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 One editor additionally argues this estimate may be too outdated to belong in a top-level article.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.
Summary of dispute by Bogazicili
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
1) Opening sentences for the section such as "Extreme weather events affect public health". InformationToKnowledge said these are " too general and colourless" [1]. However, reliable and overview sources mention these: (bottom chart) [2][3][4]
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 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).
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Climate change discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Climate Change)
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)
Zeroth statements by editors (Climate change)
@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 [6], 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 [7] 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)
@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.
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: 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 Extreme weather leads to injury and loss of life. (current text) or Extreme weather events affect public health (his latest suggestion), or Both children and older people are vulnerable to extreme heat (current)/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.
Food security projections: Both of us have already agreed to use 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 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 (here and here) show near-universal declines in food insecurity, so my proposed wording is: 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 (reference) as a necessary background for this section, while Bogazicili considers it out of scope.
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.
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)
First statements by editors (Climate change)
Food and health (InformationToKnowledge)
@Robert McClenon: Indeed, the dispute is limited to that subsection only.
This is my preferred version:
The World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[8] 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.[9] Lethal infectious diseases such as dengue fever and malaria are more easily transmitted in a warmer climate.[10][11] 30% of the global population currently live in areas where extreme heat and humidity are already associated with excess deaths.[12] By 2100, 50% to 75% of the global population would live in such areas.[13]p. 988
Agricultural and socioeconomic changes had been increasing global crop yields since the middle of the 20th century,[14] but climate change has already slowed the rate of yield growth.p.9 Extreme weather events adversely affect both food and water security, and climate change increases their frequency.p.9 Fisheries have been negatively affected in various regions.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.[15] Under higher warming, global livestock headcounts could decline by 7-10% by 2050, as less animal feed will be available.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.p.797
@Robert McClenon: yes, the dispute is only about Food and health subsection, which has two paragraphs currently.
Here's my suggestion:
The World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[16] Extreme weather events affect public health.[17][18] Temperature extremes lead to increased illness and death.[19][20] Climate change can affect transmission of infectious diseases.[21][22] 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.[23] 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,[24]p. 988 which currently affects 30% of the global population.[25]
Despite overall increase in agricultural productivity, climate change has reduced water and food security, and has curtailed agricultural productivity growth.p.9 Agricultural productivity was negatively affected in mid- and low-latitude areas, while various high latitude areas were positively affected. p.9 Fisheries have been negatively affected in multiple regions.p.9 By 2050, climate change may affect tens to hundreds of millions of people in terms of undernourishment and nutrition-related diseases;p.60 change in population at risk of hunger may be positive or negative depending on several climate change and socioeconomic scenarios.[26] Depending on climate change trajectories, there will be increasing risks to food and water availability, and human health beyond 2040.pp. 14-15.
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)
Second statements by editors (Climate change)
Bogazicili
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: 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. 988Bogazicili (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
InformationToKnowledge
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 we have been advised to use, Bogazicili's draft ranks almost 10 points below 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.[27]
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. 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. 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 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 climate change may affect (i.e. the implication is that it may not do anything at all?), then the rough numerical range tens to hundreds of millions of people is immediately followed by may be positive or negative and 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.
Third statement by possible moderator (Climate Change)
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.
Food and health second draft (InformationToKnowledge)
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 @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
Human health
The World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[28] Over 100 scientists writing in The Lancet have warned about the irreversible harms it poses.[29] According to the World Economic Forum, the most likely future scenario is of 14.5 million deaths caused by climate change by 2050.[30] 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.[31]
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.[32] 30% of the global population currently live in areas where extreme heat and humidity are already associated with excess deaths.[33] By 2100, 50% to 75% of the global population would live in such areas.[34]p. 988 These and other climate change impacts are also expected to substantially increase the burden of stress-related mental health conditions.[35] The overall healthcare costs from climate change impacts would exceed 1$ trillion by 2050.[36] If the emissions continue to increase for the rest of century, then over 9 million climate-related deaths would occur annually by 2100.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.p.788 Agriculture will experience yield gains at high latitudes, but will also become more vulnerable to pests and pathogens.p.794 Extreme weather events adversely affect both food and water security, and climate change increases their frequency.p.9 Food prices spike after climate shocks.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.[37] Under higher warming, global livestock headcounts could decline by 7-10% by 2050, as less animal feed will be available.p.748 Marine animal biomass decreases by 5% with every degree of warming, reducing fishery yields.p.718
Yet, while climate change has already slowed the rate of yield growth,p.9 total crop yields have been increasing since the middle of the 20th century due to agricultural improvements.[38] By 2050, the number of people suffering from undernourishment and the associated health conditions is likely to decrease by tens to hundreds of millions.[39] Food security only worsens by 2050 in some combinations of severe climate change and low socioeconomic development,[40] 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.p.797
I'll also note that this draft has a higher Readability score than the current text of that section, and much higher than either of our previous drafts.
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)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
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 :
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.
Summary of dispute by KJP1
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."[41] 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 [42] 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, [43] 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)
Elihu Yale discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Elihu Yale)
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, 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 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.
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".[1] 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, [44] and the Valerie Pavilonis [VP] article, [45]. 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, [46] 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."[2]
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,[47] 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)
Statement by Desertarun
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)
First statement by possible moderator (Elihu Yale)
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.
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)
Second statement by moderator (Elihu Yale)
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?
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.
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)
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)
Third statement by moderator (Elihu Yale)
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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
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.[1](p33)
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 here
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
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.)
Summary of dispute by VenusFeuerFalle
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Jinn discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
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?
- "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.
Summary of dispute by Xboxtravis7992
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)
Rio Grande 223 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Removed "support" section from infobox per the Manual of Style for 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?
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.
Summary of dispute by M.Bitton
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Sand War discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
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?
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.
Summary of dispute by Xfansd
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Buck-Tick discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
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?
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.
Summary of dispute by Syzygyst
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Riad Salih
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 (NLI, Google Books, Harvard University Press (author section), IIUM Journals, 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.
Albert Camus discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Camus)
I am ready to moderate this discussion. Please read DRN Rule A. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. It appears that Camus's nationality is one of the issues. Are there any other content issues besides how to refer to the nationality of Camus?
It is my opinion, on reading the article and the statements by the editors, that there are arguments in favor of describing him as French, or as French-Algerian (pied-noir). Since there are arguments in favor of at least two alternatives, we should refer to him in the way that most of the reliable sources that have written about him have characterized him. So I am asking each editor to state briefly what they think should be listed as his nationality, and what reliable sources support their position. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I personally view the status quo -- showing him as "French" in the first paragraph of the lead and adding that "Camus was born in Algeria during the French colonization, to pied-noir parents" in the second paragraph in the lead -- to be the best option.
I have made a bona-fide attempt to find sources referring to Camus' nationality:
Although a bit anachronistic, I wouldn't be necessarily opposed to saying "Algerian-born French" or "French-Algerian" if the appropriate sources are there. My point of contention is the fact that @Syzygyst did not replace "French writer" with "French-Algerian writer", but rather omitted "French" and replaced it with "Algerian writer" and exclusively such, making such edits ad nauseam for the past few years. So no, I wouldn't say I'm frustrated against Algeria -- why would I be? I agree that this is probably a silly debate, but this would not have escalated had Syzygyst not repeatedly made such edits
I think it must be taken into consideration that pied-noirs and native Muslims in Algeria had different statuses akin to different European colonies, even in the case of Camus. Native Muslims in Algeria were French subjects but not citizens, whilst pied-noirs were French citizens. Considering that Algeria was considered a part of Metropolitan France until 1962 -- two years after Camus' death -- associating him with the current Algerian state would be anachronistic. Especially considering that he gained notoriety as a Frenchman in France, I think it's best to call him "French" in the first paragraph of the lead.
Per Albert Camus the Algerian (CUP), Camus was "born to parents who were legally French, [and] enjoyed from birth the full rights and protections of French citizenship, unlike the over-whelming majority of Berber and Arab Algerians, who were denied citizenship and designated as indigenous French subjects or nationals.", this explains the case of people like Larbi ben M'hidi who were Algerian natives in Algeria. He was the son of French settlers and attempted to join the French army during his formative years. Frenchman he was born, Frenchman he was raised, as a Frenchman he died. NAADAAN (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
First statement by possible moderator (Camus)
One editor has replied to my request, and has provided sources that characterize Camus as French or as French-Algerian. The editors who had edited the article to characterize Camus as Algerian have not replied. I will offer my opinion, which is that characterizing Camus simply as Algerian or as North African is inconsistent with the usage of the times, which is that the designation of Algerian was used to designate persons of Arab or Berber origin, usually Muslim, and Camus was of French origin. It appears that most of the reliable sources characterize Camus as French, and that some characterize him as French-Algerian (pied-noir).
Do any editors have anything to add about Camus's ethnicity? Do any editors have any other questions? If there are no other comments, I will close this thread and will advise that either normal editing or an RFC can resolve whether Camus is characterized as French or as French-Algerian. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Camus)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
There seems to be significant disagreement about including a section discussing controversy surrounding Kathleen Kennedy. A few users seem to be quite insistent on not even allowing the slightest mention of any potential controversial opinion/decisions made by her. I personally believe being unable to even mention a serious controversy surrounding a public figure is a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines.
I read through the article on kathleen kennedy and noticed it was missing a few relevant links, especially a link to the generic star wars wikipedia page. I added a "see also" section to include this link. After reviewing the issues within the talk page, I noticed previous attempts to resolve this controversy issue resulted in any mention of issues surrounding this public figure kennedy resulted in immediate removal by another editor. I thought that perhaps the issue was defamatory characterizations; so i thought a simple link to the South park Episode without any editorialization would work for everyone, those who wish to mention a serious controversy concerning a public figure to light and those who do not want to risk defamation. I was surprised that this neutral approach resulted in a complete reversion of all of my edits by user Nemov, especially because there is no consensus in the talk page about removing a link to "see also" section about "star wars".
I would like to resolve this issue in a rational way. I personally believe that to maintain NPOV, the controversy surrounding Kennedy must, at the very least, be mentioned. I thought a "see also" section would be the perfect way to avoid any issues. But I submit it to you and will abide by your decision.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
There has been an extensive discussion that predates me
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Please make a decision about the best ways (if any) to discuss any reasonable (not conspiracy theories) controversy surrounding Kathleen Kennedy, a controversial public figure. I would also like to suggest that user Nemov be instructed that "surgical"/specific edits or integration of the work of others is far superior than broad reversions someone else's entire edit, but I leave that to you. Thanks.
Summary of dispute by Nemov
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Editor added some "see also" links which I do not feel are important enough to the biography to justify inclusion. Editor is changing content back to how they think it should be, after I reverted and pointed them to a discussion in TALK. The details of the that discussion are pretty self evident. No idea why it was brought here. Nemov (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Kathleen Kennedy (producer) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Since no editor has filed a case request at the biographies of living persons noticeboard, I am willing to start moderated discussion here. Please read DRN Rule D. This is a contentious topic because Kathleen Kennedy is a living person. Do the parties want moderated discussion? If at least two editors request moderated discussion, and they appear to disagree about article content, we will begin moderated discussion. I am now asking each editor to state concisely what they want to change in the article content, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Are there any other questions?
Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Kennedy)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as apparently abandoned. There have been no follow-up posts, nor has there been a filing at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. There were comments about a change in the title of the article, but they were out of scope for this noticeboard, because a Move Request is the procedure for requesting a change in the title of an article. Resume normal discussion at the article talk page. Remember that the article is a contentious topic. and that contentious topics sanctions apply to the article. The biographies of living persons policy applies to biographies of persons who have recently died, in particular under questionable circumstances. Gender and sexualitycontentious topic sanctions also apply to the article. The biographies of living persons noticeboard is a forum for discussion of this article, which is about a recent death. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
We need more third party uninterested volunteers to help police discussion on both sides. More groundrules would be useful for everyone.
Summary of dispute by Sawerchessread
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
We need help establishing better groundrules and to help guide us to close discussion. This page was moved to "Suicide of Nex Benedict" unilaterally before being moved back. And the topic remains contentious among most editors.
Peter L Griffin keeps arguing to maintain certain phrasings including emphasizing that Nex "poured water" in the lead, which lead to the first reports of an edit war. Since page protection was lifted, there remains significant disagreement around phrases such as "drug overdose", "pouring water", and with which phrasing to include the autopsy report cause of death. Peter L Griffin has gone on to argue and war with any dissenting voices in the talkspace of the article, including replying to more than half of those who refuse to move the article, and has discounted sources that suggest the family of Nex questions the autopsy report. Peter specifically has suggested that news sources such as Washington Post and others published after a singular AP source disagree because the Washington Post made a mistake, and has argued to base the article solely on the phrasing of the AP News article, which supports his POV.
Upon page protection being lifted, I changed what I considered the most ridiculous change to emphasize that there was an altercation, but that exact sequence of events remains unknown. Peter L Griffin reverted my edit, so I reverted the revert. We currently are arguing on which editor has broken the most rules. Peter L Griffin and others have kept citing different wikipedia policies in order to argue for or against their own changes, and ignore accusations that they don't follow WP policies.
We need help with phrasing of the article, especially around the lead.
Summary of dispute by Peter L Griffin
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Beccaynr
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Statement by WiinterU
If I may state something very briefly. Medical examiners are known to lie and make mistakes. The only source that is claiming it was a suicide is the medical examiner. They have claimed to have suicide notes, of which, they will not reveal. This ruling could be anti-LGBT motivated. The fact that Benedict died the day after an altercation is also suspicious. We need to wait until we have better proof to change the title of the page. <blue>[[User:WiinterU|Wiinter]]<blue><purple>[[User talk: WiinterU|U]]<purple> (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
agreed. and we dont need to change the name of the title immediately, or even for months, as consensus on the move discussion shows.
But without more info, the onus of proof about how much we can question the medical examiner increases; they seem to have done a thorough job. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Death of Nex Benedict discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Another Volunteer Note - There is a Move Request on the article talk page to change the title from Death of Nex Benedict to Suicide of Nex Benedict. The Move Request is the proper place to comment on the preferred title, which means that comments anywhere else are permitted but may not be taken into account. So please make any statements about the title at Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict#Requested_move_28_March_2024. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Since no editor has filed a case request at the biographies of living persons noticeboard, I am willing to start moderated discussion here. Please read DRN Rule D. This is a contentious topic because the biographies of living persons policy applies to someone who has recently died under circumstances that are questioned. Do the parties want moderated discussion? If at least two editors request moderated discussion, and they appear to disagree about article content, we will begin moderated discussion. I am now asking each editor to state concisely what they want to change in the article content, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. The title of the article is not a topic for discussion here, because that is dealt with by a Move Request. Are there any other questions?
Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Seems fair to me.
It should be noted that after I started this dispute resolution, edit war accusations flew around. We put in a ticket to edit waring notice board here but its been declared stale after lack of activity.
I am not sure if PLG has been super interested in the article since I've filed all this. Becannyr has been editting a bit extensively, though IDK if its that contentious a change on my part. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Benedict)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as pending in another forum. The filing party, shortly, after opening this thread,opened a Request for Comments on the article talk page. An RFC takes precedence over other means of content dispute resolution. Maybe the filing editor decided that an RFC would be a better way to resolve this dispute. Please participate in the RFC, which will decide the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Disagreement about removing problematic misinformation quote WP:LIE, which deliberately used a quote out of context to mislead readers. It also tried to fabricate real history by passing off description of Chinese ships to describe the Javanese ships.
I have removed the quote, but was then reverted, this quote was pretty famous and used in many publication to describe Chinese ships so i have provided multiple evidences to show that it was indeed quote of Chinese ships, but the editor continue to deny it while didn't provide a single credible evidence on how he think it could be Javanese ships and also continue to use the distorted quote rather than the real quote from the real source.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
with fact checking the evidence and then removed the misinformation and hoax, which aren't allowed on Wikipedia.
Summary of dispute by Nitekuzee
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Djong (ship) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Talk:Mukokuseki#Undo
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
This discussion has failed to progress past multiple restatements of each parties' positions. Some parties have accused or implied others of bad-faith argumentation. You may go to ANI to air these concerns, but I personally believe this is not the case for anyone. I recommend an RfC as the next course of action. Snowmanonahoe (talk·contribs·typos) 02:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Me and User:Orchastrattor had a dispute about using the wording "stereotypical European features" in the lead section in article Mukokuseki especially in its definition. I thought that the article did not have enough sources to support this claim so this claim should be removed. While discussing this issue, the use brought up a book by Yano to support his claim, then he referred to a study that was off-topic, it was not about mukokuseki, so I explained that referring to it would be a WP:SYNTH. We reached a dead end so I asked for a third opinion. User:IOHANNVSVERVS kindly gave their opinion:
"I agree with SuperNinja2's position and modified the lead, removing the bit about 'stereotypical European features', which doesn't seem to be supported by the sources", "Yano's perspective is that mukokuseki design ('without nationality') is often/actually 'very much imbued with Euro-American culture or race'. This can be included in the article but is an analysis/criticism of the concept, and doesn't change the definition of the concept which is approximately 'the depiction of characters with racially ambiguous features, without a concrete ethnicity or nationality'."
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 and telling us what we can do to end the dispute and how each of us can compromise.
Summary of dispute by User:Super ninja2
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I think the wording; "stereotypical European features" or the "stereotypically Western characteristics" (the wording that Orchastrattor used after I reverted his edit) should not be used in the article, not to mention in the lead because there are not enough sources to support this claim.
The location where Orchastrattor insists on placing this wording may confuse the reader into thinking that it is part of the definition of the concept.
Orchastrattor keeps mentioning Yano's book, I'm not against using this source in the article but I think it should be included as an analysis/criticism of the concept, and should not change the definition of the concept which is "the depiction of characters with racially ambiguous features, without a concrete ethnicity or nationality". ☆SuperNinja2☆10:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by User:Orchastrattor
The sentence in question is not a definition and is providing context for the lead sentence by stating how different authors describe the subject in relation to real life.
I put the article's sources together based on the top results on google and WPL, then when it was challenged I looked the subject up on a different database and found that the authors already cited for one paper in the article supported the interpretation in question in another paper. SuperNinja did not provide any concrete reason not to cite the source in the original dispute apart from falsely accusing me of cherrypicking.
IOHANNVSVERVS agreed in their third opinion that we can [...] say that some people, such as Christine Yano, consider mukokuseki characters to have European features and failed to respond when I attempted to explain how this was still met by my preferred wording, I do not see what dispute there is to resolve here.
I updated the wording to reflect points made in both the original discussion and the 3O, but a lot of these were reverted by SuperNinja alongside a wide range of unrelated edits I made to coverage, quality and another claim added by Piotrus (talk·contribs) as an uninvolved fourth party. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by User:IOHANNVSVERVS
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
(hidden ping of parties)I am willing to moderate this. Please read Wikipedia:DRN Rule A. Despite what the page says, you can edit anything unrelated to the clause in question.
Some initial thoughts:
SuperNinja2, you cannot know whether Orchastrattor was cherrypicking sources, so assume good faith in that regard.
Orchastrattor, try to keep the conversation focused on the dispute.
Opening question: How do you want the lead to describe the features mukokuseki characters often have, and why?
The lead sentence already defines the subject in relation to real life, it only makes sense to have Yano and Gruyter there to give specific perspectives on that relation. It makes the lead read better by bringing attention to the role of the setting in a narrative work, with two constituent claims both sourced to reputable authors and corroborated by other sources cited later. Nothing about their analysis is any deeper or more controversial than the claims used for the rest of the lead, and there is no other claim that would fit better there. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
It isn't part of the definition, it is giving a potential example of how the subject can be perceived. The is no "X is Y" statement of any sort in the phrase in question. Orchastrattor (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Lead (SuperNinja2)
I think that the lead section should not include "stereotypical European features" or "stereotypical western characteristics in a setting where they might otherwise be assumed to be ethnically Japanese" because there are not enough sources to support. There is at least one source that says "Although it is true that such anime characters do not necessarily adhere to the usual Japanese phenotype, it would be false to infer that, because of this, such characters look “Western” or “Caucasian.” Rather, the characters look nationless.
Orchastrattor insists on placing it after the first fullstop in the lead. I would argue that this makes it part of the definition and would confuse the reader into thinking so.
I think this claim should be added as an analysis/criticism of the concept and we can only say that some people, such as Christine Yano, consider mukokuseki characters to have European features.
How do you want the lead to describe the features mukokuseki characters often have, and why?
I think that the lead section should say "Mukokuseki is the depiction of characters with racially ambiguous features, without a concrete ethnicity or nationality" because this is the concrete definition that all sources support and agree on. Other additions are disputed between sources and the lead cannot afford to display them all. ☆SuperNinja2☆09:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (Mukokuseki)
I am now going to ask that both editors write their own version of the lead. Do not simply paste in an earlier revision you prefer, because they have already been established to not have consensus. Rather, consider what the other editor has said as you write it and try to create something you think would be a good compromise. Snowmanonahoe (talk·contribs·typos) 01:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Second statements by parties (Mukokuseki)
I already did that with the current version, I was entertaining a lot of different ideas for the prose during the original discussion and applied those after the 3O stopped responding.
I switched "features" for "characteristics" in case it would match the new source better to talk about the abstract "placing" of characters rather than actual visuals, and I switched "European" for "Western" to reorder the phrase in a manner Superninja had suggested.Orchastrattor (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Third opinion is not a binding process. It is just that: a third opinion. If you believe there are issues with Orchastrattor's conduct you can file a report at ANI. DRN is not the place for this discussion. Snowmanonahoe (talk·contribs·typos) 04:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
It seems relevant, and I'm concerned that Super ninja2 is having their time and energy wasted here and that they will be discouraged from participating in disputes on Wikipedia in the future. Likewise Orchastrattor seems to be being rewarded for edit warring. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Also, I'm not familiar with DRN but isn't this statement of "Do not simply paste in an earlier revision you prefer, because they have already been established to not have consensus.", an instance of the middle ground fallacy / false compromise? Isn't it possible one editor is right and the other is wrong? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but if that is the case, moderated discussion would not be able to determine it. If you or one of them are confident you are absolutely right, an RfC is the appropriate venue. If you have more questions or concerns about how I am moderating this discussion, please bring them to my user talk page instead. Snowmanonahoe (talk·contribs·typos) 05:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
SuperNinja2
Mukokuseki (Japanese: 無国籍, translated as "statelessness" or "nationlessness") is a Japanese term describing fictional characters in visual media depicted with racially ambiguous features, without a concrete ethnicity or nationality. It is commonly invoked in visual media, including anime and manga, such as when a character is described as having neutral features. It is thought to be particularly significant in the context of marketing of entertainment properties towards non-Japanese audiences.
I removed the part that talks about foreign influence because the source did not say that Mukokuseki implies foreign elements in the characters but rather says the characters appear neutral. And it did not say that Mukokuseki is a result of foreign influence on Japanese culture either. I tried to find an alternative for "stereotypical western characteristics" but couldn't find one in any source. ☆SuperNinja2☆16:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator (Mukokuseki)
I am now asking SuperNinja2 read the current version of the article, and Orchastrattor her draft, and explain why (if at all) you object to said version, or the editor's rationale for the changes. Snowmanonahoe (talk·contribs·typos) 00:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Volunteer Comment - If an editor has an objection to the moderator's moderating style, they can raise their questions here, in the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Third statements by parties (Mukokuseki)
Lead 2 (Orchastrattor)
"[W]hat is interpreted as ‘without nationality’ [direct translation of mukokuseki] is actually very much imbued with Euro-American culture or race" Christine Yano, quoted by Birlea Oana-Maria.[2]
"Yano argues that [the setting of Hello Kitty in London] can still be considered mukokuseki because in most cases, anything but a white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant is considered “ethnic culture” by most people." Newspaper review paraphrasing Yano's work directly.[3]
"[I]t gets interesting [...] when there is a large cast of Asian characters, and one of them -- usually the lead character [...] -- looks more like a Caucasian character [...] [A] Caucasian-looking lead character among a Japanese-looking cast" From CBR magazine.[4]
Superninja has changed their interpretation of the above sources multiple times throughout the dispute but these clearly support the interpretation given in the current version. Yano is a reputable expert on Asian studies, there is zero reason to think she is some sort of embattled minority on the subject, especially if she is being cited this directly by other reputable publications. CBR is also helpful as a more popular article on the same subject with a more niche interpretation but was excluded from the current version of the lead to avoid refbombing.
Admittedly the prose naming 'neutrality' directly was moved away from the lead by the fourth party so it could be workshopped back in, but that is still just three different perspectives, perfectly reasonable to include especially in a lead that now has as much room for expansion as the one in question.
The "might otherwise be assumed to be [...]" is also something I would really like to keep, mukokuseki as a subject would be meaningless if it didn't somehow deviate from what Japanese people might be expected to depict themselves as. Orchastrattor (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Lead 2 (SuperNinja2)
I think that the lead mentions Yano's unique POV on the subject and favors it over many other sources that think otherwise without good reason. There is at least one source that says: "Although it is true that such anime characters do not necessarily adhere to the usual Japanese phenotype, it would be false to infer that, because of this, such characters look “Western” or “Caucasian.” Rather, the characters look nationless, but the lead mentions only Yano's. Why is that? That sentence is disputed between sources in top of being controversial, so it should be discussed further and it should be represented with other POVs in order to meet WP:DUE and the lead is not the place for that. And I would like to add that even Yano agrees with other sources on that "Mukokuseki means characters without a concrete ethnicity or nationality" but she adds and analyze this idea further and deeper to say: what is interpreted as ‘without nationality’ is
actually very much imbued with Euro-American culture or race. So we can safely say that all the sources including Yano agree on the definition I suggested. But analyzing of the details shouldn't be in the lead. That is why I suggest analyzing it in its own section. The lead is supposed to give an overview of the subject and is not supposed to be trafficked with extra information. And not to mention the wording itself (stereotypical western characteristics) which is not even used by Yano and is very misleading.
And regarding the part at the bottom of the lead that talks about foreign influence, it should be removed because the source that is cited to it did not say that Mukokuseki implies foreign elements in the characters but rather says the characters appear neutral. And it did not say that Mukokuseki is a result of foreign influence on Japanese culture either. ☆SuperNinja2☆TALK!12:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Up until this point, all three parties have seem to have made it quite clear they are not convinced by the opposing arguments. If no discernible progress is made towards a resolution soon, an RfC may be the appropriate venue for this dispute. Snowmanonahoe (talk·contribs·typos) 17:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Fourth statements by parties (Mukokuseki)
The current lead already names "stereotypically Western" and "racially ambiguous" as two different, opposing ways to describe the subject, either one with two or more sources throughout the article that can be drawn up to support them. Superninja is being factually and obviously incorrect when they claim Yano's work is the only one being represented in the current version. Superninja also claims this idea to be unique to Yano when as I laid out in plain English her interpretation is being repeated without any further commentary by other authors, and is echoed very closely by CBR. Thirdly Superninja misinterprets the source based on their partisan interpretation (as demonstrated in their first edit to the article) of "neutrality" as the default viewpoint that other perspectives must subscribe to, when the sources instead portray Yano's conclusion as being that something lacking "concrete nationality or ethnicity" is not the same as being neutral, all three perspectives of Western, ambiguous, and neutral have to be included with equal prominence in order to preserve neutral point of view.
Those three perspectives were specifically the three I laid out in my third statement as my new, theoretical preferred version, where I offered to actively workshop the lead with Superninja to paper over a technicality introduced by an uninvolved editor; I fail to understand what the moderator means when they say I did not attempt to compromise with my opponent. I have not once yet failed to meet the moderator's demands, I just have nothing left to compromise on.
Superninja on the other hand, has failed to address my repeated attempts to explain how the second sentence improves the current version; The point of an encyclopedic lead is to allow the reader to conceptualize and recognize the subject for themselves, naming the different perspectives directly is not only entirely non-exhaustive in terms of how much information is being conveyed, but is also the only non-controversial option to describe the subject in any capacity beyond the dictionary definition while also allowing the reader to frame the information in the rest of the article through those core perspectives.
"Western" is also plainly synonymous with "Euro-American culture or race", just contracted to fit the sentence structure. Superninja has dodged concerns over COMPETENCE in understanding of English before and I believe the moderator should account for whether or not there is a language barrier of some kind when evaluating my attempts to compromise with my opponent. Orchastrattor (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
The final sentence of the lead is also plainly stating that foreign influences are a context in which the sources analyze the subject, plainly seen in the very first sentence of the cited source, which frames the entire essay around "the [...] ability of the Japanese to adapt foreign elements". I don't understand how I am expected to compromise with someone this repeatedly incapable of interpreting basic elements of the article and sources they are arguing about. Orchastrattor (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Mukokuseki (...) is a Japanese term describing fictional characters depicted without a concrete ethnicity or nationality, particularly in anime and manga. It is commonly invoked in criticism of Japanese media, such as when a character is perceived as having racially ambiguous, culturally "neutral", or stereotypically Western characteristics in a setting where they might otherwise be assumed to be ethnically Japanese. It is thought to be particularly significant in the context of foreign influences on Japanese entertainment properties as well as the subsequent marketing of such properties towards non-Japanese audiences.
I have done everything in my power to address Superninja's underlying concerns and personal viewpoints, opening an RFC at this point would just be rewarding them for failing to engage with the basic processes of wikipedia. Orchastrattor (talk) 05:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
To elaborate on my first paragraph, if Yano is describing the subject as "imbued with" a particular cultural group then that is obviously antonymous with the subject being culturally neutral; Superninja is playing rules lawyer over whether or not Yano specifically uses the words "Western" or "European" in her work but appears to have absolutely zero issue with putting words in Yano's mouth when it comes to supporting their own viewpoint of "culturally neutral" instead. Orchastrattor (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think this is going to work. I think starting an RfC might be a better option. Thank you so much, User:Snowmanonahoe, you did a really good job! Thanks to everyone who participated in this discussion. Hope we reach a consensus in RfC. ☆SuperNinja2☆TALK!02:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
^Cite error: The named reference Nünlist-2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed due to lack of response by one editor. The filing editor has stated that he wants to make three edits to the article. The other editor did not reply. The filing editor should make the edits boldly. If the edits are reverted, he may follow the advice in the discussion failure essay, and may note this proceeding, or they may submit a Request for Comments,which should be neutrally worded, and preferably in three parts. I am willing to provide assistance in submitting an RFC if requested. Do not edit-war. Report disruptive editing at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
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.[1](p33)
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). (The point here being that Maududi has/had a huge following and readership);
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. (The significance here is that belief in the apostasy of Nasr Abu Zayd in his country (Egypt) was so widespread that even one of the police officers guarding his house referred to him as a "kafir" when asked about him).
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Make some sort of determination or recommendation as to whether my deleted edits are good for the article, or if not why not, i.e.what wikipedia rules they do not follow.
Summary of dispute by VenusFeuerFalle
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The requested information is already part of the article and well-cited: "Belief in jinn is not included among the six articles of Islamic faith, as belief in angels is. Nontheless, many Muslim scholars, including the Hanbalī scholar ibn Taymiyya and the Ẓāhirī scholar ibn Hazm, believe they are essential to the Islamic faith, since they are mentioned in the Quran." (Nünlist, Tobias (2015). Dämonenglaube im Islam [Demonic Belief in Islam] (in German). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.) I do not see why a more precise statement should be replaced by a more vague (some scholars) statement. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Jinn discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
(Reply to comment by VenusFeuerFalle) I did not replace other statements, I added to them. Included Maududi to the list of scholars who "insist belief in jinn is essential to the Islamic faith" and added the case of Nasr_Abu_Zayd as an example of why the issue matters.
Belief in jinn is not included among the six articles of Islamic faith, as belief in angels is. Nontheless, many Muslim scholars, including the Hanbalī scholar ibn Taymiyya, the Ẓāhirī scholar ibn Hazm, and revivalist preacher Abul A'la Maududi,[a] insist belief in jinn is essential to the Islamic faith, since they are mentioned in the Quran.[1](p33)[3] (Egyptian Prof. Nasr Abu Zayd went into exile from Egypt after being accused of apostasy, in part for his alleged disbelief in Jinn)[4]
^In his introduction to the Quran, Maududi defends "the reality of the jinn" against the influence of "modernism", the failure of modernists to believe in what cannot be perceived, and their idea that the jinn of the Quran were not supernatural invisible beings but actually "savage and wild mountain tribes, and sometimes the people who used to listen to the Quran secretly".[2]
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Jinn)
I am ready to moderate this dispute if it is necessary. Please read DRN Rule A. The purpose of content discussion is to improve the article and so improve the encyclopedia. Please state concisely what you want to change in the article, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. It appears that there may not be a significant disagreement, if one editor wants to say that some Islamic scholars consider belief in jinn to be necessary to Islamic belief, and another editor wants to attribute that statement to a specific Islamic scholar. But state what you consider to be the content issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Jinn)
First statement by possible moderator (Jinn)
I haven't seen any statements from editors in three days. If neither editor provides a statement as to what they want to change in the article, or if only one editor provides a statement, I will close this discussion as abandoned. I may close this discussion as abandoned within 24 hours, but I am not making a statement as to when I will do that, but I am making a statement now that I want to see editor comments.
Robert McClenon (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Jinn)
What I want to change in the article: as mentioned above in the Dispute overview I want to add three points. They are relevant to the issue and they amount to three or so sentences in a not terribly long article so Wikipedia:Article size won't be an issue. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed due to lack of notice. Four days after being advised to notify the other editor, the other editor has not been notified. Continue discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I added information about alternative spelling of the town's name and the Turkmen minority living there, supported by two sources. Another user deleted this by citing a facebook video that does not address the claims made in my edits.
I added more sources that support my claim and tried to solve the issue on the talk page, which the user did not respond constructively to. I have repeatedly argued my points, but the user is only responding in brief and keeps deflecting from the issue that is actually being discussed. I also tried to contact an admin as a mediator, who had intervened in another edit war this user was involved in, but that person was not willing to engage in that topic and referred me here.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Note to participants: You have not notified the other party of the discussion as required. I have done this for you. While this dispute can be resolved here if you wish, you may also find the third opinion process easier. Snowmanonahoe (talk·contribs·typos) 15:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Apologies, I thought the user would be notified when I added them under "Users involved". As for the third opinion process, I was referred here by an admin I asked for mediation and I already put a lot of time and effort into trying to resolve that dispute. So I'm frankly not too motivated to go to yet another place with this, but if it's necessary I can do that. Ermanarich (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Mteiritay, the summary of dispute section is not for continuing to argue your own position, but for describing the dispute in full. Assume I have not read any of the relevant discussion, and address the Wikipedia community, not Ermanarich. Snowmanonahoe (talk·contribs·typos) 18:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by moderator (Sulaiman Bek)
I am ready to moderate this dispute if the editors are requesting moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule A and indicate that you are willing to comply with the rules. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. I am asking each editor to specify, concisely, what they want to change in the article, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Is the issue about an alternate form of the name of the village? Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Sulaiman Bek)
Thank you @Robert McClenon: for considering to mediate. I have read DRN Rule A and am willing to comply. What I want to change about the article is adding the alternate spelling, including that of the Turkmen minority language, as well as the mention of the presence of an Arab majority and Turkmen minority in the town. The discussion also included the question of the ethnicity of one specific tribe (al-Bayat), but I have no intent of specifying that in the article.--Ermanarich (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (Sulaiman Bek)
Only the filing editor has replied. The other editor does not appear to be interested in moderated discussion, which is voluntary. The filing editor may make their proposed edits boldly. If they are reverted, try to discuss on the article talk page. If the other party does not discuss, after reverting, read the discussion failure essay. Then the options are to repeat the edit once a day, and if necessary either use an RFC, or request assistance at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Sulaiman Bek)
So with the other editor's unwillingness to engage in this process, it's just pretty much over? As for the bold edits, I already tried that two times, so I guess I'll directly move to RFC. Anyways, thank you for taking the time trying to moderate this.--Ermanarich (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
^ abCite error: The named reference Nünlist-2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^see also:El-Zein, Amira (2009). Islam, Arabs, and the Intelligent World of the Jinn. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. p. x. Retrieved 10 March 2024. ... although belief in the jinn is not one of the five pillars of Islam, one can't be a Muslim if he/she doesn't have faith in their existence because they are mentioned in the Qur'an and the prophetic tradition.
– Discussion in progress.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
