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
Climate change	Closed	InformationToKnowledge (t)	36 days, 22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	11 hours
Talk:LiveJasmin#Latest proposed_"Controversy"_section_improved_after_a_number_of_suggestions_from_the_community	Closed	Alexfotios (t)	14 days, 10 hours	Snowmanonahoe (t)	12 days, 19 hours	Snowmanonahoe (t)	12 days, 19 hours
Sulaiman Bek	Closed	Ermanarich (t)	12 days, 16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 12 hours
Rafida	New	Albertatiran (t)	11 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 12 hours	Albertatiran (t)	1 days, 10 hours
South Park: Joining the Panderverse	In Progress	SanAnMan (t)	1 days, 7 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	17 hours	Nightscream (t)	14 hours
Nikola Tesla	Closed	Endy Angello (t)	19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	10 hours
Ceredigion	Closed	Summer92 (t)	16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	10 hours
2024 Formula_One_World_Championship#Calendar	New	Wiki wikied (t)	14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 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 02:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Climate change

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by InformationToKnowledge on 09:19, 18 March 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 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. Paragraph structure and "flow": Bogazicili's preferred structure for the first paragraph of the disputed section is similar to the current one. So, first this sentence: The World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century. Then, several short and very general sentences such as Extreme weather leads to injury and loss of life. (current text) or Extreme weather events affect public health (his latest suggestion), or Both children and older people are vulnerable to extreme heat (current)/Temperature extremes lead to increased illness and death (latest suggestion.) Then, a sentence which says that the WHO estimated additional 250,000 annual climate-related deaths for the 2030-2050 period and lists every cause they assessed. I think this is poor writing, and would much prefer that we mention the WHO annual mortality estimate in the second sentence, and then either write about causes assessed in more detail than the short sentences he favours, or not at all. Food security projections: Both of us have already agreed to use this meta-analysis from 2021 as the most reliable source on projected changes in food security between now and 2050, but we disagree on how to cite it. Bogazicili's suggested wording is By 2050, climate change may affect tens to hundreds of millions of people in terms of undernourishment and nutrition-related diseases; change in population at risk of hunger may be positive or negative depending on several climate change and socioeconomic scenarios. I think that this is far too wordy, poorly structured and fundamentally doesn't represent the reference well. Graphs from the reference (here and here) show near-universal declines in food insecurity, so my proposed wording is: By 2050, the number of people suffering from undernourishment and the associated health conditions is likely to decrease by tens to hundreds of millions, but some combinations of severe climate change and low socioeconomic development may increase that number instead. Similarly, I want to explicitly mention the growth in crop yields till now (reference) as a necessary background for this section, while Bogazicili considers it out of scope. What counts as "excessive" detail: I.e. Bogazicili wants to mention effects on crop production by latitudes, but I find it challenging to do it in a sentence without being vague. Conversely, I want to address impacts on livestock production (currently not mentioned in the article), but Bogazicili finds my wording too detailed and keeps omitting any mention of those impacts. It even extends to reference choice: i.e. Bogazicili claims that IPCC summaries are preferable to full IPCC reports, which is not a position I have never heard of. I oppose this position when it weakens our wording (i.e. timelines becoming inconsistent, such as using 2050 in one sentence and 2040 in another) for the supposed benefit of the very few people who'll click on those specific references out of 400+ already in the article. 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. Food and health second draft (Bogazilici) Sorry for the delay. I actually like a lot of InformationToKnowledge 's revised proposal. I copy and pasted a lot of his work in my suggestion below. The reason I didn't just automatically support his new proposal is because of the length and WP:Summary issues. His version would put the prose of article over 9k words [41]. I believe 9k is the threshold many long-time editors of the page care about (also here: Wikipedia:Article_size#Size_guideline). To his credit, InformationToKnowledge had suggested condensing other sections of the article. But I think that needs to be discussed in the article talk page further. For now, I copy and pasted a lot of his suggestions. One major change I did was to exclude projections of population at risk of hunger by 2050. IPCC and the new meta-review study diverge a bit, so it's hard to reconcile the 2 in WP:Summary. I just used 2024 WEF numbers for now, given it qualifies its projection ("an increase in drought in certain regions") 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 WP:Summary issues with his proposal. Unlike what InformationToKnowledge proposed here Talk:Effects_of_climate_change_on_human_health#Article_appears_too_large_and_unwieldy_to_be_usable, I think there should be a Effects of climate change on human health article. Given there was no convergence from InformationToKnowledge in his latest proposal, I'm going to change the wording for some of the sentences below to my previous suggestion. Also reorganized a bit. Here's my latest proposal: 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 Bogazicili (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC) 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) References The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:LiveJasmin#Latest proposed_"Controversy"_section_improved_after_a_number_of_suggestions_from_the_community

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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. Filed by Alexfotios on 21:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute 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 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Seraphimblade Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. 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 disruptive, and I do not have any intent of participating in further "dispute resolution" on the matter. You got your answer. I realize it wasn't the one you hoped for, but it's still the answer. Time to move on. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Avgeekamfot Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. 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 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Herostratus Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. 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 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:LiveJasmin#Latest proposed_"Controversy"_section_improved_after_a_number_of_suggestions_from_the_community 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.

Sulaiman Bek

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Ermanarich on 15:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Sulaiman Bek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Ermanarich (talk · contribs) Mteiritay (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I added information about alternative spelling of the town's name and the Turkmen minority living there, supported by two sources. Another user deleted this by citing a facebook video that does not address the claims made in my edits. I added more sources that support my claim and tried to solve the issue on the talk page, which the user did not respond constructively to. I have repeatedly argued my points, but the user is only responding in brief and keeps deflecting from the issue that is actually being discussed. I also tried to contact an admin as a mediator, who had intervened in another edit war this user was involved in, but that person was not willing to engage in that topic and referred me here. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Sulaiman Bek#Preventing an edit war How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Since we can't find an agreement, bring in arguments that help resolving the issue. Ultimately, the question probably is which edit should be kept. Summary of dispute by Mteiritay You have yet to prove your additions are correct. Mteiritay (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC) Sulaiman Bek discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.  Note to participants: You have not notified the other party of the discussion as required. I have done this for you. While this dispute can be resolved here if you wish, you may also find the third opinion process easier. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 15:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC) Apologies, I thought the user would be notified when I added them under "Users involved". As for the third opinion process, I was referred here by an admin I asked for mediation and I already put a lot of time and effort into trying to resolve that dispute. So I'm frankly not too motivated to go to yet another place with this, but if it's necessary I can do that. Ermanarich (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC) Not a requirement, just an option. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 18:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC) Mteiritay, the summary of dispute section is not for continuing to argue your own position, but for describing the dispute in full. Assume I have not read any of the relevant discussion, and address the Wikipedia community, not Ermanarich. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 18:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statement by moderator (Sulaiman Bek) I am ready to moderate this dispute if the editors are requesting moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule A and indicate that you are willing to comply with the rules. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. I am asking each editor to specify, concisely, what they want to change in the article, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Is the issue about an alternate form of the name of the village? Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Sulaiman Bek) Thank you @Robert McClenon: for considering to mediate. I have read DRN Rule A and am willing to comply. What I want to change about the article is adding the alternate spelling, including that of the Turkmen minority language, as well as the mention of the presence of an Arab majority and Turkmen minority in the town. The discussion also included the question of the ethnicity of one specific tribe (al-Bayat), but I have no intent of specifying that in the article.--Ermanarich (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC) First statement by moderator (Sulaiman Bek) Only the filing editor has replied. The other editor does not appear to be interested in moderated discussion, which is voluntary. The filing editor may make their proposed edits boldly. If they are reverted, try to discuss on the article talk page. If the other party does not discuss, after reverting, read the discussion failure essay. Then the options are to repeat the edit once a day, and if necessary either use an RFC, or request assistance at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC) First statements by editors (Sulaiman Bek) So with the other editor's unwillingness to engage in this process, it's just pretty much over? As for the bold edits, I already tried that two times, so I guess I'll directly move to RFC. Anyways, thank you for taking the time trying to moderate this.--Ermanarich (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rafida

– New discussion.

Filed by Albertatiran on 13:04, 12 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

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

Users involved

• Shadowwarrior8 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In a series of edits, I revised and improved this article by removing unsourced or poorly-sourced claims and rewriting large parts of the text. I do this regularly to select articles, usually in preparation for GA submissions. Large parts of my edits were undone without due explanation by the user Shadowwarrior8. In particular, please see [81] and [82]. For a second time, one by one, I addressed the problematic bits of the article, this time carefully detailing each issue separately in its edit summary. Another user, Aqsian313, also helped with addressing some of the issues. For instance, he removed a sentence that I had earlier marked by the template. (Please see here.) All these edits were again undone by Shadowwarrior8. Please see here. This is when I took the issue to the talk page, which you can see here. In particular, Aqsian313 commented there in favor of my version of the article.

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

Talk:Rafida#Edit-warring

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I'd like to ask you to undo the unexplained mass-revert [83]

Summary of dispute by Shadowwarrior8

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

I reverted a series of disruptive edits made by user Albertatiran which involved the removal of encyclopaedic sources with in-line citations (here) and insertion of several unsourced POV edits. (see the edit history of the page) The user was unable to bring any in-line citation as demonstrated in the talk page of the article.

The user's proposed version cant be inserted because it consists of unsourced sectarian POV and removal of sourced content. This issue isnt even a content dispute, because unsourced POV claims have no place in wikipedia in the first place. Content disputes mostly occur when two or more editors differ over how to paraphrase information present in academic sources. On the other hand, the user Albertatiran removed academic sources by engaging in "idontlikeit"-style arguments. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Rafida 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 (Rafida)

The filing editor did not notify the other editor, but the other editor has made a statement, so I am willing to try to moderate the dispute. The editors should list and notify the other editors who have discussed the dispute on the article talk page. I know nothing of the subject matter, and will expect the editors to provide any background information that is important. Please read DRN RuleA and state that you will follow the rules during the discussion. The purpose of content discussion is to improve the article, so I am asking each editor to state concisely what they want to change in the article (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Rafida)

@Robert McClenon: Thank you for moderating the discussion. Yes, I've read and will adhere to DRN RuleA. As for the outcome, I'd like the revision here to be undone. I'll also notify the other user who participated in the talk page discussion, Aqsian313, about this ongoing case. Albertatiran (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying! I personally consider Albertatiran's version to be far better than the current one in terms of sources. Albertatiran removed poor sources such as alukah.net, Allama al-Hussein al-Houthi, Maulana Akbar Najibadi all of whom are nowhere close to WP:RS. Encyclopædia Britannica is a generally reliable source in my opinion, however it's articles are edited numerous times again and again like Wikipedia, so I do not regard it to be used on this article. One can just see the much-needed differences between Albertatiran's version and the pre-Albertatiran version If Shadowwarrior8 believes Albertatiran's version contains "sectarian POV", then the two can maybe discuss on changing the wording a bit, but Albertatiran's version is clearly more reliably sourced than the current one. Aqsian313 (talk • contribs) 9:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I was a bit busy, hence the late response. I have read the DRNA and shall engage in this discussion per the dispute resolution guidelines.

What do I want to maintain in the article? I largely want to maintain this edit which the user Albertatiran wants to revert. (which would involve the removal of sourced content as I stated in the dispute summary). However, I am fine with the removal of sources such as 'alukah.net', 'Hussein al-Houthi', 'Akbar Najibadi' etc. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Rafida)

It appears that the current version is that of Shaddowwarrior8. Albertatiran wants to revert Shaddowwarrior8's edits, and says that they have poor sources. Aqsian313 appears to agree and to support Albertatiran's removal of Shaddowwarrior8's edits. Shaddowwarrior8 has not replied to my request that they agree to the rules. If Shaddowwarrior8 does not make a statement within about 24 hours, I will close this thread due to incomplete participation, and will advise the editors who have said what they want to edit boldly. Are there any questions, or any final statements? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Rafida)

Rather than providing diffs comparing one version and another, I am now asking each editor to provide the actual wording that they propose to use, in the lede section and in the Definition section. After I have seen the different wordings side by side, we will try to reach a compromise. If you are willing to propose a compromise wording, please provide it also. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Rafida)

@Robert McClenon: Thanks for the follow-up. What follows is the text I'd like to propose, which is borrowed from the version I advocated for in my first statement. In keeping with the common practice around here, references are omitted from the lede below. However, every claim there is already attributed in the body of the article. Albertatiran (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Rafida (Arabic: رافضة, romanized: Rāfiḍa, lit. 'rejectors') is a derogatory nickname applied to the majority of Shia Muslims for 'rejecting' the legitimacy of the first three caliphs, namely, Abu Bakr (r. 632–634), Umar (r. 634–644), and Uthman (r. 644–656), in favor of Ali ibn Abi Talib (r. 656–661), the cousin and son-in-law of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Rooted in early Islamic history, the term Rafida is commonly used in Sunni polemics against Shi'ism. The charge that Shias have rejected the Truth is frequently cited by Sunni extremists to justify their acts of violence against the Shia community. This nickname has been reinterpreted favorably by some Shia scholars to signify Shias' rejection of their oppressive Sunni rulers.

Definition

The term Rafida or Rawafid (lit. 'rejectors', sg. Rafidi) is a derogatory nickname used by Sunni Muslims to describe Shia Muslims, at least those of them who 'reject' the legitimacy of the first three Muslim caliphs, namely, Abu Bakr (r. 632–634), Umar (r. 634–644), and Uthman (r. 644–656). One after another, these caliphs succeeded the Islamic prophet Muhammad after he died in 632 CE. In particular, the term Rafida is applied to Twelvers, who constitute the majority of the Shia community. Twelvers believe that Muhammad, shortly before he died in 632 CE, publicly designated his cousin and son-in-law, Ali ibn Abi Talib, as his successor at the Ghadir Khumm. According to Twelvers, early caliphs thus usurped Ali's right to succeed Muhammad. They also believe that Ali was succeeded by eleven of his descendants. Rooted in early Islamic history, the term Rafida is commonly used in Sunni polemics, but has also been reinterpreted favorably by some Shia scholars to signify 'rejection' of all tyranny and the Shia struggle against oppressive Sunni rulers. Less commonly, the term Rafida has been applied to other Shia subsects, such as the ghulat (lit. 'exaggerators' or 'extremists'), who ascribed divinity to Shia imams, and were excommunicated by them.

---

Robert McClenon, the following is the wording which I propose to insert in the lede and the "Definition" section:
QUOTE

Rafida (Arabic: رافضة, romanized: Rāfiḍa, lit. 'those who reject') broadly refers to those Shia Muslims who 'reject' the legitimacy of the Caliphates of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, in favor of Ali Ibn Abi Talib, the cousin and son-in-law of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Rooted in early Islamic history, the term Rafida is used in Sunni polemics against Shi'ism.

Several Shia scholars view the term in a favourable light to signify Shias' rejection of whom they regard as oppressive Sunni rulers.

Definition

The term Rafida or Rawafid (lit. 'those who reject', sg. Rafidi) broadly refers to those Shia Muslims who 'reject' the caliphates of Abu Bakr (r. 632–634), Umar (r. 634–644), and Uthman (r. 644–656). One after another, these caliphs succeeded the Islamic prophet Muhammad after he died in 632 CE.

The term "Rawafid" (lit. 'those who reject', sg. Rafidi) was also used as a derogatory term to describe Shia Muslims. In particular, the term Rafida applied to Twelvers, who constitute the majority of the Shia community. Twelvers believe that, shortly before he died in 632 CE, Muhammad publicly designated his cousin and son-in-law, Ali ibn Abi Talib, as his successor at the Ghadir Khumm. According to the Twelvers, early caliphs thus usurped Ali's right to succeed Muhammad. They also believe that Ali was succeeded by eleven of his descendants. Rooted in early Islamic history, the term Rafida is still used in Sunni polemics, but has also been reinterpreted favorably by some Shia scholars to signify 'rejection' of all tyranny and the Shia struggle against whom they consider as oppressive Sunni rulers. Less commonly, the term Rafida has been applied to other Shia sects, such as the ghulat (lit. 'exaggerators' or 'extremists'),."

END QUOTE

Note that in the above version, I also made slight improvements in the lede sentence and last sentence of the "Definition" section. Thank you. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Rafida)

I have read the two proposed versions. Does either editor have any questions about the reliability of the sources used by the other editor? If so, please state what sources are considered questionable, and we will ask about them at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Otherwise, please state briefly and concisely what your concerns are about the other proposed version.

Are there any other content issues, or any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Rafida)

Regarding sources, I don't consider a Britannica article authored by "The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica" a reliable source, especially when there is no shortage of expert material about the topic by the likes of E. Kohlberg and M. Momen, among others. Even if it were to be considered a reliable source, this would have been a case of WP:FRINGE because this particular Britannica article goes against the academic consensus and should receive little or no weight in our article per WP:DUE, let alone replace the experts' views, as Shadowwarrior8 has done in his version. Every reliable source is unequivocally clear that Rafida is a deragotary nickname. Reliable sources are also clear that the title is largely applied by Sunnis (and also by Zaydis, according to some sources) to the majority of Shias for condemning the first three caliphs after the Islamic prophet Muhammad. For instance, please consult the EI article by Kohlberg, cited also in our own article, particularly the first and last pages of his article.

There are other major concerns about the version proposed by Shadowwarrior8 but perhaps we can start with the one discussed above. Thank you for your consideration. Albertatiran (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

---

The main problem with the version of user Albertatiran is that it reduces "Rafida" as a polemical term and denies the existence of shia sects which identified itself as 'Rafida' throughout history. My version is historically accurate as well as academically correct because there have been several Shia sects which identified themselves as 'Raafida' for over a 1000 years. Currently there are many Twelver Shia clerics who identify the Twelver Shiites as 'Raafidites'. While it is true that Sunni and Zaydi scholars use the term 'Raafida' in a derogatory way, this doesnt mean that 'Raafida' sects who rejected the legitimacy of the caliphates of Abubakr and Omar didnt exist. This is explained in several sources in the article. The term "fascist" is often used as a slur by various political factions, but this doesnt mean fascists do not exist. (I'm obviously not suggesting that "Raafida" are similar to fascists, I am just demonstrating an example in wikipedia.)
Here are some inline citations with quotations which verify the edits I inserted in the article:

• (Encyclopædia Britannica)

QUOTE

"Rāfiḍah, (Arabic: “Rejectors”), broadly, Shīʿite Muslims who reject (rafḍ) the caliphate of Muḥammad’s two successors Abū Bakr and ʿUmar."

END QUOTE

• (Kohlberg, 1979)

QUOTE

"The term "Rafida," originally used as a pejorative appellation, was quite early interpreted by the Imamis (against whom it was primarily directed) as an honorific signifying "Those who rejected evil." ... The early Shi'i traditionist Sulayman b. Mihran al-A'mash (d. 148/765) quotes Ja'far al-Sadiq as explaining that "Rafida," far from being an abusive nickname invented by anti-Shi'is, is in fact an honorific given to the Shi'is by God and preserved in both the Old and the New Testaments."

END QUOTE

• (Esposito, 2003)

QUOTE

"Rawafid... In modern times, the term is still used in Sunni polemics against the Shiis, but also by some Shiis themselves in places such as Lebanon and Iraq as a source of pride."

END QUOTE

• Here is an academic classification of early Rawafid sects (Melchert, 1992)

QUOTE

"A smaller group of twenty Shiites are Rawafid (rafidi, rumiya bi-al-rafd); i.e., those who not only entertain inordinate affection for 'Ali and his line, but dispute the legitimacy of Aba Bakr and 'Umar."

END QUOTE

Additionally, the religious texts of Twelver Shi'ites are full of praise for the term "Rawafid". Kohlberg's article which is cited above explains this with excerpts from the primary sources of Twelver Shi'is. Furthermore, contemporary Twelver Shia clerics also identify themselves as "Rawafid" or "Rafidah". Here is an excerpt from the website "al-islam.org", which is arguably the most popular Twelver shia religious site in the internet:

"Why are the Shi'a sometimes called Rawafid or rejectors by their opponents? What did the Shi'a reject?"
"They rejected the legitimacy of the caliphates of Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthman. Initially the name was used pejoratively by the 'Uthmaniyya, but it was taken up and used by the Imami Shi'a themselves."

(source: https://www.al-islam.org/ask/why-are-the-shia-sometimes-called-rawafid-or-rejectors-by-their-opponents-what-did-the-shia-reject/rebecca-masterton )

Another religious website popular amongst Twelver shi'ites is literally titled "The Rafida Foundation". The last two sources are not reliable in wikipedia, but I cited them to demonstrate how Twelver Shi'ah community continues to identify themselves as "Rafida". This is also demonstrated in various sources which I cited above.

There has been several Rafida shia sects which existed throughout history, most of which went extinct, except the Twelver Shia. So the page "Rafida" should present an accurate and precise academic information of these raafida sects, (regarding their history, beliefs, evolution, etc.) rather than giving undue weight to the polemical usage of the term by Sunnis and Zaydis. I would suggest that usage of "Rafida" as a derogatory term is outside of the scope of this article and it is better to document that in a seperate article titled "Rafida (slur)" or "Rafida (insult)".

Another problem with Albertatiran's edits is that it contained several unsourced edits with sectarian POV. For example, Albertatiran wrote in the page: "This nickname has been reinterpreted favorably by some Shia scholars to signify Shias' rejection of their oppressive Sunni rulers." Obviously, this is a POV edit which explictly advances a sectarian victimhood narrative, and it cannot be inserted in wikivoice. I reverted that edit and re-instated the previous impartial tone, which is more in line with the sources presented in the body of the page: "Several Shia scholars view the term in a favourable light to signify Shias' rejection of whom they regard as oppressive Sunni rulers." Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

References

• @Shadowwarrior8: Regarding your first point, your verbose statement is misrepresenting the sources and filled with original research. As a representative academic source, here is the gist of Kohlberg's EI article, already reflected in the version you reverted: Rafida is a pejorative generally applied to Twelvers and less so to a number of (small or extinct) Shia subsects. Over time, some Shia figures reinterpreted the term favorably. Why did they do so? Kohlberg speculates elsewhere that Shias realized that they were stuck with the abusive nickname and simply decided to embrace it. All this is miles away from your OR.

• Regarding your second point, the one about "oppressive Sunni rulers," what I wrote correctly summarizes the sources (and the academic consensus). Wikipedia is not supposed to censor what you personally find to be "sectarian POV" or "sectarian victimhood narrative" or controversial. Rather, our task here is to summarize and present reliable sources. At any rate, this example does not justify your repeated mass-reverts. The solution to such minor issues is to discuss them on the talk page of the article to reach a consensus there. I'd be happy to discuss it here too but to do so would derail the ongoing dispute resolution process, in my opinion. Albertatiran (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

References

South Park: Joining the Panderverse

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by SanAnMan on 00:33, 23 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

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

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

User Cjhard is constantly removing critical reviews from this article from various reliable sources, including editorials from Forbes and Cracked.com to name just a few on his view that they are "content farming". He provides no other explanation for his action other than about a year ago another editor objected to the Cracked.com review. Per MOS:TVRECEPTION "season and episode articles can use more selective reviews. Reviews should preferably come from global media outlets (such as the Associated Press, Reuters, Canadian Press), major newspapers...and major entertainment publications". It is my argument that Cracked and Forbes are well acceptable media outlets that should be included in the section.

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

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

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

We have not recently discussed this topic extensively and the above editor has edit-warred against this change against me and previously against @Wikibenboy94:. Cjhard (talk) 07:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

South Park: Joining the Panderverse discussion

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

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, Comic Book Resources (aka CBR.com), and Cracked.com. Per MOS:TVRECEPTION: "Reviews should preferably come from global media outlets...major newspapers...and major entertainment publications." Erik Kain of Forbes is recognized as the site's primary editor for Forbes for entertainment (see also his LinkedIn profile). CBR is a well-known website for comics and entertainment, including animated shows such as this. Cracked was at one time one of the most well-known sites for comedy, and while it has been criticized for its quality of content, this issue is still about the critical review of the show in question. Cjhard appears to indicate in his edit summaries that he believes all of these sources are "content farming" but provides no other explanation as to why. I believe that all three of these reviews qualify under the definitions of appropriate sources as stated above per TVRECEPTION. Cjhard also attempted to argue that approximately one year ago, another (no longer involved) editor Wikibenboy94 also raised objections primarily to the Forbes inclusion, mostly due to WP:FORBESCON. I pointed out to Wikibenboy at that time on the article's talk page that WP:RSOPINION states "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact... A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion." This qualification of RSOPINION is clearly stated in the text of the review from Forbes, and Wikibenboy abandoned his arguments. The inclusion of the reviews (especially the Cracked and the CBR reviews) is further supported by users Nightscream and 109.77.196.243 as per the talk page. It is my conclusion based on all these factors that the three reviews in question fully meet the definitions of "global media outlets...major newspapers...and major entertainment publications" as stated in MOS:TVRECEPTION and should be included in the article. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Nikola Tesla

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Endy Angello on 12:57, 23 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 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 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. 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 Endy Angello has only been editing for 2 days and doesn't seem to understand WP's rules, such as WP:V, WP:BURDEN, WP:NOR, WP:CONSENSUS. His naivete can be seen from his overview, above. He seems to be a WP:SPA whose only interest is arguing his nationalist opinion of Tesla's ethnicity, without giving any sources. This is a type of editor often seen on this controversial article. The wording he is challenging has been the subject of a nationalist dispute on the Talk page for 17 years and is long settled. The current well-sourced wording was decided 10 years ago by an RfC 8 June 2014 and has stood against many efforts to change it, and been confirmed by RfC 12 December 2018 and RfC 11 July 2020. --ChetvornoTALK 16:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC) 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 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.

Ceredigion

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Summer92 on 15:30, 23 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 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 WP:LEADPRON and MOS:DUALPRON when applied to this article. Summary of dispute by Sirfurboy Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Ceredigion 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.

2024 Formula_One_World_Championship#Calendar

– New discussion.

Filed by Wiki wikied on 17:57, 23 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 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 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by SSSB Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Cerebral726 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Tvx1 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. 2024 Formula_One_World_Championship#Calendar 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.