User talk:24.27.23.241

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Warning

This is to caution you, as I have already done at Talk:Marginal utility, that you can be blocked for repeated POV-pushing edits. —SlamDiego←T 11:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final Warning

This is your final warning. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you are doing to the article on marginal utility, then you will be blocked. —SlamDiego←T 16:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 31 Hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. Rlevse 18:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been accused of vandalism, the kind that pushes a particular ideology. This is the line in question that I have repeatedly removed:

"On the other hand, Hayek or Bartley has suggested that Marx, voraciously reading at the British Museum, may have come across the works of one or more of these figures, and that his inability to formulate a viable critique may account for his failure to complete any further volumes of Kapital before his death."

Allow me to abstract this sentence to help any who would seek to keep wikipedia free of bias and speculation to understand why I removed it:

"Proponents of theory A suggest that a (deceased) proponent of a competing theory B, despite all his efforts, could not comprehend their theory A and thus did not address it in or continue working on theory B."

Imagine if this was between Newton and Leibniz:

"On the other hand, Newton has suggested that Leibniz, voraciously reading mathematical treatises, may have come across examples of partial sum approximations, and that his inability to formulate a viable critique may account for his failure to complete any further work on calculus before his death."

If we want to say that Marx did not address MU, that's fine. What Marx knew of it, if anything, ought to be found in his works or notes. The above speculation promotes this idea that Marx "couldn't handle" MU. Hayek is opposed to Marx, his works show this is obvious. His speculation as to what Marx was doing when he was writing Das Kapital does not, in any way, add pertinent information to this article. It does, however, posture a particular point of view. That is why I removed it. 24.27.23.241 20:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)This User

No, it doesn't push a point of view. The theory of Hayek/Bartley may itself reflect a point of view (just as the theories of Marx reflect a point of view), but the article does not assert that tthe theory is correct; it reports the theory as a theory (of Hayek or of Bartley). The fact that it is presented as a theory, rather than as a fact, has repeatedly been made to you. You are pushing POV by trying to remove report of a theory that you don't like.
In fact, Wikipedia does report on the controversy between Newton and Lebniz, and presents various attributed theories about who failed in what way and why. —SlamDiego←T 22:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
(Further, your alleged abstraction is fallacious. Hayek/Bartley does not suggest that Marx could not comprehend the theory; rather, the author suggests that Marx could not formulate an effective reply.) —SlamDiego←T 00:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)