Talk:Marxian economics/Archive 3

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)