User talk:Hans Adler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

In the near future I may not read my talk page as frequently and reliably as I used to do. For urgent or important matters, it may be better to use email.

Notalkback.svg I do not use "talkback" templates, and it rarely if ever makes sense to leave me such templates.
Barnstar free.svg I could never see the point of the stickers I sometimes got in elementary school. Please do not embarrass me with "awards" or "barnstars" or the like.
Say no to WikiRape.png I do not fancy non-consensual templated "WikiLove".

Zurich or Zürich[edit]

Hi Hans, this discussion might be of interest to you. Best Regards -- Marek.69 talk 20:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. In this case I would actually have been slightly in favour of Zurich. But no doubt Zürich is slowly becoming the more common and more 'correct' spelling in English, so I am happy with the outcome of the discussion. I guess I will have to stop using this as an example, though. Hans Adler 18:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


Bishzilla mentioned you here. Welcome in pocket, bring all the bobsledding Adlers! bishzilla ROARR!! 12:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC).

  • Wer ist diese Bishzilla? Und wo ist der Bahnhof? Drmies (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Drmies, I see you are aware of the infamous de:Kannitverstan trap and know how to avoid it. But I guess you are actually no more confused than I am. Sorry for the lack of proper, timely response. I am very busy recently and shouldn't be editing at all. Hans Adler 20:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Time to smoke the peace pipe?[edit]

Do you think we might call a truce between us? We don't have to be best buddies or anything, but I don't think our mutual sniping is doing anything beneficial for the project or the community, or maybe even each other. What do you say? BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not interested in pursuing this further. And so long as you don't trample on weaker editors again, I don't anticipate any serious future conflicts either. Hans Adler 00:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Can I get in on this too? I'd prefer it if we could just discuss the sources and the article content. Zad68 00:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It is impossible to improve a fiercely protected super-biased article without discussing stonewalling techniques and the editors who apply them. Hans Adler 00:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Some references to back up claims would help. I have requested some from you here [1] for "The more politically correct term male genital mutilation"" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
This question, which you have actually asked at AN as well in the meantime, is not constructive. The claim that "male genital mutilation" is a more politically correct term than "circumcision" is a political claim and as such cannot be proved or stated as fact in the article. No doubt there are reliable sources making this claim (I am pretty sure I saw some when I last researched the non-medical literature on circumcision), but as these won't help us I am not going to invest the possibly significant time required to locate one through Google searches. (I do not own any printed literature related to circumcision.)
Given that removal of the clitoris foreskin is almost universally accepted as a form of genital mutilation, you would find it very hard to argue against removal of the homologous but larger penis foreskin being genital mutilation as well. Due to lack of time I cannot provide sufficiently high quality sources making this obvious connection right now. (The main problem for me is that the discussion is so much overshadowed by female genital mutilation. Most sources explicitly define only female genital mutilation -- presumably to avoid conflicts with male circumcision supporters.)
But such reliable sources are not even required for saying in the article: "The analogous surgical procedure for females, clitoral hood reduction, is known as type Ia female genital mutilation." This could easily be supported with references to the political debate, the extensive section "Female genital mutilation vs. NTC" in the KNMG paper, legal opinion in Germany, Scandinavian laws and ombudsman positions etc., all of which would show that this modest sentence is by no means making an original connection.
That is the real reason why it is so outrageous that FGM only appears in the head note for people looking for female circumcision. That and the fact that this is not an isolated omission. You are systematically downplaying everything that might make circumcision appear in a bad light, while relying way too much on an AAP position paper which asks for more research on circumcision benefits, but does not ask for research on circumcision risks. Hans Adler 19:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
So long story short is you have no reference to support the claim "more politically correct term male genital mutilation" And it is too much work to look for one. Best. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Bullshit, Hans. There was no valid criticism of anything here, and I always thought that the term "censorship" (or, "censorship!") belonged to the less intelligent and the more zealous--I didn't think you fit that bill. You know I didn't censor anything, and you know that drivel like "Maybe male Jewish doctors should start publishing more to their kids about the nutritional benefits of doing blow jobs" is nothing but trolling. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
You are wrong. The Norwegian IP's first comment was totally constructive, helpful, intelligent, and represented the mainstream Scandinavian POV. It also exposed how extremely biased the article is, so it was related to improvement of the article. Hans Adler 14:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
That's funny. (Funny also that you recognized the problem with the IPs rather stupid remarks.) You, the IP, and me are on the same side on this topic, but I'll stay far from it since I'd hate to be associated with trolls like that, or with established editors who are so gung-ho as to lose sight of other things, such as etiquette and common sense. And to think that I get yelled at for enabling abusers: you should know better. BTW, I have some serious issues with your "Drmies hid this commentary" remark, but you're a grownup so I don't have to tell you how wrong you were--you know. Kind of like the IP: there may be a valid point somewhere, but one can't really see it among the ranting and the insults ("censorship"--I take that as an insult). Fare you well, Hans Adler. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Hatting is a technical term for hiding away in a specific way. I don't "know" that anything was wrong about using that word. I also disagree that the IP is a troll. Making a valid point forcefully is not trolling just because it's undiplomatic.
Infant circumcision is a form of child abuse with an uncanny similarity to the worst kinds of sexual abuse. It's hard to make that point without making proponents of the practice angry. Hans Adler 15:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Find pubmed indexed recent review articles that make this point. That is all you need to do. I have no personal opinion on this topic but am able to determine the best available literature. Reflect this literature is all we are here to do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

We don't need pubmed indexed sources for moral, legal etc. matters. As an admin you must know better; you can't possibly believe in good faith that MEDRS applies per-article and is applicable to non-medical aspects of a topic. Trying this strategy anyway is a pretty bold move. Are you sure you can get away with it? Hans Adler 16:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Check out this comment from the Norwegian IP where he reveals way too much information about himself. For some reason the circumcision topic attracts some deeply troubled individuals and I see this as another example. That gentleman appears to be in need of marital counseling and perhaps a visit to a divorce lawyer. I don't think he is helping himself by his participation here. (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I certainly don't see your point. As you are posting with a German IP, I find it hard to believe that you really believe talking openly about something like that with one's wife endangers a marriage. Sex isn't everything, you know, and nowadays it is not necessarily expected of women that they maintain the illusion that their current partner is the best they ever had, physically speaking. On top of that, I guess people talk even more openly about sex in Norway anyway.
It appears to me that when you describe the Norwegian IP as "deeply troubled" for such a reason, you might actually be exposing a great deal about yourself. See psychological projection. Hans Adler 19:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

You appear to be involved in an edit war. If you continue someone might block you. Not me of course. Just a friendly heads up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You might have mentioned your own involvement. You have removed a POV template because you don't consider an article which you passed as GA biased. Hans Adler 16:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes I am involved. I did state that it would not be me blocking you. There have been requests for evidence. Wikipedia is based on sources not editors opinions. If you do not provide high quality sources along with suggested changes nothing will change. Attempting to continue to add tags is disruptive.
On a professional level I do not nor would I ever perform this procedure. Personally I am against it except when medical indicated (and yes it sometimes is). The English article is not pro-circ. It states "No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision for all infant males (aside from the recommendations of the World Health Organization for parts of Africa), or banning the procedure." Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Yet you seem to be insisting to write and organise the article based almost exclusively on Pubmed sources and according to MEDRS. As this is as much a cultural and political topic as it is a medical topic, the resulting American medical bias is inappropriate and makes the article seriously POV.
For comparison, here is a translation of the layout of the corresponding article in the second-largest Wikipedia, the German one:
  • Circumcision in cultural history and religion (Origins and ritual significance of circumcision; Circumcision in Ancient Egypt; Judaism; Christianity; Islam; Modern Era; Present)
  • Performance of circumcision (General; Gomco clamp; Plastibell; Coverage of the frenulum; Traditional circumcision)
  • Styles and forms of circumcision
  • Medical and aesthetic motives for circumcision (Indication; Contraindication; Hygienic and medically preventative motives; UTI; Balanitis; HIV infection risk; Transfer of other infectious diseases; HPV infections; Penis carcinome; Aesthetic and cosmetic motives; Female preference; Hirsuties papillaris penis)
  • Impact on sexuality (Influence on penis sensibility; Masturbation; Intercourse [Sexual satisfaction and susceptibility to orgasm; Ejaculation control; Impact on female partner])
  • Possible problems and complications of circumcision (Medical complications [Pain and postoperative troubles; Meatal stenosis; Formation of knots in venes; Adhesions; Herpes risk; Cases of death; Other risks and complications]; Subsequent psychological problems)
  • Criticism of circumcision of minors (Historical controversies; Present criticism of circumcision; Subjects' lacking capacity to consent; Positions of German professional organisations; Religion and culture as justification of circumcision; Health consequences; Differentiation from female genital cutting)
  • Regulation of circumcision of minors in various states (list of countries)
  • Depiction in art
  • Interpretation in psychoanalysis
And here the outline of the corresponding French article (top level only, for brevity):
  • Ritual practice
  • Circumcision in the anglo-saxon world
  • The surgical procedure and its consequences
  • Geographic distribution
  • Legal aspects
  • Intactivism
  • Psychoanalytic perspectives and psychological consequences of circumcision
  • Controversies
There are many aspects in which the English article is better than the German and French articles. But only the English article has the peculiar quality that an atheist could read it with a completely open mind and as a result decide that it's best for their newborn to be circumcised.
It appears that for years a British circumcision fetishist (not using the word as hyperbole but as a technical description of a specific sexual perversion) had control over the article. (If you didn't know this I will see if I still have the pointers and send them to you privately. May take a week or so, though.) Unfortunately the structure of the main circumcision article and the various related articles still carries much of that legacy. Hans Adler 20:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I encountered that person; his last edit was in 2012. A really extraordinary beyond-what-can-be-made-up case. If info is wanted, feel free to contact me. Johnuniq (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. However, I misremembered an important detail, so I just had to correct my description. But given that the guy has been active so recently, I guess Jmh649 = Doc James was already aware of him anyway. Hans Adler 13:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Sorry Hans I think your personal feelings are getting in the way of productive discussion regarding circumcision, please see here. Zad68 21:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

AN discussion[edit]

The thread has been closed, please do not post into it for any reason. Let it go and move on. GiantSnowman 20:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The only one editing disruptively here is you. Given all your problems recently I would have thought you would have wanted to keep your nose clean. GiantSnowman 20:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Given all my problems recently? Would have wanted to keep my nose clean? And not even so much as a trout for Coffee for making this non-neutral closing comment? Interesting reaction. Congratulations for your first impression on me. I vaguely remember your name, but so far I had no opinion on you.
As I shouldn't be editing anyway, I am in fact not going to pursue this.
Just for the record: You misunderstood my edit comment, though I have trouble guessing how you understood it. "no, YOU are making the scene" doesn't seem to be a good response to "IAR is still policy. The alternative would be making a scene." Obviously, what I tried to express is that regardless of what the current fashion for closing AN threads may be, non-neutral and misleading closing comments must still be highly inappropriate and just appending a quick counterdeclaration is a milder alternative to starting a thread discussing the close or reopening a discussion that has run its course.
And last time I looked, edit warring on AN was still inappropriate. Hans Adler 20:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Who has edit warred? Other than yourself, I mean. If you have an issue with the close, you should have raised it with the individual directly or an uninvolved admin, rather than pettily trying to get the last word in. GiantSnowman 11:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
It was a crap, biased close. Is that User:Coffee's usual style? Couldn't one of you admins correct it? Why do editors who take problems to your clubhouse have to put up with that kind of patronising, condescending, biased shit? You people wouldn't last one minute in anything but a monopoly. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
...and the way to resolve that is by furthering the very 'us vs' them' mentality you complain about? Very good. GiantSnowman 18:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
It's resolved by admins being mature. To clarify, the problem with Coffee's close was "a select few individuals' opinions do not make a consensus, and to drop the pitchfork". Shallow and inflammatory. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Please don't get me wrong - I am not supporting the close. I am not opposing it either. My only issue here is an editor trying to comment in a closed discussion. If people feel the close is wrong, then I suggest they request it is re-opened. GiantSnowman 13:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
And it doesn't occur to you that acting on incomplete information might be a problem? That commenting on a bad close in the only place where people can see it is less disruptive than making a scene, so long as nobody decides to jump in for the sake of process wonkery? Hans Adler 17:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
You could/should have "commented on a bad close" in any way other than editing the closed discussion. It's really that simple. GiantSnowman 18:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
You shouldn't have defended a bad close for the sake of process if you are unwilling to defend it on the merits. It's really that simple. Process is not the purpose of Wikipedia, it's a means to an end. Which is IAR is still policy. Hans Adler 19:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sigh, where have I "defended a bad close" - cos I'm pretty sure I said "I am not supporting the close" earlier today... GiantSnowman 19:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words. Hans Adler 21:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)