485:
community including medical associations of many
European and other countries (e.g. Germany, Australia, Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, etc.) have soundly rejected the notion that routine infant circumcision is an ethical surgery. All of these medical organizations have issued public statements discussion the value of the foreskin, the lack of medical benefit to circumcision, and the ethical issues with prophylactic removal of healthy tissue without consent from the patient. The American point of view is the minority point of view. Knowledge CONTINUES to push the MINORITY point of view on circumcision ignoring the countless sources that point to the ethical issues of non-consentual prophylactic removal of healthy tissue and circumcision harm. Knowledge policy states quite clearly that the medical consensus (i.e. majority point of view) should be reflected in the article. The worldwide medical community says circumcision is harm. (Note that the WHO and AAP DO NOT represent "world opinion"; they are just two organizations dominated by mostly American doctors.) Many of the medical organizations I mentioned have criticized the AAP as ignoring evidence, ignoring ethics, and ignoring the functions of the foreskin. There is no such thing as "anti-circumcision propaganda". Babies are born with prepuce and doctors have no right to remove it without consent. It is sexism to decry cutting the female prepuce and then saying cutting the much larger male prepuce is "healthy and beneficial". I am tired of the American bias at Knowledge. If the Wiki editors were intact, I guarantee you, this would all be a non-issue. This has NOTHING to do with MED:RS but, instead, has everything to do with editorial discretion and Knowledge pushing a certain point of view. As I've mentioned before, look at the Knowledge circumcision articles of languages where most of the citizens are intact.
182:
a long history of disgruntled people arriving at one or both of the male/female circumcision pages and starting lengthy discussions that are not within the scope of what can be resolved at
Knowledge (our opinions on a comparison of the two cases are not relevant since we have to rely on reliable sources). I am not suggesting that you are disgruntled or out-of-scope—my reply was intended not just for you, but for any observers who may notice the issue later.
687:
186:
equivalent, and some don't. Qualifications can be made about different forms of FGM, but there will never be an editorial committee that can rationally canvas the issues and arrive at some form of agreement (there are hundreds of articles on contentious issues where such committees also do not operate). Instead, what happens is that people discuss each article separately (or, they discuss a policy such as
735:
287:. To make sure nobody accuses you of doing anything tricky, you really should officially "close" your old account by retiring it: put a {{retired}} template on the old account's User and User Talk pages. You might also consider privately e-mailing a friendly admin and notify him of what you are doing. Take care...
163:
call the FGM article biased as it puts their cultural tradition in a bad light. The male circumcision article, on the other hand, puts an similarly harmful cultural tradition in a good light. Your statements imply that you don't believe the circumcision article is biased---to which I strongly disagree.
591:
Crimsoncorvid, I'm trying to assist you here. It's possible you are used to how things work on various internet bulletin boards and/or fora, and think
Knowledge is similar. Though it may appear that way to the unfamiliar eye, the similarities are superficial. Knowledge actually has quite strict rules
181:
You're fine, and I did not intend any suggestion that you did something improper. Knowledge operates very pragmatically, without any central authority (except for extremes such legal issues) and there is essentially no page here where the general points you have raised can be explored. There has been
122:
is that a lot of new editors turn up with a strong idea of what they want to do, but little idea of the procedures that apply at
Knowledge. They then wonder why their edits are reverted, and incorrectly conclude that it is because some kind of advocate edits that page. Anyone wanting to contribute to
221:
I think it is important to remember that those who practice circumcision are also in the minority! 70% of the world is intact. There are copious reliable secondary sources that point to the human rights aspect of circumcision. The worldwide medical community does not support circumcision of infants.
162:
What I am trying to understand is why the subjects are treated differently here on
Knowledge. This is a valid question. Although reliable secondary sources support the human rights treatment for both subjects, only FGM is written this way. What I detect is cultural bias. Egyptian men and women would
606:
article had an agenda. If you are denying that then you are either naive or lying. It is IMPOSSIBLE to "stick to the content" when agendas and external motivations cause that editor to make improper decisions. It's a waste of everyone's time when folks have to restate sources time and time and time
601:
Then why are some editors subject to rules and not others? COI is also a policy, but it's flouted with no consequence. You love to state "stick to the content", but it's clear there are biases and motivations of editors that make that impossible. It is as clear as day that the former steward of the
202:
regarded by many as not a big deal or even as desirable, while others regard the practice with disinterest or horror (I am personally baffled as to why someone might think that routinely cutting bits off bodies was an improvement, but my opinion is not relevant). The situation with regard to FGM is
638:
article. I couldn't care less if you suspend me. I'm not going away and I will challenge you and your cronies who continue to bias the
Circumcision article. You are acting like petulant children instead of adults. Grow up, accept the scientific facts as they are shown in the research and get over
706:
advocate) and requires that editors work constructively together to find consensus on what neutral coverage and relevant reliable sources are for all sides. You have violated every core principle of the encyclopedia and community to some degree and announced your intention to continue doing so.
484:
There is no inconsistency. Jakew and Morris have associations that, if I mention them here, I will get suspended for personal attacks. Furthermore, both of them have been discredited by their colleagues and they are not respected in the medical community. On the other hand, the worldwide medical
569:
I am aware of the guideline. You
Wikipedians think "stating the truth" is a "personal attack". Sorry, but I'm not playing that game. You obviously have an agenda and I'm calling you out on it. If you were playing by the rules, I wouldn't have to call out your agenda. I wish I COULD stick to the
185:
If you think through what responses might occur in a discussion comparing the two articles and the phenomena they describe, you may agree that such a discussion could not be expected to resolve anything because some people think that all forms of non-consenual genital cutting are in some sense
158:
It is possible my original inquiry was not clear enough. My query was not to discuss the male/female issues themselves or to debate their merits. Certainly Type IV FGM is more extreme than male circumcision. There is no argument that both are genital cutting and both are generally done without
705:
There is a rather severe conflict between your true-believer status on the circumcision question and
Knowledge's standards of behavior, which both prohibit attempts to use Knowledge as a venue to fight external real-world political or social battles (Knowledge exists to neutrally report, not
611:
article significantly deviates from PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT, then you are not competent to edit it. But then again, you and other editors have made it clear to me that
Knowledge is not interested in facts. It is interested in "reliability" which seems to involve a lot of editorial discretion.
193:
The standard approach at
Knowledge is to quickly decide what actionable proposals are proposed: Is a significant change necessary in one or both of the articles? What change? What reliable sources would be used? When pondering these questions, each article must be considered separately (see
634:). Furthermore, editors are not allowed to call into question any aspect of these sources. So we're beholden to the special interests that fund these studies. Where as the primary studies, that contain actual facts (and ARE allowed to be used), are rejected by you and your cronies on the
607:
again because editors, CONVENIENTLY FORGET past discussions that then become archived. This is why it is impossible to stick to the content at times. I am also tired of you pro-circ folks playing dumb when we talk of bias, rejecting valid sources, etc. If you don't know that the
115:. I am providing my answer here to avoid setting a precedent whereby people assume it is ok to discuss male/female circumcision at the FGM talk page. If you would like to reply, you may want to do so here (on your talk page) as I am likely to see it without needing a prompt.
452:
article declares that Boyle and Hill are both principals at "Doctors Opposing Circumcision" and they have their own website that could equally be termed an "anti-circumcision propaganda website" (to use your own wording). And actually the same could be said for Sorrells
592:
about many things, including its etiquette rules, and people who flout or defy them generally end up getting blocked. Wouldn't it be better to avoid that fate? It's not so difficult to stick to discussing content, if one wishes to.
203:
substantially different: while there are advocates for the practice, they are in a significant minority and are opposed by authorities such as the WHO—that is why the FGM article is handled differently. If wanted, you could ask at
461:, as that study's principals are involved in NOCIRC, another group that could equally be said to provide "anti-circumcision propaganda". Can you explain the apparent inconsistency in the application of your principle here?
127:). While various things could be said to answer your question, the result would not really address the fundamental issue that is likely to be on the mind of most new editors who arrive at the other article. Knowledge is
139:
a fundamental difference between at least some forms of male and female circumcision. Regardless of whether one agrees with that point of view, the fact is that multiple reliable sources support the opinion.
712:
You may appeal this and any administrator can unblock you (without contacting me first, though I would appreciate a notification if anyone does and a noticeboard post if you do). However, please review
717:
and relevant policy for whether you have any ability to work constructively within the Knowledge framework or not. You appear to have declared that you cannot and will not. That is not acceptable.
198:
which is generally applied to all issues surrounding an article, not just whether an article should be deleted). Regardless of what different people think, it remains the case that male circumcision
135:(NSFW, and which refers to "Type IV" based on an old classification system, whereas the article uses the WHO system where it would be described at "Type III"). A glance at that image shows there
627:
630:. I have said many times that secondary sources from the medical community are not reliable, in general, as peer review does not vet them for conflict of interest MOST OF THE TIME (
159:
consent. Surely, you wouldn't argue that Type II FGM (roughly equivalent to male circumcision) is OK while type IV isn't. All non-consensual genital cutting violates human rights.
709:
I am not condemning you to a permanent ban from Knowledge, but you are blocked with no end date. I have used the block tag "disruptive editing" but several others might apply.
131:
where we should discuss whether there is a fundamental difference between male and female circumcision, but anyone who thinks there is no such distinction should study
691:
547:), have been focused to a great extent on contributors, not content. I believe you've been told this before, but I want to emphasize this quite strongly: do
552:
269:
I switched accounts for privacy reasons as the old account used a handle that was clearly tied to my real-world identity. I no longer use the old account.
551:
use article Talk: page to discuss other editors. If you have an issue with another editor's behavior, there are places to bring that up; you can create a
559:. Going forward, I expect you to use these venues to discuss behavioral issues, and refrain from commenting about other editors on article Talk: pages.
631:
628:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257482/The-war-Knowledge-fooled-years-Bicholim-Conflict-article-elaborate-4-500-word-hoax.html#axzz2KhEq2j00
123:
Knowledge needs to start slowly and spend time working on minor and non-contentious issues first. Read the policies and guidelines (start at
246:
Hi Crimsoncorvid, have you ever edited Knowledge before under another username, or have you edited significantly before as an IP? Thanks.
770:
376:
26:
437:
was unreliable because (in part) "Morris/Waskett have a conflict of interest as they run a pro-circumcision propaganda website."
724:
112:
341:
applies to every edit on every Knowledge page. Labeling certain living individuals as propagandists is very questionable.
132:
47:
750:
52:
155:
Your response gives me the impression that what I did wasn't proper. Is there another avenue on Knowledge for my query?
754:
284:
632:
http://www.cochrane.org/news/blog/how-well-do-meta-analyses-disclose-conflicts-interests-underlying-research-studies
207:
to see what the editors there think about my comments (that is, are my claims about standard procedures correct?).
742:
720:
62:
702:
You are indefinitely, but not permanently, blocked, having reviewed your conduct over the last six months plus.
56:
366:
Conversely it can be argued pointing out a faulty source and saying why it is faulty has no connection with
370:"Propagandist" is not a term constituting a personal attack but a cogent assessment of a dodgy source.--—
222:
To consider the articles separately is to allow the circumcision article to become biased -- which it is.
33:
22:
662:
640:
613:
571:
486:
310:
270:
223:
164:
77:
69:
654:
555:, or if you have a specific incident you feel requires administrative attention, you can raise it at
195:
73:
85:
371:
212:
204:
145:
128:
97:
38:
29:. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
511:
Crimsoncorvid, I want to draw your attention to an important policy and guideline on Knowledge:
84:(~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
714:
760:
658:
626:
And in case it wasn't clear what I think of Knowledge's policies, they seem to be inferior:
516:
505:
470:
402:
390:
350:
296:
255:
556:
187:
283:
Thanks for the candor. What you're doing should be allowed by Knowledge rules, under
512:
501:
367:
338:
208:
141:
93:
635:
608:
603:
584:
It's more than just a "guideline", it's policy, and can be enforced. Comments like
386:
124:
119:
43:
434:
593:
560:
463:
449:
395:
343:
289:
248:
753:. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may
728:
668:
648:
621:
596:
579:
563:
494:
478:
410:
380:
358:
318:
304:
278:
263:
231:
216:
172:
149:
101:
734:
425:
Crimsoncorvid, while we're on Boyle & Hill, can you explain something:
88:, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place
694:
regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
444:
you argue Boyle & Hill 2011 should be accepted as a reliable source.
570:
content... I also made you aware of guidelines you haven't followed.
433:
you argue that the Morris & Waskett source that was in use at
81:
113:
Talk:Female genital mutilation#Question about article perspective
543:
other editors. A number of your recent comments (for example,
393:
for Knowledge's guidelines on how we assess source quality.
733:
588:
again are simply about editors, not about article content.
653:
You've clearly misread that blog post. I've commented at
585:
544:
458:
441:
430:
334:
242:Have you edited Knowledge under another ID before?
757:by adding the following text below this notice:
692:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
539:for the purpose of discussing article content,
8:
553:Knowledge:Requests for comment/User conduct
285:Knowledge:Multiple_Accounts#Legitimate_uses
690:Hello. There is currently a discussion at
337:edit, be careful about personal attacks.
68:I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
519:. Both of them highlight this sentence:
92:before the question. Again, welcome!
7:
448:This seems inconsistent because the
535:Article Talk: pages should be used
421:Can you explain this inconsistency?
14:
329:Watch out on the personal attacks
685:
53:How to create your first article
769:. However, you should read the
1:
669:19:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
649:14:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
622:14:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
597:01:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
580:15:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
564:17:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
133:File:Type IV circumcision.jpg
34:The five pillars of Knowledge
495:22:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
479:18:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
411:04:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
381:04:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
359:00:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
190:which affects all articles).
25:to Knowledge! Thank you for
751:abuse of editing privileges
787:
21:Hello, Crimsoncorvid, and
771:guide to appealing blocks
729:02:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
319:16:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
305:13:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
279:06:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
264:12:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
232:05:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
217:07:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
173:05:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
150:04:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
102:04:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
644:
617:
575:
490:
314:
274:
227:
168:
111:You asked a question at
48:How to develop articles
738:
533:
765:Your reason here ~~~~
737:
521:
721:Georgewilliamherbert
698:Indefinitely blocked
457:2007 you offered in
86:Knowledge:Questions
739:
44:How to edit a page
27:your contributions
755:appeal this block
749:from editing for
667:
76:your messages on
778:
768:
689:
688:
665:
661:
477:
475:
468:
450:Boyle & Hill
409:
407:
400:
372:⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht
357:
355:
348:
309:Will do, thanks
303:
301:
294:
262:
260:
253:
91:
786:
785:
781:
780:
779:
777:
776:
775:
774:
758:
715:our core values
700:
686:
683:
663:
509:
471:
464:
462:
423:
403:
396:
394:
379:
351:
344:
342:
331:
297:
290:
288:
256:
249:
247:
244:
118:The problem at
109:
89:
63:Manual of Style
19:
12:
11:
5:
784:
782:
740:You have been
732:
699:
696:
682:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
624:
589:
508:
499:
498:
497:
446:
445:
438:
422:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
375:
333:Hi, regarding
330:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
243:
240:
239:
238:
237:
236:
235:
234:
191:
183:
176:
175:
160:
156:
108:
105:
66:
65:
60:
57:Article Wizard
50:
41:
36:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
783:
772:
766:
762:
756:
752:
748:
745:
744:
736:
731:
730:
726:
722:
718:
716:
710:
707:
703:
697:
695:
693:
680:
670:
666:
660:
656:
652:
651:
650:
646:
642:
641:Crimsoncorvid
637:
633:
629:
625:
623:
619:
615:
614:Crimsoncorvid
610:
605:
600:
599:
598:
595:
590:
587:
583:
582:
581:
577:
573:
572:Crimsoncorvid
568:
567:
566:
565:
562:
558:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
532:
530:
527:, not on the
526:
520:
518:
514:
507:
503:
500:
496:
492:
488:
487:Crimsoncorvid
483:
482:
481:
480:
476:
474:
469:
467:
460:
456:
451:
443:
439:
436:
432:
428:
427:
426:
420:
412:
408:
406:
401:
399:
392:
388:
384:
383:
382:
378:
373:
369:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
356:
354:
349:
347:
340:
336:
328:
320:
316:
312:
311:Crimsoncorvid
308:
307:
306:
302:
300:
295:
293:
286:
282:
281:
280:
276:
272:
271:Crimsoncorvid
268:
267:
266:
265:
261:
259:
254:
252:
241:
233:
229:
225:
224:Crimsoncorvid
220:
219:
218:
214:
210:
206:
201:
197:
196:WP:OTHERSTUFF
192:
189:
184:
180:
179:
178:
177:
174:
170:
166:
165:Crimsoncorvid
161:
157:
154:
153:
152:
151:
147:
143:
138:
134:
130:
126:
121:
116:
114:
106:
104:
103:
99:
95:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
64:
61:
58:
54:
51:
49:
45:
42:
40:
37:
35:
32:
31:
30:
28:
24:
16:
764:
747:indefinitely
746:
741:
719:
711:
708:
704:
701:
684:
636:Circumcision
609:Circumcision
604:Circumcision
548:
540:
536:
534:
528:
524:
522:
510:
472:
465:
454:
447:
424:
404:
397:
352:
345:
332:
298:
291:
257:
250:
245:
199:
136:
120:circumcision
117:
110:
67:
59:if you wish)
20:
659:LeadSongDog
586:your latest
529:contributor
523:Comment on
435:glans penis
205:WP:HELPDESK
129:not a forum
90:{{help me}}
80:using four
55:(using the
664:come howl!
639:yourself.
78:talk pages
70:Wikipedian
681:June 2013
459:this edit
440:However,
431:this edit
72:! Please
763:|reason=
655:wt:MEDRS
545:this one
517:WP:TPYES
506:WP:TPYES
391:WP:MEDRS
209:Johnuniq
142:Johnuniq
94:Johnuniq
39:Tutorial
17:Welcome!
773:first.
761:unblock
743:blocked
557:WP:AN/I
525:content
188:WP:NPOV
23:welcome
594:Jayjg
561:Jayjg
513:WP:NPA
502:WP:NPA
455:et al.
368:WP:BLP
339:WP:BLP
82:tildes
387:WP:RS
377:Stalk
125:WP:5P
725:talk
645:talk
618:talk
576:talk
537:only
515:and
504:and
491:talk
442:here
389:and
385:See
335:this
315:talk
275:talk
228:talk
213:talk
169:talk
146:talk
98:talk
74:sign
46:and
549:not
541:not
466:Zad
429:In
398:Zad
346:Zad
292:Zad
251:Zad
107:FGM
767:}}
759:{{
727:)
647:)
620:)
578:)
493:)
473:68
405:68
353:68
317:)
299:68
277:)
258:68
230:)
215:)
200:is
171:)
148:)
137:is
100:)
723:(
657:.
643:(
616:(
574:(
531:.
489:(
374:/
313:(
273:(
226:(
211:(
167:(
144:(
96:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.