Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 28

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.

---

• X Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

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

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Ladyslime (talk · contribs)
• Xfansd (talk · contribs)
• Mikaxxxxxxxxx (talk · contribs)
• Leslieulm (talk · contribs)

• 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.

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

If this is only one user ignoring consensus, this is no longer a content issue but a conduct issue.Curb Chain (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk's Comment/(Comment from uninvolved editor) Curb Chain, I think there was a reason why ItsZippy directed this to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Can I have some statements from the involved parties? And perhaps we can work from there and determine whether or not this is conduct or content? Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 21:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Was there any reason to defer the issue here?Curb Chain (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't say it explicitly. But, I think ItsZippy knows what he's doing. Besides, you can't just listen to one party and decide that they are right about only one editor not listening to consensus. Curb Chain, feel free to close this thread or give 24-hours notice with this template: {{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)

I am in no way saying which party is right or wrong, just pointing out that if one user didn't hear it, s/he is disrupting the Project.Curb Chain (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let's just wait and see what happens with this thread. Give it three days or so, provide 24-hour notice and then close. Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 00:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

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

I believe the users were recently notified. Can we please extend the deadline for them to respond? Also, if this request is abandoned, can it be raised again? Because if not, xfansd can simply ignore this thread and "win." If you notice on the X Japan talk page, xfansd has removed numerous edits from a variety of users. This is not just one person against another, but one person deciding how to edit this page. Thank you. Leslieulm (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there any apparent reason why xfansd has removed these edits? And yes, if a thread is closed prematurely, a new thread can be filed. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. xfansd removes additions to the genre portion (he is adamant about referring to the band as a "metal" band). This is fine; however, as I argued above, X Japan is known for many different genres outside of metal, and those genres should be included. Please see my post on the talk page. Thank you. Leslieulm (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Please don't think User:xfansd is just going to win. What arguments have you brought forth for justification of your version? What arguments do you have that justifies your position/version? Also, is there discussion on the talk page? Please use the talk page first and if you cannot come to a consensus there you can file a new dispute here.Curb Chain (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I see a lot of discussion on the talk page and a lot of sources. But which are considered reliable sources under Wikipedia's policy? In addition, a note to Ladyslime, please don't use CAPS LOCK to express your opinion, see WP:CAPSLOCK. It is considered disruptive and will not provide any more weight to your argument. How about a compromise, such as "X Japan (エックス ジャパン?) is a Japanese rock and heavy metal band formed in 1982 by Yoshiki and Toshi." Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I was just now notified of this. This is not a case of me ignoring consensus, it is a case of what reliable sources call the band. All the other users involved are new editors who didn't know Wikipedia uses reliable sources. The subject of the article Tweeted that they don't want to be called metal on Wikipedia, and subsequently there was a wave of vandalism where I had to have an admin protect the page. Ladyslime and Mika created accounts simply to make the article reflect what the subject wants, which of course Wikipedia does not cater too. I then had to explain reliable sources to them on the talkpage. The discussion was actually dead, as Mika said they will look for sources to support their claim (which I assume they didn't find). 4 days later Leslieulm restarted the same discussion and ItsZippy suggested to move it here, 2 days after that it was brought here without me knowing. It seemed to me the dispute was already over before being brought here, and now the whole thing is blown out of proportion. Xfansd (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I did not mean xfansd as the author, i meant the original author who published the genre portion on the right hand of the page. xfansd had done a great job with monitoring this page, and did change the body to "rock." Someone else did change it back. What we would like is to have more genres added to the right hand portion of the page, where it breaks down genre, members, etc. If metal is a subgenre of rock, why can't rock also be included? And when it comes to reliable sources, the source used to list the metal genres 1.) is outdated and 2.) lists other genres. The author (I repeat, NOT xfansd) is being selective on which genres to include. I am citing the same source as the author in my argument, and if he was able to use this, I assume it is in fact a "reliable" source. Leslieulm (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's safe to conclude that all mentions of genre should be "rock" because that's what everyone agreed upon according to xfansd: "On the talk page I used that same reasoning and we agreed the introduction can say "X Japan is a rock band". Some other editor changed it back." Whoever that editor is, was working against consensus and reliable sources. Leslieulm, I didn't say xfansd or anyone was the author of the reliable source, all I said was whoever the editor that changed the page, X Japan, from "rock" → "metal" was wrong to work against consensus and reliable sources. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

64.183.116.78 (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant by "all mentions of genre should be 'rock'". So rock should be added to the genre list. Please log in. Thanks, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Great. Logged in. So should I be the one to make the changes? Or should an administrator, to guarantee that they won't be changed back? Thank you. Leslieulm (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's done by you or an admin. An admin can just as easily be reverted as you would =) So, the best course of action is to see what the others think. If no one objects within the next 24 hours, I think it's safe to make the necessary changes to include "rock" and/or change to "rock". Best regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 21:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I am against adding rock to the infobox. When I said we agreed, I specifically used "in the introduction" because that is exactly where we agreed upon, not in the infobox (Mika, who is suspiciously not partaking in the discussion here but still knew to change it, changed the intro back already). Some band articles open with "is a rock band" and then have only the more specific genres (heavy metal, etc.) in the infobox. Black Sabbath is a perfect example as nobody can argue they are anything but a metal band, yet it opens with "are an English rock band". And to be honest I agreed to that simply as a compromise to stop the edit war, most articles on metal bands open with "are a metal band". And you are getting ahead anyway, because we still don't have any reliable sources claiming that they play rock music. Xfansd (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Metal music is a sub-genre of rock music. Saying rock is all-encompassing and includes metal. For that reason, maintaining that X Japan is a rock band in the lede of the article is sufficient. Further explanation in the infobox saying that it's rock is unnecessary because it should explain the sub-genres, which it already does. Let's break down:

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]

Unless, someone produces a reliable source that says X Japan is a rock band and only plays rock, then it should not be changed. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 00:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

How about we use the same "reliable" source that the author uses to get the "speed metal, "power metal", etc.? Where he also describes the band as "Visual Rock Band" and "Glam Rock" and simply "Rock"? How is this not considered a reliable source if it is the source that lists all the metal? I am using the same source as where the "metal" descriptions come from. Here is the link again: http://www.asiaarts.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=7936.

Leslieulm (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Who is this 'author' you are referring to? An editor (we're known as editors on here) who edited the page? Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 21:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I am just referring to the person who initially listed the genres on the right side and cited source 1 as to why he lists them. I don't know who it is, and I don't think it matters, but if we are using his source, we shouldn't be selective in pulling the genres from the article. Leslieulm (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Hi ItsZippy, thanks for the note. Leslieulm, please look over this not very long section on reliable sources: 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)

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

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

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

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

I see that there is an issue where the words, "rock" and "metal", are being used interchangably throughout the article. I think that one mention of "rock" in the lede is sufficient enough for the reader to know that the sub-genres that are listed as metals are considered rock (as it is already). So, xfansd is right by saying that duplicate genres are not necessary. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree to some extent, however, many people just go to the info section for a quick overview of the band. To look there, it lists x Japan as purely metal. And there are other sub genres of rock that should be included (glam/visual rock, hard rock, etc.) Also, Visual Kei is a genre and should be included under the genre tab. Again, that section is an overview where people may look initially, so I do think the other sub-genres should be mentioned there. Leslieulm (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Many people also read the lede. Why "glam rock" when there's already "glam metal"? Why "visual rock" when it just redirects to "glam rock"? Perhaps, just visual kei can be included - to avoid any duplication. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Glam rock because it is redirected from Visual rock, which makes it more appropriate than glam metal (if we are saying they are the same anyway.) And adding visual kei would be ideal. Thank you. Leslieulm (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No. That's not what I'm saying. Glam metal is a more specific sub-genre than "glam rock", but they are basically the same thing. For that reason, it should be left glam metal because it's a specific sub-genre of rock. Further since "visual rock" and "glam rock" are clearly the same thing, the same thing applies. So, I only think "visual kei" should be added to the list, with a source of course! Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 21:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha. Why is glam metal considered more specific than glam rock? Is it because of the ambiguity of rock? Just trying to clarify. And it would be great if Visual Kei could be added. Is Billboard a big enough source? http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/global/japanese-artists-band-together-to-help-slash-1005074962.story. If not, I will do some more research, but even the official visual kei website (and wikipedia) discuss X Japan as the pioneer of the genre. Thanks!Leslieulm (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Metal is a sub-genre of rock. Thus, glam metal is a sub-genre of glam rock, therefore, making it a more specific sub-genre in my opinion. I think Billboard is good source unless it's written in a press release or biography format. Just to be safe, I'd look for a second source. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 21:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 25, 2012 at 23:38 (UTC) because stale or resolved Whenaxis talk (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

---

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.

---

• Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

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

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Dabbler (talk · contribs)
• Janus945 (talk · contribs)

• 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.

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

Clerk's Comment/(Comment from uninvolved editor) The discussion is sproadic, at best, on the talk page and there's a slow-mo edit war on the article page. I don't think there's enough of a "dispute" to pass by the prerequisites for the dispute resolution noticeboard. There is no communication whatsoever. I suggest discussing on the talk page (more than sproadicly) and if the dispute is still not resolved, you can try a third opinion or you can re-report to this noticeboard. Regards, Whenaxis talk (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The situation is all the more frustrating because as you say there is no response. The other editor seems to take wikibreaks and leaves the article alone and then comes back and just repeats his accusation and edit. I don't think a third opinion would have any effect on his attitude and actions. I can't discuss with someone who doesn't discuss back and it is sporadic because his actions are sporadic. It has been a monologue on the Talk page because he just ignores the Talk page almost all the time. Dabbler (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that if this is opened, the other editor won't reply since their edits are sproadic. I think a third opinion will work because they can just give a decision and you can use that decision as consensus since its you and that third opinion that is now against the other editor, thus forming a consensus. Quick, fast and if the editor edits it later, you can tell them on their talk page that consensus is against them. Regards, Whenaxis talk (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 18:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I will see if that works, I have also added some more wording which even quotes the same book that is in the original reference, which i believe is being misinterpreted.Dabbler (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

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

---

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.

---

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

Dispute overview

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

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

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Rip-Saw (talk · contribs)
• Jakew (talk · contribs)
• Jayjg (talk · contribs)
• Tftobin (talk · contribs)
• Erikvcl (talk · contribs)
• Garycompugeek (talk · contribs)
• Gsonnenf (talk · contribs)
• Zad68 (talk · contribs)
• Therewillbefact (talk · contribs)

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.

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

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."[1]. (S)he has offered multiple lengthy explanations, but these seem to be his/her own analyses rather than that of the sources. Jakew (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The sources does not mention African. Is User:Rip-Saw using WP:SYN to define the sample as African because the test subjects where from African polities?Curb Chain (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The test subjects were from South Africa, Kenya, and Uganda, (the 4th, 10th, and 14th most infected countries by percentage) thereby making the sample men from Africa in high HIV prevalent countries. That is not synthesis of sources, that is interpretation of the study methods, data, and conclusion. Rip-Saw (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

At this preliminary analysis, I would take out "African".Curb Chain (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Does it make sense to take a regional study, and extrapolate it to include the entire world? Research shows that the extrapolation is false, and Rip-saw posted this on the talk page. One editor keeps biting the newbies and violating WP:CIVIL, the other uses many obfuscation tactics to make the controversy go away, because the others simply get exhausted. He also has one set of editing rules for himself, and another for the newer editors. If he tweaks something, it is summarizing. If I tweak in the same manner, it's OR. See the near edit war on cervical cancer for exactly what I am talking about, starting at the beginning. Preserving neutrality is not a priority. Tftobin (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Tftobin is 100% correct. Countless research from the US Navy study on down has failed to reproduce the results from the African HIV studies outside of Africa. Unless the African studies are flawed (this is open for debate), then no other conclusion can be drawn that the conclusion only applies to African men. Erikvcl (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say in the study that the extrapolation is false? I don't think the link even mentions the word "extrapolation".Curb Chain (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Then you can include both studies and explain the findings of these studies.Curb Chain (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Curb Chain - I like your suggestion of including both studies and the findings of both studies. Unfortunately, Jakew will not allow it. Many editors have tried adding reliable secondary sources to provide a counterexample and Jakew removes them. Erikvcl (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The US Navy study that Erikvcl refers to is a primary source. WP:MEDRS generally discourages the use of primary sources, preferring the use of secondary sources (such as the Cochrane review cited above) instead. In particular, it says: "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources, unless the primary source itself directly makes such a claim". Also bear in mind that we have to present studies with due weight. Given that the majority of primary sources have found lower risk among circumcised men, then it would seem particularly inappropriate to cite one of the few primary sources that found otherwise. Jakew (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This explanation seems holistic to me. WP:NPOV must be considered so an article does not give extra prominence to under represented view(points).Curb Chain (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

As I was curious, I've just checked the abstracts of the two other published meta-analyses of randomised controlled trial data on this subject (the effect of circumcision on female-to-male transmission of HIV). One concludes: "Male circumcision is an effective strategy for reducing new male HIV infections."[2] The other: "These results provide unequivocal evidence that circumcision plays a causal role in reducing the risk of HIV infection among men."[3] Neither say that the results apply only to Africans. Jakew (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

My apologies: the above is slightly incorrect. I completely forgot that there is one further published meta-analysis, that of Weiss et al. Again, though, their conclusion did not limit the results to African men: "In conclusion, randomized controlled trials have provided final conclusive evidence that male circumcision provides approximately 60% protection against the heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men."[4] Jakew (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not arguing that we should un-link circumcision to reducing HIV infection rates, merely that quantifying that effectiveness to everyone is is wrong, especially in the lead where there is no room for explanation or context. High-risk populations are mentioned all over the place in many studies. Your first source even states: "...when administered to similar populations in a similar fashion [emphasis added], circumcision results in an appreciable RR reduction," in the conclusion. I am unable to retrieve the full text of the second article, and I will assume you were not either. It is dangerous to read only the abstract, as I demonstrated in your first article by using the full text to further my own arguments. The abstract rarely has context nor the room to fully describe the results, and often omits key points that should not be ignored.

The introduction of the Weiss et al. article reads "An estimated 2.5 million people were newly infected with HIV in 2007, of whom two-thirds live in sub-Saharan Africa [1]. In the context [emphasis added] of the urgent need for intensified and expanded HIV prevention efforts, the conclusive results of three randomized controlled trials (RCT) showing that male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by approximately 60% [2–4] are both promising and challenging. Translation of these research findings into public health policy is complex and will be context specific [emphasis added]." This article's conclusion of 60% is in the context of the fact that 2/3 of all new HIV cases were in sub-Saharan Africa. The authors never directly state their results apply to all countries worldwide, a recurring theme in these meta-analyses. A high-quality article will directly state their conclusions in an unambiguous way. I have never read abstracts that are this vague before. Rip-Saw (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't really follow your argument here. I think using the phrase "African men" rather than just "men" would be misleading, since it might be read to imply that there is some "racial" / genetic explanation for the 60% drop, which seems unlikely to say the least. The phrase "males in Africa" might be better, but even then it does not apply to "Africa" as a whole, but to the specific populations studied. If you are suggesting that the 60% reduction is somehow linked to specific lifestyles, cultural specific sexual practices or whatever, then we should surely need some evidence that these could have played a part, otherwise there's no reason to believe that African foreskins function in a different way from American foreskins. Paul B (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Africa is a continent, not a race. Rip-Saw (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

But I can see how people could fail to make the distinction. The problem is that very specific numbers are being generalized to large populations. If you can find a better way to phrase the lead without mentioning African and while also not over generalizing, please do so. Rip-Saw (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe I was not clear enough: I was not suggesting to use the US Navy study directly. I mentioned it as an example (of many) to show that the African study results have not been duplicated elsewhere. If they have, please link to them! Furthermore, I have linked to many many high quality secondary sources that have found great faults with the African RCTs and the meta-studies. All of these sources have been rejected. Jakew, you mention weight and that primary studies shouldn't be used to contradict primary studies. But what about the secondary sources that debunk other secondary sources? You have rejected all of these claims out of hand even though they are valid. In addition, sources must be weighted based on their validity. Multiple reliable secondary sources have shown that both the RCTs and the WHO (which is also cited) have serious ethical and conflict-of-interest issues. These claims, even though they are valid, have been rejected. In addition, Wikipedia policy clearly states that editors should only make non-controversial edits in the case of conflict of interest. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Non-controversial_edits.Erikvcl (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The last time you asked for evidence from outside of Africa indicating that circumcision reduced the risk of HIV, I provided some examples in this edit. I am somewhat perplexed by the fact that you're making the same request again. Did you take the trouble to read my previous response?

The sources you've cited have generally been unreliable and/or fringe publications that are unsuitable for inclusion, as I've already explained. It's difficult to give a more specific explanation in the absence of specific examples. Jakew (talk) 10:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Your sources actually prove my point. The CDC source does not indicate that any study outside of African has shown a correlation between MGM & HIV. Furthermore, the CDC article states "It is possible, but not yet adequately assessed, that male circumcision could reduce male-to-female transmission of HIV, although probably to a lesser extent than female-to-male transmission.". This is a LONG way off from definite "38-66%". Note that the CDC source states "not yet adequately assessed" and that male-female transmission to "lesser extent". We should not be using the 38-66% number. I have mentioned numerous sources that aren't "fringe" or unreliable. I can't make heads or tails of the India study from the summary, but it is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gate Foundation which are pro-circ and have been under a lot of criticism lately for their methods. Erikvcl (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The CDC source lists several US studies that have found correlations between lack of circumcision and HIV in the section entitled "HIV Infection and Male Circumcision in the United States". I am puzzled that you claim otherwise. Whether you understand the Indian study is beside the point, as is your personal opinion of the funding body.

The CDC's statement about male-to-female transmission seems a good summary to me. We say something similar in the circumcision article: "Whether it protects against male-to-female transmission is disputed". Certainly the evidence regarding reduction in risk of male-to-female transmission is much weaker than female-to-male, which the 38-66% figure refers to. Jakew (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Does the CDC article say that the 38-66% number applies to US men? No it does not. The article still proves my point in this regard. I'm puzzled why you are arguing with me about this. I'm still waiting for you to show that the 38-66% number has been shown to be true OUTSIDE of Africa.

As I'm quickly learning, "reliable" on Wikipedia has nothing to do with accuracy, bias, source conflict of interest, or correctness. The CDC article completely neglects the sensitivity studies that show 20k+ fine-touch nerves in the foreskin shown by many studies. The report characterizes the foreskin as most Americans do -- a worthless flap of skin better off removed. Although I know that this is the viewpoint that many are trying to promote here at Wikipeida -- this isn't justified by science. Erikvcl (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I've already shown that the cited source (and, for that matter, all of the other published meta-analyses of RCT data) do not limit their conclusions to African men. Clearly, therefore, it would be original research for Wikipedia to add such a qualifier. While off-topic, I've also shown that your claim that studies outside of Africa have failed to find an association is incorrect. If you're waiting for me to prove something else then I'm afraid you'll be waiting forever, because I don't feel that I have anything further to prove. Jakew (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I now understand the point that you're making. You're saying that the reliable secondary sources in the African studies are applying their conclusions to all men and this is why it is incorrect to add a qualifier. Is that correct? Conclusions require evidence. The African studies CANNOT extrapolate their results to all men worldwide because they did not study all men worldwide. This is scientific method 101. Evidence is needed to back up claims. Studies (no matter how reliable or secondary they may be) cannot draw valid conclusions without it.

Furthermore, you have NOT shown that results from the African studies are duplicated elsewhere. All you referenced was the CDC study which DID NOT confirm the 38-66% number. Your reference to the India study did not confirm the 38-66% number either. Not only that, but the CDC conclusion said there was a "possibility that circumcision" could have an effect on HIV. This is not a confirmation of the African studies in any way. The 38-66% number is a mis-characterization anyway. According to the study, that number reflects the reduction in HIV transmission rate between cut/uncut men. The Circumcision article states that "circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual men by 38-66%" which is incorrect and not supported by the study or the study's statistics. Please understand the distinction I'm making: there's a big difference between "risk of infection" and "reduction in risk". Whether or not we add the qualifier, the wording here MUST change as it is inaccurate and incorrect as it stands.

Big claims require big proof. Of all the studies done outside of Africa (18 I believe, 10 of which showing LOWER HIV transmission where most men are intact), there has been no statistically significant relationship between penis status and HIV transmission. Then, we have the fact that there have been multiple studies published in journals (a number of which I've linked to) that find significant faults in both the RCTs themselves and the meta-studies. You are the one pushing for the HIV/circ link in the article. You are obligated to back up this claim -- not me. You have not backed up this claim with credible evidence. Without a study that confirms the African studies, we MUST add the qualifier. Erikvcl (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have a fundamental misunderstanding of policy. It is not our role to prove or disprove statements in sources; it is our role to accurately represent what they say. And whether you or I think their conclusions are "valid" is irrelevant.

Please note that, per WP:NOR, "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research" (emph in original). The question, then, is whether the cited source directly and explicitly limits the scope of the statement to African men. If they do, we can (and should) do so too. If they don't, we can't. By analogy, we can't say in Michelson-Morley experiment that "Its results are generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the theory of a luminiferous aether in Ohio", even though the experiment was performed in Ohio and an editor might firmly believe (and think (s)he can prove) that its results should not be generalised, because that qualifier isn't employed by secondary sources. Jakew (talk) 06:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Then you should have no problem including statements by the reliable secondary sources that myself, Tftobin, and Gsonnenf have given to offer a counter-argument to the African studies! Erikvcl (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Where it is appropriate, then of course there isn't a problem. For example, I agreed here with citing a source identified by Gsonnenf (which was later added to the article). Jakew (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It is appropriate to have a source counter the current claim in the lead. The Africa-HIV stuff shouldn't be in the lead at all. Unless I missed something, your agreement with Gsonnenf was not regarding a counterbalancing statement in the lead with regards to the Africa-HIV issue. Erikvcl (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

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

The phrase "evidence from Africa" already implies that Africans were studied. The repeat of "African" later implies that this study specifically differentiates African men from other men, which does not seem to be the case. It is comparable to saying "study of Disease X indicates that Italian men can be cured by Xanprophanol." Paul B (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The researchers do not differentiate (in the abstract), but neither do they congregate (in the whole body text). Xorphanol is an opioid that reduces pain, and there's very little reason to suspect it would work differently on some races from my understanding of how opium work. But the question I bring up is not a question of race, but a question of culture. Condom use in the studies were at 40%. Also, the use of drugs to suppress AIDS is relatively low. These cultural factors could have very real effects on the transmission rates of HIV. Rip-Saw (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

just to clarify matters - "Xanprophanol" was a joke; a made up drug. Paul B (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Basically, it's a matter of judgement: one could say that a study of Italians provides evidence that a drug resolves a certain symptom, or one could say that the same study provides evidence that a drug resolves a certain symptom in Italian men. In such cases, we don't make the judgement ourselves. Rather, we rely upon the assessment of secondary sources, and report their conclusions. In this case, as noted above, none of the four meta-analysis papers conclude that the benefit is only to African men. They don't explicitly state that it applies to men across the globe, but they don't include a geographical qualifier either. So the appropriate thing to do is the same. Jakew (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Jakew, wikipedia states that it would prefer high quality primary research, over lower quality secondary research. I don't think you can call the US Navy study lower quality, whether it is primary research or secondary research. To include it would not violate wikipedia policy. Tftobin (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem may be that the terminology should clarify whether the strong evidence comes from a "study" or a "manipulative experiment" re African people. AvocadosTheorem (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind quoting the part of policy you're thinking of, Tom? As for the overall quality, from WP:MEDASSESS: "The best evidence comes primarily from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).[2] Systematic reviews of bodies of literature of overall good quality and consistency addressing the specific recommendation have less reliability when they include non-randomized studies.[3] Narrative reviews can help establish the context of evidence quality. Roughly in descending order of quality, lower-quality evidence in medical research comes from individual RCTs; other controlled studies; quasi-experimental studies; non-experimental studies such as comparative, correlation, and case control studies; and non-evidence-based expert opinion or clinical experience." So the US Navy study, being a case-control study, is second to last in terms of quality. The meta-analyses of RCTs are considered the highest quality. Jakew (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"In this case, as noted above, none of the four meta-analysis papers conclude that the benefit is only to African men." That is not the way science works. Based on the research, would you recommend Catholic priests or Buddhist monks get circumcised to prevent themselves from getting HIV? Rip-Saw (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no medical association of any country which has endorsed Dr. Brian Morris' view that "in contrast, Morris regards circumcision as "mandated", citing reduced risk of balanitis among other benefits. Most doctors would recommend diaper (nappy) cream with zinc oxide. Yet, Dr. Morris managed to get peer reviewed, and written up, to become part of a secondary resource. All the while, embracing the most fringe of fringe views possible. Morris also said, in an ironically titled, "Infant male circumcision: An evidence-based policy statement", that "MC provides strong protection against: urinary tract infections and, in infancy, renal parenchymal disease; phimosis; paraphimosis; balanoposthitis; foreskin tearing; some heterosexually transmitted infections including HPV, HSV-2, trichomonas, HIV, and genital ulcer disease; thrush; inferior hygiene; penile cancer and possibly prostate cancer." No medical society of any country will back this up. "The ethics of infant MC and childhood vaccination are comparable.". The Swedish Paediatric society calls it "child abuse" and "assault". Yet, somehow, the Morris paper magically appears as a secondary resource. The circumcision article cites this document as "In 2012, Morris et al. reported that there is some evidence, albeit mixed, that circumcision may protect against prostate cancer; they called for more extensive research into the matter." This passes for science? The reference Morris cited, was "Case number and the financial impact of circumcision in reducing prostate cancer. British Journal of Urology International, 100, 5-6. ", co-authored by Jakew and Brian Morris. Is this making a better encyclopedia? Tftobin (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, Tftobin is correct. Lots of bogus studies and meta-studies get published in reputable journals. Consider the bogus vaccine-autism study that was published -- and later retracted -- in a major, reputable journal. Another good point that Tftobin makes is that of Morris. (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)

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)

Rip-Saw, the issue we're discussing is whether circumcision reduces the risk of HIV, not whether it should be recommended for that purpose. The latter question would surely involve weighing all the risks and benefits, and is a difficult question to resolve anywhere. It's certainly impossible to answer without performing original research. However, I think the point you're trying to make is that, depending on context, the absolute risk reduction can vary tremendously. I absolutely agree, but I can't quite see the relevance as the statements in the sources and our article are about relative risk reductions. Jakew (talk) 07:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Jakew, I can't find the place in wikipedia which states that a high quality primary resource is preferable to a poor quality secondary one. I will keep looking, when I have more time. I will say, why should circumcision fall under WP:MEDASSESS, when the vast majority are not done for medical reasons, they are done for religious reasons, and social reasons. If it was medical, why does the CDC not track it's surgical effectiveness, unintended consequences, or death rates, as they do for what they consider medical procedures? Tftobin (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Jakew, can you please address the prostate cancer article issue up above? Tftobin (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do keep looking, Tom. To answer your question, MEDASSESS applies because you're asking us to compare the quality of two medical studies, relating to an article about a surgical procedure. It is difficult to think of a situation in which MEDASSESS is more applicable. The prostate cancer issue is off-topic for this thread, which (per the "Dispute overview" above) is about "Results from a metanalysis are being grossly misinterpreted and generalized to the entire world population.". In any case, I've already addressed it at Talk:Circumcision, as you know. Jakew (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The American Urological Association states: "the results of studies in African nations may not necessarily be extrapolated to men in the United States at risk for HIV infection" [5]. The "strong evidence" lead sentence has been disputed by a great deal of authors. I suggest we move it out of the lead and attribute it to the author instead of saying it in Wikipedias voice.Gsonnenf (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be rather US-centric to specifically refer to the US in the lead, but I wouldn't have a problem with citing this in the body of the article. As for removing the sentence from the lead, that has been proposed multiple times, and each time it has failed to gain consensus, since reliable sources about circumcision generally give a great deal of weight to HIV, which is held to be an important aspect. Remember that, per WP:LEAD, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. [...] explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points". Jakew (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If we are to keep this in the lead, there is a good deal of merit to attributing the Cochrane review to the group that this claim. This would carry a much fairer narrative. As it is now, this sentence suggests that most primary studies looking at the evidence have found a significant (up to 66%) reduction in HIV transmission, which is not the case; putting these three RCTs aside, the evidence regarding HIV transmission is actually conflicting, especially when observing studies conducted in developed nations. We are placing too much of an emphasis on the findings of three RCTs, and the fact that we are using them to suggest a universal decrease in circumcision is very misleading, especially when region-specific distinctions are made on several occasions, in our own sources!. Additionally, the statement that circumcision might not carry the same HIV reduction benefits in other countries is not only made by the AUA. 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)

It's extremely unconventional to attribute a statement that enjoys scientific consensus, and doing so can give undue weight to those at the fringes. For example, we do not say "according to such-and-such, HIV is the cause of AIDS". We simply assert it.

It is in fact the case that most primary sources have found significant reductions, and this is also true of observational studies predating the RCTs. See, for example, systematic reviews this or this. The latter provides some numbers: "Twenty-seven studies were included. Of these, 21 showed a reduced risk of HIV among circumcised men". Nevertheless, since the publication of the RCTs, secondary sources have largely focused on those, often exclusively. It is only appropriate that we should do the same. Jakew (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

And what of the six that didn't show any reduction? If the rate were really 30-60% universally, statistical significance would appear in very small studies. I'd like a more realistic lower bound in the lead, one done for low-risk populations. Then the lead could say something like "Researchers indicate that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in various heterosexual male populations by 20-60%." We need the citations to back the statements up, and the correct lower bound, of course. Rip-Saw (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between 30% and 60%. Jakew, what are the statistics for circumcision and HIV in the UK? Tftobin (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Jakew, regarding your claim that "most primary sources have found significant reductions, and this is also true of observational studies predating the RCTs", please see 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)

Those are really old sources. As far as the African data goes, the newer studies yield little doubt as to the effaciacy of circumcision in high-risk populations. Rip-Saw (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

To remind you, Therewillbefact, you stated: "this sentence suggests that most primary studies looking at the evidence have found a significant (up to 66%) reduction in HIV transmission, which is not the case". That statement is wrong; the sources I cited demonstrated that. Of the sources you cited in response, one directly contradicts your statement (that I just quoted), saying "Most case-control and cohort studies from Africa have shown an association between a lack of circumcision and an increased risk of HIV infection in men."[6] The other does not comment regarding what most primary sources found; instead it offers a "meta-analysis" (I'm including quotes as there is consensus in the literature that that study used an improper technique that didn't qualify as a meta-analysis) of the papers. Interestingly, that study was the subject of chapter 33 of "Introduction to Meta-Analysis" by Borenstein et al (Wiley, 2011). The chapter is about a problem (Simpson's paradox) that can occur when incorrect methods are used to combine studies; Van Howe's paper and various published criticisms of it are used as an detailed illustration.

Rip-Saw is correct, though, that these (and the ones I cited) are old sources. The only reason why I cited them is that they include relatively large numbers of observational studies (more recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses generally ignore the observational studies in favour of RCTs), and hence provide a good overview of the findings of primary sources. Since I think it is now proved that your "which is not the case" statement is erroneous, I think it's probably time to drop this issue. Jakew (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Rip-Saw, this is getting a bit off-topic, but I'll try to respond briefly. Observational studies in particular are susceptible to confounding, which to put it bluntly means that they don't always find the right results. So if the actual underlying risk reduction were, say, 50%, one wouldn't realistically expect every study to find that. All things being equal, one would expect results to obey a statistical distribution, with an average reduction of 50%, but some finding less and some more (and a few would probably find an increase). Current estimates, based on the best evidence currently available, are 38-66% (interestingly Weiss et al [Male circumcision for HIV prevention: from evidence to action? AIDS 2008;22:567-74] note that meta-analysis results of the RCTs are "identical to that found in the observational studies").

Regarding the "lower bound", I'm not sure what sources you could cite or indeed how it and other sources could be cited without violating WP:SYNTH. However, if you'd like to make a concrete proposal that avoids such potential problems, I'd be keen to see whether it can be used. Jakew (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I am well-educated in the differences between observational & case studies, and their measures of correlative and causal effects, verses experimental design studies. That is why I know we cannot put a number on low-risk groups. I just read through HIV and male circumcision—a systematic review with assessment of the quality of studies written by the same people who did the meta-analysis referenced in the lead, and came across two interesting graphs. The authors wrote this paper right before the RCTs were finished, and it represents the best knowledge at the time. All of the studies favored circumcision in the high-risk groups; the efficacy can easily be seen by looking at the graph. The benefit is very large, and the African trials eventually put a number on the benefit. In the low-risk group, the efficacy is not so clear, and it is obviously quite lower, possibly nonexistent. Since no random controlled trials have been done for low-risk populations, and observational studies are simply not enough, a realistic efficacy may not even be possible to place on low-risk groups. If data can be found linking the 60% efficacy to low-risk populations in general, then that data could go into the lead. As it is, we can only summarize findings for African populations. The more I look into this, the more I realize that the entire HIV section needs a major assessment. Rip-Saw (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest proposing non-trivial changes at the talk page first. And, to remind you, we can't include our own analyses or interpretations of data; all statements must be explicitly made by reliable sources. Jakew (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

We have reliable sources saying that this study should not be generalized to other populations. The study should refer to males from regions of Africa. Jakew's personal interpretation, extrapolating to general populations, is incorrect.Gsonnenf (talk) 06:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems more than a little disingenuous, Gsonnenf, to describe the conclusions of all published meta-analyses as my "personal interpretation". Jakew (talk) 06:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Disingenuousness aside, there is a point there. The studies were not meant to be extrapolated to cover all males of planet Earth. If they were mean to be extrapolated to all, how would we explain the low rate of circumcision, and the low rate of HIV infection, of places such as Finland, Japan, New Zealand, Bulgaria, China, Sweden, etc. Tftobin (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Your question doesn't make any sense, but since it's an example of debating the subject rather than the sources, it hardly matters. Jakew (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not interpreting simply the data, but using the data and research methods to interpret what the authors said. Having read other works by the same authors, which concentrate heavily on the AIDS epidemic in Africa, I am more confident than before that the authors intended their results only apply to the populations they tested. This debate has gone on long enough. The lead needs to reflect the actual findings of the authors, not misinterpreted abstracts. Rip-Saw (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Its JakeW's personal interpretation that the Africa results should be extrapolated to a generalized group rather than sub-Sahara group. We have sources (as apposed to contributor opinion), such as the one from the URA and studies from the Navy (which we may used to complement secondary sources), that say you shouldn't do this. In addition, Erikvcl has added a host of other WP:RS that scrutinize the African studies. I advise we pull this statement from the lead as its becoming more and more apparent its inappropriate.Gsonnenf (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Please don't try to guess my personal views, Gsonnenf. They're not relevant. The only issue that is relevant is what the sources actually say, and whether they explicitly support the "African" qualifier. Jakew (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I think Tftobin, Rip-Saw & Gsonnenf make great points here. I see three options:

• Add the qualifier
• Remove the HIV-Africa stuff out of the lead
• Add a counter-balancing statement using a reliable secondary source in the same paragraph to balance the current claim Erikvcl (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

None of these are appropriate, as explained above at length. Adding the qualifier would violate WP:NOR and removing the HIV material would violate WP:LEAD. "Counterbalancing" (if I understand your intended meaning) would violate WP:UNDUE given the strong scientific consensus that exists on the subject of female-to-male HIV transmission. Jakew (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:LEAD requires consensus. Four editors object to the HIV-Africa stuff in the lead. One editor wants it there. Per WP:LEAD, it should be removed. There is NO scientific consensus on this subject. On that, you are incorrect. In fact, we are giving way too much weight to the small number of Africa-HIV sources; see Wikipedia:Balance. Erikvcl (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I read WP:LEAD and I do not see anything there that says the lead specifically requires consensus any more or less than anywhere else. The only two sentences in WP:LEAD I see that mention "consensus" are: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus" (and everybody agrees that the in-line citation in the lead should be there), and "The following are examples of names that may be included parenthetically, although inclusion should reflect consensus" (and nobody is arguing about the name used in the lead). Saying something should be removed "per WP:LEAD" and then giving an argument based on something that is not in WP:LEAD holds no weight. If the concern is really "per WP:CONSENSUS", I am concerned when Erikvcl gives a headcount of 4 to 1 editors and points to an argument based on "consensus." WP:CONSENSUS states specifically that consensus is not the result of a vote. (Also, the "vote" count is not correct, in addition to Jake, I also feel the case for putting in an "African men" qualifier has not been made, and as of their last edits in this thread, Curb Chain and Paul Barlow agreed as well.) There are also items listed at 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)

I am not in favor of entirely removing the HIV section from the lead, because that is the biggest thing, medically, circumcision has going for it. Reducing HIV in Africa is very important and certainly lead worthy. This may have to move on to other forms of dispute resolution, because it's not going anywhere right now. Rip-Saw (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected. WP:CONSENSUS has been my concern from day 1 about this article. As indicated by Jayg's chart, it seems that most of us want change. I don't think you need to be concerned about my headcount: I listed the folks specified in the top of this section as it stood the other day plus myself. I see that this list has been updated in the mean-time. I know we're not supposed to "vote" persay, but can you suggest a better way? Erikvcl (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

User involved in dispute	Article edits	Unique pages edited	Add qualifier/Reduce HIV?
User:Erikvcl	16	10	Y
User:Therewillbefact	28	20	Y
User:Tftobin	31	21	Y
User:Rip-Saw	87	66	Y
User:Gsonnenf	133	139	Y
User:Garycompugeek	631	547	Y
User:Zad68	1503	1640	N
User:Jakew	6587	2197	N
User:Jayjg	48579	20226	N

I think that briefly describes the participants and their views on this topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? Argumentum ad hominem? Rip-Saw (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see an argument there; I've just summarized who the participants are and their what their views are on this topic. Have I missed something, or gotten the views wrong? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be confused, please see the triangle at right for an example of how to argue effectively.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP: No Personal Attacks, especially with how it relates to WP: Please do not bite the newcomers, as well as this general advice for administrators; admins are supposed to lead by example. Furthermore, it would be unwise of you to degrade this dispute via the merits of those involved in the dispute. If I were to drag my actual credentials into this dispute, you would find yourself so hopelessly buried by my own massive intellect that your mind would become dominated by the Pauli exclusion principle. Let's agree to not go there, and keep discussing content, not contributors! ;) Rip-Saw (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There are editors in circumcision whose violations of WP:Etiquette are so egregious, they would literally have to murder someone to be removed. Filing complaints tamps them down for a few minutes, but nothing ever happens beyond that. Which is why they survive, to bite the newbies and violate WP:Etiquette some more. As a self-policing entity, wikipedia has a long, long, way to go. The blatant one person rule in circumcision is obvious as well. When was the last time you saw a posting that editor did not personally approve of? Which is what leads us here to dispute resolution of circumcision, which, after many years, people know how to maneouver quite well. Tftobin (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

What an extraordinarily indignant response to a simple table! It seems to me that, since the number of editors arguing for each position has been raised as an issue (by Erikvcl, 14:44, 2 May 2012), then it is perfectly reasonable to look at the level of experience of those editors. In that respect, Jayjg's table serves as a useful summary. The real problem here, per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, is that the headcount doesn't really matter. The number of editors supporting a position is essentially immaterial (which is why "me too" responses tend to be given no weight). What matters is whether arguments have a sound basis in sources and policy; strong arguments are likely to convince experienced editors and thus lead, eventually, to consensus. Jakew (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow. It smells like a typical power play to me, a not-so-subtle reminder of who the real controllers of the article are, and the typical 'you are a rookie, we are the seasoned editors who know what we are doing' attitude so prevalent in talk:circumcision. Tftobin (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

What an astonishing amount of vitriol! No wonder it's so hard to reach agreement. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

How quickly one can forget one's own level of vitriol. The level which resulted in complaints, over and over. Tftobin (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

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

It seems at this point the exact same discussion we were having at Talk:Circumcision is now happening here instead of there, and without being any closer to resolution. While here, it picked up four new editors: AvocadosTheorem, who asked a follow up question, but provided no opinion; Curb Chain, who agreed with keeping the qualifier "African men" out; Paul Barlow, who agreed with keeping the qualifier "African men" out; and Therewillbefact, who suggested qualifying the lead statement with "Cochrane review" and pointed to another study that uses an "African men" qualifier. I observe none of these four new editors is an Admin (not that it's necessary, but just observing), and the last post by any of them was about a day and a half ago, by Therewillbefact. How does a decision get made, and how does this discussion move to a close here? Or is it time to bring this discussion to another venue? Zad68 (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you've said, Zad68, but just as a small correction, Therewillbefact has been heavily involved in discussions at Talk:Circumcision. Jakew (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry Jake! Yes you are right. When I did my analysis, I compared the list of editors contributing here against the "Users involved" listed at the top of this DRN notice, and Therewillbefact wasn't listed up there, so that is why he appeared as a "new editor" here. Considering Therewillbefact as a "previously-involved editor," that brings the number of new editors here down to only three, and of those, Paul Barlow was the last one to post, at 07:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC), now over 4 1/2 days ago. Resolution happening here is even less likely. Zad68 (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Probably my fault for not adding Therewillbefact when I added some of the names that were missing from the "Users involved" list... Jakew (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, fixed. Zad68 (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk's note: Like everything else at Wikipedia, DRN is operated by volunteers and I'm afraid that we're at a low ebb on the number of volunteers here at DRN at the moment. To further complicate the issue, every volunteer gets to choose what kind of disputes he or she wants to become involved with and there are fewer who want to be involved with complex, wall-o-text disputes like this one than with ones which can be quickly and easily addressed. Let me offer some suggestions about what to do next. There are only four more-or-less final ways to resolve content disputes at WP:

• 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)

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

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

I guess the next step is informal mediation then. Rip-Saw (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Rip-Saw, I was thinking mediation as well. But then I re-read what TransporterMan wrote above at 16:09, 2 May 2012. Without any real hope of a hint of a compromise acceptable to both "sides" so far, despite probably 50k+ worth of text typed, it does not appear mediation will help either. We have largely had a civil discussion, and mediation seems to be targeted to helping an uncivil discussion be civil. Mediation won't decide anything for us, and I think you (like me) wanted to find an adjudicator who would read the evidence and come back with a judgment that we would all be bound to agree to. Mediation doesn't do that. Review the mediation cases, plenty of the close as unresolved. In fact I looked at about 10 cases, and NONE of them was closed with a status that looked like "Consensus reached," most of them closed as stale without resolution. Even 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)

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)

---

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.

---

• École nationale de l'aviation civile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

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

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• McSly (talk · contribs)
• 80.13.85.217 (talk · contribs)

• 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=École nationale de l'aviation civile}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

After a couple of deletions/reverts, I started a discussion on the talk page explaining my rational in more details [8]. The discussion (full link here) is not getting anywhere.

• How do you think we can help?

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

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

Hi. I don't want to spend too much time on this discussion but I would like to inform about few things:

• I am not the only one who disagree with McSly. 78.239.175.7 reverted two times by explaining that this page is translated from the French Wikipedia which is a good article and by explained that this is translated from the French Wiki.
• McSly received a complete answer from the mentioned user on the French Wikipedia and on his French talk page and stop trying to remove the Biography on the French Wiki (He tries to obtain on the English Wiki what he is unable to obtain on the French Wiki).
• McSly was pushing a lot on my French talk page.
• McSly didn't participate on the obtention of the good article and even on the writing of the article on both French and English Wikipedia.
• These are not complete Biographies. After reading the French Wikipedia, these short biographies has been add after a discussion and approved with the good article.
• This is completely in accordance with the subject of the article and moreover, a dedicated part is available (called "Director History"). This explain clearly from where come the directors of the university, their background, career...very usefull.
• One more user, 90.84.146.194, also reverted from the same reason and was less patient by considering that this is clearly vandalism and put a warning on the McSly talk page. McSly removed the warning.

80.13.85.217 (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Biographies in the body of the school article are not more relevant than having aircraft description in the middle of the description for Boeing. They are a separate unit simply linked from the main one. Incidentally, this is why Wikipedia is not one huge article containing the sum of all knowledge but a collection of 4 million articles connected through links. About "Director History", this could perfectly be merged with the "Notable Alumni" section the same way we have with Yale University for example and link whatever director is notable enough to have their own article from there.--McSly (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular mediator/clerk here at this noticeboard. While my time is limited and I do not care to get into the merits of whether or not these biographies ought to be included or excluded from the article, I do want to say that what may have happened or not happened at the French Wikipedia is wholly irrelevant to what happens here. The rules, the manner in which the rules are applied, and the sense of the respective communities about what is or is not encyclopedic vary considerably between the different-language Wikipedias. What McSly is doing does not, moreover, approach vandalism in any sense at English Wikipedia and to continue to assert that it does is itself inappropriate. Moreover, the fact that McSly had not participated in writing the article is also irrelevant here at the English Wikipedia; any editor in good standing is free to edit any article at any time and, indeed, to make the claim that only the editors who wrote an article can edit may be considered an improper claim of ownership. The question of whether the biographies are or are not appropriate must, now that it has been raised by an editor, be decided by the consensus of the English Wikipedia community. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC) PS: At the same time, it would be well if McSly could provide some reference or support for his statement at the article page that, "If the person is notable, we create a separate biography article and simply link it from here. If the person is not notable, well in that case, there is no reason to include the information." I am not aware of any such policy or guideline, but I'm not even close to being an expert on biographical matters and could easily simply be that: unaware. If there is no such policy or guideline, however, the fact that that may be what's commonly done here at EN_WIKI does not mean that it has to be done uniformly that way here. TM — 18:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I think I can cite the policy on notability, and more specifically the section concerning the list of people. It says that "[..]articles about schools often include (or link to) a list of notable alumni, but such lists are not intended to contain every graduate of the school—only those with verifiable notability. Editors who would like to be identified as an alumnus/alumna should instead use the categories intended for this purpose, e.g. Category:Wikipedians by alma mater." Furthermore the policy for stand-alone list states that "If a person in a list does not have an article in Wikipedia about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to establish their membership in the list's group and to establish their notability[..]" There is even a special case for the school presidents (from list of people): "on the other hand, a list within an article of past school presidents can contain all past presidents, not just those who are independently notable."

I think the intent here is clear to list the people names and link to their article when such article exists or just provide a cite to justify inclusion on the list. No additional biographical information should be included in the main article. --McSly (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Are we good? No other remarks? -McSly (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

We need some more information from other users. For the moment, we have only one answer from TransporterMan (thanks for your help) who says : " I do not care to get into the merits of whether or not these biographies ought to be included or excluded from the article". Unfortunately, that is not enough to take a decision. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, he also said in no uncertain terms that the rational you provided to revert my changes to the article was completely invalid. My reasons on the other end are based on policies. Therefore, and regardless of other editors' opinions, what needs to happen now is for you to clearly state your rational to reverting my edits. Once we have it, we can discuss on the merits of each. But if you cannot provide a reason for your changes, essentially, we are done.--McSly (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, my position is clear. We have no other opinion about deleting the small biographies from the article. I have no opposition to delete and to create separe articles (only on the English WP, on the French article it is totally different) but we need some more opinions. As we don't have any other reply, for me we stay like that for the moment, which is a good compromise. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. 1) you just admitted that you had no rational whatsoever to explain or justify your revert to my changes 2) your only strategy here is that you really, really hope that other editors will join and agree with you even after being incapable of providing a single reason on why your version should stay 3) As a "compromise", we should all accept that your version which is against policy and containing off-topic information should stay.

Short answer, ain't gonna happen. Long answer, I'm actually going to follow part of what you just hinted at. I'm going to remove the off-topic info from the article and create the red links from the directors' list. You are more than welcome, really, you are more than welcome to then create each individual biographical article and copy there whatever information you deem fit.--McSly (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I am surprised that you are so pushing. A discussion is still in progress, so the minimum is to wait for answers. I will think about reverting your deletion because it is really unacceptable to go so fast without waiting for reply from other contributors. What you could also do to be elegant, is you create the articles before deleting. But I am so surprised that you go so fast, not letting the time to others to answer...80.13.85.217 (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

1) the change that I made was proposed by you, so not sure how you can be surprised. 2) I have no intention to create the articles because I don't think any of those people is even remotely notable 3) I suspect that also know that which is why you don't create the articles yourself whereas you have no problem creating them for other people and thus keeping the biographies in the middle of the article is a way to go around notability polices. 4) Since you have been failing to provide a single reason to keep the information while I provided specific policies on why it shouldn't continuing to stall the discussion like you've been doing for the past 2 weeks will buy you a few more days I'm sure. But it is unlikely to change the final outcome.--McSly (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep cool, we are a community. As I already said, if some other contributors agree to delete the small biographies, we will do that. If not, we keep like that. But it is not to you or me to decide, it is all together. For me, the small biographies are suitable with the article, for you not. We wait a little bit, and wait for other reply. As we have other opinions, we will take a decision all together. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to repeat my comment from the talk page - The biographies of the directors should be removed this is an article on an educational establishment and not about the individual directors. If the directors are notable enough then all the relevant info can be in a linked article for each individual, other than the names the rest of the info should be deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Everybody agree? We remove the biographies? 80.13.85.217 (talk) 07:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I wait 24 hours, if no more reply, I will remove the biographies. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done. The Work is done. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.