Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. Not to be confused with WP:DNR.

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. 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, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button 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; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. 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. 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. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. 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. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. 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 the volunteer guide 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), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Nivkh alphabets	New	Modun (t)	4 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 hours	Kwamikagami (t)	5 hours
Metrication in the United Kingdom	Closed	Friendliness12345 (t)	4 days,	Kovcszaln6 (t)	2 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	2 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 07:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:Social Democrats,_USA#Lede

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by GPRamirez5 on 01:59, 14 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

• Talk:Social Democrats, USA#Lede (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• GPRamirez5 (talk · contribs)
• Dame Etna (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In March 2015, I made extensive contributions to the Social Democrats, USA page. These contributions reflect the scholarly consensus on the history of SDUSA. In May, my contributions were completely deleted by Dame Etna. DE made a special emphasis on deleting references to neoconservatism, deleting references to the right-wing/left-wing schism in the Socialist Party, and references to influential theorist Max Schachtman. All of those subjects figure prominently in scholarly, peer-reviewed literature - and even modern journalism - on SDUSA.

In our discussions, DE shows no recognition for the significance of peer-reviewed academic scholarship, but instead second-guesses it with his/her own interpretations, and counter-poses his/her own original research in the article, stitched together from 40 year old newspaper articles.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Dame Etna and I have engaged extensively on the Talk page

How do you think we can help?

By evaluating the legitimacy of our contributions and sources.

Summary of dispute by Dame Etna

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

Talk:Social Democrats,_USA#Lede discussion

Good morning, users! My name is EnglishEfternamn, those who know me refer to me simply as "EE" and you both can do that as well. I'm volunteering to be the moderator for this particular case.

Keep in mind that this case refers to a political article, so we cannot be too careful in making sure our approach does not reflect our biases. I want this to be free of that. GPRamirez, you allege that Dame Etna has removed sourced content on the grounds that the content removed may make this user's political views look bad. I'm not going to say anything on that until I further investigate this. D.E., it should be noted that if this is indeed true, the burden of proof will be on you to show us that you have removed this content because you truely feel it is not encyclopedic and that it has nothing to do with any political biases attached to these contributions.

I don't know what the prospects will be for finding a middle ground in this issue, but I will do my best. As I always say, I hope that we can come up with a resolution favourable to both of you. Cheers, EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 09:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

This should be closed, because a talk page discussion was just initated by me. Has Ramirez replied to any of my points?

Ramirez added information to the lede, without incorporating it into the body, contrary to WP:Lede. At very least, There is already discussion of SDUSA and the Bush administration to which a discussion of neoconservatism could be added. I acknowledged already in the spirit of WP:NOTTRUTH that Ramirez is welcome to add academic nonsense to the article, but NPOV and DUE would allow such nonsense to be balanced with alternative reliable-sources.

Dame Etna (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Dame Etna, could you give me a few links to some of the discussions involved? That will help me get more of a perspective here. Thanks!EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 09:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer note: This discussion has become inactive. If it is not discussed in 24 hours it will be closed. Rider ranger47 ^Talk 11:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

RR, good morning. I requested some info from Dame Etna and will be on standby until I either get it or the case is closed. Just letting you know I have not abandoned my moderation of this case. :) Cheerio, EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 11:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I see, did you try pinging him/her? Rider ranger47 ^Talk 11:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not familiar with a lot of the lingo here, explain what that means? EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 12:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll do it. @Dame Etna: Rider ranger47 ^Talk 13:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

If Dame Etna accepts the most recent edits, I will let the matter drop. GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Why skip the talk page discussion at the article and come here? If the intent is to evaluate sources, why come here rather than to WP:RSN?

The article was reliably sourced and written in a NPOV fashion. The NYT provided daily detailed coverage of the convention at which the old Socialist Party changed its name to SDUSA, and "academic" sources that would seem to contradict its coverage can be discussed at the WP:RSN; if some such sources are included, then they shall be balanced with accurate coverage.

Thus far, we seem to have consensus that Ramirez violated WP:LEDE, and now Ramirez seems to be trying to put material in the body, which seems like progress. Ramirez seems to have read more of the article, and found the obvious place where the Shachtman-stuff can be pushed. More progress....

Has Ramirez acknowledged having misrepresented Matthew's coverage, changing "nursery of many neoconservatives" to "nursery of neoconservativism", despite Matthew's describing one neoconservative going to a SDUSA conference and being criticized by all the others?

If Ramirez wants to include the nursery of many neoconservatives nonsense from Matthews, then the article shall include Matthew's discussion of neoconservatism being criticized, per WP:NPOV.

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

GPRamirez, what do you have to say in response? What do you feel has changed about your most recent edits on the article and why do you feel those should stay, without compromise? Thanks. EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 12:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Ramirez again overloaded the lede and failed to integrate the new material with the old.

SDUSA and Trotskyism/neoconservatism already was discussed in the article. I moved Ramirez's material with the previous discussion of Shachtman and Trotskyism.

Dame Etna (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Ramirez seemed to acknowledge that RightWatch (or RightWeb, whatever) at the Institute for Policy Studies is not a reliable source.[1] The re-addition of it [2] therefore would seem not to have been deliberate.

Would Ramirez please explain what evidence Vaisse gives for claiming that Penn Kemble, Bayard Rustin, Joshua Muravchik, Carl Gershman, and Paul Seabury (Paul Feldman??) are "so-called Shachtmanites and second-generation neoconservatives"? (Bayard Rustin as a Shachtmanite and neo-conservative!) That paragraph lacks a footnote. The author is at a think tank rather than a university. Dame Etna (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

DE, question for you. I know one of you mentioned before that maybe SOME of Ramirez's contributions could be acceptably left onto the article. Do you have an idea of which contributions you'd be readily willing to leave onto the page? EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 09:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Look at the article. I believe that all of his edits are now incorporated in the body of the article. For example, his "reliable source" Vaisse says that Bayard Rustin was a Shachtmanite and neoconservative, and like Alan Sokal's article in Social Text Vaisse published in a university press; unlike Sokal's richly documented article, Vaisse's assertion lacks a footnote. I asked Ramirez whether this assertion is supported in any way (as I lack the complete text); perhaps Ramirez shall reply? Of course calling Rustin a Shachtmanite and neoconservative is so absurd that I shall not even bother trying to find a source refuting it, since nobody serious would have bothered. Other statements are balanced now, when I could quickly find reliable sources.

I suggest that Ramirez help to improve the article, besides labeling SDUSA a neoconservative and Shachtmanite organization ideally, but getting consensus on the body at least, before reloading R's stuff in the lede, per WP:BRD. Dame Etna (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Dame Etna (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

My initial impression is that peer reviewed university press publications are indeed reliable sources. The other contributions are definitely more of a grey area. Ramirez, I'm gonna need your response to this. What say you in response to DE's last statements? EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 06:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Please focus on relevant issues. The academic sources added by Ramirez are in the article, as you would know if you read the article or indeed if you read my comments above (twice). Dame Etna (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I still would like to hear from him, as he has commented minimally in this section. Then I hope we can come up with something. EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 23:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

It would appear that he has backed away from the discussion? Unless he's been busy offline and has not been able to comment. EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 12:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Ramirez seems to edit in spurts, putting in Ramirez's material in a few targetted articles at a stretch, similar to the edits at SDUSA.

Somebody uninvolved could wisely close this thread as misplaced or premature. Premature: given the lack of a talk-page discussion. Misplaced: Given his complaints about my violating WP:RS or WP:NPOV (which have never been retracted), which would suggest a focused noticeboard.

I have incorporating the reliable sources suggested, as noted several times. Ramirez has suggested an associate of Bruno Latour (published apparently at an academic press, just like Social Text!) as a source on the talk page, so perhaps my mentioning of Sokal was an inspiration. If he wants to add it, then we can quote its discussions of US imperialism and accusations against Juan Linz, etc., so the reader is not duped.

Dame Etna (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to excuse my stepping away for a bit. I had some family emergencies to deal with. I had hoped that this wasn't going to come down to an issue of "last man standing" bull-headedness (which isn't much better than an edit-war) but an evaluation based on documentation and other merits. Hopefully, it can still end up that way.

The Institute for Policy Studies source is there as what you might call a supporting pillar, underneath the main pillar of Justin Vaisse's book. It's there to illustrate how widespread the acknowledgement of SDUSA's relationship with neoconservatism is. I've never denied that IPS leans progressive politically, but its work is not generally regarded as being radical or factually inaccurate. If it's unacceptable as a source, then so would one of DE's sources, Commentary magazine, which skews right (and in fact, being by its own admission neoconservative).

There seems no question that all of the material in my last edit belongs in the Socialist Party split section (the section after the lede, which DE has renamed to delete mention of the split, even though the word "split" is used in the headline of one of his own NY Times sources). Most of it also belongs in the lede, as neoconservative and Schachtmanite are common characterizations in the academic literature on SDUSA. As I have mentioned in the Talk:Social Democrats USA page, the editors of the academic book, Politics and the Intellectual, published by Purdue University Press actually describe Schachtman as the founder of SDUSA. Another peer-reviewed book, The Democracy Makers (published by Columbia University Press), notes that

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

I'm glad that DE recognizes the fact that I'm making an effort to listen to some of their criticisms. There doesn't seem to be any real dialogue here though. I have to question if dialogue and compromise is possible with someone who doesn't recognize the primacy of peer-reviewed secondary sources. That tends to be a symptom of irrationality.GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

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

I think we've gathered here that think tanks, and sharply biased to the left or right magazines and newsletters do not constitute reliable encyclopedic sources. DE has maintained that there are some sources you have provided that can be appropriately used and some which are not. DE, I would have to say that your argument against think tank source use in the article would have to be extended to your own use of any magazines that have conservative viewpoints on the SDUSA. I was really hoping nobody's personal political views would migrate into this discussion, one thing I have to mention is this: that being familiar with American socialist movements, I'm well aware that social democracy and social democrats are definitely not associated with the political far-left in any country other than the United States. In Scandinavia, for example, social democrats have been in more recent years criticized by the left for having been associated with pro-corporation and centre-right compromises that have undermined the older, more Olaf Palme-esque flavour of social democracy. It is no secret that these moderate sentiments within social democrats movements have made their way accross the pond as well. It's not at all a surprise to me that academic press journals would report on this. My question for you DE, is, are you 100% sure that your political views have not clouted your judgment on your assertion that the SDUSA has no connection with centre-right politics? And for Ramirez, my question is: If you had to pick five sources that you felt BEST explained the history of SDUSA from that particular period, which would you pick and why those over other sources? Thank you. EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 05:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

We have policies about reliable sources, and we can discuss them at the RS-noticeboard and the use of them at the NPOV and BLP noticeboards.

In the future, you should read articles before discussing them.

EnglishEfternamn, Wikipedia is not a forum. Please remove your off-topic comments.

Dame Etna (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

These are not "off topic" comments, everything I said in my response is relevant and discussion of such is required to determine what a suitable compromise can be. I'm on both your sides. I appreciate your response and concern, DE, but I remind you who is moderating this discussion and who is an involved participant in the conflict. EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 07:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

This moderation is voluntary. If there is a problem at the article, I shall participate in relevant talk page discussions or noticeboards, preferably one where moderators read what is written and avoid violating WP:AGF, Not a Forum, etc. Dame Etna (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, good gravy. May I ask how you feel I have violated WP:AGF? This way I can prevent myself from doing so again. Thank you. EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 09:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:High fructose corn syrup

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by 85.211.96.117 on 06:22, 16 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 Talk:High fructose corn syrup (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Sciencewatcher (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Content I have added to the High fructose corn syrup that was well backed with references, was removed by Sciencewatcher with edit summaries like 'fructose!=HFCS'. This despite many of the studies conducted to gain insight into HFCS, and cited in much of scientific debate on HFCS, are about the fructose. Those scientists study fructose intensively precisely because HFCS contains so much of it. It is pretty much the main reason currently for investigating HFCS, and vice versa (half the dry residue is of HFCS is fructose, the rest glucose) Also, my contribution by adding a subsection on dicarbonyls and other reactive compounds in HFCS was also deleted by SW; SW later said he found reviews claiming other foods like bread contained 'similar' dicarbonyl levels. As HFCS was shown to have up to 1.1 gram/liter dicarbonyls, I found this unlikely and said so, as well as pointing out absorption from non-liquid foods is slower and doesn't overwhelm antioxidant defences. He did not produce any reviews to back up his claim, but instead chided me for not finding those same reviews myself. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Compromised somewhat in added content in current edit How do you think we can help? Help to find a compromise wording that will satisfy everyone, and stop the constant attacks on the new content. Summary of dispute by Sciencewatcher Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. High fructose corn syrup discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - I am neither accepting nor declining this case at this time. The requesting party is a dynamic IP address; at least three different IP addresses in the 85.*.*.* block have edited the article page and the article talk page. Communication with dynamic IP editors is difficult. I will accept the case for mediation if the human behind the IP addresses establishes a registered account. (I am currently working another case.) Registered (including pseudonymous) editors have several advantages over unregistered editors with IP addresses. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC) regarding registration of an account, I (85.211.96.117) do have this account... I simply stopped using it, because I do not want to be harassed by the square red 'new messages' notification that could be someone reverting my edits from possibly many months back... I want to enjoy Wikipedia in peace, without looking over my shoulder. So that's why I didn't use it... but I'll use it right here, if you think it's better (+also added my name to participants, after forgetting the first time) 85.211.100.135 (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC) Volunteer note - A registered editor can turn off the 'new messages' via the Notifications tab from the Preferences at the top of the screen. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC) Robert, thank you for the advice, I will use this account on this thread. Also: I had poosted a DRN notice on Sciencewatcher's account as soon as I opened this dispute resolution request, but he has so far failed to respond. 85.211.100.135, aka Nitrobutane (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC) I didn't really feel the need to respond...there doesn't really seem to be any dispute on the talk page as far as I can tell, and it wasn't even me who reverted your edits the last few times. I'd recommend participating in the discussion on the article talk page. As far as I can see, the issue is that you aren't familiar with wikipedia policies such as WP:MEDRS and WP:SYNTH. This has been discussed at the talk page, but you appear to ignore the discussion and just re-add your edits again without addressing the problems. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk 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 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

• Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)#Removal of referenced material on grounds of promo and paid events (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• (exact location)

Users involved

• OnlyInYourMind (talk · contribs)
• Jonpatterns (talk · contribs)
• Sfarney (talk · contribs)
• NeilN (talk · contribs)
• MONGO (talk · contribs)
• Earl_King_Jr. (talk · contribs)
• Tom_harrison (talk · contribs)
• Raquel_Baranow (talk · contribs)

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": [3], [4], [5], and [6]. I've tried to see it from their perspective, but this continues to look like neutral characterization to me. It is possible some of these editors are letting their bias against this FRINGE topic affect their neutrality.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed on Talk page and asked for help in Wikipedia:Teahouse.

How do you think we can help?

Perhaps you can help identify what is and is not promotional. Or perhaps there is another angle that only the eyes of a veteran dispute resolver can see.

Summary of dispute by Jonpatterns

My experience of editing the Zeitgeist article is that it has been impossible to create a neutral article that correctly reflects and weights the sources. This is true in general, and in this particular case of whether to mention the annual events or not.

MONGO and Tom harrison haven't responded to the discussion, which is fine if they only boldly revert once.

NeilN has reverted, but has also discussed how to improve the article which is fine.

However, I would says Earl King Jr. behaviour is non-constructive. He seems to concentrate on personal attacks, calling users biased and single purpose accounts. More worryingly he doesn't recognise this behaviour when it is pointed out. Additionally, I don't think he understands that there can be negative as well as positive bias in the article.

Here are examples of his behaviour, attacking OnlyInYourMind:

ref d1

ref d2

He has made similar attacks against me, which can be seen in a filing on the admins noticeboard.

The best way forward in my opinion is:

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

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

Subjects like zeitgeist naturally involve controversial ideas. In my opinion, it is inappropriate POV to pepper the article with such value-laden words as "conspiratorial" "internet cult" "crap" "bogus" etc. even if those words can be cherry-picked from RS reviews. If the editor is personally incapable of writing NPOV text on that subject, I believe it should be left to others to write. Earl King Jr. has reverted my comment on the talk page when I said that. Most recently, the issue of listing future events is characterized as "promotional". I disagree, and I point out other pages listing future events such as Burning Man and San Diego Comic-Con International. I am particularly concerned that Earl King's statement of his own philosophy for edit is almost diametrically opposed to mine, predicting little chance of resolution through dialog. In my view, "Zeitgeist should also be an informational page for those who are interested," with all the relevant facts. Earl King Jr. has stated in disagreement, "Also it is not an information page for those that are interested because its purpose is to document what it is with a neutral stance or to go where the citations take us," inferring that if an RS calls the subject "crap" and "bogus" then the Wikipedia should forward those pejoratives. In my opinion, if King's approach were followed throughout, Wikipedia would become just another organ for propagandizing the views of the dominant media, instead of a neutral source of information. Slade Farney (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

PS: The best reviews of religion (a comparably controversial subject) are those by truly neutral, sympathetic observers, like Huston Smith, J. Gordon Melton, and Will Durant. Their approach to controversial subjects has enabled their writings to stand the test of time. Other writers, who include POV in their writings such as the RC's Index and Thomas Bowdler, fade with the day. Slade Farney (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by NeilN

Focusing on content, I'll mainly repeat what I said on the talk page. This article suffers from multiple personality disorder. Why are we describing a yearly event in an article about a film series? Why do we have a separate section for the movement at all? If the movie triggered the movement then a paragraph should be added to Zeitgeist_(film_series)#Reception and that's all (no events) per WP:TOPIC and WP:COATRACK. Also, any sources used should be independent of Zeitgeist. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MONGO

My sentiments are about the same as NeilN's.--MONGO 18:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding that little about this "movement" can be documented. We're an encyclopedia, not a reporting agency so a YouTube series of movies are not very notable for our purposes. I think EarlKing is spot on.--MONGO 19:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

A polite correction. The Zeitgeist documentaries are published as commercially produced DVDs. They may be available on Youtube as well, but so are many other movies, Neither initial nor subsequent appearance on youtube is a certificate of irrelevancy. Slade Farney (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Earl_King_Jr.

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

The talk page is loaded with hangers on from Zeitgeist so its is not possible to not talk about users in this instance. This is only a couple of sites but they are numerous to call pro Zeitgeist people to Wikipedia [7] and stuff like this [8] and the person that brought this here is a meat puppet of the Zeitgeist movement, a single purpose editor with an agenda.[9] He answered the 'call to arms' that the group promotes on their websites as a true believer. His very first edit on his account is to Zeitgeist and his appearance coincides with their media declaration of trying to retake the article to their pov. Nothing wrong with single purpose editors but or nearly single purpose but they have to edit to guidelines. As far as the others pressing this they are Zeitgeist supporters also and edit with the socks and meats on the article. Thats about it. That is my interpretation of what is going on and I think they think they can overwhelm the neutral editors by getting bodies here and wearing people down so they can control the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Tom_harrison

The article is regularly an object of editing by fans who try to use it to promote fringe views. Though better than it has been, it's still skewed toward the promotional. It needs to be a simple summary of what reliable sources have written. When promoters show up to edit out unfavorable sources and add puffery sourced to the films' promotional material, they need to be politely corrected, and if necessary shown the door. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC) >

Summary of dispute by Raquel_Baranow

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

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)

Talk:Impalement#tagging

– 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

• Talk:Impalement#tagging (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• OccultZone (talk · contribs)
• I am One of Many (talk · contribs)

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)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

[10]

[11]

[12]

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.

Summary of dispute by OccultZone

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

Summary of dispute by I am One of Many

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

Talk:Impalement#tagging discussion

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. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 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. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 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. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 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)

Talk:Le Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation#External_links_trim

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by DoNotGod on 18:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Le Sage's_theory_of_gravitation#External_links_trim  Users involved DoNotGod (talk · contribs) DVdm (talk · contribs) Insidiae (talk · contribs) Snowwhiteunger (talk · contribs) JohnBlackburne (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Primarily the depute is over a reasonable definition of a "personal web page" and what qualifies as a "non-mainstream" source. An effort to STOP one link from being added has resulted in 6 other links being removed\censored Have you tried to resolve this previously? just useless TALK How do you think we can help? provide a rational description of a "personal page" and acknowledge that this site ( http://inmendham.com/ds/index.html ) does not reasonably fit the category "personal site\page" Summary of dispute by DVdm Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. As can be seen at User talk:DVdm#Complaint (2) and Talk:Le Sage's theory of gravitation#External links trim user DoNotGod seems not to accept (or understand) that his web page qualifies as a personal web page, as mentioned at wp:ELNO item 11. - DVdm (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Insidiae Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Snowwhiteunger Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by JohnBlackburne Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. As well as the article talk page and the article history there's User talk:DVdm#Complaint (2) where the discussion started. Nothing really to add to those discussions.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC) Talk:Le Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation#External_links_trim discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - I am neither accepting nor declining this dispute at this time, awaiting statements from the other editors. I will note that a higher standard of civility is expected at this noticeboard (and in Wikipedia in general) than has been shown in discussion on the article talk page. Be civil and comment on content, not contributors, regardless of whether the discussion is here or on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.