosophers' affair! (I just said I'm not interested in anonymous opinions.) On the contrary, I find it very interesting that the government has dropped all four of the cases against the philosophers this week, for lack of any wrong-doing, but without the slightest acknowledgement or apology for the damage that all their vicious FUD did. harnad (talk) Stevan Harnad

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I usually remember to do so. Fogot this time: Have gone back and corrected it. Thanks Stevan Harnad 22:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Indented lineI did sign with Stevan Harnad 20:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC) but apparently that was not enough. Here, I'll try it again: Stevan Harnad 20:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Harnad, we have also article about the Second Cabinet of Viktor Orbán. Please put text to this article. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree that the text should migrate there: it should really remain in the Viktor Orban entry. But I have now moved the passage you deleted where you asked, and left a pointer to it in the VO entry. Please do not remove the pointer. --Stevan Harnad 19:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC) User:Harnad

Dear Mr. Harnad. So, we have different opinions about the amendements, but for now it can not be clear for an external reader what amendments are involved. The textual has definitely must contain this information. naturally very important to use NPOV (neutral point-of-view), a main pillar of the Wikipedia. --Norden1990 (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Harnad, while I appreciate your contributions, it seems to me that you are using Wikipedia for political soapboxing. Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia and neither a newspaper, nor a place for political battles. Recently, you made a lot of contributions on an amendment of the Constitution of Hungary. You added lengthy criticisms about this, and even copied the same text to several articles (same text 5 times) or (same text 5 times) or (same text 5 times). Reporting about current political issues / debates / arguments / events / documents is important for a society, however, that's not the aim of Wikipedia, since it is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper / radio station / tv channel / etc. Even if you think that these debates will not become obsolete pretty soon, so they have a place on an encyclopedia (BTW: I doubt that), still there is no point of copying the *same* text to several articles. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Dear Mr. or Mme. Koertefa: a rather important historic event is taking place, about which there is a great deal of international concern and criticism, from both scholars and statesmen. I am adding the pertinent current historical information in the pertinent Wikipedia entries. 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. If you wish to post other points of view, please do go ahead. But I would greatly appreciate it if you stopped unilaterally deleting my postings under the pretext that they are soap-boxing. Perhaps you would like to return to your earlier point about the fact that I am a self-promoter, which, for some mysterious reason, you raised in the midst of deleting my postings? Talk:Stevan_Harnad#Is_this_a_self-promoting_article.3F --Stevan Harnad 21:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC) User:Harnad

Please, do not mix these issues. The fact that you occasionally edit the WP article about yourself has nothing to do with my comments above (apart from the fact that I realized it while I was trying to access your user page). If you edit WP, you should be aware that other users can edit or delete your contributions. That's the way WP works. Please, also note that you have added "unilaterally" your versions, as well, so others might delete it "unilaterally". Even if it was true that currently there were historical events in Hungary, would really be Wikipedia the right medium to report about them? Have you tried, for example, Wikinews? Nevertheless, I agree with you that there should be comments about international criticisms of the Constitution of Hungary on the appropriate WP article, however, WP don't have to report about every single opinion, and especially copy-pasting the same text five times seems questionable. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Harnad,

as other editors have explained to you before me: Wikipedia wants to be an encyclopedia. Not a news platform, not a political advocacy platform, not something else. Just an encyclopedia. "Recentism" means that events that recently happened are described very (too) detailedly, while events that happened a longer time ago are described shorter, because we already have a historical distance. If you write several pages (!) about every detail of the current Hungarian constitutional amendment, every single reaction, every single person arguing in favor or against the amendment, this is recentism. In an encyclopedia, like Wikipedia, unlike in a news article, or a political discussion forum, this information has to be condensed to the most important facts and statements. Please try to imagine: which parts of information will still be important and interesting for a general public who wants to inform itself, e.g. about Fidesz, in 10, 20, or 50 years? Not every piece of information. Some will just be side issues or peripheral matters. They have to be condensed, because Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but aims to be an encyclopedia. Of course it is difficult to assess which parts of a development that is currently taking place will be considered historic in the future. But we have to try to. And the texts you have added are definitely too detailed for an encyclopedic article. For example, the article on Fidesz has to inform about the whole history of this party from its foundation in 1988 until today. And all parts of its history should be depicted in the same degree of detailedness. The events of the last weeks or months should not be covered much more detailedly than the events around the foundation of the party in 1988.

Thank you for understanding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and thank you for your cooperation.

Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Dear User:RJFF, Not sure whether you saw this on your talk page before you wrote the above:

As far as I can tell, you have no biasses one way or the other, based on your long editing history. So I just wanted to point out that there some extremely serious historic events transpiring (and in fact accelerating) in recent days and weeks in Hungary, chiefly in connection with the new constitution and its amendments, about which the EU and the international community are becoming increasingly concerned. I think it would be a great historic mistake to treat WP updates on these current goings-on as "recentism." This is an important unfolding current event, with very broad consequences. There are many other articles in WP in which it is an unfolding current event that is being updated. This is how the constitutional controversy (possibly heading toward crisis) should be viewed. Although I am pretty sure that that is not what is motivating your own suggestion that this may be "recentism," please do bear in mind that there are not-unbiassed partisans who would very much prefer that the mounting international criticism of the Hungarian constitution was not covered in WP but rather that it would simply subside and go away, and they have repeatedly invoked "recentism" and "soapboxing" as the justification for deleting my recent updates...

It's a safe bet that what is happening now with the Hungarian constitution will be be historic, with consequences for many generations to come. On the extremely unlikely possibility that it turns out to have been a tempest in a teapot, let it be deleted if and when that proves to be the case. As I said, there are plenty of WP pages that cover and are updated to keep pace with ongoing events. Surely this deserves to be one of them. And surely the possibility of such coverage is one of the unique new features of an online crowd-sourced encyclopedia, impossible in a Gutenberg-era static archival encyclopedia. This new capability does not diminish WP's value but enhances it.

----Stevan Harnad 05:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC) User:Harnad (talk)