Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

I've reverted a recent change to the lead, for three reasons. Firstly, the addition of the words "According to custom" at the beginning of "male circumcision involves the excision of genital tissue..." is incorrect. Custom has nothing to do with it: circumcision is by definition the removal of tissue (the foreskin). Secondly the reference to the "healthy infant's penis" is inappropriate, as the scope of this article is the ethics of circumcision at any age, not just circumcision of infants. Finally, "are sometimes controversial" is preferable to "have become controversial", since the latter implies that controversy is always present, which is not necessarily the case. Jakew (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"According to tradition" succinctly highlights the "ethics" under discussion in the article, i.e., the conflict between custom (the customary procedure on infants) and modernity (modern ethical standards of surgery & informed consent). There can be no real debate of "ethics" regarding an adult's decision. To minimize the ethical controversy with the qualifying adverb, "sometimes," reveals a shallow & uninformed understanding of the ethical debate... (or a cynical agenda). Historys Docs (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV does not permit us to assert that a conflict exists between custom and modernity; we can say that some authors have argued that there is a conflict, while others disagree. While it's true that most sources focus on infant circumcision, there is some debate regarding the ethics of adult circumcision. I don't think that the word "sometimes" can really be said to minimise the controversy, but it does avoid the implication that circumcision is always controversial. Jakew (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• notes that "According to custom," ^[1]

POV Detective (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say, because that isn't an English sentence. Could you try again? Jakew (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• notes that this article in stuck in the mud. Some people will never understand the power of custom in their lives. The disputed phrase, "according to custom," is footnoted in the edit with the appropriate citation from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Feast of the Circumcision. ^[2]

POV Detective (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this is an appropriate (or indeed relevant) citation. The Feast of the Circumcision celebrates a single circumcision: that of Jesus Christ. So it's completely irrelevant when talking about circumcision of anybody who isn't Jesus Christ (approximately every circumcision that has ever been performed, in other words). Jakew (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

is reminded of the adage: "You can put an ant in front of a telescope, but it will never see the stars."

POV Detective (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article would benefit from a new look at the meaning of the word "neutrality." To begin the discussion among educated people, I suggest the following approach... "The Banality of Neutrality -- When people remain neutral in the face of injustice, they bear the stigma of cowardice on their deathbed. The purveyors of the injustice, however, gloat that the Just were powerless to stop them."

POV Detective (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heading added by Blackworm (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC) ==[reply]

• +++ POV Detective, there seems to be a problem with your editing client - it is prepending the string "+++" to each line you write. Since this is obviously an error, and since it makes your text difficult to read, I've taken the liberty of stripping the "+++"s from the talk page. You might want to take a look here for some basics on proper indentation, and of course I'm happy to help you if you have any questions about wiki-markup.

+++ (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• notes that a certain user has been editing comments. POV Detective (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• +++ Yes. I noted it too, when I informed you that I was doing it. Not to worry, though - I'm being very careful to not adjust the substance or text of your comments at all, and am simply reformatting them to reflect Wikipedia best practices on indentation.

+++ (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• +++ While considers allegations of POV abuse on this page, will construe all edits of to be evidence in the case.

POV Detective (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• +++ +++ does not understand. Is POV Detective asking +++ to stop refactoring his replies to be correctly indented?

Nandesuka (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• has adopted the Symbol as the positive spirit of NPOV. No other user is authorized to edit the comments of , nor to provide punctuation in a case where has made a comment under a Section Heading but not in reply to another user.

POV Detective (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• +++ has also adopted the Symbol +++. That's a great idea. From now, on, User:POV Detective, please refer to me only as +++. Thanks! +++ (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• notes that the user should adopt a symbol of his own, rather than imitating . There are several possibilities that would work for the user such as !!! or ??? but ??? should really devise his own symbol.

POV Detective (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• +++ notes that +++ is in fact his symbol, and thanks +++ for honoring his request. +++ 19:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• takes honor in gifting the coveted symbol to +++. Now +++ would do well to emulate in conscience as well.

POV Detective (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

requests that other Users not revert this paragraph without giving editors the appropriate time to reference the facts therein, as such consideration has been shown for lengthy periods of time on these pages for unreferenced statements.

An inquiry into the Ethics of Circumcision assumes a knowledge of the conflict between Tradition and Modernism.^{[citation needed]} According to custom, male circumcision involves the excision of genital tissue from the healthy infant's penis,^{[citation needed]} so the ethics of circumcision have become controversial in modern times.^{[citation needed]} It cannot be said, of course, that proponents of circumcision deny its controversy so much as they ignore its affront to rationalism^{[citation needed]} and human rights.^{[citation needed]} Their dismissal^{[citation needed]} of such considerations makes a thoughtful conversation on ethics more difficult.^{[citation needed]} POV Detective (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request denied: apart from violating most, if not all, of Wikipedia's core content policies, that paragraph is completely unreadable along nearly every possible axis. Is this a joke? Nandesuka (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm sure someone will ask, I went back and counted: that lede violates WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. So 3 out of 5. Impressive, in its way. Nandesuka (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• points out that reverter has backed down from reverter's earlier affirmation on this page: "From now, on, User:POV Detective, please refer to me only as +++. Thanks! +++" (Nandesuka) Would that be the reverter's change of heart, identity crisis, or cynicism? Such vacillation would normally make a reverter's opinions both unreliable and worthless.

• notes that reverter apparently holds self to no consistent standards. Impartial observers will discover that reverter has revised and/or deleted reverter's own hasty comments under this section, perhaps because the reverter's initial comments were the equivalent of sticking out the reverter's tongue. Observers will also notice that the reversion itself was just as hasty, thoughtless, and puerile as the reverter's purported critique and justification.

POV Detective (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As such, will revert the change; moreover, any reversion by the usual suspects should document in particular, and address in detail, each purported violation of policy. Will the reverter give it 5 minutes of thought, or five hours, or five days, or five years? shouldn't ask such ridiculous questions.

POV Detective (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think your inability or unwillingness to address the shortcomings of your proposed lede speaks for itself. Nandesuka (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was five seconds of thought... that's progress for you I hope. It's the reverter's job to specify in detail the reverter's objections. Lazy don't work here, friend. Are you still using that Symbol you borrowed from ? POV Detective (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My objections remain the same as I already indicated above: (1) The paragraph is completely unsourced (which you explicitly acknowledge) and thus violates WP:V. (2) The paragraph violates WP:NPOV by ascribing opinions to imaginary people, and expressing judgment on them ("It cannot be said, of course, that proponents of circumcision deny its controversy so much as they ignore its affront to rationalism"), and (3) The paragraph violates WP:NOR by, as near as I can tell, consisting mostly of your personal opinions. ("Their dismissal of such considerations makes a thoughtful conversation on ethics more difficult.") Since you made no attempt to remedy those defects -- or, indeed, even to discuss them on the talk page, choosing instead to advance straight to ad hominem -- deep reflection was not required. Hope that helps. Nandesuka (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a trivial application of policy I fully support. Detective, your edits so far have mostly only disrupted and drawn attention away from more contested and more nuanced issues. Blackworm (talk) 05:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm absolutely stunned that this material was actually included after I have already pointed out above that it violates WP:NPOV. What a waste of everybody's time. POV Detective, please don't do that again. Jakew (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nope, no violation except censorship from the usual suspects, for whom, apparently, thought is a waste of time.

POV Detective (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no question that that paragraph must stay out of the article until the fact tags are taken care of. The claim attempts to connect the practice of circumcision with broad philosophical trends, something which, as an exceptional claim, needs very strong, reliable sourcing. Furthermore, the sourcing you did include doesn't support your claims, as it comes from a very POV source--which can be used as a source, but only to represent it's own (Catholic) viewpoint.

And now that I looked at the second link, I see you're actually just being WP:POINTy. As such, if you continue to add that statement, you will be reported for disruptive editing, as that 3rd link clearly has nothing to do with circumcision and everything to do with your opinions about the value of Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The third link merely points out that wikipedia is subject to control by an uneducated group that has no desire or capability for philosophical discourse. This abhorred link was not cited in the article revision but merely as a starting point for some discussion & introspection on this page. Unfortunately, some people with an agenda may threaten to "report" and "ban," etc, to discourage dialogue they find challenging to their beliefs.

POV Detective (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historians & Scholars may click on the Symbol to find an archive of the censored introduction.

An inquiry into the Ethics of Circumcision assumes a knowledge of the conflict between Tradition and Modernism.^{[citation needed]} According to custom,[1] male circumcision involves the excision of genital tissue from the healthy infant's penis,^{[citation needed]} so the ethics of circumcision have become controversial in modern times.[2] It cannot be said, of course, that proponents of circumcision deny its controversy so much as they ignore its affront to rationalism^{[citation needed]} and human rights.^{[citation needed]} Their dismissal^{[citation needed]} of such considerations makes a thoughtful conversation on ethics more difficult.[3] POV Detective (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:POV Detective has added (twice) some material that does not belong. The edit adds the words "however, while a minority debate the issue, the American public continues to abandon the practice" to the first sentence. There are four problems:

1. It's an unreliable source, as I've previously explained at Talk:Circumcision#New Statistics for United States
2. The source doesn't support the claim. It says nothing about a minority debating the issue; in fact it doesn't even mention the issue of the ethics of circumcision.
3. As an obvious consequence of (2), it is not "directly related" to the subject of this article, and is consequently original research to include it in this article.
4. It's US-centric. The scope of Wikipedia is larger than just the United States, hence even if the material belonged somewhere it should never appear as the first sentence. Jakew (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User may be right in this instance, but User's inconsistency at the Bible's disputed & unsourced statements of purported "fact" in Circumcision and law makes such claims arguably parochial & dubious.

POV Detective (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit does have the virtue of explaining the "sometimes" qualifer in the sentence before the semicolon.

POV Detective (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The disruptive editing on this article has been raised at WP:ANI#User:POV Detective engaged in disruptive editing on circumcision-related topics. If you agree or disagree with the claims, your comments are welcome there. -- Avi (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Good luck with your half-cocked accusations.

POV Detective (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Disruptive" around here really means "in opposition to the version preferred by Jakew (and thus enforced by Avraham and Jayjg)." The fact that you are being flippant and hostile in the face of such brazen ownership and subtle incivility and harassment, of course, will cause any of your valid points to be ignored by others as well. There is no political will in Wikipedia to oppose "the right side" in this matter, no matter their evident violations of policy. No transgression on their part will ever be acknowledged officially, since it would be a very time consuming and complicated matter to show ownership over years, and "wheel wars" can destroy any good-willed, neutral administrator in such an attempt. Further, an infinite supply exists of firm supporters with one-line votes of agreement in any administrative action, no matter how transparent the argument. The result is continued evident bias in all these articles, probably for the long term. Perhaps it's just time to accept it, and seek sources of neutral information instead of Wikipedia. Blackworm (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]