Skip to open disputes skip to newest thread (purge cache)

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

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

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

Current disputes

Re'im music festival massacre

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

There is ongoing dispute about whether to use the noun "terrorist", in place of "militant", to refer in-article to those who perpetrated the massacre in question, and members of Hamas in general. (The debate hasn't really been about the description of the act itself. There appears to be consensus about the title of the article, and no one has objected to its short description, "2023 terrorist attack against civilians in Israel" to my knowledge).

I think it would be fair to say the discussion is now just going in circles. It mainly concerns the applicability of the

policy; should the word "terrorist(s)" be used only with in-text attribution, as the policy would appear to say, or should it be used in Wikispeak. I am on the former side of the issue, but obviously there is significant disagreement.

A similar (but perhaps not identical?) issue has also been discussed on the page for the conflict in general:

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

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

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

Talk:Re'im_music_festival_massacre#Terrorist_attack

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The page is under a contentious topic restriction, meaning the 1RR is in place; there have been a number of unilateral impositions of one or other wording, and several reverts (some of which may have violated the 1RR). Some outside input, regardless of what it involved, might help to discourage that. I am not hopeful that participants in this dispute can be mediated towards seeing eye-to-eye, so advice from DR volunteers on how best to proceed would be appreciated.

Summary of dispute by BAR

It is CRYSTAL CLEAR that this massacre is a

]

Summary of dispute by Yr Enw

My problem isn't with whether or not the actions fit a definition of terrorism, but that there is no possible application of the term in Wikivoice that will ensure

]

Summary of dispute by דוב

According to

]

Summary of dispute by Alalch E.

Editors want to include a mention of terrorism in the article, but seem unable to do it properly, and are unable to distinguish between Hamas being called a terrorist organization, Palestinian militants being called terrorists, and the event being called a terrorist attack. For the concerned article, which is about the massacre, the only truly important question is the last one. It's possible to say that it was a terrorist attack somewhere in the body, with some form of in-text attribution. Of course we don't have to say that every Palestinian militant is a terrorist. I significantly disagree with User:AntiDionysius' argument on the talk page: Special:Diff/1179573519. It's an argument against the notion of terrorism. But terrorism exists. It's studied in social sciences. For example, as topic within criminology. The word is not just a pejorative label. We have the article Definition of terrorism. This event was a terrorist attack.^[1]

The sources aren't calling the massacre a terrorist attack to make the perpetrators look worse, they are either using the word to describe what happened, in a fairly natural, non-emphasized way, or are explaining why it's terrorism and what the implications of that are.—Alalch E. 04:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re'im music festival massacre discussion

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Re'im massacre)

I am ready to moderate. Please read

? If not, what are the other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth statements by editors (Re'im massacre)

• Rule E is fine by me, and I agree to it. Regarding the bounds of the dispute: it is about whether the word "militants" (particularly in the first sentence of the article, but also elsewhere) should be replaced with "terrorists", without in-text attribution. I would describe myself as basically fine with the article as it is; it has the short description "2023 terrorist attack against civilians in Israel" and is in the category "Terrorist attacks attributed to Palestinian militant groups", but uses the noun "militants" when referring to people/groups in Wikispeak (but says "terrorists" once in the context of an attributed quote). I believe that some others would prefer the article be changed, maybe along the lines of this revision. --AntiDionysius (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I read Rule E, and I agree to it. I agree with AntiDionysius's proposal. דוב (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Read and agree Rule E. I think my issue is ultimately wider, about

  WP:TERRORIST in general. So if that’s outside the scope of DR, I agree with AntiDionysius’s proposal. I note the article has been revised since their post Yr Enw (talk) 06:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

First statement by moderator (Re'im)

I will repeat a few of the rules in DRN Rule E. Be civil and concise. Overly long posts often do not convey information. Sometimes they convey mood, such as that the poster is angry, but the purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. Do not reply to the posts of other editors. There is a section for back-and-forth discussion, but address your statements to the moderator and the community.

Will each editor please state what parts of the article they want changed? You do not need to say why you want the change. We can discuss that later. Please summarize concisely what you want change in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First statements by editors (Re'im)

My suggested changes are the following: Using the word 'terror attack' to describe the event similar to the articles Munich massacre and September 11 attacks, and usage of the word 'terrorists' instead of 'militants'. Regarding civil hostages, referring to it as "kidnaping" and not "capturing". dov (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is not using the term "terror attack" and to retain "militant(s)" over "terrorist(s)". I have no opinion on kidnapping/capturing. Yr Enw (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to retain "militant(s)" over "terrorist(s)". --AntiDionysius (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second statement by moderator (Re'im)

It appears that there are three specific issues. The next step is to verify whether those are the only three issues, and to identify exactly what parts of the article are in question.

• 1. Should the Hamas combatants be referred to as 'militants' or 'terrorists'?
  • The term 'militants' appears in multiple places in the article. Does the question apply to all of the references?

• 2. Should the term 'terror attack' be used?
  • Does this involve the short description? Where else does this question apply to?

• 3. Should the taking of the civilian hostages be referred to as 'capture' or 'kidnapping'?
  • Where in the article are the references that are in question?

Are we in agreement that those are the issues, or are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to discuss the reasons for these preferences at this time, because we will discuss the reasons in the near future. At this point, we are still focusing on identifying the scope of the content disagreement. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that those are the issues. dov (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think those are the issues. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second statements by editors (Re'im)

Third statement by moderator (Re'im)

Now that we have agreed on what the issues are, I will again ask the questions that are under points 1 through 3. Please provide a short answer to each numbered question. Please also answer the questions under the numbered question, which are mostly about where in the article the issue applies to. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. Should the Hamas combatants be referred to as 'militants' or 'terrorists'?
  • The term 'militants' appears in multiple places in the article. Does the question apply to all of the references?

• 2. Should the term 'terror attack' be used?
  • Does this involve the short description? Where else does this question apply to?

• 3. Should the taking of the civilian hostages be referred to as 'capture' or 'kidnapping'?
  • Where in the article are the references that are in question?

Please provide short answers to the questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Third statements by editors (Re'im)

• 1. Militants. Applying to all references in Wikivoice. Not applying to quotations.

• 2. No, except in reference to sources who have used that description.

• 3. No opinion.

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

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

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

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

Fourth statement by moderator (Re'im)

There appears to be no objection to referring to the taking of the prisoners as 'Kidnapping'.

The disagreement on both point 1 and point 2 seems to be about the interpretation of

about the use of contentious labels, which says "Value-laden labels, such as calling … an individual a …terrorist …may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."

So please provide a brief statement as to why the use of the labels of "terrorist" and "terror attack" either are adequately used by

, or should not be used because they are not attributed properly. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth statements by editors (Re'im)

• Just like the MOS claims, it's a value-laden unless there are reliable sources. The vast majority of the sources used in the article refer to the massacre as a terror attack and to the 'militants' as terrorists. As an example: economist New York Times, haaretz. There are many more RS that are not mentioned in the article and also refer to the attack as a terror attack, like: CNN, people, rolling stone. All of those are
  WP:RSP and refer to the attack as 'terror attack' and to the militants as 'terrorists'. dov (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I agree with
  MOS:TERRORIST should be understood so as to avoid any use of the terms in Wikivoice, and limit their use to direct quotations or references to third party usage of the terms. Yr Enw (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• To me,
  MOS:TERRORIST could scarcely be more clearly written: it says that the word "terrorist" should never be used, unless it appears in a great number of reliable sources, in which case it should be used exclusively with in-text attribution. That's what I'm in favour of, as I said in the third statement. It has been rightly pointed out that there are various sources which use the word; so we should attribute it in text to them, whether as reported speech or within quotation marks. It seems quite clear cut to me. - - AntiDionysius (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Fifth statement by moderator (Re'im)

There doesn't seem to be agreement either on whether to call the massacre a "terror attack", or whether to refer to the attackers as "terrorists" or "militants". There is no objection to calling the taking of the hostages as kidnapping. I have an opinion on one of the two questions, but will offer my opinion only if it is requested, because I will otherwise be neutral. It appears that a

Request for Comments

is in order, and I will begin developing an RFC. Are there any other questions at this time? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth statements by editors (Re'im)

No other questions at this time, thank you. Yr Enw (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I am somewhat interested in hearing your opinion on whichever of the two questions it is you have a view on, but if I'm the only one interested in that, then I'll forget about it. A RfC probably makes sense as a next step. Thank you for your assistance. - - AntiDionysius (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to hear your opinion on the subject. I don't see why there should be an RfC either, we have a manual which is pretty clear about the subject. Furthermore, I provided few articles as an example for a similiar circumstances, those articles followed
  the existing manual Wikipedia has without opening a wasteful RfC. It's really hard for me to understand why here we don't follow the same manual? None, of my arguements were answered. The only differnce I can see between the terror attacks I mentioned above, all of the above happened in Europe and Northern America. This terror attack happened in Israel. I really try to assume good intentions, but it's pretty hard when I see a clear biased writing infront of me. dov (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Sixth statement by moderator (Re'im)

I have composed a draft RFC, which is at Talk:Re'im music festival massacre/RFC. Please do not make statements in the draft RFC at this time. I will move it to the real talk page when it is ready to run. You are encouraged each to make a brief explanation in the subsections headed "Discussion" to explain your position. After you have made those statements, I will move the draft RFC to the article talk page, and it will become a real RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any questions at this point?

Sixth statements by editors (Re'im)

• So just to be clear, we should add our statements now under "Discussion: Terrorists or Militants?" and/or "Discussion: Terror Attack?", but not write anything under the "Survey" section until the RfC is live? Other than that, no questions at this time. --AntiDionysius (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I suppose on reflection I have a query about the RfC; would it be useful to specify that the discussion is not over whether the word "terrorists" at all, but whether or not it should be used in Wikivoice without in-text attribution? AntiDionysius (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, apologies, I too don’t follow whether we should add a statement under discussion on the RfC or below in this current DR section? I agree with @AntiDionysius in their summary this is specifically about Wikivoice use of the word “terrorists” and “terror attack”. Yr Enw (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh statement by moderator (Re'im)

It has been brought to my attention that there is a discussion at

.

I am placing this case on hold and advising the participants to take part in the discussion at the Village Pump, and any subsequent discussion. If that discussion resolves this dispute, maybe in one or two months, I will close this dispute. Otherwise I may reopen it. In the meantime, you may edit the article, but do not edit-war. I will try to answer any questions that do not involve the proposed change to the MOS. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh statements by editors (Re'im)

Back-and-forth discussion (Re'im)

I unserstand

]

Hickory Wind‎

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Hickory Wind (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ThaddeusSholto (talk · contribs)
• Eldanger25 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The article has a subsection entitled

issue.

as the two articles cannot be used to draw one single conclusion not stated in either one. Further there is no concrete evidence this is the same Sammons in both articles.

Eldanger25 is repeatedly adding the information and claims on the talk page there is "strong circumstantial evidence that it is the same person" which they feel makes it valid to include.

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

here and pinged Eldanger25 which led to a conversation that quickly went nowhere as I found myself repeating the same policies to no avail.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

We need someone to clarify if my understanding of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR are correct and/or if the 1993 can be included in that section as evidence against Sammons' claims of authorship.

Summary of dispute by Eldanger25

This is an admittedly unusual dispute. Ultimately, the section of the article itself - an "authorship controvery" - should be deleted as based on a single source from a broken link, i.e., undue weight given to currently unverifiable information in a currently unavailable source (EDIT - the archived source has been restored, though the undue weight issue remains).

In essence - in 2002, an individual made a public claim of authorship of a work of art published in 1968, and provided certain biographical details about herself (age, region of the United States, physical disability, professional history). Some time after 2002, a 1993 news article became available online that was a profile of a person with the same first and last name, profession, region of the United States, and identifying physical disability. This article provided contradictory biographical information about the 2002 claimant - specifically, that she became a performing musician circa 1980, 12 years after the work of art at issue was published.

There is a claim of synthesis/improper original research if the 1993 article is included, apparently because it did not identify the subject of the 1993 article as the same person who claimed authorship in 2002 of a song published in 1968 by a songwriter who died in 1973. To the extent this is an "authorship controversy," I submit that data in a reliable, accessible 1993 article about someone who is almost certainly the same person as the claimant who told a different story in 2002 is directly relevant to the "controversy," and should be included in some fashion, if the controversy is included at all. If this is a policy violation, then the policy should be changed, because Wikipedia is a valued, primary source for many people, and all relevant facts should be available when someone accuses a dead person of fraudulent/criminal conduct 30 years after their death, and appears to have told a different story to a newspaper just a few years earlier.

In any event, I think the whole section should be deleted given the undue weight/inaccessible link issue, but if the 2002 claims are included, certainly the 1993 data should also be.

Thank you for your time, and thanks to ThaddeusSholto for a sincere, vigorous, and interesting good faith discussion. Eldanger25 (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldanger25 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First statement by moderator (Hickory Wind)

I am ready to moderate this dispute. Please read

]

First statements by editors (Hickory Wind)

Statement fromEldanger25 (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted a proposed draft of the section below. Other issues include: whether the section should be deleted entirely on undue weight grounds, as the "authorship controversy" is effectively premised on a single source - a 2002 article appearing roughly 35 years after 1968 publication of the song at issue, in a now-defunct website (http://folklinks.com/) - and is multiple paragraphs long.

Thank you for your time and moderation.

Eldanger25 (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from ThaddeusSholto (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While there may be an

]

Draft versions of authorship controversy section

Hello - thank you for your time and moderation. My proposed draft is below:

Authorship controversy

In 2002, an article on the website www.folklinks.com controversially claimed that "Hickory Wind" was not written by Gram Parsons, but by Sylvia Sammons—a blind folksinger from

When interviewed in 2002, Sammons claimed that she had written the song and that she regularly performed "Hickory Wind" at coffeehouses and other folk venues in Greenville during 1963—a time when Parsons was also performing in Greenville with his band The Shilos—and that her song was stolen during this period.^[1] She further claims that in 1969 she reached a cash settlement with a music publisher for the rights to "Hickory Wind" and agreed to turn over a tape-recorded copy of the song, which was her only physical proof of authorship.^[1]

A 1993 Orlando Sentinel article, published 9 years before Ms. Sammons's initial public claim of authorship in 2002, profiled Sylvia Sammons, a 42 year old blind female folk singer from North Carolina who local city officials were concerned was panhandling in a

Sammons's claim to the song has been rebutted by both Bob Buchanan and Chris Hillman, with the former stating "I helped him [Parsons] a little on the melody and turnaround and the second verse and he had the bulk of it . . . I was there when he wrote it," and the latter stating "As far as I know Gram and Bob Buchanan did indeed write 'Hickory Wind'. As unstable as Gram was in my brief time with him on this earth, I sincerely doubt he was a plagiarist in any of his songwriting endeavors unless his co-writer Bob brought him the idea."[1]

Eldanger25 (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship controversy version 2

In 2002, an article on the website www.folklinks.com controversially claimed that "Hickory Wind" was not written by Gram Parsons, but by Sylvia Sammons—a blind folksinger from

When interviewed in 2002, Sammons claimed that she had written the song and that she regularly performed "Hickory Wind" at coffeehouses and other folk venues in Greenville during 1963—a time when Parsons was also performing in Greenville with his band The Shilos—and that her song was stolen during this period.^[1] She further claims that in 1969 she reached a cash settlement with a music publisher for the rights to "Hickory Wind" and agreed to turn over a tape-recorded copy of the song, which was her only physical proof of authorship.^[1]

Sammons' claim to the song has been rebutted by both Bob Buchanan and Chris Hillman, with the former stating "I helped him a little on the melody and turnaround and the second verse and he had the bulk of it...I was there when he wrote it," and the latter stating "As far as I know Gram and Bob Buchanan did indeed write 'Hickory Wind'. As unstable as Gram was in my brief time with him on this earth, I sincerely doubt he was a plagiarist in any of his songwriting endeavors unless his co-writer Bob brought him the idea."^[1]

ThaddeusSholto (talk) 10:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second statement by moderator (Hickory Wind)

There are two proposed versions of the Authorship Controversy section. They appear to differ in that one of them has a paragraph about a 1993

]

Second statements by editors (Hickory Wind)

Second statement by ThaddeusSholto

The paragraph beginning with "A 1993 Orlando Sentinel article, published 9 years before Ms. Sammons's initial public claim of authorship in 2002" shows that this is SYNTH. You cannot use an article which precedes the 2002 claim to refute the 2002 claim. This is original research on the part of the editor who added it. References must explicitly state what is being claimed in the article and this reference does not do that because it cannot. It cannot refute what hadn't yet happened.

WP:SYNTH

specifically "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." This is exactly what is happening with this paragraph. The editor even adds their own conclusion with "or beginning in 1981 - 13 years after "Hickory Wind" was first released by The Byrds." This is not in the 1993 article because that article has nothing to do with Hickory Wind or its authorship.

It is also OR to even claim this is the same Sylvia Sammons. There is no way to know that as the 1993 article about Sylvia Sammons and the 2002 article about Sylvia Sammons describe people of different ages; something Eldanger25 is using as "proof" Sammons cannot be the author. Drawing this conclusion is 100% original research on their part. Again, the policy states that an editor cannot combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second Statement by Eldanger25 (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 1993 article is relevant to the "controversy" at issue. The very section is entitled "authorship controversy." Inconsistent statements in a news article published nearer in time to the claim itself (2002) than the work of art at issue (1968), by an individual with the same name, disability, and fairly unique occupation, provides useful and reliable context (particularly when two full paragraphs of this subsection have been dedicated to an authorship claim that is a paradigmatic minority viewpoint, i.e., the 2002 article being the sole source of the controvery). Moreover, the information in the proposed paragraph is drawn from a single source - the 1993 article - and any accompanying contrasts raised with data in the 2002 article are simple calculations (i.e., 1981 versus 1968), which is allowed. More broadly, data relevant to an event or claim sometimes predates the event/claim, and the alternate interpretation of OR that is offered would, in essence, rule out ever including such data, because apparently in order to be relevant, the source must discuss the event/claim itself. I do not think this is consistent with the policies at issue, including OR and SYNTH. Eldanger25 (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Third statement by moderator (Hickory Wind)

I have referred this dispute to the

. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement 3.5 by moderator (Hickory Wind)

I am placing this discussion on hold until there is a response to

because comments might increase the likelihood of a response that resolves or partially resolves this dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Third statements by editors (Hickory Wind)

Fourth statement by moderator (Hickory Wind)

I am put in mind of a message from an ancient pre-video text-only computer game, when one enters certain commands. "Nothing happens." Nothing has happened at

being an abandoned noticeboard.

I am composing a draft RFC for comments, and the community will decide. The draft RFC is at Talk:Hickory Wind/RFC on Authorship. Please enter a brief statement in the Reason to Add Paragraph or Reason Not to Add Paragraph, to explain your position. After the brief arguments are included, we can publish the RFC. Do not vote in the RFC yet.

Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth statements by editors (Hickory Wind)

Hickory Wind‎ discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

Everything you need to know about this petty dispute can be found on the Marco Polo talk page. An editor RfC'd to get the description in the lead changed from "Italian merchant from Venice" to "Venetian merchant etc" and the change was made on the reasoning that "Italian" is anachronistic in the 13th Century, which was shown to be false: reliable sources say the Latin equivalent of "Italian" was used to describe natives from the peninsula since the time of the Roman Empire. A separate argument was made that sources invariably describe Polo as "Venetian", which is also false: MP has been described as both "Italian" and "Venetian" for as long as this scholarship has existed and no one's ever disputed either of these terms. I produced about a half-dozen sources on the talk page and RS noticeboard that use "Italian" to describe Polo, Polo's family, and the Republic of Venice in the 13th Century.

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

[1]

[2]

[3]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I tried attracting some feedback on the RS board, but was told to start another RfC since there's no issue over sources (which there is, but it's more involved than that). Given that the last RfC on the subject produced a consensus from editors who didn't know what they were talking about, I decided to try getting this resolved here first. I am not partial to either term, but would like to reach an agreement that both "Italian" and "Venetian" are acceptable lead descriptors.

Summary of dispute by Mikola22

There are sources which refer Marco Polo as an Italian and Venetian merchant. Given that Italy did not exist during Marco Polo's lifetime and we know how Wikipedia works in that case, I started an Rfc on the matter. Most editors agreed that only information should be that Marco Polo was Venetian merchant. Given that majority of the editors already decided on that issue, I think that discussion here is not relevant. The only option is to start a new Rfc in which the editors will again decide on the matter. Mikola22 (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the rules. Venetian merchant is information from current sources, and the same are not in the sense of ethnicity, but in the sense that Polo is a merchant from Venetia. As for the sources which would speak in the context of his ethnicity, I don't think there are many, that is, we actually don't know which ethnicity he is. This is also evident from the article as there is more information about the geographical place of his birth. So in my opinion his ethnicity cannot be described in that sense, given that we do not have clear sources that speak about it. Mikola22 (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Miki Filigranski

Marco Polo discussion

Zeroth statement by moderator (Marco Polo)

I am ready to act as the moderator, at least briefly, because it appears that my main activity as moderator will be to start an RFC. Is the only issue whether to refer to Polo as Italian or as Venetian? Please read

]

Zeroth statements by editors (Marco Polo)

• I agree to the rules. As to the nature of this dispute: it is not to be decided that it should be either or, but that both "Italian" and "Venetian" are acceptable terms to use in the lead and elsewhere in the article if necessary. The consensus that usually develops for pre-1860 historical figures from Italy usually favors "Italian" (Dante Alighieri "an Italian poet"; Galileo Galilei "an Italian astronomer"; Christopher Columbus "an Italian explorer"; Cesare Beccaria "an Italian philosopher" etc.) I would also not recommend either term be strictly viewed as an "ethnicity": you can think of "Italian" as an ethnicity, or you could also understand it as simply a word that was used to describe natives from the peninsula since the first centuries of the common era, which remained in use throughout the Middle Ages. This is what reliable sources say about the emergence of Italian identity, and "Italian" is a word that frequently appears in Marco Polo scholarship to describe both the subject of the article and the Republic of Venice, his place of birth. I would like an opportunity to present some of these sources before anything is decided.Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First statement by moderator (Marco Polo)

There seem to be two issues. The first is whether Marco Polo can be referred to as "Italian". That question seems to be, more generally, whether persons born on the Italian peninsula between 476 AD and 1860 AD may be referred to as "Italian". Do we need an RFC to confirm that such persons may be referred to as "Italian"? And is there any specific issue about Marco Polo, or is the issue in his case the same as for other people born on the Italian peninsula between 476 AD and 1860 AD.

The second issue would seem to be whether Marco Polo, and other persons born in Venice between 697 AD and 1797 AD, may be referred to both as "Venetian" and as "Italian". I think that there is no question about whether he was Venetian.

Are there any issues that are specific to Marco Polo, or do the same questions apply to all persons born in Venice between 697 AD and 1797 AD? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First statements by editors (Marco Polo)

• As for the Republic of Venice, it extended over area of Italian peninsula, so it does not mean that if someone was born in that Republic, he is actually from Italian peninsula. This is also case with Marco Polo, since is clear from the article that there are several geographical places where he was possible born. Regarding the problem ”whether some person born on the Italian peninsula between 476 AD and 1860 AD may be referred to as "Italian" and do we need an RFC to confirm that such persons may be referred to as Italian” it is certainly a fundamental question not for Marco Polo but for all historical figures who are from today's Italy. I agree that in that case Rfc should be opened and that this question should finally be clarified, because in the articles we have all kinds of information in this sense. But there are more historical figures, various information from sources, so I don't know that this Rfc can regulate the issue of all historical figures from that time ie from today's Italy. As for Marco Polo issue, I think that same questions apply to all persons born in Venice between 697 AD and 1797 AD? Because mention that someone is Italian in that sense is an anachronism. But then again, for every person who is part of the Republic of Venice, there are probably sources that say different things about a person, so my suggestion is to stick to Marco Polo and the sources that talk about him. Mikola22 (talk) 06:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First Statement by Jonathan f1

• Mikola argues that it's an anachronism to describe pre-1860 historical figures from Italy as "Italian" (including Venice) but can't back this up with any reliable sources -it is just assumed. Gary Farney, a historical archeologist of Italy, writes about the emergence of Italian identity in the first centuries of the Roman Empire[4]. On the Dante Alighieri article (who also lived in the 13th Century) and Christopher Columbus article this very issue was debated and more sources were found that say (quoting the footnote in the lead): "Though an Italian nation state had yet to be established, the Latin equivalent of the term Italian (italus) had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity." So we've got multiple independent sources indicating that "Italian" is not an anachronism and was used to describe natives from the peninsula since the first centuries of the common era. Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Galileo, Dante, Columbus etc are all described as "Italian" in the lead of their biographies so this is not nearly the big issue Mikola seems to think it is.

• Here's a small sample of sources describing Polo, Polo's family and 13th Century Venice as "Italian": an "Italian adventurer and Mongolian spy"[5]; "a member of an Italian merchant family" p. 87[6]; "an Italian merchant"[7]; "Italian merchant and explorer"[8]; "Venice, an Italian city-state"[9].

• And finally, Mikola has expressed several times, explicitly on the talk page and RfC, and alluded to in the beginning of his first statement here, that he thinks Marco Polo was possibly Croatian, and was also told several times that this is a fringe theory and doesn't belong in the article. It certainly cannot be used as a rationale to contest the Italian/Venetian issue.Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• DeoVindice (talk · contribs)
• Reywas92 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have provided documented and substantiated evidence regarding a military action between the US army and the Native Americans at Bahsahwahbee. Reywas92 keeps reverting this evidence in preference to an unverified and anecdotal account written by one person 51 years after the event. There is no documented evidence that this person was even there.

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

Discussion on my talk page and on the Bahsahwahbee page.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please provide an objective consideration of the quality of the evidence presented on both sides.

Summary of dispute by Reywas92

This user continues to add unrelated primary sources to the article in order to undermine the sources that actually cover the topic. The article is about Bahsahwahbee and related events in the area, not general events between Indians and settlers and the army. While [10] discusses the site, an event recounted by Wilson, and their relationship, DeoVindice has added a primary source of an account by a Lieutenant Gay that is never discussed in relation to this site or contrasted with Wilson's account, yet that's what he's doing as original research. This previously included long quotations that were intended to be a contrast despite no independent sources doing so, as well as the OR conclusion "It is unlikely he would target a large tribe of Indians based on this report." DeoVindice insists that "Both sides should be presented", but there he is doing the research here, presenting these other primary quotations as the other side when no secondary source does so or relates it to the article's actual subject. Now he has totally reorganized this section so that the unrelated quotations are shown first at length, with the source actually about Bahsahwahbee almost entirely removed. While I agree the article should note that there is limited historical documentation for this event as well as context, it should not be rewritten to be about what may be an entirely different event, with zero secondary sources connecting it to the subject. Reywas92^Talk 00:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The articles have more relevance than Wilson's story. They are dated, corroborated (US Army and Mormon newspaper) and occurred in the region. Wilson's story was written 51 years after the alleged event, has no date, no location, and no mention of Spring Valley. DeoVindice (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The Spring Valley Massacre of 1859 does not appear to have occurred within the Bahsahwahbee TCP area itself" as quoted in the PDF. DeoVindice (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This source still dicusses it in the context of Bahsahwahbee and that the Tribes commemorate it at Bahsahwahbee. Your sources say nothing at all about it. My source is an independent analysis by a historian, your source is you interpreting the primary sources your own way. You are engaging in an edit war to impose your own version of original reseach with sources that do not specify any relation to the topic, and you should be blocked if you continue. Reywas92^Talk 13:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How convenient of you to leave out the next sentence "However, Bahsahwahbee memorializes that massacre, and it is the location where Newe go to remember, mourn, and pay homage to the spirits of their ancestors who were massacred." If Gay's account occurred in the region, you can add that to Spring Valley (White Pine County, Nevada) or another relevant article, but it does not belong at Bahsahwahbee unless reliable independent sources connect it. Reywas92^Talk 13:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the PDF is merely an application to register Bahsahwahbee as a place of historic significance. It is not a peer-reviewed and academically rigorous document. You may have written it yourself. It relies on Wilson's unsubstantiated and unverified account written 51 years after the event. Both of these sources constitute original research. DeoVindice (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No,

WP:OR applies to original research by users. Research done by a third party (which obviously was not me) and published in the NRHP application – approved by the National Park Service – does not constitute original research. Original research would be your exclusive use of primary sources. It's also original research for you to decide that Wilson should be discounted. The article can include clarification that it was written later, but not replacement of it with something that no one has connected to Bahsahwahbee. Reywas92^Talk 00:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Bahsahwahbee 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 yet properly notified the other editor (because they did not say where they were requesting the mediation). Also, the discussion at the article talk page does not yet consist of two posts by each editor. This discussion will be opened if the preconditions are met. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth statement by moderator (Bahsahwahbee)

I am ready to moderate this dispute. Please read

. Be civil and concise. Do you both want moderated discussion? If so, do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress.

It appears that the controversy is about which of two accounts of the 1859 Spring Valley massacre to include in the article. Is that correct? It also appears that each editor has issues with the reliability or verifiability of a source. I would like each editor to make a brief statement including:

• 1. Please describe briefly the source that you want to include that the other editor wants to exclude.
• 2. Please state briefly why the other editor's source should not be included.

There does not appear to be any issue about

.

Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Robert.

1. The sources I would like to include are the report of Lieutenant Ebenezer Gay to his superior office documenting a skirmish with some Native American warriors in the Utah Territory near Camp Floyd on the 14th of August 1859. He was pursuing the group after their massacre of an emigrant train, including women and children. Gay reported 20 casualties among the warriors and no deaths of his troops. Gay's report can be found in the Senate of the United States 36th Congress documents. The next source is that of Gay's superior, General Albert Sidney Johnston, who references the incident in a November 1859 report to General Winfield Scott. It shows that the incident was the only notable clash with the Native Americans in the summer/autumn of 1859. Johnston would have had no qualms discussing a large massacre if it had actually occurred. The final source is from a Mormon newspaper, the Mountaineer, which reports the same incident with corroborating details. The Mormons were antagonistic to the US Army and would have no reason to omit mention of a massacre involving hundreds of Native Americans.
2. Reywas92 maintains that two unreliable documents conclusively prove a massacre of hundreds of Native Americans at Bahsahwahbee in the summer/autumn of 1859. The first written by Nicholas E. Wilson, who claimed to be an interpreter and guide to the US Army (I cannot find any documented evidence that he was), discusses a graphic massacre involving hundreds of Native American deaths and at least one death of a US soldier. Wilson's account is from 1910 which is 51 years after the alleged incident. He died in 1915 and his stories were published in 1926. He admits that it is a collection of stories that he used to entertain his grandchildren. Wilson was not a soldier and it is unlikely he could assess the number of casualties in a battle. We don't even know if Wilson was actually present. A massacre of the magnitude implied by Wilson would have resulted in some news coverage. The Mormons would have reported it as they were hostile to the army. The US soldiers could not have killed 350 Indian warriors plus women and children without incurring a significant casualty rate themselves. Yet none are reported. Who buried the supposed 700+ casualties? Johnston was an honorable officer who led his men with discipline and would not have permitted his troops to commit a massacre. He was outraged by the Mormon-instigated massacre at Meadow Mountain. Johnston blamed white men for instigating the massacre of the emigrant train to California and would not have wiped out an entire tribe in response. Johnston's aide, Major Fitz John Porter said his superior treated the Indians with kindness during his tenure. Johnston was the army commander and spent nearly all his time at Camp Floyd observing the Mormons and maintaining order. He would not have personally led four companies on a raid. Wilson could not even identify the correct officer. Gay was in command of the detachment and said that his troops behaved nobly. The second source, a PDF of an application to register Bahsahwahbee as a place of historic interest is also used inappropriately. It is not a peer-reviewed document and relies almost exclusively on Wilson's story. Reywas92 claims my sources do not locate the event in the Spring Valley, but Wilson never mentions the Spring Valley either. The PDF states that the alleged massacre did not occur at Bahsahwahbee. The place is used to memorialize. Yet he excludes my sources because they "didn't happen" at that specific location. These documents impugn the honour of Gay and his men. Wilson has conflated stories of over half a century to concoct a thrilling fabrication. The was a clash between the Native Americans and US Army in the summer of 1859, but it did not result in hundreds of casualties.
3. Reywas92 has called me an "apologist" who wants to "justify" the alleged massacre and has reported me to the moderators but I just want the truth to be known.

DeoVindice (talk) 06:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is very simple. The sources DeoVindice wishes to include do not mention Bahsahwahbee. Is this the same incident Wilson recalled in his memoir? Maybe! Is Wilson's account definitive? Maybe not! But the key source connects Wilson's account to the Native Americans' memorialization at this place, while DV's primary sources do not. None of the speculation above is relevant to Bahsahwahbee, the Swamp Cedars site. It may be relevant to other articles related to American_Indian_Wars#Great_Basin, but DeoVindice's agenda to protect the "honour of Gay and his men" is based on his own conclusions and interpretations, not sources directly related to the article's topic. I am fine with this version that shows the source that's actually about Bahsahwahbee first, then a comparison with Lt. Gay's account, or a version that's more condensed with less quoting, but not his reversal that has the unrelated primary sources first. Reywas92^Talk 13:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth statements by editors (Bahsahwahbee)

First statement by moderator (Bahsahwahbee)

Comment on content, not contributors. I do not want to elaborate.

One editor wants to include the report of Lt. Gay to

]

First statements by editors (Bahsahwahbee)

Sergei Bortkiewicz

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

Subject's nationality and ethnicity in the lead; specifically whether to refer to him as Russian, Ukrainian, both, or omit nationality altogether. According to 20th-century sources, subject was referred to as Russian. Sources from the 21st century, however, increasingly have referred to him as Ukrainian. Complicating matters is the subject himself who, according to a doctoral thesis from 2016 cited within the article, personally identified as Russian, referred to his birth place as an appendage of Russia, and expressed chauvinistic views against Ukraine and its culture. Nevertheless, his birth place is in a territory located within modern Ukraine. Consensus had been reached in summer 2023 which described subject as a Russian and naturalized Austrian of Polish heritage. However, a new user disputed this consensus last month; debate since has produced much animosity all around, but little else.

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Help to establish a consensus on how to present the essential facts of the subject's identity in the lead once and for all.

Sergei Bortkiewicz discussion

First statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)

I am ready to moderate this discussion. I expect that the moderated discussion will lead to the development of a

. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress.

I am asking each editor for a brief introductory statement including:

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

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

I will abide by DRN Rule C

This is my first time editing wikipedia, and it started with a simple request to update the description of the Ukrainian composer Sergei Bortkiewicz to correctly reflect how he is described today in the majority of sources. The editors refused to examine my sources, one going as far as saying they would “oppose any mention of him as a Ukrainian composer” and that “Ukrainian sources cannot be trusted”. When I raised concerns about such biased attitudes, they were ignored.

As I was repeatedly pointed to an earlier discussion, I have carefully read the August dispute and addressed many of editors’ objections with proper citations. They have then accused me of “bludgeoning”.

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

Comment 1.1 by moderator (Bortkiewicz)

Perhaps there should be a concept of pseudo-consensus or illusory consensus. I agree with SMcCandlish that if editors thought that consensus had been reached twice with different conclusions, then there was an illusion of consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not having experienced anything like this, I believed that the agreements to first remove all nationalities/ethnicities, then restore the Russian/Austrian/Polish status ante quo both represented "consensus". This is a unique editing dispute for me and had I been aware of the concept of illusory consensus, I would have requested dispute resolution back in August. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)

• My involvement with this article began late last or early this year. It entirely lacked sources before that. I added one, the subject's entry on
  The New Grove
  , which stated he was Russian and Austrian. In late spring, the lead was modified non-controversially to include the subject's Polish heritage, which is confirmed by another source added to the article. The status quo remained until June, when a new user, who was a good sock, opposed the lead. Discussion got heated, but eventually there was consensus to omit all mention of subject's nationality/ethnicity from the lead. Shortly thereafter, discussion started again and a new consensus was met wherein the lead stated that subject was Russian and Austrian of Polish heritage. This remained until last month when user Tyulasho made their dispute, after which discussion produced no consensus. In response to your requests:

• I will abide by
  WP:DRN-C
  .
• The lead ought to state that subject is Russian and Austrian of Polish heritage as anything else outside of this is speculative. Alternatively, all mentions of nationality/ethnicity should be omitted from the lead to prevent future disputes.
• No.
• Consensus had been reached during the summer twice with different outcomes as mentioned above. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• My involvement in this has been very peripheral. I don't have a vested interest in the outcome. Just speaking as a regular editor and reader, I think I would expect this to say that the subject was born in the Russian Empire (in Kharkov, today part of Ukraine), identified as Russian, a later became a naturalized Austrian citizen. The lead need not get into any more detail than that (regarding nationality), and a statement even that short covers all the bases neutrally and clearly. DRN Rule C is fine by me. I'm not aware of any other issues to resolve, and I don't know of a prior consensus about the nationality issue (and we probably wouldn't be here if there was one, or at least one that has lasted – reading CurryTime7-24's note above, I have to observe that "consensus had been reached ... twice with different outcomes" really means consensus was not actually reached. :-).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 10:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1 I agree to DRN Rule C

2 Sergei Bortkiewicz (28 February 1877 [O.S. 16 February] – 25 October 1952) was a Ukrainian composer and pianist. As supported by the 14 sources I have offered to the editors that reflect the current research on the composer as well as consensus to refer to him as such in the musical community worldwide.  At the time of my inquiry on October 5, the article had only 3 sources - one from 2001 and two from 2016.

3 yes, the article can be improved by including the most up-to-date research on the composer.

4 No. The earlier discussion shows that the more experienced editors had the upper hand and pretty much had a free reign as to how to describe the composer. Those who opposed the current view of the article simply gave up.  Furthermore, the earlier inquiry in August about including Ukraine resulted in the editors describing the composer as Russian, Austrian and Polish.  I think the article will remain contested only for as long as the editors' anti-Ukrainian biases shown during the October discussion remain unaddressed, and the standards by which sources are accepted and evaluated are made clear.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyulyasho (talk • contribs) 02:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have posted my views on what I think the at
  WP:NPA ("Is this a joke?"... "How is Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus an authority on this?") and I have better things to do with my time than discuss things at that level, so I expect this to be my final comment on this issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]