Talk:David Laibman

message: I have protected this article for a month because of the above things, in addition to the fact that there was a complaint filed in the OTRS system over the inclusion of the material that was removed in this edit.
WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are two crucial policies of Wikipedia. "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles". 
It has also been suggested that  has a strong conflict of interest with this article. I strongly suggest he/she evaluates whether that is the case, and if he/she does, stop editing the article. 
Further reading: 
*WP:BLP#Critics
*WP:NPOV#Undue weight
*WP:RS
*WP:OR
Daniel Bryant 00:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographies of living persons, edit warring, and my protection 

message: I don't understand why this article was locked, and least of all why it was locked in the current version.  My edits inserted ONLY cited material regarding a debate which is public and available in print.  I don't see why a sentence from an article written by David Laibman should not be included in an article on David Laibman.  David Laibman himself seems to have been the person editting his page (User:Dlaibman) to remove the section on his debate with TSSI -- but as far as I know one is not allowed to use Wikipedia as a personal advertisement.  If Laibman has made statements in print and publicly, it seems that I should be able to put them into a Wiki article -- whether he likes it or not.  Also note that  never gave any reasons for removing the relevant material.  In this context it it made perfect sense for me to repeatedly add credible information to the David Laibman page.
As for conflicts of interest, I do not know nor have I ever met or corresponded with David Laibman.  I only have an interest in discussing and citing a public debate that David Laibman took part in.
Neither David Laibman nor  can demonstrate in any way that the cited material is innaccurate.  It is all accurate.  If you would like to see it, I have a copy of the article in question in PDF format, complete with tags from the university I obtained it from at the beginning of the file.
:The article was protected due to rapid-fire edit warring. That will not change. Please see m:The wrong version before complaining about the version I protected, please.
On to the disputed material. 
:"Dr. Laibman has been a principal critic of the Temporal Single-system Interpretation (TSSI) of Marx's value theory;, according to the latter, Marx's own theory is internally consistent, and there is thus no logical imperative to "correct" it."
What is the third-party source which says that David Laibman is a "principal critic" of TSSI? Remember, him being one in your opinion isn't enough, it has to be a fact published in reliable third party publications. You can't draw the link saying "He criticised X in Y book", because that is your interpretation. It must be published in a reliable source.
:"At the conclusion of the symposium, Laibman continued to hold that the Okishio Theorem is correct on its own terms, but he nonetheless accepted that the theorem fails to disprove Marx's law."
Same as above - you cannot draw the lines itself, . 
:"He wrote, “If a viable technical change is made, and the real wage rate is constant, the new MATERIAL rate of profit must be higher than the old one. That is all that Okishio, or Roemer, or Foley, or I, or anyone else has ever claimed!” (David Laibman, "Two of Everything," Research in Political Economy, Vol. 18, 2000, p. 275, emphases in original.)"
That's fine - that's perfectly acceptable to quote a phrase from the book, with the reference being that book, provided it fits in the article.
:"(This statement employs the TSSI's distinction between the "material" rate, and the "value" and "price" rates, of profit, which Laibman himself does not accept.)"
Reference? Source? You cannot draw these links themselves, and for these links to be included, they must be published in  third party sources!
:"For Laibman's overall view on this subject, see Value, Technical Change and Crisis, chapter 5."
Like the quote above, this is perfectly OK if it fits in with the article.
The protection will stand due to edit warring anyways, but I strongly ask that you read WP:OR extensively, as well as WP:V and WP:RS, before responding. Daniel Bryant 03:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the lock? 

message: I am perplexed about the difference between the material that was removed and the material that remains with respect to drawing links and stating opinions.  For instance, at the bottom of the protected page, we read, "Laibman is also interested in folk-style fingerpicking acoustic guitar, and especially its application to the ragtime era of the early 20th century, as best represented by Scott Joplin, Joseph Lamb, and James Scott."
What is the third-party source that says that "Laibman is also interested" in this (and why is one needed)?  What is the third-party source that says that the ragtime era is "best represented by Scott Joplin, Joseph Lamb, and James Scott"?  Isn't this an opinion?
Or take the 2nd sentence of the entry.  It says that Laibman's dissertation is "on a long-standing problem in Marxist economics, the formation and transformation of value in the general (abstract) capitalist economy."  Isn't this an interpretation of what the dissertation is on?
I am asking these questions not in order to argue with the decision to protect the page, but so that I can understand how Laibman's role in an important debate over Okishio's theorem, and the consequences of this debate, can be discussed in an acceptable manner. 
For instance, Laibman published nine pieces on the TSSI in academic publications between 1999 and 2004.  I would think that this makes him a major critic of it.  Would citing these nine pieces be sufficient evidence for the statement that he's a major critic of it?    
:No, a reliable source has to say so. Daniel Bryant 05:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page was protected due to edit warring, not that there was OR in it. Until this is all cleared up and sourced properly (see the section below), I've stubbed the whole thing pursuant to out WP:BLP and WP:V policies. Daniel Bryant 05:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Perplexed

message: Let's try and get some sources for the statements. The last version before the stubbed version is this. 
Please read WP:RS if in doubt over whether something is "reliable". Daniel Bryant 05:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Be advised that Andrew Kliman  has identified himself
in his user page as the antichrist. 
Watchdog07 
:Which means absolutely nothing in terms of him being a reliable source or whatnot. MrMacMan Talk  18:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update on Andrew Kliman

message: After seeing this page discussed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, I have removed the text of off-wiki e-mails from this page. No useful purpose is served by quoting such e-mails and they are not to be restored. I have also removed a number of subsequent threads dealing with such e-mails and in which various contributors say hateful things about each other in violation of a whole series of Wikipedia policies and serving no reasonable collaborative purpose. The material should not be restored either. Newyorkbrad 20:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Private e-mail correspondence removed 

message: Arguments about the validity or lack thereof of claims regarding Laibman's view of the Temporal Single System Interpretation (TSSI) are *irrelevant* in this article.  It is not the *truth* of various statements by TSSI supporters that is at issue here.  At issue is the *appropriateness* of placing them in this stub biography.  TSSI supporters should debate with Laibman in their own published articles and books.  Their issues are not central to Laibman's overall life and work, and have no place in a brief biographical statement about him. Posted by User:Jurriaan 18 August 2007 11:16 (UTC)
:I think that this request by the subject of the bio should be considered in light of WP:BLP. It is important that a biography not place undue weight on a particular aspect of the subject's life. I hereby volunteer to take a look at this and make some suggestions for resolution on this page. Sunray 01:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a look at the article and the material on TSSI. I think that its inclusion in the article, all things considered, would give it undue weight. In order to include it, we would logically have to have a section on Laibman's publications as a whole.  I'm doubtful that this would be within the scope of the article; nor would it meet guidelines on notability. Sunray 21:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Message from David Laibman

message: None of the reference links are working.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.229.113 (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on David Laibman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050502202936/http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/236/1/35/ to http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/236/1/35/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070708171154/http://www.om28.com/press/pioneer.htm to http://www.om28.com/press/pioneer.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Does anyone know what the actual source for the bibliography was? Has it always been this 404 page? KetchupSalt (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I went and did some digging, and goodreads lists 16 works. KetchupSalt (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography source is a 404 page