Talk:Temporal single-system interpretation/Archive 2

message: I rather enjoyed the time off. It's not such a bad thing to sometimes take a break from a dispute in order to put matters more calmly in  perspective.  I hope others enjoyed the weekend as well.  Unfortunately, I see that Andrew Kliman used that time to launch attacks on the character of Watchdog07.  I will reply calmly and briefly to that now.
Dr. Kliman wrote the following:
"When I overhauled the article and notified some colleagues, they were
pleased with it.  When 'Watchdog07' then started attacking the article, I notified them again. A few (Alan XAX Freeman, Annejaclard, and M. Posner) decided to help defend the article ...."
This is clear and undisputed evidence that 
,  
, and 
are all the MEATPUPPETS OF ANDREW KLIMAN . 
See WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT for definitions and explanation.
The above confession by Andrew Kliman constitutes proof that he 
advertised and solicited meatpuppets for the single purpose of resolving an edit dispute.  According to a ruling referred to in the sockpuppet policy section under meatpuppets WP:SOCK , there has already been an arbitration committee ruling to the effect that meatpuppets may be treated as one individual.  
I therefore respectfully request that the accounts of the meatpuppets 
be blocked indefinately and that Andrew Kliman be temporarily blocked.  Until there has been a resolution of the dispute, I ask that the article on TSSI be reduced to stub.
I will go on to make constructive suggestions about how this conflict can be resolved.
Watchdog07 
:If you believe they are sockpuppets please follow the WP:SSP procedure. 21:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Andrew Kliman, Part 1 (meatpuppets)

message: The evidence suggests that the dispute has only been between the two of us, as the other contributors were meatpuppets or perhaps sockpuppets. Either way, meatpuppets as a matter of policy are treated as if they are sockpuppets. 
:::The above violates WP:NPA, which stipulates "Comment on content, not on the contributor."   justice-thunders-condemnation 04:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Andrew Kliman, Part 2 (a proposal)

message: Dear WatchDog07,
I have purposely not replied to the first two of your last four posts, as I would like to keep within the bounds of Wikipedia policies of discussing content and not individuals.  See this page for more information.
As regards your actual proposal regarding COPE: I do not agree to your posting of the advertisement tag on the COPE section.
                      I do not accept that you have standing to 
                      address any issue associated with the TSSI,
                      David_Laibman or related pages. From my
                      perspective you should have neither voice nor
                      vote. See WP:SOCK, in particular the section 
                      on meatpuppets and the reference to the 
                      Arbitration Committee ruling on how they should 
                      be handled. If there is not an objection from a 
                      legitimate source or consensus on an 
                      alternative procedure (see my proposal above) 
                      then I will interpret that as agreement that the 
                      advertisement tag 
                      
                      should be
                      included in the article.  
                      Watchdog07  
                      
The above violates WP:NPA, which stipulates "Comment on content, not on the contributor." justice-thunders-condemnation 04:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to proposals 

message: Andrew Kliman has requested that the advertisement tag be placed
on the Yale_Economic_Review page.  In so doing, he has recognized
that articles or sections of articles which are written as if they 
are promotional advertisements for a journal should be tagged. Having
done so he can not now logically and in good faith object to the advertisement tagging of the TSSI article, i.e. he has recognized the 
principle that Wikipedia should not be used for advertisement and that it can apply to journals.
This is good, but two differences exist between the Wikipedia entries on TSSI and the YER:
1. the Yale Economic Review exists. They have already published an issue.  The Critique of Political Economy has never published an issue. It does not exist. At this time it is a planned, want-to-be journal and a speculative venture. This is an important reason why they can't be equated: actual (YER) does not equal possible (COPE).
2. I have no knowledge that the page on the YER was written by those who are  managers or promoters of that journal or that the editors of the YER Wikipedia page have something to gain through the use of Wikipedia. [also, we can only assume good faith in that regard.] This is quite different from the situation with COPE since one of the two editors of that journal (Andrew Kliman) wrote the entry on COPE in the TSSI article and the other editor (Alan Freeman) was solicited by AKliman to support him in this discussion.  Thus, the following may or may not apply to the entry on the YER but CLEARLY applies to what was written by AKliman about COPE: 
"Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about YOURSELF, YOUR FRIENDS, YOUR COMPANY
OR PRODUCTS created as part of a marketing or promotional plan will be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies." [capitalization added]
Furthermore, it should be noted that the author of the TSSI entry (Andrew Kliman] has something to gain if the section on COPE is included and if the proposed venture (COPE) benefits - prestige and influence.
Given the above, Andrew Kliman  can not logically and in good faith object to the tagging of the COPE section of the TSSI article with the advertising tag.
Watchdog07 
The above message violates WP:NPA, which stipulates "Comment on content, not on the contributor." justice-thunders-condemnation 04:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to AKliman: ''COPE'' Vs. ''Yale Economic Review'' 

message: I'm in the same boat that M.posner is in.  It is not obvious to me, either, that the WP spam policy is relevant to the COPE section of the TSSI article.  Watchdog, please give us some argument to justify your claim that the COPE section violates the WP spam policy.  I'll be happy to discuss such an argument with M.posner and you.
I do think some WP journal articles or sections read like advertising.  For instance, the article on the Yale Economic Review. I've suggested that an "advertisement" tag go on that page.  
             
                        This has already been addresssed at length. 
                        See explanations given above for the
                        differences between the 
                        Yale_Economic_Review and the non-
                        existant want-to-be "journal" which may
                        or may not be eventually published 
                        called ""critique of Political Economy"".
                        Watchdog07  
Somewhat less egregious are articles on Science & Society ("The editorial board tries to ensure that its output is both groundbreaking and comprehensible"), Monthly Review, the American Economic Review, and the Economic Journal ("renowned as one of the most prestigious general journals in academic economics").   (I haven't yet suggested placing an "advertisement" tag on these pages; maybe later this week.)
It seems to me that, in contrast to all this, the COPE section of the TSSI article is a model of neutral provision of information rather than advertisement.  So, before agreeing to its deletion or to an "advertisement" tag, I need an argument as to why the section violates WP spam policy.  (I also can't agree to any other change to the TSSI article unless arguments are provided for each specific change proposed, such arguments are discussed, and there's then a consensus among the editors to make the change.) 
Dear Watchdog, please abide by the request to limit discussion on this page to the content of the TSSI article, and refrain from discussing people.  As M.posner pointed out above, this is official WP policy; please see .  Pluralism is about ideas, not people.  To conform to policy myself, I shall refrain from discussing people on this talk page.  Thus, my non-responses where individuals are discussed are not to be construed as agreement or disagreement.  Thank you very much in advance, Watchdog.
justice-thunders-condemnation 13:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On M.posner's "Reply to proposals"

message: The comments above directly concerned the content of the TSSI article and how it is in fact in violation of Wikipedia policies.  Evidently you will not reply to the completely legitimate comments above about COPE vs. the Yale_Economic_Review.  I will not guess at your motivation for declining to respond to these facts.
Watchdog07 
The above message violates WP:NPA, which stipulates "Comment on content, not on the contributor." justice-thunders-condemnation 04:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dear justice-thunders-condemnation, v=o, the antichrist, akliman 

message: Andrew Kliman and others have made claims on the discussion page about pluralism.  There is also a reference to pluralism_in_economics in the TSSI article authored by AKliman.  
What is meant by this expression?  As far as I can tell there is no consensus on the specific meaning of pluralism as it applies to economics.  Andrew Kliman seems to be using the expression in a non-standard and controversial way.  He is using that expression in what appears to be a different sense than:
Economic_pluralism
Scientific_pluralism and
Value_pluralism
Another expression for what Kliman calls pluralism_in_economics should be used as it is a confusing expression and it is highly likely that Wikipedia readers will confuse it with Economic_pluralism or some other meaning of pluralism.  There is clearly a need to disambiguate. 
This is part of a larger problem with the article: there is too much Marxian in-crowd lingo being used.  Wikipedia readers should not have to be familiar with the language of Marxian_economics to be able to comprehend the meaning of an article. Further, if non-standard language is used, then in fairness there should be another Wikipedia article which explains the specific meaning of that language.  
Watchdog07 
: "Pluralism" is in-crowd lingo from Marxian economics?! Very good. Anyways, if he was convinced that statements in the article needed verification or reliable sources, Kliman could preface such statements by "According to Kliman's recent book". I don't see the need to do this for the claim "Since internally inconsistent theories cannot possibly be right". If one wanted to clarify the meaning of pluralism from a source not related to TSSI researchers, one could provide an external link, I suppose, to some PAE article. Somewhere there's a Kurz and/or Salvadori article - I don't think under PAE auspices - advocating pluralism in economics. --RLV  209.217.195.16 05:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  need to disambiguate pluralism 

message: Dr. Kliman compares COPE to several other journals.  I have
already addressed at length the comparision to the Yale_Economics_Review to COPE.  Let us consider the other journals he refers to.
Science_&_Society has published continuously since 1936.  COPE has never published a single issue and is therefore not in fact a journal.  There is no evidence which I can see which shows that the Wiki entry on Science_&_Society was written by an editor as part of a promotional plan to advertise a product which is associated with that Wiki editor and which a Wiki editor stands to benefit from.
Monthly_Review has been in publication since 1949.  There is no evidence that the entry on that journal was written by someone who is associated with that journal as part of a marketing campaign to benefit that publication.  All of this is quite unlike the section on COPE in the TSSI article which was written by an Editor of the non-existent journal.
The above violates WP:NPA, which stipulates "Comment on content, not on the contributor." justice-thunders-condemnation 04:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrew Kliman's comparison of ''COPE'' to other journals 

message: In yet another example of blatent use of Wikipedia for self-promotion - for which the author of the TSSI article will in this case potentially benefit in the form of monetary enrichment - we see that the "reference" to Andrew Kliman's book links to a personal page of his which attempts to sell' his book.
This self-promotion is also evident in the entry itself by his reference to his "new" book.  What exactly is the purpose of Andrew Kliman writing "new" other than to entice the reader to the link and hence potentially sell more books?
Watchdog07 
The above message violates WP:NPA, which stipulates "Comment on content, not on the contributor." justice-thunders-condemnation 04:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  advertising masquerading as a "reference" 

message: RLV, welcome to Wikipedia.  I'm sorry I missed your comments earlier today.  Even though you just left a number, I'll assume good faith on your part.  You raise a couple of issues which I will address 
separately.
You suggested that Andrew Kliman quote his own book as a reference. I understood that to mean that you thought it was a reliable source WP:RS.  
Why is that?  Is it because it was published by Lexington Books?  Does that by itself make it a reliable source?  
You might not be old enough to remember this but Lexington Books used to be D.C. Heath and Company (or was it just that D.C. Heath founded Lexington Books?).  D.C. Heath and Company was considered at the time to be a reputable publisher, but they published in 1975 Dialectical Economics: An Introduction to Marxist Political Economy by Lyn_Marcus.  I wouldn't consider Lyn_Marcus to be a reliable source. Would you?  Would Dr. Kliman?  I'm NOT claiming that a book published by Lexington can't be a reliable source. All I'm saying at this point is that simply because they published Dr. Kliman's book  does not make it a reliable source.
Watchdog07 
: I have no idea what Watchdog07 is on about. Anybody that knows anything about the TSSI is aware that Carchedi, Freeman, Kliman, and others in their research community define the claims made in the TSSI. This means their perspectives should be represented in the article. It does not mean that they are correct or that no other perspectives should be represented in the article. In fact, I think they are mistaken myself. The views of prominent critics of the TSSI, such as Foley, Laibman, and Veneziani, should also be represented. As far as Kliman's book goes, as far as I am aware, he developed it in typical academic fashion, circulating the themes and chapters in conference papers and, if I understand correctly, in peer-reviewed journals. I suspect he could also preface every claim in the article with "According to" some paper or another. It is a matter of style how much of this you want to do, assuming one is actually interested in improving the article.
: Furthermore, I don't know that Institutionalists, drawing on the philosophy of American pragmaticism, think that a theory with demonstrated contradictions can be correct. You can certainly find philosophers of science (e.g., Paul Feyerabend) who would be willing to countenance self-contradictory theories as perhaps productive of future developments. And you can find philosophers (e.g., A. J. Ayer in his book on Wittgenstein) arguing that mathematicians do not need to prove axioms consistent before hand; they can resolve problems when they are discovered. In a thrid case, advocates of pluralism in economics would not object to advocates of mutually contradictory theories all being able to be published. In no case would these scholars agree that self-contradictory theories can possibly be correct. You would be better off looking into Hegel, which I do not claim to understand. Anyways, once again the statement in the article could be prefaced with "According to x".
: And I don't know where Kliman compared COPE to other journals. He compared Wikipedia descriptions of COPE to Wikipedia descriptions of other journals. It was his perceptions of the tones of the descriptions that he contrasted. RLV 209.217.195.88 01:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lexington Books 

message: May I suggest that we stick to one topic at a time?  We're supposed to be trying to reach consensus on the content of the TSSI article, and it will be a lot easier to reach consensus on it if we concentrate on one thing until we reach agreement on it, and move on to another thing only after we've reached agreement on the first thing.  I think that having lots of things under discussion at once leads to diversion, confusion, and indecisive outcomes.
Because of these considerations (and also because I wouldn't have time to discuss everything that's been raised all at once even if I wanted to), I'll stick (now and hereafter) to one thing at a time.  The original issue under discussion between Watchdog, M.posner, and I was whether the COPE section is written like an advertisement.  M.posner and I asked for arguments justifying the claim that it is written like an advertisement.  As far as I can tell, Watchdog hasn't yet provided any.  
Perhaps, however, Watchdog's remarks to the effect that the premiere issue of COPE is currently in process are intended to justify his claim that the COPE section is written like an advertisement.  If so, I don't get it.  I don't see any connection between (a) Has a journal's premiere issue appeared yet? and (b) Is a section on the journal written like an advertisement?  These seem to me to be two wholly separate questions.  I cannot even see how someone else could regard them as other than wholly separate questions.
Dear Watchdog, if you are indeed claiming that the fact that the premiere issue of COPE is currently in process is relevant to whether the COPE section is written like an advertisement, can you please explain what the relevance is, in your view, and also provide an argument to justify your view?
If you are not making that claim, however, then as far as I can tell, you've offered no argument on behalf of your claim that the COPE section is written like an advertisement.  Can you please offer such an argument now?
I would like to suggest that, if no argument is forthcoming, 
                        Arguments and explanations have have already 
                        been made. It is written in the style of an 
                        advertisement, its purpose is to promote a 
                        venure, it does not exist (and it is therefore 
                        fraud to claim that it does), and it was 
                        written by someone who would benefit by the 
                        advertising of the venture.  See the exact 
                        wording from Wikipedia  I reproduced (twice) 
                        which explained the policy against using 
                        Wikipedia as advertising  to 
                        promote "yourself ... your company" etc.
                        Watchdog07 
       
          
then Watchdog, M.posner, RLV, and I (and others, if and when they return) agree by consensus that 
(a) the COPE section is not written like an advertisement, 
(b) discussion of this issue end, and 
(c) no "advertising" tag be added to this section of the article.  
Then we can tackle another issue.
What do you all think?
                              I think you should remove yourself from 
                              discussion of this topic.  I will not 
                              challenge your good faith, but I have
                              serious doubts about your objectivity
                              since:
                               1.  you are one of the two editors
                                   of the proposed venture.
                               2.  you wrote the section on COPE in 
                                   the article.
                               3.  you potentially stand to benefit 
                                   in terms of added prestige if 
                                   the advertisement for COPE is 
                                   published and it helps the "journal" 
                                   become successful.
                               4. your actions as a Wikipedia editor
                                  have not been logically consistent.
                                  See remarks below comparing your
                                  actions on the question of the
                                  proposed advertising tag for this 
                                  article with your proposed tag of
                                  the Yale_Economic_Review
                                  article.                
                              Watchdog07 
              
The above violates WP:NPA, which stipulates "Comment on content, not on the contributor." justice-thunders-condemnation 04:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Once Again on ''COPE''

message: The following constitutes a reply to Andrew Kliman on the issue of COPE and inter-related issues.
As a matter of fact, I proposed on May 1 that the advert tag be placed on the TSSI article.  I was asked to explain that proposal which I then went on to do.  As a matter of fact, Andrew Kliman proposed on May 2 that the advert tag be placed  on the Yale_Economic_Review article. He offered no explanation for that proposal.
Although Dr. Kliman's actions may look suspicious, we are required as a matter of Wikipedia policy to assume that they were made in good faith.  I will not challenge him on that at this time. Instead, I will explain how these are logically inconsistent actions, especially from someone who claims to be a consistent supporter of pluralism_in_economics.
::: The above violates WP:NPA, which stipulates "Comment on content, not on the contributor." justice-thunders-condemnation 04:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The above violates WP:NPA, which stipulates "Comment on content, not on the contributor." justice-thunders-condemnation 04:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  logical consistency, pluralism & advertising 

message: Hmm.. went away and read about the history of this page elsewhere and realised I'd drastically misinterpreted the complexity of what was going on here. Apologies, please ignore my (now deleted) comment.
Marinheiro 22:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is crazy 

message: Over and over again I have complained about the duplicitious editing
standards of Andrew Kliman. Here is yet another example which relates to the wording of the section (advertisement) on COPE.
::: The above violates WP:NPA, which stipulates "Comment on content, not on the contributor." justice-thunders-condemnation 04:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The above violates WP:NPA, which stipulates "Comment on content, not on the contributor." justice-thunders-condemnation 04:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''COPE'', "puffery and editorializing", logical inconsistency 

message: Hello.  I have not had time to reply for the last few days.
While I am open to some kind of compromise regarding COPE, I do not accept your proposed compromise.  A major problem with the entry you've proposed is that there is no explanation of how COPE is related to the TSSI and therefore would not make much sense within the TSSI article.  The relation needs to be explained.  The quote from the mission statement currently used in the article provides a good explanation of the relation between TSSI and COPE.  I also think it would be better to say that COPE is a "forthcoming" journal rather than a "proposed" journal, since the latter sounds as if there have been no concrete plans made for it.
                      Even though we don't know that COPE will 
                      be forthcoming,  in the spirit of compromise
                      I will agree to your suggestion that "forthcoming" 
                      be substituted for "proposed".  I am open to
                      suggestions about how the sentence can be changed
                      to relate it better to the rest of the article.
                      For instance, the sentence could be changed to 
                      begin as follows, "A project which many advocates 
                      of the TSSI are currently working on, ...."   I 
                      think that addresses your concern. Do you agree?
                      Watchdog07  
                            
      
M.posner 14:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to proposed compromise 

message: I agree with M.posner on the COPE issue.  In the spirit of compromise, I'm willing to have "an online" changed to "a forthcoming online", on condition that we agree in advance that the change be reverted once the 1st issue of COPE is published online.
                                Agree to change "online" to 
                                "a forthcoming online".
                                Watchdog07 
M.posner is right: the material clarifying the relationship between the TSSI and COPE is needed, since this is an article on the TSSI. 
                                This is an assertion, not an 
                                explanation.
                                Watchdog07 
                             
Although I used the phrase prior to the publication of Cassidy's essayin 1997, 
                                 What is the evidence for that?
                                 I could find no online references
                                 by you to the "riven" expression
                                 prior to Cassidy's article.  
                                 Watchdog07  
I personally have no objection to quotation marks around "riven with internal inconsistencies" in the TSSI article's first sentence.  But let's see what other editors think.  
                                 There isn't time for that.  The 
                                 integrity of Wikipedia is in question.
                                 I will change the article so that 
                                 there are quotation marks before and 
                                 after Cassidy's quote.
                                 Watchdog07  
The reference to Cassidy is already there, for the paragraph as a whole.  Citing the same thing twice in such a brief space is useless pedantry, IMO.  
Dear Watchdog, please adhere to the WP policy forbidding personal attacks.  
                                 Please stop making this baseless
                                  accusation and stick to the issues. 
                                  Watchdog07  
The policy stipulates that there should not be discussion of individuals, but of content only.  It does not make exceptions for cases in which editors contend that the discussion of individuals is relevant to the content.  Thank you.
                 See Wikipedia policy that I reproduced TWICE 
                 regarding advertisements for "yourself ... your 
                 company...."  Please begin to respect 
                 Wikipedia policies. Thank you.
                 Watchdog07  
justice-thunders-condemnation 15:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On ''COPE'' and the 1st sentence

message: I request that WatchDog07 does not revert the page until consensus has been established.  Consensus has not been reached.
Whether or not you receive a specific request from sysops makes no difference, since as J.Smith pointed out on your user-talk page the sysops cannot tell you what to do.  But any revert by you will nonetheless make consensus that much more difficult to achieve.
M.posner 18:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WatchDog07's intent to revert 

message: I am responding to Watchdog07's response to my comment on his proposed compromise regarding the COPE section.  WatchDog07 said:             
                     Even though we don't know that COPE will 
                     be forthcoming,  in the spirit of compromise
                     I will agree to your suggestion that "forthcoming" 
                     be substituted for "proposed".  I am open to
                     suggestions about how the sentence can be changed
                     to relate it better to the rest of the article.
                     For instance, the sentence could be changed to 
                     begin as follows, "A project which many advocates 
                     of the TSSI are currently working on, ...."   I 
                     think that addresses your concern. Do you agree?
                     Watchdog07  Watchdog07 (talk • contribs)
I do not agree that adding "A project which many advocates of the TSSI are currently working on,..." clarifies the relationship between TSSI and COPE.  This is not the relationship of COPE and TSSI described by COPE.  According to COPE's mission statement, the relationship is rather that the TSSI:
"establishes a basis for a new research program that, in contrast to mainstream Marxian and radical political economy, proceeds from Marx’s contributions rather than from the 'corrections' of his alleged errors.
An indispensible aim of COPE is to create an institutional basis for continued research in the TSSI, and TSSI-informed theoretical and empirical work which, because of limited access to resources, does not currently exist.  We hope that, by working collaboratively on and contributing to COPE, proponents of the TSSI will be able to turn it into an ongoing, self-sustaining, research program.  We recognize that such a research program must include theoretical and empirical investigations informed by the TSSI, as well as interpretative work proper."
Now, it is possible someone has criticized that statement.  And if you know of any reliable sources who have criticized this mission statement, then I see no reason not to include them.  But in the absence of this, there is no reliable source to say that this is false.
Also note that in the current version of the COPE section it is entirely clear that this is a statement from the mission statement of the journal, and therefore it is not argued that what is said is true or untrue.  Rather, it simply cites the relationship between TSSI and COPE according to COPE.  There is nothing illegitimate in this, rather it is the only correct way to include the COPE entry within the TSSI article.
M.posner 19:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to WatchDog07's response to compromise 

message: In WatchDog07's post entitled "Reply to AKliman: COPE Vs. Yale Economic Review", he gives (as far as I can tell) two reasons for wanting to change the COPE section.  The first reason basically reduces to the fact that COPE's first issue has not appeared.  Since WatchDog07 already agreed to compromise on this issue ("in the spirit of compromise I will agree to your suggestion that 'forthcoming' be substituted for 'proposed' ", in his response to my post entitled "Response to proposed compromise"), I will skip it and instead talk about the second issue he raised, which is that Andrew Kliman wrote the COPE section and he stands to benefit from it.  The evidence WatchDog07 used to say that this is illegitimate is the rule that: 
"Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products created as part of a marketing or promotional plan will be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies."
WatchDog07 seems to think that this means that no one can write about a product (or project) that s/he is involved in.  This is not at all how I read it.  I read it as saying that Wikipedia will delete advertisements for products which exist "as part of a marketing or promotional plan."
WatchDog07, am I correct in my view of how you are reading the quote?  If not, then could you explain how you read it?
M.posner 19:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to other aspects of WatchDog07's criticism of COPE section 

message: "There is an urgent need for the first sentence of the TSSI article to be changed. The integrity of Wikipedia is in question. The sentence must be changed so that either the expression "riven with internal inconsistencies" is dropped or it is put in quotation marks and properly attributed to Cassidy.
WAtchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk • contribs)"
After looking this over again, I agree.  But please wait for consensus before reverting in the future.  Acting unilaterally is not acceptable, no matter what your ostensible reason is.
We should wait at least 24 hours to allow RLV anyone else to object before changing the page.  WatchDog07, Akliman, and myself have agreed to this change so far.
M.posner 21:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  quotation marks 

message: I agree to the insertion of quotation marks around the phrase "riven with internal inconsistencies". I also agree to the proposal to wait 24 hours to allow time for response otherwise someone who does object, does not have fair time to respond. If no-one objects in 24 hours, I suggest the quotation marks go in. 
Alan XAX Freeman 21:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus on quotation marks 

message: I think that since we have just agreed our first change by consensus, Watchdog's last post is somewhat excessive. I suggest to wait the 24 hours, make the change, and then move onto the other issues one at a time. The world will not end.
                                             That doesn't sound like input on spelling and grammar.
                                             Please read instructions given on your user talk page.
                                             Watchdog07  
Alan XAX Freeman 23:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  we just agreed our first consensus change-a calmer approach is called for 

message: I was in the process of answering your question more fully but when you replied there was an "edit conflict" so I'll have to reply again. I wanted to reproduce the tag so that we could all look at its language.
To begin with, I asked on this question for feedback on whether I should use the advert and/or spam tags.  When no one addressed whether the latter tag should be used, I used my judgment.
I used the spam tag in addition to the advert tag because it has language which I thought was especially applicable, most notably on external links and advertising.  Perhaps the tag should have been placed closer to the external link to a page of Kliman's website which is clearly intended to promote and sell his "new" book.  I addressed that issue in the talk page previously ("advertisement masquerading as a link").  
Please also note that I signalled my intention on this page to possibly place a spam tag on the article on more than one occasion.  Indeed, I mentioned the possibility yesterday.
Watchdog07  
:It occurred to me that some additional comments might be desirable to explain the character of advertisement.  To begin with, not all advertisement is corporate advertisement.  Nont-for-profit organizations, for instance, often rely on advertisement to promote their products and ventures. Secondly, not all advertisement directly solicit funds.  There are many other purposes: e.g. public image, brand promotion, etc. The section on COPE is clearly an advertisement which does not directly solicit funds but benefits the promoters (Kliman and Freeman) in other ways: 1. it makes it appear as if the product already exists thereby increasing the apparant credibility of the proposed venture; 2. it has prestige value; 3. if the venture is successful then they can benefit in other ways such as increased possibility for promotion at work, increased job security, and padded CVs which could benefit them in the future if/when they seek to change jobs.  Had Kliman simply wanted to mention the "forthcoming" journal in the article then we would have already come to an agreement on wording (see discussion above).  But, the description was padded with words and descriptions which Kliman himself has described as "puffery".  This is unacceptable and is an abuse of Wikipedia for personal gain.
Watchdog07  
The above violates WP:NPA, which stipulates "Comment on content, not on the contributor." justice-thunders-condemnation 04:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to Mr. MacMan continued 

message: WatchDog07,
Could you please respond to my message of 07 May entitled "Response to other aspects of WatchDog07's criticism of COPE section"?  If I don't understand how you are reading the passage then I cannot understand what your argument about the COPE section is.
: I already responded to that question.  I did so earlier this week in a reply to Andrew Kliman. As I explained at the time, I have other reasons for believing that the section on COPE constitutes an advertisement.  For instance, it is written in the style and language of an advertisement and is made up almost exclusively of what Andrew Kliman has called elsewhere "puffery and editorializing".  (It also has unsourced materials regarding occupations and professions, by the way.) My objections to this section have been explained at enormous length on this page. I do wish others on this page would begin to take those and other objections seriously. You would save us all a lot of time and aggrevation.  Watchdog07  
:: WatchDog07, I just went through the page searching for every use of "puffery," and I still did not find any explanation from you of the "puffery" used in the COPE description.  You do point out a number of times that Akliman deleted words/phrases from an/other article/s on the basis of "puffery."  You then say that we must edit the TSSI article on the same basis and delete all "puffery" from it.  But I cannot find any citations of any alleged puffery.  If there is alleged puffery, could you please cite the sentence which are pufferous (pardon the neologism)?
:: I also want to quickly respond to your claim that the COPE section has "unsourced materials regarding occupations and professions".  This strikes me as odd.  The COPE section links to the COPE webpage, which has the full list of editorial board members on it.  A quick search of the names on google will confirm that the claims about occupations and professions are correct.  I don't see how it would be possible to cite the occupation of all 50 persons involved.
::M.posner 01:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for response