Closed as pending in another forum. There is already discussion, as the filing party has noted, at the Fringe Theory Noticeboard. DRN does not handle a dispute that is also being discussed in another forum. We don't need competing discussions when an article is already controversial and contentious. The filing party says that this filing has created a new venue for argument without a plan for resolution. They can propose a method of resolution at FTN such as a Request for Comments. It appears that there is being discussion at FTN that may be useful, so the editors here are advised to discuss at FTN. If discussion at FTN subsides without consensus and without an RFC, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2023 (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.
Recently three paragraphs were removed from the lede of this article, which had been stable for a number of years (the structure and key information has stayed consistent, while there have been multiple minor changes within the text, which aren't in dispute). These recent edits were made along with a number of other edits on the page that were contentious. The talk page conversation turned toxic quickly with complaints on all sides. My primary interest is to see this article be reverted back to the last version before all of this started (link below). I then hope to have some kind of mediated discussion about the changes going forward.
This issue needs mediation of some kind, and the edit warring needs to stop. It is an important page with high traffic. I think the first step is to revert back to the last stable version from 14 October 2023. I'm open to any suggestion going forward from there.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Thomas Meng
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MrOllie
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by HollerithPunchCard
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Thanks Zujine, and every editor contributing to this thread. I'm by no means a subject expert on this topic, having edited this article less than five times over the past several years. But I have been extensively involved in the talk page discussions on this topic over the past few weeks, over a few radical changes to this article that were made by a group of editors.
For those unacquainted with this topic, Falun Gong has attracted sustained, intense interest from certain parts of our community for almost two decades, in part due to its importance, and its various dimensions that spans human rights, religion and politics, which is what attracted me to this page in the first place.
On November 8 22:44 (restored after reversion on Nov 10) Bloodofox deleted 5066 characters, essentially 3 entire paragraphs out of 5 paragraphs of the lede of this article. Most of the content deleted by Bloodofox has been stable on this page for months if not years, representing the consensus of many editors from both sides, over the course of a decade, debating almost every line and sometimes word.
The content deleted by Bloodofox includes the following:
What happened to Falun Gong - “Initially supported by the Chinese government. Later alleged to be a heretical organization by the Chinese government. Finally subject to "a nationwide crackdown", "a wide range of human rights abuse", with estimated "hundreds of thousands" to be "imprisoned extrajudicially", "torture". "As of 2009, human rights groups estimated that at least 2,000 Falun Gong practitioners had died within China as a result of abuse in custody."” Sources include: Amnesty International 2000, Freedom House 2017, New York Times 2009, China Quarterly 2015; The Religion of Falun Gong, Benjamin Penny, 2012, The University of Chicago Press;
Subsequent developments in Falun Gong movement - “"Millions continued to practise Falun Gong there [in china] in spite of the persecution", and "practised in over 70 countries" with "40,000 to several hundreds of thousands" of adherents.” Source: Telegraph 2009; China Quarterly 2015; Falun Gong and the Future of China by David Ownsby, 2008, Oxford University Press.
Bloodofox replaced all of the above content with essentially one statement (which is revised and "supplemented" from an existing sentence in the next paragraph):
Led by Li Hongzhi, who is viewed by adherents as a deity like figure, Falun Gong practitioners operated a variety of organizations in the US and elsewhere, known for opposing the CCP, feminism, modern medicine ,and being "ultra-conversative".
This statement were cobbled together from a few passing descriptions of Falun Gong from a few media articles, that are not even focused on this topic (they were mainly talking about EpochTimes, a media and Shen Yun, a performing arts troupe). Some portions of this statement appears to be sourced from none other than Bloodofox himself.
The WP:Lede is intended to introduce the article, and summarize its most important content, including any prominent controversies. What was previously a summary of two decades of stable scholarship and journalism of this multidimensional topic has now become a summary of a few online articles, cherry-picked amongst the sea of sources and information on this topic.
Is there controversies to Falun Gong? There appears to be. But Falun Gong is not just a controversy. It's also a serious religious and human rights phenomenon.
To delete all of the above context, background and history, distilled from two decades of journalism and scholarship on this serious topic, and confer exclusive limelight to select passages from select media articles, which is not even mainly about the beliefs of Falun Gong, strikes me as POV-pushing, in serious infringement of WP:Weight, WP:Lede, WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, WP:RECENTISM and WP:SOURCETYPE.
After being challenged See here, here, and here, on the merits of his edits, Bloodofox engaged in further edits of the same pattern. His justifications for his edits is essentially that all those who challenged his edits are "Falun Gong adherents", and that he is preventing alleged adherents a platform for their views see here, here and [1].
The editor does not appear to hide his activism on this issue. He declares his belief of Falun Gong as an alleged totalitarian movement, out to essentially corrupt the world with "omnipresent misinformation", and essentially that anyone and anything sympathetic to this topic must be purged from Wikipedia Example 1; Example 2;
Some editors and my attempt to restore the article to its stable version were quickly reverted by Mr. Ollie, who is also a regular on this page. In my respectful view, this pattern of disruptive edits that began on November 8, 2023 should be undone, and anything proposed changes to this article should be discussed rationally and civilly, without the blatant activism on this topic, on both sides of the aisle.HollerithPunchCard (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Binksternet
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Falun Gong discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I recommend this be closed while there's an active noticeboard post open about it (here). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:29, 15 November 2023 (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.
Invasion of Poland
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by WeatherWriter on 20:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC).
An RFC is being used to resolve the question of whether to list the Free City of Danzig as a belligerent. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2023 (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.
Arguments for yes (2 editors) include two government-created organizations attacking two Polish fortifications (supported by sources listed in articles and TP discussion). Arguments for no (3 editors) include that no source directly stated they are a belligerent + Germany "annexed" (Hitler signed a law) declaring the Free City of Danzig to be a part of Germany prior to the attacks.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Help interpret sources and definitions listed by participants as well as help ensure Wikipedia policies, guidelines, are being followed/mentioned properly and help ensure editors are assuming good faith during the dispute.
Summary of dispute by Betelgeuse X
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The fact that the Free City of Danzig was annexed by Germany on 1 September implies that it ceased to be a sovereign entity at that point.
Furthermore, an attack on a post office building by police forces hardly qualifies as sufficient for the inclusion of Danzig as a belligerent in the invasion of Poland. Unless there are reputible sources implying that Danzig was indeed a belligerent, then I can't justify Danzig being listed in the infobox.
Summary of dispute by Marcelus
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I am not aware of any reliable sources that confirm that the FCG was a fighting party during the invasion of Poland. I'm surprised that it came to WP:DRN when all I expect (in accordance with Wikipedia's rules) is to provide reliable sources and show that we are dealing with the dominant view in the academic literature.Marcelus (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Nigel Ish
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The nominally Danzig-"owned" organisations both had significant German cores - the SS Heimwehr Danzig was formed from a cadre of SS troops (a reinforced battalion0, with much of the heavier equipment coming from Wehrmacht stocks in East Prussia (Forcyzk, p. 128), while the Danzig Police was reinforced by Army troops secretly sent from Germany by sea and wearing police uniforms. The forces in Danzig were under the command of Generalmajor Friedrich-Georg Eberhardt, a regular Army officer. (Forcyzk, p. 136) The dispute is whether, for the purposes of the article infobox (which appears to be the locus of the dispute) that whether these units can be considered independent of Nazi German state.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Havsjö
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Why this is not enough to included Danzig I do not understand, but it seems to have to do with the other party of the dispute wanting the specific sentence "The Free City of Danzig was a belligerent in the Invasion of Poland" from the provided sources detailing Danzig's participation in the battles... --Havsjö (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Invasion of Poland discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by possible moderator (Invasion of Poland)
This appears to be a dispute that will be better resolved by the community by Request for Comments. I will act as a neutral moderator for the purpose of developing the RFC. In the meantime, please read DRN Rule E and agree that this is a contentious topic because it is in Eastern Europe. Are there any comments by the editors, or is there agreement that a Request for Comments will be used? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Invasion of Poland)
I agree to DRN Rule E and I agree that it is a contentious topic. I am perfectly fine with an RfC. Additional comment, looking back some through the article history, I can even find disagreements on this topic (edit-summary/removal style) back in December 2022 ([2]). An RfC to clear this up would be useful. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
(First DRN, so sorry if this is not the proper way to do this) Additional comment: My original filing was changed by Betelgeuse X. I am unaware, for the most recent disagreement (the one leading to this talk page discussion/DRN) that is, that there is 3 editors in disagreement. My original filing had 2 editors in agreement and 2 editors in disagreement, with Nigel Ish being more as a neutral-style commenter. I wanted to make a note of that here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (Invasion of Poland)
I have created a draft RFC at Talk:Invasion of Poland/RFC on Danzig . I will move it to the article talk page and activate it after there is no disagreement with it.
Are there any questions or comments?
Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Invasion of Poland)
The draft RfC looks good to me. I have no questions or concerns about it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator (Invasion of Poland)
The RFC is now active. It doesn't matter how many editors previously were in support of or in opposition to the inclusion of the name, because the RFC is intended to determine community rough consensus. This thread will be closed if there are no further questions or comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2023 (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.
Marco Polo
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Jonathan f1 on 04:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC).
Closed as apparently resolved. No one has disagreed with the decision that the short description and the lede sentence should say that Marco Polo was a Venetian merchant. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 17 November 2023 (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.
Everything you need to know about this petty dispute can be found on the Marco Polo talk page. An editor RfC'd to get the description in the lead changed from "Italian merchant from Venice" to "Venetian merchant etc" and the change was made on the reasoning that "Italian" is anachronistic in the 13th Century, which was shown to be false: reliable sources say the Latin equivalent of "Italian" was used to describe natives from the peninsula since the time of the Roman Empire. A separate argument was made that sources invariably describe Polo as "Venetian", which is also false: MP has been described as both "Italian" and "Venetian" for as long as this scholarship has existed and no one's ever disputed either of these terms. I produced about a half-dozen sources on the talk page and RS noticeboard that use "Italian" to describe Polo, Polo's family, and the Republic of Venice in the 13th Century.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I tried attracting some feedback on the RS board, but was told to start another RfC since there's no issue over sources (which there is, but it's more involved than that). Given that the last RfC on the subject produced a consensus from editors who didn't know what they were talking about, I decided to try getting this resolved here first. I am not partial to either term, but would like to reach an agreement that both "Italian" and "Venetian" are acceptable lead descriptors.
Summary of dispute by Mikola22
There are sources which refer Marco Polo as an Italian and Venetian merchant. Given that Italy did not exist during Marco Polo's lifetime and we know how Wikipedia works in that case, I started an Rfc on the matter. Most editors agreed that only information should be that Marco Polo was Venetian merchant. Given that majority of the editors already decided on that issue, I think that discussion here is not relevant. The only option is to start a new Rfc in which the editors will again decide on the matter. Mikola22 (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the rules. Venetian merchant is information from current sources, and the same are not in the sense of ethnicity, but in the sense that Polo is a merchant from Venetia. As for the sources which would speak in the context of his ethnicity, I don't think there are many, that is, we actually don't know which ethnicity he is. This is also evident from the article as there is more information about the geographical place of his birth. So in my opinion his ethnicity cannot be described in that sense, given that we do not have clear sources that speak about it. Mikola22 (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Miki Filigranski
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Marco Polo discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by moderator (Marco Polo)
I am ready to act as the moderator, at least briefly, because it appears that my main activity as moderator will be to start an RFC. Is the only issue whether to refer to Polo as Italian or as Venetian? Please read DRN Rule A, which is the set of rules that will be in effect. There are two places where his ethnicity should be mentioned, the short description, and the lede sentence, and they should be consistent. Please state that you agree to the rules. Please state concisely how his ethnicity should be described and why. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Marco Polo)
I agree to the rules. As to the nature of this dispute: it is not to be decided that it should be either or, but that both "Italian" and "Venetian" are acceptable terms to use in the lead and elsewhere in the article if necessary. The consensus that usually develops for pre-1860 historical figures from Italy usually favors "Italian" (Dante Alighieri "an Italian poet"; Galileo Galilei "an Italian astronomer"; Christopher Columbus "an Italian explorer"; Cesare Beccaria "an Italian philosopher" etc.) I would also not recommend either term be strictly viewed as an "ethnicity": you can think of "Italian" as an ethnicity, or you could also understand it as simply a word that was used to describe natives from the peninsula since the first centuries of the common era, which remained in use throughout the Middle Ages. This is what reliable sources say about the emergence of Italian identity, and "Italian" is a word that frequently appears in Marco Polo scholarship to describe both the subject of the article and the Republic of Venice, his place of birth. I would like an opportunity to present some of these sources before anything is decided.Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (Marco Polo)
There seem to be two issues. The first is whether Marco Polo can be referred to as "Italian". That question seems to be, more generally, whether persons born on the Italian peninsula between 476 AD and 1860 AD may be referred to as "Italian". Do we need an RFC to confirm that such persons may be referred to as "Italian"? And is there any specific issue about Marco Polo, or is the issue in his case the same as for other people born on the Italian peninsula between 476 AD and 1860 AD.
The second issue would seem to be whether Marco Polo, and other persons born in Venice between 697 AD and 1797 AD, may be referred to both as "Venetian" and as "Italian". I think that there is no question about whether he was Venetian.
Are there any issues that are specific to Marco Polo, or do the same questions apply to all persons born in Venice between 697 AD and 1797 AD? Are there any other questions?
Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Marco Polo)
As for the Republic of Venice, it extended over area of Italian peninsula, so it does not mean that if someone was born in that Republic, he is actually from Italian peninsula. This is also case with Marco Polo, since is clear from the article that there are several geographical places where he was possible born. Regarding the problem ”whether some person born on the Italian peninsula between 476 AD and 1860 AD may be referred to as "Italian" and do we need an RFC to confirm that such persons may be referred to as Italian” it is certainly a fundamental question not for Marco Polo but for all historical figures who are from today's Italy. I agree that in that case Rfc should be opened and that this question should finally be clarified, because in the articles we have all kinds of information in this sense. But there are more historical figures, various information from sources, so I don't know that this Rfc can regulate the issue of all historical figures from that time ie from today's Italy. As for Marco Polo issue, I think that same questions apply to all persons born in Venice between 697 AD and 1797 AD? Because mention that someone is Italian in that sense is an anachronism. But then again, for every person who is part of the Republic of Venice, there are probably sources that say different things about a person, so my suggestion is to stick to Marco Polo and the sources that talk about him. Mikola22 (talk) 06:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Mikola argues that it's an anachronism to describe pre-1860 historical figures from Italy as "Italian" (including Venice) but can't back this up with any reliable sources -it is just assumed. Gary Farney, a historical archeologist of Italy, writes about the emergence of Italian identity in the first centuries of the Roman Empire[6]. On the Dante Alighieri article (who also lived in the 13th Century) and Christopher Columbus article this very issue was debated and more sources were found that say (quoting the footnote in the lead): "Though an Italian nation state had yet to be established, the Latin equivalent of the term Italian (italus) had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity." So we've got multiple independent sources indicating that "Italian" is not an anachronism and was used to describe natives from the peninsula since the first centuries of the common era. Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Galileo, Dante, Columbus etc are all described as "Italian" in the lead of their biographies so this is not nearly the big issue Mikola seems to think it is.
Here's a small sample of sources describing Polo, Polo's family and 13th Century Venice as "Italian": an "Italian adventurer and Mongolian spy"[7]; "a member of an Italian merchant family" p. 87[8]; "an Italian merchant"[9]; "Italian merchant and explorer"[10]; "Venice, an Italian city-state"[11].
And finally, Mikola has expressed several times, explicitly on the talk page and RfC, and alluded to in the beginning of his first statement here, that he thinks Marco Polo was possibly Croatian, and was also told several times that this is a fringe theory and doesn't belong in the article. It certainly cannot be used as a rationale to contest the Italian/Venetian issue.Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (Marco Polo)
There is discussion in progress at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Two_Examples,_and_Comments, concerning the question of the ethnicity or nationality of persons who lived in countries that have changed or no longer exist. The consensus appears to be that Wikipedia should follow what is said by reliable sources. I have twothree questions for the editors. First, do you want to put the question of what to say about Marco Polo on hold, pending further discussion of the general issue, or do we want to come to at least a temporary resolution? If the former, we can just put this case on hold. If the latter, we will use a Request for Comments. Second, what do each of you, the participating editors, think should be in the lede sentence of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Third, are there any other issues to be addressed here?
Second statements by editors (Marco Polo)
As for concesus and the claim that we should follow what is said by reliable sources, I don't know that it solves this issue because there are multiple sources with differents informations about who he were. In this context, I think it would be preferable to respect the time context in which some person live ie anachronism argument. If we are going to use new Rfc then we have nothing to discuss here because our discussion cannot change Rfc. In my opinion, introductory part of the article should be in accordance with the sources which say that he is a Venetian merchant and in accordance with the Rfc in which was decided that Marco Polo was a Venetian merchant. Mikola22 (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
If there is an ongoing discussion about this I'd prefer to await the results rather than RfC. This has implications beyond this particular article: virtually every historical figure from Italy who lived before 1860 and after the fall of the Western Roman Empire is described as "Italian" on here. Even Anselm of Canterbury, who came from a region of modern Italy that was historically more French than Italian (and predates Marco Polo by 200 years), is described as an "Italian Benedictine monk" in the lead of his biography (and it is sourced to Britannica). This potentially raises other problems as well: most historical figures from pre-1870 Germany, for example, are described as "German" on Wikipedia, and people from Ireland are called "Irish" even in periods of history when Ireland was part of the British state (and they never, to my knowledge, use the nationality, which would be British). And when did England become a state (or 'nationality') and when should we start calling people "English", stop calling people "English" and start calling them "British"?
I would kindly ask Mikola to stop using the word "anachronism" as an argument. Sources have been produced indicating the term "Italian" is not anachronistic in this period and is frequently used to describe Marco Polo in reliable sources: it is not used in opposition to "Venetian", but interchangeably depending on the context. I have no personal bias for either term, but the original wording was "Italian merchant, explorer etc from the Republic of Venice", which Mikola wanted changed for no good reason. I told him that if the article has problems, this isn't one of them. I think the word I used was "nitpicking".
I don't have any other issues with this article. The RfC Mikola keeps citing was decided on near-total ignorance of what the sources say and how old the term in question actually is.Jonathan f1 (talk) 07:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator (Marco Polo)
It is not clear whether the discussion at the MOS talk page for biographies will reach a conclusion or fizzle out. There is also a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Rule_that_will_cover_anachronistic_informations_in_the_articles. I know that at least one editor disagrees with the use of the terms 'anachronistic' and 'anachronism'. We have at least two choices with regard to this DRN discussion. First, we can put this discussion on hold pending a more general discussion. If we do that, I will try to post an update about once a week, and participating editors can make brief statements about once a week. Second, we can run an RFC specifically about Marco Polo, with regard to whether he should be called 'Italian' or 'Venetian' in the lede sentence. I don't think that we have to make an either-or choice between the two options. The both-and option is to run an RFC, and then put this case on hold pending both closure of the RFC and resolution of the larger issue.
I think that Marco Polo raises two issues about identifying the nationality or ethnicity of certain historical persons. The first is whether persons born on the Italian peninsula between 476 AD and 1860 AD may be referred to as Italian. The second is whether persons born in the Republic of Venice between 697 AD and 1797 AD may be referred to as Venetian.
My preference is the both-and option, to run an RFC on Marco Polo, and to put this case on hold pending both action on the RFC and discussion of the larger issue. What does anyone else think? Are there any other comments or questions?
Robert McClenon (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (Marco Polo)
I started Rfc earlier and the editors gave their opinion. In this case, I suggest that the two of you make a joint agreement on what to do next, and I will support it. What I can't support is changing information from the article only based on this discussion since that issue was resolved in the previous Rfc. So decision what to do next is yours. Mikola22 (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
User:Mikola22 refers to a previous RFC. I have looked for a previous RFC, or for a link to a previous RFC, and have not found it. Will either Mikola2 or someone else please provide me with a link to the RFC? If it isn't shown to me, I will start a new RFC, which I may or may not do after I see an RFC. That is, I will start an RFC unless there is a strong argument why I should not start an RFC. At the same time, discussion will continue at the MOS page for biographies and at Village pump. So please show me where any previous RFC is. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Fourth statement by Jonathan f1
Sorry for the delay -I support putting this conversation on hold, absolutely. An agreement needs to be reached that any reasoning against using the term 'Italian' cannot be based on the erroneous idea that it's an 'anachronism', simply because it's not. The previous RFC referenced above can be found on the Marco Polo talk page and was linked by Mikola in discussion. For now, I think we are all talked out. This 'anachronism' stuff is getting us nowhere.Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Fifth statement by moderator (Marco Polo)
First, I have seen a previous RFC, which was a little more than three years ago. Consensus can change. The issue is whether consensus has changed. We do not need to cite that RFC. Second, I think that the main issue is whether persons born in the region of Italy between 476 AD and 1860 AD may be referred to as Italian. I will put this discussion on hold, maybe for a few days, maybe for one or two months. If discussion at the MOS biographical guideline talk page fizzles out, we will publish a new RFC. One editor says that we are all talked out. I don't know exactly what that means, but I don't think that we are all talked out until there is at least an interim resolution about the term "Italian" for medieval persons.
Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Fifth statements by editors (Marco Polo)
Sixth statement by moderator (Marco Polo)
There wasn't any resolution from the discussion at the MOS on biographies talk page, so I am reopening the discussion about the nationality of Marco Polo, and notifying @Jonathan11, Mikola22, and Miki Filigranski:. Please read DRN Rule A again. Since three weeks have passed, I will ask some questions again. First, what do each of you think should describe his nationality in the short description and the lede sentence? Second, are there any other places in the article about which there are issues about referring to his nationality or ethnicity? Third, are there any other article content issues about Marco Polo?
Robert McClenon (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Sixth statements by editors (Marco Polo)
Marco Polo was a Venetian merchant. This information is consistent with the sources, the time context, and the Rfc conclusion. As for the rest of the article, all information in this sense are in accordance with the sources. In my opinion, there are no more problems in the article. Mikola22 (talk) 05:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Seventh statement by moderator (Marco Polo)
The article currently refers to Marco Polo as Venetian. There doesn't seem to be any disagreement with referring to him as Venetian. If no one wants to refer to him, in the short description and the lede sentence, as Italian, I will close this dispute as resolved. If there is an issue about the use of the descriptor Italian for other persons born in the region of Italy or the Italian peninsula between 476 AD and 1860 AD, we can discuss that at the talk page for the guideline on biographies or at WikiProject Italy.
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Seventh statements by editors (Marco Polo)
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.
Re'im music festival massacre
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by AntiDionysius on 22:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC).
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.
There is ongoing dispute about whether to use the noun "terrorist", in place of "militant", to refer in-article to those who perpetrated the massacre in question, and members of Hamas in general. (The debate hasn't really been about the description of the act itself. There appears to be consensus about the title of the article, and no one has objected to its short description, "2023 terrorist attack against civilians in Israel" to my knowledge).
I think it would be fair to say the discussion is now just going in circles. It mainly concerns the applicability of the MOS:TERRORIST policy; should the word "terrorist(s)" be used only with in-text attribution, as the policy would appear to say, or should it be used in Wikispeak. I am on the former side of the issue, but obviously there is significant disagreement.
The page is under a contentious topic restriction, meaning the 1RR is in place; there have been a number of unilateral impositions of one or other wording, and several reverts (some of which may have violated the 1RR). Some outside input, regardless of what it involved, might help to discourage that. I am not hopeful that participants in this dispute can be mediated towards seeing eye-to-eye, so advice from DR volunteers on how best to proceed would be appreciated.
Summary of dispute by BAR
It is CRYSTAL CLEAR that this massacre is a terrorist attack. Murder of hundreds of unarmed civilians; hostage crisis; Kidnapping and taking captive of dozens of innocent people; Sexual abuse and humiliation of bodies, the display in the streets of Gaza and on Telegram.This is exactly the definition of terrorism. No less than Nine-Eleven. All they want is to sow fear in the hearts of the citizens. If it is not terrorism, there is simply no such thing as terrorism. ℬ𝒜ℛ (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Yr Enw
My problem isn't with whether or not the actions fit a definition of terrorism, but that there is no possible application of the term in Wikivoice that will ensure WP:NPOV can be maintained. The social sciences have recognised for a long time "terror", "terrorism" and "terrorist" are biased, loaded labels (can source is req'd) and so it would then have to be applied to articles on Israeli reprisals, etc. It is far too broad a term to be of utility (esp if the lead definition on Terrorism is applied) and is not used in leads for (for eg) Omagh bombing, Deir Yassin massacre or the 1996 Manchester bombing. I do, nonetheless, recognise multiple sources have used the term and have no objection to including "X, Y and Z condemned the massacre as terrorism" or suchlike. This does, however, seem to have consequences for wikivoice on articles like September 11 attacks and the Jaffa Road bus bombings. But we are not losing anything by using other words or caveating the term with "X condemned Y as terrorism". Yr Enw (talk) 07:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by דוב
According to MOS:TERRORISTValue-laden labels should be avoided, this of course makes much sense to avoid biased writing. The manual althorugh, follows by "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject", an example for which can be seen in September 11 attacks, where the term 'terrorist' has been used to describe the attack. There are over dozens of sources, which are offical statements of countries across the world who described the attack as a terror attack (over 80 countries) and considered Hamas as a terrorist organization, including the Europion Union. Calling it a 'militant group' isn't the right term, most of the militaries across the world don't behead babies, kidnapp civilians or massacare a music festival. If needed I can back up any of the claims with various overlapping reliable sources. דוב (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Alalch E.
Editors want to include a mention of terrorism in the article, but seem unable to do it properly, and are unable to distinguish between Hamas being called a terrorist organization, Palestinian militants being called terrorists, and the event being called a terrorist attack. For the concerned article, which is about the massacre, the only truly important question is the last one. It's possible to say that it was a terrorist attack somewhere in the body, with some form of in-text attribution. Of course we don't have to say that every Palestinian militant is a terrorist. I significantly disagree with User:AntiDionysius' argument on the talk page: Special:Diff/1179573519. It's an argument against the notion of terrorism. But terrorism exists. It's studied in social sciences. For example, as topic within criminology. The word is not just a pejorative label. We have the article Definition of terrorism. This event was a terrorist attack.[1]
"Hamas Leaves Trail of Terror in Israel". The New York Times. 10 October 2023. Retrieved 11 October 2023. As Israeli soldiers regain control of areas near Gaza that came under attack, they are finding evidence seen in videos and photos and confirmed by witness accounts of the massacre of civilians by Hamas terrorists.They were killed waiting for the bus, dancing at a festival ...The soldiers, retaking control of the kibbutzim, towns and settlements near the Gaza Strip that came under attack by Palestinian terrorists over the weekend, have recovered body after body after body.
"'I heard only gunshots, screams and Arabic': Last call from Israel festival attack". Politico. 9 October 2023. Retrieved 11 October 2023. A father, Yomtov, searches for his son, Ben, who was partying with more than 4,000 other people at the Tribe of Nova trance music festival Saturday morning when Hamas terrorists opened fire on the celebrating crowd, killing hundreds.
Pierson, Elisabeth (10 October 2023). "Attaque du Hamas en Israël : ce que l'on sait des vingt Français disparus". Le Figaro (in French). Retrieved 11 October 2023. Parmi les autres disparus figure la Franco-israélienne Céline Ben-David Nagar. Cette femme de 32 ans, mère d'un bébé de six mois a été surprise par les roquettes du Hamas alors qu'elle rejoignait la rave party électro près de Gaza samedi, où 260 corps ont été retrouvés après l'attaque des terroristes. (transl. Among the others missing is the Franco-Israeli Céline Ben-David Nagar. This 32-year-old woman, mother of a six-month-old baby, was surprised by Hamas rockets as she joined the rave party near Gaza on Saturday, where 260 bodies were found after the terrorist attack.)
Brooks, Katie Bain,Dave; Bain, Katie; Brooks, Dave (10 October 2023). "'It Was a Death Trap': Israeli Rave Massacre Survivors Detail Their Escape as Scores Remain Missing". Billboard. Retrieved 11 October 2023. So far, the Israeli search and rescue organization Zaka has reported that it found 260 dead bodies at the festival site in Re'im, Israel. An unknown number of attendees have been abducted by Hamas terrorists.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Renou, Aymeric (9 October 2023). "Attaques du Hamas en Israël : les Bédouins arabes pleurent aussi leurs morts". Le Parisien (in French). Osama Abu Essa, 36 ans, père de deux enfants et originaire de Tel Sheva, travaillait comme gardien dans la région de Réïm, tout comme Musa Abu Sabila, 41 ans, père de six enfants. Ils ont succombé à leurs blessures par balles samedi matin à proximité du festival de musique alors qu'ils tentaient de trouver refuge pour se protéger des tirs des terroristes du Hamas. (transl. Osama Abu Essa, 36, father of two and from Tel Sheva, worked as a caretaker in the Réïm region, as did Musa Abu Sabila, 41, father of six. They died of their gunshot wounds on Saturday morning near the music festival while trying to find refuge to protect themselves from the shooting of Hamas terrorists.)
"Izraelski 9/11: Erupcija zamrznute mržnje" [Israel's 9/11: The Eruption of Frozen Hate]. www.vreme.com (in Serbian). 9 October 2023. Retrieved 11 October 2023. Izrael je ponižen. Palestinski teroristi su iz Pojasa Gaze u subotu u zoru prodrli na više lokacija na izraelsku teritoriju, izvršili pokolj, pobili preko 700, ranili na hiljade, oteli oko stotinu Izraelaca – žene, decu, starce, muškarce, vojnike. (transl. Israel is humiliated. Palestinian terrorists from the Gaza Strip penetrated into several locations on Israeli territory at dawn on Saturday, massacred, killed over 700, wounded thousands, and kidnapped about a hundred Israelis - women, children, old men, men, soldiers.)
"Opinion | The Attack on Israel Demands Unity and Resolve". The New York Times. 9 October 2023. Retrieved 11 October 2023. The brutal terrorist attack on Israel by Hamas is a tragedy...The terrorists burst through border fences without warning or any immediate provocation, landed on Israeli beaches and fired thousands of rockets into Israel early on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath and a Jewish holiday. Many Israelis have called this attack their 9/11.
J.H. (9 October 2023). "Izrael još uvek nije uspostavio punu kontrolu na jugu zemlje" [Israel has not yet established full control in the country's south]. Vreme (in Serbian). Retrieved 11 October 2023. Sve što se dogodilo izazvalo je talas osećanja nesigurnosti među Izraelcima. Oni jesu okoreli na pojedinačne terorističke napade, ili raketne napade, ali se okršaji na teritoriji Izraela nisu vodili još od Jomkipurskog rata 1973. godine.A ovakav način terorističke borbe je potpuno nov. ...(transl. Everything that has happened caused a wave of feelings of unsafety among Israelis. They are hardened to individual terrorist attacks, or rocket attacks, but skirmishes on the territory of Israel have not been occurring since the Yom Kippur War in 1973.And this mode of terroristic struggle is completely new. ...)
"Oko: Izrael i Hamas – sirotinjski terorizam i početak dugog i teškog rata" [Oko: Israel and Hamas – terrorism from the slums and the beginning of a long and tough war]. Radio-televizija Srbije. 9 October 2023. Retrieved 11 October 2023. "To je neka vrsta, da je tako nazovemo, sirotinjskog terorizma. Jeste bilo iznenađenje kada krene veliki broj ljudi, nekoliko stotina na različite načine – da se bagerima sruši ograda, paraglajderi sa mora... Ali suštinski, to nije velika vojna akcija, tu nema tenkova, nema aviona" ..."To je orgija nasilja u kojoj je cilj da se ubije što više ljudi i da se pokaže Izraelcima da mogu i oni da budu žrtve ...(transl. "It's some kind of, let's call it that way, terrorism from the slums. It was a surprise when a large number of people, several hundred of them, set out in a variety of ways – tearing down the fence with excavators, paragliders from the sea... But essentially, it's not a major military action, there are no tanks, no planes," ... "It is an orgy of violence in which the goal is to kill as many people as possible and to show the Israelis that they too can be victims ...)
Hoffman, Bruce; Ware, Jacob (10 October 2023). "Israel's 9/11? How Hamas Terrorist Attacks Will Change the Middle East". War on the Rocks. Retrieved 11 October 2023. Many commentators have rightly decried the attack as terrorism. ...Saturday's attacks should offer a stark reminder of terrorism's unique ability to drive geopolitical agendas and completely upend status quos.
The sources aren't calling the massacre a terrorist attack to make the perpetrators look worse, they are either using the word to describe what happened, in a fairly natural, non-emphasized way, or are explaining why it's terrorism and what the implications of that are.—Alalch E. 04:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Re'im music festival massacre discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Re'im massacre)
I am ready to moderate. Please read DRN Rule E and state that you agree to the rules. The article may still be expanding, because the massacre occurred only a few days ago, so editors will be allowed to expand the article, but not to make any other changes, and not to revert any edits by other editors. The topic is a contentious topic because it has to do with Palestine-Israeli conflict. If you agree to these rules, you are acknowledging that contentious topic sanctions apply to disruptive editing. So do not be disruptive. Be civil and concise. Is the only issue whether to refer to the massacre as a "terrorist" attack in the lede sentence? If not, what are the other issues?
Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Re'im massacre)
Rule E is fine by me, and I agree to it. Regarding the bounds of the dispute: it is about whether the word "militants" (particularly in the first sentence of the article, but also elsewhere) should be replaced with "terrorists", without in-text attribution. I would describe myself as basically fine with the article as it is; it has the short description "2023 terrorist attack against civilians in Israel" and is in the category "Terrorist attacks attributed to Palestinian militant groups", but uses the noun "militants" when referring to people/groups in Wikispeak (but says "terrorists" once in the context of an attributed quote). I believe that some others would prefer the article be changed, maybe along the lines of this revision. --AntiDionysius (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I read Rule E, and I agree to it. I agree with AntiDionysius's proposal. דוב (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Read and agree Rule E. I think my issue is ultimately wider, about WP:TERRORIST in general. So if that’s outside the scope of DR, I agree with AntiDionysius’s proposal. I note the article has been revised since their post Yr Enw (talk) 06:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (Re'im)
I will repeat a few of the rules in DRN Rule E. Be civil and concise. Overly long posts often do not convey information. Sometimes they convey mood, such as that the poster is angry, but the purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. Do not reply to the posts of other editors. There is a section for back-and-forth discussion, but address your statements to the moderator and the community.
Will each editor please state what parts of the article they want changed? You do not need to say why you want the change. We can discuss that later. Please summarize concisely what you want change in the article.
Robert McClenon (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Re'im)
My suggested changes are the following: Using the word 'terror attack' to describe the event similar to the articles Munich massacre and September 11 attacks, and usage of the word 'terrorists' instead of 'militants'. Regarding civil hostages, referring to it as "kidnaping" and not "capturing". dov (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
My suggestion is not using the term "terror attack" and to retain "militant(s)" over "terrorist(s)". I have no opinion on kidnapping/capturing. Yr Enw (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
My suggestion is to retain "militant(s)" over "terrorist(s)". --AntiDionysius (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (Re'im)
It appears that there are three specific issues. The next step is to verify whether those are the only three issues, and to identify exactly what parts of the article are in question.
1. Should the Hamas combatants be referred to as 'militants' or 'terrorists'?
The term 'militants' appears in multiple places in the article. Does the question apply to all of the references?
2. Should the term 'terror attack' be used?
Does this involve the short description? Where else does this question apply to?
3. Should the taking of the civilian hostages be referred to as 'capture' or 'kidnapping'?
Where in the article are the references that are in question?
Are we in agreement that those are the issues, or are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
We don't need to discuss the reasons for these preferences at this time, because we will discuss the reasons in the near future. At this point, we are still focusing on identifying the scope of the content disagreement. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree that those are the issues. dov (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I think those are the issues. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Re'im)
Third statement by moderator (Re'im)
Now that we have agreed on what the issues are, I will again ask the questions that are under points 1 through 3. Please provide a short answer to each numbered question. Please also answer the questions under the numbered question, which are mostly about where in the article the issue applies to.
Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
1. Should the Hamas combatants be referred to as 'militants' or 'terrorists'?
The term 'militants' appears in multiple places in the article. Does the question apply to all of the references?
2. Should the term 'terror attack' be used?
Does this involve the short description? Where else does this question apply to?
3. Should the taking of the civilian hostages be referred to as 'capture' or 'kidnapping'?
Where in the article are the references that are in question?
Please provide short answers to the questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (Re'im)
1. Militants. Applying to all references in Wikivoice. Not applying to quotations.
2. No, except in reference to sources who have used that description.
There appears to be no objection to referring to the taking of the prisoners as 'Kidnapping'.
The disagreement on both point 1 and point 2 seems to be about the interpretation of MOS:TERRORIST, a guideline in the MOS about the use of contentious labels, which says "Value-laden labels, such as calling … an individual a …terrorist …may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."
So please provide a brief statement as to why the use of the labels of "terrorist" and "terror attack" either are adequately used by reliable sources, or should not be used because they are not attributed properly.
Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Fourth statements by editors (Re'im)
Just like the MOS claims, it's a value-laden unless there are reliable sources. The vast majority of the sources used in the article refer to the massacre as a terror attack and to the 'militants' as terrorists. As an example: economistNew York Times, haaretz. There are many more RS that are not mentioned in the article and also refer to the attack as a terror attack, like: CNN, people, rolling stone. All of those are WP:RSP and refer to the attack as 'terror attack' and to the militants as 'terrorists'. dov (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree with dov that the vast majority of the sources used in the article refer to the massacre as a "terror attack" and to the militants as "terrorists". I don't have any problem with that. I am not arguing the terms aren't adequately used or attributed properly. What I believe is that MOS:TERRORIST should be understood so as to avoid any use of the terms in Wikivoice, and limit their use to direct quotations or references to third party usage of the terms. Yr Enw (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
To me, MOS:TERRORIST could scarcely be more clearly written: it says that the word "terrorist" should never be used, unless it appears in a great number of reliable sources, in which case it should be used exclusively with in-text attribution. That's what I'm in favour of, as I said in the third statement. It has been rightly pointed out that there are various sources which use the word; so we should attribute it in text to them, whether as reported speech or within quotation marks. It seems quite clear cut to me. - - AntiDionysius (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Fifth statement by moderator (Re'im)
There doesn't seem to be agreement either on whether to call the massacre a "terror attack", or whether to refer to the attackers as "terrorists" or "militants". There is no objection to calling the taking of the hostages as kidnapping. I have an opinion on one of the two questions, but will offer my opinion only if it is requested, because I will otherwise be neutral. It appears that a Request for Comments is in order, and I will begin developing an RFC. Are there any other questions at this time?
Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Fifth statements by editors (Re'im)
No other questions at this time, thank you. Yr Enw (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I am somewhat interested in hearing your opinion on whichever of the two questions it is you have a view on, but if I'm the only one interested in that, then I'll forget about it. A RfC probably makes sense as a next step. Thank you for your assistance. - - AntiDionysius (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I would like to hear your opinion on the subject. I don't see why there should be an RfC either, we have a manual which is pretty clear about the subject. Furthermore, I provided few articles as an example for a similiar circumstances, those articles followed the existing manual Wikipedia has without opening a wasteful RfC. It's really hard for me to understand why here we don't follow the same manual? None, of my arguements were answered. The only differnce I can see between the terror attacks I mentioned above, all of the above happened in Europe and Northern America. This terror attack happened in Israel. I really try to assume good intentions, but it's pretty hard when I see a clear biased writing infront of me. dov (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Sixth statement by moderator (Re'im)
I have composed a draft RFC, which is at Talk:Re'im music festival massacre/RFC. Please do not make statements in the draft RFC at this time. I will move it to the real talk page when it is ready to run. You are encouraged each to make a brief explanation in the subsections headed "Discussion" to explain your position. After you have made those statements, I will move the draft RFC to the article talk page, and it will become a real RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Are there any questions at this point?
Sixth statements by editors (Re'im)
So just to be clear, we should add our statements now under "Discussion: Terrorists or Militants?" and/or "Discussion: Terror Attack?", but not write anything under the "Survey" section until the RfC is live? Other than that, no questions at this time. --AntiDionysius (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I suppose on reflection I have a query about the RfC; would it be useful to specify that the discussion is not over whether the word "terrorists" at all, but whether or not it should be used in Wikivoice without in-text attribution? AntiDionysius (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, apologies, I too don’t follow whether we should add a statement under discussion on the RfC or below in this current DR section? I agree with @AntiDionysius in their summary this is specifically about Wikivoice use of the word “terrorists” and “terror attack”. Yr Enw (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Seventh statement by moderator (Re'im)
It has been brought to my attention that there is a discussion at Village Pump: Policy concerning the use of the term 'terrorist' in Wikivoice, which appears to be a response among other things to this dispute. The discussion at Village Pump seems to encompass this dispute. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Proposed_change_MOS:TERRORIST.
I am placing this case on hold and advising the participants to take part in the discussion at the Village Pump, and any subsequent discussion. If that discussion resolves this dispute, maybe in one or two months, I will close this dispute. Otherwise I may reopen it. In the meantime, you may edit the article, but do not edit-war. I will try to answer any questions that do not involve the proposed change to the MOS.
Robert McClenon (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I will ask the questions that I asked in my third statement again, because over time, viewpoints may change.
1. Should the Hamas combatants be referred to as 'militants' or 'terrorists'?
The term 'militants' appears in multiple places in the article. Does the question apply to all of the references?
2. Should the term 'terror attack' be used?
Does this involve the short description? Where else does this question apply to?
3. This question has been answered, and the taking of civilian hostages may be referred to as 'kidnapping'.
Please provide short answers to the questions. Please answer both the main question and the clarifying question below it. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Eighth statements by editors (Re'im)
1. terrorists - should be changed in all the references. Specifically in the opening paragraph.
2. Yes - including in the short description. like in similar articles.
3. kidnapping. dov (talk) 06:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
1. Militants. Applying to all references in Wikivoice. Not applying to quotations or where there is in-text attribution.
2. No except in reference to sources who have used that description (where it should used either in attribution or direct quotation only).
3. No opinion. Yr Enw (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Ninth statement by moderator (Re'im)
I have created a draft RFC at Talk:Re'im music festival massacre/RFC on terminology. Please review it and comment on it. I will publish it by moving it to the article talk page after any discussion of it and any edits.
Are there any other comments or questions at this point?
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Should we participate in the survey or are we limited to discussion? Yr Enw (talk) 09:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Ninth statements by editors (Re'im)
Tenth statement by moderator (Re'im)
When the RFC is published, editors in this DRN should enter their statements in the Survey as well as taking part in the Discussion. The RFC is meant to be self-contained, so that the closer does not have to look at the DRN for the opinions of the editors whose disagreement resulted in the RFC. Do not enter anything in the RFC while it is a draft, until it is published. Then, editors in this DRN are no different than other editors who take part in the RFC.
Are there any other comments or questions at this point?
Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Tenth statements by editors (Re'im)
Back-and-forth discussion (Re'im)
I unserstand MOS:TERRORIST. Yr Enw, the manual is pretty clear about the use of those words and we can see as an example the articles: September 11 attacks, Munich massacre and November 2015 Paris attacks. This is not Wikivoice, this is using the existing RS and writing them as they're without censorship. AntiDionysius, those articles and the rest of the articles in the category can serve as an evidence that your interpretation of the manual is not the one Wikipedia uses and your claim seems like it's against the manual itself and not towards the article in dispute. It doesn't matter if the majority of the editors agree or disagree with Hamas or justify the attack, Wikipedia should rely on sources and not on opinions of editors, because that's exactly how a bias is created. The claim "some editors don't agree the attack was terror" can go to the Village pump, not to the main pages. The reader doesn't and shouldn't know the opinion of the editors. Furthermore, ignoring the MOS policy regarding the attack is really concerning. Any accusations that the MOS should be changed are irrelvant for this particular discussion. dov (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2023 (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.
Sergei Bortkiewicz
– Discussion in progress.
Filed by CurryTime7-24 on 19:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Subject's nationality and ethnicity in the lead; specifically whether to refer to him as Russian, Ukrainian, both, or omit nationality altogether. According to 20th-century sources, subject was referred to as Russian. Sources from the 21st century, however, increasingly have referred to him as Ukrainian. Complicating matters is the subject himself who, according to a doctoral thesis from 2016 cited within the article, personally identified as Russian, referred to his birth place as an appendage of Russia, and expressed chauvinistic views against Ukraine and its culture. Nevertheless, his birth place is in a territory located within modern Ukraine. Consensus had been reached in summer 2023 which described subject as a Russian and naturalized Austrian of Polish heritage. However, a new user disputed this consensus last month; debate since has produced much animosity all around, but little else.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Help to establish a consensus on how to present the essential facts of the subject's identity in the lead once and for all.
Sergei Bortkiewicz discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
I am ready to moderate this discussion. I expect that the moderated discussion will lead to the development of a Request for Comments, both because the number of editors is larger than is likely to support much discussion, and because the question does not seem to be complex. Please read DRN Rule C. This dispute is about Eastern Europe, which is subject to frequent battleground editing, because the area in question not only has been a battleground in the past but is a battleground at present. Please also read the ArbCom decision that Eastern Europe is a contentious topic. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress.
I am asking each editor for a brief introductory statement including:
This is my first time editing wikipedia, and it started with a simple request to update the description of the Ukrainian composer Sergei Bortkiewicz to correctly reflect how he is described today in the majority of sources. The editors refused to examine my sources, one going as far as saying they would “oppose any mention of him as a Ukrainian composer” and that “Ukrainian sources cannot be trusted”. When I raised concerns about such biased attitudes, they were ignored.
As I was repeatedly pointed to an earlier discussion, I have carefully read the August dispute and addressed many of editors’ objections with proper citations. They have then accused me of “bludgeoning”.
Even thought it was a practice in the past, it is no longer appropriate to refer to people from Ukraine as “Russians”. Just as it is no longer correct to say “The Ukraine” but “Ukraine” and not “Kiev” but “Kyiv”, describing an artist, who was born in Ukraine, grew up in Ukraine, got married in Ukraine, worked in Ukraine, and had to flee Ukraine, as Ukrainian is the only appropriate way.
Just recently, The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York has finally recognized Ukrainian artists Ivan Aivazovsky, Ilya Repin, and and Arkhyp Kuindji as Ukrainians after labeling them as Russians for decades. I believe the consensus in the musical community to refer to Bortkiewicz as a Ukrainian composer is there, and it should be reflected in the Wikipedia article given how widely it is used worldwide. Yet, editors continue to insist on their Russian-centric view of the composer; just yesterday I was pointed to a source from 1995 that said that Bortkiewicz was Russian. I consider such attempts disingenuous.
At the time of my inquiry on October 5, the article had 3 sources and the description of the composer read:
“Sergei Bortkiewicz was a Russian and Austrian Romantic composer and pianist of Polish origins.
Born in the Russian Empire, he moved to Vienna in 1922 and became a naturalized Austrian citizen in 1926”
I was sure that by proving ten newer sources, which identified Bortkiewicz with Ukraine, updating his identification would be quick work. Yet, we are here now, and because my sources were never addressed or given proper critique as to why they were insufficient, I am providing them below.
Please see 14 sources that identify Bortkiewicz with Ukraine or Ukrainian culture.
Page 2- The Bachelor thesis „Piano work of Sergei Bortkiewicz" deals with life and artistic activities of the Ukrainian pianist and composer Sergei Bortkiewicz” 2018
Page 5 - “Bortkiewicz is one of the most prominent representatives of the Ukrainian musical culture of the first half of the XX century and a bright representative of the romantic art of this period” 2021
4
page 17- 18
«In accordance with the criteria set out in the definition of «national identity» in the beginning, it can be said that S. Bortkiewicz is really representative of the Ukrainian culture» 2016
“Sergei Bortkiewicz. The Ukrainian born composer was forced into nomadic wave of life in the early part of the century due to the Russian revolution and the ensuing World War.” 2017
A 2017 article about a Festival in Kyiv dedicated to 140th year of the composer's birth, where he is described as a Ukrainian composer in the first sentence of the article:
In light of this evidence, I propose the opening sentence of the article to read:
Sergei Bortkiewicz (28 February 1877 [O.S. 16 February] – 25 October 1952) was a Ukrainian composer and pianist.
The second sentence can describe what he is notable for:
He is one of the most prominent representatives of the Ukrainian musical culture of the first half of the twentieth century and a bright representative of the romantic art of this period.
from source no. 3
III
Yes, I was hoping to provide other sources to improve the article, such as the description of Bortkiewicz’s family in Kharkiv. I am not sure I’m ready to invest such an extensive amount of time and have to battle for every word.
IV
I don’t believe consensus was ever reached. Upon examining the earlier discussion, it became clear that more experienced editors had the upper hand, dodging or ignoring questions they did not want to answer. So, those who oppose the current view of the article simply gave up. Tyulyasho (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be a concept of pseudo-consensus or illusory consensus. I agree with SMcCandlish that if editors thought that consensus had been reached twice with different conclusions, then there was an illusion of consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Not having experienced anything like this, I believed that the agreements to first remove all nationalities/ethnicities, then restore the Russian/Austrian/Polish status ante quo both represented "consensus". This is a unique editing dispute for me and had I been aware of the concept of illusory consensus, I would have requested dispute resolution back in August. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
My involvement with this article began late last or early this year. It entirely lacked sources before that. I added one, the subject's entry on The New Grove, which stated he was Russian and Austrian. In late spring, the lead was modified non-controversially to include the subject's Polish heritage, which is confirmed by another source added to the article. The status quo remained until June, when a new user, who was a good sock, opposed the lead. Discussion got heated, but eventually there was consensus to omit all mention of subject's nationality/ethnicity from the lead. Shortly thereafter, discussion started again and a new consensus was met wherein the lead stated that subject was Russian and Austrian of Polish heritage. This remained until last month when user Tyulasho made their dispute, after which discussion produced no consensus. In response to your requests:
The lead ought to state that subject is Russian and Austrian of Polish heritage as anything else outside of this is speculative. Alternatively, all mentions of nationality/ethnicity should be omitted from the lead to prevent future disputes.
No.
Consensus had been reached during the summer twice with different outcomes as mentioned above. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
My involvement in this has been very peripheral. I don't have a vested interest in the outcome. Just speaking as a regular editor and reader, I think I would expect this to say that the subject was born in the Russian Empire (in Kharkov, today part of Ukraine), identified as Russian, a later became a naturalized Austrian citizen. The lead need not get into any more detail than that (regarding nationality), and a statement even that short covers all the bases neutrally and clearly. DRN Rule C is fine by me. I'm not aware of any other issues to resolve, and I don't know of a prior consensus about the nationality issue (and we probably wouldn't be here if there was one, or at least one that has lasted – reading CurryTime7-24's note above, I have to observe that "consensus had been reached ... twice with different outcomes" really means consensus was not actually reached. :-). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 09:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 10:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
1 I agree to DRN Rule C
2 Sergei Bortkiewicz (28 February 1877 [O.S. 16 February] – 25 October 1952) was a Ukrainian composer and pianist.
As supported by the 14 sources I have offered to the editors that reflect the current research on the composer as well as consensus to refer to him as such in the musical community worldwide.
At the time of my inquiry on October 5, the article had only 3 sources - one from 2001 and two from 2016.
3 yes, the article can be improved by including the most up-to-date research on the composer.
4 No. The earlier discussion shows that the more experienced editors had the upper hand and pretty much had a free reign as to how to describe the composer. Those who opposed the current view of the article simply gave up.
Furthermore, the earlier inquiry in August about including Ukraine resulted in the editors describing the composer as Russian, Austrian and Polish.
I think the article will remain contested only for as long as the editors' anti-Ukrainian biases shown during the October discussion remain unaddressed, and the standards by which sources are accepted and evaluated are made clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyulyasho (talk • contribs) 02:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I have posted my views on what I think the at Talk:Sergei_Bortkiewicz#Dispute_resolution and elsewhere (TL;DR I think we have RS for calling him both Russian and Ukrainian). I find the behavior of Tyulyasho to be a violation of WP:CIV and WP:NPA ("Is this a joke?"... "How is Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus an authority on this?") and I have better things to do with my time than discuss things at that level, so I expect this to be my final comment on this issue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
There is discussion in progress at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Two_Examples,_and_Comments, concerning the question of the ethnicity or nationality of persons who lived in countries that have changed or no longer exist. The consensus appears to be that Wikipedia should follow what is said by reliable sources. I have twothree questions for the editors. First, do you want to put the question of what to say about Sergei Bortkiewicz on hold, pending further discussion of the general issue, or do we want to come to at least a temporary resolution? If the former, we can just put this case on hold. If the latter, we will use a Request for Comments. Second, what do each of you, the participating editors, think should be in the lede sentence of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Third, are there any other issues to be addressed here?
Second statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
My concern with respect to the Bortkiewicz article is about how "reliable sources" would be defined. The composer or his biography are only incidental in some of the sources provided by Tyulyasho and others. For example, Bortkiewicz takes up only about a paragraph in this study, which is otherwise about Paul Wittgenstein. In this one, the focus is on analysis of his music, not details about his life.
With respect to sources from Ukraine, including those brought up in Bortkiewicz's talk page, the enmity between it and Russia in recent history may result in the possibility that sources from either country may have ulterior nationalist agendas. Sometimes Western sources from March 2022 on are also similarly compromised. One of the sources that Tyulyasho cited looks to have been posted in the immediate wake of the war. Among the composers referred to as "Ukrainian" is Sergei Prokofiev, a claim that not even the Ukrainian Wikipedia article on the composer repeats (the lead there calls him "Russian and Soviet"). This source's claim is controversial enough to call into question everything else it states, including about Bortkiewicz.
The reason I sought out The New Grove when I first edited this article back in January was because it is a widely trusted and impartial source on music. As for Johnson, his thesis is about Bortkiewicz and his music. Unlike any of the other sources provided, whether for one side or another, Johnson actually devotes significant space to Bortkiewicz's personal identity. Contrary to what Tyulyasho and other opposing editors have said, it also cites extensively from Bortkiewicz's memoirs—around 40 times altogether. For what it's worth, Johnson does not appear to have a pro-Russian agenda. If anything, he seems to sympathize with Ukraine, which is particularly evident in his section explaining its history prior to the 20th century.
In reply to moderator's questions:
If needed, I would not dispute putting this matter on hold pending the outcome of the wider discussion.
"Sergei Bortkiewicz; 28 February 1877 [O.S. 16 February] – 25 October 1952) was a Russian and Austrian Romantic composer and pianist of Polish origins/heritage/parentage/descent/etc." or "Sergei Bortkiewicz; 28 February 1877 [O.S. 16 February] – 25 October 1952) was a Romantic composer and pianist".
At the time of my inquiry on October 5, the article had only 3 sources and was flagged for the need of citations. This, however, did not concern some of the editors, and they addressed my request to consider more sources with comments such as “it is unlikely that more sources are going to change the consensus” by WikiDan61.
The editor CurryTime7-24 statement — “I oppose any mention of him as a Ukrainian composer. Most of the new sources come from Ukrainian sources which cannot be trusted to be impartial given that they may have a nationalist agenda. (In fact, some Western sources post-2022 may also be similarly compromised.)” — was quite shocking to me, and sadly my attempts to have others to address such biased attitudes were left unanswered.
Which Wikipedia policy allows scholarly research to be denied purely on the basis of the country of origin? Perhaps there is one, as editors continue to double down on their insistence that Ukrainian sources are somehow deficient, as seen in the statement above from CurryTime7-24, who speculates about “ulterior nationalist agendas,” as well as the editor Marcelus, who stated that “Source no. 7 and 8 are written by Ukrainian scholars recently, so not really impartial.”
Why is the 2016 source from Nebraska considered to be the most reliable and authoritative by the editors? As I was continually referred to it, I have studied it in great detail and found many inconsistencies and speculations in it, yet when I pointed them out to the editors I was accused of engaging in “nationalist crusade” by CurryTime-24.
1 I don’t see a resolution to this discussion until editors’ attitudes toward Ukrainian sources are clarified.
A composer, who was born in Ukraine, grew up in Ukraine, married in Ukraine, worked in Ukraine and had to flee Ukraine, cannot be referred to as “Russian,” and this article will remain contested as long as these attitudes remain unaddressed.
Even thought, at the time of Bortkiewicz’s life Ukraine was referred to as” Little Russia” - this term is inappropriate to use in the twenty first century and should not be used as “proof” to continue to refer to him as a “Russian”.
2 As Bortkiewicz is considered Ukrainian by Ukrainians and referred to as such by the majority of today’s sources worldwide, the lead sentence should read:
Sergei Bortkiewicz (28 February 1877 [O.S. 16 February] – 25 October 1952) was a Ukrainian composer and pianist.
Describing him as such, doesn’t rid him of complexity of his personality and life path, all of which could be discussed in the article. It simply identifies him as a person who comes from a place in the world that has a specific name - Ukraine.
3 Yes. The correct spelling of Kharkov is Kharkiv (just like it is correct to write Kyiv, not Kiev, even though it used to be common practice in the past.) Tyulyasho — Preceding undated comment added 14:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
It is not clear whether the discussion at the MOS talk page for biographies will reach a conclusion or fizzle out. We have at least two choices with regard to this DRN discussion. First, we can put this discussion on hold pending a more general discussion. If we do that, I will try to post an update about once a week, and participating editors can make brief statements about once a week. Second, we can run an RFC specifically about Sergei Bortkiewicz, with regard to how he should be referred to in the lede sentence. I don't think that we have to make an either-or choice between the two options. The both-and option is to run an RFC, and then put this case on hold pending both further action on the RFC and resolution of the larger issue.
In order to compose the RFC, the editors will each need to provide me with their choice as to how to describe his nationality and ethnicity (if you have not already replied).
My preference is the both-and option, to run an RFC on Sergei Bortkiewicz, and to put this case on hold pending both action on the RFC and discussion of the larger issue. What does anyone else think? Are there any other comments or questions?
Robert McClenon (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
"Both-and" sounds fine to me. Will you write the RfC and, if so, will you provide the pros/cons of each option? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
May I ask what would the RFC be about? Perhaps this could be a solution as the standards by which editors evaluate and include sources remain unclear.
This article that was published in 2005 has undergone many edits and changes throughout the years without any additional sources or discussions on the talk page. I’m the only editor in the history of this article who made an inquiry first, then offered ten sources and, after waiting six days without any response, changed the lead sentence supporting it with four academic papers. Yet, we are here now because editors opposed those changes without considering or examining new sources for weeks, in spite of the article being flagged for the lack of sources - choosing instead a strategy of Stonewalling.
The first time editors gave any feedback to my sources was October 24, after the discussion was moved to the despute board.
Furthermore, editors’ statements and actions indicated that the only options they would consider in the lead sentence would be a Russian composer, or a Romantic composer - never Ukrainian, in spite of me offering 14 sources that identify him as such.
All of these factors should be taken into consideration before we open it to a larger discussion.
I also would like to raise the following questions about sources:
- What are the policies regarding Ukrainian sources?
- Are academic papers more valuable then say news articles/ blogs, press releases?
- Could an argument from an academic paper be countered with a news article?
- Does the length of an academic article make its statement more valuable?
- Should we only discuss direct quotes from sources without rephrasing them?
- Are we allowed to look deeper into sources and examine their conclusions, or do we take what the source actually said and counter its claims with another source?
- Are there any considerations given to the age of a source? Say could a source from 2021 be countered with one from 1995?
- What about Russian sources? As the Russian state officially does not recognize Ukraine an independent nation, what should be done about Russian scholars?
- Would sources addressing larger issues, such as the history of the region, be helpful? Tyulyasho — Preceding undated comment added 22:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
DRN Rule C-11 says: Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion to statements by other editors unless the moderator gives permission; that is, do not reply to the comments of other editors. It then says: replies to other editors or back-and-forth discussion may be collapsed by the moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree that discussion of the criteria for which sources are trusted over others should be discussed here. However, some of editor's questions can be answered by reading WP:SPS (question 2) and WP:SYNTH (questions 5 and 6, possibly also 9). Clearing up the question of Russian sources may be useful in the future, but is a moot point now: the article currently does not cite Russian sources. The citations presently attesting to subject's nationality come from British and American sources. As mentioned earlier in this discussion the article's talk page, I intentionally have neither used Ukrainian nor Russian sources because of their potential biases. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
But Ukrainian sources are some of the most extensive and well researched. The Levkulych paper I submitted as a third source is 367 pages long and deals with the composer’s piano heritage in great detail.
Your assumption that somehow they would be biased can become an obstacle to a balanced view of this article. British and American sources are not beyond reproach and should be complemented by scholars from other parts of the world. Tyulyasho (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't dispute that Levkulych's thesis is of high quality—it is. But her thesis is about the "the place that Bortkiewicz's piano works occupied in the concert space of the [20th and] the beginning of the 21st [centuries]", as well as his activity as performer and pedagogue. Although the subject of nationality is touched upon, there is no section devoted to the theme as there is in Johnson. Interestingly, Levkulych quotes liberally from sources that refer to him as Russian. For example:
Page 50: she refers to an essay, "On Russian Music", by Hugo van Dalen; among the composers discussed therein, according to Levkulych, is Bortkiewicz.
Page 60: she refers to a thesis on Bortkiewicz by Ishioka Chihiro which includes a section on his "longing for the Russian Empire and Russian pre-revolutionary culture".
Page 153: Hugo van Dalen includes Bortkiewicz's music in a program entitled "Evening of Russian Concert Études".
Page 191: Quotes from a December 3, 1923, Neues Wiener Journal [de] review of Bortkiewicz's Piano Concerto No. 2: "The Russian composer Bortkiewicz created a Concert Fantasy for [Paul Wittgenstein]."
Page 215: Quotes from a MusicWeb International review from 2012 that refers to Bortkiewicz as a "Russian Grieg".
There are more. For what it's worth, I looked up Ishioka's thesis on Bortkiewicz, which Lekuvych considers highly, since I can read/speak Japanese. Like Johnson, Ishioka's 2014 thesis, "Investigations into Sergei Bortkiewicz: An Enquiry Into his Life, Views on Music, and Piano Works Based on Autograph Manuscripts" (セルゲイ・ボルトキエヴィチ研究－自筆資料に基づく生涯・音楽観・ピアノ作品の考察 (Serugei Borutokievichi kenkyū: Jihitsu shiryō ni motozuku shōgai, ongaku kan, piano sakuhin no kōsatsu)), dedicates a chapter to Bortkiewicz's self-identification. I can post a link here if moderator says it's OK to do so. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps Levkulych “quotes liberally from sources that refer to him as Russian” because he understands the complexity of the region, and the fact that Ukrainians were referred to as Russians by Europeans and Americans is an accepted fact by Ukrainian scholars, as well as by Ukrainians who left Ukraine through different stages of its turbulent history. This, however, doesn’t mean that we should continue to use these colonial tropes in 2023, and continue to refer to people from Ukraine as “Russians”. Tyulyasho (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Two of the references came from Hugo van Dalen, a lifelong friend of Bortkiewicz who was arguably his most important champion. Had the composer wanted to, he could've set his friend straight about his nationality, but clearly he did not. The MWI and Ishioka thesis are from 2012 and 2014 respectively, well after Ukrainian independence.
Also, Ishioka—like Johnson—describes Bortkiewicz as "self-consciously from the Russian aristocracy" and cites from the composers memoirs; which states that he identified himself as Russian and a product of Russian culture, and disdained Ukrainian nationalists as "schismatics" who were determined to weaken Russia. If somebody doesn't beat me to it, I'll post the link to Ishioka's thesis tomorrow. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 07:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I understand your position, and as Johnson’s conclusions carried such weight for the editors, I have addressed them on the talk page in great length and offered other academic papers that presented a different view.
As I have offered more sources to this article than any other editor in history of the article and instead of a good faith discussion I ended up here on the dispute page, I’m reluctant to continue this debate until other editors weight in. Tyulyasho (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Fourth statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
I was asked whether I will write the RFC, and whether I will provide the pros and cons. I will write the RFC in draft, and will ask the editors to supply the pros and cons. I am asking the participating editors to supply the options for the RFC also. Russian? Austrian? Of Polish origin? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Please consider my third statement above. Is there a deadline for responses? Asking because you posted the third statement on a weekend and now we are on the forth statement on Monday.
Please include Ukrainian in the RFC draft. Tyulyasho (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Fourth statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
Option 1:
Sergei Bortkiewicz; 28 February 1877 [O.S. 16 February] – 25 October 1952) was a Russian and Austrian Romantic composer and pianist of Polish origins/heritage/parentage/descent.
Pros
Presents birth and naturalized citizenships, as well as ethnicity, which are all facts cited in article.
Jeremiah Johnson, whose thesis on subject's life and work is one of the article's main cited sources, establishes that subject identified as Russian and viewed his birthplace as being an appendage of Russia. His is also the only source that investigates subject's nationality in depth. One of its main sources is the subject's own memoirs, which are repeatedly quoted and cited.
Subject's birthplace was part of Russia at the time. Stating that his birth nationality was otherwise is potentially confusing and contradicts usage in other similar articles (e.g. Béla Bartók is not referred to as "Romanian", Karol Szymanowski "Ukrainian", or Richard Wetz "Polish" despite that their birthplaces are now respectively part of Romania, Ukraine, and Poland).
Secondary sources referred to subject as Russian and Austrian during his own life, as well as after, including in the 21st century.
Cons
Lead sentence neither takes into account that subject's birthplace has since become part of independent Ukraine, nor that some modern sources claim subject as Ukrainian.
Although Johnson's thesis established that subject believed himself to be Russian and his music part of the development of Russian musical culture, it also demonstrated that his music was influenced by elements of Ukrainian culture, which the subject did not acknowledge.
Option 2:
Sergei Bortkiewicz; 28 February 1877 [O.S. 16 February] – 25 October 1952) was a Romantic composer and pianist.
Pros
Presents the essential facts about the subject and leaves potentially contentious matters of nationality to be discussed later.
Compromise to prevent future edit-warring over nationality. (See Copernicus and Maxim Berezovsky for similar solutions.)
Cons
Potentially confusing to readers who may not be aware that subject's nationality is a contentious subject.
Omits facts which ought to be presented. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Option 3
Sergei Bortkiewicz (28 February 1877 [O.S. 16 February] – 25 October 1952) was a Ukrainian composer and pianist.
Pros:
As there has been a gradual shift in the Western world to recognize Ukrainian people as a separate nation from Russia, so there is an increased practice to refer to people from Ukraine as such.
As Bortkiewicz comes from a Ukrainian city of Kharkiv, which predates the Russian Empire and has remained one of the strongest centers of Ukrainian Culture throughout the centuries, he is considered “one of the most prominent representatives of the Ukrainian musical culture” by Ukrainian scholars.
Bortkiewicz's connection with his home remained strong as he continued to come back to it until he had to flee in 1919 in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution.
I have shared 14 sources with the editors that connect the composer with Ukraine either through his birth and life there or his contribution to the Ukrainian culture.
Cons:
While Ukrainian scholars freely acknowledge the complexity of Russian influence on Ukrainian culture without having it undermine the belonging of the subject to the Ukrainian cultural heritage, it is still not the case worldwide.
As separation of Ukrainian nation from Russia remains incomplete in certain spheres of western political and cultural discourse, some readers may interpret referring to Bortkiewicz as Ukrainian as simplifying the issue.
Tyulyasho Nov 7 — Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Fifth statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
I was asked whether there is a deadline for replies to my request to provide options for the RFC. I will start working on the RFC within 24 hours, but will wait to deploy it until I think that no further input is coming in.
It appears that the discussion at the manual of style talk page for biographies is not about to resolve the issue of how to characterize the ethnicity of persons born in areas whose national status has changed. So I will not be putting this discussion on hold, and we will continue to work on the specific issue. The discussion concluded that the ethnicity should be listed as what is described by the majority of reliable sources, so be prepared to justify your choice based on what the reliable sources have said. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I will reply in full below tomorrow morning (PST). Just one question: you want citations from sources that confirm nationality, correct? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 07:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Does anyone have any further questions or comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Do we wait for your question to make the fifth statement or do we just list our sources to support the lead sentence? Tyulyasho (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Fifth statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
Sixth statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
Please take another look at the draft RFC at Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz/RFC on Ethnicity and provide any other options. I will then copy the RFC to the article talk page and activate it. Are there any other comments or questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Sixth statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
I still haven't received a reply regarding sources and where/how to present them in this discussion. Also, will moderator reword our pros/cons? Just want to ensure that the RfC statement that results from this discussion adheres to WP:RFCNEUTRAL. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: pinging as a courtesy. Also, I think Tyulyasho had a similar question. Thank you for devoting your time and patience on this matter. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Seventh statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
I had been thinking that it would not be necessary to load up the RFC with the references. However, if you want to include the references, you may add properly formatted references in the draft RFC, and I have included a reference template at the end. You may edit the Pros for the ethnicity that you favor and the Cons for an ethnicity with which you disagree, and I will review whether they pass neutral point of view before the RFC is published.
Are there any other questions or comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Seventh statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
Forgive me, but I’m confused about how this dispute page works. This is the seventh statement I’m making here, yet none of the questions I raised above have been addressed.
I've never intended to become a wiki editor, as seen from my first inquiry on October 5 when I pointed out to the editors that the article was misleading.
The only reason I’m here now is that editors refused to examine my sources until we got to the dispute page.
Were my sources not examined the first time around because I did not format them properly?
Say I take the time to learn how to properly format a citation, what assurance is there that it will be considered this time?
I believe editors never took my arguments seriously, and the lengthy discussion on the talk page attests to that.
Yet, it looks like we are headed to the same page without any of the previous problems addressed.
I don’t want to go through the same process again before understanding what will be different this time around, and perhaps what I should do differently.
What was I doing incorrectly?
I don’t mean to prolong this discussion, and I apologies if my questions seem simplistic or naive, but I feel like I’m operating in the dark here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyulyasho (talk • contribs) 15:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Eighth statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
User:Tyulyasho - I will try to answer those of your questions that can be answered by a neutral moderator. Some of your posts were not questions, but statements, or statements of exasperation. You want to know why your fourteen sources were not accepted. I can't answer that question, because it is addressed to the other editors, and if I were to allow back-and-forth questions, we would never finish this discussion. You may include your sources in the RFC as references to the Pros for referring to him as Ukrainian.
Some of your questions have to do with Wikipedia policies on reliability of sources. Since you are a new editor, I suggest that you read the policy on reliability of sources. Basically, Wikipedia tries to take into account the biases and viewpoints of sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view. We can use Ukrainian sources, and we can use Russian sources, and we can use British sources, and we can use American sources. We recognize that the Ukrainian sources and the Russian sources have biases.
Do you have any other questions that I can answer neutrally?
Do any other editors have any questions or comments at this point, before I publish the RFC?
Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Eighth statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
Please give me until Sunday (PST) to provide sources for the RfC. It's been a busy week for yours truly. One of my sources is new; I have not added it to the article yet. No other questions from me. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for answering my questions.
I would like to request a few days to properly format my sources. I don’t quite understand in which order to do so as I see one reference box but I will take a cue form the other editor.
Also, I would like to include option 4 for RFC as Ukrainian born Romantic composer. Would that be acceptable?
--Tyulyasho (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Tyulyasho
Ninth statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
User:Tyulyasho - I see no need to add Option 4, which would be Ukrainian and Romantic. There doesn't appear to be an argument about whether his musical style was Romantic. I suggest just adding the style descriptor to Option 3. Please read Referencing for Beginners. You are a new editor, and referencing is one of the more difficult parts of editing Wikipedia. You do not need to add the references if you are not sure that you will do it correctly. If you do want to add sources, add them in-line, so that they will show up as footnotes in the References box. If this sounds complicated, that is because it is complicated. (If this sounds straightforward, maybe you didn't understand, or maybe my explanation was insufficient.)
All editors: I had said that I was thinking that we wouldn't need sources for the RFC, because they can be added to the article after the RFC is closed. If sources are not added to the draft RFC within about 24 hours, I may move the draft RFC to the article talk page, which will make it into a real RFC without the sources, because RFCs do not need sources.
Are there any other questions or comments?
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Ninth statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
At work adding sources now. Should be ready within the hour. May we please see the final draft RfC, with any necessary editing you may need to do to ensure WP:RFCNEUTRAL, before you move it to the article talk page? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
The reason I would like to add option 4 is because in past discussions editors used instances where Bortkiewicz was described as Ukarinain born or just having the name Ukraine next to his name as a way to negate to describe him as a Ukrainian composer.
Following their previous logic I see that they viewed Ukrainian born as different than Ukrainian composer.
I anticipate the same objections this time so would like to offer an alternative wording that takes the previous discussion into account and offers a compromise.
I have added a few sources, is that a correct way to do so? If so, I will try to include the rest within 24 hours. --Tyulyasho (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Tyulyasho
Comment: Having read over some of the sources that Tyulasho offers for their preferred options, I'm concerned that there may be a degree of distortion and WP:SYNTH involved.
Levkulych's 2016 essay, for example, is offered as evidence of Bort's Ukrainian nationality. His essay, however, explores whether the composer's music "belongs to Ukrainian or Russian music culture", not his nationality/ethnicity. What little touches upon the latter reaffirms that the composer was a Russian national ("German musicologist and critic Walter Niemann wrote about S. Bortkiewicz, as about the Germanized Russian, thus emphasizing the merger in the works of the composer's features inherent in both Russian and European musical tradition") and that Kharkov at the time of his birth was Russian ("Even foreign musicians of that time, noted the presence in the composer's musical language the coloring which is inherent music of south-western region of the Russian Empire, i.e. the territory of modern Ukraine.").
More concerning are quotations which do not indicate to a reader that material has been omitted by way of ellipses. One of them is this passage, which appears to unequivocally designate Bort exclusively as a product of Ukrainian culture:
In accordance with the criteria set out in the definition of "national identity" in the beginning, it can be said that S. Bortkiewicz is really representative of the Ukrainian culture. S.Bortkiewicz has made a significant contribution to the development of national art, creating outstanding examples of Ukrainian musical romanticism of the first half of the twentieth century.
But the unedited passage says (with previously omitted passages underlined):
In accordance with the criteria set out in the definition of "national identity" in the beginning, it can be said that S. Bortkiewicz is really representative of the Ukrainian culture, whose work is full of the influence of contemporary Russian and European culture, and individual creative style of the composer based on the continuation of traditions European romanticism. Given all the above, we claim that S. Bortkiewicz has made a significant contribution to the development of national art, creating outstanding examples of Ukrainian musical romanticism of the first half of the twentieth century.
Read in full, Levkulych acknowledges Bort's art as cosmopolitan and an important contribution to musical nationalism, but is ambiguous as to whose it mainly contributed to; its use of the word "claim" suggesting that even this may not be definitive. He seems to imply that Bort's music was important to Russian and Ukrainian music, a view made clearer in a preceding passage:
We believe that S. Bortkiewicz can be included to the category of artists, who continue their work in the tradition of the Romantic era. His music is full of the influence of Russian-Ukrainian musical culture, in the bosom of which from birth formed the creative personality of the musician. The unique musical fusion of creativity S. Bortkiewicz manifested in the fact that he almost did not use folk tunes, relying solely on his own imagination, which is on a subconscious level, carried the folk melody... So, from the very moment of his birth S. Bortkiewicz was influenced by a number of different in style and national aspirations of cultures: Ukrainian folk culture, as well as Russian and European professional music cultures. As for the nature of his talent composer synthesizing type S. Bortkiewicz in his work harmoniously unites the best artistic elements of the musical language of Western European, Russian and Ukrainian cultures.
I'd go over more of the sources in detail, but it's very late right now over where I'm at. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Tenth statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
User:Tyulyasho - Why do we need both Option 3 and Option 4? The only difference between them is whether it says that he is considered a Romantic composer, but no one doubts that his music is in the Romantic tradition.
Are there any other questions or comments?
Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Tenth statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
It is Ukrainian versus Ukrainian-born, as it has been a point of contention in the past while evaluating sources, Ukrainian vs Ukrainian born seemed like a very critical point for the editors. May I remove Romantic for RFC but still leave option 4 as Ukrainian-born? --Tyulyasho (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Tyulyasho
Eleventh statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
I have inserted Romantic into options 3 and 4 so that the only difference is Ukrainian or Ukrainian-born. I have removed the signatures from the options, which were probably inserted by a new feature or misfeature that is trying to be smart.
I will review the RFC one more time for neutrality before publishing it, and may include language to clarify the difference between option 3 and option 4.
Are there any other questions or comments?
Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Eleventh statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
A recurring issue with the Bort debate, including in the draft RfC, is possible misrepresentation or WP:SYNTH of sources, and the quality of the sources themselves. One that Tyulasho cited for the RfC seems to be from a children's musical primer. It makes no sense, at least to me, how such a source can be considered as being of equal weight to the work of two seemingly unbiased Bort scholars who have researched his nationality and identity specifically. Another instance, prior to this moderated discussion, occurred with the Johnson thesis, which was initially cited to support that subject was Ukrainian. It was only after study of the thesis determined that it actually said he was Russian that "Bort is Ukrainian" editors suddenly found fault with it and how it cited Bort's personal writings. I had raised some of these concerns earlier in this discussion, but have yet to hear a response from the moderator. Aside from these issues, I have no further questions. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
After reading editor Curry Time7-24 eleventh statement, I have examined WP:SYNTH page and believe that the editor’s use of the two scholarly papers for RFC 1 may conflict with the rule to “do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.”
There is not a single scholarly source that refers to Bortkiewicz as a Russian composer. Jeremiah Johnson interprets composer’s Russian affiliations and sentiments but stops short of calling him a Russian composer. Moreover, he presents certain facts and ideas that contradict his statement that composer considered himself Russian, such as:
Page 26
Russians considered him Polish, because of his mother’s heritage
and
Page 90
Another relevant future endeavor would be to analyze Bortkiewicz’s Symphony No. 1 in D Major, Op. 52 “Aus Meiner Heimat” in accordance with the Ukrainian musical elements as laid out by Soroker. Since the inscription to the symphony reads “from my homeland,” it is highly likely that Ukrainian folk elements are present in the work.
Author admits that in the work titled “from my homeland” Ukrainian elements are highly likely to be present and that Russians did not consider Bortkiewitcz Russian but Polish. Perhaps these conflicting statements lead the author to introduce the composer to the reader as ”the late Romantic composer, Sergei Bortkiewicz” and not Russian composer Sergei Bortkieiwcz.
Similarly, Chihiro Ishioka introduces the composer as:
“Sergei Bortkiewicz was a pianist and composer who performed and composed mainly in Vienna during the first half of the 20th
century.” Again not a Russian composer but just “pianist and composer”.--Tyulyasho (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Tyulyasho
Twelfth statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
One editor writes: I had raised some of these concerns earlier in this discussion, but have yet to hear a response from the moderator. I do not plan to rule on the quality of sources used to support any statement as to his nationality. In this RFC, the community will decide what to say about his nationality, and preliminary arguments about sources to be cited in the RFC are a waste of your time. I didn't think that it was necessary to load up the RFC with sources, and I don't think that it is necessary to argue in advance about the value of sources going into the RFC.
Are there any more questions that are not distractions about sources? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Twelfth statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
I don't have any questions.--Tyulyasho (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Tyulyasho
Now I'm confused. You asked us for sources to use in the RfC. Now it seems you found fault that we "loaded" it with them. If there is something wrong, please just say that and identify the problems so we can fix them. I understand that moderating this discussion can be an exasperating process and, believe me, I appreciate your work and patience here, but please give us direction if we need it. If you're also annoyed by my repeated questions about synthesis and quality of sources, I apologize, but having never been in a discussion like this before, I thought these matters were relevant. You will understand, I hope, why one would think so. To be honest, I still don't quite understand why they're not.
Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Tyulasho's tendency to synthesize and misrepresent their (and others') sources was already apparent at Bort's talk page.
If the RfC is going to go out like this, warts and all, that is concerning. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Thirteenth statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
User:CurryTime7-24 - I see that I was inconsistent in my comments about sources. I did say that the consensus had been that the nationality or ethnicity of subjects of biographies should be what is provided in reliable sources, and so those should be provided. I also mostly said that we should not worry too much about sources. I can see that that might have caused confusion, for which I apologize. I will try to resolve that. Sources are required that specify his nationality or ethnicity. However, I am not planning to assess the quality of sources. The RFC will be decided by the community, and you or any other editor may raise issues about the quality of sources. Also, for the purpose of this RFC, or another RFC on nationality, it is my opinion that popular culture sources may be used, because the underlying question is what people think is the nationality of the subject.
User:CurryTime7-24 - Do you have any other specific issues with the draft RFC? You are expressing the concern that the draft RFC has warts. What do you think the warts are? Where do you think that liquid nitrogen is required?
Are there any other questions?
Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Thirteenth statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
The "warts" were the synthesis/misrepresentation issues in the citations and the slanted wording of the supporting points for the "Ukraine" options; which are stated as fact, but are at least arguable. I'm thinking especially of the statements that begin with "The most comprehensive and wide range of research on the composer comes from Ukraine" and "Reflects a worldwide practice". —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Fourteenth statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
User:CurryTime7-24 - You may tweak the Pros and Cons if you think that they are non-neutral. Use liquid nitrogen carefully to remove warts. It should be used boldly only when fighting a fire, and we don't have a fire.
User:CurryTime7-24 - Do you have any other specific issues with the draft RFC?
Are there any other questions?
Robert McClenon (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Fourteenth statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
Nah, no need for liquid nitrogen, but please do feel free to apply some Clearasil if you feel it can help. I'd rather not touch anything since I don't want my actions to be misinterpreted. No other questions. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Fifteenth statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
The Pros for Option C are too long and detailed. Please trim them down. If they aren't trimmed by the participating editors, I will trim them, but I would prefer to let the participating editors do that.
I would like to get the wording of the RFC finalized so that we can publish it, so please tweak it as appropriate.
Are there any other questions?
Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Fifteenth statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
I have trimmed the option C --Tyulyasho (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Tyulyasho
I object to Tyulasho's comment appended to the supporting arguments for my RfC options. I have striven to maintain good faith and, despite moderator's invitation to amend the RfC for neutrality, I have neither modified mine, Tyulasho's, nor even undermined their preferred choices. All I did was appeal to the moderator over the quality of their sources and raised concerns about potential synthesis/misrepresentation. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Sixteenth statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
I have created a new version of the RFC which takes out the Pros and Cons, so that there will be no arguing over the content of the RFC. The arguing can be done in the Discussion when the RFC is published. The revised RFC is at Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz/RFC on Nationality . You may each edit the RFC to include one or two sources verifying the one-sentence statement.
Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Sixteenth statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
Since Option 1 mentions two nationalities and an ethnicity, should I cite sources for all those, or just the one stating subject was Russian? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Seventeenth statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
User:CurryTime7-24 - That option states three facts, so please provide a source for each of the three facts. Thank you for asking.
Are there any other questions?
Seventeenth statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
None. I will add the sources tomorrow. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 07:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Jonathan Hatami
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by TheaEskey on 03:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC).
Closed. The editors have not discussed the article on the article talk page, only on a user talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful, but is not a substitute for discussion on the article talk page. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Discuss on the article talk page. If discussion is inconclusive, a new case can be filed here after 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2023 (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.
Another editor is posting edits on Jonathan Hatami that do not confirm to the standards of Wikipedia. I have asked him repeatedly to stop.
Please stop
Please stop editing my page Jonathan Hatami with biased language and poorly sourced information. Thank you. TheaEskey (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly sourced? Please be more specific. Nothing is false. Please stop deleting. I’ve written a script that will continue to undue your edit, so please stop wasting your time. Snowcactus0 (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you’re relying on are not reliable sources per wikipedias guidelines and the language you’re using is not neutral, nor encyclopedic in tone. Look at these if you’re confused about what I’m talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Encyclopedic_style and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS. Please stop or I will report you. TheaEskey (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Please report me; I’ll
do the same. Snowcactus0 (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free. I’m not the one making malicious edits on someone’s page using biased language and poorly sourced information that doesn’t conform to the standards of Wikipedia. TheaEskey (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Malicious edits? How so?
Did he running late for Santa Claria City Council? Yes
Did he get 5th place out of 5 candidates? Yes
Did he say he was "the most conservative candidate"? Yes
Did he receive republicabn endorsements? Yes
What part are you disputing? Snowcactus0 (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, why are you trying to conceal his Santa Clarita City Council run? Please do not remove the info unless you have specific examples of why you believe it's poorly sourced. Please be more specific. Thanks; I've opened a dispute so we can resolve this with a neutral 3rd party. Snowcactus0 (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I’ve repeated multiple times the sourcing you are relying on does
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
[User talk:Snowcactus0]
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I’m asking you tell the person to stop making edits that don’t conform to Wikipedias standards if this person can’t do that, then this edit can’t be allowed to stand.
Summary of dispute by Snowcactus0
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Jonathan Hatami discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
Horst Wessel
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 47.219.237.179 on 20:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC).
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.
The issue arose in February 2023 when user an IP user made a bold edit and inserted the following into the first sentence of the article's lead: "German street gangster and, according to some sources, a procurer of prostitutes". This conflicts with the Manual of Style for LEADBIO by inserting material that does not pass the notability threshold into the lead, giving it undue weight. The change was soon reverted by multiple users, but Beyond My Ken immediately re-reverted it to the bold edit version, without consensus, and continued to do so, even claiming it was the "latest good version" (LGV), despite many more users removing this content, and him being the primary one to re-revert their changes. This is what I sought to rectify when I made my initial change on 8 November. The language in the lead is biased, unencyclopedic, and does not pass notability muster. Several users continue re-add it claiming it is sourced, which is irrelevant, or that there was consensus for this change, which there never was.
In short: A bold edit was made which put inappropriate language in the lead, in violation of Wikipedia's guidelines, several users reverted it over the months, and also raised the issue in the talk section. Other users, mainly Beyond My Ken, have re-reverted these to support a bold edit, and either refused to participate in discussion, or in the case of Beyond My Ken, only given short facetious responses while accusing others of Nazi sympathies. They are now attempting to claim the change has consensus, which it does not and never did.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Clarify the Wikipedia guidelines in this case, offer a third-party opinion, and a platform for mediation.
Summary of dispute by 80.56.194.80
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Beyond My Ken
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I will not participate in this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Jon Çobani
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 77.164.171.122
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Open to participate. I removed the introductory text of Horst Wessel being a pimp and gangster back in March and am surprised to see that over half a year later, certain individuals seems very adamant with describing this nazi as a gangster and a pimp. I don't think this information whether or not correct, has any place in the lead, especially not before describing him as a Nazi; which in my opinion is what most sane people would think of him being. If your first thought of Horst Wessel is anything else but "Nazi", I get very suspicious of your actions and perspective on life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.164.171.122 (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Socksage
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by AntiDionysius
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 2002:932f:f0ce::932f:f0ce
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 128.194.155.43
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Tkbrett
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Immanuelle
The basic situation as I see it is that an ip editor was consistently attempting to revert a relatively long-held version of the lede. If the person was using an account I'd see this as a much more reasonable situation, but being an ip I am highly suspicious of this person and their possible motives being WP:Nothere. There has been extensive edit warring whenever ip editing is allowed on the pageImmanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Clone commando sev
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I am not really involved with any of the actual dispute, from my perspective I saw a lead that placed a minor element of his life, pimping, before the major element of his life, being a nazi. I made a message on the talk page and that seems to have reignited a long-running dispute. readsing back, to me it looks like Beyond My Ken is taking "ownership" of the article and is assuming bad faith, accusing people of whitewashing nazis. I will most likely be inactive in the dispute discussion because I just made a talk page post, and wasn't involved in any argument or edit-war. Clone commando sev (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by 82.37.67.100
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by RRRRzzzpppp
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 91.116.34.197
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Horst Wessel discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Horst Wessel)
There appears to be edit-warring between registered editors, who want to have the lede sentence identify the subject as a gangster, pimp, and Nazi, and unregistered editors, who want to identify the subject as a Nazi. One of the registered editors has declined to participate in the case. There are seven listed registered editors, and an undeterminable number of unregistered editors, because IP addresses shift. This is more editors than can feasibly take part in moderated discussion. If any registered editors want to advocate for the version that omits his involvement in organized crime, I will develop and submit an RFC to obtain consensus. If this is strictly a dispute between registered editors with names or pseudonyms and unregistered editors, I will close this case request. Please read DRN Rule A if you want to take part in moderated discussion, and respond that you agree to the rules. Are there any registered editors who want to propose the version of the lede that omits his involvement in organized crime? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I apologize if I included too many users, but as this was dispute resolution discussion, I erred on the side of including more users than less. However, I categorically reject the notion that this is a dispute strictly between unregistered and registered users. Clone commando sev & Socksage are both registered users who have either, through discussion or edits, supported the non-inclusion of said material from the lede. I don't know why the version which mentions allegations of pimping (in contravention with Wikipedia guidelines, and which never had consensus) is being treated as the status quo, but I will go and make a registered account, publicly disclosing my IP editing, if it will advance this dispute resolution. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree to the DRN rule A. I was IP 77.164.171.122 for the March 4th edit as described in summary as well as that IP for the summary written under summary of dispute by 77.164.171.122. on this page.
Wesel is known only as a Nazi. His death may have been related to prostitution, of course, but it was also related to the Nazis versus the Communists. If he had not been a Nazi he would not have been known at all and would have been forgotten. The focus should be on the fact that he was a Nazi, and this should be the first descriptor of him. I can compromise on "Nazi, pimp, and gangster" but not with "Gangster, pimp, and nazi", although I'd rather the pimp & gangster part be displayed in the body and not in the lead.
I want to point out that this is what seems to me like the same opinion as what registered user Clone commando sev voiced in the talk page therefore I'm also confused of your summary of all registered users wanting to have the lede sentence identify the subject as "gangster, pimp, and Nazi" in that order when this is not the case. Vydrakk (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I know I said "most likely inactive" but I need to point out, to me it seems like the dispute is more everyone v BMK, and less Registered v IPs. Clone commando sev (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I concur. With BMK's amount of edits on this page I'm baffled by his choice not to participate, but alas. Vydrakk (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I suspect it has to do with ego becoming involved. He has accused me of editing in bad faith, only given me short, facetious responses in the talk section, accused myself and others previously of Nazi sympathies simply for our edits, both in the talk section and in an edit warring notice, and demanded I be blocked in said edit war notice and in the latest edit summary on Horst Wessel. He has a long history of editing the article, and of reverting others' edits with little to no explanation. I imagine he has a sense of "ownership" over the article in question, and begrudges this attempt at resolution since I started it, as he seems to have a personal dislike of me. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Horst Wessel)
First statement by possible moderator (Horst Wessel)
I have created a draft RFC asking the community to choose between the two versions of the lede sentence that are being edit-warred. The draft RFC is at Talk:Horst Wessel/RFC on Lede . Please review and comment on the RFC. I will publish it after any comments have been considered. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Horst Wessel)
Uninvolved editor, but I have been watching this page on and off for a while and have read talk discussion and sources, particularly the ones recently added to the lead. Although an RfC may be called for, I am not certain it will achieve the best outcome here. There has been edit warring over a sentence in the lead, but I believe there is room for a suitable compromise. My belief is that those wanting removal of the sentence have rightly identified that the information about Wessel being a pimp is neither certain nor particularly due, and the addition of citations to suport it there have damaged a clean lead in a good article; its inclusion in the lead does not summarise main text, so it is novel information. Siemens (2013) does discuss this aspect, and shows that although the allegations that he was a pimp were perhaps made as cover, they are also plausible. But he was not particularly known for being a pimp/procurer, and so it is undue in the lead. This information should be in the main text, suitably summarising Siemens. It should not be excised altogether. Other treatments of him do not stress this aspect, but any suitably detailed discussion of his life and death would surely mention it. As regards the gangster allegation, the wording there might be tweaked (I am not sure 'gangster' is quite right), but it is a summary of the main text and in line with treatment by, e.g., Britannica. My concern with an RfC on the lead is this: It might lead to a frozen lead, either with novel information not supported by main text, or with that information excised but not transferred to main text, where it should be. There might be a temptation then to brook no changes to that lead, which would prevent movement towards something more nuanced. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Second statement by possible moderator (Horst Wessel)
A previously uninvolved editor has offered some useful thoughts on a possible compromise. Please read his comments. Before I publish the RFC, which at present asks for a choice only between two versions of the lede, please consider and discuss whether a compromise version of the lede is possible. Remember that it isn't necessary to say everything in the lede, and that all of the details that are attributable to reliable sources should be included in the article body. So: Does anyone have any follow-up thoughts? Even better, does anyone have a compromise idea for the lede? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Horst Wessel)
Discussion moved from draft RFC
I would suggest changing the nazi-first version of the lead to include a mention of him becoming a martyr-figure, something like
"Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel (9 October 1907 – 23 February 1930) was a Sturmführer ("Assault Leader"), the lowest commissioned officer rank in the Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party. After he was murdered by members of the communist party, he was turned into a propaganda symbol of martyrdom."
Thats just one way of including it, others are just as valid. Clone commando sev (talk) 05:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
I find the RfC in its current state satisfactory, I however concur with Clone commando sev's comment. I would prefer the language of the intro sentence to be reverted to how it was pre-February 2023, or in a form similar to which I edited it on 8 November, such as:
"Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel (9 October 1907 – 23 February 1930) was a Sturmführer ("Assault Leader"), the lowest commissioned officer rank in the Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party. Known for his murder in 1930, he became a martyr for the Nazi Party."
this may seem insignificant, but the first paragraph is often the information which appears in a Google search, and anywhere Wikipedia is accessed via widget. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 06:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Comment - An RfC may be the way to go here, but I think an unintended consequence of an RfC will be that whichever form of the lead gains consensus, this will then appear to be locked in in a manner that would be hard to overcome. It seems to me that the information about being a pimp (and those references) should be in the main, not in the lead. Siemens (2013) is the better reference and discusses at length the accusations and evidence, particularly with respect to his death. I don't think it is leadworthy to say "some people say he was x" in the first sentence of the lead, and whether or not he was a pimp (on the evidence, I think it is reasonable to think so), he was not known for this. That he was a gangster or similar wording, however, finds support already in the main and is more clearly established by the facts. I thus looked at other sources. Britannica has "A student and low-life bohemian, Wessel joined the Nazi Party in 1926". Other sources, such as the Holocaust Encyclopaedia don't even go that far. But I would think a reasonable compromise is:
Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel (9 October 1907 – 23 February 1930) was a German street gangster who became a Sturmführer ("Assault Leader"), the lowest commissioned officer rank in the Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party.
Although there may be a better word than "gangster". But really the principles here are:
An RfC is about resolving an explicit inclusion but must not be used to set the lead permanently in stone.
The lead should not have novel information in it.
Per MOS:LEADCITE if the lead were a proper summary of the main, it would not need citations in it. Other than the two added to bolster this controversial addition, the lead of this good article has no other references and was, until recently, a good example of a clean lead.
The information about the procuring of the prostitutes is due for the article and should not be expunged altogether. It should be in the main.
I am not sure that an RfC on the lead will deliver a consensus on those points. Indeed, if option B were the pre-22 February version (saying in wiki-voice that he "became a martyr"), and if a consensus were used to freeze the lead to that version or if the consensus froze in the current problematic option A form, I think that either would be an undesirable outcome. What is really needed is less reversion to "good versions" and more listening to the arguments being made. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
I largely agree, but disagree regarding compromise. Inserting two things that do not at all belong in the lead due to WP:NOTABILITY, then "compromising" for the sake of Wikipedia bureaucracy, still leaves in the end result one foreign, inappropriate descriptor being left in the lede. Compromise in this way need not be necessary simply because a multiplicity of inappropriate descriptors were inserted into the lede. I would be accepting of this approach if there was a plurality of reliable sources using such language, but they do not as best I can tell. The following sources, which are the first biographical articles of Wessel to appear when Google searched, refer to Wessel almost exclusively as a "Nazi", never using the descriptors "gangster" or "pimp":
they at most make reference to Wessel being in a extremist party, at a time when political violence was commonplace. Only one (Spartacus) makes any reference to Wessel as a "pimp" at all, and it only does so via the disputed Erika Mann narrative. A Google search is not the end all be all, but the onus is on the editors advocating their inclusion to prove these descriptors are widely used by historians, not for others to disprove it. It seems quite plainly in contravention of MOS:LEADBIO and to be WP:UNDUE to list what appear to be uncommon, fringe descriptors in the lede at all, especially when the language is bordering on unencyclopedic. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Third statement by possible moderator (Horst Wessel)
The Discussion section of the draft RFC is for discussion after the RFC is published. I have moved the discussion from there to here. I am also providing a section for back-and-forth discussion so that you can improve the wording of the two alternate ledes, one of which emphasizes his connection to organized crime, and one of which focuses solely on his status as a murdered Nazi. You may discuss improvements to the wording of the two proposed ledes, and are also encouraged to draft compromise language as was proposed by User:Sirfurboy.
Are there any further comments?
Robert McClenon (talk) 05:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (Horst Wessel)
Fourth statement by moderator (Horst Wessel)
User:Immanuelle has asked whether the status of this DRN thread is affected by the block of the filing editor or the semi-protection of the article. I expressed the concern initially that this thread seemed to be edit-warring between registered editors and unregistered editors, and was told that registered editors were on both "sides" of the dispute, and they still are. Also, protection or semi-protection of an article usually does not stop or suspend moderated discussion. Protection is a temporary measure to stop edit-warring, and to allow dispute resolution to take place in a more orderly manner. Besides, registered editors still can edit the article, so it is still useful to reach rough consensus. So: This moderated discussion will continue. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
The RFC is about the first sentence. The second sentence says that Goebbels made him a martyr for the Nazi Party, and the second sentence is not the subject of the dispute. If there is a disagreement about the second sentence, it can be resolved by normal discussion, or by moderated discussion, but discussion of the second sentence does not affect the draft RFC, which is about the first sentence.
Does anyone have a suggestion for Option C? I would like to include a third proposed version of the first sentence in the RFC. Discussion can continue in the section for back-and-forth discussion. If there is no progress made on an Option C, I will publish the RFC with two options, but I think that another version is in order.
Are there any other questions or comments?
Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Fourth statements by editors (Horst Wessel)
Comment - I made a suggestion for a possible option C above, except that I don't like the word "gangster". Reading Siemens, he introduces Wessel as a pastor's son who became a street fighter. He entered right wing politics while in school, and this was often violent. However, as Siemens points out, he was of no more than local notoriety at this point, almost unheard of. How about this as an option C:
Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel (9 October 1907 – 23 February 1930) was a German pastor's son and street fighter who became a Sturmführer ("Assault Leader"), the lowest commissioned officer rank in the Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party.
If anyone can do better, I am happy to let this one pass in favour of an alternative compromise candidate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Fifth statement by moderator (Horst Wessel)
There are now three options for the lede sentence, to be decided by RFC. I will publish the RFC when we are satisfied that it presents the choice and is what we want the community to respond to.
Are there any other questions or comments?
Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Fifth statements by editors (Horst Wessel)
I think the RFC is ready for publication as it currently is. The 3 options available seem to be representative of all opinions on the matter. Clone commando sev (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Back-and-forth discussion (Horst Wessel)
If this section is for improving wording, I'd like to put forward my idea,
"Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel (9 October 1907 – 23 February 1930) was a Sturmführer ("Assault Leader"), the lowest commissioned officer rank in the Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party. After he was murdered by members of the communist party, he was turned into a propaganda symbol of martyrdom."
this would replace option B on the RFC. Clone commando sev (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon I’m not 100% sure if this is following proper protocol responding here, but I noticed both that the page is protected and the ip user is blocked. Should this have implications as far as this dispute resolution goes in the future? Was there a non-ip representative of the ips side? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 13:47, 17 November 2023 (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.
Khitan (circumcision)
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by QamarBurtuqali on 12:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC).
Closed as not appearing to be a content dispute. The issue cited by the filing party is that the other editor has a problem with competency in English. That is not a content issue and cannot be decided or discussed here. I will be inquiring at the Village Pump as to what if any forum should used to discuss a problem caused by inadequate command of English. (Also, the filing editor did not notify the other editor, but the other editor has found this discussion and has replied to it.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2023 (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.
User @Barbardo is making unbalanced edits of the section "Comparisons with female circumcision." He replaced a paragraph with information he copied, verbatim, from the long article Religious views on female genital mutilation causing WP:UNDUE weight.
It is impossible to discuss @Barbardo's edits in the Talk Page because his English is absolutely terrible.
For example, he wrote: "You removed sources and then added primary sources which one hadith calling for it are deemed weak/daeef and then added a unsourced line about it being mostly found in muslim countries when it varies and is primarily based in africa my suggestion is removing the hadiths and the above line you made in the start of the paragraph. " And he also wrote: "You can't add hadiths as they are primary sources witgoyt secondary sources and you have also copied the first paragraph its fine as it because the hadith that calls for it is weak."
Well you can discuss it and you even started a discussion so my "bad english" is not a excuse since its not bad one comment was but the rest of the discussion was not so this is a dishonest take. Also these hadith's are ranked weak by those who complied the hadith's which you have ignored. The part copied was relevant and commented by a qualified person on the topic and was referenced it might have been taken as verbatim from that other wikipedia article but there isnt much you can change. Your edit was just listing the hadiths without an explanation and how they were viewed among islamic scholarship.
Khitan (circumcision) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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:FTSE 100 Index
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 78.148.155.84 on 17:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC).
Closed. There are three problems with this case. First, the filing unregistered editor has not listed or notified the other editors. Saying that there are "a handful of others" is not sufficient because that does not notify them on their talk pages. Second, this is a request about categories. DRN is for article content disputes, not category disputes. Third, the filing unregistered editor has been blocked for making too many requests to registered editors. When they come off block, they can create an account and create the category, which is always a good idea for unregistered editors who are experiencing limitations due to being unregistered. Privacy is not a reason against registering, since an account can be pseudonymous. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2023 (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.
IP user has a good and uncontroversial suggestion to expand the category set beneath Category:Companies by stock market index . However they are unable to create categories themselves, and it would appear requests are not allowed (either on category talk pages, project pages, or with other users), resulting in original user being banned.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk page above. A handful other talk pages, per user history
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Provide an unambiguous procedure for creating the handful of categories in question.
Summary of dispute by 92.71.60.61
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by a handful of others
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:FTSE 100 Index discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
nurse practitioner
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Hue16459 on 15:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC).
Closed as declined. The other editor has not responded to this filing except by filing an SPI. Continue or resume discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2023 (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.
Upon conducting further research I believe that the term mid-level practitioner should simply be replaced with the term health care provider. Health care provider is the term most used in United States Code including 29 CFR § 825.125, and 45 CFR § 160.103 both of which include nurse practitioners in the definition of a health care provider. Additionally, the only CFR that references the term mid-level practitioner is 21CFR § 1300.01(b28) which also states "Examples of mid-level practitioners include, but are not limited to, health care providers such as nurse practitioners. Based on this information I believe that using the term health care provider is the most appropriate adjustment to this article. Hue16459 (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
A Nurse Practitioner (NP) is an advanced practice registered nurse and a type of advanced practice provider, also sometimes referred to as a mid-level practitioner, although this term is generally no longer used by most organizations.
I attempted to modify the article to put the title advanced practice provider alongside the term mid-level practitioner. The term mid-level practitioner perpetuates bias and is a term that in no longer used by professional medical organizations. I supplied peer reviewed references as well as references to the major medical organizations. The reference to the term mid-level practitioner in the article is form 2010 and has been replaced in all current research. Additionally in keeping with the concept of neutrality I placed the terms alongside each other. The editor that reversed the edit has already stated "Yes, I do revert attempts to slant this article by removing criticism of and information about the limitations of this profession."
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I believe my edit is appropriately sourced and should be allowed to stand.
nurse practitioner discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Procedural note. A review of the histories of the article and talk page shows that MrOllie is the other editor active in this. I have added him accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
The comment of mine mentioned above was in response to a now-blocked sockpuppeteer who had exactly the same problems with this article and made the same arguments. I've filed a SPI. MrOllie (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
I do not have another Wikipedia account, I have never been banned, and I am a real user that is simply attempting to correct information I believe to be inaccurate and biased with the article which is an ongoing complaint from multiple users. Hue16459 (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Volunteer Note - It doesn't appear that there is likely to be a moderated discussion. The one other editor who has been named as a party says that they filed a SPI, which is not a positive response to a request for moderated discussion. I will close this thread as declined unless there is a different reply within about 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2023 (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.
Tunisians
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Asmodim on 13:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC).
Closed. There hasn't been content discussion on the article talk page, and extended inconclusive content discussion is required prior to DRN. Also, the filing editor has also opened a thread at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. Also, this appears to be an issue about a user rather than content of an article. Either discuss the article at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, or read the boomerang essay and report the user at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2023 (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.
Tunisians and Tunisian Arabic
These articles are constantly being raided by the same editor "Skitash" with a panarabist political opinion who tries to paint everything about the country as arab or islamic as possible (removing anything saying the population is of berber ancestry, deleting elements that mention the multicultural aspect of the country, trying to portray tunisian arabic as much as possible just as a dialect and nothing more to it etc...)
I don't exactly know how to deal with these kind of edit wars, the editor seems to have started his work since this year and targets tunisian pages with the same pattern of article modification.
Could you help ?
Thank you
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
He send menaces to me after I reverted one of his edits
I don't spend much time on wikipedia anymore, I just want someone to help stop these kinds of wild edits from the same user that are apparent when you go back to the versions before he starts
Tunisians discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Baselessly labelling me as a Pan-Arabist or Islamist is nothing more than a personal attack. I am unsure what "raiding" you're referring to, but I'm guessing that, in your perspective, raiding means reverting your unsourced edits[12] and your unexplained content removals[13]. I find it bizarre that you blatantly delete sourced content[14] while accusing other editors of POV-pushing. Clearly, you have not discussed any issue with me. All you have done was open a discussion[15] personally attacking any editors that have made constructive edits to the article in the past few years. According to your argument, it appears that you object to a sentence involving "purely Arab settlement," being in the body of the article, even though it is supported by credible sources. This clearly sounds like WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Please set your baseless accusations aside and provide me with any revisions that, in your view, point to any "raiding" carried out by either myself or other editors. Skitash (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2023 (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.
La Salida
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by WMrapids on 00:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC).
Closed as pending in another forum. The non-filing editor has filed a report at WP:ANI about conduct, which is actively being discussed at this time. Discussion should continue at WP:ANI. If that discussion concludes that this is a content dispute, questions about sources can be opened at the Reliable Source Noticeboard, or a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2023 (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.
Multiple reliable sources were provided in the La Salida article showing that the campaign was created to remove Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro from office. A user has consistently removed this reliably sourced information and has demanded that I do not add this information.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Having more users participate to review the sources and determine the suitability of including that a goal of the La Salida was to remove President Maduro would be welcome.
Summary of dispute by NoonIcarus
The article's dispute boils down to the wording in the lead about the movement's goal. The original wording was a quote translated from the Spanish version: "whose objective was to 'find a peaceful, democratic and constitutional solution to the government of Nicolás Maduro'". WMrapids preferred version is "in an effort to remove Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro from office" or variations thereof.
Proposals have included "in an effort to end to the Bolivarian Revolution prevalent since 1998", "in an effort to seek [Venezuelan president Nicolás] Maduro's resignation", or simply avoiding stating the goal altogether. The proposals have not been satisfactory to WMrapids for the moment. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
La Salida discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
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.
The issue went to RSN, at the request of (anti-inclusion) editor User:Nil Einne, with numerous additional sources listed as possibilities in case there were issues with the sources in the diff. RSN came back on the side that RS has been met, and the remaining issue to establish is DUE, not RS.
However, this has not resolved the conflict, with editors either continuing to pursue RS arguments (despite the RSN), or claiming that accusations are not appropriate BLP, even when labeled as accusations, are on a topic that they admit is serious, and are backed up by RS. Editors also generally do not dispute that the current article has bias problems and reads like hagiography; this was discussed in talk before the current topic came up.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
This request is for dispute resolution on the topic of whether "serious allegations" (the serious nature being agreed on by both sides), backed up by RS as determined by RSN, matching the description laid out in the sources and properly attributed to them, warrant a couple sentences in a BLP, or not.
Also requested is a view on whether RS should stop being relitigated now that RSN has weighed in.
Thanks!
Summary of dispute by Nil Einne
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Grayfell
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Caeciliusinhorto
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I came across this dispute yesterday, through the discussion at WP:BLPN#Sam Altman. I don't particularly have a strong opinion on whether we should include some mention of the allegations in the article, but it seems to me that in the existing discussion there is at best no consensus to include them, and the most recent version included in the article (removed in this edit) is clearly in violation of WP:BLPSPS which requires that we "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article".
If Rei can suggest text that they want to include which complies with WP:BLP, then discussion can take place as to whether inclusion is due. Their repeated assertion that the allegations are serious and therefore the content is due for inclusion has no basis in our policy on WP:DUE WEIGHT and is not helping their case. Indeed, one might argue that the seriousness of the allegations means that the threshold for inclusion is higher – these are accusations of criminal behaviour against a living person, and Wikipedia has a responsibility to treat them carefully and sensitively.
I further note that, contrary to Rei's claim, the RSN discussion did not conclude that the sources they mentioned were reliable. Cortador said that the Mary Sue article was an opinion piece; ActivelyDisinterested said that the previous discussion had not challenged reliability of sources but due weight; JPxG and GretLomborg discussed the appropriate use off opinion pieces. None of them actually comment on whether any of the sources Rei cited, other than the Mary Sue, are reliable for the statements Rei wants to use them for. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Sam Altman discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - Does the issue have to do with serious allegations against the subject of uncertain veracity? If so, the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard is the right forum. There was a filing at BLPN about ten days ago that has not had an answer. Please post a new inquiry at BLPN. This case will be left alone, neither closed nor opened, for a few days, in case there is again no response at BLPN. Also, the discussion at the article talk page, while extensive, was at least ten days ago, and is no longer current. If there are any issues other than the inclusion of serious allegations, please resume discussion at the article talk page. This filing at this noticeboard will be revisited in a few days. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, I wasn't aware of the existence of that discussion - I copied the above content over to that discussion. Hopefully some third party feedback can be provided. -- Rei (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2023 (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.
File:Honey Mariah Carey Single.png
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Theknine2 on 21:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC).
Closed as also pending in a conduct forum, and reported to a conduct forum after DRN Rule A was posted, saying not to report the dispute at another forum. Discuss the slow-motion edit-warring at WP:AN. If WP:AN says that this is a content dispute, resolve the content dispute with a Third Opinion or RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2023 (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.
Me (User:Theknine2) wants to use the US/international single cover, but User:QuestFour wants to use the less relevant UK single cover. My overall justification is the US/international cover is more widely used (in almost all past and current releases of the single), is more relevant since Mariah Carey is an American artist, and the song is notable for being her 12th of 19 US Billboard #1 singles. These listed reasons are more than valid enough to replace the current single cover. However, QuestFour repeatedly cites WP:CONSENSUS and “cover that represents the release date of the single”, which are both vaguely valid rationales at best, in my opinion. This hence resulted in an edit war of back and forth reverting covers.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Need a mediator to select which single cover is most appropriate for the article, given the extensive list of reasons QuestFour and I have each listed.
Summary of dispute by QuestFour
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The dispute revolves on either the use of the cover correlating to the single's earliest release date, which is the one used in the infobox, or the artist's nationality and subsequent releases. The latter are in my opinion impertinent and not based on any policy, guideline or template page, while the former is grounded on Template:Infobox album's recommendation of using the original cover, and is on the whole more coherent and holds more context to the infobox. QuestFour (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Honey Mariah Carey Single.png discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Notes - The filing party has not notified the other editor on their talk page. Please notify the other editor.
The filing editor says that they would like a mediator to decide which image to use. That can be a Third Opinion request. I am willing to provide a Third Opinion, but if so, I will not be available to mediate if the other editor disagrees. So if I provide a Third Opinion, there can then either be agreement, or a RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
A mediator would be more useful in this situation, so both of us can hopefully come to an agreement on which image to use, or take action where necessary if the other editor continues to be uncooperative. Thank you. I have also just notified the editor on their talk page. Theknine2 (talk) 09:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
A more wider editorial input, not necessarily a RFC although that is definitely an option, would be best in my opinion. QuestFour (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
*Volunteer Note - A third editor has joined in the discussion on the article talk page. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion resolves the dispute, this case will be closed. If discussion continues to be inconclusive after another 24 hours, the third editor may be added to this case request. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
First statement by possible moderator (Honey)
Please read DRN Rule A and state that you agree to the rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Some of the discussion on the article talk page is about editors rather than about edits. Please state whether there are any other issues than which of two covers to use in the article. Also please make a one-paragraph statement saying which cover you prefer and why. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Honey)
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.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
– Discussion in progress.
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
#File:Honey_Mariah_Carey_Single.png){kind=link}