Summary of dispute by The boss 1904

TrainTrash has previously voiced an issue they have with the page by pointing out how there was not enough clarity in stating that the characters featuring likenesses of the two dead actors are not "acted" by them, claiming that my edit was insinuating that the actors were playing the characters themselves; however, my edit originally had included footnotes to clarify that the characters in question use the likeness of one actor and are voiced by another, all neatly formatted. TrainTrash's edits did not visibly improve upon my original format, which led to the original dispute.

The current new dispute is TrainTrash wishing to dedicate an entire section in the page to focus on the so-called "Tupac Controversy", of which I do not believe has become significant enough to warrant extensive coverage on the page at this time. I feel TrainTrash's approach to this topic has been largely biased, because their edit does not approach this topic from a neutral point of view, choosing to only point out the negative reactions and commentaries from Western outlets, while brushing off other sources such as community sentiment, including both Western and Japanese ones. Their edit also neglects discussing the inclusion of Bunta Sugawara, which further shows the bias being displayed, even though the articles I previously sourced in the page had sufficiently discussed both Sugawara and Tupac's inclusions. The boss 1904 (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TrainTrash

I added a "controversy" section that summarizes critics and journalists reaction to the inclusion of Tupac's likeness to the game (not Bunta Sugawara, Western critics have not discussed him much). My edit has been contested by both other editors, and removed in full, though I don't know their specific objections (besides the belief that its unfair to the game or out of proportion) as we've jumped right to dispute resolution.

The reason for this is they are annoyed with me after a previous topic (months ago) on the talk page: the "original" issue was a rather circular discussion on how best to format the cast list (I was in favor of spelling out the information in footnotes in the body of the text on the basis that a likeness of dead person is not a "cast member."). That debate had petered out. (The boss 1904 put in for a dispute resolution but did not notify me on my talk page; I am not familiar enough with Wikipedia to keep up on all aspects and so it was closed.) Only myself and The boss 1904 were involved in that dispute, other editors long disinterested.

This seems to have colored their views on my edit and their accusation of bias, but I have no issues with trying to reflect a variety of views (including positive ones) on this issue. In their summary, The boss 1904 says that I have brushed off "community sentiment" but provided no sources and since we've just jumped straight to dispute resolution I have not had an opportunity to ask them what they feel should be included (I'd be more than happy to have more positive critical sentiment in in the text, this is what I could find).

Stranger Than Heaven discussion

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Stranger Than Heaven)

Is there an article content dispute? Will each editor please state concisely whether they want to make any changes to the article that another editor does not want to make, or whether they think that another editor wants to make changes to the article that they do not want? If there is an article content dispute, we will begin moderated discussion.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

As previously stated by The boss 1904, the issue is the overemphasis of the casting of the character Amaru, with his likeness based on Tupac, by TrainTrash, which is indeed an article content dispute. The boss 1904 wanted to put focus on the game itself through edits that he had done, while TrainTrash wanted a dedicated section and/or further emphasis regarding Tupac's likeness as casting.

The edits done by TrainTrash appear biased and detracted from the core article and content of the page. Beyond the initial discourse surrounding the decision, there is no such development nor "controversy" surrounding his inclusion in the months following the announcement. TrainTrash's insistence on pursuing this matter also ignored the use of the late Bunta Sugawara's likeness in the game, which is done in a similar fashion to Tupac. For me personally, the issue regarding TrainTrash edits lie in the creation of a dedication segment for Tupac's inclusion, which detracts from the discussion, but also not large enough to be a "controversy" warranting its creation.

TrainTrash's reasoning in the editor statement is also slightly disingenuous, because according to the Talk page and history log of edits on Stranger Than Heaven, said edit regarding character credits has already been done accordingly and already matches recent standards set in individual game pages within the Yakuza franchise in Wikipedia (character name (actor name/voice actor name (if applies))), but simplified to avoid confusion, on top of clarification within the development section of the game. The issue began to surface when TrainTrash insistently tried to put focus on Tupac's inclusion, which started the dispute between the two parties.

For that reason, I issued this dispute resolution request, as the previous dispute was not resolved properly between the two parties, and the current new dispute between me and TrainTrash still has ties related to the previous unresolved dispute. DarryLaz (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Stranger Than Heaven)

The key issue I have, as I have stated in my initial summary, is that TrainTrash's approach to coverage of the Tupac likeness usage within the videogame in question appears biased, leaning toward associating the subject matter with negative outlooks. Their edits do not seem interested in elaborating upon the developers' statements, but rather more focused on what Western outlets think of the inclusion. Simple Google searches would inform you that the sentiment is not shared across the board, and at best you can say that there's a notable divide in how people feel about this inclusion (e.g. this article which details some fan comments: https://parade.com/entertainment/tupac-character-stranger-than-heaven-video-game-fans-mixed-reactions).

I recognize that the inclusion of such a public figure as Tupac Shakur in a video game would spark some sort of debate, so I have been keeping watch of the situation to see how it evolves, before deciding whether to cover it in more details. Months have passed, and I have yet to see the topic being discussed any further beyond the initial reaction, which signifies to me that it is not yet a big enough deal. As I have also mentioned, things could change down the line, with more information coming out or even upon release and reviews begin to appear. At that point, I would gladly revisit the subject matter and debate once again whether it is really a noteworthy controversy, or just temporary outrage from a loud minority.

TrainTrash's previous edits also insinuate that there is an "ethical concern" regarding the usage of Tupac's likeness in the video game, to which I would like to counter that it comes off as inherently biased if you say there's a concern with one dead person's likeness being used (Tupac) but not the other dead person (Bunta Sugawara). Their last edit wiped almost all elaborations on Sugawara's likeness and how the developers chose to approach including him in their game, instead wording it to focus exclusively on Tupac, which I believe would be considered a serious omission of facts.

In short, I am against including mentions of the "Tupac controversy" because I am not yet convinced that it is an actual controversy. The boss 1904 (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

The 1st dispute was the cast list: I wanted to format it as "Genzo Iwaki (voiced by Takashi Ukaji / likeness of Bunta Sugawara) and "Amaru (likeness of Tupac Shakur)" rather than how it reads now: "Genzo Iwaki (Bunta Sugawara/Takashi Ukaji)" and "Amaru (Tupac Shakur)" with a footnote containing more information. It is a minor thing, but I think it's worth being very specific here (especially considering the reaction to Tupac's likeness being used). Neither Tupac or Bunta Sugawara is staring in this game: their likeness are being used. Both other editors are in opposition.

The actual edit that prompted this dispute resolution (which we really have not adequately discussed on the talk page but which I am happy to have a moderated discussion if that's what's desired by the other editors) was my edit here. I expanded the original text about Tupac's likeness being featured in the game to a "controversy" section, as their are a large number of journalists and critics who felt the choice was gauche. The original text says that RGG "anticipated criticism" of the choice and has their response to it, but not the criticism itself, which makes it rather one-sided. Both other editors are opposed to this section in its entirety. TrainTrash (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer (Stranger Than Heaven)

I forgot to say to be civil and concise, because the answers have not been concise. Please read DRN Rule A, and we will proceed as if this is an article content dispute. The purpose of moderated discussion at DRN is to improve the article. We are not here to talk about the other editors, only about the article. Please state, in one paragraph, what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what another editor wants to change that you want to leave alone.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

As previously stated, I believe the edits done by The boss 1904 are already sufficient and clear enough in covering most of the information related to the game, and that adding a main section regarding the supposed "controversial" use of a specific person's likeness is unnecessary. Therefore, I am in agreement to leave the content present as is in the article today to be maintained. DarryLaz (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Stranger Than Heaven)

To keep it as short as possible and to the point: I do not wish to have a dedicated section in the article about a "Tupac controversy". A few sentences acknowledging it is the most I'm willing to go for it, but otherwise the topic is not significant enough to warrant extensive coverage. If that should change in the future, I will revisit the topic and consider it. For now, I do not see the need. The boss 1904 (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I wish to have a section on the controversy over the use of Tupac's likeness in the game (or, if not its own section, to include substantially the same information in the "Development" section). Both other editors oppose this inclusion. I'd also like to have the cast list clearly state that its the likeness of Bunta Sugawara and Tupac Shakur that are used for certain characters, rather than relegating this info to footnotes (Each other editor no longer lists this 2nd dispute in their most recent summery. If they no longer wish to discuss it we can set it aside in the interest of making this more straightforward). TrainTrash (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer (Stranger Than Heaven)

It appears that either the main issue or the only issue is that one editor wishes to add a section about the controversy about the inclusion of the late Tupac Shakur. Are there any other issues? Is the controversy in particular about the paragraphs that were added on 14 September twice and then removed? Will each editor please make a one-paragraph statement explaining why they think that the addition or the removal of the section is consistent with balance and due weight. If there is no agreement, it will be necessary to run a Request for Comments.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Stranger Than Heaven)

As I have previously stated, the choice to dedicate a large section of the page about the "controversy" is premature, as the topic had not yet warranted such coverage. At best, there are mixed views on the inclusion of Tupac in the game, and there isn't a majority consensus as to whether people are for or against it. To even label this topic a "controversy" and give it extensive coverage would be, IMO, giving it undue weight at the time of this writing. The boss 1904 (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

My edit gives due weight to the issue: a number of critics and journalists in the included sources all describe a controversy and all have pretty strong opinions about the controversy in question. The existing page (without my edit) also references this controversy, but only has the game developer's response, which is unbalanced. The other editor says that there's a greater mix of opinions about the issue, which I am happy to include (w/ sources). I'm also happy to take feedback on any aspect of the edit (length, if should be its own section or just a paragraph on "Development," ect.), but the information itself is not "premature." TrainTrash (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Third statement by volunteer (Stranger Than Heaven)

It appears that a Request for Comments about the addition of a section on the Tupac Shakur is needed. I am asking User:TrainTrash to prepare a sandbox page containing the proposed text of the section so that I can formulate the RFC about whether to add it to the article.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Stranger Than Heaven)

As previously stated, I believe the edits done by The boss 1904 are already sufficient and clear enough in covering most of the information related to the game, including the decision to include the likenesses of Shakur and Sugawara and its justification, in line as well with other games using similar likenesses, such as the recent Onimusha game. What TrainTrash intends to do is putting more focus on Shakur in a what I percieve as biased manner compared to Sugawara in the same game. While I do not mind to resolve this in RfC, perhaps a middle ground can be achieved given TrainTrash has opened up the possibility of flexibility allowing both perspectives of The boss 1904 and TrainTrash to coexist DarryLaz (talk)

I've never participated in this process before, but my impression that an RFC is for bigger issues and something that could avoided by facilitating discussion here. The boss 1904, while they say they are opposed to the section, also lists their more specific issues (that there are positive responses to the inclusion of Tupac's likeness, that the length is too long, ect.) that could be a good start for any changes to my edit that they wish to see if prompted or guided by a moderator. DarryLaz, who started the DRN, similarly now has just said they are willing to find common ground on including my edit, but perhaps shifting the emphasis.

I can whip up a sandbox page if necessary, but is it really your estimation that we are at such a standstill? (Again, I'm new to all of this and thank you for your time and experience).TrainTrash (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with the RfC process so I will leave it up to people more knowledgeable than me to handle this, but I do think it might be necessary to have more inputs beyond the people who are currently present in this conversation, as there might be too much disagreement on how everyone wants to move forward with this topic. I am open to all possible avenues in how we resolve this situation though. The boss 1904 (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Fourth statement by volunteer (Stranger Than Heaven)

Either we can prepare an RFC, or the editors can engage in back-and-forth discussion. It appeared that one editor wanted a section on the Tupac Shakur controversy and two others did not. The inclusion or exclusion of a section is the sort of dispute that can be resolved by RFC. RFCs are not exclusively used for larger controversies. On the other hand, it now appears that the editors may be ready to discuss. If the editors want back-and-forth discussion, I will open a section for back-and-forth discussion. It has been my experience that if a section is opened for back-and-forth discussion, and the discussion is inconclusive, it is then often difficult to resume moderated discussion. So I am asking whether the editors think that back-and-forth discussion is likely to resolve the issue. Do you want me to open a section for back-and-forth discussion, or do we want to develop an RFC?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:55, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Stranger Than Heaven)

I would be in favor of discussion: I really am happy to make changes and take feedback on my edit: this DRN case was created, perhaps a bit hastily, on the notion that I was engaging in disruptive editing (and I think they just wanted some sort of judge to agree), but given the last couple replies have teased out what changes they might want to see, I'm happy to discuss further. In particular, if it's the creation of a new section that's the primary objection I'd be fine with these sources being integrated into the "Development" section, it does not necessarily need its own section. If the other editors wish to have back-and-forth discussion we can start there. TrainTrash (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

As Robert has stated, an RFC might be necessary to resolve this matter quicker, as I believe we need more inputs from other parties other than the original editors in order to avoid another potential dispute (which is why the DRN was requested in the first place). So I would prefer an RFC in this case. The boss 1904 (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

In that case I've made a sandbox edit of what I'd like to add to the page, with some further changes based on this discussion. Based off comments made here and the further edits that have been made to the page by @The boss 1904 during this DRN case, I think the objections (other than that it's all unacceptable) are that the text is too long, that a separate section is unnecessary and that I didn't account for "fan reception" or reception to the inclusion of Bunta Sugawara's likeness (the later is hard to chart with English sources but alluded to by Masayoshi Yokoyama in an interview). All of these are fine points and I have tried to take them into account here. TrainTrash (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

While I would rather wait until an RFC gets actually made (because, again, more opinions besides my own would be welcome), I'm going to provide some feedback on what I've seen in your Sandbox so far:

1. The opening paragraph change is not needed right now. It's still leaning toward one specific opinion and does not truly reflect the mixed reception to the inclusion.

2. We're not changing how the actors are listed in the Premise section. We've gone over this the last time already, the edits do not meaningfully improve the stylistic presentation of the page as is.

3. You're using too many direct quotes. This, IMO, leads to the page appearing biased in how it presents its information, as you're choosing to highlight specific view points and neglect others (e.g. fan reception being reduced to just one sentence versus numerous quotes from commentators). Most of the information here can be summarized in one or two sentences to give a basic overview of the sentiments. Preferably, if this topic gets brought up again in post-release reviews, then there might be a need to feature more direct quotes as part of said reviews if they choose to focus on this topic. The boss 1904 (talk) 02:43, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Fifth statement by volunteer (Stranger Than Heaven)

Do we want to work toward an RFC, or do the editors want to engage in back-and-forth discussion? TrainTrash has provided a sandbox that contains the version of the article that they would like to approve, which is useful, but what I would actually like to see is a sandbox containing only the material that they want added to the article, not the proposed final article. If the editors want to engage in back-and-forth discussion, I can either close this case, or put this case on hold. Do the editors want to engage in back-and-forth discussion, in which case my moderation may not be necessary, or do we want to work toward an RFC?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:14, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors (Stranger Than Heaven)

Yes, I would like to see an RFC be made. As I have stated previously, I would like to see a wider range of opinions to better inform everyone's final decision regarding this matter. The boss 1904 (talk) 07:40, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of discussion but as @The boss 1904 does not, working toward an RFC is the next best option. I have updated my sandbox to contain only the proposed additions: A new paragraph in "Development" with information about the controversy surrounding the game's use of a digital likeness of Tupac, a new sentence in the lead to reflect this controversy, and a minor edit to the formatting of the cast list in "Premise" to make clear that the characters of Genzo Iwaki and Amaru will utilize the digital likenesses of deceased men (I've bolded the latter two: I don't know how you want this. Thank you for your patience).

The formatting of the cast list is a minor thing, and its something seemingly only me and @The boss 1904 care about, but if we are going to have an RFC, I would also like to include it, as it relates to the controversy over the use of the likenesses (and it seems to me important to be deliberate about this given the reception to the use of the likenesses). TrainTrash (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Sixth statement by mediator (Stranger Than Heaven)

I was starting to prepare the draft RFC, but I have at least two questions. There is a reference to the formatting of the cast list. What is the issue about the formatting of the cast list? Where exactly is there a cast list? Also, I may be having difficulty reading the sandbox, but it doesn't appear to me to be an addition to the article.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors (Stranger Than Heaven)

In regards to the cast list dispute, this was an issue that I attempted to start a request for dispute resolution months ago. The aforementioned dispute was about how actor credits are listed in the Premise section of the page.

The current style being used for cast credit in the page is "Character name (Actor name)". In the case of the two characters Genzo Iwaki and Amaru, they use the likenesses of Bunta Sugawara and Tupac Shakur respectively, alongside another actor providing the voice for them. So in this case, the names are listed as "Character name (Likeness actor name/Voice actor name)", followed by an ending footnote to explain each actor's role.

TrainTrash, however, took issue with this format, and wanted to change the format to "Character name (likeness of actor A/voiced by actor B)", because according to them, my edit wasn't making it clear enough that Sugawara and Tupac were only involved as digital likenesses and not actually acting a role in the game. I objected to this change because it did not meaningfully improve the readability of the section or the clarity of the information being presented. The boss 1904 (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I may be having difficulty reading the sandbox, but it doesn't appear to me to be an addition to the article.

The main edit is the text in "Development" with the the reception to the use of Shakur's likeness (and briefly Sugawara's, based on feedback from the other editors, though there's not much in Western sources). It's no longer a new section (I tried to take feedback as best I could and edited down what I had), but I think neither other editor wants any of my edits in the article as they believe they make too much of the controversy. I am also adding a sentence (which I've bolded) in the lead to reference this controversy.

What is the issue about the formatting of the cast list? Where exactly is there a cast list?

I have also made a minor edit to the list of characters in "Premise" (also bolded, nothing else is changing) to make clear that digital likenesses of deceased men are used to portray two characters (rather than relegating this to footnotes).

I know these things are meant to be concise: I basically want to include the response to the game's use of Tupac's likeness and make clear that Bunta Sugawara and Tupac Shakur are dead and not living cast members (irrespective of how the game may be promoted). TrainTrash (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Seventh statement by volunteer (Stranger Than Heaven)

At this point, I am not sure that I know what each editor wants. So I am going to start over with my opening question. I would like each editor to tell me exactly what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave unchanged in the article that another editor wants to change. +

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Seventh statements by editors (Stranger Than Heaven)

I want to put in the article what I have in the sandbox: the text in "Development" goes over the reception/controversy over the use of Tupac's likeness with better balance, accuracy and sourcing than the page as it exists (which minimizes the controversy, omits journalists/critic's reactions to the announcement and is also inaccurate in some other aspects). I also wish to reference this controversy in the lead (one sentence bolded).

The other proposed edit, also bolded, clarifies that Tupac Shakur and Bunta Sugawara are not living actors in the body of the text rather than using footnotes for the same information (which I think is silly: it's critical information and important to state, rather than mimic the game's marketing).

Neither of the other editors want to add or change anything on the existing page. The_boss_1904 has continued to edit the page as it relates to this topic as they see fit and I assume at this point, that nearly any edit I wish to make to the page will be rejected by both other editors.TrainTrash (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I have repeatedly rejected TrainTrash's edits regarding the Tupac topic because their edits lean too heavily into emphasizing a topic that overshadows the primary contents of the page itself (which is about the game), lacks representation of opposing viewpoints and, as previously stated, does not meaningfully improve the page's readability or clarity of the information being presented. Considering the constant disagreement we have over this topic, I do not believe we can continue to have discussions about it without going in circles, hence an RFC might be needed so we have other points of view being provided to resolve the matter. I recognize that I might be biased in this matter as well, but I am trying my best to monitor the Tupac situation to gauge how much emphasis should be put on said topic, and I do not think it is significant enough at this time to warrant such extensive coverage. Hence, an RFC may be necessary. The boss 1904 (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Eighth statement by volunteer (Stranger Than Heaven)

I am, still or again, having some difficulty in determining exactly what User:TrainTrash wants to add to the existing article. Do you have a sandbox that contains only what you want to add to the article? If not, do you have a sandbox that shows what you want the article to be?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Eighth statements by editors (Stranger Than Heaven)

I mirrored the current page and then applied my edits: here is the comparison. This is exactly what my edit would change (not much).TrainTrash (talk) 05:30, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Ninth statement by volunteer (Stranger Than Heaven)

The amount of text that is in dispute seems to have contracted. Does TrainTrash still want to add one paragraph to the article? Do the other editors still disagree with the addition? If there is still a content disagreement and if there is still an impasse on the content disagreement, I will develop an RFC.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Ninth statements by editors (Stranger Than Heaven)

As previously stated, I believe an RFC is the best choice moving forward, as I still do not agree with most of the content change being proposed. The boss 1904 (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I want to add exactly what is in that edit comparison. It is smaller (along with some other changes), as I did my best to take feedback from each other editor based on what was said on this page. If the other editors still disagree with this change then there is still an impasse and you should develop an RFC. TrainTrash (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Tenth statement by volunteer (Stranger Than Heaven)

I have created a draft RFC at Talk:Stranger Than Heaven/RFC on Additions. Please review the draft RFC and comment on whether it asks the question that we want to ask. Please do not vote in the draft RFC, and please do not comment in the RFC. Please provide your comments about the draft RFC here, in DRN. When there is agreement on the wording of the RFC, I will launch it, at which time you are invited to vote in it.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Tenth statements by editors (Stranger Than Heaven)

Should context be given in the RFC as to why the additions are being proposed, and why they are being rejected? Or is that something that me and other editors are supposed to elaborate when people actually engage with the RFC? The boss 1904 (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Eleventh statement by volunteer (Stranger Than Heaven)

An editor has asked a reasonable question, which is whether context or reasoning should be provided. So I have added two sections to the RFC before the Survey, one for the reasoning for Yes, and one for the reasoning for No. Please edit the RFC to add no more than 300 words of the reasoning. You will then be allowed to engage in back-and-forth discussion in the Discussion section, but I think that including the reasoning in the RFC will be helpful. The revised draft RFC is at Talk:Stranger Than Heaven/RFC on Additions. You are asked to add arguments for and against in the sections for the purpose. Do not make other changes to the draft RFC.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Eleventh statements by editors (Stranger Than Heaven)

I have done my best to provide a rational for the edit. Feel free to edit it further if this is not quite what you were looking for. TrainTrash (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I have provided my rationale against the proposed edit. I have no further questions at this time. The boss 1904 (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by WriterArtistDC

When I proposed this dispute resolution on September first, I was willing and able to participate. However, for at least the next week this may not be possible. It should be noted that I continued to improve the article, so the talk page issues may have been addressed. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: Since I was not made aware of the NOR noticeboard posting, I took the absence of any action as an end to the talk page dispute, and made significant changes to the article between Sept. 9 and 13.

WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

While I continue to be preoccupied by real life, this is a brief response to the dispute. On August 14, Paprikaiser made a series of deletions to the article without discussion or explanation, only edit summaries that did not explain the deletion. Observing "Assume Good Faith" I did not revert them but reviewed each; keeping some, reverting others, and doing research to improve the content to correct the problem. Not satisfied, Paprikaiser indicated that an edit war might be preferable to leaving the article as it was. I replied that dispute resolution was the only option.

There seems to be no understanding that WP has no rules, but guidelines that are the beginning, not the end of a discussion on improving WP content. This is perplexing, as this understanding must have existed for this user in order to have contributed so much to WP in the past. I could speculate as to why this article has come under such scrutiny, including an AfD, but that would be pointless.

These are some of the deletions made, and my response:

1. A reference to an English film in an archive that included a full transcript of the activity depicted. My edit merely stated the facts relevant to the article. The edit summary for the deletion was only "WP:OR" with no explanation of how cited content can be original research, so I reverted the deletion. The film is a primary source. The OR section WP:Primary is not always WP:Synth states - "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Photographs and films are primary sources in this sense; it shows that something happened, but makes no statement of the meaning or interpretation beyond what any viewer would understand. In some cases there are textural sources referring to the same facts, giving additional support.
2. A c.1950 photo of children in a kibbutzim bathing nude outdoors and a citation supporting this as a common practice at the time; both photo and text were deleted with the edit summary "Removed unsupported content". This was reverted.
3. The entire section on Islam was rewritten, improving it, with an edit summary "Updated content according to reference". I might have checked "Thank" but refrained.
4. A paragraph in the section "Late 19th and early 20th centuries" included the fact that LIFE magazine in the early 20th century used photos of nude boys swimming and showering (discretely posed) to illustrate text, noting that today such images would be eroticized. Another correct use of a primary source, this content has not been restored.
5. In the section "Precolonial and colonial eras" a statement about Native American children was removed along with the citation supporting it. The edit summary was again "Removed unsupported content" This has been restored with a better summary from the same source.

It becomes clear that instead of seeking to improve WP by working together to fix content issues, a decision has been made to remove content without discussion or valid justification.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Paprikaiser

Please feel free to relocate this comment if necessary, I am unsure if creating this section is appropriate.

WriterArtistDC's interpretation of the events is dishonest. I removed material providing plenty of reasons in my edit summaries, such as WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:OFFTOPIC, WP:V, etc. Anyone is able to scroll down on the edit history and check by themselves. I also didn't say I preferred an edit war; in fact, I went out of my way to try to reason with WriterArtistDC, and never once did I try to remove again the material that was restored, despite the constant stalling. I haven't edited the page since that day. And I am not obligated to open a discussion to remove material that doesn't comply with our policies; per WP:BURDEN, the responsibility of demonstrating policy compliance lies on the editor restoring disputed material. In the original discussion I provided plenty of reasons as to why the material was inappropriate. I will briefly quote myself.

• A source describing an historical depiction where children happen to be naked is not automatically a source about childhood nudity as an encyclopedic subject. Merely referencing a film's scene without the source explicitly analyzing or discussing it in the context of childhood nudity makes its inclusion off-topic, and relies on editor choice to decide what counts as a relevant instance. Unless a secondary source explicitly connects this specific film to the broader topic of childhood nudity, including it constitutes WP:SYNTH.
• The kibbutzim content and picture are not supported by the source. In the article, the section asserts that this practice was done with the intention of promoting gender equality, but the source explicitly states the ideological rationale was sexual purity and de-eroticization, specifically the belief that physical closeness would reduce sexual desire and encourage abstinence by making peers view one another as siblings. Taking a policy specific to the HaShomer HaTza’ir Shomria school and framing it as a blanket statement about Israeli kibbutzim overgeneralizes the source in violation of WP:SYNTH. And because this work is an educational history focused on kibbutz pedagogy and collective upbringing, pulling out a passing detail about communal showering remains off-topic under WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:DUE. This interpretation of the source was also made by another uninvolved editor recently, who removed the material. WriterArtistDC restored it again, adducing that since the article was undergoing a review, the content should remain as it is. I disagree with that interpretation, as material violating policy should not be kept for any reason. But once again, I refrained from enforcing this to avoid an edit war.
• The LIFE content remains in the article. Citing a single LIFE issue cannot verify a broad claim that the magazine routinely published photographs of naked boys. Using a primary source to assert editorial trends without a secondary source doing so is pure WP:OR. A second LIFE source used quotes a boy calling waiting in line an example of democracy and calls the showers a melting pot; it does not state that nudity itself was symbolic of social equality, which is what the section does. It also fails to mention that this is a quote from a child.
• In the Precolonial and colonial eras section, content was removed precisely because the source did not support it, exactly as the summary mentioned it. The original sentence said In warm weather, Native American children might not wear clothing until puberty. with the source not mentioning this at all. Considering that the sentence was not restored and the source was used to support an entirely different sentence, this indicates that my interpretation was correct.

I am also getting sick of the consistent bad faith interpretation of my behavior as is it clear that I have been extremely patient while dealing with this, abstaining from restoring material and seeking external input in not one but two noticeboards. In the original discussion, WriterArtistDC has made jabs at me implying that because I !voted to delete the article in the unsuscessful AfD, I am unfit to improve it ("The only valid option is unbiased participation. I have observed the guideline "assume good faith" in having any discussion with an editor who recently voted to delete the entire article with little discussion by "redirecting", whatever that might mean in this case. I assume not a merge into, or that would have been suggested.") or that my concerns are not about the content but about them in particular ("This discussion has passed the point of meaningful resolution, and has moved from issues of content and guidelines to speculation about motives"). I will wait for an impartial review of the content. Paprikaiser (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Childhood nudity discussion

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Childhood nudity)

I have a two-part question about whether assistance is being requested and can be provided. First, is there an article content dispute? Will each editor please state concisely whether they want to make any changes to the article that another editor does not want to make, or whether they think that another editor wants to make changes to the article that they do not want? If there is an article content dispute, we will begin moderated discussion. Second, is there a request for third-party review of the article and changes to the article. If both editors request third-party review, I am ready to review the article.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, another voice is welcome. WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

There is an article content dispute, I want to remove material that in my opinion is not supported by the sources it is citing, or does not belong in the article. WriterArtistDC wants to keep it, although no justification has been provided as to why the material complies with our policies. The article has been edited and new material has been added since then, but the specific issues I highlighted remain untouched. I was clear in the talk page discussion that it was useless to keep participating at that point. Per WP:NOTSILENCE, that cannot be construed as an implicit agreement. I would welcome a third-party review. Paprikaiser (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Childhood nudity)

First statement by volunteer (Childhood nudity)

It appears that both editors are asking for a third-party review. I don't have a standard set of rules for a third-party review, so, for now, please read DRN Rule X. I will ask each editor what parts of the article they want commented on, which probably means the parts of the article that have been edited. Please be concise in describing what you want reviewed, even if the text that you want reviewed is lengthy.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Childhood nudity)

@Robert McClenon: Thank you for following up. I would appreciate a focus on the specific sections where I have identified issues or attempted corrections:

• Cultural differences (Introduction, England, France, Israel, Japan, United States>Precolonial and colonial eras)
• Depictions (In fine art, In popular media)

The material in these sections either fails to accurately reflect the cited sources (violating WP:V or WP:SYNTH), constitutes WP:OR, or falls under WP:OFFTOPIC. I can go into specifics for each section, although I have already outlined concrete examples both here and in the talk page discussion. Please let me know if you would like me to detail them further and I'll be happy to oblige. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I have explained the inclusion of the content targeted for deletion many times on the article talk page and above. In particular there is a quotation from the OR page about Primary sources not being SYNTH, which applies to content involving photos, film and artwork. Yet no counter-argument is made, "violated" guidelines merely being pointed to by name rather than explanations of how they apply to particular cases. Oddly, one subsection that continues to be deleted, Childhood_nudity#Israel, is one of the best supported by a photo and an academic book: Balberg, Mira (2024). "Here on Earth: A History of the Kibbutz". eScholarship. San Diego, California: UC San Diego. Retrieved 2026-08-18.. Rather than suggesting alternate wording for this content, it is deleted. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer (Childhood nudity)

I have reviewed the exchange in somewhat more detail than earlier, though not in depth. I see that another previously uninvolved editor, User:FeydHuxtable, has offered some thoughts. It appears that User:FeydHuxtable has more experience with the subject matter than I do. I am inviting and encouraging them to take part in this discussion, either to provide the third-party opinion that is being requested, or to provide another opinion that I will review, in which case my review will be a fourth-party review. User:FyedHuxtable - Are you ready to provide the third-party review, or do you want to provide another opinion that I will review?

I am reminding the editors to be civil and to assume good faith. The discussion has mostly been collaborative, but there have been minor lapses, so we need to remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise.

I will be reviewing the sections of the article in more detail again.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:

Since User:FeydHuxtable made an edit to Childhood nudity removing the same well-sourced section on Israel that I have referred to above, and then responded on the talk page regarding my reversion of that edit pending the outcome of this review using condescending language regarding me, and support for Paprikaiser, I could not accept any review of the article by FeydHuxtable as a valid third party decision. WriterArtistDC (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

There are no questions on my end. Thanks for the reminder, I will do my best to follow your advice. And I would appreciate additional input by FeydHuxtable, if they feel comfortable doing it. Paprikaiser (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Childhood nudity)

Third statement by moderator (Childhood nudity)

I have reviewed the history of the article, and I see that there has been considerable editing of the article, so that it has had different versions, including changes to the cultural differences section and the depictions section. So what I want to know is whether there is a version in the history of the article that represents the version that each editor prefers. Am I being asked to compare one editor's preferred version against another editor's preferred version? If so, can I be given links to the preferred versions?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I am not unhappy with the current version, but would seek only to clarify WP guidelines in order to continue to improve the content; in particular:

1. Content supported by reliable sources should not be deleted without an open discussion to reach a consensus. Pointing out a guideline is not sufficient, guidelines are not rules. There has never been consensus building discussion on the content of the Israel section, it is just deleted.
2. Primary is not SYNTH: A reliable primary source is correctly used to establish nothing more or less than what is states or depicts.

WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

When reviewing the page, I updated some content based on the references used, whenever they could support some connection to the main topic (for example here, here, here and here). For content that was not supported, I removed it, and that is the core of this disagreement. The removal was reverted and the content remains on the page. For more detail:

• Cultural differences
  • England (diff)
  • Israel (diff)
  • United States
    • Precolonial and colonial eras (diff)
• Depictions
  • In fine art (diff)
  • In popular media (diff)

For France, it was never mentioned in the original discussion, but some of its content is unsupported. For Japan, I mentioned in the AfD discussion how the section spends almost its entire length detailing general Japanese bathing culture, Shinto and Buddhist purification concepts, and the history of public bathhouses from the Tokugawa era onward, none of which address childhood nudity as a topic in their cited sources. Only the last sentence has some connection to the topic.

Lastly, two things: clearly, my point is that the highlighted content is not actually supported by sources. The Israel section was removed twice, by me and an uninvolved editor, for this reason. A detailed explanation was provided in both cases as to why the source did not support it. And the use of primary sources can be appropriate sometimes. But taking a single issue of a magazine that has pictures of naked boys and asserting in wikivoice that they regularly published them, based on that single issue, or mentioning a film based on its synopsis saying that some naked children were filmed, are not good examples of appropriate usage. There are a lot of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS throughout the page. I am also confused by the last couple of edits, one including the England section, when the reason provided for the last revert in the Israel section was that the entire page was under review and thus shouldn't be edited. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Childhood nudity)

When reviewing the page, I updated some content based on the references used, whenever they could support some connection to the main topic ... For content that was not supported, I removed it, and that is the core of this disagreement.

This describes a process of edit or delete, but ignores the actual process by which articles with contentious topics are improved; consensus building. The first barrier to consensus is failing to add a talk page comment when making a substantial edit. Building consensus means explaining why the change was made. The second barrier is deleting content entirely, which removes the possibility of consensus building and fails to recognize that Wikipedia is a work in progress. I only delete obvious vandalism without comment, otherwise I add an edit tag, which alerts all WP editors, who may join the discussion.

In this dispute, several times I have reverted the removal of the Israel section which contains a photo relevant to the topic and a reference to an academic source on the practice of communal child-rearing in Kibbutzim. The edit summary used for this deletion, as with several others, is "Removed unsupported content", which is preposterous. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

This is the source for the Israel section:

Balberg, Mira (2024). "Here on Earth: A History of the Kibbutz". eScholarship. San Diego, California: UC San Diego. Retrieved 18 August 2026.

This is the full citation: “There was no gender-based separation in Shomria. Boys and girls lived together, four in a room, and they showered together...As with everything else, there was an ideology behind this decision. In HaShomer HaTza’ir, which heralded sexual purity as one of the commandments that its members should live by (alongside abstinence from alcohol and tobacco), it was assumed that normalizing and naturalizing nudity and physical closeness among peers of opposite sexes would de-eroticize the relationship and actually lead to abstinence. A boy and a girl who live together and shower together would consider each other like brother and sister and would be steered away from sexual fantasies or interactions. Some of those who were raised this way say that the experiment was widely successful—so successful that they later had difficulty forming intimate relationships with anyone and became sexually and emotionally stunted. Others say that this experiment failed entirely and that these educational institutions were sexual pressure cookers where erotic escapades, wanted and unwanted, took place all the time.” (Balberg, 2024, pp. 48-49)

This is my proposed paraphrasing: Unrelated boys and girls lived together and showered together in Shomria, based upon the belief nudity would cease to be erotic, as with siblings. Individuals later reported conflicting results, some finding communal nudity made it hard to form intimate relationships later in life, others that sexual behavior had been frequent. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

* In popular media section

The two LIFE magazine articles were used as examples:

Current text: "For example, Life routinely published modestly posed photographs of nude boys to illustrate articles on American life. (LIFE|1940) A photograph of nude boys in a communal shower from a 1941 article on high schools included a caption indicating a perception of male communal nudity as symbolic of social equality.(LIFE|1941)"

This could be reworded to remove the generalization:

Life published modestly posed photographs of nude boys to illustrate articles on American life. In 1940 the article on the Olneyville Boys Club swimming pool was illustrated by photographs of sixty boys of various ages, all nude.(LIFE|1940) A 1941 article on high schools included a photograph of nude boys in a communal shower.(LIFE|1941)

The 1940 issue could also be used in the section on Late 19th and early 20th centuries to illustrate nude swimming in US indoor pools; while the 1941 article supports the practice of communal showers in schools referenced in the Schools and recreation section.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: - Rather than participate in consensus building, Paprikaiser repeats demands for the deletion of content that either has been modified by me already in response to their suggestions, or could be modified as I have suggested in this section. Many other demands are based upon the refusal to recognize the valid use of primary sources as specified in the guideline WP:Primary item #3. All of the images, films, and firsthand reportage establish nothing more or less than being an example of the topic of this article at a particular time and place, with no conclusion stated or implied.

A persistent issue is the refusal to either accept, or suggest alternate content for the Israel section, as I do above, which is based upon an academic source which is not the same as I used originally. Nudity as part of communal child rearing is clearly established.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator (Childhood nudity)

We don't appear to be making progress. One of the reasons appears to be that there are multiple different areas in which there are disagreements, including kibbutzim in Israel, and the United States in the twentieth century, and France and Japan. I had said that I was willing to compare different versions and comment on them, which would mean that each editor would have to provide me with a link for the version of the article that they want. I can only compare versions if each editor has a preferred version, not if the versions keep changing. So if two editors will provide me with different versions of the same section, I can compare them and comment. I don't think that we are there, but I am still willing to try, if each editor will give me a version that I can view and review. Alternatively, we can identify one particular area that we want to work on, and defer issues on other areas. If each editor will name two areas that they want to work on, then I will see if there is one area that both editors want to work on. Does each editor have any links to preferred versions? Or does each editor want to name two areas that they are willing to work on?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:14, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Above in "Third statements by editors" I have proposed changes to the Israel section and the In popular media section. WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Childhood nudity)

@Robert McClenon: My preferred version for the disputed sections is simply the text with the non-compliant material removed. You can see this contrast by comparing the current live revision against the deletions I linked in my previous statement. To answer your question and go into detail regarding the specific issues in each section:

• England: the current version says A 1940s film is of an outing for Scouts and Girl Guides in which boys to the age of about ten play nude in a small river, while older boys and all girls are dressed. A source describing an historical depiction where children happen to be naked is not automatically a source about childhood nudity as an encyclopedic subject. Merely referencing a film's scene without the source explicitly analyzing or discussing it in the context of childhood nudity makes its inclusion off-topic, and relies on editor choice to decide what counts as a relevant instance. Unless a secondary source explicitly connects this specific film to the broader topic of childhood nudity, including it constitutes WP:SYNTH.
• Israel: the current version says the practice of living and showering together was done with the intention of promoting gender equality but the source explicitly states the ideological rationale was sexual purity and de-eroticization, specifically the belief that physical closeness would reduce sexual desire and encourage abstinence by making peers view one another as siblings. Taking a policy specific to the HaShomer HaTza’ir Shomria school and framing it as a blanket statement about Israeli kibbutzim overgeneralizes the source in violation of WP:SYNTH. The source is an educational history focused on kibbutz pedagogy and collective upbringing, so pulling out a passing detail about communal showering remains off-topic, and does not make the source a study, analysis, or commentary about childhood nudity. I am not the only editor who thinks this, as FeydHuxtable has shared additional commentary on the talk page.
• Precolonial and colonial eras: the source does not mention the topic at all. Current version in the article says The beliefs of early colonists in America varied based upon religion. The Puritans viewed complete nudity, even in private for bathing, as immodest, and limited hygiene to washing the hands, face and regularly changing undergarments. In New England bathing remained uncommon until the 18th century. but the source explicitly states that avoiding full-body bathing was universal across the 17th-century Western world and across social classes. The current paragraph lacks any reference to childhood, relies on an off-topic source about bathing history, and mischaracterizes the source's findings.
• In fine art: the current version says In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, impressionist painters depicted everyday life, which included scenes of nude toddlers or older children swimming and playing. John Singer Sargent's painting of Neapolitan Children Bathing was done based upon sketches done while traveling.[80] Mary Cassatt (1844–1926) often painted domestic scenes, in particular mothers and children, the youngest being nude. The first sentence is WP:OR. The sources are descriptions of paintings with brief details about the painters. They do not evaluate the topic of the article at all. This is the same issue as the description of a random film in the England section. Cassatt's biography doesn't even mention children being nude, it simply says she made a specialty of the mother and child theme. I assume the conclusion that most, or all? of the children were naked is made by the editor observing the paintings included in the source, even though half of the children were clothed in them. A piece of media showing children without clothes does not necessarily make it a source about childhood nudity as a topic. You need a secondary source to make that connection.
• In popular media: the current version says For example, Life routinely published modestly posed photographs of nude boys to illustrate articles on American life.[85] A photograph of nude boys in a communal shower from a 1941 article on high schools included a caption indicating a perception of male communal nudity as symbolic of social equality.[86] Citing a single Life issue cannot verify a broad claim that the magazine routinely published photographs of naked or half naked boys. Using a primary source to assert editorial trends without a secondary source doing so is plain WP:OR. And the second source (86) quotes a boy calling waiting in line an example of democracy and the showers a melting pot; he does not state that nudity itself was symbolic of social equality, and even if he did, that is not coming from the magazine itself. I fail to see how the topic of the article is being covered here. This is, again, a passing or incidental mention in media that does not analyze the topic as such.

To help narrow our focus, I am willing to defer the France and Japan sections for now so they can be addressed later. My request is for the above sections to be analyzed to determine if my rationale for deletion is correct and if so, for the non-compliant material to be removed. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator (Childhood nudity)

We still don't appear to be making any progress. Perhaps I forgot to tell the editors that we are working under DRN Rule D, and that they should read DRN Rule D and the description of gender and sexuality as a contentious topic.

I have been thinking of failing this discussion, without assigning blame, because it appears that no progress is being made, and the editors do not appear to be listening to my instructions, and we are not successfully defining the disagreement in order to work on it. When I say to be civil and concise, I am not asking for a detailed page-long description of the issues, and I am not asking you to comment on the statement that the other editor has made. I have been repeatedly asking for concise summaries and getting walls of text. Before I can try to mediate a dispute, I need to know concisely what the dispute is. I have now given up on trying to provide third-party review, because I have given up on getting a concise description of the disagreement.

I will remind both editors that DRN is voluntary, and that there are other ways of resolving disputes, including Arbitration Enforcement. Either editor may withdraw from this discussion, in which case we will go back to discussion at the article talk page. Read the boomerang essay before filing a report at WP:ANI or at Arbitration Enforcement.

But I think that we may have one last chance to define the disagreement, even if it is not concise. I now see that one editor says that what they really want is to leave all of their additions in the article, and what the other editor really wants is to remove those additions. So the disagreement is about additions that User:WriterArtistDC has made, and that User:Paprikaiser wants to remove. At this point, having spent two weeks trying to get the parties to specify what they wanted third-party review of, I am no longer ready to provide third-party review. I am ready to work to define the scope of the additions by WriterArtistDC, in preparation for a possible RFC on whether to keep or remove the additions.

One editor says that they are ready to defer the France and Japan sections. I think that means that they are ready to work on the popular media and Israel sections. So I will ask each editor what version of these sections they want to leave in the article. I think that this means that WriterArtistDC can specify the current sections including their additions, and that Paprikaiser can provide shorter sections, not including the additions.

Are the editors ready to provide links to the versions that they want?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors (Childhood nudity)

The current article contains no recent "additions" by me, but reversions of some of the deletions made by Paprikaiser beginning in August with no prior discussion. Some of this content has been part of the article for a long time, including through a GA review. I have presented here my own revisions as the starting points for consensus building, to no avail. The dispute is ultimately about assuming good faith, content disputes being the result of failing to do so. When two editors have such fundamental differences, some form of arbitration is likely necessary. The article in its current state is acceptable until then.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

The current article contains additions made by WriterArtistDC that I deleted for failing to comply with our policies. Removal under those terms does not need to be negotiated beforehand; per WP:BURDEN, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. This is all of the material I want removed. I hope that is easier to understand. Paprikaiser (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Half sentences are often false; this is the whole: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing one inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." When the latter condition is met, it is removal that requires negotiation.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

I will only say this once. Anyone reviewing the original discussion can see that I have repeatedly detailed specific policy failures, explaining why the sources used were either misquoted, misapplied, or failed to support the text as framed, while your responses have simply pointed back to the existence of a source without addressing those critiques.

Here you argue that primary sources are valid for straightforward, descriptive statements of fact; but my criticism is not that the content is not supported by the source, but that the source is wrongly used. Just because a film or photo happens to depict children without clothes does not make it a source about "childhood nudity" as an encyclopedic topic.

Regarding the Israel paragraph, another editor and I have already pointed out how and why the text is not supported by the provided source. After weeks, you have proposed a slight change in wording, but the underlying issue remains. Taking a policy specific to the HaShomer HaTza’ir Shomria school and framing it as a blanket statement about Israeli kibbutzim overgeneralizes the text in violation of WP:SYNTH. Cosmetic rewording does not make off-topic material fit for the article.

Passing details about children and nudity does not mean the source addresses the topic of childhood nudity. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator (Childhood nudity)

Paprikaiser has identified four items that they think should be deleted, one sentence from the England section, one paragraph from the Israel section, one paragraph from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries section, and one portion of a paragraph in the In Popular Culture section. I think that I will be proceeding on two paths. First, I am asking Paprikaiser to state why they think that the additions should be removed, and am asking WriterArtistDC to state why they think that the items should be retained. Second, I will start work on a possible four-part RFC.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors (Childhood nudity)

• England: a source describing an historical depiction where children happen to be naked is not automatically a source about childhood nudity as an encyclopedic subject. If this were an article about the film, then the use of a primary source to describe the film would be fine. But merely referencing a scene without the source explicitly analyzing or discussing it in the context of childhood nudity makes its inclusion off-topic. Unless a secondary source explicitly connects this specific film to the topic, including it constitutes WP:SYNTH.
• Israel: the current text states that communal showering was done with the intention of promoting gender equality, but the source explicitly states the ideological rationale was sexual purity and de-eroticization. The source describes a single policy specific to one kibbutz; plucking an isolated observation about communal living in one kibbutz and inserting it here is pure WP:SYNTH. WriterArtistDC's proposed rewording suffers from the same issue: a source mentioning children and nudity in passing does not make it a source about childhood nudity as an encyclopedic topic.
• Precolonial and colonial eras: the highlighted paragraph lacks any reference to childhood, relies on an off-topic source about general bathing history, and mischaracterizes its findings; the source explicitly states that avoiding full-body bathing was universal across the 17th-century Western world and across social classes.
• In fine art: the opening sentence of the highlighted paragraph is WP:OR. The sources are basic descriptions of paintings with brief details about the artists, not evaluations of childhood nudity. Cassatt's biography does not even mention children being nude; it simply states she made a specialty of the mother and child theme. Asserting that the depicted children were nude relies on editor interpretation, especially when half of the children in that source are clothed. An artwork showing children without clothes does not necessarily make it a source about childhood nudity as a topic; we need a secondary source making that connection.
• In popular media: citing a single Life issue cannot verify a broad claim that the magazine routinely published photographs of naked or half naked boys; using a primary source to assert editorial trends is plain WP:OR. The second sentence is also unsupported; the cited source quotes a student calling waiting in line an example of democracy and the showers a melting pot, but does not state that nudity itself symbolized social equality. This is another passing mention that fails to analyze the topic as such.

I welcome an RfC on these points if necessary. Thank you. Paprikaiser (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

While I have responded to the individual items, the real issue moving forward is whether the content of Childhood nudity or any other controversial topic should be determined by individual editors who delete without seeking consensus. This means tagging, not removing disputed content, image or text.

1) England

As a primary source, the film has the same status as a photograph, showing behavior relevant to the article topic at a particular time and place. It joins images in the gallery "Early 20th Century England", providing visual information as specified by the image use policy:

The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article.

The text in the England section begins with a citation from Visual Anthropolgist David MacDougall that establishes the importance of visual imagery in conveying the meaning of childhood nudity in a culture. While the two images in the gallery depict childhood nudity in the limited context of progressive education and naturism. The film depicts behavior in a more mainstream context, scouting, and a slightly later date, post-WWII; providing the most relevant information.

2) Israel

Although the example I cite is a single kibbutz, the source also refers to Hashomer Hatzair, the youth movement that is the basis for many other kibbutzim. This should be clarified.

3) Precolonial and colonial eras

The issue is whether references citing social norms apply to children. In this case the Puritan norm is extreme modesty, which goes beyond similar beliefs of Western society in general.

4) In fine art

Once again: The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter...

The deletion of images in this section removed information needed to understand the paintings mentioned in the textural citations. Text and images together support the inclusion of Cassatt and other painters. If free to do so, I would restore the image gallery with works mentioned in the text.

5) In popular media

The two LIFE magazine articles were used as examples:

Current text: "For example, Life routinely published modestly posed photographs of nude boys to illustrate articles on American life. A photograph of nude boys in a communal shower from a 1941 article on high schools included a caption indicating a perception of male communal nudity as symbolic of social equality."

These could be reworded to remove the generalization, leaving the plain fact:

Life published photographs of nude boys to illustrate articles. In 1940 the article on the Olneyville Boys Club swimming pool was illustrated by photographs of sixty boys of various ages, all nude. A 1941 article on high schools included a photograph of nude boys in a communal shower.

These references could also be moved to add details to other sections; the 1940 issue used in the section on Late 19th and early 20th centuries to illustrate nude swimming in US indoor pools; while the 1941 article supports the practice of communal showers in schools referenced in the Schools and recreation section.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 11:34, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Seventh statement by moderator (Childhood nudity)

The discussion above focuses on five sections of the article. I have created a draft RFC for review and discussion, at Talk:Childhood nudity/RFC on certain sections. I don't see the questioned material on a kibbutz in Israel. I have not reviewed the history in detail to determine whether the questioned section was removed before this discussion started. So I have only included four sections in the draft RFC. I will include a section E on Israel if the editors can specify what is proposed either to be deleted or to be added.

Please do not vote in the draft RFC at this time, because it is only a draft. Please do not write comments about the draft RFC in the draft RFC itself. Comments about the draft RFC should be made here, in this DRN discussion. Also, since we are planning to resolve the questions by RFC, it will be useful to add France and Japan to the RFC before it is launched.

Are there any comments or questions about the draft RFC?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Seventh statements by editors (Childhood nudity)

I have decided that rather than wasting time in another review of the content as indicated in the draft RFC, I will not participate. My only suggestion is that editors read The Seven Rules of Trust and decide if they are building an encyclopedia, or not.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

My proposal for the Israel section is to remove it entirely. The article originally had different content that I removed here; WriterArtistDC reverted my removal and changed the section a bit, with the last edit (corresponding to the current version) here.

For France, after reviewing, it I think it should be deleted. The section focuses entirely on a 2014 political controversy started by a conservative party leader attacking a children's book, which depicted people of all ages naked. The book itself is not a study or representation of childhood nudity as a subject. Even the opposition to it was part of a broader backlash against school equality programs, not about depictions of childhood nudity.

For Japan, I think that on its current form, the section should also be deleted. The vast majority of it details general Japanese bathing history, Shinto/Buddhist concepts of purification, and Tokugawa-era bathhouses, none of which address or analyze childhood nudity as an encyclopedic topic. The single sentence touching on modern parent-child co-bathing relies on a viral lifestyle blog that as such is inadequate for broad sociological assertions. In short, the historical text is off-topic padding and the single relevant claim relies on an unreliable source.

Both sections have been removed in my sandbox here.

I don't have any other questions. Thank you. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Eighth statement by moderator (Childhood nudity)

User:WriterArtistDC writes: I have decided that rather than wasting time in another review of the content as indicated in the draft RFC, I will not participate. Does that mean that they are withdrawing from this DRN, in which case I will close the case, or does that mean only that they will not participate in the drafting of the RFC? If it is the former, I will close this case. If it is the latter, I will review the RFC and continue this discussion.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I am not dropping out of the DRN, but do not see the dispute as one resolved by votes on the inclusion of a few paragraphs. I stated the problem in Third statements by editors (Childhood nudity), which has gone unaddressed. I can not honestly vote Keep or Delete when I have already proposed alternate wording for this content. WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Eighth statements (Childhood nudity)

Ninth statement by moderator (Childhood nudity)

WriterArtistDC writes: I can not honestly vote Keep or Delete when I have already proposed alternate wording for this content. I stated the problem in Third statements by editors (Childhood nudity), which has gone unaddressed. I see that WriterArtistDC proposed alternate wording for the In popular media section and the Israel section. Are those revisions acceptable to Paprikaiser? If not, I will rework the RFC to provide a choice of rewording or removal.

There hasn't been an alternative wording proposed for the England, Colonial Era, and In fine art sections. Are those sections of the RFC ready to be submitted to the community? If so, should I split the RFC into at least two parts, one about England, Colonial Era, and In fine art, and submit it to the community while we are working on Israel and In popular media?

I have suggested alternate wording, or explained why current wording should be kept, at other points in the discussion. I can collect and repeat them if necessary.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Ninth statements by editors (Childhood nudity)

No, the proposed revisions are not acceptable. Cosmetic changes in phrasing do not resolve the underlying policy issues regarding how these sources are being used.

For the Israel section, the source describes a specific, experimental communal living policy at a single kibbutz. A passing detail about communal living in a book about kibbutz history does not make the work a secondary analysis of childhood nudity as an encyclopedic subject, making its inclusion off-topic and WP:SYNTH.

For the popular media section, removing the word "routinely" does not fix the WP:OR issue. Primary sources are still being pulled directly to assert a broad editorial trend. Citing an issue of a magazine that contains photos of boys at a pool or in a shower to make assertions, without a reliable secondary source explicitly analyzing its coverage of childhood nudity, is plain WP:SYNTH and a trivial mention. Just because a source depicts unclothed children does not turn it into a reliable secondary source about childhood nudity as a topic.

Even though I believe these proposed versions are inadequate, I am fine with waiting for WriterArtistDC to present alternative wordings for the remaining sections so they can all be included. My main goal is to gather community input. I do believe a single RfC will be more effective by keeping the community's focus undivided, so my first choice would be not to split it. Paprikaiser (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Tenth statement by moderator (Childhood nudity)

As suggested by Paprikaiser, we will develop one RFC and submit it to the community at once. Since we are working to develop one RFC, should we also address France and Japan? Are the sections of the RFC on England, Colonial Era, and In fine art in final form to go to the community? Is WriterArtistDC ready to provide alternate wording on Israel and 'In popular media?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

What's the rush? Consensus building at best can be a slow process. My suggestions for alternate wording where made two weeks ago, and are only now being addressed. WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Tenth statements by editors (Childhood nudity)

I posted my revision of the Israel section on October 4th. Here it is again, with minor update:

Unrelated boys and girls lived together and showered together in Shomria and other kibbutzim influenced by the ideology of Hashomer Hatzair. One belief was that nudity would cease to be erotic, as with siblings. Individuals later reported conflicting results, some finding communal nudity made it hard to form intimate relationships later in life, others that sexual behavior had been frequent.(Balberg, 2024, pp. 48-49)

New revision:

• In popular media

The two LIFE magazine articles could be reworded to remove the generalization:

Life published modestly posed photographs of nude boys to illustrate articles on American life. In 1940 the article on the Olneyville Boys Club swimming pool was illustrated by photographs of sixty boys of various ages, all nude. (LIFE|1940) A 1941 article on high schools included a photograph of nude boys in a communal shower.(LIFE|1941)

Another alternative would be to move these items, with appropriate rewording, to illustrate other sections:

The 1940 issue could also be used in the section on Late 19th and early 20th centuries to illustrate nude swimming in US indoor pools; while the 1941 article supports the practice of communal showers in schools referenced in the Schools and recreation section.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

• Fine Art

A new source for Mary Cassatt: Broude, Norma (2000). "Mary Cassatt: Modern Woman or the Cult of True Womanhood?". Woman's Art Journal. 21 (2). Old City Publishing, Inc.: 36–43. doi:10.2307/1358749. ISSN 0270-7993. JSTOR 1358749. Retrieved 2026-10-19.

Mary Cassatt painted many children nude with mothers, such as The Caress (1902). This was not simply as a domestic subject but to participate in the high art tradition of portraying the unclad figure, which was generally denied to female artists.(Broude, 2000)

The image of "The Caress" would also be added, in a gallery along with images of the other paintings mentioned in this section--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2026 (UTC).

Just noting for the record that I think all of these new versions are still lacking. I have explained above my reasoning regarding Israel and the popular media sections.

For the fine art section, the proposed wording is unsupported by the new source. The source states that Cassatt sometimes portrayed seductive, Michelangelesque babies in works like The Caress; the proposed text overgeneralizes this to claim she painted many children nude. While the source notes that the broader subject of mothers and children was at first apparently resisted, then later embraced by Cassatt, it says nothing about clothing or nudity across those works in general. And relying on an image gallery of some of her paintings to push the assertion that she frequently depicted naked children would constitute WP:OR. These works are framed as providing one of the few gaps of possibility through which Cassatt navigated her professional identity, rather than asserting that they were not simply a domestic subject. And while the source does mention the high art tradition of the nude and describes these depictions as giving Cassatt the only respectable access to the unclad figure, it attributes this context to her individual career as an upper-class female artist, rather than making the broad, generalized claim that this was generally denied to female artists.

Even if the text were rephrased to strictly match the source, it remains WP:OFFTOPIC. Broude's analysis focuses on how Cassatt used these subjects to develop professionally and navigate the art scene, making a point about her career strategy; it is not a sociological or cultural examination of childhood nudity as an encyclopedic topic. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I will begin with the last point, being "Off Topic". A WP article has a topic, and each section has a sub-topic. The fine art section has the topic of childhood nudity in fine art, and is encyclopedic in citing an academic source, the Woman's Art Journal. The source states that Cassatt painted nude children, giving The Caress as an example. It is the source that refers to this as a common theme, not of domestic life but "portrayed seductive, Michelangelesque babies" as a way of participating in a major fine art theme which women artists of her era were denied, being barred access to nude figure classes. This which was not made explicit because this would be common knowledge to readers of this journal.

The reference to an image gallery was misread, I said that the gallery would contain the works mentioned in the entire section, as it previously did. WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Asserting that access to nude figure classes was generally denied to female artists as a universal premise, and that this was omitted because it was common knowledge to readers of this journal is a textbook example of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. This kind of reasoning permeates the disputed content. This is an encyclopedia, and as such its articles must reflect what sources explicitly state rather than relying on assumed background knowledge.

And a source examining why a specific painter utilized mother-and-child compositions to navigate professional hurdles and bourgeois social expectations remains off-topic for an encyclopedic overview of childhood nudity as a subject. The source points to The Caress as a specific example on one level where a baby is naked, but it treats this as a subset of her broader and highly successful production of mother-and-child paintings, not as an independent recurring theme of childhood nudity. Paprikaiser (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

This is the text being cited:

On one level, in the surprisingly seductive and even Michelangelesque babies sometimes portrayed by Cassatt in their mothers' arms (1), for example, The Caress (1902), we may be seeing, in a guarded and limited form, this artist's only respectable access to the unclad figure and to the high art tradition of the nude.(2)" (Broude 2000, page 39)

Which is paraphrased as:

Mary Cassatt painted many children nude with mothers, such as The Caress (1902).(1) This was not simply as a domestic subject but to participate in the high art tradition of portraying the unclad figure, which was generally denied to female artists.(2)

(1) is a reference to multiple paintings of nude babies

(2) is a reference to female exclusion from the nude figure as a subject

What would the alternative phrasing be? WriterArtistDC (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Eleventh statement by moderator (Childhood nudity)

I think that there is some uncertainty as to how we are trying to address this content dispute. I think that this is illustrated among other things by a statement by User:WriterArtistDC, who wrote: What's the rush? Consensus building at best can be a slow process. My suggestions for alternate wording where made two weeks ago, and are only now being addressed. There are various ways to try to arrive at consensus. Discussion is one way to build consensus. Sometimes there is an impasse between two or more editors, and a Request for Comments is necessary. DRN is normally used when discussion between the editors is not working, which is why most of the rules that we use say that back-and-forth discussion is not permitted, and that the moderator asks the questions, and the editors address the moderator and the community. I wrote, earlier, that we are working under DRN Rule D. See paragraph 8 of DRN Rule D. There has been back-and-forth discussion above, perhaps because I wasn't sufficiently emphatic in saying not to engage in back-and-forth discussion. It was my understanding that we were trying to put together an RFC because discussion was not making progress. So I will ask whether the editors want to engage in back-and-forth discussion to try to reach consensus. If both editors answer yes, I will close this discussion without prejudice so that discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Childhood nudity, can resume. If neither editor or only one editor agree to back-and-forth discussion, we can continue moderated discussion as long as both editors agree that the moderator asks the questions and the editors answer. Also, if we are working under DRN Rule D, I need WriterArtistDC to provide the alternate wording for each section that is being discussed, so that the RFC can be sent to the community.

User:WriterArtistDC, User:Paprikaiser - Do you want to engage in back-and-forth discussion without a moderator, or in moderated discussion?

The last exchange Re:Cassatt is a good example of the need for moderation.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Eleventh statements by editors (Childhood nudity)

Summary of dispute by Jacobolus

The basic issue here is that there is a quite strong and consistent consensus among editors about how WP:V and WP:OR apply to media files, but Trumpetrep personally disagrees with it / won't accept it. So we have an WP:ICANTHEARYOU situation, and Trumpetrep continues to make the same (in my view entirely misguided) point over and over again, without acknowledging other people's feedback. I'll quote some of the editors who have weighed in across several different venues

@Yangchengu:

Audio files themselves serve as the source for their content; no written citation needed

---

The metadata already states "Own work", and the content itself is a direct illustration of the concept being discussed. Requiring an external published source for such self-evident audio demonstrations seems excessive. As long as the file accurately represents the described phenomenon (which can be verified by anyone listening or analyzing it), I think it has a valid place in the article, just like user-generated images.

---

You've been arguing that user-generated audio files need to come from a published reliable source to be verifiable. But Wikipedia already allows user-made diagrams and visualizations to illustrate concepts, as long as they accurately represent what they're supposed to show.

@S Marshall:

In my view you do not need a source for those files, and the user who says otherwise is mistaken.

---

Audio files containing only pitch comparisons are fundamentally dissimilar [to comparisons of statistics]. Nobody is trying to sell anything or win an election based on such a file.

We don't require editors to document how they generated a file and we have no plans to start.

---

Let's now imagine, hypothetically, that I produce media files demonstrating just intonation vs 12 equal temperament. You challenge me to explain how I produced it. Here are some examples of answers I could give you.

• It's raw sine waves, tuned and played using Audacity.
• It's a real guitar, tuned by ear and played into a microphone.
• It's a sample of a violin, pitch-shifted in Ableton.
• I generated them by typing the frequencies into onlinetonegenerator.com.

You can't check a single one of those claims with a citation. You can only test them with your ears and your knowledge. This is quite separate from WP:V. Verifiability is about making sure anyone can check a fact or claim, i.e. without any specialist knowledge.

---

Do I argue against always requiring a form of reproduction steps? Yes I do. An editor might download a CC0 sound file from someone's blog, and then upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Then the blog goes poof and nobody knows how the sound file was produced, and the editor who uploaded it vanishes. But it's a legitimate sound file that should still be usable.

---

If you've produced files illustrating just intonation and someone has told you that's OR, then my position is that the person who said that is wrong. If they want to challenge your files, they need to produce better ones.

@WhatamIdoing:

Images (and related media) are supposed to be illustrating what's already cited in the text. Therefore they do not need separate sources as a general rule.

---

Also, it's our long-standing rule that images don't have to "be" the thing; they only have to "look like" the thing they're illustrating. This allows us to have images without having debates about Is It Cake? If it looks like a rubber ducky, then that's good enough for any article that needs an illustration of a rubber ducky. We don't need a third-party certification that it's not a trompe-l'œil cupcake that's been decorated to look like a rubber ducky.

@UpTheOctave!:

So, in short, I don't think a source is required in the article itself; rather, I think that the methodology used to produce the file should be better documented.

---

The way I read [WP:OR], since concepts like just intonation and the Pythagorean comma are known, published ideas, it is not original research to create files demonstrating them.

---

It could be argued that a file's inclusion is itself a claim that the file is what it purports to be, regardless of any textual claim, but this implies that every media file must be able to be traced back to a reliable secondary source. I considered this stance myself, but I now think it's an unreasonable reading, since Wikipedia:Citing sources states that "a citation is not needed for descriptions such as alt text that are verifiable directly from the image itself, or for text that merely identifies a source."

@David Eppstein:

There needs to be space in policy for simple demonstrations of concepts such as the ones described here that are not merely copies of the same demonstrations from copyrighted material (which would likely be a copyright and fair use policy violation), because if we make our sourcing requirements so strict as to prevent those demonstrations we would likely be left with no demonstrations at all.

---

You might just as well say that all Wikipedia articles, even those with footnotes on all sentences, are original research because the only support for the claim that the footnotes verify the article content is the editor's own assertion. That way lies madness.

---

It might be possible for a knowledgeable reader to look at the source code and verify that it is generating what the image claims to be about, but I think in most cases it is far easier to look at the image. I don't think stating how an image is generated, in these cases, is very helpful for verifiability. It may be helpful for other reasons (for instance to generate variations of the image) but that is not about verifiability.

---

There may be verifiability problems on rare occasions with some media and image files.

Nevertheless they are uncommon and minor in most cases.

On the other hand, introducing demands that all media and image files be backed by reliable published sources would introduce severe content problems: it would mean we could have almost none of the non-textual content that we currently have. Most of our technical articles would be unable to have any technical illustrations, for instance, because we could not copy them from other sources (copyvio) and we could not create them ourselves (under new much stricter interpretions of what is original research.

This well-meaning but badly thought out proto-proposal needs to stop in its tracks before it causes actual damage. The cost is far out of proportion to the benefit.

@Sławomir Biały:

I think there may be a legitimate documentation problem for some media, but any change to policies and guidelines should be very narrow (if any). I worry about possible guidance being misinterpreted, either as a suggestion that code should be released for technical images (not always desirable or even possible), as a mandate to remove technical images that do not tick some formal WP:V-checkbox or delist articles for the same reason.

@North8000:

Image files contain information, which are statements. This can be content in a user generated graphic, or a statement about what the image is, amongst other things. IMO practical necessity dictates that wp:ver (and wp:NOR) can't be fully applied to these. An in-between route (and possibly what is currently common) is that when the veracity of the "statement" is challenged then it will need to at least buttressed and if not, be removed. But applying the full weight of wp:ver would create a giant mess.

@ActivelyDisinterested:

Agreed, the question isn't verification but whether an image is appropriate for an article. If it looks like a duck then it could be used it Duck. If someone challenges it because they thinks it's actual a chicken the question is whether it's appropriate to be used in the article, not whether there's a source confirming if it's a duck or chicken.

I skipped my own comments along the same lines, since they are mostly redundant with these.

All the best, –jacobolus (t) 21:09, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Just intonation discussion

Jacobus has summarized some of the feedback provided by editors in various discussions of a larger issue. The dispute in question is much more local about the sound files at "Just intonation" which do not have any sources.

The "Unsourced section" tag has been there for several months. It clearly marks all of the audio files as unsourced. In just over 24 hours, Jacobus reverted the tag 3 times. Rather than break the spirit of the three revert rule in kind, I sought this dispute resolution.

As Jacobus' summary demonstrates, most editors are applying policies about images to sound files. These are two very different media. In all of the various discussions another editor (Zlamma) has initiated on this issue, no editor has pointed to a specific policy for sound files that allows them to be user-generated without independent, reliable sources.

In the absence of such a clear policy, it doesn't seem wise to exempt audio files from Wikipedia's core requirements of verifiability. That is why the files are clearly marked as unsourced in the article. The warning to users was repeatedly removed by Jacobus. The disruptive behavior prompted this dispute resolution request. Trumpetrep (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Your summary is factually incorrect. I removed the banner, which is entirely inappropriate and contrary to extremely clear and obvious editor consensus, and then you immediately started a revert war about it.

Thankfully you stopped after 2 reverts (just shy of WP:3RR), but instead of discussing on the local talk page, or looking for consensus, your next step was to open a topic at this venue. Hopefully yet another person here can explain this to you in a way that 8–10 other people's explanations have not yet been able to achieve.

"it doesn't seem wise" – Wikipedia bases our decisions on consensus, not on what seems wise to a lone person.

"warning to users" Cf. User:Jorge Stolfi/Templates that I sorely miss

Aside: it's not hard to spell my username correctly. –jacobolus (t) 23:23, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

After Jacobolus' second reversion, I implored him to discuss the issue on the talk page. Instead of doing so, he reverted the article for a third time. Trumpetrep (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseam on no less than 5 talk pages, but I duly added another couple of comments, in response to which you have yet again repeated your same claim that you have already made about a bazillion times, which not a single other editor agrees with. –jacobolus (t) 23:34, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

One of the things that has not been clear to me in the hundreds (thousands?) of words already posted about this is:

Does whichever editor opposing these file(s) have a genuine belief that the audio files are factually wrong? Or are they accepted as being (probably/plausibly) correct, and the goal is just to have some documentation/proof of that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I can't speak for Zlamma, who has initiated the bulk of the conversation on this issue, most of which I have not read. I first asked about the rules for audio files at the Music Theory Project, which is where Zlamma took the ball and ran with it in their own inimitable way.

Yes, there are several files that were just wrong. I first noticed them in music theory articles which were overrun with original research. Entire articles would not have any sources, or a couple unreliable sources for a mountain of unsupported text. These articles often had audio files that upon close examination were inaccurate or misleading. The most problematic audio files had the least documentation to allow users to verify how it was created and why it was so wide of the mark.

The deleted "Delta scale" article is emblematic of the problem. The text was a bricolage assembled by editors with a tangential relation to actual facts. The user-generated demonstrations in the article suffered from the same defects as the article. Very little of it was verifiable information. Most of what was verifiable demonstrated that the authors of the page completely misunderstood the subject and had synthesized something entirely different. So, the page was deleted.

I do not oppose these files. My only interest has been about getting clear guidance on their usage. When a file is misleading or wrong, I am opposed to its use just as I would be opposed to any error on Wikipedia. My primary concern is conveying accurate information to users. Trumpetrep (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

If the file is misleading or wrong, you should remove it, on the basis that it is wrong. I don't think anyone has a problem with that. If you think a file might be wrong, you should start a discussion to find out if other editors agree with your assessment.

Ideally you or someone else could even replace wrong, misleading, poorly made, etc. audio demonstrations with better ones. Everyone would be happy to see that outcome.

But requiring an explicit secondary source for every audio demonstration, or more generally for every piece of supplemental media, is not practical and does not match the consensus of Wikipedians about how WP:V and WP:OR apply to supplemental media. So slapping a "this material needs sources" banner in readers' faces, applying to supplemental audio demonstrations, is an abuse of the banner template. –jacobolus (t) 17:45, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

This is a local dispute about a tag at the "Just intonation" article where there is no consensus about the audio files. Wikipedia has explicit policies about requiring sources for everything. There does not appear to be one that exempts audio files from this requirement. Trumpetrep (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Your understanding of our policy and practice is entirely different from every other editor who has weighed in on the topic, as quoted above. –jacobolus (t) 18:25, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

This dispute resolution is about one reference tag at "Just intonation". A resolution of the larger issue is not the goal of this discussion.

As for the larger issue, it is indeed possible to quote 8 editors mostly replying to Zlamma to demonstrate one particular view.

It is also possible to look at the discussions and see multiple editors agree that audio files are not covered by any specific policy and that this lacuna should be addressed.

"This interpretation seems like common sense to me, but I am synthesising a few policies and guidelines here, so may be stretching wording past its original intent." - UpTheOctave!

"Maybe in this specific case we are saved by WP:CALC but I am not sure that is true more generally for the types of demonstrations under discussion here..." – David Eppstein

"My reading of this is that we already require a provenance for each file in some level of detail, but it's just not enforced. Looking at examples like File:A Major Scale, Triads, and Fifths Just.ogg and File:A Major Scale, Triads, and Fifths Equal.ogg, most of these audio files simply give a description of what they are, and not information on how they were created (i.e. their origin). They may well be what they purport to be, but any mistakes are very hard to find without any indication of how they were produced. As such, I think it might be worth considering drafting some guidance on how to write good file descriptions for audio demonstrations." - UpTheOctave!

"I still feel an improvement to the guidelines could help (I remind that the topic's thread is whether any improvement to the guideline is warranted. While I think both sides' concerns are valid, I would suggest to make it clear when there is no contention to coming up with some guideline improvement)" - Zlamma

Trumpetrep (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Literally no single other editor supports your point of view that these audio files should be removed if not fully supported by an explicit external source. There is broad and consistent agreement that audio files should be treated (at least roughly) comparably to image files.

The eyesore banner you insist on keeping is clearly inappropriate and not reflective of the consensus of Wikipedians. I agree that minor tweaks to our policy pages could do a better job of preventing you from badly wikilawyering about this topic, which is wasting a lot of everyone's time. –jacobolus (t) 19:06, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I have not suggested "audio files should be removed if not fully supported by an explicit external source". The unsourced section tag was applied to the audio files explicitly to avoid removing them from the article. Trumpetrep (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

The entire purpose of this banner is a warning to other editors that sources must be added or content will be removed. If you don't think content should be removed, even if sources are not added, then you are abusing the template. –jacobolus (t) 19:29, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

There are two operative statements in the template. The first one that readers see is an entreaty to improve the section: "Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources." That's always the first step.

The banner was added precisely so other editors could pitch in and improve the section. I think most of my edits on Wikipedia are prompted by these banners and citation tags asking for sources. Those banners are what first alerted me to the woeful state of many of our music theory articles.

Removal is the last resort in the template. The next action mentioned is a challenge: "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."

The end result may be removal, but only after a host of possible intervening action by other editors. That's the whole point of citation tags: asking other editors for help. Trumpetrep (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

It is the clear consensus of other editors that the content of supplemental media such as these audio files is not subject to "challenge and removal" on this basis, and that our policies WP:V and WP:OR refer to the claims made in the article text, and possibly to controversial claims of facts or ideas within supplemental media (for example, a specific geographic range indicated on a map, or specific data indicated in a chart). There is no such claim in this case: these are simple audio demonstrations of the content of the article which is well supported by secondary literature.

The audio files are self-verifying, and you are welcome to test them for correctness by listening carefully or using some kind of spectral analysis tool. There are no unverifiable claims involved in the sense of WP:V, and no possible way to add sources in such a way that would satisfy you, as has been explained by several other editors, e.g. S Marshall: "You can't check a single one of those claims with a citation. You can only test them with your ears and your knowledge."

The original creator of several of these audio files is a deceased Wikipedian, so we can't ask them for further information, but there is no reason to believe that what they wrote in the file description pages is incorrect.

You are misusing the banner, and you are also not internalizing what other editors write. I feel like I am wasting my time talking to a brick wall. I might not reply further here, since it doesn't seem to be serving any purpose.

Do not add back the banner unless you demonstrate a consensus on the talk page that it is appropriate for this context. –jacobolus (t) 20:26, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

That's the whole point of this dispute resolution: to determine whether the banner should be used in the article.

Opinions expressed elsewhere about a larger issue are not a consensus about a local issue in one article. If there has been one consistent agreement in opinions on that larger issue, it is that other policies must be shoehorned in for audio files, because there is not a policy that exempts them from verification requirements. Trumpetrep (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

The invocation of S Marshall was unfamiliar. I tracked it down, and the full context gives a very different meaning to the quoted excerpt:

"Let's now imagine, hypothetically, that I produce media files demonstrating just intonation vs 12 equal temperament. You challenge me to explain how I produced it. Here are some examples of answers I could give you.

• It's raw sine waves, tuned and played using Audacity.
• It's a real guitar, tuned by ear and played into a microphone.
• It's a sample of a violin, pitch-shifted in Ableton.
• I generated them by typing the frequencies into onlinetonegenerator.com.

You can't check a single one of those claims with a citation. You can only test them with your ears and your knowledge."

What he's discussing is not the verifiability of the demonstration, but the verifiability of how it was produced.

A citation would not be required to prove that someone used raw sine waves or a violin sample. A citation would be required to prove that what is being demonstrated is accurate.

There have been frequent misrepresentations in this dispute resolution, such as the idea that there is "no possible way to add sources in such a way that would satisfy you". Selective quotations have furthered the attempt to portray something quite different from the actual substance of this dispute resolution. All quotations are selective, but it seemed worthwhile to broaden the scope of the S Marshall invocation to demonstrate how warped it was from the original context. Trumpetrep (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

furthered the attempt to portray – Please let's stay civil. –jacobolus (t) 00:11, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

That is why we're here. Trumpetrep (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand your point.

I'll let @S Marshall answer whether he thinks I have "warped" his point. It is my impression that his take on this topic is almost diametrically opposed to yours, as are the takes of most other editors I have seen discussing the topic. –jacobolus (t) 00:37, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Third party opinions help everyone gain perspective. Trumpetrep (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Hey, I'm glad that we created a DRN page for this, but let's wait for a volunteer to actually take this case so that this conversation can actually go somewhere. 「Norellia.sh」(talk) 23:37, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Just intonation)

I will be taking over this case as the DRN volunteer. @Trumpetrep, just so that I can get the facts 100% straight, would you mind explaining how you see user generated audio examples as not verifiable and as original research? What in your opinion, besides the fact that images and audio are two different types of media, makes audio files different regarding WP:V? 「Norellia.sh」(talk) 02:33, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by editors (Just intonation)

Thanks for volunteering!

To be clear, I do not see user-generated audio examples as not verifiable. The question I have asked is how can they be verified? What sources are required for user-generated audio?

The most common response to these questions have been invocations of the policies on Routine calculations and user-generated diagrams. Neither policy clearly applies to audio files. One is about mathematics. The other is about visual aids.

The audio files that populate music theory articles are sometimes attempting to document extremely technical concepts. A good example comes in the form of "File:Just vs equal.ogg". It purports to demonstrate intervals in two different tuning systems.

Looking at the file page, the creator only describes the file and the software that was used. There is nothing there to verify: No independent, verifiable source; not even source data. The only verification that the file is accurate is the creator's claims about it.

After finding several such files that were absolutely incorrect, I started asking about the policy on user-generated audio files. Zlamma has started several wide-ranging inquiries about this that yielded most of the responses quoted above, the bulk of which I hadn't seen, because I was not actively monitoring his investigations. Trumpetrep (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer (Just intonation)

Thanks for your statement, I think that provides a lot of clarity, at least on my end, to the issue. I am questioning if this is worth an WP:RfC to establish rules regarding audio files, since like you said, there currently are none. It seems that, according to statements given by Jacobolus, that there is already somewhat of a consensus on this topic from the community of editors who edit on these articles. What I think what might be needed is an expansion of WP:OI to include other forms of media. We do need to figure out a way that these media files can satisfy WP:VERIFYOR, but I do think if an RfC is started that can be established there. @Jacobolus would you mind explaining what exactly your views on these pieces of media are regarding WP:V and WP:OR, and based on your initial statement, explain what you think that a policy that covered audio files would look like in regards to WP:OI? 「Norellia.sh」(talk) 18:38, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I would recommend changing WP:OI to say "images and other supplemental media" or similar. I think a quite minimal change would be sufficient. –jacobolus (t) 18:45, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Only statement by S Marshall (Just intonation)

I don't have the resources of time or attention to participate heavily in this case and this will be my only statement.

There are two limbs to this. There's a behavioural question: has Trumpetrep taken his one-against-many stand a little too far? And there's a real policy question: how does one challenge the verifiability of a media file?

The policy question is the interesting one. This hasn't previously troubled WT:V very much. If I play the C major scale on a violin and upload it to our article on C major, people don't normally challenge me on whether that's actually a C major scale. Those interested in music tend to know.

But say someone did. How would I prove it? No mechanism exists. I could not prove to you that this file is of a C major scale. You have to use your ears and your knowledge.

The problem goes away if the challenging editor says, "No that's terrible, you've got the fingering badly wrong and some of your notes are half a semitone off. Here, I've recorded a better version." Editors can reach consensus on which file to use.

But that's not what's happened here.

Incidentally this gives us S Marshall solution A: we ask Trumpetrep to produce files that in their opinion more correctly illustrate just intonation, and then we reach consensus on which is the best to use. This would take up much less community resources than a dispute resolution or a full RFC, and so I prefer it.

But let's imagine a different case. In this example an editor uploads a recording of the cry of a wild ape. They place this recording in our article on bigfoot and say it's the mating call of a Pacific Sasquatch.

Suddenly we have a verifiability problem. We can't prove what the sound actually represents. But the fact or claim that this is a sasquatch can (per policy) be challenged. A mechanism for verifying is needed, and none exists.

In such situations policy has a kernel panic. We as a community would come together and reach consensus on whether that's a sasquatch or a baboon with a pitch filter on.

This gives us S Marshall Solution B: we hold a community RFC after all, focused on file captions.

Not files. The captions. Files aren't verifiable. What's verifiable is whether they accurately represent what they purport to represent.

Note that this isn't a problem that comes up often enough to justify editing WP:V. The outcome of the RFC should be a supplementary essay on files.

As another consideration, just intonation is about ratios. It's about the frequency with which sound waves vibrate. Unlike some other sound files, just intonation does reduce to mathematics. High school mathematics. WP:CALC is not irrelevant.

In the sound files that this is actually about, we're listening to the audio equivalent of a graph.

So this isn't the greatest example of the problems the community has with the verifiability of files. I'd rather that if we did have a community RFC about files, we discussed something like the Patterson-Gimlin film rather than just intonation. It's a better illustration of the actual problem.—S Marshall T/C 07:20, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Incidentally this gives us S Marshall solution A: we ask Trumpetrep to produce files that in their opinion more correctly illustrate just intonation, and then we reach consensus on which is the best to use. This would take up much less community resources than a dispute resolution or a full RFC, and so I prefer it.

I also endorse this solution. –jacobolus (t) 10:44, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

S Marshall's recent reply to one of these conversations exemplifies my own engagement with these discussions, "very sorry to have dropped all that without reading the things you've said".

These long and rambling discussions were initiated by a different editor. The notion that I have assumed a "one-against-many stand" misrepresents my awareness of and involvement in these conversations. Trumpetrep (talk) 10:55, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer (Just intonation)

Thank you S Marshall for your views on this conversation. I apologize for my absense since yesterday. I agree with what S Marshall said. I think that taking either one of their proposed options would be a good way to handle the situation.

@Trumpetrep, would you be willing to produce some files that show what you believe should include proper sourcing for audio files, or do you think that we should bring this up to RfC so that we can go ahead and establish a formal consensus on this? 「Norellia.sh」(talk) 21:16, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help on this issue, Norellia.sh. Yes, I do think we should bring this up to a Request for Comment in order to establish a formal consensus.

As for properly sourced audio files, I wouldn't know how to answer exactly, because I'm unclear on what proper sourcing is for audio files. The most common argument against these files needing sources was the Image use policy on user-created diagrams. That language clearly requires a source for visual demonstrations, "it is still required to include verifiability information identifying the source(s) of the original data."

The example given is the Painted Turtle Distribution alternate map which has an extremely comprehensive list of sources. Editors can clearly see where the data originates and verify the map.

It seems reasonable to apply the same requirements to audio files. Albeit, one independent, reliable source strikes me as sufficient, admirable as the bibliography for the Painted Turtle is. Trumpetrep (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I think a formal RFC sounds like a waste of time, disruptively forcing other people to jump through additional hoops, when Trumpetrep is the only editor who wants the banner. Again, cf. WP:ICANTHEARYOU. –jacobolus (t) 21:53, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

As I understood Norellia.sh's comments, the Request for Comment would not be about a single banner at the Just Intonation article. It would be about creating or applying a policy for user-generated audio files, because such a policy does not currently exist.

If I've misunderstood, and the Request for Comment is about the Just Intonation banner, then I would agree with jacobolus' opposition to using it to resolve this local dispute. My understanding of the Request for Comment process is very limited, however. I defer to editors who are more experienced on these matters. Trumpetrep (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay. As I said elsewhere, I'd recommend, as a minimal change, an edit to WP:OI to replace "images" with something like "images and other supplemental media".

Any kind of more elaborate policy change should solicit feedback from a wider audience before being workshopped. –jacobolus (t) 22:19, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Third statement by Volunteer (Just intonation)

I do think that the solution to this single issue would be a policy change. From that, we can prevent this discussion from having to be had again. I do believe that this RfC would be pretty straight forward. I do think it would be good to have a conversation with other editors about what we want this policy to look like, and if we think that the sourcing requirements need to be any different from what WP:OI already has. If both parties agree with this I can (try) to get an RfC drafted up (I've never created one before). If one of you feels like you are more comfortable to create an RfC, feel free to once both of you agree that we want to take this option. 「Norellia.sh」(talk) 22:40, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Norellia.sh! I would be happy to help with the draft in any way I can. My experience is extremely limited with the Request for Comment process.

It seems like the policies that are most commonly argued as applicable to audio files are the "Diagrams and other images" section of the "Image Use Policy" and the "Routine calculations" section of "No original research".

There is a fairly robust section in the Manual of Style about images. The most relevant section of that page for audio files appears to be "Pertinence and encyclopedic nature". It might be helpful to keep in mind for audio files. It was this guidance in particular that first struck me as I was investigating the policies about audio files: "not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting or cause undue weight: usually, less is more." Some articles were overgrown with audio files, and there often seemed to be an inverse relation to the number of user-generated audio files in the article and its quality.

As jacobolus has said, it doesn't seem like these existing policies would need to be extended much in order to apply them specifically to user-generated audio files. To quote our own manual, "less is more". The more targeted a Request for Comment is, the more likely editors will be able to reach a formal consensus. Trumpetrep (talk) Trumpetrep (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@Jacobolus does this work for you? 「Norellia.sh」(talk) 03:49, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I think the sections of WP:OR related to images can be broadened to also include other supplemental media, with relatively minor changes.

I'm not sure to what extent other help pages about images are relevant to audio. I'd be wary about trying to broaden them; it might be better to take them as inspiration to make new pages about audio specifically.

There really isn't too much guidance about creation and use of audio files in general among our documentation, but I don't feel like I have the expertise to give meaningful advice about what better general audio-related help pages should say, since I have never uploaded any audio file to Wikipedia/Wikimedia (that I remember anyway). –jacobolus (t) 03:59, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I feel like really all we would need to change is WP:OR, specifically WP:OI to include other forms of media. However, I am proposing that we use an RfC so that just in case there is anything else that we should possibly change in regards to other Wikipedia policies, as well as just getting a formal consensus so that we have a base to actually justify the changes to policy. It's also just nice to get other users to weigh in on policy as well, who might use audio on parts of the wiki not related to music. 「Norellia.sh」(talk) 17:55, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Since this dispute resolution was about one template tag at one article, I didn't want to distract things by talking about non-musical audio files. But they do exist, and as we've seen, there is no clear policy about them.

A fine example can be seen at the "Gettysburg Address" article which was a featured article and is currently graded as B-class. There is an audio file (Gettysburg by Britton) at the article which features an editor reading the speech. Verifying such a file would be extremely straightforward with an independent, reliable citation of the original text. There are examples like this all over the encyclopedia, and it would be helpful to have clear policies about them. Trumpetrep (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Alexandraaaacs1989

Summary of dispute by David A

Well, I currently do not have much to say, beyond that I thought that the removed entries seemed very relevant to the subject of the template, and that I am currently waiting for somebody to get the time and energy to apply Sirfurboy's suggested compromise solution. David A (talk) 04:41, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by IOHANNVSVERVS

Samuelshraga says "One side of the dispute contends that these pages are not tightly linked, and shouldn't be linked to or feature the sidebar." Which pages specificly are you talking about? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sirfurboy

Summary of dispute by ZLEA

Summary of dispute by Rainsage

Summary of dispute by PARAKANYAA

Template:Gaza genocide sidebar discussion

Volunteer note: @Samuelshraga please ensure that you add {{subst:drn-notice}} to each of the involved users talk page so that they know that they are being included in a DRN discussion. You can see the instructions for this at the top of this noticeboards page.「Norellia.sh」(talk) 03:53, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I think I did already Samuelshraga (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Ach sorry when I was checking through I didn't realize that you added yourself to the users involved. That was the first place I looked and I figured that you didn't add it to the others. My mistake. 「Norellia.sh」(talk) 17:52, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by volunteer, and scope questions (Gaza sidebar)

I am ready to try to facilitate discussion of this dispute. A few editors have made statements. Editors who have been notified and have not yet made statements are welcome to jump in. Be civil and concise.

Please read DRN Rule D and the statement that wars involving Israel are a contentious topic. There appears to be at least one issue about the bidirectional links between the template and the articles. I have some questions that should be answered to identify the scope of the content dispute before we try to resolve them. We need to agree on what we are disagreeing about. So my first question is whether the editors are in agreement that the template will be bidirectional, that is, that the template will only list articles that display the template, and that articles that are listed in the template will display it? My second question is whether the disagreement is about what articles should be added to and linked to the template. My third question is whether there are any other content issues besides what articles should be included and linked.

After the scope questions are answered to define the scope of the dispute, we will try to resolve the questions that we have identified.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Gaza sidebar)

On the scope questions

1. as far as I'm aware the bidirectional issue is settled - the template should be bidirectional. There was a longstanding dispute about this in which I wasn't involved, but it was context for the current issue, as opposed to being part of it.
2. There is disagreement about which articles should feature the template/be linked to from it.
3. Yes, they were raised but didn't form a major part of the preceding discussion - the section headings effectively make claims, at least implicitly, that are unsourced and easily challengeable. E.g. that everything in the "Genocidal acts" section is a genocidal act. Personally I don't mind if we exclude this from the discussion, or leave it till after the articles issue is settled.

Samuelshraga (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by adamstom.97

Summary of dispute by Betty Logan

Summary of dispute by DAP389

Spider-Man: Homecoming discussion

• Volunteer Note - There does not appear to have been any recent discussion. It appears that the discussion was several months ago. If there has been any recent discussion, please provide a link to it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, most of the discussion happened several months ago. However, I recently re-opened the discussion with this comment:

"@Adamstom.97: Hello! I hope this message finds you well. I am circling back to this discussion because I never understood your final comment (above) on the segment in question, and I was hoping for some clarity. You said:

"The information you removed is in the source, that is why we have had it in the article all these years."

Could you please explain which source has the relevant information, and could you please point to the exact sentence or segment where that information is found? I combed through the sources multiple times and could not figure out how they fully support the current wording in the article—they only mention one student who was skeptical, not multiple students.

Even though we had a disagreement and minor conflict in the past, I have no ill will towards you and I'm hoping this can be a brief and polite chat."

@Adamstom.97 replied:

"My opinion has not changed since February."

Adamstom.97 did not answer my question. They did not point out the part (or parts) of the sources that back up the text in the article. I came to dispute resolution because it feels to me that they don't want to have a constructive discussion. I am more than happy to continue the discussion with Adamstom.97, but a discussion requires two willing participants. I had abandoned the discussion several months ago because it was stressful for me, but I did not feel my concerns about the page had been properly addressed, so that is why I returned and re-opened it. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Throughout the linked discussion and at my talk page, OrdinaryOtter has been insisting on creating a mountain out of a mole hill. It is not a major issue. I have said that I am open to adjusting the wording to better reflect the sources / OrdinaryOtter's interpretation of the sources, and other editors have also expressed support for changing the wording. There isn't a dispute here except for the one OrdinaryOtter keeps trying to manufacture. I am happy to give thoughts on suggested wording improvements at the talk page, I don't believe the onus is on me to suggest that wording as I am not the one pushing for the change here. I am not particularly interested in spending more time on this "dispute resolution" when there isn't really a dispute to resolve, in my opinion. Note that I have been very busy off wiki for the last few months and was surprised that a discussion that ended in February has suddenly been escalated to dispute resolution as if there is an ongoing dispute that requires intervention. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Moxy

A few posts to a talk page an off to resolution with no other opinions from others yet? ....OK. Longstanding debate at the article is.... do editors want a user rendition of that arms that is not official in the infobox... that some believe misrepresents the arms by way of color and other minor placement issues. The copyright debate is only one of the many arguments putforth over the many RFCs that editors understand frequently clashes with USA copyright framework. Put it simply for 2 decades Canadian editors (those that have written the articles ) have been reluctant to display a user rendition of an official symbol that has an official rendition for many reasons. Not sure how a copyright debate (that longtimers understand) will solve the other concerns as to why its been omitted from the infobox (note; it is in the symbols section were its actually mention in prose. I have said it for many many years I am surprised that RFC after RFC results in exclusion of the user made version in the box. Should copyright be the only consideration for inclusion...of course not.....but thats why we are here? There has been past concerns about this type of "all must have" approach being mandated by the community.Moxy🍁 01:05, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Canada discussion

• Volunteer Question - Has this been discussed at Copyright Problems? If so, what was said there? If not, is there a reason why the question is being brought here rather than to Copyright Problems? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

  Copyright problems is specifically for copyright regarding text, this issue is about copyright regarding an image so it is not within the scope of copyright problems. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

• Volunteer Question - Has this been discussed at Media copyright questions? The talk page of Copyright Problems has a note that issues with copyright of media should be discussed there. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:19, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

  Ah, I was not familiar with this noticeboard, it wasn't listed anywhere I had looked. Although I am still cautious that this is out of scope, it says that Commons images should be discussed on the relevant Commons village pump however Moxy seemingly concedes that the image is permissible on Commons and the relevant file was kept in a deletion discussion there. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps I should be a bit more clear with why I'm asking this here; in recent discussions on inclusion since 2025, the copyright status of renditions of the arms has been a key issue. Both Moxy and I have become convinced of our positions on the copyright and so any discussion regarding inclusion will hinge on the copyright status which will hinge on mostly Moxy and I discussing it with eachother which always ends in a stalemate as neither of us are willing to concede. What I'm asking for here is an impartial recommendation on whether it is acceptable to include on enwiki so, if Moxy is willing, we can agree on the issue to settle the matter and discussions on inclusion can develop further towards actual content arguments and perhaps even to a long overdue consensus. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

  We understand you believe the arms are not copyrighted - However, Crown copyright is generally incompatible with Wikipedia's licensing rules because Wikipedia requires content to be freely licensed under terms like Creative Commons (CC BY-SA) or GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) as to why File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg is only used in 1 article. A good overview of the copyright debate about renditions can be seen at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of Arms of Canada.svg.... but again as seen there in the debate from 2013 copyright is not the only consideration for inclusion in this one article.Moxy🍁 16:28, 26 October 2026 (UTC)