Talk:Temporal single-system interpretation/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Non-Agreement on U-2 Consensus
I explained this previously. The U-2 plane has been destroyed.
Now that I have - once again - made it clear that I have blocked consensus on adopting the U-2 model, I will return to putting new entries at the end of the page which (according to the directions given above) is what we should all be doing. Have a nice day.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
Agreement on U-2 consensus
I agree to the use of the U-2 model of consensus. I also agree, using the U-2 model of consensus decision-making, that th NPOV dispute tag should be removed.
M.posner 20:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I also wish to use the U-2 model of concensus, and I further agree that the NPOV dispute tag should be removed. I believe the article is excellent as is, and that it's time to stop trying to convince a person who refuses to listen (Watchdog07).
You say that you "believe the article is excellent
as is". You didn't say what your qualifications
are to make that determination. Do you have
professional training in economics? Don't bother
answering that question. I know what your
profession and specialization is and it is quite
removed from economic theory.
Your relative and his supporters (yourself
included) are the ones who have refused to listen.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
Before that person repeats his attempt to "out" me and to discredit my opinion on the grounds that I allegedly have a personal and political relationship with Andrew Kliman, let me say that such a sexist remark belongs to another era. I am insulted and incensed by it. Annejaclard 23:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I've done a bit of searching on the Internet and
talking to colleagues. I've also been sent emails
from those who know my identity.
- Do you deny that you are Andrew Kliman's spouse?
- Do you further deny that you are a member of the
same political organization that Andrew Kliman
belongs to?
-- Do you deny that Dr. Kliman and you are both on
the committee which governs the New SPACE?
Your comments belong to another era - the
Stalinist era (as in "The Stalin School of
Falsification").
For the sake of your own reputation, I strongly
suggest that you remove yourself from this
conversation. If your husband cares about your
reputation and career I suggest that he withdraw
his edit and cease to oppose the implenentation
of a neutral edit.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
The Dogtag
The alleged watchdog has put a "NPOV dispute tag" on the TSSI article. The policy states, "In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved."
I would like to know if any editors disagree with my view that
(a) there is a consensus (using the U-2 consensus model--i.e., all but 2 participants must be in agreement) that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved, and
(b) the disputes should be resolved according to the U-2 consensus model, and
(c) the NPOV tag should be removed.
Yes, I disagree with all of the above
and block consensus on each.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
Nope. One individual cannot block consensus when the U-2 consensus model is employed. Sorry.v = 0 17:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Nope. There has been no agreement to use the U2
consensus model. Indeed I blocked consensus on
that question.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
Nope. According to the U-2 consensus model, a single individual CAANOT block consensus on whether to use the U-2 consensus model. This goes all the way down. Wikipedia wants consensus decision making, but does NOT mandate what form of consensus decision making. One individual cannot DICTATE what form of consensus decision making we will use to edit this page. That is NOT consensus decision making. That is DICTATORSHIP (literally). Sorry, you can't do it. It's a violation of consensus decision making. ... Again, I recommend U-2. What do others think? v = 0
Nope. PLEASE LISTEN CAREFULLY: there has been
NO AGREEMENT that the U-2 consensus model be
adopted. I have BLOCKED CONSENSUS on that issue,
as is my RIGHT. As for whether that
constitutes "dictatorship" you'll get a lot of
disagreement on that: in most consensus
models - including those adopted by anarchists
and libertarian Marxists - one person CAN block
consensus and this is viewed as an integral and
essential part of a liberatory process. They
would claim that traditional majoritarian
decision-making involves the tyranny and
dictatorship of the majority, but that is a very
controversial issue.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
Nope. The alleged watchdog is the one that needs to listen carefully. He is NOT ENTITLED to block consensus, because there is no consensus that we wish to allow a single individual to block consensus. By claiming that he, a single individual is entitled to block consensus, he is dictating to everyone else here a particular form of consensus decisionmaking on which there is no agreement, no consensus. He is not entitled to implement a particular form of consensus decisionmaking about which there's no consensus. In fact, I'm almost positive that everyone here, except for one or maybe two, would be much more comfortable with the U-2 model of consensus decisionmaking. v = 0 23:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to use the U-2 consensus model to decide on whether to remove the tag, and to decide on the procedure to be used to decide on whether to remove the tag, and to decide ... all the way down.
Dr. Kliman, you need to study up some more on the
subject of consensus. And you need to listen
more carefully - as well as not take comments out
of context (as you did with jurriaan's
comments; he wrote that you "murdered" his entry,
remember?)
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
In Op:l Bastards solidarity,
Please do not use offensive, sexist language
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
Huh? "Op:l Bastards" isn't offensive, sexist language. Surely you've heard of the Op:l Bastards, the now-defunct Helsinki-based electronic trio? v = 0 17:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
"Bastards" is an offensive and sexist word and,
depending on the context, also racist. Anyone who
claims to be a "progressive" or "Marxist"should
know that. Recall what happened recently to Imus.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
Maybe "bastards" is what you say it is, but I wrote "Op:l Bastards," which is a proper name. How else could I express solidarity with them: "In Op:l Children Born Out of Wedlock solidarity"? Hardly. They were not the Op:l Children Born Out of Wedlock. They were the Op:l BASTARDS. v = 0 18:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Please cease your futile and contrived
rationalizations for using a sexist word. At least
Imus apologized. Is that too much to ask of you?
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
v = 0 16:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
A big warm welcome to MarxianLurker
Alan XAX Freeman 20:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello MarxianLurker. New faces are always welcome on this discussion page.
You are obviously very well-read in the debates on this page and so you will no doubt be aware that there is an appeal extant to reach a consensus on whether to add contributions at the end of this list or the beginning. At present one user, Watchdog07 (now joined by yourself) appends comments at the bottom, most users append comments at the beginning, and the occasional surprise intervention can be found in the middle.
I am sure you will agree that this is an unfortunate state of affairs and will wish to assist the community on this page to resolve this question.
As a newcomer I am confident that you will recognise the importance of consensus and will appreciate the need to conform to established Wikipedia procedures in this respect.
I have offered to act as facilitator to reach a consensus on this question. You will no doubt be aware of the Wikipedia assumption of good faith as the starting point for friendly discussions. On the assumption that, as a newcomer, you accept this principle, can I invite you to indicate whether you are willing to accept this offer?
You may find the following advice from Jonathan Swift, which is to be found in Chapter 4 of Gulliver's travels, illuminating:
"Many hundred large volumes have been published upon this controversy: but the books of the Big-endians have been long forbidden, and the whole party rendered incapable by law of holding employments. During the course of these troubles, the emperors of Blefusca did frequently expostulate by their ambassadors, accusing us of making a schism in religion, by offending against a fundamental doctrine of our great prophet Lustrog, in the fifty-fourth chapter of the Blundecral (which is their Alcoran). This, however, is thought to be a mere strain upon the text; for the words are these: 'that all true believers break their eggs at the convenient end.'
And which is the convenient end, seems, in my humble opinion to be left to every man's conscience, or at least in the power of the chief magistrate to determine."
Happy reading.
Kind regards
Alan Freeman
Good faith and consensus
213.86.122.5 16:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll take that as a no.
The others have yet to say what they think.
It sounds as if you do not consider I am acting in good faith.
Is this correct?
It also sounds as if you think consensus is impossible, since if we cannot reach consensus on such a minor question as where to put our comments, it is unlikely we can reach it on more substantive questions.
Is this correct, that you do not think consensus is possible?
I am also at somewhat of a loss to understand how being an editor of COPE predisposes one to prefer placing comments at the top of a page as opposed to the bottom. This is not, at the end of the day, the most controversial question in the world.
Would you care to elaborate?
No doubt Jonathan Swift would have had something to say on the matter.
Alan
U-1 consensus
Alan XAX Freeman 05:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Watchdog (at the bottom of this page) refers us to the consensus decision-making page. The proposal for decision-making which I advanced in the entry entitled 'Ordering of discussion page' is the 'U-1' model on that page.
I do not agree to the U-1 model. I block_consensuson that issue. I also reject and block consensus on the proposal that Alan Freeman - one of the 2 editors of COPE and a long-time collaborator of AKliman, the very person who began this dispute by vandalizing the TSSI and David_Laibman pages authored by Jurriaan - can serve as a facilitator. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
The page also notes that arriving at a consensus is assisted by the working group agreeing on a facilitator. I would be happy to act as facilitator on this question if the group agrees and if it is felt this would be helpful.
You have not acted in a fashion suitable to be a facilitator. If you desire a facilitator, then we can set the entry to a black-and-white edit and seek the assistance of another Wikipedia administrator or a third-party who we ALL agree would be fair and impartial. An alternative would be to, after rev to b&w edit, put a temporary lock on the TSSI page. Watchdog07 Professor of Economics
member, Neutrality Project Review Team
member, Cleanup Taskforce [business; politics and government]
I would be happy to have Alan XAX Freeman serve as facilitator. You have indeed acted in a fashion suitable to be a facilitator. Thank you for volunteering, Alan. v = 0 11:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree to Alan XAX Freeman serving as facilitator as well. M.posner 12:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Administrator Watchdog?
Watchdog07 has recently claimed that he is a Wikipedia ADMINISTRATOR. In the charmingly entitled entry "The COPE fraud and the antichrist's latest threats" (on this page, below), he wrote: "If the antichrist wants to appeal to my fellow administrators at Wikipedia, that is his right."
I just checked the full list of Wikipedia administrators. Watchdog07 is NOT among them. See [1].
I am a member of two administrative committees. You can check the membership of those committees and thereby verify that I am indeed a Wikipedia administrator. Please cease making baseless claims. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
v = 0 03:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Response to wd: I used to eat Imperial margarine. That didn't make me the emperor. Please don't claim titles like "Professor" and "Wikipedia administrator" that you fail to possess. v = 0 11:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Ordering of Discussion Page
The normal practice at Wikipedia discussion pages is to place the newest entries at the end of the page. Rich Farbrough made this point the other day and I think we should try to adhere to that norm.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
Alan Freeman evidently
In Agreement with Freeman
Since this is how we've been doing it for the most part, I support Alan Freeman's latest proposal to put newest contributions at the top of the discussion.
M.posner 00:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Ordering
Alan XAX Freeman 00:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Watchdog has requested discussion on the ordering of this page. Agreement on this would increase clarity. I have in the past missed questions which were inserted in an unconventional order.
Convention on this discussion page is to place new contributions at the start, so that the reader may begin from the most recent edit and work back, which follows the ordering of the history log.
My proposal is
(1) that each new contribution is initiated with a heading (placed between == brackets on a new line). That means we don't miss anything new. I can't see any reason not to agree on this. Agreement does not depend on agreeing where the new contributions should go
(2) I think it is best that each contribution is at the start not the end because this follows the same order as the history log and means that any new visitor to the page sees the most recent edit first, as with emails in normal sequence.
(3) the matter should be resolved by consensus, defined as in normal practice as a vote with a small minority. Other editors should signal whether they wish contributions to be placed at the end or the beginning. If there is only one against, this should be adopted. If there is a wider split, this should be discussed until a consensus is established.
Since current convention is to start at the beginning we should do that (normal practice is to continue with an established consensus until the conclusion of a discussion that leads to a new consensus)
Let's improve the ordering of the discussion page
It's getting harder to follow the contributions because some are placed at the beginning, some at the end, and some in the middle. After this message, please put new contributions at the end of the discussion page. Thx. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
Offical Wikipedia policy: Comment on content, not on the contributor
I implore all editors of the TSSI article, and all contributors to this talk page, to abide by this official policy. Any violation from here on out will be reported.
I quote from the policy below; the full text is [2].
"This page discusses personal attacks made against other editors. ...
"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. ... [emphasis added]
"... Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people. ... [emphasis added; "pluralism is about ideas, not people," as Alan XAX Freeman has rightly noted]
"Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks, for instance, stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack.
"... Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered "disruption"."
Also, at [3], the Wikipedia guideline on "conflict of interest", we find:
"underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Don't do it. The existence of conflicts of interest does not mean that assume good faith is forgotten. Quite the opposite. Remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor. [emphasis added]
I ask all editors of the TSSI article, and all contributors to this talk page, also to abide by this guideline. Any violation from here on out will be reported.
v = 0 18:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Impending 3RR Violation by "Watchdog07"
213.86.122.5 17:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Preliminary note: Watchdog has once again removed all content including the sections dealing with orthodoxy explained in my reasoned note on this page, explaining why these sections are in line with Wikipedia NPoV policy. He continues to revert to minimal content, subverting the purpose of Wikipedia which is to inform the Wikipedia readership of the content of the theories covered and the range of alternative views relating to this content.
Warning left on the talk section of Watchdog07 at 17:47 today
Dear Watchdog07
In accordance with Wikipedia policy I am informing you that you have reverted the Temporal Single-system article twice within the past 24 hours: at 1:41, and 14:28 today 25 April, 2007.
If you revert a third time before 1:41 tomorrow, (26 April, 2007) you will have violated Wikipedia's 3-revert rule (3RR) policy. I urge you NOT to do so. Said violation shall be reported to Wikipedia administration.
You have not responded in any way at all to the reasoned argument listed in my explanation for the citations dealing with orthodoxy but have nevertheless deleted these citations, as you have now done many times in the past
You may find the relevant Wikipedia policy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule
I request once more that you cease removing content from the page without first ascertaining whether there is a consensus among the editors for the proposed removal and without responding to the reasoned arguments presented to you on the discussion page as to why these deletions worsen and do not improve the quality of the page
Please sign
Please sign discussion contributions so that we know who we are responding to. Thx. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
Rationality or Irrationality? / Facts or Fraud?
Andrew Kliman's alter identity is now "the antichrist". This was an identity that Kliman himself selected. Yet no one on the discussion page other than Watchdog07 found this to be troubling. M.Posner simply addressed him as "the antichrist" in his next message as if things like that happen every day. Alan Freeman, after repeated questioning, wrote that Kliman has "merely chosen to describe himself differently". These developments (not only the change in identity by Kliman but the reaction to that by M.Posner and Alan Freeman) raise very serious questions which will need to be addressed. For instance, are these instances of rational_behavior? Do the actions of M.Posner and Alan Freeman constitute apologetics for Andrew Kliman? Does the grouping centered around Andrew Kliman represent a cult and is it a quasi- religion rather than an economic perspective?
Watchdog07 pointed out that the claim that Critique of Political Economy is an "online journal" is not a fact. For it to be established as a fact it would have to exist. It does not exist: not a single issue of the "journal" has been published. To claim that it is a journal when it is simply as case of the editors [Alan Freeman and Andrew Kliman] wanting it to become a journal is an open-and-shut case of fraud. It is fraud because the editor of the entry Akliman knew that COPE does not exist. When this was pointed out on the discussion page, none of his supporters responded in an appropriate way by recognizing that the section on COPE could not be included in the entry. This stubborn, and possibly irrational, refusal to deal with realities is again suggestive of apologetics.
The Kliman edit contains many passages which refer to living persons. In many cases controversial claims about living persons were made which have not been established as fact by a reliable third party source. But, they continue to insist that their edits should not be changed.
Kliman's talk entries have often been aggressive, personally insulting, and -- most recently -- incoherent, but none of his supporters have recognized that on this page.
All of the above suggests a pattern of inappropriate and possibly irrational behavior. Watchdog07 asks that Alan Freeman, M.Posner, and theantichrist remove themselves from further edits of this entry.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
More on Jurriaan's Entry
The alleged watchdog has made an unsubstantiated allegation that I "trash[ed]" Jurriaan Bendien's original version of the TSSI article (see the "What and who are we dealing with here?" section, below).
I'd like to point out that this is not Bendien's own view of the matter. According to a very reliable source, Bendien stated that 'After I made a brief initial entry, Andrew Kliman has in fact written an extensive article on TSSI which I'm sure will be helpful to readers." See [4].
And, according to the same (very reliable) source, Bendien also stated, "I'm quite happy actually if Andrew Kliman writes his bit on TSSI, I mean he's the authority," and he acknowledged that "to be honest, I have not yet read Kliman's book to which I referred" in his original version of the TSSI article. See [5].
These statements were posted by the source on an e-mail list known (officially and by supporters) as OPE-L or (by detractors) as OPE-HELL.
v = 0 13:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
What Jurriaan went on to say about Andrew Kliman's edit
The Antichrist: Thank you for the reference to the OPE-L mailing list which I was not aware of previously. If you go on to read what Jurriaan wrote in a subsequent message, he wrote that you "murdered" his TSSI entry and that you "hacked" the entry on David Laibman.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
This isn't fully correct, even leaving aside the first sentence, which everyone here knows to be at variance with the facts.
Bendien put the word "murdered" in quotes -- so wd has misquoted him by not writing "'murdered'" -- which I construe as indicating that I significantly overhauled the entry. I did so, I'm glad I did so, and indeed Wikipedia policy recommends doing so in cases of factual inaccuracy, bias, and absence of citation, all of which are problems that plagued Bendien's version.
Since Bendien has acknowledged that "Andrew Kliman [is] ... the authority," and that, "to be honest, I have not yet read Kliman's book to which I referred [in my original version of the TSSI article]," I respectfully submit that any belated misgivings he may have regarding the overhaul of the TSSI article carry little weight.
Moreover, it is hard to make sense of what Bendien is saying if one interprets "'murdered'" as a negative comment. He then seems to be clearly guilty of a glaring self-contradiction in the space of only a few days.
v = 0 19:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Reply to Watchdog’s question on Jurriaan’s entry
Alan XAX Freeman 06:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
((User:watchdog07)) on 2:39 April 25 asks “I asked a simple question earlier which Alan Freeman avoided answering:” It is not totally clear what this question is, since he follows the query above with the question “what am I supposed to make, for instance, of Andrew Kliman’s new persona as the antichrist”.
As an instance of what? This persona causes no offence to anyone and violates no Wikipedia principle of civility or otherwise. Akliman’s user id has not changed and his identity, unlike Watchdog’s, is public.. He has merely chosen to describe himself differently.
The most recent substantive question asked by Watchdog07 was:
“What were the arguments that justified the claims that you made when trashing jurriaan's entry? I don't recall them - please refresh my memory.”
(see [6])
This question was answered by Akliman under the section “Restoring Valid Content that "Watchdog07" Keeps Deleting” The question is not “avoided” in my contribution but ‘’explained’’. Jurriaan’s article contained the bare statement that TSSI was an orthodoxy. This is an opinion, not a matter of fact. The edited entry replaced this, following Wikipedia principles, with a ‘’fact’’ namely the cited claim made by the reputable author David Laibman that TSSI was an orthodoxy. Ŵ In conformity with the Wikipedia principles of balance, the new entry then presented, again as a cited claim, that is, a ‘’fact’’ the (alternative) actual position of a reputable TSSI author.
Watchdog’s question has been answered. He should not again delete these sections, as he did immediately after reading my explanation of Wikipedia principles entitled ‘What is the neutral point of view’ on 22:11 24th April – an account he has not challenged, once again offering no justification for his changes.
He should, as pointed out in my account of Wikipedia principles, propose additions to the section to restore the balance which he claims is absent. He should also discuss these changes with the other editors of this page in order to establish whether there is a consenus.
It may be, of course, that he didn’t read my account of Wikipedia principles, in which case I apologise for any implied or unintended confidence in his integrity and respectfully suggest that he does read it.
keep the discussion on track
Diverting the discussion from the issue at hand -- here, the repeated requests, which have been ignored, to provide arguments so as to justify proposed changes to the encyclopedia article -- is a standard Jerry Levy move. Please be aware, folks, and keep the discussion on track.
v = 0 02:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Who is on the Side of The Antichrist?
I asked a simple question earlier which Alan Freeman avoided answering:
What am I supposed to make, for instance, of Andrew Kliman's new persona as "the antichrist"?
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
What is the neutral point of view?
Added by Alan XAX Freeman 22:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Watchdog ceaselessly accuses this page’s editors of violating Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View (NpoV) This contribution considers what the NpoV policy actually is, as opposed to what Watchdog asserts it is, and why the page conforms to this policy.
I posted, on this page, that Watchdog’s consistent method is to repeat Wikipedia buzzwords which sound menacing but do not in fact apply. In a very serious such case he accused Mposner of a conflict of interest. As I pointed out this is a dangerous misusage. For Wikipedia, as in legal real life, this term signifies the “abuse of a position of trust”. Watchdog has yet to withdraw the accusation. Watchdog used Wikipedia as a platform for a slanderous accusation against a person with a known identity, placing the project at risk. Thus the use of terms should not be treated lightly. Therefore, let us examine the NpoV policy.
Watchdog responds to everything he doesn’t like by deleting it. This conception of neutral is thus contentlessness, if a controversial or disputed statement is made, it should be removed. This is the opposite of Wikipedia policy which requires that disputed views should be balanced by ensuring the opposed point of view is represented. Watchdog’s correct course of action is thus to add content which restores balance.
The stated goal of Wikipedia is to represent the variety of opinions available. Neutrality does not mean those opinions are absent but that they are presented without bias (which in turn does not mean the editor should be without bias, another confusion that Watchdog systematically introduces. The issue is what appears on the page that determines bias, not who writes it). This is most clearly illustrated by Watchdog’s approach to the page’s presentation of the discussion between TSSI and its critics on whether Marx was correct. The page contains the following two sentences which Watchdog repeatedly deletes:
- Critics of the TSSI have characterized it as an orthodoxy which asserts that "Marx made no errors." For instance, David Laibman charges that its proponents are "New Orthodox Marxists" who
- "assert that Marx's formulations, in both the theory of value and the analysis of capitalist accumulation and crisis, are literally and completely correct; that Marx made no errors . . . ."[3]
- Roberto Veneziani similarly alleges that the TSSI upholds "the literal truth of all [of] Marx’s propositions."[4]
- These allegations, however, were not accompanied by supporting evidence.
- Proponents of the TSSI contend that these allegations are false:
- “We have never said that Marx’s contested insights are necessarily true . . . . We simply say the claims that his value theory is necessarily wrong, because it is logically invalid, are false.”[5]
This presentation conforms to Wikipedia guidelines. There are two points of view. One is that TSSI is an orthodoxy and claims Marx was ‘literally and completely correct’. The other is that TSSI says it is false to say Marx is ‘necessarily wrong’. These are two different statements about TSSI. The NpoV does not consist in eliminating one of these statements but in including both of them. The principle of equal weight informs us neither view should be given undue prominence. Neither is: there are two quotes from each point of view. Moreover the critical view is presented first.
This conforms precisely to Wikipedia NpoV policy which states that “the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources.” Watchdog is therefore completely wrong to delete citations on the spurious grounds of preserving neutrality. He undoes everything that the page editors have done to conform to the policy cited above.
Watchdog is further entirely wrong, and vandalistic (that is, lowering the quality of Wikipedia) in seeking to remove citations. Citations are an important method of ensuring that opinion gives way to evidence. A citation is the way you avoid saying ‘X is true’ – an opinion – instead saying ‘Y says that X is true’ – a fact.
The NpoV page is completely clear about this in several places: “When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.” [my emphasis]
A fact – which includes a citation (‘it is a fact that Y claims X’) is not a point of view: “Facts (as defined in the A simple formulation section above) are not Points Of View (POV, here used in the meaning of "opposite of NPOV") in and of themselves. A good way to build a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to Wikipedia, and then cite that source.”
Wikipedia, Watchdog seems to fail to grasp, is governed by consensus and rules. Rules are fundamental to scholarly debate and TSSI authors are fully familiar with this, which is why in 1996 the International Working Group on Value Theory (IWGVT) adopted scholarly guidelines that read in many basic respects remarkably similar to Wikipedia’s actual approach to neutrality and the overcoming of bias. These rules may be found on (http://copejournal.org/) (click on Scholarship Guidelines in the main menu).
Watchdog demonstrates contempt both for consensus and for rules of conduct, both in his repeated wholesale deletions, and in the justification he provides.
The Watchdogs
Speaking of personae:
The Watchdogs From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"... The Watchdogs claimed to be an organization dedicated to restoring and preserving traditional American culture and values, and fighting against indecency, immorality, and sexual perversion. The Watchdogs believed in strict enforcement of family values, and were violently opposed to pornography, sex education, abortion, and the teaching of evolutionary theory. Their terrorist activities, which included vandalism, arson, assault, kidnapping, brainwashing, and murder, were targeted primarily at people who produced material which the Watchdogs considered pornography, including nude art and sexually explicit music.
"The Watchdogs imprisoned their kidnapping victims at a large compound in Vermont, where they forced them to wear "dog collars" which the Watchdogs could use to administer a painful electric shock as punishment for undesirable behavior. The prisoners were forced to participate in group activities such as singalongs, and exposed to constant televised Americana imagery such as baseball games, American flags, fields of flowers, and happy children."
v = 0 the antichrist 17:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Meaning of Watchdog
See Watchdog
Wikipedia administrators are expected to be guardians, which is why I selected the name.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
What and who are we dealing with here?
Watchdog07 is confused and dismayed by the responses of Andrew Kliman, Alan Freeman, M.Posner and Anne Jaclard.
What am I supposed to make, for instance, of Andrew Kliman's new persona as "theantichrist"? That morph, coupled with the instrangience and obstinence of theantichrist and his supporters (for instance, asking over and over again for explanations which have already been given) is troubling. The inability of theantichrist's supporters to display criticism towards his edits smacks of apologetics.
Feedback from non-interested parties is welcome.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
No one is "asking over and over again for explanations which have already been given." We're asking for arguments that justify the claims ("explanations") that the alleged watchdog has been making about alleged defects in the TSSI article, arguments and justifications that he has NOT given us yet.
There's a difference.
v = 0 the antichrist 16:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
What were the arguments that justified the claims that you made when trashing jurriaan's entry? I don't recall them - please refresh my memory.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
This is a "when did you stop beating your wife?" question, which I respectfully decline to answer for that reason.
v = 0 03:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support of recent actions
I support the report of WatchDog07 by theantichrist.
Also, in regards to the issue of "self-promotion": this is a ridiculous. I also inserted this, and since I'm in no way affiliated with the journal, it makes no sense to call this "self-promotion". In addition, there is no reason that this journal should not be mentioned, since it does in fact pertain to TSSI.
Also, please substantiate your claim that including a reference to the COPE journal is "fraudulent."
M.posner 03:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The Anti-Christ's Wife
The Anti-Christ's [Andrew Kliman's] wife and political associate has reverted to the highly prejudicial, biased account authored by her husband. Enjoy it tonight.
Thanks. I did. v = 0 the antichrist 16:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
A genuinely neutral edit will be reverted to tomorrow.
Arguments put forward by The Anti-Christ for why the section on COPE should be restored are not valid. Whatever Jurriaan wrote many edits ago is not a valid reason for changing the entry today. The section on COPE is self-advertisement (and thereby highly disrespectful to the entire Wikipedia community, composed of volunteers who believe in the purpose of Wikipedia and do not seek personal advancement and gains for their editing efforts) and is fraudulent. Your efforts to subvert and undermine Wikipedia for your own personal benefit will not succeed: WP: NPOV will prevail.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
I'm sorry that the rest of you have to read the above message, which betrays a lack of desire on Watchdog's part of work collaboratively and to try to reach a consensus with the other editors of the article. It also betrays an attitude that is not in keeping with his professed desire for neutrality.
As for the content, there is still absolutely no substance, no arguments, just words. For instance:
"Arguments put forward by The Anti-Christ for why the section on COPE should be restored are not valid."
No justification offered as to why they're not valid.
"Whatever Jurriaan wrote many edits ago is not a valid reason for changing the entry today."
No justification offered as to why this is not a valid reason.
"The section on COPE is self-advertisement"
No evidence or justification of this claim is provided.
"(and thereby highly disrespectful to the entire Wikipedia community, composed of volunteers who believe in the purpose of Wikipedia and do not seek personal advancement and gains for their editing efforts)"
This is not an argument. It is "playing to the rafters."
"and [the section on COPE is] is fraudulent.
No evidence or justification of this claim is provided.
"Your efforts to subvert and undermine Wikipedia for your own personal benefit"
No evidence or justification of this defamatory claim is provided.
I respectfully suggest that Watchdog07 recuse himself from further editing of the TSSI article, in order to advance the goal of a neutral, accurate, well-documented article, owing to what is obviously a very biased attitude that is coloring his perception, as the foregoing makes clear.
v = 0 the antichrist 03:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Huh?
Watchdog complains, in "Still waiting for reply about COPE,":
"I began earlier today with an explantion for my reasons for removing the section on COPE and I am still awaiting responses."
Huh?
I responded at great length in "Response to False Allegations by Watchdog07," below.
the antichrist 02:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Impending 3RR Violation by "Watchdog07"
I just posted the following on Watchdog's user talk page, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.
the antichrist 02:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Impending 3RR Violation by "Watchdog07"
Dear Watchdog07
In accordance with Wikipedia policy I am informing you that you have reverted the Temporal Single-system article 3 times within the past 24 hours: at 7:05, 11:37, and 13:32 yesterday (23 April, 2007). The content of all reverts is identical although your 7:05 revert does not state that this is a revert, as in fact it should do.
If you revert a fourth time before 7:05 today, (24 April, 2007) you will have violated Wikipedia's 3-revert rule (3RR) policy. I urge you NOT to do so. Said violation shall be reported to Wikipedia administration.
Given that
(1) there have been ongoing attempts by multiple individuals to reason with you and have you do the right thing, i.e., voluntarily restore the content you keep removing with your reverts and then discuss how to improve the page in a spirit of collaboration and consensus,
and given that
(2) your reverts eliminate almost all content from the article, including citations and quotations, turning it into a stub page that is a candidate for deletion,
and given that
(3) the ongoing attempts by multiple individuals to reason with you and have you do the right thing have not succeeded, despite every effort on our part,
any 3RR violation on your part will be reported straightaway, with no further discussion beforehand.
You may find the relevant Wikipedia policy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule
I request that you do not remove any future content from the page without first ascertaining whether there is a consensus among the editors for the proposed removal. Also, when communicating with other editors about deletions you propose, please give the reasons for each specific deletion. Alleging "bias" or "self-promotion" is not sufficiently explanatory. The allegation should be accompanied by an argument as to why you contend that the content you desire to remove is biased or self-promotional, and it should engage contrary arguments about the content in question that have been given on the TSSI talk page.
v = 0
For pluralism,
the antichrist 02:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Still waiting for reply about COPE
In reply to M.Posner: There are three of you with semmingly unlimited amounts of time and endless demands. As I explained previously, I will discuss the issues with you one at a time. I began earlier today with an explantion for my reasons for removing the section on COPE and I am still awaiting responses.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
Basic Wiki Principles Which Haven't Been Respected by AKliman & Co.
Much of the edits of Andrew Kliman concerned living persons and hence fall under the biographies of living persons policy. This policy states that a poorly sourced or unsourced statement concerning a living person must be removed immediately, especicially if potentially libelous.
The persistent use of loaded terminology is in violation of the WP:NPOV policy. In every other way, entries must conform to the NPOV policy.
Wikipedia's Verifiability policy must be respected.
Reliable sources must be used.
Facts must be established in a reliable third party source.
Fraud is unacceptable.
Watchgdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
This is just a bunch of words. There is no specificity as to what's being referred to, and no arguments as to why wd contends that the content he keeps removing isn't respectful of "basic wiki principles." Provide some arguments, wd. If and when theres' consensus that your reasoning is valid, the changes you suggest will certainly be made.
the antichrist 02:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I Agree with Kliman and Freeman
I agree with Freeman and Kliman about the priority of reverting the page to the version used immediately prior to the WatchDog07's revert.
I will also add that WatchDog07 is quick to reply on this page (he has posted seven times on this page within 24 hours -- check history to verify this), but still has not responded to the vast majority (if any) of the points raised by Alan Freeman, Andrew Kliman, and myself. His latest post, "I have received no warnings", adds nothing to the discussion. WatchDog07 seems to have all the time in the world to accuse Kliman's entry of being biased ad nauseam but no time to respond in any substantive way to the points raised. If Kliman's page does not adhere to the Wikipedia neutrality policy then the burden is on WatchDog07 to demonstrate why. He can cry wolf over and over again but his claims only get more and more difficult to believe. It seems to me that we are fighting a lost cause in trying to get WatchDog07 to deal with our points in any substantive way.
M.posner 23:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Response to Watchdog's "I have received no warnings"
23 April, 2007
In "I have received no warnings," wd claims that "Andrew Kliman once again has made a statement which can not be supported." This refers to my comment that "Watchdog07 (wd) has put material on this page AFTER Alan XAX Freeman called attention to wd's violation of the 3-revert rule. (See below.) So we may take it as given that wd is aware that he's been warned" (emphasis added).
Contrary to wd's claim, my statement can easily be supported, simply by looking at the relevant history pages. At 20:01 today, wd acknowledged, on his user talk page, receiving the communication from Alan XAX Freeman which warned him that he was in violation of the 3RR. At 20:35 is when I wrote the 2 sentences quoted above (see this page's history). At 22:17, Watchdog claimed that he "received no warnings" (see this page's history).
Hence, Watchdog had received warning, and had acknowledged receiving warning, of his 3RR violation, before I noted that "we may take it as given that wd is aware that he's been warned" and before he claimed "I have received no warnings." Q.E.D.
So, when wd writes (see below)
"First you can apologize for your false accusations, and then I will discuss with you,"
this request is impossible to fulfill. My "accusation" isn't false. It's true. So there's nothing false about it for which I can apologize.
wd also writes: "Let us be honest with each other: we all know that the TSSI is a very controversial topic"
Yes, and the version of the article that wd keeps removing, contrary to Wikipedia policy, reflects the TSSI's controversial nature, even quoting outrageous accusations made by its opponents and acknowledging that the TSSI refutation of Bortkiewicz's "proof" of inconsistency isn't accepted by everyone.
wd also writes, "If there is to be a reversion, then it will be to the last fuller-length neutral edit from last week."
I don't think such ultimata are in the spirit of collaboration and consensus that Wikipedia wishes to foster and that we're trying to carry out here.
v = 0
Andrew Kliman Akliman (talk · contribs)
Agree - undo damage, then discuss
I concur with Akliman.
Wikipedia policy expressly prohibits three reversions within a 24 hour period and requires Watchdog to restore the version before his last reversion. This is so that the discussion he claims to be willing to undertake can be conducted. Watchdog is the only person who has removed content from the page; he has taken to responding to every edit by reverting to a page with almost nothing in it, deleting all other edits.
Watchdog cannot begin a discussion with editors acting in good faith by deleting their work, repeatedly restoring a virtually blank page, and then demanding his conditions are met before he restores any of the deleted content. This holds the community to ransom: Watchdog is effectively using the threat of deletion to impose his own terms on the discussion.
The starting point of discussion should be the positive collective work of the page editors. Proposals for change should start with alternative formulations and not with deletions. The established consensus text should be retained until and unless a new consensus is established that there are valid grounds to change them.
Watchdog should restore the page he has deleted in order that the discussion may take place.
Response to Another False Charge of Watchdog07's
In his edit summary explainin his 4th revert within 24 hours, in violation of the Wikipedia 3RR, Watchdog wrote: "blatently biased entry authored by akliman removed; kliman, freeman and m.posner have shown no concern for this issue."
I certainly have shown great concern for this issue. Please see, "Restoring Valid Content that "Watchdog07" Keeps Deleting," at the bottom of this page. It is my detailed discussion of the issue of bias, and my detailed, point-by-point defense of the non-biased character of the TSSI article content that the rest of us keep restoring, but that Watchdog keeps reverting.
If flat-Earther doesn't like a photograph of the Earth that shows it to be spherical, but the photograph wasn't retouched or shot using a trick lens, then the photograph is not biased, and the flat-Earther shouldn't charge that it is.
Andrew Kliman Akliman (talk · contribs)
FIRST Undo 4th Revert, Watchdog, THEN Discuss!
"Watchdog07" has acknowledged receipt of Alan XAX Freeman's request that Watchdog restore the content he eliminated with his FOURTH revert within a 24-period. See [7]. But Watchdog has not agreed to do so. He wants to discuss the content of the page. I do not view this as a good-faith move, but as an attempted diversion.
There should be NO discussion with him until he FIRST restores the content he removed and agrees to abide by the Wikipedia 3RR policy in the future. The removal of this content, I repeat, endangers the TSSI article, since it is now only a stub and is therefore ripe for deletion. His action is therefore reckless as well as detrimental to our desire to build consensus.
If Watchdog07 swiftly restores the page, and agrees not to remove content without FIRST offering justification and giving us time to try to arrive at a consensus, then we should discuss with him. But only then. That alone will signal that he is operating in good faith. Those who refuse to abide by the 3RR policy--and to swiftly correct violations of it--are not acting in good faith.
Andrew Kliman Akliman (talk · contribs)
I have received no warnings
Andrew Kliman once again has made a statement which can not be supported.
First you can apologize for your false accusations, and then I will discuss with you.
In the meantime, I am prepared to discuss with Alan Freeman and M.Posner - now that the tone of the latter has changed. The aggressive and insulting tone of Dr. Kliman will not help to resolve this situation. He must recognize that edits to this entry MUST be neutral -- unlike his many one-sided edits. Dr. Kliman has yet to display any indication that he now - or has ever - wished to discuss this entry in good faith.
Let us be honest with each other: we all know that the TSSI is a very controversial topic; the edits to the entry must reflect that reality and adhere to the neutrality policy of Wikipedia. You need an attitude adjustment: you can not control the content of the page no matter how much you may want to.
If there is to be a reversion, then it will be to the last fuller-length neutral edit from last week.
Watchdog07 {User|Watchdog07}}
Response to False Allegations by Watchdog07
Monday, 23 April, 2007
First let me note that Watchdog07 (wd) has put material on this page AFTER Alan XAX Freeman called attention to wd's violation of the 3-revert rule. (See below.) So we may take it as given that wd is aware that he's been warned. I urge him to comply with Alan's requests.
Now for my responses to wd's false allegations:
(1) Watchdog07 (wd) wrote: "Andrew Kliman does not know who Watchdog07 is yet he feels able to jump to the above conclusion. This is a clear example of irrationality and evidence why he should remove himself from discussions on this topic."
wd also wrote: "I was accused of editing the TSSI entry for a particular nefarious purpose yet there was no basis for that claim since, as akliman admitted, he does not known my identity. That was irrational."
Response: These claims are false. I did not say that I don’t know who Watchdog07 is. I know perfectly well who he is. (And he knows that I know: my references to "attackdog," which he chooses to portray as insults, were not written in order to insult him. They were written in order to communicate to him that I know who he is, as he well knows.)
Rather than "admitting" that I do not know who wd is, what I did was ask who he is. Just because I phrased my point "in the form of a question" (as Alex Trebek would say) doesn’t mean that I don’t know. If I say, "Who the hell do you think you are?," I am not "admitting" (nor saying, nor implying) that I don’t know who the hell you think you are. In the same way, my questioning of wd's identity, knowledge, and qualifications was not a request to provide me with information I lack.
Hence wd's charge that I have acted "irrational[ly]" is false, based on a misrepresentation of what took place.
I think this should serve as a warning to wd, who severely overestimates his interpretive prowess. If he incorrectly jumps to the conclusion that I didn’t know who he was when I asked
"What are 'Watchdog07's' qualifications to make judgements on facts and interpretation in this case? Who *is* he, even? Does he know ANYTHING about the TSSI?"
then he really isn’t qualified to be lecturing the rest of us on how to interpret the statement published by Duncan Foley, a statement that wd keeps deleting on the grounds that it is out-of-context and misleading.
(wd also doesn’t know as much as he thinks he knows. In his stub version of the TSSI article, the alleged "Fundamental Marxian Theorem" is attributed to Michio Morishima. The theorem is Okishio’s, as Morishima acknowledged when he gave it the name "Fundamental Marxian Theorem." If wd wants proof of this, I’ll provide it. This too should be a lesson to him to stop deleting what people who know far more than him regard as valid content without first trying to arrive at a consensus with them.)
(2) wd claims that he is justified in deleting the section of the TSSI article that deals with Critique of Political Economy, a new online journal, because "it was a clear and flagrant example of self-advertisement and self-promotion" and because the journal is "nonexistent"; he claims that it "exists at the present time only in their imagination."
I have already responded to the charge of "self-advertisement and self-promotion." I noted that the material on COPE has been in the TSSI article from the beginning, prior to any of its editors' input to the TSSI article. The COPE section was put there by Jurriaan Bendien, who's certainly no supporter of the TSSI. As I noted before wd made the latest "self-advertisement and self-promotion" allegation, Bendien simply cannot SELF-promote COPE. wd has failed to respond to this! He merely reiterates his false allegation.
Moreover, M.posner is not an editor of COPE, nor is he on the editorial board. Hence, if he restores the COPE section, as he has done, this can in no way be described as "self-advertisement and self-promotion."
As for the false claim that COPE is "non-existent," existing only in the imaginations of Andrew Kliman and Alan Freeman, wd should tell this to the many authors who have been submitting manuscripts to us, as well as the 50-plus members of our editorial board, who have been refereeing the manuscripts, communicating with the authors, etc. See [8].
A construction project exists the moment ground is broken. A journal exists the moment it goes public with a call for papers. That the skyscraper isn’t yet completed or that the first issue of the journal isn’t yet out doesn’t make them nonexistent.
Andrew Kliman Akliman (talk · contribs)
Response to WatchDog07
WatchDog07 said "I see that you now realize that there is a Wikipedia Cleanup Taskforce. I have been a member throughout."
According to the Cleanup Taskforce page history as well as to your user contribution page, this is not the case.
If you can prove that you were a member throughout I will retract my claim, but I see no evidence of this.
M.posner 20:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Partial Retraction
In an earlier post on this discussion page I said: "It also will note that WatchDog07 is posing as a member of the Wikipedia staff. See for example the first version of his personal page where he claimed to be a member of the Wikipedia "Cleanup Taskforce", which does not exist. His Edit summaries also strongly suggest that he is a Wikipedia staff member, which is not the case."
I now see that there is in fact a Wikipedia Cleanup Taskforce. So I retract that statement.
But WatchDog07 was not a member of the Wikipedia Cleanup Taskforce until 16:43 today (23 April 2007). He has also joined the Wikipedia Neutrality Project at 16:51 of the same date (23 April 2007). But nearly all of his edits were made before he was a member of these task forces, so I stand by my earlier claim that his edit summaries were therefore misleading.
M.posner 19:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Response to M.Posner
I see that you now realize that there is a Wikipedia Cleanup Taskforce. I have been a member throughout. I edited my page just so you would know this to be the case and that you were barking up the wrong tree. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
Excellent Points to which Watchdog has Failed to Respond
23 April, 2007
M.Posner and Alan XAX Freeman (I presume) have made some excellent points to which Watchdog07 (wd) has failed to respond:
(1) "the stub version that WatchDog07 repeatedly reverts the page to is not at all similar to the stub version used by DBryant ... DBryant uses citations while WatchDog07 consistently removes citations and does not replace them ...."
(2) "WatchDog07 is posing as a member of the Wikipedia staff. ... he claimed to be a member of the Wikipedia 'Cleanup Taskforce', which does not exist. His Edit summaries also strongly suggest that he is a Wikipedia staff member, which is not the case."
(3) "Watchdog's edits reduce the page to a stub; he has been warned on this page that this places the entry in danger of deletion."
wd replied: "Watchdogo7 was warned only by akliman -- a person with a clear bias."
This completely fails to respond to the statement, namely that wd is placing the entry in danger of deletion. I note that wd is now knowingly placing the page in such danger. I also note that wd has been warned by Akliman and Alan (?), contrary to what he claims; Alan's (?) statement serves as an additional warning to wd.
(4) "He only deletes content, a clear act of vandalism. He gives no valid justification for these deletes."
wd replied: "Explanations have been given time and time again. Will expand upon that once akliman apologizes for his accusation."
This is non-responsive to the correct point that wd gives no valid justification for his deletes.
The "I'll explain after he apologizes" stuff is just a dodge, of course. It does not justify continued deletion of content, which is the issue here. Assume for the sake of argument that wd's feelings are actually hurt. This has absolutely no bearing on the contining request that he properly discuss and account for proposed (and extremely controversial) deletions BEFORE going ahead and making them. What he is doing is not the kind of collaborative, consensus-based behavior that we're trying to carry out here.
(There are, of course, other points to which wd has responded, but inadequately, making incorrect statements, etc. I've just flagged the points to which there's been no response.)
Not me who made comments below
The dialog between WatchDog07 and M.posner below is incorrect. It is not me who wrote the sentences which are attributed to me. I believe they were written by Alan Freeman. I do agree with the comments he made but I'm noting this in the interest of accuracy. If someone could edit this I'd appreciate it.
M.posner
Hi Mike, apologies if it was me if so was a typo. I think actually, what has happened is that this got mussed up when AKliman formatted the page but am happy to take the rap if it was me, and apologise for any unintentional hurt.
Alan Freeman
OK, sorry--it was confusing; I tried. I have made the changes. Andrew Kliman Akliman (talk · contribs)
Violation of three-revert rule, Monday 23 April 2007
I have left the following message, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, on the user:talk page of Watchdog07. I request fellow editors to desist from editing the page for 12 hours to provide time for Watchdog07 to comply with Wikipedia policy regarding the three-revert rule.
Dear Watchdog07
In accordance with Wikipedia policy I am informing you that in contravention of the three-revert rule, you have reverted the Temporal Single System Page four times in the past 24 hours: at 1:10, 7:05, 11:37 and 13:32. The content of all reverts is identical although your 7:05 revert does not state that this is a revert, as in fact it should do.
You may find the relevant Wikipedia guidelines at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule
You will note that the action expected of you is to restore the content as it existed before your revert.
I request you to do so.
I also request that you do not remove any future content from the page without first ascertaining whether there is a consensus among the editors for the proposed removal.
In particular, please give the reasons for each specific deletion. If you do not give your reasons or enter any dialogue about them, it is impossible for the matter to be resolved constructively.
Should you wish to communicate with me offline anb believe, as I do, that this may help an amicable resolution, I am happy for you to do so at the address given in my user:talk page.
Alan XAX Freeman
Further Discussion, Monday, 23 April 2007
Will reply as time permits. Will explain once again - one section at a time - why the edits are required in order to conform to wiki policies. In the meantime, the neutral, factual, black-and-white edit must remain.
Watchdog 07 (talk · contribs)
Yeah, right. Attackdog has no time to attempt to justify his suppressive removal of content, but he *does* have time to suppress the content once again. How about this more plausible explanation: he cannot defend his actions because they are indefensible! Attackdog's actions are a clear example of the "Marxist economists'" censorship of Marx's critique of political economy in its original form, and they are in the public domain for all to see.
Andrew Kliman Akliman (talk · contribs)
Andrew Kliman does not know who Watchdog07 is yet he feels able to jump to the above conclusion. This is a clear example of irrationality and evidence why he should remove himself from discussions on this topic.
Show some respect for the thousands of volunteers who have contributed in good faith to Wikipedia, Sir! It is not an appropriate place for biased statements and self-advertisement. Wikipedia has a clear policy concerning neutrality which - along with other policies - should be respected.
His insults - e.g. "Attackdog" -- do nothing to improve the entry and suggest a frustration with an inability to exclusively control the content of this wiki page irrespective of wiki policies and objections.
After he apologies for his insult, I will expand upon the explanation for the edits.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
[Note by Akliman: Below, AXAXF? = Comment possibly made by Alan XAX Freeman]
AXAXF?: Watchdog's edits reduce the page to a stub; he has been warned on this page that this places the entry in danger of deletion.
Watchdog07: Watchdogo7 was warned only by akliman -- a person with a clear bias.
AXAXF?: He only deletes content, a clear act of vandalism. He gives no valid justification for these deletes
Watchdog07: Explanations have been given time and time again. Will expand upon that once akliman apologizes for his accusation.
AXAXF?: Watchdog07's repeated removal of valid content from this page.
Watchdog07: All materials removed, and materials substituted, were for valid reasons and in accord with wiki policies.
AXAXF?: The accusation of conflict of interest also clearly violates the assumption of good faith required of Wikipedia contributors.
Watchdog07: There was a presumption of good faith. This evaluation was modified as akliman and mposner demonstrated their bias, non-response to valid changes, and personal antagonism on the TSSI and David Laibman pages. See history under David Laibman.
AXAXF?: (1) he can explain the basis for his edits on the discussion page. The absence of such an explanation strongly suggests that he cannot expose the basis of his actions for the Wikipedia community to judge them.
Watchdog07: I plan on explaining them in further depth but not instantaneously. I have a life and can not allocate all of my time to replying to demands by TSSI proponents.
AXAXF?: (2) he should not make edits without explaining the reason for them.
Watchdog07: Edits have been explained already.
AXAXF?: (3) he can state who he is.
Watchdog07: You are not entitled to know this: I have the right to anonymity, which is especially required in this instance to prevent harassment and possible litigation.
AXAXF?: He protests loudly that he is attacked without knowledge of his identity.
Watchdog07: The point is that I was accused of editing the TSSI entry for a particular nefarious purpose yet there was no basis for that claim since, as akliman admitted, he does not known my identity. That was irrational.
AXAXF?: Fine: tell the Wikipedia community who he is, then this community can judge soundly whether and where vandalism is taking place and whether and where there are conflicts of interest.
AXAXF?: (4) he should discuss on the assumption of good faith with those who have added content and those who have restored his deletions, why the content concerned should not be present on this page.
Watchdog07: When the accusations cease and after Andrew Kliman apologizes, I have every intention of doing that.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
I will just note that the stub version that WatchDog07 repeatedly reverts the page to is not at all similar to the stub version used by DBryant on the David Laibman page (this is contrary to WatchDog07's claim on his edit summary that he is "following initiative taken by D.Bryant". DBryant uses citations while WatchDog07 consistently removes citations and does not replace them with anything. This is clearly contrary to Wikipedia policies.
It also will note that WatchDog07 is posing as a member of the Wikipedia staff. See for example the first version of his personal page where he claimed to be a member of the Wikipedia "Cleanup Taskforce", which does not exist. His Edit summaries also strongly suggest that he is a Wikipedia staff member, which is not the case.
M.posner
Addendum: Daniel Bryant wrote on 4/19 "It has been suggested that M.Posner has a strong conflict of interest with this article" Talk:David_Laibman. Watchdog07 was not the initiator of that suggestion.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
COPE
I have been asked to explain further the edits which have been made. I shall do so in stages and will wait for a response before moving on to the next explanation. I shall begin with the section on the _Critique of Political Economy_ (COPE), an alleged "online journal." This section was deleted in its entirety because it was a clear and flagrant example of self-advertisement and self-promotion and because _there have never been any issues of this "journal" published_! This fraud was knowingly committed by Andrew Kliman and he, along with Alan Freeman (the two editors of the non-existent journal) and M.Posner, have perpetuated that fraud by continung to put that section back in the entry on TSSI. This demonstrated bad faith by all three and a desire to run roughshod over Wikipedia policies in order to promote their "journal" which exists at the present time only in their imagination.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
Restoring Valid Content that "Watchdog07" Keeps Deleting
Sunday, 22 April 2007
I am restoring valid content that "Watchdog07" keeps removing from the "Temporal Single-system Interpretation" page. "Watchdog07" persists in alleging that the content is self-promotional, biased, and misleading, generally without explaining further or defending these allegations. Below I explain why the content I have restored is appropriate.
(1) First, let me note that, although Wikipedia policy *generally* dictates that when material is potentially controversial, editors should rely upon what "reliable sources" have written, without drawing inferences or adding opinions, I happen to be a "reliable source" of information in this case. I'm a full professor of economics at Pace University in New York. I hold BA and PhD degrees in economics. (See [9], my department's faculty page.) My book, Reclaiming Marx's "Capital": A Refutation of the Myth of Inconsistency, which deals with the TSSI and the value theory controversy, was published 4 months ago by Lexington Books, a division of Rowman and Littlefield, a scholarly press. (See [10], the page for this book on the publisher's website.) The book has been well received by scholars thus far, as can be ascertained from the comments on the publisher's website page and the page about the book on my personal website [11].
What are "Watchdog07's" qualifications to make judgements on facts and interpretation in this case? Who *is* he, even? Does he know ANYTHING about the TSSI? He seems to be making judgements and interpretations that go FAR beyond his expertise unless he can demonstrate to us that he's qualified to make these particular judgements and interpretations (like a quote from D. K. Foley meaning something different from what it appears to mean).
It is true that Wikipedia generally wants reliable "third-party" sources to be cited. But this is a mere technicality here, since if M.posner were to restore my content, as he has done, or if Alan XAX Freeman were to restore it, as I'm sure he'd be willing to do, they would be using a third-party source--me.
(2) Secondly, let me note that a plain statement of fact IS NOT biased or in violation of neutrality policy simply because some might interpret it as making critics of the TSSI look bad. It is just a plain statement of fact. Analogously, pictures showing that the Earth is spherical can be interpreted as making flat-Earthers look bad, but the pictures themselves are NOT biased--i.e., they're not retouched or taken using a trick lens, etc.
For instance, let's consider a sentence that "Watchdog07" deleted. The article cites critics of the TSSI who allege that its proponents are "New Orthodox Marxists" who "assert that Marx's formulations, in both the theory of value and the analysis of capitalist accumulation and crisis, are literally and completely correct; that Marx made no errors" (David Laibman) and that the TSSI upholds "the literal truth of all [of] Marx’s propositions" (Roberto Veneziani). Then, in my version of the article, it says:
"These allegations, however, were not accompanied by supporting evidence."
"Watchdog07" DELETED this sentence, allegedly in the interest of neutrality. Now, perhaps someone who reads the sentence *might* conclude that Laibman and Veneziani were making baseless accusations, but the sentence ITSELF doesn't conclude this; the reader does. The sentence itself is a plain statement of fact. Similarly, if I look at a picture of the Earth, and conclude from it that the flat-Earthers are wrong, delusional, or whatever, that is not because the picture ITSELF is biased against the flat-Earthers: it hasn't been retouched, or shot using a trick lens, etc. The picture itself doesn't draw any conclusion; I am the one who has drawn the conclusion.
All of "Watchdog's" complaints of bias are like this.
(3) I now detail the particular restorations I've made and the reasons for them.
(a) "Since internally inconsistent theories cannot possibly be right, the allegations of inconsistency have served to legitimate the censorship of Marx's theories of value and the falling rate of profit and the suppression of current research based upon them. FOOTNOTE:For instance, the connection between the inconsistency allegations and the lack of study of Marx’s theories was noted by John Cassidy ("The Return of Karl Marx," The New Yorker, Oct. 20 & 27, 1997, p. 252): "His mathematical model of the economy, which depended on the idea that labor is the source of all value, was riven with internal inconsistencies and is rarely studied these days."
I orignially had just the first sentence. "Watchdog07" changed it so that it talked about "alleged" censorship or suppression or something. So I provided the reference to Cassidy as evidence that suppression does occur. Unable to challenge this evidence, nor to make the word "alleged" do his work for him, "Watchdog07" just deleted the whole thing. But the reference is accurate, and the interpretation of the facts is being made by a reliable source, me. So there's no good reason for the deletion. "Watchdog07" is just being a flat-Earther charging that a picture of a spherical Earth is biased.
(b)
"In recent years, even critics of Marx and/or the TSSI have come to accept this claim, implicitly or explicitly. The TSSI continues to be controversial, but the fact that it eliminates the apparent inconsistencies in Marx's value theory is no longer seriously challenged. FOOTNOTE:See Andrew Kliman, Reclaiming Marx's "Capital", (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2007), pp. 132-36, p. 152, pp. 165-68, pp. 207-08."
Evidently "Watchdog07" doesn't like this because it is "self-serving" for me to cite my book. But it's not a plug for the book; the book is being used as evidence. And if someone else, M.posner or Alan XAX Freeman, uses this reference in their versions of the TSSI page--as they have--this is not being self-serving. But "Watchdog07" still deleted it. He also may be claiming that this statement is biased, but it's a plain fact, and it's extensively documented in the book. A picture of a spherical Earth is not biased just because a flat-Earther doesn't like it.
(c)
"Drawing on their experiences in the controversy over Marx's value theory, some proponents of the TSSI have also been active in the movement for pluralism in economics, and they have critiqued, and argued for the reform of, the interpretive methods employed in Marxian economics."
In his edit summary, "Watchdog07" refers vaguely to neutrality and "unfounded and exaggerated claims." But here we have a plain statement of fact that can be amply supported with citations from primary sources. Does "Watchdog07" want me to provide those citations? I'll be happy to do so. And again, a picture of a spherical Earth is not biased just because a flat-Earther doesn't like it.
(d)
"These allegations, however, were not accompanied by supporting evidence."
I discussed this in point (2) above.
(e)
"Thus, even Duncan K. Foley, a prominent critic of the TSSI, acknowledges that "I understand [Alan] Freeman and [Andrew] Kliman to be arguing that Okishio’s theorem as literally stated is wrong because it is possible for the money and labor rates of profit to fall under the circumstances specified in its hypotheses. I accept their examples as establishing this possibility.” FOOTNOTE: Duncan K. Foley, "Response to Freeman and Kliman," Research in Political Economy, Vol. 18, 2000, p. 282.
"Watchdog07" deleted this, claiming that the quote is out-of-context and misleading. He says that M.posner should ask Foley whether that's the case or not. But what makes "Watchdog07" an authority here? What are his qualifications? Who is he, even? I on the other hand, am a reliable source, and I think the quote is in-context and not misleading. Of course, Foley is also a reliable source, and if *he* wants to come onto Wikipedia and discuss this, I'll be happy to do so in the Wikipedia spirit of collaboration and consensus. But I'm not going to concede that a picture of a spherical Earth is "misleading" just because a flat-Earther--and one who seems to have no particular qualifications to judge wherether the quote is misleading or not--doesn't like it.
(f)
"However, proponents of the TSSI claim to have "refuted" Bortkiewicz's proof of inconsistency. Although no critic has successfully refuted this claim, first put forward in 1988, many Marxist economists still decline to accept it. FOOTNOTE:Only one critic of the TSSI, David Laibman, has addressed this issue in print. He acknowledges that TSSI theorists have shown that "reproduction equilibrium" can take place when input and output prices differ, which is precisely what Bortkiewicz had supposedly proved to be impossible. See David Laibman, "Rhetoric and Substance in Value Theory: An appraisal of the new orthodox Marxism," in Alan Freeman, Andrew Kliman, and Julian Wells (eds.), The New Value Controversy and the Foundations of Economics (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar), 2000, p. 10; Andrew Kliman, Reclaiming Marx's "Capital": A Refutation of the Myth of Inconsistency (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books), 2007, pp. 148-52."
"Watchdog07" removed everything but the first sentence, and replaced it with a statement that the refutation of Bortkiewicz's proof of inconsistency "continue[s] to be controversial among many Marxist economists." But the second sentence that he removed makes this point, too. But by removing the second sentence, he deleted an additional point it makes (and then amply supports in a footnote), namely that the reason why the refutation of Bortkiewicz's proof of inconsistency remains controversial is NOT that it has been successfully refuted. "Watchdog07" might not want readers to know this, but that doesn't make my second sentence and footnote biased (it makes him biased). Flat-Earthers might not want people to know that the record shows that they haven't successfully challenged the evidence that the Earth is spherical, but that doesn't mean that a statement which reports this plain fact is biased.
I really don't see how this issue can be dealt with honestly without telling readers the whole story. Otherwise, they're likely to conclude that the refutations remain controverial because of intellectual/scholarly reasons, and there's no evidence of that.
(g)
"When Marx's theory is understood in accordance with the TSSI, rather than in accordance with Bortkiewicz's interpretation, moreover, the results of his transformation account re-emerge as internally consistent; price and value magnitudes are indeed equal in the aggregate. These equalities also re-emerge under other––atemporal––single-system interpretations. Yet under the atemporal interpretations, Marx's falling-rate-of-profit theory and other aspects of his value theory still appear to be internally inconsistent. In order for his theories to be fully acquitted of charges of inconsistency and error, he must be interpreted as having had a temporal conception of value and price determination."
I don't have a clue as to why "Watchdog07" deleted this, other than that the facts are "biased" because they don't favor flat-Earthers. This paragraph can be documented by citing my recent book. I'll be happy to add the ciatations. Is that what "Watchdog07" wants?
(h)
"Critique of Political Economy (journal)"
"Watchdog07" deleted this whole section of the article, evidently because it is biased and or self-promotional. But first, I'll be happy to add criticisms of the journal made by responsible parties (but not parties who have been booted off e-mail lists for telling lies about the editors and impugning their reputations), though I don't know of any. Second, the factual content of this section is needed in order to *eliminate* the bias in Jurriaan Bendien's original version of this article, still publicly accessible, which incorrectly and tendentiously called the COPE editorial board an "academic faction" of TSSI supporters and sympathizers. And third, the topic is clearly appropriate, related to the TSSI; I note that it was present from the start, in Bendien's original version.
(i)
"Watchdog07" deleted, on grounds that they were "self-promotional," the URLs to the "writings" page of my personal website and to the COPE website. The notion that these are "self-promotional" is wrong, since both URLs have been there since Bendien's original version of the page (actually, he referenced my entire website, not just the writings page). Clearly, Bendien can't SELF-promote Kliman.
The "Rich Farmbrough" Hoax
Someone claiming to be Rich Farmbrough -- an administrator at Wikipedia -- has edited the TSSI entry several times. I asked him about this and he denied making any changes. See UserTalk:Watchdog07.
Impersonating a Wikipedia administrator is a very serious breach of ethics! Whoever is responsible for this fraud should immediately remove herself or himself from editing any further Wikipedia subjects.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
Reply:
This is truly bizarre. Reread your exchange with Rich Farmbrough as well as the history page of TSSI. On Rich Farmbrough's talk page you say that he reverted the page to the Andrew Kliman version. The history of the TSSI page does not show anything like this. Rich Farmbrough's edits consisted only of changing capitalization and spelling. When he replied to you, saying, " Not me ", he linked the page to an edit not performed by him. Clearly he was saying that he did not revert the page, as you had claimed. He never claimed that he had not made any edits, nor that there was any impersonation of him.
See the whole exchange here
M.posner 18:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The Choices Before Us
The current edit by Andrew Kliman / the antichrist, reverted to by a member of his immediate family, is flagrantly one-sided and in violation of [WP:NPV], [WP:BLP], and other established Wikipedia norms. This means that it must be changed to a more neutral edit. There are three choices:
1. revert to black and white edit.
2. revert to last edit by Jurriaan before vandalism began.
3. revert to the edit which I offered in the spirit of compromise and in good faith last week.
Which do you want, people?
After the revert to one of the above, we can continue the discussion on how to improve the page - if that's what you are really interested in.
If no one replies, then I will use my judgment on which of the above to revert to.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
Since the antichrist and co. haven't expressed a preference, I will choose what I believe is the fairest reversion to all concerned and in the best interests of Wikipedia.
Watchdog07 Professor of Economics
member, Neutrality Project Review Team
member, Cleanup Taskforce [business; politics and government]
"controversial" issue of when something exists?
If you say that you are planning to write a book, that does not mean that the book exists.
If you say that you are a major league baseball player when you are in high school and want to be a major leage baseball player that is not correct.
If you say that you want to build an automobile, that does not mean that merely by that wish have created an autombile.
There is nothing controversial about this, contrary to Andrew Kliman's claim.
- COPE does not (yet) exist as an online journal.
It is merely a HOPE.
Since you know that COPE is not (yet) an online journal, it is fraud to say that it does.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
Two comments:
(1) I just googled "new journals" and the 1st hit is "Taylor & Francis Journals: New Journals new journals. New Titles for 2007 | New Titles for 2008." There are many, many journals listed. So a (the?) major publisher of journals considers them to be "New Journals," not "Nonexistent Journals" that exist only in the fevered imaginations of its editors, even though the 1st issue hasn't yet appeared.
So, does wd really want to accuse Taylor & Francis of fraud?
If not, I call on Watchdog07 to retract and apologize for the charge of fraud against the editors of COPE, which I believe might be actionable.
(2) It is fraud to claim academic credentials that one does not in fact possess.
v = 0 20:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Watchdog's Credentials and Essjay
On this page and elsewhere, wd claims to be a "Professor of Economics." This claim is highly relevant, since it goes to the question of his qualifications to make certain judgements about the content of the TSSI article.
This brings to mind the the recent (in)famous "Essjay controversy" (see [12]). Until a few months ago, "Essjay" was an anonymous Wikipedia editor and (unlike wd) administrator, who used phony credentials in order to gain advantages in content disputes. Specifically, he "claimed to hold doctoral degrees in theology and canon law," and claimed to be "a tenured professor at a private university," but "he was in fact a 24-year-old community college dropout."
In light of the Essjay controversy, I must ask Watchdog to provide evidence for his claim to be a "Professor of Economics," and to specify and provide evidence of his precise academic rank and degrees.
I know he holds the D.O.G. degree, but what else?
If he cannot or will not provide us with the necessary evidence, it is appropriate to discount what he says about all matters in which professional expertise is relevant, such as when a scholarly journal exists.
v = 0 19:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
What does Andrew Kliman think he knows?
You say that "you know" I hold a D.O.G. degree? How do you know that?
You do not know who I am. Do not pretend that you do. I must preserve anonymity to prevent harassment.
You don't know who I am and I have no idea who M.Posner is. Perhaps you or he could enlighten, if either one of you wish.
You seem to be suggesting that one has to have a specific degree to know when a scholarly journal exists. If so, then that's simply silly. I don't have a degree in computer science but I know that there's a difference between wanting a computer and having a computer. You clearly want COPE to exist but it doesn't exist as a journal unless and until it has published its 1st issue.
You say that you want to build consensus. But, how can we hope to build consensus if you can't recognize simple, obvious commonsense issues like this?
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
The issue here is possible misrepesentation of who one is, the possible claiming of academic credentials one does not in fact possess, in the midst of a content dispute in which credentials and expertise are extemely relevant. (See my "Watchdog's Credentials and Essjay" on this page.)
It is incumbent upon the alleged Watchdog either to provide authentic evidence that he is in fact a "Professor of Economics" or drop said claim.
Unless he quickly complies, I and those who agree with me will discount everything he says in matters where expertise is needed. This includes the expertise that would enable one to know that the "simple, obvious commonsense" notion that a journal "doesn't exist as a journal unless and until it has published its 1st issue" is just plain wrong. This is just not how the term "journal" is used among professionals. See my response to the alleged Watchdog, in "'controversial" issue of when something exists?,'" on this page.
I call on Watchdog07" to retract and apologize for his charge of fraud.
v = 0 20:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Apologize for charge of fraud?
You must be joking!
What we have here, on the part of Andrew Kliman, is an inability to accept any criticism, 'no matter how air tight the logic is'.
He says that he needs to know my credentials to determine the validity of what I had to say about whether a "journal" that exists in name only is actually a journal. This is, I repeat, just silly. It's like asking siomeone to show you a PhD in math before accepting the claim that 2 + 2 = 4.
This is utter nonsense. I said nothing of the sort. I said we need to know your credentials in order to determine your competency to make judgements on technical matters. The bases for determining that what you allege is not valid are evidence and logic. v = 0 23:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Rather than retract my charge of fraud, I will reinstate it: you, sir, have made a fraudulent claim on Wikipedia. See fraud. Morerover, you 'know' it is fraudulent. At issue here is a basic principle of logic which I explained at length earlier today. If you will not accept the logic of what was said before, then we need to discount anything and everything you have to say about any topics which concern logic and theory in the future.
I have demonstrated that I am correct; the journal exists. The evidence is on this page -- see my discussion of the Taylor & Francis website -- and at [www.copejournal.org]. I shall not argue more about this. I shall not agree to the removal of the COPE section of the TSSI article on the absurd ground that the journal does not exist. If "Watchdog07" fails to retract and apologize for his false allegation of fraud within the next 24 hours, I shall file a complaint to have all of his accounts blocked indefinitely, because he has repeatedly leveled a false charge of fraud, even after being asked politely to withdraw it, and because his behavior in general has been disruptive and abusive. I shall not discuss this further. v = 0 23:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
Consensus Decision-Making
Alan Freeman puts forward a model of decision making which he calls consensus but is in fact a plurality_voting_system. To find out about the former, see consensus_decision-making.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
The COPE fraud and the antichrist's latest threats
The antichrist [aka Andrew Kliman; v=o] has for days now subjected me to personal abuse and insults on this page and has displayed time and again aggressive and irrational behavior. I tried to reason with him repeatedly, including leaving a message on his user page which he deleted giving "annoying" as the reason. He has shown clearly that he has no intention of reasonably discussing this entry and he should immediately remove himself from editing it further.
I believe that I have proved to the satisfaction of any reasonable person that the claim that COPE is now an "online journal is false and fraudulent. Instead of doing the right thing and being reasonable, he threatens me. It has been 'his' actions which have been extremely abusive and disruptive. If the antichrist wants to appeal to my fellow administrators at Wikipedia, that is his right.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
What does Andrew Kliman think he knows? Part Two
Andrew Kliman claims - once again - that I am not a Professor of Economics and am not a Wikipedia administrator.
How does he know that?
He does not know who I am, does he? Of course not.
He has put forward no fact which supports his claim that I am not a Professor of Economics. He has put forward no fact to show that I am not an administrator. Indeed, I have pointed him to the source which shows that I am an administrator.
This really speaks to the basic problem with Andrew Kliman's edit of the entry. He states opinions and makes them sounds as if they are facts. He - over and over again - introduces one-sided, controversial, and biased claims and lingo ( for example, the expression standard interpretation) which violate WP:NPV. He even makes a fraudlent claim (concerning COPE) yet insists that the section which is fraudulent remain in the entry. No amount of logic, explanation, examples, and facts have shaken him from his stubborn refusal to accept criticism of his entries. He has shown that he doesn't want the entry to be neutral, he wants it to consist of his opinion alone.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
Citations
M.Posner: What part of the b&w (i.e. neutral, factual) edit do you believe require citations? If there is anything in the b&w edit which you believe is not a fact, then we should immediately delete those sections.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
More examples of Non-neutrality: "Bortkiewiczian" and "standard" interpretation
Two more examples of expressions used by Andrew Kliman which are controversial, biased, and completely unacceptable. Who goes around saying that they have a "Borkiewiczian interpretation"? Who agrees on what is the "standard interpretation"? These non-neutral terms are unacceptable and must be deleted immediately.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
Two Questions for Kliman, Freeman, and Posner
1] What are the facts which have been put forward by reliable third parttes which support the claim made that there was "censorship" against Marx and "suppression" of the TSSI?
2] If you think it's okay to use "Bortkiewiczian" then is it also okay to refer in the entry to "Klimanian" , "Freemanian" and "Posnerian" interpretations? If not, why not?
I would appreciate simple, straight-forward replies to the above questions.
Marxian Lurker Marxian_Lurker (talk · contribs)
Hello ML,
Please see my new book, Reclaiming Marx's "Capital": A Refutation of the Myth of Inconsistency, for information on the censorship of Marx's value theory.
You have misread the TSSI article. (Alan Freeman noted yesterday that you misread his question about whether you approve of him being facilitator. Please try to read more carefully. Thank you.) It does not claim that the TSSI has been suppressed (though Watchdog07's actions with respect to this article are indeed facts, no?). It claims that there's been suppression of current research based upon Marx's value theory and law of the falling rate of profit. This claim is documented in a footnote. The third party John Cassidy, writing in The New Yorker, is cited.
I prefer "standard" interpretation, but the alleged watchdog had an objection to it. So I identified this interpretation (or the genus to which all its variants belong) as Bortkiewiczian. Some such procedure needs to be used, because the genus doesn't have a name of its own. This differs from the TSSI, which does have a name, so that use of "Klimanian," "Freemanian," and "Posnerian" is inappropriate.
Now I have a question for you, to which I too would appreciate a simple, straight-forward reply: do you support the proposal that Alan Freeman serve as facilitator? Thank you in advance for answewring. Your cooperative spirit and behavior are greatly appreciated. v = 0 15:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
RFC
Several editors are having disagreements over whether significant portions of material in this article are worthy of inclusion and follow the WP:RS guide. 19:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
A litte warm welcome to MarxianLurker
Alan XAX Freeman 20:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello MarxianLurker. New faces are always welcome on this discussion page. I've posted this response to your RFC at both ends of this page, to make sure you can locate it easily.
You are obviously very well-read in the debates on this page and so you will no doubt be aware that there is an appeal extant to reach a consensus on whether to add contributions at the end of this list or the beginning. At present one user, Watchdog07 (now joined by yourself) appends comments at the bottom, most users append comments at the beginning, and the occasional surprise intervention can be found in the middle.
I am sure you will agree that this is an unfortunate state of affairs and will wish to assist the community on this page to resolve this question.
As a newcomer I am confident that you will recognise the importance of consensus and will appreciate the need to conform to established Wikipedia procedures in this respect.
I have offered to act as facilitator to reach a consensus on this question. You will no doubt be aware of the Wikipedia assumption of good faith as the starting point for friendly discussions. On the assumption that, as a newcomer, you accept this principle, can I invite you to indicate whether you are willing to accept this offer?
You may find the following advice from Jonathan Swift, which is to be found in Chapter 4 of Gulliver's travels, illuminating:
"Many hundred large volumes have been published upon this controversy: but the books of the Big-endians have been long forbidden, and the whole party rendered incapable by law of holding employments. During the course of these troubles, the emperors of Blefusca did frequently expostulate by their ambassadors, accusing us of making a schism in religion, by offending against a fundamental doctrine of our great prophet Lustrog, in the fifty-fourth chapter of the Blundecral (which is their Alcoran). This, however, is thought to be a mere strain upon the text; for the words are these: 'that all true believers break their eggs at the convenient end.'
And which is the convenient end, seems, in my humble opinion to be left to every man's conscience, or at least in the power of the chief magistrate to determine."
Happy reading.
Kind regards
Alan Freeman
thanks for the offer
but I am not ready at this time to be a facilitator. thanks anyway.
I don't care whether the new entries appear at the beginning or the end.
I'd just like to see the different sides get together and compromise. What was wrong with Watchdog07's 4/19 edit? It seemed the fairest and best so far to me.
Marxian Lurker Marxian_Lurker (talk · contribs)
misreading
MarxianLurker
Actually I wasn't suggesting you be a facilitator. I am sure you would find that far too onerous.
What I offered was to facilitate the discussion.
Are you happy with that?
Alan Freeman
Can Alan Freeman be fair and impartial?
All one has to do is read this discussion page in its entirety to grasp the folly of believing that Freeman is or can be fair and impartial. He has taken an entirely uncritical perspective on the edits of Andrew Kliman and indeed has been an accessory and accomplice to those one-sided and biased edits.
There is one thing that I can agree with him on: welcome to this discussion page, Marxian Lurker.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
- Can we please Assume good faith for a little bit please? MrMacMan Talk 02:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
There is much evidence of malice on this page by Andrew
Kliman which has been ignored by Alan Freeman.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
Claims of Consensus
The following claims in Kliman's edit constitute claims of consensus:
" ... no longer seriously cahallenged ..."
"even critics of Marx and/or the TSSI have come to accept this claim"
which were not reliably sourced WP:RS and were removed by this editor for that reason. Those who are familiar with the literature on the TSSI are aware that there is nothing even remotely approaching consensus on these claims.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
Prove it. v = 0 03:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The section claims of consensus in WP:RS is very clear in his regard. The person making the claims of consensus must document the basis of those claims in fact. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
Yep. The TSSI article and the pages of my new book, Reclaiming Marx's "Capital": A Refutation of the Myth of Inconsistency, which are cited in the article, document the basis of the claims made in the article. Please buy the book and study these pages carefully before attempting to challenge what I say.
And please retract the allegation "not reliably sourced." As I have explained since this talk page was opened, I am a reliable source as defined by WP:RS. Period. v = 0 15:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
fetch don't kvetch
Watchdog07's contribution 'Claims of consensus' is stuck in the same groove: deletion.
Therefore, he gets 'reliable sourcing' back to front. The purpose of editing a Wikipedia page is to improve, not remove. The evidence that the referenced TSSI claims 'are no longer seriously challenged' is that there is no serious challenge.
One cannot have a reliable source for the absence of something - if I state 'The United States has no Monarch' it would be ridiculous to have to substantiate this by finding a reliable academic to testify to this. The evidence that there is no challenge is that nobody challenges it.
What Watchdog07 should do if he believes there is a serious challenge is find it. and having found it, insert it - first, of course, discussing with the other page editors and attempting to establish a consensus.
If Watchdog wishes to improve the quality of the edit is to find a reliable source that has challenged TSSI claims and insert the challenge into the page
On a different matter Kliman did exactly that. He inserted the reliably sourced challenge of Laibman (to the effect that TSSI was an orthodoxy) and he inserted the challenge of Veneziani. On the principle of balance he then inserted a resposne to each from a reliable TSSI source.
Watchdog deleted this.
I personally would greatly welcome an expansion of the existing text to include any and all of the serous challenges which Watchdog07 can find. Then Wikipedia readers would be fully informed and could evaluate for themselves whether these challenges are in fact 'serious'
Go to it, Rover.
Alan Freeman
Alan XAX Freeman 05:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
POV action
The article has been tagged with
 |
to reflect the fact that its neutrality is being disputed.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
Proposal
Mr. Freeman, stop the stonewalling! The article must be edited in accord with WP:RS - again, note the section on "claims of consensus" - the neutrality policy WP:NPV, [[WP:BLP], and must not contain inaccurate, unreliable and fraudulent fraud claims.
Watchdog07 has explained the violations repeatedly on this page but it has been like - quite literally -- talking to a stone wall.
The question before us is not "expanding" on the entry. The issue is changing it so that it complies with Wikipedia policies.
As a procedural matter, I propose that the article first be reduced to stub, then locked protected_from_editing, and then we can hear proposals to expand the entry and agree to work towards the goal of consensus.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
More on claims of consensus
Claims of consensus are exceptional claims and require exceptional sources WP:RS
This is NOT what the guideline says. What we have here is yet another false allegation from the alleged watchdog. The guideline says, "Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source." The consensus article cites a reliable source, Andrew Kliman's Reclaiming Marx's "Capital": A Refutation of the Myth of Inconsistency (Lexington Books, 2007), when claiming (something somewhat similar to) consensus. v = 0 16:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Andrew Kliman's assertion and opinion that his book is a "reliable source" is not evidence which proves his exceptional claims about "suppression" and "censorship"". Evidence must be provided which documents this claim and shows that there is indeedconsensus on those controversial claims.
This is just a bunch of claims strung together without any ARGUMENT to JUSTIFY them. Please provide us with an ARGUMENT, wd. I find it not at all surprising nor exceptional that the economists censor Marx and suppress current research based upon his work. What do you expect them to do? Actually, I'm astoundedd that the alleged watchdog seems to be questioning this. Anyone who knows anything about economics, much less one who claims (without providing a shread of evidence) to be a Professor(!) of economics, must surely be aware that Marx's work and current research based on it is all but absent from economics curricula, textbooks, almost all scholarly journals of economics (except purely historical ones), and so forth. v = 0 16:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Claims such as
"...no longer seriously challenged ..." and
"even critics of Marx and/or the TSSI have come
to accept this claim"
are claims of consensus. A reliable,
independent source is required to show
that there is CONSENSUS on these claims.
Kliman's book does not demonstrate that there
is CONSENSUS about these claims.
His claims about "suppression" and "censorship"
have not been documented by a rerliable,
independent source. There is most certainly no
CONSENSUS on those allegations.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
I, Andrew Kliman, AM "a reliable, independent source," and a third party, in this context. My book, Reclaiming Marx's "Capital": A Refutation of the Myth of Inconsistency (Lexington Books, 2007) certainly does demonstrate what is said in the TSSI article. How do you know that it doesn't? Have you read Reclaiming Marx's "Capital"? Or are you alleging what the book does or doesn't do without even having read it?
In Op:l Bastards solidarity, v = 0 17:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Watchdog07 Watchdog07
Does Andrew Kliman know the meaning of plagiarism?
In the entry there is the expression
riven with internal inconsistencies
without it appearing in quote marks.
If you look at footnote 1 in his entry, you will see that those exact words were written by someone else!
Yeah, but I used them before Cassidy's article appeared. Quoting oneself isn't plagiarism. ...
Are you saying that you wrote the exact
expression "riven with internal
inconsistencies before Cassidy?
Yep, "riven with internal inconsistencies". v = 0 22:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you claiming that he plagiazed you?
Watchdog07 {{User|Watchdog07}
No. This is a most likely a coincidence, and hardly a surprising one. There are only a few ways of saying "internal inconsistencies" and only a few ways of saying "riven with." v = 0 22:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
But I personally have no objection to the insertion of quotation marks around these words the first time they appear in the TSSI article. v = 0 17:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I checked the history of the edits. The first time
the expression was used by Kliman was on April 6. . The
first time he reproduced the quotation for Cassidy
was in a footnote on April 19.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
If one of my students did that on a term paper she or he would receive a failing grade.
If it were indeed the case that Watchdog07 has students, as he alleges but fails to confirm by producing evidence in support of this allegation, I would feel sorry for them. Imagine: write "riven with internal inconsistencies" and you are accused AND convicted of plagiarism! v = 0 22:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The alleged watchdog had better be careful. Essjay also claimed to be a professor, but didn't produce evidence, just like the alleged watchdog. v = 0 17:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it is VERY TELLING that the alleged watchdog has not responded, much less responded postively, to my offer to put "riven with internal inconsistencies" inside quotation marks in the TSSI article. Were it his purpose to constructively edit the page, rather than to levy charges against editors and make trouble, it seems to me that he would have responded to this offer. v = 0 22:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want my response, here it is:
1] after reviewing the time line, I find your
explanation not to be credible (indeed, it
is "riven with internal inconsistencies", imo),
but 2] go ahead and change the entry. It's
something you should have done weeks ago.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
request to not use sexist language
Please do not use sexist language on this page.
Raya_Dunayevskaya, a life-long advocate and fighter for womens' liberation, would be rolling over in her grave if she could read now what one of the members of a group she was a leader of wrote on this page. She'd roll over some more when she read his defense for using that offensive, sexist word.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
The Tag
M Posner: you say you support the removal of the tag. What reasoned argument can you make for why the following is not valid?
"The neutrality of this article is disputed"
Are you counter-factually claiming that there is no dispute? If so, I want to hear the rationalization for that claim. If not, I expect you to withdraw your support for removing the tag. That, after all, would be the only logically consistent action to take.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
No offense intended, WatchDog, but I advise you to read more carefully.
No offense taken, but I re-read what you wrote
which was "I also agree, using the U-2 model of
consensus-making, that th NPOV dispute tag should
be removed." There you have it: I read what you
wrote correctly: you supported removing the tag
(but wanted to follow the U-2 model to remove
it). This leaves unanswered my question: why
do (or did) you dispute the claim that "The
neutrality of this article is disputed"?
So long as the neutrality of the article is
disputed the tag has to remain.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
Akliman said that he "would like to use the U-2 consensus model to decide on whether to remove the tag, and to decide on the procedure to be used to decide on whether to remove the tag, and to decide ... all the way down."
My support of removing the tag was clearly a response to this, and therefore clearly applies to the case in which we apply to the U-2 consensus model (which I support). Obviously I do not deny that you dispute the neutrality of this article. You have made that clear enough!
M.posner 22:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)