Talk:Temporal single-system interpretation/Archive 2

Reply to Andrew Kliman, Part 1 (meatpuppets)
I rather enjoyed the time off. It's not such a bad thing to sometimes take a break from a dispute in order to put matters more calmly in perspective. I hope others enjoyed the weekend as well. Unfortunately, I see that Andrew Kliman used that time to launch attacks on the character of Watchdog07. I will reply calmly and briefly to that now.

Dr. Kliman wrote the following:

"When I overhauled the article and notified some colleagues, they were pleased with it. When 'Watchdog07' then started attacking the article, I notified them again. A few (Alan XAX Freeman, Annejaclard, and M. Posner) decided to help defend the article ...."

This is clear and undisputed evidence that

,

, and

are all the MEATPUPPETS OF ANDREW KLIMAN.

See WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT for definitions and explanation.

The above confession by Andrew Kliman constitutes proof that he advertised and solicited meatpuppets for the single purpose of resolving an edit dispute. According to a ruling referred to in the sockpuppet policy section under meatpuppets WP:SOCK, there has already been an arbitration committee ruling to the effect that meatpuppets may be treated as one individual.

I therefore respectfully request that the accounts of the meatpuppets be blocked indefinately and that Andrew Kliman be temporarily blocked. Until there has been a resolution of the dispute, I ask that the article on TSSI be reduced to stub.

I will go on to make constructive suggestions about how this conflict can be resolved.

Watchdog07
 * If you believe they are sockpuppets please follow the WP:SSP procedure. 21:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been advised by a member of sysops that he                      is trying to work out (i.e. investigate) the situation and he has asked for my patience. I can only take that as a request to wait rather than immediately follow the procedure outlined in                      WP:SSP. Watchdog07

'''The above message violates WP:NPA, which stipulates "Comment on content, not on the contributor." justice-thunders-condemnation 04:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)'''

Reply to Andrew Kliman, Part 2 (a proposal)
The evidence suggests that the dispute has only been between the two of us, as the other contributors were meatpuppets or perhaps sockpuppets. Either way, meatpuppets as a matter of policy are treated as if they are sockpuppets.


 * The above violates WP:NPA, which stipulates "Comment on content, not on the contributor."  justice-thunders-condemnation 04:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to resolve this situation in a fair way so that both of our concerns are addressed.

I propose the following:

a. the article be temporarilyreduced to a black-and-white edit.

b. if a. is done then I agree that it should not be a candidate for deletion. I further agree that the tag disputing neutrality be removed at that time.

[If your account is temporarily blocked because of violation of WP:SOCK, incivility and edit warring, then the following can begin after the block.]]

c. you or I can then make proposals to expand the article. I will stipulate in advance that the purpose of the discussion will be to consider possible expansions to the [b&w, factual] article.

d. I suggest that proposals on expansion be considered one sentence or paragraph at a time and additions to the article only happen when we achieve consensus. In this context, that means that we must BOTH agree to a proposed change before the article is changed.

e. if we can't reach agreement on a proposed change, then I suggest that we temporaily table it and then go on to consider other possible expansions. We can then return later to the proposals which have been tabled.

f) I propose that we try to come to an agreement on the article in its entirety in the next week to two weeks. [Perhaps this is being too optimistic but setting a temporal goal for establishing a task is a good practice]

I think the above is a fair procedure and I ask that you demonstrate your good faith by agreeing to it.

Watchdog07

COPE and the Wiki policy on spam and avertisements
While I am waiting for a reply to my proposal (see section above), I plan to continue itemizing and documenting objections to the current edit. To wit:

The Wikipedia policy on spam WP:SPAM makes it clear that advertisements masquerading as articles or sections are not allowed.

Pertaining to the above, a standard tag looks like:

"Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products, or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, will be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see spam."

The section on COPE clearly is a violation of this policy and must be removed.

Watchdog07

Proposal that the section on COPE be tagged as an advertisement
If there is no objection, I plan to tag the last section of the article on COPE with

advert

Watchdog07

Reply to proposals
Dear WatchDog07,

I have purposely not replied to the first two of your last four posts, as I would like to keep within the bounds of Wikipedia policies of discussing content and not individuals. See this page for more information.

As regards your actual proposal regarding COPE: I do not agree to your posting of the advertisement tag on the COPE section.

''I do not accept that you have standing to                      address any issue associated with the TSSI, David_Laibman or related pages. From my                     perspective you should have neither voice nor vote. See WP:SOCK, in particular the section on meatpuppets and the reference to the Arbitration Committee ruling on how they should be handled. If there is not an objection from a                      legitimate source or consensus on an                       alternative procedure (see my proposal above) then I will interpret that as agreement that the advertisement tag advert should be                     included in the article.'' Watchdog07 '''The above violates WP:NPA, which stipulates "Comment on content, not on the contributor." justice-thunders-condemnation 04:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)'''

In your post claiming that "The section on COPE clearly is a violation of this [spam] policy and must be removed", you do not actually give any reasons that it is a violation of said policy but merely assert that it is obvious that it is such a violation. Please give reasons why it is a violation of said policy and we can discuss this.

Until then, please do not change the entry until we reach consensus.

M.posner 23:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply to AKliman: COPE Vs. Yale Economic Review
Andrew Kliman has requested that the advertisement tag be placed on the Yale_Economic_Review page. ''In so doing, he has recognized that articles or sections of articles which are written as if they are promotional advertisements for a journal should be tagged''. Having done so he can not now logically and in good faith object to the advertisement tagging of the TSSI article, i.e. he has recognized the principle that Wikipedia should not be used for advertisement and that it can apply to journals.

This is good, but two differences exist between the Wikipedia entries on TSSI and the YER:

1. the Yale Economic Review exists. They have already published an issue. The Critique of Political Economy has never published an issue. It does not exist. At this time it is a planned, want-to-be journal and a speculative venture. This is an important reason why they can't be equated: actual (YER) does not equal possible (COPE).

2. I have no knowledge that the page on the YER was written by those who are managers or promoters of that journal or that the editors of the YER Wikipedia page have something to gain through the use of Wikipedia. [also, we can only assume good faith in that regard.] This is quite different from the situation with COPE since one of the two editors of that journal (Andrew Kliman) wrote the entry on COPE in the TSSI article and the other editor (Alan Freeman) was solicited by AKliman to support him in this discussion. Thus, the following may or may not apply to the entry on the YER but CLEARLY applies to what was written by AKliman about COPE:

"Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about YOURSELF, YOUR FRIENDS, YOUR COMPANY OR PRODUCTS created as part of a marketing or promotional plan will be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies." [capitalization added]

Furthermore, it should be noted that the author of the TSSI entry (Andrew Kliman] has something to gain if the section on COPE is included and if the proposed venture (COPE) benefits - prestige and influence.

Given the above, Andrew Kliman can not logically and in good faith object to the tagging of the COPE section of the TSSI article with the advertising tag.

Watchdog07

'''The above message violates WP:NPA, which stipulates "Comment on content, not on the contributor." justice-thunders-condemnation 04:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)'''

On M.posner's "Reply to proposals"
I'm in the same boat that M.posner is in. It is not obvious to me, either, that the WP spam policy is relevant to the COPE section of the TSSI article. Watchdog, please give us some argument to justify your claim that the COPE section violates the WP spam policy. I'll be happy to discuss such an argument with M.posner and you.

I do think some WP journal articles or sections read like advertising. For instance, the article on the Yale Economic Review. I've suggested that an "advertisement" tag go on that page.

This has already been addresssed at length. See explanations given above for the differences between the Yale_Economic_Review and the non- existant want-to-be "journal" which may or may not be eventually published called ""critique of Political Economy"". Watchdog07

Somewhat less egregious are articles on Science & Society ("The editorial board tries to ensure that its output is both groundbreaking and comprehensible"), Monthly Review, the American Economic Review, and the Economic Journal ("renowned as one of the most prestigious general journals in academic economics"). (I haven't yet suggested placing an "advertisement" tag on these pages; maybe later this week.)

It seems to me that, in contrast to all this, the COPE section of the TSSI article is a model of neutral provision of information rather than advertisement. So, before agreeing to its deletion or to an "advertisement" tag, I need an argument as to why the section violates WP spam policy. (I also can't agree to any other change to the TSSI article unless arguments are provided for each specific change proposed, such arguments are discussed, and there's then a consensus among the editors to make the change.)

Dear Watchdog, please abide by the request to limit discussion on this page to the content of the TSSI article, and refrain from discussing people. As M.posner pointed out above, this is official WP policy; please see. Pluralism is about ideas, not people. To conform to policy myself, I shall refrain from discussing people on this talk page. Thus, my non-responses where individuals are discussed are not to be construed as agreement or disagreement. Thank you very much in advance, Watchdog.

justice-thunders-condemnation 13:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear justice-thunders-condemnation, v=o, the antichrist, akliman
The comments above directly concerned the content of the TSSI article and how it is in fact in violation of Wikipedia policies. Evidently you will not reply to the completely legitimate comments above about COPE vs. the Yale_Economic_Review. I will not guess at your motivation for declining to respond to these facts.

Watchdog07

'''The above message violates WP:NPA, which stipulates "Comment on content, not on the contributor." justice-thunders-condemnation 04:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)'''

The Myth of Internal Inconsistency
I continue now the process of documenting the violations of Wikipedia policies in the article. This will take some time since the article has more violations in it than a collander has holes.

In the first paragraph of the article the following claim is made as if it is a FACT:

"Since internally inconsistent theories cannot possibly be right ...."

This is an unsubstantiated assertion which is presented as if it was a fact. As Andrew Kliman knows, there is wide disagreement among economists about economic_theory and economic_methodology. Yet Kliman makes that claim as if there was a consensus about that issue. It is hence a claim_of_consensus and there must be reliable sources WP:RS which show that there is CONSENSUS on this claim. Those who are truly concerned about pluralism do not make claims of consensus where there is no consensus.

Watchdog07

Puffery
While investigating another false claim made by Andrew Kliman, I discovered that he recently edited another Wikipedia article on the grounds that "puffery" was used. Does Dr. Kliman believe that it is also legitimate to edit out any parts of the article on TSSI which smack of puffery? Or, should we apply one standard for other Wikipedia articles and another standard for the TSSI article?

Watchdog07

The need for consistency by Wikipedia editors
On a related note concerning inconsistencies in the reasons cited for objections, why has Andrew Kliman asked that there be an advertisement tag placed on the Yale Economic Review article but not agreed to one being placed on the TSSI article? It seems to me that we have to be CONSISTENT in our choices as Wikipedia editors: what is good for the YER goose should be good for the TSS gander. Justice thunders condemnation of one-sided editing practices.

Watchdog07

need to disambiguate pluralism
Andrew Kliman and others have made claims on the discussion page about pluralism. There is also a reference to pluralism_in_economics in the TSSI article authored by AKliman.

What is meant by this expression? As far as I can tell there is no consensus on the specific meaning of pluralism as it applies to economics. Andrew Kliman seems to be using the expression in a non-standard and controversial way. He is using that expression in what appears to be a different sense than:

Economic_pluralism

Scientific_pluralism and

Value_pluralism

Another expression for what Kliman calls pluralism_in_economics should be used as it is a confusing expression and it is highly likely that Wikipedia readers will confuse it with Economic_pluralism or some other meaning of pluralism. There is clearly a need to disambiguate.

This is part of a larger problem with the article: there is too much Marxian in-crowd lingo being used. Wikipedia readers should not have to be familiar with the language of Marxian_economics to be able to comprehend the meaning of an article. Further, if non-standard language is used, then in fairness there should be another Wikipedia article which explains the specific meaning of that language.

Watchdog07


 * "Pluralism" is in-crowd lingo from Marxian economics?! Very good. Anyways, if he was convinced that statements in the article needed verification or reliable sources, Kliman could preface such statements by "According to Kliman's recent book". I don't see the need to do this for the claim "Since internally inconsistent theories cannot possibly be right". If one wanted to clarify the meaning of pluralism from a source not related to TSSI researchers, one could provide an external link, I suppose, to some PAE article. Somewhere there's a Kurz and/or Salvadori article - I don't think under PAE auspices - advocating pluralism in economics. --RLV 209.217.195.16 05:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Still More Examples of Lack of Neutrality and Verifiability
Continuing on with an explanation of the litany of violations in the edit by Andrew Kliman - In the article we see such claims as

no critics "successfully refuted this claim"

and that Duncan Foley is a "prominent critic of the TSSI".

As Daniel Bryant explained on the David_Laibman talk page, such claims represent your_opinion and should not be confused with facts. See WP:V for the need to VERIFY such claims. Your_opinion] is not sufficient: there must be [[external, independent, reliable, third_party sources which show Foley to be a "prominent critic of the TSSI" and support the statement that no critics "successfully refuted this claim". The BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE PERSON WHO WISHES TO INCLUDE THESE STATEMENTS in the article.  It is  Andrew Kliman's responsibility to VERIFY these claims using external, independent, reliable, third-party sources or to agree to remove them from the article.

Watchdog07

Andrew Kliman's comparison of COPE to other journals
Dr. Kliman compares COPE to several other journals. I have already addressed at length the comparision to the Yale_Economics_Review to COPE. Let us consider the other journals he refers to.

Science_&_Society has published continuously since 1936. COPE has never published a single issue and is therefore not in fact a journal. There is no evidence which I can see which shows that the Wiki entry on Science_&_Society was written by an editor as part of a promotional plan to advertise a product which is associated with that Wiki editor and which a Wiki editor stands to benefit from.

Monthly_Review has been in publication since 1949. There is no evidence that the entry on that journal was written by someone who is associated with that journal as part of a marketing campaign to benefit that publication. All of this is quite unlike the section on COPE in the TSSI article which was written by an Editor of the non-existent journal.

'''The above violates WP:NPA, which stipulates "Comment on content, not on the contributor." justice-thunders-condemnation 04:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)'''

American_Economic_Review, the publication of the American_Economic_Association, has been in publication since 1911. The Wikipedia article is a stub and in need of expansion. There is no comparison between this established and reputable journal and the non-exstent COPE.

The Economic_Journal, the publication of the Royal_Economics_Society, has been published for over 115 years. Like the entry for the American_Economic_Review, it is a stub-class article and in need of expansion. There is no legitimate comparison bwteeen this highly esteemed journal and the non-existent COPE.

Given the above I demand that the section on COPE - which is clearly a fraud and is an advertisement in violation of WP:SPAM - be IMMEDIATELY deleted. If this is not done immediately then in order to protect the integrity of Wikipedia the advertisement tag should be placed on the TSSI article and the article should be a candidate for deletion.

Watchdog07

What are the sources WP:RS for Andrew Kliman's assertions?
Continuing with the systematic deconstruction of the one-sided, biased Wiki article on TSSI by Andrew Kliman:

Yet another example of an assertion which is unsourced -

"at one time dominated academic Marxist economics"

What is the reliable, independent source which establishes this opinion to be a fact?

Furthermore, the expression "at one time" is too vague. Which time period exactly is Dr. Kliman referring to?

Furthermore, on what basis can he ascertain which perspective "dominated"?

Furthermore, I question the neutrality of the expression "academic" Marxist economics. What is the basis for the adjective of "academic"?

Furthermore, why did he use the expression Marxist_economics? As he knows, there is a distinction which has been made between Marxist economics and Marxian_economics. What is the basis in fact for the claim that this was a position which "dominated Marxist economics"? Did the unnamed, unspecified, unsourced people Kliman was referring to describe themselves as Marxist economists?

Watchdog07

redundancy and poor writing style
There is a section which is titled:

"On the Alleged Proofs of Marx's Alleged Inconsistencies"

At best, this is poor writing form.

Either of the following would be better:

"Proofs of Marx's Alleged Inconsistencies"

or

"Alleged Proofs of Marx's Inconsistencies"

In both cases, the includsion of "On the" is unnecessary.

An alternative might be ""Proofs" of Marx's Inconsistency?"

A question mark the end would signal readers that it is indeed a question.

While this might appear by itself to be a minor criticism of the article, it is in the opinion of this editor another indication of the overall quality of the article.

Watchdog07

advertising masquerading as a "reference"
In yet another example of blatent use of Wikipedia for self-promotion - for which the author of the TSSI article will in this case potentially benefit in the form of monetary enrichment - we see that the "reference" to Andrew Kliman's book links to a personal page of his which attempts to ''sell' his book.

This self-promotion is also evident in the entry itself by his reference to his "new" book. What exactly is the purpose of Andrew Kliman writing "new" other than to entice the reader to the link and hence potentially sell more books?

Watchdog07

'''The above message violates WP:NPA, which stipulates "Comment on content, not on the contributor." justice-thunders-condemnation 04:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)'''

Question for other editors
I was asked to explain the basis for my objections to the one-sided edit authored by Andrew Kliman and I have (partially) done so.

Do you want me to continue to do so or will you FINALLY agree to revert the article to a factual, black-and-white edit which conforms to WP:NPV and other Wikipedia policies?

If you so wish, I can continue to itemize objections until such time as the last biased thread in the TSSI sweater his been pulled out and held up for scrutiny.

Watchdog07

Lexington Books
RLV, welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sorry I missed your comments earlier today. Even though you just left a number, I'll assume good faith on your part. You raise a couple of issues which I will address separately.

You suggested that Andrew Kliman quote his own book as a reference. I understood that to mean that you thought it was a reliable source WP:RS.

Why is that? Is it because it was published by Lexington Books? Does that by itself make it a reliable source?

You might not be old enough to remember this but Lexington Books used to be D.C. Heath and Company (or was it just that D.C. Heath founded Lexington Books?). D.C. Heath and Company was considered at the time to be a reputable publisher, but they published in 1975 Dialectical Economics: An Introduction to Marxist Political Economy by Lyn_Marcus. I wouldn't consider Lyn_Marcus to be a reliable source. Would you? Would Dr. Kliman? I'm NOT claiming that a book published by Lexington can't be a reliable source. All I'm saying at this point is that simply because they published Dr. Kliman's book does not make it a reliable source.

Watchdog07


 * I have no idea what Watchdog07 is on about. Anybody that knows anything about the TSSI is aware that Carchedi, Freeman, Kliman, and others in their research community define the claims made in the TSSI. This means their perspectives should be represented in the article. It does not mean that they are correct or that no other perspectives should be represented in the article. In fact, I think they are mistaken myself. The views of prominent critics of the TSSI, such as Foley, Laibman, and Veneziani, should also be represented. As far as Kliman's book goes, as far as I am aware, he developed it in typical academic fashion, circulating the themes and chapters in conference papers and, if I understand correctly, in peer-reviewed journals. I suspect he could also preface every claim in the article with "According to" some paper or another. It is a matter of style how much of this you want to do, assuming one is actually interested in improving the article.


 * Furthermore, I don't know that Institutionalists, drawing on the philosophy of American pragmaticism, think that a theory with demonstrated contradictions can be correct. You can certainly find philosophers of science (e.g., Paul Feyerabend) who would be willing to countenance self-contradictory theories as perhaps productive of future developments. And you can find philosophers (e.g., A. J. Ayer in his book on Wittgenstein) arguing that mathematicians do not need to prove axioms consistent before hand; they can resolve problems when they are discovered. In a thrid case, advocates of pluralism in economics would not object to advocates of mutually contradictory theories all being able to be published. In no case would these scholars agree that self-contradictory theories can possibly be correct. You would be better off looking into Hegel, which I do not claim to understand. Anyways, once again the statement in the article could be prefaced with "According to x".


 * And I don't know where Kliman compared COPE to other journals. He compared Wikipedia descriptions of COPE to Wikipedia descriptions of other journals. It was his perceptions of the tones of the descriptions that he contrasted. RLV 209.217.195.88 01:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

RLV, I have addressed the issue of COPE elsewhere today. I will not comment at                          this time on the other issues you raised because of Andrew Kliman's request that we                           address the issue of COPE now. I can come back to them later on if you desire. Watchdog07

"internally inconsistent claims can not possibly be right"
Rlv,

You raised questions about this. You seem to believe that it is self-evident that internally inconsistent theories can not be correct.

Whether you accept that as obvious or problematic depends on your philosophical and methodological standpoint. It would seem to be obvious from a Sraffian perspective, for instance. It is not obviously true from a number of other perspectives including:

institutional_economics

new_institutional_economics

institutional_political_economy

You may support such a claim, but there is no consensus among economists or others on that issue. Yet, it was presented in the article as a fact. It is not a fact, it is an opinion supported by some and opposed by others. The burden of proof in Wikipedia is on the person making a claim_of_consensus.

Watchdog07

Once Again on COPE
May I suggest that we stick to one topic at a time? We're supposed to be trying to reach consensus on the content of the TSSI article, and it will be a lot easier to reach consensus on it if we concentrate on one thing until we reach agreement on it, and move on to another thing only after we've reached agreement on the first thing. I think that having lots of things under discussion at once leads to diversion, confusion, and indecisive outcomes.

Because of these considerations (and also because I wouldn't have time to discuss everything that's been raised all at once even if I wanted to), I'll stick (now and hereafter) to one thing at a time. The original issue under discussion between Watchdog, M.posner, and I was whether the COPE section is written like an advertisement. M.posner and I asked for arguments justifying the claim that it is written like an advertisement. As far as I can tell, Watchdog hasn't yet provided any.

Perhaps, however, Watchdog's remarks to the effect that the premiere issue of COPE is currently in process are intended to justify his claim that the COPE section is written like an advertisement. If so, I don't get it. I don't see any connection between (a) Has a journal's premiere issue appeared yet? and (b) Is a section on the journal written like an advertisement? These seem to me to be two wholly separate questions. I cannot even see how someone else could regard them as other than wholly separate questions.

Dear Watchdog, if you are indeed claiming that the fact that the premiere issue of COPE is currently in process is relevant to whether the COPE section is written like an advertisement, can you please explain what the relevance is, in your view, and also provide an argument to justify your view?

If you are not making that claim, however, then as far as I can tell, you've offered no argument on behalf of your claim that the COPE section is written like an advertisement. Can you please offer such an argument now?

I would like to suggest that, if no argument is forthcoming,

Arguments and explanations have have already been made. It is written in the style of an                        advertisement, its purpose is to promote a                         venure, it does not exist (and it is therefore                         fraud to claim that it does), and it was written by someone who would benefit by the advertising of the venture. See the exact wording from Wikipedia I reproduced (twice) which explained the policy against using Wikipedia as advertising to                         promote "yourself ... your company" etc.                        Watchdog07

then Watchdog, M.posner, RLV, and I (and others, if and when they return) agree by consensus that

(a) the COPE section is not written like an advertisement,

(b) discussion of this issue end, and

(c) no "advertising" tag be added to this section of the article.

Then we can tackle another issue.

What do you all think?

I think you should remove yourself from discussion of this topic. I will not challenge your good faith, but I have serious doubts about your objectivity since: 1. you are one of the two editors of the proposed venture. 2. you wrote the section on COPE in                                    the article. 3. you potentially stand to benefit in terms of added prestige if                                   the advertisement for COPE is                                    published and it helps the "journal" become successful. 4. your actions as a Wikipedia editor have not been logically consistent. See remarks below comparing your actions on the question of the proposed advertising tag for this article with your proposed tag of                                 the Yale_Economic_Review article. Watchdog07 '''The above violates WP:NPA, which stipulates "Comment on content, not on the contributor." justice-thunders-condemnation 04:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)'''

justice-thunders-condemnation 13:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

logical consistency, pluralism & advertising
The following constitutes a reply to Andrew Kliman on the issue of COPE and inter-related issues.

As a matter of fact, I proposed on May 1 that the advert tag be placed on the TSSI article. I was asked to explain that proposal which I then went on to do. As a matter of fact, Andrew Kliman proposed on May 2 that the advert tag be placed on the Yale_Economic_Review article. He offered no explanation for that proposal.

Although Dr. Kliman's actions may look suspicious, we are required as a matter of Wikipedia policy to assume that they were made in good faith. I will not challenge him on that at this time. Instead, I will explain how these are logically inconsistent actions, especially from someone who claims to be a consistent supporter of pluralism_in_economics.


 * The above violates WP:NPA, which stipulates "Comment on content, not on the contributor." justice-thunders-condemnation 04:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Dr. Kliman has asked over and over again for explanations of my edits and proposals (and I have over and over again explained them). It is not logically consistent for him to demand explanations and not offer explanations for his proposed tag of the Yale_Economic_Review article.

2. I have explained the differences between the Yale_Economic_Review article and the section of the TSSI article on COPE. They are, in brief:

a. the YER exists (i.e. it is an actual publication rather than a pipe dream);

b. there is no evidence that the YER article was written as an advertisement by someone who would potentially personally benefit from the advertisement. This is a crucial difference! It is not logical or consistent, therefore, to equate the two situations.

3. On this page and in the TSSI article there was the claim that TSSI proponents, Kliman included, have been consistent supporters of pluralism_in_economics. The proposed tag of the Yale_Economic_Review article as an advertisement (given the above) is not the action of a person consistently committed to pluralism. It is empirical evidence of someone opposed to pluralism.

Whether Dr. Kliman wants to be seen as an opponent of pluralism in economics is his business. It is our business that the edits and actions of Wikipedia editors be consistent and fair.


 * The above violates WP:NPA, which stipulates "Comment on content, not on the contributor." justice-thunders-condemnation 04:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Watchdog07

sec. on COPE: advertisement and/or spam?
Should one or the other or both of the following be tagged to the article? 'None of the above' is clearly not an acceptable answer.

cleanup-spam

advert

Watchdog07

Example of a more neutral description of COPE
What's wrong with the following?

[Critique of Political Economy (COPE)] "a journal founded in 2006 that describes itself as 'critical-pluralistic', is a project of the IWGVT" [International Working Group on Value Theory]

I know that Andrew Kliman thinks this is a fair, resonable and sufficient description of COPE since he wrote the above. See pluralism_in_economics.

Watchdog07

This is crazy
Hmm.. went away and read about the history of this page elsewhere and realised I'd drastically misinterpreted the complexity of what was going on here. Apologies, please ignore my (now deleted) comment.

Marinheiro 22:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

COPE, "puffery and editorializing", logical inconsistency
Over and over again I have complained about the duplicitious editing standards of Andrew Kliman. Here is yet another example which relates to the wording of the section (advertisement) on COPE.


 * The above violates WP:NPA, which stipulates "Comment on content, not on the contributor." justice-thunders-condemnation 04:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

On August 23, AKliman edited the article on Marxian_Economics to remove the words "Marxian scholars". The (only) reason given was

"puffery and editorializing"

In so doing, he is on record as saying that "puffery and editorializing" are legitimate standards to apply for the revision of parts of Wiki articles.

He is also on record as saying that the expression "Marxian scholars" is "puffery and editorializing"! Yet, by that standard the section on COPE (along with much of the rest of the article) has FAR MORE "puffery and editorializing" and should hence be deleted.

If we were to apply Andrew Kliman's OWN standards to the section on COPE then virtually EVERYTHING would have to be removed!

Once again, the question is one of logical inconsistency and the need for appropriate, fair and CONSISTENT standards by Wikipedia editors. Also at issue is the mis-use of Wikipedia for one-sided propaganda and self-interested promotional purposes.


 * The above violates WP:NPA, which stipulates "Comment on content, not on the contributor." justice-thunders-condemnation 04:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Watchdog07

Proposed compromise on COPE section
Once again, I will propose a possible compromise.

I propose that the description of COPE written by Andrew Kliman - with a small but very important change - on the pluralism_in_economics page REPLACE the wording currently used in the TSSI article and that it constitute the entire section on COPE.

The wording I propose is the following:

One recent project related to the TSSI, is the Critique of Political Economy, a proposed journal that describes itself as "critical-pluralistic", and is a project of the International Working Group on Value Theory (IWGVT).

The above is offered in the spirit of compromise and in the hope that we can move on to address other problems with the article.

Watchdog07

Response to proposed compromise
Hello. I have not had time to reply for the last few days.

While I am open to some kind of compromise regarding COPE, I do not accept your proposed compromise. A major problem with the entry you've proposed is that there is no explanation of how COPE is related to the TSSI and therefore would not make much sense within the TSSI article. The relation needs to be explained. The quote from the mission statement currently used in the article provides a good explanation of the relation between TSSI and COPE. I also think it would be better to say that COPE is a "forthcoming" journal rather than a "proposed" journal, since the latter sounds as if there have been no concrete plans made for it.

Even though we don't know that COPE will be forthcoming, in the spirit of compromise I will agree to your suggestion that "forthcoming" be substituted for "proposed". I am open to                     suggestions about how the sentence can be changed to relate it better to the rest of the article. For instance, the sentence could be changed to                      begin as follows, "A project which many advocates                       of the TSSI are currently working on, ...." I                      think that addresses your concern. Do you agree? Watchdog07 M.posner 14:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up of 1st sentence URGENTLY required!
There is an urgent need for the first sentence of the TSSI article to be changed. The integrity of Wikipedia is in question. The sentence must be changed so that either the expression "riven with internal inconsistencies" is dropped or it is put in quotation marks and properly attributed to Cassidy.

WAtchdog07

On COPE and the 1st sentence
I agree with M.posner on the COPE issue. In the spirit of compromise, I'm willing to have "an online" changed to "a forthcoming online", on condition that we agree in advance that the change be reverted once the 1st issue of COPE is published online.

Agree to change "online" to                                "a forthcoming online". Watchdog07

M.posner is right: the material clarifying the relationship between the TSSI and COPE is needed, since this is an article on the TSSI.

This is an assertion, not an                                explanation. Watchdog07

Although I used the phrase prior to the publication of Cassidy's essayin 1997,

What is the evidence for that? I could find no online references by you to the "riven" expression prior to Cassidy's article. Watchdog07

I personally have no objection to quotation marks around "riven with internal inconsistencies" in the TSSI article's first sentence. But let's see what other editors think.

There isn't time for that. The integrity of Wikipedia is in question. I will change the article so that there are quotation marks before and after Cassidy's quote. Watchdog07

The reference to Cassidy is already there, for the paragraph as a whole. Citing the same thing twice in such a brief space is useless pedantry, IMO.

Dear Watchdog, please adhere to the WP policy forbidding personal attacks.

Please stop making this baseless accusation and stick to the issues. Watchdog07

The policy stipulates that there should not be discussion of individuals, but of content only. It does not make exceptions for cases in which editors contend that the discussion of individuals is relevant to the content. Thank you.

See Wikipedia policy that I reproduced TWICE regarding advertisements for "yourself ... your                 company...." Please begin to respect Wikipedia policies. Thank you. Watchdog07

justice-thunders-condemnation 15:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Intent to Revert
See comments on talk page of J. Smith.

This is aburd: Andrew Kliman reverted the article after I put quotation marks around an expression (quote) which he took from Cassidy without proper attribution. Do we really need "consensus" to put a quote in quotation marks?

The larger problem is that basically the ENTIRE article is ONE-SIDED and in violation of virtually EVERY Wikipedia policy - as I have documented at great length on this page. It can not stand and Andrew Kliman should not be allowed to block a NEUTRAL WP:NPV article on this subject.

Unless I receive a specific request not to from a member of sysops, then the entire article will be reverted to a black-and-white edit which will only contain information which has been established as fact.

Watchdog07

WatchDog07's intent to revert
I request that WatchDog07 does not revert the page until consensus has been established. Consensus has not been reached.

Whether or not you receive a specific request from sysops makes no difference, since as J.Smith pointed out on your user-talk page the sysops cannot tell you what to do. But any revert by you will nonetheless make consensus that much more difficult to achieve. M.posner 18:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to WatchDog07's response to compromise
I am responding to Watchdog07's response to my comment on his proposed compromise regarding the COPE section. WatchDog07 said:

Even though we don't know that COPE will be forthcoming, in the spirit of compromise I will agree to your suggestion that "forthcoming" be substituted for "proposed". I am open to                    suggestions about how the sentence can be changed to relate it better to the rest of the article. For instance, the sentence could be changed to                     begin as follows, "A project which many advocates                      of the TSSI are currently working on, ...." I                     think that addresses your concern. Do you agree? Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk • contribs)

I do not agree that adding "A project which many advocates of the TSSI are currently working on,..." clarifies the relationship between TSSI and COPE. This is not the relationship of COPE and TSSI described by COPE. According to COPE's mission statement, the relationship is rather that the TSSI:

"establishes a basis for a new research program that, in contrast to mainstream Marxian and radical political economy, proceeds from Marx’s contributions rather than from the 'corrections' of his alleged errors.

An indispensible aim of COPE is to create an institutional basis for continued research in the TSSI, and TSSI-informed theoretical and empirical work which, because of limited access to resources, does not currently exist. We hope that, by working collaboratively on and contributing to COPE, proponents of the TSSI will be able to turn it into an ongoing, self-sustaining, research program. We recognize that such a research program must include theoretical and empirical investigations informed by the TSSI, as well as interpretative work proper."

Now, it is possible someone has criticized that statement. And if you know of any reliable sources who have criticized this mission statement, then I see no reason not to include them. But in the absence of this, there is no reliable source to say that this is false.

Also note that in the current version of the COPE section it is entirely clear that this is a statement from the mission statement of the journal, and therefore it is not argued that what is said is true or untrue. Rather, it simply cites the relationship between TSSI and COPE according to COPE. There is nothing illegitimate in this, rather it is the only correct way to include the COPE entry within the TSSI article.

M.posner 19:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to other aspects of WatchDog07's criticism of COPE section
In WatchDog07's post entitled "Reply to AKliman: COPE Vs. Yale Economic Review", he gives (as far as I can tell) two reasons for wanting to change the COPE section. The first reason basically reduces to the fact that COPE's first issue has not appeared. Since WatchDog07 already agreed to compromise on this issue ("in the spirit of compromise I will agree to your suggestion that 'forthcoming' be substituted for 'proposed' ", in his response to my post entitled "Response to proposed compromise"), I will skip it and instead talk about the second issue he raised, which is that Andrew Kliman wrote the COPE section and he stands to benefit from it. The evidence WatchDog07 used to say that this is illegitimate is the rule that:

"Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products created as part of a marketing or promotional plan will be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies."

WatchDog07 seems to think that this means that no one can write about a product (or project) that s/he is involved in. This is not at all how I read it. I read it as saying that Wikipedia will delete advertisements for products which exist "as part of a marketing or promotional plan."

WatchDog07, am I correct in my view of how you are reading the quote? If not, then could you explain how you read it?

M.posner 19:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

quotation marks
"There is an urgent need for the first sentence of the TSSI article to be changed. The integrity of Wikipedia is in question. The sentence must be changed so that either the expression "riven with internal inconsistencies" is dropped or it is put in quotation marks and properly attributed to Cassidy.

WAtchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk • contribs)"

After looking this over again, I agree. But please wait for consensus before reverting in the future. Acting unilaterally is not acceptable, no matter what your ostensible reason is.

We should wait at least 24 hours to allow RLV anyone else to object before changing the page. WatchDog07, Akliman, and myself have agreed to this change so far.

M.posner 21:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on quotation marks
I agree to the insertion of quotation marks around the phrase "riven with internal inconsistencies". I also agree to the proposal to wait 24 hours to allow time for response otherwise someone who does object, does not have fair time to respond. If no-one objects in 24 hours, I suggest the quotation marks go in.

Alan XAX Freeman 21:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus and Defending the Integrity of Wikipedia
Where Wikipedia would or could suffer harm to its reputation by waiting for us to arrive at consensus, I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO ACT UNILATERALLY. I informed both J. Smith and others on this page that I INTEND TO REVERT the page to a black-and-white factual edit. As you can see on my talk page, J. Smith did NOT direct me to do otherwize. Unless some REAL PROGRESS is made - AND QUICKLY! - in the direction of producing a NEUTRAL edit which conforms to WP:NPV and other Wikipedia policies, then the reversions (or placement of additional tags on the article, e.g. advertisement and spam) will happen. After several weeks of discussion, I am not hopeful. As things stand, we seem to be headed in the direction of having to ask for formal mediation. J.Smith recommended this first to Andrew Kliman (who, evidently, did not act upon that recommendation) and then, more recently, to myself. The only other alternative would be to seek mediation from outside of Wikipedia, a possibility which I am open to discussing.

Watchdog07

we just agreed our first consensus change-a calmer approach is called for
I think that since we have just agreed our first change by consensus, Watchdog's last post is somewhat excessive. I suggest to wait the 24 hours, make the change, and then move onto the other issues one at a time. The world will not end.

That doesn't sound like input on spelling and grammar. Please read instructions given on your user talk page. Watchdog07

Alan XAX Freeman 23:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes in article
I have put back the quotation marks in the article and added two tags to alert Wikipedia readers of the character of the last section of the article. If and when there is agreement by all on the content of the section on COPE, then those two tags can be removed.

It's time for us all to get SERIOUS about the editing of the article!

Watchdog07


 * Ok, why do you think that section not only reads like an advertisement, but also pure spam? It reads like current events, I'm not sure if its a notable for inclusion in the article, but claiming its spam requires some proof on your part as well. MrMacMan  Talk  19:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply to Mr. MacMan
 * Let's look at what the tag says:


 * Watchdog07
 * I read the template before removing it, I know what it says. I don't see how the website was made for create traffic for profit, their subscription page doesn't exist... they don't have advertisements on the website! So, you still haven't told me why you view this website as spam. BTW, I'm about to message you on your talk page. MrMacMan  Talk  21:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To avoid possible misunderstanding, I never intended the above to constitute an entire reply.  I simply wanted to reproduce the tag  and then comment on why it is suitable.  See below.  The reason I selected the spam tag was because of its reference to "external links"  which were mainly intended to promote a website or product.The link to Andrew Kliman's book fits in this category: it  is clearly intended to sell his book.  While the succcess of COPE would only potentially aid him in terms of additional prestige, the sales of his book would benefit him financially. (thanks for the tip on using a colon) Watchdog07

'''The above violates WP:NPA, which stipulates "Comment on content, not on the contributor." justice-thunders-condemnation 04:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)'''

moving forward (or standing still)
There are a number of options open to us.

1. We can seek mediation within Wikipedia.

2. We can seek mediation outside of Wikipedia if we can agree on a mediator, a procedure, and a timetable.

3. We can try once again to edit the article together. If I see significant progress in the direction of re-writing the article, then I would consider removing the advert, spam, and cleanup tags. If and when we reach agreement on making the entire article conform to WP:NPV, then I would agree to remove the neutrality tag.

4. We leave things as they are. I'm not happy with that option since it would mean the temporary retention of what in my opinion is a very biased article. I suspect that others would not be entirely happy with that option either because it would mean that all of the tags would remain affixed to the article.

Which do you prefer?

Watchdog07

Reply to Mr. MacMan continued
I was in the process of answering your question more fully but when you replied there was an "edit conflict" so I'll have to reply again. I wanted to reproduce the tag so that we could all look at its language.

To begin with, I asked on this question for feedback on whether I should use the advert and/or spam tags. When no one addressed whether the latter tag should be used, I used my judgment.

I used the spam tag in addition to the advert tag because it has language which I thought was especially applicable, most notably on external links and advertising. Perhaps the tag should have been placed closer to the external link to a page of Kliman's website which is clearly intended to promote and sell his "new" book. I addressed that issue in the talk page previously ("advertisement masquerading as a link").

Please also note that I signalled my intention on this page to possibly place a spam tag on the article on more than one occasion. Indeed, I mentioned the possibility yesterday.

Watchdog07


 * It occurred to me that some additional comments might be desirable to explain the character of advertisement. To begin with, not all advertisement is corporate advertisement.  Nont-for-profit organizations, for instance, often rely on advertisement to promote their products and ventures. Secondly, not all advertisement directly solicit funds.  There are many other purposes: e.g. public image, brand promotion, etc. The section on COPE is clearly an advertisement which does not directly solicit funds but benefits the promoters (Kliman and Freeman) in other ways: 1. it makes it appear as if the product already exists thereby increasing the apparant credibility of the proposed venture; 2. it has prestige value; 3. if the venture is successful then they can benefit in other ways such as increased possibility for promotion at work, increased job security, and padded CVs which could benefit them in the future if/when they seek to change jobs.  Had Kliman simply wanted to mention the "forthcoming" journal in the article then we would have already come to an agreement on wording (see discussion above).  But, the description was padded with words and descriptions which Kliman himself has described as "puffery".  This is unacceptable and is an abuse of Wikipedia for personal gain.

Watchdog07

'''The above violates WP:NPA, which stipulates "Comment on content, not on the contributor." justice-thunders-condemnation 04:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)'''

Unsourced claim about "suppression"
There is an unsourced claim about "suppression" near the beginning of the article. I asked before for a source for that claim but no one was able to cite a source. I tagged the section with:

and will take further action if a reliable source for this extraordinary claim is not forthcoming.


 * If another editor does not come forward today with a reliable source to show that there was "suppression" then I will delete the unsubstantiated opinion which Andrew J. Kliman made.  Watchdog07  {User|Watchdog07}}


 * Watchdog07


 * I have found a source. Andrew Kliman, Reclaiming Marx's "Capital", (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2007), p. 3.  The same source is used in other parts of the article.  Do you have any sources disputing this?  If so, we can also include their claims.M.posner 19:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with M.posner's suggestion. justice-thunders-condemnation 20:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the EVIDENCE put forward for "suppression" in Kliman's book? His OPINION is not enough. A RELIABLE SOURCE must be found which documents FACTS.  Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.  The charge of "suppression" is an exceptional claim. See WP:RS. Watchdog07


 * Dear Watchdog07,


 * Please study the page that M.posner proposes citing. It contains a cogent argument, based on factual evidence and put forward by a reliable source--moi--that the myth of inconsistency serves to supress Marx's value theory in its original form.


 * A Wikipedia article need not exhibit the evidence, which is what you may be suggesting. It is sufficient to cite the evidence.  On the other hand, I have no objection to the paragraph on p. 3 of Reclaiming Marx's "Capital": A Refutation of the Myth of Inconsistency being included as a footnote to the TSSI article.


 * Please let us know whether you prefer a reference to p. 3 or a footnote containing the relevant passage.


 * Whether the charge of suppression is an exceptional claim or not is not something for one individual to dictate. Such a judgement requires consensus.  Therefore the claim that exceptional evidence is necessary itself requires consensus as to whether the charge of suppression is an exceptional claim.


 * I personally think that it is not an exceptional claim at all to say that supposedly proven allegations of internal inconsistency serve to suppress Marx's theory in its original form. After all, that is the very purpose of these allegations and alleged proofs.


 * Moreover, the article ALREADY contains a quote from a second reliable source, Cassidy--who, I hasten to point out, is not a proponent of the TSSI--which suggests that Marx's mathematical model of the economy is rarely studied these days because it is based on a value theory that's riven with internal inconsistencies. To be rarely studied on account of being riven with internal inconsistencies means that it is suppressed on that ground. Perhaps the problem is that you aren't aware of what "suppression" means.


 * I reiterate that I'm happy with M.posner's proposal.


 * justice-thunders-condemnation 21:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * WatchDog07, I'm afraid it is you who should reread WP:RS. Under the section entitled "What is a reliable source?" it states the following:


 * "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."


 * Andrew Kliman's book clearly fits this description. Andrew Kliman is well known to be one of the foremost authorities about TSSI.  If you exclude Kliman's book from the category of "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" you will not find anything that could be considered authoritative.  No one has published more about TSSI than Kliman.


 * The next sentence on the page says:


 * "The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors."


 * What I said about the first sentence also applies here. Andrew Kliman is known precisely for his contributions to the TSSI, and his expertise thus clearly fits this article.
 * M.posner 21:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for response
WatchDog07,

Could you please respond to my message of 07 May entitled "Response to other aspects of WatchDog07's criticism of COPE section"? If I don't understand how you are reading the passage then I cannot understand what your argument about the COPE section is.


 * I already responded to that question. I did so earlier this week in a reply to Andrew Kliman. As I explained at the time, I have other reasons for believing that the section on COPE constitutes an advertisement.  For instance, it is written in the style and language of an advertisement and is made up almost exclusively of what Andrew Kliman has called elsewhere "puffery and editorializing".  (It also has unsourced materials regarding occupations and professions, by the way.) My objections to this section have been explained at enormous length on this page. I do wish others on this page would begin to take those and other objections seriously. You would save us all a lot of time and aggrevation.  Watchdog07


 * WatchDog07, I just went through the page searching for every use of "puffery," and I still did not find any explanation from you of the "puffery" used in the COPE description. You do point out a number of times that Akliman deleted words/phrases from an/other article/s on the basis of "puffery."  You then say that we must edit the TSSI article on the same basis and delete all "puffery" from it.  But I cannot find any citations of any alleged puffery.  If there is alleged puffery, could you please cite the sentence which are pufferous (pardon the neologism)?


 * I also want to quickly respond to your claim that the COPE section has "unsourced materials regarding occupations and professions". This strikes me as odd.  The COPE section links to the COPE webpage, which has the full list of editorial board members on it.  A quick search of the names on google will confirm that the claims about occupations and professions are correct.  I don't see how it would be possible to cite the occupation of all 50 persons involved.
 * M.posner 01:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

M.posner 19:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Justification for removal of "spam" tag
I have removed the spam tag from the article, because the link to a webpage on Andrew Kliman's Reclaiming Marx's Capital: A Refutation of the Myth of Inconsistency, next to which the tag appeared, doesn't fit the WP definition of spam. The tag states:


 * "Wikipedia spam consists of external links mainly intended to promote a website. Wikipedia spam also consists of external links to websites which primarily exist to sell goods or services, use objectionable amounts of advertising, or require payment to view the relevant content" (emphases added).


 * Andrew Kliman's web page - the external link - is clearly INTENDED to SELL a product. Indeed, it even offers the book for sale at a special price. It contains an objectionable amount of advertising with the object of SELLING copies of his book. Watchdog07


 * This is untrue. The website does not offer the book for sale. justice-thunders-condemnation 00:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Both sentences pertain to intent. I alone am qualified to decide on intent, since the webpage and site are mine.


 * That is a patently absurd claim. How many people who send spam claim that it is spam and that they intended to send spam? Not many.  By any objective standard the site is mainly intended to promote and sell a product for which the author receives monetary compensation. Watchdog07


 * There is no such thing as an "objective" standard pertaining to intent. Intent is purely subjective.  What matters here is not what I claim that I intend, but what I intend.  If you can convince me that you know what I intend better than I know what I intend, I will be willing to have the spam warning until consensus is reached.  And again, the book is not sold on the website. justice-thunders-condemnation 00:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I declare that the intent of the link is not to promote the site, nor does the page or site exist to sell good or services. The intent of the link is to allow folks to read a synopsis of the book, the start of its preface, its index, its table of contents, and brief review comments about it. The page gives price and ordering information as well, but my intent is not to sell anything. I don't care whether people buy the book or not, frankly, as long as they read it, cite it, and implement its recommendation to set the record straight on the myth of inconsistency.


 * This is not believable. All one has to do is visit the site to read what is written and how it is presented. Watchdog07


 * I have done so. I find it very believable.  And, since this is a statement of my own intent, about which I happen to know, I can alnd do also say that it is the truth.


 * Does Watchdog07 deny that the page in question "allow[s] folks to read a synopsis of the book, the start of its preface, its index, its table of contents, and brief review comments about it"?


 * Does Watchdog07 deny that "I don't care whether people buy the book or not, frankly, as long as they read it, cite it, and implement its recommendation to set the record straight on the myth of inconsistency?"


 * The "This is not believable" statement is much too vague with respect to the facts at issue here. justice-thunders-condemnation 00:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Since this is the case, and since my website contains no advertising


 * The site does contain advertising. Indeed, it contains an objectionable amount of advertising. Watchdog07


 * The site contains no advertising, unless you want to say that contains advertising because it provides a link to the publisher's page about it.  Do you want to affirm that that site contains advertising, Watchdog?  Or do you prefer to retract your statement that my site contains advertising?  Your choice. justice-thunders-condemnation 00:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

and is free to use, the spam warning was wholly inappropriate and tendentious. So that's why I have removed it.


 * Not true. That's why I have put the tag back on the article. Watchdog07


 * My site certainly is free to use. justice-thunders-condemnation 00:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I thank Watchdog07 and other editors of this article for understanding.

I am sure that he and they will respect the need to arrive at a consensus regarding the inclusion of warning tags, like all other content on the page, before added them. Otherwise, the warnings tend to suggest that the article is defective


 * The article is massively defective as has been documented at enormous length on this page. WAtchdog07


 * I have not seen any such documentation. I've seen, at best, assertions like "This is not believable.  All one has to do is visit the site to read what is written and how it is presented."  That's not documentation.

when there's no consensus (yet) about that.

I therefore intend to remove the remaining warning tags if there is no consensus that the article requires them. What do you all think?


 * The tag will stay because the tag belongs there. This is clearly not the best result.  The best result would have been for Andrew Kliman to have deleted his external link which exists for the primary purpose of promoting his "new" book.  WAtchdog07


 * No, the tag has been removed temporarily, pending consensus on its need, along with other such tags. If and when we have consensus, I assure you that they will be restored, and I will NOT try to block such consensus.   I have also added the text from p. 3 of Reclaiming Marx's "Capital"' that M.posner suggested in response to Watchdog's request for RS citation, since Watchdog didn't express a preference for the text version of the citation without the actual text. justice-thunders-condemnation 00:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

justice-thunders-condemnation 19:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)