Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

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

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

Do you need assistance?

Would you like to help?

Request dispute resolution

If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.

This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.
The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.

If you need help:

If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

Become a volunteer

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

Volunteers should remember:

Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.

Open/close quick reference

To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Aidi	Closed	Traumnovelle (t)	3 days, 22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 15 hours	Traumnovelle (t)	3 days, 11 hours
Maratha Confederacy	New	Mohammad Umar Ali (t)	2 days, 2 hours	None	n/a	Timtrent (t)	1 days, 9 hours
Elissa Slotkin	New	Andrew.robbins (t)	1 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 15 hours	Alpha3031 (t)	5 hours
Gangubai Kathiawadi	Closed	Ankitsalsa14 (t)	1 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 1 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 11:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 when more than 1 section is present.

Current disputes

Crusader states

– 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 Borsoka on 03:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Crusader states (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Borsoka (talk · contribs)
Norfolkbigfish (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Section "Outremer" fails to give an explanation for the article's title ("Crusader states" instead of "Outremer"). The same section does not clarify the relevance of the term "Franks" in the article's context. Borsoka (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

A mediation may help us to understand the other party's concerns. Borsoka (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Norfolkbigfish

This is not a single dispute, and possibly a dispute at all. There are two questions that if the sourcing is respected could be dealt with on the Talk page or at the very worst through two RFCs.

The two points of contention are: 1) Whether the term used as the article's name, e.g. Crusader states'‘, is misleading, and therefore that should be mentioned in the article. 2) The nomenclature of the name most used as a collective noun for the incomers to the Holy Land that the article discusses e.g. Frank.

Crusader states/Outremer

On WP the name of the article(s) has already been discussed. It was successfully proposed that the Outremer article be merged with Crusader states at Talk:Crusader_states/Archive_1#Merge_from_Outremer. The consensus was against moving Crusader States back to Outremer with this debate Talk:Crusader_states/Archive_1#Requested_move_10_March_2020. There is no question that both descriptors satisfy WP:COMMONNAME. There is no doubt that academics use both terms. For example, Tyerman in God’s War uses Outremer 275 times and Crusader states 15. Barber in a work called The Crusader States uses Outremer 17 times and Crusader States 148 times. That said historians do not agree whether these terms are accurate. Professor Christopher MacEvitt, Faculty Director at Dartmouth (https://faculty-directory.dartmouth.edu/christopher-macevitt ) among a general critique of the usage of the term crusader states published a paper What was Crusader about the Crusader States? ( Al-Masāq, xxx (2018), pp. 317–30). A response is cited in the article in by Andrew D Buck, formerly of Queen Mary University (https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Andrew-D-Buck-2123225758 ) and now a specialist at University College, Dublin. Academics do not agree on this, and it is clear there is no consensus among them.

For the lay WP reader this is probably confusing, and the casual use of these terms is misleading, it implies a certainty that does not exist. The article deals with this by using the passage cited in the article by Dr Allan Murray of the University of Leeds ( https://ahc.leeds.ac.uk/history/staff/1010/dr-alan-v-murray ): An alternative name for the four Frankish principalities in modern historical writing is the “Crusader States.” Although common, this term is less accurate, since after around 1130 extremely few of their Frankish inhabitants were actually crusaders, in the sense of people who had taken a vow to go on crusade. Thomas Asbridge, reader in medieval history at Queen Mary University ( https://www.qmul.ac.uk/history/people//academic-staff/profiles/asbridgetom.html ) cited in support of this writes The term ‘crusader states’ is somewhat misleading, as it gives the impression that these settlements were exclusively populated by crusaders and that their history might be interpreted as an example of ongoing crusading activity. he goes onto acknowledge The issue of the continued influence of crusading ideology over the history of the Latin East is a more vexed question. ' he then refers to a Riley-Smith article, but the work of MacEvitt and Buck is in the same area.(page 115 and page 698 note 49)

WP:COMMONSENSE would indicate that the article should use a title that is readily understood, but where that title could be misleading, contested or not completely accurate it should be mentioned. The article does this in the lead to explain the Outremer redirect and in the body for sourcing and expansion. There may be copy editing required, but no need for tagging or substantive change.

Franks

The chronology and etymology of the term is clear. Franks were a Germanic tribe that invaded Western Europe between the 8th and 10th centuries. These became known in the Eastern Roman Empire by the Greek Frangoi and later the Arabic al-Ifranj. Overtime, in the East the term became used for all Westerners. When the First Crusade arrived, chroniclers used the Latin variant Franci, both for subjects of the king of France and for all the crusaders. It is likely that this reflects actual linguistic usage and the adoption of the term by the Roman Catholic and predominantly French speaking incomers, as Murray again puts it, sourced in the article to pages 297 to 298. The term Franks is widely used today by academic and popular historians for all the crusaders, the immigrants that followed from western Europe and their descendants in the crusader states. Cobb is his work cited in the article uses the term 740 times. It is right the term is explained for lay readers, particularly considering the this was a result of self-identification of a people the article is about. Murray again summarises well: However, it is also used to refer to all members of the crusader armies, irrespective of nationality or origins, particularly with reference to the later stages of the crusade and the beginning of the Latin settlement in Syria and Palestine. It seems likely that the chronicles, some of which were composed by eyewitnesses, reflect actual linguistic usage; having become familiar with Byzantine and Arabic terms for “Franks” in the course of the crusade, the crusaders themselves and, increasingly, their descendants who remained in the East adopted the name as a convenient self-designation to reflect the realities of life in a region where their own diverse origins were far less important than the crucial social and legal distinctions between dominant Latin Westerners on the one hand and the various native peoples on the other. The Arabic, Syriac, and Armenian sources that touch on events in Outremer generally refer to its Latin Christian inhabitants as Franks in their own languages.

General

There has been repeated and frequent tag bombing of the first paragraph in Crusader_states#Outremer and circular discussions at Talk:Crusader_states:

The chronicles of the First Crusade sometimes used Franci, both for subjects of the king of France and for all the crusaders. It is likely that this reflects actual linguistic usage and the adoption of the term by the Roman Catholic and predominantly French speaking incomers. was tagged clarify with the reason We are informed that the participants of the First Crusade were called Franci. Why is this relevant in the article's context? What was the ethnonym of the Roman Catholic inhabitants of the crusader states? despite the academic consensus Murray was cited as supporting on pages 470 to 471 in the work in Crusader_states#Bibliography and the article requiring some explanation of an academic term.
Modern scholars commonly use the term Franks for the crusaders, was tagged dubious with the reason Can you refer to a modern scholar who use the ethnonym "Franks" when referring to King Sigurd the Crusader of Norway, King Conrad III of Germany or King Andrew II of Hungary? . We are debating a collective noun, the reason here is a redundant argument. Murray’s citation to pages 297 to 298 covers this.
Some historians consider the use of Crusader states as misleading because few Franks were crusaders. In the Middle Ages the states were often also collectively known as Syria or Syrie was tagged clarify with the reason If crusader states is a misleading term, why do we use it? Perhaps the article should move to have a neutral name. despite the rationale explained above.

Summary

The substantive information in the paragraph is supported by WP:RS. Crusader States is a contested term in academic circles, but WP:COMMONNAME for WP. Franks is a collective noun in common usage for all the Roman Catholic, predominantly French/Latin speaking incomers resident in the Latin East irrespective of their origin. The WP:COMMONSENSE resolution to this dispute is to accept this as the consensus among academics and remove all the tagging.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Borsoka

The above summary does not reflect (and does not address) my concerns. 1. The article (not the sources cited in the article) fails to give an explanation for the article's title ("Crusader states" instead of "Outremer"), although it states that "Crusader states" is a misleading term. 2. The article (not the sources cited in the article) fails to explain the relevance of the term "Franks" in the article's context. What is important in the article's context is that the European settlers and their descendants in Outremer were called Francs and now are mentioned as Franks - all other information is irrelevant. Borsoka (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crusader states discussion

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

Hello, I will be the volunteer to help resolve this dispute. Is there anything additional that needs to be said before we continue? BJackJS talk 21:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BJackJS I don't think so, certainly not from me. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for volunteering. My summary above reflects my concerns, I do not want to expand it. Borsoka (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, I understand that User:Borsoka's concerns are the articles justification for the name 'Crusader states' and does not explain the term 'Franks' usage. I would be inclined to agree that an explanation of the term Outremer should be there, especially because of "The use of the description Crusader states can be misleading".

How about the explanation of the term Outremer: the lands on the far side of the Mediterranean Sea, seen from the perspective of Western Christians or some such variant. It is what Murray uses. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an explanation for the choice of the article's name. Borsoka (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was an attempt to answer BJackJS's comment I would be inclined to agree that an explanation of the term Outremer should be there. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC) WP:COMMONNAME applies, a quick Google on the term gives c323,000 hits. It is also misleading, cited to academics working in the area. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And? My concerns are not addressed. Are our readers required to read WP policies, closed RfCs and do our homework to explain the article's title if the article emphasizes that it is misleading? Borsoka (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What name do you suggest, and what would you source it to? The fact remains that crusader states is a very common, probably the most common term, in general usage but academics consider it misleading, to the point of writing papers discussing the name. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please read my and BJackJS's comments more carefully? What is needed: a short explanation based on at least one reliable source explaining why is the article is titled "Crusader states" instead of "Outremer". Borsoka (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe BJackJS was referring to a description of Outremer. I don't agree an explanation is necessary, and it is clear that neither do any of the works used as sources in the article. In order that this moves forward, why don't you draft an explanation and source it? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you can only verify the alternative name, Outremer, why do not you move the article from Crusader states to Outremer? Alternatively, you could refer to Asbridge (who is cited in the article). Borsoka (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems my previous question has been missed. In order that this moves forward, why don't you draft an explanation and source it? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought it is your turn and you want to fix the problem. A week ago, I drafted a text ([1]) that you deleted without any actual explanation ([2]). All the same, I drafted a new text ([3]). Borsoka (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crusaders were a minority, of a minority e.g. the Franks were a minority already, and crusaders were a minority within that. Considering Crusaders as part of the total populaton obscures this point. Otherwise, if it works for you there would seem to be no problem. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crusaders were a minority population within a minority Frankish population from around 1130. Do you think the "Crusader states" is not a misleading term before that date? Could you refer to a reliable source suggesting it? Borsoka (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

uninvolved editor - Is this actually a WP:COMMONNAME issue? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Borsoka (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. Would the post 1204 political entities on/around former Byzantine soil all be counted, without dissent, as part of "Outremer" by modern sources? Same question for those lands with regard to "Crusader States"? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the question that I decided not to raise weeks ago. :) For the time being, the article is obviously dedicated to the four states in Syria and Palestine (even Cyprus is ignored). Althogh the scope is limited, the article contains dozens (or hundreds) of sentences that present misinterpreted info from scholarly books or that are out of context. I think the article should be improved while its scope is limited and after it reaches the level of a GA, its name or its possible expansion could be discussed. Borsoka (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which ignores the fact that the article was already at GA, at the point you got involved.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was listed among the GAs, but it never reached the level of a GA ([4]). Borsoka (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simple answer to your question Dweller is that the Frankokratia is not generally considered as part of Outremer. Similarly, it would be contested to include them under the umbrella of Crusader States. Some academics even challenge the inclusion of the four polities in the Levant and I have seen an argument made that only France under St Louis can be considered as fitting the description. It is clear that there is no consensus on the term. It is misleading because politically and organisationally they were only states with an active significant Catholic crusader population (under an unfulfilled oaths) for a tiny duration. For the majority of their existance their politics were secular and parochial. Those academics in favour look at the states' culture, art, literature, songs etc as Buck puts very well. That is difficult for the lay reader to understand and if this article followed that approach it would look very different, memoralisation would be the focus rather than chronology and politics. There is a space for that article but it is not this one, and it not what the lay reader would expect. It is still down to WP:COMMONNAME, the expectation is that the article is about the medieval Frankish incursion into Middle East. It is not a stretched definition that could include Malta in late 18th century. Although, I believe there is an argument in favour of that second article as well. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our usual method for dealing with things that are contentious is to go with the COMMONNME approach but then include cited material that critiques it and defends it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much what the article is doing. Asbridge for 'misleading', Buck for culture. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frankokratia is not generally considered as part of Outremer, but the Frankish states on the ruins of the Byzantine Empire are often listed among the crusader states. However, I suggest that we should accept the status quo and try to improve the article within its present scope. Whether its name properly reflects its subject (the four Frankish realms in Syria and Palestine) could be discussed later. Borsoka (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Indonesia

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by NouVa on 18:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

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

Indonesia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

A discussion on Indonesia's Modern era section has been under discussion for weeks. I was trying to update the content on the section by adding links to notable events, but over time, my improvements were rejected (possibly because of content ownership.

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

Talk:Indonesia#WP:OWN_on_this_article

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please help the discussion reach a consensus since this seems to have gone for quite some time, and neutral comments from experienced editors might be useful whether my edits are improvement or not.

Summary of dispute by AdaCiccone

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

My position on this:

Sub-articles are created for a reason. Editors should utilise them to expand further what's already on the main article. Not literally every information should be put on the main.
Information on a sub is not in any way less valuable or visible than those on the main.
User:NouVa has asked several times about the number of post-2004 events (and how notable they are), to which I have responded several times that that is not the point here. My point is similar with other editors involved here, that if they were to be included, they have to be seen within the lens of the entire history of Indonesia.

It's better to take a wait-and-see approach when it comes to recent events. If their impact took effect in the near future in a "watershed moment" way, then I believe few would have problem with such information (the impact) being on the main. AdaCiccone (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Juxlos

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

I'm not entirely sure why NouVa is still claiming content ownership when a good amount of users have explained how his edits constitutes RECENTISM and thinks that this is DRN material. Regardless, the current dispute is regarding his intention to present events that other editors consider insufficiently notable for inclusion in a top-level article.

Austronesier I think elaborates the contents of the "dispute" sufficiently - primarily, an entire paragraph's worth of a number of events which are about a year old in the "History" section (admittedly "Modern history" subsection), and none of them are even about the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia. It is plainly absurd to present a series of protests with none or single digit deaths and no ensuing changes to laws or political structures with equal or more prominence with events that still have consequences fifty years ahead.

I would also point out that NouVa has clearly ignored the consensus of existing editors in order to push his version of the article - and yet still claiming an ownership bias. Juxlos (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by CMD

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

Summary of dispute by Austronesier

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

In a nutshell: the "History" section of Indonesia gives a brief condensed summary of Indonesian history, which amounts to ca. 900 words of text (including image captions) in the "stable" version. Even the most traumatic events such as the mass killings of 1965-66 are given very dense space ("The army, led by Major General Suharto, countered by instigating a violent anti-communist purge that killed between 500,000 and one million people" – that's all). For detailed information, readers are referred to History of Indonesia and further subpages. User:NouVa wants to expand Indonesia#History with information of rather recent events, some of which are notable news which made it to international headlines (e.g. mass demonstrations after the two inaugurations of the current president Joko Widodo, or after some of his controversial policy decisions), but which will have zero impact on the timeline of Indonesian history. The only apparent reason to give these events coverage in this brief overview is that they were recent. So from my perspective this is about WP:DUE vs. WP:recentism. Ironically, WP:OWN is cited. I have made very few edits to Indonesia. I just happen to disagree with User:NouVa's approach of WP:recentism, which I have voiced in the talk page.

FWIW, no one opposes the inclusion of events post-2004 (the year of the Aceh tsunami), but whatever is inserted there, should not give undue weight to events of secondary importance, if weighed against the other content of this 900-word summary section. –Austronesier (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Not international headlines, international third-page news.Juxlos (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Summary of dispute by NouVa

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

My main concern when filing this case is that my content additions about several major riots, and massive unrest through links and refs to the respective articles (which have significant coverage on the mainstream news outlets WP:SIGCOV) are well deserved to be put in the Indonesia article which the latest info of "Modern era" is about 2004 event, while some editors simply removed them without any effort to preserve some points. At the same time, I strongly disagree about wp:Recentism accusations on my edits because the current content of Modern era section is outdated; Also, Recentism does not mean such edits should immediately be removed. Otherwise, do @Juxlos: thinks that OLDERISM (putting 14 years old event) is better info to be put for "Modern era" of a country having a number of significant events in the last decade?

For @Juxlos: Content Ownership definition is the behaviour to prevent/control any changes or any contributions to article, while what I've done is adding some notable contents to improve it, and not my intention to remove any contribution. Addition ^ @Juxlos: If you doubt about evidence of much control of the content (ownership) I give you this link to show how an editor making more than 40 edits in same article only in last 2 months.

@Austronesier: If you mind about 'more-or-less 900 words'; you can paraphrase the text while not completely removing the points.

My hope for moderator is to consider whether edits like this or this addition {of 3-7 sentences} is deserved to be add on the article, based on (WP:GNG) Notability guideline. Actually, those additions are improving the content and are not violating any fundamental principles, nor deserved to be reverted. (NouVa (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Indonesia discussion

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

First statement by moderator (Indonesia)

The first concern is to focus what the disagreement is about, and so decide whether moderated discussion leading to compromise is the way to resolve the dispute. An alternative might be a Request for Comments. Please read and follow the rules. I will restate some of the rules. Be civil and concise. In particular, overly long statements do not clarify the issues, even if they enable the editor making the statement to feel better. Comment on content, not on contributors. The purpose of this dispute resolution is to improve the article.

Do not reply to each other in the space for statements. Your statements should be addressed to me and to the community. If you want to reply to each other, do it in the space for back-and-forth discussion, and we can ignore the back-and-forth.

Each editor is asked to make a one-paragraph statement as to what they want changed in the article, or left the same if someone else wants to change it. We can address why in the next round. If at least two editors want to engage in moderated discussion, we will have moderated discussion. If you want to have an RFC, then say so. Please provide a one-paragraph statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First statements by editors

Statement by Austronesier: I support an RfC. It will bring the wider community attention necessary to reach a consensus. –Austronesier (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Juxlos: I'm not certain what an RfC would bring here. There is already a clear consensus against the edits, and even a DRN already feels like an attempt to prolong the dispute to force a single editor's viewpoint. NouVa is trying to use new article GNG criteria in order to include low-importance content in a top-level article. Regardless, go ahead. Juxlos (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AdaCiccone: I don't mind an RfC but I don't think it would be of much of a solution. Nevertheless, go ahead. AdaCiccone (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chipmunkdavis: I do not believe an RfC would be a productive use of time. There is a consensus against the proposed edits as it stands, with inputs from a number of editors. An RfC cannot solve wp:main article fixation. CMD (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NouVa: RFC is not necessary for this case, for me, just need reasonable judgement from the experienced editors whether my content edits deserved to be added on the article based on the existing rules... /NouVa (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)/[reply]

Second statement by moderator

One editor supports an RFC. Two other editors comment on whether there should be an RFC. Maybe I wasn't clear in my question. Please make a one-paragraph statement as to what the content issue is. What do you want changed, or left the same? An RFC asks a question about whether to make some change to the article. Is there a disagreement about what should be said in the lede of the article about the modern history of Indonesia? And is modern defined as post-independence? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an RFC, what should the RFC ask? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second statements by editors

Statement by Austronesier: The question is solely about the inclusion of material in the section Indonesia#History (which is a summary, complete with hatnote to the main article History of Indonesia). The inclusion in other articles (e.g. the "lede of the article about the modern history of Indonesia", which would be History of Indonesia or one of further subs) is not matter of the dispute. NouVa is informed about the existence of those other articles, but specifically wants include the material in the "History"-section of the general article Indonesia; failure to gain support so far from any other editor brought them to DRN. IMO, none of the material which NouVa wants to add is due for inclusion in the summary-style section Indonesia#History—which only gives a bird's-eye view of the milestones in Indonesian history. This is not because the material is recent (that's a red herring), but because it is of insufficient importance/impact. That said, an RfC would be simply stated: "Should information about [add list of concrete material that NouVa wants to include] be included in the section Indonesia#History?" Speaking for myself, I would gladly elicit input from other editors (beyond the range of page watchers of Indonesia) that see things differently than I do; that's how we create wide consensus. –Austronesier (talk) 08:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NouVa: My simple question is - Do my edits violate any rule that deserve to be reverted? If not so, I don't think it is acceptable to remove them while there are editors trying to contribute and help the active progress of content article, rather than keep the current version.

Just perspective, If anyone will give any newer info than 2004 tsunami story, either events of post-2004 or news from 2010s decade - even 2020 pandemic related news - I would not have make the edits that being protested now. (NouVa (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Juxlos: It does not matter that it does not violate any rules - adding the results of the 2018 Bogor regency election does not violate any rules, either, and the event is notable and happened within Indonesia, but we don't do that because it would be silly to include something so comparatively unimportant in the Indonesia article. Please do not keep shifting the argument as if we have been saying the events are not notable and ignoring literally every editor's statement saying that those belong on secondary articles. Juxlos (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Third statement by moderator (Indonesia)

I don't seem to have explained adequately what I am asking. What part of the article in particular is the issue about? Is it about the body of the article, or the lede section of the article? I am inferring that it is about whether to include particular modern events in the lede section. If you can't explain in one paragraph what part of the article you want changed, or left the same, we can't have an RFC, and we don't know what to compromise about.

One editor asks: "Do my edits violate any rule that deserve to be reverted? If not so, I don't think it is acceptable to remove them." The rule in question is probably the concept of due weight in the lede.

Maybe there is no point in my saying to read the rules, so maybe I need to provide the rules in your faces:

Here are the ground rules for any mediation that is conducted at DRN where the moderator specifies Rule A:

Be civil and concise.
1. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and is essential in dispute resolution. Uncivil statements may be collapsed.
2. Overly long statements do not clarify issues. (They may make the author feel better, but the objective is to discuss the article constructively.) Overly long statements may be collapsed, and the party may be told to summarize them. Read Too Long, Didn't Read, and don't write anything that is too long for other editors to read. If the moderator says to write one paragraph, that means one paragraph of reasonable length.
Do not report any issues about the article or the editing of the article at any other noticeboards, such as WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement. Reporting any issue about the article at any other location is forum shopping, which is strongly discouraged. Any old discussions at any other noticeboards must be closed or suspended. If any new discussions are opened elsewhere while discussion is pending at DRN, the mediation at DRN will be failed.
Comment on content, not contributors.
1. The purpose of discussion is to improve the article, not to complain about other editors. (There may be a combination of content issues and conduct issues, but resolving the content issue often mitigates the conduct issue or permits it to subside.) Uncivil comments or comments about other editors may be suppressed.
2. "Comment on content, not contributors" means that if you are asked to summarize what you want changed in the article, or left the same, it is not necessary or useful to name the other editors, but it may be important to identify the paragraphs or locations in the article. It isn't necessary to identify the other editors with whom you disagree.
3. Discuss edits, not editors. This means the same as "Comment on content, not contributors". It is repeated because it needs repeating.
Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. If the article is edited by a party while discussion is pending at DRN, the mediation at DRN will be failed.
1. If there has been edit-warring over versions of the article, the moderator will not select which version is the "right" version to be displayed during moderated discussion. Simply stop edit-warring. The purpose of moderated discussion is to select between versions of the article, and the moderator will not act as an arbitrator.
Do not communicate with the moderator on his user talk page. This is seen by other editors as trying to run around them. If you have a question for the moderator, ask it at DRN.
It would be better not to discuss the article on the article talk page or on user talk pages while moderated discussion is in progress, because discussion elsewhere than at DRN may be overlooked or ignored.
The moderator may not have any background knowledge about the subject. It is the responsibility of the editors, who are familiar with the subject matter, to inform the moderator about the subject matter, just as the purpose of the article is to inform the readers about the subject matter.
Be specific at DRN. Do not simply say that a section should be improved, but tell what improvement should be made. Do not simply say that "All viewpoints must be discussed", but identify the missing viewpoints. If you say that the article has BLP violations, specify how they can be corrected.
Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion to statements by other editors; that is, do not reply to the comments of other editors. That has already been tried and has not resolved the content dispute (since talk page discussion is a precondition for discussion at DRN). Address your comments to the moderator and the community. Except in a section for back-and-forth discussion, replies to other editors or back-and-forth discussion may be collapsed by the moderator and may result in a rebuke.
The moderator will provide a section for back-and-forth comments. Keep your comments in that section, so that anyone else can ignore them. Comments in the back-and-forth section, like everywhere else, must be civil.
Every participant is expected to check on the case at least every 48 hours and to answer questions within 48 hours.

What part of not editing the article wasn't clear? Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress.

Now: Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what part of the article they either want changed or left the same? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Third statements by editors

Statement by AdaCiccone: The core of this dispute is about the inclusion of recent events one editor thinks is important but the other four (myself included) do not. It's not in the lead section, but a subsection (Modern era) in the 'History' section (which is two sections after the lead). I myself do not think a change is necessary. The current version is adequate already and should be left the same. AdaCiccone (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Austronesier: No, the dispute is not about the lede. The dispute is about the article Indonesia > section "History" > subsection "Modern era". "Modern era" refers to the period starting from the recognition of independence in 1949. One editor wants to add information to said subsection (I leave it to them to explain which information), four editors including myself reject these additions. I have said on two occasions that the dispute is about the History section of Indonesia (I admit not to have specified it down to the subsection level). Yet it was inferred that the dispute is about the lede. My straightforward information as a direct answer to the questions posed has been ignored twice; for this reason, I will not continue to contribute further to the discussion. From my perspective, I consider this moderation failed. Nevertheless, I will accept the result of the dispute resolution as continued by the remaining particpants, whatever its outcome. During this time I will not edit the contentious part of Indonesia, which is the History section, nor engage in discussions in Talk:Indonesia (or any other forum) about this specific content dispute. But I will not refrain from doing edits to the remaining non-contentious 11 sections of that article, and will continue to discuss other unrelated topics in that article, if there is reason to do so. @Robert McClenon: Thank you for your efforts so far. –Austronesier (talk) 09:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth statement by moderator (Indonesia)

One editor says that they will not be taking part in any further discussion, but that they will accept the result of the moderation. If at least two editors are prepared to contribute their views to a Request for Comments, I will be posting a RFC. The editor who has said that they do not want to discuss further is still welcome to contribute to the RFC. It is my understanding that the main issue has to do with an addition to the section Modern Era. Will each editor please state concisely what they want in the article (or what they do not want in the article), so that I can formulate a concise neutrally worded RFC? If there are two distinct portions of the article that have questions, then we can have a two-part RFC. If there is also an issue about History of Indonesia, then we can have two RFCs. Will each editor please state concisely, within 48 hours, what they want the RFC to ask about? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth statements by editors (Indonesia)

Fifth statement by moderator (Indonesia)

@NouVa, AdaCiccone, Juxlos, Chipmunkdavis, and Austronesier: - If any of you want to provide input to an RFC, please respond within 36 hours, or this dispute will be closed as failed. I would like to start an RFC concerning the issue, but I need to know exactly what it is that the editors are disagreeing about. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth statements by editors (Indonesia)

Back-and-forth discussion

It's not about subjective - one editor thinks is important but the others do not... - but it's about objective whether my previous content addition is deserved to be reverted while it's not violating any Wikipedia policies or guidelines, even link to main modern history article Post-Suharto era was reverted [5]. So the problem is whether 'personal' opinions about the importance, (by saying I myself do not think) which halt the progress of article or the rules of notability and significant coverage become the main concerns for the further improvement of the content. # NouVa (talk) 07:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments (yours, mine and the other three editors') have already been put forth in the Summary of dispute by and the First and second statements by editors sections. The moderator is clear that he only wants a one-paragraph statement, stating what should be changed or left the same. That is what my recent comment (before yours) is for (simply answering the moderator) because there's no absolutely no point of me repeating my arguments. AdaCiccone (talk) 08:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to repeat my argument for the fourth time so NouVa can claim OWNERSHIP and refer to GNG a fifth time, either. My argument is best summarized by the essay: Wikipedia:But for Napoleon, it was Tuesday - to the protesters, what they're doing is the most important thing in history, and to the state of Indonesia, it was a month in 2020. Juxlos (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on good faith cooperation managed by the guidelines, and the Wikipedia's contents would have never grown as great as today without open minded contributors who let any significant progress toward the ongoing improved articles over time, instead of removing the changes and stopping the content additions for personal reasons...
I hope the moderator here would give advice or possible solution over the problem, I believe the problem will not wisely be solved through Rfc but the problem is about some users' preferences who keep persisting their views about what addition should or shouldn't be allowed on an article section, while the addition itself is relevant and following Wikipedia guidelines. I guess this is a behavioral problem, should I report to ANI instead? * NouVa (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not good faith to accuse multiple other editors of WP:OWN without substantial evidence. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Consensus. CMD (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear from your edit history that you've never tried seeking the opinion of others before claiming ownership on the very first day of the dispute. From my perspective, your claim therefore is based only on your own interpretation of WP:OWN, and this makes it hard for you to convince others whether it has weight or not. What's more, your claim that the number of edits editors make within a span of several months consitutes "control of the content (ownership)" is not backed up by enough evidence because there is no such statement in WP:OWN. By this logic, all Indonesia's (very) active editors in the past can be accused of owning the article too, am I right? AdaCiccone (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NouVa, AdaCiccone, Juxlos, and Chipmunkdavis: I won't continue to contribute to this discussion. I will accept the outcome of the further dispute resolution. As a courtesy, please inform me about its outcome. I will happily accept and support the consensus found as a result of a successful dispute resolution. In case it fails, please inform me where you intend to proceed. Thanks and good luck! –Austronesier (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NouVa You are threatening to report to ANI for... practically all other editors of an article agreeing that your edits should not be included and refusing to yield after your consistent pestering. Go ahead, but it will most likely end with you getting a warning. Juxlos (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AdaCiccone: If you look for evidences of OWN, how about these few cases (from hundreds of edits) [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] showing an editor easily removing added referenced contents by other editors who made efforts to develop the article, while a single editor not giving a chance to preserve the references given by them without providing a single relevant Wikipedia policy.

@Chipmunkdavis: Do you understand this? In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.

So just to say " I don't like," "I don't think. . . important..." etc. does not mean the editors should follow your own preferences and disagreements, above the the fundamental guidelines/policies which are the basis of content inclusion on an article. Such a opinion showing things which not compatible with a collaborative project and obviously Disruptive.

If such editors who using more of their own thinking on this Wikipedia to prevent changes over the rules and revert justified article changes repeatedly over an extended period without providing relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines to support the reverts is clear form of "Ownership" actions. READ it well
While the main effects could be two: either it will eliminate potential contributors to make futher improvements or make such editors become more authoritaritative by not letting anyone to involve, except those suitable in their own views regardless the guidelines. NouVa (talk) 05:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_London#Standardisation_for_all_London_Neigbourhood_/_Area_Pages

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Justgravy on 11:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

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

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London#Standardisation for all London Neigbourhood / Area Pages (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

For a long while there was a loose formula for the opening paragraph for areas of London articles along the lines of: “X is an area of (compass-direction) London…”. This is an accepted standard and consensus reached by editors actively involved in the WikiProject London and had been for many years. About a year ago, a new editor took it upon themselves to inject some of their POV and mass change these opening paragraphs of these articles. Nobody really challenged them at the time (I was taking a break from Wikipedia editing at this time, otherwise I would have). I have returned recently to see the mess they created is still there, long after this user disappeared. I decided to try to change them back, but as soon as I did my edits were reverted? I decided to open a discussion about it to make people realise this is the previous standard (and also initially to try to improve further although this was shot down). However, users like Roger 8 Roger have prattled on about a load of nonsense and nothing has been done. All I am trying to do is to restore these articles to how they were before they were mass-edited based on POV.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London#Standardisation_for_all_London_Neigbourhood_/_Area_Pages

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

A thorough discussion is needed, especially bringing to light points made long ago that have been archived.

Summary of dispute by Roger 8 Roger

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

It is difficult to see what, if anything, is in dispute. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by MRSC

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

Summary of dispute by Magnolia677

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

Summary of dispute by Lord Belbury

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

Not sure why my name is here, all I did was revert JustGravy when they started prematurely applying their desired outcome of the RFC to London articles citing the RFC as a reason for the edit (eg. [11]), and asked them to wait for the RFC to be closed. I'm not aware of the past disagreements over compass directions in London articles. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by WhatamIdoing

I'm not involved in this dispute and have no opinion on the question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by TransporterMan

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

I have no dog in this hunt. I only performed some dispute resolution maintenance (noting a 3O removal and giving a bit of advice). I'm not a party to this dispute or discussion, will not be participating here, and do not need to be considered in any further procedures here at DRN. Also, I will not be acting as a DRN volunteer in this case. I would remind the filing party, however, that it is their obligation under the DRN rules to post a notice of this filing on each user's talk page. There's a template set out at the top of this page that can be used for that purpose. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Schazjmd

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

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_London#Standardisation_for_all_London_Neigbourhood_/_Area_Pages discussion

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

If no one minds me facilitating this conversation, we may continue when everyone has commented in their respective spaces. Heart ^(talk) 03:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify everyone by leaving {{subst:drn-notice}} on each of their talk pages, a message on the talkpage of the project will not suffice. Heart ^(talk) 03:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I just have. Justgravy (talk) 09:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand how Roger can even say there is no dispute? He is disputing the removal of "Greater" from "Greater London" and he is disputing that historic county information should not be placed in the lead for all London area articles. Even though this goes against what was previously agreed by many editors, and had been agreed for a while before he showed up to Wikipedia. Justgravy (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Frédéric Chopin

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Chip-chip-2020 on 14:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

Report socks at SPI. Seem pl ez ^{{{ping}} me} 13:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

First statement by moderator

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)[reply]

First statements by editors

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)[reply]

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^[1] 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“,^[2] 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^[3], and also in the newest edition of the score there is no dedication mentioned)^[4].

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.^[5] Best, --Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reflist

References

Back-and-forth discussion

.

MutualArt.com

– New discussion.

Filed by Bodokh on 13:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

MutualArt.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Bodokh (talk · contribs)
StephenJPC (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

On the talk section, there are 2 posts which are ruining the good name of MutualArt.com. I work at the company, and there is no problem at all with customer support, our lines are always active and we have quick email replies. According to the guidelins for the talk page: "This page in a nutshell: Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor." Calling the company a "scam" is a personal opinion. We offer services like other companies in the industry and we are completely legitimate. One user called StephenJPC has posted 2 posts calling the company a scam without any information to prove these false claims hurting our brand.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MutualArt.com#Is_MutualArt.com_reputable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MutualArt.com#MutualArt_and_the_Artist_Pension_Trust

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Remove these false claims as they have no proof at all to make any claim against the company to hurt the brand.

Summary of dispute by StephenJPC

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

MutualArt.com discussion

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

[1] ttps://www.srf.ch/kultur/musik/spaetes-outing-chopin-war-schwul-und-niemand-sollte-davon-erfahren?wt_mc_o=srf.share.app.srf-app.unknown

[2] ttps://books.google.ch/books?id=6ThIDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT110&dq=alan+walker+fankly+erotic&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi3vovXx8_tAhUBqaQKHTSlD7MQ6AEwAHoECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=alan%20walker%20fankly%20erotic&f=false

[3] Zamoyski (2010), pp. 26–29.

[4] ttps://www.edition-peters.de/product/konzert-fur-klavier-und-orchester-nr-2-f-moll-op-21/ep71919

[5] ttps://www.srf.ch/kultur/musik/presseschau-zur-srf-recherche-der-schwule-chopin-geht-um-die-welt?wt_mc_o=srf.share.app.srf-app.sms

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards