Talk:Windsor University School of Medicine/Archive 1

Archive 1

School Information

Added the following with citations from IMED/FAIMER, WHO, and the university's own web site.

1. History 2. Curriculum 3. Accreditation

Changed the name of the University to the correct name...Windsor University School of Medicine. CHIRON11♠ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiron11 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Chiron11, I had to edit your info on licensure. I'm currently a licensed physician in Texas and a windsor graduate you can definitely get a license there. You can also rotate in all 50 states while in medical school, but you cannot practice as yet in California or tennessee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.26.72.97 (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

Article has become a largely unreferenced soapbox for one IP contributor; the school's problems can surely be better summarized and sourced where applicable. Otherwise this reads like a complaint board from a dissatisfied customer or employee, and is slanted as a promotional version. JNW (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Taken care of. Advert crap removed, troll crap removed, we are now down to the basics. 76.22.32.86 (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed list of states, sources did not mention Windsor

The article had a list of states that purportedly did not accept Windsor grads for licensing. I looked at the references, and none of them even mentioned Windsor. So, I removed the list. It is prohibited for editors to draw their conclusions or inferences like that: see WP:Original research. To insert a list of states like that, a secondary source must be found that talks about the topic, and mentions Windsor specifically. Look at it this way: If there are no sources that specifically mention WIndsor in that context (states reject it) then that means it is not important enough to be in the article.

If an editor wants to insert a list of states, that is fine, but the editor must first find a reliable, secondary sources that says "States A, B, and C do not accept Windsor grads, and that is a big deal because ...". --Noleander (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned above, that is an impossible standard to meet. By definition, an institution is unrecognized or unaccredited if it fails the criteria or is not on an organization's list of approved or accredited institutions. It's not OR; that's simply how this works.

There may be issues of due coverage but that is a separate discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You could post this question on the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard notice page. But I'm 100% sure they would agree that the material is not acceptable. --Noleander (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

On-going edit war

One editor seems intent on scrubbing all negative information from this article. This is not acceptable, and must stop immediately. This is not a fully-accredited school, and wording the article to read such that it's not obvious that it lacks proper accreditation is completely outside the pale. LHM 04:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree that the edits by a single purpose account that obviously has a conflict of interest constitutes vandalism and threatens the integrity of the encyclopedia, especially as 5 different editors keep reverting him. This has been reported to WP:ANI. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 05:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say it "constitutes vandalism", I said it was "not acceptable." An edit can be unacceptable without being vandalism. LHM 05:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to put words in your mouth - I thought the terms were interchangeable. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 06:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at WP:VANDAL--it lays out the very specific situations in which the term "vandalism" applies on Wikipedia. For instance, POV-pushing does not constitute vandalism, nor do debates about what is or isn't a reliable source or too much weight. Repeatedly trying to push a POV or otherwise violating one of our other core principles (see my concern about OR on ANI) may be disruptive, but it's not vandalism. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Windsor is accredited by the Government of Saint Kitts and Nevis. This is directly from the government website. Regardless, this issue is already being addressed in the Administrator's noticeboard: Incidents section. Aqwfyj (talk) 07:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Aqwfyj, I moved your comment down. Please don't add comments into the middle of discussions--it's confusing. Also, AN/I is not where we should work out the content issue--AN/I is only the place to discuss behavioral problems. Regarding this point, is there a reliable source that verifies it is accredited by the Government of Saint Kitts and Nevis? Does the government maintain a public list that we could verify? If that is the case, it is fine for the article to state that; note that it should not state "It is accredited." It should state "It is accredited by the Government of Saint Kitts and Nevis.<+citation>" However, as I asked on AN/I, are there any reliable sources that state that this school is not accredited in other countries, or that their Saint Kitts and Nevis accreditation is not accepted by other countries? If there is, we can provide that information; if there is not, we may not make that deduction ourselves based on the laws of other countries. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The official government of Saint Kitts and Nevis website has a list of accredited schools: http://www.gov.kn/ct.asp?xItem=519&ctNode=114&mp=1. These are schools accredited by the St. Kitts and Nevis Accreditation Board, which is described here: http://www.gov.kn/ct.asp?xItem=1559&ctNode=114&mp=1 Aqwfyj (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If AN/I doesn't resolve the content dispute, who makes the decision on the content? FWIW the content was not written by me; I have only made minor edits, and the information being reverted back and forth has been written by others, so to say that it is "one editor" who is "scrubbing" information is false. I believe the article should maintain a NPOV; the Accreditation & Licensing section and Student Loan Scandal sections in the Leuko edit do not meet this criteria. For example, the Leuko edit lists the United Kingdom, New York, and Texas as jurisdictions where credentials "may not be acceptable" for licensing; however they also "may be acceptable" for licensing as the UK and Texas undergo case-by-case analysis. Both New York and Texas do grant licenses to Windsor graduates. The information is overtly written with a non-NPOV. Furthermore, information about country/state-specific licensing outside of the country the school is located in is beyond the scope of the article. Therefore the information should be scrubbed. Windsor is WHO/IMED listed and accredited by the Accreditation Board of the St. Kitts government. Information about other various accrediting bodies is irrelevant, UNLESS Windsor is explicitly listed by those bodies as approved/unapproved. I believe the "Curriculum," "Tuition," and "Student Life" sections should be included; these sections are standard for WP articles about educational institutions. The "student loan scandal" section makes the claim that "all students" were enrolled at the Midwest Institute of Massage Therapy; yet this claim does not meet the required standards of verifiability as the cited article does not state this information. According to the cited article, 26 students at MIMT received Sallie Mae loans; the article states the Windsor student body is over 1000. The claim that "all students" were enrolled at MIMT makes no sense and should be scrubbed, and there is no verifiable evidence listed either in the article or anywhere else stating that the 26 MIMT loan recipients were students of Windsor. Furthermore, this purported incident was two years ago and does not meet the requirements for posterity/significance/due weight. Aqwfyj (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok we really not to split up all the converstations, because following all the different points is getting confusing.

As far as Texas, we can add that students need to prove substantial equivalence, since that's present in a WP:RS. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 16:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as the accreditation, as I have said multiple times before, the government of St. Kitts and Nevis is not a recognized accreditation agency. The US govt NCFMEA has not determined that their accreditation standards are comparable to US med school standards. The NCFMEA has determined the ACCM has comparable standards, and this agency does have jurisdiction over the area, as the government of St. Kitts and Nevis has requested the agency to accredit a school on Nevis. Windsor is not accredited by this agency. Since most students of this school are from the US, this information is relevant. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 16:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as the student life section, et al, multiple editors have felt that it is irrelevant, and may be considered promotional, and is unnecessary for a medical school article. That is the current consensus. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 16:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as the student loan scandal, to claim that it is not verifiable is ludicrous - it has been printed by a reputable paper. We can remove the word all. However, WP:NPOV does not require all all negative information about your school to be scrubbed as you desire. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 16:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears we are at an impasse. I believe your edits do not meet the basic WP criteria for NPOV and verifiability (as do others as documented in the AN/I section.) You disagree. I will add an RfC tag to this section. Aqwfyj (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• I wonder why Leuko is obsessing over the Accreditation Board of St Kitts as being "unrecognized" or whatever. If their government recognizes it then it is clearly recognized by the only people who matter. It does not matter if the US doesn't recognize it because this school isn't on US soil. I wonder why Leuko is so obsessed about this. 65.96.60.92 (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Leuko vs. Aqwfyj edits re: Accreditation, Student Loan Scandal, Curriculum, Tuition, Student Life sections

Could admins please weigh in here? See the above "On-going edit war" and AN/I discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aqwfyj (talk • contribs)

Perfect, I welcome the input of the entire community. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 17:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Question: what is RfC issue? - This RfC should be used to solicit input on content issues. Behavioral issues are better handled at WP:ANI, and it looks like something has already been initiated there. So: for this RfC, can someone restate the precise content issues that are at hand? The section above contains some discussion about accreditation, but the RfC title implies there in fact five distinct content issues: we need brief, succinct explanation of those five issues. Also, can someone list all the sources relevant to these issue? --Noleander (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There are a few issues:

1. The "Accreditation" section. Windsor is WHO/IMED listed, and accredited by the Accreditation Board of the Government of Saint Kitts and Nevis. I believe this is the only accreditation information which should be included. Leuko believes that because Windsor has not been reviewed by other various accrediting bodies, that this information should also be included. I disagree. My view is that unless Windsor is explicitly accredited or unaccredited/disapproved by a particular accrediting body, information in the WP article pertaining to that particular accrediting body is irrelevant. The fact that Harvard University is not accredited by the European Accreditation Committee, for example, does not warrant that information being explicitly written in the Harvard University WP article.

2. Various country/state licensing information. I believe this information should not be included in the article's current state; Leuko does. Windsor students can be licensed in the UK, New York, and Texas, so those current sections should be removed. The North Dakota section refers to a citation of California's list of Disapproved Schools, of which Windsor is not included, and thus should be removed unless properly cited. Windsor is a medical school in Saint Kitts and I believe licensing information about other countries is not pertinent in the article's current state as a stub. In the article's current form, adding this information would violate WP:UNDUE. However, if the article were to be expanded with several other sections about the Administration, Campus, Academics, Student Activities, etc, then I believe the information that Windsor graduates cannot obtain licenses in California, Indiana, and Kansas (and any states which grant licenses based on the California approved foreign medical school list) may be warranted.

3. The "Student Loan Scam" section. Leuko added this, but I believe this information violates WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:VERIFY. The section as Leuko has written it states that Sallie Mae LOST $500,000. The St. Petersburg Times (SPT) article however, states that 26 students at the Midwest Institute of Massage Therapy (not Windsor) prior to February 2009 RECEIVED loans of $500,000. The SPT article makes no claim that any MIMT-enrolled Sallie Mae loan recipient was actually a Windsor student. The two Windsor students interviewed in the SPT article who claim to have been enrolled at MIMT were not among the 26 who received Sallie Mae loans (as indicated in the article.) Unless a citation for the claim that any of the 26 MIMT-enrolled students were actually Windsor students can be made, I believe it must be removed. Furthermore, even if the claim that those 26 MIMT loan recipients were actually Windsor students could be verified (I will assume for now that it cannot) the article states that those loans were given prior to February 2009, and the article also states that at any given time Windsor has a student body of over 1000 students. (EDIT: to be clear, the SPT article does NOT indicate that any of the 26 MIMT loan recipients were Windsor students, so the article itself cannot be used as verification.) This in my opinion means that the section violates WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:VERIFY.

4. "Curriculum" "Tuition" and "Student Life" sections. I just checked the Wikipedia entries for several dozen universities and they ALL contain sections for Academics and Student Life. Leuko believes they are advertisements. I haven't come across sections for Tuition so I have no issues with that being removed, but I believe a section for Academics and Student Life are basically mandatory for a WP entry on an educational institution. Aqwfyj (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. My thoughts:

1. Accreditation: I agree that statements about "not being accredited by ABC" should not be in the article based merely upon the observation of an editor; however, if some reliable sources have significant discussion of the topic ("Windsor college of M is not accredited by ABC and it's a big deal because ...") then that should be included in the article.
2. List of states: If a reliable source lists the states that are/are not license-eligible (in a larger discussion of the college), then that can be included in the article. But the mere observation by an editor that college XYZ is not license-elegible in state ABC is not sufficient.
3. Student loan: The St. Petersburg source is a reliable source, and so the material can be in the article. However, as currently written, the section is defective, using the words "scam" and "scandal" prominently, when neither of those words appear in the source. The material in the article should be changed to be very neutral and factual, and simply represent what the source says.
4. Curriculum/Life, etc: Of course these are valid topics for the article. But every sentence should have a source ... the sources can be college newspaper, etc. but not editor's personal experience.
5. Undue: Undue weight is a genuine concern. Negative information should be proportional to how much it is represented in the sources. If the sources spend, say, 10% of their material on negative info (I'm just inventing that figure) then about 10% of the article should be that negative info. Go ahead and flesh out the college life section, and we can go from there. --Noleander (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Here is the St. Petersburg Times article. A previous user (not sure who, exactly since there have been lots of edits back and forth) created a Student Life section which you can view in this version. It isn't correctly cited though, so that would have to be fixed assuming the information is appropriate. Aqwfyj (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I got the St. Petersburg article, and my comments are above in item (3). As for the Student Life: that older section has, in effect been challenged per WP:CHALLENGE so the burden is on the editor wishing to restore it to provide the citations. Another comment: there is an article List of medical schools in the Caribbean, and one possibility for the negative information, is to see if the sources speak in generalities about med schools in the Caribbean, and place the material in that article. Just a thought. --Noleander (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. With respect to the Student loan section, would you mind clarifying how the section could be written more appropriately? Also, I got a 3RR warning last night for this article (but not blocked)...am I allowed to start making the above recommended revisions or do I have to wait the full 24 hours (I'm not sure if these edits would be considered a 4th reversion) Aqwfyj (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Student Loan: I would simply go thru the St. Pete article, find the 2 or 3 most salient points the author is making, and re-state them in a neutral, encyclopedic voice. For 3RR: there is no rush. This article is not going anywhere. I'd wait until 24 hours goes by. In the meantime: create a subpage under this Talk page and start your draft there (just put "http://....ThisPageName.../someSubname" in your web browser URL text field, hit enter, then click the "Start the page' choice, and you can create a subpage. Work on it for the next day, then, when ready, announce it on this Talk page before putting it into the main article. --Noleander (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem I feel that arises with this is that the article essentially describes the anecdote of one student. What I take from the article is that two former Windsor students claimed they were enrolled in a Massage Therapy school, and the Massage Therapy school had 26 Sallie Mae loan recipients prior to February 2009. The article does not claim that any of them were students at Windsor. These are certainly serious claims, but again this was in 2009 and out of presumably several thousand students in that time, I'm not sure that the anecdotes in question warrant an entire section in such a short article. It's like if a student were to be assaulted on campus, or a faculty member arrested; while both serious claims, do they warrant being added to a wiki about the institution? The fact that Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates was arrested is serious, but it is not relevant enough to be on the Harvard University wiki. Thoughts? Aqwfyj (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The St. Petersb article is a reliable source, and the focus of the article is very obviously on the university and its president. That material belongs in the article. If you don't create the material, some other editor will (and has). You cannot be passive-agressive and delete the current material because it does not accurately represent the source, and then say "I personally dont think it is relevant so I won't insert a revised version". --Noleander (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe I was being passive aggressive; I genuinely am wondering how the material in the SPT article can be presented while adhering with WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:V, while maintaining relevance. I believe all verifiable information should be presented in a neutral way which is why I was asking if you (or someone else) could write a pertinent summary. Aqwfyj (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I improved the text in the loan section. The St. Peters article also includes material that may be useful elsewhere in the article, such as "Over the past decade, Windsor's popularity has grown through word of mouth, particularly among South Asian families living in the United States and Canada." --Noleander (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think you are attempting to pull away from the subject by introducing a completely different scenario. I understand this is about accreditation? Not about a hypothetical law enforcement action against high level society members. As for my two cents:
• If no reliable source(s) indicates a problem regarding credibility of the institution in question, then there is no room for it in the article.
• If no reliable source(s) (and in this situation, secondary sources, see WP:42) is cited for student life and other what I think are frivolous advertisements, it does not belong.

With that said, the second part needs an RfC on its own. Phearson (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree about the "Student Life" sources: the convention used in WP is that the college's own newsletters and documents, provided they are reliable, may be used to support "Student Life" information. We cannot apply a more stringent standard to this college just because it is outside the USA. If you want to impose a new, stricter standard for all WP college articles, you should probably bring it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities. --Noleander (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

First, it doesn't look like this dispute needs attention from administrators. Admins are editors with access to a few additional, specialized tools; they are not arbiters of disputes any more than every editor is capable of entering discussions and offering advice.

Second, I'm not sure that I see a significant problem with the current state of the article. The accreditation section seems to be well-sourced and balanced. It would be nice to have a section about student life and another one about academics but if there aren't any reliable sources then the sections shouldn't exist (although I can't believe that the institution doesn't publish information about its academic program).

Third, the St. Petersburg Times article cited in the article seems to be about much more than just student loads. It's clearly questioning the quality of the school. It's not the most solid article ever written but it was published by a reliable source. Since it's just one article, it probably only deserves the 2-3 sentences currently in the article. But the section should be renamed and its focus changed to more accurately reflect the cited source. ElKevbo (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, it would be easier to read and edit this article if editors were to use citation templates instead of just bare URLs. This would be particularly useful in instances such as this dispute where it's important to know the title, author, and date of publication for sources. ElKevbo (talk) 03:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

For right now, I only want to comment on #2. I've already said this on ANI, but under no circumstances can we 1) Look at the facts of the university (it's existential properties, location, programs, etc.), and 2) Look at the laws/rules of accreditation or licensing on a given state/country, and then 3) Deduce that because #1 doesn't meet #2, therefore the school does not meet any given state's accreditation/licensing requirements. To do so is completely 100% original research. Since all of the sources currently in the article appear to be following this pattern, they must all be removed. However, if a reliable source says, "Windsor college, though accredited in Saint Kitts, does not meet the accreditation rules in X, Y, and Z," then we may (in fact, probably should, since this is a big deal, clearly meeting WP:DUE), include that in the article. Another editor mentioned to me that Leuko may be using this logic on a number of Carribean institutions; I will take a look at those when I have time and see if the same problems need to be dealt with there. If I have time, I'll try to look at the other numbered concerns above later. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you're setting an impossible standard e.g. requiring people to prove a negative. It's extraordinarily rate for states or organizations to publish lists of institutions do not recognize (Oregon is something of an exception; they do an excellent job of tracking diploma mills and many of us rely on their work). It's much easier to publish a list of recognized or acceptable institutions since such a list is finite and slow to change.

With that said, although the examples in the article are certainly valid the section could be shortened quite a bit with much of the material shortened, removed, or moved to a footnote. ElKevbo (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It is an impossible standard, but it appears that the majority of people who have shown up here are only willing to interpret policy by the letter and not the spirit of it. This is a losing proposition, and one I'm not willing to struggle against at this time. LHM 00:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"Licensing" section

I am going to split up the "Accreditation" and "Licensing" sections. Is there a way to write "Windsor graduates can be licensed to practice medicine in ## US states (except California, Indiana, etc.)" without adding 50 citations afterwards to each individual state medical board website? Aqwfyj (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have sources that explicitly state, "Windsor graduates are licensed to practice in place X"? If not, you can't add the info (for the same reason people can't add info about where they're not accredited). I'd also question the necessity of this info. It is not our job to collect every piece of info; I don't see any similar lists on, say, Harvard Medical School. If all you're going to site is some sort of government or legal document, then it doesn't belong. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw this...I left a comment on your talk page but I'll address it here; the citation for the United Kingdom does mention Windsor specifically, and the citation for the US and Canada states that IMED listed school graduates are eligible for licensure, and Windsor is an IMED listed school. I'm not sure if that qualifies. Aqwfyj (talk) 04:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw you added the UK back...to me it just seems strange now that only the UK is mentioned. Licensure is a relevant section for Caribbean medical schools, and I believe meets requirements for scope. If you take a look at the List of medical schools in the Caribbean, it has a Certification section which states "many schools may also be approved by the state medical education departments of California, New Jersey, New York, Florida or Texas" and, in addition, the separate pages for individual schools have statements about licensure in various jurisdictions. Why is the synthesis of the ECFMG citation + IMED listing of Windsor not allowed? I understand about the California/Indiana/Kansas citations being removed as they don't mention Windsor explicitly (although I did add them to keep NPOV,) but it doesn't seem to be the same thing as the absence of Windsor's name from various accreditation body lists. Aqwfyj (talk) 04:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Because synthesis isn't allowed. Ever. You have to follow the same rules we're holding Lueko and others to above. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Should the sentence about licensure in the UK just be deleted then Aqwfyj (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Motion to ban Leuko from medical related articles

Banning discussions must occur at WP:AN or WP:ANI. Be prepared to provide diffs of exact improper behavior, along with evidence that the behavior is longterm, and that you have tried to resolve it through other means.
Leuko engages in a WP:BATTLEGROUND on every medical school related article he edits. I suggest he is banned from them. Support 65.96.60.92 (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC) I don't know if this is the best place to file your motion, but signed anyway. Aqwfyj (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed two sentences about accreditation: sources did not mention Windsor

There were two sentences that said "Windsor has not been accredited by ABC." The sources did not mention Windsor. I removed the sentences. It is a violation of the WP:Original Research policy to add that information. Editors cannot fabricate material out of the absence of information. To include that material in the article, an editor would have to find a WP:Secondary source which says "Windsor is not accredited by ABC, and that is a big deal because ...".

I understand that some editors may view Windsor as a second-rate school. But those editors can only include such assertions if reliable, secondary sources have also published a similar opinion. Editors cannot WP:Cherry pick sources and assemble them to prove points. The sources themselves must make the points. --Noleander (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned above, that is an impossible standard to meet. By definition, an institution is unrecognized or unaccredited if it fails the criteria or is not on an organization's list of approved or accredited institutions. It's not OR; that's simply how this works.

There may be issues of due coverage but that is a separate discussion.

(And can we try to keep this material in one section in the Talk page? I'm getting tired of repeating myself.) ElKevbo (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You could post this question on the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard notice page. But I'm 100% sure they would agree that the material is not acceptable. --Noleander (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

ElKevbo: Let me ask you this question: If Windsor is a poor college (and Im not saying it is or is not), you should be able to find a reliable, secondary source that says "Windsor is poor, in fact, it is not even accredited at ABC, nor will states X,Y,Z accept it ....". Can you find such a source? If you cannot, what do you think that absence of a source says about the significance of that "is not accredited" assertion? --Noleander (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty much what the St Pete newspaper article is saying; please read it if you haven't already done so.

Look, this is very simple. My car is red. I know because I can see it and more appropriately because the spec sheet when I bought it said "Metallic Red." You're telling us that we can't say that my car is blue unless we find a document specifically saying "El Kevbo's car is not blue" even though we have a reliable source saying that "El Kevbo's car is red?" C'mon folks, let's use some common sense here.

Again, if someone wants to make an WP:UNDUE argument then I'm all ears. In fact, I would support such an argument. But insisting that editors prove a negative is completely unworkable. ElKevbo (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I read the St. Peters. newspaper article very, very carefully, and no where in there does it say that (1) the school is poor quality; (2) it is not accredited by ABC; or (3) graduates cannot get licensed in states A, B, or C. Can you provide quotes from that newsp article that says the school is poor quality? --Noleander (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? You think that's not the point of the entire article??? ElKevbo (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec*4)Thank you, Noleander. I just wrote a long post about how this is absolutely, unambiguously OR, and luckily edit-conflicted with you. The underlying point is that this is not a case where a local group of editors can decide that this is okay, because this is a violation of at least 2 of our Core Pillars (WP:V and WP:OR). Qwyrxian (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(after many ec) ElKevbo, it is absolutely, unambiguously, self-evidently OR. If no one has ever said that they are unaccredited, we may not say it. Period. End of story. Please re-read WP:OR, especially the part labeled WP:SYNTHESIS. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the kind of thing that drives off expert editors. ElKevbo (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(And please don't tell me to re-read basic policies; I've been here for quite a while and it's insulting for you to behave as if I am ignorant when this is a disagreement of interpretation and application. ElKevbo (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC))

Feel free to post an inquiry at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard if you would like additional editors to explain, perhaps in new, unique ways, why your proposed material is original research. --Noleander (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• The reason the sources don't mention Windsor is because they don't recognize Windsor, which is what is being sourced. This smacks a bit of pettifoggery, as people are using a "by the letter" interpretation of V and OR policies to exclude material that is demonstrably true. This skews the article to read as if Windsor is something it is not. I somehow doubt that the spirit of these policies was intended for such purposes. LHM 00:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The spirit of the policies is abundantly clear: say only things that can be sourced. Think about what you're suggesting. Could I add the claim of "Students at School X do not use the restroom between 8:00 am and 1:00 pm due to an unwritten school rule" and then defend it on the grounds that "it's true, but there's no sources to verify it because by definition it's not written down and no one talks about it? Can I add a claim to Copernicus that says "Copernicus never washed his hands" and then, when it's challenged, say that I can't prove it because it's impossible to prove a negative? Again, I'm we're not saying that the gov't docs need to say "Windsor graduates can't be licensed here"; we're saying you need some source, somewhere, that says they aren't. I don't understand how you all can assert that this is a big deal, that it's so important that it has to be in the article somehow, but it's somehow not important enough for no medical journal, no book on medical licensing, no newpaper, nothing anywhere to have ever discussed it. I'm not even denying it's true; I'm simply saying that if it hasn't been discussed in reliable sources, it isn't worthy of mention here and to do so violates several policies--both their letter and their spirit. At this point, though, I'm going to have to agree with Noleander--if anyone still disagrees, take it to WP:NORN and see if you can find any uninvolved editors who agree with your position. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit of a daft analogy, I'd say. We're talking about lists of schools that ARE accredited by X. If a school is not on that list, then they're not accredited. Constructing meaningless analogies about when students use the bathroom illustrates my point, not yours. These lists are definitive, not nebulous. If you're not on them, you're not accredited. LHM 05:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, you need to take it to WP:NORN, then. However, even if they say it's not OR, you'll still need to come back here and deal with WP:UNDUE--that is, is it relevant to list random places where they're not accredited? For instance, does Harvard Medical School list that doctors graduating from there are not licensed to practice in Japan? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• It's well established policy in WP:OR that elementary and obvious deductions can be made. The standard example is that if a source give the population and area of a country, we can list the people per hectare. There are some standard lists of accredited medical schools, and the presence or absence of a particular one on a list can be determined. It is however a little undue emphasis to find every list. Listing states is wrong except for those that have made a citable determination of this one--the question may never have arisen in a particular jurisdiction. The WHO Directory of Medical Schools lists every school recognized by the country in which it is situated (cf. the article on it)--it therefore does not imply international recognition. Ditto for IMED. I found a way to word it clearly in the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"Controversy"

This has been discussed, but after further research into Wikipedia policies, I'd like to reiterate that I strongly believe this section is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Here is a relevant excerpt from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

The article further states:

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

Because the current "Controversy" section discusses both a.) an isolated event, and b.) a claim made by two former students (i.e. an extremely small minority), I think the section should be removed.

Thoughts? Aqwfyj (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• The view that Windsor has had its share of controversy is not "held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority." I'm not sure why you are trying to get all negative information out of this article. You've even supported a malformed "ban" proposal to keep out an editor who disagreed with you. Please stop. LHM 02:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not Windsor "has had its share of controversy" isn't the issue here. The issue is whether the specific verifiable controversy in question is a violation of WP:UNDUE. The ban proposal on Leuko is also a separate issue, and my support of his ban on editing is not because of any disagreement, but rather because of his lack of neutrality in editing certain articles. Could you or someone else please explain how the specific information currently contained in the "Controversy" section is not verifiably held by an extremely small minority? Thanks. EDIT: Just to clarify, I have no desire whatsoever to remove "all negative information" from this article. For example,I cited sources in the Accreditation section regarding states in which Windsor graduates cannot be licensed (it was subsequently removed by a moderator, not by me.) I am simply trying to keep the article's content within WP policies. Aqwfyj (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• I see no problem with the information being used in the article. As Lithistman said, it seems to me like you are wanting information removed from the article that is negative. ℥^nding·start 04:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ending-start, Lithistman, please stop commenting on editors. Aqwfyj raises a relevant point here--we don't include every single controversy associated with a subject in their article. The question is, whether or not this specific controversy meets WP:DUE. Let's focus on that, please. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there are questions of whether we are giving too much weight to one newspaper article. It's a reliable source that raises many serious concerns but it's only one report and it shouldn't be given much space in the article unless there are corroborating sources. ElKevbo (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• First thing: the section title "Controversy" is not satisfactory, because a controversy is a prolonged public debate, and there is nothing of the sort in relation to the loan allegations. So I renamed it to "Student loan allegations". Second, the sources for the loan topic are few and far between, and the WP:Undue policy prohibits over-emphasizing the topic in the article. Since there is only one (?) source for it, we must limit it to - at most - a few sentences. Should the loan allegations be deleted entirely from the article? Probably not: it is a reliable source, and it does relate to the University, so it should be included. --Noleander (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is a reliable source and that it relates to the university; is that enough for it to be included in the article's current state? This article for example is from a reliable source and contains info that relates to the university. But I don't think anyone would argue that it is relevant enough to have a summary in the WP article. As it stands now, the "Student loan allegations" section is one of four content sections in the article. Does one article warrant 25% of the content sections? Again, the information is certainly newsworthy and from a reliable source - and I think if someone were to expand this article with more content sections, its inclusion would make much more sense in terms of WP:DUE. Until then - in my humble opinion - I don't think it does. Aqwfyj (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

WP does not have a policy that says "facts about a topic should be excluded if they are minor or only have 1 source". On the other hand, it does have an UNDUE policy saying "the article cannot overemphasize a particular portion of an article.". Omitting the loan allegations entirely would be WP:Censorship, and that white-washing is not acceptable. So, the best that can be done is to represent the allegations with only a couple of sentences. The fact that the rest of the article is (so far) small, is no reason to delete other information: otherwise no article would ever get started and grow. The best course forward here is to leave the loan allegations at a couple of sentences, and focus on beefing-up the rest of the article. After awhile, the Loan section will be relatively small (just 1% or so) of the entire article, and then UNDUE is not a problem. --Noleander (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• "The fact that the rest of the article is (so far) small, is no reason to delete other information"

I respectfully disagree with this. From WP:NPOV:

"Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."

...it further states:

"Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well."

I completely agree that once the article is expanded, the loan allegations section may be appropriate in terms of WP:DUE. But to a reader, the article in its current state would be misleading as to the significance of the allegations as it is 1 of only 4 content sections. To say that the section doesn't currently violate UNDUE in the context of a future version the article is problematic; until the article is actually expanded, I believe it is a violation. The SPT article is always there if someone wishes to take it upon themselves to expand the article. Aqwfyj (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I dont think the "tiny minority" verbiage applies to the loan topic. Although it is true that a small number of students (apparently) lodged complaints, the reliable source says that Sallie Mae is investigating the complaints. The investigation by a major USA governmental agency is what is important here, not that a few disgruntled students complained. --Noleander (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

True, the article does indeed say that; however, the article is also 18 months old. Sallie Mae did not report any findings of wrongdoing at the time the article was written, and has not (as far as I can tell) since. Aqwfyj (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You've got a good point there: I did not realize the age of the St. Petersb. newspaper article. I suppose if no other news sources have followed-up with more allegations/investigations, then it is rather stale news, and may violate UNDUE. Thanks for pointing that out. --Noleander (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This trivial item falls under WP:NOTNEWS and should be deleted. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that it's "trivial." Further, I'm not entirely comfortable with anyone deciding to remove one of the few sources in this article not published by the school, the organizations to which it belongs, or its local paper. ElKevbo (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that it is not trivial; however, "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" (WP:NOTNEWS). The fact that it is a non-local source does not make it any more or less important (in terms of WP policies) than local sources. Strictly in terms of WP policies, the current loan allegations section is one of only four content sections currently in the article (WP:GEVAL violation), is composed of information from an isolated event with one source that is 18 months old (WP:WEIGHT) with allegations from two former students and no findings of wrongdoing (WP:UNDUE violation). Furthermore, the information in the article taken from the school-published source (campus location and curriculum information) does not violate any of the five requirements for self-published sources as per WP:USERG. Aqwfyj (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I completely disagree. The fact that a reputable newspaper in a different country thought it important and interesting enough to conduct a brief investigation and report on it is indeed newsworthy. It also speaks to the notability of the article's topic and warrants inclusion on those grounds alone.

And why are you (and others) only focusing on a part of the newspaper article in question? You seem to be ignoring both the other parts of the article and the overall message it conveys. ElKevbo (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

ElKevbo: (1) The article is valid, but was - according to another editor - from 18 months ago: have you found any other sources since then to indicate if the SM investigation produced any results? If we only have a single newspaper article from 18 months ago, announcing the start of an investigation, and yet the investigation never produced any condemnation, that seems to indicate that the investigation was of no consequence. (2) We do not add material about the "overall message" of a newspaper. We use specific quotes. Much of the article is about Caribbean schools in general, not about Windsor specifically. What specific quotes from the article do you think are missing (besides the loan issue)? --Noleander (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it's from February of last year. And that is one reason why it should have little coverage in this article. But that's not reason enough to completely remove it from the article.

But your second point is complete nonsense. We most certainly do interpret reference materials in context. The idea of limiting ourselves to out-of-context snippets - specific quotes - is ridiculous. It's neither workable nor is it how we work.

The article reports on several students who had problems at the institution. One student was expelled for "anti-school activities." Another had his passport withheld after he decided to leave the institution to return to the U.S. And the report also focuses on the relatively small number of graduates who have been admitted to practice in the U.S.

Look, I'm not campaigning for a huge section of the article that's devoted to this one newspaper article. It's one article and it doesn't deserve more than a mention in one or two sentences. But it should be mentioned and it should be accurately described as being broader than just having focused on financial aid. ElKevbo (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: Again, "newsworthiness" is not sufficient grounds for inclusion in WP as per WP:NOTNEWS. I think we all agree that the information is (or was 18 months ago) newsworthy. But I must reiterate that a mention of one or two sentences about one 18 month old article in a WP entry about an institution that only has 9 other sentences is a WP:UNDUE violation. What you mentioned above re: the expelled student and passport being withheld) are WP:CHERRY violations:

"A common fact picking device is listing great amounts of individual peoples' quotes criticizing of the nominal subject, while expending little or no effort mentioning that the criticism comes from a small fraction of people. That small fraction thus gets a soapbox that is far larger than reality warrants. Even though the facts may be true as such, the proportional volume of the hand-picked facts drowns other information, giving a false impression to the reader."

Aqwfyj (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't withhold information because other sections of an article are in poor shape! That's ridiculous.

And I never advocated for including selective quotes so I'm not sure why you're tossing about WP:CHERRY as if it's relevant here.

So how about answering the question: Why are you (and others) only focusing on one part of the article and ignoring the rest of it? The article is a fairly negative piece that draws upon multiple sources and it's perplexing that you're focusing on only one of them while ignoring that the article has a much larger focus, best summarized in its headline "Windsor University School of Medicine produces profits, few doctors." I'm not even sure if everyone in this discussion has read the article. ElKevbo (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do not refer to my opinion as ridiculous. The WP:UNDUE claim based on the length of the WP page (and subsequent weight given to the SPT article) was only one of several reasons I gave as to why it should not be included. This article is newsworthy, but does not deserve a summary because of WP:NOTNEWS. The same rule exact rule applies for the SPT article. WP:CHERRY does not apply to selective quotes from a specific article, but rather to selective quotes regarding a specific point of view as to distort that view's weight. You are advocating giving stronger weight to a negative article than it is due. I have read the SPT article; I'm not sure exactly what you think I am ignoring. I acknowledge that there are a variety of different complaints made by students/former students in the article...but the expulsion of a student, loss of a passport, or licensing of few doctors are absolutely not significant enough to be in this article. The SPT article explicitly says "Windsor's total graduation numbers are not known" so to make any claim about "relatively" few doctors being licensed (presumably in proportion to the number of graduates) would be wrong. The student loan allegations were newsworthy 18 months ago, but with Sallie Mae not reporting any wrongdoing since then, that too I would argue clearly no longer belongs. So again - I have read the article; since you believe we are focusing only on one part of it, what exactly about the SPT article are you proposing belongs in WP? Aqwfyj (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm stopping this dialogue. We've established our positions and it doesn't look like we're making any progress in convincing the other person to change his or her position. ElKevbo (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I have supported my position with numerous citations from WP policy pages, and I have responded to all of your questions. You have not supported your position re: the SPT article with even one WP policy. I asked you what specifically in the SPT article you believe belongs in WP, to which you did not respond but rather decided to stop the dialogue. The facts are these: the SPT article is 18 months old, contains allegations by a small minority, and none of the allegations have been corroborated by other sources or confirmed by Sallie Mae. This excerpt from WP:UNDUE addresses this very clearly:

• "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."

The student loan allegations section therefore is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:GEVAL. Now if you or someone else wishes to explain what if anything else in the SPT article belongs in WP and why, then that may warrant further discussion. Aqwfyj (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

And I've done the same. We're each convinced we're right and the other is wrong. And we're not making any progress. So until someone new wants to jump in or one of us can think of something completely new to add to the conversation, I'm moving on. ElKevbo (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I just reviewed the entire "Controversy" discussion and you have not cited any WP policy pages. I have asked twice what information from the SPT article you believe belongs in the WP entry but have not received a response; instead you are "moving on" so I am deleting the "Student loan allegations" section as per my citations of relevant WP policy pages. If you believe this is wrong, please cite relevant WP policies. Aqwfyj (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've told you several times why your understanding and application of policies are incorrect and fundamentally flawed. But if you want to be immature and believe that you've "won" an argument because I refuse to continue running around in circles with you then so be it. The encyclopedia is worse off and this is an example of why other experts are reluctant to edit Wikipedia. ElKevbo (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with ElKevbo. Actually, after reading the news article, it could easily be argued that the "controversy" section should be expanded further. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: I do not recall you explaining how my application of policies is incorrect, nor do I feel as though this is an argument to win or lose. Also, please refrain from engaging in personal attacks. Thank you.

@Ohnoitsjamie: What information in the SPT article do you believe belongs in WP? Aqwfyj (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The student loan thing is the tip of the iceberg. How about the abysmal graduation rates? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, the student loan allegations were made 18 months ago for loans disbursed prior to February 2009 and Sallie Mae nor any other source in that time has claimed any wrongdoing by the school. To keep these allegations listed in the WP article violates WP:UNDUE. As for the graduation rates, this has already been addressed above. The article states "Windsor's total graduation numbers are not known" so how can we know what the graduation rate is? Aqwfyj (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Listing a US-based "massage school" on a loan is an obvious attempt to circumvent Sallie Mae's loan restrictions. I don't know of any medical schools that charge students "retake" fees either. Regarding the graduation rates, while the numbers are not known, the newspaper does point out that very few former students have gone on to US residencies. Whether that's worth including is debatable. Regardless, the newspaper qualifies as a reliable source and raises serious concerns about the school. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree the source is reliable. I agree the allegations were serious when they were made. But the allegations about the massage school/Sallie Mae relationship were made by two former students, neither of whom received loans. Sallie Mae did not corroborate those allegations. No other source has corroborated those allegations. WP:UNDUE says that if a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, it should be easy to name prominent adherents. WP:NOTNEWS says that news on recent developments may be appropriate (and I agree) but 18 months no longer qualifies as recent. Furthermore, with respect to the US residencies, the school began instruction in 2000, which means its first graduating class was in 2004. Most of these caribbean schools start their first classes with 10-20 students. No verifiable source indicates how many students/graduates Windsor had between the graduating classes of 2004-2009. We cannot assume class size or what percentage of the graduating classes decided to do residencies in the US. Aqwfyj (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) You are misinterpreting WP:UNDUE. The newspaper is not required to interview every student at the school to make a case. While it's debatable as to how much of the story to address in the article, it's ultimately a reasonable source, and the current text only touches on the allegations. Be happy that the article isn't more extensively quoted and covered. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right - the newspaper doesn't need to interview every student to determine whether or not it is a very small minority opinion; from the SPT article, Sallie Mae disbursed a total of 26 loans to students of the massage school prior to February 2009. The article also says that at the time the article was written, Windsor had a student body of 1200. Sallie Mae indicated in the article that it was conducting an investigation, and 18 months later there is no evidence in any reliable source that any of those 26 massage school loan recipients were in fact Windsor students. Right now this single article is responsible for 25% of the article's sections. Forgive me for not being happy about a biased article. I have no problem with the rest of the article being quoted/covered if someone feels it has encyclopedic value, so I don't know why you think I'd be happy that it isn't. I'm simply concerned that allegations made by two students 18 months ago - about loans disbursed more than 30 months ago - that were never proven even after Sallie Mae indicated they were investingating, are responsible for 25% of the content in this article. How can that NOT violate WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL? Aqwfyj (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Since we seem to be at an impasse, I have created a Mediation Cabal case for this dispute here. Aqwfyj (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

A sole outdated reference from a year and a half and ago is indeed giving the incident undue weight, especially if no further references have been provided since then. The fact that it also only alleges that the students were from this school plays a part, as well as the fact that no further information since that time has been released since then. If they found substantiating evidence from their investigation that confirmed these students actually came from this school, there would be more references. If there are references, provide them, if not, then the section has to go. We are not a tabloid. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with Steven Zhang. One newspaper article about a possible controversy simply doesn't cut it for WP:DUE on any article, on any subject. Unless there are more sources forthcoming, any amount of weight given to this topic is too much. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

@Aqwfyj: regarding the Mediation: I think RfCs normally run around 30 days, and this one started on 8 Aug. I believe the normal process would be to wait until about 8 Sept, for more uninvolved editors to participate, then if consensus not yet achieved, then try mediation. --Noleander (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I was actually going to open the MedCab case, but I thought it was so clear cut that commenting here would suffice, and that a MedCab case wasn't really required. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 20:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I came here via edits to St. Kitts. I am neutral. I didn't read the discussion, and I didn't read the article. Prima facie, the section rings huge alarm bells. A whole section title for a sentence about allegations, reported in one paper, that came up zippo??? Really? Give me an hour, I can dig up something similar on Oxford, Harvard, and Enrico's Upstairs Medical College in sunny Mexico. The section should be removed immediately, and only restored with consensus. My two cents. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, nobody's commented in a day. I'm going to go ahead and remove it. I think it should stay out by default because it's an allegation, and is controversial. I'm not saying it's not true, but we should maybe assume good faith. If you want to restore it, I won't remove it again or be offended. I'll just let it be. In fact, I'm stepping out of this right after that edit. Good luck with the whole thing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Unwanted advice

The last time I got shot a bullet bounced off a steel edge and punctured my soft flesh. It wasn’t really anyone’s fault. No one decided that on this day it would be a good idea to shoot me. You guys are in the same boat. Too much anger and self-righteousness to solve the dispute for yourselves.

I know that it doesn’t make sense to you right now, but my suggestion is that all of you who are involved in a dispute you feel passionate about need to step back and hand over the editing of this article to someone else for a month or so. The facts of the matter won’t have changed in that time, but the tempers will have been forgotten.

For what it’s worth, I’m writing to you from a tropical Pacific clime where the drinks all come with little umbrellas and the only gunfights that matter are in the distance. Don’t sweat this one. Step away and let it cool off. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 02:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk page archive time discussion from User talk:Jesanj

A previous discussion resulted in an administrator suggestion that Miszabot archive at 30-45 days of inactivity. Why did you change it to 180 days? Aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 18:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Because I was thinking about making some edits to the page and I didn't think all that archiving was necessary. I wanted to see what people had recently said on the talk page to guide my potential research. Jesanj (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Since the 30-45 day inactivity time-frame was based on discussion, changing that timeframe should probably have some discussion first and not be done unilaterally. There's a big "archive" button at the top of the talk page to see previous discussions. Aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 18:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Considering the 30 days value was merely a suggestion that also contained the phrase "Even the most active, crazy talk pages rarely have archive times shorter than 20-30 days", and another user said "There's good reason to leave it and no good reason to archive it", I don't agree. I think it might be best for you to revert your recent edit.[1] Jesanj (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion also states that it shouldn't be changed unilaterally. Why not discuss it first on the talk page? Aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 19:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. Jesanj (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Resulting recommendation for the archive time

Considering that length is the reason to archive, I see no reason to archive when the talk page can be navigated, as in this recent version. I suggest reverting back to it. Jesanj (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• No change: The current archive size is 71KB, and Help:Archiving a talk page suggests archiving at 50KB. 30 days of inactivity seems like a fairly standard archiving time; I've seen Miszabot set to just 7-10 days on some high traffic pages. There's a big "archive" button at the top of the page to see old discussions; 6 months is way too long IMHO. Aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 19:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)