Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 115

Talk:Social Democrats,_USA#Lede
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

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 Etna
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Social Democrats,_USA#Lede discussion
Good 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)


 * This should be closed, because a talk page discussion was just initated by me. Has Ramirez replied to any of my points?
 * Ramirez added information to the lede, without incorporating it into the body, contrary to WP:Lede. At very least, There is already discussion of SDUSA and the Bush administration to which a discussion of neoconservatism could be added. I acknowledged already in the spirit of WP:NOTTRUTH that Ramirez is welcome to add academic nonsense to the article, but NPOV and DUE would allow such nonsense to be balanced with alternative reliable-sources.
 * Dame Etna (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Dame Etna, could you give me a few links to some of the discussions involved? That will help me get more of a perspective here. Thanks! EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  09:29, 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)


 * RR, good morning. I requested some info from Dame Etna and will be on standby until I either get it or the case is closed. Just letting you know I have not abandoned my moderation of this case. :) Cheerio, EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  11:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I see, did you try pinging him/her?  Rider ranger47  Talk 11:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not familiar with a lot of the lingo here, explain what that means? EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  12:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll do it.  Rider ranger47  Talk 13:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Rider. I'm going to bed. I'll check this when I wake up. Cheers. EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  13:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The Talk page discussion is here, in case that wasn't clear. Dame Etna removed documented, sourced and significant information from the lede, without suggesting where else in the article it should be placed (other than not the lede). He/she actually urged that some of it be moved to another article, and some of it be deleted from Wikipedia altogether on the basis of being fallacious and poorly sourced. To the contrary, it is factual and well-sourced.


 * I have replaced some of the material under the section on the Socialist Party split. This is not an acknowledgement that all of it doesn't belong in the lede, considering that some of the material is very significant and the current lede is fairly short. I have also bolstered information about Max Schachtman's influence with more "academic nonsense" -- or as most people call it, a peer-reviewed secondary source ( Richard Kahlenberg's book Tough Liberal ).


 * If Dame Etna accepts the most recent edits, I will let the matter drop. GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will be taking a look at this. As I am not able to be on here 24/7 it may take a bit of time to become completely familiar, so I will try to refrain from making preliminary judgments. I can't help but say at this point that removing peer reviewed academic info seems suspect for conduct on an encyclopedia. DE, I'm not taking sides against you, but I must ask, what was your reasoning for doing such? Do you have an argument as to why the sources were not as legitimate as GPRamirez5 says? Please rebut. Thank you. EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  08:23, 16 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.

Dame Etna (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * GPRamirez, what do you have to say in response? What do you feel has changed about your most recent edits on the article and why do you feel those should stay, without compromise? Thanks. EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  12:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ramirez again overloaded the lede and failed to integrate the new material with the old.
 * SDUSA and Trotskyism/neoconservatism already was discussed in the article. I moved Ramirez's material with the previous discussion of Shachtman and Trotskyism.
 * Dame Etna (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ramirez seemed to acknowledge that RightWatch (or RightWeb, whatever) at the Institute for Policy Studies is not a reliable source. The re-addition of it  therefore would seem not to have been deliberate.
 * Would Ramirez please explain what evidence Vaisse gives for claiming that Penn Kemble, Bayard Rustin, Joshua Muravchik, Carl Gershman, and Paul Seabury (Paul Feldman??) are "so-called Shachtmanites and second-generation neoconservatives"? (Bayard Rustin as a Shachtmanite and neo-conservative!) That paragraph lacks a footnote. The author is at a think tank rather than a university. Dame Etna (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * DE, question for you. I know one of you mentioned before that maybe SOME of Ramirez's contributions could be acceptably left onto the article. Do you have an idea of which contributions you'd be readily willing to leave onto the page? EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  09:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Look at the article. I believe that all of his edits are now incorporated in the body of the article. For example, his "reliable source" Vaisse says that Bayard Rustin was a Shachtmanite and neoconservative, and like Alan Sokal's article in Social Text Vaisse published in a university press; unlike Sokal's richly documented article, Vaisse's assertion lacks a footnote. I asked Ramirez whether this assertion is supported in any way (as I lack the complete text); perhaps Ramirez shall reply? Of course calling Rustin a Shachtmanite and neoconservative is so absurd that I shall not even bother trying to find a source refuting it, since nobody serious would have bothered. Other statements are balanced now, when I could quickly find reliable sources.
 * I suggest that Ramirez help to improve the article, besides labeling SDUSA a neoconservative and Shachtmanite organization ideally, but getting consensus on the body at least, before reloading R's stuff in the lede, per WP:BRD. Dame Etna (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dame Etna (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My initial impression is that peer reviewed university press publications are indeed reliable sources. The other contributions are definitely more of a grey area. Ramirez, I'm gonna need your response to this. What say you in response to DE's last statements? EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  06:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please focus on relevant issues. The academic sources added by Ramirez are in the article, as you would know if you read the article or indeed if you read my comments above (twice). Dame Etna (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I still would like to hear from him, as he has commented minimally in this section. Then I hope we can come up with something. EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  23:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It would appear that he has backed away from the discussion? Unless he's been busy offline and has not been able to comment. EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  12:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ramirez seems to edit in spurts, putting in Ramirez's material in a few targetted articles at a stretch, similar to the edits at SDUSA.
 * Somebody uninvolved could wisely close this thread as misplaced or premature. Premature: given the lack of a talk-page discussion. Misplaced: Given his complaints about my violating WP:RS or WP:NPOV (which have never been retracted), which would suggest a focused noticeboard.
 * I have incorporating the reliable sources suggested, as noted several times. Ramirez has suggested an associate of Bruno Latour (published apparently at an academic press, just like Social Text!) as a source on the talk page, so perhaps my mentioning of Sokal was an inspiration. If he wants to add it, then we can quote its discussions of US imperialism and accusations against Juan Linz, etc., so the reader is not duped.
 * Dame Etna (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

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
 * "the socialists and social democrats behind Schachtman...Schachtmanites...right-wing social democrats eventually gave birth to the small party Social Democrats USA, thus completing their odyssey toward conservatism."

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)
 * Well, Ramirez, I certainly don't want this to be some kind of "last man standing" competition and I would have to advise that the two of you keep it civil, no more snippeting here and there, no more subtle ways of telling each other "you're wrong and I'm right!", the goal of any case on here is compromise acceptable to both parties involved, in a way that favours the encyclopedia as a whole. I'm fully understanding about offline issues that may prevent you from editing more frequently, this is why I maintained that I wanted to hear more from you before making any judgment calls on how the discussion is going. I would hope any editor, experienced or cavalier, has a life outside of Wikipedia and always choose to accommodate for such.

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)


 * We have policies about reliable sources, and we can discuss them at the RS-noticeboard and the use of them at the NPOV and BLP noticeboards.
 * In the future, you should read articles before discussing them.
 * EnglishEfternamn, Wikipedia is not a forum. Please remove your off-topic comments.
 * Dame Etna (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * These are not "off topic" comments, everything I said in my response is relevant and discussion of such is required to determine what a suitable compromise can be. I'm on both your sides. I appreciate your response and concern, DE, but I remind you who is moderating this discussion and who is an involved participant in the conflict. EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  07:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This moderation is voluntary. If there is a problem at the article, I shall participate in relevant talk page discussions or noticeboards, preferably one where moderators read what is written and avoid violating WP:AGF, Not a Forum, etc. Dame Etna (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, good gravy. May I ask how you feel I have violated WP:AGF? This way I can prevent myself from doing so again. Thank you. EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  09:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * DE, I will politely ask that further discussions on this matter be discussed here. This case is a WP:DRN case, and we need to seek a compromise favourable to the both of you. I think you're trying to do what you think is the right thing, and I respect you for that. Don't make it harder for us to come up with a good resolution. EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  10:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * For me, this DRN case is closed---certainly unless EnglishEfternamn withdraw from moderation. I see no evidence that you have read the talk page, and lot of evidence that you are asking questions already answered on the talk page, while you cast aspersions on my alleged political biases (as noted on your talk page).


 * Ramirez claims just wanting to follow peer-reviewed sources. Actually, the record shows that Ramirez pushed a POV into the lead, twisting the sources he wanted, some of which referred to some SDUSA members (not the organization) as "right-wing social-democrats" or "Shachtmanites" or "neoconservatives". One of Ramirez's sources had a long account of one neocon being criticized by "all" the discussants at a SDUSA event; why did Ramirez fail to mention that? Why doesn't Ramirez use the biography of Shachtman (which is the most reliable source), but rather reaches into books with other focuses that mention Shachtman with weak scholarship?


 * I did the work of checking the sources and putting them in appropriate places in the body of the text and expanding the discussion in a NPOV fashion. So the buzzwords "Shachmanite"/"Neocon"/"right wing" are discussed now, rather than being just jacked into the lede so that readers can know their enemies.
 * The academic sources Ramirez used were a bit sloppy and weakly sourced, and they are now in the article in the appropriate section (sometimes expanded). Ramirez has still failed to explain what evidence Vaisse gives for the claim that Bayard Rustin et alia were "neoconservatives" and "Shachtmanites" (the paragraph lacks a footnote, unlike the surrounding paragraphs).  Now the article states that some members (not the organization) were called right wing or Shachtmanites, which is what Ramirez's sources stated.
 * Still Ramirez is pushing an agenda to label the organization Shachtmanite and neoconservative and right wing. He has a conspiracy-database housed at the leftwing fringe IPS and a second book by another Parisian Brahmin, this one now head intellectual at the French ministery, which calls SDUSA a party [sic.] and gets the chronology backwards. Well. Let's discuss these at WP:RSN, shall we?
 * Wikipedia's imaginary unit ignores Lacan's discussion of the phallus, which was written by one of The Ancien Ones and has been widely cited by peer-reviewed academic publications. Do all of you want to push Lacan into the imaginary unit?
 * Dame Etna (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Five key sources:
 * Jack Ross, The Socialist Party of America: A Complete History (University of Nebraska Press, 2015), the entire Chapter 17 entitled “Social Democrats USA and the Rise of Neoconservatism” (Particularly the paragraph starting on the first page, which states that “The Schachtmanites were the first organized cadre committed to the set of ideas that became neoconservatism…” and refers to “the Schachtmanite core that now went by the name Social Democrats USA.” )


 * Mel van Elteren, Labor and the American Left: An Analytical History (Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 124 (notes that “neo-conservative allies” of Senator Henry Jackson were “concentrated in Social Democrats USA…” )


 * Richard D. Kahlenberg, Tough Liberal: Albert Shanker and the Battles Over Schools, Unions, Race and Democracy (Columbia University Press, 2013), p. 157-158


 * The Democracy Makers (see above)


 * ''Neoconservatism: Biography of a Movement (see above)

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:


 * Politics and the Intellectual (see above)


 * Alan M. Wald, The New York Intellectuals: The Rise and Decline of the Anti-Stalinist Left, (University of North Carolina Press, 1987) (p. 294 states, “Social Democrats USA…in its ideology and politics is indistinguishable from the neoconservatives with whom it seeks dialogue.” Page 399 refers to “The ‘Schachtmanite’ tendencies represented today in the leading circles of Social Democrats USA and the AFL-CIO…” )

GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Ramirez, please answer the question. Does Vaisse give any evidence for the claim that Rustin, et al. are neocons and Shachtmanites? There is no footnote for that paragraph, unlike the surrounding paragraphs. Do you not have the book handy? Why haven't you answered this simple question?
 * Please focus. The article already states that members of SDUSA have been called neocons.
 * I don't see what your van Elteren quote adds. Why not use it, if it has any evidence, to improve the existing discussion of members as alleged neocons. (Watch WP:BLP)
 * Kahlenberg was already added to the article, although now without distortion and in context, you acknowledge? He loosely referred to some people associated with SDUSA as Shachtmanites, but I did not find anything about SDUSA as an organization, as mentioned before. Please answer the question, already posed. Do you acknowledge he does not call SDUSA Shachtmanite but only members?
 * You want to state that some of these books state that the organization was neoconservative.
 * You want to have Wald call the organization SDUSA "indistinguishable from" neocons. (Obviously, Wald was sloppy with "indistinguishable".) Wald identifies as a Trotskyist who is active in Solidarity's Against the Current and his generally good book's biases have been discussed in reliable sources' reviews. Wald's neocon label can be added, just as context can be added, like his name for WWII (Great Imperialist War, or something similar). Does he define "neocon" (which is notorious for having different meanings)? Does he list any evidence for this claim?
 * Jack Ross's chapter is based largely on oral accounts from e.g. DSA's Jack Clark (Harrington's assistant). Why not propose what you want to use it for? Draft something and we can discuss it. Or try WP:BRD. (I assume that Democratic Left or DSA's site lists him as a member and has a review, but I haven't checked.) He is not an academic but rather an independent historian according to CSPAN. Was the SDUSA chapter published in a journal? Ross publishes in Mondoweiess and his book calls Vladmir Bukovsky an "oligarch".
 * If you go BRD, put it in the body in context this time (not in the lede and twisted).
 * Have you agreed to drop the IPS conspiracy database?
 * Dame Etna (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

First statement by Robert McClenon
I 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)
 * Comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I will not try to decide on article content or to offer my own opinions on what should be article content, but will attempt to facilitate discussion between the parties to see if they can compromise. If compromise fails, one of the options will be a Request for Comments to obtain community consensus.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 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.
 * Background:

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.


 * Recent edits

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 has accused me of biased editing, accusations which stand here and at the talk page, and has failed to acknowledge his POV-pushing, whether intentional or innocent, in previous edits.

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.

(I am listening to Jack Ross on CSPAN. He was home schooled by 2 DSA members and then went to the AFL-CIO's Labor College, which has been dominated for some time by DSA members. He apparently has a bachelor's degree and "graduate study", at the Labor College. His book calls Vladimir Bukowsky an oligarch. He had good things to say about A. Philip Randolph. His FaceBook page has a picture of .)

Dame Etna (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

First restatement by GPRamirez5
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. 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:


 * Some SDUSA members have been called "Shachtmanites" [sic] and "Trotskyists" and "neoconservatives", particularly by opponents of neoconservatism, although such labels have been disputed by members like Penn Kemble and by former-member Joshua Muravchik.

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 Carrite
I'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)


 * Addenda: Reading the discussion above, it is absolutely wrong to call Bayard Rustin a "neoconservative." I believe the term applies to most of the others on the list with honest people disagreeing about Penn Kemble, which implies the word should probably not be used about him. I believe LInda Chavez is another who can be added to that list, for what it's worth. Jack Ross has a similar list in his book. Carrite (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

(feel free to move this)
 * Discussion of Carrite's statement by Dame Etna

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:
 * 1) Both DSA and SDUSA had roots in Shachtman's 50s group, with Harrington's speechs mimicing Shachtman's deliver (but shorter, as Howe's biography notes). Does the DSA article call it Shachtmanite?
 * 2) Rustin is a counter-example to credulity in Vaisse's scholarship, per Carrite's comment. You would emphasize that SDUSA (Randolph, Bayard Rustin, Norman Hill, etc.) had roots in the Black labor-movement and civil-rights movement (a tradition that predates Shachtman's involvement via Rustin, Kahn, and Horowitz) presumably.
 * 3) DSA was also pro-Israel. The DSOC/NAM merger had a condition that supported military aid to Israel.

Dame Etna (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by Robert McClenon
Neither 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)
 * Robert, this is exactly how the discussion continued to go just before it was assumed that I had stepped aside from this discussion. I did not voluntarily step aside, I had every intention on seeing it through. One of the participants, who I will not name, was rude, did not cooperate with any of my inquiries, and has attacked me personally on my talk page. I don't think this case belongs on DRN, DRN is for users who are willing to cooperate with moderators and not quick to attack them as soon as they suggests that POV may be a problem. It's clear that the participants involved don't have much of an intention to change the direction of this discussion. With all due respect, I think the discussion should be moved to AN/I or something similar. EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  23:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hamid Arabnia
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 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-jones
Please 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-siamak
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Hamid Arabnia discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Kyle Jenkins
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

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 Livelikemusic
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Kyle Jenkins discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Supercarrier#Dispute on Proposed Supercarriers
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

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 Thorne
The 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.srihari
I 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 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - I am neither accepting nor declining this case at this time. Will each of the parties please make a brief statement about what they want with respect to the article, so that we know whether there is a dispute within the scope of this noticeboard?  Please be civil and concise, commenting on content, not on contributors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator
I 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 M. srihari
I agree to have a WP:RFC. M.srihari (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

First statement by Jaaron95
I 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 &#124;  Talk  &#124;  Contribs   04:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer moderator
It 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 M. Srihari
I 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 Jaaron95
Yep, 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 &#124;  Talk  &#124;  Contribs   13:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by volunteer moderator
This 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)

Talk:No Gun_Ri_Massacre
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

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 WeldNeck
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Cjhanley
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Wikimedes
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Timothyjosephwood
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:No Gun_Ri_Massacre discussion
Please 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
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. 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 Greyshark09
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Mikrobølgeovn
The 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 discussion
Please 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
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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 EricEnfermero
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Melcous
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Alfietucker
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Mo Ansar#Mohammed_Ansar_v_His_Detractors discussion
Please 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
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.

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. Plus, dispute resolution was also suggested by one of the editors concerned on the articles talk page.

Summary of dispute by Greyshark09
First 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 Mikrobølgeovn
The 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 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - I am neither accepting nor declining this case at this time. However, a previous filing was closed because it used the word "vandalism" in the title.  If this is about vandalism, take it to the vandalism noticeboard.  If it is about a content dispute, edit the title to remove all references to vandalism.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * i only added the word vandalism to focus your attention to the relevant talk page subsection—which just so happens to have the word vandalism in it. However, all editors involved are accepting of DR. Please just ignore the word.--125.255.33.9 (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So i noticed you closed my filing yet again: if your too moronic to realise that the word vandalism was used purely because i am linking you to the relevant discussion page subsection then perhaps you should relieve yourself of assisting on the DRN. Just because you brag about your so called maths skills does not mean that God has gifted you with elementary common sense. No good day to you.--125.255.33.9 (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - This board does not provide a neutral arbiter to settle the conflict once and for all. This board provides a neutral moderator to assist the parties in settling the conflict.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, and i look forward to your assistance.--125.255.33.9 (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Tanu Weds Manu Returns
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

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 Krimuk90
Please 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 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)
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
 * (exact location)
 * (exact location)

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":, , , and. 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 Jonpatterns
My 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:

ref d1

ref d2

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)
 * 1) Earl Jr. should be warned not attack fellow editors
 * 2) A fresh RfC should be started on whether to mention the annual events or not

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 Sfarney
Please 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 NeilN
Focusing 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) and that's all (no events) per WP:TOPIC and WP:COATRACK. Also, any sources used should be independent of Zeitgeist. --Neil N  talk to me 13:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Avoidance of original sources is not in keeping with regular practice throughout Wikipedia. Ford Motor Company, for example, is salted with footnotes to original Ford sources, including press releases.  General Motors, the same, with a third of the footnotes linked to gm.com.  Vatican has footnotes linked to Vatican.va.  Mormon cites the "Encyclopedia of Mormonism" and lds.org.  MGM Studios cites mgm.com.  Absolute avoidance of original sources is also not the Wikipedia policy.  Why should this page on Zeitgeist be exceptionally limited? Grammar&#39;s Little Helper (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MONGO
My 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)
 * A polite correction. The Zeitgeist documentaries are published as commercially produced DVDs.  They may be available on Youtube as well, but so are many other movies,  Neither initial nor subsequent appearance on youtube is a certificate of irrelevancy. Slade Farney (talk) 22:37, 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 and stuff like this  and the person that brought this here is a meat puppet of the Zeitgeist movement, a single purpose editor with an agenda. 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_harrison
The 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)


 * As yet, no one has been identified with objective evidence as a "fan." That is just ad hominem, but a bit milder than "sock puppet" and "meat puppet."  Requesting polite treatment of the subject and full information does not prove a person is a "fan."  The best evidence of "fan" produced so far is a three year old call to action on Facebook.  Three years!  The moderator has asked for examples of "promoting fringe views" with diffs.  The word "regularly" suggests a whole list of puffery edits will be easily provided.  A list of a dozen diffs would be worth a thousand accusations. The road is open and the way is wide for those one will take it. Slade Farney (talk) 06:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Raquel_Baranow
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)
 * Christianity may be the issue, but the opposition seen here is more completely described on The Skeptic Blog. Recent events were described there years ago, play by play. Slade Farney (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That link is mostly ad hominum, it doesn't address the issues of lack of evidence for a Historical Jesus or abolishing money, a Resource based economy, which are core issues of TZM.
 * Oh, I see, there's other links. I'll let the movie speak for itself and you can create a criticism section.
 * Oh dear, now I see how bad part three is of the movie. I never watched the whole thing! Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Still, you have more patience than me. I couldn't get through the first reel.  But to me, personal taste is not the point.  Or rather, it is exactly NOT the point.  The fact that Zeitgeist has been translated to so many languages, seen by so many millions, and sparked an international movement -- THAT is the point.  It is an Encyclopedia subject, and the people who watch and enjoy Zeitgeist deserve civility and respect.  The Encyclopedia should not be throwing manure because the film doubts the Pentagon on the subject of 9/11.  The Encyclopedia should not be squawking pejoratives about "cult!" and "conspiracy!" over Zeitgeist's forbidden speculations about crop circles, or UFOs, or a human Jesus, or any other modern day heresies.  Zeitgeist doesn't just step on Establishment corns -- it dances on them, as though offending people with forbidden ideas were the Dance of the Seven Veils.  The Encyclopedia should just tell it like it is.  It should presume the reader is an adult and permit the reader to compose her own ideas on the subjects within the film and on the film itself.  So there is an annual Zeitgeist meeting?  That should be included.  There is a huge Facebook page?  Include that too.  The civility and respect that Wikipedia requires among its editors should be extended to its readers -- and to its subjects, whether they are Bantus, Moonies, or (God help us!) people from rural Texas. Slade Farney (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Doubtful much will come of the discussion here with such material in discussion as It is an Encyclopedia subject, and the people who watch and enjoy Zeitgeist deserve civility and respect. I disagree. No one deserves respect as a matter of course. On Wikipedia we have to do civility and neutrality though so that is a given. Outside of this limited artificial world believing in something, getting excited about it, coming to Wikipedia to bang the gong is a problem and that is what this is really about, people flooding the article with a Zeitgeist pov. An important point, the article reflects what the sources say. There is no conspiracy on Wikipedia to censor the article one way or another and its doubtful that any of the neutral editors really care to much about the subject in some larger cosmic sense. Probably most of the neutral editors find it comic that the conspiracy aspect runs over to editing on Wikipedia and we have ample proof that the article is the gathering place of disgruntled Zeitgeist fans. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow. You have voiced the issue more completely than I ever could.  Now if you would just produce the "ample proof" that Zeitgeist people (or, as you so affectionately call them, "meat puppets" and "sock puppets") have flooded onto Wikipedia to overwhelm the neutral editors such as yourself, the picture will be complete. Slade Farney (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

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)


 * No the RfC was about calling the films "documentaries" (which is demonstrably accurate by definition) vs calling them "documentary-style" (which appears to be an OR SYNTH term and a POV claiming it's not a "true" documentary, ie. the no true Scotsman fallacy; another of the many open displays of negative editor bias against this topic). OnlyInYourMind T  16:14, 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)


 * I am the one accused of adding promotional information. Diffs are linked in the Dispute Overview. OnlyInYourMind T  02:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The promotion debate is related to mentioning the annual events of the Zeitgeist Movement. This is perhaps the first diff where this information was removed, with the commenting statement saying it was promo and biased. If you look at the page history most edits are accompanied by a comment. There are people who are very pro Zeitgeist and other that are very anti Zeitgeist. Therefore it has been a challenge to neutrally reflect the sources and weight them and the article.Jonpatterns (talk) 06:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Formerly The Zeitgeist movement article was a stand alone article which by consensus was blended into the film series article. I would think if anything the advocates of Zeitgeist such as the person that brought the discussion here would be happy since the very very scathing critical section of the old article and a whole lot of negative information on the movement in general was dropped because it was probably not needed when placed in context of the movies. The next step in advancing the simplicity of delivery and streamlining the information is to redirect the Peter Joseph article into the film series in the same way. This is actually doing a favor for the Zeitgeist devotee`s that linger here I would think. Wikipedia is not an advertising site for information which becomes promotional for a group to sell ticket. Interested parties can go to their website for promotions of their meetings and special Zeitgeist Day, the Zeitgeist Challenge, etc. They described themselves as a 'grass roots social movement' previously in the article. Does someone announcing a 'social movement' at the end of a Youtube movie that has complete artistic control of the 'product' of the series actually expect people to believe it is 'grassroots'? I guess they do. Previously the 'event' that the pro Zeitgeist people keep adding back cost around sixty dollars for a ticket to attend their convention. Also Mr. Joesph makes x amount of dollars for each DVD that is sold. So, we have to walk the line between just explaining neutrally what the Zeitgeist movement is and exaggerating what it is, including their promotional information. There is no real way to document this beyond You-tube clicks which seem unreliable and numbers in Facebook groups, also unreliable. I hope that when the dust settles here the pro Zeitgeist people thank the neutral editors instead of fomenting tendentious actions which waste peoples time. According to JohPatterns above, There are people who are very pro Zeitgeist and other that are very anti Zeitgeist. I do not agree and this spells out what is going on. Yes there are the advocates called here by their group documented in many links already given and others not given. The neutral editors are after a fair presentation of the information. There may be anti Zeitgeist editors here but they have to follow guidelines also and their edits will also be reverted if they do not, the neutral editors would treat them the same as the pro Zeitgeist. Sorry about the length. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This is roughly the fifth time you've accused me of being a "Zeitgeist" advocate. You would not like it if I went around repeating the accusation, "Earl King Jr. is a child molester advocate". Maybe you're a member of NAMBLA, I don't know. (retracted. OnlyInYourMind T  18:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)) The point is, such accusations are baseless and uncivil. Maybe consider retracting your accusations and proceeding with civility and good faith. Our personal beliefs on this topic should not be relevant as long as we follow policy. All I care about is maximizing encyclopedic content, this includes ALL of the criticisms. My reasons are selfish: I use wikipedia. So I want it to have complete information, not censored, not unsourced, and not confusingly limited by veteran editors who seem to want to save gullible readers from getting sucked into the cult of Peter Joseph. I want to save people too, but through education. People believing misinformation is bad for everyone, but censoring content is also bad for everyone. Fancy a book burning? And mistreating good editors is also bad for everyone. Good editors are what make wikipedia good. Why the hell aren't we cooperating here? Are we deleting content to protect people? Or adding content so people are educated enough to protect themselves? OnlyInYourMind  T  23:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Not good. I suggest this so called dispute resolution be stopped now because this single purpose editor who made their first edit to Wikipedia on Zeitgeist is now trolling me with quasi child molestation. Next maybe it will be having sex with animals or believing the Hitler was right. I am guessing that ONLY IN YOUR MIND will be blocked for tendentiousness and perhaps edit warring at some point and suspect that his single purpose account will manifest again with another name. This is not a serious exercise here now it is a blog for Zeitgeist with a couple of the followers throwing insults and stroking their pov's.
 * Close this discussion because the actors here that are pro are not going to edit neutrally and like the other meats and socks from the movement are going to tendentiously go around in circles Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Rational people may disagree -- such is the premise of Wiki editing. The moderator will close the discussion when a consensus is reached or the moderator chooses.  So far, neither of those events are in evidence.  No one has called anyone a child molester.  The term was used for rhetorical purpose only, and the statement was clearly hypothetical.  Other name-calling ("trolling"?) in this group has NOT been hypothetical, however. Slade Farney (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You edit with the meats and socks on the article Farney. You can not see that person trolled me with pedophile bullshit. Only In Your Mind is a meat puppet that is a Zeitgeist promoter. That is obvious from his first edit. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Volunteer comment - Equating being accused of being a Zeitgeist advocate to being accused of being a pedophilia advocate was, in my opinion, a very poor choice of rhetoric that could be easily interpreted as a personal attack at best, and I would recommend to either retract it or apologize for the comment. At any rate,, this DRN is not intended to prove or even discuss whether or not  or OIYM are Zeitgeist SPAs, and taking such an aggressive tone in making these allegations (which cannot be proven more than circumstantially, and aren't to be addressed here anyway as I said before) will not help your case in this content dispute-- all parties, please remember to be civil and to focus on content issues, or else this DRN case will have no favorable result for anyone involved. I would like to know if  has any further comment or direction to provide to this discussion as the presiding DRN volunteer. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 17:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my poor choice in rhetoric. I had intended the hypothetical to have the opposite effect. I have retracted the statement. OnlyInYourMind T  18:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm a DRN volunteer. I see that User:Rider_ranger47 has not edited WP since May 21st. However, I think he/she will return to this discussion soon. Please be patient. If there is no change after a few days please feel free to put a note on the DRN talk page and ask for assistance. Thank you for your patience and willingness to discuss your differences in a moderated setting.-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 19:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Probably another volunteer should take over the case then now. Also sections of the debate above are closed like parts of the discussion are archived above and why would that be? So it appears that the discussion is chopped into sections now with some closed aspects. Probably a mistake was made when this case was accepted based on the filer asking that one editor be warned from the beginning so it was really a format to castigate an editor. As far as the actual issue of posting perceived or ostensible promo or advertising material to the article, one whole article was moved into the existing film article. A lot of the content of that article is no longer needed and the merged article was pared down. Since very few current sources list Zeitgeist movement in an independent new story way we would have to rely on their Zeitgeist website for listing their events, but even with marginal sources for upcoming events, outside of the group itself, it probably is not a good idea. These events generally cost money. Zeitgeist is a privately held for profit company. Not a good idea to source information to them though we have for other things in a limited way but when it comes to their advertising interested parties can explore that outside of Wikipedia. The edits were not acceptable with the promo style material in them because of WP:PRIMARY or WP:UNDUE since the content was sourcing directly from TZM site and indeed such detail does not fit into the scope of the article.

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)


 * Is the Wikipedia careful about mentioning the Academy Awards? The Olympics?  San Diego Comic-Con International, Grand Ole Opry? NASCAR races? Preakness Stakes races (third Saturday in May each year!)?  The thousands of professional entertainers that Wikipedia covers? Much more apparent, editors should observe the following be-carefuls:
 * Inventing rules to suit the occasion, like how we can't mention paid events
 * Calling other editors names, like "meat puppet" and "sock puppet"
 * Accusing people of not being sincere Wikipedians, but just "single purpose" editors
 * If we all observe those three rules, things could be a lot more peaceful around here. And incidentally as you describe it above, the Zeitgeist pages have been shrunk and reduced and minimized significantly, almost as though someone wanted the world to think that Zeitgeist never existed. Minimizing Zeitgeist is inappropriate.  It has been viewed by millions of people, therefore it is a Wikipedia subject.  It has been reviewed by dozens of mainstream publications;  90,000 web pages couple the film title with producer Merola.  It is not going away, even if Wikipedia refuses to cover it. Grammar&#39;s Little Helper (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The edits were not acceptable with the promo style material in them because of WP:PRIMARY or WP:UNDUE since the content was sourcing directly from TZM site
 * Correction: As detailed in the Dispute Overview, the content came entirely from secondary sources. Primary sources were only added later in addition to the secondary sources. OnlyInYourMind T  07:04, 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)


 * We are here because the talk page discussion failed. The outcome of this dispute, ideally, will help half of the editors here become better editors by giving them a better understanding of what type of content is appropriate on Wikipedia. Note: Ford WP articles actually do cite prices and showcases from auto shows. OnlyInYourMind T  14:46, 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)


 * "Consensus" usually means that all parties agree. We are here because there has been NO consensus.  Instead, a few editors have agreed with each other and with themselves.  Only after dehumanizing the rest of the editors with such terms as "meat puppets" and "sock puppets" was it possible to claim "consensus" among the remaining humans.


 * The crux of the disagreement is the concept of "promotion." Some promotional material is quite neutral.  Some is bombastic.  The page on Ford is an example of how far other editors are willing to go without worrying about "promotional" text.  People who are interested in Fords can go to that Encyclopedia page and drink deep on the information about engine sizes, design changes, production numbers, and so on.  People who are interested in Zeitgeist should be able to come to this page (and other Zeitgeist pages that have been destroyed) and learn what they want to know.  No one is pained by additional information (except those who get religious cramps).  To collapse many pages into one page, then prune that page to a paragraph is to waste years of work by careful editors.  And that is -- well, wasteful.  Grammar&#39;s Little Helper (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Please familiarize yourself to editing guidelines before going to such great lengths of nonsense arguements. Consensus does not mean everyone in agreement.

You are flaming this situation.

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)


 * Oho, I am familiar with wp:consensus, and there was no consensus on the talk page in recent memory. One person said, in effect, "I am going to fell this 100 year old oak." Others in the village said, "No way." But the next morning when the villagers arose, the old oak was lying on the ground.  To that degree was consensus achieved in the multiple instances you have characterized it: like, bupkiss. And though we hear lots of weeping and moaning about how badly you have been treated -- even by the moderator, no less, and even after you have received an apology -- I have yet to hear you apologize for calling people sock puppets and meat puppets. Your example of a "call to action" is more than three years old -- but that hasn't stopped you.  I never saw any call to action because I abhor Facebook -- but that hasn't stopped you.
 * We have reached a consensus: should apologize for his uncivil behavior both here and on the topic:talk page.  We have also reached a consensus that unless Earl King Jr. apologizes with a sincerity that satisfies everyone here, he should be asked to retire from this family of topics and maybe from Wikipedia editing. Grammar&#39;s Little Helper (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Earl King Jr. is improperly proceeding with butchering the page even while this moderation is in progress. I call foul. Grammar&#39;s Little Helper (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - No edit-warring at the article while discussion is in progress here. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The root of the problem is editor behavior. As such it can not be resolved here on the DRN. Although perhaps every debate over the article content will have to be brought here. I tried the raise the issue on the Administrator's Noticeboard, but a resolution was not found at the time.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

First statement by replacement volunteer moderator
I 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)


 * As per the advice of User:TransporterMan, all editors participating in this discussion are required to agree to discuss content only, and to refrain from all comments or aspersions as to motives, biases, conflicts of interest, skills, habits, competence, POV-pushing, puppetry, canvassing, or other conduct issues. By signing any statements after the time and date of this notice, you are agreeing to discuss content only.  (Any discussion of conduct in this forum, whose purpose is the discussion of content, is itself a conduct issue.  Let's try to improve the article.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

First statement by OnlyInYourMind
Hi 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 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. OnlyInYourMind T  20:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course appropriate. Preserving inappropriate content would be silly :-) OnlyInYourMind T  20:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

First statement by Jonpatterns
I 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. The name of the group is a trademark of Joseph's Gentle Machine Productions. In 2009 the group described itself as the activist arm of Jacques Fresco's Venus Project. The Venus Project featured in the second and third films. In April 2011, the two groups ended their association.

The group has several local chapters around the world. It has held two annual events, Z-Day and the Zeitgeist Media Festival. 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.

The group advocate a transformation of society and the economic system. They propose a global resource-based economy and sustainable ecological policies. The group criticises religion and market capitalism.

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.

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."

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. ...


 * 1) In my view, Zeitgeist should be an informational page for those who are interested, with all the relevant facts. Other editors have inferred that if an RS calls the subject "crap" and "bogus," then the Wikipedia should forward those pejoratives. In my opinion, if that approach were followed throughout, Wikipedia would become just another organ for propagandizing the views of the dominant media -- the reader might just as well go to the WashingtonPost.com or CIA.gov to learn about the world.
 * 2) 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 Vatican's Index and Thomas Bowdler, fade with the day.

We should not be inventing special rules for this page.


 * 1) One editor insists that Wikipedia should never mention paid events. I point out other pages listing future events such as Burning Man and San Diego Comic-Con International, Preakness, NASCAR ...
 * 2) Another editor insists we must never use Zeitgeist sources. But original sources are used on many other pages, including Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Vatican, Mormonism, and MGM Studios.  Absolute avoidance of original sources is also not the Wikipedia policy.

Why are these artificial limitations imposed on the Zeitgeist page? Grammar&#39;s Little Helper (talk) 00:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC) <hr align="left" width="25%">
 * The group resolution not to get personal lasted almost as long as a dry pair of socks in a Texas rainstorm. I hope the moderator finds some other way to deal with it in preferences to stopping the DRN. But maybe it really is time for ANI. Grammar&#39;s Little Helper (talk) 07:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

<hr align="left" width="25%">
 * I am in favor of the two-page solution. Restore the page that was removed, and modify with the edits Jonpatterns suggests. Separate the material that was dumped from that page into the movie page, then see what we have and go on from there. I would also like to see the pejorative opinions cherrypicked from reviewers removed from the main article. There is space enough for that in a review section. That is how I read NPOV.  Grammar&#39;s Little Helper (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

First statement by NeilN
Repeating 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) and that's all (no events) per WP:TOPIC and WP:COATRACK. Also, any sources used should be independent of Zeitgeist. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Replying to 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". --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

First 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 statement by Raquel Baranow
I'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 moderator
Thank 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:


 * 1)  Split out the movement, and then discuss each article separately, without arguments about coat-racking or due weight.
 * 2)  Stub the article, change its title, blow it up and start over.
 * 3)  Work out how much coverage in this article to give to the movement.

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 OnlyInYourMind
RE: Possible ways forward


 * 1) Split out the movement - I think this makes the most sense. Then we can get back to arguing about what is and is not advert/promo (the reason I opened this DRN). This solution allows for there to be both a sentence or two about the movement in the film series article, while also retaining the encyclopedic content about the movement in a separate article.
 * 2) Stub the article, change its title, blow it up and start over - I agree with Earl that this would just kick the problem down the road. And I think it would take much more work than editing what we currently have. And I would hate to lose any of the current content or the work that went into editing it.
 * 3) Work out how much coverage in this article to give to the movement - This doesn't seem reasonable. As more encyclopedic content becomes available, either through a new source or an overlooked part of an existing source, we don't want to encourage more reverts based on "undue" or "too long".
 * 4) Merge the Peter Joseph article into this one - This would likely exacerbate coat-rack disputes. It is the movement-merged-into-the-film-series-article all over again.

Reply to 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). <span style="font-variant:small-caps;background-color:#D4D82D;padding:0 4px;color:#000;border:solid 1px #000">OnlyInYourMind T  02:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by Jonpatterns
The 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 Sfarney
The Zeitgeist page claims to have held seven annual gatherings, 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&#39;s Little Helper (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by NeilN
--<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Split out the movement - Fine if the movement meets WP:GNG, keeping in mind WP:NOTINHERIT. It would help if proponents of this solution provided independent sources covering the movement and the structure the article would take. Occupy Wall Street is a good example to work from.
 * 2) Stub the article, change its title, blow it up and start over. - Oppose. Articles have one primary topic.
 * 3) Work out how much coverage in this article to give to the movement. - Coverage must be related to the movies, carefully avoiding coatracking.

Second 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.

2. ''Stub the article, change its title, blow it up and start over. Work out how much coverage in this article to give to the movement.'' This might be a fair option but it does disregard the work previously done as failed. It would lead the way for more edit warring so it just kicks problems down the road. The movement is only a footnote of the movies. It is not notable and does not merit a separate article. Merging the Peter Joseph article with the film series is a good option, for the same reason.

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)

Third statement by replacement volunteer moderator
I 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 OnlyInYourMind
In 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. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;background-color:#D4D82D;padding:0 4px;color:#000;border:solid 1px #000">OnlyInYourMind T  20:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by Jonpatterns
An 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 Sfarney
OnlyInYourMind 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&#39;s Little Helper (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by NeilN
Actually 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. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 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... --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Third 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 statement by Raquel Baranow
When 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)

Fourth statement by moderator
The 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)

*Unless multiple editors object, the next step will be a single RFC, asking whether to split the movement back out from the film series. I object. Its a waste of time. It is also showing disregard for the first one and nothing has changed in the big picture since the first one that blended the articles These are not very notable movies made by a not very notable, outside of the movies, movie maker that announced a social movement at the end of one of his Youtube flicks. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment in your own section, not in the section of another editor. In a polarized discussion, threaded discussion is likely to spiral unproductively, and this is a polarized discussion.  The purpose of separate sections for each editor is to prevent threaded discussion from spiraling.  Comment on content, not on contributors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Fourth statement by OnlyInYourMind
This coat-racking conversation (while worth discussing) is a distraction from the many content disputes mentioned in this DRN.

Splitting the articles seems absolutely necessary...
 * because of WP:GNG
 * because this 2011 AFD discussion already verified notability
 * and because in no version of reality can Star Trek fandom/conventions ever be considered the same thing as the Star Trek films (and yet this is exactly what some editors claimed in the previous RfC).

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:
 * "There is no such thing as a 'Zeitgeist movement'"
 * "a 'so called internet' movement[...]is not real in my opinion"
 * "Merge all zeitgeist stuff into one article so readers don't think there is more than just the one thing"
 * "If not a scam, it is objectively a cult[...]there only needs to be one article."

The main content disputes have not been addressed (and have apparently been going on long before the article merge). Disputes such as:
 * disputing annual event description, etc. as 'promotional'
 * disputing tags to expand short 100 word film synopsis because expansion isn't 'required'
 * disputing of any primary sourced content, even though policy WP:SELFPUB clearly allows it

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) <span style="font-variant:small-caps;background-color:#D4D82D;padding:0 4px;color:#000;border:solid 1px #000">OnlyInYourMind T  20:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Fourth statement by Jonpatterns
I 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 Sfarney
This 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&#39;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&#39;s Little Helper (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The edit was non controversial. We do not want single purpose accounts re adding information that is either stripping the article of information or adding non notable Zeitgeist material that was removed previously by neutral editors. Because the article is being debated content wise, does not mean a free pass for the article to be edited by Zeitgeist single purpose information givers. Oh and please your fourth statement above has no basis in citations or policy guidelines or anything related. It is your opinion which we already know repeating the same information over and over in a Forum type of manner. You offer no back up citations. Your opinion of your approach etc. is not the same as citations of notability or sources outside of Zeitgeist saying that the movie and the movement are not related. Only Zeitgeist says that. Do you have one source that says they are two separate things? Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Fourth 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. 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 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)

Fifth statement by moderator
Since 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) 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)

Pardon me for posting in your area, but I want to make sure this question is found. Grammar&#39;s Little Helper (talk) 07:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Fifth statement by OnlyInYourMind
I still need to discuss the dispute concerning users redacted - comment on content, not contributors reverting an edit, claiming "promotional":, , , and. 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? <span style="font-variant:small-caps;background-color:#D4D82D;padding:0 4px;color:#000;border:solid 1px #000">OnlyInYourMind T  09:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Fifth 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&#39;s Little Helper (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Fifth 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)

Sixth statement by moderator
I 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)


 * In response to questions about User:Jonpatterns, a Request for Comments normally runs for 30 days. (It may be closed sooner under the snow concept, but this seems unlikely for contentious RFCs.)  You ask whether I will moderate the RFC.  An RFC is not moderated.  If there are conduct issues while the RFC is running (personal attacks, vote tampering), they can be reported to WP:ANI.  Fortunately, conduct issues seldom extend into the course of an RFC as such.  When the time of the RFC is complete, there will be a Request for Closure at WP:ANRFC, and an uninvolved experienced editor will close the RFC.  Failure to accept the closure would be editing against consensus, a form of disruptive editing, and can be reported at WP:ANI.  I will be closing this DRN thread shortly unless any additional RFCs are identified.  Subsequently, any additional RFCs that are needed can be opened in accordance with normal Wikipedia policy.  (RFCs opened via DRN are just a special case of RFCs.  Anyone can open an RFC.  It is a good idea to word the RFC clearly and neutrally.)  Are there any other questions?  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Sixth statement by OnlyInYourMind
Thank you Robert. I've enjoyed your moderation. You do great work here. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;background-color:#D4D82D;padding:0 4px;color:#000;border:solid 1px #000">OnlyInYourMind T  17:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Sixth statement by Jonpatterns
Thanks 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)

Statements by other editors
Hi 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
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

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 Zero0000
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Joseph2302
Please 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 and, and both of these rely entirely on a source which cannot be properly checked, as it is not properly identified. When explained this problem to them, their response was to accuse them of being threatening, see User talk:WV NYC. 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 :


 * 1) provide a source that is actually verifiable, since this random number doesn't allow the information to actually be found.
 * 2) discuss this issue on the article talkpage, as I suggested, with some actually verifiable sources.
 * 3) assume good faith towards Zero0000, and take on board their advice, rather than accuse them of being threatening, which Zero0000 wasn't doing. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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, 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 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - The other editors have been notified of this request. I am neither opening nor declining this request.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Volunteer note 2 - I'm also neither opening nor taking this case, but I would like to recommend to the DRN Coordinator that this case be closed for lack of extensive deduction by the filing party. After having had his/her edits reverted a couple of times, he/she has immediately started asking for help in one way or another rather than trying to work this out through actually learning our policies and procedures and discussing it at length on the article talk page or elsewhere. While there have been some talk page edits (especially if the filing party and the IP editor involved here are the same person) they can hardly be considered to be extensive (especially if conduct allegations are factored out). While there has been quite a bit of discussion by other editors on the article talk page, the filing party has not been extensively involved in those discussions. It's a fairly close call, I'll admit, so if the Coordinator allows this to go forward, let me also note that the following editors have been involved on the article talk page and need to be added as parties, notified, and be given summary statement sections: CWH, 4.35.92.19, Paul Barlow, and Kmhkmh. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input Robert and TransporterMan, I agree and have subsequently closed this case. If there is meaningful discussion between all parties and there is a consensus that outside input is needed, it can be brought back here at a later date. Steven   Zhang  <sup style="color:#D67F0F;">Help resolve disputes!  23:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bangalore#Bangalore has_become_Bengaluru_and_Bangalore_Wiki_page_has_to_be_renamed_to_Bengaluru
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 NeilN
Unless 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. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bangalore#Bangalore has_become_Bengaluru_and_Bangalore_Wiki_page_has_to_be_renamed_to_Bengaluru discussion
Please 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)


 * I believe that DRN coordinator must take this case as special case. As more discussion on the topic has already happened at Bangalore talk page by other users. Instead of each user wasting time talking and debating the same for many days without reaching a conclusion. DRN coordinator must have a look before taking any decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVINHSN (talk • contribs)


 * I disagree, it should be discussed on the talkpage more, and the sensible course of action would be to request a move using WP:RM (although this would be the 8th use of this). Joseph2302 (talk) 19:21, 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)