Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    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?

    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.

    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
    trap-neuter-return New Nylnoj (t) 15 days, Robert McClenon (t) 14 days, 17 hours Nylnoj (t) 12 days, 21 hours
    Mainstreet Research Closed Ontlib20 (t) 14 days, 22 hours Robert McClenon (t) 9 days, 18 hours Robert McClenon (t) 9 days, 18 hours
    California High-Speed Rail Closed Robert92107 (t) 13 days, 1 hours Robert McClenon (t) 8 days, 6 hours Robert McClenon (t) 8 days, 6 hours
    Climate change In Progress InformationToKnowledge (t) 10 days, 12 hours Robert McClenon (t) 4 days, 21 hours InformationToKnowledge (t) 3 days, 16 hours
    Elihu Yale In Progress Academia45 (t) 9 days, 22 hours Robert McClenon (t) 4 days, 20 hours KJP1 (t) 7 minutes
    List of 2023–24 Premiership Rugby transfers Closed LouisOrr27 (t) 6 days, 23 hours Robert McClenon (t) 6 days, 23 hours Robert McClenon (t) 6 days, 23 hours
    Seamus Heaney Resolved Thedarkknightli (t) 5 days, 3 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 days, 17 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 days, 17 hours
    Morocco Closed NAADAAN (t) 4 days, 1 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 days, 16 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 days, 16 hours
    Ziyavudin Magomedov Closed Spotted springer7 (t) 1 days, 10 hours Victor Schmidt (t) 1 days, 8 hours Victor Schmidt (t) 1 days, 8 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 21:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Current disputes[edit]

    trap-neuter-return[edit]

    – New discussion.
    Filed by Nylnoj on 20:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    Since 2021, a page that was relatively positive and informational has had a series of edits that introduced negative bias. At this point the page serves mainly to discredit the practice of trap-neuter-return.

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

    [1]

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    Looking for a neutral third party to mediate so this page can function as a neutral information source. Of the two editors involved, one is positive about TNR (myself) and the other is negative. Need to find the neutral middle ground.

    Summary of dispute by Geogene[edit]

    Academic sources have called the subject of this article "cat hoarding without walls" [2] and have suggested it may be enabling mental illness (How is the person who must save 25 to 30 cats in their home different from the person who sees themselves as the savior of 25 to 30 cats in a park? Some “cat people” may be “collectors,” and it is possible that TNR is enabling and supporting some people who need psychologic counseling and assistance.) [3]. To quote another paper, this one by a CDC researcher, Such programs generate support and enthusiasm from many animal welfare advocates, yet these managed feral cat “colonies” are not innocuous. Feral cats can cause considerable mortality to local wildlife (Jessup, 2004, Hawkins et al., 1999, Baker et al., 2008), act as reservoirs for feline-specific diseases (Cohn, 2011, Al- Kappany et al., 2011, Nutter et al., 2004a), and transmit zoonotic diseases to humans (Nutter et al., 2004a, McElroy et al., 2010, CDC, 1995, CDC, 2008b). Additionally, claims by TNR advocates that managed colonies can reduce feral cat populations and control rodents are contradicted by research (Hawkins et al., 1999, Castillo & Clarke, 2003, Longcore et al., 2009, Gunther et al., 2011). [4] And then we have this recent New Yorker piece, [5], which presents the TNR movement as not based on science but driven by an ideology that is unable to compromise. So what basis is there to expect a positive article? Geogene (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    trap-neuter-return discussion[edit]

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

    Robert McClenon WP:DRNA violations on your talk page. [6] Item 3.1 and Item 5. Do not talk about contributors, do not talk on the moderator's talk page. Geogene (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    And additionally, I would like to point out this well-intentioned joke of yours on your talk page, where you told the opposition, I don't recommend going down that alley. If that alley has rats, any community cats can handle them better than you can [7]. Reliable Sources say that the term "community cats" is misleading, as it's a partisan misnomer used by TNR advocates to normalize cats in the outdoors, and falsely imply that they exist with the consent of the local community, and/or that the community has some kind of responsibility towards them, [8], and/or that it is "a message to the community" that the cats must be accepted if they're wanted there or not [9]. Additionally, cats, whatever you want to call them, are not effective against rats. [10]. I'm a little concerned to see a moderator on NPOV in the TNR article, repeating two different pro-TNR talking points unbidden. Let me just point out also that the internet in general loves cats so much that it doesn't take criticism of them well, and this is presenting issues here on Wikipedia already. Geogene (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert McClenon While I can't choose what option they'll take next, I think that, as a new editor with about 30 edits, they would do better learning the WP:NPOV policy than studying up on every possible avenue of dispute resolution. And then, they could consider responding to points I've already made with policy-based argumentation to defend their position. Geogene (talk) 05:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Zeroth statement by possible moderator (TNR)[edit]

    I don't think that I will be accepting this case for moderated discussion. I am not sure what the next step should be, and so am not yet closing this case. It does not appear that mediation is likely to work, because both editors are approaching mediation with wariness and possible hostility. I see that both editors have established positions that are far apart on the overall outlook toward trap-neuter-return, largely because they are far apart on outlooks on the animals (feral cats) that are the subject of TNR. It appears that there may not be enough trust between the two editors to be able conduct mediation without checking on things and looking at the rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have posted on the Teahouse to request another moderator be added to this Dispute Resolution ticket with a short summary and also updated the trap-neuter-return Talk page with the current actions for transparency and record-keeping. Nylnoj (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    One possibility would be for the editors to find another moderator. I have no particular advice on how to do that, except that they could request one at the Teahouse or Village Pump (Miscellaneous). (I would be glad to have another moderator to share the case workload with.) However, I am not sure that another moderator will be able to bridge the distrust between these two editors, especially now that they know that their talk page will be watched and their humor taken issue with. Another option is WP:ANI, but that is often problematic.

    Mainstreet Research[edit]

    – General close. See comments for reasoning.
    Filed by Ontlib20 on 22:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

    Closed discussion

    California High-Speed Rail[edit]

    – General close. See comments for reasoning.
    Filed by Robert92107 on 20:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Closed discussion

    Climate change[edit]

    – Discussion in progress.
    Filed by InformationToKnowledge on 09:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    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[edit]

    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" [11]. However, reliable and overview sources mention these: (bottom chart) [12] [13] [14]

    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 [15]. The latest suggestions and my compromise text are here Talk:Climate_change#Latest_suggestions. Bogazicili (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Summary of dispute by EMsmile[edit]

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

    Climate change discussion[edit]

    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)[edit]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Zeroth statements by editors (Climate change)[edit]

    @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 [16], but this is completely unrelated to the dispute that is here. Bogazicili (talk) 06:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    @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)[reply]


    First statement by moderator (Climate Change)[edit]

    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)[reply]

    First statements by editors (Climate change)[edit]

    Food and health (InformationToKnowledge)[edit]

    @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.[18] 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.[19] Lethal infectious diseases such as dengue fever and malaria are more easily transmitted in a warmer climate.[20] [21] 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

    Agricultural and socioeconomic changes had been increasing global crop yields since the middle of the 20th century,[24] 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.[25] 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)[reply]

    Food and health (Bogazilici)[edit]

    @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.[26] Extreme weather events affect public health.[27][28] Temperature extremes lead to increased illness and death.[29][30] Climate change can affect transmission of infectious diseases.[31] [32] 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.[33] 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,[34]p. 988 which currently affects 30% of the global population.[35]

    Despite overall increase in agricultural productivity, climate change has reduced water and food security, and have 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.[36] 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)[reply]

    Back-and-forth discussion (Climate change)[edit]

    References

    Elihu Yale[edit]

    – Discussion in progress.
    Filed by Academia45 on 23:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

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

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

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

    Elihu_Yale#Slave_Trader_Disruptive_Editing Elihu_Yale#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_6_July_2020 Elihu_Yale#Title_and_content_of_section_about_his_slave_trade_legacy_and_the_naming_of_Yale_University


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

    Talk:Elihu_Yale#Slave_trader


    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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

    Summary of dispute by KJP1[edit]

    This is actually a pretty simple dispute - should the lead reflect the body of the article? MoS is clear, "the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents." The body of the article currently discusses Yale's links to slavery in two sections - two paragraphs in Tenure as President of Madras and a section, Slave trade under Yale University. While these underplay the extent of Yale's involvement in the slave trade, they clearly recognise that he was involved. But the Lead has no mention of his participation at all. As such, it fails to meet MoS. This discrepancy has been commented on externally; "Some sources (including Wikipedia) portray Elihu Yale as an heroic abolitionist. This is incredibly misleading."[37] and the Talkpage shows repeated attempts by editors dating back four years to get Wikipedia to address the issue. The sources are clear. The most recent and authoritative refers to "Yale’s key leadership role in the business of human trafficking." I have cited over a dozen more on the Talkpage, all of which describe Yale as a slave trader. In a separate discussion on Yale's Welsh ancestry, the filer wrote, "I think it is important to not erase history, as wikipedia is an encyclopedia." Yet that is exactly what they are attempting to do in relation to Yale's very clear involvement in the slave trade. KJP1 (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    On a secondary point, in relation to "providing us with the right policies and guidelines", it would be helpful if a few basics could be explained. Firstly, the filer incorrectly equates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view with "not-negative". This leads them to suggest, for example, that this source [38] can be ignored, when it is entirely valid. The title, of course, comes from a quote by Yale's descendant, "His surroundings must be his most effective defence for a record of arrogance, cruelty, sensuality and greed while in power at Madras." NPOV states that articles should seek to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." There is no requirement for the views themselves to be positive, or neutral, or negative. They can be all of these, or none. Similarly, the filer misunderstands Wikipedia:Independent sources, leading them, for example, to suggest that this source, [39] can be discounted because it is published by Yale University Press. In fact, it is the most recent, and the most authoritative, study of the links between Yale University and slavery that exists, authored by a Sterling Professor who heads the Gilder Lehrman Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance, and Abolition. Not using it would do a grave disservice to the reader. Lastly, the filer clings to the Encyclopaedia Britannica entry for Yale as one of the only two sources which appear to support their view that Yale was not deeply involved in the slave trade. They reach this conclusion because the EB entry doesn't mention slavery at all. All that, in fact, shows is the complete inadequacy of the EB entry as anything like a comprehensive study of Yale's life and works, linked, I suspect, to its being written well before detailed analysis of Yale's activities was undertaken. The above examples are part of a pattern whereby the filer, rather than attempting to engage with, and understand, the sources, concentrates instead on trying to rubbish all those that do not accord with their own view. That is the antithesis of how to write a NPOV article. KJP1 (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Elihu Yale discussion[edit]

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

    Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Elihu Yale)[edit]

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

    I agree to your DRN Rule A, thanks @Robert McClenon. My problem overall with the Elihu Yale page is the constant mix of sources that are not independent from the subject, aka WP:INDEPENDENT, and the constant "fights" of Yale University related people toward adding "slave trader" to its lead. The sources relating to the slave trading stuff is almost always from Yale University, Yale University Press, Yale students, Yale University professors, Yale departments, Yale Daily News, etc. My dispute with @KJP1, is just one of many that I've seen on the page's history with editors fighting against each other to add and remove the slave trader term. It is what I would desbribe as a battle of idealogies, not of encyclopedic terms. The man, Elihu Yale, was a colonial governor at a time when slavery was a global institution under the British Empire, working for the British East India Company. He had per example 400 personal body guards at Madras Palace, and the control of the Madras Army (47,000 soldiers in 1847). The activites in relation to slavery were part of his job as governor, not his role in the company, just as Julius Caesar, who traded probably the most slaves in history, Source Here, is not qualified as a slave trader by historians or on wikipedia, simply as a Roman Emperor. All Roman Emperors were slave traders, and all aristocratic Roman families were slave owners, yet there are not qualified as such by historians, and certaintly not in their lead on Wikipedia. There is a constant push toward adding "slave trader" next to the guy's page, which is simply not based on historical terms but on modern conflicts between Yale University related people. The last source added from David W. Blight, well, the man himself is an employee at Yale, hired by its president to "work" on their PR Campaign in relation to the George Floyd protests and the naming of monuments and institutions, etc, even with a timeline "that" was somewhat controlled.
    • 1) Now about the lead, my conflict here is the push to add slave trader to it. I am in complete disagreement with that term as this is not what he was in historical term, but how he is portrayed by Yale University related people and sensational news articles. A more historical term to add to his lead could be that he was among the largest diamond merchant in the world at the time, which was the basis of his fortune. He also waged his private wars, did diplomacy with Sultans and Emperors, dealt in spices to a very large extent, etc. Slavery was a side effect of the role of a colonial governor, there is nothing special or different from him and other governors during this colonial era. What is different here is that he is related as a namesake to an institution. Therefore, I am asking for WP:NPOV, which means simply treating his wikipage as any other colonial governors page.
    • 2)I don't mind that things around slavery be added to the Yale University section of the article, as long as it doesn't get out of proportion, as it seems already. I suggest they go write their Yale University stuff to Yale University page rather.
    • 3)Other issues, well, to solve the problem definitely on the guy's page as it keeps repeating it self among editors, I am suggesting the removal of all Yale University related sources from the page to start to clean it up, starting with Blight, Yale employees, Yale students, Yale statements, Yale News, research, departments, Yale University Press, etc, and allocate to the Yale University page what belongs there. By having it all removed, maybe we could restart this page with a foundation based on neutral sources, independent of the subject and of Yale University current conflicts that doesn't concern wikipedia. As an example, the House of Windsor page is clean and independent from all current news on the British royal family, as editors constantly remove them. See the page history.
    Academia45 (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Zeroth statements by editors (Elihu Yale)[edit]

    First Zeroth statement by KJP1[edit]

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

    • Changes in the lead
    The lead should summarise the body, as per MoS. That Yale was involved in the slave trade is undisputed; the most recent, 2024, and authoritative, study of the issue by David W. Blight, Sterling Professor and director of the Gilder Lehrman Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance, and Abolition, identifies, "Yale’s key leadership role in the business of human trafficking".[1] This view is supported by a dozen similar statements from reliable sources [see Talk, not reproduced here for brevity], which describe Yale as a "slave trader". Yale's involvement in the trade is acknowledged in the body, albeit inadequately [see below], which covers his slaving activities twice, in the Tenure as President of Madras section, and in a sub-section, Slave trade in the Yale University section. But the lead contains... absolutely nothing. It therefore cannot be MoS-compliant, unless one argues that Yale's involvement in the slave trade was so unimportant as to not warrant any mention in the lead. Therefore, the lead needs redrafting to address this omission.
    A second question is whether to describe Yale as a "slave trader" in the opening of the lead, e.g. "British-American colonial administrator, slave trader and philanthropist". There are plenty of sources that do so describe him - see above. In my view, so should we, to reflect this dominant view. There appear to be two sources used to suggest otherwise, the Encyclopaedia Britannica [EB] entry, [40] and the Valerie Pavilonis [VP] article, [41]. The EB is easily dealt with - it is brief, 3 paragraphs; it likely pre-dates any of the recent investigation of Yale's slave-trading activities; and it says precisely nothing on the topic. It is therefore of no assistance when considering Yale and slave trading. The VP is more problematic. It is published in the Yale Daily News, the student newspaper of Yale University; a connection, incidentally, that doesn't appear to concern the filer who elsewhere suggests that sources connected with Yale should be disregarded as non-independent; its staff writers are students, not professional journalists; and it uses a comment, not a direct quote, from Steven Pincus, 'Yale was never a slave trader and never owned slaves'. The problem is that we do not know what Pincus actually said. I flagged this on 14 March and asked if the original statement was available. My guess is it was in the speech Pincus gave here, [42] in 2014, but I've not been able to find it. But even taken at its highest, what Pincus appears to be saying is that Yale did not directly participate in the sale of slaves, and did not own slaves himself. As such, Pincus would not describe him as a slave trader. The fact remains that plenty of other reliable sources would, and do.
    A useful comparator is our article on Edward Colston. As far as I am aware, Colston neither owned slaves nor traded in them directly. But, after very extensive discussion [see Talk], there was clear community consensus to describe him as an "English merchant, slave trader, philanthropist, and Tory Member of Parliament" [my bold]. This comes from Colston's senior role within the Royal Africa Company and seems to closely parallel Yale's senior role as President of Madras for the East India Company. Both held senior executive roles in organisations that were engaged in the trade; both personally profited from it; and in Yale’s case, his role was also quasi-judicial, seeing him making decisions on punishments/means/scope etc. of the trade. It should also be noted that the VP article itself includes references to Yale's slave-trade involvement; 'Elihu Yale’s ties to slavery'; his 'moral mistakes', his membership of the slave-owning Society for the Propagation of the Gospel; and that he was 'deeply involved' in the slave trade. I think the position is again best summarised by Blight; "Precisely whether or how many people Yale personally may have owned is not yet discernible, nor perhaps even a key question. There can be no question that some portion of Yale’s considerable fortune, amassed while British governor-president in Madras, derived from his myriad entanglements with the purchase and sale of human beings."[2]
    • Changes in the body
    The current coverage of Yale's slave-trading activities in the body is placed in two sections; the Madras Presidency and Yale University. It concludes with an uncited claim, "Beyond this, the nature of Yale's involvement in the slave trade remains disputed." I would blend them into one, in a Slavery sub-section, and re-draft to properly reflect the current state of debate. Pincus's views (ideally sourced to his actual words), Blight's views, others' views, can all be cited here. If helpful, I can easily produce a draft for discussion.
    Under the Yale University section, I would include reference to the 21st century debates around Yale University and slavery that led Yale President Peter Salovey to establish the Yale and Slavery Research Project. This would bring the article up to date and enable coverage of both the current state of academic investigation, and something on the Culture war that has swirled around, and made use of, the issue. Again, I can easily draft something if helpful. If you look at the article version as at 14/3,[43] prior to the filer removing much of what I added, you'll get any idea of what I'm thinking of.
    • Any other content issues
    My own view, previously expressed on the Talkpage and echoing earlier comments, is that the Ancestry section is overblown. It is weakly sourced, mainly to 19th century genealogical histories; it is only tangentially relevant to Elihu Yale, who is not mentioned once; and I think there is certainly an Undue argument when we have a whole section of Ancestry, and only a sub-section, and mentions, of slavery. However, it is a secondary debate and, for clarity and ease, I'm fine to leave it out of this discussion. KJP1 (talk) 09:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Desertarun[edit]

    Yale University have apologised for their slave trader benefactors - publicly last month in a lengthy report. I find it difficult to understand why Academia45 has been deleting relevant, referenced and pertinent content from this article. All of the content added by KJP1 needs re-adding. Elihu Yale was plainly a slave trader and in it up to his ears. To gloss this over does the project no favours. Desertarun (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum. I'm in complete agreement with KJP1s proposed changes noted below. They are very much MOS and what our readers expect to see. I've created or edited dozens of biographies on slave traders and where an individual was involved, the words "slave trader" are always stated in the lead and full detail given in the body. Desertarun (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    First statement by possible moderator (Elihu Yale)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

    First statements by editors (Elihu Yale)[edit]

    Second Zeroth statement by KJP1[edit]

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

    • Lead
    to reflect the body by including coverage of Yale's "key leadership role in the business of human trafficking";
    • Body
    to have one sub-section in Presidency of Madras section covering Yale's involvement in the slave trade during his tenure;
    to have one sub-section in Yale University section covering 21st-century responses to the issue, principally the Yale and Slavery report.

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

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

    References

    1. ^ Blight, David W. (2024). Yale and Slavery: a history (PDF). New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. p. 44. ISBN 978-0-300-27384-7.
    2. ^ Blight, David W. (2024). Yale and Slavery: a history (PDF). New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. pp. 44–45. ISBN 978-0-300-27384-7.

    List of 2023–24 Premiership Rugby transfers[edit]

    – General close. See comments for reasoning.
    Filed by LouisOrr27 on 21:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Closed discussion

    Seamus Heaney[edit]

    Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
    Filed by Thedarkknightli on 18:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Closed discussion

    Morocco[edit]

    – General close. See comments for reasoning.
    Filed by NAADAAN on 20:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Closed discussion

    Ziyavudin Magomedov[edit]

    – General close. See comments for reasoning.
    Closed discussion