Talk:Marxian economics

Archives

Earlier material for this talk page can be found at:

• Archive 1: March 2004-January 2007 Marxian/Marxist; merge from other articles, etc.

Restoration of content

I have restored content deleted by wd prior to consensus having been reasched on the deletions.

Please do not delete anything unless and until consensus is reached. WP policy stipulates that the burden of proof (of the need to delete content, etc.) rests on the person who seeks changes.

I do not know of reliable source that maintains that internally inconsistent arguements are logically valid. If wd or someone else locates such a source, I'll be happy to have it included as a minority view. I also do not see any warrant for excluding the mention of journals that have issued a call for papers and are actively reviewing manuscripts for publication in the premiere issue.

justice-thunders-condemnation 15:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Burden of Proof

Andrew Kliman is mistaken. The burden of proof is on those who are making claims of consensus. Unless you can show a reliable source which says that there is CONSENSUS on this issue, then the article content will be reverted. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary justification. As a Wikipedia editor you should know that.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

COPE

As explained in the edit COPE a publication which has never published a single issue can not be treated on par with established, reputable publications. Speak to the issue.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Request for Comment

Watchdog07 has placed a "hoax" warning tag next to a reference to a journal. The website of the journal follows the reference, in order to comply with the reliable source policy. justice-thunders-condemnation 22:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no justification for a hoax tag. It is up to the person who places such a tag to explain why they have done so. In the absence of an explanation, I am removing the tag. Sunray 06:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Need for justification for placement of tags on an article

Watchdog07 has again placed NPOV and Hoax tags on the article. I have reverted him and have requested that he justify placement of the tags in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Sunray 00:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sunray - It is always helpful to ask first - and wait for a response - before reverting. I believe I am entitled to refer other editors to the Talk:Temporal single-system interpretation page where the explanations for the tags have been given at length. The reason is simply - as a review of the edit history of the Marxian economics page with that of the TSSI page will show - that the sections inserted into the former by Andrew Kliman were basically cut-and-pasted from the TSSI article. So called "self-plagiarism", see plagiarism, is certainly not illegal in this context. Neither is it proper or encouraged. (NB: the issue of the import of plagiarism was discussed before on the TSSI talk page). In any event, I claim that it is an unusual enough circumstance to allow me to simply refer readers to the TSSI talk page where all of the parts cut-and-pasted in the Marxian economics article by Kliman from the TSSI article have been discussed at length. I also discussed the meaning of the hoax tag in the Pluralism in economics article. Let's not waste each others' time by repeating the same arguments made on other talk pages. It's also important to note that there is agreement by Kliman and myself that the content of the articles Temporal single-system interpretation, Marxian economics, and Pluralism in economics are all part of the same edit dispute, hence repetition is not required on all talk pages for that reason as well. I will replace the tags.Watchdog07 07:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you know how big the stupid Talk:Temporal single-system interpretation is? Do you know how poor the formatting is? It's barely understandable! Don't ask the poor guy to pour through archives and even FURTHER edits in the Pluralism in economics page -- just make a simple paragraph detailing specifics of the tags in question, no more, no less. MrMacMan ^Talk 07:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

MrMacMan is right. It is insufficient justification to refer the reader to a whole article or talk page. We will need specifics. Why is the article not neutral? What is the hoax? You need to provide evidence. Clearly the burden of proof is on the placer of a tag if that tag is challenged. Most tags state that reasons for the tag's placement can be found on the article's talk page. There was no such justification for the tags on this talk page. Now you have provided some rationale, so let me comment briefly on what you have said here:

1. There is no reason why Andrew Kilman shouldn't cite himself in an article, provided that the citations are from peer-reviewed, published works. It is not "self-plagiarism" when works are properly cited.
2. Subject matter experts have written many Wikipedia articles. In most cases the encyclopedia has benefited thereby.
3. The Criticisms section does seem to have some weaknesses, but you have not supported the argument that it violates WP:NPOV.
4. Rather than place an NPOV tag on a section, it would be preferable to improve the article by making it more neutral.

Please provide succinct reasons for maintaining these two tags. I am removing the tags in the meantime. Sunray 08:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Succinct reasons

You asked for it - I will provide succinct reasons.

1. Reasons for neutrality-section tag

a. there is a claim of consensus for which there is no consensus among scholars - "since internally inconsistent theories can not be right ...." A reliable source must be shown that there is consensus on this question. Andrew KLiman has his opinion, and that's OK if it was expressed as his opinion, but it is presented as a fact which there is no agreement that it is.

b. "suppression of Marx's critique of political economy and current-day research on it". This is an exceptional claim (the claim of suppression) and exceptional claims need exceptional sources. There is also a WP:BLP issue since some of those who Kliman implies have engaged in "suppression" are living persons.

c. having read the discussion on the David Laibman page, which was attacked by Andrew Kliman, I know that Laibman - a living person - would not agree that he should be described as someone who "allege that Marx has been proven internally inconsistent". He has offered alternative interpretations of Marx to those put forward by the "New Orthodox Marxists" (i.e. the proponents of the TSSI). This is quite different from Kliman's claim.

d. "Even critics of Marx and/or the TSSI have come to accept, implicitly or explicitly ...." This is an exceptional claim, a claim of consensus (where none exists) and a claim which concerns living persons. It's also frankly ridiculous: there is no agreement by scholars about what they accept or do not accept regarding the TSSI. To claim otherwise, is not truthful.

2. reasons for hoax tag

A web site for COPE' exists. That is all.

It has never published a single issue.

There is no reason to believe that it will ever be published.

It has never published a single article.

There is no reason to believe that articles will ever be published.

There is no listing of the contents of future issues.

There is no reason to think such issues will ever be published.

There are no abstracts of future articles.

There is no reason to think that abstracts will be provided.

There is no reliable source WP:RS to show that the journal exists and is not in fact a hoax. Instead, all that has been given is the opinion of Andrew Kliman and the url for the web site, which is not a reliable source.

COPE does not exist. It is similar to a set design in Hollywood of the Old West. Like most hoaxes on the Internet, it looks like it might be real. It is not.

Now that I have provided you with what you have asked for, I will re-insert the tags. If you still don't agree that they should be in the article, then we can discuss it on my user talk page. Watchdog07 12:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The tag for 'hoax' does not say that there is a hoax. It says that there might be a hoax. I have provided logical reasons aplenty for believing that it might be a hoax. Watchdog07 12:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

In regard to 1(a), yes, there is consensus, indeed unanimity, that internally inconsistent theories cannot be right (they might by accident make correct predictions, etc., but that's different). I would be happy for contrary views to be cited, but I don't know of any. I say this as a reliable source.

In regard to 1(b), the charge of suppression is not exceptional. The very reason one claims internal inconsistency is to suppress the argument, and claims of internal inconsistency serve to suppress arguments. I say this as a reliable source. The statement in the article is accompanied by citations of 2 reliable sources.

In regard to 1(c), I've added a citation in which Laibman claims that Marx was internally inconsistent.

In regard to 1(d), it is not an exceptional claim to say that particular arguments have been accepted implictly or explicitly by erstwhile critics. It happens all the time. The statement cites a reliable source. It is also true. I say this as a reliable source.

In regard to 2, the website makes it very clear that the premiere issue of the journal is in process. There are 50+ members of the editorial board listed there. Affiliations are given. I can provide additional information to verify beyond any doubt that the journal is indeed forthcoming. Watchdog07 says that the tag only alleges that there might be a hoax. This line of reasoning would allow anyone to place such a tag on any and every article. For instance, the purported existence of David Laibman "might be" a hoax, though it isn't, and neither is the existence of COPE.

I'll let Sunray remove the tags if s/he wishes. Otherwise, I will.

andrew-the-k 14:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

David Laibman is a real person: he exists. There are also reliable sources which prove that he exists. COPE does not exist. It is a pipe dream of Andrew Kliman and Alan Freeman.

As for the issue of neutrality, I have made changes in the article which increase neutrality, WP:NPV, and, provided they are not changed, can hopefully lead to the removal of the neutrality-section tag.

Since Kliman introduced and sourced the expression "new orthodox marxism" in the article, I added the expression "New Orthodox Marxists" to another location of the article. Watchdog07 15:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the most recent changes made to the article by yours truly were not reverts: one added content and the other was a constructive effort at increasing neutrality. Watchdog07 15:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion, prior to agreement

Well, it was a good idea [ref. to groundrules, below], but take a look at Andrew Kliman's most recent changes to the article. He has (repeatedly) forgotten that this is an encyclopedia not a forum for him to spew his one-sided propaganda and personal animus against David Laibman and others. Once someone else reverts his nonsense and puts back the more neutral edit I performed, then we can discuss the matter further here and hopefully arrive at consensus. If you don't take out the offensive material, which is in flagrant violation of WP:BLP, then I will. Watchdog07 18:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The groundrules are actual policies, they are not just some 'good idea(s)' they are things that you have to follow and abide by. You are asking us to make reverts without seeing if there is consensus for making those reverts, so then we can finally include you in a discussion that would create a consensus. You see, thats not how consensus is created -- you can't tell me that your not willing to agree to discuss changed unless changes are already made -- that isn't very fair. MrMacMan ^Talk 18:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You are talking to the wrong person. Tell it to Andrew Kliman.

Please read the changes he made to the article.

Let me make this perfectly clear to you: the edit the way it stands is a vicious violation of WP:BLP, especially as it relates to David Laibman, and it can not and will not stand.

You want to be fair? Is the CRAP that Kliman introduced into the article about what he calls "N_O_M" fair? This is simply not a topic for discussion. It must be removed! Watchdog07 18:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What has to be followed and abided by? WP:AGF states " This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary". The guideline specifically mentions evidence of malice. The most recent edit of the article is evidence of malice, especially towards David Laibman, a malice which is clearly seen also in the history of the David Laibman Wikipedia article. I encourage all other editors to this article to no longer assuming good faith by Andrew Kliman. Watchdog07 18:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my recent edits, I introduced a citation and quotation from David Laibman concerning his relationship to the charge of internal inconsistency because Watchdog07's comment, above, made clear that additional sourcing was warranted. I think he was right to point out implicitly that the sourcing needed improvement. For the record, I have no "personal animus" against David Laibman.

Also, I didn't introduce the N__ O__ M__ allegation. I rendered the allegation, which had already been introduced, more neutral and reliably sourced, providing both sides, and discussing the background and the evidence. I will, however, agree to have the entire paragraph removed, if there's consensus and agreement among us not to reintroduce it again in any form on any page. I don't think this paragraph is necessary.

I ask that there not be violations of WP:CIV and WP:NPA, the latter of which stipulates that we should discuss the content, not the contributor. Thank you all.

andrew-the-k 18:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Groundrules for resolving disagreements on this page

The comments you have both made are appreciated. With some good faith we should be able to sort this out. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, but also, a community of editors. I would like to establish some groundrules for sorting this out. At the top of the page, I've inserted a template that lists some of the guidelines for interaction between editors as well as key policies governing content. One more thing I would like to highlight: Decisions about article content are by consensus Do we have agreement that we will abide by these groundrules? Sunray 17:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I, of course, assume good faith on your part. I assumed (note past tense) good faith on the part of the other editor but he has behaved in a way inconsistent with good faith and I have invoked the right not to continue to assume good faith after bad faith has been repeatedly displayed, as is allowable under WP:AGF. I am not talking directly to the other editor at all and instead - in order not to feed the troll -- have adopted the policy suggested in WP:SHUN. I know this sounds weird, but a whole lot of weird things have been happening recently. I agree to not change the article or to put additional tags on the article until there is consensus if the tags aren't removed and if the article isn't changed until we have consensus. Watchdog07 17:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

As people have stated before -- WP:SHUN is an essay not a policy -- essays are not held above policies like WP:AGF. You also placed strange restrictions on editing that doesn't exist. Consensus is an agreement with a group of editors... I mean re-read your sentence. You agree not to edit an article... until there is consensus...if the article isn't changed 'until' we have consensus. Maybe you want to re-read what consensus is as a policy. No one should make any drastic edits without consensus, you, me, anybody (that's this specific article because of the controversy). MrMacMan ^Talk 18:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear MrMacMan, can you please explain "(that's this specific article because of the controversy)"? I don't understand it. Thank you. andrew-the-k 19:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe he means that we should agree to not be adding content to this article absent consensus, because of the conflict.Sunray 20:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. andrew-the-k 21:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that a common feature of edit warring is people justifying their actions based on their assumption that the other is acting in bad faith. It then quickly becomes a race to the bottom. Watchdog07's creative use of shunning may be a way to avoid this (though WP:SHUN is not policy). I understand you to mean that if you cannot assume good faith, at least you won't comment. Provided you do not engage in personal attacks and remain civil, that should work. The guidelines apply to both article content and discussion on this page. As to the tags, as I have said, the burden of proof is on the placer of the tag, if, and when, valid questions are raised. Tags present a barrier to the reader, so no matter how much some editors like to use them, they must be justified on this page or removed. BTW consensus doesn't mean unanimity. I will look for a supermajority and use that as a guide to consensus, "while seeking to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority." Please sign below if you agree to these terms. Sunray 18:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have remove some disputatious comments recently inserted and am thinking of putting it on a sub page for rants or otherwise putting it in a different section. In the meantime, lets get back to the groundrules.

Content now restored above. Sunray 18:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sign-on

1. I agree to follow the rules put forth in the talk page header and mentioned by sunray above. MrMacMan ^Talk 17:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
2. I agree to follow the rules above to the best of my ability. Sunray 18:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
3. I also agree to follow the rules put forth in the talk page header and mentioned by sunray above (to the best of my ability, plus). andrew-the-k 19:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
4. I agree to follow these rules and, if I accidentally violate, to change my conduct on being civilly informed. Frankly, I will do anything that leads to a constructive discussion and this looks like the best chance yet. Thanks guys Alan XAX Freeman 20:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
5. I do not agree. Comments on ground rules and proccess are below. Watchdog07 01:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
6. I agree to follow the rules put forth by Sunray. --Extra Fine Point 01:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Process

Once the relevant parties have agreed to the groundrules, there are specific issues we need to address (feel free to add to the list) Sunray 20:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Resolution of hoax tag issue
2. Identifying NPOV concerns
3. Agreement on resolution of agreed upon NPOV concerns
4. Process for improving the article

Here's another issue: application of the consensus decisions to the same issues (e.g. hoax tags next to COPE) in other articles, such as Temporal_single-system_interpretation (which I realize is protected at the moment, but I'm looking ahead) and Pluralism_in_economics). I don't want to place this issue in the list because I have no idea of where it should go in the pecking order. In any case, if I need to indicate that I accept Sunray's items for discussion, and/or the order they're in, I do. andrew-the-k 22:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree as to process. To begin with, the offensive - and potentially libelous - materials inserted into the article today by Andrew Kliman under the guise of increasing "neutrality" must be removed immediately. This is non-negotiable. That may sound improper but even a cursory reading of Kliman's edit will show why it must be removed. I am exercising great restraint by not removing it now.

Second, if there is any mention of David Laibman in the article then I ask that Sunray communicate with him and tell him that his name is in the article and ask what he thinks about it and whether he wishes to participate in this discussion. (DLaibman has been a Wikipedia editor in the past).

Third, (Personal attack removed) ["meatpuppet" allegations]

Fourth, I have already provided justification for the tags, exactly as Sunray asked. They can be removed when we achive consensus that they should be removed.

Fifth, I do not recognize Sunray's ability to decide when we achive consensus. Consensus means that there is agremment by all legitimate parties who are part of this discussion. I explicitly reject any "supermajority" system and will, if necessary, block consensus over that issue. I've had too much bad experience with an individual and his meatpuppets over that issue to agree to any "supermajority" system.

Fifth, "ground rules" should be jointly determined.

Despite the above, I think we can work towards consensus on the content of the article. Watchdog07 01:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Some observations on what Watchdog07 has said:

• If you do not agree to the process, I will suggest that we still look at your claims and make a determination.

Thank you. Watchdog07 16:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think we should look at all links, including the Laibman link.

Look especially at the "reliable source" which Kliman referred to in a note - his blog! Watchdog07 16:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• The use of the term " Meatpuppet" is offensive in that it denys agency to the person it refers to. It thus constitutes a personal attack. Would you please withdraw it?

The term meatpuppet is a technical term at Wikipedia which is explained in WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. The person in question was determined by a member of sysops to be a meatpuppet and he did not protest that designation. Hence it is not a personal attack, it is a statement of fact.Watchdog07 16:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• We will deal with your justifications for the tags when it is determined who is in this tent.

What about the other editors who have contributed to this article in the past, such as Jurriaan Bendien? I think we should look at the history of the page to see who else has a place in the tent. Watchdog07 16:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Someone has to facilitate this process. I am willing to do that. I have had a great deal of experience with consensus and am usually able to get a "sense of the discussion" when there are willing participants.
• If you would like to make other suggestions for groundrules, please do so.

I do not object to you taking on the role of facilitator. In fact, I welcome it. I object to the model you put forward for consensus decision-making. I also disagree with some points you made (especially having to do with tags) but that's Okay. I don't expect us to necessarily agree on everything - especially prior to our beginning the discussion. Watchdog07 16:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pleased that you think that we can work towards consensus. Sunray 02:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Sunray's point 4, I think everyone is accounted for. Regarding his point 5, I accept his offer to facilitate, thank him for volunteering, and suggest that others do likewise. Regarding Watchdog07's demand for immediate removal of the allegedly "offensive - and potentially libelous - materials inserted into the article today by Andrew Kliman under the guise of increasing 'neutrality,'" (1) I deny these allegations, (2) I ask that charges of illegal behavior (potential or otherwise) not be made here, and (3) I don't think it is a good idea to demand things without providing justification for them. andrew-the-k 16:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Final comments on groundrules

Some final comments before we begin. The groundrules are based on Wikipedia policies and are thus non-negotiable. I hope that we will all try hard to abide by them. With respect to name-calling: Whether based on fact or fiction, we cannot engage in such behavior. Civility is essential to getting anywhere. Pejorative comments about one another will therefore be removed. With respect to consensus: This too is policy and the generally accepted guideline for consensus on talk pages is a two thirds majority. I have said I will attempt to articulate the sense of the discussion and will try to mitigate the concerns of the minority. That will be a condition of my being here. If I leave, I will either call in others to sort it out or turn it over to arbitration, depending on the circumstances. Finally, all Wikipedia editors are welcomed to join in. Please sign-on in the space above. Sunray 18:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going to respond to many of your "final comments" but one comment that you made trumps all others: "That will be a condition of my being here". If that means that your being here requires that we accept your model of consensus based on a 2/3 majority, then my response is: goodbye, it was good to know you. I block consensus on any model of consensus that does not allow one person to block consensus.

According to an arbitration committee ruling referred to in WP:SOCK, the opinions of meatpuppets do not have to be taken into account when determining whether there is or is not consensus. I will not take those opinions into account and, if others want to include the MP in the discussion, then I will block consensus over any procedural proposal which gives him a vote in the process.

I do not give you or anyone else permission to "remove" comments I make on this page. If you remove anything I write from this page then you days as faciltator will be over.

I hope you stay but please do not think you can dictate terms to us about process. Watchdog07 18:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Policy is non-negotiable here. Wikipedia policy on consensus is quite clear: "Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome." I will work towards this. Sunray 19:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Without agreement on process there will be no "outcome". Your inference that there is a single model of consensus (the one you mentioned) is not a statement of Wikipedia policy. Your suggestion, in context, that the model of consensus employed is "non-negotiable" is not correct. To repeat -- I block consensus on your proposed model of consensus. It is really not a form of consensus at all, but rather is majoritarian rule. I have been part of many organizations which made decisions by consensus and what you are proposing is inconsistent with what I - and most others - consider consensus to be. In a consensus model (any consensus model) the positions of all are respected and responded to thru discussion - not a 'take it or leave it' suggestion you made above about the "ground rules". A model of decision-making where one person sets the ground rules and the only choice given to others is to accept or not accept is authoritarian and I reject it. If you feel that your model would be a better format for decision-making, it is up to you to present arguments why and then for us to discuss the question. If you are pursuasive enough and manage to convince me that your model is better then I would withdraw my block of consensus on this question. In the meantime, it is in effect. Watchdog07 22:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Your 'agree or disagree' question regarding ground rules was a poll. That is very bad. See WP:PIE. Watchdog07 23:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I have to say that I agree with Watchdog07: the WP:PIE essay is right, "Wikipedia is not pie, in any way, shape or form." What this has to do with anything, I don't know. andrew-the-k 01:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The folly of a super-majority system in this case becomes obvious when one does the math on this page. How many editors are here discussing content? Three to Four depending in who is counted. The three editors who we all agree have standing are Akliman, Watchdog07, and Sunray. (MrMacMan by his own admission is not here to discuss content; Alan Freeman is a MP). It is rather obvious that AKliman and I have been in a protracted dispute over content hence it is safe to assume based on past experience that we will disagree. In the system Sunray proposes (which, as stated, is not the Wikipedia policy on consensu) he would have the deciding say in terms of the dispute. That is simply not acceptable or fair. Wikipedia policy states that when there is disagreement, there is an attempt at a compromise in which the concerns of others are addressed. I am all ears if someone (by which I mean a legitimate party to this dispute) wants to propose a compromise in which the concerns of editors are addressed. Watchdog07 23:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Further process issues

Revert

Unfortunately, no one else took the initiative by reverting Andrew kliman's malicious objectionable edit which didn't come even remotely near neutrality or the standards expected in an encyclopedia. Hence I did what i would say I would do on this page.

Please do not re-insert Kliman's shit into the article again. It was in clear violation of WP:BLP and was frankly just ridiculous, vindictive, and petty. Watchdog07 16:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

We agreed that we would decide on content by consensus. Therefore I will restore the article to it the state it was in prior to establishment of the groundrules. Sunray 01:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Do people know that Watchdog07 has reverted the article without first obtaining consensus?

If the hoax tag is the FIRST issue, restoring the article is the ZERO-TH issue. It is prior to anything else. That's because the ground-rule upon which our discussion of everything else is based is "Decisions about article content are by consensus ... Sunray 17:38, 24 May 2007."

It is my understanding that, since there is consensus around this ground-rule, there is therefore already consensus that the article should be restored. Yes?

The edit summary that accompanied the reversion--"reverted malicious, offensive edit by Andrew Kliman ..." is a violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPA, and WP:CIV. It is a violation of WP:BLP because it is about a living person and not properly sourced. It is a personal attack by virtue of the word "malicious," which pertains to intent.

andrew-the-k 22:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:AGF, which explicitly mentions malice. Watchdog07 01:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not "suppress" the writing by [Alan Freeman(Personal attack removed)]. Indeed, I just looked over the page history and didn't find any such edit by myself. Andrew Kliman can show us the proof or apologize. If I inadvertantly edited out [Alan Freeman's(Personal attack removed)]comments, then I apologize - but I have seen no evidence that happened. Watchdog07 01:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The diff I provided above is the proof. I didn't say that a person suppressed Alan's comment. I said, above, that the comment was suppressed and, in the edit summary, that Watchdog07's edit suppressed Alan's comment. andrew-the-k 01:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the article to the previous version. Sunray 01:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

there are no "ground rules" for the discussion which have been agreed to by all of the editors. Watchdog07 01:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That was not an act of someone demonstrating good faith, Sunray. I dare you to read Kliman's edit from the other day and defend it. If you think that's an edit suitable for an encyclopedia, then I question your judgement - big time! There is really nothing here to debate - Kliman's outrageous and offensive edit is clearly in violation of WP:BLP and so lacking in neutrality (and common sense) that it is mind-boggling. Now, I will revert the article. Watchdog07 01:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Given your most recent action - done without first discussing it on this page -- I reject your self-proposed role as facilitator. NB: there was never agreement by all of the editors to either you being the facilitator or to your "ground rules". Watchdog07 01:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Suppression on the Talk Page

Sunray suppressed - removed without permission - my comments about XAX. Don't EVER do that again! That borders on bad faith as I have explained why a certain term - a technical term of Wikipedia - is legitimate to use in reference to another editor. Please note that a member of sysops [J.smith]found that person guilty of that offense, citing [[WP:SOCK] and WP:MEAT. This was all explained earlier and Sunray does not have the right to be the censor of this page. I would appreciate an apology. Watchdog07 01:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, we are dealing with this article only. Secondly, Wikipedia administrators do not have any authority to "find people guilty" or make any other rulings that that are in any way binding beyond the particular situation that they are dealing with. The term meatpuppet is derogatory. I have asked you not to use it. I repeat: Pleaese do not use that term (or any other derogatory term) when you refer to someone on this talk page. To do so is contrary to Wikipedia policy on personal attacks. I trust this is clear. Let's move on. Sunray 05:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Brief comments

Sunray - You say "meatpuppet" is a derogatory term. As I have explained repeatedly, it is a technical term which has a specific meaning at Wikipedia and I am entitled to use it. Do not engage in censorship on this talk page. You don't determine Wikipedia policy. If you want to see WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT voided as Wikipedia policies, you have the right to make that recommendation to the entire Wikipedia community.

From your remarks I wonder if you know what a "meatpuppet" is and how the term differs from "sockpuppet." Of course you can use the term "meatpuppet." That is not what I am saying. I have said that calling someone writing on this page a "meatpuppet" the way you have done so is derogatory. Thus it violates WP:NPA. Sunray

I do not agree that we should begin by discussing the 'hoax' tag. There is an urgent need tr undo the edit authored by Andrew Kliman the other day as it is a flagrant violation of Wikipedia policies and standards. After that is done, then I am willing to have us move on to the next issue that you think we should discuss, whether it be the hoax tag or something else. I think that's a fair compromise which addresses both of our concerns. Watchdog07 14:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, that is what has been decided by the group of editors who have signed-on to this process. You did not sign on. I will deal with your requests as I would any other editor who comments on this page, but you are not one of the people that is part of the consensus on changes to the article right now. If you change your mind, please sign your agreement above. Sunray 17:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In other words, I agree to your ground rules or I'm not part of the process. That is an attempt to coerce me into agreeing to your terms -- terms quite different from official Wikipedia policy. I interpret this to mean that you are rejecting the consensus model and hence I have the right to act unilaterally in defense of Wikipedia.

The issue is really this: Kliman's recent edit (with "N ..O...M) can not be defended as it is so utterly not in keeping with the standards and policies of Wikipedia. So, instead of doing the right thing, you don't want to discuss that issue. You want instead to do an end around on that urgent issue. I find it hard to reconcile your actions with someone who is engaged in good faith discussion.

For ther recod, there is absolutely no policy guideline that editors have to "sign on" to a proposed set of "ground rules" for them to be part of the process. Quite frankly, I think you are making up rules and interpretations as you go along. That is not acceptable. Watchdog07 17:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue below which Sunray has issued as the "First issue" was not determined to be the first issue by consensus. Watchdog07 17:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

One more thing - leave mny comments where I place them. What gives you the right to move them around (or delete content of them) as you see fit? Watchdog07 17:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "attempt to coerce" concerns intent, and thus violates WP:NPA. I ask that Watchdog07 withdraw this charge against Sunray and that it be removed. andrew-the-k 18:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

First issue: Hoax tag

Watchdog07 has stated that the link to the journal Critique of Political Economy (COPE) "might be a hoax" since the journal has not yet published. Assuming he is right that it has not published, its use as a link cannot be supported in this context. Here's how the link appears in the article:

• Critique of Political Economy [1] (forthcoming)

This is evidently a planned or "forthcoming" journal, (as stated in the article). Although I see no indication that it is a hoax, I do not think it appropriate to include it. I therefore propose that we remove the link and the hoax tag. Comments? Sunray 18:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The resolution to the issue is simply not to include mention of COPE and the link. All of the other journals listed in that section of the article are real. All have an extensive history. It is simply not proper to include something that does not exist alongside journals which are well-respected and reputable. It would be like including "Steve Jones, 5th grader at Belmont Elementary School" in a list of NFL players with the qualification "future NFL player". Watchdog07 18:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am restoring the following comment by Alan XAX Freeman, which Watchdog removed [2] (without notifying us or justifying the suppression of the comment). andrew-the-k 00:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That is not true. See comments below. Watchdog07 01:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is true. Just click on the diff above (the thing with the number, after "removed") andrew-the-k 04:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I propose an alternative approach, need to avoid setting a precedent damaging to Wikipedia. I propose we distinguish a 'planned' project from a 'forthcoming' project and agree criteria to distinguish the one from the other. I do understand the rationale for excluding a reference to a publication which is planned rather than forthcoming. But the evidence establishes that COPE is forthcoming, not planned. Therefore, reference to it should stand, but it should be clearly indicated that it is a forthcoming publication.

The evidence as to whether COPE is or is not forthcoming, should be presented here. Decision should be based on whether there is consensus that there is reliably sourced evidence that COPE is forthcoming, and not merely planned. Decision should take into account the precedent for other pages.

Check out the following journal: http://www.intellectbooks.co.uk/journals.php?issn=17510694

This journal (the 'Creative Industries Journal') definitely exists, and is soliciting manuscripts. Indeed it even has a link to its back issues. But it announces itself as forthcoming in Autumn of 2007.

I want the Creative Industries page to include a reference to this journal. It is part of the current state of knowledge about the creative industries.

It has editors, publishers, it is assessing manuscripts, it is an imprint of the University of the Arts, the first new UK University since 1992.

If we agree to remove the reference to COPE, by the same criterion, Wikipedia should contain no reference to this journal or any other in a similar state. I would disagree with such a precedent, which would be detrimental to Wikipedia's goal of providing people with knowledge.

The same problem arises with government publications. For example the forthcoming Green Paper on Creative Industries under preparation by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport of the UK. DCMS has issued an RFC on its active research (which includes this paper): check out http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/Creative_industries/creative_economy_programme.htm. Do we really want to say Wikipedia should include no reference to this until it is in print? If so, Wikipedia will be about 12 months behind most government projects in terms of public access to citable research.

The same problem exists in relation to books. As we all know, there comes a point in the life of a book when the publisher has issued a clear commitment to publish, when the material is in process, and when with academic rectitude one can cite something like 'Furtwangler and Crippett (2008) (forthcoming) The condition of postwikipedianism. These citations are not hoaxes and the Wikipedia community should know about their existence. Surely, the same criteria should apply to journals.

I can see the need to distinguish between 'planned' and 'forthcoming'. Clearly, Wikipedia needs to be protected against having all kinds of schemes, suggestions, wild ideas, etc. announced as done deals. My proposal is to distinguish clearly between 'forthcoming' and 'planned' projects. To define a project as 'forthcoming' reliably sourced evidence should be provided that it will appear. In the case of a book, a publisher's contract. In the case of a government publication, announcement of intention to publish. In the case of a journal article, notice of editorial acceptance. In the case of a journal, an assembled editorial committee, call for papers, and commenced processing of submissions.

Regards

Alan XAX Freeman 21:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

We need to base our decisions on facts and evidence. I've seen no precedent in WP for including a link to a non-extant journal. If you wish to argue that we keep this link, please present the policy or precident that we can apply. Sunray 01:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. Well, a quick Wikipedia search on the word 'forthcoming' yields, for example,

• [[3]] (Ian Banks' forthcoming novel 'Matter')
• [[4]] (three forthcoming games)
• [[5]] (21 forthcoming horror novels)
• [[6]] (forthcoming Bollywood Film)
• [[7]] (Celine Dion's forthcoming World Tour)
• [[8]] (Madonna's forthcoming Studio Album)
• [[9]] (two forthcoming journal articles)
• [[10]] forthcoming website

It seems to me there is precedent for referring to forthcoming as well as extant entities and I can't see any reason for specifically excepting journals.

Two suggestions:

(1) there is a tag on the Madonna album which is, I think, appropriate in the case of COPE: this contains appropriate caveats and refers to a Wikipedia page [[11]] that deals with upcoming albums. The caveat in the tag seems to me appropriate to the issue of COPE: it says 'This article contains information about a scheduled or expected future album. It may contain speculative information; the content may change as the album release approaches and more information becomes available.' I wouldn't have any problem with that being said about the Creative Industries Journal or COPE. There is a specific Wikipedia process for dealing with future entities, which it would be useful to study and emulate.

(2) refer to it as the COPE 'project'. This does not deal however with the Creative Industries Journal problem - by the way, I really do want to include a reference to this in an edit to the Creative Industries page, so this is not at all a diversionary tactic. However if in this instance such a renaming can buy some peace and move things on, I'm in favour of it. One possibility, incidentally, is to set up a Wikipedia Page on COPE. Seems to meet all the relevant criteria (notability, source, etc). Then the article could refer to the COPE Wikipedia page instead.

Finally, a teensy ticking time bomb type of trouble: real soon now, authors whose submissions are in process are going to receive acceptances for their articles. Then they are going to want to cite these (as forthcoming articles, which certainly do exist on Wikipedia cf *[[12]]. So we could have a situation where the authors will cite articles on Wikipedia, referring to a journal that cannot be cited in Wikipedia...

By the way I agree with separating the procedural stuff from the content stuff and enjoin other users to comment only on content in this section. I am beginning to wonder if we are the only people actually discussing content. Let's hope not. Alan XAX Freeman 07:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(I wrote the following before I saw Alan's comments immediately above; I aoplogize for the fact that a bit of it repeats his research. Mostly it is different.)

I tend to agree with Sunray that there should not be links to "non-extant journal[s]," though there might be exceptions I haven't thought of. I agree with Alan that "planned" is different from "forthcoming." I agree with Sunray that precedents on WP are relevant, but I don't think they should be considered necessarily binding.

With respect to precedents on WP, there are many articles that include references to forthcoming publications. Here are a few: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], and [19]. This short list includes both forthcoming books and forthcoming articles. I haven't found any journals listed as forthcoming (other than COPE) yet, but that's probably because (1) journals aren't called "forthcoming," as far as I know (calling COPE "forthcoming" was just a concession of mine to Watchdog07)--they're called "new" (see next para.), and/or (2) the number of books and articles is far, far larger than the number of journals.

As I noted at [20] (yes, this issue has been discussed among some of us already),

"I just googled 'new journals' and the 1st hit is 'Taylor & Francis Journals: New Journals new journals. New Titles for 2007 | New Titles for 2008.' There are many, many journals listed. So a (the?) major publisher of journals considers them to be 'New Journals,' not 'Nonexistent Journals' that exist only in the fevered imaginations of its editors, even though the 1st issue hasn't yet appeared."

So, while I tend to agree that "non-existent" or "non-extant" journals should not be mentioned, the question is: when does a journal come into existence? Here's what I've written about this:

"many authors ... have been submitting manuscripts to [COPE], [and] the 50-plus members of our editorial board ... have been refereeing the manuscripts, communicating with the authors, etc. ...

"A construction project exists the moment ground is broken. A journal exists the moment it goes public with a call for papers. That the skyscraper isn’t yet completed or that the first issue of the journal isn’t yet out doesn’t make them nonexistent."[21]

"the 'simple, obvious commonsense' notion that a journal 'doesn't exist as a journal unless and until it has published its 1st issue' is just plain wrong. This is just not how the term 'journal' is used among professionals." [22]

To help explain this last point, I'd like to point out that the primary function of peer-reviewed journals (like COPE) is to provide a service to authors and the relevant scholarly community--not to provide a service to readers. The authors and scholary community are served by journals separating the wheat from the chaff--the papers deemed to be of sufficient quality and interest to be published from the papers that aren't. This is why an author can credit him/herself (for purposes of promotion, tenure, etc.) as having a publication when it is forthcoming or accepted, rather than when the issue of the journal that contains the publication appears. The journal carries the article mainly as a matter of record.

In contrast, the service provided by journals to readers, the "publication" of the journal, is secondary and borders on the tangential. I was recently told that, in the economics profession, the median number of readers of an article carried in a journal is 0. In other words, most journal articles are read by nobody! If this isn't exactly correct, it must be very close to correct: people read an article when the author sends it to them (unsolicited, or upon request, almost always electronically, and, very often, long before the article is "published").

The upshot is that a peer-reviewed journal exists when it begins to function, i.e., begins its work of reviewing papers. Some journals prepare a premiere issue, then announce it and put out a public call for papers (submissions). They begin to exist when they start to work on the first issue. Other journals (like COPE) issue the call for papers first. They begin to exist when they issue the call for papers. Or, arguably, they begin to exist before then, when the editorial board and policies are in place, but that's a moot point here, since COPE has been reviewing manuscripts for 9 months now.

Putting the same thing differently: since the primary service a peer-reviewed journal performs is reviewing and passing judgment on submissions, I think that journals which are currently ready to serve authors and the scholarly community in this fashion merit inclusion. If they're not yet ready to serve authors and the scholarly community in this fashion, they should probably be excluded.

andrew-the-k 07:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Summary May 25, 2007

I will summarize recent posts and comment on where I think we are right now.

We began to talk about the hoax tag. I suggested what I (naively) thought might be something we could get an early consensus on — eliminating the link and the hoax tag. No consensus. So we are going to have to work on this. While this was happening several process issues cropped up: Discussion about the nature of consensus; issues relating to personal attacks; consideration of a revert that was made for which there was no consensus. I have moved all these process issues to a section entitled "Further process issues" (above). I suggest that we maintain this section for process questions as we go along and focus the discussion below on content.

It has not been an easy day, but I appreciate the cooperation that editors have (for the most part) shown. Sunray 06:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I reject your "suggestion" regarding the page - which you implemented without even attempting to achive consensus. Watchdog07 17:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions for editors who wish to maintain the COPE (forthcoming) journal link

• What is your rationale for maintaining the link? (Please refer to Wikipedia policies)
• How effective is the section "Current theorizing in Marxian economics" in its current configuration?
• How could we improve the section?

Please be brief and to the point. Sunray 06:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• The entry is a source for other material in this category and also provides knowledge. It contains editorial guidelines, a list of editors who are themselves reliable sources, and a statement of intent. It conforms to the precedent that Wikipedia references forthcoming entities such as films, books, tours, journal articles, records, DVDs, software, other encyclopedias, and games. It conforms to Wikipedia guidelines to be bold. No valid reason has been offered to exclude it.

Alan, "knowledge" refers to published knowledge about particular subjects. Since this journal has not published, it doesn't meet that criterion. On the other hand, there is considerable guidance on advertising and spam links. My own view is that the wrong tag is on it. I would have put the {{advert}} tag on it myself. Editors are not supposed to advertise their wares, whether services, products or journals. A link to a journal would be added either a) because it is notable (which is unlikely in a forthcoming journal, or b) because it is a source (i.e., a reference cited in the article). Sunray

• I think the section is very ineffective in its current configuration. It is bewildering to edit. It contains almost no actual statement of Marx's own economic theory (contrast the German and French pages on the same question); the presentation of Marxist economic currents is arbitrary and almost non-existent; there is no systematic ordering that I can discern.

It seems we have general agreement on this. Sunray

• The first thing required is an actual readable statement of Marx's own economics. This could be achieved by translating the German page [23] which is a model. The second thing is a proper recognition of sections acknowledged to require further work. The third thing is to begin discussing a proper categorisation of Marxist writers and create a section on each group or controversy, eg Austro-Marxists, Grossmann, Luxemburg, theories of Imperialism, Uno School, up to modern times. Such a systematisation would give new editors a clear point of entry and would limit disruption by confining dispute to specific and limited sections in process.

We should also consider translating the Italian pages on 'alternative theories of value' which is an excellent presentation of the modern positions, [[24]]

Alan XAX Freeman 08:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

With respect to your last two points, it could be that we will want to get into a major overhaul of the article when we are done with the four steps listed above. However, let's leave that question open for now. Let's see about fixing this section first. Sunray 15:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding 1, my rationale is above. Sorry, I couldn't be briefer. Regarding 2 & 3, I agree with Alan that the section is completely inadequate. There is SO much content that needs to be added--easily 5000 words are needed in order to to do a minimally adequate encyclopedia survey. And there are bizarre things there, like I. I. Rubin being "current": he was murdered by Stalin nearly 80 years ago. And more. I'd be willing to (help) do this, but not under WP rules, which allow a month of hard work to be destroyed ("mercilessly edited") overnight. Given this problem, and given that overhaul of the section wasn't one of the original topics on Sunray's list that we kind of agreed to (at least he and I did), I recommend we put the new items 2 & 3 on the back burner and go back to his original list. andrew-the-k 09:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Andrew, I will come back to your rationale for number one. First a comment on what you have said about 2 & 3: we seem to have agreement on fixing the section. As to others "mercilessly editing": if we have a consensus of editors working on the article, we wouild simply move the new edit the talk page for discussion (if it was worthy) or delete it. Sunray 15:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sunray, I agree that the section needs fixing. I don't agree that this is the most productive use of our time (at least, my time) right now. I prefer turning first to the contentious issues, and trying to resolve them, as you proposed and I accepted.

Unfortunately, my experience is that nothing controversial can be done simply here. If my short additions to the article have been treated in the manner they have, what would happen to a 5000-word section that enters into many more controversies? Devoting one's whole life to talk-page discussion in an attempt to fend off destruction ("merciless editing") of one's work seems to me to be throwing good money after bad. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding: is there a way of gaining consensus and then permanently protecting the article, without eternal vigiliance, persistent Checkuser requests, etc.?

andrew-the-k 20:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would not be productive to work on the section now. I only commented on what others had said and hadn't meant to imply that we would deviate from the process we have mapped out above. So can we resolve the hoax tag matter? I've suggested two policies to look at, below. I would also like to begin considering the neutrality question. Sunray 20:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Policy and guidelines for inclusion of a book, journal or article

We need to be careful not to simply list pages where particular practices may be found and claim those as precedent. Wikipedia has a great deal of difficulty with self-promotion and spam links. The general criterion for inclusion of a book or article is notability. So we need to use that as a guide. Here's what the guideline says about not yet published books:

Not yet published books

Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball articles about books that are not yet published are generally discouraged unless multiple independent sources provide strong evidence that the book is widely anticipated and unless the title of the book and its approximate date of publication have been made public.

In exceptional cases these standards may be relaxed for very highly anticipated forthcoming books. For example, in 2005, an article was created on Harry Potter book seven, which then had no confirmed title or release date scheduled. Note, though, that the Harry Potter novels are an international phenomenon, having sold more than 300 million copies worldwide, and having been translated into 63 languages as of October 2005.[9]

We should be making our decisions based on this, or other policies or guidelines. Sunray 15:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

this is an interesting and useful point and I would like to think about it. Alan XAX Freeman 18:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

While you're considering that, here's another policy that comes at the matter from a different angle: Wikipedia:Verifiability Sunray 19:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear all,

I don't think the policy concerning books has any relevance to the case of peer-reviewed journals. A book is principally meant to be read, so it doesn't exist until it can be read. But, as I discussed above, a peer-reviewed journal is not principally meant to be read--it's a service that principally passes judgment on submitted manuscripts, which COPE currently does. Thus, a journal exists the moment it issues a Call for Papers or starts reviewing manuscripts.

Thus, verifiability is relevant only insofar as the question is whether multiple sources exist to verify that COPE is accepting papers for review. Whether the appearance of the first issue can be verified is not relevant, however.

Thus it all comes back to when a journal exists. If there are remaining questions or differences about this, that's what we should address--directly. To appeal to policies that become relevant only if one presupposes that journals don't exist before they can be read is to put the cart before the horse, IMO. I won't be convinced by any argument based on that presupposition unless and until I am convinced that it is a correct presupposition.

There might be self-promotional kinds of things said about this or that peer-reviewed journal, but the mere mention of such a journal simply tells people it exists. For instance, it tells authors that they can submit manuscripts to it. It tells the scholarly community that there is a group of people promoting scholarship of a certain kind and with a certain aim. This is nothing at all like telling consumers that they can buy this or that product.

Unfortunately that is emphatically what Wikipedia is not for. Take a look at WP:SPAM: "Wikipedia spam consists of external links mainly intended to promote a website." Sunray

I don't think any of the journal references or links are intended mainly to promote a website. BTW, the external link to COPE is there to verify the journal's existence, which has been disputed. andrew-the-k 23:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think notability has any relevance here, since WP:N refers to the subject matter of an article, and it specifically excludes individual elements in the article from having to meet this standard.

Notabliity is the criterion for articles. Thus any link to COPE (as an article) would be decided on this basis. Sunray

I read somewhere on WP that it is important to have more articles on specific journals. Since the content of WP comes almost solely from published sources, it is important to verify that the published sources are real, and so their existence should also be documented on WP. I'll try to find this. It is a crucial point, IMO. There is currently stuff that could properly be used as a reliable source on WP, and cited as "forthcoming" in COPE. That is not an advertisement for the paper. It is not crystal-ball gazing as to whether the paper will appear in print. "Forthcoming" means precisely that the paper has been accepted for publication, given a certain stamp of approval, and that the journal's editors are ready to verify that it has been accepted and that they intend to have it appear in print.

So let's imagine that an accepted article is cited today on WP, as a reliable source for a claim, and it is noted as "forthcoming." This is entirely proper. It is done all the time. Now if this is a paper accepted for publication in COPE, it remains proper, right? But surely it makes no sense to say that this is proper, but mention of COPE itself is not. What this shows, I believe, is that the commonsense notion that a journal exists when it appears in print is just wrong. It's based on a meaning of "journal" different from the one used in the scholarly community.

According to the policies I am aware of, COPE could be cited in this case. Sunray

andrew-the-k 21:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've suggested a few policies that I think we could use. You have indicated various reasons why you don't think that they apply. My question for you, then is: What policies do you think we should apply? Sunray 22:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I would apply what I believe to be the spirit of the policy on books, but adapt it to the case of peer-reviewed journals. I think the spirit of the book policy is, "don't be a crystal ball about whether the book will actually exist in the future." So I recommend, "don't be a crystal ball about whether the journal will actually exist in the future." Given my understanding of what it means for a peer-reviewed scholarly journal to exist, this criterion would exclude journals that are planned, but about which there is reasonable doubt that they will review papers. Journals that have issued a Call for Papers, especially if they've already received and reviewed manuscripts, actually exist. andrew-the-k 23:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I like your statement "I would apply what I believe to the 'spirit' of the policy..." You have done this with the book policy and extrapolated to a journal. The key with the book example, was, of course notability (again, the criterion for articles, which is only one part of what we are considering). The journal exists, but does not yet have content. Content is necessary for verifiability, or as the policy puts it: Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources" (emphasis mine). That pertains to the link. Do you see it? Sunray 00:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sunray,

No, I'm sorry, I don't.

For one thing, I'm not sure about terminology. There's the reference to the journal in the ME article, followed by a link to the COPE website. I have no position on whether the latter should be there. It is there only because the journal's existence was challenged. Once the existence question is solved, it isn't needed. There should either be links to all of the journals or to none of them. It seems to me to be the same with the references to the journals. Perhaps COPE shouldn't be mentioned, but since it exists like the rest of them, if it goes, they should go, too.

But I don't understand the rest of your comment either--notability, content, verifiability.

andrew-the-k 01:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sense of the discussion

Do we, thus, have consensus that:

• COPE is a forthcoming journal;

No. Watchdog07 17:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• That having been accepted, the link could be eliminated;
• Before deciding to eliminate the COPE link, we need to look at the criteria for inclusion or exclusion of links to journals in the article.
• We may consider notability, content and verifyabilty in examining this.

Are we agreed on these points? Sunray 07:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sunray et al. I accept the 1st point on the understanding that "forthcoming" means that COPE is an existing, new journal. I accept the 2nd & 3rd points on the understanding that they refer only to the elimination of the link (URL to COPE website), not the inclusion of COPE in the list of journals. I have no objection to the 4th point in principle--everything may be considered, IMO--but I don't understand your prior message, so I can't agree or disagree about their relevance.

I will be away from home, with very limited computer access, for a week, starting tomorrow. I'd appreciate it if no major changes were made in my absence. I'll try to log on to WP and this discussion at least once during the week.

andrew-the-k 13:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

My point about verifyability is the following: Links to journals are primarily for purposes of verification of facts. For that to occur, the journal must have content (i.e., articles). A forthcoming journal does not yet have published articles. Therefore, it cannot be used for vertification.

Whether any of the journals should have articles that are mentioned in this article has to do with both the organization of the article and with their notability. Notability is a criterion for article inclusion. A short definition is the following: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Sunray 15:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolution of hoax issue

I would like to get resolution of this issue today, if at all possible. It seems we are getting somewhere. If others agree, we might just have a resolution of this by the end of the day. Sunray 15:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Is "this issue" "removal of the hoax tag and removal of the link to the COPE website without removal of COPE from the sentence that lists journals"? andrew-the-k 16:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. As to whether COPE is listed, we need to look at the notability criterion. Sunray 16:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also on the move shortly and need about a week, which may or may not be offline. I am kind of reluctant to be rushed into things. Can I be absolutely clear about what is proposed (and agreed among those participating in this discussion)? I think it is as follows:

• for now (but subject to discussion) COPE is listed on this page as a 'forthcoming' journal.

I object. I have given explanations which have not been respondeed to. Watchdog07 17:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• the 'hoax' tag is removed and there is a consensus not to replace it until and unless the consensus changes.

I object and block consensus on that issue. Watchdog07 17:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• the link to the COPE website is removed and there is a consensus not to replace it until and unless the consensus changes.
• there is a consensus that the category of a 'forthcoming' journal is a legitimate Wikipedia category, in keeping with the categories of forthcoming just about everything else

Do not agree. Watchdog07 17:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• it has yet to be resolved whether COPE fits into this category because criteria for determining 'forthcoming journal' status have not yet acquired consensus status
• a discussion ensues about whether COPE conforms to 'forthcoming journal' status.

If I am right about all this then the next stage of the discussion as such, would be to attempt to reach consensus on the required criteria for the status of a forthcoming journal. I would like to draw attention to this somewhat subtle disctinction, because I am holding back on inserting a reference to the Creative Industries Journal (among a comprehensive list of reliable sources) into the Creative Industries page. I think it would be a bad idea for that page to be embroiled in this dispute. If we can agree that the issue is that of criteria for 'forthcoming journal' status, then we can resolve these two problems at once. On the basis of be bold COPE should be listed, pending a discussion on the criteria for forthcoming journal status - which can then be applied to COPE.

I am happy for notability or any other criteria for 'forthcoming journal' status to go into the mix - obviously this is kind of a policy decision so it needs to be taken with due deliberation.

If this issue can be resolved satisfactorily, if temporarily, in this way, can we move onto the next one???

Why is there a rush? Is no one else aware that this is a holiday weekend? Some editors like to think they have a life outside Wikipedia and do not like to be "railroaded" by unreasonable timetables. Watchdog07 17:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

no problem watchdog it is a holiday here too. If I implied a hurried timetable I apologise for any stress this may have created. I am in favour of time for discussion, contemplation, and travel. Alan XAX Freeman 18:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Alan XAX Freeman 17:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Alan has gone through the various questions thoughtfully and has, I think, narrowed down the issues considerably. He has listed a number of examples of forthcoming journals listed in articles. I note that these are all biographies. I think a key question is the following: What are the differences between these examples and the reference to COPE in the Marxian economics article? Sunray 17:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree to removal of the hoax tag and removal of the link to the COPE website, given that COPE is not removed at this time from the sentence that lists journals. On the notability issue: As I noted earlier, WP:N states, "The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines." But I also do think COPE meets the WP:N standards for notability. Among other things, it was discussed by third parties on the "Organizations and Markets" website and the OPE-L e-mail list (which has a citable archive). Also, there was a big discussion of it on the Capital & Class e-mail list (which has a citable archive) awhile back, where someone kept impugning the integrity of COPE and its editors, charging among other things that I advocate cannibalism! (I should point out, for the sake of fairness, that the name this person used on that list was not Watchdog07.) He eventually got booted off, and we received a public apology from the executive committee of the organization that puts out Capital & Class. andrew-the-k 18:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If others think that the Capital & Class and OPE-L mailing lists are reliable sources, then we should be able to cite anything from those lists. From looking at the archives of those lists, there is nothing to suggest that COPE is an actual journal. The "Organizaations and Markets" site, the way I understand it, is a blog and is not a reliable source. Watchdog07 19:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Andrew: Some observations. The COPE link is a red link. How can we rationalize maintaining that? Also, a mailing list does not seem to me to qualify as a secondary source.

Could we not simply eliminate the COPE link for now? When the journal is published, there shouldn't be a question of including it with the others. But to maintain it in the meantime does seem to present concerns that are difficult to resolve. Sunray 20:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I really don't have much time to consider these these new points before leaving in the early a.m. I think I see your point about the "red link," Sunray. Offhand, I can't think of a reason why there must be a mention of COPE at this point, given that there's no WP article on it yet that comes up when you click on the link. But maybe there is a reason, and I'm too rushed to think of it.

I'd prefer to give this more thought, but since I'll probably be without internet access for a couple of days at least, let me say that if Alan doesn't object to the temporary removal of the reference to COPE, I'll go along with the consensus decision. But if he has an objection, I would want to discuss it before making up my mind on the matter.

andrew-the-k 00:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm cool to remove the red link to facilitate a more general resolution, particularly if it allows us to get onto other issues. I think the most important thing in this kind of discussion is a consensus procedure. Generally in World Social Forum processes, which I think are completely applicable here, if withdrawing an objection moves something on then that's what people do. That's the model of consensus I've always worked to.

I don't know how much I will be able to contribute to this discussion in the next 10 days because I'm moving around too. Silence certainly won't imply a lack of interest ;-} Have fun. Alan XAX Freeman 00:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on hoax tag issue

I believe that we have consensus on this:

• The links to the forthcoming journal, COPE, will be removed for now, as will the {{hoax}} tag.

Have I got this right? Anyone wishing to comment further, please do so by 17:00 UTC (12:00 EDT), 2007-05-28. Assuming the consensus holds, the decision will then be implemented. Sunray 01:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you don'ty have it right. Watchdog07 16:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus achieved. Changes made. Sunray 16:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus was not achieved, but it is a moot question since there is no reference to COPE in the article now. Watchdog07 16:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, However the policy on consensus was applied. Sunray 02:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I was away this weekend, and couldn't comment, but I'm glad to see the hoax tag issue has been resolved. --Extra Fine Point 03:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your positive comment. Care to sign on in the section above? Sunray 05:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming revert

In what I can only take to be bad faith on the part of some editors of this page, no one on this page has responded to the only urgent issue confronting us - Andrew Kliman's inclusion of a wildly non-neutral section which is in clear violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPV. Without taking what I wrote into consideration or responding to my arguments that this was an urgent issue, you acted like I don't exist and what I wrote was never written in clear violation of Wikipedia policies on consensus decision-making. I will revert the article. If you don't like it, you will have to give reasons why you think the content of Kliman's edit is neutral, not in violation of WP:BLP, and up to encyclopedia standards. Watchdog07 17:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Watchdog07: Please respect the consensus to not make changes to this article until there is a further agreement to make changes. I have restored the version of the article that was in effect prior to our agreement to work on this. Sunray 18:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sunray: please respect Wikipedia. Let's get a few facts straight:

- there was no censensus that you should be facilitator;

- there was no consensus on your proposed "ground rules";

- there was no consensus that the Hoax tag issue be discussed first.

We are supposed to be working towards a consensus. This is quite different from taking

commands from a self-styled "facilitator". You have the right to whatever political

perspectives you want - including support for Stalinism. That does not mean, though, that you

can bring that Stalinist organizational style to command editors on this page.

You obviously don't comprehend the meaning of URGENT!. There is an URGENT need

to revert the article and I will respect Wikipedia by doing so.

IF YOU REVERT AGAIN, THEN YOU WILL HAVE TO GIVE REASONS IN DEFENSE OF THE OFFENSIVELY NON-NEUTRAL EDIT BY ANDREW KLIMAN WHICH IS IN VIOLATION OF WP:BLF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Watchdog07 19:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There has been a general agreement by four editors to a process (though you indicated that you did not subscribe to this). The issue you are raising (neutrality of the article) is the second one on a list of issues we are dealing with. We will get to it. First we are dealing with the hoax tag issue. I can see no particular urgency to deal with the issues you are raising right away. Warning: You have been requested to observe the consensus and not make changes to the article. You are advised to do so. Sunray 19:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Watchdog, I am slightly losing the plot on this 'urgent' thing. Four hours ago you expressed what seemed to me legitimate concerns in [[25]] about the speed of changes. Then you wrote "Why is there a rush? Is no one else aware that this is a holiday weekend? Some editors like to think they have a life outside Wikipedia and do not like to be "railroaded" by unreasonable timetables." I responded in what I thought was a reasonably conciliatory manner :"no problem watchdog it is a holiday here too. If I implied a hurried timetable I apologise for any stress this may have created. I am in favour of time for discussion, contemplation, and travel."

What happened between 17:34 when we all needed a life and a holiday, and 17:44 when it suddenly became urgent to restart an edit war? I am cool with your 17:34 view that we need time to discuss things out. Can't we at least recognise the consensus on that, which at 17:34 I thought included yourself? Alan XAX Freeman 00:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Although there was not consensus on removing the hoax tag, since COPE is not mentioned now in the article it is a moot question. Watchdog07 16:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sunray - you are way out of line "warning" me about anything after the tricks youi pulled on this page. Watchdog07 16:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

urgent need

There is no one anywhere in the world outside of Andrew Kliman and his few supporters who would mistake his most recent edit to the article as being "neutral".

This is an urgent question because it concerns the reputation of a living person and is clearly in violation of WP:BLP. Sunray might not know that the article on David Laibman was re-written by Andrew Kliman in such a way that Laibman's whole life seemed to focus on the TSSI. It was so wildly offensive that a member of sysops had to step in and put the article under page protection.

In addition, it is about as far awy from a neutral edit that it is possible to get, in violation of WP:NPV.

In addition, it references sources which are not even remotely reliable sources, such as Kliman's blog.

In addition, it is not even remotely satisfy the standards expected of an encyclopedia.

It was, moreover, a mean-spirited edit which was not done in good faith. Do not tell me that that was a personally abusive comment - it is a statement which can be supported by an examination of the edit history of the article.

Moreover, it was not explained on the talk page.

Nor has anyone defended it - because it is indefensible.

I have explained all this repeatedly on this talk page but it has fallen on deaf (and bad faith) ears.

If you do not reply to the content of what I have said about this issue, I will interpret that as conscent for reverting the article and taking out the droppings that Kliman placed in it. Watchdog07 16:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Watchdog07: I will be happy to work with you on the issue you have raised if you agree to the groundrules established for discussion on this page.

To summarize, the groundrules are: to abide by the guidelines for interaction and the key policies itemized in the box at the top of the page, and to agree to abide by consensus for decisions on article content.

Do you agree to these groundrules? Sunray 21:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement that I agree to "ground rules" to participate in consensus decision-making. Watchdog07 23:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Since these are all Wikipedia policies, they are a minimum requirement to participation. Sunray 02:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"highly incendiary and slanderous"

It's got to go. It has no reliable source. It is an EXTREME violation of WP:BLP, and it MUST be reverted NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! . Watchdog07 21:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Other editors and I have said we will work on this. I've left you a note, above, about agreeing to the groundrules we have established for this page. I would like to get your answer to that. In the meantime I am reverting you. Sunray 21:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop edit warring! Your edit warring is in violation of Wikipedia policies. Watchdog07 23:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There has been no consensus on anything so far - including who are legitimate parties to this discussion. When you censored my messages to this page, you were exhibiting very bad faith. when you rearranged the page repeatedly so as to deflect criticism that I had made, that was not the action of someone committed to consensus decision-making.

When you reverted the article to the obscenely non-neutral and "highly incendiary and slanderous" version which was in gross violation of WP:BLP, that was not the action of someone genuinely concerned about either consensus or Wikipedia standards.

I offered what I thought was a reasonable compromise: revert Kliman's most recent edits and then we can discuss whatever issue you want to next. Instead of responding to that compromise which was offered in good faith, you engaged in edit warring and what I take to be ultimatums. That is not in keeping with Wikipedia policies.

Given your actions to date, can you give me any reasons why I should not revoke the assumption of good faith as is allowable under WP:AGF? Watchdog07 23:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverting changes made by you that are not based on a consensus of editors on this page is hardly edit waring. Since you have continually indicated your refusal to work with other editors on this page, there is little I can do but say that I will review the concerns you have raised about Andrew Kilman's edits and get back to you. However, I will not be near a computer much of the time between now and Tuesday evening. So the earliest I will respond is Wednesday by 12:00 EDT. Sunray 02:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone else wrote to me saying that s/he is planning on informing the person who was publicly and viciously maligned by the "highly incendiary and slanderous" comments. You can save everyone a whole lot of effort by not reverting the article again. As the previous version was so clearly in violation of WP:BLP, if a complaint is made then I suspect that the article will be reduced to stub and be page protected by a member of sysops. There is, unfortunately, every liklihood that if the offensive section is in the article it will result in a public scandal which, most assuredly, would not help the standing of Wikipedia or the editor responsible for the outrage. Watchdog07 22:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned in a previous post, the amount of time I can spend on a computer todays is limited. However, I said that I would look into your allegations and I will. In the meantime, it has been agreed by editors on this page (yourself excepted) that changes would only be made by consensus. If you continue this pattern of reverts, I will be less inclined to assist you in dealing with this matter.Sunray 23:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been informed that an individual who was maliciously attacked in the article has been notified about it. Now the only thing left to do is wait for the article to be reverted to stub and locked (and have the editor responsible, Andrew Kliman, be blocked). If it was up to me (which it's not) you would be blocked as well. Your unwillingness to deal with this issue of pressing importance has damaged the reputation of Wikipedia and will - I suspect - result in the undoing of a lot of good work that many editors put into the article. I hope that you are proud of yourself. Watchdog07 11:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Second issue: Identifying NPOV concerns

So now, as agreed above, we move to the second issue of identified: The neutrality of the Criticisms section of the article.

I have read Watchdog's first post about the neutrality issue, in which he sets out some concerns about the way this section is written. As I also said above, I agree that there are neutrality concerns. Take for example the following sentence:

Andrew Kliman provides evidence that even critics of Marx and/or the TSSI have come to accept, implicitly or explicitly, that it eliminates the apparent internal inconsistencies in Marx's value theory.

At first glance, I think that the following gives a more neutral rendering:

Andrew Kliman claims that even critics of Marx and/or the TSSI have come to accept, implicitly or explicitly, that it eliminates the apparent internal inconsistencies in Marx's value theory.

However, I come to the following paragraph which Watchdog wants to eliminate and I am not yet clear on the reasons for this:

Although hostile critics of the TSSI have alleged that its proponents are "New Orthodox Marxists", the allegations underlying the term N__ 0__ M__ have been made without being accompanied by supporting evidence. Proponents of the TSSI deny the allegations, pointing to the critics' lack of supporting evidence, and they regard the term N__ 0__ M___ as highly incendiary and slanderous, arguing that it impugns the integrity of their research and their findings that vindicate the internal inconsistency of Marx's value theory.

As to whether this paragraph should be either a) eliminated, or, b) modified needs further discussion, IMO. I would like to hear from other editors on this.

Another comment: I do not see the urgency of our work on this. Perhaps I've missed something, but I think we can work this through in a reasonable manner without rushing one another. Moreover, I think it is important to not rush to make changes to the article without consensus. Sunray 16:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors,

Finally, I'm back.

For now, I'll just address Sunray's concern with "provides evidence" vs. "claims". I have no problem with "claims" as such, since the work in question does indeed make this claim. But it also provides evidence to support the claim. The problem with replacing "provides evidence" with "claims" is that it suggests that the claim is unsubstantiated, a mere assertion, which isn't the case. So I can't agree to a simple replacement.

I don't see that "provides evidence" is non-neutral. It is simply a fact. Please note that "simply a fact" doesn't necessarily mean that the evidence proves the claim. It's simply a statement that the claim made in the book is accompanied by supporting evidence. When I revised Watchdog07's tendentious edit, I specifically chose "provides evidence" in order to make the statement neutral -- in preference to "demonstrates" or "documents the fact", on the one hand, and "asserts" or "claims" on the other hand. I suggest that "provides evidence" be retained because of its neutrality.

As an alternative to characterization of the situation regarding acceptance of the fact that the TSSI eliminates the apparent inconsistencies, perhaps the article can just provide the evidence? The only problem here is that the evidence does require interpretation by a reliable source; non-specialists will not understand it otherwise.

Another alternative I could live with is "In a survey of recent debate, Andrew Kliman concludes that even critics of Marx and/or the TSSI have come to accept, implicitly or explicitly, that it eliminates the apparent internal inconsistencies in Marx's value theory." This avoids the implication that Kliman makes an unsubstantiated claim, while avoiding the words "provides evidence."

andrew-the-k 17:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

General comment on readability

I find the above text (and, indeed the whole section) hard to wade through. It doesn't seem to be written for the general reader. I wonder if it is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Certainly it needs editing.

OK, I had to get that off my chest. We could move the text here and re-write it, however, perhaps we could take a look at the neutrality question first. Sunray 07:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for placing NPOV tag

Watchdog07 has listed his reasons for placing the neutrality tag here. I suggest that we go through each of them. Here is the first concern he has raised:

• there is a claim of consensus for which there is no consensus among scholars - "since internally inconsistent theories can not be right ...." A reliable source must be shown that there is consensus on this question. Andrew KLiman has his opinion, and that's OK if it was expressed as his opinion, but it is presented as a fact which there is no agreement that it is.

Comments? Suggestions? Sunray 08:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The "succint reasons" were written before the most offensive edit by Andrew Kliman. If I were to write those reasons again now then they would be expanded to include my comments on "urgent need", etc..

Sunray says that he doesn't understand the urgency of our need to edit out the offensive "N_O_M" section authored by Kliman. Yet, I explained above repeatedly why it was urgent. Let me make this real simple for Sunray to understand: there is an encyclopedia article which says that a living person, a well-known and respected scholar, is responsible for a "highly incendiary and slanderous" expression. I gather that Sunray thinks it's Okay to refer in an encyclopedia to someone else's scholarly work published in a peer-reviewed journal as "highly incendiary" and slanderous and that he doesn't see why there is an urgent need to delete the offensive charge. Maybe if someone used Sunray's real name and published a Wikipedia article saying that some aspect of a scholarly piece he had published was slanderous he might have a different opinion. Quite frankly, I don't see how Sunray's actions can be reconcilled with the assumption of good faith.

In any event, the damage has already been done. There is reason to suspect that the professional reputation of a distinguished scholar has been wounded by Andrew Kliman.

Kliman wll have to answer (inside and outside of the Wikipedia community) for that damage. Sunray will have to answer for empowering Kliman and allowing the damage to continue. Watchdog07 12:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Watchdog07: Now I would like you to make it even simpler for the rest of us. I would like you to present clear evidence of what you are saying.

You say: "... there is an encyclopedia article which says that a 'living person, a well-known and respected scholar', is responsible for a 'highly incendiary and slanderous' expression." Sticking to the facts, avoiding ad hominem attacks on others, providing evidence, and with a reasonable economy of words, would you please answer this question: What is the slander? evidence for your claims? Sunray 14:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am in an internet cafe in the middle of nowhere, with a dysfunctional mouse. I hope to reply in detail later this week or early next week to some of the discussion that's taken place here since Monday.

For now, let me just reiterate that I believe that the paragraph on N__ O__ M__ is unncessary, and that if all parties agree to keep the term and underlying charge out of this and all other articles (unless accompanied by the responses of those maligned), now and in the future, I will be happy to have the whole paragraph on N__ O__ M__ removed. But the allegation without the response violates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.

andrew-the-k 15:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think I see what you are saying. Also, I note that the snippet quoted by Watchdog07, above, doesn't scan unless one includes the rest of the paragraph (third paragraph in the "Criticisms" section). I note that the statements made in the article are well supported by references. Thus, I need to re-phrase my question to Watchdog07: What evidence can you present for your claims? Sunray 16:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to defend such statements to other parties. I don't feel the need to respond to you since I do not see how your comments could not have been made in good faith. For instance, you say that the statements were "well supported by references". I guess that must mean that you think that Kliman's blog entry - written on May 24, after this controversy began - is a legitimate and reliable reference.

Of course, Andrew Kliman now says that the paragraph is unnecessary. That's because it was a ploy on his part to begin with. He inserted it only after I increased the neutrality of the article and included the expression "New Orthodox Marxists" (after he himself had done so). Sunray's bad faith is again manifest here: when Kliman wrote above that he thought the section was unnecessary, Sunray didn't seize on this opportunity to agree that Kliman's paragraph should be deleted.

When Kliman, the New Orthodox Marxist, inserted the section, he claimed that it increased the neutrality of the article! Now how crazy was that? Of course, Sunray didn't raise any objections. When Kliman called (and continues to call) "N_O_M" the "N-word equivalent" Sunray - predictably -- didn't challenge or question him about that comically absurd and offensive claim.

The expression New Orthodox Marxists was introduced into the article and sourced by Andrew Kliman himself. It was therefore entirely legitimate for me to insert that that expression elsewhere in the article.

What really happened was this: Kliman introduced NOM into the article so I used that expression elsewhere and then Kliman - in what appears to have been a childlike tantrum - inserted the offensive paragraph, with reckless disregard for the reputations of living persons. Now, he expresses a willingness to remove his offensive paragraph if others agree to remove the reference to New Orthodox Marxists. That is unacceptable.

As for your question, Sunray, I have already answered it. I have answered it repeatedly.

To say that someone used the "N-word equivalent" is very insulting and potentially damaging to a person's reputation - particularly for someone who has been active in anti-racist movements since the 1960s. To throw that accusation around in such a cavalier way - in an encyclopedia, no less! - is simply reprehensible.

To say that someone has used an "incendiary and slanderous" expression is itself, in context, slanderous.

I won't say any more at this time. We'll all just have to wait and see how it all plays out outside of Wikipedia, perhaps in the popular press. Watchdog07 19:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

OK Watchdog, wait it out if you like. However, I will continue reviewing what you have said on this page. I find it difficult because there is so much to wade through. If you want to add anything, it would be helpful to provide as many specifics as possible: So and so said "X". It is questionable because... Reference "Y" does not meet Wikipedia policy, because... Like that. Sunray 19:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone who happens across this discussion, I will direct you to a few facts which - taken together - can help to put this in context. All of the following changes in the article took place on May 24:

a. edit by Watchdog07 (14:48) - added NOM to article with the explanation that it had been introduced and sourced by Kliman.

b. edit by Watchdog07 (15:01) attempted to increase neutrality of article.

c. edit by AKliman (16:07) - a little over 1 hour later. Introduced "N_O_M" paragraph which has been objected to. Note that the justification claimed for the edit was that it allegedly increased "neutrality".

d. edit by AKliman (17:32) - added reference to his "recently written" blog entry, authored that same day. Watchdog07 21:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Six minutes after Kliman's 2nd edit of May 24 referred to above,

Sunray proposed his "groundrules" which emphasized that changes in the article now were supposed to happen after there was consensus. Of course, that's entirely coincidental. Of course, Sunray hadn't even noticed that "coincidence" before. Watchdog07 21:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see m:The Wrong Version. --Extra Fine Point 00:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You should see WP:The Wrong Version. It refers to a dispute over an article which is page protected. The article on Marxian economics is not page protected so WP:The Wrong Version does not apply. Watchdog07 12:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I note - politely - that your account seems to be a single-purpose acount started on May 23. See WP:SPA. I also note - politely - that as soon as you became a Wikipedia editor you became part of the disputes concerning the Pluralism in economics and Marxian economics article. I am most certainly not attacking you personally, but I believe you should understand why this appears to be suspicious behavior.

In welcoming you to this discussion, I would like to acquaint you with certain realities concerning this dispute.

MrMacMan has said that he is unfamilar with the content of the subject of Marxian economics.

I have asked Sunray repeatedly if he has knowledge of the literature on this subject and the content of the article. He has repeatedly refused to answer that legitimate and simple question.

Akliman is, of course, a legitimate party to this dispute.

Watchdog07 is a legitimate party to this dispute.

Alan XAX Freeman is not a legitimate party to this dispute.

So, let's do the math. Not counting yourself, there are only two legitimate parties who are part of this dispute who have knowledge about the subject of Marxian economics.

Are you familiar with the literature on the subject of Marxian economics?

If you don't mind me asking (after all, I want to be polite and welcoming and certainly don't want to be thought to be "biting" a new editor): how and from whom did you hear about this dispute? Watchdog07 11:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Watchdog07, Thank you for the reference to essay WP:SPA. I read it with interest. I was especially moved by these two sentences: "[A single-purpose account] can be perfectly innocent..."; and "There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with single-purpose accounts." So again, thank you.

You wrote: "...as soon as you became a Wikipedia editor you became part of the disputes concerning the Pluralism in economics and Marxian economics article[s]." It's funny you should bring this up. Andrew-the-k made the same point to me when I first posted something to the PIE talk page! But would you say I have become a part of these disputes? I made some structural edits to the PIE page, that's true, but I didn't add or remove any text from it. I haven't advocated for one or the other positions, on any issue. I did say I was glad to see the hoax issue resolved. Maybe you think that's taking a position? Perhaps it is, but it's after the fact. So I have become part of the discussion, but I wouldn't say I've become part of the dispute.

You wrote: "...I believe you should understand why this appears to be suspicious behavior." No, not at all. --Extra Fine Point 17:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I note with interest that you did not answer the question which I - politely - asked concerning how and from whom you heard about this dispute. Do you think it's an unfair question to ask? If so, why?

Maybe if you had walked a bit in my shoes you'd see how it looks quite suspicious. You may or may not know that the dispute over this article is related to a dispute over the Temporal single-system interpretation article. You may or may not know that it also relates to a controversy over the David Laibman article. You may or may not have read the TSSI talk page. If you had, and if you read the block history of several contributors to that discussion, you would know that there is a history of the mis-use of single purpose accounts, especially violations of WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT, by certain editors (Sunray doesn't like me to say their names). So, in that context, along you come - what appears to be another special purpose account editor. Smoke may not mean fire but where there is smoke it's reasonable to suspect a fire.Watchdog07 18:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion in this section has diverted significantly from the issue Sunray posed at the start, and which I'd like to address. S/he wrote:

Watchdog07 has listed his reasons for placing the neutrality tag here. I suggest that we go through each of them. Here is the first concern he has raised:

• there is a claim of consensus for which there is no consensus among scholars - "since internally inconsistent theories can not be right ...." A reliable source must be shown that there is consensus on this question. Andrew KLiman has his opinion, and that's OK if it was expressed as his opinion, but it is presented as a fact which there is no agreement that it is.

Comments? Suggestions? Sunray 08:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My position, which I've repeatedly stated before, is that I would be happy to include "the other side" here, but, as far as I know, there isn't another side. There is not only consensus, but unanimity, that internally inconsistent theories cannot be right. (As I've also noted, it is also agreed that internally inconsistent theories might by chance arrive at correct predictions, etc., but that's a different matter.) If Watchdog07 supplies a statement by a reliable source that internally inconsistent theories can be right, I think we should include it. Otherwise, we should agree that the statement should remain as is. andrew-the-k 18:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Watchdog07 please take note

Watchdog: I think that you have seriously misunderstood what Wikipedia is all about. In your "welcome" to Extra Fine Point, above, you missed this, all important, message: Wikipedia is a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." No one is excluded from editing or participating in discussions on talk pages unless they violate the law or Wikipedia policies.

I have not responded to your question about my knowledge of Marxian economics because it is not relevant to what I have signed on to do.

As to your other statements about who is a "legitimate party" to this discussion, sadly (for you) you do not determine who is included. All of us who have a valid user account and abide by Wikipedia policies are equal here. As stated in Who writes Wikipedia: "Unlike other encyclopedias, the volunteer authors of Wikipedia articles don't have to be experts or scholars... "

Please stop making allegations about other users and decide whether you are going to participate in our discussions according to the guidelines at the top of this page and the policy on consensus. Sunray 15:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"unless they violate ... Wikipedia policies". Watchdog07 16:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What did you "sign on" to do? Let us recall that whatever you may have originally wanted to do, you are most certainly not a "facilitator" for this dispute. Watchdog07 16:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:AGF. That official policy makes it clear that where there is evidence to the contrary, we are not required to continue to assume good faith on the part of certain editors. Watchdog07 16:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring Watchdog's response

Watchdog's responses were interleaved between my own post. I have refactored these by moving them all together below my comment.

Request: Watchdog, would you please not interleave your responses to my posts (i.e., reply to each sentence in the middle of a paragraph). It makes it hard for other readers to follow. It is better, IMO, to respond in your own paragraph below what another user has said. Sunray 17:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's easier to read and follow the discussion in the style you prefer. If I follow your request then what it will really mean is that I won't respond to all your points or questions since it would take considerably more time to repeat and then answer each question in a separate section. This would mean that I would answer some and ignore other comments and questions. That wouldn't help the discussion, imo. For instance, if you had used the style I had used then perhaps you wouldn't have been so non-responsive to so many of the questions I have asked of you. Watchdog07 18:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Civility and Censorship

Sunray -- you have no right to censor this talk page. If you wish to add comments, then go ahead. Do not delete them.

I restored the comments which were censored. If you wish to restore your own comments on "civility" etc., go right ahead, but do so in the proper order. I would have restored your comments myself, but your censorship of the page made that more difficult technically. Watchdog07 12:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Civility

There have been a number of accusations, slurs, inuendos, and ad hominem remarks verging on personal attacks on this page. None of this is what article talk pages are intended for. As the guideline for talk pages states:

The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.

I have removed the two most recent lapses in civility. From here on out, I will archive discussion that is not about the article itself and will revert accusations and attacks. Please observe the groundrules set out above. If you feel you cannot do that, by all means, go somewhere else.

Let us now move on with the discussion. Sunray 05:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Restored. comments deleted by Watchdog07. Sunray 14:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sickened by what Sunray euphemistically calls the "recent lapses in civility." I am terribly sorry that s/he has had to endure such abuse. I agree that these "lapses in civility" should be removed, that accusations and attacks be reverted, and that anyone who does not observe the groundrules should go somewhere else. andrew-the-k 18:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Civility and Censorship

Sunray -- you have no right to censor this talk page. If you wish to add comments, then go ahead. Do not delete them.

I restored the comments which were censored. If you wish to restore your own comments on "civility" etc., go right ahead, but do so in the proper order. I would have restored your comments myself, but your censorship of the page made that more difficult technically. Watchdog07 12:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not censorship. It is painting over graffiti. What you wrote violates Wikipedia policy. Please read WP:CIV, and. in particular, the section on Removing uncivil comments. We take this policy seriously and will apply it from here on out. Please ensure all your posts are civil from now on and DO NOT REVERT AGAIN. Sunray 14:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted a previous comment as I now see that the message I had sent on "Sunray and Hanlon's Razor?" is back on the talk page. You have no right to issue commands like "DO NOT REVERT AGAIN, especially after you just reverted the article. I WILL revert the article again because you have not responded to the issues over the content of the disputed section of the article on the talk page and their urgency. Watchdog07 14:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to get back to issues directly related to the article. Sunray 15:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Increased neutrality?

How does changing "Proponents..." to "New Orthodox Marxists - proponents..." increase neutrality? --Extra Fine Point 14:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Proponents" was left in the article. The only difference between this and previous edits is that "New Orthodiox Marxists" was placed before "proponents" rather than after the clause. This change was made because of the awkward sentence construction.

As you can see, the expression "New Orthodox Marxists" was introduced and referenced by another editor (AKliman). If we want to eliminate all reference to that reference and David Laibman, then that is something I would most likely support. Watchdog07 14:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Note also the deletion of "Sraffian" from "Marxian and Sraffian economists". This was done for two reasons: 1. None of those listed would describe themselves as "Sraffians": all are Marxian economists. 2. "Suprlus approach economists", rather than "Sraffian economists", is the preferred, and more neutral, designation. Watchdog07 14:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is something I've wondered for a while, following the discussions on this page, and watching the ME page change so frequently. When the term "New Orthodox Marxists" was introduced, it was in the section "Criticisms". It did not seem out of place there, as it was a criticism. But to copy it out of there and put it everywhere "Proponents of TSSI" occurred made no sense to me. Not only does it violate NPOV, but it has the effect of rendering NOM the standard designation of proponents of TSSI, instead of it being a criticism of those proponents. No? --Extra Fine Point 15:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the article, you will see that I inserted New Orthodox Marxists one sentence after it was introduced by AKliman.

See footnote #2.

I did not put the expression New Orthodox Marxists "everywhere" in the article. I put it in one place.

I have been willing to disambiguate the expression, if that is the concern, so as to not make it appear to be the expression that the "proponents" of the TSSI self-selected. For instance, "The so-called 'New Orthodox Marxists', or "... what others refer to as the New Orthodox Marxists'", etc. Watchdog07 18:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Watchdog07,

Please provide a justification of your claim that your inclusion of the term N__ O__ M__, in the particular manner and context in which you included it, makes the article more (!) neutral.

As I understand it, this is the question which Extra Fine Point was asking, and which you have not yet answered.

If you justify this claim to the satisfaction of the other editors of this article, I'm sure we will all agree to the inclusion of the term N__ O__ M__.

andrew-the-k 17:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:SHUN Watchdog07 18:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My dearest Watchdog07,

As noted at the top of the WP:SHUN essay, it is only "an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its authors" (emphasis added). It does not protect you from the requirement that you justify proposed edits. So please provide a justification of your claim that your inclusion of the term N__ O__ M__, in the particular manner and context in which you included it, makes the article more (!) neutral.

andrew-the-k 19:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record: On 24 May, Watchdog07 introduced the term N__ O__ M__ in a manner and context that impugned the integrity of TSSI research and its proponents. This was a clear violation of WP:NPOV. But because non-experts on WP do not always understand this, I did not revert his edit. Instead, on the same day, I made the discussion of the term N__ O__ M__ more neutral, by providing the other side as well. Also on that same day (see above), I suggested that we should all agree to keep such use of the N__ O__ M__ term out of this and all other articles, and that, if this is agreed to, I will be happy to have the whole paragraph deleted.

I have since reiterated that suggestion. I do so again.

Thus, if Watchdog07 is truly concerned about David Laibman's reputation, a simple remedy is available to him, the same remedy that has been available since 24 May. He simply needs to agree to stop impugning others' reputations. If the allegations against proponents of the TSSI are removed, the defenses of their reputations will no longer be necessary. The ball is in his court.

If Watchdog07 and Laibman are unhappy with this paragraph, they have only themselves to blame (assuming that they're not the same person).

andrew-the-k 19:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

FOR THE RECORD, Andrew Kliman introduced the expression "New Orthodox Marxist" into the article in footnote #2 on May 24, 14:27. It was only AFTER he did so that I introduced the expression in the sentence which immediately followed in the article.

I will not trade horses. Since Kliman introduced and sourced the expression into the article, I have every right to use that same expression.

Have a good laugh today. Go out to a coffee shop or cafe and enjoy yourself. Relax and enjoy life - before the other shoe drops:

your editing of Wikipedia articles has become quite newsworthy .... Watchdog07 20:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My dearest Watchdog07,

No more diversions, please. Please provide a justification of your claim that your inclusion of the term N__ O__ M__, in the particular manner and context in which you included it, makes the article more (!) neutral.

andrew-the-k 21:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

WARNING TO SUNRAY! THERE WILL BE NO CENSORSHIP ON THE TALK PAGE

You will put back the message I sent entitled "Sunray and Hanlon's razor?" or I will! Even you recognized that it was not personally abuse and you had no absolutely right to remove it.

If you do not put it back on the talk page then I will revert the entire talk page and much valuable information will be temporarily lost because or you. Hence, you would be given the responsibility of restoring the exchanges which were deleted because of your action. Watchdog07 18:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, don't worry about it, Sunray. My piece appears in the history of the talk page - a place where even your censoring hand can't get to it - and thus constitutes part of the real history of this page. Any other editors - or outsiders who have no connection to Wikipedia - will be able to find it for themselves. In due course, you will be able to read all about it outside of Wikipedia. There's no reason for me to stress: the public will be informed of what has happened on this page and elsewhere on Wikipedia. Watchdog07 20:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Article Changed Without Consensus!

Someone recently changed the article without obtaining consensus, or even discussing the changes on this talk page. The person doesn't seem to be Watchdog07. I am assuming that the change was made in good faith, and that this person was unaware that we have agreed to make changes to the article only if there's consensus. But the article now includes the term N__ O__ M__ in an unbalanced way that impugns the integrity of TSSI research and proponents of the TSSI, in violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.

Can someone do something about this, please?

andrew-the-k 21:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome, Ryan!

Hi. Welcome to the Marxian economics talk page. I briefly looked over your contributions and see that you have had an interest in articles on some similar subjects.

I don't think you need to justify your edit to anyone - especially Watchdog07. I would like to engage you in a discussion about how the article can be improved so that it conforms to WP:NPV. I would have liked to do that with some others on this page, but they had different agendas. I think if we just try to use a little common sense, follow the guidelines on neutrality, be aware of issues relating to living persons WP:BLP, and remember that this is an encyclopedia then we should be able to resolve this dispute. Watchdog07 01:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Message to Sunray

Once again, I feel the need to refresh Sunray's memory about certain points.

1. The article is not page protected.

2. There was never agreement by editors about which page would be in place while we discussed the article.

3. There was never any agreement about consensus decision-making on this page.

4. There was never any agreement that Sunray should be a "facilitator".

Sunray - please stop edit warring! If you objected to Ryan's action then you could gave asked him on this page for an explanation before reverting the article. I think that Ryan had every right to revert the article, and he gave a reason when so doing. Please note that it only recommended that editors give explanations on the talk page before reverting. It is not a requirement.

Of course, I will revert the article later today if Ryan or someone else doesn't do so first. I strongly suggest that you either engage in the discussion in a constructive manner or remove yourself completely from it. Your presence on this page has not helped the process, imo. Indeed, it has served to exaccerbate the scandal. Watchdog07 12:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Discuss, don't revert! Should Sunray or another editor wish to change the article yet again, please discuss and explain why on talk page first. It has been explained in depth and repeatedly on this page why the edit by Akliman was blatantly in violation of WP:NPV and WP:BLP. It is up to those who do not see it that way to explain why on this page. In the meantime DO NOT REVERT THE ARTICLE AGAIN!. Watchdog07 16:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, dear Watchdog07. I and others have repeatedly asked asked you to justify your claim that you made the article more (!) neutral by including the term N__ O__ M__ in the manner and in the context you included it. You have NOT provided such a justification. To refresh your memory, let me reproduce some of my messages from yesterday:

Dear Watchdog07,

Please provide a justification of your claim that your inclusion of the term N__ O__ M__, in the particular manner and context in which you included it, makes the article more (!) neutral.

As I understand it, this is the question which Extra Fine Point was asking, and which you have not yet answered.

If you justify this claim to the satisfaction of the other editors of this article, I'm sure we will all agree to the inclusion of the term N__ O__ M__.

andrew-the-k 17:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My dearest Watchdog07,

As noted at the top of the WP:SHUN essay, it is only "an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its authors" (emphasis added). It does not protect you from the requirement that you justify proposed edits. So please provide a justification of your claim that your inclusion of the term N__ O__ M__, in the particular manner and context in which you included it, makes the article more (!) neutral.

andrew-the-k 19:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My dearest Watchdog07,

No more diversions, please. Please provide a justification of your claim that your inclusion of the term N__ O__ M__, in the particular manner and context in which you included it, makes the article more (!) neutral.

andrew-the-k 21:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully request yet again, dear Watchdog07, that you provide a justification of your claim that your inclusion of the term N__ O__ M__, in the particular manner and context in which you included it, makes the article more (!) neutral.

andrew-the-k 17:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The above questions were answered days ago.

The only thing I wish to add at this time is WP:SHUN

If Extra Fine Point and Ryan have any questions they would like to ask, then - by all means - go ahead and ask. Watchdog07 20:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Dearest Watchdog07: I'm sorry, but I'm not aware that you have provided a justification of your claim that your inclusion of the term N__ O__ M__, in the particular manner and context in which you included it, makes the article more (!) neutral. Can you please direct me (and others) to the specific place where this justification is provided? The talk page is very long and involved, and I was away for a week, and I am not able to find any such justification. Thank you very much in advance, dear Watchdog07. andrew-the-k 21:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see my response to Watchdog07 here. Sunray 00:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You can see my response to Sunray on the same page. Please note that Sunray once again reverted the article without providing any justification for the content of the article. Watchdog07 12:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation?

Is this article currently under formal mediation by an administrator? The section in question seems patently non-neutral to me, and so I would not be the person to do this. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not under formal mediation. However, several editors of this page (five in number) have agreed to follow WP policies and work on the issues identifited (above), attempting to achieve consensus and fix the article. Sunray 17:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

FINALMENTE!

SANITY, AT LAST! OF COURSE, THE ARTICLE IS PATENTLY NON-NEUTRAL. IT'S NOT EVEN A CLOSE CALL. IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING A CLOSE CALL. THE MOST OFFENSIVE PART OF THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT AS FAR AWAY FROM THE STANDARDS EXPECTED OF AN ENCYCLOPEDIA AS ONE CAN GET! IT IS ALSO PATENTLY AND OBVIOUSLY NON-NEUTRAL AND IN VIOLATION OF WP:BLP. YET, SUNRAY AND CO. HAVE REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE WHAT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS TO ANY INDEPENDENT READER OF WIKIPEDIA AND THE URGENCY INVOLVED IN REVERTING THE CURRENT VERSION. Watchdog07 12:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that your tone is especially helpful or civil. Please keep your cool in your interactions with other users. Thanks. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Stopgap Measure

The effort to edit this article by means of discussion, justification of proposed edits, and consensus, which many of us have strenuously been pursuing, has obviously broken down. (It is clear to me that this is a structural problem on WP.) As a temporary stopgap measure, I have addressed what I believe to be Ryan Delaney's concerns regarding sources and neutrality (it is very hard to tell), and I have removed the WP:BLP-violating use of the term "N_ O_ M_" and the accompanying text that defended the persons thereby victimized, which I find unnecessary once the attack is removed.

I rewrote the discussion of the current state of debate on the question of internal inconsistency in a more-than-neutral way, bending backwards quite a bit. I cannot see any reason for an encyclopedia article to exclude mention of the current state of debate on the question of internal inconsistency . As always, I am happy to have alternative views on the current state of debate on this question included (though I know of none at present), but it doesn't make sense to me to eliminate properly sourced material, which relies entirely on published statements of reliable sources, simply because no one has yet found anything expressing "the other side" of the issue.

I remain eager to return to the process of discussion, justification of proposed edits, and consensus. My intervention is only a stopgap measure intended to stop a free-for-all. I hope I have succeeded, but in light of WP's structural problem, I am not sanguine.

andrew-the-k 15:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Your approach sounds reasonable. Perhaps establishing a "more neutral" version of the article will help. If it contributes a measure of peace, we will all be ahead. Let's continue working through issues on the talk page as well, however. Five editors said that they were willing to do that. I think we should persevere. Sunray 16:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I agree. andrew-the-k 16:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

After a brief over view I'm pleased with your edits. Please note that I'm not too worried about discussing before editing as long as we are not baldly revert warring; it's okay to try something else to see what other people think. Wikipedians should be bold in updating pages, after all. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Increasing Neutrality

I see that Akliman edited the article - prior to obtaining consensus - in an attempt to increase neutrality. No one objected - including Sunray. In fact, Sunray said that Kliman's approach was "reasonable".

I have done the same. I have edited the article so that neutrality is increased. No one can possibly object - least of all Sunray! - because you did not object when Kliman did the same thing.

Now that there is no reference to the Laibman article on the New Orthodox Marxists in the article, I agree - as a stopgap measure - that the expression New Orthodox Marxists should not be elsewhere in the article. Watchdog07 19:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Good! I've restored the quote from Laibman but removed the subtitle. N_ O_ M_ is now absent from the article and we "agree ... that [it] should not be elsewhere in the article." (Other changes undone pending consensus.) andrew-the-k 20:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Duplicitious editing is not good. Akliman thinks it's Okay for him to edit the article without first obtaining consensus but not Okay for me to do the same. Since he has edited the article without first obtaining consensus - and no one, especially Sunray!, objected - then I have the right to do the same. Watchdog07 00:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I only agreed that the expression New Orthodox Marxists should - "as a stopgap measure" - not be used in the article. If there is not more progress towards increasing neutrality then I will want to reintroduce that widely accepted synonym for the "proponents" of the TSSI back into the article. Watchdog07 00:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So we have another consensus? That the term NOM should not appear in the article? I was OK with it in the criticism section, but I am also OK with it not being there. --Extra Fine Point 02:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Extra Fine Point - we do not have consensus on this question yet. As you can see - and as I emphasized above - I only agreed as a stopgap measure that New Orthodox Marxist temporarily not appear in the article.

There are only two ways in which we will be able to achieve consensus on this question.

1. There is a reference in the in the ME edit to the article by Laibman and the expression New Orthodox Marxists appears in the body of the ME article; or

2. The reference to the Laibman article is completely removed and New Orthodox Marxists then not be included in the body of the ME article.

The subtle change whereby the sub-title of the article by Laibman does not appear is not a satisfactory resolution of the issue. At best, it is a temporary band-aid. Watchdog07 12:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit, I don't understand why David Laibman is cited and none of the others are. --Extra Fine Point 01:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's why David Laibman is cited. On this talk page (see "Succinct Reasons"), Watchdog07 (at 12:29, 24 May 2007) stated falsely that he "know[s] that Laibman ... would not agree that he should be described as someone who 'allege [sic] that Marx has been proven internally inconsistent'. He has offered alternative interpretations of Marx to those put forward by the ... the proponents of the TSSI .... This is quite different from Kliman's claim."

But even though what Watchdog07 stated was false, it was clear that "Kliman's claim" required empirical support. So I promptly provided it: "I've added a citation in which Laibman claims that Marx was internally inconsistent. ... andrew-the-k 14:46, 24 May 2007."

The rest of that crew (Okishio, Roemer, ...) should also be cited, in accordance with WP policy, especially because the accuracy of what's in the article has been and might continue to be challenged.

Has anyone wondered why Watchdog07 is so adamant about removal of the citation of Laibman, which relies completely on his own words to clarify where he stands on the question of internal inconsistency? Clearly it is WP policy to document things said in articles, and clearly the quote is accurate and neutral, since it consists of David Laibman's own words. So what's the problem?

As I noted in Reclaiming Marx's "Capital": A refutation of the myth of inconsistency (pp. xiii-xiv, emphasis added) the problem (for Marx's critics) is this:

In recent years, Marx’s critics have found it increasingly difficult to defend the allegations of inconsistency against the TSSI critique. Thus they generally try to avoid this issue altogether. Instead, they now prefer to debate the pros and cons of Marx’s work and of alternative approaches to Marxian economic analysis. In other contexts, these are of course important and interesting topics, but to discuss them here and now is to fall into a diversionary trap, at the very moment when correction of the record has become a real possibility. I will be glad to discuss these topics with Marx’s critics once the record has been set straight and they have done their part to help set it straight.

The desire to sweep the question of internal inconsistency under the rug also explains why Watchdog07 is suddenly concerned to distinguish between Marxian economics and "Marxology." What is behind the whole dispute, and has been behind it all along, is the effort to suppress information about the state of debate on the question of Marx's alleged internal inconsistencies, and thereby to keep the public ignorant.

andrew-the-k 03:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Extra Fine Point: The answer is that a certain editor considers Laibman to be a theoretical and political opponent and wants to use Wikipedia to harass him and cause him distress. This is most obvious by that editors's editing of the David Laibman article. The edit history will show that the editor changed the article so that instead of saying that Laibman "earned" his PhD, he "received" his PhD from the New School for Social Research. That editor even edited the section on Laibman's musical interests! (I would like to thank someone outside of Wikipedia for calling my attention to these actions). He is simply trying to annoy and harass a scholar who has been critical of his works. Watchdog07 11:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Watchdog07,

Please retract this false allegation, assume good faith, stop making personal attacks, and stop violating WP:BLP by impugning the reputation of a living person without evidence. Thank you in advance.

Also, please bear in mind that Laibman doesn't own a biographical article on him, that anyone can edit WP (including on DL's musical interests), and that "received" is a completely neutral term. What do you find objectionable about the term?

Can you please explain how quoting Laibman's own words and adding nothing else, in order to document his position on the internal inconsistency question, harasses him, annoys him, or causes him distress???!!

And how do you know he just doesn't want to spin-doctor the issues, effacing the question of internal inconsistency, for reasons I explained above.

Thanks in advance for your answers, Watchdog07. andrew-the-k 11:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section is unclear

I'm more or less satisfied with the neutrality of the Criticism section as it is now. [26] However, I think this section is somewhat unclear. What I can tell from this section is that critics think Marx is inconsistent. That's cool. But exactly what is the inconsistency that they criticise him for? Maybe I'm especially dense, but I am not figuring out just what this criticism is, just that it exists. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, Ryan. I think the larger issue (one I haven't addressed yet) is that the article is fundamentally confused over what it is about. The article title is obviously Marxian economics, but much - if not most - of the article concerns Marxology, in particular, different interpretations of Marx's critique of political economy. The amount of space and weight in the article given to hermeneutic questions on Marx (a branch of Marxology) is really not in keeping with what the article is supposed to be about. Indeed, all of the references to debates over "internal inconsistencies" (or lack thereof) in Marx is really beside the point for the topic of this article. I recommend disambiguating by removing all sections of the article on Marx and putting them in a separate article on Marxology. Of course, there could be a link from the Wiki article on Marxian economics to that on Marxology. Watchdog07 12:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, to play devils advocate for a minute here, it's a bit hard to quantify what exactly "Marxian economics" is without acknowledging the disputes about Marx's theory. That is, you have a lot of people running around claiming to be Marxists or Marxian economists even though they may have varying ideas of what exactly that means. So definition of the terms would be very important here, ne? If we don't acknowledge the disputes in the article itself, then we run the risk of accepting one particular view of what Marxian economics is, and we do that at the peril of neutrality. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree.

I also want to address the issue of unclarity, which was Ryan Delaney's point before Watchdog07 proposed a "POV fork" -- which WP policy does not permit; see [27] I'd like to recommend that the following be inserted after the 1st sentence of the section (and that what's now the 2d sentence start a new paragraph):

In other words, the critics allege that Marx drew conclusions that actually do not follow from his theoretical premises. Once these alleged errors are "corrected," his conclusion that the aggregate price and profit are determined by and equal to aggregate value and surplus-value no longer holds true, a result that calls into question his theory that the exploitation of workers is the sole source of profit. Moreover, while Marx's law of the tendential fall in the rate of profit says that labor-saving technological changes tend to lower the economy-wide rate of profit, the "corrected" version of this law -- Okishio's theorem -- implies that such technological changes tend to raise the rate of profit.

(The first sentence is "V. K. Dmitriev, writing in 1898,[1] Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz, writing in 1906-07,[2] and subsequent critics have alleged that Marx's value theory and law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall are internally inconsistent.")

The suggested addition isn't very precise, and it's also not immediately understandable if you don't read it carefully, and it's not understandable at all if you don't know concepts like "surplus-value" and "rate of profit." But it's the best I can do to address RD's complaint. Also, I don't know how it can be made to conform to WP:RS -- the statement is true (subject to some imprecision) and it is a summation of what is said elsewhere, but I don't know of any such simple statement out there that this is a paraphrase of. On the other hand, I'm a reliable source for purposes of this article.

andrew-the-k 00:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused by this last point of yours. Do you mean to say that you personally, ie your opinion, is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan that the "Criticism" section is unclear. Andrew has taken a stab at improving it with a suggested addition.

I also think that Watchdog makes a good point about the general organization of the article, though I would rather improve this article than subsume it into another article. I noticed that Alan Freeman does some translation in Italian and German and asked him about articles on the German Wikipedia. His response indicates that the German WP has a very thorough article on ME. Perhaps he could make some suggestions here. Sunray 07:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In answer to Ryan's question, "Do you mean to say that you personally, ie your opinion, is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards?," I think the answer is "yes and no." I'm a reliable source (RS), but that doesn't allow me to present opinion as fact. I do think it makes me qualified to draw inferences and therefore to piece together existing bits of information into a new meaningful statement, and to write a paragraph that isn't 100% precise, in order to provide the general reader with information that they wouldn't pick out from a 100%-precise technical paragraph. Generally speaking, piecing existing bits of information into a new statement is, according to WP critera, "original research" and therefore not allowed. For instance, if you have an RS that says "it rained" and an RS that says "she got wet," you can't draw the inference "it rained, and so she got wet"; that's "original research." But since I'm an RS for this article (as is Alan Freeman, BTW), I think WP policy allows me to write paragraphs like the proposed one above, even though it splices existing facts into a new, minimally intelligible, summary statement.

As for my qualifications, I'm a full professor of economics at Pace University in New York. I hold BA and PhD degrees in economics. Please see [28], my department's faculty page. A book of mine devoted to the claim that Marx's value theory is internally consistent was published earlier this year by Lexington Books, a division of Rowman and Littlefield, a scholarly press. Please see [29], the page for this book on the publisher's website.

andrew-the-k 09:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)