Talk:Marxian economics/Archive 4

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 [[1]] 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)