Talk:Animal Sentience (journal)

References

As per request for references, seven references have been provided, three of them reviews of the journal, one an article about the journal and editor, one an editorial from the journal, and two annual tables of contents of the journal. Here are the citations for the 265 articles that have appeared to date: citations. --User:Harnad 13:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)--User:Harnad 13:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

references to BBS as model for ASent

User:Softlavender stated "Still no substantiation that it is "modelled on Behavioral and Brain Sciences so I am removing that until substantiated"

The first reference following the removed passage states:

"cognitive science was not born in 1978 when Stevan Harnad established Behavioral and Brain Sciences, but there can be no doubt that BBS helped make cognitive science the sort of robustly cross-disciplinary field it has become. In BBS, "target articles," by psychologists, linguists, philosophers, roboticists, for example, would garner "commentary articles" from dozens of writers working in different fields. The idea that "the mind" is not the proprietary subject matter of one discipline — but truly demands that different methods and starting points and practices come together to try to sort it out — was one that was realized in the pages of BBS. I don't think that any history of cognitive science could afford to neglect a chapter on BBS itself.

"Stevan Harnad, who ran BBS more or less single-handedly for decades, is at it again. He has recently established a brand new journal devoted to the study of animal feeling. This one, taking advantage of open access and the efficiencies of web-based publishing, threatens to be a massive success."

I have restored the passage.User:Harnad (talk) 04:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Also I would be grateful if you left a little more time to answer your concerns before resorting to deleting, which makes more work for both of us. Nothing serious was at issue, and the substantiation you wanted was already there in the citations. User:Harnad (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Nowhere does that state that Animal Sentience is modeled on Behavioral and Brain Sciences (and I had read all three sources thoroughly before I removed the statement). I'm going to remove the statement again. I'm trying to help you, Stevan, but you are going to lose all hope of the COI tag ever being removed from the article if you keep editing it promotionally and without substantiating independent citations. In fact, you should not be editing it at all, but rather posting edit requests here on the talkpage instead. Softlavender (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Softlavender, I honestly don't understand your reason for removing the phrase that Animal Sentience is modeled on Behavioral and Brain Sciences from the description. I won't make the edit to restore it. I hereby request that you do: I was the one who founded BBS in 1978 and edited it till 2002. The unique feature of BBS was "target articles" and "open peer commentary," invited and spontaneous, across multiple disciplines. That is precisely the feature on which I modelled Animal Sentience. If that fact is not substantiated by that statement, from me, together with a glance at the contents of BBS and Animal Sentience themselves, which show that that is indeed exactly what both journals consist of -- target articles and open peer commentary and author reponses -- then I really have no idea what you mean by "substantiate."

As to promotion: I fully understand Wp's concern not to become a tool for the promotion of products, companies, individuals, or their reputations. (It is obvious that a lot of that happens anyway, despite efforts to minimize it, by the simple expedient of having multiple anonymous individuals promote companies, products, and indiduals' reputations.) I am selling nothing. I am not paid to edit Animal Sentience. Animal Sentience costs nothing, to either authors or readers. And I made no statement of praise about anything, just objective technical facts. In fact, originally I just posted verbatim the journal's self-description, but that was rejected by Wp on copyright graounds (although I had myself written that description for the journal!) so I paraphrased it. I am myself 72 and have a reasonable reputation which I have no interest in promoting. I have some interest, however, in getting some relevant, neutral facts correct in Wp. One of them is that this journal exists, as do the many other refereed journals indexed in Wp, and that it is modelled on BBS's target articles + Open Peer Commentary feature. I have no idea why these simple, relevant, informative facts are being deleted as if they were either false or self-promotion. ASent belongs in Wp, just as other refereed journals do; its entry is short, modest and accurate. I would really be grateful if you could restore the (correct, relevant) facts that you removed for reasons that are beyond me to understand. Thanks, User:Harnad (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

No source states that "Animal Sentience is modeled on Behavioral and Brain Sciences". You are clearly too involved in your own WP:COI to edit this article neutrally, and in all probability should not have created it yourself. Honestly Stevan, if you continue in this vein it will probably be necessary to report this article to the WP:COIN. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender: You wote: "if you continue in this vein it will probably be necessary to report this article." I had said "I won't make the edit to restore it. I hereby request that you do... I would really be grateful if you could restore the (correct, relevant) facts that you removed for reasons that are beyond me to understand." What exactly am I continuing to do "in this vein" that will probably make it necessary to report this article? Didn't you say I should request the change in the article's Talk page rather than making it myself? User:Harnad (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

My point is that if you continue to post walls of text arguing points that are not specifically substantiated in reliable independent sources, and other exasperating COI behavior, then (A) the tag will probably not be removed from this article, and (B) the article (and the article on you) are probably going to end up being posted at WP:COIN. Softlavender (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)