Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 28

X Japan


Dispute overview
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

We are currently disputing the genre list on the X Japan Wikipedia site. The following genres are listed: heavy metal, speed metal, power metal, progressive metal, symphonic metal, glam metal. The common consensus is to change the genres that X Japan is known for, including Metal (the term “metal” encompasses all of the metal genres listed above), Rock, Visual Rock, Visual Kei. These genre additions have been consistently denied by a user (xfansd), for reason stating that X Japan is considered a metal band in a variety of sources, writing “A genre of a band is determined by what sources label that band's music in general.” The author of the page cites the following source when listing the genres: X Japan: Best Review http://www.asiaarts.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=7936. The article lists numerous genres beyond just “metal.” For instance, the headline itself reads, “Reliving the Height of Japan’s Superlative Visual Rock Band.” Later in the article, you will find “…most revered Japanese rock band” and “fleeting genre known to fans as “Visual Kei” (aka “Visual Rock”). Thus, we are asking to acknowledge ALL genres listed in this article if this is what the author will base the genre selection on. In order for the contributions to be accurate, the following genres have to be included: “Visual Rock” “Rock” “Visual Kei”. We are using this article as the main source indicating X Japan’s “genre,” so all genres listed in the article need to be included.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




 * Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Not yet.


 *  N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute
 * Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Yes, the issue has been raised, and each user has logically made their argument on the talk page. The page has gone through many freezes, no longer allowing contributions.


 * How do you think we can help?

We need an administrator to monitor this situation and prevent just one person (xfansd) from dictating the terms of the page. Please take note of the general consensus among the users.

Leslieulm (talk) 04:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

X Japan discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.'' If this is only one user ignoring consensus, this is no longer a content issue but a conduct issue.Curb Chain (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Clerk's Comment/ ( Comment from uninvolved editor ) Curb Chain, I think there was a reason why ItsZippy directed this to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Can I have some statements from the involved parties? And perhaps we can work from there and determine whether or not this is conduct or content? Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 21:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Was there any reason to defer the issue here?Curb Chain (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * He doesn't say it explicitly. But, I think ItsZippy knows what he's doing. Besides, you can't just listen to one party and decide that they are right about only one editor not listening to consensus. Curb Chain, feel free to close this thread or give 24-hours notice with this template:, if any of the other parties don't respond. Kind regards :) Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 22:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am in no way saying which party is right or wrong, just pointing out that if one user didn't hear it, s/he is disrupting the Project.Curb Chain (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Let's just wait and see what happens with this thread. Give it three days or so, provide 24-hour notice and then close. Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 00:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 15, 2012 at 14:47 (UTC) because abandoned Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 14:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe the users were recently notified. Can we please extend the deadline for them to respond? Also, if this request is abandoned, can it be raised again? Because if not, xfansd can simply ignore this thread and "win." If you notice on the X Japan talk page, xfansd has removed numerous edits from a variety of users. This is not just one person against another, but one person deciding how to edit this page. Thank you. Leslieulm (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any apparent reason why xfansd has removed these edits? And yes, if a thread is closed prematurely, a new thread can be filed. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 20:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. xfansd removes additions to the genre portion (he is adamant about referring to the band as a "metal" band). This is fine; however, as I argued above, X Japan is known for many different genres outside of metal, and those genres should be included. Please see my post on the talk page. Thank you. Leslieulm (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't think User:xfansd is just going to win. What arguments have you brought forth for justification of your version?  What arguments do you have that justifies your position/version?  Also, is there discussion on the talk page?  Please use the talk page first and if you cannot come to a consensus there you can file a new dispute here.Curb Chain (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I see a lot of discussion on the talk page and a lot of sources. But which are considered reliable sources under Wikipedia's policy? In addition, a note to Ladyslime, please don't use CAPS LOCK to express your opinion, see WP:CAPSLOCK. It is considered disruptive and will not provide any more weight to your argument. How about a compromise, such as "X Japan (エックス ジャパン?) is a Japanese rock and heavy metal band formed in 1982 by Yoshiki and Toshi." Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 22:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just now notified of this. This is not a case of me ignoring consensus, it is a case of what reliable sources call the band. All the other users involved are new editors who didn't know Wikipedia uses reliable sources. The subject of the article Tweeted that they don't want to be called metal on Wikipedia, and subsequently there was a wave of vandalism where I had to have an admin protect the page. Ladyslime and Mika created accounts simply to make the article reflect what the subject wants, which of course Wikipedia does not cater too. I then had to explain reliable sources to them on the talkpage. The discussion was actually dead, as Mika said they will look for sources to support their claim (which I assume they didn't find). 4 days later Leslieulm restarted the same discussion and ItsZippy suggested to move it here, 2 days after that it was brought here without me knowing. It seemed to me the dispute was already over before being brought here, and now the whole thing is blown out of proportion. Xfansd (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The author cites one source as to why it is listed as metal. However, the article also lists "rock", "visual kei rock, "glamour rock", etc. The author selectively chose which to include. We have tried to incorporate more of the genres (I can support with a list of reviews, descriptions, etc. that also list other genres outside of metal), but these changes have been refused by xfansd. We have brought up this on the talk page (please refer to this), and numerous people have been blocked and denied changes, all from one person. I am in no way asking to remove metal (they can be considered a metal band), I just think I have proven the justification in adding more genres. We were directed to bring the dispute here from an administrator since no resolution was reached from just the talk page. Also, I apologize if any if my formatting was against Wikipedia standards. No more caps from my end. Leslieulm (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Can we have a reliable source to support that X Japan is rock? Regardless, according to List of rock genres, "metal" is considered a "rock" genre, so would saying "X Japan is a rock band" work because metal is a sub-genre of rock so it's all inclusive when you say "rock". Sincerely, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 01:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * On the talk page I used that same reasoning and we agreed the introduction can say "X Japan is a rock band". Some other editor changed it back. Xfansd (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I also want to make it clear that while Leslieulm claims in the 'Dispute overview' that I cited this source (assuming she means me when she says "author", which I don't understand), I never did. That source has been used since 2007, which is way before I started editing Wikipedia. Xfansd (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In that case, it should be reverted back because there was no reason provided by the editor to remove the source and change the text. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 18:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean xfansd as the author, i meant the original author who published the genre portion on the right hand of the page. xfansd had done a great job with monitoring this page, and did change the body to "rock." Someone else did change it back. What we would like is to have more genres added to the right hand portion of the page, where it breaks down genre, members, etc. If metal is a subgenre of rock, why can't rock also be included? And when it comes to reliable sources, the source used to list the metal genres 1.) is outdated and 2.) lists other genres. The author (I repeat, NOT xfansd) is being selective on which genres to include. I am citing the same source as the author in my argument, and if he was able to use this, I assume it is in fact a "reliable" source. Leslieulm (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's safe to conclude that all mentions of genre should be "rock" because that's what everyone agreed upon according to xfansd: "On the talk page I used that same reasoning and we agreed the introduction can say "X Japan is a rock band". Some other editor changed it back." Whoever that editor is, was working against consensus and reliable sources. Leslieulm, I didn't say xfansd or anyone was the author of the reliable source, all I said was whoever the editor that changed the page, X Japan, from "rock" → "metal" was wrong to work against consensus and reliable sources. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 20:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, we are talking about different sections on the wikipedia page. xfansd did change the body to rock band. Sometimes it changes back and forth, but for the most part, it does say rock. We are asking for additions in the genre listing under the background information on the right side. Those changes have been denied repeatedly. I am asking to add to that, not remove or change.

64.183.116.78 (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant by "all mentions of genre should be 'rock'". So rock should be added to the genre list. Please log in. Thanks, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 20:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Great. Logged in. So should I be the one to make the changes? Or should an administrator, to guarantee that they won't be changed back? Thank you. Leslieulm (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's done by you or an admin. An admin can just as easily be reverted as you would =) So, the best course of action is to see what the others think. If no one objects within the next 24 hours, I think it's safe to make the necessary changes to include "rock" and/or change to "rock". Best regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 21:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am against adding rock to the infobox. When I said we agreed, I specifically used "in the introduction" because that is exactly where we agreed upon, not in the infobox (Mika, who is suspiciously not partaking in the discussion here but still knew to change it, changed the intro back already). Some band articles open with "is a rock band" and then have only the more specific genres (heavy metal, etc.) in the infobox. Black Sabbath is a perfect example as nobody can argue they are anything but a metal band, yet it opens with "are an English rock band". And to be honest I agreed to that simply as a compromise to stop the edit war, most articles on metal bands open with "are a metal band". And you are getting ahead anyway, because we still don't have any reliable sources claiming that they play rock music. Xfansd (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Metal music is a sub-genre of rock music. Saying rock is all-encompassing and includes metal. For that reason, maintaining that X Japan is a rock band in the lede of the article is sufficient. Further explanation in the infobox saying that it's rock is unnecessary because it should explain the sub-genres, which it already does. Let's break down:
 * X Japan (エックス ジャパン?) is a Japanese rock band formed in 1982 by Yoshiki and Toshi.[2]
 * Genres: Rock, heavy metal, speed metal, power metal, progressive metal, symphonic metal, glam metal[1]
 * Unless, someone produces a reliable source that says X Japan is a rock band and only plays rock, then it should not be changed. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 00:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How about we use the same "reliable" source that the author uses to get the "speed metal, "power metal", etc.? Where he also describes the band as "Visual Rock Band" and "Glam Rock" and simply "Rock"? How is this not considered a reliable source if it is the source that lists all the metal? I am using the same source as where the "metal" descriptions come from. Here is the link again: http://www.asiaarts.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=7936.

Leslieulm (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Who is this 'author' you are referring to? An editor (we're known as editors on here) who edited the page? Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 21:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am just referring to the person who initially listed the genres on the right side and cited source 1 as to why he lists them. I don't know who it is, and I don't think it matters, but if we are using his source, we shouldn't be selective in pulling the genres from the article. Leslieulm (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I hope you don't mind if I jump in. We've not had a great deal of reliable sources provided by anyone in this dispute, and I think that might be causing problems. We seem to be agreed that the article should reflect the reliable sources that we have, so it might be worth collecting on this page the relevant sources. Secondly, I think we need to decide whether, when dealing with a source which describes the band both as rock and metal, we should use rock or metal. The source that has been mentioned on this page uses both rock and metal - when this happens, do we use metal because it is a subgenre of rock, or rock because it includes metal? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for jumping in. I would be happy to provide some links of reviews and other sources about rock band. I think it is fine to include metal, but to just say that the band is metal is extremely limiting. The band is also considered "hard rock," another subgenre of rock but definitely distinct from metal. Please note Slash's page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slash_(musician) - a band that is considered both metal and hard rock. Here is a Hollywood Reporter article that lists X Japan as Hard Rock, as well as Power Metal: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/x-japan-ready-tackle-north-91449. Here is another article from the Chicago Sun Times referring to them as both as well: http://blogs.suntimes.com/music/2010/08/lollapalooza_x_japan_makes_us.html. Leslieulm (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi ItsZippy, thanks for the note. Leslieulm, please look over this not very long section on reliable sources: RS. And then afterwards, please look at this section on non-reliable sources: RS. It seems that all three of the sources produced fall under non-reliable sources. Suntimes as a blog. Hollywoodreporter and asiaarts.ucla.edu are unreputable or are not well known. There are of course, limiations to these non-reliable sources, because when used appropriately, they can be a reliable source. I think if the source from asiaarts.ucla.edu lists the sub-genres states, "visual rock" and "glam rock" - those genres should be used instead of the broad genre of "rock". Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 22:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Good to know. And I agree completely -- this is what I am arguing for in my original post. Thanks for your input, much appreciated. Leslieulm (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Another genre listed in that article is "Visual Kei" and if you look at the Visual Kei page on wikipedia, it lists X Japan as a pioneer of this genre. This should also be included: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_kei. Also, the article from UCLA does not cite symphonic metal or power metal. Can we see the source for that? Leslieulm (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I was always under the impression that the asiaarts.ucla.edu source was only being used to cite the glam metal claim. As in WP:V it says "it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged". And like I said on the talk page, since I've been working on the article, nobody has ever disputed the genres before now. So Leslieulm, are you against having symphonic metal and power metal listed? What I am saying is, if you have no problem with it then we don't have to put a source there. If you are disputing those two, here are some for power 1, 2, and about the only one I found for symphonic metal 1. Also want to point out to Whenaxis that "visual rock" isn't a genre, it has no article, and why put glam rock when glam metal is already used. And while the very badly written and sourced visual kei article claims "some sources refer to it as a music genre" (personally I cringe at this), if you check every visual kei band's article it is never put in the infobox. X Japan's introduction already makes it clear that they pioneered the movement. Xfansd (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I just think it is very limiting to just say that X Japan is a metal band, and only list various types of metal. They have such a diverse range of music, and can be considered hard rock, visual rock (which redirects you to glam rock, not glam metal, so glam rock would definitely be preferable), and others. The following article in the Huffington Post says: "The band went on to pioneer an entire genre in Japan called "visual rock..." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20110308/as-music-x-japan/). Also, please note all of the sources listed on the X Japan site - they include loudwire, blabbermouth, jrockrevolution, etc. If we are using these as sources, I can list many that describe x japan as both rock (various types) and metal. Like I stated, I do not want to remove metal. I simply stated that the cited article did not list symphonic metal because all genres being put forth are being questioned. Looking at Sirius Radio, he debuted on The Boneyard, the stations Hard Rock channel. Also, going back to every visual kei band's articles, none of them put it in their info box. However, it is a genre, and X Japan (as the pioneer of it) should have it included in their info box. Leslieulm (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(Section break)
I see that there is an issue where the words, "rock" and "metal", are being used interchangably throughout the article. I think that one mention of "rock" in the lede is sufficient enough for the reader to know that the sub-genres that are listed as metals are considered rock (as it is already). So, xfansd is right by saying that duplicate genres are not necessary. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 20:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree to some extent, however, many people just go to the info section for a quick overview of the band. To look there, it lists x Japan as purely metal. And there are other sub genres of rock that should be included (glam/visual rock, hard rock, etc.) Also, Visual Kei is a genre and should be included under the genre tab. Again, that section is an overview where people may look initially, so I do think the other sub-genres should be mentioned there. Leslieulm (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Many people also read the lede. Why "glam rock" when there's already "glam metal"? Why "visual rock" when it just redirects to "glam rock"? Perhaps, just visual kei can be included - to avoid any duplication. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 20:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Glam rock because it is redirected from Visual rock, which makes it more appropriate than glam metal (if we are saying they are the same anyway.) And adding visual kei would be ideal. Thank you. Leslieulm (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No. That's not what I'm saying. Glam metal is a more specific sub-genre than "glam rock", but they are basically the same thing. For that reason, it should be left glam metal because it's a specific sub-genre of rock. Further since "visual rock" and "glam rock" are clearly the same thing, the same thing applies. So, I only think "visual kei" should be added to the list, with a source of course! Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 21:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Why is glam metal considered more specific than glam rock? Is it because of the ambiguity of rock? Just trying to clarify. And it would be great if Visual Kei could be added. Is Billboard a big enough source? http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/global/japanese-artists-band-together-to-help-slash-1005074962.story. If not, I will do some more research, but even the official visual kei website (and wikipedia) discuss X Japan as the pioneer of the genre. Thanks!Leslieulm (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Metal is a sub-genre of rock. Thus, glam metal is a sub-genre of glam rock, therefore, making it a more specific sub-genre in my opinion. I think Billboard is good source unless it's written in a press release or biography format. Just to be safe, I'd look for a second source. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 21:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC) If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 25, 2012 at 23:38 (UTC) because stale or resolved Whenaxis talk (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 23:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Please dont close this thread i just saw today that this dispute was going on ill find article to prove x japan´s genres ! Ladyslime (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

For now i found this http://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/18/arts/the-pop-life-end-of-a-life-end-of-an-era.html saying X Japan "pioneering its own genre, a Japanese equivalent of glam rock known as visual kei. " and talk a little more about their style...and well New York Times is a reliable source right? Ill search for more anyway Ladyslime (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do not close the thread. I have just seen this thread now. I was not aware that there was a deadline to submit references. I will look for references so that you could add the word "rock" to X Japan's music genre. Thank you. Mikaxxxxxxxxx (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I am now aware that we all agreed on adding "visual kei," and it's settled. Although it may be too late (again, I did not see this thread until a few hours ago today; thus, I wish a grace period be granted) I still wonder why we cannot add "rock" as well. As we see in discussions above, if, in fact, metal is sub-genre of "rock," doesn't X Japan's music fall under the big genre of "rock" with all those sub-genres described within, such as glam metal? If that is the case, is it wrong to add rock? If the Wikipedia's purpose is to give information to general public as to who/what the subject is, general public will probably recognize the wider genre called "rock" more in addition to those sub-genres being exclusively described in terms of metal? Btw I do completely agree to the fact that "visual kei" was, in fact, added. Thank you. Mikaxxxxxxxxx (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ( Comment from uninvolved editor ) Hello everyone. I've read through the discussions here, and it looks like there is a rough consensus to use "rock" in the very first sentence of the introduction, so the most important problem seems to be solved. The remaining issue seems to be whether to include "visual kei" in the infobox or not. I can see that there are good arguments both for and against, and I don't think we can say which way it should go just yet. I think that a good way to decide would be to open the discussion to a wider user base to get a broader consensus. How about holding a request for comments on the visual kei issue over at the article talk page? Let me know what you all think of this. Best regards —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 20:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran


Dispute overview
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

I updated a paragraph in the article that contained an assertion with a rather unreliable reference that the invasion of Iran was a surprise, and added a reference to the London Gazette publication of General Wavell's Despatch which stated that the Iranian government was warned by a diplomatic note and that there were obvious troop build-ups while acknowledging that the actual attack was a tactical surprise. I also left the original statement about it being a surprise with the reference though I did say that "some have claimed" this. See Diff. User Janus949 has been persistently reverting to the original wording numerous times while accusing me of having a POV and that my reference is "not valid" because it is recorded by "war criminals". My original citation had incorrect syntax that caused it not to display but this has been fixed. I have repeatedly asked him to explain his reasons on the Talk page but he does not state what his objections are, unless it is that in his opinion, the London Gazette is not a reliable source.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




 * Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.
 *  N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute
 * Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I have repeatedly attempted to get a discussion going on the Talk page but apart from accusations that my sources are not reliable because they were "recorded by war criminals" and that I have refined my sources (presumably by fixing the syntax) I have had no response.


 * How do you think we can help?

I am not sure, at least some advice on how to proceed to resolve this persistent dispute would be nice.

Dabbler (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.'' Clerk's Comment/ ( Comment from uninvolved editor ) The discussion is sproadic, at best, on the talk page and there's a slow-mo edit war on the article page. I don't think there's enough of a "dispute" to pass by the prerequisites for the dispute resolution noticeboard. There is no communication whatsoever. I suggest discussing on the talk page (more than sproadicly) and if the dispute is still not resolved, you can try a third opinion or you can re-report to this noticeboard. Regards, Whenaxis talk (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 23:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The situation is all the more frustrating because as you say there is no response. The other editor seems to take wikibreaks and leaves the article alone and then comes back and just repeats his accusation and edit. I don't think a third opinion would have any effect on his attitude and actions. I can't discuss with someone who doesn't discuss back and it is sporadic because his actions are sporadic. It has been a monologue on the Talk page because he just ignores the Talk page almost all the time. Dabbler (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that if this is opened, the other editor won't reply since their edits are sproadic. I think a third opinion will work because they can just give a decision and you can use that decision as consensus since its you and that third opinion that is now against the other editor, thus forming a consensus. Quick, fast and if the editor edits it later, you can tell them on their talk page that consensus is against them. Regards, Whenaxis talk (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 18:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I will see if that works, I have also added some more wording which even quotes the same book that is in the original reference, which i believe is being misinterpreted.Dabbler (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: May 3, 2012 at 16:06 (UTC) because dispute stale or resolved. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Circumcision


Dispute overview
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Results from a metanalysis are being grossly misinterpreted and generalized to the entire world population.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?

Civility is largely being followed. Involved users are communicating; there is merely a fundamental difference of opinion.


 * Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.


 *  N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute
 * Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Significant discussion has occurred on the talk page. I and some feel that content needs to be re-worded to better reflect study findings, and others are hiding behind policy and refuse to discuss the issues with the content.


 * How do you think we can help?

Clarity on Wikipedia policy needs to be offered, as well as help on how to summarize research data while keeping context.

Rip-Saw (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Circumcision discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.'' This discussion arose because Rip-Saw added the qualifier "African" to "heterosexual men" in this edit, asserting that '"Strong evidence" cannot be generalized to the entire world population.'. This appears to be his/her own interpretation rather than that of the cited source, which reads "There is strong evidence that medical male circumcision reduces the acquisition of HIV by heterosexual men by between 38% and 66% over 24 months.". (S)he has offered multiple lengthy explanations, but these seem to be his/her own analyses rather than that of the sources. Jakew (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources does not mention African. Is User:Rip-Saw using WP:SYN to define the sample as African because the test subjects where from African polities?Curb Chain (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The test subjects were from South Africa, Kenya, and Uganda, (the 4th, 10th, and 14th most infected countries by percentage) thereby making the sample men from Africa in high HIV prevalent countries. That is not synthesis of sources, that is interpretation of the study methods, data, and conclusion. Rip-Saw (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * At this preliminary analysis, I would take out "African".Curb Chain (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Does it make sense to take a regional study, and extrapolate it to include the entire world? Research shows that the extrapolation is false, and Rip-saw posted this on the talk page.  One editor keeps biting the newbies and violating WP:CIVIL,  the other uses many obfuscation tactics to make the controversy go away, because the others simply get exhausted.  He also has one set of editing rules for himself, and another for the newer editors.  If he tweaks something, it is summarizing.  If I tweak in the same manner, it's OR.  See the near edit war on cervical cancer for exactly what I am talking about, starting at the beginning.  Preserving neutrality is not a priority.  Tftobin (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Tftobin is 100% correct. Countless research from the US Navy study on down has failed to reproduce the results from the African HIV studies outside of Africa. Unless the African studies are flawed (this is open for debate), then no other conclusion can be drawn that the conclusion only applies to African men. Erikvcl (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Where does it say in the study that the extrapolation is false? I don't think the link even mentions the word "extrapolation".Curb Chain (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you can include both studies and explain the findings of these studies.Curb Chain (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Curb Chain - I like your suggestion of including both studies and the findings of both studies. Unfortunately, Jakew will not allow it. Many editors have tried adding reliable secondary sources to provide a counterexample and Jakew removes them. Erikvcl (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The US Navy study that Erikvcl refers to is a primary source. WP:MEDRS generally discourages the use of primary sources, preferring the use of secondary sources (such as the Cochrane review cited above) instead.  In particular, it says: "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources, unless the primary source itself directly makes such a claim".   Also bear in mind that we have to present studies with due weight.  Given that the majority of primary sources have found lower risk among circumcised men, then it would seem particularly inappropriate to cite one of the few primary sources that found otherwise. Jakew (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This explanation seems holistic to me. WP:NPOV must be considered so an article does not give extra prominence to under represented view(points).Curb Chain (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As I was curious, I've just checked the abstracts of the two other published meta-analyses of randomised controlled trial data on this subject (the effect of circumcision on female-to-male transmission of HIV). One concludes: "Male circumcision is an effective strategy for reducing new male HIV infections." The other: "These results provide unequivocal evidence that circumcision plays a causal role in reducing the risk of HIV infection among men."  Neither say that the results apply only to Africans. Jakew (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies: the above is slightly incorrect. I completely forgot that there is one further published meta-analysis, that of Weiss et al.  Again, though, their conclusion did not limit the results to African men: "In conclusion, randomized controlled trials have provided final conclusive evidence that male circumcision provides approximately 60% protection against the heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men." Jakew (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing that we should un-link circumcision to reducing HIV infection rates, merely that quantifying that effectiveness to everyone is is wrong, especially in the lead where there is no room for explanation or context. High-risk populations are mentioned all over the place in many studies. Your first source even states: "...when administered to similar populations in a similar fashion [emphasis added], circumcision results in an appreciable RR reduction," in the conclusion. I am unable to retrieve the full text of the second article, and I will assume you were not either. It is dangerous to read only the abstract, as I demonstrated in your first article by using the full text to further my own arguments. The abstract rarely has context nor the room to fully describe the results, and often omits key points that should not be ignored.
 * The introduction of the Weiss et al. article reads "An estimated 2.5 million people were newly infected with HIV in 2007, of whom two-thirds live in sub-Saharan Africa [1]. In the context [emphasis added] of the urgent need for intensified and expanded HIV prevention efforts, the conclusive results of three randomized controlled trials (RCT) showing that male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by approximately 60% [2–4] are both promising and challenging. Translation of these research findings into public health policy is complex and will be context specific [emphasis added]." This article's conclusion of 60% is in the context of the fact that 2/3 of all new HIV cases were in sub-Saharan Africa. The authors never directly state their results apply to all countries worldwide, a recurring theme in these meta-analyses. A high-quality article will directly state their conclusions in an unambiguous way. I have never read abstracts that are this vague before. Rip-Saw (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't really follow your argument here. I think using the phrase "African men" rather than just "men" would be misleading, since it might be read to imply that there is some "racial" / genetic explanation for the 60% drop, which seems unlikely to say the least. The phrase "males in Africa" might be better, but even then it does not apply to "Africa" as a whole, but to the specific populations studied. If you are suggesting that the 60% reduction is somehow linked to specific lifestyles, cultural specific sexual practices or whatever, then we should surely need some evidence that these could have played a part, otherwise there's no reason to believe that African foreskins function in a different way from American foreskins. Paul B (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Africa is a continent, not a race. Rip-Saw (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But I can see how people could fail to make the distinction. The problem is that very specific numbers are being generalized to large populations. If you can find a better way to phrase the lead without mentioning African and while also not over generalizing, please do so. Rip-Saw (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe I was not clear enough: I was not suggesting to use the US Navy study directly. I mentioned it as an example (of many) to show that the African study results have not been duplicated elsewhere. If they have, please link to them! Furthermore, I have linked to many many high quality secondary sources that have found great faults with the African RCTs and the meta-studies. All of these sources have been rejected. Jakew, you mention weight and that primary studies shouldn't be used to contradict primary studies. But what about the secondary sources that debunk other secondary sources? You have rejected all of these claims out of hand even though they are valid. In addition, sources must be weighted based on their validity. Multiple reliable secondary sources have shown that both the RCTs and the WHO (which is also cited) have serious ethical and conflict-of-interest issues. These claims, even though they are valid, have been rejected. In addition, Wikipedia policy clearly states that editors should only make non-controversial edits in the case of conflict of interest. See Conflict_of_interest.Erikvcl (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The last time you asked for evidence from outside of Africa indicating that circumcision reduced the risk of HIV, I provided some examples in this edit. I am somewhat perplexed by the fact that you're making the same request again.  Did you take the trouble to read my previous response?
 * The sources you've cited have generally been unreliable and/or fringe publications that are unsuitable for inclusion, as I've already explained. It's difficult to give a more specific explanation in the absence of specific examples. Jakew (talk) 10:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your sources actually prove my point. The CDC source does not indicate that any study outside of African has shown a correlation between MGM & HIV. Furthermore, the CDC article states "It is possible, but not yet adequately assessed, that male circumcision could reduce male-to-female transmission of HIV, although probably to a lesser extent than female-to-male transmission.". This is a LONG way off from definite "38-66%". Note that the CDC source states "not yet adequately assessed" and that male-female transmission to "lesser extent". We should not be using the 38-66% number. I have mentioned numerous sources that aren't "fringe" or unreliable. I can't make heads or tails of the India study from the summary, but it is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gate Foundation which are pro-circ and have been under a lot of criticism lately for their methods. Erikvcl (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The CDC source lists several US studies that have found correlations between lack of circumcision and HIV in the section entitled "HIV Infection and Male Circumcision in the United States". I am puzzled that you claim otherwise.  Whether you understand the Indian study is beside the point, as is your personal opinion of the funding body.
 * The CDC's statement about male-to-female transmission seems a good summary to me. We say something similar in the circumcision article: "Whether it protects against male-to-female transmission is disputed".  Certainly the evidence regarding reduction in risk of male-to-female transmission is much weaker than female-to-male, which the 38-66% figure refers to. Jakew (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Does the CDC article say that the 38-66% number applies to US men? No it does not. The article still proves my point in this regard. I'm puzzled why you are arguing with me about this. I'm still waiting for you to show that the 38-66% number has been shown to be true OUTSIDE of Africa.
 * As I'm quickly learning, "reliable" on Wikipedia has nothing to do with accuracy, bias, source conflict of interest, or correctness. The CDC article completely neglects the sensitivity studies that show 20k+ fine-touch nerves in the foreskin shown by many studies. The report characterizes the foreskin as most Americans do -- a worthless flap of skin better off removed. Although I know that this is the viewpoint that many are trying to promote here at Wikipeida -- this isn't justified by science. Erikvcl (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already shown that the cited source (and, for that matter, all of the other published meta-analyses of RCT data) do not limit their conclusions to African men. Clearly, therefore, it would be original research for Wikipedia to add such a qualifier.  While off-topic, I've also shown that your claim that studies outside of Africa have failed to find an association is incorrect.  If you're waiting for me to prove something else then I'm afraid you'll be waiting forever, because I don't feel that I have anything further to prove. Jakew (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I now understand the point that you're making. You're saying that the reliable secondary sources in the African studies are applying their conclusions to all men and this is why it is incorrect to add a qualifier. Is that correct? Conclusions require evidence. The African studies CANNOT extrapolate their results to all men worldwide because they did not study all men worldwide. This is scientific method 101. Evidence is needed to back up claims. Studies (no matter how reliable or secondary they may be) cannot draw valid conclusions without it.
 * Furthermore, you have NOT shown that results from the African studies are duplicated elsewhere. All you referenced was the CDC study which DID NOT confirm the 38-66% number. Your reference to the India study did not confirm the 38-66% number either. Not only that, but the CDC conclusion said there was a "possibility that circumcision" could have an effect on HIV. This is not a confirmation of the African studies in any way. The 38-66% number is a mis-characterization anyway. According to the study, that number reflects the reduction in HIV transmission rate between cut/uncut men. The Circumcision article states that "circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual men by 38-66%" which is incorrect and not supported by the study or the study's statistics. Please understand the distinction I'm making: there's a big difference between "risk of infection" and "reduction in risk". Whether or not we add the qualifier, the wording here MUST change as it is inaccurate and incorrect as it stands.
 * Big claims require big proof. Of all the studies done outside of Africa (18 I believe, 10 of which showing LOWER HIV transmission where most men are intact), there has been no statistically significant relationship between penis status and HIV transmission. Then, we have the fact that there have been multiple studies published in journals (a number of which I've linked to) that find significant faults in both the RCTs themselves and the meta-studies. You are the one pushing for the HIV/circ link in the article. You are obligated to back up this claim -- not me. You have not backed up this claim with credible evidence. Without a study that confirms the African studies, we MUST add the qualifier. Erikvcl (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you have a fundamental misunderstanding of policy. It is not our role to prove or disprove statements in sources; it is our role to accurately represent what they say.  And whether you or I think their conclusions are "valid" is irrelevant.
 * Please note that, per WP:NOR, "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research" (emph in original). The question, then, is whether the cited source directly and explicitly limits the scope of the statement to African men.  If they do, we can (and should) do so too.  If they don't, we can't.  By analogy, we can't say in Michelson-Morley experiment that "Its results are generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the theory of a luminiferous aether in Ohio", even though the experiment was performed in Ohio and an editor might firmly believe (and think (s)he can prove) that its results should not be generalised, because that qualifier isn't employed by secondary sources.  Jakew (talk) 06:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you should have no problem including statements by the reliable secondary sources that myself, Tftobin, and Gsonnenf have given to offer a counter-argument to the African studies! Erikvcl (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Where it is appropriate, then of course there isn't a problem. For example, I agreed here with citing a source identified by Gsonnenf (which was later added to the article). Jakew (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is appropriate to have a source counter the current claim in the lead. The Africa-HIV stuff shouldn't be in the lead at all. Unless I missed something, your agreement with Gsonnenf was not regarding a counterbalancing statement in the lead with regards to the Africa-HIV issue. Erikvcl (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * For the record, I would prefer the lead state: "Strong evidence from Africa indicates that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual, high-risk African male populations by 38-66%" or "Strong evidence indicates that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual men. [multiple meta-analyses citations]" My main issue is with quantifying the results to all populations, since none of the meta-analyses explicitly do, and the meta-analyses that do not include the African trials were largely inconclusive or found very small effects. Rip-Saw (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The phrase "evidence from Africa" already implies that Africans were studied. The repeat of "African" later implies that this study specifically differentiates African men from other men, which does not seem to be the case. It is comparable to saying "study of Disease X indicates that Italian men can be cured by Xanprophanol." Paul B (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The researchers do not differentiate (in the abstract), but neither do they congregate (in the whole body text). Xorphanol is an opioid that reduces pain, and there's very little reason to suspect it would work differently on some races from my understanding of how opium work. But the question I bring up is not a question of race, but a question of culture. Condom use in the studies were at 40%. Also, the use of drugs to suppress AIDS is relatively low. These cultural factors could have very real effects on the transmission rates of HIV. Rip-Saw (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * just to clarify matters - "Xanprophanol" was a joke; a made up drug. Paul B (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically, it's a matter of judgement: one could say that a study of Italians provides evidence that a drug resolves a certain symptom, or one could say that the same study provides evidence that a drug resolves a certain symptom in Italian men. In such cases, we don't make the judgement ourselves.  Rather, we rely upon the assessment of secondary sources, and report their conclusions.  In this case, as noted above, none of the four meta-analysis papers conclude that the benefit is only to African men.  They don't explicitly state that it applies to men across the globe, but they don't include a geographical qualifier either.  So the appropriate thing to do is the same. Jakew (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Jakew, wikipedia states that it would prefer high quality primary research, over lower quality secondary research. I don't think you can call the US Navy study lower quality, whether it is primary research or secondary research.  To include it would not violate wikipedia policy. Tftobin (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem may be that the terminology should clarify whether the strong evidence comes from a "study" or a "manipulative experiment" re African people. AvocadosTheorem (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you mind quoting the part of policy you're thinking of, Tom? As for the overall quality, from WP:MEDASSESS: "The best evidence comes primarily from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).[2] Systematic reviews of bodies of literature of overall good quality and consistency addressing the specific recommendation have less reliability when they include non-randomized studies.[3] Narrative reviews can help establish the context of evidence quality. Roughly in descending order of quality, lower-quality evidence in medical research comes from individual RCTs; other controlled studies; quasi-experimental studies; non-experimental studies such as comparative, correlation, and case control studies; and non-evidence-based expert opinion or clinical experience." So the US Navy study, being a case-control study, is second to last in terms of quality. The meta-analyses of RCTs are considered the highest quality. Jakew (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "In this case, as noted above, none of the four meta-analysis papers conclude that the benefit is only to African men." That is not the way science works. Based on the research, would you recommend Catholic priests or Buddhist monks get circumcised to prevent themselves from getting HIV? Rip-Saw (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no medical association of any country which has endorsed Dr. Brian Morris' view that "in contrast, Morris regards circumcision as "mandated", citing reduced risk of balanitis among other benefits. Most doctors would recommend diaper (nappy) cream with zinc oxide.  Yet, Dr. Morris managed to get peer reviewed, and written up, to become part of a secondary resource.  All the while, embracing the most fringe of fringe views possible.  Morris also said, in an ironically titled, "Infant male circumcision: An evidence-based policy statement", that "MC provides strong protection against: urinary tract infections and, in infancy, renal parenchymal disease; phimosis; paraphimosis; balanoposthitis; foreskin tearing; some heterosexually transmitted infections including HPV, HSV-2, trichomonas, HIV, and genital ulcer disease; thrush; inferior hygiene; penile cancer and possibly prostate cancer."  No medical society of any country will back this up.  "The ethics of infant MC and childhood vaccination are comparable.".  The Swedish Paediatric society calls it "child abuse" and "assault". Yet, somehow, the Morris paper magically appears as a secondary resource. The circumcision article cites this document as "In 2012, Morris et al. reported that there is some evidence, albeit mixed, that circumcision may protect against prostate cancer; they called for more extensive research into the matter."  This passes for science?  The reference Morris cited, was "Case number and the financial impact of circumcision in reducing prostate cancer. British Journal of Urology International, 100, 5-6. ", co-authored by Jakew and Brian Morris.  Is this making a better encyclopedia?  Tftobin (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, Tftobin is correct. Lots of bogus studies and meta-studies get published in reputable journals. Consider the bogus vaccine-autism study that was published -- and later retracted -- in a major, reputable journal. Another good point that Tftobin makes is that of Morris. . His should never be used as a source in any Wikipedia article and Erikvcl (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For one, "African men" is not race-bound but geographically-bound. The article does say the evidence is from Africa, doesn't it?. [[image:smile.png]] Also, these secondary sources do make the distinction that this benefit of up for 66% HIV reduction was realized in men  particularly in high-risk areas, as outlined before and in Rip-Saw's comments dated 18:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC) and 17:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC). I can't even believe we are arguing this. FactoidDroid (talk) 07:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Rip-Saw, the issue we're discussing is whether circumcision reduces the risk of HIV, not whether it should be recommended for that purpose. The latter question would surely involve weighing all the risks and benefits, and is a difficult question to resolve anywhere.  It's certainly impossible to answer without performing original research.  However, I think the point you're trying to make is that, depending on context, the absolute risk reduction can vary tremendously.  I absolutely agree, but I can't quite see the relevance as the statements in the sources and our article are about relative risk reductions. Jakew (talk) 07:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Jakew, I can't find the place in wikipedia which states that a high quality primary resource is preferable to a poor quality secondary one. I will keep looking, when I have more time. I will say, why should circumcision fall under WP:MEDASSESS, when the vast majority are not done for medical reasons, they are done for religious reasons, and social reasons.  If it was medical, why does the CDC not track it's surgical effectiveness, unintended consequences, or death rates, as they do for what they consider medical procedures? Tftobin (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Jakew, can you please address the prostate cancer article issue up above? Tftobin (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do keep looking, Tom. To answer your question, MEDASSESS applies because you're asking us to compare the quality of two medical studies, relating to an article about a surgical procedure.  It is difficult to think of a situation in which MEDASSESS is more applicable.  The prostate cancer issue is off-topic for this thread, which (per the "Dispute overview" above) is about "Results from a metanalysis are being grossly misinterpreted and generalized to the entire world population.".  In any case, I've already addressed it at Talk:Circumcision, as you know. Jakew (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The American Urological Association states: "the results of studies in African nations may not necessarily be extrapolated to men in the United States at risk for HIV infection" |source. The "strong evidence" lead sentence has been disputed by a great deal of authors. I suggest we move it out of the lead and attribute it to the author instead of saying it in Wikipedias voice.Gsonnenf (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be rather US-centric to specifically refer to the US in the lead, but I wouldn't have a problem with citing this in the body of the article. As for removing the sentence from the lead, that has been proposed multiple times, and each time it has failed to gain consensus, since reliable sources about circumcision generally give a great deal of weight to HIV, which is held to be an important aspect. Remember that, per WP:LEAD, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. [...] explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points". Jakew (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If we are to keep this in the lead, there is a good deal of merit to attributing the Cochrane review to the group that this claim. This would carry a much fairer narrative. As it is now, this sentence suggests that most primary studies looking at the evidence have found a significant (up to 66%) reduction in HIV transmission, which is not the case; putting these three RCTs aside, the evidence regarding HIV transmission is actually conflicting, especially when observing studies conducted in developed nations. We are placing too much of an emphasis on the findings of three RCTs, and the fact that we are using them to suggest a universal decrease in circumcision is very misleading, especially when region-specific distinctions are made on several occasions, in our own sources!. Additionally, the statement that circumcision might not carry the same HIV reduction benefits in other countries is not only made by the AUA. for instance, reflects the same opinions with respect to implementing a circumcision program in Australia. FactoidDroid (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's extremely unconventional to attribute a statement that enjoys scientific consensus, and doing so can give undue weight to those at the fringes. For example, we do not say "according to such-and-such, HIV is the cause of AIDS".  We simply assert it.
 * It is in fact the case that most primary sources have found significant reductions, and this is also true of observational studies predating the RCTs. See, for example, systematic reviews this or this.  The latter provides some numbers: "Twenty-seven studies were included. Of these, 21 showed a reduced risk of HIV among circumcised men".  Nevertheless, since the publication of the RCTs, secondary sources have largely focused on those, often exclusively.  It is only appropriate that we should do the same. Jakew (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And what of the six that didn't show any reduction? If the rate were really 30-60% universally, statistical significance would appear in very small studies. I'd like a more realistic lower bound in the lead, one done for low-risk populations. Then the lead could say something like "Researchers indicate that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in various heterosexual male populations by 20-60%." We need the citations to back the statements up, and the correct lower bound, of course. Rip-Saw (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a huge difference between 30% and 60%. Jakew, what are the statistics for circumcision and HIV in the UK?  Tftobin (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Jakew, regarding your claim that "most primary sources have found significant reductions, and this is also true of observational studies predating the RCTs", please see, or . These sources do seem to support the stance that the results have been conflicting.
 * It is also worth noting that in, which you just cited to support your stance Jakew, the reviewer's conclusions actually states that "existing observational studies show a strong epidemiological association between male circumcision and prevention of HIV, especially among high-risk groups" (emphasis mine). The other source you cited, , actually makes makes a stronger qualifier: "Male circumcision is associated with a significantly reduced risk of HIV infection among men in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly those at high risk of HIV" (emphasis mine). FactoidDroid (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are really old sources. As far as the African data goes, the newer studies yield little doubt as to the effaciacy of circumcision in high-risk populations. Rip-Saw (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To remind you, Therewillbefact, you stated: "this sentence suggests that most primary studies looking at the evidence have found a significant (up to 66%) reduction in HIV transmission, which is not the case". That statement is wrong; the sources I cited demonstrated that.  Of the sources you cited in response, one directly contradicts your statement (that I just quoted), saying "Most case-control and cohort studies from Africa have shown an association between a lack of circumcision and an increased risk of HIV infection in men."  The other does not comment regarding what most primary sources found; instead it offers a "meta-analysis" (I'm including quotes as there is consensus in the literature that that study used an improper technique that didn't qualify as a meta-analysis) of the papers.  Interestingly, that study was the subject of chapter 33 of "Introduction to Meta-Analysis" by Borenstein et al (Wiley, 2011).  The chapter is about a problem (Simpson's paradox) that can occur when incorrect methods are used to combine studies; Van Howe's paper and various published criticisms of it are used as an detailed illustration.
 * Rip-Saw is correct, though, that these (and the ones I cited) are old sources. The only reason why I cited them is that they include relatively large numbers of observational studies (more recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses generally ignore the observational studies in favour of RCTs), and hence provide a good overview of the findings of primary sources.  Since I think it is now proved that your "which is not the case" statement is erroneous, I think it's probably time to drop this issue. Jakew (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Rip-Saw, this is getting a bit off-topic, but I'll try to respond briefly. Observational studies in particular are susceptible to confounding, which to put it bluntly means that they don't always find the right results.  So if the actual underlying risk reduction were, say, 50%, one wouldn't realistically expect every study to find that.  All things being equal, one would expect results to obey a statistical distribution, with an average reduction of 50%, but some finding less and some more (and a few would probably find an increase).  Current estimates, based on the best evidence currently available, are 38-66% (interestingly Weiss et al [Male circumcision for HIV prevention: from evidence to action? AIDS 2008;22:567-74] note that meta-analysis results of the RCTs are "identical to that found in the observational studies").
 * Regarding the "lower bound", I'm not sure what sources you could cite or indeed how it and other sources could be cited without violating WP:SYNTH. However, if you'd like to make a concrete proposal that avoids such potential problems, I'd be keen to see whether it can be used. Jakew (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am well-educated in the differences between observational & case studies, and their measures of correlative and causal effects, verses experimental design studies. That is why I know we cannot put a number on low-risk groups. I just read through HIV and male circumcision—a systematic review with assessment of the quality of studies written by the same people who did the meta-analysis referenced in the lead, and came across two interesting graphs. The authors wrote this paper right before the RCTs were finished, and it represents the best knowledge at the time. All of the studies favored circumcision in the high-risk groups; the efficacy can easily be seen by looking at the graph. The benefit is very large, and the African trials eventually put a number on the benefit. In the low-risk group, the efficacy is not so clear, and it is obviously quite lower, possibly nonexistent. Since no random controlled trials have been done for low-risk populations, and observational studies are simply not enough, a realistic efficacy may not even be possible to place on low-risk groups. If data can be found linking the 60% efficacy to low-risk populations in general, then that data could go into the lead. As it is, we can only summarize findings for African populations. The more I look into this, the more I realize that the entire HIV section needs a major assessment. Rip-Saw (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest proposing non-trivial changes at the talk page first. And, to remind you, we can't include our own analyses or interpretations of data; all statements must be explicitly made by reliable sources. Jakew (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We have reliable sources saying that this study should not be generalized to other populations. The study should refer to males from regions of Africa. Jakew's personal interpretation, extrapolating to general populations, is incorrect.Gsonnenf (talk) 06:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems more than a little disingenuous, Gsonnenf, to describe the conclusions of all published meta-analyses as my "personal interpretation". Jakew (talk) 06:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Disingenuousness aside, there is a point there. The studies were not meant to be extrapolated to cover all males of planet Earth.  If they were mean to be extrapolated to all, how would we explain the low rate of circumcision, and the low rate of HIV infection, of places such as Finland, Japan, New Zealand, Bulgaria, China, Sweden, etc. Tftobin (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your question doesn't make any sense, but since it's an example of debating the subject rather than the sources, it hardly matters. Jakew (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not interpreting simply the data, but using the data and research methods to interpret what the authors said. Having read other works by the same authors, which concentrate heavily on the AIDS epidemic in Africa, I am more confident than before that the authors intended their results only apply to the populations they tested. This debate has gone on long enough. The lead needs to reflect the actual findings of the authors, not misinterpreted abstracts. Rip-Saw (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Its JakeW's personal interpretation that the Africa results should be extrapolated to a generalized group rather than sub-Sahara group. We have sources (as apposed to contributor opinion), such as the one from the URA and studies from the Navy (which we may used to complement secondary sources), that say you shouldn't do this. In addition, Erikvcl has added a host of other WP:RS that scrutinize the African studies. I advise we pull this statement from the lead as its becoming more and more apparent its inappropriate.Gsonnenf (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't try to guess my personal views, Gsonnenf. They're not relevant.  The only issue that is relevant is what the sources actually say, and whether they explicitly support the "African" qualifier.  Jakew (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Tftobin, Rip-Saw & Gsonnenf make great points here. I see three options:
 * Add the qualifier
 * Remove the HIV-Africa stuff out of the lead
 * Add a counter-balancing statement using a reliable secondary source in the same paragraph to balance the current claim Erikvcl (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * None of these are appropriate, as explained above at length. Adding the qualifier would violate WP:NOR and removing the HIV material would violate WP:LEAD.  "Counterbalancing" (if I understand your intended meaning) would violate WP:UNDUE given the strong scientific consensus that exists on the subject of female-to-male HIV transmission. Jakew (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:LEAD requires consensus. Four editors object to the HIV-Africa stuff in the lead. One editor wants it there. Per WP:LEAD, it should be removed. There is NO scientific consensus on this subject. On that, you are incorrect. In fact, we are giving way too much weight to the small number of Africa-HIV sources; see Balance. Erikvcl (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I read WP:LEAD and I do not see anything there that says the lead specifically requires consensus any more or less than anywhere else. The only two sentences in WP:LEAD I see that mention "consensus" are:  "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus" (and everybody agrees that the in-line citation in the lead should be there), and "The following are examples of names that may be included parenthetically, although inclusion should reflect consensus" (and nobody is arguing about the name used in the lead).  Saying something should be removed "per WP:LEAD" and then giving an argument based on something that is not in WP:LEAD holds no weight.  If the concern is really "per WP:CONSENSUS", I am concerned when Erikvcl gives a headcount of 4 to 1 editors and points to an argument based on "consensus."  WP:CONSENSUS states specifically that consensus is not the result of a vote.  (Also, the "vote" count is not correct, in addition to Jake, I also feel the case for putting in an "African men" qualifier has not been made, and as of their last edits in this thread, Curb Chain and Paul Barlow agreed as well.)  There are also items listed at Consensus that I think apply here.  At this time, I do not believe we are going to resolve this content dispute either at Talk:Circumcision or here, and it is time to move to another venue.  Let's consider WP:MEDCOM formal mediation.  Given the history of the argument so far, I do not think informal mediation will 'stick.'  Thoughts?  Zad68 (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not in favor of entirely removing the HIV section from the lead, because that is the biggest thing, medically, circumcision has going for it. Reducing HIV in Africa is very important and certainly lead worthy. This may have to move on to other forms of dispute resolution, because it's not going anywhere right now. Rip-Saw (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. WP:CONSENSUS has been my concern from day 1 about this article. As indicated by Jayg's chart, it seems that most of us want change. I don't think you need to be concerned about my headcount: I listed the folks specified in the top of this section as it stood the other day plus myself. I see that this list has been updated in the mean-time. I know we're not supposed to "vote" persay, but can you suggest a better way? Erikvcl (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that briefly describes the participants and their views on this topic. Jayjg (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? Argumentum ad hominem? Rip-Saw (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see an argument there; I've just summarized who the participants are and their what their views are on this topic. Have I missed something, or gotten the views wrong? Jayjg (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confused, please see the triangle at right for an example of how to argue effectively. [[Image:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement-en.svg|thumb|right|375px|You seem to have fallen off the pyramid and landed in the orange section. Please climb your way back up to at least the blue section.]] I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP: No Personal Attacks, especially with how it relates to WP: Please do not bite the newcomers, as well as this general advice for administrators; admins are supposed to lead by example. Furthermore, it would be unwise of you to degrade this dispute via the merits of those involved in the dispute. If I were to drag my actual credentials into this dispute, you would find yourself so hopelessly buried by my own massive intellect that your mind would become dominated by the Pauli exclusion principle. Let's agree to not go there, and keep discussing content, not contributors! ;) Rip-Saw (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There are editors in circumcision whose violations of WP:Etiquette are so egregious, they would literally have to murder someone to be removed. Filing complaints tamps them down for a few minutes, but nothing ever happens beyond that. Which is why they survive, to bite the newbies and violate WP:Etiquette some more.  As a self-policing entity, wikipedia has a long, long, way to go. The blatant one person rule in circumcision is obvious as well. When was the last time you saw a posting that editor did not personally approve of?  Which is what leads us here to dispute resolution of circumcision, which, after many years, people know how to maneouver quite well. Tftobin (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What an extraordinarily indignant response to a simple table! It seems to me that, since the number of editors arguing for each position has been raised as an issue (by Erikvcl, 14:44, 2 May 2012), then it is perfectly reasonable to look at the level of experience of those editors.  In that respect, Jayjg's table serves as a useful summary.  The real problem here, per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, is that the headcount doesn't really matter.  The number of editors supporting a position is essentially immaterial (which is why "me too" responses tend to be given no weight).  What matters is whether arguments have a sound basis in sources and policy; strong arguments are likely to convince experienced editors and thus lead, eventually, to consensus.   Jakew (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. It smells like a typical power play to me, a not-so-subtle reminder of who the real controllers of the article are, and the typical 'you are a rookie, we are the seasoned editors who know what we are doing' attitude so prevalent in talk:circumcision. Tftobin (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

What an astonishing amount of vitriol! No wonder it's so hard to reach agreement. Jayjg (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How quickly one can forget one's own level of vitriol. The level which resulted in complaints, over and over.  Tftobin (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I said it once, I will say it again, let's agree to discuss content, not contributors. Numbers, whether they be votes, edit counts, or IQ points, are completely independent of the content of circumcision. That little triangle I keep posting is there for a reason. If someone says something, you address what they said directly and prove them wrong. Rip-Saw (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Procedural question--How does this get 'closed' here?
It seems at this point the exact same discussion we were having at Talk:Circumcision is now happening here instead of there, and without being any closer to resolution. While here, it picked up four new editors: AvocadosTheorem, who asked a follow up question, but provided no opinion; Curb Chain, who agreed with keeping the qualifier "African men" out; Paul Barlow, who agreed with keeping the qualifier "African men" out; and Therewillbefact, who suggested qualifying the lead statement with "Cochrane review" and pointed to another study that uses an "African men" qualifier. I observe none of these four new editors is an Admin (not that it's necessary, but just observing), and the last post by any of them was about a day and a half ago, by Therewillbefact. How does a decision get made, and how does this discussion move to a close here? Or is it time to bring this discussion to another venue? Zad68 (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with much of what you've said, Zad68, but just as a small correction, Therewillbefact has been heavily involved in discussions at Talk:Circumcision. Jakew (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoops, sorry Jake! Yes you are right.  When I did my analysis, I compared the list of editors contributing here against the "Users involved" listed at the top of this DRN notice, and Therewillbefact wasn't listed up there, so that is why he appeared as a "new editor" here.  Considering Therewillbefact as a "previously-involved editor," that brings the number of new editors here down to only three, and of those, Paul Barlow was the last one to post, at 07:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC), now over 4 1/2 days ago.  Resolution happening here is even less likely.  Zad68 (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Probably my fault for not adding Therewillbefact when I added some of the names that were missing from the "Users involved" list... Jakew (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, fixed. Zad68 (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk's note: Like everything else at Wikipedia, DRN is operated by volunteers and I'm afraid that we're at a low ebb on the number of volunteers here at DRN at the moment. To further complicate the issue, every volunteer gets to choose what kind of disputes he or she wants to become involved with and there are fewer who want to be involved with complex, wall-o-text disputes like this one than with ones which can be quickly and easily addressed. Let me offer some suggestions about what to do next. There are only four more-or-less final ways to resolve content disputes at WP: All that mediation through Mediation Cabal or Mediation Committee can do is to help keep your dispute orderly, civil, and perhaps offer some compromises which you haven't already thought of yourselves, with an ultimate objective of still achieving resolution method 1. Doing that will only work if you all honestly believe that with that kind of help that there is still a possibility that you can come to a compromise agreement over this dispute and you are willing to take days to weeks to get to that compromise. If you, or any one of you, do not think that's possible, then mediation is simply going to end up with resolution method 2, 3, or 4 and my very strong suggestion would be to either (a) mutually drop the stick and live with method 2 or (b) jump directly to an RFC so that you can end up at method 1 or 2 more quickly. I'm sorry that DRN has not been helpful, but unless a volunteer steps up to the plate here at DRN (and, to tell the truth, we cannot do any more here at DRN than what can be done in mediation), I see those as your options at this point. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. Come to consensus about it.
 * 2. Fail to come to consensus by agreement, in which case this section of the consensus policy says that the last version of the article which had consensus, either positive or by silence, "wins" and those who wanted to change it "lose". (I realize that those terms are not Wiki-politically-correct, but that's the result at the end of the day.)
 * 3. Fight over it until everyone but the supporters of one position give up or get blocked or banned.
 * 4. Do a request for comments to bring in enough uninvolved editors to come to consensus about it.

Since this discussion has devolved into incivility, I intend to close this 24 hours after 18:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC) unless either a DRN volunteer comes along who wants to work on it. See my comments immediately above about what other alternatives you may have. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I forgot to say Thank you TransporterMan for your good work volunteering here, and for the "straight poop" regarding the outcomes that can be expected here or elsewhere. Good info.  Zad68 (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess the next step is informal mediation then. Rip-Saw (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rip-Saw, I was thinking mediation as well. But then I re-read what TransporterMan wrote above at 16:09, 2 May 2012.  Without any real hope of a hint of a compromise acceptable to both "sides" so far, despite probably 50k+ worth of text typed, it does not appear mediation will help either.  We have largely had a civil discussion, and mediation seems to be targeted to helping an uncivil discussion be civil.  Mediation won't decide anything for us, and I think you (like me) wanted to find an adjudicator who would read the evidence and come back with a judgment that we would all be bound to agree to.  Mediation doesn't do that.  Review the mediation cases, plenty of the close as unresolved.  In fact I looked at about 10 cases, and NONE of them was closed with a status that looked like "Consensus reached," most of them closed as stale without resolution.  Even Arbitration won't do it for us, they explicitly say they do not make "content decisions."  It appears the best and only thing we can do is keep talking.  Tom opened an RFC at Talk:Circumcision, that's probably the best next thing to try. Zad68 (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC now open
An RfC has now been opened on this issue. Since there is little point in operating two dispute resolutions mechanisms simultaneously, I'd be grateful if someone would close this thread. Jakew (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Roman Polanski


Dispute overview
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

The section called the "sexual assault case" starts by saying that Polanski was arrested for sexual assault on 13-year-old Samantha Greimer. It then talks at length about the defense case, but it never includes any description at all about what Polanski was accused of, which one would expect if they came to Wikipedia to read about him. The only information comes in a separate article on the case, which there is a link to. What allegedly happened during the assault is described at length there.

I've tried to include some accurate description of what Polanski was accused of. I wrote a few sentences at first, and that was removed. Then I added just one sentence, with a briefer description, and that was removed. I'd explained beforehand in the talk section why it doesn't seem NPOV not to include even a small description of what Polanski was accused of in his article.

I also think it's concerning that no sort of mention is made of this case in the first paragraph about Polanski. I went to About.com's article about him, and it was referred to there.

I also attempted to add a short paragraph on actress Charlotte Lewis' allegations against Polanski, which is mentioned in her Wikipedia bio, and that was removed. I did mention in what I wrote on "talk" that the account could just be balanced with information casting doubt on her claim.

And I've experienced trouble posting external links on the Polanski page, so I was wondering if it was some problem I just couldn't figure out, or if external links need some approval from someone on the Polanski page. I tried inserting links to Geimer's testimony and some other articles, including a long one from the LA Times on Geimer's testimony, but I kept getting error messages.

I have seen from reading some sections here that the other editors involved in the dispute should be notified, and I'm not quite sure how to do that, but I'll see if I can figure it out. I did post about this yesterday on one editor's page but didn't get a response.

Psalm84 (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




 * Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.


 *  N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute
 * Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I did refer both to the talk page where I wrote about why I believe the Polanski page should include at least a short description of what he was accused of, and I also did write about it on the user talk page of Wikiwatcher1.


 * How do you think we can help?

In offering other opinions and guidance.

Psalm84 (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Roman Polanski discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.'' ( Comment from uninvolved editor ) All I see is one posting on the talk page after you edit warred that has yet to be responded to. Hearing no reasoned objections, I intend to close this in 24 hours from 16:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC) with the rationalle of "Not yet finished with talk page". Hasteur (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how I edit-warred. I've only edited a little here and never had any problem. I added the passage about the alleged assault, and it was removed by Wikiwatcher1 for the reason, "trim interview minutia portion." I restored the passage with a short explanation, "fixed misspelling and want to add about previous edit - it's not NPOV not to have at least a small description on this page of the assault - see "talk" page entry on how the article was unbalanced without it."


 * Not including just a brief description from Samantha Geimer on what she says happened (saying "she told Larry King," rather than saying, "this is definitely what happened") seemed not to be NPOV, and it seemed balanced to include it, too. There are numerous small details in the "sexual assault case" section that could be considered unnecessary to the basic story, such as about 4 quotes from Geimer herself which are positive towards Polanski, and a lot of detailed description about the actions of the judge and prosecutor.


 * After restoring that page, I started to write about something different, the allegations against Polanski made by Charlotte Lewis. I posted that and it was removed by The Magnificent Clean-keeper, for the reason "allegations of criminal behaviour by one person is a cross BLP vio." I did write on the talk page that I couldn't find what a "cross BLP violation" was, and that doubts about Lewis' account could be added too..


 * I also saw that my reposting of the passage about the assault and had been removed a second time, this time by The Magnificent Clean-keeper, who said, "Adding one side but not the other is not balanced and undue detail for this bio. See talk." I did see the talk section and replied to that editor's comment.


 * Then, responding to the idea that a small description of what Polanski allegedly did would be unbalanced, I later added two sentences. One included the brief account and another Polanski's denial of Geimer's account. I wrote: "Added two sentences about the sexual assault and Polanski's denial, which I discussed in "talk." If they are removed, I request for it to be discussed in talk or conflict resolution."


 * Those sentences were removed, too, by Wikiwatcher1, for the reason, "Excessive minutia with non-neutral placement." I then left a comment on the editor's talk page, and also included what I'd written on Polanski's talk page. I did see that Wikiwatcher1 removed what I wrote there, for "remove duplicated discussion," but I didn't get any response.


 * That's why I decided to bring the dispute here, because it seems like without other opinions this issue won't be resolved. And I believe the help pages say to bring any disputes here first to get other people's opinions. Psalm84 (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I want to just add, too, that I posted four times and the changes were undone each time. I did explain my reasons and also respond to the objections of the editors and tried to rewrite the passage according to their concerns. I would like to know what the next course of action should be, since I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia. Psalm84 (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You said it yourself, "posted four times and the changes were undone each time". There does not appear to exisist consensus to add the content currently.  Furthermore because the subject is a living person the extra guards of WP:BLP are a non-negotiable requirement, especially when talking about negative events associated with the subject. You may not have crossed the bright line of 3RR, but your multiple edits gave me the impression that you were trying to get the content added by sheer brute force of changes which is really frowned upon. Hasteur (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The question as I see it is whether or not the "sexual assault case" section of the Roman Polanski page should accurately reflect and summarize the situation and the account on the separate "Roman Polanski sexual abuse case." For one example, the separate page covers the concern that the assault was not just simply statutory rape but also that there were questions about her consent in a non-age-related way, as she said she repeatedly told him no and asked to be taken home. The section on the main Polanski page doesn't convey any sense of that at all. So it's a matter of NPOV encyclopedia accuracy and consistency in the encyclopedia. The rest of the account on the Polanski page talks a lot about how the judge and prosecutor handled the case, including the question about why the judge changed his mind, and people seeking information should be given a more accurate picture of what the judicial system had to consider in making its decisions.


 * "Furthermore because the subject is a living person the extra guards of WP:BLP are a non-negotiable requirement, especially when talking about negative events associated with the subject."


 * The content is already discussed in far greater detail on the Roman Polanski sex abuse case page.


 * "your multiple edits gave me the impression that you were trying to get the content added by sheer brute force"


 * I wasn't merely reversing what people had undone. I did that only once, but I responded to that specific concern stated, about "excessive minutiae for a bio," by reducing the account given by Geimer from about 4 or 5 sentences to one, so I believed that I'd fixed the problem. I mistakenly wrote in the edit explanation that I added a few sentences when I only added one:


 * "On 11 March 1977, Polanski, then 43 years old, was arrested for the sexual assault of 13-year-old Samantha Geimer during a photo shoot for French Vogue magazine. Geimer told Larry King in 2003 that Polanski stopped a friend from accompanying her to the shoot, and when she realized his intentions, she feigned illness and repeatedly refused his advances, only giving in to him out of fear and the hope she'd soon be able to go home."


 * The edit was reversed again, though, by the same editor, the reason being "trim interview minutia portion." At this point since I'd added only one sentence of brief summary I felt I had to address the issue of the importance of giving people coming to the page some information about the alleged assault. I reversed that edit and explained why on the talk page, that not explaining on the Polanski page itself a little bit behind the circumstances of him being charged with sexual abuse of a 13 year-old girl isn't good practice.


 * That edit was reversed by a second editor, who said it was one-sided. I replied to him and again modified what I wrote, taking into account the editor's concern. I added a denial by Polanski of Geimer's account. I also wanted to add that he claimed a blackmail scheme in his autobiography, but I had difficulty adding any links to the page. I believed I'd addressed the editor's concern, but the edit was reversed again, and I didn't undo it, but decided it needed to be talked about.


 * Around the same time I added info on Charlotte Lewis' accusations against Polanski, but when it was removed, I didn't reverse it either. I did address it on the talk page. Psalm84 (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I also want to show here what was the final version of the paragraph I modified, if it hasn't been looked at:


 * "On 11 March 1977, Polanski, then 43 years old, was arrested for the sexual assault of 13-year-old Samantha Geimer during a photo shoot for French Vogue magazine. Geimer told Larry King in 2003 that she'd had reservations about going on the shoot, and when she realized Polanski's intentions, she feigned illness and initially refused his advances. Polanski denied her version of events.[67] He was indicted on six counts of criminal behavior, including rape,[65][68] and pled not guilty to all charges.[69]" Psalm84 (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * On the face of it (before digging into the history) the above looks a lot like adding a neutrally worded description of what he was accused of. Of course there is probably more to it than that. Rather than just invoking consensus, could someone explain the reasoning behind not describing what Polanski was accused of?  --Guy Macon (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd like to propose re-adding that particular edit. I'll do that if I don't hear anything else to the contrary before tomorrow. I believe I addressed that the objections I received to the edits that I made I responded to by modifying my entry, and that some brief description of what Polanski was accused of is needed for people to understand what all the parties involved were dealing with. Psalm84 (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * One other thing I'd like to point out. I took a look at the news coverage of the case at the time and it was widely reported what Polanski was charged with. This is from a UPI story after he pleaded not guilty: "Polanski was indicted by a grand jury March 24 on six felony counts of furnishing a drug to a minor, rape by use of drugs, sex perversion and sodomy, unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor and committing a lewd or lascivious act upon a child under the age of 14."
 * http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=xSYsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EMcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3812,2506376&dq=polanski+indicted+polanski-was-indicted-by-a-grand-jury-march-24&hl=en
 * To properly inform Wikipedia readers about the sexual assault case, it would seem necessary to give them an accurate sense of what everyone involved, including the legal system and the public, was aware of and had to consider at that time. So the account in the sexual assault case section would need to reflect that. Psalm84 (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to modify the passage in order to give an accurate idea of what the situation was back then, but I think listing the charges against Polanski, as they are on the separate page on the sexual abuse case, should be considered. This is one possible paragraph:


 * "On 11 March 1977, Polanski, then 43 years old, was arrested for the sexual assault of 13-year-old Samantha Geimer during a photo shoot for French Vogue magazine. Geimer told Larry King in 2003 that she'd had reservations about going on the shoot, during which she was given champagne and part of a Quaalude by Polanski, and when she realized his intentions, she'd feigned illness and initially refused his advances. Polanski denied her version of events.[67] He was indicted on six counts of criminal behavior, including rape by use of drugs, sodomy, and unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor,[65][68] and pled not guilty to all charges.[69]" Psalm84 (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The new edit I posted was removed by Wikiwatcher1, despite the fact that


 * I've received no reply to what I wrote in the comment box on my latest edit, in which I said to see the RP talk page and this page. There's been no reply here to another editor who asked for a reason not to mention what Polanski was accused of in his bio. And on this page yesterday I said that I would be adding this passage today and asked to hear about any objections.


 * I've also received no reply on the Polanski talk page from Wikiwatcher1 on what I wrote in response to his claims against my edits on this issue.

The new edit I posted today is this:


 * "On 11 March 1977, Polanski, then 43 years old, was arrested for the sexual assault of 13-year-old Samantha Geimer during a photo shoot for French Vogue magazine. Geimer told Larry King in 2003 that she'd had reservations about going on the shoot, during which she was given champagne and part of a Quaalude by Polanski, and when she realized his intentions, she'd feigned illness and initially refused his advances.[67][68]
 * Polanski was indicted on six counts of criminal behavior, including rape by use of drugs, sodomy, and unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[65][69] He denied Geimer's version of events and pled not guilty to all charges.[68]"

The reason wikiwatcher1 gave for undoing the edit is this: "Per talk - handpicked isolated interview snippets."

I don't see that argued on the talk page, but in any case, there are dozens of news sources that could be cited which provide those same facts as part of the basic background on what allegedly happened that day. And there are also many news sources that quote the same information from Geimer's grand jury testimony, so it would be very easy to change the cited sources.

Wikiwatcher1 also doesn't give a reason for undoing the whole edit, which also included some of the specific charges against Polanski. That information didn't come from the interview but no reason is given for taking that information out, either.

I think the issue that needs to be addressed here is the question about including what Polanski was accused of in his bio. That seems to be the issue, which is brought up in an exchange that I had with Wikiwatcher1:


 * "While the article may not be as satisfying to the few readers who's first and only desire is to read minutia about the sexual assault, there is no "larger bias" and nothing to imply it."


 * Again, "satisfaction" isn't the issue, in the same way that having a criminal trial in a sexual assault case isn't and shouldn't be about sexual gratification to anyone. It's about proper encyclopedia practices that accurately inform readers, including properly summarizing situations.

Because of not receiving replies on this page and the talk page, and that the reasons for undoing the edits don't seem to be what's at issue, I thought it best to bring up the latest dispute here.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Psalm84 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama article does not conform to NPOV


Dispute overview
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

A group of users is working together to remove almost all critical information from the Obama article. This is in stark contrast to the articles about Republican Presidents. The contrast is dramatic; see my hatted post on the talk page, which I have duplicated here:

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




 * Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.


 *  N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute
 * Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Lengthy, voluminous discussions on the talk page


 * How do you think we can help?

Not sure, but it is not appropriate that a majority of users from one end of the political spectrum keep the article in such an outlandishly biased state. It is not just one or two users. The reverts of criticism are spread among many people, which allows each individual user to avoid getting into an edit war. But the cumulative effect is a tremendously biased article. I don't know if Wikipedia has a means of dealing with this type of situation. If not, it is likely to become a long-term problem. If NPOV is intended as a serious policy on Wikipedia, there needs to be a way to maintain it in the article about the President of the United States. There are some sub-issues which you might be able to resolve: (1) should the article have an NPOV tag?, and (2) Is global NPOV an appropriate topic for discussion on the talk page or not.

William Jockusch (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama article does not conform to NPOV discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

Comment Since my name is above I'll make a comment. On my involvement with that page, it's very limited. My only recent talk page involvement has been to oppose one proposed addition (FYI not by WJ) that was close to unanimously rejected, as well as a couple posts that were an attempt to tone down some discussion that was getting heated. Overall with political articles regardless of party I try to be consistant with my opinions in applying the standard, does this belong in an encyclopedia, or a political blog. I have looked at the talk page, and IMHO some of William Jockusch's proposals have some merit, others I disagree with. Always though, even with the theoreticals I agree with, the devils in the detail of wording & sourcing which I haven't studied. That's really all I have except to say that I'm pretty sure I'm not the problem, and I'm not sure how big a part I can be to the solution.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The Obama article is a perennial target for POV-pushing advocacy, every few months a quote-unquote "new user" shows up with just the right amount of semi-believable "I'm new here" acts, declaring massive NPOV problems with the article because it does not contain various sundry criticism past and present. This will end up as these things invariably do; someone will connect the "William Jockusch" account to a past, famous sockmaster (BryanFromPalatine, ChildOfMidnight, Joehazelton, and the like) and block it, or it will be blocked simply for doing the same thing as many, many other blocked and banned users have done over the years.  Sooner or later, it will boil down to that end. Tarc (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment "Not sure, but it is not appropriate that a majority of users from one end of the political spectrum keep the article in such an outlandishly biased state. It is not just one or two users." pretty much says it all, with its use of hyperbole (outlandishly biased state) and the opposite of WP:AGF (users from one end of the political spectrum). I'm not an American, have little interest in their political games, but do think one editor shouldn't be allowed to slap a NPOV tag on a FA just because he's not getting his way on the talk page. -- Neil N   talk to me  16:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not a viable or legitimate dispute. It's a baseless accusation of bad faith against the community from an editor ostensibly new to the Obama article, making the same claims and amidst some of the same misbehavior that lead to article probation, arbcom, etc.  We've been through this drill before.  An aggrieved editor believes that the biography of Obama ought to be slanted to reflect more poorly on the subject, for no purpose other than that American politics demands an equal portrayal of all participants.  They accuse the rest of the community of misbehavior, instead of acknowledging that they simply don't have a consensus or an actionable encyclopedic purpose / proposal.  In the background, sock accounts of banned users are cheering them on and organizing attacks on legitimate editors they begrudge.  Please, let's not throw countless productive hours down the waste bin humoring this again. I'm not going to waste my time participating in a rehash of old discussions, but a single editor with an acknowledged POV agenda doesn't get to slap a POV tag on a high traffic featured article like that.  - Wikidemon (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment I'm assuming the main reason why I am listed above is because I gave a hint that it's no use putting a POV tag on an FA. Apart from that, I think I made 2 comments on the talkpage. I just wanna remind William that this POV-tagging really isn't a good idea. Other than that, he's free to keep arguing his point on the talkpage... Of course, there'll be a lot of people arguing against him. He's gotta get used to that... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just removed a post by a sock of User:Grundle2600 from the editor's talk page. Grundle's sock has been posting to a number of editor's talk pages as well as to the Obama talk page. An IP, suspected of being a sock, (and obviously not new  has been doing the same. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That IP has a different operator. Grundle for all his persistence is always good natured and rarely wikilawyers.  - Wikidemon (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that IP is suspected of being a sock of someone else. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - This is not a dispute. This is an example of tendentiousness by one person who evidently wishes to use Wikipedia to further an agenda. Faced with an overwhelming lack of support for his proposals, he slapped an NPOV tag onto a featured article as a badge of shame. Since that hasn't worked, he has apparently resorted to wikilawyering. That being said, I'm happy to see that this apparent new user had no difficulty in finding and making use of DRN. It shows that the system is working. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just to clarify my earlier comment about William Jockusch apparently editing with an agenda, it is clear from William's off-wiki activity that he is interested in portraying Obama in a negative light. Since he freely contributes under his own name both on-wiki and off, it would not be a violation of WP:OUTING to note his efforts in this regard: App, Videos. I think this puts the "dispute" in a proper context. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment -  Just to clarify, I am absolutely a political opponent of Obama.  I have never tried to hide that fact.  However, that does not change the fact that this article is not NPOV.  Surely an article about a President should mention the main critiques of his policies, as is done with Reagan and both Bushes.  If this article summarized the main criticisms of Obama, as the Reagan/Bush articles do for those Presidents, there would be no need for this dispute.  Not birtherism, allegedly being a secret Muslim, or other nonsense, but the mainstream criticisms of his economic policies that are actually true.  Stuff like "these deficits are unsustainable and a threat to the economy" or "the President has not pushed Congress to pass a budget".  Does the fact that such a concern is brought forward by a political opponent somehow make it invalid?  Do the deficits somehow become less unsustainable because of attacks on the person who is bringing up the issue?  Does the lack of a budget somehow become less of a red flag, merely because the person bringing it up is an Administration critic?William Jockusch (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Totally agree with Scjessey comment above. Several people worked on the charts in economic block, making adjustments and trying to comply with requests. It is official statistics from Bureau of Labor Statistics and it illustrates what said in the block. Other presidents have economic charts too. However, some people only be satisfied if the article provides only negative information about US president, so they are promoting their political agenda by trying to remove truthful, verifiable and reliable information from the article. Innab (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment - The way this discussion is going pretty much mirrors what has been happening in talk -- multiple false accusations against me, while trying to evade/ignore/obsucre fact-based discussion of the central issue, which is, to repeat, Barack Obama article does not conform to NPOV, as conclusively demonstrated on my user page. Whoever is evaluating this, expect to see the pattern continue. I hope you are able to get past the nonsense to see the essential point. Thank you.William Jockusch (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Multiple false accusations" like what, exactly? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * William, it is certainly possible to see a pattern of multiple people forming a cabal to launch accusations against you, and that it is all part of a bigger conspiracy. That is indeed one way of looking at it. Or &mdash; the other way of looking at this is that it could be... that you're simply wrong. Could be. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm one of the editors listed and I've already provided detailed reasons on the article's talk page as to why I believed the complaining editor's proposed edits are/were not appropriate. At this point I believe it's obvious this editor is looking to make changes to reflect a very specific point of view offered up by President Obama's political adversaries.  They seem to be under the misguided impression that any News source that doesn't parrot Fox News election year talking points is somehow "left-wing" and any editors who object to such inclusions must also somehow be "politically motivated" (however, I believe a glance at the talk page should reveal which editor has clearly declared their political motivations).  The discussion on the talk page has gone on and on and I've honestly grown tired of the whole thing.  I can't speak for the other editors involved, but it's been my impression over the last couple of days that I'm not the only one who has grown weary and has simply "checked out".  I mean, yes, we should have a calm and cordial discussion, but there comes a point when an editor begins trying other editors' patience. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment It seems a statement of the glaringly obvious that the article isn't NPOV - it's a political BLP POV of a player in an election. POV of a political BLP depends on how assiduously it's protected (Palin's article in 2008 was a sublime example); and as a campaign heats up and battleground mentality sets in, energetic wikilawyering can render NPOV all but impossible (not pointing at anyone named here, I haven't waded through the edit history). So JW it's probably best for your blood pressure if you accept the stinging realities of these hornets' nests. Take Obama off your watchlist until after November and return with your changes when the dust has settled. Note: bringing your dispute here unfortunately makes you, and not the issue, the centre of attention (a perennial drawback of the noticeboards). Question: can we expect to see you campaigning also for NPOV in Obama's opponents' BLPs? Writegeist (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oustide observation I'm afraid I don't see this as an NPOV issue. Wikipedia articles are not for cataloguing instances of praise for and criticism of their subjects, but for reporting the important events which have occured in relation to those subjects, and doing so in a way which is pleasant to read.  I don't see large sections of the article devoted to either praise or criticism, and since there isn't much praise or much criticism, I would consider the article to be a good example of how NPOV should work: report what happened, and let other venues, like blogs and whatnot, report on what we should feel about it.  The Obama article doesn't appear to be a big problem.  If the OP is trying to shoehorn criticism into the article, and is being met with widespread opposition, it is quite likely that it doesn't belong there, because that's not what Wikipedia articles are for.  -- Jayron  32  18:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jayron. That's basically been my exact point all along.  This editor isn't looking to add "criticism" from all viewpoints, but rather, only rhetoric from Obama's political opponents on the far right.  It should be noted that this is not the article about his presidency, but his biography.  Now, if a specific notable widespread criticism prompted Obama to change his policy on a given issue, then I might be willing to consider its inclusion, however, in most instances, I do not believe his biography is the appropriate place for hashing out all political "criticisms" of his policies.  Particularly not in an article about a politician currently running for re-election (the criticisms cited in the Reagan and Bush articles this editor keeps repeatedly referencing have the benefit of historical hindsight, and aren't being altered with the motivation of distorting their bios with the intent of influencing an upcoming election)  Simply injecting Fox News talking points into the article would be a move away from NPOV, not towards it. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment The content William Jockusch persistently wants added to the article is precisely the sort of content Obama's political opponents would want in the article, not with the goal of improving Wikipedia, but with the obvious intention of damaging Obama's election chances. I see exactly the same sort of thing happening at the Romney article and am firmly opposing such additions there too. It's possible that William Jokusch's motives are as pure as the driven snow. I cannot read his mind, so I can never tell. But, given the election cycle in process, no additions of this kind should even be countenanced. These two men have had articles for years. For new "dirt" of the kind that appeals to political mud-slingers to be added to either article in the next six months is completely inappropriate. Locking both articles completely would be a more NPOV thing to do than adding trivial, historical, undue, political, POV crap right now. I don't support either approach, but let's make this a great encyclopaedia, not a vehicle for American political campaigning. HiLo48 (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved editor - As an American well to the left of Obama (and who would find accusations that this Eisenhower Republican is a "socialist" hilarious, if they weren't so tragically absurd), I avoid this article assiduously. However it is clear that by "not NPOV" Jockusch means "is not full of trivialities, half-truths and downright lies brought up by Obama haters". There are already articles on birtherism and the like; but that is not good enough for Jockusch (whether a legit new editor or just the latest Obama-bashing sockpuppet), since they also don't take the hatemongers' word for this stuff. WP:V and WP:RS are not optional; they are at the heart of what we do. NPOV does not mean "equal time for loonies", despite the misunderstanding by present-day news media about what "balanced reporting" actually means; see WP:FRINGE. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I do think some of the rhetoric against WJ is a bit over the top. For example, on the talk page he suggests adding a sentence on the Supreme Court case regarding Health Care Reform.  Now that may not belong it the bio, it may be more suited for a sub article on the reform bill itself, but it's also a far cry from "birtherism".  I haven't read all his comments, but I haven't seen him drifting into what I would consider fringe.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, maybe "birtherism" wasn't the best example, but the gist of Orange Mike's post brings up one of my other points. Obama also has numerous criticisms from the far-left, so one editor's quest to begin adding only the "opinions" of the far-right does not represent a NPOV.  And again, even if we included criticisms of Obama from all sides (left, right, center, independent, international, etc, etc), I don't believe his bio is the appropriate place for hashing all of this out.  --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Cube, you may (or might ;-) have noticed that the sentence on the supreme court is in - added by WJ, and polished by me. So much for the conspiracy... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved editor I am a non-political editor who has never looked at any president's Wikipedia page before today.

First, I would note that the claims are not mutually exclusive. It could very well be that both "one end of the political spectrum keeps the article in an outlandishly biased state" and "an aggrieved editor believes that the biography of Obama ought to be slanted to reflect more poorly on the subject" are true. Or not.

To do a quick sanity check, I listed from memory four controversies / criticisms associated with each president listed. All were quite notable. Do we mention them? Here is my list with "Y" or "N" showing whether the articles mention those criticisms:

Reagan:

iran contra Y

astrologer N

debate briefing papers N

star wars / sdi Y

Bush:

torture Y

national guard / military service Y

wiretapping / warrantless surveillance Y

Katrina Y

Obama:

Health care Y

birth certificate N

Solyndra N

reverend Wright N

It seems to me that some of those should have been mentioned. Perhaps not a long section, but at least a sentence and a wikilink. The debate paper scandal was widely reported. but Ronald Reagan makes no reference to Debategate. Likewise, Barack Obama makes no mention of the Solyndra loan controversy. On the other hand, I cannot find a Bush scandal not mentioned in George W. Bush. Does this add up to a systemic bias? Maybe, but no smoking gun. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Guy Macon, I like your approach.  May I add some related questions?  In historical terms, whose deficits are worse, Reagan's or Obama's?  Yet, which President gets more deficit-related criticism in their article -- Reagan or Obama?  Same questions for typical criticisms of their economic policy from the opposing POV.William Jockusch (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem with that is threefold, first, presidents don't actually spend money, so it isn't Reagan's deficit or Obama's deficit, but rather Congresses' deficit. Second, deficits are affected by recessions and by booking economies. Lastly, it probably makes a big difference what the last president left you with.


 * I don't know what the answer is for bias in president articles. Consensus works poorly because you can get a bunch of pro-president-X or anti-president-Y editors who drive out those who don't agree. And the sources are hard to evaluate; is scandal X really notable or was it just a thing the opponents made into a hue deal for political gain?  That's why,other than an occasional comment on a noticeboard, I stick with the engineering articles. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Much of this was covered on the talk page. Including the benefit of hindsight for historians and biographers to determine what was notable in a given presidency and what was simply political opponent's mud-slinging at a candidate who is currently up for re-election.  The "birth certificate" controversy has been widely debunked by every respectable news source as being nothing more than a desperate hoax.  The article is a bio for Barack Obama, not of Reverend Wright.  Similarly, the Reagan article is not a bio about Nancy Reagan and consequently doesn't really need to include his wife's fixation on astrology, etc..  Citing "controversies" cherry-picked by one editor doesn't really prove anything as far as I'm concerned. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The "four controversies" approach is just not a realistic one. It all boils down to WP:WEIGHT. For example, under Bush we had illegal wars, torture and Katrina. Can these be reasonably compared with Solyndra, the birther nonsense or Jeremiah Wright? Of course not. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if the comparisons listed above are supposed to be a "sanity check" then somebody book me a padded room. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of sanity testing. The point of a sanity test is to rule out certain classes of obviously false results, not to catch every possible error. In this case, it was testing the basic assertion made in the dispute overview at the top of this discussion:
 * "A group of users is working together to remove almost all critical information from the Obama article. This is in stark contrast to the articles about Republican Presidents. The contrast is dramatic...".
 * If that assertion was accurate, I would have expected the Reagan and Bush entries to have four "Y"s and the Obama entry to have four "N"s for pretty much any random mix of criticisms that made it into the newspapers, and for other editors to get the same result for any 12 topics they chose from memory. That's the beauty of a sanity test: because it is testing for huge errors, smaller sources of inaccuracy can be ignored.
 * Perhaps the following analogy will help you to understand the basic concept of sanity testing: imagine that I claimed that my woodchipper can tear apart far more things than my paper shredder can. As a sanity check, you could select four items at random. (looks around) OK, I just selected a paperback book, a desk lamp, a plastic ruler and a water bottle. If, as a sanity check, I tried feeding them into both machines and the woodchipper choked on all four while the paper shredder munched all four, then the assertion would have failed the sanity test. There is no need to take into account the fact that my paper shredder can probably handle that ruler or that the desk lamp might jam my woodchipper. Poor choices of test items don't make the sanity test not work as long as they are randomly selected. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

École nationale de l'aviation civile


Dispute overview
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

The directors section of the article contains their biographies. If think that having full biographies in the middle of an article about a school is completely off-topic and that the information should be moved in separate biographical articles if those people are notable or just removed if their are not. The IP disagrees and think the biographies should stay. As a side note, we have the exact same issue on the French version of this article and have reached the same impasse.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




 * Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes


 *  N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute
 * Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

After a couple of deletions/reverts, I started a discussion on the talk page explaining my rational in more details. The discussion (full link here) is not getting anywhere.


 * How do you think we can help?

We've reached an impasse and other opinions are needed. Essentially, am I wrong in thinking that those bios don't belong in the middle of this article? And while I personally don't think that any of those people are actually notable, why is the IP so oppose with moving the info in separate articles.

McSly (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

École nationale de l'aviation civile discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.'' Hi. I don't want to spend too much time on this discussion but I would like to inform about few things: 80.13.85.217 (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not the only one who disagree with McSly. 78.239.175.7 reverted two times by explaining that this page is translated from the French Wikipedia which is a good article and by explained that this is translated from the French Wiki.
 * McSly received a complete answer from the mentioned user on the French Wikipedia and on his French talk page and stop trying to remove the Biography on the French Wiki (He tries to obtain on the English Wiki what he is unable to obtain on the French Wiki).
 * McSly was pushing a lot on my French talk page.
 * McSly didn't participate on the obtention of the good article and even on the writing of the article on both French and English Wikipedia.
 * These are not complete Biographies. After reading the French Wikipedia, these short biographies has been add after a discussion and approved with the good article.
 * This is completely in accordance with the subject of the article and moreover, a dedicated part is available (called "Director History"). This explain clearly from where come the directors of the university, their background, career...very usefull.
 * One more user, 90.84.146.194, also reverted from the same reason and was less patient by considering that this is clearly vandalism and put a warning on the McSly talk page. McSly removed the warning.
 * Biographies in the body of the school article are not more relevant than having aircraft description in the middle of the description for Boeing. They are a separate unit simply linked from the main one. Incidentally, this is why Wikipedia is not one huge article containing the sum of all knowledge but a collection of 4 million articles connected through links. About "Director History", this could perfectly be merged with the "Notable Alumni" section the same way we have with Yale University for example and link whatever director is notable enough to have their own article from there.--McSly (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am a regular mediator/clerk here at this noticeboard. While my time is limited and I do not care to get into the merits of whether or not these biographies ought to be included or excluded from the article, I do want to say that what may have happened or not happened at the French Wikipedia is wholly irrelevant to what happens here. The rules, the manner in which the rules are applied, and the sense of the respective communities about what is or is not encyclopedic vary considerably between the different-language Wikipedias. What McSly is doing does not, moreover, approach vandalism in any sense at English Wikipedia and to continue to assert that it does is itself inappropriate. Moreover, the fact that McSly had not participated in writing the article is also irrelevant here at the English Wikipedia; any editor in good standing is free to edit any article at any time and, indeed, to make the claim that only the editors who wrote an article can edit may be considered an improper claim of ownership. The question of whether the biographies are or are not appropriate must, now that it has been raised by an editor, be decided by the consensus of the English Wikipedia community. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC) PS: At the same time, it would be well if McSly could provide some reference or support for his statement at the article page that, "If the person is notable, we create a separate biography article and simply link it from here. If the person is not notable, well in that case, there is no reason to include the information." I am not aware of any such policy or guideline, but I'm not even close to being an expert on biographical matters and could easily simply be that: unaware. If there is no such policy or guideline, however, the fact that that may be what's commonly done here at EN_WIKI does not mean that it has to be done uniformly that way here. TM — 18:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I think I can cite the policy on notability, and more specifically the section concerning the list of people. It says that " [..] articles about schools often include (or link to) a list of notable alumni, but such lists are not intended to contain every graduate of the school—only those with verifiable notability. Editors who would like to be identified as an alumnus/alumna should instead use the categories intended for this purpose, e.g. Category:Wikipedians by alma mater." Furthermore the policy for stand-alone list states that "If a person in a list does not have an article in Wikipedia about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to establish their membership in the list's group and to establish their notability [..] " There is even a special case for the school presidents (from list of people): "on the other hand, a list within an article of past school presidents can contain all past presidents, not just those who are independently notable."
 * I think the intent here is clear to list the people names and link to their article when such article exists or just provide a cite to justify inclusion on the list. No additional biographical information should be included in the main article. --McSly (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Are we good? No other remarks? -McSly (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We need some more information from other users. For the moment, we have only one answer from TransporterMan (thanks for your help) who says : " I do not care to get into the merits of whether or not these biographies ought to be included or excluded from the article". Unfortunately, that is not enough to take a decision. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, he also said in no uncertain terms that the rational you provided to revert my changes to the article was completely invalid. My reasons on the other end are based on policies. Therefore, and regardless of other editors' opinions, what needs to happen now is for you to clearly state your rational to reverting my edits. Once we have it, we can discuss on the merits of each. But if you cannot provide a reason for your changes, essentially, we are done.--McSly (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * At the moment, my position is clear. We have no other opinion about deleting the small biographies from the article. I have no opposition to delete and to create separe articles (only on the English WP, on the French article it is totally different) but we need some more opinions. As we don't have any other reply, for me we stay like that for the moment, which is a good compromise. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So, let me get this straight. 1) you just admitted that you had no rational whatsoever to explain or justify your revert to my changes 2) your only strategy here is that you really, really hope that other editors will join and agree with you even after being incapable of providing a single reason on why your version should stay 3) As a "compromise", we should all accept that your version which is against policy and containing off-topic information should stay.
 * Short answer, ain't gonna happen. Long answer, I'm actually going to follow part of what you just hinted at. I'm going to remove the off-topic info from the article and create the red links from the directors' list. You are more than welcome, really, you are more than welcome to then create each individual biographical article and copy there whatever information you deem fit.--McSly (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am surprised that you are so pushing. A discussion is still in progress, so the minimum is to wait for answers. I will think about reverting your deletion because it is really unacceptable to go so fast without waiting for reply from other contributors. What you could also do to be elegant, is you create the articles before deleting. But I am so surprised that you go so fast, not letting the time to others to answer...80.13.85.217 (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

1) the change that I made was proposed by you, so not sure how you can be surprised. 2) I have no intention to create the articles because I don't think any of those people is even remotely notable 3) I suspect that also know that which is why you don't create the articles yourself whereas you have no problem creating them for other people and thus keeping the biographies in the middle of the article is a way to go around notability polices. 4) Since you have been failing to provide a single reason to keep the information while I provided specific policies on why it shouldn't continuing to stall the discussion like you've been doing for the past 2 weeks will buy you a few more days I'm sure. But it is unlikely to change the final outcome.--McSly (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep cool, we are a community. As I already said, if some other contributors agree to delete the small biographies, we will do that. If not, we keep like that. But it is not to you or me to decide, it is all together. For me, the small biographies are suitable with the article, for you not. We wait a little bit, and wait for other reply. As we have other opinions, we will take a decision all together. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to repeat my comment from the talk page - The biographies of the directors should be removed this is an article on an educational establishment and not about the individual directors. If the directors are notable enough then all the relevant info can be in a linked article for each individual, other than the names the rest of the info should be deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Everybody agree? We remove the biographies? 80.13.85.217 (talk) 07:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I wait 24 hours, if no more reply, I will remove the biographies. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. The Work is done. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Health effects of high-fructose corn syrup
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="background: transparent; text-align: left; border: 1px solid silver; margin-top: 0.2em; " ! style="background-color: #CFC; font-size:112%;" | Closed discussion 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; font-size:112%;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; font-size:112%;" |
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Dispute overview
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

I have been threatened with banning and told that my post violates MEDRS, WEIGHT, and NPOV rules. I disagree vehemently, and would like to see some version of my last entry included in the opening paragraph on the page.

Several page watchers are of the opinion that: General scientific consensus regarding high-fructose corn syrup is that it is likely not significantly more detrimental to health then common sugar.

I believe this is not an accurate portrayal of the current state of affairs and desire to add lines that read:

The consensus is based on a 2008 review of available scientific research by the AMA which suggested at the time: "it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose, but {we} welcome further independent research on the subject." However, since 2008 numerous additional studies including testing on rats as well as peer reviewed clinical and epidemiological studies have found: “There is experimental and clinical evidence suggesting a progressive association between HFCS consumption, obesity, and other injury processes” and “to our knowledge, this is the first study to show that HFCS is more likely to cause acute adverse effects than sucrose.”

using the following sources:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091305710000614

https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11906-010-0097-3

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22152650

It is the opinion of the moderator that I am violating the MEDRS, WEIGHT, and NPOV rules because saying that High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) is unlike sucrose and causes an increase in obesity is a "tiny minority opinion" uses a primary source for reference and includes another reference not from a peer reviewed medical source. I argue that the possibility that HFCS is NOT like sucrose and MAY be harmful is NOT a "tiny minority opinion", that the primary citd source is trustworthy and the topic of such a portentous nature and the research exactly what the AMA asked for but was missing at the time that the entry meets the MEDRS guidline which says "Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care . . ." and therefore my entry is a more accurate and current NPOV and deserves inclusion in the opening paragraph.

For the record the latest primary research I quoted is:

Effects of high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose on the pharmacokinetics of fructose and acute metabolic and hemodynamic responses in healthy subjects. Le MT, Frye RF, Rivard CJ, Cheng J, McFann KK, Segal MS, Johnson RJ, Johnson JA. Department of Pharmacotherapy and Translational Research, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA.

and the findings were:

"In conclusion, our findings suggest that there are differences in various acute metabolic and hemodynamic responses between HFCS and sucrose." and and “to our knowledge, this is the first study to show that HFCS is more likely to cause acute adverse effects than sucrose.”

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




 * Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.


 *  N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute
 * Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I hope independent reviews will convince the parties involved to find wording that keeps the tenor of my entry. HFCS was believed to be the same as table sugar because of a lack of evidence, but the latest research indicates HFCS may not be the same as table sugar and may be more harmful than table sugar when used as a food sweetner.
 * How do you think we can help?

My first entries on the page were poor and angered participants for that I apologize, but I would like honest third party evaluations of my last entry and of my logic as to why my entry does not violate Wikipedia policy even though I cite a primary source and a non-medical source. I, of course, will gladly accept the independent wisdom of the board.

Sunvox (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Health effects of high-fructose corn syrup discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

Primary studies that have received little or no coverage in secondary sources should not be given extensive, if any, coverage in Wikipedia articles. TFD (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

So who has the burden of proof here. Do you know how much secondary coverage the primary source has? And more to the point even if it has recieved zero secondary coverage, do the rules of Wikipedia not allow for exceptions, and does this topic and source not meet the requirements for an expception given the accumulation of data from different sources and the portentous nature of the topic? Sunvox (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Joe

Wikipedia can't be the leader or itself be the accumulator of (previously un-accumulated) primary sources, but can only follow others. That is, we have to wait for other researchers to verify/validate/etc and then publish further. Unfortunately, especially due to the controversial (maybe even politicized?) nature of the topic, we have to be especially careful not to jump the gun (there's no deadline because WP is never "done" and I don't see any urgency inherent in the content). If a new study really is groundbreaking or is the "first" to find something important, others will surely follow and report further on it. DMacks (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN. The problem that you are facing is that Wikipedia's policies generally define when material may be added to an article. They do not generally ever say that material which may be added to an article must be added to an article. Said in a different way, Wikipedia policy may prohibit certain material from being added to an article but rarely, if ever, requires it to be added. The arguments which are being made against you are arguments which can prohibit your material from being added to the article, but even if they prove to be inapplicable (and on a quick glance it does not appear to me to be that they are necessarily inapplicable; they are generally correct that scientific papers are in most cases not usable as reliable sources in Wikipedia, but perhaps there is a reason to make an exception in this case), then that still will not allow you to add the material to the article over those editor's objections unless there is community consensus to add it. Right now it's just you arguing against those other editors so, if anything, either consensus is against adding it or, more likely, we're in a "no consensus" situation, but per the no consensus policy the material cannot be added to the article unless there is positive consensus in favor of adding it. What you must do is either change the minds of the editors who oppose you or draw in additional editors who feel the way you do. It is improper under Wikipedia's no canvassing rule to simply invite other editors to the discussion who are likely to opine in your favor, but it is proper to generally invite all editors who might care to join the discussion to do so. You do that by making a request for comments on the article talk page. Unless you believe that it might be possible to change the minds of the editors who have objected to the introduction of your material, then that would seem to be the most practical route for you to take. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me also add that with the opinions of TFD and DMacks, above, it appears to me that we may well have moved from a "no consensus" situation to a consensus against the material being added to the article. That does not mean that you cannot proceed with an RFC if you should care to try that. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

O.K. so forgive me if this is overly simplistic, but as I now see it, "consensus against" is determined by those actively participating in the page, and coming here does not bring new independent votes to the consensus building, and I can not ask anyone directly to read and vote on the issue other than to bring up a dispute, and hope for the newcomers to take my side. So for the moment the issue is finished unless some other voice joins mine.

Additionally can I infer that based on your comments (TransporterMan), you believe that my material "may be" admissible and "may" not be in violation of WP rules.

Does anyone have an example of when primary source material was permitted in an article? 108.41.128.155 (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that the heart of my dispute hinges upon individuals taking the time to read the available research and form their own opinion as to the importance of an exception. Clearly the preference is against exceptions, and it is quite easy to argue "the rules say no so no". Sunvox (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We (WP editors) are not in a position to judge the an individual primary-research study as "important", especially one that is not obviously within mainstream/existing thinking on the subject--that's the whole point here IMO. DMacks (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Sunvox, how about writing a suitable section that outlines the case of the highest quality sources in oppostion to the theory? — GabeMc (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW I've rewritten much of the page, which was a collection of cherry-picked primary sources and misrepresented secondary sources. The scientific consensus seems to be HFCS is as bad for you as any other sugar, though more research is needed.  Way too many "in rats" and "with a sample of 30 people" studies were cited.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

As someone that added and organized most of the original sources, in my opinion a good deal of the "opposition" studies do meet WP:MEDS and are being excluded and that the statement of the scientific consensus is incorrect. Of the sources that definitely pass WP:MEDS are:


 * Bocarsly et al. (2010)
 * Bray et al. (2004)

Others are questionable in that they lack secondary sources or the secondary sources are weak but I believe that there is a strong case for exceptions others are given exception. For instance, the 2009 AMA study is given exception. As such I believe it's fair to say there is no consensus with regards to the article. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Bocarsly et al. is an "in rats" primary study. Per WP:MEDRS, specifically WP:MEDREV, we use secondary sources and should ignore animal studies.  There's no reason to make an exception I can see. Moeller et al 2009 is a secondary source and thus an appropriate source for the article.
 * Bray is the first reference in the page, as are the two interviews with the authors indicating they are concerned with how their 2004 article has been misused.
 * Can you explain why the secondary sources currently used do not meet MEDRS? A bare assertion is not sufficient.  This discussion might be more fruitful on the talk page.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually yes Bray is cited, sorry I missed it the first time.

First of all the fact that it's an "in rats" study is irrelevant, experiments done on animal models are important with regards to science and to understand effects on people. The only objection is overemphasizing animal models per WP:MEDRS. Secondly, by that standard both Moeller et al. and Bocarsly et al. are properly cited since both have an abstract on NCBI. The problem is Bocarsly has two further secondary sources (seen here and here) while Moeller et al. only has the NCBI citation, which in my opinion alone is not a valid secondary source.

Given all this, I don't see why including Bocarsly et al provided it's not overemphasized, given that it has secondary sources, would be a problem. I'd also like to hear input on whether the NCBI abstract alone would count as a proper secondary source. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Those articles from Daily Princetonian and the Princeton website aren't secondary sources, they are two press releases summarizing a primary source.
 * You don't seem to understand what a primary and secondary source is. When discussing scientific literature, primary sources are initial studies (2 groups of 30 rats were given fructose and lactose, this happened).  Secondary sources summarize primary sources (examining the literature regarding the giving of fructose to rats, these general trends can be observed).  For MEDRS, that means the sources must be peer-reviewed.  Pubmed isn't a primary or secondary source - it's a database of scientific abstract.  The pubmed link and the AJCN link are different ways to summarize the same source.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * One is arguably a press release but The Daily Princetonian is clearly a valid secondary source. If Pubmed is neither and to my knowledge a study requires a secondary source per WP:MEDRS unless there's consensus, then I don't see the validity of upholding Moeller et al. or at least while excluding Bocarsly et al. when it clearly does have a secondary source.


 * An outside opinion as to whether the Bocarsly study is backed up by a secondary source and should be included would be helpful but even given all this, I don't see the validity of upholding Moeller et al. especially since there's no consensus do so without a secondary source. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Daily Princetonian is a student newspaper, it's not a WP:MEDRS and within MEDRS, it's not a secondary source (it's popular press). Were it not an article and text about medical claims, it would be a valid secondary source - but since this is a MEDRS article, a student newspaper is not considered sufficient. All the citations currently used in the page are secondary sources.  If you wish to gather consensus for including Bocarsly in the page, I suggest making the case on the relevant talk page; I for one will oppose it on the grounds of it being a primary source.  A side note - policies and guidelines represent the overall consensus of the community at large, which clearly supports using a secondary source, without needing caveats over funding sources (caveats which are rather spurious in my opinion).  The default position is that Moeller is an adequate secondary, MEDRS, a local consensus would have to be established to exclude it - again, something best done on the talk page rather than here.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * }

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="background: transparent; text-align: left; border: 1px solid silver; margin-top: 0.2em; " ! style="background-color: #CFC; font-size:112%;" | Closed discussion 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; font-size:112%;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; font-size:112%;" |
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Dispute overview
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

User repeatedly blocks edits of an addition that meets Wikipedia guidelines based on false characterizations of the edit. Does not respond to my explanation of how the statement is relevant, and does not respond to another proposed remedy. Addition reads smoothly and is directly related to material already present in the paragraph in question. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=489959318&oldid=489954813

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




 * Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:North8000#Notice_of_Mediation_Request


 *  N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute
 * Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Yes. Discussed the matter on the talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Note_on_Precedent


 * How do you think we can help?

Outside opinion assessing the validity of my argument, an assessment of whether the proposed addition does in fact meet Wikipedia guidelines, and whether one of my other proposed remedies would be more appropriate.

Inijones (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

I am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN. The problem that you are facing is that Wikipedia's policies generally define when material may be added to an article. They do not generally ever say that material which may be added to an article must be added to an article. Said in a different way, Wikipedia policy may prohibit certain material from being added to an article but rarely, if ever, requires it to be added. The arguments which are being made against you are arguments which can prohibit your material from being added to the article, but even if they prove to be inapplicable then that still will not allow you to add the material to the article over those editor's objections unless there is community consensus to add it. Right now it's just you arguing against those other editors so, if anything, either consensus is against adding it or, more likely, we're in a "no consensus" situation, but per the no consensus policy the material cannot be added to the article unless there is positive consensus in favor of adding it. What you must do is either change the minds of the editors who oppose you or draw in additional editors who feel the way you do. It is improper under Wikipedia's no canvassing rule to simply invite other editors to the discussion who are likely to opine in your favor, but it is proper to generally invite all editors who might care to join the discussion to do so. You do that by making a request for comments on the article talk page. Unless you believe that it might be possible to change the minds of the editors who have objected to the introduction of your material, then that would seem to be the most practical route for you to take.

Subject to that problem, in regard to whether their objections are valid, it seems to me that the New York Times article does not support the proposition that "These 21st Century decisions represent a departure from established precedent." Part of the disagreement between the majority and minority in Heller was whether Miller was, indeed, precedent and whether the lower courts had misinterpreted Miller as being precedential. To say that Heller was a departure from precedent, much less established precedent, says in effect that Miller was precedent and that Heller overturned it, when in fact the majority and minority disagreed over that very point. As for the lower court cases themselves, the degree to which they were or were not precedential is a complex issue which can best be summed up being that if they were precedential at all they were, as lower court cases, only precedential for some purposes and not others and that they were never precedential in a way that would restrict the Supreme Court. To say that "[t]hese 21st Century decisions represent a departure from established precedent" in reference to the lower court cases, therefore, would be so overbroad as to be misleading.

While I think that the statement, "and were the first major rulings on the 2nd Amendment since the Supreme Court held that a sawed-off shotgun did not qualify as a militia weapon" is relatively accurate and harmless, I do have to say that neither the NYT article or the quoted selection from the Wills book quite says that. The NYT article does not say that the court ruled that "a sawed-off shotgun did not qualify as a militia weapon" and the Wills book (which was published in 1999 and these rulings were until 2008 and later) does not say that these were "the first major rulings on the 2nd Amendment since" Miller. It would be prohibited synthesis to combine the sources to come to that conclusion and so those sources are also inadequate and the assertion is inappropriate, even if accurate and true.

However, the foregoing analysis of the sources is mostly irrelevant since there is no consensus to include the edit in the article, adequate sources or not, for the reasons discussed above. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't want to get in too deep here because the other folks at the article (including an already-involved person, plus others who haven't even seen it yet in this very-rushed process...this whole thing just started yesterday) don't even know about this. Biggest emphasis is on the issues involved.  I tend not to hang my hat on just lack of consensus, but think that the lack of consensus is based on those reasons.  One is of the content itself, for the reasons analyzed by TransporterMan, plus that said opinion is stated as fact in the voice of Wikipedia.  The third issue not discussed above is location;  the multiple attempted insertions of that opinion were all in the lead.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Since the consensus seems opposed to my inclusion of text about "precedent" I made a change that makes no such mention.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=490128328&oldid=490126109


 * The change was reverted on the grounds that "the sentence about Miller which was added to the lead does not make sense in the lead and does not belong in the lead"


 * If the 21st century rulings make sense in the lead, why not also mention a significant 20th century ruling that still stands?


 * If the 20th century ruling does not belong in the lead, perhaps the 21st century rulings don't either.


 * Perhaps, since there is already a section on Heller, the text in the lead should be moved there.
 * Inijones (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I moved the existing text from the lead to the appropriate sections on the same grounds for which my modified text was excluded, a proposal which I had made repeatedly, and to which nobody objected. My change was reverted unilaterally, without discussion.


 * If Heller can appear in the lead, why not Miller? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inijones (talk • contribs) 17:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * By moving the text in question to the District of Columbia v. Heller heading you caused McDonald v. Chicago to appear as part of the introduction. This didn’t make sense so I reverted. I think a consensus is needed before making these changes.Grahamboat (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I fixed that here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&oldid=490145010#McDonald_v._Chicago BEFORE you reverted my edit.


 * But you're still not addressing the issue of why my compromise position was also rejected. I removed the offending material about the dissenting position.  I included an unambiguous statement of fact regarding Miller.  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&oldid=490126109  The entire second paragraph is about Supreme Court Cases.


 * If Heller and McDonald can appear in the lead, why not Miller? Inijones (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Re: "If Heller and McDonald can appear in the lead, why not Miller?", this has been asked and answered at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution three times already. I see no point in answering your question a fourth time when other editors have already answered it multiple times. The problem is that you don't accept the answers. Asking again will not change that.


 * So I have a question for you; after many arguments posted here and at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, have you been able to convince a single Wikipedia editor to support the changes you want to make to this article? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This was never even started properly. Another already-involved editor was not notified, and this was rushed to this page so fast (the day after the BEGINNING of the editing which is in dispute) that the other folks active at the article never even got a chance to get involved at that point much less get notified. The situation was incorrectly (to put it nicely) described as being a dispute between two editors. The main conversation is at the talk page. Inijones is putting selected tidbits here as if they were unanswered questions but they were already answered there. This is really messed up. North8000 (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Fortunately, the answer is the same whether this was done properly or not (and I do agree that this noticeboard entry is at least somewhat flawed). Either Inijones is able to convince other editors to support his vision for the page, or the page does not get edited the way he wants because of lack of consensus. As an uninvolved editor, I looked to see if either side of the dispute is violating policy (looks like a no to me) and then evaluated the consensus (looks like it is against Inijones to me, but he is free to run an RfC if he thinks that the consensus supports his position). Case closed, as far as I am concerned. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Guy, the first editor to chime in called my compromise edit "relatively accurate and harmless." Why doesn't that count towards consensus? Inijones (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm very busy in real life this week and will be traveling and unable to spend much time online until May 22, and did not intend to weigh back in on this noticeboard unless I could find some spare time to do so, but I do feel that I must take the time to say a word here. Inijones, you're placing far too much emphasis on the "accurate and harmless" part of what I said and far too little on the "relatively" part. By "relatively accurate and harmless" I only meant that it was accurate and harmless relative to the significant problems with the "precedent" edit which I had just discussed before making that remark. I did not mean to imply that I thought that it was in any other way either appropriate or inappropriate for the article in general, or its location in the article in specific and I certainly did not intend to lend support to a consensus in favor (or, for that matter, against) that edit. If I was ambiguous about what I meant, I apologize. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

SUMMARY OF INCIDENT
Hi North8000,

I'm sorry if you see something "messed up" with my line of argumentation; please don't read sinister motives into my actions. I felt like you were not addressing the substance of my claims, so I sought assistance from a third party. I feel like the initial moderator's assistance took my concerns seriously, clarified matters for me, and I wish YOU would modify your position some TOO in response, just as I have. The outside opinion rendered by TransporterMan described by addition on Miller as "relatively accurate and harmless" and you won't tell me why you continue to block my attempts to make any edits.

I sought an outside opinion though an INFORMAL notice board because I don't know any other editors here and I didn't have any particular interest in registering a formal complaint or organizing a propaganda campaign. I don't have a group to back me up and I don't have informal agreements with anybody to interfere with attempts to edit this page. I have never previously sought assistance in a WikiPedia dispute so I may not have done every single thing 100% kosher (e.g., waited long enough), but that's a product of my inexperience, not cunning. There's nothing manipulative here, everything is publicly documented.

INITIAL INCIDENT

I sought to contribute a statement that made two basic claims about the Supreme Court cases mentioned in the lead of the 2nd Amendment article: 1) that "These 21st Century decisions represent a departure from established precedent," and that 2) these same cases "were the first major rulings on the 2nd Amendment since the Supreme Court held that a sawed-off shotgun did not qualify as a militia weapon" [in the Miller case]. Each claim was supported by a verifiable, reliable source that substantiated the claims. The statement, however, was initially rejected as "unsourced." When I re-instated my edit, pointing out that the reason for rejecting it was incorrect, and that the statement was substantiated by the "dissenting opinion in the 5-4 ruling as quoted in the new york times, and the second cite was from a book by a pulitzer-prize winning historian," the statement was rejected again because I "didn't address the actual noted issues."

At this point, I felt my position was not adequately addressed, and would benefit from the additional perspective of a third party moderator, so, after attempting to argue my edit, I sought informal assistance.

INITIAL INTERACTIONS WITH MODERATOR

TransporterMan, the editor who first stepped in to moderate the discussion focused his assessment of the situation on my text about the dissenting opinion from Heller. I removed that under his advice. His assessment struck me as reasonable and in good faith, so I modified my edit to exclude any claim pertaining to the dissenting opinion.

I then attempted, instead, to include a factual statement indicating the year of the Miller case and the content of the finding. In his first post, TransporterMan had ALREADY said that this second half my initial edit was "relatively accurate and harmless."

I did not after that point pursue any effort to include anything about the dissenting opinion, and attempted to include only that portion of my initial edit that was assessed as "relatively accurate and harmless." My behavior was not vandalism.

ONLY OPPORTUNITY TO COMPROMISE BASED ON FEEDBACK FROM MODERATOR

Based on TransponderMan's assessment of my edit, which seemed oriented towards explaining to me the resistance I encountered with North8000, I added to the page my modified edit about the year of the Miller case and the case's finding. I made this edit as a compromise approached through informal means. The citation I provided (and, additional citations provided on the talk page) supported the claim that Miller was the most significant Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd Amendment prior to Heller and McDonald. The moderator understood this claim to be essentially "accurate." The entire second paragraph of the lead is already about Supreme court cases; there are, in fact, relatively few Second Amendment cases, and Miller is a significant one, as I have shown. I've provided several sources indicating that Miller is significant, and even the TOC of the current article seems to back up this claim. It furthermore seems that Miller is already alluded to in the existing text of the lead, where several "longstanding" restrictions on firearm ownership are mentioned.

My modified compromise edit seemed like a reasonable and uncontroversial fact to insert by way of making a more well-rounded summary of Supreme Court case law already mentioned in the lead. If this factual statement is going to be excluded, perhaps no discussion of Supreme Court law whatsoever belongs in the lead, and any indication for it should be confined to the relevant sections within the body of the article.

CIRCUMSTANCES WHEREBY COMPROMISE WAS REJECTED

When I made this "accurate" compromise edit, it was STILL rejected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=490128328&oldid=490126109

The reason provided for reverting this edit didn't seem to take into account the fact that this edit was a modified compromise position. Grahamboat indicated that mentioning Miller "didn't make sense in the lead" -- without providing any explanation as to why.

This compromise statement was rejected despite the moderator's initial view that my characterization of McDonald and Heller as "the first major rulings on the 2nd Amendment since the Supreme Court held that a sawed-off shotgun did not qualify as a militia weapon" was "relatively accurate and harmless."

My contention at this point was that if Miller is excluded from the lead, the same logic can be used to ALSO exclude Heller and McDonald from the lead. If McDonald and Heller belong in the lead, there is no good reason to exclude Miller.

I therefore moved the existing text on Heller and McDonald -- unmodified -- from the second paragraph of the lead and inserted the text in the proper two subsections of the article that were already dedicated to those individual Supreme Court cases. I had mentioned this possibility several times -- as the least preferable outcome -- and it was never objected to previously.

When this next edit was also rejected, the reason given for reverting the edit was demonstrably false. In the talk page Grahamboat said that I made an error while moving the text, and suggested that this was his real reason for rejecting my edit. I caught the error within minutes and corrected it well before Grahamboat reverted the edit. Grahamboat has not offered a more descriptive reason for why he reversed my edit, nor responded to my claim about his false characterization of my edit.

Nobody stepped in with a "consensus" reason for reverting the edit (other than to suggest that "consensus" was needed to make any change). After I pointed out (twice) that the editor's note describing why the edit was reversed was false, nobody attempted to improve my "relatively accurate and harmless" contribution. This all could have ended with TransporterMan's first post. I am not the one stirring up trouble, and my actions are not "vandalism."

ADDITIONAL VIEWS EXPRESSED ON THE NOTICE BOARD LACKING MERIT

The most recent editor to chime in, Guy, lent an initial opinion without making note of the fact that I had modified my edit to represent a compromise position; to get a more useful assessment from Guy I took the initiative to re-iterate that I was now trying to understand why my "relatively accurate and harmless" (harmless to who, or WHAT... ideology?) subsequent edits were also being blocked. When I pointed this out, Guy said that the question of why Miller should be excluded from the lead while Heller and McDonald belong in the lead had already been answered. Since I had asked the question repeatedly and would obviously seem to have been missing something, it would have been helpful to hear what Guy understood the reason to be. Guy, however, declined to make a contribution that would have clarified or substantively helped resolve the terms of the disagreement as it stood at that point.

OTHER REASONS OFFERED FOR BLOCKING EDITS REPRESENT POV

North8000 had said the matter of including such a reference to Miller as I proposed or, alternately, removing the text on McDonald and Heller is a "legitimate" issue, but declined to address the merits of the issue any further than that, even though I repeatedly asked for more detail on that very point. Guy didn't address this while dismissing my concerns.

Some of the reasons Grahamboat has given for blocking my edits seem to indicate that he is exploiting the consensus policy to block ANY edits that don't conform to his POV, such as when he justified blocking my "relatively accurate and harmless" edit on the grounds that "The second paragraph is not about Supreme Court cases per say - it is about the cases that count." If the consensus is, as Grahamboat has stated it, that only Heller and McDonald "count" -- especially in such an unqualified manner -- I'd say the consensus has a POV problem. Nobody has put forth any more robust reasoning. I was cooperating and willing to split the difference under the guidance of the initial moderator TransporterMan, who offered a well-reasoned position and who was not dismissive of my concerns. The latest editor, Guy, did not address ANY of this in rendering his passing opinion, even when I pointed out to him that his initial opinion was NOT exactly relevant and indicated to him WHY.

Grahamboat has also suggested that McDonald and Heller "define" the law (or, in this case, it would seem, the Amendment), though I do not see how Miller is substantially different in that respect, nor how that doesn't entail the POV of a specific legal theory. An "Originalist," for example, might have a slightly different attitude towards what "defines" an amendment or a law or the scope of a law. Nor do I understand even why the second paragraph of the lead ought not be modified to serve as a more well-rounded summary of significant Supreme Court case law, especially since my modified edit makes no mention of the Heller controversy (although the existing text does promote this controversial material to the lead; my revised edit is "Heller controversy neutral" and, furthermore, may help improve the second paragraph by providing additional context that makes the lead look less like an endorsement of a single POV in the controversy or, by extension, an endorsement of a single legal philosophy).

PROPOSED REMEDIES

The article has now been protected due to "vandalism" it would seem because of my efforts to include a statement in the 2nd Amendment article, which "a native Texan" moderator initially characterized as "relatively accurate and harmless." I have been experiencing unreasonable resistance to a reasonable edit. I don't think there are grounds to consider my actions "vandalism" and I think, at a bare minimum, the page should be restored to the "unprotected" status it had previous to this dispute, so that other editors can contribute to the page (that is, if they are allowed to do so). I've been working this issue out through talk pages, and I am not a "vandalism" threat to this page.

The vandalism tag does seem to be in use to exclude discussion, as, since getting page protection, these editors have, instead of compromise with me, strengthened the controversial content of the lead.

Ideally, my compromise statement about the 1939 Miller case should also be included in the lea, as it is "relatively accurate and harmless." But since the editors have since strengthened the controversial character of the lead, I think the lead would be more neutral if the discussion of Supreme Court cases were removed from the lead altogether and placed under the appropriate subheadings in the body of the article. Inijones (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

My term "messed up" was fully explained as referring to the severe process problems here. It was very clear but yet you "missed" and pretended that that was my response to your arguments with "I'm sorry if you see something "messed up" with my line of argumentation" confirms my previous concern that you are being disingenuous and manipulative.

With your :duplication of the above huge amount of material into both places you have made an even bigger mess out of this from a process standpoint, making a further organized discussion impossible. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Inijones: Before you continue, please reconsider posting long messages like the one I just collapsed. As it appears to be also posed on the article's talk page, this is not helpful. Be concise. Hasteur (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Inijones has cut-and-pasted the same lengthy argument you see above to the following places so far:


 * Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution


 * Dispute resolution noticeboard


 * Requests for mediation/SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION


 * User talk:Lord Roem


 * Upon seeing his request on the dispute resolution noticeboard, I went to the article talk page to offer an outside opinion. Other than responding to Inijones request, I have no involvment or interest in the topic.


 * I carefully read the arguments on the talk page and determined that the changes Inijones wishes to make are against Wikipedia's policies on consensus and that his multiple accusations against other editors are without merit. In particular, I saw no evidence of Tagteaming and no evidence of Tendentious editing or POV Pushing by anyone other than Inijones himself. All I saw was several editors making a good-faith effort to improve the article and one editor -- Inijones -- ignoring consensus.


 * What I have seen is a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:FORUMSHOPPING. All of Inijones arguments were addressed in the first two forums he cut-and-pasted his lengthy argument to, at which point he went silent on those pages and cut and pasted them to two additional locations, ignoring the arguments several editors have made that he is trying to insert material that is original research that is not found in the sources and that he is making the article a battleground.


 * I suggest that, rather than looking for a fifth or sixth place to cut-and-paste the exact same argument that has convinced nobody, that Inijones go back to the article talk page and seek consensus by responding to the arguments other have made opposing his proposed changes. I also suggest that other involved editors stop playing Whack-a-Mole with Inijones and instead respond with "Please see my response on the article talk page". --Guy Macon (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * }