Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 115
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 110 | ← | Archive 113 | Archive 114 | Archive 115 | Archive 116 | Archive 117 | → | Archive 120 |
Talk:Social Democrats,_USA#Lede
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | Editors wouldn't stop commenting on each other. Parties are advised to read the dispute resolution policy yet another time, and to read the boomerang essay. If they still really want to complain about each other, they can go to WP:ANI, knowing that the filer as well as the subject will be scrutinized. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Filed by GPRamirez5 on 01:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview In March 2015, I made extensive contributions to the Social Democrats, USA page. These contributions reflect the scholarly consensus on the history of SDUSA. In May, my contributions were completely deleted by Dame Etna. DE made a special emphasis on deleting references to neoconservatism, deleting references to the right-wing/left-wing schism in the Socialist Party, and references to influential theorist Max Schachtman. All of those subjects figure prominently in scholarly, peer-reviewed literature - and even modern journalism - on SDUSA. In our discussions, DE shows no recognition for the significance of peer-reviewed academic scholarship, but instead second-guesses it with his/her own interpretations, and counter-poses his/her own original research in the article, stitched together from 40 year old newspaper articles. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Dame Etna and I have engaged extensively on the Talk page How do you think we can help? By evaluating the legitimacy of our contributions and sources. Summary of dispute by Dame EtnaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Social Democrats,_USA#Lede discussionGood morning, users! My name is EnglishEfternamn, those who know me refer to me simply as "EE" and you both can do that as well. I'm volunteering to be the moderator for this particular case. Keep in mind that this case refers to a political article, so we cannot be too careful in making sure our approach does not reflect our biases. I want this to be free of that. GPRamirez, you allege that Dame Etna has removed sourced content on the grounds that the content removed may make this user's political views look bad. I'm not going to say anything on that until I further investigate this. D.E., it should be noted that if this is indeed true, the burden of proof will be on you to show us that you have removed this content because you truely feel it is not encyclopedic and that it has nothing to do with any political biases attached to these contributions. I don't know what the prospects will be for finding a middle ground in this issue, but I will do my best. As I always say, I hope that we can come up with a resolution favourable to both of you. Cheers, EnglishEfternamn*t/c* 09:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Volunteer note: This discussion has become inactive. If it is not discussed in 24 hours it will be closed. Rider ranger47 Talk 11:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll do it. @Dame Etna: Rider ranger47 Talk 13:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Why skip the talk page discussion at the article and come here? If the intent is to evaluate sources, why come here rather than to WP:RSN? The article was reliably sourced and written in a NPOV fashion. The NYT provided daily detailed coverage of the convention at which the old Socialist Party changed its name to SDUSA, and "academic" sources that would seem to contradict its coverage can be discussed at the WP:RSN; if some such sources are included, then they shall be balanced with accurate coverage. Thus far, we seem to have consensus that Ramirez violated WP:LEDE, and now Ramirez seems to be trying to put material in the body, which seems like progress. Ramirez seems to have read more of the article, and found the obvious place where the Shachtman-stuff can be pushed. More progress.... Has Ramirez acknowledged having misrepresented Matthew's coverage, changing "nursery of many neoconservatives" to "nursery of neoconservativism", despite Matthew's describing one neoconservative going to a SDUSA conference and being criticized by all the others? If Ramirez wants to include the nursery of many neoconservatives nonsense from Matthews, then the article shall include Matthew's discussion of neoconservatism being criticized, per WP:NPOV.
You'll have to excuse my stepping away for a bit. I had some family emergencies to deal with. I had hoped that this wasn't going to come down to an issue of "last man standing" bull-headedness (which isn't much better than an edit-war) but an evaluation based on documentation and other merits. Hopefully, it can still end up that way. The Institute for Policy Studies source is there as what you might call a supporting pillar, underneath the main pillar of Justin Vaisse's book. It's there to illustrate how widespread the acknowledgement of SDUSA's relationship with neoconservatism is. I've never denied that IPS leans progressive politically, but its work is not generally regarded as being radical or factually inaccurate. If it's unacceptable as a source, then so would one of DE's sources, Commentary magazine, which skews right (and in fact, being by its own admission neoconservative). There seems no question that all of the material in my last edit belongs in the Socialist Party split section (the section after the lede, which DE has renamed to delete mention of the split, even though the word "split" is used in the headline of one of his own NY Times sources). Most of it also belongs in the lede, as neoconservative and Schachtmanite are common characterizations in the academic literature on SDUSA. As I have mentioned in the Talk:Social Democrats USA page, the editors of the academic book, Politics and the Intellectual, published by Purdue University Press actually describe Schachtman as the founder of SDUSA. Another peer-reviewed book, The Democracy Makers (published by Columbia University Press), notes that I'm glad that DE recognizes the fact that I'm making an effort to listen to some of their criticisms. There doesn't seem to be any real dialogue here though. I have to question if dialogue and compromise is possible with someone who doesn't recognize the primacy of peer-reviewed secondary sources. That tends to be a symptom of irrationality.GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I think we've gathered here that think tanks, and sharply biased to the left or right magazines and newsletters do not constitute reliable encyclopedic sources. DE has maintained that there are some sources you have provided that can be appropriately used and some which are not. DE, I would have to say that your argument against think tank source use in the article would have to be extended to your own use of any magazines that have conservative viewpoints on the SDUSA. I was really hoping nobody's personal political views would migrate into this discussion, one thing I have to mention is this: that being familiar with American socialist movements, I'm well aware that social democracy and social democrats are definitely not associated with the political far-left in any country other than the United States. In Scandinavia, for example, social democrats have been in more recent years criticized by the left for having been associated with pro-corporation and centre-right compromises that have undermined the older, more Olaf Palme-esque flavour of social democracy. It is no secret that these moderate sentiments within social democrats movements have made their way accross the pond as well. It's not at all a surprise to me that academic press journals would report on this. My question for you DE, is, are you 100% sure that your political views have not clouted your judgment on your assertion that the SDUSA has no connection with centre-right politics? And for Ramirez, my question is: If you had to pick five sources that you felt BEST explained the history of SDUSA from that particular period, which would you pick and why those over other sources? Thank you. EnglishEfternamn*t/c* 05:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Five key sources:
The reason these are key is because they are all published by university presses within the past ten years, hence they are the most credible and up to date sources, and they represent the scholarly consensus on SDUSA. Some additional peer-reviewed secondary sources:
GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
First statement by Robert McClenonI will try to intervene to get this discussion back on track. Let's try a more structured discussion. I haven't digested all of the comments above, which are not concise. Would each of the parties please state briefly what they want to do to improve the article? Would each of the parties please state briefly what issues are about sources? Would each of the parties please state briefly what the issue, if any, is about the label "neoconservative"? Be civil and concise. Do not address your comments to each other. Just provide them. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
First restatement by Dame Etna
SDUSA was a small organization that was known for its founding convention and which would get limited coverage for its conventions, but which was known more for its members than for its own actions. It was hated by many members of its rival organizations that claim to represent the tradition of the Socialist Party of America (which changed its name to SDUSA), namely Harrington's DSOC/DSA and Dave McReynolds Socialist Party USA. Members or fans of the latter organizations or of even more marginal organizations like Solidarity often call SDUSA Shachtmanites or rightwing or neocon. It has also been discussed by rightwing conspiracy theorists as an important source for neoconservatism. Somebody called Raimondo was using Wikipedia to push this junk until he was banned, apparently. These obvious facts suggest that editors need to be very careful about NPOV with sources.
I expanded the article by 7000 characters, using the sources suggested by Ramirez. Imperfect, yes, but a significant amount of work towards a NPOV treatment of the issues highlighted by Ramirez.
Ramirez now wishes to label the organization as neocon, right-wing, or Shachtmanite. I expanded the treatment of members being so labeled. I suggest that Ramirez propose changes using reliable sources with due care, and that we discuss them and work towards NPOV coverage. Ramirez also wants to say that the Socialist Party "split" into 2-3 parts, DSOC/DSA v. SDUSA (perhaps with tiny SPUSA). This is just sloppy. The old SP did change its name. It would be NPOV to say that the socialist movement split into 2-3 main groups.
Dame Etna (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC) First restatement by GPRamirez5In March 2015, I made extensive contributions to the Social Democrats, USA page. These contributions reflect the scholarly consensus on the history of SDUSA. In May, my contributions were completely deleted by Dame Etna. DE made a special emphasis on deleting references to neoconservatism, deleting references to the right-wing/left-wing schism in the Socialist Party, and references to influential theorist Max Schachtman. All of those subjects figure prominently in scholarly, peer-reviewed literature - and even modern journalism - on SDUSA. In our discussions, DE shows no recognition for the significance of peer-reviewed academic scholarship, but instead second-guesses it with his/her own interpretations. In in the article, DE either deletes my contributions, or attempts to bury them in trivia sourced to 40 year old newspaper articles. Since this discussion has begun, DE has made some edits to the SDUSA article, which make references to my contributions in a purely argumentative manner. For example he/she edited in the lede:
Aside from this passage's tendency towards scare quotes, we are dealing with an aggressive disregard for identifying the scholarly consensus and majority opinion on the subject, something which is demanded in Rule 9: Write neutrally and with due weight. Due weight is not given to the neoconservative and Schachtmanite assessments which emerge from the most credible sources (Outside of non-academic and right-wing sources, I am not aware that there is even a minority opinion disputing the neoconservative and Schachtmanite classifications). This must be done in the first or second paragraph of the lede for the article to meet even minimum standards of neutrality. And there appears to be no reason for DE's new references to Martin Luther King in the first paragraph of the article, other than to imply an association with SDUSA which MLK didn't have (even before MLK's death, he had fallen out with Bayard Rustin precisely because of the latter's more conservative stance on the Vietnam War, following the Schachtmanite strategy). In numerous places in the lede and second section--on what scholars call the split in the Socialist Party-- DE will not acknowledge the academic assessment of the split, much less put due weight on it. As per his/her own original argument, if something is worth putting in the lede, it should also be present in the subsections, but he/she has scrubbed the second section of my description of the split, and Schachtman's role in it. The article should be restored to my edit of May 15. Additionally, Dame Etna should be banned from editing the page due to his/her aggressive and remorseless disregard for Rule 9.GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC) First statement by CarriteI've been close to this world and probably can give some perspective. First off, Jack Ross's book just released. All I have read on it is the chapter on SDUSA and bits and pieces elsewhere. It is very solidly researched and university press published and every inch a "reliable source" in Wikipedia terms (that is, if you are foolish enough to accept such a notion that sources are "reliable" or "unreliable" rather than facts either being "accurate" or "inaccurate" or "wrong.") Dame Etna is entirely out of line attempting to impeach his book via ad hominem in the way that they do. Additional note: Ross stayed at my house last week for a night; it was polite but we did not hit it off well, personally or politically. He has edited at WP in the past, but not for a long time. My politics are definitely to his left, and he is to the left of SDUSA's perspective. Left Social Democrat v. Centrist Social Democrat v. Right Social Democrat, if you will. Just so you know where I'm coming from. I haven't read the lead in question. I have edited the article in the past, which was pretty much redone by the unfortunately banned Kiefer.Wolfowitz. KW is very sympathetic to the SDUSA and probably was a former member. That's fine. He has been fair with the subject, I believe. I was myself a member of SDUSA for a few months (quitting in protest of their Africa policy) and a member of DSOC for a couple years. I was also a member of SPUSA for about a year. I'm currently unaffiliated. Okay, those are the preliminaries. Here's what we can say with authority about the main groups. 1. The Socialist Party of America shattered into three groups in 1972-73. The majority group, with roots in the faction headed by Communist-turned Trotskyist-turned Right Social Democrat Max Shachtman, controlled the 1972 party convention. They briefly used the name "Socialist Party of America" but soon changed it to "Social Democrats USA." SDUSA, in general terms, sought to build bridges to the mainstream labor movement, including leadership elements of the AFL-CIO. It was also ultra-Zionist in Middle East orientation, supporting Israel warts and all. This group was generally mildly critical but quite supportive of American anti-Communist foreign policy. Although there have been a couple short-lived efforts to restart this group's name, these have come to nothing. This is now a defunct organization. 2. One minority faction, grouped around socialist writer Michael Harrington, formed a group called Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC). This group placed its primary emphasis not on the trade union movement, but on an effort to "realign" the Democratic Party to make it more closely resemble a European Socialist Party. It was critically supportive of the left wing in Israeli politics (MAPAM, etc.) as well as the right of self-determination for the Palestinians. This group later merged with a former New Left (Eurocommunist) organization called the New American Movement to form the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which still exists (albeit weak). This group was generally critical of American foreign policy, although they were anti-Communist. 3. The other minority faction, grouped around the Socialist Party of Wisconsin and peace activist David McReynolds, attempted to restart the "Socialist Party" in 1973 as the "Socialist Party USA." This group placed its primary emphasis on third party electoral campaigns, not on changing the Democratic Party (DSOC) or building bridges backstage with the AFL-CIO (SDUSA). This group still exists, although it is as small or smaller than DSA. This group was generally critical of American foreign policy, although they were anti-Communist — perhaps one half step to DSOC/DSA's left. Wikipedia (and Jack Ross in his book, this is not Original Research but more or less scholarly consensus) put a period on the Socialist Party of America in 1972 and consider that the starting point for the three organizations above, which are mentioned as more or less footnotes to that party's seven decade history. This is fine. The issue is the writing of the history of SDUSA which is contentious. SDUSA absolutely had roots in the Shachtman faction; it absolutely was close to the Committee for a Democratic Majority (which Jack Ross identifies as the primary moment of formation of the neoconservative movement); it absolutely was critical of the McGovernite "New Politics" that was part and parcel of DSOC's strategy; it absolutely had a number of leading members work directly with the Reagan administration; it absolutely was supportive of the fundamentals of American anti-Communist foreign policy, including intervention in the Nicaraguan civil war. These things must be mentioned. It also played it part in helping the AFL-CIO participate in the Polish workers' movement (Solidarity), which was the first big chink ultimately leading to the implosion of Moscow-backed Communism. It had its part to play in the civil rights struggle and in the trade union struggle. These things also must be mentioned. The trick is to balance out the "conservative" and "progressive" aspects of the organization in the lead. That's about what I have. Ping me if anyone has any specific questions. Carrite (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
(feel free to move this) Like Jeane Kirkpatrick and Podhoretz's son in law (Elliot Abrams), Linda Chavez is often mentioned as a SDUSA member, without evidence. Can Carrite consult his sources to find evidence? Penn Kemble's involvement with PRODEMCA is mentioned in the SDUSA article, much with greater depth in the Kemble biography; in the latter, the sources ignore SDUSA (and also note disagreements with the Reagan administration). If Carrite has reliable sources for expanding coverage of SDUSA, please proceed. Some clarifications:
Dame Etna (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC) Second statement by Robert McClenonNeither editor appears to have heeded the instruction, which is not optional, to comment on content, not on contributors. Stop commenting on contributors. Be civil and concise. There seems to be a disagreement about how to refer to the split that occurred in 1972, as to whether to say that the organization split into three organizations, or that the movement split into three organizations (because SDUSA was the surviving organization), or to say something else. Why does each editor think that their view (organization split, movement split, something else) is the more neutral? There are disagreements about sources. Will each editor please identify what sources they disagree with the other editor about, without naming the other editor, and why they think that the source is or is not reliable? Are there any other issues about article content? Comment on content, not on contributors. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Second restatement by Dame EtnaSecond restatement by GPRamirez5
|
Hamid Arabnia
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | This case is being declined for two reasons. First, the article has been proposed for deletion, and is likely to go away during the typical time of a DRN discussion. Second, there are too many conduct issues complicating this content dispute to seem like a useful application of limited DRN resources. The conduct issues include edit-warring, because two of the editors are way over 3RR in the past 24 hours, and grossly uncivil edit summaries (which are even worse than incivility on the talk page, because they cannot be removed.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I added an entry on Hamid Arabnia that is relevant and supported by authorative citations, but it keeps getting deleted. Arabnia's name recognition in the sciences is comes primarily from the fact that he started a large number of conferences, all of which have been delisted from DBLP. I did not comment on whether or not DBLP's action was justified, all I did is simply report its action (an action that impacts many people). Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried the talk page but the arguments go nowhere and are often off topic. How do you think we can help? I would like the opinion of an administrator. The issue appears to be this: if information is relevant+documented but not flattering, would this be a valid reason for another editor to delete this information? Summary of dispute by Vivek-jonesPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Oh - thank you so much for moderating this. The issue is that a typical academician is on the program, organizing, steering, ... committees and so on the editorial boards of many tens of publishers, conferences, journals, and magazines (this includes probably most full professors in universities). Using MvH's logic, one would have to identify what publications of the editors are NOT included in DBLP and point them out in each biography of each person! In my view, this does not make sense. Such information, if posted would be disinformation. In fact, DBLP is not even a citations system. Due to sheer number of publishers, DBLP (like all other such databases) had to discontinue the inclusion of many publishers (including those proceedings whose chairs included Father of their respective fields). MOST editors/PC members/... publications are NOT in DBLP. This can easily be checked as stated in the talk page: "Go to: http://dblp.uni-trier.de/ then go to the section on browse conferences/workshops and then click on the letter tabs. Lets take "D". You will find that all the following proceedings were discontinued: DAARC, D-A-CH Security, DaEng, DAGM, DAI, DAISD, DALT, DAMAS, DANTE, too many to list here (probably over 50% of ALL proceedings are no longer included in recent years)." Using MvH's logic: one should then identify the editors of these 1000's of conference proceedings and then add a link to each of the senior editor's wiki page stating that their books are no longer included! There are many thousands of proceedings that are no longer included in DBLP (and they used to). DBLP had to be more selective. On a monthly basis, DBLP is making decisions as to what they should no longer include into their database - there are just too many publications and so the admins of such databases would have to make such decisions (every year more proceedings will NOT be included). Even IEEE Xplore does not include all its own proceedings into its database (and they used to in the past) - there are just too many books. I hope that I am making sense (I apologize if my writing is weak - my first language is not English). Vivek-jones (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Mansoor-siamakPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Hamid Arabnia discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Kyle Jenkins
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature. There has been a statement by the filing party on the talk page, but there has been no reply by the other editor. Discuss should go back to the talk page. If there is extensive mostly civil but inconclusive discussion, this issue can be brought back here. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The character of Kyle Abbott on the TV show The Young and the Restless was as a child named "Kyle Jenkins" (his late mother's maiden name). Since the character returned to the show as an adult in 2012 he has been referred to as "Kyle Abbott." He himself and the other characters on the show refer to him as "Kyle Abbott" and the show's credits and the show's website lists him as "Kyle Abbott." I have multiple times now tried to edit the character's page to reflect the character's commonly known name. Earlier today I tried to change the name of page to reflect the character's commonly known name, but editor Livelikemusic wrote to me that I was "vandalizing" the page and warned me that I would be "blocked from editing without further notice." Livelikemusic argues that that changing the character's name violates WP:COMMONNAME. But the character is commonly known as "Kyle Abbott" as listed here on the official The Young and the Restless website: http://www.cbs.com/shows/the_young_and_the_restless/cast/215026/?pg=2 IMDb also lists the character as "Kyle Abbott" as does multiple soap opera related websites. I'm arguing that the name of the Wikipedia page should be updated as well, Livelikemusic disagrees citing WP:COMMONNAME even though that is not what the character is commonly known as. To me it would be like calling Bill Clinton, Bill Blythe. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I would like to have resolved this issue more on the article's talk page but Livelikemusic has taken it to such an extreme level so quickly, I don't want to edit the article again (after the threat of me losing the ability to edit Wikipedia altogether). So that is why I have asked for the dispute to be resolved outside of the talk page. Because of how quickly the level of the dispute has risen without any room or time for discussion. How do you think we can help? By having another set of editors who have not yet edited the page Kyle Jenkins/Kyle Abbott (The Young and the Restless), I think will help resolve the dispute in a rational manner. Summary of dispute by LivelikemusicPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Kyle Jenkins discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Supercarrier#Dispute on Proposed Supercarriers
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Pending in other forum. RFC opened, per discussion below. Feel free to come back here or pursue other dispute resolution if the RFC does not achieve consensus. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview An editor wants to add 'proposed carriers' (which has significant and reliable coverage, and of wide interest) into the article. But the other editor wants to remove them stating that 'no one can be sure of what will happen in the future' and 'construction of the ship/cutting of steel should happen to confirm the project and till then it's just a speculation'.. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Added my view in the comment, but the editor won't concur to do so.. How do you think we can help? Giving a good explanation of why the content should (or) should not be added into the article will help. Summary of dispute by Nick ThorneThe statement of my position in the overview is a gross misrepresentation. I am sick and tired of being misquoted and having statements and action ascribed to me by this editor that I did not make or do. This issue was resolved on the talk page and has been dragged on and on by one editor who does not accept normal Wikipedia processes and now wants to bring the issue to the drama boards. Well, I'm not playing. Summary of dispute by M.srihariI wish that the "Proposed Supercarriers" remain, as it gives enough information about the plans of countries that are involved in creating supercarriers and also gives an overview of the future of the Navies around the world. I feel deleting this information would amount to hiding a big chunk of necessary knowledge from the readers.M.srihari (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari Talk:Supercarrier#Dispute on Proposed Supercarriers discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by volunteer moderatorI will be the moderator for this discussion. Please be civil and concise. Comment on content, not on contributors. I see that one issue is whether there should be a Proposed Supercarriers section, limited to classes of supercarriers for which unclassified proposals have been published by nations. Will each editor please state whether they want a Proposed Supercarriers section, and why or why not? Provide your comments in your own section; there is no threaded discussion. (Any editor who does not want to participate is not required to participate.) If we cannot reach agreement by discussion here, would the editors be willing to have a Request for Comments used to obtain consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC) First statement by Nick ThorneFirst statement by M. srihariI agree to have a WP:RFC. M.srihari (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari First statement by Jaaron95I do want the section included in the article because, 1) the article already has 'Supercarriers in Service' and 'Suppercarriers under-construction' and so, proposed carriers can be included which will give some extra bit of information to the readers about supercarriers.. B) addition to the 'proposed carriers' are not just speculations, but the addition of carriers confirmed by the respective governments, are significantly notable (as they have their own articles. See INS Vishal, Chinese aircraft carrier programme) , covered by wide range of sources and is of wide interest.. C) stating, it's just a 'proposal' or 'not sure what will happen' doesn't make it 'not suitable' for inclusion in the article. Yes, I'm okay with WP:RFC. --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 04:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC) Second statement by volunteer moderatorIt appears that one editor thinks that there should be a Proposed Supercarriers section and supports an RFC, one thinks that there should be an RFC, and one does not want to participate. Is that correct? If so, perhaps this dispute can be Resolved by saying that there is agreement that there should be an RFC. In order to avoid crystal balling, the RFC will state that the section should be limited to proposed supercarriers for which there has been discussion in reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Second statement by Nick ThorneSecond statement by M. SrihariI have no problem with a RFC. But I wish the volunteer could persuade the other editor to also participate in the discussion because I believe that would be the only way to solve this issue.M.srihari (talk) 10:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari Second statement by Jaaron95Yep, that's right! And yes, the RFC can ask for comments on the inclusion of 'Proposed carriers' which've been the subject of multiple reliable sources and is of wide interest and notability.. --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 13:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Third statement by volunteer moderatorThis thread will be closed, and an RFC will ask whether a Proposed supercarriers section should be added. The RFC will primarily address whether the section should be added, but comments will also be welcome as to specific proposed supercarriers. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Third statement by Nick ThorneThird statement by M. SrihariThird statement by Jaaron95
|
Talk:No Gun_Ri_Massacre
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Conduct dispute. As filed, this is a conduct dispute. DRN does not handle disputes which are primarily conduct disputes. Speak with an administrator or file at AN or ANI, as appropriate, for conduct matters. You may also refile here without mentioning or discussing conduct if you wish to seek help purely on content (but with this number of editors and level of complexity, formal mediation might be a better choice for that but it, too, will not deal with conduct issues). — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The issue at hand deals with a dispute revolving around a massacre of Korean refugees by U.S. military forces during the Korean War -- the No Gun Ri Massacre. No user disputes this basic fact at the most essential level. This is a controversial topic due to the debate revolving around the AP news story that initially broke the story, and due to perceived whitewashing by the U.S. of an inquiry into the massacre. It is well worth noting that Cjhanley, one involved editor, has stated that he is in fact Charles Hanley, the former AP reporter who broke the story. User WeldNeck has accused him of a conflict of interest. In short, issues involve edit warring, deletion of material and personal attacks. Cjhanley and WeldNeck have both edited extensively on the No Gun Ri Massacre, and have clashed with one another at length. Much of this took place last year, but after this period of dormancy, the conflict has reopened. In all fairness, I technically opened this Pandora's box with a well-meaning comment on sourcing. An outside observer can hopefully decide whether my actions were appropriate. Wikimedes has helped out greatly with the article. Timothyjosephwood has expressed dismay with the current state of the talk page. Neither, I believe, has done anything wrong. Both WeldNeck and Cjhanley have made attacks on the credibility and character of one another. Cjhanley has repeatedly posted at length on WeldNeck's perceived wrongdoing, calling him "ignorant" and "uncomprehending." They have also insinuated that the other has made POV edits repeatedly. WeldNeck escalated the debate by deleting a very long talk post by Cjhanley, which enumerated edits by the former that the latter opposed. While I may have played a role in this, I believe that I behaved courteously in responding to both users when I communicated with them. I am simply interested in the topic, and I want to be able to contribute without having the page torn apart completely.
Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have asked another user, Wikimedes, for his assistance in peer-reviewing the page. He has been highly helpful, and he has wisely refrained from involvement in the dispute. I have also posted an RFC on the Military History Task Force page, which was backed by Cjhanley. Previously, I had posted a request for a peer edit, to no avail. How do you think we can help? I am not sure exactly how the administration could help to resolve this troubling situation. Topic bans or binding agreements to avert further conflict may be appropriate, or the administration could formally acknowledge bad behavior on the page and threaten bans. In all fairness, I am an involved editor, and so I will not recommend punishment for any editor. I believe that this situation should be looked into by competent reviewers, so they can come to a reasoned decision on how to proceed. Summary of dispute by WeldNeckPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by CjhanleyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by WikimedesPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by TimothyjosephwoodPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:No Gun_Ri_Massacre discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:North Yemen Civil War#North Yemen vandalism|North Yemen vandalism
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | This case is entitled "North Yemen vandalism". If it really is about vandalism, it should be reported at the vandalism noticeboard, or complex cases of vandalism can be reported at WP:ANI. If this is a content dispute, and the reference to vandalism is simply a personal attack in a content dispute, then this case can be refiled if properly described as a content dispute without insulting other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I want to add israel under the support section of the info-box. I have a reliable and explicit reference to support my edit; plus israel and mossad are amply mentioned in the article itself, so i believe i also have notability. However, 2 other editors seem to oppose my opinions and edit for reasons that i totally disagree with. If you look at the articles edit history then you will find the latest edit to be the reversion of my edit that is under dispute. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried resolving this issue on the articles talk page, plus the talk pages of the other 2 editors. How do you think we can help? I wish for a neutral arbiter to settle this conflict once and for all Summary of dispute by Greyshark09Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MikrobølgeovnThe long-standing consensus has been that while Israel supported the royalist faction through material aid, it is trivial and not noteworthy in a military infobox. Other countries played a much more prominent role, and comparing the Israeli involvement with that of Britain, whilst ignoring USSR and Jordanian involvement, is extremely misleading. The information should definitely be mentioned in the article, but Israel was in no way a major player and has nothing to do in the infobox. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Talk:North Yemen Civil War#North Yemen vandalism|North Yemen vandalism discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Mo Ansar#Mohammed_Ansar_v_His_Detractors
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. Discussion in edit comments will not suffice. If other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already: refer to - Mohammed Ansar v His Detractors Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Im trying to inject some balance into the profile of Mohammed Ansar, where allegations and gossip have been reported as fact without any statement / indication to inform the reader that the criticism is yet unproven and maybe be part of a campaign. Further the acknowledgement that the small group of individuals who are critical of Mohammed Ansar are also of a contrary strong political and religious persuasion is not to be found anywhere. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried talk and have pointed out the inconsistency of the the profile editing because of conflict of interest of those users mentioned. The discussion has largely been in the edit section of the Mohammed Ansar profile page. How do you think we can help? by acknowledging that the profile requires the additions made by me to provide a more balanced view and shine more light with respect to the criticism rather than just an intended smear against Mohammed Ansar. Summary of dispute by EricEnfermeroPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MelcousPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by AlfietuckerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Mo Ansar#Mohammed_Ansar_v_His_Detractors discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:North Yemen Civil War#North Yemen vandalism|North Yemen content dispute
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Problematic refiling. Either the filing party actually believes that the edits are vandalism, that is, malicious efforts to harm the encyclopedia, or the filing party is using the term "vandalism" wildly in a content dispute. In the first case, the filing party should read the boomerang essay and then report to the vandalism noticeboard, prepared for sanctions either on the vandal or the filer. In the second case, the filing party can post a Request for Comments as to whether to make the infobox change, and should be aware that wild allegations will not sway an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC) Second opinion: The use of the word "vandalism" here is not enough, alone, to close this case, but I do agree with Robert that since the filing editor is trying to introduce an edit contrary to the consensus previously established that the only way that can happen is to establish a new consensus, especially since other editors have objected to that edit, and the best way to do that is not to discuss it here, when the opponents have already clearly said that they oppose it and there is little chance that they will change their minds (this noticeboard only exists to try to help opposing editors come to consensus), but to file an RFC to invite additional editors into the discussion and, in that filing, to set out your best reasons why the information should be in the userbox without making allegations about the other editors. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I want to add israel under the support section of the info-box. I have a reliable and explicit reference to support my edit; plus israel and mossad are amply mentioned in the article itself, so i believe i also have notability. However, 2 other editors seem to oppose my opinions and edit for reasons that i totally disagree with. One argument is that other, supposedly more involved, countries are not mentioned under the support section and hence israel has no right to be included. I find this argument very fallacious: just because they aren't added that isn't an excuse to not include another involved country. Plus, i have told the editors that if they want to add the countries then i am not standing in their way; however, they have not taken up my support. But mainly this issue revolves around notability, which i strongly believe is there and is adequate for a supporting role. If you look at the articles edit history then you will find the latest edit to be the reversion of my edit that is under dispute.
I have tried resolving this issue on the articles talk page, plus the talk pages of the other 2 editors.
I wish for a neutral arbiter to settle this conflict once and for all. Plus, dispute resolution was also suggested by one of the editors concerned on the articles talk page. Summary of dispute by Greyshark09First of all, this is a very awkward "resolution" request from a constantly changing IP, which has been trying for the past week to change content in North Yemen Civil War despite long-standing community consensus. From the professionalism of filing the request i begin to wonder whether this IP has a much broader experience in Wikipedia. In any case, the North Yemen Civil War is currently temporarily protected: if the IP would like to change the infobox content, he may continue discussion (i.e. bringing good sources and applying to WP:CIVIL and WP:GF; i see no reason why me and user:Mikrobølgeovn wouldn't engage in a good discussion, though i'm doubtful there is anything new to bubble out on this issue.GreyShark (dibra) 19:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by MikrobølgeovnThe long-standing consensus has been that while Israel supported the royalist faction through material aid, it is trivial and not noteworthy in a military infobox. Other countries played a much more prominent role, and comparing the Israeli involvement with that of Britain, whilst ignoring USSR and Jordanian involvement, is extremely misleading. The information should definitely be mentioned in the article, but Israel was in no way a major player and has nothing to do in the infobox. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Talk:North Yemen Civil War#North Yemen vandalism|North Yemen content dispute discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Tanu Weds Manu Returns
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature. There has been no discussion on the talk page, which is empty except for templates. Try discussing on the talk page first. Be civil in discussion and in edit summaries. If there is significant discussion, and it is inconclusive, this case may be refiled here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview User removing rating section from the page which is backed by multiple authentic news site links. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talked to Krimuk90 in talk section but user is not replying. How do you think we can help? Please ask Krimuk90 to stop removing rating section. Summary of dispute by Krimuk90Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This is the promotional list of ratings the user put up right in the middle of the article. I put up a warning message on the user's talk page to stop edit warring, and have already replied to his message on my talk page. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC) Tanu Weds_Manu_Returns discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Two Requests for Comments have been formulated and are being used to resolve the question of one or two articles and the wording of the lede. Any other issues, not yet identified, will be discussed at the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview I noticed the Zeitgeist Movement group description mentioned the names of their annual events but did not describe these events, so I pulled the description for "Z-day" or "Zeitgeist Day" entirely from the existing secondary sources. This was reverted. I later added primary sources and found a new secondary to describe "Zeitgeist Media Festival" resulting in this. Users NeilN, MONGO, Earl King Jr., and Tom harrison have each reverted these edits against talk page concensus, claiming "promotional": [4], [5], [6], and [7]. I've tried to see it from their perspective, but this continues to look like neutral characterization to me. It is possible some of these editors are letting their bias against this FRINGE topic affect their neutrality. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussed on Talk page and asked for help in Wikipedia:Teahouse. How do you think we can help? Perhaps you can help identify what is and is not promotional. Or perhaps there is another angle that only the eyes of a veteran dispute resolver can see. Summary of dispute by JonpatternsMy experience of editing the Zeitgeist article is that it has been impossible to create a neutral article that correctly reflects and weights the sources. This is true in general, and in this particular case of whether to mention the annual events or not. MONGO and Tom harrison haven't responded to the discussion, which is fine if they only boldly revert once. NeilN has reverted, but has also discussed how to improve the article which is fine. However, I would says Earl King Jr. behaviour is non-constructive. He seems to concentrate on personal attacks, calling users biased and single purpose accounts. More worryingly he doesn't recognise this behaviour when it is pointed out. Additionally, I don't think he understands that there can be negative as well as positive bias in the article. Here are examples of his behaviour, attacking OnlyInYourMind: He has made similar attacks against me, which can be seen in a filing on the admins noticeboard. The best way forward in my opinion is:
Jonpatterns (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC) 3. I think it would also be helpful to use the talkpage version of Template FAQ - noting the outcomes of debates that are likely to re-occur. Jonpatterns (talk) 06:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by SfarneyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Subjects like zeitgeist naturally involve controversial ideas. In my opinion, it is inappropriate POV to pepper the article with such value-laden words as "conspiratorial" "internet cult" "crap" "bogus" etc. even if those words can be cherry-picked from RS reviews. If the editor is personally incapable of writing NPOV text on that subject, I believe it should be left to others to write. Earl King Jr. has reverted my comment on the talk page when I said that. Most recently, the issue of listing future events is characterized as "promotional". I disagree, and I point out other pages listing future events such as Burning Man and San Diego Comic-Con International. I am particularly concerned that Earl King's statement of his own philosophy for edit is almost diametrically opposed to mine, predicting little chance of resolution through dialog. In my view, "Zeitgeist should also be an informational page for those who are interested," with all the relevant facts. Earl King Jr. has stated in disagreement, "Also it is not an information page for those that are interested because its purpose is to document what it is with a neutral stance or to go where the citations take us," inferring that if an RS calls the subject "crap" and "bogus" then the Wikipedia should forward those pejoratives. In my opinion, if King's approach were followed throughout, Wikipedia would become just another organ for propagandizing the views of the dominant media, instead of a neutral source of information. Slade Farney (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC) PS: The best reviews of religion (a comparably controversial subject) are those by truly neutral, sympathetic observers, like Huston Smith, J. Gordon Melton, and Will Durant. Their approach to controversial subjects has enabled their writings to stand the test of time. Other writers, who include POV in their writings such as the RC's Index and Thomas Bowdler, fade with the day. Slade Farney (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by NeilNFocusing on content, I'll mainly repeat what I said on the talk page. This article suffers from multiple personality disorder. Why are we describing a yearly event in an article about a film series? Why do we have a separate section for the movement at all? If the movie triggered the movement then a paragraph should be added to Zeitgeist_(film_series)#Reception and that's all (no events) per WP:TOPIC and WP:COATRACK. Also, any sources used should be independent of Zeitgeist. --NeilN talk to me 13:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by MONGOMy sentiments are about the same as NeilN's.--MONGO 18:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC) Adding that little about this "movement" can be documented. We're an encyclopedia, not a reporting agency so a YouTube series of movies are not very notable for our purposes. I think EarlKing is spot on.--MONGO 19:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Earl_King_Jr.Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The talk page is loaded with hangers on from Zeitgeist so its is not possible to not talk about users in this instance. This is only a couple of sites but they are numerous to call pro Zeitgeist people to Wikipedia [8] and stuff like this [9] and the person that brought this here is a meat puppet of the Zeitgeist movement, a single purpose editor with an agenda.[10] He answered the 'call to arms' that the group promotes on their websites as a true believer. His very first edit on his account is to Zeitgeist and his appearance coincides with their media declaration of trying to retake the article to their pov. Nothing wrong with single purpose editors but or nearly single purpose but they have to edit to guidelines. As far as the others pressing this they are Zeitgeist supporters also and edit with the socks and meats on the article. Thats about it. That is my interpretation of what is going on and I think they think they can overwhelm the neutral editors by getting bodies here and wearing people down so they can control the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Tom_harrisonThe article is regularly an object of editing by fans who try to use it to promote fringe views. Though better than it has been, it's still skewed toward the promotional. It needs to be a simple summary of what reliable sources have written. When promoters show up to edit out unfavorable sources and add puffery sourced to the films' promotional material, they need to be politely corrected, and if necessary shown the door. Tom Harrison Talk 02:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Raquel_BaranowThis is not where the disgussion should take place. Please comment on content, not users. Rider ranger47 Talk 16:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A page describing the Zeitgeist Movement was recently (and wrongly) merged into this article about the film. The description of the two annual meetings is no more "promo" than conventions or meetings of political parties. The Movement has opponents who dislike the movie mainly because of it's viewpoint about Christianity. Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hello, I am, Rider ranger47, a volunteer mediator. Once all users have made their statements I will begin discussion. Please remember to comment on content, not users. Rider ranger47 Talk 11:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC) I have looked over this and have noticed one thing: was the RfC on the talk page over the same topic? Rider ranger47 Talk 13:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please tell me who is adding the promotional information and link to the diff? Rider ranger47 Talk 00:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Content policy suggests that we have to be careful not to promote or advertise events for organizations. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
What do you want to write in the article now? Consensus on the talk page is the place for something like this. What exactly is it that you want to list as upcoming events in the Zeitgeist calendar. Are they paid events such as the sixty dollar ticket cost of Zeitgeist day a couple years ago. Why is it so important for this group to have information that usually is on their own web page put here also? Why not write it all out then with citations and run it by us now?. If we do a article on Ford we are not going to list their prices or showcase them from a car show advertisement. Zeitgeist has very very little coverage in the media. It does not warrant much, it is a fringe topic. It can not be substantiated even as a real group. It is a company owned by Peter Joseph. There is no number of members to quote because it is totally ad hoc. So make a mock paragraph about what you want with citations please and also put that where it belongs on the talk page as well as here. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The talk page discussion did not fail. There is a consensus to not use the Zeitgeist promo. material. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Try to be constructive and help things along. Unless you know basic knowledge of editing it is pointless for you to blog here as you are doing your intentions. Listen and learn. Finally, at the end of the day, (and no offense intended) the amount of effort spent in a dispute about an article about a moderately notable film producer and their moderately notable films is disproportionate to the impact they have made. Make sure the most important points, and only the most important points are in the merged article, get over it, and move on. There are far more important things to be done to ensure the overall quality and success of Wikipedia. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
First statement by replacement volunteer moderatorI have been asked by coordinator User:TransporterMan to moderate this dispute. I will moderate in a structured fashion, with statements for each participant. Since I have not been following this case closely, the first statement by each participant should summarize what they want added or removed, and how else they want the article improved. Be civil and concise. Comments on contributors (rather than on content) are not acceptable. If anyone wants to discuss conduct issues, they are requested to indicate that they will not be participating in this discussion, and to take their discussion to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC) It is my understanding that the main issue is whether to include material that is referenced but is considered promotional or whether to remove it. Please identify specifically what material (in the current article or previous versions) you consider to be the center of controversy, and whether you want it added or subtracted, and why. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Also, do not edit the article while this discussion is in progress, and do not discuss the article on the article talk page (because any discussion on the article talk page will be ignored). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Do not state that there is consensus for something and that another editor is going against consensus. Do not base any arguments here on the existence of a consensus. The purpose of this discussion is to try to establish consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
First statement by OnlyInYourMindHi Robert, thank you for taking over moderation of this content dispute. The center of the controversy is this material (a description of the group's two annual events). I would like this content added, because previously the article mentioned the names of the groups 2 annual events, but did not describe them. Numerous examples have been linked in this DRN of articles that contain very similar event info. The context for this annual event info, the group description, has now also been controversially removed (along with critical reception and infobox with image). This context is necessary for group annual event info, making it relevant to this dispute. This removal seems to be against content preservation policy. I agree with NeilN that details about a group don't seem to belong in an article about a film series, however that is apparently what we must do because a weak consensus from a past RfC decided that these articles be merged and policy dictates that we must preserve content. OnlyInYourMindT 20:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC) @NeilN: Of course appropriate. Preserving inappropriate content would be silly :-) OnlyInYourMindT 20:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC) First statement by JonpatternsI am working on a draft for a neutral section on the group, will post here shortly. Its a case of WP:TNT due to the section previously using a random selection of sources and wording.Jonpatterns (talk) 06:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Suggested section, and articles changes below.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC) The Zeitgeist Movement group The Zeitgeist Movement group was founded in 2009 by Joseph, after the second film in late 2008.[gjp 1][gjp 2][gjp 3] The name of the group is a trademark of Joseph's Gentle Machine Productions.[gjp 4] In 2009 the group described itself as the activist arm of Jacques Fresco's Venus Project.[gjp 5] The Venus Project featured in the second and third films. In April 2011, the two groups ended their association.[gjp 2] The group has several local chapters around the world.[gjp 1][gjp 6][gjp 7][gjp 8] It has held two annual events, Z-Day and the Zeitgeist Media Festival.[gjp 9] Z-Day is an educational forum, the first having taken place in Manhattan in 2009. Some local chapters have also held events on the same day.[gjp 7][gjp 10][gjp 11] The group advocate a transformation of society and the economic system. They propose a global resource-based economy and sustainable ecological policies.[gjp 1] The group criticises religion and market capitalism.[gjp 8] Critical views An article in the Journal of Contemporary Religion describes the movement as an example of a "conspirituality", a synthesis of New Age spirituality and conspiracy theory.[gjp 12] In Tablet Magazine, journalist Michelle Goldberg criticized the Zeitgeist movement, saying it "seems like the world's first Internet-based cult, with members who parrot the party line with cheerful, rote fidelity."[gjp 7] References (gjp)
Other changes to the article 1. Rename article Zeitgeist films and group, as it more accurately reflects its content. 2. The lede should describe the films as documentaries, this is the term most sources use including o3, s4, t7, n8. 3. Move trademark info to group section, too much detail for lede. First statement by Sfarney(This is a restatement of my "first statement" posted previously, plus a boildown of additional remarks.) Subjects like zeitgeist naturally involve controversial ideas. In my opinion, it is inappropriate POV to pepper the article with such value-laden words as "conspiratorial," "conspiracy theory," "internet cult," "crap," "bogus," etc., even if those words can be cherry-picked from RS reviews. If the editor is personally incapable of writing NPOV text on that subject, I believe it should be left to others to write. ...
We should not be inventing special rules for this page.
Why are these artificial limitations imposed on the Zeitgeist page? Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 00:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
First statement by NeilNRepeating what I said above: This article suffers from multiple personality disorder. Why are we describing a yearly event in an article about a film series? Why do we have a separate section for the movement at all? If the movie triggered the movement then a paragraph should be added to Zeitgeist_(film_series)#Reception and that's all (no events) per WP:TOPIC and WP:COATRACK. Also, any sources used should be independent of Zeitgeist. --NeilN talk to me 14:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Replying to @Raquel Baranow and OnlyInYourMind: A merge of the articles does not mean all the material should be kept. Indeed, the RFC close specified "Merging the articles about the films and their influence seems like a logical response..." This is not an open invitation to add an expanding coatrack section about the organization. If the organization is that notable, it needs to have its own article and not use the film article as a surrogate. Finally, there is no policy dictating "we must preserve content" as that would be highly damaging to our efforts to weed out cruft, trivia, fringe theories, and other undue material. WP:PRESERVE actually states, "Preserve appropriate content". --NeilN talk to me 20:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC) First statement by MONGOFirst statement by Earl_King_Jr.I agree with user Neil above. The films are marginally notable. Cursory information on a so called movement is all that is needed and that does not include listing their paid events that they sell tickets to. A paragraph, maybe two, is about appropriate. That section having its own information box in the article about a 'movement' is not called for. In the first statement by Sfarney he says Subjects like zeitgeist naturally involve controversial ideas. In my opinion, it is inappropriate POV to pepper the article with such value-laden words as "conspiratorial," "conspiracy theory," "internet cult," "crap," "bogus," etc., even if those words can be cherry-picked from RS reviews. If the editor is personally incapable of writing NPOV text on that subject, I believe it should be left to others to write. end quote. This may be a basic understanding about how Wikipedia works. The editors did not add or cherry pick information it all came from notable cited sources. It is not o.k. to write npov or filter information into Rebecca of Sunnybrook farm styles of delivery. Neutral editors have taken the overwhelming critical information about Zeitgeist from reputable sources and added that to the article. There is zero conspiracy to put the article in a good or bad light, only the light cast by the citations which have passed muster and are considered significant. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC) First statememt by Tom_harrisonFirst statement by Raquel BaranowI've seen this happen many times on Wikipedia: Consensus turns into mob rule, wikilawyering and a controversial article turns into propaganda. (Such is the current case with articles on Ukraine revolution.) In this case, it started with the merge of the article on The Zeitgeist Movement into the article about the film. Many people in The Movement say, "The movie is not the movement." The Movement is about a Resource-based economy without money. Note that the same people removed any mention of Zeitgiest (The Venus Project) from the RBE article. The Movement has two conventions, this is not promotion. There is also nothing wrong with expanding the plot summary. No objection to a section critical of the film. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Second statement by replacement volunteer moderatorThank you for your comments. It appears that a major area of contention is how much coverage to give to two annual events, known as The Zeitgeist Movement, which previously had its own article, The Zeitgeist Movement, but which was then merged into Zeitgeist (film series). It appears that that merge is controversial, and that the inclusion of the discussion of the movement in this article is viewed by some editors as coat-racking. It appears that much of the controversy here is about how much to discuss the movement, as opposed to the movies, which are the subject of the article. The merge was done five months ago, and consensus can change. What do the editors think of splitting out the movement again? One editor has proposed a stripped-down article to be renamed Zeitgeist films and group, which he states would blow the article up and start over. That would at least make the title of the article consistent with covering both. What do other editors think? I will comment that, even if The Zeitgeist Movement favors the establishment of what they call a Resource-based economy, we should not link to Resource-based economy, which is about an economy based on minerals or oil and is still a money economy, but rather to Post-scarcity economy. I see three possible ways forward:
Is there a fourth alternative? What do editors think of the alternative ways forward? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Second statement by OnlyInYourMindRE: Possible ways forward
Reply to @Earl King Jr.: Earl, you've only claimed the movement is not notable, but you've not demonstrated it. This topic meets all the requirements set by the General Notability Guideline and is therefore quite worthy of its own article. I assume the Peter Joseph article also meets the requirements of this guideline (but I have not checked). OnlyInYourMindT 02:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC) Second statement by JonpatternsThe TZM group and its events have received enough coverage to be notable, including mainstream coverage. Either a separate article, or a correctly titled comprehensive article is warranted. This, of course, must worded in a neutral manner. Stating the existence of the group and events is not any more promotional than stating the existence of any other group or event. A criticism section should be included that reflects a balance of criticisms the group has received from reliable sources. I agree that Wikipedia's article on 'resource based economy' should not be linked. It may be worth noting, in the article, that its 'resource based economy' would more commonly be referred to as a 'post-scarcity economy'. Jonpatterns (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Second statement by SfarneyThe Zeitgeist page claims to have held seven annual gatherings,[1] not just two. But let us consider Wikipedia's treatment of comparable events. Burning man is created and operated by the private company Black Rock City, LLC with a multi-million dollar budget. It was attended by 50,000 people last year. There is no suggestion or advantage for the Burning Man page to be merged with the Black Rock page, though Black Rock is a single purpose company. Since Zietgeist is not a single purpose company, merging the two Zeitgeist pages was a clear example of coat-racking, in my opinion. Chewing through all the arguments for excluding the information on Zeitgeist or paring it down to a footnote ("We don't cover paid events;" "We have to avoid any source associated with Zeitgeist;" "We can't write about Zeitgeist Movement until the Red Heifer is sacrificed"), most are shamelessly invented on the spot -- Calvinball style. Returning to the comparison with Burning Man, BM hasn't the least redeeming social value. Just drugs, sex, music, and entertainment. In contrast, Zeitgeist offers entertainment and alleges to have social value. The greatest criticism of Zeitgeist is that it has no social value, which lowers it to the level of Burning Man -- but no lower. As an item of (at least) entertainment that entertains a lot of people, I assert that Wikipedia should be as free with details on Zeitgeist as it is on Burning Man. And let the people with religious objections have a section at the bottom of the page ("Criticism") for burning effigies, crying "heresy" and "conspiracy theory," or however else they would like to entertain themselves. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC) References Second statement by NeilN
--NeilN talk to me 03:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC) Second statement by MONGOSecond statement by Earl_King_Jr.Ideas from the new moderator 1. Split out the movement, and then discuss each article separately, without arguments about coat-racking or due weight. They were compiled together because of lack of notability to make them easier to see as a whole. They are a film trilogy and movement. The films do not merit independent articles nor does the movement.
3. Work out how much coverage in this article to give to the movement. Coverage should or can be about what it is now, very limited, because the movement is not notable, its a fringe concept and group with fringe ideas with virtually no one writing about it other than they themselves and ultimately it is several blogs on the internet controlled or owned by the inventor of the movement. One editor here 'Neil' suggested one cursory paragraph in the reception section of the movie where Joseph 'announced' his movement. I would say perhaps one or two paragraphs of information but no advert. promo. stuff at all, ticketed conventions, Zeitgeist day etc. People can traipse the internet and find them on Facebook and Youtube and Peter Josephs other webpages. Turning the Wikipedia article into an extension of Zeitgeist FAQ'S material is not a good idea. In conclusion, making sausage or an article is not pleasant, but currently the article on Zeitgeist related things is fairly good and improving. Keep the article as is. Repeating again, add the Peter Joseph article to the film and movement current article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC) Second statememt by Tom_harrisonSecond statement by Raquel BaranowThird statement by replacement volunteer moderatorI don't see much likelihood of compromise, so it seems that the best way to get this resolved will be a Request for Comments to get community consensus. Are the parties willing to agree to an RFC? If a majority of editors support the idea of an RFC, that will be how we go forward (unless a compromise emerges). If the majority of parties oppose an RFC, and there is no compromise, this thread will be failed. I welcome any other volunteers at this noticeboard to offer their opinions as editors (not as moderators or mediators). (If they want to give me advice about moderation, they know where my talk page is.) Since no one has identified a fourth way forward, I will restate the three ways forward, and the criticisms, and a fourth way (which I do not recommend, but mention anyway), while welcoming a fifth way forward. 1. Split out the film series and the movement. The argument in favor is that they are not the same, and that both are at least marginally notable, and that the merge has resulted in coat-racking about the movement. The argument against is that the movement is not notable in its own right, or that neither is notable in its own right. 2. Stub and retitle the article. The argument in favor is that the article is currently a mess. The arguments against are, first, this would destroy content that some editors think is valid and properly sourced, and, second, this would only kick the controversy down the road about what is appropriate to rebuild the article. 3. Keep the merge, and work out how much attention to give to the movement. The argument in favor is that there was a previous weak consensus for the merge. Are there other arguments in favor? The argument against is primarily that this has already failed, because argument about how much attention to give to the movement illustrates that that issue is inherently controversial itself. 4. Delete the article via AFD. I don't recommend this, because I think that there is at a minimum adequate notability for the combination of the two, but it should be mentioned for completeness. The RFC, if the editors will agree, will have two questions. The first will be whether to split out the film series and the movement. The second will be whether to stub the article. If there is no consensus for either of those, that preserves status quo, which means that how much coverage to give to the movement is the next step. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC) Third statement by OnlyInYourMindIn his first statement, Jonpatterns identified 12 sources demonstrating that the movement clearly meets the requirements of WP:GNG. The only editor who did not agree, Earl King Jr., has failed to identify which requirement of WP:GNG he believes has not been met, which is not a quality argument. An RfC is not necessary. The highest quality arguments are already here. OnlyInYourMindT 20:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC) Third statement by JonpatternsAn RfC would be okay, to ask whether to split the information about the group. The option to stub the article does not seem popular. I mentioned TNT mainly in relation to the section on group and the lede, rather than the whole article. However, for an RfC to work editors must stick to discussing content and sources, not other editors.Jonpatterns (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC) Third statement by SfarneyOnlyInYourMind has said almost everything I would say: The result of the RfC has already been produced by JohnPatterns, and the result is a separate page. Just revert the deleted page back into existence, and patch it up as required. I cannot imagine deleting pages simply because some people have NO interest. Wikipedia has many thousands of pages in which I currently have zero interest, but I wouldn't dream of deleting them. Would not dream of it. In a society of freedom and democracy, the answer to unwanted communication is always MORE communication, not censorship. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote in Whitney v. California (1927): "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." Those words should be engraved on the lintel over Wikipedia's front door. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC) Third statement by NeilNActually a question. What's the point of a RFC? If I was an uninvolved editor (as I was two weeks ago), and I was asked if the movement info should be split into a new article, my first response would be to ask for sources that show the movement meets WP:GNG. If these are already present, forget the RFC and just do the split. --NeilN talk to me 19:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC) There needs to be less hyperbole and more focus on Wikipedia's actual policies and guidelines or this discussion will drift again... --NeilN talk to me 22:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC) Third statement by MONGOThird statement by Earl_King_Jr.I have to agree with Neil's third statement. I find it going around in circles to have another request for comment. I know we are not supposed to discuss past consensus but the past WP:RFC was a pretty strong guidance for action and we already went through that. If an RFC suggests or encourages a merge, it is generally appropriate to pursue that as an outcome. These decisions are not made based on article length, but on the underlying connectivity between two issues. In this case, I suspect that this artist and their films, relative to all other artists and films in Wikipedia, should not be as long. This comes from the top down, where one says "This artist and their films are not notable enough to stand alone as articles, so merge them together". If you make that decision based on "words" it becomes who can spend the most time padding an article with words so that it meets some threshold so that it becomes two articles. This does not increase the notability or the distinctiveness of the articles, only creates the illusion of such. If that is what the editor in question was doing (pursuing the merge per some sort of consensus) previously (and unless we have absolute evidence to the opposite, you are encouraged to WP:AGF, as I am here). To say "this is what the RFC suggested" before and "this is what I want" is to say that your desires are greater than that of the communities. Trying to force an outcome again seems pointless. Consensus was strong, arguments favored merge. For the reasons above, things such as "article length" represent "guidelines", not hard and fast rules. In situations where the community suggests a merge, a guidelines should not be used to overturn this without a really good reason (again, it is easy to keep adding words). For example, a guideline might suggest that a section be of a certain length, but some other reason or rationale may preclude this suggestion (in this case, the community deeming that the articles should be merged). This information was more or less given another editor. The way forward is probably to thank our gracious moderator here who has done a good job since taking over. I don't consider the discussion failed. Now lets go back to the talk page and start again being cautious to discern all the issues and do the best we can. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC) Third statememt by Tom_harrisonThird statement by Raquel BaranowWhen Stalin executed Nikolai Bukharin (who believed in eliminating money), he was purged from "The Great Soviet Encyclopedia." Not sure why some editors seem to want to literally destroy the Movement and purge the leaders of the Movement from Wikipedia. Again, the film and movement should be separate articles, they are notable. Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC) Statements by other editorsFourth statement by moderatorThe editor who had proposed stubbing the article to blow it up and start over has withdrawn that idea as having little support. Some of those who want to split out the movement ask why an RFC is necessary. It is true that consensus can change, but when consensus or weak consensus has been established by RFC, a new RFC provides a clearer indication that consensus has changed than just a bold edit. Also, in content dispute resolution, going from DRN to RFC is in the progressive sequence of dispute resolution forums. If there isn’t agreement to split, and there isn’t agreement that the merge was correct, RFC is more likely to be effective than just splitting or than just leaving the merge in effect. Those who want the movement split back out can provide reliable sources seeking to establish that the movement meets general notability guidelines. One editor wrote: “However, for an RfC to work editors must stick to discussing content and sources, not other editors.” That is true. The RFC will be divided into a Survey section for !votes and a Threaded Discussion section, and editors will be expected to be civil (as is always true in Wikipedia), and are advised, as in other content dispute resolution, to comment on content, not on contributors. Unless multiple editors object, the next step will be a single RFC, asking whether to split the movement back out from the film series. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Fourth statement by OnlyInYourMindThis coat-racking conversation (while worth discussing) is a distraction from the many content disputes mentioned in this DRN. Splitting the articles seems absolutely necessary...
So if this new RfC must go forward, it must be careful to rely on the quality of arguments instead of an array personal opinions that ignore sources like we saw in the previous RfC:
The main content disputes have not been addressed (and have apparently been going on long before the article merge). Disputes such as:
I like what we are trying to do here, but it feels like we are somehow missing the main dispute: Should we be expanding these topics following wikipedia policy and guidelines, or should we be preventing article expansion under the assumed threat of secret zeitgeist promoters? (secret promoters sent years ago from a movement that does not exists :D) OnlyInYourMindT 20:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC) Fourth statement by JonpatternsI am happy to proceed as Robert McClenon suggests with an RfC on whether or not to split out an article on the group. For reference, here is the previous RfC. An RfC will be helpful to review sources, and a chance to raise issues of support or objection. Additionally, other editors will have a chance for input. It may be worth pinging all the editors involved in the previous RfC.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC) Fourth statement by SfarneyThis has been said elsewhere before, but it needs to be said in this space. A film is not a movement and a movement is not a film. The film has a history, production details, release details, showings/circulation/sales, non-English versions, synopsis, and a section for reception by the public and critics. The criticisms of a documentary would probably address the quality, factuality, and other documentary elements. A movement is very different. The Zeitgeist Movement has a separate history (though it may have originated with the film), annual conventions of which there have been seven so far, goals, membership, activities, political influence, relationship to other groups or movements, and a criticism section. The criticism of the movement is also very different from the criticism of a film. The criticism of a movement would involve the goals of the movement, possible dickering about membership size, possible legal issues, leadership, and so forth. A Wikipedia page on the film would have almost nothing in common with a Wikpedia page on the Movement, except one link. Apart from that, they are as different as Das Capital from the Russian Revolution. As different as a Beethoven concerto from a famous pianist who once played it. As different as the Russian Revolution from the biography of a historian who wrote about it. When the two pages are combined, neither subject can be properly covered, unless every section says "now the film, now the movement, now the film, now the movement ..." No economy is achieved by attempting to combine a can opener with a television, or a film with a movement. If all the functions are served, the hybrid is just ugly and awkward. If the functions are abbreviated, the editors are not doing their job. I have been accused of hyperbole. So be it. The high-flung ball (hyper-bole) is easier to catch. The rules of Wikipedia are only in place to serve the greater purposes. We must not ignore the greater purpose to blindly apply the rule. Since the film and the movement are each significantly and sufficiently notable, each should have a page. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC) I am hoping the moderators will once again instruct the participants not to edit the page while the DR is in progress. Like this recent edit. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Fourth statement by NeilNFourth statement by MONGOFourth statement by Earl_King_Jr.The person that brought the RFC previously was blocked from editing any controversial subjects on Wikipedia or using any notice boards at all regarding another issue but truth be told they were part of the pro Zeitgeist faction on the article. Hate to do it but it is not possible not to mention people or movement members in context to editing the article. I am trying to stick with content. [13] In an ideal world this kind of thing is not mentioned but in this world we have to. Also this neutral instruction to Zeitgeist friends is a clever piece of writing that can benefit people in the current situation [14] It evolved out of the RFC period. I hope people here read the RFC and the comments given by the person that closed it finally. It would be unfortunate to go on a never ending merry go round about this subject. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC) Fourth statememt by Tom_harrisonFourth statement by Raquel BaranowFifth statement by moderatorSince at least one editor is emphatic that the merge was correct and there is no need for an article about the movement, and since at least one editor is emphatic that there need to be two articles (a split), a Request for Comments on splitting the article or keeping the merge is necessary. I will be opening the RFC within 24 hours. There has been slow-motion edit-warring about how to write the lede. Please provide your thoughts on whether the lede is satisfactory or should be revised. It doesn’t look as thought there is likely to be compromise, but another RFC may be appropriate, and is definitely better than slow-motion edit-warring. I see that some editors like the current characterization of the movie as describing conspiracy theories, and others think that wording is POV and that it should be characterized differently as challenging some precepts of Western culture, so, unless there is compromise, that is a subject for an RFC. Other proposed wording for the lede is welcome. I will keep this thread open as long as progress is being made, but progress is likely at this point to consist of formulating another RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC) Comment in your own section, not in other sections, on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC) Statement 5.1 by moderator I have posted the first RFC, on splitting the article. There will be at least three proposed versions of the lede in the second RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC) See Talk:Zeitgeist_(film_series)#RFC:_One_or_Two_Articles.3F_Should_film_series_and_movement_be_split.3F Robert McClenon (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC) Are there any other issues that any editor wants to raise for moderated discussion, or should moderated discussion be closed when the second RFC is posted? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Fifth statement by OnlyInYourMindI still need to discuss the dispute concerning users redacted - comment on content, not contributors reverting an edit, claiming "promotional": [15], [16], [17], and [18]. This dispute is what opened this DRN. I wrote only what secondary sources said. The other 4 editors here agreed it is not promo. Is there some objective measure of promotional? How do we move forward with these promo disputes? OnlyInYourMindT 09:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC) Fifth statement by JonpatternsFifth statement by Sfarney(This is my suggestion for a neutral lede more appropriate to the spirit of Wikipedia. Under Wikipedia rules, footnotes are not necessary in the lede as long as it summarizes the body and the body cites the references.) Zeitgeist: The Movie is a documentary film with two sequels: Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward. The series presents a number of ideas and theories that challenge conventional views of historical events, and suggests a radical transformation of the global economy based on available resources, similar to a post-scarcity economy. The films were created and produced by Peter Joseph. The first of the series was released in 2007 and has been distributed through DVD sales and Youtube uploads, as have the sequels. Another in the series is due for release in 2015, titled InterReflections I. Because of the controversial statements, theories, and proposals in the films, they have met with some negative reviews in the mainstream media, which accuse them of cultivating conspiracy theories. They have also spawned a global movement, The Zeitgeist Movement, with annual conventions in a number of major cities and a following difficult to quantify. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC) Fifth statement by NeilNFifth statement by MONGOFifth statement by Earl_King_Jr.Another statement here says (This is my suggestion for a neutral lede more appropriate to the spirit of Wikipedia. Under Wikipedia rules, footnotes are not necessary in the lede as long as it summarizes the body and the body cites the references.) end quote. That is not going to work for this article. Original research of what things are is not a good idea. The article is too controversial not to source in the lead. The idea of pseudo documentary and conspiracy theory documentary or film is covered to great length by reliable citations. The information in the lead must reflect the reliable sources which confirm that this fringe theory conspiracy movie which is the basis of what followed, is not particularly notable. It might be a good idea to remove the information boxes on all off the movies in the article also. It is terribly redundant. There is no need for these films to all have information boxes in the same film series article. Keep the box for the first movie, remove the others. How many times do we have to be informed that Peter Joseph wrote, directed, film scored, narrated, produced, etc. etc. -- Also Forget about another Rfc beyond the one listed. If it turns out that there is a perpetual onslaught of these it is highly disrespectuful of the progress from the talk page over time on these articles. It basically disregards the last RFC which consensus said merge the movies. Right now two or three people are pushing all this against talk page consensus because they apparently know how to manipulate the drama boards. Increasingly this is a waste of time and effort and reeks of special interest editing. This should never have been accepted here in the first place and I pity the moderator who inherited it. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC) Fifth statememt by Tom_harrisonFifth statement by Raquel BaranowSixth statement by moderatorI have posted an RFC on the choice of the lede. One editor has raised an issue about the deletion of a previous edit that other editors said was “promotional”. Since most of the issues about this article or articles appear to be polarized, I don’t see much likelihood of compromise. Is a third RFC needed, or is that issue subsumed by the two RFCs on the split or merge and on the wording of the lede? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Sixth statement by OnlyInYourMindThank you Robert. I've enjoyed your moderation. You do great work here. OnlyInYourMindT 17:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Sixth statement by JonpatternsThanks for moderating Robert McClenon. Are you, or another editor going to moderate and close the two RfCs? I ask this because I am sceptical on editors' behavior and to abide by the outcome of the RfC. Also, how long should the RfC last? Finally, there may have to be more RfCs on the content of the single, or two split, articles. For example, whether or not to include information about the group's annual events. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Sixth statement by SfarneySixth statement by NeilNSixth statement by MONGOSixth statement by Earl_King_Jr.Sixth statememt by Tom_harrisonSixth statement by Raquel BaranowStatements by other editorsHi everyone, I just want to let the parties know that I am aware this discussion exists and that I have read through the concerns. However, I will only comment on the first Request for Comment (about the split or the merge) because I believe having independent, different voices in this dispute is important. If you would like me to comment on anything specifically please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. I hope other independent voices also leave their comments to help resolve this dispute and bring a strong community consensus. Thanks everyone! Z1720 (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
|
Pearl S. Buck
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Insufficient discussion at talk page by filing party, as participants and other DRN volunteers have noted, this should continue to be discussed there. Steven Zhang (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Re. Pearl S Buck page, the Wikipedia editors who watch that page kept deleting my input even though the input was well referenced AND it pertained to and clarified information already on that page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Though I provided the additional information that the Wikipedia editors asked for, each time I asked and provided and then told what they had previously told me was necessary was not enough. They even told me that a victim file number that I provided and that I received direct from Truth & Reconciliation Commission - Canada was not a real number, one suggesting that he knew this. (I offered to send him copy of the actual TRC-Canada doc with the number provided on it, etc. How do you think we can help? Allow the information that posted regarding the unique role that Pearl S Buck played placing Canada Scoops victims into USA to remain on the Pearl S Buck Wikipedia page; as it is that page is more than 80% not referenced, public relations like marketing like material. Summary of dispute by Zero0000Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Joseph2302Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
As explained here and here, "201100009" is not a valid archive file number, therefore no-one can verify the alledged source their using. Their made edits have been [19] and [20], and both of these rely entirely on a source which cannot be properly checked, as it is not properly identified. When @Zero0000: explained this problem to them, their response was to accuse them of being threatening, see User talk:WV NYC#Help Me. They have also ignored by advice in that section to go to talkpage to discuss their issues, instead repeating the same questions at my talkpage yesterday, and therefore got the same answers. What needs to happen is that they need to :
Also, at Talk:Pearl S. Buck (the place that this user was asked to discuss the matter at), it's clear that uninvolved editors don't believe this is necessary, see [21], which says "I'm rather astonished to see dispute resolution request for this and personally given what I've seen so far I'm beginning to doubt the "good faith". Other from the IP posting on my talk page that's copied here, the user showed no inclination to engage on the article's talk page despite several explicit requests by other editors, instead he might have tried to get his content into the article by assuming 3 identities". I have to agree that not posting on the article talkpage (unless they're using a string of IPs), and coming here instead is ridiculous. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC) Finally, their stated aim for this dispute resolution is "Allow the information that posted regarding the unique role that Pearl S Buck played placing Canada Scoops victims into USA to remain on the Pearl S Buck Wikipedia page; as it is that page is more than 80% not referenced, public relations like marketing like material." Such a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, just because some other content is unsourced doesn't mean you can add unsourced content. This stated aim also shows a complete unwillingess to compromise, which is consistent with their lack of good faith at the talk page, and the lack of good faith by starting this rather than discussing the issue at Talk:Pearl S. Buck. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC) Pearl S. Buck discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Bangalore#Bangalore has_become_Bengaluru_and_Bangalore_Wiki_page_has_to_be_renamed_to_Bengaluru
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closing the discussion here. There has been a very recent requested move discussion that had a clear consensus keeping the article at the current location. If this consensus has changed very recently, a requested move would be the way to go, but as one happened so recently, I would highly discourage it for some time. Steven Zhang (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview Bangalore City has been renamed by the Government of Karnataka to Bengaluru from Nov 2014 itself. This has already been accepted by Wiki moderators. However they are neither allowing nor accepting the request to change the Bangalore City name to Bengaluru in Wikipedia. This has become the matter of contention. I believe that the feelings of local Bengaluru people should be respected with right spirit. Giving unacceptable links to English dictionary and imposing decision on other with their moderators right and killing the truth, is not acceptable. I kindly request you to deliver justice. Have you tried to resolve this previously? No other steps have been taken as NeilN is not in agreement with. How do you think we can help? Kindly take and consider the facts associated with city name on ground and third party opinion of users in Bengaluru is also welcome. Summary of dispute by NeilNUnless something drastically changes, I will be declining to participate. There have been seven requested move discussions, the last one closing less than a couple months ago. --NeilN talk to me 19:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC) Talk:Bangalore#Bangalore has_become_Bengaluru_and_Bangalore_Wiki_page_has_to_be_renamed_to_Bengaluru discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer's note: I'm neither taking nor opening this for discussion. This request should be closed by the DRN coordinator for lack of extensive talk page discussion. The filing editor only has one edit on the article talk page. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Based on the above comment of Joseph, It is unfortunate to know that an appropriate conclusion has not been reached many times before the similar attempt by many users. Justice delayed does not mean justice denied. That is why I am invoking the DRN coordinator to have a look so that we all Bengulurean contributions of Wikipedia be sure that this time we do get the justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVINHSN (talk • contribs) 19:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
|