This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.
Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.
This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
The dispute must have beenrecently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.
If you need help:
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.
We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.
Volunteers should remember:
Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.
Open/close quick reference
To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.
X Japan
There looks like a rough consensus to use "rock" in the very first sentence of the lede. If there is still a dispute over whether or not to include "visual kei" in the infobox, I recommend holding a request for comments on the article's talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius♫08:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
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{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=X Japan}} --~~~~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.
Clerk's Comment/Template:Cue 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)[reply]
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: {{subst:DRN status|<reason for closure>}}, if any of the other parties don't respond. Kind regards :) Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania!22:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
Y X Japan (エックス ジャパン?) is a Japanese rock band formed in 1982 by Yoshiki and Toshi.[2]
N Genres: Rock, heavy metal, speed metal, power metal, progressive metal, symphonic metal, glam metal[1]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hi ItsZippy, thanks for the note. Leslieulm, please look over this not very long section on reliable sources: Wikipedia:RS#Some_types_of_sources. And then afterwards, please look at this section on non-reliable sources: Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Template:Cue 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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The reference is [1] and the text being used to cite the claims is:
In an article in the second issue of the Occupy Wall Street Journal entitled “What Liberty Square Means: The Progress of Revolutions,” Rebecca Manski joins the debate from Zuccotti Park, renamed Liberty Square. Manski argues:
Liberty Square is the twenty-first century Liberty Tree. If you want to understand what is happening there, imagine: Under the Liberty Tree that stood in Boston Common, early in the first American Revolution, any and all could come to air their grievances and hammer out solutions collectively, and it was there the promise of American democracy first took root. We are reclaiming a democratic practice in Liberty Square.
Since 2008, national unemployment rates have remained above 9% with much higher rates for African Americans and youth—16% and 24.6% respectively. An estimated 10.4 million mortgages could default this year. Income inequality, with concentrated wealth at the top and flat incomes or impoverishment for the vast majority of the country’s population, has increased precipitously since the 1960s. The well known facts are worth reciting again: the top one percent of the country owns 34.6% of the wealth in total net worth; the next 19% owns 50.5%; the bottom 80% owns 15%.
The source used is an editorial opinion piece from the Personal Investment section of Forbes. It is disputed that this can be used as fact and is believed it should be attributed as opinion and not used to claim a straight fact. The references for this opinion being used are linked and show different articles from other publications and I think the belief is they are all based on a CBO report (the primary source) to claim the statement.
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{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Occupy Wall Street}} --~~~~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 discussion on talk page until an editor expressed frustration and need for Dispute resolution notice board.[2]
How do you think we can help?
Please advise the best way to handle the claim to be supported by the source per Wikipedia standards. Goal is for criteria that would pass GA review or at improving the article for a better assement.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Opening responses
I can't fully respond to this tonight, but just a few points: the source used is one of several highly reliable sources which can be used to support the claims (or claims with very similar content, each source has different ways of parsing the data such as different start dates). We have this, for example, from the LA Times:
"The year just past was one in which the stagnation of income and wealth for the great majority of Americans continued — indeed, bit so deep that it helped fuel the Occupy movement taking as its constituency the "99%," ... From the late 1940s to the early 1970s, the median American household saw its income double. Since then: a screeching halt, or barely a 5 percent rise in incomes for the less-affluent 90 percent of Americans. But between 1979 and 2007, the top 1 percent saw their incomes soar by 281 percent...A straightforward description of the trend was issued in October by the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office, which determined that for the highest-income 1% of the population, average after-tax household income almost quadrupled from 1979 to 2007, while income for the 60% of Americans in the middle of the scale grew by just over one-third. (Both figures are adjusted for inflation; in 2007, that middle group comprised households with earnings between about $15,000 and $70,000.) As a consequence of this trend, the CBO says, the share of after-tax household income collected by the top 20% of income earners grew to 53% in 2007 from 43% in 1979. Everyone else fell...One message of the Occupy movement is that the trend to deliver wealth to those at the top of the economic pyramid undervalues the contributions made by everyone else. This is not merely an important cause of our economic malaise, but a moral and political failing too."[3] by Michael Hiltzik.
Similar to the last quote but more encyclopedic and using a reference suggested from the above editor. Income inequality need not be referenced for defintion as long as it is undisputable phrasing. --Amadscientist (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence need not use the word "defined," and I offered to remove it. And no one disputes that the sentence is factual (yes, you heard that right, everyone knows/admits it's fully true). These are undisputed facts. Nothing, however, satisfies the critics at the OWS talk page. In an attempt to keep the info out of the article they have edit warred and even made up various additions to policy, such as that we as editors should research the history of authors and decide for ourselves whether they are qualified, regardless of where they are published. Be——Critical07:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As BeCritical points out, with a Forbes source along with the primary source from whence it came (not to mention numerous other statistical refs, though those are claimed to be invalid by our opponents because they don't explicitly say OWS makes use of them), there's no chance of a reasonable challenge coming along. This is a factual statement and not an opinion. Even if the Forbes column could be said to be an "opinion piece," this particular statement is not an opinion, but a fact, and would have been fact checked by the editorial staff. The information is not being challenged and is not in dispute. It is just being held to some unreasonable standard of WP:V's "likely to be challenged" clause, and I see it as downright lawyering. If it could be said that a challenge may come along at some point (as with any data, one can never say it's impossible), this information is not at all likely to be challenged. Equazcion(talk) 17:29, 25 Apr 2012 (UTC)
PS. If you have the patience to take a look through Talk:Occupy Wall Street, you can see for yourself some of the ridiculous straw-grasping arguments that have been attempted in order to keep this info out. Equazcion(talk) 17:58, 25 Apr 2012 (UTC)
There is a question here that I've been wanting more opinions about: it would improve the article to be able to go to the CBO report directly for a few statistics. Numerous secondary sources reference the CBO report and relate its data to the complaints of OWS. Do people think it's acceptable to go directly to the report? Be——Critical19:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The crux of it is "claims with very similar content, each source has different ways of parsing the data ". The source may be a reliable one, however it is an editorial. The dispute is that the reference uses undisputed fact (that OWS has an issue with income inequality), mixed with opinion on on the data using POV terms (Actually the prose missuses "wealth", a simplified meaning for "money" with "wealthy", an opinion of great riches). I believe the source to be an opinion piece and not straight journalism and that the information itself is being phrased as fact. "[I]mpoverishment for the rest of the population" is POV and even the word "wealthy" can be seen as opinion. If we are using just the reference supplied, then the claim should be attributed to the author in the reference as it is written. The very claim (or similar) "Income inequality is an issue with OWS" is the undisputable information, and as such does not require referencing. Can we say it is the top issue? I don't know. We would certainly need to reference that in my opinion. Does the CBO report use the above terms? I don't believe so. The claim needs clean up and a reference that is not an editorial peice used to reference a fact, with a claim in an encyclopedic tone that can be supported by the reference. Using the above reference from a portion not included above I can write a very similar claim as fact:
"Income inequality (unequal distribution of income) in the US has increased over the last three decades."[1]
Analysis to see if there is any POV, as opposed to presentation of fact done in a way much like the sources:
with a wealthy upper class accruing large profits
This is fact: backed up by the best of RS, the CBO report and secondary sources.
economic stagnation
This is also backed up by highly reliable sources, incomes have declined for most of the population on average, with slight gains for the middle class and less income for the poor.
That's where this comes in:
or impoverishment
Impoverishment is also backed up by fact, as per the Guardian source, about 1/7th of the population— live below the poverty line.
So either economic stagnation or impoverishment. This is simple fact.
Thus, you may be saying that reciting all these indisputable facts together in the same sentence is POV. But since they are facts, since the sources themselves put them all together, and since that is what OWS is upset about, I see nothing POV about it.
In actuality, the sources would paint a starker picture than the sentence discussed above: I left out that the country's economy has been growing, but that income only went to the top. That also needs to be put in. I don't see the POV in the statement. What I do see is some stark and obvious statistics which when you simply state them together in a neutral way sound POV because they lead the reader to an obvious conclusion. But giving the reader the facts is not what Wikipedia means by POV.
We cannot use an opinion peice to attempt a POV definition of the term "Income Inequality". "wealth" has been changed to "wealthy" which is not defined. The reference is being used in a manner that is disputed as being actual fact. Wikilinks do not justify "Upper class", another undefined term and "economic stagnation" again undefined. Be neutral with wording for facts. Use brevity and don't use puffery.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We as editors get to use our own words, and in this case the definition of "upper class" and "wealthy" meet the data derived from the sources and "economic stagnation" is the same word used in the LA Times source, and means the same thing as "flat incomes." My sentence is a straight rendition of fact, without any POV or puffery, based on highly reliable sources. And just how far are you willing to reach to discredit? An editor can't change the words "wealth at the top" to "wealthy?" Seriously. Be——Critical21:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's an editor problem, not a problem with any particular text. I recently rewrote the section to meet their demands. But all they do is attack it some more based on made-up policy. You can expect us back here regularly till an admin wises up, but given the low level, that may never happen. Be——Critical23:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it is too low-level for an admin to "get it." Ideally, a neutral admin such as yourself would take the page under his wing and constantly monitor, and take care of conduct issues (like violations of BRD) as they came up and also act as a mediator/third opinion to prevent made-up policy and the like. Be——Critical00:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whenaxis actually isn't an admin, but I agree it would be nice if admins were paying to attention to what goes on there. I'd welcome general additional eyes there either way though. Equazcion(talk) 00:32, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that was simply incorrect. It is not an editor conduct issue. An editor was warned (not me) for edit warring over this issue and discuss it. He made a thread and Dreadstar made a comment about contiuing to discuss. We did untill Becritical stated his frustrations and wish to seek this at Dr or the RS notice boards. It is unfair to categorize this dispute brought here as a conduct issue as I have no such issue I am not edit warring over this. But I am beginning to take GREAT issue with the grouping of editors. If one looks at the other editors talk pages one might see an organizational attempt by two editors. And it aint me. You are right, This should now be taken to Admin Notice board. Also...If Becritcal is correct and he has changed the prose to suit the concerns of other editors where is that statement from him in the discussion? Made up policy? I have just about had enough of these accusations. The Occupy Wall Street talkpage and article are indeed looked at by several administrators. I personaly have been advised by two seperate Admin that they keep an eye on my edits and talkpage discussions because of concern that I would edit war becuase I have in the past. If I am making up policy, I can assure you Dreadstar, Drmies or a handful of other admin would let me know and they may still wish to advise me in areas I may have been mistaken or incorrect, and I welocme it. Always have and always will. IF this is to be an accusation of me let it be clearly spelled out. If this is an accusation of AKA, he has already been warned and this is part of the process of choice by the edior Becritial. He wanted to take it here so I started the discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the user conduct issue is that corrections to the understanding of policy are not absorbed. One example is as I said above, you will not absorb a correction to your claim that Wikipedia editors are responsible for judging whether particular authors, as opposed to publications, are qualified: "And of course we research the authors of the references! If we don't know who is making the claim and we're just using any old person who writes an article, then we're not looking into the reference enough to know if it can be used. We need to know if this is a journalist or a academic or if they are posting opinion or stating fact, if they are staing fact and they themselves are not actualy the journalist but a guest writer and has no journalistic background that amounts to an opinion piece or blog, whether he's an English professor or ecomiics expert."[4]Be——Critical18:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a conduct issue and we don't discuss those here but at the ANI. Writing an encyclopedia means research dude. The subject, the authors, the context etc...and what's that link supposed to prove?--Amadscientist (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm...what does that have to do with researching a subject and being able to justify the use of an author? But it DOES say "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Anyone owant to take a shot at expalining that to the editor.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing gets through, despite multiple editors trying to explain. That's why I say it's a user conduct issue, but one which we need help on, we can't just take it to AN/I. See the problem? Be——Critical18:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I am an editor that has grown and learned immensely in the 5 years I have been editing. Trust me...things get through. But you are not correct in stating anyone has attempted to correct me on this issue or the policies within. We have been discussing the issue and you seem to be ignoring much and interpreting things in very novel ways. This is done throughout the encyclopedia, but the main point is what is accepted for improvement of the article for a better rating towards Good Article status. I have reviewed and contributed to good articles. I am using these policies and guidelines as set by criteria for assesment of articles. What are you using? I use examples of Good Articles to judge and feature articles when I can to strive towards the interpretations of policy as set by precedence.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I do believe you when you say you haven't noticed people trying to correct you on this. I don't think it's malice in any way. Be——Critical19:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Drive by comment: After reading the contested text and the source (I scanned the rest but ...!) I think the sourcing is not good enough for presenting the statement as factual. It is, at its heart, a reporters view of the situation. I suggest changing the source, or adding something more academic such as this one (which is linked to in the cited article), or, better still, something from a peer reviewed journal. --regentspark (comment) 20:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the very thing I have been saying. It's all above in the discussion. I have no idea what the editor is claiming. They have been refusing to budge until we got to DR. The staistical information is as with any statistical information. It's a case by case thing and that is part of the discussion. How and when to use the statistics. But the claim in the original prose was weak and did need stronger sourcing.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a good solution, except opponent editors also reject sources for these statements that don't explicitly say OWS makes use of the statistics mentioned. Otherwise this would've been solved a long time ago. Equazcion(talk) 20:11, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)
Then I don't see the problem. The connection is well sourced and the the statements are well sourced. Are they arguing that the occupy movement must itself make the connection? --regentspark (comment) 20:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's my understanding (for example: [5]). No sources that don't explicitly say this are being accepted to back up this statement, nor other statements like it. Equazcion(talk) 20:34, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)
I agree that we should be able to use primary sources which our secondary sources point to. But this is the question I asked above. You seem to be saying we can use the primary sources such as the CBO report, if your secondary sources say that the statistics in the primary sources are related to the complaints of OWS. If this is the consensus, it is easy to source everything. But opponents object to doing this. Remember there are multiple secondary sources for the statement, like the LA Times one above. We are not just discussing this one source. Be——Critical20:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The comment at [6] doesn't seem right to me. If reliable sources comment on the linkage between OWS and income equality, and provide stats to back up those statements, and provide sources to back up the stats, then we're in the clear. It would be a problem if either (a) we added the statistics to show income inequality, or (b) we made the link between income inequality and OWS but neither seems to be the issue here. That the statistics were not made as part of the protest and therefore cannot be included is an invalid argument. We present material from secondary sources and not what the primary source says (unless it is repeated/recognized/elaborated on by a secondary source). --regentspark (comment) 20:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say "That the statistics were not made as part of the protest and therefore cannot be included". I said "They were not made as part of the protest. They exist seperate from the protests and the detail needs to be in direct context to reliable secondary sources". Part of this argument is being made by an editor in this DR that statistical information needs to be used to show "income inequality". He asks right here on this page. User:RegentsPark could you discuss the use of the original source which is an editorial and sourcing POV claims from the source and not just the information? Do we use opinion to state fact?--Amadscientist (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While they do exist separate from the protests, and I note that the paper cited in the Forbes article predates the occupy movement, they are being linked with OWS by the secondary source. Are you saying that the editorial itself is an opinion piece and therefore material from it should not be presented as fact? I'm not sure if that's a valid objection either (if that's what you're saying) because the Forbes piece does verifiably cite the statistics. I could explain further but I'm, as yet, unclear as to what your specific objection is. --regentspark (comment) 22:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. I note in the discussion that there is an undisputable fact that need not be referenced...that OWS has a concern with income inequality. The Forbes piece is being interpreted by a non economics professional using what I see as POV verbage that was repeated in the claim in the article. If we wish to use the the verbage we must attribute it as opionion and possibly quote the author, although I believe Becritical has made the comment that we can use our own words, so it may be possible to just use the prose without a direct quote but still attributing to the opinion if the contentious terms remain. As I said, Forbes as a source is reliable but we still have to distinguish the "Personal finance" section from straight news and be open to the fact that the source page does state the author as an English professor who was a lawyer but has no known economic background, not a expert on the subject. An "editorial" is an opinion peice. I actually believe she was discussing a publication from OWS originally and an argument another author was making. I suggested a rewrite above that closely resembles the statement I disputed with more neutral wording and using a reference becritical supplied.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it's POV verbiage, as explained in detail above (look for the bold). It's a straight rendition of facts. Further, we have many sources which put these particular facts all together as an explanation of what OWS is upset about. It's therefore a statement of fact, not merely something attributed to one opinion piece. Be——Critical23:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Specificly the way you combined the term wealthy with upperclass. It's actually redundant. And the term was wealth in the source as in money not wealthy as in "the rich". Upperclass alone as defined in America is a much more broad interpretation, but while it does mean the 1 % it also means anyone above the oother class. Since the majority of the US is at a certain level many are in the upper class above the poor who would see middle class as an upperclass. Contentious in that it is a very broad term. The term isn't even in the source. It refers to "concentrated wealth at the top". Your version has point of view not expressed in the source. --Amadscientist (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Economic stagnation" is not in the source. You are extrapolating and using a POV term. If you look you will see the term has different defintions. It need not be used at all. It's over stating the information. Just say "Flat growth" that is from the source and is not a copyright issue to use. But this is all still the interpretation of primary source information in an editorial and per policy needs to be attributed and a quote would be best...or just use a better source and write something more neutral as I suggested.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, how many sources would you need to state something as fact? "Stagnation" is in the other source. Whatever the merits of your arguments above, can you tell me what problems you find with this source for example? Be——Critical00:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The text is fairly clear and is well sourced. Economic stagnation is another term for flat incomes so that's not a problem and is the term that best describes the statistics. Plus we have the source above provided by bcritical. I'm not sure of impoverishment though. It doesn't have the same meaning as stagnation and is not necessarily supported by the income statistics. --regentspark (comment) 00:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well to be fair, the text is "Income inequality in the United States, with a wealthy upper class accruing large profits and economic stagnation or impoverishment for the rest of the population, has increased greatly since the 1960s." It's backed up by the Guardian source, which says about 1/7th of the population live below the poverty line which I assume is the same as impoverishment. So that's two sources for that term right there, with the Guardian providing it as a technical definition Guardian source is here. Be——Critical01:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that Economic stagnation is another term for flat incomes. Flat incomes relate to individual financial income and economic stagnation is measured in terms of the GDP growth. It's minucia....but then we are talking microeconomics. I dispute the use of another term when there is an acceptable one from the source but , this all hinges on this being attributed as opinion as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Income inequality in the United States, with wealth accruing at the top and flat incomes for the rest of the population, has increased sharply in the last thirty years according to Deborah Mutnick, senior editor of Forbes Magazine."
Would work for me. But, if there is a better source (RS that is not an opinion piece) to use without an attribution we would need different prose (probably). But a fact only needs one RS to be claimed, but just because there are other sources that make similar claims doesn't mean you use the opinion without attribution and then cite the sources that seem to agree, you cite the primary source being referenced then cite the source that is of the higher quality RS from a straight news story or peer reviewed journal that makes the claim.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In a way.... As I stated above the article can be used to state certain facts as it mentions them, but they are not precisely the same but similar. So here is a quote similar to the Forbes one: "The year just past was one in which the stagnation of income and wealth for the great majority of Americans continued— indeed, bit so deep that it helped fuel the Occupy movement taking as its constituency the "99%," those left behind by the continued gravitation of economic bounty toward the top 1% of U.S. taxpayers." And another: "...(where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, secure their retirement) Those four goals have been undermined since the 1970s by the unequal distribution of the wealth created largely by the American worker's boundless gains in productivity." Hey look...that's part of GDP...can you say "economic stagnation? If you like that phrase here is an RS that uses it. And one more: "There isn't any question that income inequality has increased over the last three decades". Now since what we are proposing so far is completely dropping the opinion piece for the LA Times piece, we need to slightly re-write the prose. How about this:
"Income inequality has increased over the last three decades with economic stagnation and unequal distribution of the wealth undermining the goals of working people."[2]
Thank you, that's precisely what I've (we've?) been trying to get across. Equazcion(talk) 20:53, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)
Is this the consensus then? It certainly makes giving factual statements much easier. I myself have a strict interpretation of policy, so accepted that we could not use the primary sources like the CBO report, even though our secondary sources make it clear that they explain what OWS is concerned about. If we can use those sources, then we have easy sourcing for factual claims. Anyone else? Be——Critical21:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In looking at this I see two issue and only one real dispute. The issue with using statistical information is a seperate one and if I have not made myself clear in all the prose and the link I left to the policy etc., then I will state outright, that it is a case by case matter and dependent on context and what statistics and how and where they are used. It is a complicated issue and not cut and dry for a single consensus to any and all use. As for the prose and reference dispute, the admin above did indeed suggest better sourcing.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New version
"Income inequality has increased over the last three decades with economic stagnation and unequal distribution of the wealth undermining the goals of working people."[3]
I have made that change to the agreed on prose with wikilinks above as cited in a compromise for my dispute. I feel this is resolved and leave it up to DR/N facilitator as to whether a seperate DR/N should be opened to address Becriticals use of multiple refernces for multiple claims and use of statistical data or if we should simply continue here. I asssumed there was something else with statistics but I didn't assume he meant ALL of the material. If that is his dispute I would recommend a seperate filing. While I saw this as two issues I saw only one dispute from what the original discussion was involving and that was over information another editor reverted. HOWEVER I also gave a window to more discussion here by stupidly thinking this was going to actually be done on a case by case basis...but that can be done here as well. I would rather do it little by little on the talk page where at least one other editor has shown interest in engaging there, but if DR/N is determised to leave this open I will continue here and ask the other editor to join this discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of this version?
During the 1990s, economists began to release studies which showed the increasing income inequality in the United States. Although these were cited by liberals and Democrats, this information did not fully penetrate the public sphere till it was used as one of the ideas behind the OWS movement. OWS protests were particularly concerned with wealth and income inequality, in addition to greed and the corrupting power of banks and multinational corporations.[4] Inequality in wealth and income has increased over the last three decades with economic stagnation and unequal distribution of the wealth undermining the goals of most Americans."[5][6][7]
A 2010 poll found that an overwhelming majority of Americans across the political spectrum, including the wealthiest, want more equitable distribution of wealth.[8] According to news editor Simon Rogers writing for The Guardian Data Blog, Americans, including 90% of Republicans, believe that the top 20% of Americans should own as much as 40% of the wealth of the nation, and that the poorest 120 million Americans should own about 10% of the wealth of the nation. However, in reality the top 20% of people in the Unites States own 85% of the wealth, the 120 million poorest own .3% (about 1/333rd or one third of one percent), and the richest 1% own about 33%.[7][9] According to 2007 statistics, financial inequality (total net worth minus the value of one's home[10]) is greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[6]
However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[6][11][12]Tax rates paid by the wealthy are less than those paid by Americans making $100,000 to $200,000 per year: incomes of $100,000 to $200,000 are taxed at an effective rate of 25%, but the wealthy, whose income comes mostly from investments, pay less than 20%.[7] Since 1979, federal taxation has become less progressive, shifting away from progressive income taxes and toward payroll taxes.[5][4] In the United States, about 15% of households are "food insecure," meaning that they have difficulty buying enough food. About 50 million Americans have no health insurance and at least 42 million —about 1/7th of the population— live below the poverty line.[7]Executive pay in the largest US companies has quadrupled since the 1970s, but the average non-supervisory employee is paid 10% less.[7][13][14][15][16]
Technical comment. It is not the case that the wealthy pay less taxes than those who make $100,000 to $200,000. Rather, they pay (in general) at a lower rate. --regentspark (comment) 13:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't exactly a case by case discussion but now asks to gain consensus on a whole bunch of stuff. I suggest taking this portion back to talk page as my actual dispute has been resolved at this time. I don't dispute that the CBO information cannot be used in some form as detailed on the talkpage (and here) and feel if you wish to dispute the actual exclusion of the above material it should be made as a seperate DR/N. Or we can continue to discuss each case there and not take up sapce on what I see as a resovled dispute. The issue of statistics individually is a different issue. I will participate if you wish to return with your own DR over statistical data but I feel sure that it is better to discuss this on the talk page and see and resolution to this filing.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the dispute is not resolved. There hasn't been any agreement. Seemingly, you see it as resolved because you edited the article and put in your preferred version without discussion [7][8][9], along with User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous . But the removal of most of the section is what we're mainly talking about here, not just one sentence. No need for a separate section. Can you give feedback on the above? Be——Critical22:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But if you don't want to engage more here, I don't think another thread here will do anything. What do you think about formal mediation? Be——Critical22:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave this up to the DR/N facilitators to decide if the intitial dispute I brought: "A question has arisen in regards to how to use references to support a claim. (with a quote of the text) It is disputed that this can be used as fact and is believed it should be attributed as opinion and not used to claim a straight fact." has been resolved.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that was the only problem with the section, then let's restore the former section, or the one above, with your lead sentence. Then we can discuss further edits, such as the draft above on the talk page. But I don't think that's what you want to do. I was under the impression that we were here to get a draft of the section written, since much of the section has been blanked or changed without consensus. Seems silly just to work on one sentence. On the other hand if you're saying to just insert the text above in the article and you don't have a problem with it, then that's fine... we don't need to be here. Be——Critical01:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why use it as fact? Just explain that its an opinion of the author. Like, "according to John Doe" or "writes John Doe" or "in staff writer John Doe's opinion". As long as its phrased so that the opinion is clearly that of the author, not Wikipedia than its fine, though a balance should be maintained. — GabeMc (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is, in fact how the section is right now with a good portion that was from the older version, but is now attributed correctly as opinion to it's source the Guardian UK. It seems that the other editor wishes to use a number of sources that turn out to be opinion including the Guardian, that he had made sure to ask me directly about some time ago and then linked me to the consensus discussion on the issue of the Guardian as a RS. He still used the reference against his own recomendations to me. He has stated that the author means nothing and only the source itself does and believes that we need not distinquish between expertise of the authors themselves in such opinion. The editor wishes Income inequality as the first main section of the article and wishes for us as editors to proclaim that the CBO report is undisputed fact, and that all mention of it be done without having to reference the information to a secondary, published source.
The section was edited a number of times by a number of editors, as has the entire article, but this section has been a question of a number of editors for some time and the issue never really went away. I removed the information, began a detailed explanation of my actions per policy for and gave examples of how to use facts from relliable sources that have direct context to the report, but it appears the other editor is more interested in getting the statistical information included without proper context or secondary referencing for claims. Is the CBO Report undistputed fact? Can its statistical information be used in the artticle in prose without secondary, published referense? I actually think if the other editor wants to encompass all disputes than we should make this the mother of all Occupy DR/Ns. This should be the one where we hash it all out from top to bottom, including the criticism section and how that relates to assessment, the Security and Crime section, the timeline section that was deleted and the split between pages. We can post at every project that the page is under and post something Signpost and the Wiki project Council and the Village Pump. Perhaps we need to take a straw poll and gauge the overall community temperture for a full community wide "Occupy" discussion? There are a lot of different ways we can handle this, not just If not....Becritical...just start with one claim and one refernce and we can deal with it that way...or go back to the talk page and just discuss this. We are only here because you wanted to be here. My dispute is resolved unless you would like to renege on your part. I see no reason for me to renege on mine. I am willing to discuss one case with you further here as I stated clearly "case by case" if this is not satisfactory you have every right to lodge or file and action to any part of the dispute process. We can take it from there sir. Tank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both versions including the above use appropriate attribution. That is not much of an an issue. If you don't want to discuss any problems you see with the former section, which was removed in a disruptive manner, or with the draft above, I'll ask for formal mediation. I don't just start from a version which is the result of disruptive editing and act as if that is correct: if you do that, then it only encourages disruption, which is bad both for any editors who try not to be disruptive and aggressive, like me, and for Wikipedia as a whole- not to mention the content of the page. As I've said before, there are sufficient sources to state things as fact in some cases. But that is not the main issue. In fact, I'm not sure what the issues were/are which caused the section to be blanked and edit warred into its current state. Be——Critical17:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I percieve, is that you have posted a chunk of an article with several claims and references that were boldly removed with proper summarizing of the policy and guideline, immediately discussed on the talk page...yet are not offering any reasoning, explanation, argument, justification or defense to include and are relying on me to contiunue to denounce the material over and over. I then see you accuse others of the very thing you, yourself are doing...not discussing. Ultimatums like: "If you don't... I'll...?" are too controling for my tastes. Your behavior seems to be very inclined towards directing editors behavior to suit a very narrow interpretation of conduct guidelines and in some cases just essays. This is becoming disruptive in my opinion. Good luck. I'm done. My dispute is resolved. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking if you see a problem with it. If you don't then I'll use it in the article. As to how you and AKA removed the former material and inserted your preferred version over the reverts and objections of myself and Equaz, and over the policy explanations of how you were wrong by other editors as well, that was disruption. If you want to dismiss our concerns here, and refuse to continue the discussion, then please do not revert at the article. Be——Critical19:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking that you show good faith in the discussion and please explain your position for inclusion. As part of being bold I summarized my action, created a section on the talkpage and explained in full my edit. You have yet to do so. You have argued against policy and guideline but not actually discussed why the claims you are making should be included and I do mean EACH claim and EACH reference.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are problems with the above draft. That is my position. I have disgreed. You have heard it. Is there some reasoning you have that this is acceptable for inclusion?--Amadscientist (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We need a different approach. I won't call for closing of the DR when there is still a dispute, regardless that the compromise of my original dispute seems to be working. I won't use "My version" versus "Their version". That is not a discussion as much as it is requesting a vote between versions that differ greatly. I am however, going to be straight forward here as I am in this dispute.
The subject of income inequality
We know that income inequality is an issue for OWS. It does not require citation as it is considered undisputed fact. How this fact is applied is a matter of consensus. But...there are other issues. What about greed, corruption and the undue influence of corporations on government? Why do we have an entire section with a header entitled "Income inequality"? and not a section with headers entitled with the other issues? IS income inequality so important to the subject that it is due weight to include a seperate section entitled "Income Inequality" and no other sections relating in the same manner each issue with due weight? If we use only a single header, shouldn't that header be more neutral to the subjects of issues and simply use the header "Issues". But then there is the fact that it is a protest and they have goals. It is reasonable to suggest that issues are a part of the protest goals. Why not a section entitled "Issues and Goals"?
I see a section entitled as "Income inequality" and being devoted to the subject alone to be wandering into original research. As far as your version. I have stated you should be bold and add it a little at a time and see what happens. You could always add all of it and see what happens, but then you must be able to allow other editors involved to edit it, question it and remove it if they follow proper procedure. Removal of content is acceptable even as stated by essay, WP:BRD. Having content removed is not a disruption. It happens all the time. You, yourself have removed content. Is there a compromise you might consider? Perhaps drafting out a merging of some content into an issues section along with some additonal content cited to RS about the other issues and the protestor goals?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What? Why did you blank the section then instead of editing collaboratively? Why didn't you change the section title? The section title has been changed multiple times because of people's objections to the lack of agreement between the content and the title. At one point, this was a section title, inserted by me also this, and content could have been merged into that catchall section. But was that done? No, the section was blanked instead. Why would you blank content because you don't like a section title? The above is the third or 4th time I have rewritten the section to please objections which I consider mostly baseless, and which are aggressively or disruptively asserted on the article. I don't trust the process at the article anymore, and feel that only mediation has any chance of gaining a definite enough consensus that future disruptive editing can be resisted. Be——Critical18:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem to me that the terms of the dispute are shifting. We started with a dispute over the wording of a sentence in the text. That dispute seems to have been resolved. Now, the entire section is being disputed? --regentspark (comment) 20:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blanking of content is another way of stating "removal of content" and should always be accompanied with a full explanation in the edit summary (which was done) and a discussion with a more detailed explanation of the edits (which was done) but, in and of itself, is a bold edit and alone is not disruptive. Bold editing is encouraged where articles have stalled or discussion only methods of collaboration are not working. But yes, I believe the terms have shifted, but the editor who began the DR/N (me) is being asked to dispute the entirety of a section. I have not disputed a section in this DR, but believe the other editor diputes my removal of content and the discussion that followed.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. Blanking content does not only equal removal of content. It strips an article, and in this case a highly contentious article. Sadly, such actions disrespect other editors working on an article, and I consider both stripping an article and that kind of aggressive stepping over other editors to be disruptive especially given the reason. We can of course agree to disagree.(olive (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]
I suppose you can agree to what you feel is true, but I go by what the Five pillars of Wikipedia: "all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed" and what WP:BOLD states, which is: "Don't get upset if your bold edits get deleted" and "It is important not to be insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further" as well as ""For if absurdity be the subject of laughter, doubt you not but great boldness is seldom without some absurdity." from Francis Bacon.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
regentspark, I actually thought that a DR/N started after the blanking of a section was about getting the section unblanked. My mistake. I'm always willing to discuss whatever needs to be discussed. I do not recall any real explanation for blanking the section; rather, it seemed MadSci thought it was a kind of punishment for not having discussed to his satisfaction [10] "I feel it is best to remove this section again as the last revert failed to discuss in detail what their reasoning was for returning the information." This seems to me another misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works: detailed explanations in the absence of specific objections are not required. Is there any reason not to request mediation? I've been pretty busy or I would have. Be——Critical01:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this is the blanking in question? The section is there in the article now and we've been discussing one sentence from it. Could the two sides (briefly, please!) clarify what the dispute is regarding this section? No need to explain things at length as yet. Let's just get a handle on the problem first. --regentspark (comment) 01:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the diff of the edit I made that removed the material with the summary: "OR with no direct support from references for context". That was the original content removed and I edited a good portion back in attributed properly as opinion of the Guardian UK as Becrititcal and I discussed when I tried to address this here, where Becritical states that the general consensus of the community is to use the Gaurdian as an opinion.[11]. We were collaborating and we made some agreements but they never transpired and even attributing of the Guardian as opinion seemed to also disolve as important to the other editor. I decided to be bold and make an edit that I believed was within the consensus that Becritical and I had agreed on. I then began another discussion here. (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Amadscientist, on reading your diffs I'm not sure I see what your issues are. Generally, in the diffs, you express the concern that highlighting income inequality as the main issue underlying OWS is not directly supported by reliable sources and therefore either the entire section should be removed or 'income inequality' be moved into a broadly titled 'main issues' section where other issues are also discussed. Is that a fair assessment? --regentspark (comment) 12:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"[C]oncern that highlighting income inequality as the main issue underlying OWS is not directly supported by reliable sources" is one concern yes, but not the basis of the entire section being removed. Not quite a fair assemsment only in that, it assumes these are all the arguments I used or concerns i had when i did make the edit that removed content. These are simply some concerns and ways to move the article and section past JUST highlighting ONE portion, which I do not see any source as stating as fact. I have concerns that the highlighting with use of a section gives greater importance to all the information within and makes it a more important issue to collaborate on and discuss if it is the ONLY section dealing with protester concerns. But my main dispute with the content I removed at that point was simply that the other editor was clearly going against his own previous arguments and collaborative effort with me in what I percieved was a punitive removal of content by the editor in the past in an aggressive manner while attributing such behavior to others. (Not to bring a conduct problem here, just mentioning as part of what I percieved)--Amadscientist (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I'm foxed and cannot really see a dispute here. You're saying you blanked the page as a sort of reaction to the behavior of another editor. Not a good idea but let's just put your reaction as well as the behavior that caused that reaction aside and move on from there. I suggest that if highlighting one issue is your principal concern, then perhaps the way out is that you seek sources for other issues and bring them to the attention of editors on the talk page. If there are multiple, equally important, issues, and if the issues as well as their importance are well sourced, then there is no reason why income inequality cannot be included as a subsection of a broader section. As a general rule, proposing specific means of moving forward makes dispute resolution much easier than does expressing general dissatisfaction with content or behavior. --regentspark (comment) 20:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For my part I have to admit I held back from discussion feeling a bit manipulated, so it is less about their actual behavior and more about my perception...but then I don't have the dispute about adding content to the section...the other editor does. So far the stall in discussion seems his wanting to have an up or down vote on his version and my wanting to talk about all of the changes as needed. The long term dispute is about the section as Income ineqiality and the inclusion of the material in it. But the short term dipute of content or section header is my argument in collaborating on this section. The section title has gone back and forth as part of the long term dispute of what context to use information and references, statistics and the like. The immediate dispute of the other editor was part of a long term discussion I think needs to continue on the talk page. But, to clarify it was not my reaction to his behavior or any perception I had of his conduct, (that's flying at me a lot too) that inspired me to make the edit, it was the breaching of the agreements and settled consensus he was arguing in the discussion that was in the form of opinion content not attributed to the source he began to place in the section. I didn't understand why he was adding information with references against the very things he was seeking me to agree with (use of the Gaurdian references as attriputed opinion only). The removal of content or "blanking" itself was part of a bold edit to discuss the specific issues I had with content and references at that time.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't pretend to understand all of that, but historically, this editor has not been specific enough in his objections to allow them to be addressed, has made up his own policy, has edited aggressively and has generally made progress difficult. But no need to discuss it here further, I'm planning to ask for mediation. Be——Critical22:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
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{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran}} --~~~~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.
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/Template:Cue 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, Whenaxistalk (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania!23:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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, Whenaxistalk (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania!18:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Circumcision}} --~~~~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.
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."[12]. (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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."[13] The other: "These results provide unequivocal evidence that circumcision plays a causal role in reducing the risk of HIV infection among men."[14] Neither say that the results apply only to Africans. Jakew (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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."[15]Jakew (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Non-controversial_edits.Erikvcl (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. (Personal attack removed). His should never be used as a source in any Wikipedia article and (Personal attack removed) Erikvcl (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For one, "African men" is not race-bound but geographically-bound. The article does say the evidence is from Africa, doesn't it?. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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" [16]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. PMID 21973253 for instance, reflects the same opinions with respect to implementing a circumcision program in Australia. FactoidDroid (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 PMID 10215123, or PMID 10726934. These sources do seem to support the stance that the results have been conflicting.
It is also worth noting that in PMID 12917962, 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, PMID 11089625, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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."[17] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia:Balance. Erikvcl (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building_pitfalls_and_errors 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.”
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.”
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{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Health effects of high-fructose corn syrup}} --~~~~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?
How do you think we can help?
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.
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.
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)[reply]
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[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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/complex15:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
For over five years, there has been only one editor for these two papers. I am the subject's husband and, as COI, I do not edit the document, but make suggestions in the talk page. The editor WLU is so irretrievably biased about this subject that I need another editor to look this over. The entries in the article are extremely damaging to the subject, and have been for years. The article is slanted and arguments to the contrary, including sworn testimony to the US Senate, are dismissed. In the most recent conversation, WLU dismissed the topic as a fringe theory on a fringe theory.
Here are some comments from just the past few days short paragraphs from the talk page that illustrate his bias:
Here is the reference to the rebuttal of Rosenthal in the journal Menopause - [18] Thanks for making the changes so far. Neil Raden (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The worst part of the article is this phrase "potential financial conflicts of interest regarding financial incentives." No sources. There are no conflicts of interest, that is a criticism from ten years ago. Today, Wiley provides only packaging material (syringes, bags, labels and packet inserts) to the compounding pharmacies (about 100 at present). This is no royalty or kickback. The vast amount of revenue from the Wiley Protocol goes to pharmacies and physicians. Pharmacies purchase the other materials from sources specified in their contracts, and there is no financial activity between those suppliers and Wiley. It's a squeaky clean operation. Unless you can source something to the contrary, I would suggest you remove this right away. The entire relationship between Wiley, doctors and pharmacies is clear and above board. Neil Raden (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Is T.S. Wiley's SWORN TESTIMONY to the US Senate not a reliable source? It seems to me that her sworn testimony, where she is articulate about her approach and quite critical of mainstream medicine, more compelling than some doctor with no credentials in this field (Erika Schwartz) who uses her husband's connection to the NYT to trade on Suzanne Somers' notoriety and get published in the newspaper. Seems like a real lack of balance to me. Neil Raden (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Here;s an example. Much of the criticism of the WP is based on the conclusions of the Women's Health Initiative (which has itself come under attack.) Wiley states in her testimony, "The failure of the WHI trial is partially due to the lack of understanding of the biology of the reproductive and menopausal state as well as, the indiscriminant choice of study subjects without well defined entry criteria, such as on the average enrolling subjects 12 to 15 years into menopause, creates unfathomable noise for the outcome." Is this not equivalent to Rosenthal's ethical concerns? A published criticism of a trial? Neil Raden (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
A letter to the editor is a reliable source only for the opinion of the letter's author. Wiley's sworn testimony is similarly just reliable as a source about her own opinion. In the case of actual experts, those opinions can be worth including, but given Wiley's lack of actual quantification and expertise in a relevant area (a degree in anthropology and three scientific papers), it's a dubious inclusion. Wiley giving sworn testimony doesn't make her right, and it doesn't make her an expert - nor does being articulate. Wiley giving testimony before congress is not the same thing as appearing in a peer reviewed journal, and if I saw Wiley's opinion on the WHI page, I would remove it as a fringe expert not worth including. The Wiley protocol is a fringe theory of a fringe theory that is regarded as dubious by the medical establishment. That's where the due weight should fall, irrespective the failings of Erika Schwartz's page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I have been patient with WLU for years, on the Talk page only, but the prominence of Wikipedia in searches is harming Wiley as the article reflects the negative opinion of WLU and no one else. He has stated very clearly in the past that he is very much opposed to the subject matter, whihc makes him a poor choice of editor, especially as sole editor. Here is my question: If someone defames you in a reliable source, how are you to defend yourself on Wikipedia if everything you say is "original research?" Even a letter to the editor of a respected medical journal, WRITTEN BY A THIRD PARTY M.D. is dismissed. If there is controversy, why isn't the whole controversy aired, not just one side?
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{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Wiley Protocol, T. S. Wiley}} --~~~~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 would like WLU to be asked to recuse himself from these two article and ask for some help finding some editors who can moderate this objectively.
How do you think we can help?
I'm not sure, but if we can't get some other eyes on this, it would be better to remove both articles as they border libelous and Wiley is pretty fed up
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The Wiley protocol is a subset of bioidentical hormone replacement therapy, which has no mainstream credibility - a fringe theory. Accordingly, due weight requires the page reflect the mainstream opinion and not give the impression this is a well-founded, well-substantiated scientific and medical approach, and should include what criticisms are available. Neil doesn't like this, but we are not a place to promote unfounded ideas. I have no issue with another editor editing the page in compliance with the P&G.
Neil has been admirable in restricting his edits to the page in question, as one of the few regular contributors I am by default the person he is likely to talk to about this - but the page is adequate as is as far as I'm concerned. I have seen no new sources that I think should be integrated. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex16:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WLU has not been admirable, he poses as a fair editor but wields a heavy pen against ideas he doesn't like. Have a look at his work on the Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy page. He should be banned. Please see my many suggestions ignored on the talk page.
WLU contradicts himself - if the Wiley Protocol is a fringe theory of a fringe theory, why is it notable to Wikipedia? The controversy? That's been over for 5-6 years. Wiley has trained doctors around the world and thousands of people follow the protocol. If Wiley and the Wiley Protocol are notable enough to warrant Wikipedia pages, why not actually DESCRIBE the Wiley Protocol. There are three words of criticism and controversy to every word that describes the subject. Another contradiction is that WLU excoriates Dr. Erika Schwarz but uses her unfounded opinion freely to denigrate Wiley's work. Pick a foot and stand on it. WLU's statements in the Talk page border on libelous. And I would be willing to bet he is completely uninformed abut the subject. All I ask is to have an editor who is not openly hostile to hormone therapy to judge all of this on its merits.
WLU uses a couple of sources to shoot down Wiley, which are full of errors, but allows no defense, even a published rebuttal in the same journal where the paper was published. There are dozens of testimonials about the WP on Youtube, including 6 or 8 by doctors. Dr Erika Schwartz on Page 6 of the New York Post, a gossip page with pinups? That's a reliable source? The same Dr Erika in the National Enquirer? C'mon. If someone defames you on Wikipedia, what are you supposed to do, wait for a stranger to defend you in a "reliable source?" My suggestion is that WLU step aside (as I have in editing the articles) and that we restructure the articles to a pro/con format instead of this 6 years long ad hominem. It is materially affecting Wiley's ability to pursue her work because Wikipedia is a powerful source of information. Neil Raden (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am a regular mediator/clerk here at this noticeboard. First, let me note that making legal claims or threats, or anything that even resembles them, is one of the fastest and easiest ways of becoming blocked from editing, see WP:LEGAL. If you feel that you need to make legal claims, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation via their contact page, but otherwise entirely refrain from making or alluding to such claims and I would strongly suggest that you also go back through the material that you have posted here (and elsewhere) and remove all references to libel. If you feel an assertion about a living person in an article or in a discussion is not supported by reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia policy, please follow the instructions in the biographies of legal persons (BLP) policy by immediately removing the material. If it is restored, then report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard, but remember that while issues of libel may underlie the BLP policy, discussing or making claims or threats about libel will still probably get you blocked. Second, this noticeboard and other dispute resolution processes here at Wikipedia generally do not work very well on open-ended claims about bias about entire articles. If you have specific assertions in the article which you feel are not reliably sourced, then please point them out. Otherwise, you may not get much response here. Third, I've not looked at the article or the talk page, but if the example you give above (the one following "Here are some comments from just the past few days short paragraphs from the talk page that illustrate his bias:") is typical, I see no bias at all in his response given there. Sworn testimony and letters to the editor are, indeed, not generally considered to be reliable sources at Wikipedia and I fail to see what it is that you might consider to be biased in that response. Fourth, I see from this discussion that you have expressed surprise and disagreement with Wikipedia's sourcing policy as much as five years ago, but seem to still be struggling with its ramifications. Could it be that what you are identifying as bias in WLU is actually nothing more than the effect of Wikipedia's verifiability policy, where all that can be reported here is what is reported in reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia? As noted in that 2007 discussion, it sometimes happens that all a matter is notable for, based on Wikipedia standards, is the negative things about it, and positive things have not been reported in a way that allows them to be reported here, with the result that the Wikipedia article appears to be biased when in fact it is merely limited. If the negative things are, indeed, reliably sourced (again, as defined by Wikipedia), then it is unlikely that the article will be removed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make a threat of legal action. What I said was that some things the editor said about Wiley in talk pages verged on libelous. There was no threat real or implied. But I'm not satisfied with your answer because when a third party makes damaging claims about you that are not factual in a so-called reliable source, you have no recourse on Wikipedia, and these statements are damaging in a very real way. I found it extremely frustrating that a third party rebutted these claims in the very same journal, but the editor refused to acknowledge them. His application of Wikipedia policy is very selective and I would appreciate it if you would consider this more closely. Neil Raden (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Word to the wise: I strongly advise that you follow the advice TransporterMan gave you instead of denying that you did it. Then once you have purged your posts (including the one above) of words like "libelous", we will be free to examine your claims of bias. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
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".)
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Second Amendment to the United States Constitution}} --~~~~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?
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Since the consensus seems opposed to my inclusion of text about "precedent" I made a change that makes no such mention.
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.
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.
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)[reply]
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.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
This article starts with the following sentence. 'Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews during World War II, usually referred to as the Holocaust'. The Holocaust is also used, within wikipedia, e.g. at the page The Holocaust to refer to the Nazi genocide of other groups. Therefore it is entirely approriate that any reference to the Holocaust refer to those other groups. The argument against this is that this article is about Holocaust denial, which specifically denies the genocide of Jews. Holocaust deniers don't really care about denying the genocide of other groups.
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{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Holocaust denial}} --~~~~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 proposed two possible solutions. 1 We include a reference in the introduction of this article to the fact that there are two definitions of the Holocaust, one of which includes all victims of the Nazis, and not just Jewish victims. 2 That we reword the first sentence to be 'Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews during World War II' That would ensure that no single definition is used.
How do you think we can help?
It may be possible to get one of my suggestions above, or another suitable solution agreed. I think that there is a misunderstanding about what I am proposing. I am not trying to change the definition of Holocaust denial to include all victims, but I would like consistency about the use of the word Holocaust throughout wikipedia. It should refer to both accepted definitions wherever it is used, or to neither.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
What reliable sources can be brought that specifically apply the term "Holocaust denial" to the denial of the genocide of groups other than Jews during WWII? In all my reading on the subject I've never seen the term "Holocaust denial" applied to anything other than the denial of the extermination of Jews, not to the denial of the extermination of other groups, making the term "Holocaust denial" a specifically anti-Semitic term. Zad68 (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is what we've been asking for DLDD all along. He's been able to come up with examples of writers criticizing Holocaust denial themselves defining the Holocaust as including others than Jews, but not with examples of either HD being defined as denying other victims of the Holocaust or other writers saying that HD involves denying such other victims. --jpgordon::==( o )19:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's your problem in the first place; you fail to recognize that the article is about Holocaust denial, which deals only with Jews; readers are eminently capable of clicking on the Holocaust article if they want more details about the Holocaust and its broader interpretation (which is not the intepretation Holocaust deniers are concerned with.) --jpgordon::==( o )19:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
that is simply not correct. I have clearly stated that I accept the same definition of HD as you have just given. The dispute is as to why one definition of the Holocaust is used here when it would be so simple to give both, or neither. Wikipedia, having accepted that there are two definitions should be consistent throughout. It should not be left to the reader to check that for themselves. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dalai lama ding dong, you are asking "why [is] one definition of the Holocaust is used here"? And here is the answer: Because that's the definition the reliable sources use. If the reliable sources don't talk about "Holocaust denial" referring to denial of the genocide of groups of people other than Jews, I can't see what Wikipedia policy-based reason there would be for putting it in the article. Holocaust mentions that there is a minority use of the term "Holocaust" as referring to groups other than Jews, and it is backed up to a source. What source can you bring that uses "Holocaust denial" in reference to other groups? If we don't have one, then until we can find one, I don't see a reason for putting it in the article. Zad68 (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is pointless. DLDD simply refuses to accept reality. I'm quite sympathetic to attempts to correct Holocaust coverage to include the Roma, who as one of two nations targeted for complete extermination suffered just as badly as the Jews but are generally ignored today. But Holocaust denial is not motivated by antiziganism (or by homophobia, or by able-ism, or whatever), but by antisemitism. This is much like arguments that "antisemitism" includes hatred of Arabs, because Arabs speak a Semitic language, when the term was explicitly coined as a synonym for "Jew hatred". He fails to understand that terms have meanings, and that "Holocaust denial", like "antisemitism", is a term with a meaning.
If DLDD can find sources for this, it could be included per WEIGHT, which would almost certainly mean we wouldn't give it more than a passing mention. But it's up to DLDD to find those sources. — kwami (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
again, this dispute is not about the definition of HD. That is not disputed. My RS for their being more than one definition of the Holocaust is the Holocaust article in wikipedia. I have made this very clear. So far no one has addressed my point. The analogy to the meaning of anti semitism completely misses the point, and is irrelevant. The motivation for HD is completely irrelevant. I do not have to find any sources, they are already in wikipedia. Can we please discuss why this article does not reflect the wikipedia article on the Holocaust, which gives two definitions of tha Holocaust?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
here is the wikipeda article on the Holocaust. The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt"),[2] also known as the Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "catastrophe"; Yiddish: חורבן, Churben or Hurban,[3] from the Hebrew for "destruction"), was the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder by Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler, throughout Nazi-occupied territory.[4] Of the nine million Jews who had resided in Europe before the Holocaust, approximately two-thirds perished.[5] In particular, over one million Jewish children were killed in the Holocaust, as were approximately two million Jewish women and three million Jewish men.[6][7]
Some scholars maintain that the definition of the Holocaust should also include the Nazis' genocide of millions of people in other groups, including Romani, Soviet prisoners of war, Polish and Soviet civilians, homosexuals, people with disabilities, Jehovah's Witnesses and other political and religious opponents, which occurred regardless of whether they were of German or non-German ethnic origin.[8] Using this definition, the total number of Holocaust victims is between 11 million and 17 million people.[9].Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response back to you is still here, you haven't addressed it or brought a source that talks about "Holocaust denial", despite your edit summary. Zad68 (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He simply doesn't understand how words are used. If he hasn't understood by now, I doubt he's going to get it from this discussion.
DLDD, your time would be better spent on the Holocaust article, which I see has now degenerated. (The killing of Soviet POWs was not genocide. The targeted 'final solution' of the Roma was. I don't know how we can equate the two, as we now do in the lead, without feeling ill.) — kwami (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
still no one can address the point. Why not include both accepted definitions, or neither? Only including one is POV. No one is wiling to discuss this point. No one has referred to my two suggested resolutions above.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zad68. All RS..All refute that there is only definition of the Holocaust.
Nobody is disagreeing with the definition of "the Holocaust". We are disagreeing about the relevance of the extended definition of "Holocaust" to the subject of "Holocaust denial", of which there appears to be none. --jpgordon::==( o )22:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dalai lama ding dong, this distinction was pointed out to you many times on the Holocaust denial talk page and you acknowledged this point several times. You explicitly stated, "Please show me where I claiming that all definitions of the Nazi holocaust apply to Holocaust denial? I certainly do not intend to claim that." Isn't this a fair description of what you are currently seeking to do? When an editor informed you that, "Holocaust Denial is not about the Holocaust, but about Jews", you responded, "agreed. I have never disputed this". Your above assertion belies your various responses on the talk page, and I request that you explain this apparent inconsistency, and the revisiting of a problem that I thought had been resolved. Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork23:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dalai, your whole complaint is based on nothing but a straw man. The phrase in question, "..the genocide of Jews during World War II, usually referred to as the Holocaust" is not a "definition of the holocaust". It is stupid to say that it is. Zargulon (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please try and remain civil. If it is not a definition, then why not remove it as I suggested? Thank you for being the first person to recognise the dispute. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am a regular mediator/clerk here at this noticeboard. Rather than let this discussion drag on any longer, I have to note that I'm not seeing any support for the edit (or any similar edit) proposed by Dalai lama ding dong. It appears to me that DLDD has made the argument for the edit to the best of his/her ability and is not being misunderstood. While several opponents have objected to the edit on the basis of inadequate sourcing and have indicated a willingness to consider the edit if reliable sources were to be provided for it, they have not accepted the sources which DLDD has provided to this point. It must be borne in mind that even if the proposed edit were supported by unassailable reliable sources and was indisputably relevant to the topic of this article that nothing can be included in a Wikipedia article unless there is consensus for its inclusion. Under the current circumstances it appears that there is an clear consensus against the inclusion of this edit and that, unless several of the opponents indicate that they are still on the fence on this issue, further discussion of it will be, at the very least, inappropriate and disruptive. For that reason, I will close this discussion as resolved 24 hours after the time stamp on this message unless in the meantime a substantial number of the opponents to the edit indicate that they wish for it to be continued. If this discussion is so closed, I would also suggest that DDLD should consider his only option for further pursuit of this issue to be the filing of a request for comments at the article talk page, as any further advocacy for it elsewhere might be considered disruptive editing. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite simply original research to say that Holocaust denial, the title of the article being discussed, applies to non-Jews, in the absence of a source. All material must be sourced. All material added must be verifiable. There is no source in support of the implication that DLDD wishes to put into the article: that "holocaust denial" encompasses denial of the tragedy of death and destruction to befall non-Jews in mid twentieth century Europe. The reason for this is that there is no "denial" of the death and destruction that befell non-Jews in mid twentieth century Europe. Holocaust denial is not just for the purpose of contradiction. Another aim of holocaust denial is the infliction of mental anguish. Holocaust denial is a present day manifestation of antisemitism. Holocaust denial is an expression of antisemitism because it requires a response. The response can be psychologically painful but such responses must be delivered in order to counter the falsehood of such claims, thus "holocaust deniers" accomplish a purpose, an antisemitic purpose, even if their arguments are effectively responded to. Antisemitism thus serves as the motivation for "holocaust denial" and of course this is a motivation confined to Jews. Thus there is a bifurcation between the scope of the term "holocaust" and the scope of the term "holocaust denial". Bus stop (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, I generally support DLDD's complaints insofar as the article on holocaust denial implies a narrow definition of the holocaust. Almost all secondary sources (e.g., historians, sociologists, etc.) almost take for granted by now that the Nazis systematically murdered many groups and that we refer to this systematic murder as the holocaust. There are many questions still about the holocaust, when exactly it began, who was targeted, and so on. The article on the holocaust is clear here but certainly does not as some people have suggested consign broader definitions of the holocaust to minority usage. DLDD is asking - and myself - to have the (implied) definition of the holocaust given in the article on holocaust denial brought in line with the broader definition given in the article on the holocaust. Second, I completely disagree with anyone who says that holocaust denial has only ever been anti-semetic. This seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of holocaust denial. Has anyone here besides DLDD actually read or heard David Irving, who is in my mind the most sophisticated holocaust denier on the planet today? Irving certainly is an anti-semite, but he is many other things too... and the crux of his message is that the Nazis did not embark in any way whatsoever on a course of killing their opponents. I suppose that, given Wikipedia's preference for secondary sources, Irving can't be considered a proper source. OK, I'll just have to find someone now who discusses Irving and points to the many places in which he does deny the holocaust broadly speaking. Cheers. Mfhiller (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller[reply]
The issue here is not your definition of the Holocaust, nor your understanding of David Irving's statements, but rather what reliable sources state about Holocaust denial. They define it as an activity directed against Jews, and more specifically as an antisemiticconspiracy theory. There's a reason that Holocaust denial books have names like Did Six Million Really Die?, not Did Eleven Million Really Die?. As Kenneth Stern wrote in 2006, "Holocaust Denial is not about the Holocaust, but about Jews" (Antisemitism Today, p. 79). Jayjg (talk)01:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mfhiller says, the article on holocaust denial implies a narrow definition of the holocaust. Yes, it does, because our reliable sources show us that holocaust denial is about a narrow definition of the Holocaust. --jpgordon::==( o )02:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll accept the points about holocaust denial being an "antisemitic conspiracy theory"/ holocaust denial about a "narrow definition of the holocaust". The article on holocaust denial, however, mentions none of this and I think this has been part of the dispute all along. Something of this sort should be included - discussion of terms. The aim after all is just to make the article better, right? Mfhiller (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller[reply]
I withdraw the closing notice which I gave above, as the consensus against inclusion was not quite so clear as I thought it was. However, I would again note that under this provision of the consensus policy that once an edit has been challenged that a positive consensus for its inclusion must be established or it cannot be included and there is nothing close to that here, nor any indication that this discussion might be moving in the direction of the formation of such a consensus. I would suggest to DLDD and Mfhiller that if they wish their desired edit to be included in the article, the best opportunity to obtain a consensus in their favor without improper canvassing would be to file a request for comment at the article page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Holocaust denial is not "about a narrow definition of the Holocaust", it is about Holocaust denial. Phrases often don't mean what their constituent words may or may not superficially suggest, and it is not necessary to belabour this fact in the lead of the article, which currently defines "holocaust denial" accurately and concisely. Zargulon (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
1) The lead states that Merah wished to "avenge the deaths of Palestinian children killed by Israeli forces in Gaza and the West Bank", and is based on this opinion piece. Other sources quote Merah's exact words, "The Jews have killed our brothers and sisters in Palestine" and report this aspect of his motivation differently, without ascribing the actions of "the Jews" to the "Israeli forces", or limiting the deaths of Palestinian children to specific regions. I would prefer the lead to reflect how Merah's comments were widely reported. See 1234567
2) Based on this source I added to Sarkozy's other thoughts on these attacks, that he noted an antisemitic motive. This was improved upon with this edit by Vice regent. Since I have been repeatedly accused of "misrepresenting the source", but no suggestions of improvement have been offered, can you advise me how to accurately present this information. Vice regent, contrary to his previous edit, is now entirely opposed to its inclusion, and I am concerned at the apparent tag-teaming, which has previously been commented on by an admin. My suggestions have twice been stymied with a "Let's wait and see what the other editor has to say".12
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{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings}} --~~~~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?
Assess the merits of my statement, and suggest a rewording that would reflect Merah's implication of the "the Jews", and would make note of the antisemitic motive.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork16:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
1) Reading the Grant article, it's clear that his goal is not to accurately define the motives of the shooter, but to caution against drawing conclusions about motive too quickly. His opinion is more along the lines of "The shooter was quickly (and incorrectly) presumed to be a member of one group, so we must condem that group. But in reality he was a member of some other group, and already people are condemning that group. Let's all stop rushing to judgement." His statement that "The Jewish children were killed to avenge the deaths of Palestinian children killed by Israeli forces in Gaza and the West Bank." is not his opinion, he's just stating what the collective press/governmental/man-on-the-street opinion is at that moment. In fact, later in the article, he states the true message of his writing: "The point here should be clear: it is far too easy to shift responsibility away from the man and onto the environment in which he operates, and to advance a given political agenda accordingly." As such, I don't think using this article to source a statement that Merah's motivation was to "avenge the deaths of Palestinian children killed by Israeli forces in Gaza and the West Bank" is accurate interpretation of the source. In any case, any time you can quote the direct words of the person, it's better.
2) Sarkozy clearly said it, it was quoted in a reliable source, so I see no issue with including it. It's especially relevant because Sarkozy did not attribute the act to any specific group, but simply commented on the motive. I think the edit by Vice regent clearly and accurately summarizes the quote and puts it in the right context.
Those are my 2 cents, anyway. I would encourage you three to continue to work together on this, as you're all clearly motivated to get the article right. This is a massively good thing. Waiting for commentary by the third person in a three-way dispute can be frustrating, but is in the end the best policy to prevent protracted edit warring. Good luck! Livit⇑Eh?/What?19:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My observations:
Although The Telegraph is a WP:RS, Grant is writing his column as an opinion piece and not as a reporter. If something from his column were to be used in the article, it'd have to be attributed to him, "George Grant says that..." However, given the seven good, reliable sources that Ankh.Morpork provides with a direct quote from Merah himself, there's absolutely no reason (no Wikipedia policy-based reason, anyway) to try to base this statement in the article, written in Wikipedia's voice, on a Grant opinion column. Use the direct quote from Merah, in quotation marks, attributed to Merah.
I actually prefer Ankh's version over VC's, but I do not like Ankh's "noted" because that indicates (in Wikipedia's voice) that there are anti-Semitic motives when there may not be. I would go a step further to use a direct quote from Sarkozy, because we have one. I would write,
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that "the anti-Semitic motivation appears obvious," and also said "The Islamic faith has nothing to do with the insane motivations of this man."
He didn't say those two things together, according to the sources, so the article should not say "adding." Both thoughts needs to be attributed to Sarkozy, in the contexts he said them. I also would avoid "though" because that makes it seem (however slightly) that it would be natural to assume that something anti-Semitic would naturally be in accord with Islam. Zad68 (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would "Sarkozy said that "the anti-Semitic motivation appears obvious" and later added/said that "the Islamic faith has nothing to do with the insane motivations of this man" be appropriate? Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork20:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find Zad68's analysis compelling; if there are already seven good, reliable sources providing a direct quote from Merah, then why would the article rely on an opinion piece by George Grant? And since we have Sarkozy's statement, the article should simply quote it. Jayjg (talk)23:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with much of what is above but, given the politicised nature of the response to the murders, the article should generally avoid using quotes from politicians to narrate facts. So, a quote from Sarkozy will be fine in the context of a section about responses, but not in the context of material trying to pin down a motive for the crimes. Formerip (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. Can someone, perhaps AnkhMorpork, propose how the direct quote would be used? My primary objection to that has been the redundancy of the material. That's fine in the body, but in the lede saying the same thing twice gives it undue weight.
Might I propose the following: Merah said his actions were to "avenge Palestinian children". Many reliable sources, not opinion pieces, report this (BBCSky NewsAl-Arabiya etc.).
2. Sarkozy cited antisemitism as a motivation at a time the French authorities believed this attack to be that of a neo-Nazi (please read the source) and not Merah. So while, we can include Sarkozy's remarks, it would be misleading to say that Sarkozy said this about Merah.
Its best to add Sarkozy's remarks on antisemitism in the 2nd paragraph of the lede, which talks about events preceding the Merah's identification as the perpetrator. The remarks on Islam should go in the 3r/4th paragraph.
Apparently what Merah said was "The Jews have killed our brothers and sisters in Palestine". The word "Jew" keeps disappearing from the quotes being offered - it's almost as if the fact that the children he deliberately shot and killed were Jews had nothing to do with Merah killing them. Jayjg (talk)03:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since your primary objection has been "redundancy of material", do you agree to using Merah's exact words as recommended by Livitup, Zad68, Jayjg and FormerIP, and stating: Merah said he attacked the Jewish school because, "The Jews have killed our brothers and sisters in Palestine". Your last two suggestions have failed to address my concern, reiterated with Jayjg's comment, "The word "Jew" keeps disappearing from the quotes being offered". Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork10:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree to using Merah's exact words, and "avenge Palestinian children" has been cited by reliablesources as Merah's exact words. My above suggestion does use the word "Jewish". What is it that the word "Jew" conveys, that the word "Jewish" does not?
In any case, I'm willing to compromise on this minor difference if it means faster dispute resolution.VRtalk13:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You above suggestion contracted Merah's statement and I shall accentuate what was omitted. Merah said he attacked the Jewish school because, "The Jews have killed our brothers and sisters in Palestine". You are conflating the description of the school as "Jewish", with what "the Jews" did in Palestine, which should both be specified when describing Merah's motivation. Are you agreeable to this change? Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork14:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Information from some of the sources that were posted above:
Source 2 above states, "says he wanted to avenge Palestinian children, according to his remarks through the door to the police who urged him to surrender"
Source 3 states, "French interior minister Claude Gueant said Merah had said he was fighting to 'avenge Palestinian children.'"
Source 6 states, "to have killed the Jewish children out of vengeance for the suffering of Palestinian children"
Source 7 states, "the killings were to avenge the deaths of Palestinian children"
In other words, we shouldn't solely rely on Merah's quote when describing this.
A shared characteristic is that all these sources see fit to report Merah's exact comments regarding this issue. Considering other editors' comments, and your stated objection is "we shouldn't solely rely on Merah's quote", are you agreeable to reporting Merah's exact words? Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork10:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This quote is already in the article (See Motivation section). If we decide to put it in the lead as well, then the context needs to be presented. From Source #5 above: "Asked why he had killed four Jewish people – including three children – at a school in Toulouse on March 19, he said: 'The Jews kill our brothers and sisters in Palestine.'" --- I will comment on the stuff regarding Sarkozy later. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How would you like the context of this exact quote to be presented? I had previously suggested, "Merah said he attacked the Jewish school because, "The Jews have killed our brothers and sisters in Palestine". You seem to prefer the present tense of "kill" used in source 5. This is fine with me; do you consent to, ""Merah said he attacked the Jewish school because, "The Jews kill our brothers and sisters in Palestine"? Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork11:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So I think there are multiple things Merah said. He said "The Jews have killed our brothers and sisters in Palestine". He also said he attacked the school to "avenge Palestinian children". So, we have two proposals.
Merah said he attacked the Jewish school because "The Jews have killed our brothers and sisters in Palestine."
Merah said he attacked the Jewish school to "avenge Palestinian children".
Both mention the Jewishness of Merah's targets, although the first one mentions it twice. I prefer the second. Like I said, I'd be willing to compromise because the difference is relatively minor, and there are more significant issues with the article.VRtalk12:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You correctly state that both mention the Jewishness of Merah's targets. However it is not the case that the first one does so twice, the second mention refers to why Merah did it, a completely different aspect. Thank you for your compromise and I now await for Somedifferentstuff's response to see if he is similarly agreeable. Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork14:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Putting it in the context of the article:
"Merah's motivation for killing the French soldiers was to attack the French Army for its involvement in the war in Afghanistan; his motivation for killing the Jewish civilians was to avenge Palestinian children, having stated, "The Jews kill our brothers and sisters in Palestine."
This ties in with the description in the first paragraph ("French soldiers and Jewish civilians") and the Ozar Hatorah school is mentioned in the second paragraph. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
One user keeps deleting the minimum Taliban casualty estimate, linking to a BBC article says no reliable estimate exists. However, the page List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan lists reliably sourced reports of Taliban casualties. If we add them up, we get a reliable minimum. Multiple users have tried explaining this on the article's talk page and in the edit summaries. However, the user continues to delete it.
Should it be deleted, or is it permissible to combine the reports with math to get a minimum?
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".)
to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.
