Talk:Ship of Theseus

Aristotle

This is why I added a section on the end on Aristotole's Four Causes. Even though the material cause changes, the formal cause remains the same. The Formal Cause is basically the design of the object in this system, while the Material Cause is the matter which happens to make it up. Aristotle gives greater presidence to Formal Cause when defining being. --Marcusscotus1 05:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. The Four Causes clearly lay out four different means of correlating identity. While it is still up to the individual to consider which causes take precedence over others, each one can be clearly applied to the Ship of Theseus "paradox".

• The final cause, like the formal cause, remains constant over time: the ship is meant to serve as a museum piece, and that does not change. This is not true of the second ship, as its final cause did not exist when the "original" Ship of Theseus was introduced to the museum, and is slightly distinct from the final cause of that ship. (It can be noted that the final cause of the original ship changes when it stops conveying Theseus about and starts rotting in a museum. This is directly related to one of my favored solutions to the questions posed by the ship, but this is a separate matter entirely.)
• The efficient cause also remains similar, but not identical, over time: the original ship was formed through creative carpentry (the construction of a new ship), and is maintained through restorative carpentry (the restoration of an old ship). The second ship is formed with constructive carpentry, but it cannot be said that the efficient cause is the same, because the materials used to build it were restored in a process that did not exist when the ship was first built.

I think that the system of the Four Causes is an excellent model for tracking possible changes in identity, and I think that it's absolutely worth considering as part of this thought experiment. It seems this is somehow a point of contention, fourteen years later, as all references to the Four Causes are being removed. --73.225.234.34 (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

One of wikipedia's core content policies is No Original Research. I agree that it's an interesting idea, but this and all other "interesting ideas" about the Ship of Theseus need to have significant coverage in a secondary academic source to merit inclusion in this article. Original research that is only bolstered by a citation to an ancient source will be removed and should not be re-added. - car chasm (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

None of this original research. Julius Moravcsik, one of the best ancient philosophy scholar who was also very interested in issues of philosophy of language, mind, reality; quite literally developed the same explanation. His AITIAtional theory of lexical semantics was well received by Chomsky, Pustejovsky a computer scientist developed this into the theory of Generative Lexicon. I have added an explanation of puzzle from a Moravcsik/Chomsky AITIA-tional internal semantics pov, in the resolution part of the article. With reference to Moravcsik’s original articles and books. Hopefully this does not get deleted as it was immidiately within 6 minutes by some edition, who i think has no interest or understanding of philosophy or semantics. Tinkeringwiki (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Please stop re-adding this material if you aren't going to add any more sources to support how this is directly related to ship of theseus. Yes, the cited source tying Chomsky to Theseus does cite Moravcsik as an inspiration of Chomsky's, but that's not an excuse to launch into a long digression on Moravcsik's tangentially related theory, which doesn't even talk about Theseus! Tying these two together appears to represent your own conclusions, which is considered WP:SYNTH - ideally you should find someone who published a well-cited paper or book applying Moravcsik's theory directly to the Ship of Theseus, if it exists, and paraphrase their findings WP:SUMMARYSTYLE here. Furthermore, describing theories in technical language and using such terms as "dia ti" or "AITIAtional" with no explanation is not helpful to the average English reader, who doesn't know Ancient Greek and probably has only a passing understanding if any of Aristotle's Four causes or Hylomorphism.

Rather than edit warring over the course of months, how about you make some modifications to your addition to add any sources that actually draw the conclusions you are presenting here, if you have them, and post it here on the talk page where you can get feedback on them? Or, if you're so intent on talking about the "Aitiational theory" instead of the actual topic of this article, which is the Ship of Theseus, how about you go to Julius Moravcsik and add some information about it (from secondary sources!) over there instead? - car chasm (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I am unsure what you are chiding me for. Since you yourself give a good source of Chomsky’s theory being used as an explanation of the paradox. What does the word direct mean? No one is publishing papers in the Journal of philosophy titled “Internalist semantics explanation of Ship of Theseus” at max some semantic theory is proposed and corollary of that is it parlays our uneasiness in a long existing philosophical puzzle.

If you read my edit, I took time and space to explain what aitia is what dia ti is? I also gave a long explanation how of the puzzle can be looked at in the case of book.

You seem to suggest that the Aitiational theory which I talk about is tangentially related. In these disciplines of linguistics and philosophy if there has been proposed any form of internalist semantics, it has been done by the three people which I mentioned, if you read their books they cite one another. In one BBS commentary Chomsky called Moravcsik work as a source of clarification, no one can miss the fact he is quite literally using framing based explanation in puzzles of reference.

But none of this comes close to your justification of deleting my additions, “unjustified readdition of poorly sourced material”. I cited a book published by Csli publications and Cup by two very good philosophers. It does not even come close to being poorly cited, unless your criteria for sourcing is wrt to the article is does the phrase “ship of Theseus” occur.

I like to keep my google account seperate for various tasks, so I end up logging into Wikipedia after some time, thus it took me long time to respond. ~~~ Tinkeringwiki (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no ship

There aren't any sources for this section. The link to Treachery of Images doesn't fully explain the argument. Seems more like a musing from an user than a scholar position. Should it be erased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maracutaia (talk • contribs) 06:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The USS Constitution is an inadequate example.

Not only does the "gradual loss of identity" lack sufficient sources, comparing the ship of Theseus to the USS Constitution is an inadequate comparison. One is defined by its ownership of the titular Theseus, the other is self-defined as its own entity. Replacing the bed of Theseus would make it no longer the bed of Theseus, but replacing a bed on the USS Constitution makes it still a part of the USS Constitution due to the transitive properties of identity.

I suggest there should be a connection to the concept of general semantics in this article.

After reading this article it occurred to me that there seemed to be a number of similarities between this concept and at least some parts of "general semantics". Basically "Fred(1970)" is not the same as Fred(2010), despite the fact that they are still 'the same' person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_semantics

HTH

203.96.132.249 (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC) Bruce

From an entirely non-specialist perspective, yeah, it looks like those concepts bear some relevance to each other, at least tangentially. I think for that connection to be made in the article itself, we'd have to first find reliable sources in which experts make that connection directly. Then there'd probably be the even trickier task of determining whether that connection is relevant, notable, or pervasive enough to be included in this article. We can't catalogue every academic treatment of the Ship of Theseus.

It could potentially go in the "See also" section. Still, I'm not personally knowledgable enough to confidently say it belongs there. Wemedgefrodis (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Trivia

It feels like the "applications" section is close to being a list of miscellaneous information. The part about Ship of Theseus bands (though interesting) is the clearest example of this. It probably also can be considered original research, although it's hard to know for sure without a citation. Worth keeping an eye on. Wemedgefrodis (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

False Dichotomy

I wonder whether this is simply a false dichotomy: by posing the question as a predicate that can only be true or false, one excludes consideration of a continuum of identity. (One could argue that from moment to moment the ship is still mostly "the same" in both materials and design, but over the course of a century the percentage of materials decreases markedly, even if the design remains substantially the same. Then deciding whether two observations are "really the same thing" is simply a matter of choosing a threshold over some combination of those two proportions.)

Martin Kealey (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Biology

An interesting article!

I thought about the fact that living organisms consist of cells that die and are renewed over time as well ...

https://www.livescience.com/33179-does-human-body-replace-cells-seven-years.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.225.161 (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Heraclitus and Plato do not talk about the Ship of Theseus

There are two references offered in this article to substantiate the claim that Heraclitus and Plato both discussed the puzzle of the Ship of Theseus. If you read the sources, however, you will not find any discussion of the Ship of Theseus. The reference to Heraclitus is a statement of a belief that "all things move and nothing remains still." - that has some adjacent issues of persistence of identity, but it is not a discussion on the Ship of Theseus (incidentally, this passage isn't a discussion on the philosophical ideas but a speculative etymology of the name Hestia). The reference to Plato is about whether something can be encircled by a thing it is encircling. These references should be deleted and the earliest reference should be the Plutarch unless there are other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.155.120.196 (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Trademark of Theseus

I think it would be the same ship because it would still be called the ship of Theseus. I mean the let's say that the Linux kernel has had all its code changed and not one code is the original from 1994 91 or something is it still the same colonel copyright wise the code is different it's changed it's not the there's nothing from the original but it's still called the Linux kernel because the trademark the name it is given is still the same so technically I would say the ship is the same in name only since copyright wise or every board or every code has been changed so that nothing is original but the name is still the same Slinkyw (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Mention in VSauce video

• "Do Chairs Exist? (at 20m 37s) – Vsauce (September 14, 2021)
• Tweet by @Wikipedia from January 21, 2020

Noted this for anyone interested. Seeaver (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Waves

If there's a good primary source making the connection, a good example might be waves. When we watch a wave of water propagate across the sea, we see it as a single moving "object" (of a sort), though it might be made of totally different particles of water after a few seconds.

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Deep_water_wave.gif
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shallow_water_wave.gif
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mouvement_dans_une_vague_en_eau_peu_profonde.gif

Tophtucker (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh I guess the existing river examples in the article are pretty close to that. (Thanks Visnu, my bad!) I guess rivers vs waves is like "constituent parts flowing through (sorta) stationary whole" vs "whole flowing across (sorta) stationary constituent parts". Tophtucker (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a nice idea, but we need support from reliable sources. If there's nothing linking this specifically to Plutarch's Ship of Theseus or Hobbes' treatment of it, it might be more appropriate on a more general page about mereology or philosophy of identity. - car chasm (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

River refence removed creates dangling reference

The sentence in the "Four-dimensionalism" section that begins "The aforementioned river" has lost it aforementioned reference with a recent edit that removed the "No identity over time" section that introduced the river dispute. 71.213.182.112 (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Transcribing Hobbes quote

I can't find a transcription of the quote from Hobbes, so I'm transcribing it here for reference from archive.org for potential future quoting in the article because it's often hard to tell from the academic sources which parts are Hobbes' claims and which are the analysis. the whole excerpt is certainly too long to include in the article and uses technical language, but I think it won't be too confusing to make some quotes from it.

But the same Body may at different times be Compared with itself. And from hence springs a great controversy among Philosophers about the Beginning of Individuation namely, in what sense it may be conceived that a Body is at one time the same, at another time not the same it was formerly. For example, whether a Man grown old be the same Man he was whilst he was young, or another Man, or whether a City be in different Ages the Same, or another City. Some place Individuity in the Unity of Matter, others in the Unity of Form, and one says it consists in the Unity of the Aggregate of all the Accidents together. For Matter, it is pleaded, that a lump of Wax, whether it be Spherical or Cubical, is the same Wax, because the same Matter. For Form, that when a Man is grown from an Infant to be an Old Man, though his Matter be changed, yet he is still the same Numerical Man; for that Identity which cannot be attributed to the Matter, ought probably to be ascribed to the Form. For the Aggregate of Accidents no Instance can be made ; but because when any new Accident is generated, a new Name is commonly imposed on the Thing, therefore he that assigned this cause of Individuity , thought the thing itself also was become another thing. According to the first Opinion, He that sins, and he that is punished should not be the same Man , by reason of the perpetual flux and change of Mans Body, nor should the City which makes Laws in one Age , and abrogates them in another, be the same City ; which were to confound all Civil Rights. According to the second Opinion, two Bodies existing both at once, would be one and the same Numerical Body for if (for example) that Ship of Theseus (concerning the Difference whereof, made by continual reparation, in taking out the old Planks, and putting in new, the Sophisters of Athens were wont to dispute) were, after all the Planks were changed, the same Numerical Ship it was at the beginning; and if some Man had kept the Old Planks as they were taken out, and by putting them afterwards together in the same order, had again made a Ship of them, this without doubt had also been the same Numerical Ship with that which was at the beginnings and so there would have been two Ships Numerically the same, which is absurd. But according to the third Opinion, Nothing would be the same it was, so that a Man standing, would not be the same he was sitting; nor the Water which is in the Vessel, the same with that which is poured out of it. Wherefore the beginning of Individuation is not always to be taken either from Matter alone, or from Form alone.

But we must consider by what name any thing is called , when we inquire concerning the Identity of it; for it is one thing to ask concerning Socrates whether he be the same Man, and another to ask whether he be the same Body; for his Body when he is Old, cannot be the same it was when he was an Infant, by reason of the difference of Magnitude; for One Body has always One and the same Magnitude; yet nevertheless he may be the same Man. And therefore whensoever the Name by which it is asked whether a thing be the same it was, is given it for the Matter only , then if the Matter be the same, the thing also is Individually the same  ; as the Water which was in the Sea, is the same which is afterward in the Cloud, and any Body is the same, whether the parts of it be put together, or dispersed, or whether it be congealed or dissolved. Also if the Name be given for such Form as is the beginning of Motion, then as long as that Motion remains it will be the same Individual thing-, as that Man will be always the same, whole Actions and Thoughts proceed all from the same beginning of Motion namely, that which was in his generation; and that will be the same River, which flows from one and the same Fountain, whether the same Water, or other Water, or something else than Water flow from thence-and that the same City, whose Acts proceed continually from the same Institution , whether the Men be the same or no. Lastly, if the Name be given for some Accident, then the Identity of the thing will depend upon the Matter ; for by the taking away and supplying of Matter, the Accidents that were are destroyed, and other new ones are generated, which cannot be the same Numerically; so that a Ship, which signifies Matter so figured, will be the same, as long as the Matter remains the same ; but if no part of the Matter be the same , then it is Numerically, another Ship; and if part of the Matter remain, and part be changed, then the Ship will be partly the same, and partly not the same.

It's from 1656, so it's definitely in the public domain and I can quote the whole thing here without a copyright violation. - car chasm (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Merging back in the list, removing the fancruft

I've merged back in the List of Ship of Theseus examples and removed the original research. That page was accumulating a variety of non-notable examples, and more concerning, even some scholarly sources that belong on this article! In the process of merging I also removed most of the non-notable examples. Hopefully removing all of the pop culture references will discourage people from being inspired to add their own pop culture references. - car chasm (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Japanese Shinto Shrines

Currently, the article discusses Shinto shrines being replaced with new wood every twenty years. A quick Google search suggests that this may be specific to the Ise Jingu Shrine in Japan and is not present at every Shinto shrine as the text suggests. Anyone with more knowledge want to comment and/or update? SoroSuub1 (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

This seems plausible, and the old claim is uncited. I've updated the text to only reference the Ise Grand Shrine, and pulled some citations from that article to support it. - car chasm (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

How much sand in a pile?

Really this is the same question. If you replaced one plank on the ship, most people would still consider it the same ship, just repaired, as ships are. Same perhaps with two planks. If you replaced every plank, perhaps it's not the same ship, although if that happens gradually, it might be. That's the argument.

But what if you took a grain of sand away from a pile? Is it still a pile? If you took away all but one grain?

These are both ancient philosophical questions, but in many ways the same question.

84.68.162.176 (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

is this really a paradox?

its a philosophical question of definitions really. What makes it a paradox? Gjxj (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a significant problem for exactly how you define "same" and "different"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Article of Theseus

It has been pointed out on reddit that since this article was first posted, it has been edited in its entirety. According to the Reddit post:

"the "Ship of Theseus" article has been edited 1792 times since it was created in July of 2003. At present, 0% of the phrases in the original article remain."

Not only is this delightfully meta, it's a pretty good example of the philosophical concept in action. It might be worth mentioning in the article, if Reddit posts are allowed as citations. Sgrandpre (talk) 06:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

If a reliable source reports on this example, it might be able to be included in the article, but per WP:USERGENERATED, a Reddit post wouldn't be an appropriate source. miranda ^:3 06:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Just check the oldest revision of this article and compare their similarities using an online tool, it's not that hard to do your own reps. 103.156.60.132 (talk) 07:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works. Content on Wikipedia is required to be sourced from reliable, independent resources. What you're suggesting is original research, which is explicitly against policy per WP:NOR. miranda ^:3 07:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia T&Cs inhibit proof of concept on the existence of the Ship of Threseus itself, as the evidence is itself. The search (and further revisions) continue for another 2000 years Halfang (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a place where WP:IAR could apply. I don't believe an article would be written about this, but a mention of it would improve the article. Bbf242 (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

This factoid is trivial, and it's probably true of a large proportion of all Wikipedia articles. I don't think it improves the article in any significant way, nor does it help the reader understand the topic. Furthermore, depending on what "phrase" is interpreted to mean, the factoid is arguably not even true. The phrase "same ship" occurs in both the original and the current article. CodeTalker (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The factoid is trivial, but it relates to the article's concept. I don't know if that actually justifies its inclusion, but it's certainly a way of applying the idea to a real-world situation in a meta way. HaapsaluYT (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I've decided to be bold and include a reference to this trivial fact in the form of an example.

I think it doesn't run afoul of wiki guidelines and is done in the spirit of MOS:TRIVIA's suggestion to incorporate it into the article instead of a separate trivia list.

But I'm curious how others feel about this and if people know of ways to improve my addition. ConcurrentState (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Being bold is one thing; re-adding content that has been added and removed nine times over the past 3 months is edit warring. As I noted above, what the content claims is false, since there is at least one phrase remaining from the original article, so regardless of whether it is a useful example (in my opinion it is not), it is incorrect and should not be in the article. CodeTalker (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I came to the idea independently after seeing a social media post about it. Verified if it was true, checked the revisions all the way back to the beginning of the year and didn't see any revisions related to this, came here to the talk page to see if it was mentioned and if there was consensus on it.

Except for you, there was no consensus on not including it and the general consensus was that it would be fun to include but there were issues with policy.

So I devised a creative way of including it that doesn't breach policy and doesn't even need for it to be true, making your hemming and hawing about what constitutes a "phrase" irrelevant.

I will self-revert so that we can discuss my revision further and to show good faith.

However, I do suggest that next time you don't come in so hot, leave the dramatics about edit warring at the door and practice some WP:AGF.

Because even if there were revisions pertaining to this, I could've just as well missed it or forgot to check, that doesn't mean I'm edit warring. ConcurrentState (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I apologize if my response seemed "hot" to you. There was so much activity related to this topic last December that I did assume that you were aware of the previous activity, but if you only looked back to the beginning of 2024 you could have missed that. In fact, it was reverted at least 8 times by 7 different editors in December: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, so there certainly doesn't seem a clear consensus to include it. It's also hard to see how you could have "verified" that it's true when it is in fact not true, and I pointed out that fact just above your post in this discussion, but I accept that you must have overlooked that, as well as the fact that I was not the only editor in this thread to object to the content. Thank you for self-reverting. I am open to further discussion about the appropriateness of this content in the article. CodeTalker (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I also want to apologize for my "hot" and generally unfriendly tone.

I received your reply on mobile and should've instead taken a step back and taken the time to calmly assess the situation with the goal of understanding it in full before replying in a respectful manner.

I don't necessarily agree with the rest of your points, but seeing as this seems to be a contentious matter and apparently something that has been causing a disturbance last December, I think I'll instead create a RfC once I get home to ensure the matter can be put to rest, and so that 3 months from now someone else's doesn't show up and walk into the same pitfall I did. ConcurrentState (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Joke

https://www.sheldoncomics.com/comic/ship-of-theseus/

This post has been brought to you from the department of fun. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 08:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC on integrating trivia in article in the form of an example (or in other ways)

There are four questions:

1. Should the article integrate the trivia that the article is an example of the Ship of Theseus in the form of a hypothetical example that explains the concept of the Ship of Theseus? Example: Special:Diff/1212574348
2. Is the trivia even true?
3. Alternatively, should the trivia be integrated another way?
4. Additionally and separate from the trivia question, should the article include an example of the thought experiment in the first place?

Prior discussion can be found at Talk:Ship of Theseus#Article of Theseus ConcurrentState (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

1. No, because it is false and wouldn't be any more helpful that the existing examples even if it were true.
2. As I noted in the linked discussion, the trivia is not true; the phrase "same ship" appeared in the first version of the article and still appears.
3. I think this is too vague to be answerable.
4. Yes, the article should include examples and already does. The "Historical examples" section contains seven examples. CodeTalker (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Let me answer what I think is the real question being asked here. The Twitter post at https://twitter.com/depthsofwiki/status/1735800801455419697 is not a reliable source, nor is it factually correct, nor would it be allowed in even if it was a reliable source and factually correct because of WP:NOTTRIVIA. Any back door attempts to insert the claims from that tweet into this article should be removed on sight, as should any other similar material that is not from an academic source specifically providing an example of the basic philosophical concept. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

By default, WP:SELFREFs should be avoided. I don't see a good reason to make an exception here. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Are folks here ready to close this RfC?

I see three comments that oppose the Wiki trivia example and I agree: My view is that the article should provide an example (or more than one) from the best available reliable sources. So, no on #1 and yes on #2. ~~~ ProfGray (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Did you perhaps mean no on #1 and yes on #4?

Still, I think you can close the RfC.

I was the one that created the RfC (got a fresh rename, I'll highlight it on my user page and signature at a later time), and you wouldn't be stepping on my toes if you'd close it, insofar that was a concern on your end.

It seems that the consensus is against implementing the trivia (whether the trivia is true or not) and I have peace with that.

My main goal was to get a consensus to be able to refer to that, should the topic come up again in the future, regardless of outcome.

On a related note: could we highlight at the top of the talk page that this topic has been considered and a consensus has been reached, so that when an eager editor without knowledge of the history will be alerted when they visit the talk page? I'm currently on mobile so it's a bit painful to look for a suitable template to achieve this. Turquoise (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

My mistake, I meant yes on #4, as you said. Thanks for your response. I will close the RfC and I appreciate your flexibility. Not sure if there's a template that can keep track of an RfC at top, to avoid future archiving. Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Informal closure -- Consensus was reached to use historical example(s) but not the suggested trivia example using the article itself. WP guidelines states: "If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable." For this reason, I'm not inserting a closure template. ProfGray (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Good call. I must admit that I got a chuckle out of the tweet (I like pretty much everything at https://twitter.com/depthsofwiki/ ), but was disapointed to find that they lied and that we have not, in fact, replaced 100% of the article.

As for the archiving, placing...

  <!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 00:00, 31 December 2999 (UTC) -->   

...at the top of a talk page section "pins" the section stops (some?) archive bots from archiving the section. This should not work, because comments are always supposed to be ignored, but Wikipedia is special and does not have to follow the rules that the rest of the Internet has to follow. Get off my lawn, you damn kids! --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)