Talk:Pluralism in economics/Archive 1

IWGVT: organization on value theory, not pluralism

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)

Reply to wd

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)

Reply to Andrew Kliman

I have expanded upon the page.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Additions violate NPOV and RS policies

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's Internal Inconsistencies

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: Reply to Andrew Kliman

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)

Andrew Kliman's tags against URPE

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)

Dear Watchdog,

Please note that the final warning:

says that unsourced material may be removed at any time. If, within 24 hours, you have failed to substantiate the claims made in the section you wrote, I shall remove it.

Thank you for understanding the problem, and the urgent need for me to protect the INTEGRITY OF WIKIPEDIA (and tell the truth).

Yours,

justice-thunders-condemnation 11:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You evidently didn't READ the comments which have been made on this page. See "URPE: Reply to Andrew Kliman". There are sources given ON THE PAGE ITSELF which show URPE to be an organization which is part of the movement for pluralism in economics. See the LISTING BY ICAPE OF ASSOCIATES. Everthing else which I wrote (when URPE was founded, who is the editor of the RRPE) can be easily verified through the LINK WHICH I PROVIDED.

First, read. Then, tell the truth.

WAtchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

In referring to URPE, I used the other sources cited in the article: the very sources that you included! If you are claiming that those are not sources and delete the section on URPE then the only logically consistent' action for you to take would be to delete the entire article! 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)

Why is Andrew Kliman Opposed to Pluralism in Economics?

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)

VICTORY FOR PLURALISM!

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.

Victory for pluralism expanded! The section on URPE has been expanded to include the FACT that it is an associate member of ICAPE. The section on URPE now has four (4) sources. WAtchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Explanation of Edits

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)

Another victory for pluralism!

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)

Justification of Reversion at about 18:55 on 11 May

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 (talk · contribs)

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 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

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 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

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 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

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 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

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 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

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 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

justice-thunders-condemnation 19:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

I reverted the page to the last version before it began to be attacked.

I did not "attack" the article. You did when you removed the section on URPE. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

 I am willing to consider changes, but not changes made prior to consensus.  Please obtain consensus before making changes. 

See above and PLEASE BE CONSISTENT! Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Otherwise you will be reported and the article will be restored to its proper condition. 

Go ahead and report this page. I can assure you that any restoration will include a section on URPE if there is a section on the IWGVT. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

justice-thunders-condemnation 19:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You reverted the page to delete content on ICAPE associates without first discussing the issue here. Please follow your own advice and seek to obtain consensus - at least, discuss the question here first! - before making changes which delete content from the page. Once again, I must ask that you be CONSISTENT in your edits. Please do not SUPPRESS valid content on URPE and other ICAPE members - content which you must have thought valid since you included the section to begin with. If you wish to have a special section on both the IWGVT and URPE, in addition to their being listed in the section on ICAPE associates, then I am willing to discuss how that should best be done. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

On another note, please stop making insulting, personally offensive, and counter-factual claims such as how I allegedly "attacked" the page. Thank you in advance for your understanding and cooperation. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Request for Comment

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.

Please do not delete content

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)

I have removed the following tendentious and unsourced claims introduced into the article:

"organizations which are not specifically dedicated to pluralism are part of the movement for pluralism in economics. For instance, there is the The International Working Group on Value Theory". There needs to be a RS cited that says that the IWGVT isn't specifically dedicated to pluralism.

International Working Group on VALUE THEORY. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

"possible forthcoming." Everyone knows that no future event, like the rising of the sun tomorrow, is 100% certain. Thus to call attention to less than 100% certainty, without an RS who says that the uncertainty is significant, is tendentious.

It is not "forthcoming." It is only a possibility. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

"Another group which has a even longer history of supporting pluralism in economics is the Union for Radical Political Economics" I know of no evidence that this outfit supports pluralism.

What is the evidence that the IWGVT actually supports pluralism? 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.

"URPE has a distinguished history as a forum for the discussion of heterodox economics and as an association which supports pluralism in economics." This is repetitive and tendentious, and completely unsourced.

It was sourced. Don't you recall the source from Fred Lee which you removed? Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

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)

See comments above. PLEASE BE CONSISTENT! You removed content on the page referring to URPE without first attempting to obtain consensus.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

DEFEAT FOR PLURALISM! ANDREW J. KLIMAN'S ATTACKS ON URPE

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)

Seeking input from other pluralists

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)

I was going to suggest renaming the section currently called "Groups for Pluralism in Economics" "International Confederation of Associations for Pluralism in Economics (ICAPE)", with a link to their page, and a brief description, but then I saw that the effect of that would be to reduce the entire Pluralism entry by half, so I decided that maybe this shouldn't be an entry at all, but a section in another entry. --Extra Fine Point 02:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Extra Fine Point,

I'm a bit confused. Are you suggesting the elimination of the listing of ICAPE member organizations? Or are you suggesting eliminating 3 of the 4 organizations (AHE, pae, IWGVT) listed in the "Groups for Pluralism in Economics" section? Or what?

The other 3 groups mentioned are independent of ICAPE, even if they belong to it. There are probably other organizations for pluralism in economics that should be mentioned there too, such as the Cambridge U. student group (unless it is defunct). So that section might well be expanded.

Plus, there is a lot more that can be said to make the article more comprehensive, like on the history of the notion of pluralism in economics, on the pae struggle, on the Cambridge students, on some key ideas and debates. I put together a very rudimentary article, with the intention of having myself and others expand on it as time goes on.

Can you perhaps clarify your remarks? Thank you in advance. andrew-the-k 03:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

andrew-the-k,

No, I didn't mean to remove the member listing. Allow me to revise my suggestion a bit. The 2nd and 3rd sections should be combined, thusly:

The International Confederation of Associations for Pluralism in Economics [2].

ICAPE describes itself as follows: "Founded in 1993, ICAPE is a consortium of over 30 groups in economics working cooperatively to maintain diversity and innovation in methods, approaches, policy analyses, and higher education in the profession. This network of groups seeks to foster intellectual pluralism and a sense of collective purpose and strength among these heterodox organizations."

ICAPE members include:

American Review of Political Economy, Agent-Based Computational Economics, Association d'Economie Politique, Association for Evolutionary Economics, Association for Georgist Studies, Association for Heterodox Economics, Association for Institutional Thought, Association for Social Economics, Association for Social and Political Economy, Association pour le Développement des Etudes Keynésiennes, Belgian-Dutch Association for Institutional and Political Economy, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, Conference on Problems of Economic Change, Congress of Political Economists International, Dollars and Sense, Economists for Peace and Security, European Association for Evolutionary Political Economy, European Society for the History of Economic Thought, Global Development and Environment Institute, Institute for Institutional and Social Economics, International Association for Feminist Economics, International Economics and Philosophy Society, International Joseph A. Schumpeter Society, International Journal of Development Issues, International Network for Economic Method, International Papers in Political Economy, International Review of Applied Economics, International Society for Ecological Economics, International Society for the Intercommunication of New Ideas, International Society for New Institutional Economics, International Thorstein Veblen Association, International Working Group on Value Theory, Japan Association for Evolutionary Economics, Journal of Australian Political Economy, Journal of Institutional Economics, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Karl Polanyi Institute of Political Economy, Latin American Center of Social Ecology, Post-Keynesian Economic Study Group, Progressive Economics Forum, Regional Economic and Social Development, Rethinking Marxism, Society of Heterodox Economists, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics, Society for the Advancement of Socio-Economics, Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, Sociedade Brasileira de Economia Política, Union for Radical Political Economics, and the US Society for Ecological Economics.

(Groups that you want to highlight could be done so by putting a link to their web site beside their name.)

An organization need not endorse ICAPE's principles, nor be specifically dedicated to pluralism in economics, in order to be a member of that organization.[10]

There are also other groups and individuals affiliated in some way with the above organizations and projects. The post-autistic economics movement [4]). The phrase "pluralism in economics" appears as a subtitle on the group's homepage, and the site includes an archive of "papers on pluralism" that were published in its journal [5]. More recent issues of the journal have also included papers on pluralism, such as [6] <--Needs cleaning up.

This is more of what I had in mind. --Extra Fine Point 03:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Extra Fine Point: The issue is whether one ICAPE member (the IWGVT) should be treated preferentially and privileged over others. It is not a group specifically devoted to pluralism; it is a group specifically devoted to value theory. This has been discussed extensively on this page. There is a rather large - and not at all fine - point which can be seen from the edits: the animosity of the other editor towards URPE. A rather small point - one of the editors is an executive of one group and sued another group. That editor has what might seem to reasonable people to be the appearance of a conflict of interest and a bias, a perception that would be most sturdily be reinforced by looking at the history of the edits of the article and talk on this page. The real problem is that the other editor thinks he owns WP:OWN the article and has removed content which I have included and been unwilling to allow the two groups to be treated as they should be. Watchdog07 08:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Watchdog07, You wrote: "The issue is whether one ICAPE member (the IWGVT) should be treated preferentially and privileged over others."

Unless I am missing something, my suggested writing of this page would eliminate that situation by briefly describing ICAPE (using the existing description), listing its members, then listing organizations that are not members, as people see fit. I think what I've suggested addresses your concern, no? --Extra Fine Point 14:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Extra Fine Point,

I do not understand the motivation behind your suggestion. My initial reaction is that your suggestion fails to distinguish between groups specifically dedicated to the movement for pluralism and those that happen to be ICAPE members, but are not specifically dedicated to the movement for pluralism. I also think it subordinates every group to ICAPE, effacing their distinctive missions. But I'm not rejecting the suggestion out of hand. I'd first like to know the motivation behind it.

Thanks in advance,

andrew-the-k 15:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

andrew-the-k, I am not motivated by anything other than to help resolve the situation where, as Watchdog07 pointed out, some groups who are members of ICAPE are listed within the ICAPE member list, and again apart from it, while others are not (if I'm stating his concern correctly).

Yes, my suggestion "fails to distinguish between groups specifically dedicated to the movement for pluralism and those that happen to be ICAPE members", but I wonder: how does a group "happen to be" a member of ICAPE? Don't they join because they support the mission of pluralism in economics?

My intention is not to diminish any organization by not giving it a separate listing, but to reduce duplication of reference in the same article. Earlier, I also suggested that any organization in the ICAPE list that someone wanted to highlight could be done so by adding a citation link to that organization's web page. I will add to that that a Wikipedia link could also be created and a Wikipedia page created for that organization. But perhaps that would be adding fuel to the fire? --Extra Fine Point 17:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

andrew-the-k.

You wrote: One problem I have with your suggestion, as I mentioned, is that "it subordinates every group to ICAPE, effacing their distinctive missions."

You also wrote: "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."

I am not wedded to my re-write. I proposed it as a way of cleaning up a page that reads very badly now. My intention was to combine the sections that saw a brief mention of ICAPE in the second, followed by a short list of some of its members, then its entire member list composing the third section. Another way to achieve what I set out to do, taking into consideration your concerns, would be to move all of section 3 and put it beneath the ICAPE reference in section 2, then leave the rest of section 2 as it is now, and remove the section 3 heading. Section 2 could then be expanded over time. --Extra Fine Point 03:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

comments

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)

Dear 24.58.113.7

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'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 Evolution and Institutions. 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) RLV

: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)

Page clean up

I reorganized the page. I think it reads much better now. --Extra Fine Point 19:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

In what way(s) the page been cleaned-up? Watchdog07 02:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Its flow is more logical. --Extra Fine Point 14:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Please expand upon that comment. Watchdog07 21:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's the thing: Structurally, my reorganization is nearly identical to the way the article was before. That is, starting with Section 2, it's laid out:

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

The previous Section 3 was composed of a paragraph that had more to do with the organizations listed in Section 2, and was followed by the member list of ICAPE. The two items were not related, and neither required its own section.

So, structurally, all that happened is that one blurb moved from the top of Section 3 to the bottom of Section 2.

However, and this is where I believe my restructuring represents a great improvement: The Footnote Header is now more accurately the Final Header, and is a better place to list the member organizations referred to in the Section 2 ICAPE description. (I first tried putting the member list after the ICAPE Org. desc., but the look became even more unwieldy.)

Eventually, this article can grow. More sections can be added, that will have their own footnotes, so the Reference Section will eventually not be a renamed Section 3, and the listing of ICAPE members might not even be the first item in it. --Extra Fine Point

Re-write

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)

Now that's what I call adherence to WP:BOLD! It is a bit rough around the edges, but I like it on whole. It's definitely a good, new basis. And I say this as the article's creator. andrew-the-k 00:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - it definitely needs some more sources (it's still a stub after all) but I think it's coming along. Some more third-party references would definitely be nice - and there's an unreferenced statement still in there. I fixed the "Nation" citation, though. --Haemo 00:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You removed content from the article - and priviliged one group which supports pluralism over another (the main topic which has been discussed on this page) without first discussing the matter here and without attempting to achieve consensus. That is not acceptable. Being bold is one thing, taking it upon yourself to edit the article in such a way that the chief concerns of an editor were not addressed, is another. I will assume good faith on your part. And, of course, the only good faith action on your part would be to revert the article and continue the discussion here. But - make no mistake - if you do not revert the article then I will. Watchdog07 02:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove any content from the article! If the revision that I edited had content removed, then I apologize - it was never my intention to remove content. If you would like me to add something, then I'll certainly try my best to include it into the article. However, I think the new revision is much better than the old - and would not like to get rid of all that hard work if we can simply add in the material you feel is missing. --Haemo 02:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I added back the link to URPE, since it seems a silly thing to revert an entire article over; we can discuss it more here! --Haemo 02:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Good thing I spent an hour figuring out how to line up my columns in a table, in my response to Watchdog07 above! --Extra Fine Point 05:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the link to URPE. I have a suggestion: since your edit listed URPE and mentioned they published the RRPE all in one 'section', I think the same should be done with the IWGVT and COPE since the latter is a planned project of the former. That's not a big or controversial proposal, I don't think. This wouldn't resolve the issue of whether COPE should be mentioned in the article (since it doesn't exist and may never exist) but I think it would be a step in the right direction of obtaining consensus on the article. What do you think? Watchdog07 14:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

A small point for you and extra fine point: each of you have made a lot of comments recently. If I have not responded to any points (no pun intended) you think are important, please bring it to my attention. Watchdog07 14:28, 26 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)

I'll reply to this in detail later today - I currently have to go lure more unsuspecting innocents into the foul grasp of my economics department ;) --Haemo 18:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so it looks like what we really need is to focus on the distinction between heterodoxy, diversity, and pluralism. From my understanding, pluralism in economics is a movement to expand the economic discourse to include different (typically non-mainstream) viewpoints.

Honestly, I don't like including "lists of relevant organizations" at all - beyond the big, big names - because they tend to bloat like crazy over time. I think a criterion for inclusion should be "is this group well known as a pluralist entity?" - and leave the real question about whether or not they should properly be called "pluralist" for someone else to decide. Afterall, that's not really our job here, as an encyclopedia. I also like merging COPE into the section as recommended above - it is a pluralist journal, but it hasn't been published yet. Plus, I have a more sinister motive - it will allow me to remove the "/journals" part too. Honestly, I don't think we should be listing journals - only organizations that publish journals, and maybe their most notable ones.

1. I like the change in the first line - I was never really happy with it, and was only using "campaign" because I didn't want to use "movement" twice. I'm trying this, instead - since the original revision didn't actually tell anyone what the campaign was supposed to accomplish!

"The pluralism in economics movement is a campaign to eliminate what its proponents believe is a substantive or methodological monism which dominates mainstream academic economics. "

1. I also agree with the change to second line - I rewrote it as:

"Pluralist groups encourage the inclusion of a wide variety of neoclassical and heterodox economic theories..."

Which both makes more sense, and agrees with your point.

1. I added a "some" to that; I don't like it, but until we expand that sentence into a whole paragraph about why people support monism, it's the only cited resource I've got. Do you have a copy, or link, that Dow paper, or some of Freeman's work, so that we could work on expanding that section more fully?

1. I'm not sure about this - my reading of ICAPE's material implies to me that they were always what we would now call "pluralist" - they just didn't have a term of that nature in the name. When it became clear that a division was occurring between "reform" and "pluralism" in economics, they changed their name to reflect that - I don't think the name-change reflected any real underlying change in what they believed - but, you might know better.

1. Definitely, but I don't want to make an uncited fact more prominent in the paragraph just yet.

1. I very much like the changes to the last paragraph, and made similar ones accordingly. However - the tense is right; we're telling people what happened, not what is ongoing (though it is).

Comments on the new version - it's still a work in progress, to be sure. --Haemo 01:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The ICAPE conference is next Friday to Sunday. I'll be leaving for it on Monday (and taking a short trip to southern Utah beforehand). I want to talk with some folks at the conference about this article. I'd appreciate it if major changes weren't made before then.

I made a couple of minor changes to the way the AHE and IWGVT are described.

"From my understanding, pluralism in economics is a movement to expand the economic discourse to include different (typically non-mainstream) viewpoints."

I understand this to be the call for heterodoxy or diversity, which have been part of non-mainstream economics at least as long as I've been around. No one who is excluded or marginalized wants to be excluded or marginalized ... but that doesn't make them pluralistic. I don't think this is what is specific to the movement for pluralism of the last decade and a half. There's already a Heterodox economics article that implicitly deals with the call for inclusiveness. I think pluralism is different from not wanting oneself to be marginalized or excluded; it is not wanting marginalization and exclusion.

"I don't like including "lists of relevant organizations" at all - beyond the big, big names."

I have trouble with this criterion, especially in an article on pluralism.

"I think a criterion for inclusion should be 'is this group well known as a pluralist entity?' - and leave the real question about whether or not they should properly be called 'pluralist' for someone else to decide."

I don't favor either the first or the second of these options. Why should either others decide or we decide? Why not refer to self-descriptions and base inclusion on that? The short list I drew up is rooted in this idea. If groups self-identify with pluralism, they're in; otherwise, they're out. The "well known" criterion is problematic here in that lots of people don't understand or care about pluralism in economics, but use the term as the new buzzword. They mean heterodox economics, but they say pluralist. If popular perceptions were the standard, there would be no difference between heterodox and pluralistic. This use of "pluralism" as the new buzzword to replace the same content as "heterodoxy" is the source of the confusion. And there's a good deal of confusion. For instance, to support the statement that the RRPE is a pluralist journal, the article currently links to a document that refers to it as "heterodox," but not "pluralistic."

"I don't think we should be listing journals - only organizations that publish journals."

Why?

"My reading of ICAPE's material implies to me that they were always what we would now call "pluralist" - they just didn't have a term of that nature in the name. When it became clear that a division was occurring between "reform" and "pluralism" in economics, they changed their name to reflect that - I don't think the name-change reflected any real underlying change in what they believed - but, you might know better."

My reading--I wasn't an ICARE/ICAPE insider, but I kept up a bit with things--is that ICARE was a confederation of the long-standing non-mainstream economics organizations. The old guards of these organizations often tended to think in terms of supplanting neoclassicism or at least carving out more space for themselves. Others didn't want this model anymore. It was also hard to sustain this model in a confederation containing different paradigms--they would be at war with one another-- so a pluralist model may have also been thought to be the only workable modus vivendi. So my reading is that the name change was a big deal, a signal of the emergence of a new tendency in heterodoxy. But it is only a tendency. There is certainly no unanimity or consensus at present. The idea of "everyone should unite behind me" is still very strong in heterodox circles, including among members of ICAPE-affiliated groups.

I'll see what I can do about sources when I return. andrew-the-k 04:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we agree on what economic pluralism means, then - specifically, it's the movement to include more viewpoints in mainstream economics - not to supplant the existing paradigm, or to simply end the marginalization of any particular school, but rather to end monism on any sort in economics. Here's the new first paragraph to explain what we discussed here

The pluralism in economics movement is a campaign to eliminate any substantive or methodological monism in economics, including that which its proponents believe currently dominates mainstream academic economics

Economic pluralism is not simply diversity, or inclusion of more viewpoints - nor it is simply a replacement of the current monism with another. It's also not simply a collection of alternative views. Something which can be described as "pluralist" must accept a diversity of view, but must also not try and privilege any particular one of them.

However, I still feel we are treading into dicey waters, making judgement calls about what is, and is not, a pluralist organization or journal. I think what we should look for is:

• Primary or secondary sources asserting it is pluralist - and pluralist in this specific sense.

I also don't feel journals really need their own entries, if they're published by a pluralist organization - it's simply redundant, since we're talking about the movement, and we can mention them alongside their parent organization.

As for ICARE/ICAPE, their history section gives me a different impression than what you're describing - and I'm kind of iffy about changing something which is cited in favor of something which is uncited, without a compelling reason. Perhaps you have some papers or something to that effect? --Haemo 08:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"I think we agree on what economic pluralism means, then - specifically, it's the movement to include more viewpoints in mainstream economics - not to supplant the existing paradigm, or to simply end the marginalization of any particular school, but rather to end monism on any sort in economics." I basically agree. But I think that the article itself shouldn't use the term "economic pluralism," though--variation can be distracting--and I don't think "including more viewpoints in mainstream economics" is exactly right; I would imagine that some pluralists (like myself) wouldn't want there to be a mainstream at all.

"The pluralism in economics movement is a campaign to eliminate any substantive or methodological monism in economics, including that which its proponents believe currently dominates mainstream academic economics." I'm happy with this. Fine points: To me, campaign is more restricted than movement; e.g., campaign to end a toxic dump, environmental movement. "... movement seeks to eliminate" would work, but if one wants "X is Y," .... Maybe "... eliminate any monism in economics, including the substantive and methodological monism that its proponents believe currently dominates mainstream academic economics", which gets rid of the "that which". I'm also personally wary of ascribing beliefs to people, but I realize that others don't take the term "believe" literally.

"Something which can be described as "pluralist" must accept a diversity of view, but must also not try and privilege any particular one of them." Yes, that's exactly my understanding, and I think it is an apt characterization of the difference between pluralists and others in heterodox economics.

"However, I still feel we are treading into dicey waters, making judgement calls about what is, and is not, a pluralist organization or journal. I think what we should look for is: * Primary or secondary sources asserting it is pluralist - and pluralist in this specific sense." I agree. We shouldn't make judgement calls. My term "self-description" basically meant "according to primary sources," but I agree that secondary sources are relevant, too, if employed in keeping with WP policy.

But I wonder if we agree on what a judgement call is. As far as I know, neither AHE nor PAE actually assert that they are pluralistic. But AHE has 3 successive annual conferences on pluralism (ICAPE has had only 2, in 2003 and 2007) and PAE has "pluralism in economics" as a slogan on its website and publishes a lot on pluralism in economics. It seems to me that this is sufficient primary evidence. The common notion on WP that inferences aren't allowed is just plain wrong, because it is impossible to eliminate inference. To quote someone's exact words itself involves an inference, namely that their use of the words is substantially the same as one's own. What if I quoted someone like this: "I am ... an asshole," leaving out "pissed off at him because he's"? You might come along and say that it is a misquote, out of context, etc., but that's an inference. After all, "I am pissed off at him because he's an asshole" also cuts out text (before and after). That's not necessarily more proper. What if the full statement is, "I am saying that I am pissed off at him because he's an asshole, which makes me an asshole." And so on.

"I also don't feel journals really need their own entries, if they're published by a pluralist organization - it's simply redundant, ... we can mention them alongside their parent organization." I agree. I was concerned about the exclusion of journals. Many of the member "organizations" of ICAPE are journals.

"As for ICARE/ICAPE, their history section gives me a different impression than what you're describing - and I'm kind of iffy about changing something which is cited in favor of something which is uncited, without a compelling reason." I agree. I wasn't suggesting a change to the article here. What I wrote is mere opinion. I was just trying to give some more of my sense of the past and present divisions in heterodox economics, which relates to the confused use of "pluralism."

This will probably be my last communication on this page until I return from the ICAPE conference in a week. I'll try to check the page at least once in between. andrew-the-k 15:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break for editing purposes

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)

WP:AGF and WP:MEAT

"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)

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)

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)

No problem at all! No harm, no foul, after all. --Haemo 01:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Footnote problem

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)

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)

Ah! Very cool. What template did you use to create them? --Extra Fine Point 13:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, what you do is the following - for any given reference you type <ref name="blah">[reference material here]</ref>. Then, whenever you want to cite that reference again, you simply write <ref name="blah"/>. --Haemo 18:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

COPE is not a pluralist journal

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)

Hmmm, I tend to disagree on this point - it clearly says "[COPE] is a journal of pluralistic debate. The ideas of no current or past thinker will be excluded a priori. We welcome contributions from, and the participation of... other heterodox economists.". It appears, from the paragraphs you cite, that they have a focus on sustaining development in areas relating to the TSSI - however, that doesn't exclude them from being pluralist, since pluralism is an approach to methodology; think of it as starting a discussion. --Haemo 21:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Suppose there is a journal called X. In the mission statement of X, it says that it is "pluralist" and welcomes contributions by authors from a, b, c, d, e, and f theoretical perspectives. Yet, it goes on to say that it especially "encourages proponents of a" to submit articles and have a hand in editing of X. It goes on to say that "an indispensible aim of X" is to foster research by "proponents of a". Is that not privileging one theoretical perspective over all others? how is it possible for a journal which privileges one theoretical perspective over all others to bein practice a "pluralist" journal. Do you see what I mean? Watchdog07 21:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what you mean - however, the TSSI is not exactly a "theoretical perspective" - not in the way that, say, neoclassical or Marxian economics are theoretical perspectives. Rather, it's more of a theory, or interpretation of a theory, which can be developed, commented on, replied to, or rebuted by many different schools of thought. I think that that blurb is inferring is that the journal encourages pluralistic debate, with a focus on this particular theory, or area of research. --Haemo 00:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In other words, talk about whatever you want to (and whatever is approved by the anonymous referees, who are selected by the two leading "proponents" of that particular theory) so long as the main focus is on our' interpretation. I don't think that's "pluralistic" in any real and meaningful way. If Rethinking Marxism, for instance, said "we encourage pluralistic debate but we especially encourage contributions by Althusserians" and an "indispensible aim of Rethinking Marxism is to promote Althusserianism" then nobody (especially Andrew Kliman) would claim it was a journal committed to pluralism. Fortunately, Rethinking Marxism is not anti-pluralist: i.e. it is not a one-sided journal which says that it privileges one "interpretation". Watchdog07 12:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one they don't say that the main focus has to be on that at all - in fact, they say "[w]e will actively encourage all work aimed at liberating political economy from the received “Whig History” of economic thought". They encourage research on the TSSI to be published in the book, but by no means appear to restrict the journal to solely just such research. However, your comments - plus the fact that it is currently unpublished, and the endless categorization issues that we will probably have including journals make me think that we should just get rid of them all; if people are really interested, the links to sponsoring organizations should suffice. --Haemo 06:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. That would mean retaining the external links to URPE and the IWGVT and getting rid of the external links to the RRPE and COPE. That would resolve (at least for now) the dispute. Watchdog07 12:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in an internet cafe in the middle of nowhere, with a dysfunctional mouse. I hope to comment further on this early next week. andrew-the-k 15:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll wait for some more input from the other involved editors, but it looks like we're getting somewhere on consensus. --Haemo 20:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Fellow Editors,

COPE certainly is a pluralist journal. It does not exclude or practice favoritism toward any persepective. Haemo is correct; the encouragement of research on the TSSI is not a pro-TSSI bias, since the research need not be favorable. Moreover, the encouragement of research on the TSSI and development of the TSSI are quintessentially pluralistic practices, since they are affirmative actions that counter anti-pluralistic, exclusionary practices elsewhere that hinder the development of the TSSI and of the public's awareness of its findings.

In any case, it really isn't our job as editors to pass judgment. It is my understanding that at least Haemo and I agree that we won't make "judgment calls," and will instead consider as pluralist, for purposes of this article, (1) groups that describe themselves as such and (2) other groups (like the AHE and PAE) whose committment to the movement for pluralism in economics is obvious. Inclusion of any other group is a judgment call. That's how I understand it, at least. COPE falls into category (1).

It is also my understanding that we (at least Haemo and I) agree that there is a difference between Heterodox economics -- which is covered in a different WP article already -- and the movement for pluralism in economics. It is also my understanding that we agree that this distinction applies to groups. Thus groups must not only be part of Heterodox economics but must also be self-described as pluralist or obviously committed to pluralism in economics in order to warrant inclusion. It is also my understanding that we agree that inclusiveness or diversity are insufficient in order for us to conclude that a group is obviously committed to pluralism in economics. Otherwise, the AEA would qualify as the most pluralistic of groups in economics, by virtue of its stellar, long-term record of putting on a truly diverse and inclusive -- and large -- annual conference, the ASSA, for many decades now.

Am I right that we agree about these things?

In light of the above criteria, I don't think proliferation of listed groups is a serious problem. I don't think there are many groups that fall into categories (1) or (2).

As far as the question of journals goes,

• There are cases in which there is only a journal without an accompanying organization. I don't think such journals should be excluded.
• There are cases in which the journal is the main project of the organization (in practice); this seems to be so, currently, in the case of the PAE & PAE Review and the IWGVT and COPE. I don't see a good reason to exclude journals in this case, though I agree that they should be classified together with the organization, not given a separate listing.
• There might be cases in which the journal is much better known than the organization, and I can't see a good reason to exclude mention of the journal in such cases. (For instance, Rethinking Marxism is much better known than AESA, and the AESA conferences are generally called RM conferences, though not officially. I'm not suggesting the inclusion of either RM or AESA at this point, since I don't know that either falls into categories (1) or (2); I'm just using this case in order to exemplify a principle.)
• Finally, there are cases in which the mission of the journal differs from that of the organization. This is so in the case of the IWGVT and COPE. Here again, I don't see a valid reason to exclude the journal (although, again, as a general rule, I think it should be listed together with the organization).

By a happy coincidence, I have obtained a copy of the 1992 call for pluralism in economics that was published in the AER -- it was included in the ICAPE conference program. As soon as I can, I want to use it to expand on the article's discussion of this ad. A lot of very influential mainstream economists signed it, including 3 or 4 Nobel laureates. To me, this serves as an additional caution against any conflation of Heterodox economics with the movement for pluralism in economics.

andrew-the-k 17:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As you can see (real above), you were being far too optimistic. The logical and obvious thing to do to resolve the sispute would have been to include references to URPE and the IWGVT and to take out the references to the RRPE and COPE. Logical, yes. Obvious, yes. But, I think there are other things going on here - like the desire to use Wikipedia as advertisement for a "forthcoming" journal. Watchdog07 17:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Watchdog07, please assume good faith. What you think, or claim to think, is incorrect. Do you agree with the principles for inclusion set forth in my message, principles to which I believe Haemo and I both agree? If you do not agree, please indicate specifically what you disagree with, and please provide justification for your contrary view. Thank you very much in advance, dear Watchdog07. andrew-the-k 18:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not speak for Haemo.

Haemo wrote, in response to the suggestion I made, "... it looks like we're getting somewhere on consensus".

Having read your last messages, it should be clear to all that we're not getting anywhere near to consensus. The reason, of course, has to do with the desire to promote and privilage an allegedly "forthcoming" journal.

I have responded at length on this page (over and over again) to that and related questions.

This should have been a relatively easy article to come to a consensus on, especially since my requests in relation to the article were always very modest and fair.

Haemo: if you want to know something, ask.

As for the other editor: WP:SHUN Watchdog07 20:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not speaking for anyone besides myself, of course. I believe Haemo and I agree about some things and I have asked him to confirm or disconfirm this. Watchdog07's statement, "I have responded at length on this page (over and over again) to that and related questions" apparently refers to my question and statement to him

"Do you agree with the principles for inclusion set forth in my message, principles to which I believe Haemo and I both agree? If you do not agree, please indicate specifically what you disagree with, and please provide justification for your contrary view."

But I'm not aware of any response by Watchdog07 to this question. Dear Watchdog07, can you please direct me to the specific place on this talk page where you responded to this question? It is a very long talk page, and I was away for a week. I cannot find any such response. I need help. Also, if you haven't provided justification for your contrary view, I respectfully request that you do so now.

And would you PLEASE stop citing an irrelevant essay as if it were WP policy? What we need in order to edit this article is collaboration and consensus, not diversions and refusals to justify your positions.

andrew-the-k 21:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A relevant essay is WP:AGF which states: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary". A legitimate form of response to someone who has repeatedly and egregiously shown bad faith is WP: SHUN. I do not want to feed the ... troll. Watchdog07 23:45, 6 June 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 everyone is shunning everyone else

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:

• Stand-alone journals (that is, unassociated with any group relating to pluralism) should be mentioned in their own entries.
• Journals which are associated with groups, but less well-known than the groups, should not be mentioned, or mentioned only by name, briefly - leaning towards the former.
• Journals which are associated with groups, but are much more well-known than the groups, should be mentioned first, then the associated group alongside.

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)

Agreed. Let's just do it and put this dispute to sleep. Watchdog07 13:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not shunning anyone. I am ignoring positions put forward without justification.

Before getting down to cases, I hope we can get back to the principles upon which decisions will be based, and then make decisions based on those principles. Yesterday I reiterated the principles that I thought we (at least Haemo and I) had already agreed upon. Now I'm not at all sure, because this latest suggestion doesn't flow from the principles and seems to contradict them.

There are issues here that are broader than which journals to include. Above all, there's the distinction between heterodoxy and the movement for pluralism. Is there still agreement about that distinction?

If so, it needs to be shown that URPE/RRPE fit in either category (1) or category (2) before we can include either. (I think we agree that ICAPE and the IWGVT fit into (1) and that the AHE and the PAE fit into (2)--yes?)

If there isn't agreement about the distinction between heterodoxy and the movement for pluralism, however, I think we should continue to talk about it before getting down to cases, because it is crucial to the whole article. There's already a Heterodox economics article, which discusses the movement for pluralism within it; having two such articles makes no sense to me.

andrew-the-k 02:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, no - that distinction appears to be acceptable to everyone, so I let it fall by the wayside. --Haemo 03:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent (though I strongly doubt that Watchdog07 accepts the distinction).

Do we also still agree that we won't make "judgment calls," and will instead consider as pluralist, for purposes of this article, (1) groups that describe themselves as such and (2) other groups whose committment to the movement for pluralism in economics is obvious?

If so, and if we agree that PAE and the PAE Review fit into category (2), I would suggest that the PAER be discussed in some detail, because of its importance and because it seems to be the main (or sole) current PAE project. I don't think this suggestion fits into your classificatory scheme above, strictly speaking, since I doubt that the PAER is better known than the PAE student movement. But the journal has become the main forum for discussion of pluralism in economics, so I think it deserves a good deal of coverage nonetheless.

If we agree that the IWGVT and COPE fit into category (1), I'd suggest that, at this time, COPE should receive only a brief mention, under the IWGVT listing, since it doesn't have a long history. The reason I think it does need a brief mention is that its mission shouldn't be conflated with that of the IWGVT. The latter encourages pluralistic debate about concepts of value, while COPE accepts submissions on a very broad range of topics.

andrew-the-k 04:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

We actually already link to PAER in the manner I'm hoping to link to the other journals, like COPE; see, I think that this should really just be a "starting point" for people interested in these subjects - just a brief link under they also publish a material related to pluralism, or something to that effect. For the reader, it's not really important what the journal is called, etc, but rather just being able to click links to more readings by a group that interests them - it doesn't specifically even have to be journals, just material. The thing I want to move away from is the concept of this article as an academic matter - rather, it should be generally accessible, and giving too much information about things like that comes off as overly technical and confusing. --Haemo 04:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the external links to journals should be kept to a minimum. PAER is a particularly notable journal in relation to the movement for pluralism in economics and merits a special mention. If you don't agree with that, then we could just list the link to the PAE site and eliminate links to all journals. Watchdog07 13:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't want to discuss particulars without getting some agreement on principles first, because, without principles, everything becomes a judgment call. Is there agreement that

1. The heterodoxy or diversity of a group is insufficient reason, by itself, to merit its inclusion in the article (I'm not talking specifically about links and such here)?
2. A group qualifies as part of the movement for pluralism in economics only if it identifies itself as such and/or its activity makes it obvious that it is part of the movement for pluralism in economics?

If we can get agreement (among at least some of us) on the principles, I'll be happy to get down to cases.

andrew-the-k 14:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the talk page for the David Laibman article to see what

a certain editor means by "principles".

Watchdog07 19:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, I thought we were agreed on the inclusion criterion for groups, in this article? Both of you seem to be of the belief that PAER is especially notable - since you both are more in tune with this, I guess we could mention it specifically. --Haemo 20:36, 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)

Okay - so, it looks like the only issue left to discuss is that of COPE; personally, think we should just mention, with in the IWGVT that "they publish a journal devoted to pluralism called Critique of Political Economy. (with a link). --Haemo 05:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, this might be the only issue between you and me, but Watchdog07 won't agree, of course. Regarding COPE, my key concern is that its mission be distinguished from that of the IWGVT. Do you agree with this? (It is very hard to know, since your recent messages don't state explicitly that you agree or disagree with things.) So I'd recommend: "Critique of Political Economy, a more broadly-focused "critical-pluralistic" interdisciplinary journal, is a project of the IWGVT." andrew-the-k 11:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This sounds good to me. --Haemo 21:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Another footnote problem

Ref. #7 is incorrectly listed in the refernce section as "IWGVT - Associates". It should read "ICAPE - Associates". Watchdog07 12:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Watchdog07 13:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Expansion of AER-ad section

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)