• Archive 0

Regarding this edit, "vandalism" does not mean "edits with which you disagree", however strongly you may feel. I suggest you review WP:VAND, which explains what is and what is not vandalism. Please note that misrepresenting good-faith edits as vandalism is uncivil and violates WP:AGF. Don't do it again. Jakew (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawering to push hate speech into an article is uncivil. Putting hate speech in an article is bordering on (if not crossing) the line of vandalism.--Studiodan (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you would find it difficult, to put it mildly, to gain a consensus that the word "uncircumcised" constitutes "hate speech", so that is a moot point. I frequently think that your edits are misguided, but I believe you're acting in good faith, hence I don't accuse you of vandalism. Extend me the same courtesy. Jakew (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I frequency think your edits are misguided, but I don't change "circumcised" to "mutilated". You could extend the same courtesy.--Studiodan (talk) 09:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content issues are not behavioural issues. Please don't conflate the two. Jakew (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Studiodan. I just surfed here from this discussion at AN/I. I'm not going to get involved in this dispute but want to say I think you have a point. The trouble is, it is a subtle one of English expression, requiring some familiarity with biblical usage. and some discernment. You can't expect to find that in the average editor; and, if you do find an editor who understands, you yet have to persuade him/her that it matters. I suggest you

1. change your tone. Never respond or resort to snide or snarky comments. That's how other editors game you out of here. Be patient.
2. consider another alternative term. Maybe "intact". Google medical articles for "amputee". What do they use instead of "unamputated"? If one of those terms is appropriate in this case, you'll have solid WP:MEDRS to cite as precedent.

Good luck. Anthony (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Uncircumcised" is normal English usage. It's "hate speech" only in your mind, connected with your obvious obsession with the topic (as can be seen from your user page). Stop reverting it or you'll be blocked for edit warring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that I have reported your behavior to WP:ANI and WP:AIV. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing hate speech into an article is a violation of policy. Don't push it.--Studiodan (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Uncircumcised" is not hate speech except in your mind. You've already been blocked once for edit warring. The next time could well be a lengthier block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insulting and threatening me is uncivil. I'm following policy, and upholding NPOV. The problems with that word are as follows...

Your user page and your edits indicate you are singularly obsessed with this subject. That's not uncivil, it's observing your own words. And just because a fringe element considers a word offensive doesn't make it so. Consensus is against you and your NPOV argument, so it stays as it is. You have also violated the 3-revert rule, more than once, which means you're subject to blocking for edit warring. That's not a threat, that's policy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncircumcised is commonly used to refer to a negative, unclean, godless state, in numerous biblical, religious and cultural references. Various Google searches for "uncircumcised" turn up about 1/3 of all results in this religious and cultural negative (offensive) context.^[1][2]

Many dictionaries include "uncircumcised" with the following synonyms. From Merriam Webster's dictionary: antichristian, christless, crusted, ethnical, pagan, remorseless, infidel, heathen, heathenish, heretical, merciless, miscreant, profane, rude, undeveloped, unorthodox, barbarous, bestial, uncharitable.^[3] From Dictionary.com: unregenerate.^[4][5]From Collins dictionary: not purified.^[6]

• Circumcised = Positive
• Uncircumcised = Negative^[7]

• Unfinished
• Incomplete
• Lacking something
• Abnormal
• Confers a sense of inferiority
• Not Yet circumcised
• No longer circumcised

What uncircumcised implies is clear in use of the prefix un-. Wiktionary definition #2 refers to "absent" or "lacking".^[8]

• Uncircumcised is not a neutral word.^[9]

• Un-beheaded: someone who wasn't beheaded.
• Un-wheelchair-bound: a motorcyclist who isn't in a wheelchair.
• Undead: someone who isn't dead.

Use of language is important, otherwise words such as "intact" or "mutilated" can also be used in the context of circumcision.

• Mutilated

• Intact
• Normal

• Not Circumcised
• Non-Circumcised
• Without circumcision

The Dutch KNMG does not use the word "uncircumcised" in their latest policy statement.^[10] This is also true of the British Medical Associations statement "The law and ethics of male circumcision - guidance for doctors"^[11] What words the KNMG and BMA use and avoid are important, as this represents a trend from certain cultures that are not generally in favor of circumcision. This must be taken into account to maintain NPOV.

Groups that oppose circumcision have replaced the word "uncircumcised" with alternative words, precisely because the word is deemed offensive. At The Second International Symposium on Circumcision, Elizabeth Noble presented the following. "We must stop using the word uncircumcised, which suggests that circumcision is normal. [...] Defining an intact male as uncircumcised is like defining an intact woman as 'unclitoridectomized.'"^[12] In the NORM Southern California glossary, "Term [uncircumcised] commonly substituted for the correct description of the normal condition of the penis: intact. Obviously pejorative if compared to analogous terms such as "unmastectomized," "unappendectomized," and "unclitoridectomized." Also used somewhat tongue-in-cheek but descriptively by restoring men in reference to a circumcised penis that has undergone foreskin restoration."^[13] Activists groups are usually first to note offensive language that should be avoided. The fact that this word has been noted to be offensive by activist groups alone may not be a good reason to avoid it's use, however, it supports the fact that this word is deemed offensive by many.

--Studiodan (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've reported you WP:AN/3RR#User:Studiodan reported by User:Jakew (Result: ) for 3RR violation. Jakew (talk) 09:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Circumcision. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The consensus is clearly that replacing "uncircumcized" with "non-circumcized" is disruptive. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and continually replacing a perfectly acceptable word with a your preferred alternative gives WP:UNDUE weight to a fringe view. TFOWR 09:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]