The International Working Group on Value Theory (IWGVT) is not an organization which is specifically dedicated to the movement for pluralism in economics. Instead, it describes itself as wanting to advance "engagement and discussion between anyone working on value theory". This is a specialist purpose and needs to be distinguished from the more general movement for pluralism in economics. If the IWGVT can be described as "pluralist" then so could virtually all mainstream economics associations. Why, for instance, should the IWGVT be included in the listing of the organizations which support pluralism in economics, but not the Eastern Economics Association (EEA), an organization which sponsored mini-conferences of the IWGVT for a number of years?
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 ( talk · contribs)
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)
I have expanded upon the page.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 ( talk · contribs)
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)
Andrew Kliman insisted above ("Reply to wd") that content must be restored on this page pending consensus. Then, he reverted the additions which I made to the article before we had an opportunity to discuss the issue and seek to arrive at a consensus. Once again, his editing practices are inconsistent. Hence, I will revert the article.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 ( talk · contribs)
URPE is listed as an "associate" of ICAPE.
URPE is listed at the PAE site.
URPE is listed at the HET.ECON site alongside the AHE.
(links to all of the above are provided on the article page.)
URPE is consequently recognized by other organizations which are part of the pluralism in economics movement as being a part of that movement.
On another point: URPE is a much larger organization with a longer history than the IWGVT. If we list the IWGVT then we should consider adding all the other organizations listed by ICAPE as associates.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 ( talk · contribs)
Now, don't you think that was kind of petty? Simply because I raised legitimate objections to your article on the TSSI shouldn't be a reson for tagging this article. This isn't a game of ping-pong, Dr. Kliman.
What do you think others in the movement for pluralism in economics will think of your tags?
Shouldn't you have raised the question of tagging the article on this talk page first? Or is it too much to expect you to display an internally consistent behavior as a Wikipedia editor.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 ( talk · contribs)
First, read. Then, tell the truth.
WAtchdog07 Watchdog07 ( talk · contribs)
Dear Watchdog07. Please note what the warning tag says--the section does not cite its references or sources. It can therefore be removed at any time. As per my prior communication, it will be removed unless, within the next 7 hours, references or sources are cited regarding the particular alleged facts put forward in this section. Thanks for understanding. For pluralism,
justice-thunders-condemnation 04:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Deak Akliman: Please note what was written above. Please READ what has been written on this page. The section on URPE DOES cite its sources. Moreover, further exaplanation has been given on this page. As usual, you are avoiding answering the questions.
If you remove the section on URPE, then the section on the IWGVT will have to be removed as well since both are equally referenced. Be consistent!
If you do not begin to address the comments on this talk page, then I will have to remove your tags. This is an encyclopedia. Please take your work here as editor seriously and please be CONSISTENT.
I have looked at your home page and I respectfully suggest that, given your history with URPE, you can not (and have not been) objective on this matter.
URPE is a RECOGNIZED part of the movement for pluralism in economics.
It has been RECOGNIZED as a part of that movement at the websites of all of the other major participants in that movement.
Your actions in placing tags on the article have already undermined your assertion that you are a supporter of the movement for pluralism in economics. If you take any further action against URPE, I fear that it will reinforce and give further empirical content to the claim that YOU ARE NOT A PLURALIST. Of course, you don't have to be a pluralist to edit this article. However, you (like others) can not be duplicitious in your edits. Your edits (like the edits of others) should not be self-serving, petty, and vindictive.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 ( talk · contribs)
I have added an additional source to the section on URPE, which now has THREE (3) sources. Since Andrew Kliman's concerns have been addressed, I removed his tags. This represents a VICTORY FOR PLURALISM and a decisive and emphatic defeat for someone who wrongly suggested that URPE is not part of the movement for pluralism in economics. I would like to thank Andrew Kliman for his participation in this discussion which has been very useful in determining who the supporters of pluralism in economics are and who they are NOT. The resolution of what has happened on this page (especially the removal of the unjustified and unexplained tags) will be heard and celebrated by genuine supporters of pluralism everywhere.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 ( talk · contribs)
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)
Andrew Kliman deserves my gratitude for including in the article the names of all of the associates of ICAPE. For reasons of symmetry, since he incorporated the section on URPE into that list I have done the same to the section on the IWGVT.
I have also eliminated his weasel words from the article and a footnote to the article. Andrew J. Kliman needs to remember the need to present facts rather than opinions in his edits. His opinion about URPE has no place - even in the form of innuendo - in the article.
Should the Professor of Economics in the Economics Department at Pace University wish to change the article again so that there are again separate sections on both the IWGVT and URPE, then I am open to hearing his suggestions on the talk page.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 ( talk · contribs)
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.
Watchdog07 removed the footnote needed for reasons given in my "Explanation of Edits" above, without providing any justification.
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?
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.
I am also willing to retain the mention of this outfit in the full list of ICAPE members.
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.
justice-thunders-condemnation 19:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the page to the last version before it began to be attacked.
I am willing to consider changes, but not changes made prior to consensus. Please obtain consensus before making changes.
Otherwise you will be reported and the article will be restored to its proper condition.
justice-thunders-condemnation 19:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Watchdog07 has repeatedly removed mention of the IWGVT from the Groups for Pluralism in Economics section, without consensus and although the mention conforms to WP:RS. He also singles out one organization (of about 30) in the next section, without consensus.
Andrew Kliman - please do not continue to suppress the content in the article which concerns URPE. The public has a right to know that URPE is a part of the movement for pluralism in economics on the same plane as newer, smaller, lesser known, and less important specialist organizations such as the IWGVT. If you (counter-factually) think that the IWGVT is more a part of the movement for pluralism in economics then we could ask others who are part of that movement, for instance Fred Lee, if they agree with you. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 ( talk · contribs)
This claim requires an RS. Pointing at a website is not provision of an RS. Given the evidence that I do know, this seems to be an exceptional claim that requires exceptional sources.
Given that elimination of the unsourced material makes the surrounding text unreadable, I have reverted to the prior version.
Dearest Watchdog, please do not make any changes to the article--especially removal of text and addition of text without adequate sources--prior to consensus. Thank you for understanding and cooperating. I look forward to an amicable working relationship. justice-thunders-condemnation 19:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 ( talk · contribs)
The distinguished Professor of Economics at Pace University, Andrew J. Kliman, has sought to privilege a small organization not specifically dedicated to pluralism (the IWGVT) and to SUPPRESS a section in the article on a much more important (by any standard) organization, URPE. The reasons given on this page for his edits are only consistent in that they are consistently one-sided and consistently inconsistent.
A question for other editors: since Andrew Kliman is one of the two leaders of the IWGVT, would it be acceptable for us to add a note in the article to the effect that the IWGVT has been " inconsistent in its practice regarding pluralism"? If so, we might need additional reliable sources WP:RS.
Isn't it in violation of the spirit of the movement for pluralism in economics to privilege one group which supports pluralism (the IWGVT) over others (including URPE)?
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 ( talk · contribs)
Should the opinion of representatives of other groups which are part of the movement for pluralism in economics be solicited in regard to the claim that the IWGVT should be treated in the article in a preferential way and that URPE deserves less of a mention than the IWGVT?
What would be the best way to obtain that input? Should there be a discussion about that issue outside of Wikipedia, for instance? There is an ICAPE conference this summer. Should this issue be raised as a topic for discussion there? I am not making any proposals here. I am only raising questions.
Thank you in advance for your input.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 ( talk · contribs)
Dearest Extra Fine Point,
I was not inquiring into your motivations, of course, but, as I noted, "the motivation behind your suggestion" (emphasis added).
Since you brought up your motivations, I notice that your account was created only today, and that you went straight for this article and talk page. I mention this because I'm wondering whether you have a special interest in pluralism in economics. I'm also wondering whether you qualify as someone who can speak with authority about the subject matter of this article (as I do--I'll be happy to present my credentials). Watchdog07 does not qualify as an authority--at least he's never presented his credentials, though he has claimed to be a Wikipedia administrator (and has received a warning from an actual administrator for this, since Watchdog07 does not in fact hold the title of administrator on Wikipedia) as well as a Professor of economics. (Since the claim that he's an administrator is, if not a plain falsehood, extremely misleading at the very least, there is good reason to discount his unsubstantiated claim to be a Professor of economics on the same ground.)
You note that you suggested what you suggested in order to be responsive to Watchdog07's concern. But hy do you wish to be responsive to his concern? Doesn't it matter whether his concern is valid or not? What is your reason for thinking it is valid, and suggesting a solution based on the presumption that it is valid, rather than thinking that his concern is invalid, and suggesting a solution based on the preumption that it is invalid?
One problem I have with your suggestion, as I mentioned, is that "it subordinates every group to ICAPE, effacing their distinctive missions." This isn't the same thing as "diminish[ing an] organization by not giving it a separate listing." Since the article is an article on pluralism in economics, I think the whole gamut of groups specifically dedicated to the movement for pluralism in economics should be mentioned, and the manner in which they contribute to the movement should be highlighted. ICAPE, AHE, PAE, and IWGVT are very different groups, and the way in which each is specifically dedicated to the movement for pluralism in economics is different, so it is very misleading to subordinate them under ICAPE. It fails to highlight the distinctive way in which they are specifically dedicated to the movement for pluralism in economics.
Please note that this is not a matter of highlighting an organization. You are perfectly correct that the latter could be done "by adding a citation link to that organization's web page." But this would just refer readers to the organization, failing to highlight how the organization is specifically dedicated to the movement for pluralism in economics. Since the article is about the movement for pluralism in economics, I think it needs to explain organizations' relationship to the movement. Providing a link to the organization's website doesn't do that. For instance, it is too much work for the reader to go to the AHE website in order to figure out exactly how the AHE is (has become, actually) a group specifically dedicated to the movement for pluralism in economics. It's not immediately apparent. The encyclopedia exists so that readers don't have to research everything for themselves.
You agree that your suggestion "fails to distinguish between groups specifically dedicated to the movement for pluralism and those that happen to be ICAPE members." Why do you then persist in offering that suggestion? Don't you agree that it is a fundamental distinction? Or perhaps you're not sure. OK. But if you're not sure, then why not discuss this issue first, rather than offer a suggestion that seems based on the presumption that this is not a fundamental distinction? Please note that one thing Watchdog07 and I agree about is the fundamental nature of this distinction (see above on this talk page).
You ask, "how does a group 'happen to be' a member of ICAPE?" As far as I know, they ask to join and they pay their dues, and that makes them members. There are no other requirements.
You also ask, "Don't they join because they support the mission of pluralism in economics?" I have no idea about most of them. I don't want to cast aspersions, but it is plausible that some or even many of them regard ICAPE as an umbrella heterodox economics association and belong to it for that reason (and the free publicity).
andrew-the-k 20:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
I reorganized the page. I think it reads much better now. -- Extra Fine Point 19:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Previous layout: | My layout: |
Section 2 Header | Section 2 Header |
Org. name | Org. name |
Org. desc. | Org. desc. |
Org. name | Org. name |
Org. desc. | Org. desc. |
Org. name | Org. name |
Org. desc. | Org. desc. |
Org. name | Org. name |
Org. desc. | Org. desc. |
Blurb | |
Section 3 Header | Footnote Header |
Blurb | ICAPE Member list |
ICAPE Member list |
Howdy! I re-wrote the page, and added a bunch of references. I think it looks much nicer now, and I don't believe that I deleted very much (if any) content. I removed the big list of groups to the bottom, and re-wrote the lead - since those aren't really about the topic, more like "related" to it. Hopefully everyone likes it - I also removed the "disputed", "hoax", and "rewrite" tags, since I think this takes care of them. We still need some reference - I apologize for the "The Nation" one; it's true, but I lost most of the information for it. I'm looking for a better citation right now - but it's proving difficult. Anyways, talk to me about what you think - I'm still trying to improve my editing. -- Haemo 23:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Here are some comments on the content as revised by Haemo. First, I want to reiterate that I think his version is "a good, new basis. And I say this as the article's creator."
That said, my main concern is that the rewrite tends to blur the distinction between pluralism in economics and Heterodox economics, for which, as you see, a WP article already exists.
For instance, the first part of the last sentence of para. 1 seems to equate pluralism with diversity (i.e. pluralistic groups are pluralistic by virtue of their diversity or inclusiveness). I think the situation is rather that the defining distinction of the movement for pluralism in economics is the critique of methodological and institutional monism, often but not always on the ground that "each tradition of thought adds something unique and valuable." Later, there is a comment that the RRPE "focuses on many pluralist viewpoints"; I think the situation is rather that it publishes many different heterodox viewpoints.
Thus, it seems to me that inclusiveness or diversity or heterodoxy should not be the criterion for inclusion on the list of "pluralist" groups. That criterion would permit the JPKE (a journal) to be called pluralist, though its editor, Paul Davidson, wants the current situation in economics to persist except that he wants post-Keynesian economics to rule the roost (no pun intended) instead of neoclassicism or whatever. Any diverse or heterodox group would deserve mention, and even equal mention, and soon the list would include everything, even the AEA, which, after all, runs a very inclusive and diverse annual conference.
The appropriate criterion, it seems to me, is whether the group has a specific committment to pluralism in economics. On this criterion, no group on the list (except COPE, which, however, is probably better to subsume under the IWGVT) would have merited inclusion originally. ICAPE became worthy of inclusion when it changed its name and purpose. The IWGVT became worty of inclusion when it produced a mission statement that turned it into an organization that promotes pluralistic debate. The AHE doesn't define itself in terms of pluralism, as far as I know, but I think it is now worthy of inclusion because of the focus on pluralism in its last 3 conferences. The PAE case is open to different interpretations; my own view is that PAE began as a critique of neoclassicism and the dominance of mathematical economics, but now merits inclusion because it has since endorsed pluralism. I think URPE/RRPE, already mentioned in the Heterdox economics article, belong there but not in this list, because they are heterodox and diverse, to a degree, but not specifically committed to the idea of pluralism in economics. Inclusion of groups on grounds of heterodoxy or diversity opens a big can of worms (no offense to URPE/RRPE intended), as I noted above.
Some other points:
(1) 1st sentence. I'm not sure what an academic campaign is. I suggest putting "academic" at the end of the sentence: "mainstream academic economics."
(2) 3d sentence: pluralist groups encompass theories? I don't know what this means, and it tends to conflate advocating pluralism with being diverse.
(3) same sentence: "Pluralist groups" in general don't make the statement in quotes. One group does. More importantly, the quote gives only one of the justifications for pluralism. Last year at the AHE conference, Sheila Dow gave a paper that discussed several different ones. For instance, the justification offered by Alan Freeman (and me, but he's the major developer of it) is that engagement among alternatives, in contrast to diversity as such, is scientifically and ethically superior. This leads to practices focused on what someone else has rightly called "enforced pluralism"--debate conducted in accordance with rules meant to maximize engagement among different theories--rather than being focused on promoting diversity.
(4) 1st sentence of 2d para. I don't think ICARE was a pluralist organization, as explained above. The way PAE is described may also tend to efface the distinction between what it was originally and what it became.
(5) More work is needed on the statement in the AER, as I think is agreed generally. I also think it should come before other things, because it came first historically.
(6) I recommend splitting the last sentence of the para. into 2: "instead. This prompted ...." Also, "favored" should be favor", no?: the Davidson perspective is alive and kicking. Also, I recommend: "However, not all critics of mainstream economics favor pluralistic practice. Many have favored and continue to favor "reform" of economics instead. Proponents of pluralism started to explicitly distance themselves from that approach in the 1990s. For example, ICARE became ICAPE--the R ("Reform") in ists name being replaced by P ("Pluralism"), because "'reform' ... does not properly characterize the nature or purpose of our organization."
andrew-the-k 16:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
"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 Akliman ( talk · contribs).
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)
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)
Not only does it not exist (and may never exist), but the "Mission Statement" of COPE makes it clear that if it were to exist, it would not be a journal which actually was pluralist. From the "Mission Statement" see the two paragraps which begin "We encourage proponents of the ...." and "An indispensible aim ...." It is rather obvious from this that - whatever lip service they give to pluralism in economics by including the word "pluralism" in their statetement - they clearly privilege one theoretical perspective over all others. This is inconsistent with a journal which is genuinely committed to pluralism in economics. How should we deal with this issue in the article? Perhaps we could have another paragraph on what might be called "phony pluralism" (i.e. organizations which are inconsistent and/or duplicitous in their claim that they support pluralism)? Watchdog07 13:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Dearest Watchdog07, given that you have repeatedly failed to provide any justification for your refusal to embrace the principles of inclusion of groups set forth in my message, it is clear that you don't have any justification. In other words, your refusal is unjustified. This is why you engage in continual diversions and violations of WP:BLP and WP:NPA.
Given that you have no justification for your position, it will be ignored from this point on, unless and until you provide adequate justification.
andrew-the-k 01:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Since it looks like everyone is shunning everyone else, I guess I get to play middle-man. Just don't talk to each other - talk to me, instead, I suppose. With respect to journals, I think we can all agree that:
If you object, just mention so in your reply. -- Haemo 01:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
With respect to how adopting this proposal applies, it would remove the mention of RRPE and COPE from the article, replacing both with "which publishes publishes a journal on pluralism", or something to that effect. -- Haemo 02:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
If we agree on the inclusion criterion for groups (but I'm sure that Watchdog07 doesn't agree, of course), then ICAPE, the AHE, the PAE, and the IWGVT are in, while URPE and others are yet to be verified as specifically part of the movement for pluralism according to categories (1) or (2).
So there are then only two journals to deal with at this point, the PAER and COPE.
I do think the PAER deserves a relative lot of space because so much of the recent discussion of pluralism is conducted there, and that this discussion is a, if not the, major part of the movement for pluralism at this time. So I'm specifically suggesting an expansion of the stuff on the PAER that highlights what I said in the last sentence. I can probably write something about this, though not immediately--I'm mentioning it because I don't want an expansion of the PAER stuff excluded as a matter of principle.
I think we agree (but I'm sure that Watchdog07 doesn't agree, of course) that, in the case of COPE, the description should be brief. I think a brief discussion is needed in order that readers not conflate its contribution to the movement for pluralism with that of the IWGVT.
Yes?
andrew-the-k 21:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Ref. #7 is incorrectly listed in the refernce section as "IWGVT - Associates". It should read "ICAPE - Associates". Watchdog07 12:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
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,
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)
The International Working Group on Value Theory (IWGVT) is not an organization which is specifically dedicated to the movement for pluralism in economics. Instead, it describes itself as wanting to advance "engagement and discussion between anyone working on value theory". This is a specialist purpose and needs to be distinguished from the more general movement for pluralism in economics. If the IWGVT can be described as "pluralist" then so could virtually all mainstream economics associations. Why, for instance, should the IWGVT be included in the listing of the organizations which support pluralism in economics, but not the Eastern Economics Association (EEA), an organization which sponsored mini-conferences of the IWGVT for a number of years?
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 ( talk · contribs)
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)
I have expanded upon the page.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 ( talk · contribs)
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)
Andrew Kliman insisted above ("Reply to wd") that content must be restored on this page pending consensus. Then, he reverted the additions which I made to the article before we had an opportunity to discuss the issue and seek to arrive at a consensus. Once again, his editing practices are inconsistent. Hence, I will revert the article.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 ( talk · contribs)
URPE is listed as an "associate" of ICAPE.
URPE is listed at the PAE site.
URPE is listed at the HET.ECON site alongside the AHE.
(links to all of the above are provided on the article page.)
URPE is consequently recognized by other organizations which are part of the pluralism in economics movement as being a part of that movement.
On another point: URPE is a much larger organization with a longer history than the IWGVT. If we list the IWGVT then we should consider adding all the other organizations listed by ICAPE as associates.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 ( talk · contribs)
Now, don't you think that was kind of petty? Simply because I raised legitimate objections to your article on the TSSI shouldn't be a reson for tagging this article. This isn't a game of ping-pong, Dr. Kliman.
What do you think others in the movement for pluralism in economics will think of your tags?
Shouldn't you have raised the question of tagging the article on this talk page first? Or is it too much to expect you to display an internally consistent behavior as a Wikipedia editor.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 ( talk · contribs)
First, read. Then, tell the truth.
WAtchdog07 Watchdog07 ( talk · contribs)
Dear Watchdog07. Please note what the warning tag says--the section does not cite its references or sources. It can therefore be removed at any time. As per my prior communication, it will be removed unless, within the next 7 hours, references or sources are cited regarding the particular alleged facts put forward in this section. Thanks for understanding. For pluralism,
justice-thunders-condemnation 04:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Deak Akliman: Please note what was written above. Please READ what has been written on this page. The section on URPE DOES cite its sources. Moreover, further exaplanation has been given on this page. As usual, you are avoiding answering the questions.
If you remove the section on URPE, then the section on the IWGVT will have to be removed as well since both are equally referenced. Be consistent!
If you do not begin to address the comments on this talk page, then I will have to remove your tags. This is an encyclopedia. Please take your work here as editor seriously and please be CONSISTENT.
I have looked at your home page and I respectfully suggest that, given your history with URPE, you can not (and have not been) objective on this matter.
URPE is a RECOGNIZED part of the movement for pluralism in economics.
It has been RECOGNIZED as a part of that movement at the websites of all of the other major participants in that movement.
Your actions in placing tags on the article have already undermined your assertion that you are a supporter of the movement for pluralism in economics. If you take any further action against URPE, I fear that it will reinforce and give further empirical content to the claim that YOU ARE NOT A PLURALIST. Of course, you don't have to be a pluralist to edit this article. However, you (like others) can not be duplicitious in your edits. Your edits (like the edits of others) should not be self-serving, petty, and vindictive.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 ( talk · contribs)
I have added an additional source to the section on URPE, which now has THREE (3) sources. Since Andrew Kliman's concerns have been addressed, I removed his tags. This represents a VICTORY FOR PLURALISM and a decisive and emphatic defeat for someone who wrongly suggested that URPE is not part of the movement for pluralism in economics. I would like to thank Andrew Kliman for his participation in this discussion which has been very useful in determining who the supporters of pluralism in economics are and who they are NOT. The resolution of what has happened on this page (especially the removal of the unjustified and unexplained tags) will be heard and celebrated by genuine supporters of pluralism everywhere.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 ( talk · contribs)
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)
Andrew Kliman deserves my gratitude for including in the article the names of all of the associates of ICAPE. For reasons of symmetry, since he incorporated the section on URPE into that list I have done the same to the section on the IWGVT.
I have also eliminated his weasel words from the article and a footnote to the article. Andrew J. Kliman needs to remember the need to present facts rather than opinions in his edits. His opinion about URPE has no place - even in the form of innuendo - in the article.
Should the Professor of Economics in the Economics Department at Pace University wish to change the article again so that there are again separate sections on both the IWGVT and URPE, then I am open to hearing his suggestions on the talk page.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 ( talk · contribs)
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.
Watchdog07 removed the footnote needed for reasons given in my "Explanation of Edits" above, without providing any justification.
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?
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.
I am also willing to retain the mention of this outfit in the full list of ICAPE members.
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.
justice-thunders-condemnation 19:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the page to the last version before it began to be attacked.
I am willing to consider changes, but not changes made prior to consensus. Please obtain consensus before making changes.
Otherwise you will be reported and the article will be restored to its proper condition.
justice-thunders-condemnation 19:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Watchdog07 has repeatedly removed mention of the IWGVT from the Groups for Pluralism in Economics section, without consensus and although the mention conforms to WP:RS. He also singles out one organization (of about 30) in the next section, without consensus.
Andrew Kliman - please do not continue to suppress the content in the article which concerns URPE. The public has a right to know that URPE is a part of the movement for pluralism in economics on the same plane as newer, smaller, lesser known, and less important specialist organizations such as the IWGVT. If you (counter-factually) think that the IWGVT is more a part of the movement for pluralism in economics then we could ask others who are part of that movement, for instance Fred Lee, if they agree with you. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 ( talk · contribs)
This claim requires an RS. Pointing at a website is not provision of an RS. Given the evidence that I do know, this seems to be an exceptional claim that requires exceptional sources.
Given that elimination of the unsourced material makes the surrounding text unreadable, I have reverted to the prior version.
Dearest Watchdog, please do not make any changes to the article--especially removal of text and addition of text without adequate sources--prior to consensus. Thank you for understanding and cooperating. I look forward to an amicable working relationship. justice-thunders-condemnation 19:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 ( talk · contribs)
The distinguished Professor of Economics at Pace University, Andrew J. Kliman, has sought to privilege a small organization not specifically dedicated to pluralism (the IWGVT) and to SUPPRESS a section in the article on a much more important (by any standard) organization, URPE. The reasons given on this page for his edits are only consistent in that they are consistently one-sided and consistently inconsistent.
A question for other editors: since Andrew Kliman is one of the two leaders of the IWGVT, would it be acceptable for us to add a note in the article to the effect that the IWGVT has been " inconsistent in its practice regarding pluralism"? If so, we might need additional reliable sources WP:RS.
Isn't it in violation of the spirit of the movement for pluralism in economics to privilege one group which supports pluralism (the IWGVT) over others (including URPE)?
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 ( talk · contribs)
Should the opinion of representatives of other groups which are part of the movement for pluralism in economics be solicited in regard to the claim that the IWGVT should be treated in the article in a preferential way and that URPE deserves less of a mention than the IWGVT?
What would be the best way to obtain that input? Should there be a discussion about that issue outside of Wikipedia, for instance? There is an ICAPE conference this summer. Should this issue be raised as a topic for discussion there? I am not making any proposals here. I am only raising questions.
Thank you in advance for your input.
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 ( talk · contribs)
Dearest Extra Fine Point,
I was not inquiring into your motivations, of course, but, as I noted, "the motivation behind your suggestion" (emphasis added).
Since you brought up your motivations, I notice that your account was created only today, and that you went straight for this article and talk page. I mention this because I'm wondering whether you have a special interest in pluralism in economics. I'm also wondering whether you qualify as someone who can speak with authority about the subject matter of this article (as I do--I'll be happy to present my credentials). Watchdog07 does not qualify as an authority--at least he's never presented his credentials, though he has claimed to be a Wikipedia administrator (and has received a warning from an actual administrator for this, since Watchdog07 does not in fact hold the title of administrator on Wikipedia) as well as a Professor of economics. (Since the claim that he's an administrator is, if not a plain falsehood, extremely misleading at the very least, there is good reason to discount his unsubstantiated claim to be a Professor of economics on the same ground.)
You note that you suggested what you suggested in order to be responsive to Watchdog07's concern. But hy do you wish to be responsive to his concern? Doesn't it matter whether his concern is valid or not? What is your reason for thinking it is valid, and suggesting a solution based on the presumption that it is valid, rather than thinking that his concern is invalid, and suggesting a solution based on the preumption that it is invalid?
One problem I have with your suggestion, as I mentioned, is that "it subordinates every group to ICAPE, effacing their distinctive missions." This isn't the same thing as "diminish[ing an] organization by not giving it a separate listing." Since the article is an article on pluralism in economics, I think the whole gamut of groups specifically dedicated to the movement for pluralism in economics should be mentioned, and the manner in which they contribute to the movement should be highlighted. ICAPE, AHE, PAE, and IWGVT are very different groups, and the way in which each is specifically dedicated to the movement for pluralism in economics is different, so it is very misleading to subordinate them under ICAPE. It fails to highlight the distinctive way in which they are specifically dedicated to the movement for pluralism in economics.
Please note that this is not a matter of highlighting an organization. You are perfectly correct that the latter could be done "by adding a citation link to that organization's web page." But this would just refer readers to the organization, failing to highlight how the organization is specifically dedicated to the movement for pluralism in economics. Since the article is about the movement for pluralism in economics, I think it needs to explain organizations' relationship to the movement. Providing a link to the organization's website doesn't do that. For instance, it is too much work for the reader to go to the AHE website in order to figure out exactly how the AHE is (has become, actually) a group specifically dedicated to the movement for pluralism in economics. It's not immediately apparent. The encyclopedia exists so that readers don't have to research everything for themselves.
You agree that your suggestion "fails to distinguish between groups specifically dedicated to the movement for pluralism and those that happen to be ICAPE members." Why do you then persist in offering that suggestion? Don't you agree that it is a fundamental distinction? Or perhaps you're not sure. OK. But if you're not sure, then why not discuss this issue first, rather than offer a suggestion that seems based on the presumption that this is not a fundamental distinction? Please note that one thing Watchdog07 and I agree about is the fundamental nature of this distinction (see above on this talk page).
You ask, "how does a group 'happen to be' a member of ICAPE?" As far as I know, they ask to join and they pay their dues, and that makes them members. There are no other requirements.
You also ask, "Don't they join because they support the mission of pluralism in economics?" I have no idea about most of them. I don't want to cast aspersions, but it is plausible that some or even many of them regard ICAPE as an umbrella heterodox economics association and belong to it for that reason (and the free publicity).
andrew-the-k 20:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
I reorganized the page. I think it reads much better now. -- Extra Fine Point 19:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Previous layout: | My layout: |
Section 2 Header | Section 2 Header |
Org. name | Org. name |
Org. desc. | Org. desc. |
Org. name | Org. name |
Org. desc. | Org. desc. |
Org. name | Org. name |
Org. desc. | Org. desc. |
Org. name | Org. name |
Org. desc. | Org. desc. |
Blurb | |
Section 3 Header | Footnote Header |
Blurb | ICAPE Member list |
ICAPE Member list |
Howdy! I re-wrote the page, and added a bunch of references. I think it looks much nicer now, and I don't believe that I deleted very much (if any) content. I removed the big list of groups to the bottom, and re-wrote the lead - since those aren't really about the topic, more like "related" to it. Hopefully everyone likes it - I also removed the "disputed", "hoax", and "rewrite" tags, since I think this takes care of them. We still need some reference - I apologize for the "The Nation" one; it's true, but I lost most of the information for it. I'm looking for a better citation right now - but it's proving difficult. Anyways, talk to me about what you think - I'm still trying to improve my editing. -- Haemo 23:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Here are some comments on the content as revised by Haemo. First, I want to reiterate that I think his version is "a good, new basis. And I say this as the article's creator."
That said, my main concern is that the rewrite tends to blur the distinction between pluralism in economics and Heterodox economics, for which, as you see, a WP article already exists.
For instance, the first part of the last sentence of para. 1 seems to equate pluralism with diversity (i.e. pluralistic groups are pluralistic by virtue of their diversity or inclusiveness). I think the situation is rather that the defining distinction of the movement for pluralism in economics is the critique of methodological and institutional monism, often but not always on the ground that "each tradition of thought adds something unique and valuable." Later, there is a comment that the RRPE "focuses on many pluralist viewpoints"; I think the situation is rather that it publishes many different heterodox viewpoints.
Thus, it seems to me that inclusiveness or diversity or heterodoxy should not be the criterion for inclusion on the list of "pluralist" groups. That criterion would permit the JPKE (a journal) to be called pluralist, though its editor, Paul Davidson, wants the current situation in economics to persist except that he wants post-Keynesian economics to rule the roost (no pun intended) instead of neoclassicism or whatever. Any diverse or heterodox group would deserve mention, and even equal mention, and soon the list would include everything, even the AEA, which, after all, runs a very inclusive and diverse annual conference.
The appropriate criterion, it seems to me, is whether the group has a specific committment to pluralism in economics. On this criterion, no group on the list (except COPE, which, however, is probably better to subsume under the IWGVT) would have merited inclusion originally. ICAPE became worthy of inclusion when it changed its name and purpose. The IWGVT became worty of inclusion when it produced a mission statement that turned it into an organization that promotes pluralistic debate. The AHE doesn't define itself in terms of pluralism, as far as I know, but I think it is now worthy of inclusion because of the focus on pluralism in its last 3 conferences. The PAE case is open to different interpretations; my own view is that PAE began as a critique of neoclassicism and the dominance of mathematical economics, but now merits inclusion because it has since endorsed pluralism. I think URPE/RRPE, already mentioned in the Heterdox economics article, belong there but not in this list, because they are heterodox and diverse, to a degree, but not specifically committed to the idea of pluralism in economics. Inclusion of groups on grounds of heterodoxy or diversity opens a big can of worms (no offense to URPE/RRPE intended), as I noted above.
Some other points:
(1) 1st sentence. I'm not sure what an academic campaign is. I suggest putting "academic" at the end of the sentence: "mainstream academic economics."
(2) 3d sentence: pluralist groups encompass theories? I don't know what this means, and it tends to conflate advocating pluralism with being diverse.
(3) same sentence: "Pluralist groups" in general don't make the statement in quotes. One group does. More importantly, the quote gives only one of the justifications for pluralism. Last year at the AHE conference, Sheila Dow gave a paper that discussed several different ones. For instance, the justification offered by Alan Freeman (and me, but he's the major developer of it) is that engagement among alternatives, in contrast to diversity as such, is scientifically and ethically superior. This leads to practices focused on what someone else has rightly called "enforced pluralism"--debate conducted in accordance with rules meant to maximize engagement among different theories--rather than being focused on promoting diversity.
(4) 1st sentence of 2d para. I don't think ICARE was a pluralist organization, as explained above. The way PAE is described may also tend to efface the distinction between what it was originally and what it became.
(5) More work is needed on the statement in the AER, as I think is agreed generally. I also think it should come before other things, because it came first historically.
(6) I recommend splitting the last sentence of the para. into 2: "instead. This prompted ...." Also, "favored" should be favor", no?: the Davidson perspective is alive and kicking. Also, I recommend: "However, not all critics of mainstream economics favor pluralistic practice. Many have favored and continue to favor "reform" of economics instead. Proponents of pluralism started to explicitly distance themselves from that approach in the 1990s. For example, ICARE became ICAPE--the R ("Reform") in ists name being replaced by P ("Pluralism"), because "'reform' ... does not properly characterize the nature or purpose of our organization."
andrew-the-k 16:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
"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 Akliman ( talk · contribs).
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)
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)
Not only does it not exist (and may never exist), but the "Mission Statement" of COPE makes it clear that if it were to exist, it would not be a journal which actually was pluralist. From the "Mission Statement" see the two paragraps which begin "We encourage proponents of the ...." and "An indispensible aim ...." It is rather obvious from this that - whatever lip service they give to pluralism in economics by including the word "pluralism" in their statetement - they clearly privilege one theoretical perspective over all others. This is inconsistent with a journal which is genuinely committed to pluralism in economics. How should we deal with this issue in the article? Perhaps we could have another paragraph on what might be called "phony pluralism" (i.e. organizations which are inconsistent and/or duplicitous in their claim that they support pluralism)? Watchdog07 13:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Dearest Watchdog07, given that you have repeatedly failed to provide any justification for your refusal to embrace the principles of inclusion of groups set forth in my message, it is clear that you don't have any justification. In other words, your refusal is unjustified. This is why you engage in continual diversions and violations of WP:BLP and WP:NPA.
Given that you have no justification for your position, it will be ignored from this point on, unless and until you provide adequate justification.
andrew-the-k 01:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Since it looks like everyone is shunning everyone else, I guess I get to play middle-man. Just don't talk to each other - talk to me, instead, I suppose. With respect to journals, I think we can all agree that:
If you object, just mention so in your reply. -- Haemo 01:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
With respect to how adopting this proposal applies, it would remove the mention of RRPE and COPE from the article, replacing both with "which publishes publishes a journal on pluralism", or something to that effect. -- Haemo 02:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
If we agree on the inclusion criterion for groups (but I'm sure that Watchdog07 doesn't agree, of course), then ICAPE, the AHE, the PAE, and the IWGVT are in, while URPE and others are yet to be verified as specifically part of the movement for pluralism according to categories (1) or (2).
So there are then only two journals to deal with at this point, the PAER and COPE.
I do think the PAER deserves a relative lot of space because so much of the recent discussion of pluralism is conducted there, and that this discussion is a, if not the, major part of the movement for pluralism at this time. So I'm specifically suggesting an expansion of the stuff on the PAER that highlights what I said in the last sentence. I can probably write something about this, though not immediately--I'm mentioning it because I don't want an expansion of the PAER stuff excluded as a matter of principle.
I think we agree (but I'm sure that Watchdog07 doesn't agree, of course) that, in the case of COPE, the description should be brief. I think a brief discussion is needed in order that readers not conflate its contribution to the movement for pluralism with that of the IWGVT.
Yes?
andrew-the-k 21:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Ref. #7 is incorrectly listed in the refernce section as "IWGVT - Associates". It should read "ICAPE - Associates". Watchdog07 12:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
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,
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)