Talk:Temporal single-system interpretation/Archive 3

Archived Material

I have archived the discussion on this talk page that took place thru 27 April at [1], and the discussion that took place thereafter but before some point on 12 May at [2]. For ease of reference, I have also included at the top (of this, the current, talk page) two pieces from before:

(1) a crucial reminder that WP policy stipulates "Comment on content, not the contributor," and

(2) "Restoring Valid Content that "Watchdog07" Keeps Deleting," which contains detailed justification of what is, at this moment, a version of the TSSI article basically like the present one.

justice-thunders-condemnation 20:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

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 [3].

"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 [4], 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)

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 [5], 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 [6], 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 [7].

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.

Andrew Kliman Akliman (talk · contribs)

STOP THE NONSENSE! - Intent to Revert article to STUB

When Andrew Kliman removed the neutrality tag, and other tags, from the article he left me with no alternative: I WILL reduce the article to a black-and-white factual article. When he removed the neutrality tag from the article even though he knows that the neutrality of the article has been disputed, he insulted the editors and readers of Wikipedia. This can not and will not stand.

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

After I revert the article, I have asked that a LOCK be placed on the article. At that point, we can have discussions about expanding the article. It's time for him to get SERIOUS! If that doesn't happen, then the article will become a candidate for deletion.

The article does not belong to Andrew Kliman and he will have to allow for a neutral edit. It can happen readily and relatively painlessly if he wants it to happen. In any event, neutrality will prevail.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

With all due respect, your tone in this strikes me as a little bit scary, as if you have taken a hostage and you're ready to do something terrible ("he left me with no alternative"... "it can happen readily and relatively painlessly if he wants it to happen"...) . Please relax and remember that this is not the end of the world and that in order to reach consensus we need calm discussion rather than an attempts to take the article hostage, so to speak. If you would like to take a break perhaps we can cease editing the article for a few days and resume discussion later.

M.posner 02:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to talk about. When Andrew Kliman removed the neutrality and other tags from the article, he ended the discussion. When I log in next and look at the article, someone else will have already put all of the tags back on it or I will revert the article to stub. Until that happens, there is absolutely no possibility of us continuing the discussion. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Request for comment

Watchdog07 has issued the following threat: "When I log in next and look at the article, someone else will have already put all of the tags back on it or I will revert the article to stub." (See what is now the end of the "Stop the Nonsense" entry immediately above.)

To revert an article to a stub is to make it a candidate for quick deletion.

The warning tags are currently under discussion. There's no consensus at present regarding the need for them.

Watchdog07 thinks they are needed because, he claims, (1) the article is non-neutral and (2) needs a complete rewrite, (3) the material on the journal (COPE) reads like an ad, and (4) the link to a page on my website with information about my book is spam (4).

I disagree with all four claims, as do the other editors who have addressed these issues in whole or part. I also think that, taken in their totality the warning tags (neutrality, complete rewrite, advertising, and spam) give the appearance that the article is disreputable, but that since there is no consensus about this at present, the tags should not be included. I also don't think they should be included because, taken in their totality, they were being used in order to gain an upper hand in a content dispute, which is not their purpose. justice-thunders-condemnation 04:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

agreement with M.Posner

Thanks to justice-thunders-condemnation for the archiving and tidy-up.

I think M.Posner makes a sensible comment "Please relax and remember that this is not the end of the world and that in order to reach consensus we need calm discussion rather than an attempts to take the article hostage, so to speak. If you would like to take a break perhaps we can cease editing the article for a few days and resume discussion later."

Watchdog, your proposal to revert the page to a stub so as to have it deleted, puts you in a minority of one. We all know that the TSSI page can be improved - but you are the only person who thinks it should be removed.

This is not really surprising: if the precedent is established on Wikipedia that you can abolish a page just by making enough fuss about it, there's gonna be a lot of vulnerable pages out there.

If you can just once for all drop the threat of deletion, I think you will find the atmosphere will significantly improve.

You will gain respect for it, and you will find people will listen to serious proposals for improvements. People have done work on this page, they have spent time on it - and on engaging with you - the page is not perfect, nothing ever is, but this one is acknowledged by all including the original editor to be the best yet.

If you want to get changes, you have to make the effort to convince people - win them over, or reach a compromise with them. Listen to what they are saying, respond to it in a way that will move things forward (calling their good faith into question is not likely to achieve that, by the way)

Consensus has actually now been achieved on at least one question, albeit a small one. I am sure it can be done for others. Why not stick to one point at a time, work out a compromise, and move on?

These things take time. Take a break, think about things before you post, read through before you edit to see if you are causing inadvertent offense, try and lay of the personal attacks (I think most people involved in this dispute now know what your charges are so why keep repeating them?)

We all have lives to lead. Give us a break and let's have some meaningful good faith discussion.

Regards

Alan XAX Freeman 13:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC) (AKA raison-tonne-en-son-cratere)

Last Reply to Alan Freeman and M.Posner

I will ask that Alan Freeman and M.Posner be indefinately blocked for violation of WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. Alan Freeman has TWICE violated the instructions given to him by J.Smith which Mr. Freeman acknowledged and agreed to. I only recognize the existence of one other (recent) legitimate contributor to this page: Akliman, a person who has admitted to soliciting meatpuppets on his user talk page

No, I didn't solicit anyone. See my correction on J.Smith's page. justice-thunders-condemnation 18:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

See my reply on the same page J.Smith (talk · contribs). Watchdog07 Watchdogog07 (talk · contribs)

and is hence, according to Wiki policy, the puppetmaster. To be a meatpuppet is an act of bad faith; to recruit meatpuppets and be a puppetmaster is an act of bad faith. Note that this is NOT a personal attack: I am simply insisting that [[WP:SOCK] and WP:SOCK be recognized and enforced.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

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

FOR THE RECORD

ALTHOUGH MANY OF THE MESSAGES HAVE NOW BEEN ARCHIVED, PLEASE NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT I HAVE DISPUTE THE NEUTRALITY OF THE E N T I R E ARTICLE AND HAVE SPEND MANY HOURS AND DOZENS OF MESSAGES ITEMIZIING THE EXTENT TO WHICH THERE ARE MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS OF WIKIPEDIA POLICIES. MY OBJECTIONS CAN BE READ HERE AND IN THE ARCHIVES. THEY CONCERN NOT JUST THE SECTION ON COPE OR THE USE OF AN EXTERNAL LINK WHICH QUALIFIES AS SPAM. I DISPUTE AND HAVE DISPUTED E V E R Y___S I N G L E___S E C T I O N OF THE ARTICLE.

Anyone who says that my objections just concern COPE and the exteranal link to Kliman's web site promoting his book is NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.

Good faith requires that you RECOGNIZE my objections and take them SERIOUSLY.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Questions for WatchDog07

WatchDog07,

You made more changes to the article than you noted either on the talk page or on the edit summary. You deleted one of the sources regarding "internal inconsistency" (which as I noted above on this talk page, is a source that is used multiple times throughout the article, making it strange to remove it on this specific instance), and you inserted a "this source's reliability made need verification" tag in a spot where there is no source. The source nearest to the part of the paragraph that you inserted the tag is the John Cassidy article. If you're disputing that source, then why did you delete the other source but leave that one?

I am going to revert the page to the MrMacMan edit it both because it doesn't make sense and because there was no consensus reached before placing it on the page.

I also think that we should stick to one issue at a time. What would you like it to be? I would suggest COPE since we have already been talking about it quite a bit. (This question is also directed to Akliman and Alan Freeman.)

M.posner 17:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree about sticking to one issue at a time. When we do that, we make progress. When we try and deal with everything at once, there's no progress and everything is called into question without the focus needed in order to fix any problem with the article that may still remain.

As for what issue to deal with now, I don't care. Maybe we should let Watchdog07 decide, since he's the one who doesn't like the article. justice-thunders-condemnation 18:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

strict adherence to conditions of block

Watchdog, I am not quite sure how seeking to ban me does not constitute a personal attack; it is certainly not the most friendly or constructive way to respond to a helpful suggestion.

There may be some confusion since a part of the discussion on my participation remains private between myself and the administrator concerned. I have to my knowledge adhered strictly to the conditions set.

The conditions of unblocking were that I should contribute to the talk page and not conduct any edits. I quote from the talk page " only edit the article(s) under-dispute so long as any and all edits are either simple grammatical/spelling/etc or edits that have gained consensus."

Actually I haven't edited the article at all.

I have made two interventions on this page, which were both aimed at trying to assist you in securing consensus. I wasn't aware of any injunction against intervening on the talk page but if you can point me to it, I will of course consider it after dicussing with the administrators.

If I am asked by to conduct myself differently then of course I will; why don't you simply state what it is that you wish me to do? As far as I can see your request is that I should not contribute to this discussion at all. This seems a strange way to establish whether there is a consensus.

One final point: I think you are simply mistaken in thinking that Andrew, Mike and myself are some kind of army working to a single command, which is what your complaint implies. I am not sure how to persuade you of that; however I can assure you we are all independent people with very independent views and approaches. Other visitors to this page, who you have not accused of collaboration, have offered exactly the same advice to you.

If ten independent people come up to you and say "I really don't think that what you are saying sounds right", it isn't necessarily because they have formed a conspiracy against you. It could also be that they all happen not to think that what you are saying sounds right.

It could also be because you are wrong. You need to consider that possibility. I certainly consider the possibility that I am wrong, all the time, and I think with Oscar Wilde that there is no greater fool than a person who cannot do so.

As regards M.Posner's suggestion, I do think it would be useful to move on one question at a time and I think it ought, from the previous discussion, to be possible to resolve this particular dispute. At one time, wordings were being proposed. Can we go back to that?

Alan XAX Freeman 17:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Violation of 3-Revert Rule

AKliman and M.Posner reverted the article 3 times in the last day. This is a violation of the 3-revert rule since, according to WP:SOCK meatpuppets and a puppetmaster are to be treated as one (1) person. There has been an arbitration ruling about that. I demand that AKliman (according to policy, the person responsible) reverse the reversions. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

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

Answers and Questions

1. The source tag in the first para. is not new - it was placed there on the 10th and was explained here before and afterwards and at the time it was first placed in the article.

This is very misleading. It is true that you placed the tag there on the 10th. At that time, the only source was the John Cassidy article. So the tag must have been referring to the Cassidy article, since there was no other source it could have been refering to. As I pointed out in my above post, if you don't like the Cassidy source then why did you remove the other source which I cited when you asked for another source? You have not answered my question. M.posner 18:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bear of very little brain. What's under discussion here (point 1)? Can someone please explain? justice-thunders-condemnation 19:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

See my post entitled "Questions for WatchDog07." Also see the last WatchDog07 reversion of the page. M.posner

2. I will no longer reply to M. Posner.

3. I will no longer reply to Alan Freeman.

I urge you to reconsider. It is more difficult to arrive at the needed consensus when you don't reply to folks. justice-thunders-condemnation 19:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned - at least for purposes of this discussion - they don't exist. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

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

4. When Akliman removed the neutrality tag from the article that was not the action of someone acting in good faith.

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

I'll ignore this. justice-thunders-condemnation 19:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

5. When Akliman claimed that my only objections to the article concerned the section on COPE and the link which constitutes spam, he was not speaking accurately.

That's not what I wrote. I wrote that the neutrality and cleanup issues all reduce to advertising, spam and reliable-source issues. justice-thunders-condemnation 19:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

He knew that I had objected to every section of the article and for him to state otherwise to Mr.MacMan was not the action of someone of good faith.

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

6. Akliman has never apologized here or to me for soliciting meatpuppets; Alan Freeman and M.Posner have never apologized here or to me for being meatpuppets.

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

See correction above. justice-thunders-condemnation 19:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the above, I don't see how this discussion can continue. I therefore ask Akliman (the only other active person on this page): what do you want to do?

We can seek mediation through Wikipedia. Would you like to do that?

We can seek mediation outside of Wikipedia (if we can agree on a mediator, a time frame, and a procedure). Would you like to do that?

We can revert the article to stub or to Jurriaan's edit. Would you like to do that?

Do you consider Jurriaan Bendien's piece NEUTRAL and in conformity with WR:RS? If so, then maybe that's why we have so much disagreement over neutrality here. His version included the following unsourced and highly tendentious (and false) statements:

"TSSI claims Karl Marx was literally correct ... and that there are no important logical or mathematical errors in his theory of value"

"supporters of TSSI claim that they have Marxist orthodoxy on their side"

"Supporters of TSSI typically believe that neo-classical economics does not offer any insights or concepts that could be helpful in understanding a capitalist market economy. Consequently any dialogue between Marxian and neo-classical economists is usually regarded as pointless, because the respective viewpoints are incommensurable"

COPE consists of "an international academic faction of TSSI sympathisers and supporters"

Please, Watchdog07, can you assure us that you don't mean THIS when you refer to your desire for a neutral article and when you place non-neutrality warning tags on the current version? If this is your goal, then you are right. There is nothing to talk about.

I think that Jurriaan's edit could have been improved. A way to do that was to discuss changes with him on this page. That you did not do. But, you got all in a huff when I made changes to your article - explaining my edits with about the same length with which you explained your changes to Jurriaan's edits. As I have said all along, you need to be consistent in you actions as editor.

I'M TERRBIBLY SORRY, Watchdog07, BUT THE ABOVE IS A NON-DENIAL DENIAL. DO YOU CONSIDER JURRIAAN BENDIEN'S VERSION TO HAVE BEEN NEUTRAL? IS THIS WHAT YOU MEAN BY "NEUTRALITY" WHEN YOU SAY THAT THE CURRENT VERSION ISN'T NEUTRAL? OR DO YOU REGARD JURRIAAN BENDIEN'S VERSION AS HIGHLY TENDENTIOUS AND NON-NEUTRAL, AND THEREFORE IMPROPER? THIS IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT MATTER, BECAUSE, IF YOUR GOAL IS TO MAKE THE ARTICLE "NEUTRAL" LIKE JURRIAAN BENDIEN'S VERSION WAS, THEN WE INDEED HAVE NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT. IF, HOWEVER, YOU ASSURE US THAT YOU CONSIDER HIS VERSION TO HAVE BEEN (1) HIGHLY TENDENTIOUS, (2) VERY INADEQUATELY DOCUMENTED, AND THEREFORE (3) IMPROPER, THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO ENTER INTO WP-SPONSORED MEDIATION. justice-thunders-condemnation 05:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

So please do assure us that you consider Jurriaan Bendien's version to have been highly tendentious, very inadequately documented, and therefore improper. Thank you in advance. justice-thunders-condemnation 19:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In raising the question of a reversion to Jurriaan's edit, I was only suggesting one possibility. As you recall, I attempted a black-and-white, factual edit previously. My intention - stated repeatedly on this page - was to revert the page to a black-and-white edit with the understanding in advance that we would agree that expanding the article would be our goal. I still don't see what's wrong with that idea. We could take one paragraph or section at a time and work our way forward until we had an article of the same or greater length which we could all agree would be neutral.

As for mediation on WP, I suppose I have no objection in principle, although the apparent endorsement of Jurriaan Bendien's version of the article is extremely troubling

see above. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

and, before saying yes or no, I want to listen to and think about what the other editors of the article suggest.

Of course. You always listen to what they have to say. After all, their purpose for being here - according to you - was to "defend the article" - the article written by you. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

I have suggested compromises on a number of occasions which you have ignored or rejected. I can tell you one thing - I'm not going to give up. I will never agree to the article as it stands now.

This is again very troubling. If taken literally, it means that you are not willing to rethink your position, not willing to be convinced by others' arguments, not willing even in principle to be part of a consensus in support of the current article under any conditions whatsoever. Please do consider what Alan XAX Freeman wrote about about being open to the possibility that one is wrong, about anything and even everything. Can you please assure us that, IF truly solid arguments are put forward to keep the article in its present form, that you will be open-minded and agree to keeping it in its present form? For my part, I pledge that IF truly solid arguments are put forward to change the article, I will be open-minded and agree to changing it. justice-thunders-condemnation 19:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If M.Posner and Alan XAX Freeman make arguments, I will ignore them completely. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

PLEASE ANSWER "YES" OR "NO" AS TO WHETHER YOU ARE WILLING TO BE OPEN-MINDED, SUCH THAT, IF SOLID ARGUMENTS ARE PRESENTED, YOU WILL INDEED AGREE TO DROP YOUR OBJECTIONS TO THE ARTICLE. IF YOU ANSWER "YES," I WILL BE HAPPY TO ENTER INTO WP-SPONSORED MEDIATION. IF YOU ANSWER "NO," THEN MEDIATION IS OF NO USE, SINCE IT WOULD ALL BE JUST SHOW, A TOOL TO ACCOMPLISH ONE'S AIMS, NOT A PROCESS IN WHICH ONE LISTENS, AND ONE IS PREPARED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE OTHER SIDE IS RIGHT ABOUT SOME THINGS AND MAYBE EVEN EVERYTHING, AND TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT. justice-thunders-condemnation 05:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

So, what do you want to do?

I want to think about the mediation thing, get feedback from other editors, and have my concerns and questions here addressed. Thank you in advance. justice-thunders-condemnation 19:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

how should a majority act confronted with dissent?

Watchdog writes "I have suggested compromises on a number of occasions which you have ignored or rejected. I can tell you one thing - I'm not going to give up. I will never agree to the article as it stands now."

I think we have all got that point, and I don't see anyone on this page that doesn't want to change the article from the way it stands now. So we ought to be able to work together to improve it.

Well, the duty of anyone who disagrees with Watchdog is to find something that Watchdog will agree to. Watchdog's duty is to propose something the other guys can relate to eg substituting a double quote where it wasn't there before, which seems to have worked.

As I said earlier, I don't think that reducing the page to a stub will work, so let's drop that and consider other options.

Watchdog, I understand that you don't like what the article says now. That is very reasonable and I am sure noone could object to constructive proposals for improvement.

I think however what you need to try and do, is phrase the changes that you want in such a way that it can be changed to the satisfaction of everyone. In a consensus environment, there isn't any way out of that. You have to work out a way to convince the active editors of this page, not just administrators or outside mediators. Mediators might help, but take it from me as a long-time trade unionist, at the end of the day, all that mediators can do is find out the common ground that already exists, between folks that really seem to be fighting over next to nothing.

My suggestion(which is only a suggestion) is to focus on one particular thing at a time and see if we can reach agreement on that - eg whether the COPE entry is self-advertisement.

Alan XAX Freeman 20:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppets and Consensus

"There is no requirement that we count the opinions of 'meatpuppets' when determining consensus ...." J. Smith J.Smith (talk · contribs)

As I indicated previously, I will not count the opinions of meatpuppets.

That means that there are only two non-meatpuppets currently participating on this page -- Akliman and Watchdog07.

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

This puts us in an odd situation: there is neither consensus to keep the article nor consensus to revert the article. Indeed, an equal number of current editors are in favor of each. Accordingly, I feel entirely justified in reverting the article to stub and then proceding from that point forward. That is, both of us can't live with the current edit but we both clearly can temporaily live with an article which only contains materials which are facts and hence non-controversial. On the plus side, a b&w edit won't need a neutality or other tags. This is what should have happened a long time ago. It would have saved us all a lot of time and aggrevation.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

again i don't feel that these people, while are related, are meat-puppets.

J.smith wrote "As M.Posner is infact a meatpuppet, I will require him to follow the same rules as Alan ....". See further comments made on my talk page. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

P.S. this talk page is becoming impossible to read because every single post has its own title heading instead of following the procedures on how to use talk pages and how to properly comment to other editors. MrMacMan ^Talk 02:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You want to see what a neutral edit looks like?

I am not going to go over - line-by-line - Jurriaan's old edit as it is not at issue now. You do ask a legitimate question, though: what does a neutral edit look like?

Dear Watchdog07,

Excuse me, but my question is much different from what you claim it is. My question is whether you consider Jurriaan Bendien's tendentious and unsourced version of this article to be neutral. This is very much at issue when be are considering mediation. As I noted previously, mediation may be of use if everyone agrees that Jurriaan Bendien's version was tendentious, improperly sourced, and improper, but if you cannot or will not agree to that, then there is no point in us discussing your demands for a "neutral" article.

No one is asking you to go over Jurriaan Bendien's version line by line. I've asked you--and I respectfully ask you once again, dear Watchdog07--to simply assure us that you forthrightly denounce the portions of his version that I quoted and that I reproduce below. Unfortunately, it seems on the surface that you may be trying to evade the issue, perhaps because you could live with Jurriaan Bendien's version of the article as a "neutral" one. I certainly do hope and believe that it is not your intention to attempt to evade a straightfoward response as to whether you denounce the portions of Jurriaan Bendien's text I have cited as non-neutral, unsourced, and improper.

Thank you in advance, dearest Watchdog07, for your straightforward response to this question. I reproduce the relevant discussion below. justice-thunders-condemnation 15:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[Watchdog07:] We can revert the article to stub or to Jurriaan's edit. Would you like to do that?

[Andrew Kliman (j-t-c):] Do you consider Jurriaan Bendien's piece NEUTRAL and in conformity with WR:RS? If so, then maybe that's why we have so much disagreement over neutrality here. His version included the following unsourced and highly tendentious (and false) statements:

"TSSI claims Karl Marx was literally correct ... and that there are no important logical or mathematical errors in his theory of value"

"supporters of TSSI claim that they have Marxist orthodoxy on their side"

"Supporters of TSSI typically believe that neo-classical economics does not offer any insights or concepts that could be helpful in understanding a capitalist market economy. Consequently any dialogue between Marxian and neo-classical economists is usually regarded as pointless, because the respective viewpoints are incommensurable"

COPE consists of "an international academic faction of TSSI sympathisers and supporters"

Please, Watchdog07, can you assure us that you don't mean THIS when you refer to your desire for a neutral article and when you place non-neutrality warning tags on the current version? If this is your goal, then you are right. There is nothing to talk about.

[Watchdog 07:] I think that Jurriaan's edit could have been improved. A way to do that was to discuss changes with him on this page. That you did not do. But, you got all in a huff when I made changes to your article - explaining my edits with about the same length with which you explained your changes to Jurriaan's edits. As I have said all along, you need to be consistent in you actions as editor.

I'M TERRBIBLY SORRY, Watchdog07, BUT THE ABOVE IS A NON-DENIAL DENIAL. DO YOU CONSIDER JURRIAAN BENDIEN'S VERSION TO HAVE BEEN NEUTRAL? IS THIS WHAT YOU MEAN BY "NEUTRALITY" WHEN YOU SAY THAT THE CURRENT VERSION ISN'T NEUTRAL? OR DO YOU REGARD JURRIAAN BENDIEN'S VERSION AS HIGHLY TENDENTIOUS AND NON-NEUTRAL, AND THEREFORE IMPROPER? THIS IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT MATTER, BECAUSE, IF YOUR GOAL IS TO MAKE THE ARTICLE "NEUTRAL" LIKE JURRIAAN BENDIEN'S VERSION WAS, THEN WE INDEED HAVE NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT. IF, HOWEVER, YOU ASSURE US THAT YOU CONSIDER HIS VERSION TO HAVE BEEN (1) HIGHLY TENDENTIOUS, (2) VERY INADEQUATELY DOCUMENTED, AND THEREFORE (3) IMPROPER, THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO ENTER INTO WP-SPONSORED MEDIATION. justice-thunders-condemnation 05:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

So please do assure us that you consider Jurriaan Bendien's version to have been highly tendentious, very inadequately documented, and therefore improper. Thank you in advance. justice-thunders-condemnation 19:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It is an edit which is based on facts rather than the opinions of editors and there are reliable sources which show that when claims of consensus are made there is consensus on the claims. Extraordinary claims require extrordinary sources. Furthermore, there is neutral language used in the edit (no loaded terminology, for instance) and other Wikipedia policies are complied with. Neutral edits furthermore do not contain advertising or spam. Neutral edits should read like encyclopedia articles rather than propaganda and advocacy of a position.

I will show you what a neutral edit looks like and we can then work together to expand it. A black-and-white factual edit is an example of a neutral edit, as you should know from what happened on the David Laibman page.

Reply to Andrew Kliman's SCREAMING question - I don't think that Jurriaan's edit mas a model for neutrality, although I think he intended it to be a neutral edit. I consider Jurriaan's edit, though, to be more neutral than the completely one-sided, self-promotional edit by AKliman. Jurriaan's edit could stand improvement; AKliman's edit was not suitable for an encyclopedia which presents facts pertaining to a subject. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Dearest Watchdog07

I'm sorry, my friend, but you are giving me comparative terms (not "a model for neutrality," "more neutral"). On the surface, it seems that these comparative terms are being used to evade the question, namely:

do you think that Jurrriaan Bendien's version was (passably) neutral, or do you denounce it as non-neutral, unsourced and improper?

Again, I hope and trust that evasion is not the intent of your esteeemed self. Thus I respectfully beg you, for a fourth time, to provide a straightforward answer to my question:

Do you denounce the portions of Jurriaan Bendien's text I have cited, above, as non-neutral, unsourced, and improper?

Thanks in advance for providing the straightforward answer requested. justice-thunders-condemnation 17:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Watchdog07 has reduced this page to a stub without obtaining prior consensus.

Procedural proposal

Andrew Kliman has put in a request for mediation. I propose that there be no further discussion here or on the related talk pages and that there be no changes to the article or the related articles until we know whether all have agrred to mediation and hear whether the request for mediation has been accepted. The related articles are Pluralism_in_economics and Marxian_economics.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

I do not agree about discussion. The discussion is progressing very well. I'm also waiting for an answer to my question about whether Watchdog07 considers Jurriaan Bendien's tendentious, false, improperly sourced version of the TSSI article to be (passably) neutral. Pending mediation ios not a good reason to permit this issue to be evaded, intentionally or not.

I agree about no changes to the articles if Watchdog07 is referring to the articles as edited by me a few minutes ago. If he means his factually incorrect, unsourced stub, which makes the TSSI article a candiadte for deletion, and his other versions that have the effect of suppressing the public's awareness of the TSSI, the IWGVT, and COPE, then I do not agree. I am opposed to suppression of ideas. justice-thunders-condemnation 18:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

DEAL IS OFF! You really had me fooled for a bit. I thought you might actually be ready to see this dispute resolved through mediation. That's why I promptly agreed to it. Then I saw your most recent edits and reversions and I realize that you have no intention of seriously discussing the issues and resolving them. That's why I have withdrawn my support for mediation. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Dearest Watchdog,

My friend, the facts show that you requested mediation repeatedly, and I agreed to it. But when I didn't agree to have the articles in question "frozen" on your versions in the meantime, you suddenly refused to go to mediation. Is it your desire to go to mediation or is it your desire to have the articles in question "frozen" on your versions?

I am perfectly willing to discuss your versions during the mediation process. I am perfectly willing to be convinced that your versions are proper. I have every intention of seriously discussing and resolving the issues. I simply do not accept your versions yet, nor your reverting to them without consensus having been reached.

So, dear friend, I implore you to reconsider your refusal to engage in mediation. Mediation is good for the articles, it is good for Wikipedia, and it is good for the public that deserves the fullest possible access to information about the TSSI, the IWGVT, and COPE.

Against my better judgment, I'll give you another chance. I'll agree to mediation provided as we begin mediation: 1. the TSSI article is either reverted to the b&w edit or to your edit with ALL of the tags in place; 2. the article on pluralism in economics treats both URPE and the IWGVT as equals; 3. the article on Marxian_economics has a neutrality tag put on it in the section on the TSSI; 4. the meat puppets are in no way considered to be legitimate parties in the dispute; 5) this is no further discussion on this or related pages until either our request for mediation is rejected or the mediation process concludes. The ball is in your court. I have asked for very reasonable things. If you want mediation - after all of the water that has flowed under the bridge - you have to show good faith by agreeing to the above. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

I am restoring what I wrote originally, since Watchdog07's breaking-up of my text serves, unintentionally, I'm sure, to obscure the fact that I was, and am, willing "to listen carefully, consider carefully, and discuss thoroughly and in good faith [his] justifications for the changes [he] proposes in the articles." When I wrote that I will not consider demands nor make counter offers, I was, as the 3rd paragraph of my text makes clear, only rejecting deals and horse-trading that are not based on the merits of proposed content. justice-thunders-condemnation 20:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Dearest Watchdog,

I do not understand your reasoning here. Why do I "have to" agree to the above in order to show good faith? Why am I not showing good faith if I distinguish--as you once did as well--between organizations that are specifically dedicated to pluralism in economics and those which are not? Why is a difference of opinion bad faith?

Can you please explain these things to me, dear friend? Thank you in advance.

I do not cut deals nor horse-trade. I'm willing to be convinced by solid arguments, but if there's not rational justification for something, I won't agree to it. We're dealing with ideas here, not divvying up territory or property. So I will not agree to your five demands nor make a counter offer. I remain willing to listen carefully, consider carefully, and discuss thoroughly and in good faith your justifications for the changes you propose in the articles. Thank you very much for understanding, dear Watchdog.

I'm still hope you will agree to mediation, which is good for the articles, good for Wikipedia, and good for the public that deserves the fullest possible access to information about the TSSI, the IWGVT, and COPE.

justice-thunders-condemnation 04:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the text as broken up &interspersed with Watchdog07's comments. justice-thunders-condemnation 20:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC):

Dearest Watchdog,

I do not understand your reasoning here. Why do I "have to" agree to the above in order to show good faith?

You asked for mediation and I agreed and then you had reversions and used aggressive and accusatory language against this editor. For someone who sought out mediation, that was a display of bad faith, or, at least, self-contradictory and self-defeating behavior. Now you have to show good faith - if you truly want mediation, which I seriously doubt given the your most recent words and actions. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Why am I not showing good faith if I distinguish--as you once did as well--between organizations that are specifically dedicated to pluralism in economics and those which are not? Why is a difference of opinion bad faith?

The IWGVT is specifically dedicated to the discussion of value theory and has emphasized that it wants a discussion of the TSSI in particular. URPE is a far more general, diverse and consistent supporter of pluralism. You displayed very bad faith on that page when you inserted weasal words in that article. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Can you please explain these things to me, dear friend? Thank you in advance.

Do not call me your "dear friend". Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

I do not cut deals nor horse-trade. I'm willing to be convinced by solid arguments, but if there's not rational justification for something, I won't agree to it.

I have seen no evidence to date that you are willing to be convinced by solid arguments. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

We're dealing with ideas here, not divvying up territory or property. So I will not agree to your five demands nor make a counter offer.

SO BE IT. With that last sentence you have closed off any possibility of there being mediation. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

I remain willing to listen carefully, consider carefully, and discuss thoroughly and in good faith your justifications for the changes you propose in the articles. Thank you very much for understanding, dear Watchdog.

I'm still hope you will agree to mediation,

No, that's not what you want. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

which is good for the articles, good for Wikipedia, and good for the public

Mediation would have been a good way to resolve this dispute, but you have undermined that possibility. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

that deserves the fullest possible access to information about the TSSI, the IWGVT, and COPE.

justice-thunders-condemnation 04:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Best wishes, justice-thunders-condemnation 20:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Regading your comments about "suppression" - we can all see from the Pluralism_in_economics page that you have sought to suppress mention of URPE and to give the IWGVT a higher status and to disparage (with weasal words) URPE. That is not the action of someone who is genuinely opposed to suppression of ideas. It's not the action of someone genuinely in favor of pluralism in economics. It is the action of someone who is a suppressor of ideas and an opponent of pluralism. What you have done there and here represents a giant defeat for pluralism! Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

The above violates WP:NPA, which stipulates "Comment on content, not on the contributor." justice-thunders-condemnation 20:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I answered your question about Jurriaan's edit above. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

As Andrew Kliman sabotaged his own request for mediation, I withdraw the procedural proposal I made above. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

It is my comment that agree to mediation -- i don't see any other way that these deep seeded problems across several articles can be addressed in some formal matter. RFC has passed, i tried to step in and settle some problems because i saw this horrible talk page and the massive amount of discussion. I have seen incivil comments, accusations. I pray that mediation can be used. MrMacMan ^Talk 02:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Goodjob, mediation has been declined

Anyone who declined to mediate should be given some sort of award. You know what? Give me a warning for being uncivil I've held it back for too long. WHY WOULD YOU EVER DECLINE MEDIATION? ITS GIVIN BY IMPARTIAL, OUTSIDE PEOPLE -- ANY BIAS IN THE CASE WOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AND IGNORED BY THE MEDIATOR! AHH! So there, mediation has failed and the slow edit war/accusations continue onward. MrMacMan ^Talk 17:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I won't give you a warning. You are frustrated, as am I. You wrote previously that you haven't had experience with a request for a Wikipedia mediation. Neither had I. Neither had Andrew Kliman, I believe. What would have been useful is for someone from the mediation committee (prior to agreeing to mediate) to simply tell us something about the process. Perhaps that same person could have helped us to come to terms on the circumstances under which we could have begun mediation. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

For the Record.

On his User talk page, Watchdog07 wrote:

"Don't blame me. I gave him [Andrew Kliman] more than one opportunity. He didn't really want mediation, he wants surrender. If he wanted mediation, he would haven't launched into new series of reversions and insults AFTER I agreed to mediation. After I withdrew consent, I gave him another chance. He not only wouldn't agree to what I believe were very reasonable requests, he even said that he wouldn't make a counter-offer. No agreement to my requests and no counter-offer equalled no mediation. He knew that when he responded to me. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk • contribs)"

The facts are that I filed a request for mediation and agreed to it. I placed no conditions on anyone. Alan XAX Freeman and MrMacMan also agreed to mediation. Watchdog07 initally agreed, but then reversed himself once the articles in question were not his approved versions. He then imposed five demands on me that I would have to satisfy before he would agree to mediation (including, for some reason I don't know, a demand to halt discussion of the content of the articles prior to mediation). I replied that I am willing to consider his proposed changes carefully, with an open mind, on the basis of the soundness of his arguments, but that, since we're dealing with ideas here, not divvying up teritory or property, I will only discuss the content of the articles; I won't cut deals or horse-trade. At that point, he reiterated his refusal to go to mediation.

Owing to his refusal, the request for mediation was denied.

As for the passage from Watchdog07 quoted above:

(1) I was given an opportunity to concede to demands; Watchdog07 was not willing to enter into mediation without conditions.

(2) I really do want mediation. That's why I went to the not-inconsiderable trouble of learning how to fill out the request for mediation, filling it out, and posting notices on seven different pages.

(3) Watchdog07 implies that I reverted the pages knowing that he had agreed to mediation. I don't see why this matters, but it isn't so. I did the mediation-request business and then attended to the articles.

(4) I am not aware of having launched into any insults, and Watchdog07 provides no evidence of this.

(5) I have already explained why I declined to cut deals and horse-trade. I requested mediation because it concerns the content of the articles; that's what I want to discuss. I requested mediation in order for that discussion to proceeed more smoothly, and unencumbered by other factors that have interfered with consideration of the content of the articles purely on the merits.

(6) The only reason why "No agreement to my [Watchdog07's] requests and no counter-offer equalled no mediation," is that he refused to enter into mediation in a straightforward way, without the imposition of conditions.

justice-thunders-condemnation 20:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

One more try

Andrew Kliman says he still wants mediation.

This can still happen, if he wants it to.

Please consider the following:

1. Andrew Kliman expressed concern about which edits would be in place at the outset of mediation.

I don't think so. justice-thunders-condemnation 08:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I expressed the same concern. The reason for the concern is that no one knows how long mediation would take and neither of us want to have articles in a state that we can't live with for that period of time. There is a way around this problem. I will agree that as we begin the process of mediation the edits for all three articles can be reverted to the edits he wrote provided only that I am allowed to place whatever tags on them I think they merit and no one deletes those tags. This doesn't give me what I really want (different edits which conform to WP:NPV and other Wikipedia policies) and it doesn't give Andrew Kliman what he really wants (his edits as written without any tags). It is a compromise that can allow us to move forward to mediation.

2. In his request for mediation, Andrew Kliman specified that the question to be addressed is whether the content of the TSSI article should be "deleted ....". I ask that "changed" be put instead of deleted, because many of my proposals have asked that edits be changed rather than deleted.

I specified the issue as "Should content on the TSSI be removed on grounds that it is (allegedly) spam, advertising, non-neutral, and that sources cited (allegedly) do not fit WP definition of reliable sources?" "Content on the TSSI" is not the same thing as "the content of the TSSI article." The former refers implicitly to content in all 3 articles, and, unlike the latter, it includes partial deletion of content. justice-thunders-condemnation 08:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

3. In the same request for mediation, Andrew Kliman specified that the Pluralism_in_economics and Marxian economics were related articles. I agree but think that we should seek through mediation to resolve the disputes concerning those articles as well and hence the content of those pages should be listed as additional "issues" to be addressed and resolved.

This was implicit in my specification of the issue. See my response to point 2. I have no objection to making this explicit. justice-thunders-condemnation 08:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

4. I have already said that I will not reply to any comments by Alan XAX Freeman and M.posner as I do not believe that they are legitimate parties to this dispute. I do not ask that Andrew Kliman agree with that accessment and policy, but I ask that he take note of it and that a mediator be informed of it.

5. I suggested that discussion on this and related pages cease. Andrew Kliman didn't understand the rationale for that request. Here's my rationale: I think it's fair to say that all involved are rather sensitive to the issues at this time and no one is happy with what has happened with the articles or on the talk pages or on the user talk pages. If we temporaily stop the discussion on the talk and user pages now and save the discussion for the mediation process it will allow us all a little time and space to chill out. That would increase the liklihood of a mediation process being successful, in my opinion.

The above is not "horse trading" and it's not unreasonable. He asked for arguments and I have given them. If he agrees to the above and re-submits a proposal for moderation then I will agree.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

If Watchdog07 files a request for mediation that includes all 5 original parties and all 3 articles mentioned in the original request, I will agree to mediation.

In re points 2 and 3, the request form allows him to specify the issue as he chooses, and it allows the other parties to add issues to be discussed. As noted above, I have no objection to explicit mention of the content of all 3 articles. If Watchdog07 files a request for mediation that does not include deletion of content on the TSSI as an issue, I will add it when I agree to mediation.

In re point 4, the WP mediation policy WP:mediation stipulates that it is the mediator's prerogative to stipulate the form of the mediation process. Thus, if the mediator asks one party to reply to another party, but the first party refuses, I suppose that this ends the mediation process. In any case, I assume good faith on the mediator's part and am willing to work out the form of mediation with him or her.

In re point 1, I am perfectly willing to compromise. I think compromise is cool. I have compromised on wording and documentation (e.g., the addition of "forthcoming," the inclusion of quotation marks, the inclusion of additional citations), and remain willing to do so. But, for reasons I have made clear, I will not cut deals over content that aren't based on intellectual merit. Thus, for instance, I cannot agree to warning tags that I consider highly improper just in order to make peace. I would be compromising my intellectual integrity--which is one thing I won't compromise--and acquiescing to a dangerous precedent, namely that horse trading without regard to intellectual merit is acceptable.

For this reason, I also cannot agree to any restrictions on my efforts to help improve articles that I find inadequate on intellectual grounds, such as restrictions on my freedom to discuss them on talk pages. I therefore cannot accept the proposal in point 5.

It should be understood that, by agreeing to go to mediation, I am not thereby implicitly or explicitly agreeing to anything else. Thus, for instance, efforts to improve and discuss articles and standards may not be construed as a sign of bad faith. Much less may such efforts be construed as a justification for others to renege on their agreement to engage in mediation.

justice-thunders-condemnation 08:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Kliman says he wants mediation and I want mediation so we should be able to come to an understanding that allows us to move forward to mediation. To begin with, as he is already familiar with the procedure for filing a request for mediation and as I don't have time at present to learn the procedure, I will let AKliman re-file. Next, I am not asking him to compromise his "intellectual integrity" but I will not begin mediation entirely on his terms. That means that I will not agree as we begin mediation to let him have his articles without tags. That would be compromising my intellectual integrity and, should you insist on that as a precondition for entering mediation, it would be a dealbreaker. The way around this is simply to let the edits stand "as is" as we begin the mediation process. I.e. neither of us change or revert the articles. As for talking on the talk pages, go ahead and talk. Understand, though, that so long as there is a possibility of mediation I won't answer and that what is said on the talk pages can have a negative impact on the prospects for success with mediation. As for asking me to reply to points made by Alan XAX Freeman and M.posner, I am confident that a mediator will not ask me to do so since that would not allow the mediation process to move forward.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Given Watchdog07's history of reneging on agreements (on and off Wikipedia)-- for instance his agreeing to mediation the other day and then turning around and refusing mediation--I won't waste any more of my time filing another request. I continue to agree to mediation. I will be happy to answer specific questions about the filing procedure if I am asked politely and respectfully.

WOW! THAT WAS UNCALLED FOR, AND IT WAS PERSONALLY ABUSIVE. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHO I AM SO YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO GROUNDS FOR SAYING WHAT I DID OR DID OR DID NOT DO "OFF WIKIPEDIA". I AWAIT YOUR APOLOGY. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

I think your taking his statement too personally. There really wasn't an attack both sides haven't given there. I've seen both of you classify each other as abusive and vindictive. MrMacMan ^Talk 17:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

How can I not take the commment "Given Watchdog07's history of reneging on agreements (on and off Wikipedia) ...." other than as being personally abusive ??? I await his apology. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

I'm sorry that Watchdog07 construed my explanation as personally abusive. It wasn't meant to be abusive. It was meant to provide a legitimate reason for why I don't agree to be the one to go through the considerable hassle of doing the actual filing of the request for mediation. I indicated that I would agree to a request filed by him. He replied that he wouldn't file; I have to file. If I had just come back and said, "no, I'm not going to file, you file," it would have come off very petty and infantile. So I felt the need to appeal to past experience in order to justify my unwillingness to take the risk of another huge waste of time, by going through all the hassle of filing and than having mediation rejected.

I remain willing to go to mediation as long as all 5 parties and all 3 article are included in the request, and no conditions are imposed by any party on others.

justice-thunders-condemnation 19:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

THIS WILL BE THE FOURTH TIME THAT I HAVE HAD TO TELL YOU THIS ON THIS PAGE. (Recall the sections "Who does Andrew Kliman think I am?", Parts I and II - now archived.) YOU DO NOT KNOW MY ACTUAL IDENTITY. DO NOT PRETEND THAT YOU KNOW MY IDENTITY. What you call a "legitimate reason" was personally abusive by ANY standard. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

I am not imposing conditions on anyone before I will enter mediation. I also will not accept conditions imposed upon me. Thus, for reasons I have already explained, but will explain again, if necessary, I cannot agree to Watchdog07's points 1 and 5, no matter how they are phrased.

I reiterate that, by agreeing to go to mediation, I am not thereby implicitly or explicitly agreeing to anything else. Thus, for instance, efforts to improve and discuss articles and standards may not be construed as a sign of bad faith. Much less may such efforts be construed as a justification for others to renege on their agreement to engage in mediation.

I would like to know what the other parties, Alan XAX Freeman, MrMacMan, and M.posner, think.

justice-thunders-condemnation 14:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I view: #1 -- doesn't matter since mediation would take care of it, so sure, accept. #2 -- sure. #3 whatever. #4 -- its not like they aren't different people -- even if they were the *same* person you wouldn't acknowledge their existence? That just seems rude and unnecessary. #5 -- Well... I dunno i have always agreed that parties in a heated dispute should walk away from the matter and take a few days to reflect on the issue. Is this necessary for mediation? I don't really know, but I feel that mediation should be (re) filed rather soon. MrMacMan ^Talk 17:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation: Yes or no?

Dear Watchdog,

Rather than reply at this moment to points that I regard as diversionary (though I trust that this is not intentional on your part), I want to get back to the important issue here: mediation.

Will you or will you not file a request for mediation, listing all 5 parties and all 3 issues, and without imposing additional conditions on the other parties?

Please answer "yes" or "no."

I remain willing to go to mediation without preconditions, in order to resolve matters, thereby allowing the public to receive high-quality, neutral information about the TSSI on Wikipedia.

justice-thunders-condemnation 06:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

:Sigh: Guys, guys. As much as I want him to answer yes -- i think he has made it clear that he wants certain things answered beforehand.

Akliman -- I'm sorry if I offended you.

Watchdog -- sorry if I offended you. MrMacMan ^Talk 06:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear MrMacMan,

No apology is needed. I was not offended.

It is not clear to me that he wants certain things answered beforehand or what those things may be. I also don't know what it means to "answer things." I will be happy to answer questions. But before I can do so, I need to know what those questions are, which I don't.

justice-thunders-condemnation 08:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

MrMacMan - Yes, you are correct about what I have made clear. I also don't like being given "yes or no" ultimatum-sounding questions, which he has done repeatedly. I also don't like being "time-sensitive" questions from him. Would you like to file the RFM? Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

AKliman - PLease do not issue what sounds, to me at least, like ultimatums. It is not in keeping with what you say you want. I have already told you that I do not have the time at present to learn the procedure and file a RFM. As I indicated previously, I am not thereby rejecting the possibility of agreeing to mediation. On another note, I encourage you, if you actually want mediation, to not issue ultimatums or launch personal attacks or revert articles or write anything which might tend to inflame the situation. Thank you in advance for your understanding and cooperation. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Dear Watchdog,

I will agree to be the one to file the request for mediation, if

(1) you swear that you will agree to the mediation within the time allotted, imposing no conditions on the other 4 parties, given that all three articles are listed and that both deletions and changes are specified as issues on the request form;

(2) you swear that you will not again renege on your agreement to engage in mediation prior to the mediators' decision about whether or not to accept the request; and

I'm sorry that you appear to believe that it is a personal attack for me to point out that you first agreed to mediation and then reneged on this the other day, but it is simply a highly relevant fact. I have to mention this fact in order to explain why I won't waste my time all over again, and must therefore protect myself by taking the above precaution. (And it is not a personal attack to mention that you reneged, because it refers to an action, not to the individual who took the action. See WP:NPA.)

I make the above offer in the spirit of compromise. If you truly want mediation, as you said you did at one time, I urge you to accept this offer.

Further, I pledge not to revert any edits made by you that have been agreed to by consensus.

justice-thunders-condemnation 23:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of new edits

I have removed tendentious warning tags that impugn my reliability and honesty. I changed the word "claimed" to the word "states." And I removed the warning tag next to the sentence in the text that points out that Laibman's and Veneziani's allegations against proponents of the TSSI were not accompanied by any evidence. There is simply no way to substantiate this claim other than to refer readers to the texts where the allegations were levelled without evidence. BUT THESE REFERENCES WERE ALREADY THERE.

Yet Watchdog07 placed a warning tag next to this sentence, claiming that the source's reliability needed to be verified. This action makes absolutely no sense--considered in terms of its intellectual merits--and if Watchdog07 had discussed this ahead of time and requested comment and consensus, as he should have done, I could have explained to him why his action makes no sense.

Laibman's text is a source. Veneziani's text is a source. These sources make false and harmful allegations against living persons without any accompanying evidence. What is there to verify? That the statements are true? No, the statements are completely false, but the sentence in the article doesn't say that Laibman or Veneziani tell the truth.

Does it need to be verified that they made these false and harmful statements without any accompanying evidence? No, citation of the relevant pages simply IS the verification that they made these false and harmful statements without any accompanying evidence.

Does the reliability of the sources, according to which Laibman and Veneziani wrote what they wrote and didn't write what they didn't write, need to be verified? No. The sources are Laibman and Veneziani themselves!! It is their own texts which are quoted!!

Dear Watchdog07, please check with me before introducing any changes to this or other articles, both because we're supposed to be editing by consensus, and especially because this would allow me to warn you that edits you might be about to make introduce changes that make no sense (considered in terms of their intellectual merits). I'm always happy to do so. Thank you very much in advance. justice-thunders-condemnation 23:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Once Again on Neutrality

Dearest Watchdog07,

You wrote, above, that "I answered your question about Jurriaan's edit above. Watchdog07."

But you actually have not answered my most recent question.

What you last wrote about the topic was, "I don't think that Jurriaan's edit mas a model for neutrality, although I think he intended it to be a neutral edit. I consider Jurriaan's edit, though, to be more neutral than the completely one-sided, self-promotional edit by AKliman. Jurriaan's edit could stand improvement; AKliman's edit was not suitable for an encyclopedia which presents facts pertaining to a subject. Watchdog07"

But I pointed out that, in this statement, "you are giving me comparative terms (not 'a model for neutrality,' 'more neutral'). On the surface, it seems that these comparative terms are being used to evade the question."

I then re-asked my question in a form that overcomes the problem:

"do you think that Jurrriaan Bendien's version was (passably) neutral, or do you denounce it as non-neutral, unsourced and improper?"

My dear Watchdog07, you have not answered THIS question. I beg of you to do so now.

And while you're at it, please let me know if you object to the removal of warning tags to the article. If there's no objection from you or others, I'll remove them. justice-thunders-condemnation 03:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not doubt your good faith. Yet if you are unwilling to denounce Jurrriaan Bendien's version of the TSSI article as non-neutral, unsourced, and improper, I must regretfully conclude that your STANDARDS of neutrality are far too low for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, and I must regretfully suggest, as a consequence, that you refrain from any further editing of controversial material.

(Jurriaan Bendien's version included the following unsourced and highly tendentious (and false) statements:

"TSSI claims Karl Marx was literally correct ... and that there are no important logical or mathematical errors in his theory of value"

"supporters of TSSI claim that they have Marxist orthodoxy on their side"

"Supporters of TSSI typically believe that neo-classical economics does not offer any insights or concepts that could be helpful in understanding a capitalist market economy. Consequently any dialogue between Marxian and neo-classical economists is usually regarded as pointless, because the respective viewpoints are incommensurable"

COPE consists of "an international academic faction of TSSI sympathisers and supporters".)

justice-thunders-condemnation 01:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Dearest Watchdog07,

I now have another reason to be concerned--gravely concerned--about the standards of neutrality to which you appeal when you go around interfering with the content of the TSSI article (and related ones). You have recently, on multiple occasions, used the N-word equivalent "N___ O___ M___"--without indicating that it is a malicious, incendiary, derogatory slur. For instance, you have twice placed the N-word equivalent in the TSSI article in a manner that falsely implies that TSSI proponents "call" themselves the N-word equivalent.

The other mention of the N-word equivalent in the TSSI article is a quote attributed to a specific individual, David Laibman, that does not suggest that his employment of the N-word equivalent is either proper or considered proper. His use of the N-word equivalent is characterized, correctly, as a "charge."

Do you consider the manner in which you have employed the N-word equivalent to be a "model of neutrality"?

Please just answer yes or no (rather than diverting the issue, or pointing the finger in another direction, or comparing your actions to those of others, as I am certain that you would never intend to do, of course).

Do you consider the manner in which you have employed the N-word equivalent to be even passably neutral?

Please just answer yes or no (rather than diverting the issue, or pointing the finger in another direction, or comparing your actions to those of others, as I am certain that you would never intend to do, of course).

Many thanks in advance for your straightforward answers to these simple questions.

If you fail to denounce your actions as biased and improper, I must regretfully conclude that your STANDARDS of neutrality are far too low for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, and I must regretfully suggest, as a consequence, that you refrain from any further interference with controversial material.

Fair enough, right?

justice-thunders-condemnation 17:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:SHUN Watchdog07 17:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Dearest Watchdog07: Greetings to you, my colleague. Please note that WP:SHUN states, "WP:SHUN (which is only an essay, not a policy or even a guideline) should not be invoked in an effort to evade pertinent questions about your actions, standards, or beliefs. Difficult editors may need to be asked questions in order to get them to reveal their motives, and as a behavior modification technique."

I would appreciate straightforward answers to my "pertinent questions about your actions, standards, [and] beliefs." Thank you in advance.

justice-thunders-condemnation 18:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT EVER REMOVE THE TAGS AGAIN! Any attempts by you to SUPPRESS knowledge by the public concerning the lack of neutrality, and other legitimate warnings, will not be tolerated. Congratulations, you managed to HARASS me enough WP:HARASS that I momentarily violated my self-declared shunning WP:SHUN. Now, I will continue again the implementation of WP:SHUN. Shunning can in no way be taken as conscent for anything you propose. And, indeed, I express opposition to anything and everything that you now or in the future may go on to propose on this page. As I have explained to J.smith there is plenty of evidence of BAD FAITH on your part so the assumption of good faith is revoked as is allowed under WP:AGF. Now, back to WP:SHUN. Watchdog07 16:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Article protected

In light of continued edit warring over this article, I have protected this article. Protection is not an endorsement of the present version. Please continue to discuss proposed changes and try and reach a consensus on this page as to how the article should read. The page can then be unprotected. WjBscribe 21:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. While I don't agree that there was an edit war taking place (I think there were WP:BLP violations and efforts to revert them), I am not necessarily opposed to WjBscribe's action. I think it was a good-faith effort to deal with a difficult situation.

I remain willing, as always, to discuss changes to the article, to consider others' proposals and comments carefully and with an open mind, and to try (and try and try again) to arrive through consensus at a neutral, quality article on the TSSI.

andrew-the-k 22:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think page protection, while it may be controversial and has drawbacks, in this instance creates an opportunity for a proper discussion which I urge all concerned to react positively to. I can understand why Watchdog is upset; however there is no alternative, in a collaborative project, than to reach real agreement and to discuss. Watchdog, I suggest you come back to the discussion table, and do what you should always have done: propose amendments - here, on the talk page - and listen to the response of others in good faith, stop impugning the integrity of people who merely happen not to agree with you, and drop all tactics based on threats - either the threat of deleting the page or the threat of attempts to get honest people banned for no greater crime than having an opinion. Work with all editors in Wikipedia with an interest in this page - and make a genuine attempt to reach agreement.

So far in the entire discussion you have not convinced a single editor, anywhere in Wikipedia, of a single one of your proposed changes to this page. I think you, and indeed the Wikipedia community, need to reflect on this. I am frankly amazed that more attention has not been paid to this point. It would bode very ill for the future of Wikipedia, were it possible for a single individual, without securing the agreement of any actual content editor, to secure the deletion or wrecking of a page no matter how controversial, simply by running a sufficiently persistent personal campaign of denigration against the page and against everyone associated with trying to improve it. No page on Wikipedia would be safe, were these tactics to succeed.

These are harsh words but you yourself have not exactly been a model of temperate conciliation. You have nothing to fear from honest discussion and I personally pledge myself to listen carefully and courteously to any suggestions for positive improvement that you may have, despite the deep differences that you have expressed, despite the many persistent attacks you have made on my personal integrity, and despite threats to my livelihood which have ensued.

To the other editors involved in this page: I recommend to respond in a conciliatory and civil manner to any positive reaction from Watchdog, and to come back into a constructive discussion about how to improve it. We need to move on and improve Wikipedia, and to do so we need to create an atmosphere which will facilitate that. We need to encourage the many people who have a genuine interest in Marxian Economics and indeed economics in general, and have without doubt been perplexed and deterred by the personalised nature of the more extreme exchanges surrounding this particular page, to resume a constructive discussion.

Regards

Alan XAX Freeman 06:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Constructive advice to Alan Freeman: It is a fact that you are a meatpuppet. That has already been determined by J.smith and you did not deny it. You have never engaged in the discussion here in good faith or in a "constructive" manner. Nor have you (or Mike Posner or annejaclard) apologized to the other editors, especially myself, for being a meatpuppet (nor has your puppetmaster apologized to myself for soliciting meatpuppets for what he calls the "attack" to the article). I am under no obligation to listen to anything you say. For all intense and purposes, you don't exist. There are - as a matter of policy - only two editors to this page which have standing: Akliman and Watchdog07. The fact is that your perspective does not have to be taken into account when determining consensus - there is, as you know, an arbitration committee ruling to that effect which is referred to in WP:SOCK.

You say that I have not convinced any other editor. This is exactly the type of claim that I have challenged and it is a sure sign of your bad faith. Who is there to convince besides Akliman? - (an editor who who has shown an enormous degree of inconsistency and irrationality in his edits.) It is a matter of policy, from the perspective of developing consensus around a topic, that meatpuppets can be count as sockpuppets and hence the puppetmaster and all associated meatpuppets are considered to be one person. This has been explained repeatedly on this board and it is an insult to me and a waste of my time for me to be expected to continue to explain this yet again or to treat you as if you had legitimate standing in this dispute. The fact that you are continuing to send messages to this page is an obstacle to the process of dispute resolution. If you were really trying to be "constructive" then you would immediately cease participation in this discussion. Watchdog07 08:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

TOTAL DISGUST!

I am totally disgusted and appalled that someone with no familiarity with the content of the dispute would decide to "page protect" the article in a version which is so obviouly and clearly lacking in neutrality. This has been documented at length on this page. See not just this page, but the archives. You took no note evidently of the "totally disputed" or other important tags that are needed to alert Wikipedia readers to what specialists in this field have known from the beginning - that the article is a one-sided piece of shit. Note that I am calling the article a piece of shit, not the editor (i.e. the solicitor of the three meatpuppets) who wrote it. There is a difference. He will win his edit war, I suspect, by attrition: he knows that other people have lives and don't want to spend the rest of those lives in an effort to defend the integrity of Wikipedia. It's too bad, really, for the readers of Wikipedia. They don't deserve the lack of neutrality or the self-serving advertising, spam, and hoaxes. You should have seen how long and what it took to get Andrew Kliman to agree to even let quotation marks be around a quotation (I'm still not sure he's clear about the import of plagiarism). He has tried virtually every tactic associated with bad faith, from recruiting meatpuppets (which he admits to, in other words, on his user talk page) to "requesting" that I deposit a sizable sum of money in an escrow account with his attorney. He has never displayed good faith on this page and it all stems from an overwhelming belief that he OWNS WP:OWN the article. If you want to see what type of an editor we're talking about here, please go to the history of the David Laibman page. Now, that was just being mean and vindictive towards a person who has written critically about Kliman's theories. While there is plenty of evidence here of wildly self-contradictory and duplicitous edits (like him introducing the expression "New Orthodox Marxists" in the article along with a source and then saying when I wanted to use the same expression elsewhere in the article that it was a "N-word equivalent"! ; even more absurdly he claimed it was a violation of WP:BLP), please check out the history of the Pluralism in economics page where his one-sided and hypocritical efforts are especially apparant. Go ahead and tell me I'm being incivil. At this point, I don't give a crap.Watchdog07 01:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Protection policy. It is required that an admin not involved in the dispute make the page protection, and that they not change the article to another preferred version before or after protecting the page. WjBscribe protected the version of the article that he found already in place about 45 minutes after I requested protection. That's the way the dice fell. He did a very good job of protecting m:The Wrong Version. It's okay if you want to take a day or two to avoid Wikipedia and get this out of your system before you comment here; it would probably be a good idea to disengage for a little while. But it is in your best interest to return here fairly soon and begin working on a consensus version, or using dispute resolution, since the currently protected version is not going to be any kind of permanent version. Protection is only a stopgap measure during an edit war. ··coelacan 07:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Like coeLacan, I too would like us to work out a consensus version of the article (or to go to mediation, which I continue to agree to without conditions). But Watchdog07 unfortunately vowed yesterday (16:55, 22 May 2007, above) that he will not collaborate in any way with me: "I express opposition to anything and everything that you now or in the future may go on to propose on this page." This is unfortunately also a blanket refusal to engage in mediation (notwithstanding what he says below, 13:27, 23 May 2007).

I wonder whether WP policy has a way of preventing someone from continuing to edit an article if they refuse--and indeed openly declare that they refuse--to work collaboratively and seek consensus. It seems contrary to the very purpose of the project.

Watchdog07 says that I "admit[ ] to" recruiting meatpuppets. I "admit to it" only in the sense that I have continually denied doing so and deny it again. I deny his other allegations, too. And yes, the message from him is uncivil.

A technical point about coeLacan's request for page protection: I didn't "tak[e] complaints about the other [i.e. Watchdog07] to my [coeLacan's] talk page." I initiated nothing. I confined my discussion to my own talk page, and my discussion didn't have the character of a complaint against anyone, but of a defense of myself, and clarification of the facts, after I was wrongly said to have made an "ultimatum."

andrew-the-k 14:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Learn to read! I wrote that I oppose, and will continue to oppose, anything Andrew Kliman proposes on this page.

If he re-files for mediation (which I doubt because I don't believe he wants mediation) and I accept - ['of course, I'm not going to agree to mediation before I read the actual RFM: hence the absurdity (not to mention insulting nature of asking that I "swear" in advance what I will do ] - then that will have to be by answering the RFM itself, not replying to anything he proposes on this page. If we were to have mediaton, then I would cooperate with the mediator. Watchdog07 21:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Dearest Watchdog07,

I read quite well. I also interpret quite well. Indeed, I'm a minor authority on that topic (see chapter 4 of my new book, Reclaiming Marx's "Capital": A Refutation of the Myth of Inconsistency).

You wrote, "I express opposition to anything and everything that you now or in the future may go on to propose on this page."

You did not write, "I express opposition--on this page (but not during the mediation process)--to anything and everything that you now or in the future may go on to propose on this page."

Nor did you write, "I express opposition to anything and everything that you now or in the future may go on to propose on this page--when proposed on this page, but not when proposed during mediation."

You also state your opposition to all possible future proposals I may make on this page. Therefore your opposition extends perpetually into the future.

The plain meaning of your statement is therefore that you oppose--for all time--any and every proposal I have made on this page, and any and every proposal that I will ever make on this page--whether or not you happen to be writing on this page at the time, and whether or not I happen to be writing on this page when I reiterate a proposal of mine originally made on this page.

I also take note of your "non-denial denial." You write, "If we were to have mediaton, then I would cooperate with the mediator." You may seem to be denying, but you actually do not deny, that "if we were to have mediation," you will perpetually continue to oppose, during the mediation process, any and every proposal I have made on this page, and any and every proposal that I will ever make on this page.

In other words, you do not rule out going to mediation, but you also do not pledge to conduct yourself in good faith, either now nor during mediation, "if we were to have mediation."

andrew-the-k 23:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, see WP:WL and then stop speaking and acting as if you were a lawyer.

Second, LEARN TO READ!' This page is not the venue where mediation would happen - if there were to be mediation (which I doubt since if you wanted mediation, you would have already re-filed a RFM).

Third, if we have mediation and a mediator asks questions then I will cooperate with the mediator. You are not a mediator.

Fouth, if we have mediation, I will ask that the mediator makes suggestions and proposals.

Fifth, I can not have direct discussions with you because you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt through a whole pattern of conduct on this and other Wikipedia pages that you do not act in good faith. WP:AGF says that one should assume good faith but when one has evidence that an editor has behaved in bad faith then the assumption can be revoked.

Lastly, your recent actions have been so beyond the pale of acceptable and decent conduct that I will again implement WP:SHUN. If and when you begin to behave like a decent human being and apologize to me for your many transgressions and acts of bad faith, then I will modify that policy. Watchdog07 23:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

LIMBO HELL

Let's review the situation.

1. The article is "temporarily" page protected in the version authored by Andrew Kliman. There is no reason to think that Andrew Kliman - the only other valid editor (i.e. non-meatpuppet) over the content of the article - has any interest in changing the status quo. This is consistent with his behavior since the first day he edited the article, in violation of WP:OWN.

2. Whatever he says to the contrary, I believe I have many documented and justified reasons, allowable under WP:AGF, to believe that Andrew Kliman has not acted in good faith. Of course, the meatpuppets haven't acted in good faith either.

3. Andrew Kliman (and his meatpuppets) have not owned up to their pattern of bad faith, apologized, and promised that it won't happen again. I therefore have every reason to think that their bad faith will continue.

4. I am entitled under policy, [[WP:SOCK], not to consider the perspectives of meatpuppets over matters which concern developing consensus over an edit dispute. I shall not consider their perspectives.

5. Given 2-3 above, I have no desire to "feed the troll" and plan to again implement WP:SHUN as a reasoned response to the bullying and lawyer-like actions of Andrew Kliman.

6. Andrew Kliman has said that he wants mediation. I do not believe that is his true desire. If he wanted mediation, he would have re-filed for mediation.

7. I have looked at the RFM procedure and there is absolutely no way that I will file a RFM. That's not because I am opposed to mediation - far from it! -- but I lack the knowledge, expertise, and time to file a RFM. That's not going to change any time soon. The earliest I could even think about learning the procedure is September.

Impeccable logic in these last two points. If Kliman really wanted mediation, he would have re-filed for mediation. He hasn't. Therefore he doesn't really want mediation. But Watchdog07 hasn't filed for mediation, either. But that's not because he doesn't really want mediation. He really wants mediation even though he refuses to file a request. Go figure. (Also the important facts are missing in all this. Watchdog07 agreed to mediation, then Kliman took a lot of time learning how to file the request and actually filing it, then Watchdog07 reneged on the agreement, then Kliman offered to file once again himself--even though Watchdog07 caused him an unconscionable loss of time whn he reneged on the agreement the first time--but then Watchdog07 refused to accept this offer under conditions that would have prevented yet another double-cross by Watchdog07.) andrew-the-k 15:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

8. There has been extensive discussion of the issues in the talk pages. I am not going to waste my time repeating what has already been explained and in depth on the talk page (archives included).

Hence, there is no reason to think there will be discussion leading towards a resolution of the issue. All that has been accomplished by page-protection is a temporary lull in the discussion. Most assuredly, that discussion won't happen on this talk page. The issues could possibly be resolved through mediation, but Kliman evidently won't re-file. Since I haven't rejected the possibility of mediation - far from it! - there is no possibility of skipping a step and moving on to arbitration. Hence, we are in limbo - a situation where the readers of Wikipedia are hurt the most since they are presented with an article which is wildly non-neutral and includes advertising, spam, and a hoax. Congratulations, Andrew Kliman! Watchdog07 13:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Watchdog, Kliman: would you both accept mediation if another active editor, different from either of you, filed?

Alan XAX Freeman 06:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. andrew-the-k 12:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

READ FIRST

A note to new readers of this talk page -

The article is currently (temporarily) page protected. This does not mean that there is agreement on the content of the article. There is not. There are two (and only two) editors involved in this dispute: one wrote the article and the other totally disputes its neutrality.

The following tags were placed on the article and 50% of the current editors involved with the dispute believe that they should be in place until there is consensus that the article is rendered neutral and in compliance with Wikipedia policies.

{{Multiple issues|disputed=March 2008|POV=March 2008}} {{cleanup-rewrite}}

In some sections there are no references, hence: {{Unreferencedsection|date=June 2007}}

In the section on the alleged "journal" COPE, the following tags belong: {{Advert|date=December 2007}} {{hoax}}

Near an external link whose only purpose is to sell a book written by one of the two editors of the article, there should be: {{cleanup-spam}} Watchdog07 21:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

READ FIRST

An editor reorganized this page so that new readers will not know what this discussion is about. Please scroll down to "READ FIRST" to see what the other editor is trying to bury.

In brief,

The article is totally disputed. It is temporarily page protected. This does not mean that there is agreement on the article. There is not. There are, at the current time, only two valid editors over content on this page (meatpuppets don't count as legitimate parties to this dispute). Hence 50% of the legitimate editors who have discussed content favor the article and 50% are opposed.

By pure circumstance the article was page prtotected with one version rather than another. The other version had warning tags intended to alert Wikipedia readers to problems with the article.

Those tags included:

{{Multiple issues|disputed=March 2008|POV=March 2008}} {{cleanup-rewrite}} {{Unreferencedsection|date=June 2007}} {{Advert|date=December 2007}} {{hoax}} {{cleanup-spam}}

The participation of all non-meatpuppets and non-sockpuppets is welcome! Watchdog07 22:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Some small changes

{{editprotected}} The first paragraph requires the following changes (in all cases, leaving links, formatting, and references intact:

The temporal single-system interpretation (TSSI) of Karl Marx's value theory emerged in the early 1980's in response to renewed allegations that his theory is "riven with internal inconsistencies," and that it must therefore be rejected or corrected. Since internally-inconsistent theories cannot possibly be right, the allegations of inconsistency have served to legitimize the censorship of Marx's theories of value and the falling rate of profit and the suppression of current research based upon them.

I'd also like to nominate the introductory paragraphs for a complete rewrite, perhaps moving the existing introductory paragraphs into a new section. Having read it over several times, I still haven't the slightest clue what the hell TSSI is. Please observe WP:MOSDEF; I know this is a technical article, but a little bit of guidance would be appreciated! Jouster  (whisper) 13:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather confused. The only change I see in Jouster's version is a hyphen after "internally" (a style change that I'm not qualified to comment on).

"I still haven't the slightest clue what the hell TSSI is" is not an uncommon complaint. I once gave a 45-minute presentation, after which the chair made the same point. I guess it all depends on what one is looking for. How about this for a first paragraph: "The temporal single-system interpretation (TSSI) of Karl Marx's value theory differs from the once-standard interpretation among academic Marxist economics in two seemingly minor and technical ways, but the TSSI's proponents hold that these two changes suffice to eliminate the apparent internal inconsistencies in Marx's theories of value and the falling rate of profit. [citation, perhaps to Freeman, Kliman, and Wells, 2004, ix, xi-xii or Kliman, 2007, 1-2]. This interpretation emerged in the early 1980's in response to renewed allegations ...." The second paragraph then becomes slightly repetitive, IMO, but not so seriously that it needs an overhaul.

Dear Jouster, if the above doesn't satisfy your concerns, please indicate why not and, if possible, explain further what you want the opening section to tell you that it currently doesn't. Thanks. andrew-the-k 14:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not just say, straight out, what it is?

"The temporal single-system interpretation (TSSI) is a formulation of Karl Marx's value theory designed by its proponents to eliminate apparent internal inconsistencies in Marx's theories of values and the falling rate of profit [cite]. It differs from the once-standard interpretation in academic Marxist circles in two seemingly minor and technical ways, and emerged in the early 1980's in response to renewed allegations..."

I always like it when within the first line I can immediately tell you what something is, even if I don't really understand why it is what it is. --Haemo 18:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Not bad, IMO, but "designed" is the wrong word. AOT, it kind of suggests pre-planning and that the TSSI is a trick.

Am I right that Haemo and Jouster want a sentence of the form "The TSSI is ____" with a definition where ___ is?

How about:

"The temporal single-system interpretation (TSSI) of Karl Marx's value theory is a response to allegations that his theories of value and the falling rate of profit are internally inconsistent. Although it differs from the once-standard interpretation among academic Marxist economics in two seemingly minor and technical ways, the TSSI's proponents hold that these two changes suffice to eliminate the apparent internal inconsistencies. [cite]

"The TSSI emerged in the early 1980s after the allegations of inconsistency, first put forward at the end of the 19th century, gained renewed prominence in the 1970s. Since internally inconsistent theories cannot possibly be right, they must be corrected or rejected. The allegations of inconsistency have thus served to legitimate the censorship of Marx's theories and the suppression of current research based upon them. Proponents of the TSSI argue that the inconsistencies are not present in Marx's original theory, but are produced by misinterpretation, and disappear when his theory is understood in accordance with the TSSI. [1] [2]

andrew-the-k 19:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've disabled the editprotected tag for right now. There seems to be lively discussion regarding changes to the article, so as a temporary measure, I would suggest creating Talk:Temporal single-system interpretation/Temp and working there to create something that has consensus. Once consensus is reached, I'd be happy to merge the temporary article and the actual article. Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Hi, I'm responding to the RfC from 20 May. I don't want to stir up all sorts of trouble, but could the editors involved in the dispute please state their sides of the debate (briefly and in non-confrontational language) to help new editors? I've read through the article and the talk page and I still have only a vague understanding of a) what the dispute is; and b) what the article is actually about. I gather that this movement/philosphoph/intellectual current claims to have resolved any logical inconsistencies in the labour theory of value, but the article doesn't seem to explain how. Makerowner 18:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Makerowner,

For what the TSSI "is," please see my latest attempt at an introduction, in the section above. The TSSI eliminates the apparent inconsistencies by understanding Marx's value theory to be temporal and a single-system theory. These terms are explained in the body of the article. It is not possible, IMO, to provide an intuitive explanation of how the TSSI eliminates these inconsistencies. I am, however, sympathetic to the idea that the how question should be answered somewhere in the article. It need not be a very mathematical explanation, or heavily jargon-laden, but it will still have to be technical, I think.

My position is that the TSSI article created a couple of months ago was very poorly sourced (i.e., based on gossip), very biased (against the TSSI), and riddled with inaccuracies. For instance, it presented accusations against proponents of the TSSI as if they were plain facts, and it called a journal's editors and the 50+ members of its editorial board "an academic faction." I stepped in and overhauled the article, making it more neutral, providing proper sources, eliminating gossip, increasing precision, etc. So, to understand what the dispute is about, my suggestion is to compare the current version with the last one edited by "Jurriaan."

andrew-the-k 19:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article needs a makeover. I objected to the wording of the intro. section as well, but got nowhere with a contentious editor. When I tried to put links around Karl Marx and value theory, he removed them repeatedly ... without even attempting to provide a reson. It seems anything I proposed or inserted into the article was objected to, in violation of WP:OWN. The worst thing about the intro section is the unsupported opinion about "suppression". The other editor seems to believe that since in his opinion there has been "suppression" and since he stated that opinion in a book he wrote, that makes it a fact. When he doesn't understand -despite repeated explanations - is that it is an exceptional claim which requires an exceptional source. There is mpost certainly no unanymity among scholars in regard to the claim of "suppression" - indeed many openly laugh about that claim. It could be made neutral, with an expression like "According to Andrew Kliman..." but he has resisted that as well. Watchdog07 17:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to suggest a starting point for all this which is the Italian article http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretazioni_alternative_della_teoria_marxiana_del_valore Makerowner, it looks to me like your linguistic skills should allow you to check this out. I want to make a suggestion which is to start a new page in english Wikipedia that is a simple english translation of this page which has achieved consensus among Italian editors, no mean feat, no disrespect intended.

Basically, the whole problem with the present page is that people shoot from the hip. There needs to be discussion before edits happen. The process of going straight to edit, revert, etc can be stopped if there is a consensus to discuss before editing. This breaks down if parties to the dispute disrespect official wiki policies notably avoiding personal attacks, respecting civility, acknowledging consensus. In addition, problems arise if the communitiy exercises no constraint, or encourages, violation of deprecated practices such as trolling, respect for newbies and various other stuff. As I see it if there are no communitarian restraints, the result is an intractable edit war. It's up to the community. In a consensus environment WYGIWYP applies - What You Get Is What You Permit.

Protecting the page was a permission restriction. But it forced everyone to discuss. I know protection is difficult but I would put my (newbie) voice in favour of preserving protection pending the establishment of a consensus agreement on process for this page

I think the process established by user:sunray over on the Talk: Marxian economics page seems to have buy-in and would favour a similar process on this page. Alan XAX Freeman 18:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No categories?

I came to this page from a list of uncategorised articles. I didn't expect to find a long edit history and edit warring. At first I thought the categories had dropped out during some careless reverting of vandalism, or unspotted vandalism, but after a quick look through the page history, I can't find anything. So I will add some categories. Please feel free to add more or change them to better ones. Carcharoth 13:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

My mistake. There is a tag for Category:Marxist theory, but it is incorrectly formatted. Could someone please correct that and removed the "uncategorised" tag as well? Thanks. Carcharoth 13:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"the whole problem"

The "whole problem" began when Andrew Kliman re-wrote the article so that it would be a piece of TSSI propaganda. Instead of discussing the matter with the previous editor on the talk page, he simply changed the article. At the same time, he re-wrote the article on David Laibman in such a way that Laibman's life seemed to focus on the TSSI. That was an action which drew comments from outside of Wikipedia by those who were deeply offended by Kliman's actions.

An editor (yours truly) tried to take out the most offensdively non-neutral sections of the article. Kliman responded aggressively acting as if he owned the article, in violation of WP:OWN.

Kliman advertised outside of Wikipedia that his article was being "attacked" (see his user talk page). Then, came the meatpuppets - Alan XAX Freeman, M.posner, and annejaculard - who supported him uncritically. The term "meatpuppet" is a technical term at Wikipedia, see WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT, it is not a term of personal abuse. In any event, all 3 were blocked for being meatpuppets (see block history under those users).

Because I was responding to meatpuppets, much time and effort was wasted. Because of repeated actions of bad faith on the part of Andrew Kliman, I have implemented WP:SHUN as a reasoned response to his outrageous actions and a desire not to "feed the troll".

The page, unfortunately, was page protected in its least neutral version. Hence, the willingness of a person who was convicted of being a meatrpuppet to keep the article as it is.

There is an arbitration committee ruling, referred to in WP:SOCK, which says that the opinions of meatpuppets do not have to be considered when seeking to obtain consensus. They won't be. Watchdog07 16:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I would just note that Alan Freeman's block, and M.posner's block were both overturned - so it's not exactly fair to say they were "convicted" of being meatpuppets (or, if you want to use that term, that said conviction was overturned ;) ). I can't even find a block log for an "annejaculard"; I think you must have mispelled her name. --Haemo 22:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It was not "overturned". Both Freeman and Posner were allowed to comment on the article, but not change it. J.smith also said (what I already knew) that the opinions of meatpuppets (Alan XAX Freeman, M.posner, and annejaclard) don't have to be considered when determining consensus. J.smith, in blocking, Posner said that he was "infact" a meatpuppet (that's his quote), like Freeman. See Smith's user talk page. Smith didn't indefinately block Freeman and Posner only after they agreed to his conditions. I think annejaclard annejaclard (talk · contribs) is the correct spelling. That meatpuppet was blocked indefinately. So, I think I am being both fair and accurate when I referred to Freeman and Posner being meatpuppets. Watchdog07 23:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it's been decided that he's allowed to comment here, then I think we should allow him to do so, and not disregard what he has to say off-handedly. There appears to be some interest in some kind of mediation process here, and since I'm kind of vaguely familiar with the topic, and I've met most of the involved editors before on Pluralism in economics, I reckon I could lend my help here. We could also work on re-writing the article, since it seems no one is happy with it, on the whole. Would that be okay? --Haemo 23:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

At the same time that he was allowed to comment on the topic, it was also said that one does not have to consider the opinions of meatpuppets when determining whether there is or is not consensus. As I said before, there is an arbitration committee ruling on this refered to in WP:SOCK. Thoughout this dispute, the presence of meatpuppets and the bad faith of certain editors has served as an obstacle to reaching consensus on anything. Just getting the others to agree that quotation marks should be put around a quotation was like pulling teeth. You can participate in this discussion if you like, but there is absolutely no possibility whatsoever that I

will agree that those who have been determined to be meatpuppets have a legitimate standing in this dispute.

As a practical matter, when the 'powers that be' put the page under page protection, that shut off any possibility of us having a real discussion on this page. See "LIMBO HELL"above and also make sure you read "READ FIRST". Watchdog07 00:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't believe that he has been acting as a meatpuppet in this discussion - I think input from all users is acceptable, but we will bear in mind the history of all involved users, and consider this when deciding whether or not we have a consensus for certain matters. We can put that aside, for now, though - as I said above, would you be interested in going though some kind of process as explained above to remedy the disputed parts of this article? --Haemo 00:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If you think you can help us resolve the dispute, go ahead and try.

I don't think the dispute will be resolved anytime soon, though, for practical reasons. I am a college professor and already handed-in the grades a couple of weeks ago for the Spring semester. I have already devoted far more time and effort to this dispute then it is worth. There is no requirement that a dispute on article content has to be resolved anytime soon. So, I think it would be best if we all disengaged from this discussion and returned to it sometime later, perhaps September. I'm not happy at all with the content of the article, but I can't devote my life to this dispute. It's also worth noting that even if we were to achieve consensus over content, the policy on consensus stipulates that even where consensus existed before among editors it does not have to continue to exist if editors either change their minds or when new editors come into the discussion.

Frankly, I am not hopeful of a resolution of the dispute anytime soon as I have seen no willingness to date for another editor to seriously consider the objections I made to the article. It is very frustrating to spend months engaged in a discussion with someone who acts like he owns the article, in violation of WP:OWN, and has resorted to various forms of tricks aimed at subverting a genuinely neutral edit. The worst thing about the current situation is that the quality of Wikipedia has been diminished by the article, so the status quo is an insult to Wikipedia readers and - by the way - a defeat for pluralism in economics. I guess it goes to show, though, that a war of attrition can be at least temporarily successful in subverting the mission of Wikipedia.Watchdog07 22:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Well, I don't think it's going to be possible to resolve any dispute if some of the members are going on a Wikibreak - however, that might be for the best, for all concerned. If you want to give it a try in the future, just send me a message. --Haemo 00:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll be going on a Wikibreak, but I have a strong suspicion that because of the recent editing by Andrew Kliman of the article on Marxian economics - and the unwillingness of other editors such as Sunray to do something about it - that the s--- is about to hit the fan! Watchdog07 12:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion continues also on the Paul Bairoch talk page User:Jurriaan 23:19 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Has the TSSI article improved? Towards solving the dispute

As the author of the original wiki article, I have reread the current version and I read through the comments. I agreed with Andrew Kliman that my pilot article wasn't much good yet, and I think it has vastly improved from what it was, including many references. I think it is clearer now what TSSI is about, to wiki readers. For this I am thankful, and I thank all those who contributed much work to making it so.

I think I am partly to blame for the sometimes vociferous debate on this talk page, which I now regret, and I hope not to repeat my error. The reason was that when I pioneered the wiki article, I did make some fairly provocative statements about the TSSI school of thought, without proper referencing, which Andrew Kliman evidently felt insulted about. It was like waving a red rag to a bull. At the same time though, I communicated to Dr Kliman explicitly that I was happy for him to improve the article and that I would read his book. And by the very fact of my provocative statements, an intensive effort went into that improvement. I credit myself modestly with initiating an article that did not exist before, even if it wasn't very good, which was subsequently worked upon and improved. In that sense, the bull was caught.

I am not entirely convinced that my claim that TSSI supporters reject neo-classical economics wholesale is wrong, because Dr Guglielmo Carchedi, a founder of the TSSI school in Amsterdam, indicated this to me personally, and states the same in his book For another Europe. Dr Kliman provided no arguments against that. Nor am I convinced that my description of TSSI supporters as an "international faction" is entirely wrong, though obviously supporters of this school are entitled to object, if they think the word is badly chosen (not very much hinges on it).

But I think there are two remaining issues. Firstly, are the critics of TSSI fairly presented in the article? All that the article requires is that critics are named, and a fair indication is given of the nature of the main criticisms (as possible replies), irrespective of whether they are correct or not. I personally think that there is a real problem here insofar as Kliman frames these criticisms in a certain way, believing they are misguided, which may not fairly represent what the critic's real objections are. The other problem is that when I "pressed Kliman's button" by questioning some ideas close to his heart, he overreacted very badly, and started editorialising the David Laibman article and the Paul Bairoch article, in ways incompatible with wiki norms or good ethics. A controversy is still ongoing about the Marxian economics article.

Mixed up in this was a discussion on OPE-L list and a very angry personal communication of mine to Dr Kliman that I wanted to have nothing to do with him, prompted especially by his objectionable edits of the David Laibman article, but also by my knowledge of his modus operandi. Dr Kliman then decided to broadcast my personal communication to the world via wikipedia. This added fuel to the fire. It has been proved that Dr Kliman is highly sensitive to any misrepresentation of his views, but this sensitivity also leads him, as I have said, to overreact and misrepresent/discredit others, in a sort of "war of righteousness" which Kliman then aims to win "by any means necessary". Some of those means are just not helpful. Plus, his academic ostentations can be a "cover" for insisting that his own view is the only permissible one. I personally have described this as Dr Kliman's sectarian "who is not for me, is against me" mode of thinking, which tries to force people to take a position on his interpretation, but he denies the evidence of his sectarianism, and talking about it further is not probably helpful. It is evident however that Dr Kliman has a very aggressive and provocative style of discussion himself.

The general purpose of my original article was to describe TSSI without judging whether it was correct or not, and in fact the interpretation is still being debated about; therefore it is an open-ended question. It may be (as I think) that TSSI is correct on some points and not in others. I would invite contributors however to keep firmly in mind the purpose of a wikipedia article: to bring people together in learning, and write good introductory articles on a topic. I do not think this is the place to fight out the debate about whether the TSSI approach is indeed the correct interpretation of Marx, only whether it is fairly represented in the article and that relevant criticisms are fairly represented, conforming to wiki standards. There are other forums for purely academic controversy.

User:Jurriaan 23:38 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I welcome this reflective contribution from Juriaan which in my opinion shows human qualities which are rare in discussions on Marxist theory. I will read it carefully and think about it, as I think should everyone involved, regardless of which bits they agree with and which they do not.

Many are passionately involved in these discussions and have much personally invested, and it is important to be able to step back and ask what is really at stake. I do hope that Juriaan's contribution will show us all that it is possible to do that. Juriaan, du bist eigentlich ein Mensch.

Alan XAX Freeman 16:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The article hasn't been improved at all by Akliman. He forgets that this is an encyclopedia, not a forum to spew his one-sided propaganda and misrepresentations. Even though he didn't write it, he acts as if he owns it and even went so far as to enlist the support of three meatpuppets. The article needs a COMPLETE overhaul. At least, Jurriaan has acted in good faith, unlike Kliman and Co.Watchdog07 14:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I will let Ajkliman revert his meatpuppet's comments to their "correct temporal" order.

How ironic it is after months of the most vicious insults (many of them directed at Jurriaan by Akliman) that someone now wishes to strike a conciliatory note. Why didn't Akliman seek consensus before reverting the article as written by Jurriaan to begin with? Why didn't he attempt to discuss the matter with Jurriaan before edit warring? The bad faith of Akliman and the 3 meatpuppets haas been evident since Kliman's first Wikipedia intervention. I believe Kliman and Co. owe Jurriaan a HURE apology. Watchdog07 16:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Watchdog07 that the article hasn't improved some. At least Kliman as TSSI supporter added some references, and made some arguments more explicit. That is a positive contribution. But I agree with Watchdog07 that this is a free on-line encyclopedia, and not a forum for carrying on academic or personalised vendettas, however cleverly wrapped up in "neutral" language. The only proof that you have for having done it correctly (and everyone can make mistakes), is that your entry stays the same, and if it changes, and you disagree, you ought to discuss it in a reasonable manner, keeping firmly in mind the purpose and limits of wikipedia. If I seem to strike a conciliatory note, the reason is not that my disagreements with Dr Kliman are flighty by nature, but that the matter of the article still has to be solved somehow in an evenhanded way in conformity with acceptable wiki standards. Insofar as I am implicated in the mess, I ought to help solve it. Wikipedia policy is that an arbitration request is only a last resort (I lodged a request, but did it in the wrong way, not having experience with it). We could in principle revert to first version of the article, but then we are saying that all the writing done in the meantime was irrelevant. Are we prepared to do this? Has there been no progress in knowledge meantime? Karl Marx himself stated in Das Kapital that "Every opinion based on scientific criticism I welcome". He just didn't care about what he called the "prejudices of so-called public opinion". The real irony is that some of his followers seem afraid of criticisms being presented, even in a modest wikipedia encyclopedia article aiming only to provide a reference to a global readership about the subject. I accept Dr Freeman's compliment, and hope things are working out better at the London City Council than at the University of Greenwich. Aber die Frage is nicht obwohl ich ein Mensch bin, dass ist genau offensichtlich, aber wass mein Art ist. This is regrettably not something you can resolve by typing words.

User:Jurriaan 22:15 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As regards apologies...

One other note to Watchdog07. I do not demand any apologies. My experience is that apologies are only worth something, if they are freely given, rather than solicited or required. This is also a conclusion of the whole history of human Spirituality, i.e. people have to recognise themselves what's morally required of them in this area. Sometimes this can be very late in the piece, such as when the catholic Pope apologised for the Inquisition (not humanly very convincing, it being so late, but nevertheless a human statement). People "who know what they are doing" often try to force apologies, from people who (apparently at least) "don't know what they are doing". But Dr Kliman and I are old and wise enough to know what we are doing, and if we don't know it, it's a sham. We are talking conscious, rational, intentional behaviour here by people who take responsibility of themselves. The reward of my efforts is just if Dr Kliman himself contributes wikipedia articles on topics of his own choice, which explain "WHAT THE HELL THIS MEANS" to people around the world who don't have his scholarly knowledge, and who don't have access to all the literature. User:Jurriaan 22:16 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Would someone mind...

...not directly transcluding warning templates on a talk page? Otherwise, this (talk) page is categorized, as SPAM-filled, a hoax, vandalized, etc. 68.39.174.238 23:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)