Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 245

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

• 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 One editor additionally argues this estimate may be too outdated to belong in a top-level article.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

Summary of dispute by Bogazicili

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

Climate change discussion

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Climate Change)

I am ready to act as the moderator for this dispute. Please read

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

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

• 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.

Food and health second draft (Bogazilici)

Sorry for the delay. I actually like a lot of

The World Health Organization calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[42] Over 100 scientists writing in The Lancet have warned about the irreversible harms it poses.[43] Extreme weather events affect public health, and food and water security.[44][45]p. 9 Temperature extremes lead to increased illness and death.[46][47] Climate change increases the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events.[48]p.9 It can affect transmission of infectious diseases.[49] [50] According to the World Economic Forum, 14.5 million more deaths are expected due to climate change by 2050.[51] 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 30% of the global population currently live in areas where extreme heat and humidity are already associated with excess deaths.[52] By 2100, 50% to 75% of the global population would live in such areas.[53]p. 988

While total crop yields have been increasing in the past 50 years due to agricultural improvements, climate change has already slowed the rate of yield growth.p. 9 Fisheries have been negatively affected in multiple regions.p. 9 Climate change has strong impacts on agriculture in the low latitudes, where it threatens crop yields and important cash crops like cocoa.pp. 9, 48, 788 Agriculture will experience yield gains at high latitudes but will become more vulnerable to pests and pathogens.p. 794 An increase in drought in certain regions could cause 3.2 million deaths from malnutrition by 2050 and stunting in children.[54] With 2C warming, global livestock headcounts could decline by 7-10% by 2050, as less animal feed will be available.p.748

There are no sources for now, because I used a lot of InformationToKnowledge's work. I need to verify the sources and check against Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. I'll revise the above suggestion tomorrow. Also, Robert McClenon, given the convergence in this round, I'd suggest doing another round before an RFC. Bogazicili (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator (Climate Change)

I will be preparing an RFC for the community to choose between two draft paragraphs on the food and health impact of climate change. So if you haven't made any revisions that you are planning to make to your version, please make them within 48 hours. I don't know whether the RFC will go out in 48 hours or in four days, but please have your version that is ready for the community to review within 48 hours. If there are any questions, please ask them now. If there are any other issues, please state them now. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Climate change)

Fifth statement by moderator (Climate change)

I am asking each editor to put a third and final draft in the space below within 36 hours. Are there any other questions or issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors (Climate change)

Food and health third draft (InformationToKnowledge)

Before his recent draft, Bogazicili raised concerns about article length, but I don't think that would be an issue with my proposal. There is already growing consensus on the article talk page for condensing a different section in order make space for increasing size here. (In fact, Causes of climate change was recently created in large part to make it easier to condense certain paragraphs of this article.)

As such, I only made limited edits to the third paragraph - adding a new starting sentence and changing the wording in the next two. This is to address Bogazicili's argument that year 2050 food security projections should not be included because the 2021 meta-analysis and the IPCC AR6 "diverge a bit". I went back to AR6 text, and found a sentence proving that the difference is due to AR6 comparing "counterfactual 2050 without climate change" with climate change, while the meta-analysis compares year 2050 (with climate change) with the present day. Thus, the difference can be explained within paragraph text, which I have now done in my draft.

I know that this is rather "last-minute" and does not leave @Bogazicili: much time to respond if we are to stick to the 36-hour timeline, but I also don't think he's likely to make substantive changes to his draft in response to that addition alone.

Human health

The World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[55] Over 100 scientists writing in The Lancet have warned about the irreversible harms it poses.[56] According to the World Economic Forum, the most likely future scenario is of 14.5 million deaths caused by climate change by 2050.[57] 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.[58]

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.[59] 30% of the global population currently live in areas where extreme heat and humidity are already associated with excess deaths.[60] By 2100, 50% to 75% of the global population would live in such areas.[61]p. 988 These and other climate change impacts are also expected to substantially increase the burden of stress-related mental health conditions.[62] The overall healthcare costs from climate change impacts would exceed 1$ trillion by 2050.[63] 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.[64] 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

In isolation, climate change is expected to increase the risk of hunger for 8 to 80 million people by 2050.p.725 However, total crop yields have been increasing since the middle of the 20th century due to agricultural improvements, and in spite of climate change.[65]p.832 By 2050, the overall number of people suffering from undernourishment and the associated health conditions is likely to decrease by tens to hundreds of millions.[66] Food security only worsens by 2050 in some combinations of severe climate change and low socioeconomic development,[67] 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

Food and health third draft (Bogazicili)

The 2021 meta-analysis didn't find statistically significant difference between scenarios with and without climate change. I don't think that's the view of IPCC AR6 WG2 2022. Although maybe the difference is due to the methodology used (or which scenarios are being compared). IPCC might factor in the newer study in AR7 too. Until then, I feel this should be explained in detail in the Effects of climate change on human health article.

I didn't think there would be enough support yet for InformationToKnowledge's proposed expansion, but I see InformationToKnowledge insists on that. There are also still

The World Health Organization calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[68] Over 100 scientists writing in The Lancet have warned about the irreversible harms it poses.[69] Extreme weather events affect public health, and food and water security.[70][71]p. 9 Temperature extremes lead to increased illness and death.[72][73] Climate change increases the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events.[74]p.9 It can affect transmission of infectious diseases.[75] [76] According to the World Economic Forum, 14.5 million more deaths are expected due to climate change by 2050.[77] 30% of the global population currently live in areas where extreme heat and humidity are already associated with excess deaths.[78] By 2100, 50% to 75% of the global population would live in such areas.[79]p. 988

While total crop yields have been increasing in the past 50 years due to agricultural improvements, climate change has already slowed the rate of yield growth.p. 9 Fisheries have been negatively affected in multiple regions.p. 9 Agricultural productivity was negatively affected in mid- and low-latitude areas, while some high latitude areas were positively affected. p.9 An increase in drought in certain regions could cause 3.2 million deaths from malnutrition by 2050 and stunting in children.[80] With 2C warming, global livestock headcounts could decline by 7-10% by 2050, as less animal feed will be available.p.748 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

Sixth statement by moderator (Climate Change)

I have prepared a draft RFC, which is at Talk:Climate change/RFC on Food and Health. Any discussion about it should be now, before I copy it to Talk:Climate change and tweak it to make it come to life. If you each want me to provide a space in it for introductory statements, I will provide those. Otherwise you can make your statements in the Discussion section. If there are no objections, I will move it to the article talk page, which brings it to life, within 24 to 48 hours. Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors (Climate change)

Bogazicili

Robert McClenon, looks good to me. Returning to talk page and asking long-time editors of the page to vote is an option too, before a full RfC. The reason I'm saying that is that RfC's I've seen are usually more simple where editors don't have to review a lot of sources. I'm good with a full RfC too though. Bogazicili (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, by the way, if we are going with the RfC route, can you also add InformationToKnowledge and my comments about the article size? I had said my concerns about the article exceeding 9k words, whereas InformationToKnowledge supports trimming from the other parts of the article. Bogazicili (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Seventh statement by moderator (Climate Change)

The RFC is now running, and you may and are asked to participate in the RFC. You may discuss article length in the Discussion section. I will point out that there are favorable comments about both proposed versions. Are there any other issues, or should I close this thread? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Seventh statements by editors (Climate change)

Robert McClenon, is the DRN process done? Are you going to follow up with RfC (closing etc), or should we handle the rest? Bogazicili (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Back-and-forth discussion (Climate change)

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.

Location of dispute

• Nikola Tesla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Endy Angello (talk · contribs)
• Joy (talk · contribs)
• Chetvorno (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hi, I have a problem with your admins/mods on the Nikola Tesla page.

I politely stated many facts on Talk:Nikola Tesla that should be like this: Nikola Tesla was a Croatian-American inventor that originates from Serbia. Not like this: Nikola Tesla was a Serbian-American inventor...

And they are speaking nonsense through the whole conversation and deliberately avoiding to show me proof that Nikola Tesla was Serbian as that page states. They even bring up consensus and that Croatian word would overload the page.

So I was wondering why those people with clear political reasons can edit that page without consequences and why they are allowed to offend Croatian people for all these years?

I'll send you a link to that talk page, and if you can be kind to assemble the team of specialists for this kind of topic from America/Belgium/Finland no matter which country it is, just to be far from Balkan, so they can take a look our conversation and decide which sentence is correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Nationality_and_ethnicity#Nationality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla

P.S. Nikola Tesla was born on Croatian territory, today's Croatia which in 1856 was partially semi-recognized by Austria-Hungary, and after a few years they were and Nikola Tesla had a passport of Austria and King of Hungary, Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia. Nikola Tesla spoke Croatian and went to Croatian schools. Even his parents were born on Croatian territory. He just has Serbian ethnicity from his ancestors so he can't be a Serbian-American inventor.

I personally think that this is the only correct sentence that should be on Nikola Tesla page: Nikola Tesla was a Croatian-American inventor that originates from Serbia.

Thank you.

Endy Angello

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Nationality_and_ethnicity#Nationality

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Can you please be kind to assemble the team of specialists for this kind of topic from America/Belgium/Finland no matter which country it is, just to be far from Balkan, so they can take a look our conversation and decide which sentence is correct.

Summary of dispute by Joy

• The new user here is making weird and occasionally insulting claims. Tesla's origins have been debated at nauseam, and I've explained what I believe is the consensus status quo. The conventional adjectives to indicate origin that could be used to describe Nikola Tesla would be a 'Serb' (ethnicity), 'Serbian' (ethnicity), 'Croatian Serb' (ethnicity + geography), 'Croatian' (geography), and 'Serbian American' (immigration). Any other wombo combo, including those described by the proposer, is not found in reliable sources. This kind of weird argumentation that happened before is what caused the editor community to decide to stop answering these kinds of questions at the main talk page in the first place... --Joy (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Was Nikola Tesla a citizen of Croatia? Yes, as Croatia was part of Austria-Hungary, before that it was part of the Kingdoms of the Holy Crown of Hungary. Was he citizen of Austria? No, as Croatia wasn't part of Austria. Tesla was ethnic Serbian, a citizen of Croatia, Austria-Hungary and later the USA and belonged to the Serbian, Croatian and American nation. In the first sentence on Nikola Tesla page it states: Nikola Tesla was a Serbian-American inventor... - Where is Croatia mentioned there? Nowhere. The proper first sentence should be: Nikola Tesla was a Croatian-American inventor that originates from Serbia. Endy Angello (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Chetvorno

Passport of Nikola Tesla, no. 1079, issued in Zagreb in the name of His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty Franz Joseph I, Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia. The passport contains a personal description of Tesla. November 25, 1883. Source: https://tesla-museum.org/en/legacy/archive/identity-documents/ and https://nikolatesla-network.eu/news/more/passport-of-nikola-tesla - Now show me your official source where the official document states that Nikola Tesla was Serbian. Endy Angello (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

(Continuing this on Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Nationality_and_ethnicity)

Nikola Tesla discussion

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.

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Summer92 (talk · contribs)
• Sirfurboy (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a dispute in regards to adding the English pronunciation of "Ceredigion" to the article's lead, with the opposing side insisting that "Ceredigion" is not an English word and as such shouldn't be given a pronunciation.

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

Talk:Ceredigion#Pronunciation 2

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide your thoughts in regards to

Summary of dispute by Sirfurboy

Ceredigion discussion

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.

Location of dispute

• 2024 Formula One World Championship#Calendar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Wiki wikied (talk · contribs)
• Island92 (talk · contribs)
• SSSB (talk · contribs)
• Cerebral726 (talk · contribs)
• Tvx1 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is ongoing dispute over best way to visually display a table (calendar) as to whether the information should all be on 1 line with use of no wrap, forcing mobile users to have to scroll left and right to read succinctly, or whether the table should be optimised to format for the device it is being read on and allow users to read the whole row without having to continuously scroll left and right

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

Discussion on talk page is simply a stalemate between aesthetic opinions. I tried adding multiple sections to please both views, but this was reverted also

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Clarity on any guidance around usability or table conventions to back up either opinion or any technical solutions that allow for both opinions to be accommodated

Summary of dispute by Island92

Summary of dispute by SSSB

Summary of dispute by Cerebral726

Summary of dispute by Tvx1

2024 Formula_One_World_Championship#Calendar discussion

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.

Location of dispute

• South Park: Joining the Panderverse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• SanAnMan (talk · contribs)
• talk · contribs
  )

Talk:South Park: Joining the Panderverse

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Determine if the reviews in the article are suitable for inclusion.

Summary of dispute by Cjhard

We have not recently discussed this topic extensively and the above editor has edit-warred against this change against me and previously against @

South Park: Joining the Panderverse discussion

Zeroth statement by moderator (South Park)

The filing editor did not notify the other editor, but the other editor has answered here. There is also a discussion about a possible edit warring but there seems to be no violation. Please note that I have no background in the subject matter. Please read DRN Rule B and state that you are willing to comply with it. In order to improve the article I would like to ask you to list the sources that are currently in question and briefly describe why or why not you think it is reliable. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I have absolutely no objections to conforming with DRN Rule B. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Summary of sources in dispute by SanAnMan

Cjhard seems to object primarily to including critical reviews by

Forbes, CBR and Cracked are easily reliable for critical reviews of works of entertainment. I've cited Forbes as a source numberous times for various types of information (possibly entertainement), and I've definitely cited CBR more times than I can count,as has the rest of the editing community here. The idea that they are not appropriate does not reflect the consensus of the editing community. Nightscream (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (South Park)

Thank you for the response SanAnMan. I would like to ask the editors to remain respectful to each other and avoid edit warring. I'm still waiting to see if Cjhard is willing to participate in this discussion.

ANI filed against Cjhard

I do not believe Cjhard is going to participate in this discussion in any way. I have had to file a

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.

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Hakikatco (talk · contribs)
• Kaalakaa (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute was immaturely archived, I want the concerns addressed in the dispute: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&oldid=prev&diff=1220430012

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Adding this content does not violate any WP policies. The burden of proof falls on those claiming a policy breach.

Can you please help

Summary of dispute by Kaalakaa

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

• Gupta–Hunnic Wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ImperialAficionado (talk · contribs)
• Jonharojjashi (talk · contribs)
• HistoryofIran (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute regarding the outcome of the Gupta–Hunnic Wars hinges on the duration of the conflict. There are two main perspectives: one suggesting that the Wars should be considered until 550, coinciding with the fall of the Gupta Empire, while the other argues for a conclusion at 534, marking the end of the Second Hunnic War, an intermediate of the Wars. Additionally, there is contention over whether the display should depict a Hunnic victory, attributed to the invasion leading to the fall of the Gupta empire. Fundamentally, the issue centers on defining the extent of the time period of the Wars and consequently, their outcome.

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

Talk:Gupta–Hunnic Wars#Constant disruption

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The dispute could be resolved by identifying the year when the Wars between the Gupta Empire and the Huns concluded. If the conflict indeed ended in 550, then it would be prudent to consider whether labeling it as a "Hunnic victory" in the infobox is appropriate, given the premise that the Gupta Empire fell as a result of Hunnic invasions.

Summary of dispute by Jonharojjashi

Summary of dispute by HistoryofIran

Summary of dispute by

Gupta–Hunnic Wars discussion

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.

Location of dispute

• Category:Disinformation operations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Coddlebean (talk · contribs)
• Amigao (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This category contains medias that are major news outlets, and most of these media is located in certain countries, thus likely violate NPOV. I tried to edit, but User:Amigao keeps reverting it.

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

[84]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

remove non-neutral, that's all.

Summary of dispute by Amigao

Category:Disinformation operations discussion

• Friend @
  WP:NPOV says. I recommend reading what it has to say before you continue trying to make editorial decisions based on it. Remsense诉
  04:36, 5 May 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.

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

• Talk:LiveJasmin#Latest proposed "Controversy" section improved after a number of suggestions from the community (edit | subject | history | links | "Controversy"_section_improved_after_a_number_of_suggestions_from_the_community watch | logs)

Users involved

• Alexfotios (talk · contribs)
• Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs)
• Seraphimblade (talk · contribs)
• Avgeekamfot (talk · contribs)
• IOHANNVSVERVS (talk · contribs)
• Herostratus (talk · contribs)
• Morbidthoughts (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue is whether the latest version of the proposed article session Talk:LiveJasmin#Latest_proposed_"Controversy"_section_improved_after_a_number_of_suggestions_from_the_community should be added to the LiveJasmin page or not. For discussion and background please see talk page sections above this one.

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

Talk:LiveJasmin#Controversy Talk:LiveJasmin#Latest Proposed Controversy Section Talk:LiveJasmin#Proposed RfC Talk:LiveJasmin#Latest proposed "Controversy" section after a number of suggestions

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please advise whether Talk:LiveJasmin#Latest_proposed_"Controversy"_section_improved_after_a_number_of_suggestions_from_the_community is worthy of inclusion to the article and whether it complies with WP rules and etiquette. Thank you!

Summary of dispute by Ohnoitsjamie

Summary of dispute by Seraphimblade

• This editor has already been told by, at my count, four experienced editors that their proposed addition is not appropriate, with no one except this editor disagreeing with that assessment. At this point their continuing to push at the issue is becoming
  Time to move on. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}
  21:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Got involved in this after being pinged by the feedback request bot. Not sure why it's still being discussed since pretty much everyone except Alexfotios agrees that this content isn't appropriate. Avgeekamfot (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by IOHANNVSVERVS

Summary of dispute by Herostratus

Adding the content is fine with me. What I want to hear is if it's not true. It it's true, it's fine. Can't hurt to present it to the reader and let her decide if she thinks it too trivial to care about or not. The reader is not an idiot. The article is not too long. If you want to make the argument "Well it is true, but we don't want the reader to know these facts" make it, and good luck. Throwing around accusations of "disruptive" is only OK if you're in the right. Are you? And "four experienced editors" doesn't impress me much on this subject, because... oops out of space. Herostratus (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Morbidthoughts

Talk:LiveJasmin#Latest proposed_"Controversy"_section_improved_after_a_number_of_suggestions_from_the_community discussion

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.

Location of dispute

• TAI TF Kaan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• FoxtAl (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An IP user has removed this edit [85] which is clearly supported by the inline citation [86]. There's a talk page discussion going on this buy I couldn't convince them (another editor has joined the discussion). So I'm requesting a dispute resolution on this matter.

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

Talk:TAI TF Kaan#Remove BAE Systems from lede

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please check both sides arguments, citations etc and help us solve this. Thanks

TAI TF Kaan discussion

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.

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk · contribs)
• Feline negativity (talk · contribs)
• Bon courage (talk · contribs)
• Coolclawcat (talk · contribs)
• WikiLinuz (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview Edited and submitted by Димитрий Улянов Иванов.

Feline negativity and Bon Courage expressed concerns around our plea for methylphenidate to be presented as an established effective and safe first-line treatment for ADHD.

Both Feline negativity and Bon Courage cited there is a very low level of certainty about evidence on the efficacy of methylphenidate for reducing symptoms of ADHD.

That claim was based primarily on Storebø and colleagues' meta-analysis of methylphenidate, which used an idiosyncratic application of the Cochrane risk of bias tool. I believe international guidelines and the International Consensus Statement on ADHD show that the results from systematic reviews and meta-analyses are clear: methylphenidate is not only safe and efficacious, it is among the most efficacious drugs in all of medicine and should be considered as a first-line treatment.

Feline negativity expressed concerns that the International Consensus Statement and some meta-analyses contain substantial conflicts of interest due sources of funding.

I believe that claim is based on the existence of disclosure statements of unrelated funding sources by some scientists. They only create the potential for a conflict, it does not assure such a conflict of interests, especially when the payments for speaking or consulting are so small relative to one's salary from their medical centre or university. Others may receive small grants from drug firms but that income is directed to the university, not the professional. So just because some authors, and not others, have received minor unrelated company fees for speaking or consulting doesn't automatically lead to dismissal of the conclusions in the reports.

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

Talk:Methylphenidate#Balancing_article_information_about_methylphenidate;_call_for_consensus

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

To systematically review the scientific literature, evidence-based guidelines and regulatory endorsements to help provide article consensus on this issue.

Summary of dispute by Feline negativity

Summary of dispute by Bon courage

My position has not been accurately stated in this filing. The only edit I have made on this topic is this.[87] and what I say is, I think, correct. There are editors who have commented on this matter not listed in this filing, also. This will be my only contribution to this DR and I now withdraw from the process. Bon courage (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Coolclawcat

Summary of dispute by WikiLinuz

Methylphenidate discussion

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.

Location of dispute

• AT&T Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Emiya1980 (talk · contribs)
• KansasCityKSMO (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a dispute on the Article's talk page regarding what should be listed as the company's original founding date.

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

Talk:AT&T_Corporation#Founding_date

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Offer a third party opinion on the issue in question.

Summary of dispute by KansasCityKSMO

AT&T Corporation discussion

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.

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Theozilla (talk · contribs)
• TabahiKaBhagwan (talk · contribs)
• MuffinHunter0 (talk · contribs)
• Yourfriend987 (talk · contribs)
• Erior97 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

At 15:21, 15 May 2024‎ the lines "It is important to note that despite popular myth and modern depictions there are no historical writings nor evidence that Yasuke was ever granted the rank or title of samurai, he was never given a fief nor referred to as one in any writings. Most of our knowledge of his life comes from these messages written by missionaries and locals" were added to the "Documented life in Japan" section of the Yasuke article. This was almost certainly done as part of the racist backlash to reveal that the video game "Assassin's Creed Shadows" would have a fictionalized version of Yasuke as one of its two leads. I and other users objected to the addition, as because there is debate over whether Yasuke should or not considered as samurai (whether formally or informally) it is unwarranted to have sentences categorically claiming that he wasn't one. Especially when Yasuke is currently listed as a foreign born samurai on the Japanese language version of wikipedia. https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%B5%B7%E5%A4%96%E5%87%BA%E8%BA%AB%E3%81%AE%E6%AD%A6%E5%A3%AB%E3%81%AE%E4%B8%80%E8%A6%A7

And that's not even mentioning the "It is important to note" editorializing opening part of the sentence. If one wanted to add a sentence saying that there is debate among historians over whether Yasuke's status as a retainer/vassal to Oda Nobunaga made him formally (or informally) recognized as a samurai or not, that would be a completely different and not something I would object to including in this entry.

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

I have made my case in the Talk section of the Yasuke article, and others have also noted other issues with the citations and and editorializing nature of the recently added sentences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#RE:_Repeated_Edits_and_NPOV

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#Failed_verification_from_two_sources

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think arbitration from admins is needed otherwise, as soon as the three day edit lock expires on the Yasuke article an edit war is liable to begin again.

Summary of dispute by TabahiKaBhagwan

Summary of dispute by MuffinHunter0

Summary of dispute by Yourfriend987

Summary of dispute by Erior97

Yasuke discussion

Addition of key context and information pertaining to Dispute and "Theozilla"

The news of latest annoucement of Ubisoft's next title in its Series "Assassins Creed: Dark Shadows" has brought about a very lively discussion pertaining to the history behind the character based in the game known as Yasuke. There is a great deal of debate on this historical person towards how involved he was within the Oda and his service to Lord Oda Nobunaga trying to summarise fact and fiction.

Suffice to say this debate has caused a great deal of dispute on the website which has spilled, so much so that it has begin to bring doubt upon the reputation and historical accuracy behind this figure on his page and pages related with edits and edits undone.

This was started when the following edit was made on the Yasuke wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasuke "It is important to note that despite popular myth and modern depictions there are no historical writings nor evidence that Yasuke was ever granted the rank or title of samurai, he was never given a fief nor referred to as one in any writings. Most of our knowledge of his life comes from these messages written by missionaries and locals" This is not an inaccurate statement, there are no historical documents that confirm he has ever gained the rank of samurai and the fact he is, is regarded by Japanese scholars as a myth. This myth was recently reinforced in a book called "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan" which was written in 2019 by Thomas Lockley and Geoffrey Girardand, despite its title it is considered Historical Fiction among Japanese scholars.

It's possible this edit was made with the best of intentions to add important context to this figure who now is receiving a great deal of attention but has lead to a great deal of poor behaviour on both sides of this debate including from the user whom has brought this to attention. Whilst the user known as "Theozilla" may have been trying to act with the best of intentions he himself has not acted without bias or with good intent as he has aggressively been undoing edits on the Yasuke page but also took it upon himself to add Yasuke to a page that lists all foreign born samurai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign-born_samurai_in_Japan

He justifies this edit by referring to the Japanese language wiki where he has listed above without acknowledging the fact that the reason the pages differ was due to lack of historical evidence. Whilst this being true the fact that Yasuke was the only addition he made to the page instead of adding the numerous other samurai listed that are not present on the english language page can lead one to successfully argue that the user is not acting for the benefit of Wikipedia and its users. Plus his contributions before making edits to these two pages pertain to fiction and manga with no history of edits on historial Japan or Non fiction in general which further reinforces the notion that the user is not acting in good faith. Whilst other users may be worthy of penalisation, the user "Theozilla" has not acted in a conduct that does this website and its reputation and favours.

Reply from user Theozilla:

The notion that the edit that was added At 15:21, 15 May 2024‎ was done in good faith is ridiculous and extremely naive. The while there is debate over whether Yasuke's status can be categorized as being a samurai or not, the common consensus among many historians is that it is accurate to call him that even Japanese documentaries refer to him as one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#Japanese_Documentaries/TV_Series_that_talk_about_him_being_Samurai

Multiple historians explaining why it is accurate to call Yasuke as samurai https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1css0ye/comment/l4714oc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

The notion that Yasuke needs to have a primary source literally referring to him with the exact word samurai is a double standard, as few primary sources refer to other known and famous samurai directly as samurai anyway. Like just because no one literally refers Yasuke as a human, that doesn't mean he can't be called a human.

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.