Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

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

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.

Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.

Do you need assistance?			Would you like to help?
Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.			Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Dragon Age: The Veilguard	New	Sariel Xilo (t)	13 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	10 hours	Sariel Xilo (t)	6 hours
Ustad Ahmad_Lahori	Closed	Goshua55 (t)	7 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days,
Elizabeth Mynatt	Closed	Jesspater (t)	6 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 10 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 23:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Re'im music festival massacre

– This request has been placed on hold.

Filed by AntiDionysius on 22:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Re'im music festival massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• בר (talk · contribs)
• AntiDionysius (talk · contribs)
• Yr Enw (talk · contribs)
• דוב (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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.

A similar (but perhaps not identical?) issue has also been discussed on the page for the conflict in general: (nb: the formatting of the heading of the discussion section is such that it cannot be linked directly to)

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Re'im music festival massacre#USA, United Kingdom, European Union, Canada, Australia, Japan & many more, identify Hamas as a terror organisation.

Talk:Re'im music festival massacre#Are Hamas soldiers terrorists?

Talk:Re'im_music_festival_massacre#Terrorist_attack

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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:TERRORIST Value-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.

A smattering of sources
References

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)

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.

• 3. No opinion.

Yr Enw (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• 1. terrorists - should be changed in all the references. Specifically in the opening paragraph.
• 2. Yes - like in similiar articles.
• 3. kidnapping.

dov (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• 1. "Militants" in Wikivoice; "terrorists" with in-text attribution or within quotations.
• 2. No strong feeling.
• 3. No opinion. --AntiDionysius (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator (Re'im)

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: economist New 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)

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)

Marco Polo

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Jonathan f1 on 04:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Marco Polo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jonathan f1 (talk · contribs)
• Mikola22 (talk · contribs)
• Miki Filigranski (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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?

[1]

[2]

[3]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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)

First Statement by Jonathan f1

• 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[4]. 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"[5]; "a member of an Italian merchant family" p. 87[6]; "an Italian merchant"[7]; "Italian merchant and explorer"[8]; "Venice, an Italian city-state"[9].

• 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)

Second Statement by Jonathan f1

• 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)

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.

Location of dispute

• Sergei Bortkiewicz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• CurryTime7-24 (talk · contribs)
• Marcelus (talk · contribs)
• Tyulyasho (talk · contribs)
• Mzajac (talk · contribs)
• A1 (talk · contribs)
• WikiDan61 (talk · contribs)
• Chasetry78 (talk · contribs)
• Aza24 (talk · contribs)
• Piotrus (talk · contribs)
• SMcCandlish (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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?

Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz#Edit war regarding Countries of Bortkiewicz' Heritage Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz#Ukrainian_composer Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz#Ukrainian composer- sources

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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:

1. Agreement to DRN Rule C, which will acknowledge that the topic is a contentious topic.
2. What, in your opinion, should the lede sentence say about his nationality?
3. Are there any issues other than his nationality?
4. Where, in your opinion, if anywhere, was there a consensus on his nationality?

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I will abide by DRN Rule C

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”.

Too long, didn't read - This introductory statement is not a brief introductory statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

II 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. From Scholarly Literature: 1 https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1833425/m1/12/ Page 4- “ Sergei Bortkiewicz was a renown Ukrainian composer and pianist.” 2021 2 https://is.jamu.cz/th/evcsx/Plny_text_prace.pdf 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 3 https://knmau.com.ua/wp-content/uploads/levkulych-dysertatsiya.pdf 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 https://glieracademy.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/54-annotations.pdf#page=16 5 https://mural.maynoothuniversity.ie/10040/1/THESIS_CORRECTIONS%20COMPLETE.pdf Page 70 “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 6 https://books.google.com/books?id=ioUHEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA418&lpg=PA418&dq=борткевіч%20сергій&source=bl&ots=yQRNeTVf0s&sig=ACfU3U10aeHapaLYcozvlAJDcE97eRd1SA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjJ57O3wd-BAxW7L1kFHZ4bAJs4HhDoAXoECAQQAg#v=onepage&q=борткевіч%20сергій&f=false First sentences identifies Bortkiewicz as a Ukrainian composer 2020 7 https://naurok.com.ua/sergiy-bortkevich-nova-storinka-ukra-nsko-muzichno-kulturi-hh-stolittya-vikonavskiy-ta-stilistichniy-aspekti-238116.html Page 3- identifies Bortkiewicz as a Ukrainian composer 2021 Music Publishers, News article 8 Boosey&Hawkes collection of Ukrainian Composers: The Ukrainian-born Romantic composer and pianist https://www.boosey.com/cr/news/Explore-Music-by-Ukrainian-Composers/101910 9 A publishing house "Melosvit", Bortkiewicz op.21 Sergei Bortkiewicz Ukrainian Composer https://melosvit.com.ua/noti-dlya-fortepiano/bortkevich-sergij-malenkij-mandrivnik 10 an article from Euromaidan press. “musicians from 8 countries will play Ukrainian composer Bortkiewicz’s music online.” https://euromaidanpress.com/2020/12/24/christmas-with-bortkiewicz-free-online-concert-to-commemorate-ukrainian-composer/ 11 Piano Classics release of piano concertos: “Recent years have seen a slow but steady revival of the music of Sergei Bortkiewicz (1877‐1952), Ukrainian composer and pianist” https://www.piano-classics.com/articles/b/bortkiewicz-piano-concertos-2-3/ 12 The programme featured the Piano Concerto No.2 for the left Hand (1924) by Ukrainian composer Sergei Bortkiewicz https://www.lamonnaiedemunt.be/en/mmm-online/2595-la-monnaie-in-solidarity-with-ukraine 13 STEINWAY & SONS releases A Letter | Une Lettre | Ein Brief, a survey of piano works of the Ukrainian composer Sergei Bortkiewicz https://www.steinway.com/music-and-artists/label/a-letter-sergei-bortkiewicz-solo-piano-works-zhenni-li-cohen 14 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: https://life.pravda.com.ua/culture/2017/03/21/223237/ 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)

Tyulyasho (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment 1.1 by moderator (Bortkiewicz)

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:

• I will abide by WP:DRN-C.
• 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".
• No. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

V (programming_language)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Wukuendo on 19:03, 4 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. Location of dispute V (programming language) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Wukuendo (talk · contribs) Caleb Stanford (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The new article in question (just recently promoted from draft) is being rewritten (arguably vandalized), by another editor who does not want to compromise about changes. It is also my belief that this editor has a conflict of interest and appears to have a long time affiliation and is a contributor to a competing programming language (Rust). It is my opinion that the intent is to disparage and denigrate the article of the V language or find a way to completely remove it. The editor involved in the conflict, appears to be extremely and heavily invested in pushing changes that will destroy the image of the competing language. I believe that I have shown a willingness to work with editors of different opinions in the past. Even in this situation, I'm willing to discuss the individual changes with the editor in conflict. I would like to first have an agreement, then make changes that reflect a compromise. However, the editor that I'm presently in conflict with, appears to be under the belief that they can disregard what the previous editors and reviewers have done and implement whatever changes that they like. I wish the article on V to be fairly evaluated on an equal standard to what other articles on programming languages are. If you are not familiar with the subject, please refer to the articles on the Zig, Crystal, or Red programming languages. These language are relatively new and are not developed or sponsored by large corporations. Please compare those articles to V, to understand what I mean. Additionally, the editor involved in the conflict appears to have been at Wikipedia for long time and may have numerous friends and associates to aid them. If an arbitrator is selected, would like the dispute resolution noticeboard to make sure it is someone completely impartial. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [10] [11] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Before making radical rewrites or edit wars, make a list of the intended proposed changes, on the V talk page or our talk page. Per each change that is acceptable to both parties or designated arbitrator by the dispute resolution noticeboard, those will be the accepted changes on the article. Summary of dispute by Caleb Stanford Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. V (programming_language) 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.