Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 244#Climate change

{{DR case status|open}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1711963173}}

{{drn filing editor|InformationToKnowledge|09:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Climate change}}

Users involved

• {{User|InformationToKnowledge}}
• {{User|Bogazicili}}
• {{User|EMsmile}}

Dispute overview

Me and another editor have hit multiple points of persistent disagreement regarding the structure of a key section, currently named "Food and health". We also cannot agree on how to incorporate a third editor's suggestions.

1) How many sentences should we devote to breaking down the WHO's 2014 estimate of increased mortality caused by climate change (approximately 250,000 extra annual deaths over the next 20 years)? One editor additionally argues this estimate may be too outdated to belong in a top-level article.

2) In particular, whether extreme weather deserves separate mention as a threat to life and health ''in this particular section, or if it is sufficient that it is mentioned in the other sections?

3) What is the best way to phrase the sentence which discusses that areas of the globe where "life-threatening conditions" due to increased extreme heat/humidity would occur are projected to increase?

4) Should this section in an FA article use exclusively secondary sources, even when the secon are forced to omit notable findings from recent primary sources?

5) Whether we should first note that crop yields have been increasing over time due to agricultural improvements before noting the adverse impacts of climate change on these yields?

6) Whether it's necessary to mention differing impacts by latitude, particularly when the reliable secondary sources can only support vague wording, or if it is best to avoid mentioning latitudes entirely?

7) Do we need to mention the impacts of climate change on livestock production, and in how much detail?

8) How much detail should we devote to food security projections between now and 2050, and the differences under various scenarios?

9) Should we use year 2050 or 2040 for projections after midcentury?

10) Should we keep this section limited to 2 paragraphs, or does it deserve 4? Larger size would make it more likely primary references are used, or that there are cuts from other parts of the article.

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

Talk:Climate_change#Food_and_health (the section was started on the 1st of February, and is now very large, with three sizeable subsections.)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like to see uninvolved editors with the experience at Dispute Resolution help to arrive on a WP:CONS in regards to all of these details.

This dispute is about the two paragraphs in Climate_change#Food_and_health subsection. Some issues:

1) Opening sentences for the section such as "Extreme weather events affect public health". InformationToKnowledge said these are " too general and colourless" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AClimate_change&diff=1213374992&oldid=1213370320]. However, reliable and overview sources mention these: (bottom chart) [https://www.cdc.gov/climateandhealth/effects/default.htm] [https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/14/] [https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(22)01540-9/fulltext]

2) InformationToKnowledge doesn't want a general sentence about infectious diseases, even though this is also mentioned by reliable sources. Instead they seem to prefer ONLY a specific WHO study, but that study only looked at a small subset of issues. So just using WHO numbers (250k deaths per year) and info is not comprehensive.

3) InformationToKnowledge prefers too specific information, whereas I prefer more top level information. For example, InformationToKnowledge prefers information from [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/ page 797] of this report, whereas I prefer information from pages 14-15 (from the Summary for Policymakers section which gives an overview summary for laypeople).

I have also made a compromise offer to InformationToKnowledge [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AClimate_change&diff=1213580452&oldid=1213578803]. The latest suggestions and my compromise text are here Talk:Climate_change#Latest_suggestions. Bogazicili (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

:Agree to DRN Rule D Bogazicili (talk) 06:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I am ready to act as the moderator for this dispute. Please read DRN Rule D. If you want to take part in moderated discussion, please state that you agree to comply with DRN Rule D. Climate change is a contentious topic, and is subject to the ArbCom decision on climate change. I will repeat a few points from the rules. Do not edit the article while it is being discussed. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. You have already done that, and it has been civil but extremely lengthy, and has not resolved the issues. So address your answers to the community, and to the moderator (me) on behalf of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It appears that there are a long list of points mentioned. So I will ask each editor to list no more than three points that they want to change in the article, or points that they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. We can then work on one or two of them. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

{{replyto|Robert McClenon}} thanks for agreeing to take this dispute. Agreed to DRN Rule D above. Do you need me to trim my statement as well? I had tried to make 3 points. The rest are background info (such as compromise offer, proposed texts etc). My text is closer to the existing article text, as I want to keep general opening sentences in the first paragraph. There were multiple text proposals, my later proposals have diverged more from the current as I tried to accommodate InformationToKnowledge's suggestions. Just FYI, there is a separate conversation at the article talk page here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_change#Tried_to_improve_reading_ease_of_one_sentence_in_the_lead], but this is completely unrelated to the dispute that is here. Bogazicili (talk) 06:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

:I know there shouldn't be a back and forth between editors, but I do not like my views being misrepresented. I did not agree that this [https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00322-9] is "the most reliable source on projected changes". IPCC sources also needs to be taken into account. Bogazicili (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

:{{u|Robert McClenon}}, btw, by "do not edit the article", you mean the disputed part only right? Bogazicili (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

{{replyto|Robert McClenon}} Thank you for choosing to moderate this dispute. I agree to abide by DRN Rule D. It seems that the other editor's summary is already limited to three points, which isn't as much of a surprise, as their position is more conservative with respect to the existing text. As the party which wants more extensive changes to the article, it falls to me to focus on the most important areas.

1. Paragraph structure and "flow": Bogazicili's preferred structure for the first paragraph of the disputed section is similar to the current one. So, first this sentence: {{tq|The World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.}} Then, several short and very general sentences such as {{tq|Extreme weather leads to injury and loss of life.}} (current text) or {{tq|Extreme weather events affect public health}} (his latest suggestion), or {{tq|Both children and older people are vulnerable to extreme heat}} (current)/{{tq|Temperature extremes lead to increased illness and death}} (latest suggestion.) Then, a sentence which says that the WHO estimated additional 250,000 annual climate-related deaths for the 2030-2050 period and lists every cause they assessed. I think this is poor writing, and would much prefer that we mention the WHO annual mortality estimate in the second sentence, and then either write about causes assessed in more detail than the short sentences he favours, or not at all.
2. Food security projections: Both of us have already agreed to use [https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00322-9 this meta-analysis from 2021] as the most reliable source on projected changes in food security between now and 2050, but we disagree on how to cite it. Bogazicili's suggested wording is {{tq|By 2050, climate change may affect tens to hundreds of millions of people in terms of undernourishment and nutrition-related diseases; change in population at risk of hunger may be positive or negative depending on several climate change and socioeconomic scenarios.}} I think that this is far too wordy, poorly structured and fundamentally doesn't represent the reference well. Graphs from the reference ([https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00322-9/figures/4 here] and [https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00322-9/figures/9 here]) show near-universal declines in food insecurity, so my proposed wording is: {{tq|By 2050, the number of people suffering from undernourishment and the associated health conditions is likely to decrease by tens to hundreds of millions, but some combinations of severe climate change and low socioeconomic development may increase that number instead.}} Similarly, I want to explicitly mention the growth in crop yields till now ([https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/key-crop-yields reference]) as a necessary background for this section, while Bogazicili considers it out of scope.
3. What counts as "excessive" detail: I.e. Bogazicili wants to mention effects on crop production by latitudes, but I find it challenging to do it in a sentence without being vague. Conversely, I want to address impacts on livestock production (currently not mentioned in the article), but Bogazicili finds my wording too detailed and keeps omitting any mention of those impacts. It even extends to reference choice: i.e. Bogazicili claims that IPCC summaries are preferable to full IPCC reports, which is not a position I have never heard of. I oppose this position when it weakens our wording (i.e. timelines becoming inconsistent, such as using 2050 in one sentence and 2040 in another) for the supposed benefit of the very few people who'll click on those specific references out of 400+ already in the article.

I hope that this summary meets your expectations. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

If the editors who are taking part in this discussion agree that they are only requesting moderated discussion about the Food and health subsection, then the rule against editing the document can be revised not to edit the subsection. So my first question is whether the content dispute is only about that subsection.

If that is the only area being discussed, then, instead of discussing point-by-point, I will ask each editor to write their own version of the Food and health section in the spaces provided. After I see the two rewritten sections, I will decide what the next step is.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

{{replyto|Robert McClenon}} Indeed, the dispute is limited to that subsection only.

This is my preferred version:

{{tq2|

The World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[https://web.archive.org/web/20210103002854/https://www.who.int/globalchange/global-campaign/cop21/en/] It has estimated that between 2030 and 2050, climate change would cause around 250,000 additional deaths per year due to impacts such as increased levels of extreme heat, greater frequency of extreme weather events and changes in disease transmission.[https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/134014/9789241507691_eng.pdf] Lethal infectious diseases such as dengue fever and malaria are more easily transmitted in a warmer climate.[https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/14/] [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00220-2/fulltext] 30% of the global population currently live in areas where extreme heat and humidity are already associated with excess deaths.[https://www.carbonbrief.org/billions-face-deadly-threshold-heat-extremes-2100-study/] By 2100, 50% to 75% of the global population would live in such areas.[https://www.carbonbrief.org/billions-face-deadly-threshold-heat-extremes-2100-study/][https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2 p. 988]

Agricultural and socioeconomic changes had been increasing global crop yields since the middle of the 20th century,[https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/key-crop-yields] but climate change has already slowed the rate of yield growth.[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2 p.9] Extreme weather events adversely affect both food and water security, and climate change increases their frequency.[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2 p.9] Fisheries have been negatively affected in various regions.[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2 p.9] By 2050, the number of people suffering from undernourishment and the associated health conditions is likely to decrease by tens to hundreds of millions, but some combinations of severe climate change and low socioeconomic development may increase that number instead.[https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00322-9] Under higher warming, global livestock headcounts could decline by 7-10% by 2050, as less animal feed will be available.[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2 p.748] If the emissions remain high, food availability will likely decrease after 2050 due to diminishing fisheries and livestock counts, and due to more frequent and severe crop failures.[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2 p.797]

}}

InformationToKnowledge (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

{{replyto|Robert McClenon}} yes, the dispute is only about Food and health subsection, which has two paragraphs currently.

Here's my suggestion:

{{tq2|

The World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[https://web.archive.org/web/20210103002854/https://www.who.int/globalchange/global-campaign/cop21/en/] Extreme weather events affect public health.[https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/14/][https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(22)01540-9/fulltext] Temperature extremes lead to increased illness and death.[https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/14/][https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(22)01540-9/fulltext] Climate change can affect transmission of infectious diseases.[https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/14/] [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00220-2/fulltext] The WHO has estimated that between 2030 and 2050, climate change would cause around 250,000 additional deaths per year due to increases in diarrhea, malaria, dengue, coastal flooding, childhood malnutrition, and heat exposure in elderly people.[https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/134014/9789241507691_eng.pdf] By 2100, 50% to 75% of the global population may face climate conditions that are life-threatening due to combined effects of extreme heat and humidity,[https://www.carbonbrief.org/billions-face-deadly-threshold-heat-extremes-2100-study/][https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2 p. 988] which currently affects 30% of the global population.[https://www.carbonbrief.org/billions-face-deadly-threshold-heat-extremes-2100-study/]

Despite overall increase in agricultural productivity, climate change has reduced water and food security, and has curtailed agricultural productivity growth.[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2 p.9] Agricultural productivity was negatively affected in mid- and low-latitude areas, while various high latitude areas were positively affected. [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2 p.9] Fisheries have been negatively affected in multiple regions.[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2 p.9] By 2050, climate change may affect tens to hundreds of millions of people in terms of undernourishment and nutrition-related diseases;[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2 p.60] change in population at risk of hunger may be positive or negative depending on several climate change and socioeconomic scenarios.[https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00322-9] Depending on climate change trajectories, there will be increasing risks to food and water availability, and human health beyond 2040.[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2 pp. 14-15].

}}

Bogazicili (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I will be looking at the draft subsections in more detail shortly. In the meantime, I will ask each editor to comment briefly on the other editor's draft. In particular, can you accept the other editor's draft? If not, please give a brief explanation of what you object to in the other editor's statement.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm against InformationToKnowledge's draft because:

1) It's misleading. Portrays WHO numbers as pretty much comprehensive ("greater frequency of extreme weather events and changes in disease transmission"), whereas WHO looks at only a small subset of issues (small subset of disease transmission for example). For example IPCC also predicted "nine million climate-related deaths per year are projected by the end of the century" (high emissions scenario) [IPCC AR6 WG2 Technical Summary p. 63]. Therefore, general opening sentences are preferable, rather than merging everything with the WHO study.

2) It's against NPOV. For the sentence that starts with "By 2050, the number of people suffering from undernourishment and the associated health conditions is likely...", it only uses a single source, ignoring IPCC.

3) It's cherry picked. Uses p.797 in the concluding sentence to justify it's wording, rather than using an overview from Summary for Policymakers section (pages 14-15).

I'm ok with this part: {{tq|30% of the global population currently live in areas where extreme heat and humidity are already associated with excess deaths.[22] By 2100, 50% to 75% of the global population would live in such areas.[23]p. 988}} Bogazicili (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I oppose Bogazicili's draft for the following reasons:

1) Issues with paragraph structure and sentence construction/wordiness which make it more difficult to understand. I consider those issues fairly self-evident (i.e. inconsistencies such as "climate change has reduced water and food security, and have curtailed" or run-on sentences like the second-to-last one about projections by 2050), and this difference can even be quantified. According to one of the Readability tools [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Climate_change&diff=1179759456&oldid=1179703034 we have been advised to use], [https://www.webfx.com/tools/read-able/?url=The World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century. Extreme weather events affect public health.Temperature extremes lead to increased illness and death. Climate change can affect transmission of infectious diseases. The WHO has estimated that between 2030 and 2050, climate change would cause around 250,000 additional deaths per year due to increases in diarrhea, malaria, dengue, coastal flooding, childhood malnutrition, and heat exposure in elderly people. By 2100, 50% to 75% of the global population may face climate conditions that are life-threatening due to combined effects of extreme heat and humidity, which currently affects 30% of the global population. Despite overall increase in agricultural productivity, climate change has reduced water and food security, and have curtailed agricultural productivity growth. Agricultural productivity was negatively affected in mid- and low-latitude areas, while various high latitude areas were positively affected. Fisheries have been negatively affected in multiple regions. By 2050, climate change may affect tens to hundreds of millions of people in terms of undernourishment and nutrition-related diseases; change in population at risk of hunger may be positive or negative depending on several climate change and socioeconomic scenarios. Depending on climate change trajectories, there will be increasing risks to food and water availability, and human health beyond 2040. Bogazicili's draft] ranks almost 10 points below [https://www.webfx.com/tools/read-able/?url=The World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century. It has estimated that between 2030 and 2050, climate change would cause around 250,000 additional deaths per year due to impacts such as increased levels of extreme heat, greater frequency of extreme weather events and changes in disease transmission. Lethal infectious diseases such as dengue fever and malaria are more easily transmitted in a warmer climate. 30% of the global population currently live in areas where extreme heat and humidity are already associated with excess deaths. By 2100, 50% to 75% of the global population would live in such areas. Agricultural and socioeconomic changes had been increasing global crop yields since the middle of the 20th century, but climate change has already slowed the rate of yield growth. Extreme weather events adversely affect both food and water security, and climate change increases their frequency. Fisheries have been negatively affected in various regions. By 2050, the number of people suffering from undernourishment and the associated health conditions is likely to decrease by tens to hundreds of millions, but some combinations of severe climate change and low socioeconomic development may increase that number instead. Under higher warming, global livestock headcounts could decline by 7-10% by 2050, as less animal feed will be available. If the emissions remain high, food availability will likely decrease after 2050 due to diminishing fisheries and livestock counts, and due to more frequent and severe crop failures. mine] in terms of readability.

2) No mention of livestock - a sector of food supply which is, rightly or wrongly, a core part of billions of people's diet, provides 30% of the global protein supply and supports the livelihood of 400 million people.[https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01232-x]

3) Inconsistencies with dates. Again, I think it would be confusing to readers when the penultimate sentence talks about events between now and year 2050, and the final sentence is about the events after year 2040. There is literally no reason for this besides preferring different parts of the same report. Further, the opening sentence of his second paragraph's draft also has issues with dating. {{tq|Despite overall increase in agricultural productivity, climate change has reduced water and food security, and have curtailed agricultural productivity growth.}} "Increase in agricultural productivity" since when? "Reduced water and food security" since when or perhaps, relative to what year? My version of that sentence should not lead to such questions.

4) Likewise, too many sentences raise more questions than answers. I.e. {{tq|while various high latitude areas were positively affected.}} (What does "various" mean? Which areas does actually refer to? What percentage all of all high latitude areas is included in there?) Or {{tq|By 2050, climate change may affect tens to hundreds of millions of people in terms of undernourishment and nutrition-related diseases; change in population at risk of hunger may be positive or negative depending on several climate change and socioeconomic scenarios.}} Firstly, this sentence says {{tq|climate change may affect}} (i.e. the implication is that it may not do anything at all?), then the rough numerical range {{tq|tens to hundreds of millions of people}} is immediately followed by {{tq|may be positive or negative}} and {{tq|depending on several climate change and socioeconomic scenarios}}. How many scenarios are "several"? Do we really think a reader who has not ever looked at an IPCC report or a climate paper before is going to grasp the full meaning of "climate change and socioeconomic scenario"? This sentence risks giving the impression to readers that climate change itself can cause positive change as far as the risk of hunger is concerned. It also risks suggesting that the scientists know so little about the changes in hunger projected in 30 years' time that any estimate could be off by hundreds of millions of people. This is not a good summary of either the Nature source we have both agreed to use or even of the IPCC page he cites for that sentence (and I don't, because the methodologies are not compatible.) Both estimates are precise to the closest million for the specific scenarios, and my draft makes this come across much, much better.

I can adopt the sentence in Bogazicili's draft which mentions latitudes if we can find better language than "various high latitude areas". InformationToKnowledge (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I am now asking each editor to read the criticisms that the other editor has of their draft, and to write a revised draft, taking into account the criticisms that the other editor has raised. I will then read the revised drafts more carefully than I have so far, and will make an assessment as to whether I think that there is enough convergence so that a compromise is possible. Otherwise the community will be asked to choose between the two revised versions by a Request for Comments.

Are there any other questions, or any other content issues?

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll begin by responding to the last question posed. As I mentioned earlier, the other questions/content issues regarding this section are: 1) Should it be made larger (approximately doubled, from two paragraphs to four) and split into distinct two-paragraph sections; 2) Whether we should continue using the 2014 WHO estimate. Both points were initially raised by {{replyto|EMsmile}}. This was the reason why I included her when logging the DRN request, but she has not participated in the discussion so far.

When we have last discussed these suggestions with Bogazilici, he was skeptical about the idea of doubling the section, but did not outright oppose it. He was mainly insistent that only secondary sources are used. He was also open to replacing the WHO estimate, but his only suggestion was a quote from the IPCC which focused on a different timescale (2100) and was more complementary then a true alternative.

In my new, four-paragraph draft, I chose to both add this IPCC statement and to replace the WHO estimate with a more up-to-date alternative - the WEF estimate of climate change impacts on human health from January this year. I have also tried to accommodate Bogazicili's preferences in other ways. So, he insisted on a general sentence about extreme weather and health: my draft now includes several specific projections. There are two sentences devoted to impacts on agriculture by latitude instead of one in his draft and zero in my previous one. At the same time, I strove to add more detail and several important factors are discussed for the first time. These are:

• hypertension indirectly caused by coastal flooding
• mortality from wildfires
• impact on mental health
• total healthcare costs
• impact on cash crops
• impact on pests and crop pathogens
• impact on food prices
• Stunting caused by childhood malnutrition

{{tq2| Human health

The World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[https://web.archive.org/web/20210103002854/https://www.who.int/globalchange/global-campaign/cop21/en/] Over 100 scientists writing in The Lancet have warned about the irreversible harms it poses.[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)01859-7/abstract] According to the World Economic Forum, the most likely future scenario is of 14.5 million deaths caused by climate change by 2050.[https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Quantifying_the_Impact_of_Climate_Change_on_Human_Health_2024.pdf] Of those, 8.5 million deaths are associated with flooding, mostly because flooded areas expand the range of malaria. By 2050, the range of vector-borne diseases may expand to reach 500 million more people. Saltwater intrusion caused by sea level rise will also add over 800,000 cases of hypertension in coastal areas.[https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Quantifying_the_Impact_of_Climate_Change_on_Human_Health_2024.pdf]

Under the same scenario, around 1.6 million people will die in heatwaves by 2050, primarily those aged 65 and older, and 300,000 more will be killed by wildfires.[https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Quantifying_the_Impact_of_Climate_Change_on_Human_Health_2024.pdf] 30% of the global population currently live in areas where extreme heat and humidity are already associated with excess deaths.[https://www.carbonbrief.org/billions-face-deadly-threshold-heat-extremes-2100-study/] By 2100, 50% to 75% of the global population would live in such areas.[https://www.carbonbrief.org/billions-face-deadly-threshold-heat-extremes-2100-study/][https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2 p. 988] These and other climate change impacts are also expected to substantially increase the burden of stress-related mental health conditions.[https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Quantifying_the_Impact_of_Climate_Change_on_Human_Health_2024.pdf] The overall healthcare costs from climate change impacts would exceed 1$ trillion by 2050.[https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Quantifying_the_Impact_of_Climate_Change_on_Human_Health_2024.pdf] If the emissions continue to increase for the rest of century, then over 9 million climate-related deaths would occur annually by 2100.[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2 p.63]

Food supply

Climate change has strong impacts on agriculture in the low latitudes, where it threatens both staple crops and important cash crops like cocoa and coffee.[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2 p.788] Agriculture will experience yield gains at high latitudes, but will also become more vulnerable to pests and pathogens.[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2 p.794] Extreme weather events adversely affect both food and water security, and climate change increases their frequency.[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2 p.9] Food prices spike after climate shocks.[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2 p.794] An increase in drought in certain regions could cause 3.2 million deaths from malnutrition by 2050, primarily in children under five. Many more children would grow up stunted as the result.[https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Quantifying_the_Impact_of_Climate_Change_on_Human_Health_2024.pdf] Under higher warming, global livestock headcounts could decline by 7-10% by 2050, as less animal feed will be available.[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2 p.748] Marine animal biomass decreases by 5% with every degree of warming, reducing fishery yields.[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2 p.718]

Yet, while climate change has already slowed the rate of yield growth,[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2 p.9] total crop yields have been increasing since the middle of the 20th century due to agricultural improvements.[https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/key-crop-yields] By 2050, the number of people suffering from undernourishment and the associated health conditions is likely to decrease by tens to hundreds of millions.[https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00322-9] Food security only worsens by 2050 in some combinations of severe climate change and low socioeconomic development,[https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00322-9] but if the emissions remain high, it will likely decrease after 2050. This would be due to diminishing fisheries and livestock counts, and due to more frequent and severe crop failures.[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2 p.797]

}}

I'll also note that this draft has a [https://www.webfx.com/tools/read-able/?url=The World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century. Over 100 scientists writing in The Lancet have warned about the irreversible harms it poses. According to the World Economic Forum, the most likely future scenario is of 14.5 million deaths caused by climate change by 2050. Of those, 8.5 million deaths are associated with flooding, mostly because flooded areas expand the range of malaria. By 2050, the range of vector-borne diseases may expand to reach 500 million more people. Saltwater intrusion caused by sea level rise will also add over 800,000 cases of hypertension in coastal areas. Under the same scenario, around 1.6 million people will die in heatwaves by 2050, primarily those aged 65 and older, and 300,000 more will be killed by wildfires. 30% of the global population currently live in areas where extreme heat and humidity are already associated with excess deaths. By 2100, 50% to 75% of the global population would live in such areas. These and other climate change impacts are also expected to substantially increase the burden of stress-related mental health conditions. The overall healthcare costs from climate change impacts would exceed 1$ trillion by 2050. If the emissions continue to increase for the rest of century, then over 9 million climate-related deaths would occur annually by 2100. Climate change has strong impacts on agriculture in the low latitudes, where it threatens both staple crops and important cash crops like cocoa and coffee. Agriculture will experience yield gains at high latitudes, but will also become more vulnerable to pests and pathogens. Extreme weather events adversely affect both food and water security, and climate change increases their frequency. Food prices spike after climate shocks. An increase in drought in certain regions could cause 3.2 million deaths from malnutrition by 2050, primarily in children under five. Many more children would grow up stunted as the result. Under higher warming, global livestock headcounts could decline by 7-10% by 2050, as less animal feed will be available. Marine animal biomass decreases by 5% with every degree of warming, reducing fishery yields. Yet, while climate change has already slowed the rate of yield growth, total crop yields have been increasing since the middle of the 20th century due to agricultural improvements. By 2050, the number of people suffering from undernourishment and the associated health conditions is likely to decrease by tens to hundreds of millions. Food security only worsens by 2050 in some combinations of severe climate change and low socioeconomic development, but if the emissions remain high, it will likely decrease after 2050. This would be due to diminishing fisheries and livestock counts, and due to more frequent and severe crop failures. higher Readability score] than the [https://www.webfx.com/tools/read-able/?url=The World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century. Extreme weather leads to injury and loss of life. Various infectious diseases are more easily transmitted in a warmer climate, such as dengue fever and malaria. Crop failures can lead to food shortages and malnutrition, particularly effecting children. Both children and older people are vulnerable to extreme heat. The WHO has estimated that between 2030 and 2050, climate change would cause around 250,000 additional deaths per year. They assessed deaths from heat exposure in elderly people, increases in diarrhea, malaria, dengue, coastal flooding, and childhood malnutrition. By 2100, 50% to 75% of the global population may face climate conditions that are life-threatening due to combined effects of extreme heat and humidity. Climate change is affecting food security. It has caused reduction in global yields of maize, wheat, and soybeans between 1981 and 2010. Future warming could further reduce global yields of major crops. Crop production will probably be negatively affected in low-latitude countries, while effects at northern latitudes may be positive or negative. Up to an additional 183 million people worldwide, particularly those with lower incomes, are at risk of hunger as a consequence of these impacts. Climate change also impacts fish populations. Globally, less will be available to be fished. Regions dependent on glacier water, regions that are already dry, and small islands have a higher risk of water stress due to climate change. current text] of that section, and much higher than either of our previous drafts.

{{reflist-talk}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Academia45|23:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as abandoned by filing editor. The filing editor has not edited for four days, and has not responded to a request for input. It is not entirely clear why User:Academia45 filed this Dispute Resolution request if they did not plan to take part in discussion. The two other editors support characterizing Elihu Yale as a slave trader, which is a rough consensus of the parties to this discussion, but is not any consensus of the community or the editors of the article. So this dispute has not been resolved. Resume discussion on the article talk page. Do not edit-war. A Request for Comments is a reasonable next step in Dispute Resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC) }}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Elihu Yale}}

Users involved

• {{User|Academia45}}
• {{User|KJP1}}
• {{User|Desertarun}}

Dispute overview

Hi, the dispute is happening on Elihu Yale's talk page, which is a recurrent theme on his page, as the subject of slavery is often emotionally charged. The dispute is around past edits from an editor who, without consensus, decided to name him a slave trader and add it to the lead section and short description. While the man's involvement with slavery as the colonial governor of a major fort in India for the British East India Company is not disputed, the term of slave trader has always been contested on the talk page, and has never been added to other encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica. Despite the non consensus after our discussion, the editor in question has decided that he will still change the naming on the page. This editor has removed references in his past edits that contradicted his point of view, including from university professors, which I felt obliged to revert. The word slave was already covered 21 times in the article, and the opposite views were covered in it as well, before his past edits.

The discussion have grown out of proportion, and I hope that with the Dispute resolution, we will be able to build a better online encyclopedia with a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Past talks on the page with other editors not having a consensus as well on the term slave trader include :

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elihu_Yale#Slave_Trader_Disruptive_Editing Elihu_Yale#Slave_Trader_Disruptive_Editing]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elihu_Yale#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_6_July_2020 Elihu_Yale#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_6_July_2020]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elihu_Yale#Title_and_content_of_section_about_his_slave_trade_legacy_and_the_naming_of_Yale_University Elihu_Yale#Title_and_content_of_section_about_his_slave_trade_legacy_and_the_naming_of_Yale_University]

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

Talk:Elihu_Yale#Slave_trader

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think you can help by analyzing it and providing us with the right policies and guidelines. Maybe you can help at pointing out our own biases as well. I hope you will be able to bring more neutrality to the dispute and help reach a consensus.

This is actually a pretty simple dispute - should the lead reflect the body of the article? MoS is clear, "the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents." The body of the article currently discusses Yale's links to slavery in two sections - two paragraphs in Tenure as President of Madras and a section, Slave trade under Yale University. While these underplay the extent of Yale's involvement in the slave trade, they clearly recognise that he was involved. But the Lead has no mention of his participation at all. As such, it fails to meet MoS. This discrepancy has been commented on externally; "Some sources (including Wikipedia) portray Elihu Yale as an heroic abolitionist. This is incredibly misleading."[https://web.archive.org/web/20141108031612/http://histi3.commons.yale.edu/2014/11/01/elihu-yale-was-a-slave-trader/] and the Talkpage shows repeated attempts by editors dating back four years to get Wikipedia to address the issue. The sources are clear. The most recent and authoritative refers to "Yale’s key leadership role in the business of human trafficking." I have cited over a dozen more on the Talkpage, all of which describe Yale as a slave trader. In a separate discussion on Yale's Welsh ancestry, the filer wrote, "I think it is important to not erase history, as wikipedia is an encyclopedia." Yet that is exactly what they are attempting to do in relation to Yale's very clear involvement in the slave trade. KJP1 (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

:On a secondary point, in relation to "providing us with the right policies and guidelines", it would be helpful if a few basics could be explained. Firstly, the filer incorrectly equates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view with "not-negative". This leads them to suggest, for example, that this source [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-68444807] can be ignored, when it is entirely valid. The title, of course, comes from a quote by Yale's descendant, "His surroundings must be his most effective defence for a record of arrogance, cruelty, sensuality and greed while in power at Madras." NPOV states that articles should seek to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." There is no requirement for the views themselves to be positive, or neutral, or negative. They can be all of these, or none. Similarly, the filer misunderstands Wikipedia:Independent sources, leading them, for example, to suggest that this source, [https://yaleandslavery.yale.edu/sites/default/files/2024-02/Yale%20and%20Slavery%20A%20History%20Feb2024%20David%20Blight%20with%20the%20Yale%20and%20Slavery%20Research%20Project.pdf] can be discounted because it is published by Yale University Press. In fact, it is the most recent, and the most authoritative, study of the links between Yale University and slavery that exists, authored by a Sterling Professor who heads the Gilder Lehrman Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance, and Abolition. Not using it would do a grave disservice to the reader. Lastly, the filer clings to the Encyclopaedia Britannica entry for Yale as one of the only two sources which appear to support their view that Yale was not deeply involved in the slave trade. They reach this conclusion because the EB entry doesn't mention slavery at all. All that, in fact, shows is the complete inadequacy of the EB entry as anything like a comprehensive study of Yale's life and works, linked, I suspect, to its being written well before detailed analysis of Yale's activities was undertaken. The above examples are part of a pattern whereby the filer, rather than attempting to engage with, and understand, the sources, concentrates instead on trying to rubbish all those that do not accord with their own view. That is the antithesis of how to write a NPOV article. KJP1 (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I am ready to moderate this dispute if the editors agree to DRN Rule A. Please read the rules. Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion; address your comments to the moderator (me) and the Wikipedia community. It appears that the content dispute is about the description of Yale's involvement with the Atlantic slave trade. So I will divide my usual opening question as to what each editor wants to change in the article into three parts. First, what does each editor want to change in the lede section, or what do they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change? Second, what does each editor want to change, or leave the same, in the body of the article? Third, are there any other content issues at this time? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

:I agree to your DRN Rule A, thanks @Robert McClenon. My problem overall with the Elihu Yale page is the constant mix of sources that are not independent from the subject, aka WP:INDEPENDENT, and the constant "fights" of Yale University related people toward adding "slave trader" to its lead. The sources relating to the slave trading stuff is almost always from Yale University, Yale University Press, Yale students, Yale University professors, Yale departments, Yale Daily News, etc. My dispute with @KJP1, is just one of many that I've seen on the page's history with editors fighting against each other to add and remove the slave trader term. It is what I would desbribe as a battle of idealogies, not of encyclopedic terms. The man, Elihu Yale, was a colonial governor at a time when slavery was a global institution under the British Empire, working for the British East India Company. He had per example 400 personal body guards at Madras Palace, and the control of the Madras Army (47,000 soldiers in 1847). The activites in relation to slavery were part of his job as governor, not his role in the company, just as Julius Caesar, who traded probably the most slaves in history, [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-13260-5_5#:~:text=Julius%20Caesar%2C%20one%20of%20Rome's,at%20the%20Battle%20of%20Alesia Source Here], is not qualified as a slave trader by historians or on wikipedia, simply as a Roman Emperor. All Roman Emperors were slave traders, and all aristocratic Roman families were slave owners, yet there are not qualified as such by historians, and certaintly not in their lead on Wikipedia. There is a constant push toward adding "slave trader" next to the guy's page, which is simply not based on historical terms but on modern conflicts between Yale University related people. The last source added from David W. Blight, well, the man himself is an employee at Yale, hired by its president to "work" on their PR Campaign in relation to the George Floyd protests and the naming of monuments and institutions, etc, even with a [https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2024/02/21/yale-confronts-ties-to-slavery-in-professor-david-blights-yale-and-slavery/ timeline "that" was somewhat controlled].

::*1) Now about the lead, my conflict here is the push to add slave trader to it. I am in complete disagreement with that term as this is not what he was in historical term, but how he is portrayed by Yale University related people and sensational news articles. A more historical term to add to his lead could be that he was among the largest diamond merchant in the world at the time, which was the basis of his fortune. He also waged his private wars, did diplomacy with Sultans and Emperors, dealt in spices to a very large extent, etc. Slavery was a side effect of the role of a colonial governor, there is nothing special or different from him and other governors during this colonial era. What is different here is that he is related as a namesake to an institution. Therefore, I am asking for WP:NPOV, which means simply treating his wikipage as any other colonial governors page.

::*2)I don't mind that things around slavery be added to the Yale University section of the article, as long as it doesn't get out of proportion, as it seems already. I suggest they go write their Yale University stuff to Yale University page rather.

::*3)Other issues, well, to solve the problem definitely on the guy's page as it keeps repeating it self among editors, I am suggesting the removal of all Yale University related sources from the page to start to clean it up, starting with Blight, Yale employees, Yale students, Yale statements, Yale News, research, departments, Yale University Press, etc, and allocate to the Yale University page what belongs there. By having it all removed, maybe we could restart this page with a foundation based on neutral sources, independent of the subject and of Yale University current conflicts that doesn't concern wikipedia. As an example, the House of Windsor page is clean and independent from all current news on the British royal family, as editors constantly remove them. See the page history.

:Academia45 (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

{{U|Robert McClenon}} - Thanks for picking this up, and fine to abide by Rule A. You've correctly identified the issues, although Slavery in India might be a better link than the Atlantic slave trade. To take your specific questions:

• Changes in the lead

:The lead should summarise the body, as per MoS. That Yale was involved in the slave trade is undisputed; the most recent, 2024, and authoritative, study of the issue by David W. Blight, Sterling Professor and director of the Gilder Lehrman Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance, and Abolition, identifies, "Yale’s key leadership role in the business of human trafficking".{{cite book |last=Blight |first=David W.|author-link=David W. Blight |date=2024 |title=Yale and Slavery: a history |url=https://yaleandslavery.yale.edu/sites/default/files/2024-02/Yale%20and%20Slavery%20A%20History%20Feb2024%20David%20Blight%20with%20the%20Yale%20and%20Slavery%20Research%20Project.pdf |location=New Haven, Connecticut |publisher=Yale University Press |page=44|isbn=978-0-300-27384-7}} This view is supported by a dozen similar statements from reliable sources [see Talk, not reproduced here for brevity], which describe Yale as a "slave trader". Yale's involvement in the trade is acknowledged in the body, albeit inadequately [see below], which covers his slaving activities twice, in the Tenure as President of Madras section, and in a sub-section, Slave trade in the Yale University section. But the lead contains... absolutely nothing. It therefore cannot be MoS-compliant, unless one argues that Yale's involvement in the slave trade was so unimportant as to not warrant any mention in the lead. Therefore, the lead needs redrafting to address this omission.

:A second question is whether to describe Yale as a "slave trader" in the opening of the lead, e.g. "British-American colonial administrator, slave trader and philanthropist". There are plenty of sources that do so describe him - see above. In my view, so should we, to reflect this dominant view. There appear to be two sources used to suggest otherwise, the Encyclopaedia Britannica [EB] entry, [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Elihu-Yale] and the Valerie Pavilonis [VP] article, [https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2020/06/28/cancel-yale-not-likely/]. The EB is easily dealt with - it is brief, 3 paragraphs; it likely pre-dates any of the recent investigation of Yale's slave-trading activities; and it says precisely nothing on the topic. It is therefore of no assistance when considering Yale and slave trading. The VP is more problematic. It is published in the Yale Daily News, the student newspaper of Yale University; a connection, incidentally, that doesn't appear to concern the filer who elsewhere suggests that sources connected with Yale should be disregarded as non-independent; its staff writers are students, not professional journalists; and it uses a comment, not a direct quote, from Steven Pincus, 'Yale was never a slave trader and never owned slaves'. The problem is that we do not know what Pincus actually said. I flagged this on 14 March and asked if the original statement was available. My guess is it was in the speech Pincus gave here, [https://glc.yale.edu/conferences/past-glc-conferences/gilder-lehrman-centers-16th-annual-international-conference] in 2014, but I've not been able to find it. But even taken at its highest, what Pincus appears to be saying is that Yale did not directly participate in the sale of slaves, and did not own slaves himself. As such, Pincus would not describe him as a slave trader. The fact remains that plenty of other reliable sources would, and do.

:A useful comparator is our article on Edward Colston. As far as I am aware, Colston neither owned slaves nor traded in them directly. But, after very extensive discussion [see Talk], there was clear community consensus to describe him as an "English merchant, slave trader, philanthropist, and Tory Member of Parliament" [my bold]. This comes from Colston's senior role within the Royal Africa Company and seems to closely parallel Yale's senior role as President of Madras for the East India Company. Both held senior executive roles in organisations that were engaged in the trade; both personally profited from it; and in Yale’s case, his role was also quasi-judicial, seeing him making decisions on punishments/means/scope etc. of the trade. It should also be noted that the VP article itself includes references to Yale's slave-trade involvement; 'Elihu Yale’s ties to slavery'; his 'moral mistakes', his membership of the slave-owning Society for the Propagation of the Gospel; and that he was 'deeply involved' in the slave trade. I think the position is again best summarised by Blight; "Precisely whether or how many people Yale personally may have owned is not yet discernible, nor perhaps even a key question. There can be no question that some portion of Yale’s considerable fortune, amassed while British governor-president in Madras, derived from his myriad entanglements with the purchase and sale of human beings."{{cite book |last=Blight |first=David W.|author-link=David W. Blight |date=2024 |title=Yale and Slavery: a history |url=https://yaleandslavery.yale.edu/sites/default/files/2024-02/Yale%20and%20Slavery%20A%20History%20Feb2024%20David%20Blight%20with%20the%20Yale%20and%20Slavery%20Research%20Project.pdf |location=New Haven, Connecticut |publisher=Yale University Press |pages=44-45|isbn=978-0-300-27384-7}}

• Changes in the body

:The current coverage of Yale's slave-trading activities in the body is placed in two sections; the Madras Presidency and Yale University. It concludes with an uncited claim, "Beyond this, the nature of Yale's involvement in the slave trade remains disputed." I would blend them into one, in a Slavery sub-section, and re-draft to properly reflect the current state of debate. Pincus's views (ideally sourced to his actual words), Blight's views, others' views, can all be cited here. If helpful, I can easily produce a draft for discussion.

:Under the Yale University section, I would include reference to the 21st century debates around Yale University and slavery that led Yale President Peter Salovey to establish the Yale and Slavery Research Project. This would bring the article up to date and enable coverage of both the current state of academic investigation, and something on the Culture war that has swirled around, and made use of, the issue. Again, I can easily draft something if helpful. If you look at the article version as at 14/3,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elihu_Yale&oldid=1213653951] prior to the filer removing much of what I added, you'll get any idea of what I'm thinking of.

• Any other content issues

:My own view, previously expressed on the Talkpage and echoing earlier comments, is that the Ancestry section is overblown. It is weakly sourced, mainly to 19th century genealogical histories; it is only tangentially relevant to Elihu Yale, who is not mentioned once; and I think there is certainly an Undue argument when we have a whole section of Ancestry, and only a sub-section, and mentions, of slavery. However, it is a secondary debate and, for clarity and ease, I'm fine to leave it out of this discussion. KJP1 (talk) 09:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

:Yale University have apologised for their slave trader benefactors - publicly last month in a lengthy report. I find it difficult to understand why Academia45 has been deleting relevant, referenced and pertinent content from this article. All of the content added by KJP1 needs re-adding. Elihu Yale was plainly a slave trader and in it up to his ears. To gloss this over does the project no favours. Desertarun (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

::Addendum. I'm in complete agreement with KJP1s proposed changes noted below. They are very much MOS and what our readers expect to see. I've created or edited dozens of biographies on slave traders and where an individual was involved, the words "slave trader" are always stated in the lead and full detail given in the body. Desertarun (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

We have one long statement by one of the listed participants in this thread, and one brief statement by an editor who will be added as a participant in this thread. We don't have a follow-up statement by the filing editor, User:Academia45. I will repeat that I said "Be civil and concise", and will explain that sometimes brief statements are more effective than longer ones.

If I were to close this dispute at this time, I would state that there is rough consensus to add "slave trader" to the lede.

I will again ask User:Academia45 and User:KJP1 to make concise statements as to:

• 1. What do you want to change in the lede paragraph of the article, or what do you want to leave the same?
• 2. What do you want to change in the body of the article, or what do you want to leave the same?

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Robert - apologies for the length. I've summarised below:

• Lead

:to reflect the body by including coverage of Yale's "key leadership role in the business of human trafficking";

• Body

:to have one sub-section in Presidency of Madras section covering Yale's involvement in the slave trade during his tenure;

:to have one sub-section in Yale University section covering 21st-century responses to the issue, principally the Yale and Slavery report.

That's it. KJP1 (talk) 06:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

:{{U|Robert McClenon}} - I appreciate the demands of DRN, but are we able to make any progress on this? We still have an article that’s not MoS-compliant. I’ve not responded to User:Academia45’s comment to me on the article’s Talkpage, as that seemed in breach of Rule A Point 6. KJP1 (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

It appears that two editors want to label Elihu Yale as a slave trader in the lede paragraph and one does not. Does anyone have a compromise proposal? If there is no compromise, we will have to resort to an RFC.

Is this the only content issue, or are there content issues about the body of the article?

Are there any questions about the rules and about compliance with the rules?

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

In the interests of compromise:

:Lead

:* I would concede not calling him a "slave trader" in the opening sentence;

:* I would need acknowledgement of his slaving activities to appear in the lead. This seems unarguable, as MoS requires the lead to summarise all of the key points in the body.

:Body

:* Within the Madras Governancy section, I would want a sub-section, Slavery, to cover his slaving activities, to precede the sub-section which already covers his corruption and dismissal;

:* Within the Yale University section, I would want a sub-section covering 21st-century reactions, in particular the Yale and Slavery report;

:Other points

:* I could not accept the filer's suggestion that we "remov[e] all Yale University related sources from the page". Commenting on the proposed editing approach, not the editor, this so fundamentally misunderstands WP:NPOV and WP:INDEPENDENT, that it is hard to take seriously. The suggestion that we should be removing recent, reliable, relevant and independent source material from an article as a way of improving it, is frankly extraordinary.

I obviously cannot speak for User talk:Desertarun but I hope the above may form the basis of a compromise. KJP1 (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

{{outdent}}

{{U|Robert McClenon}} - Hi, we're three days on from your Second statement. Rule A Part 11 asks that participants respond within 48 hours. The filer has not done that. What they have done is continue to raise the matter on the Talkpage, seemingly canvassing, although Rule A Part 6 recommends this not be done. I'd be very grateful for advice on how we might make progress. KJP1 (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

::User:KJP1 - Thank you for calling my attention. I wasn't paying a whole lot of attention because I was observing the Christian holy days. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

:::{{U|Robert McClenon}} - No worries, and sorry for disturbing Semana santa! KJP1 (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

::::User:KJP1 - You weren't disturbing my observances, and He is risen! Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with KJP1s appraisal. I have seen and been party to similar conversations around slave trader articles. In those conversations there was always a majority of 3-1 (or more) so a conclusion was easier, we're one off that here. Its absurd for a man who was responsible for trading thousands of people to merely be described as an "administrator, and philanthropist." Yale University accurately describe his character as horrible, not just for his slave trading but much else besides, its a shame its taken them centuries to come clean, this article is lacking in many areas and KJP1s solutions are a good start at addressing them. Desertarun (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Three days ago, I asked the editors whether there was a compromise. The filing editor has not replied, but has continued discussing at the article talk page. The opinions at this noticeboard are that there is a rough consensus to designate Elihu Yale as a slave trader. It is not clear why the filing party initiated this thread if they are not planning to take part in discussion. If there is no reply from User:Academia45 within 24 hours, I will close this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|2601:445:601:8920:359C:1A0C:7E9F:EE7|01:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed for now. There are two problems with this filing. First, the main other editor has not been notified on their user talk page. Second, the editor who provided the third opinion has neither been listed nor notified. Resume discussion on the article talk page. A new request can be filed here at any time if all editors are listed and notified. (Do not misgender any editors, and use the singular "they" or the editor's name if gender is unknown or gendered pronouns are not applicable.) Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Jinn}}

Users involved

• {{User|VenusFeuerFalle}}

Dispute overview

I've made two attempts to include mention of belief in jinn being considered a necessary part of belief in Islam according to some scholars. Both were completely reverted by VenusFeuerFalle, one of several deletions he has made of edit I've made to Islamic articles in the past month or so.

Specifically the dispute is over

1) whether this statement should be allowed in the lede

:''Many Muslim scholars, believe that belief in Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith, since jinn are mentioned in the Quran.{{rp|style=ama|p=33}}

2) whether revivalist preacher Abul A'la Maududi should be included among two other scholars listed who support this position (i.e. belief in Jinn is a necessary part of Islam). (Maududi has written many books and has a large following);

3) and whether as evidence of the significance of this belief, a brief description of the troubles of Nasr Abu Zayd "who was threated with death for apostasy" in the 1990s "(in part) because he didn't believe in jinn", should be included in the article. (Nasr_Abu_Zayd fled Egypt because belief in his apostasy in his country was so widespread that even one of the police officers guarding his house referred to him as a "kafir" when asked about him);

The deleter's explanation in edit summary and my replay are found [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jinn#Belief_in_jinn_and_belief_in_Islam here]

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

• Talk:Jinn#Belief_in_jinn_and_belief_in_Islam
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&diff=prev&oldid=1214042155 third opinion request ]
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Dispute_over_content_on_belief_in_Jinn_in_Islam

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Give a determination as to whether the deleted information should have been deleted. (It is of course very frustrating to do research and provide information on an aspect of an issue that is then dismissively deleted.)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|DTParker1000|00:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as declined by the other party, and as vexatious litigation. The filing party has already been partially blocked from the article page for persistently editing against consensus. The filing party filed one previous request for dispute resolution here, but failed to notify the other editor, and also filed a poorly formed Request for Arbitration. The basic problem is that the filing party is seeking to introduce material about the Rio Grande 223 that is not about the locomotive or its trains, but about the importance of railroads in the history of the American West. That information should be in the encyclopedia, and probably is in the encyclopedia, but is undue weight and off-topic with regard to the Rio Grande 223. I have a few suggestions for next steps by various editors, which may conflict with each other. First, the filing editor may post a Request for Comments on the article talk page to ask the community whether they may reintroduce the excluded material. This might restore their ability to introduce the historical material, although it is more likely to finalize the conclusion that the material is off-topic. If they choose to pursue this option, they should do it while they still have access to the article talk page, before any sanctions are imposed. Second, the filing editor may appeal their partial block at WP:AN after reading the boomerang essay. The risk is that this might result in the partial block being enlarged to a topic-ban. Third, any other editor may report the filing editor at WP:AN for vexatious litigation and request a topic-ban. Fourth, the filing editor can accept that the community thinks that the historical information that they are trying to introduce is off-topic with respect to the Rio Grande 223 and should be somewhere else in the encyclopedia. If the filing party wants to pursue the first or second options, they should do so while they are still permitted to do so. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Rio Grande 223}}

Users involved

• {{User|DTParker1000}}
• {{User|Xboxtravis7992}}

Dispute overview

I feel that the article on "Rio Grande 223" should include a section on the historical significance of this locomotive.

Xboxtravis7992 does not.

We have debated this on the Talk page and the Teahouse.

I originally posted a section on the engine's historical significance that was 6 paragraphs long. Using various pretexts, Xboxtravis7992 erased it in its entirety six times (on Feb. 16, Feb. 28, Mar. 9, Mar. 13, Mar. 20 and Mar. 24). This was discussed at length on the Talk page (under multiple categories). Half a dozen other editors made comments. In response, I made several changes to the text, and also shortened it to 4 paragraphs.

Two other editors made changes to the text itself.

However, this is not satisfactory to Xboxtravis7992. He has not only erased every revision I made, but has even erased what was written by the other editors. On April 1, he erased most of the last remaining paragraph.

There is an underlying issue here that is worth noting. Restoration options for the engine are currently being considered. The engine was built in 1881. As original parts wore out, they were replaced with more modern parts.

So, the restoration question then becomes: Should it be restored as is, or should some parts of it be put back the way they were in the 1800s?

I favor the latter option. Xboxtravis7992 favors the first option.

Why does this matter? Because some who favor the first option don't like to admit that the engine's period of greatest historic significance was in the 1800s, not the 20th century.

Hence, Xboxtravis7992's antagonism toward the engine's historical significance section.

Wikipedia content should be based on academic and encyclopedic standards, not deleted to skew a debate on engine restoration.

I look forward to a neutral review.

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

Talk:Rio Grande 223 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rio_Grande_223)

Comments are under the following sections:

- "Validity of Source Material"

- "Edit Disputes"

- "Xboxtravis7992 and his repeated attacks on the historical significance of D&RG 223"

- "Merged historical significance section into the rest of the article"

There were also various comments made on the Wikipedia:Teahouse, but apparently they have been deleted or moved.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please compare the article as it stood with my revision at 16:11 on March 25, with how it stands today (after Xboxtravis7992's deletions). Even the historic photographs in the article have now all been deleted.

Which version makes more sense to you?

I think that a short section on the historical significance of the engine is relevant, accurate and helpful to the reader. Please review the two alternatives and see what you think. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. I appreciate it.

As far as I am concerned at this point, continued discussion is playing with WP:STICK in a way I do not wish to engage in especially with a consensus from other editors that DTParker1000's edits to Rio Grande 223 were not within the article's WP:SCOPE. User:Jauerback has already blocked DTParker1000 (as seen on User talk:DTParker1000) from further edits to the Rio Grande 223 page due to edit abuse, and that decision has been backed by User:jpgordon with the concession that if DTParker1000 wishes to engage further that he still has access to Talk:Rio Grande 223 and may regain access to editing the page again in the future if he works through the appeals process. DTParker1000 asking for dispute resolution with me is reductive, seeing he cannot edit the page at this time and would be better spent talking to administrators to resolve that instead of continued WP:FORUMSHOP for some sort of "win" for his argument side; and I have no power to change the administrator's choices myself.

--Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Katangais|02:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as declined by the other editor. The other editor deleted the notification of this filing, which is assumed to decline to participate in voluntary moderated discussion. The MOS is not a policy, but the MOS is a guideline. Do not edit-war. The filing editor may resume discussion on the article talk page, or may submit a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Sand War}}

Users involved

• {{User|Katangais}}
• {{User|M.Bitton}}

Dispute overview

Removed "support" section from infobox per the Manual of Style for [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_military_conflict military infoboxes]. Another user keeps reverting my edits on the grounds that MOS is not a policy. I wasn't aware of that, and if so we need clarification on the extent that the MOS is a general guideline or a policy that should be applied. The other contributor has accused me of edit warring so I am reluctant to revise the infobox further, and if that is the case, I would feel more comfortable with a third party weighing in.

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

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sand_War#April_2024 Talk:Sand War]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Clarify whether the "support section" in this military infobox should be deprecated or not, to what extent MOS should be applied here, and what is the most desirable course of action moving forwards.

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

::The other editor was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:M.Bitton&diff=prev&oldid=1217656582 notified on their talk page,] and immediately deleted the notification. --Katangais (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

{{

DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Weiqwbo|09:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as premature, and as the wrong forum. There has been no discussion on the article talk page within the past three weeks. There have been occasional comments on the article talk page from time to time, but not recently. There was also a discussion on a user talk page recently, but the recent discussion should be on the article talk page, which might be watched by other editors who might take part in the discussion. Also, it appears that the content issue, how to list a band member who has died, is not one that will be resolved by compromise, which is normally what DRN is for. Either he should be listed as a member, if that is the choice of the band, or he should be listed as a former member, and there is no middle ground. So the issue can be better resolved by a Request for Comments. Discuss on the article talk page, for the purpose of arranging the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Buck-Tick}}

Users involved

• {{User|Weiqwbo}}
• {{User|Xfansd}}

Dispute overview

This is a band page. Last year, 2023, on October 19, vocalist Atsushi Sakurai died. However the band has stated, at a concert which was filmed and the video is available online (though not entirely legally), that Sakurai is still a member. There is also a written live report of this same concert, in Japanese, which reported the band members' words explaining that they're continuing on as the same five people and that they still count Sakurai as a member. This report has been translated to English by a caring fan.

The dispute that I, Weiqwbo, had is specifically with editor Xfansd, who rejected my adding Sakurai to Current members, which I had done with citations. They insist that dead people should be talked about in past tense, as Wikipedia's templates say, and I agree, however they also insist that the word "Current," an adjective in this case, is in present tense. It is plainly not, due to being an adjective and thus lacking a tense. So they disagree with counting Sakurai as a current member and have said they don't care what the band says. I think it very much matters what the band says about their own members and always has and will. For what it's worth, other people have gone through the same with editor Xfansd, as is visible in the edit log.

To explain the reason some fans feel the need to still include dead members in current members: to the best of my memory, Wikipedia precedent for jrock and visual kei bands, before Sakurai's passing, was to keep dead members in the current members list if that's what the band had said. Unfortunately, since Sakurai's passing, all these bands and people have been disrespected by having their eternal members (or whatever other words the bands chose) moved to the past members list. (I'm thinking of two bands: Malice Mizer and Versailles.)

The templates aren't clear enough for me, I believe that "Current member" is not the same thing as "Active member" and that related living persons' words regarding the dead do matter.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Buck-Tick

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Weiqwbo

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like mediation or consultation with several other unrelated editors so the case can be cleared up. I think this precise situation isn't covered in the current templates and guides and would like to come to a consensus. I would also like a venue where, hopefully, editor Xfansd will not resort to personal attacks like they did in my talk page.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|NAADAAN|01:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as discussed and not continued to be discussed. One editor has shown that most reliable sources characterize Camus as French, and some as French-Algerian. Resume discussion on the article talk page. Either normal discussion or an RFC can be used to decide whether he is described as French or as French-Algerian. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Albert Camus}}

Users involved

• {{User|NAADAAN}}
• {{User|Syzygyst}}
• {{User|Riad Salih}}

Dispute overview

Editor @Syzygyst repeatedly edited the page for Albert Camus to change his nationality from French to Algerian as he was born in Algeria. This is incorrect as he never held Algerian citizenship and was a French citizen living in France when he became notable. The fact he was born in Algeria is mentioned in the lead of the article. This was followed by a lengthy talk page discussion involving @Riad Salih, where he invoked WP:IAR to ignore the Manual of Style and that it was not a matter of nationality despite it being the title of the discussion. The talk page discussion led to @Riad Salih "addressing" the fact that my edit history was centered around Moroccan subjects and advised me not to hold this discussion on Wikipedia in the event that I was part of an "Algeria/Morocco social media war". This led me to conclude that we could not reach an agreement on this subject, and considering that more than two editors were involved in this, I sought to raise this with the DRN.

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

Talk:Albert Camus#Nationality

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The page has been reverted prior to the edit made by @Syzygyst consistent with the consensus reached thirteen years ago (Talk:Albert Camus/Archive 1#Algerian writer) in order to avoid edit wars and to reach a reasonable agreement between all parties thanks to the DRN.

The introduction made by NAADAAN is a bit misleading. The arbiter between us should be familiar with the context of that era. I'm not so foolish as to ignore the Manual of Style, as he suggests, but flexibility is needed depending on the context. He used unrelated names in his arguments, which have no connection to the war, colonization, or the background story of the writer. Furthermore, an old consensus from thirteen years ago holds little relevance on Wikipedia, especially considering that at that time, internet accessibility in North Africa was limited.

Albert Camus was born and raised in Algeria, which was a French colony during his time. He belonged to the piednoirs community, which was composed of French citizens, European living in Algeria. The debate about Camus' identity often revolves around whether he should be considered Algerian or French, Camus himself expressed neutrality during the Algerian war and found it difficult to choose a side.

During that era, the concept of citizenship in Algeria was complex due to colonization. Larbi Ben M'hidi, a historical figure, was born in Algeria during French colonization but is referred to as Algerian, even though in official documents he was considered French since there was no recognized citizenship of Algeria at that time, same goes for Abane Ramdane, born during French rule, had French identity papers, but he is referred to as Algerian. The notion of belonging and nationality was flexible depending on which side of the war you took, and many figures can be cited Frantz Fanon born in Martinique is he mentioned as only French? No, but Francophone Afro-Caribbean and the examples are endless.

Each individual's case is unique, and understanding the historical context of the colonization era is crucial to fully grasp the complexities.

Albert Camus is a North African writer who expressed himself in French. While some may emphasize his French identity, others recognize his Algerian roots. The fact remains that Camus was born in Algeria, making him Algerian-French and here are a few quick sources to support the notion that this is not an uncommon information ([https://www.nli.org.il/en/a-topic/987007259195805171 NLI], [https://books.google.dz/books/about/The_Plague.html?id=rtv2nQEACAAJ&redir_esc=y Google Books], [https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674416758 Harvard University Press (author section)], [https://journals.iium.edu.my/shajarah/index.php/shaj/article/view/1230 IIUM Journals], [https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/303/article/670265/summary Project Muse]). A quick online search reveals that many refer to him as an Algerian-French writer.

This debate extends beyond Wikipedia, and honestly, I don't wish to invest time and energy into this endless loop of discussion. I leave it to the committee to decide which version to keep. I don't attach much importance to it and cannot continue going back and forth with NAADAAN in this futile talk. It is not our job to rewrite history.

It seems there is a clear conflict between Naadan's contributions, which focus solely on Morocco, and the ongoing tensions between Algeria and Morocco. Always assuming good faith, but it appears that there is frustration from his part, as he is the only one blocking the mention of the word 'Algerian' in the article. I forgot completely about this discussion we had months ago, but he keeps blocking the article whenever someone tries to edit it.

Which made me question the reasons behind his forcing the removal of mentioning his Algerian identity, especially considering that Albert Camus himself couldn't choose.

The article was mentioning him as French, which is normal. Contributors from the North Africa region are quite scarce on Wikipedia, so their perspectives are rarely represented. Wikipedia:Systemic bias.