Talk:Pluralism in economics/Archive 1

message: I will be happy to discuss this issue.  In the menatime, I have restored the passage in question, pending consensus on the issue.  
The IWGVT is indeed "specifically dedicated to the movement for pluralism in economics."  The deleted passage states, "The IWGVT aims to promote pluralistic debate on concepts of value ...."  Please do not delete any content unless and until consensus has been reached.
justice-thunders-condemnation 15:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to wd

message: Dear Watchdog, 
Unfortunately, your claim that "URPE has a long and distinguished history as a forum for the discussion of heterodox economics and as an association which supports pluralism in economics" lacked a reliable source (or any source).  Also the phrase "long and distinguished" was non-neutral.  
As far as I know, the outfit in question is not "specifically dedicated to the movement for pluralism in economics," which was the (appropriate) criterion for inclusion that you put forward earlier and that I accepted.  Thus, we had consensus, and we should both respect it.
Also unfortunately, your claim that "There are also organizations of lesser importance" was non-neutral, and it lacked a reliable (or any) source concerning relative importance.  
So, as I'm sure you'll understand, I have temporarily reverted the page pending consensus on neutral language and the production of reliable sources.  I will be happy to have neutral formulations of what you added included in the article, if reliable sources are produced.
Thanks in advance for understanding the problem.
Yours,
justice-thunders-condemnation 04:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additions violate NPOV and RS policies

message: As I gave notice of, above, I removed unsourced text, including the following tendentious string of alleged facts for which sources remained absent: "URPE has a long and distinguished history as a forum for the discussion of heterodox economics and as an association which supports pluralism in economics."
In order to make the article more balanced and comprehensive, I also made sure that ALL members of ICAPE are listed.  Since there is not room to describe all of the journals in that list and journals of the organizations in that list, I removed the description of what the RRPE publishes, in order to make the article more balanced. 
In order to make the article more neutral, I make clear in a footnote that Wikipedia does not necessarily endorse the implied claim that URPE or the RRPE are actually FOR radical political economics.  This qualification was needed because URPE is the only organization in the above list that then gets special mention, and it is important that this special mention not be construed as Wikipedia's endorsement of this organization.  
I would be willing, as an alternative, to accept deletion of the extra-special mention of URPE and go with its inclusion in the above list as an EQUAL of everything else in that list.
In light of the above changes, I am very happy to have the warning tags regarding factual accuracy & neutrality, rewriting, advertising, and sources removed.  
This is indeed a victory for pluralism.
justice-thunders-condemnation 14:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of Edits

message: I have temporarily reverted article, pending consensus, to the last properly-sourced version prior to changes about which there's no consensus at present.
Watchdog07's proposed changes fail to distinguish between groups specifically dedicated to pluralism and other groups.  The former should be mentioned in the section on such groups; the latter should not. 
: There is no reliable source which shows that the IWGVT is is group specifically dedicated to pluralism in economics. It is a group specifically dedicated to furthering discussions of VALUE THEORY.   Andrew KLiman has shown no evidence in support of his condentious claim that the IWGVT should be PRIVALEGED over other groups which support pluralism, including URPE.  Watchdog07  
Watchdog07 removed the footnote needed for reasons given in my "Explanation of Edits" above, without providing any justification.  
: Did you try and first 'explain that footnote here?  Of course not. Did you seek consensus on that objectionable footnote, which contained an opinion which is clearly UNSUITABLE FOR AN ENCYCLOPEDIA, before you put it in the article?  Of course not. Watchdog07 
Claims that the footnote contains weasel words and opinion in the form of innuendo don't count as justifications, since these claims themselves were not accompanied by any justifications, nor even any explanations.  What precisely are the weasel words?  What precisely is the opinion being expressed in the footnote? 
: ANY UNBIASED EDITOR of Wikipedia will KNOW what were the objectionable words in the article.  Watchdog07  
I will be willing, as I mentioned in "Explanation of Edits," to remove the footnote if the accompanying text on the outfit in question is also removed.  
: So you want to horse trade?  I don't trade horses.  The footnote CAN NOT BE IN THE ARTICLE.  Would you like to explain to MrMacMan or J.Smith why you think it should be in the article?  I'd like to hear that. Watchdog07  
: You removed the section on URPE without obtaining consensus. That is a fact.  That was done even after I  listed 4 sources to accompany the section.  Watchdog07  
I am also willing to retain the mention of this outfit in the full list of ICAPE members.  
: I am not willing to allow you to give the IWGVT a privaleged status.   I will be consistent, though - the IWGVT can be mentioned in the same section as URPE. Watchdog07  
I thank Watchdog07 in advance for understanding the problem and for understanding the need to put the article back to it last properly-sourced version pending consesus on subsequent changes.
: You did not seek consensus prior to your reversion.  You removed properly sourced text without seeking consensus.  You have the right to oppose pluralism in economics.  You do not have the right to establish inconsistent and dual standards for editing. Watchdog07  
justice-thunders-condemnation 19:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Justification of Reversion at about 18:55 on 11 May

message: The ever inconsistent editor, Andrew Kliman, makes comments above in a personally offensive and insulting way towards this editor.  
There are only a couple of issues with the article:
1.  Should there be a separate section on the IWGVT?  I don't think so since it is not a group specifically devoted to pluralism in economics.  Rather, it is a group specifically devoted to specialists working in the field of value theory.   I was willing, however, to let there be a section on the IWGVT if there could also be sections on other groups which support the movement for pluralism in economics, such as URPE.  Yet, when I tried to add a section on URPE, Andrew Kliman removed it and later put tags on it before he removed it again.  All I ask is that the article be consistent and neutral  in its treatment of different organizations. Thus, we can either have sections on the IWGVT and URPE right near each other or (I favor the following) simply listing the 2 organizations together in the section on ICAPE members.  Neither organization should be privileged over the other (even though URPE is much larger, has a longer history, is more consistent in its support of pluralism in economics, etc.).
If you are wondering why there is such a broohaha over the article, I wish to aquaint you with two factoids: 1] Andrew Kliman is one of the two leaders of the IWGVT; and 2] Andrew Kliman sued URPE in the past.  This editor believes that Kliman has not been objective or fair in his editing decisions on this article and - because of his personal history with both groups - should have removed himself from all discussions on edits of the article.  I think the record will also show that in his edits he behaved as if he owns the article, in violation of WP:OWN.
2.  The  likely fraud called COPE.  COPE, an alleged 'forthcoming journal' does not exist.  There is no reason to believe that it will necessarily ever exist.  If you go to the COPE website, you will find no issues of a journal.  You will find no articles. You won't even find a listing of "forthcoming" issues and articles.  The website is simply an advertisdement for a speculative venture that may or may not happen.  Hence, there is reason to suspect fraud and, possibly, a hoax.  Note that the hoax tag does not say that there is a hoax. It says that there might be a hoax.  Like the rest of the section on the IWGVT there is reason to doubt the objectivity of Kliman since he is one of the two people listed as "editors" of the non-existant journal.  Why should this article be used in such a crass self-serving way to advertise a scheme which in all liklihood will never become a reality?  Watchdog07 22:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments 

message: Good paragraph on the ad in the AER!  I  believe that this was what kicked off the call for pluralism (defined as such).  Given its importance, and the fact (if I remember correctly) that notable mainstream economists were among the signatories, I'd like to see more about this--who were the signatories, how it came about, some more of the text.  Plus, the reference must be made more precise.  Do you know the issue number and page number?  Also, how can we be sure that the ad was paid for rather than complementary?  andrew-the-k 01:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm writing this on a public computer, and I think the IP is sometimes randomized. Also my home computer is in the shop, so I haven't looked at my email lately. Anyway, I'm taking what I know about that ad from Geoffrey M. Hodgson's <I>Evolution and Institutions</I>. He says it was a paid advertisement, "signed by 44 leading economists - including four Nobel Laureates." I think Hodgson is a reliable source, since he says it "was drafted and circulated" by "Uskali Mäki, Donald McCloskey, and" himself. I don't want to put the work in now to type in the petition or the list of signatories. 24.58.113.7 21:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Hodgson's book is a reliable source on that topic but someone still has to, as time permits, find the exact reference.  Watchdog07 02:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dear 24.58.113.7

message: :::::I agree - I'll try to reduce the instances of the term "economic pluralism", in favour of a consistent editorial tone.  I also agree with your comments about the first sentence, but I really do want a "X is Y" tone for that one - I have made your suggested changes for the latter, tho, because "that which" is really awkward.  We seem to agree on the rest, so I'll just direct some comments towards the matter of "judgment calls".
:::::Basically, a "judgment call" is a "non-obvious" inference from material.  It will invariably be to some degree debatable about what is, or is not, obvious - but that's mainly why we have these talk page.  For instance, I think it's obvious to say an organization supports pluralism, when it holds conferences about it.  Some might disagree - so we should talk about it here.  Similarly, when someone quotes an author, they should try to ensure they retain the author's meaning in the quote - however, this is not always obvious, and if there is a problem, it can be discussed here.  --Haemo 04:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break for editing purposes

message: "It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles in order to attract users with known views in an attempt to strengthen one side of a debate" WP:MEAT.
Yet, isn't that exactly what Andrew Kliman has done?
See exchange between AKliman and Haemo on talk page of .
WP:AGF allows for the retraction of the assumption of good faith in certain circumstances.  If one has solicited a meatpuppet or agreed to be a meatpuppet, this is justifiable reason for not continuing to assume good faith.  Under the circumstances why should I not retract the assmption of good faith for Haemo, as is allowable in WP:AGF?  Watchdog07 02:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am certainly not a "meatpuppet" of anyone - my involvement with Andrew Kliman goes to the extent of (1) having read a book by him and (2) mentioning it to him about it on his talk page.  He never solicited my opinion on this article, nor did he request me to re-write this article.  I don't specifically share his views, nor it is "known" that I do.  In fact, I didn't exactly do anything here - as I said, I simply re-wrote the article; as far as I know, I didn't remove, or delete any substantive content in my revision.  If you have some specific concerns about it, please, tell me about them - but don't accuse me of being a "meatpuppet"; I'm nothing of the sort. --Haemo 02:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was basing my concerns on what was actually written on the talk page of Andrew Kliman. If you re-read that exchange, I think you will be able to see the cause of my concerns re WP:MEAT.  For the time being I accept your explanation and will AGF.  Watchdog07 14:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem at all!  No harm, no foul, after all.  --Haemo 01:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:AGF]] and [[WP:MEAT]] 

message: Footnote-5 appears in the second line of the second paragraph. Footnote-6 appears in the third line. Another Footnote-5 then appears at the end of that paragraph.
I don't see a duplication of footnote-6, but footnote-5 appears once again in the "External links" section, at the end of the ICAPE reference.
I would fix these myself, but I'm not familiar with the way you set up your references list. --Extra Fine Point 05:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's just the way the references are working - it's actually supposed to work like that.  See, because certain references occur a couple of times, the footnoting system allows you to assign a "name" to then, and then quote just the name.  For example, look at Starcraft II - which uses this extensively.  It's a way of referencing that Wikipedia has adopted, principally because it doesn't require a whole bunch of "Ibid." or "op. cit." footnotes cluttering up the bottom of pages - as you can see, it alias each instance of a citation with a letter (a,b,c etc.) instead.  --Haemo 05:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah! Very cool. What template did you use to create them? --Extra Fine Point 13:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what you do is the following - for any given reference you type [reference material here].  Then, whenever you want to cite that reference again, you simply write .  --Haemo 18:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote problem 

message: Ref. #7 is incorrectly listed in the refernce section as "IWGVT - Associates".  It should read "ICAPE - Associates".  Watchdog07 12:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Watchdog07 13:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another footnote problem 

message: I suggest that the article say the following:
In 1992, 47 prominent mainstream and  heterodox economists joined forces, issuing "A Plea for a Pluralistic and Rigorous Economics."  The plea was published as a paid advertisement in the leading academic journal of economics in the U.S. (American Economic Review, May 1992, p. xxv).  Four Nobel laureates in economics--Franco Modigliani, Paul Samuelson, Herbert Simon, and Jan Tinbergen--were among the signatories.  The "Plea" stated, 
:... Economists today enforce a monopoly of method or core assumptions, often defended on no better ground [than] that it constitutes the 'mainstream'. ... 
:...[W]e call for a new spirit of pluralism in economics, involving critical conversation and tolerant communication between different approaches.  Such pluralism should not undermine ther standards of rigor; an economnics that requires itself to face all the arguments will be a more, not a less, rigorous science. 
:We believe that the new pluralism should be reflaected in the character of scientific debate, in the range of contributiuons in its journals, and in the training and hiring of economists.
I think it should also be said here, or reiterated here, that this was a founding moment of the movement for pluralism.
andrew-the-k 21:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion of ''AER''-ad section