Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 239
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 235 | ← | Archive 237 | Archive 238 | Archive 239 | Archive 240 | Archive 241 | → | Archive 245 |
Falun Gong
Closed as pending in another forum. There is already discussion, as the filing party has noted, at the Fringe Theory Noticeboard. DRN does not handle a dispute that is also being discussed in another forum. We don't need competing discussions when an article is already controversial and contentious. The filing party says that this filing has created a new venue for argument without a plan for resolution. They can propose a method of resolution at FTN such as a Request for Comments. It appears that there is being discussion at FTN that may be useful, so the editors here are advised to discuss at FTN. If discussion at FTN subsides without consensus and without an RFC, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Invasion of Poland
An RFC is being used to resolve the question of whether to list the Free City of Danzig as a belligerent. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Marco Polo
Closed as apparently resolved. No one has disagreed with the decision that the short description and the lede sentence should say that Marco Polo was a Venetian merchant. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Re'im music festival massacre
Closed. A Request for Comments is being used to obtain community consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Sergei Bortkiewicz
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
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 Request for Comments, both because the number of editors is larger than is likely to support much discussion, and because the question does not seem to be complex. Please read DRN Rule C. This dispute is about Eastern Europe, which is subject to frequent battleground editing, because the area in question not only has been a battleground in the past but is a battleground at present. Please also read the ArbCom decision that Eastern Europe is a contentious topic. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress.
I am asking each editor for a brief introductory statement including:
- Agreement to DRN Rule C, which will acknowledge that the topic is a contentious topic.
- What, in your opinion, should the lede sentence say about his nationality?
- Are there any issues other than his nationality?
- Where, in your opinion, if anywhere, was there a consensus on his nationality?
Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- I will abide by DRN Rule C
- This is my first time editing wikipedia, and it started with a simple request to update the description of the Ukrainian composer Sergei Bortkiewicz to correctly reflect how he is described today in the majority of sources. The editors refused to examine my sources, one going as far as saying they would “oppose any mention of him as a Ukrainian composer” and that “Ukrainian sources cannot be trusted”. When I raised concerns about such biased attitudes, they were ignored.
- As I was repeatedly pointed to an earlier discussion, I have carefully read the August dispute and addressed many of editors’ objections with proper citations. They have then accused me of “bludgeoning”.
Too long, didn't read - This introductory statement is not a brief introductory statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
|
---|
|
Tyulyasho (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Comment 1.1 by moderator (Bortkiewicz)
Perhaps there should be a concept of pseudo-consensus or illusory consensus. I agree with SMcCandlish that if editors thought that consensus had been reached twice with different conclusions, then there was an illusion of consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- Not having experienced anything like this, I believed that the agreements to first remove all nationalities/ethnicities, then restore the Russian/Austrian/Polish status ante quo both represented "consensus". This is a unique editing dispute for me and had I been aware of the concept of illusory consensus, I would have requested dispute resolution back in August. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
- My involvement with this article began late last or early this year. It entirely lacked sources before that. I added one, the subject's entry on The New Grove, which stated he was Russian and Austrian. In late spring, the lead was modified non-controversially to include the subject's Polish heritage, which is confirmed by another source added to the article. The status quo remained until June, when a new user, who was a good sock, opposed the lead. Discussion got heated, but eventually there was consensus to omit all mention of subject's nationality/ethnicity from the lead. Shortly thereafter, discussion started again and a new consensus was met wherein the lead stated that subject was Russian and Austrian of Polish heritage. This remained until last month when user Tyulasho made their dispute, after which discussion produced no consensus. In response to your requests:
- I will abide by WP:DRN-C.
- The lead ought to state that subject is Russian and Austrian of Polish heritage as anything else outside of this is speculative. Alternatively, all mentions of nationality/ethnicity should be omitted from the lead to prevent future disputes.
- No.
- Consensus had been reached during the summer twice with different outcomes as mentioned above. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- My involvement in this has been very peripheral. I don't have a vested interest in the outcome. Just speaking as a regular editor and reader, I think I would expect this to say that the subject was born in the Russian Empire (in Kharkov, today part of Ukraine), identified as Russian, a later became a naturalized Austrian citizen. The lead need not get into any more detail than that (regarding nationality), and a statement even that short covers all the bases neutrally and clearly. DRN Rule C is fine by me. I'm not aware of any other issues to resolve, and I don't know of a prior consensus about the nationality issue (and we probably wouldn't be here if there was one, or at least one that has lasted – reading CurryTime7-24's note above, I have to observe that "consensus had been reached ... twice with different outcomes" really means consensus was not actually reached. :-). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 10:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
1 I agree to DRN Rule C
2 Sergei Bortkiewicz (28 February 1877 [O.S. 16 February] – 25 October 1952) was a Ukrainian composer and pianist. As supported by the 14 sources I have offered to the editors that reflect the current research on the composer as well as consensus to refer to him as such in the musical community worldwide. At the time of my inquiry on October 5, the article had only 3 sources - one from 2001 and two from 2016.
3 yes, the article can be improved by including the most up-to-date research on the composer.
4 No. The earlier discussion shows that the more experienced editors had the upper hand and pretty much had a free reign as to how to describe the composer. Those who opposed the current view of the article simply gave up. Furthermore, the earlier inquiry in August about including Ukraine resulted in the editors describing the composer as Russian, Austrian and Polish. I think the article will remain contested only for as long as the editors' anti-Ukrainian biases shown during the October discussion remain unaddressed, and the standards by which sources are accepted and evaluated are made clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyulyasho (talk • contribs) 02:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have posted my views on what I think the at Talk:Sergei_Bortkiewicz#Dispute_resolution and elsewhere (TL;DR I think we have RS for calling him both Russian and Ukrainian). I find the behavior of Tyulyasho to be a violation of WP:CIV and WP:NPA ("Is this a joke?"... "How is Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus an authority on this?") and I have better things to do with my time than discuss things at that level, so I expect this to be my final comment on this issue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
There is discussion in progress at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Two_Examples,_and_Comments, concerning the question of the ethnicity or nationality of persons who lived in countries that have changed or no longer exist. The consensus appears to be that Wikipedia should follow what is said by reliable sources. I have twothree questions for the editors. First, do you want to put the question of what to say about Sergei Bortkiewicz on hold, pending further discussion of the general issue, or do we want to come to at least a temporary resolution? If the former, we can just put this case on hold. If the latter, we will use a Request for Comments. Second, what do each of you, the participating editors, think should be in the lede sentence of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Third, are there any other issues to be addressed here?
Second statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
My concern with respect to the Bortkiewicz article is about how "reliable sources" would be defined. The composer or his biography are only incidental in some of the sources provided by Tyulyasho and others. For example, Bortkiewicz takes up only about a paragraph in this study, which is otherwise about Paul Wittgenstein. In this one, the focus is on analysis of his music, not details about his life.
With respect to sources from Ukraine, including those brought up in Bortkiewicz's talk page, the enmity between it and Russia in recent history may result in the possibility that sources from either country may have ulterior nationalist agendas. Sometimes Western sources from March 2022 on are also similarly compromised. One of the sources that Tyulyasho cited looks to have been posted in the immediate wake of the war. Among the composers referred to as "Ukrainian" is Sergei Prokofiev, a claim that not even the Ukrainian Wikipedia article on the composer repeats (the lead there calls him "Russian and Soviet"). This source's claim is controversial enough to call into question everything else it states, including about Bortkiewicz.
The reason I sought out The New Grove when I first edited this article back in January was because it is a widely trusted and impartial source on music. As for Johnson, his thesis is about Bortkiewicz and his music. Unlike any of the other sources provided, whether for one side or another, Johnson actually devotes significant space to Bortkiewicz's personal identity. Contrary to what Tyulyasho and other opposing editors have said, it also cites extensively from Bortkiewicz's memoirs—around 40 times altogether. For what it's worth, Johnson does not appear to have a pro-Russian agenda. If anything, he seems to sympathize with Ukraine, which is particularly evident in his section explaining its history prior to the 20th century.
In reply to moderator's questions:
- If needed, I would not dispute putting this matter on hold pending the outcome of the wider discussion.
- "Sergei Bortkiewicz; 28 February 1877 [O.S. 16 February] – 25 October 1952) was a Russian and Austrian Romantic composer and pianist of Polish origins/heritage/parentage/descent/etc." or "Sergei Bortkiewicz; 28 February 1877 [O.S. 16 February] – 25 October 1952) was a Romantic composer and pianist".
- No. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- At the time of my inquiry on October 5, the article had only 3 sources and was flagged for the need of citations. This, however, did not concern some of the editors, and they addressed my request to consider more sources with comments such as “it is unlikely that more sources are going to change the consensus” by WikiDan61.
The editor CurryTime7-24 statement — “I oppose any mention of him as a Ukrainian composer. Most of the new sources come from Ukrainian sources which cannot be trusted to be impartial given that they may have a nationalist agenda. (In fact, some Western sources post-2022 may also be similarly compromised.)” — was quite shocking to me, and sadly my attempts to have others to address such biased attitudes were left unanswered. Which Wikipedia policy allows scholarly research to be denied purely on the basis of the country of origin? Perhaps there is one, as editors continue to double down on their insistence that Ukrainian sources are somehow deficient, as seen in the statement above from CurryTime7-24, who speculates about “ulterior nationalist agendas,” as well as the editor Marcelus, who stated that “Source no. 7 and 8 are written by Ukrainian scholars recently, so not really impartial.” Why is the 2016 source from Nebraska considered to be the most reliable and authoritative by the editors? As I was continually referred to it, I have studied it in great detail and found many inconsistencies and speculations in it, yet when I pointed them out to the editors I was accused of engaging in “nationalist crusade” by CurryTime-24.
1 I don’t see a resolution to this discussion until editors’ attitudes toward Ukrainian sources are clarified. A composer, who was born in Ukraine, grew up in Ukraine, married in Ukraine, worked in Ukraine and had to flee Ukraine, cannot be referred to as “Russian,” and this article will remain contested as long as these attitudes remain unaddressed. Even thought, at the time of Bortkiewicz’s life Ukraine was referred to as” Little Russia” - this term is inappropriate to use in the twenty first century and should not be used as “proof” to continue to refer to him as a “Russian”.
2 As Bortkiewicz is considered Ukrainian by Ukrainians and referred to as such by the majority of today’s sources worldwide, the lead sentence should read:
Sergei Bortkiewicz (28 February 1877 [O.S. 16 February] – 25 October 1952) was a Ukrainian composer and pianist.
Describing him as such, doesn’t rid him of complexity of his personality and life path, all of which could be discussed in the article. It simply identifies him as a person who comes from a place in the world that has a specific name - Ukraine.
3 Yes. The correct spelling of Kharkov is Kharkiv (just like it is correct to write Kyiv, not Kiev, even though it used to be common practice in the past.) Tyulyasho — Preceding undated comment added 14:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
It is not clear whether the discussion at the MOS talk page for biographies will reach a conclusion or fizzle out. We have at least two choices with regard to this DRN discussion. First, we can put this discussion on hold pending a more general discussion. If we do that, I will try to post an update about once a week, and participating editors can make brief statements about once a week. Second, we can run an RFC specifically about Sergei Bortkiewicz, with regard to how he should be referred to in the lede sentence. I don't think that we have to make an either-or choice between the two options. The both-and option is to run an RFC, and then put this case on hold pending both further action on the RFC and resolution of the larger issue.
In order to compose the RFC, the editors will each need to provide me with their choice as to how to describe his nationality and ethnicity (if you have not already replied).
My preference is the both-and option, to run an RFC on Sergei Bortkiewicz, and to put this case on hold pending both action on the RFC and discussion of the larger issue. What does anyone else think? Are there any other comments or questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
"Both-and" sounds fine to me. Will you write the RfC and, if so, will you provide the pros/cons of each option? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
May I ask what would the RFC be about? Perhaps this could be a solution as the standards by which editors evaluate and include sources remain unclear. This article that was published in 2005 has undergone many edits and changes throughout the years without any additional sources or discussions on the talk page. I’m the only editor in the history of this article who made an inquiry first, then offered ten sources and, after waiting six days without any response, changed the lead sentence supporting it with four academic papers. Yet, we are here now because editors opposed those changes without considering or examining new sources for weeks, in spite of the article being flagged for the lack of sources - choosing instead a strategy of Stonewalling. The first time editors gave any feedback to my sources was October 24, after the discussion was moved to the despute board.
Furthermore, editors’ statements and actions indicated that the only options they would consider in the lead sentence would be a Russian composer, or a Romantic composer - never Ukrainian, in spite of me offering 14 sources that identify him as such. All of these factors should be taken into consideration before we open it to a larger discussion.
I also would like to raise the following questions about sources:
- What are the policies regarding Ukrainian sources?
- Are academic papers more valuable then say news articles/ blogs, press releases?
- Could an argument from an academic paper be countered with a news article?
- Does the length of an academic article make its statement more valuable?
- Should we only discuss direct quotes from sources without rephrasing them?
- Are we allowed to look deeper into sources and examine their conclusions, or do we take what the source actually said and counter its claims with another source?
- Are there any considerations given to the age of a source? Say could a source from 2021 be countered with one from 1995?
- What about Russian sources? As the Russian state officially does not recognize Ukraine an independent nation, what should be done about Russian scholars?
- Would sources addressing larger issues, such as the history of the region, be helpful? Tyulyasho — Preceding undated comment added 22:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
DRN Rule C-11 says:
Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion to statements by other editors unless the moderator gives permission; that is, do not reply to the comments of other editors.It then says: replies to other editors or back-and-forth discussion may be collapsed by the moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC) |
---|
|
Fourth statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
I was asked whether I will write the RFC, and whether I will provide the pros and cons. I will write the RFC in draft, and will ask the editors to supply the pros and cons. I am asking the participating editors to supply the options for the RFC also. Russian? Austrian? Of Polish origin? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Please consider my third statement above. Is there a deadline for responses? Asking because you posted the third statement on a weekend and now we are on the forth statement on Monday.
- Please include Ukrainian in the RFC draft. Tyulyasho (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Fourth statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
Option 1:
- Sergei Bortkiewicz; 28 February 1877 [O.S. 16 February] – 25 October 1952) was a Russian and Austrian Romantic composer and pianist of Polish origins/heritage/parentage/descent.
Pros
- Presents birth and naturalized citizenships, as well as ethnicity, which are all facts cited in article.
- Jeremiah Johnson, whose thesis on subject's life and work is one of the article's main cited sources, establishes that subject identified as Russian and viewed his birthplace as being an appendage of Russia. His is also the only source that investigates subject's nationality in depth. One of its main sources is the subject's own memoirs, which are repeatedly quoted and cited.
- Subject's birthplace was part of Russia at the time. Stating that his birth nationality was otherwise is potentially confusing and contradicts usage in other similar articles (e.g. Béla Bartók is not referred to as "Romanian", Karol Szymanowski "Ukrainian", or Richard Wetz "Polish" despite that their birthplaces are now respectively part of Romania, Ukraine, and Poland).
- Secondary sources referred to subject as Russian and Austrian during his own life, as well as after, including in the 21st century.
Cons
- Lead sentence neither takes into account that subject's birthplace has since become part of independent Ukraine, nor that some modern sources claim subject as Ukrainian.
- Although Johnson's thesis established that subject believed himself to be Russian and his music part of the development of Russian musical culture, it also demonstrated that his music was influenced by elements of Ukrainian culture, which the subject did not acknowledge.
Option 2:
- Sergei Bortkiewicz; 28 February 1877 [O.S. 16 February] – 25 October 1952) was a Romantic composer and pianist.
Pros
- Presents the essential facts about the subject and leaves potentially contentious matters of nationality to be discussed later.
- Compromise to prevent future edit-warring over nationality. (See Copernicus and Maxim Berezovsky for similar solutions.)
Cons
- Potentially confusing to readers who may not be aware that subject's nationality is a contentious subject.
- Omits facts which ought to be presented. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Option 3
Sergei Bortkiewicz (28 February 1877 [O.S. 16 February] – 25 October 1952) was a Ukrainian composer and pianist.
Pros:
As there has been a gradual shift in the Western world to recognize Ukrainian people as a separate nation from Russia, so there is an increased practice to refer to people from Ukraine as such.
As Bortkiewicz comes from a Ukrainian city of Kharkiv, which predates the Russian Empire and has remained one of the strongest centers of Ukrainian Culture throughout the centuries, he is considered “one of the most prominent representatives of the Ukrainian musical culture” by Ukrainian scholars. Bortkiewicz's connection with his home remained strong as he continued to come back to it until he had to flee in 1919 in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution.
I have shared 14 sources with the editors that connect the composer with Ukraine either through his birth and life there or his contribution to the Ukrainian culture.
Cons:
While Ukrainian scholars freely acknowledge the complexity of Russian influence on Ukrainian culture without having it undermine the belonging of the subject to the Ukrainian cultural heritage, it is still not the case worldwide. As separation of Ukrainian nation from Russia remains incomplete in certain spheres of western political and cultural discourse, some readers may interpret referring to Bortkiewicz as Ukrainian as simplifying the issue. Tyulyasho Nov 7 — Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Fifth statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
I was asked whether there is a deadline for replies to my request to provide options for the RFC. I will start working on the RFC within 24 hours, but will wait to deploy it until I think that no further input is coming in.
It appears that the discussion at the manual of style talk page for biographies is not about to resolve the issue of how to characterize the ethnicity of persons born in areas whose national status has changed. So I will not be putting this discussion on hold, and we will continue to work on the specific issue. The discussion concluded that the ethnicity should be listed as what is described by the majority of reliable sources, so be prepared to justify your choice based on what the reliable sources have said. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- I will reply in full below tomorrow morning (PST). Just one question: you want citations from sources that confirm nationality, correct? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 07:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I have developed a draft RFC at Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz/RFC on Ethnicity. It can be expanded by the addition of more options.
Does anyone have any further questions or comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Do we wait for your question to make the fifth statement or do we just list our sources to support the lead sentence? Tyulyasho (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Fifth statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
Sixth statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
Please take another look at the draft RFC at Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz/RFC on Ethnicity and provide any other options. I will then copy the RFC to the article talk page and activate it. Are there any other comments or questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Sixth statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
I still haven't received a reply regarding sources and where/how to present them in this discussion. Also, will moderator reword our pros/cons? Just want to ensure that the RfC statement that results from this discussion adheres to WP:RFCNEUTRAL. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: pinging as a courtesy. Also, I think Tyulyasho had a similar question. Thank you for devoting your time and patience on this matter. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Seventh statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
I had been thinking that it would not be necessary to load up the RFC with the references. However, if you want to include the references, you may add properly formatted references in the draft RFC, and I have included a reference template at the end. You may edit the Pros for the ethnicity that you favor and the Cons for an ethnicity with which you disagree, and I will review whether they pass neutral point of view before the RFC is published.
Are there any other questions or comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Seventh statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
Forgive me, but I’m confused about how this dispute page works. This is the seventh statement I’m making here, yet none of the questions I raised above have been addressed.
I've never intended to become a wiki editor, as seen from my first inquiry on October 5 when I pointed out to the editors that the article was misleading. The only reason I’m here now is that editors refused to examine my sources until we got to the dispute page. Were my sources not examined the first time around because I did not format them properly?
Say I take the time to learn how to properly format a citation, what assurance is there that it will be considered this time? I believe editors never took my arguments seriously, and the lengthy discussion on the talk page attests to that. Yet, it looks like we are headed to the same page without any of the previous problems addressed. I don’t want to go through the same process again before understanding what will be different this time around, and perhaps what I should do differently. What was I doing incorrectly?
I don’t mean to prolong this discussion, and I apologies if my questions seem simplistic or naive, but I feel like I’m operating in the dark here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyulyasho (talk • contribs) 15:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Eighth statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
User:Tyulyasho - I will try to answer those of your questions that can be answered by a neutral moderator. Some of your posts were not questions, but statements, or statements of exasperation. You want to know why your fourteen sources were not accepted. I can't answer that question, because it is addressed to the other editors, and if I were to allow back-and-forth questions, we would never finish this discussion. You may include your sources in the RFC as references to the Pros for referring to him as Ukrainian.
Some of your questions have to do with Wikipedia policies on reliability of sources. Since you are a new editor, I suggest that you read the policy on reliability of sources. Basically, Wikipedia tries to take into account the biases and viewpoints of sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view. We can use Ukrainian sources, and we can use Russian sources, and we can use British sources, and we can use American sources. We recognize that the Ukrainian sources and the Russian sources have biases.
User:Tyulyasho - Please read the guideline on signatures and sign your posts with four tildes, which the software will convert into your signature.
Do you have any other questions that I can answer neutrally?
Do any other editors have any questions or comments at this point, before I publish the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Eighth statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
Please give me until Sunday (PST) to provide sources for the RfC. It's been a busy week for yours truly. One of my sources is new; I have not added it to the article yet. No other questions from me. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for answering my questions.
I would like to request a few days to properly format my sources. I don’t quite understand in which order to do so as I see one reference box but I will take a cue form the other editor.
Also, I would like to include option 4 for RFC as Ukrainian born Romantic composer. Would that be acceptable?
--Tyulyasho (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Tyulyasho
Ninth statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
User:Tyulyasho - I see no need to add Option 4, which would be Ukrainian and Romantic. There doesn't appear to be an argument about whether his musical style was Romantic. I suggest just adding the style descriptor to Option 3. Please read Referencing for Beginners. You are a new editor, and referencing is one of the more difficult parts of editing Wikipedia. You do not need to add the references if you are not sure that you will do it correctly. If you do want to add sources, add them in-line, so that they will show up as footnotes in the References box. If this sounds complicated, that is because it is complicated. (If this sounds straightforward, maybe you didn't understand, or maybe my explanation was insufficient.)
All editors: I had said that I was thinking that we wouldn't need sources for the RFC, because they can be added to the article after the RFC is closed. If sources are not added to the draft RFC within about 24 hours, I may move the draft RFC to the article talk page, which will make it into a real RFC without the sources, because RFCs do not need sources.
Are there any other questions or comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Ninth statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
At work adding sources now. Should be ready within the hour. May we please see the final draft RfC, with any necessary editing you may need to do to ensure WP:RFCNEUTRAL, before you move it to the article talk page? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
The reason I would like to add option 4 is because in past discussions editors used instances where Bortkiewicz was described as Ukarinain born or just having the name Ukraine next to his name as a way to negate to describe him as a Ukrainian composer.
Following their previous logic I see that they viewed Ukrainian born as different than Ukrainian composer.
I anticipate the same objections this time so would like to offer an alternative wording that takes the previous discussion into account and offers a compromise.
I have added a few sources, is that a correct way to do so? If so, I will try to include the rest within 24 hours. --Tyulyasho (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Tyulyasho
Comment: Having read over some of the sources that Tyulasho offers for their preferred options, I'm concerned that there may be a degree of distortion and WP:SYNTH involved.
Levkulych's 2016 essay, for example, is offered as evidence of Bort's Ukrainian nationality. His essay, however, explores whether the composer's music "belongs to Ukrainian or Russian music culture", not his nationality/ethnicity. What little touches upon the latter reaffirms that the composer was a Russian national ("German musicologist and critic Walter Niemann wrote about S. Bortkiewicz, as about the Germanized Russian, thus emphasizing the merger in the works of the composer's features inherent in both Russian and European musical tradition") and that Kharkov at the time of his birth was Russian ("Even foreign musicians of that time, noted the presence in the composer's musical language the coloring which is inherent music of south-western region of the Russian Empire, i.e. the territory of modern Ukraine.").
More concerning are quotations which do not indicate to a reader that material has been omitted by way of ellipses. One of them is this passage, which appears to unequivocally designate Bort exclusively as a product of Ukrainian culture:
In accordance with the criteria set out in the definition of "national identity" in the beginning, it can be said that S. Bortkiewicz is really representative of the Ukrainian culture. S.Bortkiewicz has made a significant contribution to the development of national art, creating outstanding examples of Ukrainian musical romanticism of the first half of the twentieth century.
But the unedited passage says (with previously omitted passages underlined):
In accordance with the criteria set out in the definition of "national identity" in the beginning, it can be said that S. Bortkiewicz is really representative of the Ukrainian culture, whose work is full of the influence of contemporary Russian and European culture, and individual creative style of the composer based on the continuation of traditions European romanticism. Given all the above, we claim that S. Bortkiewicz has made a significant contribution to the development of national art, creating outstanding examples of Ukrainian musical romanticism of the first half of the twentieth century.
Read in full, Levkulych acknowledges Bort's art as cosmopolitan and an important contribution to musical nationalism, but is ambiguous as to whose it mainly contributed to; its use of the word "claim" suggesting that even this may not be definitive. He seems to imply that Bort's music was important to Russian and Ukrainian music, a view made clearer in a preceding passage:
We believe that S. Bortkiewicz can be included to the category of artists, who continue their work in the tradition of the Romantic era. His music is full of the influence of Russian-Ukrainian musical culture, in the bosom of which from birth formed the creative personality of the musician. The unique musical fusion of creativity S. Bortkiewicz manifested in the fact that he almost did not use folk tunes, relying solely on his own imagination, which is on a subconscious level, carried the folk melody... So, from the very moment of his birth S. Bortkiewicz was influenced by a number of different in style and national aspirations of cultures: Ukrainian folk culture, as well as Russian and European professional music cultures. As for the nature of his talent composer synthesizing type S. Bortkiewicz in his work harmoniously unites the best artistic elements of the musical language of Western European, Russian and Ukrainian cultures.
I'd go over more of the sources in detail, but it's very late right now over where I'm at. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Tenth statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
User:Tyulyasho - Why do we need both Option 3 and Option 4? The only difference between them is whether it says that he is considered a Romantic composer, but no one doubts that his music is in the Romantic tradition.
User:CurryTime7-24 and others - The draft RFC is at Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz/RFC on Ethnicity. I will publish it after we are satisfied with it.
Are there any other questions or comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Tenth statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
It is Ukrainian versus Ukrainian-born, as it has been a point of contention in the past while evaluating sources, Ukrainian vs Ukrainian born seemed like a very critical point for the editors. May I remove Romantic for RFC but still leave option 4 as Ukrainian-born? --Tyulyasho (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Tyulyasho
Eleventh statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
I have inserted Romantic into options 3 and 4 so that the only difference is Ukrainian or Ukrainian-born. I have removed the signatures from the options, which were probably inserted by a new feature or misfeature that is trying to be smart.
I will review the RFC one more time for neutrality before publishing it, and may include language to clarify the difference between option 3 and option 4.
Are there any other questions or comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Eleventh statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
A recurring issue with the Bort debate, including in the draft RfC, is possible misrepresentation or WP:SYNTH of sources, and the quality of the sources themselves. One that Tyulasho cited for the RfC seems to be from a children's musical primer. It makes no sense, at least to me, how such a source can be considered as being of equal weight to the work of two seemingly unbiased Bort scholars who have researched his nationality and identity specifically. Another instance, prior to this moderated discussion, occurred with the Johnson thesis, which was initially cited to support that subject was Ukrainian. It was only after study of the thesis determined that it actually said he was Russian that "Bort is Ukrainian" editors suddenly found fault with it and how it cited Bort's personal writings. I had raised some of these concerns earlier in this discussion, but have yet to hear a response from the moderator. Aside from these issues, I have no further questions. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
After reading editor Curry Time7-24 eleventh statement, I have examined WP:SYNTH page and believe that the editor’s use of the two scholarly papers for RFC 1 may conflict with the rule to “do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.”
There is not a single scholarly source that refers to Bortkiewicz as a Russian composer. Jeremiah Johnson interprets composer’s Russian affiliations and sentiments but stops short of calling him a Russian composer. Moreover, he presents certain facts and ideas that contradict his statement that composer considered himself Russian, such as:
- Page 26
Russians considered him Polish, because of his mother’s heritage and
- Page 90
Another relevant future endeavor would be to analyze Bortkiewicz’s Symphony No. 1 in D Major, Op. 52 “Aus Meiner Heimat” in accordance with the Ukrainian musical elements as laid out by Soroker. Since the inscription to the symphony reads “from my homeland,” it is highly likely that Ukrainian folk elements are present in the work.
Author admits that in the work titled “from my homeland” Ukrainian elements are highly likely to be present and that Russians did not consider Bortkiewitcz Russian but Polish. Perhaps these conflicting statements lead the author to introduce the composer to the reader as ”the late Romantic composer, Sergei Bortkiewicz” and not Russian composer Sergei Bortkieiwcz.
Similarly, Chihiro Ishioka introduces the composer as: “Sergei Bortkiewicz was a pianist and composer who performed and composed mainly in Vienna during the first half of the 20th century.” Again not a Russian composer but just “pianist and composer”.--Tyulyasho (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Tyulyasho
Twelfth statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
One editor writes: I had raised some of these concerns earlier in this discussion, but have yet to hear a response from the moderator.
I do not plan to rule on the quality of sources used to support any statement as to his nationality. In this RFC, the community will decide what to say about his nationality, and preliminary arguments about sources to be cited in the RFC are a waste of your time. I didn't think that it was necessary to load up the RFC with sources, and I don't think that it is necessary to argue in advance about the value of sources going into the RFC.
Are there any more questions that are not distractions about sources? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Twelfth statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
I don't have any questions.--Tyulyasho (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Tyulyasho
Now I'm confused. You asked us for sources to use in the RfC. Now it seems you found fault that we "loaded" it with them. If there is something wrong, please just say that and identify the problems so we can fix them. I understand that moderating this discussion can be an exasperating process and, believe me, I appreciate your work and patience here, but please give us direction if we need it. If you're also annoyed by my repeated questions about synthesis and quality of sources, I apologize, but having never been in a discussion like this before, I thought these matters were relevant. You will understand, I hope, why one would think so. To be honest, I still don't quite understand why they're not.
Tyulasho's tendency to synthesize and misrepresent their (and others') sources was already apparent at Bort's talk page. |
If the RfC is going to go out like this, warts and all, that is concerning. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Thirteenth statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
User:CurryTime7-24 - I see that I was inconsistent in my comments about sources. I did say that the consensus had been that the nationality or ethnicity of subjects of biographies should be what is provided in reliable sources, and so those should be provided. I also mostly said that we should not worry too much about sources. I can see that that might have caused confusion, for which I apologize. I will try to resolve that. Sources are required that specify his nationality or ethnicity. However, I am not planning to assess the quality of sources. The RFC will be decided by the community, and you or any other editor may raise issues about the quality of sources. Also, for the purpose of this RFC, or another RFC on nationality, it is my opinion that popular culture sources may be used, because the underlying question is what people think is the nationality of the subject.
User:CurryTime7-24 - Do you have any other specific issues with the draft RFC? You are expressing the concern that the draft RFC has warts. What do you think the warts are? Where do you think that liquid nitrogen is required?
Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Thirteenth statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
The "warts" were the synthesis/misrepresentation issues in the citations and the slanted wording of the supporting points for the "Ukraine" options; which are stated as fact, but are at least arguable. I'm thinking especially of the statements that begin with "The most comprehensive and wide range of research on the composer comes from Ukraine" and "Reflects a worldwide practice". —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Fourteenth statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
User:CurryTime7-24 - You may tweak the Pros and Cons if you think that they are non-neutral. Use liquid nitrogen carefully to remove warts. It should be used boldly only when fighting a fire, and we don't have a fire.
User:CurryTime7-24 - Do you have any other specific issues with the draft RFC?
Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Fourteenth statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
Nah, no need for liquid nitrogen, but please do feel free to apply some Clearasil if you feel it can help. I'd rather not touch anything since I don't want my actions to be misinterpreted. No other questions. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Fifteenth statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
The Pros for Option C are too long and detailed. Please trim them down. If they aren't trimmed by the participating editors, I will trim them, but I would prefer to let the participating editors do that.
I would like to get the wording of the RFC finalized so that we can publish it, so please tweak it as appropriate.
Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Fifteenth statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
I have trimmed the option C --Tyulyasho (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Tyulyasho
I object to Tyulasho's comment appended to the supporting arguments for my RfC options. I have striven to maintain good faith and, despite moderator's invitation to amend the RfC for neutrality, I have neither modified mine, Tyulasho's, nor even undermined their preferred choices. All I did was appeal to the moderator over the quality of their sources and raised concerns about potential synthesis/misrepresentation. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Sixteenth statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
I have created a new version of the RFC which takes out the Pros and Cons, so that there will be no arguing over the content of the RFC. The arguing can be done in the Discussion when the RFC is published. The revised RFC is at Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz/RFC on Nationality . You may each edit the RFC to include one or two sources verifying the one-sentence statement.
Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Sixteenth statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
Since Option 1 mentions two nationalities and an ethnicity, should I cite sources for all those, or just the one stating subject was Russian? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Seventeenth statement by moderator (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
User:CurryTime7-24 - That option states three facts, so please provide a source for each of the three facts. Thank you for asking.
Are there any other questions?
Seventeenth statements by editors (Sergei Bortkiewicz)
None. I will add the sources tomorrow. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 07:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Jonathan Hatami
Closed. The editors have not discussed the article on the article talk page, only on a user talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful, but is not a substitute for discussion on the article talk page. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Discuss on the article talk page. If discussion is inconclusive, a new case can be filed here after 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Horst Wessel
Closed as being decided by an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Khitan (circumcision)
Closed as not appearing to be a content dispute. The issue cited by the filing party is that the other editor has a problem with competency in English. That is not a content issue and cannot be decided or discussed here. I will be inquiring at the Village Pump as to what if any forum should used to discuss a problem caused by inadequate command of English. (Also, the filing editor did not notify the other editor, but the other editor has found this discussion and has replied to it.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:FTSE 100 Index
Closed. There are three problems with this case. First, the filing unregistered editor has not listed or notified the other editors. Saying that there are "a handful of others" is not sufficient because that does not notify them on their talk pages. Second, this is a request about categories. DRN is for article content disputes, not category disputes. Third, the filing unregistered editor has been blocked for making too many requests to registered editors. When they come off block, they can create an account and create the category, which is always a good idea for unregistered editors who are experiencing limitations due to being unregistered. Privacy is not a reason against registering, since an account can be pseudonymous. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
nurse practitioner
Closed as declined. The other editor has not responded to this filing except by filing an SPI. Continue or resume discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Tunisians
Closed. There hasn't been content discussion on the article talk page, and extended inconclusive content discussion is required prior to DRN. Also, the filing editor has also opened a thread at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. Also, this appears to be an issue about a user rather than content of an article. Either discuss the article at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, or read the boomerang essay and report the user at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
La Salida
Closed as pending in another forum. The non-filing editor has filed a report at WP:ANI about conduct, which is actively being discussed at this time. Discussion should continue at WP:ANI. If that discussion concludes that this is a content dispute, questions about sources can be opened at the Reliable Source Noticeboard, or a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Sam Altman
Closed as pending in another forum. This is a dispute about a biography of a living person and is being discussed at the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard. Discuss at BLPN. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
File:Honey Mariah Carey Single.png
Closed as also pending in a conduct forum, and reported to a conduct forum after DRN Rule A was posted, saying not to report the dispute at another forum. Discuss the slow-motion edit-warring at WP:AN. If WP:AN says that this is a content dispute, resolve the content dispute with a Third Opinion or RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|