Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:DRN" redirects here. It is not to be confused with WP:DNR.
Skip to threads Skip to open disputes • skip to newest thread(purge cache)
Shortcuts:
Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution and get assistance to the right place; request for comment, mediation or other noticeboard, if involving other issues. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button Button rediriger.png to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember guidelines and policy when discussing issues. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.

The DRN noticeboard has a rotating co-ordinator, and their role is to help keep the noticeboard organised, ensuring disputes are attended to in a timely manner, are escalated to alternative forums as required, and that new volunteers get any assistance that they need. They also collect the monthly metrics for the noticeboard.

The current co-ordinator is TransporterMan (talk · contribs).

Do you need assistance? Would you like to help?

Request dispute resolution

If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.

  • Refrain from discussing editorial conduct, and remember this noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment only on the contributions not the contributor. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.

Check that a notice was delivered to each person you add to the filing. If missing, add {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page then sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".

If you need help:

If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

  • The dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before requesting help at DRN.
  • This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
  • For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

Become a volunteer

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over this page to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

Volunteers should remember:
  • Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
  • Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
  • Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information) and the bot will archive it soon after.
Case Created Last volunteer edit Last modified
Title Status User Time User Time User Time
Talk:Zeitgeist (film series) 2In Progress OnlyInYourMind (t) 2015-05-19 02:14:00 Robert McClenon (t) 2015-05-29 18:53:00 Jonpatterns (t) 2015-05-29 21:30:00
Talk:Impalement#tagging 2In Progress 96.52.0.249 (t) 2015-05-19 13:59:00 BlusterBlaster (t) 2015-05-27 21:05:00 OccultZone (t) 2015-05-29 22:11:00
Talk:Economic history of Chile#Causes of_the_War_of_the_Pacific 2In Progress Dentren (t) 2015-05-25 19:48:00 Kharkiv07 (t) 2015-05-29 20:25:00 Dentren (t) 2015-05-29 21:05:00
Talk:North Yemen Civil War#North Yemen vandalism 7Closed 125.255.33.9 (t) 2015-05-27 02:28:00 Robert McClenon (t) 2015-05-27 03:27:00 Mikrobølgeovn (t) 2015-05-27 15:36:00
Talk:Mo Ansar#Mohammed_Ansar_v_His_Detractors 7Closed 89.238.143.70 (t) 2015-05-27 16:13:00 TransporterMan (t) 2015-05-27 16:20:00 TransporterMan (t) 2015-05-27 16:20:00
Beepi 1New BC1278 (t) 2015-05-27 16:28:00 Guy Macon (t) 2015-05-29 20:01:00 Guy Macon (t) 2015-05-29 20:01:00
Talk:North Yemen Civil War#North Yemen vandalism 7Closed 125.255.33.9 (t) 2015-05-28 02:29:00 TransporterMan (t) 2015-05-29 15:11:00 TransporterMan (t) 2015-05-29 15:11:00
Talk:Unseen character#Rosaline.3F.21_No_way.21_She_doesn.27t_belong_in_this_article.21 1New 99.192.92.80 (t) 2015-05-29 19:18:00 Robert McClenon (t) 2015-05-29 19:37:00 Robert McClenon (t) 2015-05-29 19:37:00
Last updated by DRN clerk bot (talk) at 22:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)



Contents

Current disputes[edit]

Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by OnlyInYourMind on 02:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC).


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I noticed the Zeitgeist Movement group description mentioned the names of their annual events but did not describe these events, so I pulled the description for "Z-day" or "Zeitgeist Day" entirely from the existing secondary sources. This was reverted. I later added primary sources and found a new secondary to describe "Zeitgeist Media Festival" resulting in this. Users NeilN, MONGO, Earl King Jr., and Tom harrison have each reverted these edits against talk page concensus, claiming "promotional": [1], [2], [3], and [4]. 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[edit]

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:

  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

Jonpatterns (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

3. I think it would also be helpful to use the talkpage version of Template FAQ - noting the outcomes of debates that are likely to re-occur. Jonpatterns (talk) 06:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sfarney[edit]

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[edit]

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

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's Little Helper (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MONGO[edit]

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.[edit]

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 [5] and stuff like this [6] and the person that brought this here is a meat puppet of the Zeitgeist movement, a single purpose editor with an agenda.[7] 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[edit]

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[edit]

This is not where the disgussion should take place. Please comment on content, not users. Rider ranger47 Talk 16:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A page describing the Zeitgeist Movement was recently (and wrongly) merged into this article about the film. The description of the two annual meetings is no more "promo" than conventions or meetings of political parties. The Movement has opponents who dislike the movie mainly because of it's viewpoint about Christianity. Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)#Removal_of_referenced_material_on_grounds_of_promo_and_paid_events discussion[edit]

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). OnlyInYourMindT 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. OnlyInYourMindT 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)
  • 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 OnlyInYourMind to either retract it or apologize for the comment. At any rate, Earl King Jr., this DRN is not intended to prove or even discuss whether or not Sfarney 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 Rider ranger47 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. OnlyInYourMindT 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.-- KeithbobTalk 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:
  1. Inventing rules to suit the occasion, like how we can't mention paid events
  2. Calling other editors names, like "meat puppet" and "sock puppet"
  3. 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'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. OnlyInYourMindT 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. OnlyInYourMindT 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'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.

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)

  • 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[edit]

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[edit]

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 NeilN that details about a group don't seem to belong in an article about a film series, however that is apparently what we must do because a weak consensus from a past RfC decided that these articles be merged and policy dictates that we must preserve content. OnlyInYourMindT 20:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

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

First statement by Jonpatterns[edit]

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.[gjp 1][gjp 2][gjp 3] The name of the group is a trademark of Joseph's Gentle Machine Productions.[gjp 4] In 2009 the group described itself as the activist arm of Jacques Fresco's Venus Project.[gjp 5] The Venus Project featured in the second and third films. In April 2011, the two groups ended their association.[gjp 2]

The group has several local chapters around the world.[gjp 1][gjp 6][gjp 7][gjp 8] It has held two annual events, Z-Day and the Zeitgeist Media Festival.[gjp 9] Z-Day is an educational forum, the first having taken place in Manhattan in 2009. Some local chapters have also held events on the same day.[gjp 7][gjp 10][gjp 11]

The group advocate a transformation of society and the economic system. They propose a global resource-based economy and sustainable ecological policies.[gjp 1] The group criticises religion and market capitalism.[gjp 8]

Critical views

An article in the Journal of Contemporary Religion describes the movement as an example of a "conspirituality", a synthesis of New Age spirituality and conspiracy theory.[gjp 12]

In Tablet Magazine, journalist Michelle Goldberg criticized the Zeitgeist movement, saying it "seems like the world's first Internet-based cult, with members who parrot the party line with cheerful, rote fidelity."[gjp 7]

References (gjp)

  1. ^ a b c Cohn, Shane. "New world re-order". VCReporter. Retrieved 28 May 2015. 
  2. ^ a b "The view from Venus". Orlando Weekly. 
  3. ^ "Nicola Sturgeon is backed by Occupy protesters in London". The National. Retrieved 28 May 2015. 
  4. ^ "Trademark Owner History". Justia.com. Retrieved April 17, 2015. 
  5. ^ "The Zeitgeist Movement: Envisioning A Sustainable Future". Huffington Post. Retrieved 28 May 2015. 
  6. ^ Stamets, Bill. "Art-house films: ‘Marwencol,’ ‘Zeitgeist’". Retrieved 28 May 2015. 
  7. ^ a b c Goldberg, Michelle (February 2, 2011). "Brave New World". Tablet. Retrieved April 15, 2015. 
  8. ^ a b McElroy, Danien. June 17, 2012. Forest boy 'inspired by Zeitgeist movement'. The Telegraph. Retrieved: 29 April 2014.
  9. ^ "Zeitgeist Media Festival 2012: A celebration to be shared with the entire Earth". Retrieved 29 April 2015. 
  10. ^ Gilonis, Samuel (21 February 2011). "The Cult of Zeitgeist". Wessex Scene. Retrieved 26 February 2015. 
  11. ^ Alan Feuer (March 17, 2009). "They’ve Seen the Future and Dislike the Present". The New York Times. Retrieved March 17, 2009. 
  12. ^ Ward, Charlotte; Voas, David (2011). "The Emergence of Conspirituality". Journal of Contemporary Religion 26 (1): 109. doi:10.1080/13537903.2011.539846. Retrieved June 16, 2012. 

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[edit]

(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's Little Helper (talk) 00:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


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's Little Helper (talk) 07:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

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's Little Helper (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

First statement by NeilN[edit]

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)#Reception and that's all (no events) per WP:TOPIC and WP:COATRACK. Also, any sources used should be independent of Zeitgeist. --NeilN talk to me 14:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Replying to @Raquel Baranow and OnlyInYourMind: A merge of the articles does not mean all the material should be kept. Indeed, the RFC close specified "Merging the articles about the films and their influence seems like a logical response..." This is not an open invitation to add an expanding coatrack section about the organization. If the organization is that notable, it needs to have its own article and not use the film article as a surrogate. Finally, there is no policy dictating "we must preserve content" as that would be highly damaging to our efforts to weed out cruft, trivia, fringe theories, and other undue material. WP:PRESERVE actually states, "Preserve appropriate content". --NeilN talk to me 20:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

First statement by MONGO[edit]

First statement by Earl_King_Jr.[edit]

I agree with user Neil above. The films are marginally notable. Cursory information on a so called movement is all that is needed and that does not include listing their paid events that they sell tickets to. A paragraph, maybe two, is about appropriate. That section having its own information box in the article about a 'movement' is not called for.

In the first statement by Sfarney he says Subjects like zeitgeist naturally involve controversial ideas. In my opinion, it is inappropriate POV to pepper the article with such value-laden words as "conspiratorial," "conspiracy theory," "internet cult," "crap," "bogus," etc., even if those words can be cherry-picked from RS reviews. If the editor is personally incapable of writing NPOV text on that subject, I believe it should be left to others to write. end quote. This may be a basic understanding about how Wikipedia works. The editors did not add or cherry pick information it all came from notable cited sources. It is not o.k. to write npov or filter information into Rebecca of Sunnybrook farm styles of delivery. Neutral editors have taken the overwhelming critical information about Zeitgeist from reputable sources and added that to the article. There is zero conspiracy to put the article in a good or bad light, only the light cast by the citations which have passed muster and are considered significant. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

First statememt by Tom_harrison[edit]

First statement by Raquel Baranow[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 King Jr.: Earl, you've only claimed the movement is not notable, but you've not demonstrated it. This topic meets all the requirements set by the General Notability Guideline and is therefore quite worthy of its own article. I assume the Peter Joseph article also meets the requirements of this guideline (but I have not checked). OnlyInYourMindT 02:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by Jonpatterns[edit]

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[edit]

The Zeitgeist page claims to have held seven annual gatherings,[1] not just two. But let us consider Wikipedia's treatment of comparable events. Burning man is created and operated by the private company Black Rock City, LLC with a multi-million dollar budget. It was attended by 50,000 people last year. There is no suggestion or advantage for the Burning Man page to be merged with the Black Rock page, though Black Rock is a single purpose company. Since Zietgeist is not a single purpose company, merging the two Zeitgeist pages was a clear example of coat-racking, in my opinion. Chewing through all the arguments for excluding the information on Zeitgeist or paring it down to a footnote ("We don't cover paid events;" "We have to avoid any source associated with Zeitgeist;" "We can't write about Zeitgeist Movement until the Red Heifer is sacrificed"), most are shamelessly invented on the spot -- Calvinball style.

Returning to the comparison with Burning Man, BM hasn't the least redeeming social value. Just drugs, sex, music, and entertainment. In contrast, Zeitgeist offers entertainment and alleges to have social value. The greatest criticism of Zeitgeist is that it has no social value, which lowers it to the level of Burning Man -- but no lower. As an item of (at least) entertainment that entertains a lot of people, I assert that Wikipedia should be as free with details on Zeitgeist as it is on Burning Man. And let the people with religious objections have a section at the bottom of the page ("Criticism") for burning effigies, crying "heresy" and "conspiracy theory," or however else they would like to entertain themselves. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Second statement by NeilN[edit]

  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.

--NeilN talk to me 03:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by MONGO[edit]

Second statement by Earl_King_Jr.[edit]

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)

Second statememt by Tom_harrison[edit]

Second statement by Raquel Baranow[edit]

Third statement by replacement volunteer moderator[edit]

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[edit]

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. OnlyInYourMindT 20:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by Jonpatterns[edit]

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[edit]

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. Beyond that, I will not speculate on the motivation. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by NeilN[edit]

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. --NeilN talk to me 19:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by MONGO[edit]

Third statement by Earl_King_Jr.[edit]

Third statememt by Tom_harrison[edit]

Thirdstatement by Raquel Baranow[edit]

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)

Statements by other editors[edit]

Talk:Impalement#tagging[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by 96.52.0.249 on 13:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC).


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:OccultZone and User:I am One of Many have not addressed concerns regarding the section of Talk:Impalement/GA3. The one comment made by User:I am One of Many on Talk:Impalement/GA3 is nearly identical to These edits, though well intentioned, do not meet Wikipedia standards.

The reassessment is an individual assessment; after 9 days, with no comments, I decided to delist the article from "good article status". I during the reassessment, I did not inform contributors because I felt that there were too many contributors inform. Some contributors have now been informed, and but the GA3 is not easily accessible on the talk page: One must go through the special pages and insert the prefix.

Per WP:BRD, both users should be discussing the concerns. Comments can be made at the section or at the GA3.96.52.0.249 (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The main issue seems to be my rewriting of the lede; User:I am One of Many states: "My main concern was that you created a lede that did not match the content of the article.". I disagree with this assessment by both of you.
Take the following for example:

The included literature suggests that impalement across a number of cultures was regarded as a very harsh form of capital punishment, as it was used particularly in response to "crimes against the state". Impalement is mentioned as a punishment within the context of war, such as with the suppression of rebels, punishment of traitors or collaborators, or for breaches of military discipline."

versus

"It was used particularly in response to "crimes against the state" and regarded across a number of cultures as a very harsh form of capital punishment and recorded in myth and art. Impalement was also used during wartime to suppress rebellion, punish traitors or collaborators, and as a punishment for breaches of military discipline."

Take note of "The included literature suggests ...". This would imply that the article is a meta-review of a synthesis of sources. The rewrite didn't change the meaning of the article. There are other problems, as well, such as the circuitous footnote which I removed. I also changed the definition of impalement so the language was not as loquacious. It didn't use proper anatomical terms, essential in any article to prevent confusion and to accurately describe the body.96.52.0.249 (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


Have you tried to resolve this previously?

[9]

[10]

[11]

How do you think we can help?

The page protection needs to be removed. If the page is protected, there is no incentive for any users to discuss changes.Encourage discussion on the article.

Summary of dispute by OccultZone[edit]

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

This edit was the last one, made by 96. Anyways, what we have to see is, that there are no issues with the sources and the information.

That is why dispute resolution is not the right place to discussing this matter. It is particularly more about changing the article's theme, for doing so, first it should be discussed, and this sort of edit warring[12][13][14][15] is probably not going to decide a lot of things. I believe that article should remain protected and any productive changes should be discussed on the article talk page. It is a GA, if I am One of Many or I am not going to agree with these changes, anybody else would still observe and recommend what has to be done. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 15:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by I am One of Many[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This is not the place to discuss the content of the article. I take it that your goal resolve perceived disputes. This in large part can be achieved by learning the processes and procedures on Wikipedia. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Impalement#tagging discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - As written, this appears to be an issue about tagging. The purpose of tagging an article is to identify a need for improvements. The purpose of discussion at this noticeboard is to agree on how to improve articles. If this is only a dispute about tagging, and not about article content, it isn't worth moderated discussion. I am neither accepting nor declining this case at this time, but would like an explanation about whether this is a dispute about tagging, or about article content as such. I will also advise the filing party to create a registered account. IP addresses change, and it is sometimes difficult to work with unregistered editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
It began as an issue with tagging. The above named editors deemed that the changes were in contradiction of the article's GA status. An individual reassessment was done, but there seems to be no sincere discussion as to their reverts.96.52.0.249 (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - There appears to be a misunderstanding of GA reassessment procedure here. According to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, IP editors may not engage in individual reassessments, but the IP editor acknowledged that that's what they did. Barring pertinent information from other involved editors I would advise the IP to let this issue pass and open a community reassessment if they feel it is warranted. DonIago (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this is most pertinent issue but where does it say that IP editors may not engage in individual reassessments?96.52.0.249 (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
"Make sure you are logged in; if you are not a registered user, please ask another editor to reassess the article, or request a community reassessment." Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

:::I see. Well please close this. This has been resolved. Thanks!96.52.0.249 (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

If I make an account, I stand by my GA3. This will be obvious when I make a Good Article Reassessment (2nd). How am I to proceed when there editors who disagree on the basis of the IP account's previous reassessment?96.52.0.249 (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
96.52.0.249 - Try and discuss the specific reasons they have for disagreeing with your reassessment, and see if you can get to the root of their concerns. I'm not trying to suggest it has been anything otherwise from you in prior interactions with them, but do everything you can to keep the conversation impersonal, collegial and focused on the content, not the contributors, and you may be able to work something out. If it doesn't work out, perhaps try for another venue like WP:3O to get another uninvolved editor's opinion on the matter, and if that doesn't smooth things out, you could always return to DRN. Wish you well, in any case. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 22:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Would it be possible to have my autoconfirm status removed when I make a new account?96.52.0.249 (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
After four days and 10 edits WP:AUTOCONFIRM. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
So you are watching this section? Are you simply following the rules? If I was to make an account, are you going to revert and ignore these discussions?96.52.0.249 (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
IP, I understand that this has probably been a frustrating couple of days for you at the Impalement article, but for the sake of this discussion I'd recommend you relax your tone towards the other editors. Assuming bad faith isn't going to resolve the issue you brought to the table. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 23:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
BlusterBlaster, i've been specific about my concerns on both the GA3 and talk page section. The other editors have not. For these reasons, i've struck out my comment saying that the situation has been resolved; id rather have the situation resolved now, at an opportune time, rather than an indefinite point later.96.52.0.249 (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
If you feel the discussion would best continue here in the interest of improving the article, then that's perfectly fine. I'm going offline in a few minutes, but I'm likely going to pick up this case as the primary volunteer when I'm back (either late tomorrow or the day after), unless another volunteer wishes to do so before me. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 00:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
@96.52.0.249: One of my main concerns as an editor on Wikipedia is in maintaining the quality of articles on Wikipedia. You were bold and rewrote the lede, which is find but two other editors read your new lede and didn't agree with you that it was an improvement. My main concern was that you created a lede that did not match the content of the article. I also disagreed with the direction you appear to have wanted to take the article. A good way to proceed in the future is to propose changes with good secondary sources to back them up. If you make compelling arguments, use good sources, and have patience you will usually find success. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I am glad we are in better states of mind. I disagree with the assessment that 2 editors disagreed with my version. Note: User:OccultZone said: "Then you should continue editing the way you wanted to.". I will gladly make an account and post on my user page that I previously used this IP address. But the GA3 should be considered assessed by me. If you prefer, we can close this case, and maybe resume the discussion on the talk page.96.52.0.249 (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've appealed to OccultZone for their input on the matter in case they missed the last few pings. At any rate, let me know if you're certain that the discussion can continue without issue on the article talkpage, in which case I'll close the case. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 14:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's wait until both of them respond, but since the discussion is on going, I don't see any need to close this case any time soon.96.52.0.249 (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
May I ask I am One of Many to elaborate a little on their concerns, ideally by providing specific passages or diffs of the IP's edits and explaining the issues had with each? Please remember to keep your commentary on the content, not the contributor. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 20:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Sure, I would be happy to. I reverted here for a several of reasons. First, as previously written, the was more broadly construed to include organisms. Second, the proposed lede changes were more definitive about the uses and purposes of impalement, which may or may not match the sources. Third, some detail was lost in the text reduction. Finally, although I think the text can be improved, I thought the earlier lede was better written. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I see. A few more questions, if you don't mind: I notice that your rationale for reverting his edits was based on WP:OR policy, in the diff you provided. In reference to that, what specifically do you see in the IP's changes to the lead that cannot be attributed to what is contained in the body of the article, or a reliable source in general (which would constitute OR)? Moreover, is shifting the verbiage of the lead to refer to impalement as a method of capital punishment/human execution, as opposed to a more general definition of the term (penetration of an organism), causing an overall detriment to the rest of the article, or appear irreflective of its body/sources, and why? Lastly, what details that the IP removed did you feel were best to remain included in the lead, and why? BlusterBlasterkablooie! 23:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, I wish to request clarification on the purpose of this case, on the part of the filer. 96.52.0.249, you stated that your wish is to have the protection of the article removed as an outcome of this case, that there is "no incentive for any users to discuss changes" otherwise, to quote you. However, it is important to note that in discussion of contentious material, consensus must come first before putting the material in place, therefore whether or not the article is protected will not change the fact that the content is in dispute and must be discussed and consensus achieved before the change can be implemented-- in short, article protection is not going to affect your ability to discuss it, nor does it give the other editors an advantage in the discussion.
I suppose the simpler form of my inquiry is: Do you want to be able to edit the article again and that is all, OR do you want to be able to edit the article again and have other editors agree with or at least understand your rationale for your edits, and discuss the matter constructively with them to achieve this result, so this doesn't become an edit war again? BlusterBlasterkablooie! 23:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
User:BlusterBlaster, I've changed the request to reflect that page protection does not have bearing on discussion.
I shall address User:I am One of Many's concerns:
  1. The first concern, that it was broadly construed to include organisms, was rectified in the latest version, to include only humans.
  2. The lede is broken into 3 paragraphs, which I cut down to two. The reason for this was that ledes should follow WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, which current lede does not do. This answers your 4th concern. It also answers your 2nd and 3rd concern, because the current lede is excessively detailed, yet does not summarize many sections of the article properly, such as longitudinal and transverse impalement, as well as other variations of impalement and torture, and other cases of such impalement practices in Rome, Egypt, and Biblical lands.96.52.0.249 (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • One further comment; from here on in I encourage some further engagement between parties here, lest the case grow stale - as discussion continues, I would recommend that once the IP editor has created their account as they mentioned was their intent, they should disclose their username here and start using that account permanently from now on. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 22:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Idea I've done some thinking, and was wondering if the article should also fall within the scope of WP:Wikiproject Medicine? The main article does refer to impalement as torture technique, but some sort of discussion on treatment should improve coverage of the article's topic.96.52.0.249 (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion appears to have gone stale, so I will post one last round of DRN talkpage notifications to request input from the other parties before I do a general close in a day or two. Obviously parties are not obligated to comment on DRN cases, but it will not be able to proceed if there is no discussion. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 16:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • As usual, the edits can be still proposed and implemented, once they are proposed on talk page. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 16:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The bottom line for me is that I just don't want to see the article go down hill. I have not been a content contributor to the article, but I'll be happy to provide input on possible improvements. I think if IP 96.52.0.249 makes an account and brushes up on policy, editing will go more smoothly in the future. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@User:OccultZone,User:I am One of Many: TehyThey were proposed on the talk page. This DRN case was filed because of an impasse on the discussion. I admit that I made a mistake initiating a reassessment without an account. In this file, I offered to make an account, but note that my comments at Talk:Impalement/GA3 do not change.96.52.0.249 (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

With consideration given to the statements made by the involved parties above, I have the following suggestions to make in the interest of resolving this dispute:

  • That 96.52.0.249 should create an account, for their own convenience and for the convenience of their fellow editors. Adjoint to this suggestion, they should consider researching the pages on important editing policies such as WP:V, WP:CONSENSUS and perhaps the Manual of Style, to name a few in no order of importance - this is not a recommendation intended to impugn the IP's competence or knowledge of editing; there are certain intricacies to editing, working collaboratively and using community resources on WP that are a little complex at a glance, and often require some study to make working on WP easier for everyone. I'll say that, as an editor who only signed on this year, those pages were extremely helpful for me when I first started out, so I can endorse this as a good-faith suggestion.
  • That the involved parties consider taking advantage of consensus-building and community discussion resources such as requesting a third opinion or filing a request for comment. This may help the discussion from remaining a stalemate, with there being too few parties with opposing views involved to reach the all-important consensus decision on what to do with the article.
  • That any and all discussion relative to this article should focus more on what can be done to improve the article, rather than focusing on the question of whether or not it should be classified as a GA anymore. I don't see anything productive coming out of trying to carry on a back-and-forth about whether or not it's good enough to be a GA as-is, as both IOM and the IP have mentioned they have, or may have, ideas for how to improve it. Consider the little TP blurb that all GAs on Wikipedia contain: "XXX has been listed as one of the XXX good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so." Emphasis mine.

What do the involved parties think of my suggestion(s)? Do you consider any combination of these an acceptable step towards resolution? BlusterBlasterkablooie! 21:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for a 3rd party neutral perspective on this matter. I like to quote User:I am One of Many on Talk:Impalement#tagging: "*Comment With these edits, the article no longer meets the standards of a good article and will have to be reassessed.". Do you agree or disagree that Talk:Impalement/GA3 is a good faith reassessment, noting that I made a mistake making the assessment before making an account, and that if I made an account, that the GA3 should refer that I made the reassessment?96.52.0.249 (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
96.52.0.249, I can assert with complete confidence that you made the reassessment in good faith, but instead of focusing on downgrading the article to non-GA status unilaterally based on the changes you believe need to be made-- which is an approach that can make other editors very defensive, because of the high value put on promoting and maintaining articles to GA or FA status-- I would recommend your first priority being discussion followed by consensus-based implementation of improvements to the article, and only after that, if you feel a reassessment is needed still, do the reassessment as a community process, rather than an individual one. Again, I am not saying this to demean your ability to reassess based on your experience. I find that it is always best to have more people providing insight where possible, rather than relying on your own judgment alone, when it comes to making important editing decisions like this.
One more important point to consider when it comes to this matter is something stipulated on the WP:GAR page itself: "The aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it.". BlusterBlasterkablooie! 22:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, let's assume that the good article status is irrelevant. You already mentioned this ("rather than focusing on the question of whether or not it should be classified as a GA anymore"). What, then, do User:I am One of Many and User:OccultZone object to, when I have stated WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, a guideline, as a main reason for my improvements of the lede?96.52.0.249 (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It is little bit trivial. Indeed you are sticking to the usual theme, but there is no consensus for changing it. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 10:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
There is no protocol for such individual articles to have a specific "theme". I've seen a number of Good Articles and featured articles, and for whatever reason the article was promoted to GA status 2 years ago, the current state of the article is in contradiction to its status. Per WP:SOFIXIT, regardless of the "quality" of the article, if there is an improvement to be made, it should be done. I also would not characterize fixing the lede to satisfy WP:SUMMARYSTYLE trivial, and WP:CONSENSUS is decision-making that "... involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". Please address my concerns, and explain how changing the lede per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is not an improvement.96.52.0.249 (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Request Starting with this comment, I will be away from the computer, so I request that the case stay open for a minimum of 5 days after my last comments?96.52.0.249 (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Fine by me. It won't hit the two-week mark for another six days, so a five-day absence shouldn't jeopardize it. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 21:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't bother about it. I would rather suggest you to continue this discussion on the talk page. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 22:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Economic history of Chile#Causes of_the_War_of_the_Pacific[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by Dentren on 19:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC).


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

Disagreement about what content to include related to the context of the War of the Pacific in the article Economic history of Chile.

Our discussion is about what is neutral and what is relevant for inclusion. I cleared the article of non-economic content that user Keysanger thought would balance the views on the origin of the war. Yet Keysanger have also at times removed and put into question some of the sources I have provided.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Requested a third opinion.

How do you think we can help?

By helping define what sources are valid or not and what content is relevant or not for the article economic history of Chile.

Summary of dispute by Keysanger[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
No. This is not the point.
The point is whether
  • only a fringe view about the causes of the war should be presented as the only main cause and the other causes dismissed or vaguely hinted in a footnote or
  • all the causes of the war according to the mainstream historians should be presented, and the reader should decide the real importance of the fringe view
--Keysanger (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

User Dentren wrote:


Starting in 1873, Chile's economy deteriorated.[55] Chilean wheat exports were outcompeted by production in Canada, Russia, and Argentina. Chilean copper was largely replaced in international markets by copper from the United States and Río Tinto in Spain.[50][56] Chile's silver mining income also dropped.[50] In the mid-1870s, Peru nationalized its nitrate industry, affecting both British and Chilean interests.[55] Contemporaries considered the crisis the worst ever of independent Chile.[55] Chilean newspaper El Ferrocarril predicted 1879 to be "a year of mass business liquidation".[55] In 1878, then-President Anibal Pinto expressed his concern through the following statement:[50][55]

This "mining discovery" came, according to historians Gabriel Salazar and Julio Pinto, into existence through the conquest of Bolivian and Peruvian lands in the War of the Pacific (1879-1883).[50] It has been argued that the economic situation and the view of new wealth in nitrate was the true reason for the Chilean elite to go into war against Peru and Bolivia.[50] [note 2]


I ask Dentren to respond following questions course according to the 5-WP pilars:

  1. Do you agree that Salazar is considered a "leftist", "marxist" historian?
  2. Do you agree that he represents a tiny sector of the mainstream of historians?
  3. What do Salazar says in the reference 50 to this snippet: This "mining discovery" came, according to historians Gabriel Salazar and Julio Pinto, into existence through the conquest of Bolivian and Peruvian lands in the War of the Pacific (1879-1883).[50] It has been argued that the economic situation and the view of new wealth in nitrate was the true reason for the Chilean elite to go into war against Peru and Bolivia. Please be generous and lets know all the context of the assertion. I think, Salazar's book is unknown out of few libraries of Santiago de Chile.
  4. Can you deliver some examples were Salazar's view is positively cited in academic books?
  5. Why did you delete (here) the point three of my contribution? That is Peru desired to monopolize and appropriate the nitrate works to strengthen its nitrate monopoly and in order to achieve it, the Bolivian and Chilean salitreras had to be controlled by Peru.... It isn't an economic cause of the war?
  6. Why did you delete (here) my contribution US historian Fredrick B. Pike calls this allegation absurd... Is it not an academic rebuke of Salazar's view?
  7. Why did you relegate (here) to a footnote the opinion of all others historians?
  8. Why did you push information that bring the reader to believe that Chile was in a deep economic trouble but you refrain to inform and delete information about the much worse situation in Peru and Bolivia?
  9. Why did you refrain to inform the reader about the situation in Peru and Bolivia?
  10. Had Peru never tried to control the Bolivian salitreras in order to sort out its financial debacle (default, deficit)? Did you tell it the reader?
  11. Do you think that the sensation-grabbing cite of A.Pinto words is correct. Wanted Anibal Pinto the war? What do the historians say about Pinto's stance?
  12. Do you agree that historians write that the WotP had several causes, especially territorial, geopolitical, economics and domestic political causes?
  13. Do you think that the mention in the main article of only one view of the causes of the war is according with the NPOV of Wikipedia?

I thank Dentren in advance for his cooperation to resolve Salazar's trouble. --Keysanger (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Economic history of Chile#Causes of_the_War_of_the_Pacific discussion[edit]

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

Volunteer note: Keysanger has been notified. Kharkiv07 (T) 20:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Without objection, I will be opening this shortly. I am an inexperienced volunteer (only two previous cases, and both of them were closed as stale) so I'd appreciate if another volunteer could keep an eye on this as well. Thanks. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Oops, I see that Keysanger has not provided a statement yet. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator's Note: I've pinged L235 that this case is ripe to be opened. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

L235 has indicated a prolonged absence, I am willing to take the case if she is not able, but I course defer to her if she's willing and able to. Kharkiv07 (T) 14:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm now opening the case. I'm happy to have oversight and guidance while volunteering for this case though. Kharkiv07: I'm a he, not a she Face-smile.svg --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 15:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) My apologies L235, I was thinking of somebody else. Kharkiv07 (T) 15:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I see that both parties are currently blocked for edit warring, so discussion will hold until those blocks expire or are lifted. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 15:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Never mind on that. I will be on enforced wikibreak until 19:00 28 May UTC. If discussion starts before then, another volunteer is free to mediate. Thanks, and my apologies. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Comment - Both editors are blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring, so that they can comment tomorrow. I would like to remind them of the caution by blocking admin User:EdJohnston that this is a long-running dispute that may require topic bans. Participating in this dispute resolution may be the best chance that the parties have of getting the matter resolved without topic bans. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Keysanger, this is not the place to discuss content. This is the place were to find a way/mechanism to resolve our differences or at least to stabilize the article. As far as I understand content discussion should take place in the article talk page. Dentren | Talk 13:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Following McIenons suggestion I will discuss some issues here. I do first want to let you know that I do not disagree with all of what you have put forward since February. I have tried to accommodate some concerns. I do think we need to concentrate on the specific issues and not expand this dispute. By questioning the reliability of Chilean National History Award winner Gabriel Salazars work you are affecting about 20 articles plus near all sections of Economic history of Chile (that were not previously into dispute) and expanding the original issue much beyond what it was at the beginning. As I have said numerous times before my focus is on resolving problems not to open new fields of disputes. I have observed plenty of disputes degenerate into a myriad sub conflicts to an extent it is unmanageable to address them. Such evolution could eventually be disruptive.
Acting in good faith I propose that you Keysanger, and the observers and mediators too take a look at this version and see if you find it acceptable. The changes are not small. Dentren | Talk 18:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
My response is this one and my rationale this one. I propose that you stop changing the article before consensus has been reached in order to discuss about one ground. --Keysanger (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
You are wasting your time if you are trying to discredit Salazar. Besides note that this was not your original concern in February, that concern was that "he was rebuked" by other historians. Since then you appear to have changed your mind and now he is to you a fringe, unknown and ¿Marxist? The fact is he is a recognized historian whether you like or not.
If we move a relevant issue is if you can actually "rebuke" a 2002 statement (Salazar & Pinto) with a 1963 statement (Pike). To do is WP:OR. One needs to be careful.
I'm ready to help accommodate your concerns that are legitimate. I tried to do in my last edits. Apparently it didn't convince you. The widening of scope of your attack is worrying, because it hinders the solution to this problem that arose from a specific issue. We need to focus. Dentren | Talk 21:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, lets wait until the volunteer open the discussion. I will discuss here and not in the article page. --Keysanger (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

So, not sure, but I think now is the discussion open.

Hello L235, thanks for helping us to sort out the trouble. I must say that English is not my first language but I keep it simple and direct. Don't hesitate to stop me when you mean that something is not clear.

I propose following roadmap to resolve the problem:

  1. We agree not to change the relevant parts of the article's current version until we get consensus
  2. We agree that following should be said to the reader about the causes of the war in accordance with the respective WP rules:
    1. That the causes of the war were manifold and complex: territorial, geopolitical, economic and domestic political
    2. That at that time the three warring nations were in deep economic trouble and saw the nitrate as a solution for the woes
    3. That the 10 cents tax and the secret treaty triggered the war but that the causes were much more profound.
  3. We agree to use only reliable sources that represent the mainstream historiography in accordance with the respective WP rules.
    1. There are two books in English language about the war: (US) Sater's "Andean Tragedy" and (UK) Farcau's "Ten Cents War". Sater has written several books about the theme and is THE authority in these questions and his books and views are indispensable for any encyclopedic work about the war
    2. Any minority view should be earmarked as such and set in relation to the mainstream historians in the English language in accordance with the respective WP rules
  4. We elaborate a wording for the text in accordance with the respective WP rules. That could be for example:
    1. The causes of the War of the Pacific were manifold and complex: territorial, geopolitical, economic and domestic political issues combined to produce an impasse that lead to war and it is disputed which was the main cause of the war as there are mutual recriminations about the origin on the war. Regarding the economic causes, in the 1870s, Bolivia, Chile and Peru economies suffered under an exceptionally strong economic downturn triggered by the global financial crisis and internal turmoil and their governments desired to make more profit from the nitrate exploitation. Bolivia broke flagrantly the 1874 Boundary treaty imposing a new tax on Chilean capital, Peru wanted to improve the guano and nitrate revenues through a monopoly but needed for this purpose the control over the Bolivian salitreras and Chile sought to protect the business of the nitrate in Chilean hands.

L235, Dentren, what do you think about?. --Keysanger (talk) 10:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You proposal is definitely a step forward.
I agree on that we should stop making edits without consensus. To obtain consensus we should perhaps try some involve a third editor.. who would need to be interested in the topic.. and of course, considered a good editor by us both.
I do also concur on that the origins of the war are complex.
I am aware that Bolivia and Peru were also affected by economic downturns. Think this should be addressed in economic history of Peru and economic history of Bolivia. What concerns this article is Chile.
I agree to use reliable sources. Have always attempted to do so.
Yes William Sater is good scholar and certainly appears to be a heavyweight in issues relating to the War of the Pacific. Yet his work should not be read as a Prima scriptura.
The thing with the article is that it is about Chile and economics. I have attempted to put the war in the economic context, not give a detailed account on the origins. The article is no meant to have such discussion.
Starting in 1873, Chile's economy deteriorated. Chilean wheat exports were out-competed by production in Canada, Russia, and Argentina. Chilean copper was largely replaced in international markets by copper from the United States and Río Tinto in Spain. Chile's silver mining income also dropped. Contemporaries considered the crisis the worst ever of independent Chile. Chilean newspaper El Ferrocarril predicted 1879 to be "a year of mass business liquidation". In 1878, then-President Anibal Pinto expressed his concern through the following statement:
“ If a new mining discovery or some novelty of that sort does not come to improve the actual situation, the crisis that has long been felt will worsen ”
—Anibal Pinto, president of Chile, 1878.
It was during this context of economic crisis that Chile became involved the costly Saltpetre War (1879–1883) wrestling control of mineral-rich provinces of Peru and Bolivia. The notion that Chile entered the war to obtain economical gains has been a topic of debate among historians, some rejecting it and others considering it simplistic. Another thesis relating to the economic crisis has been proposed by Jorge Pinto Rodríguez postulates it as force behind the new pulse of conquest of indigenous lands that took place in Araucanía in the 1870s.
Note that this version stress that the war was costly and explicitly presenting concerns and rejections of the profit-thesis (without endorsement). No reader with critical thinking could understand this version as "Chile was the bad boy" . Hope you find this version agreeable. Dentren | Talk 12:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

DRN Coordinator's Note: I've moved the foregoing discussion from the summary section to here in the discussion section, just to put it in the right place. You are free to continue the discussion at the article talk page until the volunteer opens this for discussion, but please refrain from discussing it here until that time. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC) (current Coordinator)

  • Volunteer Note - Editing the article without discussing the edits here (and without even discussing on the talk page) while waiting for a mediator is unproductive and disruptive. Stop editing the article in advance of the moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

DRN Coordinator's Note #2: L235 has announced that he will not be able to take this case. Kharkiv07 can you proceed with it, since you've expressed an interest? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, allow me to review the material and I will comment shortly. Kharkiv07 (T) 20:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dentren and Keysanger: I will now be mediating this case; I highly appreciate Keysanger's points and Dentren's response to them, this dispute is already going in the right direction. For now, I would like you to comment only in your own section; however I will allow you to respond once to a point the other makes in your own section. I would also strongly advise both of you to refrain from editing the article for the time being, if there are any more blocks for edit warring on the article I will withdraw my support and I fear it may lead to topic bans. Now, as far as the dispute goes, I would like both of you to either give text or simply a handful of ideas which you would be happy with and you think the other person would be happy with, remember the goal here is compromise. Kharkiv07 (T) 20:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Dentren's first proposal[edit]

Starting in 1873, Chile's economy deteriorated.[1] Chilean wheat exports were out-competed by production in Canada, Russia, and Argentina. Chilean copper was largely replaced in international markets by copper from the United States and Río Tinto in Spain.[2][3] Chile's silver mining income also dropped.[2] Contemporaries considered the crisis the worst ever of independent Chile.[1] Chilean newspaper El Ferrocarril predicted 1879 to be "a year of mass business liquidation".[1] In 1878, then-President Anibal Pinto expressed his concern through the following statement:[1][2]
“ If a new mining discovery or some novelty of that sort does not come to improve the actual situation, the crisis that has long been felt will worsen ”
—Anibal Pinto, president of Chile, 1878.
It was during this context of economic crisis that Chile became involved the costly Saltpetre War (1879–1883) wrestling control of mineral-rich provinces of Peru and Bolivia. The notion that Chile entered the war to obtain economical gains has been a topic of debate among historians, some rejecting it and others considering it simplistic.[4][2][5][6]:33[7][8] Another thesis relating to the economic crisis has been proposed by Jorge Pinto Rodríguez postulates it as force behind the new pulse of conquest of indigenous lands that took place in Araucanía in the 1870s.[2][9]

I have tried to follow these principles in the writing:

  1. Being concise (considering section and article length)
  2. Avoid duplication of things already discussed in depth elsewhere
  3. Incorporate different views in a brief but weighted manner.
  4. Retain the attention in the economy of Chile over the intrigues of magnates
  5. Mention of historiographical debates/differences should not obstruct flow or prose

References

  1. ^ a b c d Palma, Gabriel. Trying to 'Tax and Spend' Oneself out of the 'Dutch Disease': The Chilean Economy from the War of the Pacific to the Great Depression. p. 217–240
  2. ^ a b c d e Salazar & Pinto 2002, pp. 25–29.
  3. ^ Villalobos et al. 1974, pp. 6003-605.
  4. ^ Ortega, Luis (1984). "Nitrates, Chilean Entrepreneurs and the Origins of the War of the Pacific". Journal of Latin American Studies 16 (2): 337–380. 
  5. ^ Sater, William F. (1973). "Chile During the First Months of the War of the Pacific" 5, 1 (pages 133-138 ed.). Cambridge at the University Press: Journal of Latin American Studies. p. 37. 
  6. ^ Fredrick B. Pike, "Chile and the United States, 1880-1962", University of Notre Dame Press 1963
  7. ^ Sater 2007, p. 38
  8. ^ Farcau 2000, p. 45
  9. ^ Pinto Rodríguez, Jorge (1992), "Crisis económica y expansión territorial : la ocupación de la Araucanía en la segunda mitad del siglo XIX", Estudios Sociales 72 

Dentren | Talk 21:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Keysanger's first proposal[edit]

Talk:North Yemen Civil War#North Yemen vandalism|North Yemen vandalism[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 125.255.33.9 on 02:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC).

Talk:Mo Ansar#Mohammed_Ansar_v_His_Detractors[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 89.238.143.70 on 16:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC).

Beepi[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by BC1278 on 16:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC).


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 requested via RFC that an editor assist with what I see as basic updates to an article where I have a WP:COI. e.g. The revenue of the company is now incorrect in the article and a more recent citation is available by the New York Times; Forbes now provides the company's valuation, which puts the previously cited venture raise of $79 million in context; the company received a major recognition from Forbes Magazine.

There are new, in-depth profiles of the company in The New York Times, USA Today and Forbes and I attempted to improve the article with new information from these sources.

I cannot make these edits directly because of my COI, or unless another editor approves them. The RFC editor asked for broader content and context beyond the financial updates so I provided new information on that as well. However, the editor rejected this non-financial content as well.

I think the proposed editions (e.g. updating article's now incorrect revenue with a new, major independent source) would be completely non-controversial had I not revealed my COI. The editor is under the mistaken impression that financial information about a company is only of use to investors, when in fact, the financial aspect of a company is useful to anyone interested in the company, whether it's a consumer, journalist, government regulator, etc. Venture capitalists, in fact, can get the company's financial information from the company. VCs don't need Wikipedia, so the editor is incorrect in his assertion that I am proposing all these changes to solicit investors.

Trying to keep the article up to date. Beepi has emerged as an important new company being extensively covered by most major media outlets.

The Talk section cites above is a continuation of: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beepi&action=edit&section=4 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beepi&action=edit&section=6 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beepi&action=edit&section=7

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I requested another RFC. This reviewer, Damotclese, was in favor of putting the content requested in the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beepi&action=edit But declined to make the edits directly himself (and I didn't want to do it with a split decision) and more generally, said the article was promotional in tone. I asked for specifics so I could improve the article. I provided major sources to support all facts. He summarily rejected all sources (NY Times, USA Today, Forbes, Wall Street Journal) as "paid-for stuff, it's the way the Capitalism works."

How do you think we can help?

Please evaluate the suggested content based on whether it would improve the article; whether the sources are reliable; whether the language is neutral. If I had not revealed my COI, would there by any issue with this content? If any of the new or existing content/language seems to you to be promotional, please help with changing the language or tone. I believe I wrote this as I've written other article for Wikipedia, without any COI, but am glad to learn from specific suggestions.

Summary of dispute by Jojalozzo[edit]

I was invited to the RFC randomly by a bot. The edits proposed by BP1278 in the RFC relate to financial performance of the business. I asked for more content that discussed interesting aspects of the business such as the ways it was disrupting business as usual and the response of the industry. I also suggested that editors might be more open to the proposed, more promotional, content (mainly of interest to potential investors) if it was balanced by information of general interest. Rather than proposing such general interest content about Beepi, BP1278 came back with various sources (albeit, good ones) for the promotional content and some rather bland content about the industry in general that was not specific to Beepi. At that point I restated my position and stopped participating, which apparently brought me here.

I credit BP1278 with the integrity of announcing xer COI and adhering to policy but am puzzled by the insistence on adding primarily content that touts the business financial performance. There's lots more to any business than that and it's disappointing that an editor with inside connections to Beepi is so focused on contributing numbers and dates.

The fact that lots of crap gets contributed to business articles is not a good reason for lowering our standards for COI editors. Editors with a COI are supposed to suffer greater oversight and take more care. I think we are correct to expect much higher quality, better informed contributions from someone with a personal relationship to the subject. If there's nothing more to this company than its financial performance then I question the value of having a Wikipedia article about it at all and I certainly don't see any reason I or anyone else should spend more time on it than we have already. Jojalozzo (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Beepi discussion[edit]

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 opening or taking this case, but just want to note that there appears to be adequate discussion and notice has been given to the responding party. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. I am now opening this case for discussion; I will have further comments after I study the page history and talk page discussion. There is one thing that I need everyone involved to understand right from the start; DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:North Yemen Civil War#North Yemen vandalism|North Yemen content dispute[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 125.255.33.9 on 02:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC).

Talk:Unseen character#Rosaline.3F.21_No_way.21_She_doesn.27t_belong_in_this_article.21[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by 99.192.92.80 on 19:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC).


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

There is a disagreement about whether or not the character Rosaline from the play Romeo and Juliet should be included as an example of an unseen character on the article page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

A third opinion was requested at Wikipedia talk:Third opinion and subsequently provided by User:ONUnicorn.

How do you think we can help?

The third opinion offered has not been accepted by one of the editors involved in the original disagreement. An evaluation of the merits of including this example, including looking at the various sources for inclusion offered on the talk page and in the article would be appreciated.

Summary of dispute by StBlark[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by 99.192.92.80[edit]

Rosaline from the play Romeo and Juliet has been included on the page as an example for a long time. There are two different reliable sources in the article for its inclusion - one that uses the term "unseen character" to describe her and one that explains how it is because of her that Romeo goes to the party where he first meets Juliet, making her the reason that they meet in the first place. The other editor has disputed the validity of including this example on the page. In the course of the talk page discussion I have quoted the play as a primary source and cited four additional reliable secondary sources for the claim that Romeo and Juliet meet because of Rosaline. That brings the total to seven sources to support inclusion. The other editor rejects these as being sufficient. At that point I requested a third opinion through WP:3. A third editor came and agreed with my position on inclusion. The other editor now does not accept that third opinion. So it stands as two editors with seven reliable sources versus one editor with no reliable sources. 99.192.92.80 (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC) (NB: I have a dynamic IP address and so there are several IP addresses on the talk page that are all me. They all begin with 99.192 and I have taken care to indicate next to the signatures that they are all, in fact, the same person.)

Talk:Unseen character#Rosaline.3F.21_No_way.21_She_doesn.27t_belong_in_this_article.21 discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - I have looked at the talk page, and agree that there has been extensive discussion, as is required before taking up a case here. I am not accepting or declining this case at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)