Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Wolf	In Progress	Nagging Prawn (t)	28 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 17 hours
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic	New	Randomstaplers (t)	24 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 16 hours	Bon courage (t)	1 days, 8 hours
Genocide	Closed	Bogazicili (t)	12 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 21 hours
Double-slit experiment	New	Johnjbarton (t)	7 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 22 hours
List of musicals filmed live on stage	New	Wolfdog (t)	5 days, 22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 22 hours	EncreViolette (t)	3 days,
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Zsa Zsa Gabor	New	PromQueenCarrie (t)	4 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 23 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 06:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Albert Camus

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by NAADAAN on 01:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Albert Camus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• NAADAAN (talk · contribs)
• Syzygyst (talk · contribs)
• Riad Salih (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

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

Talk:Albert Camus#Nationality

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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

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)

Are there any other issues or questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Camus)

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:

1. "Français"; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
2. "Français d’Algérie" (lit. "frenchman from Algeria"); 1, 2
3. "French"; 1, 2, 3, 4
4. "French-Algerian"; 1

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)

Talk:Mukokuseki#Undo

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Super ninja2 on 14:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Mukokuseki#Undo (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Super ninja2 (talk · contribs)
• Orchastrattor (talk · contribs)
• IOHANNVSVERVS (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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'."

But User Orchastrattor reverted IOHANNVSVERVS' edit and returned the wording in question to the lead and as a definition of mukokuseki and added the the study that is off-topic. I reverted his edit but he reverted mine.

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

• talk page
• third opinion

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 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.

No comment. SuperNinja2's summary seems accurate. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Mukokuseki#Undo discussion

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

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

   Done ☆SuperNinja2☆ 10:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Mukokuseki)

(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?

Remember to address your answer to me and the Wikipedia community (not to each other). Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 17:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Fix ping Super ninja2 Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 17:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

First statements by parties (Mukokuseki)

Lead (Orchastrattor)

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)

Again, if you have conduct concerns, go to ANI. Super ninja2 can stop participating in this discussion at any time if she feels it is a waste. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 05:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't think it's fair that Super ninja2 should have to continuously repeat themselves here. A third opinion was requested and provided affirming this version of the lead. Orchastrattor did not abide by the third opinion and restored their preferred version; isn't that edit warring? Especially when Super ninja2 reverted them "per talk page, we already discussed that" and Orchastrattor reverted them again, misrepresenting the conclusion of my third opinion. This version of the lead should be restored per the third opinion and if Orchastrattor wants it to say otherwise it should be on them to explain why. This is how I see it anyway, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:25, 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)

They've explained their position multiple times at this point. @Super ninja2, you might just start a Request for Comment at the Mukokuseki talk page. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

If you do not wish to participate constructively here, you can leave. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 01:33, 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.

"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.

"[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.

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)

Death of Nex Benedict

– New discussion.

Filed by Sawerchessread on 20:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Death of Nex Benedict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sawerchessread (talk · contribs)
• Peter L Griffin (talk · contribs)
• Beccaynr (talk · contribs)
• WiinterU (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

issues surround phrasing in the lead.

Some editors wish to emphasize an autopsy report, while others do not. This previously lead to accusations of edit warring here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215954859

After page protection ended, discussion continues to be heated.

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

Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict#Pour_water Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict#"caused_by_a_drug_overdose" Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict#Requested_move_28_March_2024

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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.

• Volunteer Note - The death of Nex Benedict occurred less than two months ago and has been ruled to be a suicide. According to the policy on biographies of living persons, they are a person who has recently died and is entitled to the provisions of the policy on biographies of living persons. The biographies of living persons noticeboard is probably the best place to discuss concerns about the article. If a thread is started at BLPN, I will close this thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• 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)

Comments about the article title here will be ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry about this, but I would like to add more input here. Despite the fact that the conversation is there, it is a mess of majority opposition, and little support. The entire argument has been split into different sections, with no centralized answer. <blue>[[User:WiinterU|Wiinter]]<blue><purple>[[User talk: WiinterU|U]]<purple> (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Benedict)

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)

Kathleen Kennedy (producer)

– New discussion.

Filed by Xam2580 on 00:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Kathleen Kennedy (producer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Xam2580 (talk · contribs)
• Nemov (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kathleen_Kennedy_(producer)

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.

• Volunteer Note - While disputes about biographies of living persons can be discussed at DRN, the biographies of living persons noticeboard is usually a better forum for such discussions. If a case is opened at BLPN, I will close this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Kennedy)

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)

Jinn

– New discussion.

Filed by Louis P. Boog on 16:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Jinn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• VenusFeuerFalle (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

Specifically the dispute is over
1) whether this statement should be allowed in the lede

Many Muslim scholars, believe that belief in Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith, since jinn are mentioned in the Quran.

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?

• Jinn talk page
• here, answered by User:StereoFolic on Jinn talk page
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Dispute_over_content_on_belief_in_Jinn_in_Islam Dispute over content on belief in Jinn in Islam

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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.

Climate change

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by InformationToKnowledge on 09:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Climate change (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• InformationToKnowledge (talk · contribs)
• Bogazicili (talk · contribs)
• EMsmile (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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

Summary of dispute by Bogazicili

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

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

1) Opening sentences for the section such as "Extreme weather events affect public health". InformationToKnowledge said these are " too general and colourless" [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).

I have also made a compromise offer to InformationToKnowledge [5]. The latest suggestions and my compromise text are here Talk:Climate_change#Latest_suggestions. Bogazicili (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Summary of dispute by EMsmile

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, btw, by "do not edit the article", you mean the disputed part only right? Bogazicili (talk) 17:57, 21 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.

1. Paragraph structure and "flow": Bogazicili's preferred structure for the first paragraph of the disputed section is similar to the current one. So, first this sentence: 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.
2. 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.
3. What counts as "excessive" detail: I.e. Bogazicili wants to mention effects on crop production by latitudes, but I find it challenging to do it in a sentence without being vague. Conversely, I want to address impacts on livestock production (currently not mentioned in the article), but Bogazicili finds my wording too detailed and keeps omitting any mention of those impacts. It even extends to reference choice: i.e. Bogazicili claims that IPCC summaries are preferable to full IPCC reports, which is not a position I have never heard of. I oppose this position when it weakens our wording (i.e. timelines becoming inconsistent, such as using 2050 in one sentence and 2040 in another) for the supposed benefit of the very few people who'll click on those specific references out of 400+ already in the article.

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

First statement by moderator (Climate Change)

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

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

Food and health (Bogazilici)

@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.

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

Second statement by moderator (Climate Change)

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. 988 Bogazicili (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.

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

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.

Are there any other questions, or any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Climate change)

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.

Back-and-forth discussion (Climate change)

References

Rio Grande 223

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by DTParker1000 on 00:33, 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. Location of dispute Rio Grande 223 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved DTParker1000 (talk · contribs) Xboxtravis7992 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I feel that the article on "Rio Grande 223" should include a section on the historical significance of this locomotive. Xboxtravis7992 does not. We have debated this on the Talk page and the Teahouse. I originally posted a section on the engine's historical significance that was 6 paragraphs long. Using various pretexts, Xboxtravis7992 erased it in its entirety six times (on Feb. 16, Feb. 28, Mar. 9, Mar. 13, Mar. 20 and Mar. 24). This was discussed at length on the Talk page (under multiple categories). Half a dozen other editors made comments. In response, I made several changes to the text, and also shortened it to 4 paragraphs. Two other editors made changes to the text itself. However, this is not satisfactory to Xboxtravis7992. He has not only erased every revision I made, but has even erased what was written by the other editors. On April 1, he erased most of the last remaining paragraph. There is an underlying issue here that is worth noting. Restoration options for the engine are currently being considered. The engine was built in 1881. As original parts wore out, they were replaced with more modern parts. So, the restoration question then becomes: Should it be restored as is, or should some parts of it be put back the way they were in the 1800s? I favor the latter option. Xboxtravis7992 favors the first option. Why does this matter? Because some who favor the first option don't like to admit that the engine's period of greatest historic significance was in the 1800s, not the 20th century. Hence, Xboxtravis7992's antagonism toward the engine's historical significance section. Wikipedia content should be based on academic and encyclopedic standards, not deleted to skew a debate on engine restoration. I look forward to a neutral review. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Rio Grande 223 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rio_Grande_223) Comments are under the following sections: - "Validity of Source Material" - "Edit Disputes" - "Xboxtravis7992 and his repeated attacks on the historical significance of D&RG 223" - "Merged historical significance section into the rest of the article" There were also various comments made on the Wikipedia:Teahouse, but apparently they have been deleted or moved. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please compare the article as it stood with my revision at 16:11 on March 25, with how it stands today (after Xboxtravis7992's deletions). Even the historic photographs in the article have now all been deleted. Which version makes more sense to you? I think that a short section on the historical significance of the engine is relevant, accurate and helpful to the reader. Please review the two alternatives and see what you think. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. I appreciate it. 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.

Sand War

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Katangais on 02:25, 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. Location of dispute Sand War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Katangais (talk · contribs) M.Bitton (talk · contribs) Dispute overview 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? Talk:Sand War How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Clarify whether the "support section" in this military infobox should be deprecated or not, to what extent MOS should be applied here, and what is the most desirable course of action moving forwards. 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. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC) The other editor was notified on their talk page, and immediately deleted the notification. --Katangais (talk) 20:56, 7 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.

Buck-Tick

– New discussion.

Filed by Weiqwbo on 09:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Buck-Tick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Weiqwbo (talk · contribs)
• Xfansd (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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

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.