Talk:Marxian economics/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Increased neutrality?

How does changing "Proponents..." to "New Orthodox Marxists - proponents..." increase neutrality? --Extra Fine Point 14:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Proponents" was left in the article. The only difference between this and previous edits is that "New Orthodiox Marxists" was placed before "proponents" rather than after the clause. This change was made because of the awkward sentence construction.

As you can see, the expression "New Orthodox Marxists" was introduced and referenced by another editor (AKliman). If we want to eliminate all reference to that reference and David Laibman, then that is something I would most likely support. Watchdog07 14:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Note also the deletion of "Sraffian" from "Marxian and Sraffian economists". This was done for two reasons: 1. None of those listed would describe themselves as "Sraffians": all are Marxian economists. 2. "Suprlus approach economists", rather than "Sraffian economists", is the preferred, and more neutral, designation. Watchdog07 14:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is something I've wondered for a while, following the discussions on this page, and watching the ME page change so frequently. When the term "New Orthodox Marxists" was introduced, it was in the section "Criticisms". It did not seem out of place there, as it was a criticism. But to copy it out of there and put it everywhere "Proponents of TSSI" occurred made no sense to me. Not only does it violate NPOV, but it has the effect of rendering NOM the standard designation of proponents of TSSI, instead of it being a criticism of those proponents. No? --Extra Fine Point 15:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the article, you will see that I inserted New Orthodox Marxists one sentence after it was introduced by AKliman.

See footnote #2.

I did not put the expression New Orthodox Marxists "everywhere" in the article. I put it in one place.

I have been willing to disambiguate the expression, if that is the concern, so as to not make it appear to be the expression that the "proponents" of the TSSI self-selected. For instance, "The so-called 'New Orthodox Marxists', or "... what others refer to as the New Orthodox Marxists'", etc. Watchdog07 18:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Watchdog07,

Please provide a justification of your claim that your inclusion of the term N__ O__ M__, in the particular manner and context in which you included it, makes the article more (!) neutral.

As I understand it, this is the question which Extra Fine Point was asking, and which you have not yet answered.

If you justify this claim to the satisfaction of the other editors of this article, I'm sure we will all agree to the inclusion of the term N__ O__ M__.

andrew-the-k 17:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:SHUN Watchdog07 18:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My dearest Watchdog07,

As noted at the top of the WP:SHUN essay, it is only "an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its authors" (emphasis added). It does not protect you from the requirement that you justify proposed edits. So please provide a justification of your claim that your inclusion of the term N__ O__ M__, in the particular manner and context in which you included it, makes the article more (!) neutral.

andrew-the-k 19:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record: On 24 May, Watchdog07 introduced the term N__ O__ M__ in a manner and context that impugned the integrity of TSSI research and its proponents. This was a clear violation of WP:NPOV. But because non-experts on WP do not always understand this, I did not revert his edit. Instead, on the same day, I made the discussion of the term N__ O__ M__ more neutral, by providing the other side as well. Also on that same day (see above), I suggested that we should all agree to keep such use of the N__ O__ M__ term out of this and all other articles, and that, if this is agreed to, I will be happy to have the whole paragraph deleted.

I have since reiterated that suggestion. I do so again.

Thus, if Watchdog07 is truly concerned about David Laibman's reputation, a simple remedy is available to him, the same remedy that has been available since 24 May. He simply needs to agree to stop impugning others' reputations. If the allegations against proponents of the TSSI are removed, the defenses of their reputations will no longer be necessary. The ball is in his court.

If Watchdog07 and Laibman are unhappy with this paragraph, they have only themselves to blame (assuming that they're not the same person).

andrew-the-k 19:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

FOR THE RECORD, Andrew Kliman introduced the expression "New Orthodox Marxist" into the article in footnote #2 on May 24, 14:27. It was only AFTER he did so that I introduced the expression in the sentence which immediately followed in the article.

I will not trade horses. Since Kliman introduced and sourced the expression into the article, I have every right to use that same expression.

Have a good laugh today. Go out to a coffee shop or cafe and enjoy yourself. Relax and enjoy life - before the other shoe drops:

your editing of Wikipedia articles has become quite newsworthy .... Watchdog07 20:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My dearest Watchdog07,

No more diversions, please. Please provide a justification of your claim that your inclusion of the term N__ O__ M__, in the particular manner and context in which you included it, makes the article more (!) neutral.

andrew-the-k 21:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

WARNING TO SUNRAY! THERE WILL BE NO CENSORSHIP ON THE TALK PAGE

You will put back the message I sent entitled "Sunray and Hanlon's razor?" or I will! Even you recognized that it was not personally abuse and you had no absolutely right to remove it.

If you do not put it back on the talk page then I will revert the entire talk page and much valuable information will be temporarily lost because or you. Hence, you would be given the responsibility of restoring the exchanges which were deleted because of your action. Watchdog07 18:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, don't worry about it, Sunray. My piece appears in the history of the talk page - a place where even your censoring hand can't get to it - and thus constitutes part of the real history of this page. Any other editors - or outsiders who have no connection to Wikipedia - will be able to find it for themselves. In due course, you will be able to read all about it outside of Wikipedia. There's no reason for me to stress: the public will be informed of what has happened on this page and elsewhere on Wikipedia. Watchdog07 20:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Article Changed Without Consensus!

Someone recently changed the article without obtaining consensus, or even discussing the changes on this talk page. The person doesn't seem to be Watchdog07. I am assuming that the change was made in good faith, and that this person was unaware that we have agreed to make changes to the article only if there's consensus. But the article now includes the term N__ O__ M__ in an unbalanced way that impugns the integrity of TSSI research and proponents of the TSSI, in violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.

Can someone do something about this, please?

andrew-the-k 21:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome, Ryan!

Hi. Welcome to the Marxian economics talk page. I briefly looked over your contributions and see that you have had an interest in articles on some similar subjects.

I don't think you need to justify your edit to anyone - especially Watchdog07. I would like to engage you in a discussion about how the article can be improved so that it conforms to WP:NPV. I would have liked to do that with some others on this page, but they had different agendas. I think if we just try to use a little common sense, follow the guidelines on neutrality, be aware of issues relating to living persons WP:BLP, and remember that this is an encyclopedia then we should be able to resolve this dispute. Watchdog07 01:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Message to Sunray

Once again, I feel the need to refresh Sunray's memory about certain points.

1. The article is not page protected.

2. There was never agreement by editors about which page would be in place while we discussed the article.

3. There was never any agreement about consensus decision-making on this page.

4. There was never any agreement that Sunray should be a "facilitator".

Sunray - please stop edit warring! If you objected to Ryan's action then you could gave asked him on this page for an explanation before reverting the article. I think that Ryan had every right to revert the article, and he gave a reason when so doing. Please note that it only recommended that editors give explanations on the talk page before reverting. It is not a requirement.

Of course, I will revert the article later today if Ryan or someone else doesn't do so first. I strongly suggest that you either engage in the discussion in a constructive manner or remove yourself completely from it. Your presence on this page has not helped the process, imo. Indeed, it has served to exaccerbate the scandal. Watchdog07 12:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Discuss, don't revert! Should Sunray or another editor wish to change the article yet again, please discuss and explain why on talk page first. It has been explained in depth and repeatedly on this page why the edit by Akliman was blatantly in violation of WP:NPV and WP:BLP. It is up to those who do not see it that way to explain why on this page. In the meantime DO NOT REVERT THE ARTICLE AGAIN!. Watchdog07 16:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, dear Watchdog07. I and others have repeatedly asked asked you to justify your claim that you made the article more (!) neutral by including the term N__ O__ M__ in the manner and in the context you included it. You have NOT provided such a justification. To refresh your memory, let me reproduce some of my messages from yesterday:

Dear Watchdog07,

Please provide a justification of your claim that your inclusion of the term N__ O__ M__, in the particular manner and context in which you included it, makes the article more (!) neutral.

As I understand it, this is the question which Extra Fine Point was asking, and which you have not yet answered.

If you justify this claim to the satisfaction of the other editors of this article, I'm sure we will all agree to the inclusion of the term N__ O__ M__.

andrew-the-k 17:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My dearest Watchdog07,

As noted at the top of the WP:SHUN essay, it is only "an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its authors" (emphasis added). It does not protect you from the requirement that you justify proposed edits. So please provide a justification of your claim that your inclusion of the term N__ O__ M__, in the particular manner and context in which you included it, makes the article more (!) neutral.

andrew-the-k 19:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My dearest Watchdog07,

No more diversions, please. Please provide a justification of your claim that your inclusion of the term N__ O__ M__, in the particular manner and context in which you included it, makes the article more (!) neutral.

andrew-the-k 21:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully request yet again, dear Watchdog07, that you provide a justification of your claim that your inclusion of the term N__ O__ M__, in the particular manner and context in which you included it, makes the article more (!) neutral.

andrew-the-k 17:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The above questions were answered days ago.

The only thing I wish to add at this time is WP:SHUN

If Extra Fine Point and Ryan have any questions they would like to ask, then - by all means - go ahead and ask. Watchdog07 20:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Dearest Watchdog07: I'm sorry, but I'm not aware that you have provided a justification of your claim that your inclusion of the term N__ O__ M__, in the particular manner and context in which you included it, makes the article more (!) neutral. Can you please direct me (and others) to the specific place where this justification is provided? The talk page is very long and involved, and I was away for a week, and I am not able to find any such justification. Thank you very much in advance, dear Watchdog07. andrew-the-k 21:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see my response to Watchdog07 here. Sunray 00:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You can see my response to Sunray on the same page. Please note that Sunray once again reverted the article without providing any justification for the content of the article. Watchdog07 12:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation?

Is this article currently under formal mediation by an administrator? The section in question seems patently non-neutral to me, and so I would not be the person to do this. ⟳ausa کui ^× 08:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not under formal mediation. However, several editors of this page (five in number) have agreed to follow WP policies and work on the issues identifited (above), attempting to achieve consensus and fix the article. Sunray 17:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

FINALMENTE!

SANITY, AT LAST! OF COURSE, THE ARTICLE IS PATENTLY NON-NEUTRAL. IT'S NOT EVEN A CLOSE CALL. IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING A CLOSE CALL. THE MOST OFFENSIVE PART OF THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT AS FAR AWAY FROM THE STANDARDS EXPECTED OF AN ENCYCLOPEDIA AS ONE CAN GET! IT IS ALSO PATENTLY AND OBVIOUSLY NON-NEUTRAL AND IN VIOLATION OF WP:BLP. YET, SUNRAY AND CO. HAVE REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE WHAT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS TO ANY INDEPENDENT READER OF WIKIPEDIA AND THE URGENCY INVOLVED IN REVERTING THE CURRENT VERSION. Watchdog07 12:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that your tone is especially helpful or civil. Please keep your cool in your interactions with other users. Thanks. ⟳ausa کui ^× 03:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)