Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 200

Frédéric Chopin

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Chip-chip-2020 on 14:43, 12 December 2020 (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 Frédéric Chopin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Chip-chip-2020 (talk · contribs) Nihil novi (talk · contribs) Smerus (talk · contribs) kosboot (talk · contribs) François Robere (talk · contribs) Toccata quarta (talk · contribs) Glissando1234567890 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview An extensive discussion started a couple of weeks ago about Chopins love or sexual life or desires. Some users seem to dominate the discussion, by refusing some sources harshly and by welcoming other sources quite uncritically. Some are starting to be quite rude, commenting „Yawn“ or so. It is also interesting that some users demand more and more proof for homosexual actions or desires, but can‘t provide proof of the same quality for heterosexual actions or desires. A resolution, which was brought up by a number of users in that talk, would be to complete the article with 1-2 quotes by Chopin, taken from his letters, where he clearly wrote about his desires. It would also be nothing but transparent, to add 1-2 portraits of addressees to the article, addressees Chopin wrote to the most letters. Like this, the readers could read themselves what Chopin wrote and build their opinion on their own. Also a section about the quite large discourse on the topic would be nothing but transparent. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Frédéric_Chopin#Chopin’s_sexuality How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Perhaps guide the talk, so that not 2-3 users dominate the discussion. Ask for reliable sources of a comparable quality from both sides, judge the quality of the sources, help finding a solution. Bring back more friendlyness, politeness and, most important, more impartiality to the talk. Summary of dispute by Nihil novi Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The discussions in question ("Chopin's sexuality", on the "Talk:Chopin" page) have largely centered on brief ambiguous passages from several letters that Chopin wrote in 1829–30 to his schoolmate Tytus Woyciechowski – which passages Moritz Weber, in a 7 December 2020 Swiss Radio and TV program, "Chopin was gay and no one must know about it", interpreted as indicating that Chopin was homosexual. The dispute appears to have been resolved in a balanced, neutral way by Smerus (in the "Chopin" article's "Gender and sexuality in music and life" section), to the satisfaction of most parties except, notably, for Chip-chip-2020, who seems to have first brought Weber's views to the "Chopin" article and talk page. Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Smerus Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Nothing to say that is not on the talk page. There is no dispute here, only a consensus which didn't go the way of the complainant.--Smerus (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by kosboot Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I've been on Wikipedia for 14 years with over 13K edits and this is the first time I've been summoned to this page. As with the U.S. presidential election, it boils down to a few people who refuse to work toward consensus and feel their views are the correct ones despite the relative quality of the sources. - kosboot (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by François Robere As Robert McClenon notes this was a very lengthy discussion. I feel that some editors were defensive of Chopin/'s reputation (in a manner that again mirrors how this was received in the "real world"), and at times this contributed to a raising of sourcing standards almost to WP:BLP levels. The resulting text is appreciable for trying to summarize all of he main viewpoints without embarrassing any of the sources (some of whom have theorized on Chopin's sexuality in a manner that's out of vogue these days), but I think it's way too long and obtuse, and does not give due weight to some dissenting sources. I have no opinion on whether this, or anything else, suits DRN. François Robere (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Toccata quarta Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The debate was a bit heated and not very structured initially, but the dust has settled and we have achieved some kind of consensus. I'm surprised by the size of the section on Chopin's sexuality that has just been added to the article and intend to make some further points on the talk page, but overall I'm happy with it and think it provides a balanced and well-written summary of the topic. I'm somewhat surprised that this has reached DRN in the first place; the debate was mostly civil and did not reach anything approaching the levels of acrimony that the talk pages of political articles often witness. I have been asked by Chip-chip-2020 to provide a rationale for my reversal of his edit, so I will just state that the topic is a sensitive one and consensus was being sought on the talk page; hence, it was natural to revert the article to its "default" state, which is consistent with WP:BRD. The Chopin entry is a featured article and Chip-chip-2020's edits were reverted by other editors as well, which further supports the appropriateness of the steps taken. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Glissando1234567890 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Frédéric Chopin discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Comment by semi-involved Francis Schonken (talk): I think this is less suitable to be taken on at DRN, for there being too many parties (as far as I'm concerned I could have found myself listed among the parties), for issues getting mostly resolved on the article talk page (being told the same thing by many people is not an indication DR would usually lead to something different), and the OP's concerns to a large extent being implemented in mainspace (that a few things seem out of reach for the time being is something everyone, again, *everyone*, involved in the related discussion has to live with and should not fixate on). (note: this is not an opening comment by a volunteer, unless all listed involved users would consider me to be completely uninvolved, and then this would be my very first DRN discussion I'd volunteer on – just didn't know where else to put this comment) --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC) This dispute should have gone to RSN and NPOVN where the UNDUE nonsense would be rejected and any appropriate fraction of the current text would be validated. The calculus of WP content is that a compromise between valid and invalid = invalid. That's just logic, and that's where things stand. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Volunteer Note - The discussion on the article talk page has been extremely lengthy. The editors are reminded to be concise in commenting here, especially before a volunteer starts moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC) @Smerus: has kindly notified me of this discussion. I am not involved, but have commented on sources and tweaked some text. I discovered, before this notification, that Chip-chip-2020 had been adding POV content on de.wikipedia.org, fr.wikipedia.org, pl.wikipedia.org and en.wikipedia.org concerning Tytus Woyciechowski and Frédéric Chopin, with a narrative linking the pair. This attempt of Chip-chip-2020 to establish a "proven" link appears to be WP:RECENTISM plus WP:ACTIVISM. The posting to WP:DRN seems ill-advised. Mathsci (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Report socks at SPI. Seemplez {{ping}} me 13:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC) @Smerus: This evening has been disrupted by edits to Waltzes, Op. 70 (Chopin) (that previously happened on 12 November 2020). ‎Chip-chip-2020 has decided for the second time to use the article as a WP:COATRACK for WP:ACTIVISM for an unsubstantiated affair between Chopin and Woyceichowski. Two IPs have been involved in the previous set of edits, both of them from Zurich (where the broadcast originated). Chip-chip-2020 has reproduced the same content and image, which might suggest sock/meatpuppetry. Mathsci (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC) I didn't see Mathsci's comment before I added mine, but I agree that someone so well-versed in WP rules whose first edit was 15 November 2020 suggests a sockpuppet. - kosboot (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC) I would just add that Chip-chip-2020's editing history at the de/fr/pl WPs also began in mid-November this year. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC) Please also note that a second (though considerably smaller) discussion on Chopin's sexuality is being conducted at Talk:Waltzes, Op. 70 (Chopin). Toccata quarta (talk) 07:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC) Thank you very much for the contributions so far. I‘d suggest we see what Glissando1234567890 and François Robere have to say to what this discussion originally was supposed to be about. And perhaps a volunteer like Robert McClenon in the meantime could comment on the tone of the previous contributions?--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC) Volunteer Note - Based on the request by User:Chip-chip-2020, I will review the comments in more detail and comment on them and their tone within 24 hours. I didn't have to review them in detail in order to comment on their length. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC) If you are to do this, please also note the contributions to the discussion by Special:Contributions/2001:8003:5309:BA00:E07E:35C7:5196:38E8 who for some reason was not listed here by User:Chip-chip-2020 - --Smerus (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC) First statement by moderator (Chopin) As long as I have read through the very long statements once, I might as well take this a little further. Please read the rules that are in effect. It should not be necessary for me to restate the rules. Sometimes when I say "Be civil and concise", I emphasize, "Be civil". In this case, I will emphasize, "Be concise". The comments on the talk page are mostly civil, and are repetitious. I was asked to comment on the tone. I have no particular comments on the tone except that one unregistered editor has been uncivil. Other editors have been civil and long-winded, and what we need is to summarize them. It appears to me that Chopin's sexuality is a matter of considerable continued discussion. That is clear to me. We need some formulation to state that his sexuality is a matter of continued discussion. I didn't try to review the reliability of the sources with different viewpoints. It would be ideal to find some mutually agreeable formulation of the differing viewpoints. Otherwise we will develop two or three candidate versions of the section and have an RFC to choose between them. Each editor should think about what can be said that will present the different viewpoints with due weight. Now: Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think should be said as a neutral balanced summary of what reliable sources say? Do not just focus on what you think his orientation or sexuality was, but on what you think scholars say his orientation or sexuality was. Do not respond to each other, except in the space for back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to me, and to the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC) First statements by editors (Chopin) I think biographical elements (sending of affectionate letters as related by *biographers* Zamoyski, Walker, etc) should be separated from gender studies (i.e., Kallberg's approach). The biographical elements should be summarized in the biographical narrative (Frédéric Chopin#Life), chronologically (that is, where both Zamoyski and Walker place it in their biographical narratives – not an appended separate subsection); the gender studies aspect is entirely reception/legacy and should be moved down, around where the current Frédéric Chopin#Reception and influence subsection is (where it is a rather tiny aspect, so likely also not a separate (sub)section). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC) Thank you, Robert McClenon, for the resumé and for opening the debate. Proved biographical content should be in the upper part (Frédéric Chopin#Life). Unproved (such as the alleged stories around Gladkowska and Wodzinska) should me removed or mentioned neutrally. Wordings like „secretly engaged“ or „secretly in love“ are not reliable information. And the quote from the Chopin Institute confirms that. 1-2 quotes by Chopin himself taken from his numerous and long letters to Woyciechowski should be introduced though, as suggested by many users in the talk. The letter from 3.10.1829 was pointed out for various reasons, also for the mistranslation issue, which would also be worth to mentioned, since the translations are the basis for non-polish-scholarship. For example Glissando1234567890, Boud, [[User:François Robere|François Robere], Francis Schonken suggested introducing Quotes or Fotos or pointed out interesting aspects of the mistranslation-issue. Quotes in correct side-by-side translations would be appropriate, as suggested in the talk. Apart from the proven facts in the life-section, in the „sexuality“-section, the different points of view of the debate should be shown neutrally. It is important to be careful about the sources, since Walker and Zamoyski are writing things like „mental twist“, or „[Chopin] could have added the name of Konstancja“ (to a letter to Woyciechowski), or „he secretly dedicated the Adagio to her“ (without mentioning any proof, and also in the newest edition of the score there is no dedication mentioned). In the sexuality-section (Frédéric Chopin#Chopin's_sexuality), it should also be mentioned, that the radio-features became not just a topic in Poland, but were also reviewed or further investigated in publications like The Times, CNN, Guardian, also in various languages like Hindi or Japanese. Best, --Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC) I broadly agree with Francis Schonken's summary above as regards allocating the topic(s). The question is how much detail is appropriate. As regards Chopin's sexuality, it only needs (imo) a sentence noting that the correspondence with Woychiekowski has given rise to discussion about Chopin's sexual orientation at the time of writing them, and then citations of (say) Walker and Zamoyski. Chip-chip-2020 is absolutely unjustified in talking about "unproved...alleged stories around Gladkowska and Wodzinska"; this is pure WP:OR as there is plenty of evidence about these two in other people's correspondence of the period. To elaborate on this sort of speculation is just being WP:POINTy. As regards Kallberg's speculaltions, these are indeed pretty esoteric and don't deserve much more than a brief reference in a 'legacy' section. Further, there is no good reason to go overboard about a poorly sourced program last month on Swiss radio which had little or no balance whatever, and whose false controversiality (because the issues it discussed were well known) gained it a transient wider media coverage. The broader context is that this is an FA article on a major figure in music history, and needs to meet fully standards about using reliable secondary sources if it is to retain that status; it receives 3-4,000 views a day, and it is essential for the reputation of WP that it remains WP:NPOV and avoids WP:RECENTISM. Context and proportion are therefore essential. Chip-chip-2020 above is urging that all sorts of doubtful and marginally relevant detail should be added as, somehow, by right; that is the argument of a partisan. Francis Schonken is suggesting that material should be properly evaluated and appropriately placed; this must be the right approach.--Smerus (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: I dispute that any of this section is in good shape or that any of it is NPOV DUE WEIGHT for this article. It's poorly sourced and conflates many diverse issues, none of which is adequately verified or tied to the subject of the article aside from speculation. Noting the recent references to this as a Featured Article, I think the entire section should be removed until such time as it is fit to print. SPECIFICO talk 16:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC) I totally agree with Smerus: that the article's FA status requires careful evaluation of any additions. Ultimately, this is a very ambiguous aspect of Chopin's life which probably can never be verified with conclusive evidence. Thus it's not so much about Chopin but rather about 21st century attempts at deriving new information based on new interpretations of his correspondence. Although I feel it should not be in the article, it needs to be there primarily for the purpose of forestalling additional fantasy and speculation such as the sensationalist Swiss radio broadcast. - kosboot (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC) I agree with everything Kosboot has written. As always I will link Chopin and Schubert. About 6 months ago, I helped write the very brief paragraph about Franz Schubert's sexuality in the eponymous article. Questions about sexuality dating from 1989 were put in "Teacher ..." (his adolescence), not legacy or reception. Similar scholarly questions about Chopin's sexuality were raised in the 1990s. In Talk:Frédéric Chopin, several editors have suggested that "images and quotes" might be added to the section on Chopin's sexuality. Most Chopin biographers, aware of his adolescent letters, briefly discuss their significance. Music Prof Kallberg studies 19C and social mores in a liberal framework; his work is accessible in book reviews. Recent media reports that "Chopin is gay" are similar to 1989 headlines about Schubert; but now, when discussing music and sexuality, trained academic researchers often speak of the otherness or otherworldliness of a composer. Mathsci (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC) I am in sympathy with the immediately above views of SPECIFICO and kosboot. The speculations about Chopin's gender orientation and sexuality are part of a trend of "fake news"; and while it is important to "fact-check" allegations placed before the public, I am not sure that Wikipedia should become a repository of misguided speculations. Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: Other than changes to readability, which I've explained here,[1] I think we ought to mention three more claims: first is Brett and Wood's statement on biographers trying to (essentially) heteronormalize Chopin and other composers; second is a response from the Chopin Institute that there's no direct evidence of romantic involvement between him and two of his most famous (alleged) female lovers; and third is Pizá's opinion that "clearly Chopin had homosexual desires", and that he was surely aware of his friend Marquise de Custine's fate as an openly homosexual man in liberal France, who was beaten half to death some years before they made their acquaintance. Pizá implies that Chopin was either gay or bisexual, and that characterising him as feminine and asexual was an attempt at "taming" him as an artist and a public figure, echoing what Brett and Wood wrote. François Robere (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC) Reflist References Second statement by moderator (Chopin) The views of the editors taking part in this DRN appear to have three different viewpoints as to what to say about Chopin's sexuality. The filing editor wishes to make some statements about Chopin's sexuality (basically that he was bisexual) based on modern publications. Two editors have stated that these statements need to be properly evaluated and appropriately placed. Four editors have expressed the opinion that the challenged statements are undersourced or non-neutral and are not encyclopedic, and should be removed. If the editors want to work toward compromise, which would involve evaluating the material in question, we can proceed toward compromise. However, it seems that a Request for Comments is in order. I am asking the editor who wants to add material to provide the paragraph or paragraphs to be added, specifying where to add them. The editors who don't want anything added do not need to provide any input to the RFC. They can provide their arguments against the addition when the RFC is published. The two editors who are taking a middle position should state what they want as a middle option in the RFC. If there are remaining questions, please ask them now, because otherwise I would like to get the RFC started before the December solstice. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC) Moderator Comment I have moved the material that was included by User:Chip-Chip-2020 to a subpage, because it displays images and is otherwise longer than is usual in-line for DRN. I am not taking issue with the inclusion of the material by User:Chip-Chip-2020, but it makes reading of DRN not flow well. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Chopin) Supposing I am a "middle man" per the moderator's classification (correct?), I am, I think, invited to state a middle position. Keeping it brief, I think a middle position would be that sources which are classified as "generally reliable" at WP:RSP would be accepted so, without having to go through the movements at WP:RSN. These include a New York Times article about Walker's Chopin biography, and CNN, The Independent and The Guardian articles about the SRF radio broadcast. Not saying we need large wads of text in Wikipedia's Chopin biography based on these sources, but a decent mentioning of the key topic (Chopin's sexuality) from these reliable sources should be included in the biographical section of the Chopin article. The "gender" material (i.e. Kallberg), and other reception-related material, should get no more than brief mentioning in the "Reception"-related sections of the Chopin article (not disturbing the DUE/UNDUE balance of the reception narrative). Other than that, I can confirm that I agree with the moderator's proposal that this is rather suitable for a RFC procedure than a DRN page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC) In case it will be helpful in preparing proposed text, I would like to state that the only source that appears to be RS as a somewhat qualified expert opinion is the Kallberg. It's pretty clear that any proposal based on newspaper accounts of radio accounts is going to be rejected, so OP might consider streamlining any proposal. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC) I agree with Francis regarding sourcing; I think WP:DUE adequately covers this situation, and see no need to withhold reliable mass media sources. I also agree that the Kallberg-on-music paragraph can be trimmed and moved to #Reception. I would like to see added a brief statement from Brett and Wood, another statement from Pizá, and part of the comment from the Chopin institute to the SRF piece. François Robere (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC) Articles about the SRF radio broadcast are not relevant sources; they are comments on a radio broadcast, not per se informed or reliable sources for a life of Chopin (which is the subject of this article). It is not a matter of 'witholding' mass-media sources - it is a question of seriously evaluating what they can contribute to an FA article. No one, despite this lengthy discussion here and on the talk page, has produced any evidence from any reliable source that Chopin was a practising homosexual at any stage of his career. There is suggestive evidence both that he had homoerotic thoughts at around the age of twenty, and that he had sexual relations with George Sand, as well as that he was attracted to Gladowska and was engaged to Wodzińska. That's it. Brett and Wood appear to have said nothing specific about Chopin - what is the 'brief statement' that François Robere would like to see? Pizá's comments on Chopin's sexuality are hypothesis without evidence base. Of course, as I have said on the talk page, absence of evidence about Chopin's sexual procliivites is not evidence of absence - but WP does not exist to peddle the hypotheses of its editors. Once again I remind editors that this is an FA article which needs to meet FA standards. It's not a rattle bag for chit-chat. I am also by the way concerned about the suggestions by User:Mathsci, User:kosboot and User:Toccata quarta of sock-puppeting in this matter, which I should like to see investigated.--Smerus (talk) 09:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC) I would suggest to add in a first steps the texts, pictures and citations below. The quote by Chopin could be placed in the life-section or in the sexuality-section. If placed in the sexuality-section it should be followed by the various interpretations of this passage and other erotic or affectionate passages (for example Larivière recognizing them as clearly homoerotic, Gesine Baur recognizing them as „Liebeserklärungen“, Alan Walker calling it highly erotic but a „mental twist“, or Zamoyski writing, Chopin could have added the name of a woman to some of these passages). Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Chip-Chip-2020 portion --Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC) Third statement by moderator (Chopin) After reviewing the material that I moved to a section for User:Chip-chip-2020, I see that it is not formatted appropriately for a section of a Wikipedia article. Each editor who wants to propose any material on Chopin's sexuality should prepare a draft paragraph or section, so that I will be able to include it in the RFC (Request for Comments). That is, do not describe in general terms what you want the article to say. Write exactly what you want the article to say. If you have questions about this request, please ask the questions now. I would still like to get the RFC published within a week. It will take thirty days to run. You may put your recommended text in-line here, or create a subpage, except that if you include any images, please create a subpage, so as not to distract readers of DRN. Please write what you want the article to say, and we will ask the community to decide. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC) Third statements by editors (Chopin) Chopin: 3rd statement by Francis Proposal (seen as 3rd and last subsection added to Frédéric Chopin#Early Life): See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Francis Schonken portion. Third statements by editors (Chopin), continued This seems to me not unreasonable; I would suggest that the comment on Walker by Fonseca-Wollheim could go into a note, rather than the text. Thank you, Francis, for taking the trouble to set this out. I don't believe that the addition of the portrait of Tytus is useful, but the audio file is a nice idea.--Smerus (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC) Chopin: 3rd statement by kosboot Smerus posted an excerpt from a reliable source which says exactly what I think the article needs to say. It is focused and does not get into the issue of gender identity which I think is another issue. By the end of the summer he had reached new heights of emotional turmoil, ostensibly on account of Konstancja. Having met her well over a year before and immediately recognised her as his ‘ideal’ (the very word is redolent of schoolboy ritual), he had still not declared himself to her. ‘I could go on hiding my pathetic and ungainly passions for another couple of years,’ he wrote to Tytus, at the same time stressing their depth and force.31 Strong his feelings may have been, but they were certainly not exclusive. The brief infatuations with the Radziwiłł girls and Henriette Sontag are only some of the manifestations of an acute susceptibility to women. From his letters we know that at one soirée in August he saw a girl (who of course reminded him of Konstancja) whom he could not take his eyes off, and who had set his heart on fire by the end of the evening. Another day, in church, he caught the eye of ‘a certain person’, as a result of which he staggered out in a state of sensuous inebriation and nearly got himself run over by a passing carriage. These and similar stories are recounted to Tytus in tones of mawkish self-pity, alongside assurances that he, Tytus, is in fact the most important person in Chopin’s life. While reaffirminghis constant and undying love for the girl, he would write to his friend that he thought constantly of him: ‘I do not forget you, I am with you, and it shall be so till death.’32 It was Tytus who would have a portrait of Chopin before Konstancja, and it was Tytus who was the recipient of what would have been love letters to Konstancja, had Chopin dared write to her. These letters, sometimes friendly, sometimes petulant, sometimes verging on the passionate, are freely strewn with declarations of love and affinity, and contain passages of extraordinary sensuality. This has prompted some to conclude that the two young men were or had been lovers. On the face of it, the equivocal references to passions, secrets and torment combine with the extremely specific terms of endearment to make this appear plausible. Chopin signs off one letter to Tytus with the following jumble of childishness and coy eroticism: I must go now and wash. So don’t embrace me now, as I haven’t washed myself yet. – You? If I anointed myself with fragrant oils from the East, – you wouldn’t embrace me, not unless I forced you to by magnetic means. But there are forces in Nature, and tonight you will dream that you are embracing me. – I have to pay you back for the nightmare you caused me last night! Taken out of context, this may appear a little risqué, as might the endless kisses sent and demanded by Chopin. But these expressions were, and to some extent still are, common currency in Polish, and carry no greater implication than the ‘love’ people regularly sign off with today. And the traces of infantile eroticism in the letters are of little significance in themselves. The spirit of the times, pervaded by the Romantic movement in art and literature, favoured extreme expression of feeling and glorified transcendent friendship, and it is probably this that lies at the heart of these letters, written as they were at a period in Chopin’s life when he came nearest to living out the Romantic ideal.  While the possibility cannot be ruled out entirely, it is highly unlikely that the two were ever lovers. Had the slightly sentimental relationship between the older, stronger boy and his gentler, more emotional classmate really developed into a sexual rapport, it would almost certainly, knowing Chopin’s malleable and undecided nature, have become an exclusive and long-lasting passion. In such a case there would have been no reason for Chopin to sit about being bored in Warsaw while the bucolic seclusion of Tytus’s estate beckoned. - kosboot (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC) Third statements by editors (Chopin), continuation The main editor of this FA has been User:Smerus. So far WP:CONSENSUS has been to put the new material from November 2020 into a footnote; and new ideas for changing the Chopin article have always been directly discussed on its talk page (to establish consensus). At the moment consensus has rejected parallel translations into Polish/English. In the current section on "sexuality", which has now shrunk, Kallberg's commentary on nocturnes and femininity remains; in his own work he has used a painting of salon music to illustrate the topic. Mathsci (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderator (Chopin) Maybe when I state the ground rules I should transclude them rather than instructing the editors to read them. What wasn't understood about not editing the article? But please continue providing statements as to what you want in an RFC. And don't just describe the work that will need to be done to write the section. Write it. It will be what the other editors will be !voting on. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors (Chopin) Applied some tweaks and updates to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Francis Schonken portion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC) Building on Francis's proposal, I submit the following: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/François Robere's proposal. François Robere (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC) Robert McClenon , when an editor puts forward a specific (and in this case detailed) proposal, s/he is by definition requesting comments on it. What François Robere has set out is not a "comment" but a proposed wholesale edit to the article. How will you, as an independent observer, gauge reactions and/or consensus if no other editor is allowed to comment on it? I detailed above specific objections to François Robere flagrantly biassed summary, and you have chosen to hide them from other editors. Please seek to be even-handed.--Smerus (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderator (Chopin) Any editor who wants to present a viewpoint to be considered in the RFC should state it within 48 hours. In particular, if any editor wants any part of the existing article omitted, they should say what they want deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC) Fifth statements by editors (Chopin) Substantially shorten note 8 and move 'Sexuality' to 'Reception and Influence' section.--Smerus (talk) 10:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC) As we enter the festive period, Robert McClenon seems to have misread the previous comments by user:Smerus, the main editor to have made the article Frédéric Chopin into a featured article. As Smerus has written, the proposed new material on the two letters of Chopin written to Tytus Woyciechowski in Polish, with English translations, does not conform to the high standards of the pre-existing featured article. Isolated sentences from the biography by Adam Zamoyski have been taken out of the context in which it was written; similarly the latest Chopin biography by Alan Walker. His recent book has received at least one negative review in the academic literature. In her review, historian Jolanta Pekacz from Dalhousie University writes: Please click to view Over a hundred biographies of Frederic Chopin have been published since his death in 1849, some two dozen of them in this century alone, and any new biographer faces a challenge to justify his entry into this crowded field. It is not clear what prompted Alan Walker to write a monumental volume of over 700 pages. It could not have been scholarship produced in "recent years" pertaining to George Sand, by which Walker means Georges Lubin’s edition of Sand’s letters completed in 1995 and Sand’s biography by Curtis Cate published in 1975 (p. 8), as these sources have been used by Chopin scholars for decades. Similarly, biographical information about Chopin’s friends and teachers from Warsaw can be found in the existing biographies and online reference sources (e.g., NIFC). In the end, Walker has only weasel words to justify his enterprise: "the times are generally absent from the story of Chopin’s life" creating “the void . . . waiting to be filled" and those cataclysmic events “are given short shrift in the many sanitized versions of Chopin’s life ..." (p. 19). [...] Retelling Chopin’s life story with a few new details and background information may easily take up 700 pages but is not likely to forge new ways of looking at Chopin. In fact, Walker’s biography effectively reinforces the existing clichés, including those that have already been questioned: about Chopin being "fully formed" by the time he left Poland; about his "close" rapport with the Polish aristocracy; about his connections with the Polish circles in Paris; or about his frequent appearances in the salons. [...] The certainty with which Walker "knows" these things and confidence with which he states his opinions is a reminder that no evidence is needed or doubt allowed in the political correctness department. As far as the proposed changes are concerned, all of the nineteenth-century letters are primary sources; there are no recorded letters from Woyciechowski to Chopin; and the correspondence between Sand and Chopin was destroyed after his death on his own instructions. Adding epistolary content in pre-existing sections—on schoolfriends, Sand, her daughter and Custine—in the body of the article or in footnotes might achieve WP:consensus on the user talk page. Any potential RfC on Talk:Frédéric Chopin should be phased in neutral terms, without begging questions. Mathsci (talk) 11:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC) Chopin's life and music have been researched by 3 groups (not always distinct): Chopin scholars, Chopin biographers and journalists. The subject of sexuality does not normally cover "reception". So "Chopin reception" has a very specific meaning (i.e. his music), just like "Handel reception". Thus Concerti grossi, Op. 6 (Handel)#Reception and influence is relevant to the article George Frideric Handel; while the 2011 article "Handel and Homosexuality: Burlington House and Cannons Revisited" is listed under "Further reading", where Handel scholars have explored the topic "Was George Frederic Handel Gay?" Mathsci (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC) Produced a new version of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Francis Schonken portion, this time also including the actual proposed update to the "Reception and influence" section (instead of just describing it). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC) Sixth statement by moderator (Chopin) Perhaps I need to explain what I am trying to do at this point. I am trying to get proposed sections for the article to go to the community for the RFC. We are not discussing the proposed sections. The discussion can and will be done when the RFC is discussed. For the time being, please, just let me know what you want to propose be in the article, or what you want to propose be taken out of the article. We know that there is disagreement. We aren't trying to compromise. So you do not need to comment, only provide your proposed section. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC) Sixth statements by editors (Chopin) Please find then my specific proposals here. Ignore the numbering of the headings of course, they will come as they fall out in the context of the article as a whole. The proposals, as far as the intended Rfc is concerned, involve: para. 3 of 'Travel and domestic success'. the sub-section 'Sexuality', to be relocated in 'Reception and influence'; I would suggest as the last sub-section under this heading. Other references to the topic of Chopin's sexuality (if any) to be removed from the article. I respectfully request other editors not to edit the page on which my proposals are located. However I am open to suggestions as to how they could be improved.--Smerus (talk) 12:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC) These seem very reasonable, with a little polish (no pun intended). The 2010 documentary "Chopin: the women behind the music" (available on YouTube) featured biographer A. Zamoyski and music historian H. Goldberg. Chopin's relations with women are described in the wikipedia article, perhaps not directly in terms of sexuality. In the case of Jenny Lind and Chopin, conjectures about their liason have been speculative and, as the dust has settled, impossible to determine. Similar speculation surrounds Chopin's letters to Woyciechowski: the dust is still swirling around there. Mathsci (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC) I find Smerus's proposed text very good. One thing I suggest is an invisible comment (as is done in the lead of the article concerning Chopin's nationality) telling potential editors not to edit this section without discussion on the talk page. Perhaps the editors' lengthy discussion of this topic on the talk page as well as a pointer to this DRN discussion can be included as a separate file in the archive of the talk page. - kosboot (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC) My 6th statement update to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Francis Schonken portion now also draws from one of the older Chopin biographies (Niecks's), with its own slant on the Gładkowska/Woyciechowski episode (all based, like the other biographers', on the same letters to Woyciechowski, quoting, like the other biographers, most of what is in the two quoted passages of my proposal). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC) I think Smerus has done well here. However I think the sentence citing Piza adds nothing and elevates an empty remark from an academic not noted for Chopin scholarship. I'd delete it. Arthur Rubinstein's personal reminiscence about the circumstances of his youth is UNDUE. And although he is well-known to us, he is not of the stature of earlier pianists such as Liszt, Busoni, Anton Rubinstein et al who did not play like polite girls. The Schenker bit is interesting, but I am not sure it was historically iinfluential. Just serves to negate the effeminate Chopin idea, which Smerus has adequately contextually w.o help from Heinrich. SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Seventh statement by moderator (Chopin) This is what I will be posting for the RFC. If you follow certain traditions concerning December 25, it may appear in your sock. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC) Which of the following sections on Chopin's sexuality should be included in the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC) A. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Chip-Chip-2020 portion. B. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Francis Schonken portion. C. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/François Robere's proposal. D. See User:Smerus/chopforrfc. E. I apologize for not placing my text recommendations in the appropriate slot – I'm not familiar with how to do it. I broadly agree with most of Francis Schonken's comments made at 9:13, 24 December 2020, after his above–proposed text – periodize the "Frédéric Chopin" text into "Poland" and "France" rather than into "Early life" and "Career"; and in the music–reception parts, provide any serious matter concerning the emotional influences on Chopin's compositions, not necessarily viewed specifically as "sexual" (arguably, sexual strands of one kind or another exist in every individual's life, and – as the Fryderyk Chopin Institute representative observed – Chopin was very discreet about his actual sexual involvements, so that not much is known about them; while he is known to have experienced infatuations with quite a few women). Chopin's adolescent correspondence – whose varied interpretations precipitated this controversy – would adequately be treated in something like the article's current note 6. As background for further disputants, I recommend taking the 90 minutes to view the 2010 BBC documentary, "Chopin: the Women behind the Music", [2], available on YouTube. Chopin was, from childhood, mesmerized by the female singing voice. As Emanuel Ax shows, Chopin managed to capture that voice on the piano. The music of Chopin, this "basically very shy" man, captivates with "the sheer depth of his emotional experience." At the conclusion of the documentary, the commentator points out that little is known of Chopin's sexual life but that "The singing of Konstancja Gładkowska, Delfina Potocka, Pauline Viardot, and Jenny Lind is immortalized within his music." Nihil novi (talk) 09:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC) Seventh statements by editors (Chopin) D, which is by far the most cogently-written of the 4 versions listed above. - kosboot (talk) 14:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC) D, the only proposal comparable to the high standard already set in this FA: concise without evading issues. Mathsci (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: the RfC is now launched – two thoughts: The "status quo" option should be mentioned in the RfC. I'd propose to formulate it somewhat like this (and implement it in the RfC lead section unless Robert prefers to do this themselves): E. Status quo, see, in the article, explanatory footnote No. 6 and "Sexuality" subsection of "Life" section. I'd propose the moderator closes (or at least suspends until closure of the RfC) the current DRN topic: the discussion is now back to the article's talk page (in RfC format), so keeping the same discussion open here will only lead to contraproductive splitting of one discussion over two pages. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC) Back-and-forth discussion @Smerus: No one... has produced any evidence from any reliable source that Chopin was a practising homosexual at any stage of his career No one produced evidence that he was a practising heterosexual either, yet the text is written under the assumption that he was. No one has produced any evidence that Chopin was not from outer space. Yet the text is written under the assumption that he was an Earthling.--Smerus (talk) 13:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC) Are you seriously suggesting homosexuality is so foreign that we ought to disregard it as an option by default? (And is this grounded in Policy in any way?) François Robere (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC) Articles about the SRF radio broadcast are not relevant sources Commenters quoted in those articles include Aleksander Laskowski, spokeperson for the Fryderyk Chopin Institute; and David Frick, Prof. em. at the Dept of Slavic Languages and Literatures at UC Berkley, who translated Chopin's letters. Surely these two are relevant for our purpose. Brett and Wood criticize the literature for assuming by default that Chopin is heterosexual lest a smoking gun is provided (not unlike some of our colleagues here), all the while showing "a constant embarrassment or evasion that supports the point about an ingrained homophobia in music scholarship". Some part of this would make a good addition, but what exactly depends on how we write the rest of the section. Pizá's comments on Chopin's sexuality are hypothesis without evidence base No, they're interpretations of existing evidence - just like Walker and Zamoyski's comments, which we do mention. WP does not exist to peddle the hypotheses of its editors Yet we do in the existing text. The existing text is supported by citations from appropriate authorities, as per WP standards.--Smerus (talk) 13:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC) I raised specific points. Can you address them? François Robere (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC) François Robere (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC) Could one of the inclusion advocates please state briefly why anything called "Chopin's sexuality" is relevant to this article and significant for his notability? Having reviewed several sources available to me, I do see many references to silly, vacuous, speculation or contemporaneous characterization of him as effeminate (whatever that meant in the 1800s where everyone wore ruffles, wigs, and freely splashed themselves with cologne?) or even as androgenous or a hermaphrodite. Well, I think if that had been the case they would have discovered it when they dissected his corpse. I could see a mention of the nonsense that persisted during and for a while after his lifetime. But gender issues are so specific to time and place that the sort of discussion that purports to be about Chopin's sexuality rather than about associated uninformed chatter seem entirely UNDUE. What about Liszt with his girly hairdo? Some of his groupies must have been openly homosexual. SPECIFICO talk 20:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC) A vaguely written additional sentence was added by François Robere today. The source, written by musicologist Errin Knyt, was an article on Busoni's rewriting of some Chopin Études. No page numbers were cited, but Knyt's "abstract" contained the relevant sentence (the one in quotes). Knyt's whole abstract has to be read in full to see whether it is relevant for inclusion. My view is that Knyt's article concerns mostly Busoni—typed letters and musical manuscripts—not Chopin. The source is impeccable, but, like the Chopin-Godowsky Études, it is slanted in a different direction, i.e. Busoni not Chopin. Mathsci (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC) I've had professional dealings with Erin Knyt. Busoni, not Chopin, is within her sphere of interest. - kosboot (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC) There's a whole section in that article on reactions to Chopin, which you clearly had no problem finding. What her interests are is irrelevant, as the examples she provides are clear and align perfectly with various other sources. François Robere (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC) I am sorry that my extra-terrestrial example does not appeal to François Robere; so I offer the following as an alternative. Chopin spent his mature life in France; his father was French, he was able to speak and write in French, and at one point he had a French passport. Yet despite this, the article has the temerity to centre on the alleged 'fact' that he was Polish. Clearly this must be proof that certain wicked people are seeking to suppress the fact that Chopin considered himself to be entirely French, even though there is no evidence that he though so.--Smerus (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC) Having written on minorities in several sensitive TAs, I indeed do not find your sarcasm appealing. We are to summarise facts as they appear in sources, not make our own assumptions, yet the discussion is rife with assumptions. If you have no sources that clearly state that Chopin was X, you're in no position to state that he wasn't Y. It's as simple as that. François Robere (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC) I'd also try to keep the discussion (I mean among us 21st-century Wikipedians) as politically correct as possible. It's not because Kallberg analyses 19th- and early 20th-century stereotyping (which, e.g., links effeminacy to non-straightness, something that would frown many a brow nowadays), without participating himself in the historical discourse (probably explaining why some of his prose is more than a bit esoteric), that we should join the older, currently no longer politically correct, mode of expression. The analyses on such touchy topics in reliable sources only belong in a Wikipedia article if it is clear which comment belongs to which period. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC) To the source excerpt posted by Smerus, and quoted above by Kosboot, may usefully be added Smerus's further post from the same source: "[In 1832, in France] the memory of Konstancja [Gładkowska] kept cropping up in [Chopin]'s thoughts […] 'Her image is continually before my eyes,' he wrote in his diary, adding that 'sometimes I think I no longer love her, yet I cannot get her out of my head.'" So much for the assertion of some that Chopin never took a romantic interest in this teen soprano – or in women generally. Nihil novi (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC) I reckon you're not going to do here what you did with his letters to Tytus, explaining that the Polish is too intricate and asking to review the letters yourself? François Robere (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC) Comment by User:Smerus on proposal by User:François Robere - Far too much attention to these two letters to Titus. On what basis is the 1829 letter construed to have any homosexual import? - you do not give any justification or reference for assuming this. What is meant by the suggestion that TW was "the true object of the composer's affection throughout the period" - which period? are we talking about the 11 months between the letters (i.e. when Chopin was 19 or 20, before he had embarked on his career) - or just the time of the 1830 letter - or implying that a larger period is involved? What evidence is offered by the broadcast about Chopin's affections elsewhere at this time? Why do we gloss over the broadcast's utterly unjustified attempts to ignore the reality of involvement with Gladowska and others? Are we talking about the 11 months between the letters? "In other letters he is more suggestive" - who demonstrates that the first letter is suggestive at all? What does the Piza quote add - we see anyway from the letters to TW that Chopin may have had homosexual desires, in what way does Piza show them to be "clear"? Who on earth is Corinna da Fonseca-Wollheim? (ah, this explains, perhaps, her valuable status as an authority) and why is her slagging off of George Sand (itself rather insensitive to a minority) of any relevance to this article? It's all grossly unencyclopaedic and phrased and arranged in a decidedly non-neutral style so as to give weight to sensationalized journalism vis-a-vis measured scholarly assessment.--Smerus (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC) User:Mathsci Different editors have different ideas as to what is the festive period. I do not consider the northern winter solstice to be a festive occasion toward the end of a very dark year, but only a day when the light begins to dispel the deep darkness. In my religious practice, the festive period begins in a little more than 48 hours in eastern North America. User:Mathsci - I have moved the comment by User:Smerus to the section for back-and-forth discussion, where it belongs. When there is an RFC, each editor will be able to present their own recommendation, and their own argument for it and against other arguments. What I am trying to do at this point is to get each of the editors to organize their own recommendations so that we can send the RFC forward to the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC) @Smerus: here are some thoughts on your proposal (User:Smerus/chopforrfc) – I was considering to post them at User talk:Smerus/chopforrfc or Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Francis Schonken portion (which would perhaps needlessly chop up the discussion), or to wait until the RfC is launched (but maybe better these are known now already): What I'm missing in your proposal is the links to what Chopin was composing in and around the 1829–1830 period, notably the two piano concertos (and shortly before that period: the variations dedicated to Woyciechowski, and the Krakowiak). Whether or not Chopin was in love with Gładkowska or someone else is less important, from a biographical point of view, than the simple fact that the concertos were written in a period *when Chopin was in love*. Leaving the concertos unmentioned in the biographical description of the period of these passions feels like an omission to me. IMHO the Gładkowska/Woyciechowski episode belongs to Chopin's "youth" (thus rather to be positioned in Frédéric Chopin#Early Life than Frédéric Chopin#Career) I'm basing myself for this thought on biographers' comments implying that the letters from this period show a Chopin far from maturity (to a certain extent "infantile", or showing "childishness", using Zamoyski's epithets). Maybe, instead of the "Early life" and "Career" subsections, we should have "Poland" and "Paris" as subsections, which is the more usual subdivision (Chopin leaving Poland for the last time and settling in Paris is usually seen as the main cesura in his life, not the "Early life"/"Career" distinction: the composer's career had started some time before his education finished, and what is "Early life" to a composer who didn't live very long?) The first subsection ("Poland") could then include some early successes (in Poland and abroad), and the second ("Paris") would not need to return in time to his earliest concert tours). I'm indifferent whether, in that more chronological account, the period between the departure from Poland in late 1830 and his arrival in Paris (where he ultimately settled) in 1831 is treated at the end of the "Poland" subsection or at the start of the "Paris" subsection. I'm (in general) no big fan of explanatory footnotes that contain part of a narrative (or alternative versions thereof: for NPOV presentation reasons). In this case, for the explanatory footnote included in your proposal I'd include the first sentence in the body of the article, and omit the whole part about the 2020 Polish reactions (which is not part of a biographical narrative, and too much WP:RECENTISM for the reception narrative). Regarding the "Sexuality" section you propose as subsection of "Reception and Influence" – I'd shorten that: per WP:BALASPS it seems to give more weight to the gender/sexuality aspect in reception than the place that topic actually occupies in Chopin reception. Also, as at least a substantial part of that content is based on Kallberg's "gender" studies (not the same as sexuality), a section title exclusively referring to sexuality, and not to gender, is imho not OK. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC) I broadly agree with most of Francis Schonken's above comments: periodize the text into "Poland" and "France" rather than into "Early life" and "Career"; and in the music-reception parts, provide any serious matter concerning the emotional influences on Chopin's compositions, not necessarily viewed specifically as "sexual" (arguably, sexual strands of one kind or another exist in every individual's life, and – as the Fryderyk Chopin Institute representative observed – Chopin was very discreet about his actual sexual involvements, so that not all that much is known about them, while he is known to have experienced infatuations with quite a few women). Chopin's adolescent correspondence would adequately be treated in something like the article's current note 6. Nihil novi (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC) Chopin's known infatuations with singers should not be overlooked (see 6th statements). Mathsci (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC) I recommend taking the 90 minutes to view the 2010 BBC documentary, "Chopin: the Women behind the Music", [3], available on YouTube. Chopin was, from childhood, mesmerized by the female singing voice. As Emanuel Ax shows, he managed to capture that voice on the piano. The music of Chopin, this "basically very shy" man, captivates with "the sheer depth of his emotional experience." At the conclusion of the program, the commentator points out that little is known of Chopin's sexual life but that "The singing of Konstancja Gładkowska, Delfina Potocka, Pauline Viardot, and Jenny Lind is immortalized within his music." Nihil novi (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC) Exactly. (I would have preferred if Emanuel Ax had played the 4th Ballade instead of the Harrovian James Rhodes.) Mathsci (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2020 (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.

Forbidden Relationships in Judaism

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Heydan Seegil on 23:25, 27 December 2020 (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 Forbidden Relationships in Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Heydan Seegil (talk · contribs) Debresser (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The article omitted "One's genetic relative (Leviticus 18:6) (Leviticus 18:24–28)" which was the part of my Haftorah portion. The mod for the page claimed to be a Jewish Rabbi but has made work edits on the Shabbat and during a holiday which were time stamped UTC which would mean that despite his claim of being Israeli he still made the edits during the Shabbat and again during a holiday that if he was actually a Rabbi he would have been performing a service during. They seek to remove this addition of the beginning of that Torah section along with additional supporting citation from the Talmud, Midrash, and other actual Jewish authorities. It is 100% transparent that they are not Jewish nor are they Rabbis and are legitimately omitting portions of the related Torah section to twist and contort the narrative to allow for incest and pagan worship. This paints a narrative of Judaism which is full of depravity and creates a social narrative that we Jew practice inbreeding. I can again supply the additional sources that support the prohibition against relationships from genetic relatives and the specifically cited section of the Torah literally says: "None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness.", the Hebrew reads the same but I figure it would be easier for the dispute resolver to have it in Hebrew. This was literally my Haftorah portion and as such during Hebrew school I was required to spend several hours a day learning the specifics of this one section. Spent roughly 5 years or so learning just this section and the related cases from through-out Jewish history related to relationship judgements. I am not sure about if the mod themselves are just ignorant, trolling, or actually antisemitic so I am hoping to keep this to the content of the page, but it is slanderous against Jews. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Under the Incest section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Forbidden_relationships_in_Judaism How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Leave my edit in and find someone who is at least actually Jewish to moderate the page instead of a poser. This is how misinformation and antisemitism breed. Some non-Jew thinks they can alter and omit portions of the Torah and then they propagate that narrative as Judaism. Summary of dispute by Debresser Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Forbidden Relationships in Judaism 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.

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Armatura on 00:27, 28 December 2020 (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 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Armatura (talk · contribs) Solavirum (talk · contribs) Vici Vidi (talk · contribs) 212.156.71.30 (talk · contribs) 37.155.240.129 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Code-name "Operation Iron Fist" is mentioned in the opening sentence of the article, along with "2020 NK war", without any info/source for the details of that Operation available yet. There is nothing but a code-name circulated by Az. government AFTER the war. I wonder whether this is giving undue weight to a so-far-a-name-only concept that has a chance of being retrospectively coined as part of government propaganda on a military parade (the only self-referring and undetailed publication is published on 10 December, a month after the ceasefire and the reality that there is heavy propaganda from both warring sides, is a common knowledge for editors familiar with NKR topics). How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [4] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I think, while mentioning "Operation Iron Fist" somewhere in the article body (perhaps in Aftermath - the military parade paragraph) is okay pending further publications, it should not be in the very first sentence, to avoid undue weight to a so-far-a-name-only concept. Interested in uninvolved editors' opinions, please. P.S. 212.156.71.30 and 37.155.240.129 are claimed by the same person, hence a summary from either IP should do. Summary of dispute by Solavirum Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Vici Vidi Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 212.156.71.30 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 37.155.240.129 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war 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.

Miklós Horthy

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Fenetrejones on 04:56, 25 December 2020 (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 Miklós Horthy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Fenetrejones (talk · contribs) Manfrottos (talk · contribs) KIENGIR (talk · contribs) Nigej (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This one user will not concede that Miklos Horthy and Fidesz are nationalists. He is basically using original research to justify his claims. I have. tried to look up sources for what he calls Hungarian Nationalism vs Hungarian Nationalism and I have found nothing. He is trying to segregate that category for far right and fascists, even though other categories under this umbrella are not held to that standard. If there were a far right group called Hungarian Nationalists than I can forgive it but there is no such group called that. National Conservatism is a form of nationalism, it even says so on its wikipedia page. It embraces both Conservatism and Nationalism. So by definition if you are a national conservative than you are a nationalist and a conservative. I am holding this category to the same standard as all other nationalist categories. Let us go south from Hungary for second and go to the category, Serbian nationalists. This category includes the Chetniks, the fascists, The Milosevic era politicians, the Serb Democratic Party (Bosnia and Herzegovina) which is a national Conservative party and Aleksandar Vučić who runs a conservative and populist government. Are these all the same? No. The Chetniks- The Chetniks were Royalists, however the Milosevic politicians were communists. You don't have to be a certain political orientation to be a nationalist. Or let us use Romania. There was Ion Antonescu, the fascist leader of Romania, and Nicolae Ceausescu the Communist leader of Romania, both were nationalist just had a different way of implementing it. It would be inappropriate to NOT call either one a nationalist. Just because you are not a fascist or a far right winger, doesn't mean that you aren't a nationalist. There ar things like National Communism and left wing nationalism, I don't have to love them or support them, but I have to acknowledge that they are forms of nationalism. I have credible sources like BBC and WSJ on my side.There ar things like National Communism and left wing nationalism, I don't have to love them or support them, but I have to acknowledge that they are forms of nationalism. I have credible sources like BBC and WSJ on my side. He also keeps ignoring the fact that his argument is essentially original research. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Miklós_Horthy#Recent_edits How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Sorting this out Summary of dispute by Manfrottos Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by KIENGIR Repeating an already discussed discussion is useless, the user fails to understand the explanations and arguments and repeatedly implying those false assertions as presented here (as well in other pages commited problematic assertions and edits). The debate has nothing to with user's initial assertions - which are even the same way problematic -, but for what the category was meant for.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)) Summary of dispute by Nigej Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Miklós Horthy discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has listed the other editors, but has not notified them. The rule that other editors should be notified of any noticeboard filings involving them applies to all Wikipedia noticeboards, and is not special to DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 26 December 2020 (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.

2021 in heavy metal music

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Jax 0677 on 17:37, 2 January 2021 (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 2021 in heavy metal music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Jax 0677 (talk · contribs) Tobi999tomas (talk · contribs) MetalDiablo666 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview If Gemini Syndrome is talking about releasing their third album here, can it not be listed under "Artists with material in production" at 2021 in heavy metal music? It is more than likely that the album will be released some time in 2021, and even if it does not, it can be moved to "2022 in heavy metal music". I have been reverted by two users, and discussion seems to have stalled. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:2021_in_heavy_metal_music Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Metal#Gemini_Syndrome_at_2021_in_heavy_metal_music How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Facilitate further discussion Summary of dispute by Tobi999tomas Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by MetalDiablo666 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. 2021 in heavy metal music 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.

Baháʼí Faith on life after death

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Dereck Camacho on 10:07, 2 January 2021 (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 Baháʼí Faith on life after death (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Dereck Camacho (talk · contribs) Smkolins (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The presence of a broad subsection in the article about near-death experiences (NDE) phrasing the matter as if the NDE confirm the Bahai writtings in the afterlife, in my opinion, violete the NPOV policy. No other article about afterlife believes have the same content and as of the current redaction clearly shows a bias toward Bahaism presenting it a "truth" by what NDE "confirm". How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Baháʼí_Faith_on_life_after_death#Near_Death_Experience How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Finding a possible alternative to this apparent violation of the NPOV. Summary of dispute by Smkolins Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Baháʼí Faith on life after death 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.

Narendra Modi

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by INDV100 on 14:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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. Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Narendra Modi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved INDV100 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview In the page of Narendra Modi, who is presently serving as Prime Minister of India, an image is required to be used which is File:PM Narendra Modi.jpg, which is the official portrait image of the Prime Minister but whenever it is used in that page, it is removed. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I have tried to discuss in the Talk page of that article. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? According to me, I think that the image which I use in that page, only that image is to be used for that. Narendra Modi 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.

Frederick S. Jaffe

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by DaveJaffe on 21:01, 22 December 2020 (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 Frederick S. Jaffe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved DaveJaffe (talk · contribs) Doniago (talk · contribs) Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) Dispute overview After a long back and forth regarding this Wikipedia page the discussion was locked by a superuser (keri) who reviewed the content in our favor. A new user, Doniago, made several misleading content changes that just go back to the original discussion that was already decided. From 2016:The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. The dispute was elevated to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Frederick S. Jaffe. (non-admin closure) Keri (talk) 10:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. The dispute was elevated to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Frederick S. Jaffe. (non-admin closure) Keri (talk) 10:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC) How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please prevent Doniago or anyone else from changing the content again Summary of dispute by Doniago I don't have much to say here. I believe this case was file based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the last DRN case regarding the article concluded, and as the filing editor hasn't said anything else here, or in fact made any edits since 12/24, that this isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Additionally the matter seems to have been resolved at the article's Talk page. Cheers and Happy Holidays everyone. DonIago (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Robert McClenon I am taking part in this discussion as an involved editor, not as a DRN volunteer, but only if User:Doniago chooses to participate also. The filing party is mistaken in thinking that either User:Keri or anyone else locked the page. The applicable policies are conflict of interest, neutral point of view and verifiability. The filing party is the son of the subject of the article and so has a conflict of interest and should not be directly editing the article. The filing party does have a legitimate interest in protecting his father's historical reputation from conspiracy theories about a document known as the Jaffe memo. There had been an unsourced paragraph about the Jaffe memo. After the paragraph was tagged as needing a citation for two years, User:Doniago removed the paragraph entirely. The unsourced paragraph should not be restored because it is not verifiable. The filing party should not be editing the article directly, but may propose edits that are appropriate to maintain neutral point of view and are verifiable. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Frederick S. Jaffe discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note The DRN is a place for discussion and compramise, are you sure that is what you want to engage in? Or are you looking for administrator intervention? If so, you need to go to the WP:ANI. If you do want a discussion, please let me know and myself or another volunteer will begin. (Forgot to sign!!) Nightenbelle (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2020 (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.

List of coups and coup attempts

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Mcadae on 22:55, 8 January 2021 (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 List of coups and coup attempts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Tataral (talk · contribs) Jade Ten (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The last item in the list about the incident on 6/1/2021 is not a 'coup' attempt. There is no evidence that Donald Trump incited anyone to go and attack the capital. Any 'evidence' there is is purely opinion or interpretation not FACT and should be removed. There is no proof and no way to PROVE that Donald Trump caused those people to do what they did. That so called 'coup attempt' is purely opinion and not an actual attempt. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I really do not know how to resolve disputed information this is the first thing I found by poking around the links. If I am not in the right place then please guide me to the right spot. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Remove the last entry in the list as while the sources may be real the information is purely based more on opinion than on facts. The clear FACT is that it was NOT a coup attempt just bad judgement from a few very frustrated individuals more than likely encouraged by ANTIFA plants. Summary of dispute by Tataral Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Jade Ten Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. List of coups and coup attempts 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.

Draft:CalFile

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 0mtwb9gd5wx on 01:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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. Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Draft:CalFile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User:Tagishsimon claims Draft:CalFile : "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" "TBH, congratulations. This is the very worst advert article I've seen. Breathtaking." "This is indistinguishable from an advert. Wikipedia tries not to take adverts." This is an article is about a free government service. Thus not an advert. User:Tagishsimon is from UK and not familiar with USA government. This is suppression of non-TurboTax tax filing information. User:Tagishsimon]'s speech is obnoxious and abusive. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? User talk:Kvng User talk:Tagishsimon User talk:Rosguill Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? restore Calfile Draft:CalFile 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.

Draft talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory/Temp/Temp

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by ScrupulousScribe on 17:08, 10 January 2021 (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 Draft talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Temp/Temp (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Alexbrn (talk · contribs) Thucydides411 (talk · contribs) Britishfinance (talk · contribs) Dinglelingy (talk · contribs) Adoring nanny (talk · contribs) Forich (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I created a draft for a new article after reading an article earlier in September in the Boston Magazine titled "Could COVID-19 Have Escaped from a Lab?" I worked on the draft for a few weeks and when I submitted it for approval, it was twice declined with the reason given that it should be merged with the article "Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic". I felt it was a mistake, as a number of reputed scientists quoted in a number of reliable sources now consider an accidental lab leak to be a plausible scientific theory, and not "misinformation". Based on new information that arose in a Nov '20 (addendum to a Nature article by Prof Shi Zhengli), a number of new sources covered the topic of an accidental lab leak (including the BBC, Le Monde, The Times, and the NYMag). This prompted me to try my luck on the talk pages of "Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic", and "Wuhan Institute of Virology", only to receive a barrage of negative responses, derogatory language, unfounded claims, and personal attacks. Unfortunately, the conversation devolved into something I do not like, and I do not think we will reach a consensus. In order to reach a resolution, I would like to put three questions to this board: 1: Given the sources provided, Does the lab leak theory meet the criteria laid out in Wikipedia:Notability to warrant the creation of a new entry on the topic? 2: Should the entry be titled "Covid-19 lab leak theory" as a scientific theory or should be named as "Covid-19 lab leak conspiracy theory" and presented as a conspiracy theory? 3: The most important question right now, as this is a sticking point in our conversation, is whether WP:MEDRS sources are required here, given that this topic is not Wikipedia:Biomedical information. If not, then reliable sources from the popular press should be sufficient to meet WP:V, though the entry should be balanced and give voice to contrary views as per WP:NPOV, of course. Thanks ScrupulousScribe How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic#Spinning_off_accidental_leak_theory How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By assuming good faith on my part. I am not here on a "crusade" as another user has said of me. It is important to distinguish clearly the theory of an accidental lab leak, from the conspiracy theory proposing a laboratory manipulation and deliberate release of the virus as a bioweapon. It is also important to distinguish the respected scientists proposing the possibility of an accidental lab leak, from scientists such as Li-Meng Yan, and Luc Montagnie, whose theories were discredited. Summary of dispute by Alexbrn Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Thucydides411 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Britishfinance Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Dinglelingy Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Adoring nanny Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Forich Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Draft talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory/Temp/Temp discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The filer was indefinitely blocked a couple of minutes ago. Also, he currently has a thread in WP:ANI, which may disqualify him from using dispute resolution. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2021 (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.

Dunoon

– New discussion.

Filed by Seasider53 on 01:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Dunoon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Seasider53 (talk · contribs)
• Scope creep (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A "Climate" section that is inside a "Geography" section at the top of other, more prominent articles I've checked is being moved to the bottom of the article because an editor doesn't like a "gap" that is appearing because of i) the infobox's placement and ii) a table appearing in the offending section. What's more, the user keeps adding it as a subsection of the "gallery" section, which makes no sense.

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

Talk:Dunoon

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide input on what the correct article structure should be.

Summary of dispute by Scope creep

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

Dunoon discussion

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

• Volunteer Question - Is this a request for moderated discussion leading to compromise, for a Third Opinion, or for a Request for Comments which will obtain opinions from the community? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Have you considered a "Geography and climate" section? Achar Sva (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Robert McClenon: I think an RfC would be the best option. The obstacle appears to be that an editor doesn't understand how articles appear formatting-wise when boxes (infobox or informational) are involved and, instead, is just moving the section to the bottom of the article, when it's probably the most important section of the article. He/she thinks I'm responsible for the small whitespace gap that appeared below the "climate" section here - Seasider53 (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Achar Sva: I was following the example of both the Edinburgh and Glasgow articles, which have Climate in the Geography section. I see no reason to deviate from that. - Seasider53 (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Peter Navarro

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Karagory on 02:22, 4 January 2021 (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 Peter Navarro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Karagory (talk · contribs) Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs) MrOllie (talk · contribs) Soibangla (talk · contribs) Dispute overview It is claimed that Peter Navarro holds economic views that are "fringe" and extensive references are given about his views on China trade. After dialog, I suggested that the wording should be changed to "controversial" since the wiki is a biography of a living person and thus a higher degree of sensitivity should be used. Mr. Navarro holds similar views with Bernie Sanders as it relates to China trade thus, I believe, negating the term "fringe." I believe the statement "fringe" is inflammatory at best and slanderous at worst; totally unnecessary. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Peter_Navarro#Fringe_Economic_Views_2021 [5] Third opinion 22:13, 3 January 2021‎ TransporterMan talk contribs‎ 11,146 bytes −351‎ →‎Active disagreements: Remove Talk:Peter_Navarro, 3O given by Teishin; list is empty How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please examine the sentence at issue and the subsequent discussion. Summary of dispute by Snooganssnoogans There is no need for dispute resolution. The text in question is long-standing and has been duked out on the talk page since 2017 or so. What we have here is one editor who is calling on us to ignore what RS say because the editor believes the RS are biased. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC) Summary of dispute by MrOllie This is premature - talk discussion has only been ongoing for a few days, and one side of the dispute recently stated that they haven't even had time to read all of the relevant sources yet. - MrOllie (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Soibangla NY Times: "books like “The Coming China Wars” and “Death by China” that put him on the radical fringe of his profession"[6] Reuters: "Navarro’s economic views have been dismissed by most economists as 'fringe'"[7] Times of London: "When Donald Trump was elected president, Peter Navarro was viewed as a fringe character"[8] Politico: "economic theories that were considered fringe even by the confrontational standards of the field"[9] soibangla (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Peter Navarro discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. First statement by moderator (Peter Navarro) I want to hear from both sides why it should stay the same or change. First statement by editors (Peter Navarro) The term "fringe" is inflammatory and unnecessary. Both Bernie Sanders and Peter Navarro are strongly against the Trans-Pacific Partnership and support tariffs on China which is repeated over and over in the articles referenced as the reason for Peter Navarro's economic views as being "fringe." I do not think Bernie Sanders ideas are "fringe," thus I believe Peter Navarro holding the same economic views are also not "fringe." I think the word in the sentence should be changed from "fringe" to "controversial." Editors have yet to specifically address what views of Mr. Navarro that are "fringe" despite being asked on multiple occasions. Karagory (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)karagory (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC) Statement "because the editor believes the RS are biased." I definitely do not believe anyone is biased. Where did I claim someone was biased? I do not understand this claim. My view can best be describe as I wrote on the talk page: "The term "fringe" is being used as a pejorative. Thus, to meet the principles laid out in Wikipedia's 'Biographies of living persons' the common definition of fringe must also be met so as to not be be slanderous. The definition of fringe includes a purely number requirement. That requirement of "peripheral" has not been met as evidenced as both Mr. Sanders and Mr. Biden (and multiple other individuals; the aforementioned being the most prominent) hold similar views as Mr. Navarro regarding China trade. " Karagory (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC) "The text in question is long-standing and has been duked out on the talk page since 2017..." Firstly, this is a discussion and the analogy to fighting ("duke out") is out of place in a rational discussion and borderline threatening. Secondly, things have changed since 2017; Mr. Trump will no longer be President and soon to be President Biden's thoughts on China trade have evolved since 2017. Just as Mr. Biden's thoughts on the matter have changed, Mr. Sanders' and Mr. Navarro's thoughts on China trade have become more mainstream. The editor(s) are failing to keep up with the times. Karagory (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Second statement by moderator I will first ask whether this is a dispute where compromise is possible. If there is a choice between words, as appears to be the case, a Request for Comments may work better. Please read the usual rules and follow them. In particular, comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. If you can describe a viewpoint without naming the editor, describe the viewpoint only, because we are trying to improve the article, not to discuss each other. So, are there any issues besides "fringe" or "controversial"? Be concise. Participation in DRN is voluntary, but if there is an RFC, you may be able to provide input to the RFC. (Everyone will of course have input to the RFC after it is posted.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Second statements by editors Thank you pointing me in the correct direction regarding viewpoint only; I have made edits to my comments to focus on content. If I have failed in this regard, anyone please point them out and I will make corrections. No, unfortunately, I do not believe that compromise is possible, because the editors do not see the need for further discussion on the subject matter. There are no other issues besides the wording of "fringe" (a pejorative) or "controversial." Karagory (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC) I apologize if I have confused anyone; I have read all of the articles referenced that are not behind a paywall. The majority of the articles again reference Nr. Navarro's China trade policy. Wikipedia:Criticism: "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints." The word in question, "fringe," points to Fringe_theory where in the first part of the Wiki states: "The term fringe theory is commonly used in a narrower sense as a pejorative, ..." "The president-elect wants a coalition of democracies to pressure Beijing to curtail what he sees as unfair practices; Xi Jinping has been thinking along the same lines," Wall Street Journal, "Biden Plans to Build a Grand Alliance to Counter China. It Won’t Be Easy." Jan. 6, 2021 2:20 pm ET. Karagory (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons states: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." The summary of the dispute by an editor points to four articles that were not included in the inline citation. The three articles referenced by the inline citation where one unnamed Economists opinion piece, one Bloomberg opinion piece written by an Australian economist at the University of Michigan, and another Bloomberg opinion piece written by an economics editor for Bloomberg Businessweek. None of the referenced articles even mention what of Mr. Navarro’s ideas are “fringe.” Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons further states: "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Maybe a comprise can be made by examining the top 5 or 8 sources in the United States regarding current economic thought (which could include Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal, CNBC, ETC) and if 3 or 4 or 5 instances of Mr. Navarro's specific economic ideas are being quoted as "fringe" then the sentence can remain with the newly cited references. Karagory (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Third statement by moderator (Navarro) I am about to close this dispute because the other editors have not responded. If there are no comments from the other editors, I will advise that discussion resume on the article talk page, and that any editor can submit an RFC. Third statements by editors (Navarro) I agree; close the dispute. The other editors involved appear not to want to discuss or compromise. Thank you for your assistance. Karagory (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2021 (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.

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh_war#Suspected_war_crimes

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Armatura on 16:12, 25 December 2020 (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 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war#Suspected war crimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Armatura (talk · contribs) Grandmaster (talk · contribs) Sataralynd (talk · contribs) Beshogur (talk · contribs) Solavirum (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Armenia and Artsakh accused Azerbaijan of using phosphorus munition against Artsakh, with France 24, The Independent and Le Point publishing supporting articles including an independent medical expertise by a French doctor. A sentence following these supporting citations by Grandmaster denies the phosphorus use by Azerbaijan and cites two Russian-language articles - one featuring Russian "expert" Murakhovsky who is known for 1) claiming that phosphorus burns at 1000 C despite 2,760 C prevailing in literature 2) being a Russian propagandist 12 3) calling for invasion of "Nazi Ukraine" 12 4) claiming that white phosphorus "is not used in modern munitions" which contradicts with the evidence of white phosphorus use in recent wars 12, 5) claiming the superiority of Turkish military UAVs is a "myth" 1 6) claiming the Ukrainain plane was not hit in Iran and some Russian and Azerbaijani "experts" whose purely theoretical arguments raise questions about their credibility. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [[10]] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? 1) Could uninvolved editors make a judgement whether the sentence denying the phosphorus use by Azerbaijan despite credible international publications saying the contrary has a right to stay in the article? 2) if yes, can you please make a judgement whether selectively citing the references denying phosphorus use by both Azerbaijani and Armenians only in the section about Azerbaijani war crimes but not in the section about Armenian war crimes is a fair approach to this article? Many thanks! Summary of dispute by Grandmaster Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Thanks for taking this for dispute resolution, however WP:RSN would probably be a more appropriate venue. In any case, let me present my argumentation. The use of white phosphorus is claimed by both sides of the conflict, but there's so far no in depth investigation by an authoritative independent organization, such as HRW and Amnesty international, whose experts previously investigated the use of cluster munitions and other violations of war conduct rules in this conflict. Reports in mass media are based on information provided by one of the sides, and cannot be considered as witness or expert account. But in any case, our role here is not to prove or disprove whether or not phosphorus was used, but to report what the notable sources say. Media reports are quoted in the article, and so are 3 military expert opinions. Military experts all say that there's no sufficient evidence to prove the use of phosphorus by either side of the conflict. Murakhovsky is only one of the 3 experts saying the same thing. He is only linked as a source in the article, for further information if anyone is interested. The main source is actually the other 2 experts, one of whom is colonel Anatoly Tsyganok, a well-known military expert in Russia, whose biography could be found on Forbes website: [11] I think our purpose is to present balanced information, and not just the claims that support a certain position. Therefore the opinions of military experts questioning the claims on phosphorus use are notable and important for objective presentation of information in the article. Also please note that those experts are neutral in this conflict, they do not take any sides, and they all say that both sides have not presented any reliable evidence that white phosphorus was used. Grandmaster 20:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC) Btw, I do not mind if expert opinions questioning the use of phosphorous are included for both Armenian and Azerbaijani allegations. I never said that they should only apply to the Armenian allegations. Grandmaster 10:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Sataralynd It is true that both sides accused each other about the use of white phosphorus. However, when comparing evidence about its use by Azerbaijan with evidence about the counterclaim, namely compare wounds confirmed by Armenian and foreign doctors who are operating under hippocratic oath with finding unexploded white phosphorus munition in Tartar, Azerbaijan and claiming it as evidence that Armenia used white phosphorus, it is not unreasonable to give higher credibility to the Armenian claim than the Azerbaijani one. We know both sides have engaged in an information war during this conflict but given the first hand nature of the evidence about the Armenian claim, and the reliability of their sources (a couple of which like The Independent is particularly listed in WP:RSP as reliable in this instance) we could rate the Armenian claim with a higher credibility. In summary, we are talking about medical evidence with a high level of reliability. Now regarding the sentence mentioned in the article Military experts did not find evidence provided by the Armenian side to be convincing, and expressed their doubts that white phosphorus was used by either side of the conflict. it is in fact not accurate. This is because the sources didn't engage with the medical evidence but evaluated videos and verbal claims against some of the chemical properties of phosphorus. The evidence provided about the Armenian claim is medical, and only a doctor reviewing the wounds in person should be able to question it or deem it unconvincing. Attaching this sentence to the paragraph presenting the medical evidence is not warranted. Further, the way the statement is written as a blanket statement that gives the impression of there being a consensus among the community of military experts that there is no evidence of use of white phosphorus by Azerbaijan, which is clearly not the case, if you read the Russian sources. Finally, there has been claims questioning the reliability of the referenced Russian sources, and I agree with the suggestion to take that to WP:RSN first. In the final analysis, the course of action I recommend is to remove the above sentence, establish the reliability of its sources and then include a modified version that some military experts find the evidence inconclusive, and that this doesn't pertain to the medical evidence. --Sataralynd (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Beshogur Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I am not following the original discussion but seems like the user called me because deleted one of his text, which here it states: This, however, contradicts with the reports that the Syrian government .... deployed white phosphorus munitions via airstrikes and artillery on different occasions during the Syrian Civil War., where you see that it is clearly an OR mixed with old sources. No idea about the rest of the discussion tho. Beshogur (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Solavirum Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh_war#Suspected_war_crimes discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. First statement by moderator (War crimes discussion) Please read the rules for moderated discussion. Read them again if you are not certain. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of discussion is to improve the article. My first question is whether this dispute is primarily about the reliability of sources. If so, we might do better to ask the reliable source noticeboard to rule on the reliability of the source. My second question is for each editor to tell as precisely as possible what they want the article to say about the focus of the dispute. If the issue has to do with the reliability of claims that white phosphorus was used, then who was reported by what source to have made that claim? Do not reply to each other, except in the section for back-and-forth discussion. The statements by editors should be addressed to me, as the representative of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC) First statements by editors Indeed, the issue is about the reliability of sources, since Armatura (talk · contribs) questions that. I also think that WP:RS might be a more appropriate venue. The claims on use of phosphorus were made by both sites of the conflict, but there's no independent verification by an authoritative organization such as HRW or Amnesty international, whose experts usually do expert assessments of war conduct rule violations. However the article quotes a number of military experts who see no convincing evidence that phosphorus was used by either side of the conflict. Those experts have no connection to either side of the conflict, so they are neutral on this particular issue. Armatura questions credibility of one of them, and generally is against inclusion of skeptical views. But I think that in order to maintain WP:NPOV it is important to include all opinions, and not just those that support the narrative of the parties to the conflict. Grandmaster 10:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC) Many thanks, Robert McClenon. It is mostly about the reliability of sources with experts denying the phosphorus use in NKR, hence I don't mind if this discussion is transferred to WP:RS, if you think it is a more suitable place, I am still learning what to discuss where. My other objection was that sentence denying the phosphorus use by both sides was for some reason put under only suspected Azerbaijani war crimes but not under suspected Armenian war crimes. I appreciate Grandmaster (talk · contribs)'s readiness to fix that, but I am still questioning the initial logic of selectively posting a seemingly neutral content to deny a war crime by Azerbaijan only. I argue that the citation 537 featuring highly controversial and unreliable "expert" Murakhovsky's claims should be deleted and it looks like Grandmaster agrees at least with that. I also question the reliability of the other reference - it is a Russian language article from Kavkaz-Uzel, that features two Russian experts who, basing their opinion purely on the appearances of the video of alleged phosphorus use by Azerbaijan, published by Armenian ombudsman, question whether it was phosphorus at all. One Russian expert - captain Vasilyh Dadikin is reported saying the video was not convincing and that it could be anything up to smoke grenades (Василий Дандыкин счел видео, опубликованное Арманом Татояном, не убедительным. "То, что там изображено, может быть чем угодно, вплоть до дымовых шашек", - сказал он.). The other Russian expert, Anatoly Tsyganok, the head of the Russian Center for Political-Military Studies is reported saying "In videos of phosphorus munition use by Israel against Gaza one can see a rocket flying, then opening and spraying phosphorus, but here we don't see it ("Известно, что фосфорные боеприпасы применял Израиль против сектора Газа. Сохранились видеосъемки: летит ракета, раскрывается и из нее сыплется фосфор. Здесь же этого нет", - указал он.). The trouble with Kavkaz-Uzel article is that 1) there was no expertise done beyond just looking at the video 2) it interviews an Azerbaijani expert Azad Isazade (who goes as far as implying that it might have been the Armenians burning their own forests to create a smoke cover - "армянским военным использовать фосфорное оружие выгодно - Это создание помех для средств воздушного нанесения ударов азербайджанской армии".) but not Armenian experts, and this raises a question about the impartiality of the authors of the article (Russia's is the 149th out of 180 countries in terms of press freedom index), 3) the article cites Azerbaijani expert saying that "Azerbaijan signed the convention on chemical warfare use, that prohibits the phosphorus munition use. ("Азербайджан подписал Конвенцию о запрещении разработки, производства, накопления и применения химического оружия и его уничтожении, которая регулирует запрет применения фосфорных боеприпасов"), however this contradicts with France24 publication which highlighted that "the use of white phosphorus is strictly regulated under an international agreement that neither Azerbaijan nor Armenia have signed", this raises a question whether Kavkaz-Uzel has vigorous editorial process at all to verify the claims in the article. What are the solutions I see? 1) One option is removing the phosphorus-use-not-used Kavkaz-uzel expert opinions at all. 2) Or, cite them under both Azerbaijani and Armenian suspected war crimes with greater attribution and clarity, like "two Russian military experts, after viewing the video evidence provided by the Armenian side, did not find it to be convincing, and expressed their doubts that white phosphorus was used by either side of the conflict". Plus, if we are citing opinions based purely on visuals, add the Atlantis Global's DRFLab's investigation based on analysis of satellite images that supports the phosphorus use. One may argue that medium.com has been highlighted as unreliable source, however Modern Diplomacy' Turkish author cites it, and I don't think Kavkaz-Uzel's article's credibility is higher than DRFLab. Armatura (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC) Actually, I do not mind if it is written as "Two Russian military experts, after viewing the video evidence provided by the Armenian side, did not find it to be convincing, and expressed their doubts that white phosphorus was used by either side of the conflict". Regarding the comments on the article at Kavkaz-Uzel, the article as a whole is not used as a reference, only the opinions of military experts are referred to. We can find faults with any article, but that does not invalidate the opinions of experts quoted there. Coming to medium.com, it is a subject for another discussion. But I can briefly note that the fact that if an author of a highly partisan article at Modern Diplomacy refers to it, that does not make it a reliable source, considering that medium.com was highlighted as unreliable. Grandmaster 17:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (war crimes discussion) The majority of the participants in this discussion either agree with taking it to the reliable source noticeboard or are silent. So it will be taken to RSN. The editors have not stated the issue with sufficient clarity that I am ready to open a thread at RSN. Will one of the editors please either: Open a thread at RSN, or State clearly below what the issue is for RSN. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC) Dear Robert McClenon I stated all my reasons for questioning the Kavkaz-Uzel article reliability in a numbered list in the beginning of back-and-forth discussion, as clear as possible. I don't know whether RSN is for discussing the reliability of a specific article (rather than the whole Kavkaz Uzel), but if you think it is, could you kindly move this discussion there, please? I am afraid I don't have the necessary knowledge for the making the move. Regards, Armatura (talk) 12:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC) Second statements by editors (war crimes discussion) Third statement by moderator (war crimes discussion) Grandmaster says, in the back-and-forth discussion, that they think that we are done, and that there has been agreement. If no one disagrees, I will close this dispute as Resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: We only agreed on the sentence content IF Kavkaz Uzel article reliability is proven. Could you please help with that? Regards, Armatura (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Third statements by editors (war crimes discussion) Fourth statement by moderator (war crimes discussion) I will open an inquiry at RSN. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Will one of the editors please state concisely what the source article is, so that I can open the inquiry properly? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Can someone please open the inquiry? I don't read and write Cyrillic. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Robert McClenon I will, if you could explain a bit where / how. Does it have to be about the magazine as a whole or can the reliability dispute be about an article? Best regardsArmatura (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC) I looked at RSN repeatedly, and I see no reason why it cannot be about an article. You can also ask about the magazine if you wish. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Thanks, Robert McClenon, this discussion can then be closed, please. Regards, Armatura (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors (war crimes discussion) Fifth statement by moderator (war crimes) Has the issue of source reliability been taken to the Reliable Source Noticeboard yet? If not, will it be taken there? Can this discussion be closed? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Fifth statements by editors (war crimes) . Back-and-forth discussion A newbie question - would WP:RSN be appropriate for discussing the reliability of a particular article rather than the whole Kavkaz Uzel? I see issues in this particular article more than the resource as a whole. Specifically: it quotes its own reporters as the source (Источник: корреспонденты "Кавказского узла"), implying that the military experts were interviewed by reporters rather than quoted from their social media posts. However, the quotes from military experts are presented without preceding questions (very weird for an interview, isn't it?), without detailed elaboration of their opinion (interview with an expert cannot start and end with ultra-laconic, raffinated "nope, doesn't look like phosphorus" statement, can it?), without addressing (as one of the editors rightly noted) the published medical expertise and also the available analysis of satellite images (DRFLab's report is widely shared, in Russian language too, and the experts must have been aware of it). it quotes two Russian experts, an Azerbaijani expert, but no Armenian expert while Armenia and Azerbaijan both are accusing each other. an expert is reported saying "phosphorus is unlikely to be used as it is internationally prohibited", without that logic being challenged by the fact that prohibited cluster munition were indeed used. Is this fair journalism? an expert is is reported quoting that "Azerbaijan cannot have phosphorus as it signed the convention", without being challenged by international publications saying the contrary. it is unclear whether the articles has gone any editorial process to address the issues above, there is not even the usual phrase whether the editors of Kavkaz-Uzel agree with / claim no relation to the statements, making the article look like a haphazardly compiled referat. Due to the signs of unprofessional journalism above, I challenge the cited Kavkaz Uzel article's inclusion at all. Whether it requires WP:RSN or just a decision here - admins/community to kindly decide, please. If, in the end, it is decided that it can stay, then only in a form that would make crystally clear who said what based on what and not reflecting what, to avoid false generalisations. Regards, Armatura (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC) I don't see any valid reason to challenge the source. The journalists are not supposed to post their own questions, it is a common practice to only publish the answers. The publication does not have to quote both Armenian and Azerbaijani experts, and that does not make it non-neutral. However they do quote the Armenian ombudsman, thus presenting the position of the Armenian side. And it is not our job to engage in original research in order to prove or disprove the statements of the experts. Our task is to present all the notable points of view, and not only the claims of the Armenian or Azerbaijani sides, or sources that support their position. The experts are perfectly neutral, they do not take any sides, and they cast doubt on claims of both sides that phosphorus was used. Also, as I wrote above, Anatoly Tsyganok, the head of the Russian Center for Political-Military Studies, is a well-known military expert in Russia, often quoted in Western media too. I understand that the opinions of the experts might be inconvenient for a certain narrative, but we are here to write the articles in an objective and balanced manner, and not to discard the sources that go contrary to the position of one or both of the sides to the conflict. In this case, the experts challenge the claims of both sides, and I see no reason why the skeptical views should not be quoted. Grandmaster 21:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC) Given that the experts didn't comment on the medical evidence, and they by no means constitute the majority of military experts I would suggest we add a line-break, and modify the sentence to the following: Two military experts did not find the video evidence provided by the Armenian side to be convincing, and expressed their doubts that white phosphorus was used by either side of the conflict. --Sataralynd (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC) I don't think that military experts could comment on medical evidence, since it is not their area of expertise. But you make a fair point, we cannot speak for all military experts, so you proposed edit makes good sense. I agree that we could modify that line as you propose. Grandmaster 10:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC) Sataralynd, Grandmaster, thanks for productive discussion. I think it is important to mention those two experts are Russian, as Russia is entangled in this conflict (this conflict widely viewed as part of Russia-Turkey proxy conflict) and as Russia in the sphere of both Azerbaijani and Armenian influence. The weight of what they state may be different from what two military experts - one from Papua New Guinea and the other from Switzerland could have said. If the decision is that the referenced Kavkaz-uzel article passes the reliability threshold, then I think this version would describe what they said as neutrally as possible: Two Russian military experts did not find the video evidence provided by the Armenian side to be convincing, and expressed their doubts that white phosphorus was used by either side of the conflict. And the suspected Armenian war crimes section will need this to be added Two Russian military experts expressed their doubts that white phosphorus was used by either side of the conflict. Regards, Armatura (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC) That is ok. We can mention that they were both Russian. But I see no point in repeating the same line twice. I think it would make more sense to make one section "Alleged white phosphorus use", and merge information about use allegations from both sides there, and add the comment by Russian experts there, so that it would apply to both sides. Grandmaster 10:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC) I don't mind at all if all phosphorus-related sentences go into one section. As for all the other suspected war crimes - rather than dividing them by countries, it would make more sense to have a list of categories of crimes, with sentences describing what each side has done under that category. Regards, Armatura (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC) That is also possible. There could be sections on indiscriminate shelling, abuse of prisoners, etc. But those new sections are something that should be discussed at the talk page of the article. I think we are done here, thanks everyone for constructive participation. Let's create for now a section on phosphorus, and merge all the information there. It could also be a subsection to the war crime section. Grandmaster 12:52, 3 January 2021 (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.

Impeachment

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Kent Bargo on 05:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Impeachment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Kent Bargo (talk · contribs) BD2412 (talk · contribs) Ramzuiv (talk · contribs) Dispute overview It abrupt place a very large about Donald Trump without community approval. Now we need approval to get it removed? How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Impeachment#Vote_to_block_Donald_Trump_on_article How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? A temporary solution to remove any Donald trump picture on the article while a solid solution is found. The article already mention Donald Trump being impeached a twce Summary of dispute by Kent Bargo Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by BD2412 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. It is highly premature to bring this here, and frankly not at all clear what the objection being raised is. It seems odd that the fact that a specific subject is mentioned multiple times in the article for their multiple impeachments would militate against having a picture of that subject. Note that I have proposed on the talk page that the best solution would be a collage of famous subjects of impeachment. This proposal has not yet been subject to discussion, nor has any specific proposal for what images would best suit the page. BD2412 T 05:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Ramzuiv Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Impeachment 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.

Eric Bieniemy

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Log47933 on 05:32, 15 January 2021 (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 Eric Bieniemy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Log47933 (talk · contribs) IceFrappe (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I am a football fan. I have I recently noticed that Kansas City Chiefs Offensive Coordinator Eric Bieniemy's Wikipedia article had an extremely long section devoted to Controversies that was over half of the total word count of his page, very much unlike other football coaches. I attempted to condense it to about 15-20% of his wikipedia page's total word count, although some of his actions were undoubtedly immoral, I did not believe a bunch of misdemeanors from thirty years ago and gossip from former players deserved to make up over half of the content of his page, so I condensed a decent bit while still leaving a good bit in there. IceFrappe, the user that had written over half of Bieniemy's Wikipedia page, all of it on these misdemeanors, and I kept reverting each other's work. I realize now that was not wise. I offered justifications for why I was making my edits (It took up too much of the page, other coaches with checkered pasts did not have such lengthy parts of their pages about their controversies) but IceFrappe kept reverting all of my edits, refusing to be edited. They claimed the wikipedia pages of other football coaches were irrelevant to the discussion and claimed I was pushing a personal agenda by editing their work. Finally, they reported me for edit warring after less than a day, refusing to accept any compromise and claiming I was attempting to sanitize Bieniemy but editing their work just a little. They claimed I was a paid editor, that I should be investigated for violating Wikipedia's conflict of interest, and accused me of being a sockpuppet.I am hoping a third party can bring about some sort of compromise. I did not want to escalate but it is tough when IceFrappe is attempting to get me banned without any defense of their edits or any discussion. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Log47933 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Bieniemy&action=history How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I am not sure. I have tried to be reasonable, keeping a good portion of IceFrappe's edits. But I doubt any discussion will be productive while they are accusing me of being a sockpuppet and a paid editor with an agenda with no evidence. Summary of dispute by IceFrappe First, there's already an ongoing 3RR investigation on ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Log47933_reported_by_User:IceFrappe_(Result:_) against User:Log47933's edit-warring, so this is frankly a political attempt by User:Log47933 at forum shopping. I urge all interested parties to take this to the edit warring noticeboard because forum shopping shouldn't be condoned and incentivized. Second, you're supposed to discuss this issue on a talk page before resorting to this noticeboard. User:Log47933 has not discussed this issue on a talk page and openly lied about doing so above. Third, a quick perusal of this user's contribution [12] clearly indicates he is a single-purpose account. His account was created on on 5:30, January 14th, 2021 and he made his first revert to the Bieniemy article 8 minutes later. He has not edited any other mainspace article. The fact that he seems well-versed in Wikipedia's policies and dispute resolution process indicates he's likely a bad-hand account of an experienced editor. A sockpuppet investigation seems warranted. As for the content itself, the vast majority of of the incidents were already in the article way before I made my first contribution [13]. I merely organized them under a new "controversies" subheading. This is well-established by precedents, such as Richie Incognito, Pacman Jones, Chris Henry (wide receiver), and Antonio Brown. User:Log47933 made zero attempt to discuss in the relevant talkpage before his unilateral mass removal. This is a violation of WP:OWN. Frankly, User:Log47933's only objection appears to be he finds it "unfair" to Bieniemy that his well-documented, well-sourced criminal history is included. If that's the case, perhaps the criminal history of Richie Incognito, Pacman Jones, Chris Henry (wide receiver), and Antonio Brown should also be deleted and censored? The fact that User:Log47933 appears to have no other mainspace interest except Bieniemy means he likely has a conflict of interest and has a high likelihood of being a paid editor.IceFrappe (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC) America 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.

Nazi Germany

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Nickcarducci on 02:27, 16 January 2021 (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 Nazi Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Nickcarducci (talk · contribs) Acroterion (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The Third Reich rose to attribution of representation by promising to end finance, not hair color. Nickcarducci (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I have tried sharing this information on the Holocaust Talk page too. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nickcarducci&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Holocaust&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazi_Germany&action=history How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? There are many sources saying Hitler manipulated and cited failing banks during the early rise to power. Claiming the population of Italy, Germany & Poland were not reacting to the Halakha or market-level colonialism and were reacting to hair color is obviously wrong because Italians have black hair Summary of dispute by Acroterion Administrator comment: Stop posting fragmentary nonsense on talk pages. Acroterion (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Nazi Germany 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.

One Night in Miami (Movie)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 2601:140:8B80:5F50:9C2:6FA5:79D8:BD29 on 04:09, 16 January 2021 (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 One Night in Miami (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved @ Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Dispute over how to refer to Malcolm (Shabazz/X) in the opening paragraph. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Discussed rules of wikipedia on name usage of notable figures How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Enforce rule about using most common name for notable figures/name referred to by in the advertising and credits for the movie described Summary of dispute by @ Samurai Kung fu Cowboy Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. One Night in Miami (Movie) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing party has not listed the other editors correctly, and they have not been notified. Leaving case open to allow filing editor to correct the filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2021 (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.

Hasmonean dynasty

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by ImTheIP on 09:32, 7 January 2021 (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 Hasmonean dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved ImTheIP (talk · contribs) Watchlonly (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The dispute is over the use of biblical texts as sources for historical claims. There is a community consensus that such sources are unreliable (see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE and Scripture as sources) and I have removed them from a group of pages. Another user, Watchlonly, appears to have taken it upon themselves to follow me around on Wikipedia to revert such edits. I have tried to explain to them that biblical sources are unreliable (see Talk:Hasmonean dynasty#Books_of_the_Maccabees and this message on their talk page) but they don't get it. One of the sources they keep reinserting is the Book of Maccabees which describes how an attempted temple plunder by a king is stopped by horse ridden angels that flog the king. It is, in my opinion, completely unconscionable to use sources that take angelic intervention as facts to narrate history. Other pages where watchlonly keeps reinserting biblical sources: Jonathan Apphus, Battle of Elasa, Sanhedrin, Mount Gerizim. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Hasmonean dynasty#Books_of_the_Maccabees, their talk page How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Hopefully, you can convince Watchlonly that biblical texts aren't reliable sources. I've explained to you many times that primary sources are reliable with attribution, including biblical verses. Parts of the article on the Hasmonean dynasty relates to the narrative found in the First Book of the Maccabees. Also you removed Josephus' account in an article, which is widely accepted as a source by historians across the world who study classical Judea and even Roman history in general.--Watchlonly (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Hasmonean dynasty discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing party has not listed or notified the other editors. Please list and notify all of the editors who have taken part in the discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC) What is going in now? I have listed Watchlonly and also notified them. ImTheIP (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2021 (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.

Nissan S30 Berliet_T100

– New discussion.

Filed by Avi8tor on 06:47, 7 January 2021 (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 Nissan S30 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Berliet T100 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Avi8tor (talk · contribs) Mr.choppers (talk · contribs) Stepho-wrs (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I believe I have been following the Wikipedia manual of style Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Units_of_measurement on the page Nissan S30 where I changed the primary power unit to kW per the manual of style. User:Mr.choppers continually reverts the page. A discussion took place on User talk:Mr.choppers and Talk:Nissan_S30#Complying_with_Wikipedia_Manual_of_Style_for_a_Japanese_Car. I subsequently edited Berliet T100 which Mr.choppers also reverted, he appears to be checking items I edit. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? User_talk:Mr.choppers,Talk:Nissan_S30#Complying_with_Wikipedia_Manual_of_Style_for_a_Japanese_Car, Talk:Berliet T100 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I am under the impression that if the country is metric then the SI unit is the lead unit. The exceptions in the Manual of style list the United States and the United Kingdom as exceptions. If the source material (US publication) lists Horsepower, Mr.Choppers thinks this unit should take preference on a Japanese or non US or UK vehicle, despite an eloquent explanation by Stepho on the intent of the manual of style. Clarification is needed by another party. Thanks. Summary of dispute by Mr.choppers The metric horsepower (for some reason abbreviated "PS" in Wikipedia) is also metric and was the unit universally used in metric countries until it began to be gradually replaced by kilowatts in 1972. This changeover is still not complete, with horsepower still in frequent use, in particular when discussing cars built pre-SI. As per MOS:UNIT there are allowances for "such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions". For the Berliet T100, the manufacturer, all sources I can find (here is one), the French WP entry, and the country at the time all use metric horsepower. The truck even carries a giant "700 ch." plaque in its grille (ch. being the French abbreviation for horsepower). While not universal, it is exceedingly rare to find a reliable source discussing an older vehicle using kW as the leading unit. Generally, any such descriptions use the units in which the vehicle was designed and marketed, occasionally followed by kW output in brackets. For metric countries, this unit is the hp (metric). Similarly, we use hp (imperial) when discussing US, UK, or older Australian automobiles. To make it clear, there are two kinds of horsepower: the metric hp equals 735W while an imperial (or US) horsepower is 746W. This often causes confusion as people erroneously equate the two, converting and reconverting and muddling the numbers. As for the Datsun 280Z, this was a car developed by Datsun for sale in the United States. The engine was in special federalized trim, and was rated by the manufacturer in hp. All reliable sources, modern or period, describe the car using hp. The 280Z was never even offered in Japan. Japan itself only began using kW rather than PS after 2000. Under no circumstance have I ever suggested we ought to lead with an imperial unit on a metric car just because the source happens to be American. After Avi8tor's three edits to Nissan S30 introduced several factual errors and a number of WP:STYLE offences due to general sloppiness (e.g. changing 151hp to 152hp, 160PS to 210hp, "5&mph bumpers" leads with mph as it refers to a US legislation - it is a "quantity set by definition" as per MOS), I did indeed check their edit history and reverted them at Berliet T100.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Stepho Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This was covered in more detail at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Pferdstarke_(PS)_units. My gut feeling is to lead with modern units (kW) to help modern readers - the ratio of readers more familiar with kW than PS or hp will increase with time and us old timers will eventually fade away. The use of a rough approximation of the vehicle power in PS on vehicle names, badges, etc can be discounted as marketing. Similar to how many cars had the engine capacity in cubic inches as part of the name and many cars continue to use the engine capacity in cc or litres as part of the name. Marketing names should not be used to relate engineering figures unless the engine power figure is not available in any other form. Harder to dismiss is the use of PS in magazines. Period magazines of course use the units of that period and are therefore not relevant to modern readers. But many modern magazines about classic cars continue to use the older units. This is the argument that I find hard to dismiss. If the modern sources continue to use the older units than this prompts us to also lead with the older units. So I find myself unable to decide between catering to modern readers (kW first) and following modem magazines for classic cars (PS first). Beware that the same argument of following magazines can also be applied to all the other dimensions such as vehicle lengths, engine capacity, bore, stroke, etc. Which conflicts with the idea of being relevant to modern readers.  Stepho  talk  21:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Nissan S30 Berliet_T100 discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Please notify the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Volunteer Question - Is this a request for moderated discussion leading to compromise, or is this a request for a non-binding Fourth Opinion (where Third Opinion is not available because there are already three editors)? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: Sorry, I thought I had notified them but apparently the method I chose did not work. Hopefully ping plus user name will work. We have 2 editors in agreement but the other still reverts changes, either Stepho.wrs and myself is mistaking the manual of style or Mr.choppers is. I'm new at this so not sure of the correct terminology, but someone else needs to be involved. Avi8tor (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2021 (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.

Nutrisystem Discussion

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

Project Veritas

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Vojtaruzek on 03:18, 18 January 2021 (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 Project Veritas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Vojtaruzek (talk · contribs) XOR'easter (talk · contribs) IHateAccounts (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The article provides info about some of the leaks PV published. The most recent one about Twitter CEO speaking about "doing more" than just banning Donald Trump. I provided multiple sources (Fox News, Federalist and some others), which usually featured the actual video, yet everything was rejected and reverted with the justification that "sources are unreliable". I didn't cite the original article on PV itself, since that would be rejected, considering that the article is mostly just slander about PV. One of the reverters, Ihateaccounts, actually called one of the sources "Unreliable, because it posts information from PV" (a circular logic and not very neutral and nonbiased thing to do). How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Tried talking to XOR and NorthBySouthBaranof on their page, both reverted the question (whether they have actually seen the video) without even answering. Xor later posted on my talk page and accused me of "violating conduct policy" while IHateAccounts kept posting on my talk page asking me to "seek consensus" and or settle a dispute here. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Watch the video and therefore confirm its existence, apparently the other editors are unable to do so. I think it's pretty clear that PV really posted it, which is what the original edit was about (it was not even about its validity, just that they really posted it). Summary of dispute by Vojtaruzek; XOR'easter; IHateAccounts Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Project Veritas discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - There were other editors besides those listed, and they should be added to the list. The filing party has not yet notified the other editors; they should all be notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2021 (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.

Vitalik Buterin

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by HocusPocus00 on 20:34, 9 January 2021 (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 Vitalik Buterin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved HocusPocus00 (talk · contribs) Ladislav Mecir (talk · contribs) Jtbobwaysf (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Vitalik Buterin is the founder of Ethereum, a blockchain and cryptocurrency platform. Reliable sources have stated that it is the second largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization behind Bitcoin and the most actively used blockchain. The following edit was made to the Vitalik Buterin article: "In 2014, Buterin launched Ethereum, which has become one of the most actively used blockchains in the world and the second-largest cryptocurrency platform by market capitalization." It included cites to Bloomberg and Fortune articles which supported those facts. Two editors deleted the second portion of the sentence that it was the "second-largest" and "most active", stating in the edit summary that it was a promotional edit. The initial editor who added the content has argued against the deletion, stating that it is not promotional, as it is written in the NPOV, supported by facts and reliable sources, and illustrates why the subject of the article (Vitalik Buterin) is notable. Relevant cites: https://fortune.com/2018/01/08/ethereum-price-ripple-price-bitcoin-xrp/ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-04/ethereum-becoming-more-than-crypto-coder-darling-grayscale-says How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Yes, relevant discussion as well as a summary of arguments is here: Talk:Vitalik_Buterin#LEDE_promote How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Is the sentence "In 2014, Buterin launched Ethereum, which has become one of the most actively used blockchains in the world and the second-largest cryptocurrency platform by market capitalization." promotional or is it appropriate to include in the Vitalik Buterin article? Summary of dispute by Ladislav Mecir Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. In contrast to HocusPocus00, I do not think that the questioned edit illustrates well why Vitalik Buterin is notable. The claim that Ethereum was the "most actively used blockchain" can indeed be found in one of the cited sources, but it surely isn't a fact. The answer to the question "Which blockchain is the most actively used?" is subjective and depends on the criterium used. Note that an objective criterium may be one of: the number of transactions recorded per a time unit, the quantity of information recorded per a time unit, the transacted value (expressed, e.g. in USD) per a time unit or some other, entirely different quantitative measure of blockchain use. Even if an objective criterium was used as suggested by WP:NPOV, it would not be a permanent characteristic, i.e. it would require some additional information when... The claim that "Ethereum is the second largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization" is not a fact when presented this way, as the respective source confirms, saying that Ethereum just became the second largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization at the time the aricle was written, i.e. that it was not the second largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization before. This confirms that the second "characteristic" is not permanent as written. It is not true that the information contained in the claim is confirmed by two reliable sources. In fact, the information is a synthesis of two distinct sources, without being, in the presented form, present in any of them. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Jtbobwaysf This article is subject of WP:GS/Crypto and editors that frequent this space such as myself and David Gerard (talk · contribs) we spend a lot of time clamping down on WP:PROMO edits. The relatively new user that opened this DRN is almost solely editing cryptocurrency articles (which in itself is fine). However, many of the edits are promotional and this user tends to WP:BLUDGEON the process as far as I have noticed. The user is very fixated on adding rankings of cryptocurrencies and we had a long discussion of it here Talk:Ethereum#Lede, at Talk:Uniswap#Rankings, and also at Talk:Cryptocurrency#Biased_list_of_altcoins. The theme of the disputed edits has been that a few of us find the edits to be promotional and often focused on the Lede rather than the body of the article. From a practical level, cryptocurrency rankings change daily, and it would be an unreasonable amount of work to try to keep this up to date. I can understand we might add as-of values and rankings to a historical section (not the lede), but this has not been discussed with this user that I recall, again it is almost always about the lede. Note, I eventually conceded at the Uniswap article as I found it interesting that the subject seems to be #1 ranked, and that led to its notability (the article is otherwise sparse). As for the Ethereum rankings (by proxy the subject of this DR, but not directly) we can also see that sometimes Tether (cryptocurrency) is also ranked #1 see bloomber saying tether is #1 However, the ranking notability of the Ethereum is not salient to this BLP article, and notability is easily established for Ethereum and Vitalik Buterin. It appears rather to be moving the dispute about rankings to yet another article for discussion. Note the user was quite unhappy relation to the now removed logos from Talk:Cryptocurrency which MrOllie (talk · contribs) and Smallbones (talk · contribs) also wanted them deleted. I have written too much, but in summary this is an issue where we are trying to stop promontionaism in the cryptocurrency areas of wikipedia. Comments welcome on our approach. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Vitalik Buterin discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing party has not yet notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Filing Editor Note - Notice has now been posted on each editors Talk page. HocusPocus00 (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC) References Comment: I've placed a comment on the article Talk page. Deb (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Please do not begin discussions on this page until a mediator volunteers to help out. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)) Thank you for the comment Deb. I'd prefer to keep this on DRN and give others the opportunity to weigh in if possible. I don't think a consensus was reached on the article Talk page as it was 2 editors in agreement versus 1. I believe removal of sourced edits made in the neutral narrative is disruptive. I can respond to each of the editors points above if it is appropriate. For reference, the reliable sources which provide the information that has been deleted from this article are a dime a dozen. See re "most actively used": Bloomberg 2 Bloomberg 3. See also re "second largest": CNBC 1, Bloomberg 4 NY Times 1, NY Times 2, NY Times 3, Reuters HocusPocus00 (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC) I think the fact that they are "a dime a dozen" is exactly the point the other users are trying to make - that individual references may support your view but are likely both to vary and to change over a short period of time. They would also argue that your narrative was not neutral. Deb (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC) I've proposed adding typical WP:ASOF language as a compromise, but the other two editors have said no. I'm willing again to add this information as a compromise if the other editors agree. Ethereum has been the second-largest cryptocurrency for the past 3+ years so I don't think this is even really needed. If the facts change, editors can update the article based on WP:RS's. Wikipedia covers current events and edits articles as information changes. I think their argument is akin to "Who is going to update the Donald Trump article when he is no longer the President of the United States?" HocusPocus00 (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC) comment - My knowledge of Ethereum came from the Economist magazine, which describes it in two places as "the second-most-popular cryptocurrency" (1 Dec 2018 and 1 Sep 2018). My first impression is you should use something less specific in the article and use the explanatory notes to mention the 3-4 main descriptions of the currency with sources for each description. It could look like this: "In 2014, Buterin launched Ethereum, which has become one of the most actively used blockchains in the world{{efn|Ethereum has been described as the "second most popular cryptocurrency" in 2018,<ref>Economist</ref> the "second most valuable cryptocurrency" in 2018,<ref>Fortune</ref> and the "most actively used [blockchain] in the world" in 2020.<ref>Bloomberg</ref>}}." Etc. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC) I am fine with this and explanatory notes could be helpful. @Ladislav Mecir:, @Jtbobwaysf:: any objections? This is a second proposed compromise to meet both of you midway. I'd like to resolve this if possible. HocusPocus00 (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC) I appreciate Cunado's effort to suggest a solution. However, I am not ok with it, recognizing that my opinion is just that of one editor. This is a content dispute masquerading as DR, and content disputes are handled through RfC. This terminology continues to be promotional, especially this "in the world," and this proposal uses explanatory notes to attempt to mitigate promotionalism in the lede. This article is not about Ethereum, it is a BLP about Ethereum's creator. We dont need these 'in the world' best and brightest comparisons, and this user has sought to add these to numerous articles (all cryptocurrencies) that are by the way subject to WP:GS/Crypto, due to exactly this reason, promotionalism ('eg my crypto is better than yours, and is about to go to the moon'. Not much different from favorite athletes as "greatest of all time." I digress, anyhow this is a content dispute and an RfC on the matter is appropriate, not DR as there is no evidence of any dispute or uncivil behavior. This DR should be closed. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC) Nowhere does the edit say Ethereum is the "best" or use similar language. I agree that would be inappropriate. For some reason you are reading that into the edit. The edit simply says that Ethereum is the second-largest by market capitalization and the most actively used blockchain. Both claims are well-sourced. This language is informative and maybe even necessary for readers who are not familiar with the cryptocurrency space. Ethereum is referenced like this very frequently because folks are generally only familiar with Bitcoin, if at all. See for example another RS from just today: CNBC 2 HocusPocus00 (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC) Re "Both claims are well-sourced." - not really. Especially the claim that Ethereum is the most actively used blockchain is contradicted by other reliable sources as Jtbobwaysf demonstrated, so it is an opinion, not a fact (which is a problem with WP:NPOV). The other one is also not appropriate for the lead section, since it does not summarize the article body, nor is it necessary to illustrate why Vitalik Buterin is notable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC) Jtbobwaysf's cite states that Tether is the most used cryptocurrency, not blockchain. Tether isn't a blockchain. In fact, it's a cryptocurrency that runs on top of Ethereum, highlighting the importance of the distinction. Even if it is a conflicting source (which it's not), the default should be WP:CONFLICTING and the original information shouldn't be deleted. Also, since you've now brought this up several times: I can add this information also to the body article. Would you then be okay with the information being added to the lead? That is now a third compromise I've presented. It feels like you all are just trying to throw every single argument out you can. These facts aren't controversial. There's been now thirteen (13) reliable sources posted in this discussion thus far confirming this information, including three (3) Bloomberg cites for the 'most actively used' portion. How many more do you want before we can say it's well-sourced? HocusPocus00 (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC) You have brought a content dispute here, this is not the correct venue as I said above. This is WP:ICANTHEARYOU. You have not put forth any argument that Ladislav or myself haven't been WP:CIVIL, you are simply pushing for inclusion of promotional content, and now seeking to go over sources here. That is not how it works, we can go over the content in a RfC on the respective talk page, where many more editors can contribute to this. Please respect the wikipedia procedures for this sort of dispute wherein content disputes occur every day as we editors talk about what we think is correct, and we do those on the respective talk page, unless we behave badly and we get brought here for a spanking. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC) This same user today added another puffery to the Ethereum article here, same thing 'my blockchain is bigger than yours.' Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Are you following me from article to article and reverting edits I make? Also, we agreed to this specific noticeboard on the Talk page. If another noticeboard is appropriate, I hope a moderator here will let us know because all the information on this page says this is for content disputes. HocusPocus00 (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC) I think others can see what I've dealing with now from the above. These two editors are throwing every argument out that they can to seemingly whitewash this information, I assume because they support Bitcoin and not Ethereum. They do this despite the information being supported by numerous WP:RS. And they do this despite several compromises proposed by me to alleviate each of the issues they conjure up, each of which they reject, deflect and then create a new argument. I won't continue this back-and-forth any further until a volunteer/moderator asks for additional comments. HocusPocus00 (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC), edit: HocusPocus00 (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Volunteer Note I am willing to mediate this case, however. . . Are all parties willing to actually work towards a compromise- a solution where all parties gain somethings while giving up others? And do all parties agree this is the correct forum. You could also take this to WP:RFC to get more editors involved to form a consensus- and if you are not willing to negotiate and compromise- that would be a better solution. We will not, at this board, tell one party they are right and the other they are wrong and must give up. So if you are looking for that- say so now so we can avoid wasting anyone's time and just move this to RFC. No judgement/problem if you decide that is what you would rather do- based on some of the comments I have read- it sounds like that is the direction some editors would prefer. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC) It seems that neither Ladislav nor myself have been uncivil in any way on this matter. HocusPocus is trying to move a content discussion to the DRN, and this is not appropriate. There is nothing to gain or loose by encouraging editors bring content disputes to DRN as first course of action (well second I suppose, as being reverted is first). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC) I apologize- I did not mean to imply that any of you were being uncivil- just that you did not seem open to a compromise. And depending on the nature of the conflict- usually a WP:30 or WP:RFC can be used before coming here, but there are a few conflicts- mainly ones where multiple editors (4-6) are already involved or where significant discussion and attempts to compromise have already been attempted- that coming here before the other options is appropriate. However, it is not a requirement that anyone agree to participate- and if a consensus has been reached- even a consensus of two- we cannot force that consensus to agree to compromise if they are unwilling/do not feel it right. In this instance- a WP:RFC will likely be a more appropriate step at this juncture- to either show that the filing editor's case does need to be considered, or thoroughly convince them that the standing consensus is best aligned with the purpose and policies of WP. Unless the third participant expresses interest in participating here in the next 24 hours, I will close this case. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC) I am willing to make a compromise and handle this content dispute on this noticeboard. We had discussed on the Vitalik Buterin Talk page that we would handle this content dispute specifically here but Jtbobwaysf seems to be unwilling to do so now. It seems like yet another stonewalling/whitewashing tactic that Jtbobwaysf is using to delay/prevent this information from being added to the Vitalik Buterin page for whatever reason. I don't want to waste your time Nightenbelle. I can seek a more appropriate forum for Jtbobwaysf's WP:Wikihounding. Thanks. HocusPocus00 (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Take this content dispute to an RFC. This is exactly the right venue if I am indeed doing something wrong as you are asserting. You are adding promotional content across a number of crypto articles (generally ethereum related), and this is what WP:GS/Crypto was created to clamp down on. FYI @David Gerard: and @MER-C:. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC) I guess Bloomberg, Forbes, CNBC, NY Times and Reuters are promoting Ethereum too? Because I just took language from their articles. Nightenbelle, I'm not sure procedurally the next step here and whether you or I need to post this elsewhere when there is an editor reverting edits and unwilling to work toward a compromise. Thanks. HocusPocus00 (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2021 (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.