User talk:Blackworm

Welcome!

Hello, Blackworm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 21:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

RS

Deep apologies if I sounded perhaps just a little teacherly--I was explaining for benefit of others. DGG 05:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Not at all! I just felt I needed to respond since you asked "...if you like." Blackworm 06:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Cricumcision

You may help make the Topic neutral, but at great cost of time. You may then go on to other topics and interests, but return to find agreed improvements have been deleted. I won most of the same arguments you recently presented, fixed the text, went on to other works, and came back to find all the work here reverted or worse.

Jakew and Avi have strong personal reasons to devote extreme efforts to bias the Topic. [the preceding comment was unsigned -BW]

I know Avi has strong personal feelings about this topic but he does work hard at being balanced and assumes good faith WP:AGF in all his edits. Jtpaladin 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the "Policies of various natl. med. assoc." section was originally introduced by Jakew who wanted to highlight one sentence: Canada

• The Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society posted Circumcision: Information for Parents in November of 2004,[154] and Neonatal circumcision revisited statements in 1996, undergoing revision as of 2004 in which, due to the evenly balanced reasons pro and con, they do not recommend routine circumcision.[155]

Totally lost is the fact that the 1996 statement has not been revised, and the 2004 statement to parents says:

• Circumcision is a “non-therapeutic” procedure, which means it is not medically necessary. Parents who decide to circumcise their newborns often do so for religious, social or cultural reasons. To help make the decision about circumcision, parents should have information about risks and benefits. It is helpful to speak with your baby’s doctor. After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.”

May I suggest that you replace the Sandbox version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Circumcision%5Csandbox with the current dishonest (in several specific respects) version. Call on other editors to review the current POV version and also potentially install the Sandbox version.TipPt 18:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The actual phrase the CPS uses in the source is "benefits and harms," not "reasons pro and con." The former introduces into the article the idea, absent at the moment, that circumcision has "harms" and so I leave it to you to determine why it was rephrased. Regardless, your attitude on the talk page is not helpful to your position. If there's one thing I learned in my short time here, it's that being "right" doesn't matter on Wikipedia. Having good sources and paraphrasing them correctly and accurately doesn't matter on Wikipedia. Having three editors and two admins who share your point of view and who boldly revert any edits contrary to your point of view is what's necessary and important. Then your point of view becomes THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH, in the most fundamental meaning of the phrase our society has. If you Google "circumcision," the first link is to the Wikipedia article. Who controls this article controls the truth about circumcision, period. I am sure this is a fact not lost on those who currently own the article. If you really care, start talking sense and being civil on the talk page -- as it is your presence only serves to disrupt discussion and give your opponents an excuse to deride, harass, and abuse all who may agree with you. I realize you've been doing this for a long time; maybe it's time for a break. (And by the way, it's spelled "cabal," not "cabel." If you're going to make that accusation at least spell it right.) Blackworm 01:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm, please check out the latest proposed change for the AAP's position on circumcision in the Talk page. Let me know what you think. Thank you. Best Regards. Jtpaladin 22:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments on cervical cancer section

Thank you for your comments on my proposed addition to the Male Circumcision article. As you will see from the discussion page, I disagree with your remarks about the worth of my addition. However, I'm too much of a Noob to reinstate my addition. Please consider my reply and think about producing a version that is better written and sourced. I do think that the cervical cancer issue should be included (especially since it Male Circumcision is included in the article on Cervical Cancer), even if it is only to rebutt the claim.SimonHolzman 22:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Simon. I have commented on the Talk page. There are several other open issues on that article which I would like to see closed before tackling this subject, but as I said on the Talk page, I suspect this issue will take precedence over those because of its nature. Blackworm 03:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Circumcision

You are quite right - letters to the editor in a peer-reviewed journal are not themselves peer-reviewed and should not be presented as such. I'm not sure what has been breached in this case, but the result is certainly unencyclopaedic. PalestineRemembered 20:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, no one claimed the letters were peer-reviewed per se, but several editors (including two administrators active on the page) claimed that the mere fact of publication in a peer-reviewed journal (in this case, Pediatrics) gave weight to the comments contained in the letters. One of the administrators said that it was "not a credible line of argument" and urged me to abandon it. I disagreed, and posted regarding the debate on the Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources. Everyone or almost everyone there agreed with me. Regardless, because of the nature of the circumcision article, the disputed claims are still in the article.

One of the editors of the article, Jakew, writes letters to online journals criticizing any negative view of circumcision. Then, when the online journal publishes his letter, it is cited in the circumcision article as a reliable source. This kind of manipulation of the truth is disconcerting to me, but supported by the people controlling the circumcision article, which include at least two Wikipedia administrators. Blackworm 01:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Does he really do that? How do you know that to be true? Also, are you open to chatting by email on various Wiki articles? I can post my email if so. Please let me know. Jtpaladin 22:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not kidding. Check this reference in the article: Waskett, Jake H. (June 20, 2005). Apocrine glands in inner prepuce doubtful. Electronic letters. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. Retrieved on 2006-07-09. I am open to chatting by email, but I have to say I don't really see the advantage over the talk pages. The talk pages have the extra advantage of allowing third parties to contribute. Are there advantages to email that I am overlooking? Blackworm 07:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a bit of strategizing that couldn't be done on the Talk pages. I'll post my email if you are OK with doing some strategizing and seeing where we can work together on various articles. Jtpaladin 14:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am wary of what seems like backroom strategizing, mainly because the tag-teaming circumcision advocates who own the circumcision article engage in it. I also wish to remain semi-anonymous, because public, voiced opposition to circumcision can have dire consequences in one's real life. It invites ridicule, derision, accusations of bigotry, and even threats. I'd rather keep contributing in the manner I've been doing for the time being. Should this change, I'll contact you directly. Thanks though, and sorry. Blackworm 03:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Just as long as you keep contributing, Blackworm. Censorship must not be allowed to triumph.

Edwardsville 12:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael J. Fox page --flag edit

Hi, I posted this on the MJF talk page a earlier today, but thought you might not get back there so I thought I would C&P my reply here as well. . .(feel free to delete at anytime)

"Not really a problem, and thanks for leaving a note. Sometimes the flag icon can cause problems, but as I stated before, one flag, the current flag, of Canada is fine (with me at least). Sometimes other flags have been added (province flag, older Canadian flag (in use at time of birth)) resulting in "flag bloat". At least one time a flag has been added on this page, resulting in the (I'm assuming here) inadvertent removal of actual information. This problem is not restricted to just this page either as this archived discussion indicates." R. Baley 23:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Your message at Talk:Circumcision

You said "Jayjg: Please refrain from violating Wikipedia policy and making personal attacks. Please review the policy and understand that you need to address the content, not the editor. Your position as an administrator makes this call all the more relevant. Your repeated, constant personal attacks and pro-circumcision zealotry are now reaching dangerous proportions. Please cease and desist. Blackworm 08:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)"

Re the first, second, third and last sentence: Well done. This sort of reminder of the policies is needed more often. Re the fourth sentence: I'd suggest striking it out. --Coppertwig 21:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's funny, because I was considering doing just that. Your message convinced me that it's the right choice. Thanks. Blackworm 07:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for considering my suggestion with an open mind! Actually, I've been thinking I should have suggested deleting rather than striking out. I think Wikipedia policies are not clear on which is better, and that if the other person has not yet replied, then deleting may be better, while if they reply and their reply would not be in context if the earlier comment were modified, then striking out may be better. Deleting might be criticized. I'm not sure if it makes much difference, anyway. You're showing an ability to take back some of your words, which is the sort of detachment and fairness which Wikipedia needs more of. --Coppertwig 14:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments. I don't like the idea of deleting volatile comments. I prefer to avoid claims of dishonesty, and show others that mistakes are made and can be corrected. Ultimately, though, I've pretty much lost faith that pointing out policy to certain people accomplishes anything. Jayjg is a Wikipedia administrator, has been for several years, and knows Wikipedia policy verbatim -- freely and frequently giving stern warnings to others. He just does not believe Wikipedia policy applies to himself, and has essentially said as much. One more warning from me not to make personal attacks is not going to change his modus operandi. Blackworm 21:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Re this edit at Talk:Circumcision: [1] Please talk about article content, not about editors, and remember the "keep a cool head" message at the top of the page. Please also help other editors keep a cool head by avoiding saying things about other editors. Please avoid saying things like "the pro-circumcision authors" or "authors controlling this article". Instead, talk in positive terms about what the article should say and what fair processes should be used to decide what it says. Please avoid saying the opposite of what you mean, as in "Fork away all that nasty "medical" stuff -- except how great circumcision is for AIDS, of course;"; it is confusing, requiring more time to read and understand your message, and tends to generate negative emotions in the reader. Please write another message, making the same good points about article content, but not framing them within comments about editors. --Coppertwig 17:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Re your comment above: If someone continues to break rules after receiving repeated warnings, there are ways to influence them such as asking to have them blocked from editing. Even if giving them the warnings does not influence them, a record that they have been warned can influence those deciding whether to block them. For that and other reasons (not least of which is that a person might at any moment start actually listening to the warnings) I believe it's useful to give people warnings. I believe your comment above violates WP:NPA. Please do not put comments like that on your talk page or anywhere else on Wikipedia (except as part of accepted procedures, e.g. asking to have someone blocked, etc.) --Coppertwig 17:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Coppertwig, I respect you and what you are trying to accomplish. Out of respect for you, I will tone down the cynical talk. I'm sorry if I made your task more difficult. I hope you do better in trying to restore a little balance in that article. I'd go further in suggesting approaches, but taking a good-faith approach seems futile to me at the moment. Another reason I should simply say what I had to say and leave for a while. Blackworm 22:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, please, please don't leave Blackworm. What you are doing is so very important. The truth needs to get out there. Don't get discouraged!

Edwardsville 12:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm, you might not have noticed this part of a message from me at Talk:Circumcision where I asked you to clarify a comment you had made about a POV-fork. Your clarification would be appreciated. "...Blackworm, it's not clear to me what proposed action exactly you would consider to be a POV-fork. How do you (and others) feel about this particular proposal? If you consider it a POV-fork, please explain exactly why." (In the section "Article too long?".)

Thanks for your kind words. Here, have a nice cup of tea. --Coppertwig 21:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I received the cup of tea too late. I did miss your message at Talk:Circ; thank you for posting again. I will try to respond by tomorrow. Blackworm 03:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please help! Urgent before it's too late

Please help me contribute to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_Americans Add what you know, help formatting, make as many as possible please. This user Mad Jack (User:Jack O'Lantern)is deleting most of our adds, thinking he knows better, he's still 20. Acadian-Cajun-Louisiana love, let's help each other. Thank a lot, your help is much appreciated. -Gus Abdelkweli 20:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Edits such as this one do not help anyone in attempting to advance the project. Please review wiki's policies on civility, personal attacks, and etiquette in order that you may continue to gainfully contribute to the encyclopædia. Thank you. -- Avi 05:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It is clear to anyone following the discussion on Talk:Circumcision and its associated article that attempts to discuss the content of the article in a civil manner are pointless. A group of four or five vehemently pro-circumcision editors, including administrators, of which I include you, Avi, just endlessly confirm or deny the legitimacy of any content added or removed from the article based on whether it enhances or detracts from a pro-circumcision point of view, making no valid arguments. You routinely take turns reverting in order to avoid 3RR. When you have no valid reason to revert, you claim a lack of "consensus," which really simply means that the four or five pro-circumcision editors are opposed to the change. No attempt is made to objectively look at sources, to summarize in a balanced manner, or to present an opposing point of view (other than to detract it by making it appear limited, or a minority opinion). Thus, anyone outside your group attempting to edit the page becomes irate, exposes the fraud, and thus becomes subject to administrative threats like yours above. I've seen this cycle at least once before with another editor. I will possibly be reprimanded just like the others, and your power and control over the article (and thus the truth) will continue. As a group, you use the rules when you see fit and ignore them when you see fit. It has to stop. Blackworm 06:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That's one interpretation, Blackworm. But browsing through a few of your contributions, I found the following...

• In first comment at Talk:, you propose describing circumcision in the article as an "invasive mutilation procedure." [2]
• "The massive campaign to find a reason to cut up men's penises in still running in full force since the time in the late 1800's when circumcision was billed as the answer to masturbation. We were fooled then, and are being fooled now." [3]
• "...the entire article, presenting circumcision as a normal, legitimate procedure violates WP:SOAP." [4]
• "The definition of "forced circumcision" is not given, and since it could be argued that neonatal circumcision is "forced circumcision," the fact that forced circumcision is relegated to its tiny corner omitting mentioning mention of neonatal circumcision seems to be POV-pushing. In essence, by omitting neonatal circumcision from "forced circumcision," Wikipedia is claiming that neonatal circumcisions are not forced upon the infant." [5]
• "Anti-circumcision is not a fringe, nor is it anti-Semitic. It is simply a disagreement with the idea that one should cut a healthy baby boy's penis up into a bloody mess, causing him immediate and future pain, and diminished sexual pleasure later in life. Show the average person a video of circumcision and they will be appalled and disgusted enough to oppose it (which is why a video of circumcision will never be allowed in this article)." [6]
• "Statements about circumcision which are freed from the stigma of offending those who circumcise for religious reasons, are the most fair, balanced, and in a medical context, accurate statements." [7]

Jakew 13:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As Jake took the time to point out, your comments have been, in the main, more vehement, more divisive, and more inflammatory than those of who you have a philosophical disagreement. Please, if you would like to continue contributing gainfully to the project, endeavor to do so ina spirit of coridality and respect. The project cannot function otherwise, and that is the reason we have enforceable rules to help maintain a smoothly running system. Thank you. -- Avi 15:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, Jakew is another member of your group, and here he is tag-teaming with Avi, probably due to a request by Avi. I will not pull out quotes showing where I am accused by an administrator of anti-Semitism because I oppose elective circumcision. I will not pull out quotes of the multiple personal attacks of which I have been a victim. I will not pull out quotes of the illogical, rambling arguments which inevitably boil down to "you have no consensus" (read: "we simply don't like it") after all attempts to logically argue your points fail. There is no atmosphere of respect, Avi, it's an atmosphere of arrogant abuse of power, and contempt for anyone with a different point of view (with administrators calling editors "anti-circumcision zealots" and implying anti-Semitism). How can I not be in complete contempt of that environment, especially when comments like that are met with deafening silence from the likes of you? You say you hate incivility and personal attacks, but when a member of your group does it, you look the other way. Everything you do, everything you say to an editor, your reactions to the editor, your attitude toward an editor, revolve around that editor's will to preserve all pro-circumcision information and remove all anti-circumcision information. You do not encourage cordiality and respect when you simply ignore any point anyone else makes and insist on your way (and get it) in every single discussion, right or wrong. If those are the best quotes you can muster up to point out incivility, I suggest you try again. The last three points especially, I stand behind 100%. If you can't detach yourself from the subject enough to look at it objectively, that's your problem. In the past, I've backed off, I've apologized when discussed grew too heated, I've marked discussions as "resolved" where I could not make my point in a valid way, I've conceded arguments. I have never seen any single one of you do any of that. You have no reason to be apologetic for personal attacks, to recognize any of your policy violations much less admit them or apologize for them, or to allow any material you do not like into the article, because you have 100% control over it, with Wikipedia administrator support. Any oligarchy is contrary to Wikipedia policy, and your attacking me on my talk page after my accurate description of the fraud you have been carrying out for months and years on the circumcision page is simply an attempt to obfuscate the fact that YOU,, NOT ME are in violation of Wikipedia policy. Notify the other members of the group (do you guys have an e-mail list? that would make it easy), have them comment here too, that would make the circle complete.

It's much easier to get rid of me by attacking me on my talk page, than to deal with the fact that I understand what you're doing and am intelligent enough to describe the exact mechanism you employ to maintain full editorial control over a Wikipedia article. If you disagree with my assessment, then prove it to me. Show me where any of you have removed any pro-circumcision information because the source was invalid. You simply do not do it. You do not seem interested in the quality of the article. If I had to guess, your group seems most interested in hanging around calling people "anti-circumcision zealots" and anti-Semitic and removing any potential threats to your control of the article before they can grow in numbers enough to form a viable threat to your monopoly on information. Blackworm 22:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've struck out "NOT ME" above because clearly I am in violation of it by not continuing the charade. I didn't want to say anything further on this since I thought my point had been made, and also out of respect for Coppertwig who has taken an interest in attempting what I attempted months ago -- a civil and productive discussion and compromise. I've said what needed to be said and what has been said by others. Change your ways. Be fair. Apply policy despite editorial content or personal views. You have taught me these rules. When I see you ignore them, I can only be dumbfounded and I can only hold you in contempt. Blackworm 22:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, your diatribe exposes you. Improper accusations, lack of good faith, and paranoic ramblings, in my perhaps limited experience, are usually the responses of people whose arguments lack the strength of validity or consensus. It is rather shameful on your part, sorry to say, to accuse people of "tag-teaming". Nowhere do you find myself accusing you, TipPt, Nokilli, Edwardville, and other like-minded people of "tag-teaming." Perhaps my assumption of good faith on your part was misfounded; your above editorial seems to make that so. Consensus and or NPOV, unlike a common miscopnception, does not require brainless lobotomiozed responses to every suggestion; rather, it requires discourse. Unfortunately, it seems that your response to civil discussion is to pull out the same cabal-based arguments that is the fodder of many groups of editors who find themselves in the minority. "Of course there is a concerted effort to defy me," the logic goes, "I'M RIGHT, THEY must be involved in a conspiracy." Then, and this I find bizzare, you are bringing in the spectre of anti-Semitism. Is this Godwin's law revised? Were you accused of anti-semitism? Please point it out to me. However, in light of a lack of evidence, it appears your attempt to poison the well and derail the matter of personal attacks and ad hominem statements was somewhat distasteful, to say the least. I think, and perhaps I am biased, that the Circumcision page has bent over backwards to ensure that every statement is sourced, and that it can be read in such a way as to not demonstrate a skew towards either direction. Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor a vehicle for influence, and when people attempt to use it as such, it needs to be defended vehemently, or the project will lose all credibility. Yes, I know that is what you are claiming happens now, but I am relatively comfortable in the knowledge that people without a specific "axe to grind" or a specific aim to push disagree with you. Further, your very own words above now demonstrate, at least to me, the difficulty you seem to have with the concept of the true definition of neutral point of view, combined with a distinct lack of respect for your fellow editors. I am unfortunately forced to remind you, together with myself and every other editor in the project, that personal attacks, incivility, and lack of the assumption of good faith in the absence of contravening evidence are impediments to the project, and such impediments can be prevented to protect the project as a whole. I'm sorry you feel the way you do, but the method you choose to express it and the crusade that I am afraid you are choosing to embark upon (and I hope that I am mistaken) will only end badly for all involved, and will not help the project or any one of its articles. Thank you, and I hope that we can continue to engage in communication and dialogue that is both mutually beneficial, and beneficial to Wikipedia as a whole. -- Avi 00:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, but no. You are repeating the same accusations about me that I have made toward you. At least I have the nerve to talk openly about the situation. Your sad refusal to recognize that your "civil discussion" is nothing more than intimidation, illogic, and disrespect disguised as civility does not surprise me. As for evidence of the accusation of anti-Semitism, I will reproduce it here:

• As a disinterested reader, it seems to me that there is FAR too much misinformation from the anti-circumcision fringe. It comes off as anti-Semitism and as immature ranting. --Charlene 08:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[ My longish response deleted. ]

You make Charlene's point perfectly. Jayjg (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You may read the full text at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Circumcision/Archive_29 -- if you can find anything anti-Semitic about my response, please point it out to me. Otherwise, accept that when someone is falsely accused of anti-Semitism by a Wikipedia administrator (in this case Jayjg), it is a violation of Wikipedia policy, creating an environment where civil discourse has stopped. Once that line has been crossed, and with your (and Jakew's) repeated, tacit support for the position of the administrator who has come to your side in countless "discussions," indicate to me that all pretense of assumptions of good faith are out the window. The above is only one example; there are others. Your supposedly rescinding your assumption of good faith toward me is no different from me rescinding mine toward you, and for the same reasons. It only requires us to dig a little deeper, in the archives, the diffs, the histories, and the user pages (in the case of Jakew), to see why the assumption isn't merited. I chose to explicitly rescind my assumption of good faith, as a sign of my disdain for the two-faced, passive aggressive, one-sided, and Wikipedia policy-violating style with which you and your like-minded friends administer the circumcision article. Others have done the same. I repeat to you my final advice: Change your ways. Be fair. Apply policy despite editorial content or personal views. You have taught me these rules. When I see you ignore them, I can only be dumbfounded and I can only hold you in contempt. Blackworm 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You are doing great Blackworm. Don't let yourself be bullied into silence by would-be censors. The truth needs to get out there. Please keep up your work on the article.

Edwardsville 12:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• "I notice Jakew has not argued my point about this directly -- he has done exactly what I said he would. Obfuscate, deny, stall, "discuss."" [8]

I suggest that you review WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA. In particular, note that WP:NPA states "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." Jakew 10:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes Jake. Now tell me, why don't you scold Avi for saying, "Sadly, your diatribe exposes you"? Is it because you agree with him? Why don't you scold Jayjg for implying I'm anti-Semitic? Is it because you agree with him? Is it because you see his administrative power as protecting your admitted quest to rid the circumcision article of any anti-circumcision POV? You are a hypocrite. Blackworm 01:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"Sadly, your diatribe exposes you…" was a response to statements including:

• "…arrogant abuses of power…"
• "Everything you do, everything you say to an editor, your reactions to the editor, your attitude toward an editor, revolve around that editor's will to preserve all pro-circumcision information and remove all anti-circumcision information."
• "If I had to guess, your group seems most interested in hanging around calling people "anti-circumcision zealots" and anti-Semitic and removing any potential threats to your control of the article before they can grow in numbers enough to form a viable threat to your monopoly on information."
• "When I see you ignore them, I can only be dumbfounded and I can only hold you in contempt."

Alas. -- Avi 02:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

PS, as an aside, I believe it was I who found the Van Howe, Svoboda et al citation. I've stopped recently, but there was a time I went through every citation in the article, bot pro and con, checked it, ffound original sources when I could, and updated the templates. Your presence in this article is somewhat recent, so I understand how you could mistakenly believe that my edits are purely one way or the other. -- Avi 02:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have only seen you add pro-circumcision material and remove anti-circumcision material. Why don't you want to discuss your friend Jayjg's statements about me, Avi? Why do you ask for evidence that I was accused of anti-Semitism, ruminate at length about how awful it is that I would bring something like that up without evidence, then, when I present the evidence, change the subject? Why do you remain silent when Jayjg makes personal attacks? Have you posted to Jayjg's talk page encouraging him not to make libelous personal attacks? Do you support Jakew's writing letters to journals criticizing medical studies that he sees as casting circumcision in a negative light, and then having the letters referenced in our encyclopedia? Try answering some of the hard questions for a change. Blackworm 02:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Responses:

1. Read the article history.
2. "my friend" Jayjg? I'm curious, why do you feel that we are "friends"? Of course, you would not be stereotyping, so I'm somewhat at a loss for your decision as to the relative level of gregariousness that we share.
3. I will look into the claim you have posted re: Anti-semitism.
4. I could post on Jay's page. There are plenty others who do already . Where is the libelous accusation, by-the-by?
5. Support or not is a moot point. Information that is published in peer reviewed journals is usually considered a valid source for wikipedia. Jake is not engaging in original research but is quoting a reliable source. If Van Howe turns out to be a wikipedian who has edited on this page, are we going to remove all of his papers? That is rediculous. If you get yourself published in a peer-reviewed journal such as "The Lancet" etc. then that letter will be a valid addition to wikipedia. Good Luck, and send me the link/article when you're published.

These, and similar, questions HAVE been discussed over the past 18 months or so, thats why we have talk archives. -- Avi 03:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Anti-semitism claim

In my initial understanding of Charlene's comments, she was not referring to any one editor in particular, but that she felt that the virulence and misrepresentation that she percieves coming from the "anti-circumcision" group may have its basis in anti-Semitism She was not referring directly to you, especially if you notice that her comments were aimed at Tip (and his ubiquitous mention of the "religious cabal").

I understand Jay's comments to be referring to "immature ranting." You YOURSELF understood Charlene's point as such, and I quote (emphasis added is my own):

Anti-circumcision is not a fringe, nor is it anti-Semitic. It is simply a disagreement with the idea that one should cut a healthy baby boy's penis up into a bloody mess, causing him immediate and future pain, and diminished sexual pleasure later in life. Show the average person a video of circumcision and they will be appalled and disgusted enough to oppose it (which is why a video of circumcision will never be allowed in this article). In our current female-dominated society, pointing this out is seen as whining; however enlightenment has always been slow to come to humanity. Speaking out against slavery was "immature ranting" only a hundred or two years ago, after all.

— Blackworm 09:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC), Talk:Circumcision/Archive 29

So, I do not believe Jay had in mind to call you an anti-semite. -- Avi 03:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If he was only referring to "immature ranting," he would have been sensible and sensitive enough to specifically say so. Charlene's "point" was about immature ranting and anti-Semitism. You have no reason to assume what Jayjg "had in mind" unless you are not impartial. Which you aren't. As I said. And by the way, there's nothing in that paragraph which is immature, or "whining." "Whining" is an abusive term people use when they cannot argue points on their merits. It is an accusation which the bruised and vocal cannot defend against without seemingly making the accuser's point -- since the accused is already in suspicion of "whining," any defense is seen as confirmation of a frivolous and pathetic complaint by the weak minded. To have an administrator support, rather than condemn, an unfounded accusation of anti-Semitism against another editor (whoever it may be) is a vile breach of decorum, not to mention a direct violation of Wikipedia policy. A violation that not one of the three administrators on the page condemned, because it was directed at editors you believe have a POV with which you disagree. I strongly suspect that the passion that motivated all of you to "fix" the circumcision article in times long ago, when it may have been unbalanced toward the other POV, has now turned into an infantile game of power in which you defend your unbridled control of the article, and deny information contrary to what spurned your passion; even when you violate both the spirit and policy of Wikipedia. Let's let the facts speak for themselves. Blackworm 05:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's let the facts speak for themselves.

— Blackworm 05:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that they do speak for themselves. Remember, one of our core policies is, in the absence of contravening evidence, to assume good faith. Being that we both agree that an accusation of anti-semitism, where it is not called for, is an egregious breach of decorum, what makes you assume that that is what Jay meant? -- Avi 05:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Person 1: "You are stupid and an anti-Semite, person 2."

Person 2: "...."

Person 3: "You make Person 1's point perfectly, person 2."

Person 3 is implying that Person 2 is an anti-Semite. Clear as day. And please answer my other questions. Blackworm 01:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered this, more likely, explanation:

Person 1: "You are exhibiting immature ranting"

Person 2: [Insert immature rant about creating "bloody messes" out of healthy penises here.]

Person 3: "You make Person 1's point perfectly, person 2."

Person 3 is implying that Person 2 is exhibiting immature behavior with his purposely crafted to disgust rant. Clear as day. And please answer my other questions, too.

-- Avi 02:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Except that's a misrepresentation of what Person 1 said. A better one would be "You are exhibiting immature ranting and anti-Semitism." Put that in your example, and it easily fails, even despite your emphasis on one part of what I said, and de-emphasis on the fact that nothing I said was anti-Semitic. Nothing I said illustrated that part of her supposed "point." In order to make her point "perfectly," as Jayjg said, I would also have to have expressed anti-Semitism, wouldn't I? Jayjg did not even respond to my indignant challenge to present any evidence that I am anti-Semitic. For shame. Blackworm 07:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Polarization

I would appreciate it if you would help reduce polarization at Talk:Circumcision. One way you can help is to avoid mentioning whether someone is (or you believe someone is) pro- or anti-circumcision. It's fine to talk about parts of the article being too pro- or too anti-, though. (Being careful not to imply that the editors who wrote them are.) I'd like to see you making more suggested edits. The list of "pain" references you provided is quite useful: I've just posted a proposed edit based on them collectively. If you could post more suggested wordings or references that would be helpful. Let's talk about the article on its talk page, not about editors. And please assume good faith. Someone who is trying to move the article in a certain direction may be trying to make it what appears to them to be neutral, even if to others it appears heavily biassed. That's because of course different people have different points of view. --Coppertwig 23:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your calmness, focus on article content, and productive contribution of useful information in this [9] and other edits. Note that Jakew responded in a collaborative manner to that edit. --Coppertwig 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouting on my talk page.

I don't like the idea of gathering quotes from Jayjg and Avi and posting snippets in bold on their talk page. I could link to some here, but the evidence is all in the recent Archives of Talk:Circumcision -- where the real, potentially productive discussion supposedly is. Why read the meta-discussion when you can read the discussion and judge for yourself. There may be some trolls, as expressed on Jakew's talk page, but I don't think I'm one of them, at least I've tried not to be. But frustration and disdain are often expressed as cynicism. To be fair to you Avi, I am on board with the majority of your edits and reversions -- to a greater extent than those from Jakew and Jayjg. I have also been impressed by your ability to remain cool in the face of opposition. Blackworm 06:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As requested

As you requested, Blackworm, I'm replying here to your questions about Circumcision in the Bible.

Firstly, no, I do not take anything about the article - or indeed the Bible - personally. My concerns are with having the best encyclopaedia articles, whether you choose to believe that or not.

Although the word 'Bible' tends to refer (at least in Christian countries) to the Christian Bible, the meaning of the word can include other works important to other religions. As I have stated, however, I believe that a better title for the article would be circumcision in religion. Such a title would avoid ambiguity over whether the subject was Christian-specific. I see no particular reason why such an article should be specific to Christianity in preference to a wider context. Jakew 10:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Jake. I don't see anything wrong with creating an article entitled "Circumcision in Religion," though I would personally prefer "Circumcision and Religion" in order to establish relevance for points of view which may come from outside organized religion. Personally, I'd rather see it addressed concisely in the Circumcision article, but if there are enough people, like you, willing to put the relevant and reliable information out there, I am not going to oppose it. I respect you, Jake, and if you're ever in Montreal I will gladly meet with you and have a drink. Cheers. Blackworm 08:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"Circumcision and religion" is perhaps a better title, now that you mention it. My main area of interest is of course medical aspects. I am less interested in religion, and I don't have volumes of source material about it. I would therefore expect my role to be more of editing and helping enforce policy rather than being a primary contributor, but I am confident in the ability of other editors, and the overall process, to create a good article.

If ever I am in Montreal, I will doubtless be in touch. :-) Jakew 10:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

On pigs and good faith

You might want to rethink your comment at Talk:Circumcision. Bearing in mind the reference to the choice between cleaning ('hose it off') and removal, it should be fairly clear that in the analogy the pig was the edit, not the editor. Even if any doubt remains in your mind, it is important to assume good faith. Jakew 10:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Preposterous. Nandesuka's edit goes against every precept written at the top of the talk page. You defend Nandesuka instead of attacking because of his or her POV on circumcision, nothing else. (And I was kinda wondering when the fourth member of the group would show up.) Blackworm 21:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed, Blackworm. I thought we were beginning to develop some respect for each other. Now you accuse me of acting in bad faith. Jakew 21:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've come to believe you're not consciously doing it. Blackworm 02:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your edit summary, " I agree with the policy violator", was uncalled-for. If someone violates a policy, it may be appropriate to point that out, but I think it is not appropriate to label the person a "policy violator". Also, it seems to me that at least two people have violated policies in actions directly related to that discussion. (Who among us has never violated a policy?) Also, it may be both more diplomatic and more saving of space on article talk pages to point out such violations on the user's talk page rather than the article talk page.

Regarding reducing polarization, I would also appreciate it if you would avoid saying things like "the same editors who ...", at least on the article talk page. Also, I'm still waiting for further clarification from you re the page shortening proposal -- I'm sorry that I still didn't understand your position when you came back to clarify. --Coppertwig 14:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You have not explained the logical difference between pointing out that someone violated a policy, and pointing out that they are a policy violator. I do not believe there is any. Everyone on the talk pages uses phrases like "the same editors who" and I am not going to stop. Nandesuka was the missing third administrator of the group, who I had not seen in a while, and is now back calling editors "pig[s] covered in mud and feces." Sadly, that is how many people who are opposed to circumcision are viewed by circumcision advocates, and the pig covered in feces analogy has been applied directly to me in the past. It has religious symbolism, and it is part of an ideology of dehumanization. People opposed to circumcision are unclean, disgusting, barbaric -- exactly like the dictionary definition of "uncircumcised." If you want to reduce polarization, be vocal in opposition to such hateful characterizations, instead of defending them. Blackworm 21:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no logical difference between pointing out that someone violated a policy and calling them a "policy violator". The difference is entirely emotional. Therefore, please always stick to the format that gets the required information across with the minumum negative emotional impact. Often applying a label or adjective to a person tends to have a negative emotional impact and is to be avoided.

It's not true that everyone on the talk pages uses phrases like "the same editors who". I don't, for one. In the last week or two I've noticed a number of messages from you doing things like mentioning categories of editors like that -- which tends to be polarizing. I haven't noticed anyone else doing anything like that meanwhile. Even if they do, that's no excuse.

I don't see how letting accusations stand that are, in my opinion, too strong, would reduce polarization. On the contrary, I think it's the other way around. Note my comments to Nandesuka. --Coppertwig 17:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Something you said

Re "...The validity of my arguments against your illogical and hypocritical objections to any material presenting any criticism of circumcision is not dependent on my opinion of you" at Talk:Circumcision: I'd suggest striking this part of your comment out. --Coppertwig 00:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your suggestion. I will not be striking it out. Jakew's objection to the one-line of material casting circumcision in a negative light was, "it is only relevant to one specific form of circumcision, not circumcision in general." He strongly supports the contested six-line paragraph referring to ritual circumcision in the "pain" section. He has proven over and over that he will pull out any random argument against any material casting circumcision negatively, yet the same arguments do not seem to hold any sway with him when they are used against material casting circumcision positively. He is a known and admitted circumcision advocate, and in light of that fact his behaviour is the definition of hypocrisy. I stand by my words. More important that his hypocrisy, however, is his illogic; and his inability to present any logical explanation for his continued heavy handed reversion of any and all material he sees as critical of circumcision, while strongly supporting even the most tenuous and fringe material which is supportive of circumcision. Blackworm 04:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Salut Blackworm,
Thanks for the welcome note.
(Gainstrue 16:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC))

re: Your recent edits

It read like a little POV battle within the 3 sentences... A report found that circumcision might negatively impact upon woman > the report was insignificant and didn't call into question the utility of circumcision > Thus, calls for male circumcision for disease prevention have been heavily criticised - Didn't seem to make sense the way it was put together.

I overlooked the leftover references... I'll try to fix that.

I agree, it wouldn't hurt to mention somewhere that calls for circumcision in the name of disease prevention have been criticized - After all, pathologizing a natural part of the human body, as opposed to addressing the actual causes of the disease and focusing on prevention strategies that are more effective, less invasive and less riddled with ethical/human rights problems (at least when it comes to circumcision performed on a minor, or coercion issues when stigmas about anatomically complete sex organs are promoted) is far from universally accepted as being an entirely sane idea. - Gainstrue 21:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I could not agree more; however, to some, removing the foreskin is akin to "clipping your fingernails" or "cutting your hair." These people's comparisons betray a warped perspective in my humble opinion. Blackworm 11:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I won't argue there, and to some people it is seen as being no different than vaccination. I personally don't think the two can be equated for several reasons but it's also good to keep in mind that the WHO recognizing circumcision as HIV preventive (and their subsequent recommendation that male circumcision services should be scaled up in Africa) is primarily intended for countries where the disease has reached truly crisis proportions. In my own opinion I think money could be spent in more effective ways... but if a grown male wants to go ahead and do it, it's his choice, and it wouldn't hurt to have it done in a proper medical setting as opposed to him heading off to see the local bush doctor. Given the sense of emergency in some of these countries I can see how anything that can be used to slow down HIV would be considered welcome.... but I think it becomes problematic when a minor gets marched down to the clinic or, as I mentioned, when the coercion factor comes into play if public awareness campaigns are more of an exercise in persuasion and stigmatization - if circumcision is going to be painted as a vaccine or a backup condom then the message can be that a man who simply has decided not to get part of his penis cut off is in a sense choosing not to vaccinate himself or wear condoms. I personally think public health officials go too far, not to mention lose credibility, when they put natural human anatomy into their line of sights - when most males get along just fine with what they've got and are perfectly capable of protecting themselves via their brain. But obviously there are differing views on that. Anyhow, the mention of the WHO in the intro does mention the context which I think is appropriate. As for criticism of the entire idea of utilizing circumcision as a prevention tool - maybe this could be briefly mentioned in the HIV section, and it is addressed on the bioethics page. - Gainstrue 15:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

On that... I had another look at the bioethics page and this is mentioned in there. I'm not sure, I can see the argument why it might deserve at least some mention on the main article. - Gainstrue 22:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd like to have your opinion on my proposed "criticism section." In my opinion, it is short and concise, but almost fully summarizes the arguments of those opposing the practice. Obviously, the attempt to present anything which could be viewed as criticism in the circumcision article is a daunting task, given the tendencies of certain editors. Blackworm 11:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, the article is already kind of long. The criticisms I assume your talking about would be related to the medical and ethical issues. Such as penile cancer being a disease of the elderly and is a very rare form of cancer, which has other more significant contributing factors, hence removing healthy anatomy from a child on account of this is hardly an accepted idea in the medical world... or how most uncomplicated UTIs can be treated with oral antibiotics and they are less likely in boys than girls anyway. And the bodily rights issues etc... All of these I see in the article already, so I don't know whether a criticism section is needed. Further, I think that might only serve to polarize this page, would there then need to be a "criticism of the criticism section"? I think any relevant criticism deserves some mention in the section that it applies to, and for the most part the article seems to do a good job of that and from my experience so far the editors seem to be receptive to any ideas and input as long as the article stays within NPOV territory. - Gainstrue 15:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The article does not conform to WP:NPOV in my opinion -- it represents the limited views of its principal authors, who engage in heavy handed placement of contested content, but similarly and without discussion heavy handedly revert perfectly valid edits with vague excuses such as "it's too long," "it only applies to ritual circumcision," "it's WP:SOAP," "it's undue weight for a minority opinion" and so on. What is even more amazing is that they ignore these same arguments when they are applied to the material they support. I believe I have demonstrated this at Talk:Circumcision, and so have many other editors who have since giving up attempting to wrench ownership of this article from Jakew and Avraham, and earlier with Jayjg and Nandesuka. All four editors (three being administrators) consistently and demonstrably push a pro-circumcision POV with their inconsistent, chameleon-like arguments peppered with personal attacks and dismissals based on bad faith. It is a travesty and a discredit to Wikipedia. Blackworm 11:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a formality

You do know that edit summaries such as this one while humorous, and a viable method of releasing your frustration, are still forbidden under wikipedia's personal attacks policies. -- Avi 03:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, Avi, let's stop this nonsense. You attack me by questioning whether English is my first language, I attack you by pointing out the irony that you question my English while making English mistakes. I realize I've been more dangerous to you and Jakew lately because I actually am starting to play this silly game on your level. I'm sorry if this is a burden to you. However, I believe you need to come to the realization that all of us have "POV bias" when it comes to this subject. Wikipedia has policies in place that could potentially let us come to agreements and make a better article. To allow us to separate the POV from the facts. Let's follow them and do so. The circumcision article reads like an advertisement for circumcision, because it is mostly written and edited by advocates of circumcision such as yourself and Jakew. This violates WP:NPOV. Work with me to change this. Blackworm 08:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree regarding nonsense. Your edits are intentionally provocative and as often as not directed against editors and not edits. Your view regarding the article is well known, and I find it unsurprising that you feel it so drastically skewed one way. However, I do not believe you are a suitable judge. Neutral Point of View requires that someone be able to read the article in such a way as to be uncertain as to the point of view of the author vis a vis the major viewpoints on the subject, in proportion to their penetration and representation. My personal opinion is that it seems that for every overtly pro-circumcision statement there is a balancing anti-circumcision one. To me, it appears that you feel that a statement that is not overtly anti-circumcision will be interpreted as pro-circumcision, and so you feel the need to insert negative connotations most places in order to balance what you personally feel is an imbalance. It is natural for you to feel that imbalance; but, as I said, I do not think that your sense of balance is the one with which the article needs to conform. Regardless, your history of overtly attacking statements and lack of respect for fellow editors will not serve you, the article, or wikipedia well. -- Avi 15:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel exactly the same way regarding yourself and Jakew, exchanging the words "anti" and "pro," and "positive" and "negative;" and also regarding your attacking editors rather than edits. I agree with your description of NPOV. I believe the current article is demonstrably failing to meet this standard, and shows widespread bias, aided by your and Jakew heavy handed guardianship, which may be a violation of WP:OWN. I do not believe you nor Jakew are suitable judges either. Thanks for commenting. Blackworm 23:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

NPA. Again.

Blackworm, in spite of numerous reminders, you still seem to have forgotten the essence of no personal attacks: Comment on content, not on the contributor.

Please have a look through your recent talk page contributions. In a worrying percentage, you repeatedly attack other editors. I'm happy to provide examples if you want, but I doubt you need me to do so. This behaviour really needs to stop. Jakew 23:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You have a lot of gall. I have actually been the victim of personal attacks, from you and others. rAlso, your continued WP:OWN violation merits a repeated demand that YOUR behaviour stop. Blackworm 01:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a recent example: "I am sorry you seem see any information existing anywhere in the universe which may, potentially, upon reflection, cast circumcision in a negatively light as "opinion." Perhaps you should refrain your circumcision advocacy to non-encyclopedic arenas -- your ubiquitous presence in circumcision advocacy (as a simple Google search on "Jake Waskett" reveals) may be causing you to see bias where there isn't any." [10]

Please remember that even if you are not able to comply with WP:AGF, there is no reason why you must voice your assumptions of bad faith. Doing so is incivil, and constitutes a personal attack. Jakew 12:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in engaging you in this childish diversion. Examples of your personal attacks and the personal attacks of your allies are abundant, and your constant and ongoing utter disregard for the spirit and letter of Wikipedia policy (other than quoting it when it serves your goals, and constantly and often incorrectly accusing your opponents of violating it to undermine their arguments) is also evident. I do not wish to engage you in this meta-discussion -- already your "discussion" style seems calculated to frustrate, intimidate, and tire, as several editors have pointed out. It is clear that your complete lack of giving ground in any discussion, complete lack of ever admitting a mistake, constant "confusion" allowing you to "discuss" ad infinitum all the while claiming lack of consensus, constant misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy (or simply reinterpretation based on the scenario), and constant heavy handed and unilateral edits made without discussion or consensus, result in de facto ownership by you of every single article related to circumcision; this regardless of the number of editors agreeing or disagreeing with you. That time must come to an end. Your bias smells just as bad as everyone else's, even if you have turned it into a personal crusade. Blackworm 16:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel frustrated, Blackworm, but this is not a diversion, childish or otherwise. If you wish to participate in talk page discussions, then you must abide by core user conduct policies. These are not optional, and you need to take them seriously. Please limit your comments to the subject of the article in future. Jakew 17:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. If only you could follow your own advice. Blackworm 17:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment to Blackworm and Jakew

Re comments by both of you at Talk:Circumcision: "...since that would imply either self-denial or deceit on your part, ..." and "Perhaps English is not your first language?": I would like to ask both of you to try harder to "keep a cool head" as it says at the top of the page, and to write in such a way that it's also easier for the other person to do so, too. Thanks. I will put a copy of this message on Jakew's talk page. --Coppertwig 23:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing hot-headed said by me in that thread. The example you quote from me above was exactly in the format thrown at me by Jakew, except phrased as a rhetorical question, which I then answer in the negative. It was intended to show that his incivility and other violations were not welcome, in a format he may understand (since he flatly denies any accusations of any violations). Blackworm 01:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

When you feel that something has been "thrown" at you, that's an indication that the temperature of the debate is somewhat raised. The thing that's needed then is not to do something "exactly" in the same format back to the other person (or not even "exactly ... except"), but instead to do something that helps cool things down.

People with different POV's react to the same words differently. We each tend to see what we ourselves have written as being more harmless, innocent, justified, clever and obviously true, and what people we're debating with have written as more insulting or obviously false. In order to avoid escalating conflict, we need to compensate for that. If each person reacts with something they perceive as exactly the same level as the other person, then because it will usually be perceived differently by the other person, conflict will tend to (rapidly) escalate.

It helps to try to put yourself in the other person's shoes and try to feel, with some degree of accuracy, how they probably feel on reading your words. It takes a great deal of detachment to do this well. It can help to practice by looking at debates you have no feelings about yourself but in which the participants are expressing strong feelings, and put yourself in the shoes of first one and then the other side, trying to feel their feelings and understand how they perceive the whole debate. It also often helps a lot to take a 24-hour break so that both sides can cool down. --Coppertwig 17:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that is the best course. I do not agree that I escalated the conflict with my response. Perhaps if I had said: "What if I told you, Jakew, that you 'chose' not to see my arguments? Wouldn't that be a violation of WP:AGF..." The meaning is the same, minus the sarcasm. In any case I appreciate your attempt to defuse the conflict (which was relatively minor on that Talk page), as well as your constructive responses in that thread. Blackworm 18:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's usually best to avoid sarcasm in these sorts of discussions. Sarcasm tends to sting, and it also greatly increases the chances of being completely misunderstood. I'm still not sure I understand the sarcasm you're talking about here. The version above without the sarcasm seems far better to me. I think it might have been appropriate and constructive to post something like that on Jakew's talk page; but then again it might be counterproductive -- I'm not sure. I think those sorts of remarks are out-of-place on an article talk page. When you use a word like "deceit" it's too easy for the other person to misread or ignore the context it's in and just take it as if you'd said "Deceit!" directly to them, even when that is not what you said. The part of the brain that handles emotions tends to ignore things like grammar and logic.

I didn't say that you'd escalated the conflict and I didn't mean it. If we try hard to defuse minor conflicts, maybe major ones will never start.

I congratulate you and Jakew on keeping the discussion relatively civil at Talk:Prevalence of circumcision. ---- Coppertwig (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for answering the RfC

Hi Blackworm, thanks for the comments left at Talk:Loudness_war. There is no question that is a very good article. And, you are correct, the article's author (User:Riprowan) CAN NOT post that link himself. Which means that you can, if you believe of course that this editor is notable and his site is a reliable source. I say "his" because he owns it. One more thing, there is no link to the ProRec article on the RfC section because the discussion wasn't about how good the article was but whether articles's author can post it himself or not. Can you tell me how you got to it? Thanks. Jrod2 10:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jrod2. I didn't quite assert that the article's author couldn't post the link himself; only that it's unclear, and perhaps more valid if someone else did. The issue of reliable sources does not come into play here; the Links section (uncommented links to external sites related to the subject) does not fall under this requirement to my understanding. If, however, information from the ProRec article was used in the Wikipedia article, then the issue would arise. In that case, I believe the WP:RS requirement would be met if the views were properly attributed to Rowen (it is a reliable source for the claim that those are his views). The only remaining issue would then be as to his (and his views') notability, which I believe is unquestioned. To answer your question, as an amateur music producer I actively read ProRec years ago, and read Rowen's editorial then. By pure coincidence I happened to be looking at the RfC page yesterday and came across your request. Perhaps I will try to help improve the WP article, now that I know of its existence; this is a subject that interests me as well. Thanks for commenting. Blackworm 16:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Blackworm, thanks for the response. So I think you need to read "Writing about subjects close to you". Find this: "When writing about subjects that are close to you, don't use your own personal knowledge of the subject, and don't cite yourself, your web site, or the subject's web site. Instead, use what is written about the subject by other people, independently, as your sources. Cite those sources in your very first edit. If you don't have such sources, don't write.". One more thing, writing about a subject close to you doesn't necessarily only apply to your biography or your company. These are mere examples. So, if you are an audio engineer, you can't write about audio and use your own article to reference it. This may still apply to someone who never had contributed to an article but wishes to use his own link (See COI paragraph #1 Now, Rip Rowan claims that the article was written by someone who used his text. I don't think so (See the user who posted the link). As you can see it was months after the LW article was written. In order to say that he invented the term "Loudness war", verification through references are needed. Now, forgive me but you seem to be a bit misguided yourself because when it comes to being an editor at WP, admins and guideline guardians like editors to edit and contribute on a wide variety of subjects and topics, but require citations from verifiable sources and most important, notable people. There is also a user's (GlassFET) contention that the link is a "blog". But that's not the main issue right now. If you feel he is notable, then why don't post that link back? Jrod2 19:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe you have made your case against Rowen linking to his own site, as this guideline states. I do not believe my interpretation of WP:RS is misguided -- I was not commenting on any content on the page, or on Rip Rowen's assertions, but only on the question of the ProRec link being posted to the Links section. With regard to this content, I would agree that the Loudness War article suffers from a great lack of citations and references, and that WP:V calls for us to aggressively remove unsourced sections. However, I don't believe the subject is very controversial, and since the article seems still to be in its infancy I'm not sure that widespread blanking is appropriate; at least I wouldn't engage in it myself. Compare Women's Rights, for example, which has been unsourced for a long time and yet persists, despite its remarkably questionable claims about a much more controversial subject. Blackworm 20:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Blackworm, I lost you with what you said about "widespread blanking". All I want to know is, will you or will you NOT reinstate the link for him? Jrod2 20:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on editing the article; I was hoping the editors normally active on the page could come to a consensus. So the answer for the time being is, "no." This may change in the future, if I decide to become more active in editing that article. Blackworm 20:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, when citing Wiki pages in an authoritarian way, it helps if you're actually citing Wikipedia policy and guideline, not just someone's User Page version of it. Just a friendly tip. Blackworm 06:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I did TWICE. That user page (an Administrator) attempts to explain to some people who are "conveniently" confused, what all these guidelines mean, just like I did with you until you finally got that the RfC wasn't about whether the content was good or not. I advise you to move on, if you leave more messages here, you're talking to yourself Jrod2 09:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Your tone is unwelcome. Administrator's user pages are not policy nor guideline; their essays may be good advice, but it is not a consensus. Your quoting it as if it were binding, and in a demanding way, is inappropriate. Blackworm 09:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if my tone is unwelcome, yours was bad from the beginning as I didn't cited policy in "an authoritarian way" . I don't want to continue this discussion with you anymore. You should stop leaving irrelevant and redundant messages to me. This Admin's essay is VALID and based on previous consensus and contributors' history. But, most importantly, I gave you links to WP guidelines for you to read, so quit fixating on this particular essay and use your common sense. If that text was not valid other admins (and users} would have erased long ago. Anyway, what's your problem? The RfC is finished and the issue for now is over. Jrod2 12:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be clear that any "problem" I have here is unrelated to your RfC, but instead related to your hostile and patronizing attitude, which is unjustified in my opinion. I've noticed this tone in many of your entries, in response to several editors, and I believe it may be costing you support despite the potential correctness of your main arguments. As for "leaving irrelevant and redundant messages," I suggest that you take your own advice, while remembering that you are free to remove my talk page from your watchlist. Blackworm 18:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, you started with the "tone" when you stated that I cited policy in "an authoritarian way" . What was that about? The fact is you are one of those who can't eat crow after they are set straight. That's your problem. Proof is, out of all the links to the guidelines I cited, you had to find the link to the admin's essay "inappropriate" to make yourself look like you are the one who knows better. Meantime, at the RfC, you couldn't even comment about the issue at hand. Who cares that "the ProRec article was well written"? The point was he couldn't place it, Period. You said: "I think he may not...". Is that the answer from someone who knows the most important guidelines? If anyone has problems with me, is usually for his or her inability to step up to the plate on a given issue. Ok? I think I am done, but I know you're gonna come back with more excuses to justify your absurd behavior. Jrod2 20:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If only you could justify your continued incivility. Blackworm 21:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a tip

Perhaps you didn't notice, but when you file an RfC the text is supposed to be a neutral statement of the issue. Jakew 14:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I did notice, and carefully made sure the statement was neutral. Why do you believe it is not? What would you have written? Blackworm 16:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you've phrased the question as though the article does 'define and use the word "circumcision" to solely describe the circumcision of males', though this interpretation is itself disputed (see, for example, the last sentence of my post dated 17:12, 6 November 2007). So instead of neutrally presenting the facts, you're presenting your own interpretation of the facts. Jakew 17:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is entitled "circumcision." Its first sentence is, "Circumcision is the removal of some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis." It is ridiculous to dispute that the article defines circumcision to solely describe the circumcision of males. Nonetheless, since you claim you dispute it, and you are a party to the conflict, I reiterate my request for you to suggest a more neutral description of the nature of the dispute. How about this:

The article is entitled "circumcision." Its first sentence is, "Circumcision is the removal of some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis." Does the combination of these facts define circumcision as solely performed on males? If so, is this neutral and appropriate? Blackworm 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you're counting 'first' sentences, but the preceding paragraph begins, "This article is about male circumcision. For female circumcision, see Female genital cutting." Jakew 18:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Just so that you understand my viewpoint, allow me to edit your suggestion: The article is entitled "circumcision." It begins, "This article is about male circumcision. For female circumcision, see Female genital cutting." Does the combination of these facts define circumcision as solely performed on males? If so, is this neutral and appropriate? Jakew 18:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Completely disingenuous. The article proper begins with the lead, not the fine print hatnote. Further, your version is not an accurate representation of the dispute. As per WP:LEAD (emphasis mine), "The article's subject should be mentioned at the earliest natural point in the prose in the first sentence,' and should appear in boldface." If you insist, we can say:

The article is entitled "circumcision." While the hatnote disambiguation says, in part, "This article is about male circumcision. For female circumcision, see Female genital cutting," the first sentence of the lead is, "Circumcision is the removal of some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis," and the remainder of the article uses "circumcision" without qualifier to solely describe male circumcision. Does the combination of these facts define circumcision as solely performed on males? If so, is this neutral and appropriate?

As one more attempt to appeal to your logic and reason, if there was an article called "Circumcision," which proceeded to say, "This article is about female circumcision; for male circumcision see..." and then went on in the lead, "Circumcision is the removal of the clitoris," and then in the rest of the article, "Circumcision is opposed by the UN and the WHO," and "Circumcision causes death in X number of cases per thousand" and "Circumcision is usually done in non-sterile conditions" etc., wouldn't you have an objection? But this is exactly the kind of usage you are defending. Finally, for the third time, can you suggest a phrasing for this RfC that actually represents the dispute neutrally? Blackworm 18:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm think you've misunderstood the sentence you're quoting from WP:LEAD, which requires us to begin article ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha with something like "In galactic co-ordinates, ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha is...", and does not appear relevant to this disagreement. Regardless, it's helpful to know that you're counting from the lead section onwards, and I think that your proposed statement of the dispute is a considerable improvement.

As for your "attempt to appeal to your logic and reason", I think that if the primary definition of "circumcision" was "female circumcision", and if the vast majority of source material used "circumcision" without qualifier in that sense, then I don't see why I'd object. After all, if we actually mean what we say in the hypothetical hatnote, then the article you describe should be about female circumcision. Jakew 23:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Am I to infer by your comment that it is a "considerable improvement," that the above is a neutral statement of the dispute in your opinion? You still have not provided an alternative wording. My goal here is work with you to come up with a brief, preferably one-line statement of our dispute in that matter that we can both agree on -- and the above paragraph may be excess detail for this purpose. May I propose "Does the circumcision article inappropriately limit its discussion to male circumcision?" This seems to leave open the question of whether it does limit the discussion, and also whether such limitation, if any, is appropriate. Does this phrasing meet with your approval? Suggestions for improvement are welcome. Blackworm 21:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you can safely infer that the "considerable improvement" version is ok, Blackworm. It's not perfect, and it would be nice if it were shorter, but it seems to be the best statement so far. Incidentally, I suspect that we'd find it easier to express the dispute if we both agreed upon what it was fundamentally about. Jakew 13:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I believe it is evident that we are on opposite sides of proposed changes in this talk section; I am referring here to that dispute. I believe the one-liner I propose above is a better representation of that dispute, since it avoids limiting the analysis to a few sentences, and additionally avoids presenting arguments, which is both more neutral and more brief. Again, this would be much easier if you had a counter-proposal. Thanks. Blackworm 18:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please, stop making personal attacks and assume good faith. Jrod2 22:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I read the above as an accusation that I failed to assume good faith. Could you please point specifically what I said that leads you to believe I violated this guideline? Thank you. Blackworm 22:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You know what you did. But, if you want to get technical, calling someone "authoritarian" remark without justification, is not considered assuming good faith. Jrod2 22:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not refer to you as authoritarian; I referred to your remarks as authoritarian, which I believe is justified by the language you used, e.g., "So I think you need to read [...]," followed by three lines of boldface text quoting another user, who himself uses authoritarian language including, "If you don't have such sources, don't write," [emphasis as in your original post above]. Regardless, it was not my wish to upset you; only to suggest that you can come off as abrasive and commanding, and it is unwelcome. Blackworm 22:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm, I didn't write that. The admin did. I was merely copy/pasting the part that was relevant to the discussion about using references, so you didn't have to spend time looking for it in the essay. If his tones is in your view "authoritarian", I am sorry, but I am not the one who is saying that. Jrod2 22:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of its source, you posted it here, in bold text, preceded by the words "Find this:" [Emphasis yours.] I claimed you cited text in an authoritarian way, meaning that you cited directives in such a way as to imply that the directives were binding on me. I merely pointed out that if you choose to do so, it would be somewhat more appropriate if you would restrict yourself to citing actual Wikipedia policy and guideline, not someone's interpretation of it; this regardless of the credentials of the person, or ultimately the correctness of the interpretation. I hope this clarifies my position. Blackworm 23:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe you have misconstrued my actions. I always bold things that I want people to clearly read from other text. I did say "Find this", but inside the essay so that you can verify the admin's position. That's all. That's how he wrote things. If you continue to insinuate that I have other motives, such as pretending that I am an authority or anything else, then you are not assuming good faith. Funny, but I think you wouldn't have this discussion with me if I was an admin. However, If you don't find that admin's text admissible, fine. I can live with that. There are all the other guidelines at WP:COI anyway. But, don't tell me that his tone is mine, or that I speak in an "authoritarian way" because according to you, he does. Regardless what the admin said, the policy is clear, and in effect, I didn't even have to quote the admin at all. If you believe that his views are wrong, I urge to take it to an admin right now. As far as you and I, though, it's too bad you took me completely out of context. Jrod2 23:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of pretending to be an authority, or in fact of acting in bad faith at all. However, some of your actions, such as responding to my question above with, "You know what you did," directly accuse me of acting in bad faith (i.e. asking a question of which I know the answer). I excuse this because you seem offended by my characterization of your remarks as authoritarian, and I understand how conflicts like this can arise and escalate. I will acknowledge my part in this conflict, having perhaps been insensitive, in the interest of putting the conflict behind us. Blackworm 00:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I am really glad that you and I can come to terms with this and put this behind. Peace. Jrod2 00:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

NPA

Blackworm, as I have reminded you on numerous occasions, the essence of no personal attacks is to "Comment on content, not on the contributor. ... Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people."

In this edit, the bulk of your edit failed to do this. Instead, you speculated about my memory, and whether I am acting in good faith.

Since you ask, I will answer your question here.

I agree that I agreed that the following statement was an accurate paraphrasing of the source: "The Catholic Church condemned the observance of circumcision as a mortal sin and ordered against its practice in the Council of Basel-Florence in 1442."

Now, as I understand it, you believe that this means that I agreed that the Catholic Church prohibited circumcision under any circumstances, including medical emergencies.

I believe that you have made two mistakes in your interpretation.

Firstly, while you may read the above as "and ordered against [the] practice [of circumcision outright] in the Council", I read it as "and ordered against [the] practice [of observance of circumcision] in the Council". I think my interpretation is closer to the source itself when one examines the source: "Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation". (emph added). Interestingly, this source also gives the interpretation of "unnecessary" rather than "outright ban".

Secondly, an "accurate paraphrasing of a source" is not necessarily an "accurate paraphrasing of fact".

If you wish to request clarification on such issues in future, I would not be offended by a polite request on my talk page. Jakew (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't accept your interpretation nor your explanation. The source clearly refers to the practice of circumcision, despite your tortured interpretation. Are we to claim that Jews do not practice circumcision outright, but practice the observance of circumcision? That is completely silly.

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include [...] lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice.

— - WP:AGF (emph. in original)

I believe your claim is easily taken as specific evidence of malice, thus my request for an explanation is completely justified. Blackworm (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm, Jewish people do practice the observance of circumcision, much as a Christian might refer to the desire to "practice the observance of Sunday"[11]. Indeed, if a Jewish child were to be merely circumcised, but the observance ("a keeping or celebration by appropriate procedure, ceremonies, etc.: the observance of the Sabbath"[12]) had not been practiced, then that would be considered insufficient.

It is unfortunate that, rather than accepting your mistake, you make matters worse. The essence of AGF is that when there are two or more explanations for something, and one is compatible with good faith, assume that it is correct. It is worrying that you appear to take it to mean quite the opposite. Jakew (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation."

— The Catholic Church

The only worrying thing here is your denial that the source above indicates that the Catholic Church prohibits the practice of circumcision, the bizarre interpretation from other circumcision advocates (UNAIDS) notwithstanding. (I suppose what is ordered against is also "unnecessary," but that does not change the fact that it is ordered against.) The part after the word you highlighted, "since," only describes why the Church prohibits it; it does not change the fact that it does. Your continued denial in light of this fact is not defensible. Now that you have confirmed that memory loss was not the issue, the only possible explanations that I can see right now, in light of your steadfastness on this, are outright lying, insincere rationalization, or pathological denial. Blackworm (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The source, in the same sentence as the order (and in the explanation for it) refers to circumcision as something that is "observed" (as opposed to, say, "performed"). To my mind, this suggests that they are referring to circumcision, the religious observance rather than circumcision, the procedure. Also, it is not unreasonable to interpret a source as though it were logically consistent: the order to not practice circumcision, the observance follows logically from the stated justification.

I strongly encourage you to assume good faith and cease making personal attacks. Jakew (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my words. The phrase "we order not to practise A, since A cannot be observed..." only means "we don't really order not to practise A, but really only against the observing of A" in your tortured mind. It is pure doublethink. You may be able to argue that "observing" circumcision is a separate concept from "practicing" circumcision, but that doesn't change what was prohibited, i.e. its practice. It is, in fact, unreasonable for you to apply your singular "logical" interpretation of the source to remedy your apparent confusion, discounting any possibility of any other explanation; especially when this application leads you to conclude that the Church really meant the logical negation of what it said. "We order not to practise circumcison..." becomes "We do not order not to practise circumcision...." in your mind, and you continue the rest of your day as if nothing unusual happened. That is "worrying," Jake.

Regardless, all of this nonsense coming from you is a tangential diversion. My original point was that all information in the lead section of the circumcision article regarding circumcision and religion casts circumcision positively (paraphrasing, "it's a custom and a religious commandment"), and none casts it negatively; and this despite this very negative position (never revoked, apparently) from the largest organized body of any world religion, a church with over a billion followers. For your comment (paraphrasing, "I don't know any religions that prohibit it") to even have been relevant to the discussion, you would have had to argue that you know of no negative opinions about circumcision from any religion. But had you argued this, I doubt you could have used even the most fractured logic and transparent rationalization to distance yourself from your documented knowledge of the above quote from the Catholic Church. Then, further, you expect me to continue to calmly discuss with you and assume good faith in this circumstance? You waste other editors' time rather than making sense, and making the encyclopedia better. If I were to assume good faith, I would have to also believe that you are completely intellectually ill-equipped to discuss this subject in logical and rational terms and edit the article accordingly; so please, for the record, which do you prefer?

You assert that the current text of the lead section is fine (thus, assuming good faith, neutral), including the 1/3 of the lead that details (unopposed and never controverted, despite the reliable sources that do so) the WHO's opinion on how male circumcision should be generally promoted simply because of its supposed (but contested) limited protection from HIV -- but no, it's not fine. It's not neutral. It's unbalanced. It's biased. At best, it's inappropriate for the lead. Other editors who I'm sure you consider more reasonable than I agree. The current lead section begins the "controversial article" by synthesizing a position (how positive circumcision is) rather than defining the term, summarizing the subject, and establishing context, as called for by WP:LEAD. It's your so-called "NPOV," but quite clearly not WP:NPOV. Blackworm (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm, perhaps you were unaware of this, but one meaning of practice is "to follow or observe habitually or customarily: to practice one's religion"[13]. Indeed, circumcision itself is defined as both "A religious ceremony in which someone is circumcised" and "the act of circumcising; surgical removal of the foreskin of males",[14] and the intended meaning could be either. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable that to believe that an order "not to practise circumcision" means "not to observe (ie keep or celebrate by appropriate procedure, ceremonies, etc) circumcision habitually or customarily".

Thus, I interpret the order as "do not perform the ritual of circumcision" rather than "do not perform the act of circumcision under any circumstances".

Consequently, my comment that "I'm not aware of any religions that prohibit circumcision outright (ie "sorry you've got a gangrenous foreskin, but you can't be circumcised"), though of course in several religions circumcision has no special meaning." was a fair representation. I'm sorry that it isn't representative of your interpretation, but I can only be expected to express my own views.

I am not saying that you must accept this interpretation. But it is a perfectly reasonable interpretation, and it is appropriate for you to accept that others may accept it, in accordance with AGF.

What is highly inappropriate is to respond with numerous personal attacks, including "malice", "outright lying, insincere rationalization, or pathological denial", "doublethink", "fractured logic and transparent rationalization", and told that I am "completely intellectually ill-equipped to discuss this subject in logical and rational terms".

I will discuss issues relating to the article with you at the appropriate place, but you must comply with WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. Jakew (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

ref tags

It's easy to make mistakes with ref tags -- I've done it myself. Two of your edits [15] [16] at Circumcision of yesterday introduced ref tag errors which made the page display wrong and had to be fixed [17] [18] by two other users, who luckily noticed them. Please try to pay attention to little details like that. Although this is technically an article content issue I thought it more appropriate to bring it up here rather than on the article talk page -- I hope that's OK. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

FGC

Blackworm, your criticism on FGC is not constructive. Instead of fixing things, you revert them. You don't check diffs to note that your language objections are not my contributions, but pre-existing language in the article or well-documented in citations. I have asked you to focus on the material and not the editor. Other users have found no problem with my contributions and built upon them. You are the only one. Despite all your criticism you haven't produced a single source to support your claims of POV and OR. Nor have you contributed anything to the article in the weeks you have been criticizing my continued efforts to improve the article. I have provided multiple top-tier references to support international consensus. A third party asked that we summarize and restate - your were unwilling to restate your points. I have cited WP policy regarding the use of terminology and you haven't acknowledged it. Twice you have accused me of removing material, adding unref'd content, and changing things that I haven't done. You continue to revert my edits with no basis ([[19]])and after I asked that you discuss the change, you reverted again [[20]] , with no additional discussion Despite what your edit summary says, you did not respond to my discusiion and you did not address the fact that I changed aspects of it based on your commentary. You continue to accuse me of being uncivil. It is not uncivil to respond to disruptive behavior. So here are some of your behaviors to which I am responding.

• You have a vested interest in this page as it relates to your attempt to steamroll Circumcision. With this POV, you have switched gears, trying to bring the FGC page into the (ended) debate over "Circumcision".
• You have acknowledged and shown that you have very little understanding of the terminology, its history or its purpose (evidenced by your quote "Your sentence which ends, "[...] whereas groups who oppose the stigma of the word "mutilation" use the term female genital cutting (FGC), or female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C)" seems to be WP:OR, and is nonsensical besides (why would they use "mutilation" if they are opposed to the supposed "stigma of the word?". First, much of the language predates my edit. Second, that you find such a concept nonsensical shows that you do not understand the contexts of the terminological debate. This is also evident by your continued unrefed claims of "OR" and "POV" - these terms and the debate of FGM or FGC or FGM/C are well-established in FGC discourses as the provided citations show.
• You keep trying to push POV by insisting on language (circumcision) that the page consensus has deemed inappropriate (because it is a euphemism and anachronism). The only debate current is over FGM, FGC and FGM/C. Circumcision is not an option per consensus and documentation. This is not my POV. It is documented international consensus.
• Twice now you have accused me of adding something that you objected to, only to discover that I had actually removed or addressed these issues
• You accuse me of poorly sourcing my contributions. My sources are peer-reviewed journals and respected international health orgs. I do try to improve material sourced by other forms. But these are not "my" sources. In contrast...
• Outside of reverting some vandalism, you have contributed nothing during the course of your criticism. Nothing to the article, nothing to support your claims of OR and POV, nothing to support your repeated reverts on the religion section, nothing to support your assertion that "circumcision" is not a euphemism (even though the cited material states that it is within the context of the FGC debate).
• From the very beginning you have failed to WP:AGF (please see the origins of our encounter on FGC at Talk:Female genital cutting#Remove AI and UN statement unsupported by sources.)
• Despite the fact that other users have built upon my contributions, you choose not to focus on the article, or even other users. Just me. I can only conclude that this stems from the fact that I left a comment on your RfC:Circumcision that you clearly didn't like, and this has made it personal for you. Reviewing your talk page, I see this is not the only time this has happened, and indeed, it has happened in ref to the Circumcision page. This is clearly an issue of great personal significance for you. Perhaps you should rethink this personal attachment when editing or step away from editing these subjects.

Frankly, I don't know what to do. You don't understand the subject, you won't provide documentational support, and you continue to target me personally in an effort to disrupt constructive contributions to the article. Do you have any suggestions as to how we can move forward from here? Phyesalis (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Your assertions regarding my previous actions, motivations, acknowledgments, provision of sources, and comprehension are untrue. Even if your claims regarding my comprehension of the subject were true, Wikipedia is organized such that even someone with no knowledge of a subject can contribute; since all claims must be sourced, anyone should be able to check articles against their source. Any experienced editor can point out original research, unattributed claims, undue weight, and other policy violations. Some of your recent additions fail these checks, and fail in their adherence to Wikipedia policy, as I have calmly and repeatedly pointed out despite your hostile, accusatory tone. I have no personal issues with you, despite what you may believe. Your appearance on the FGC page, a page on which I have been active for some time, came after your comments on the circumcision RfC. There is no merit to your longwinded personal attack here. To move forward, I suggest you continue to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy, especially WP:V and WP:NPOV, and internalize the spirit and letter of these policies. Thanks for your comment. Blackworm (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

All the sorces I have contributed have been from peer-review journals or accepted reliable international health orgs. You have again failed to do anything but cite policy without supporting how it applies, specifically. Your generalized and unsupported accusations of policy violation are without merit. You have failed to provide any documentation supporting your view of things. I have opened things up for informal comment and given a detailed review of your last round of accusations and a detailed response. If this cannot help resolve our dispute, I suggest we move this RfC:User. Phyesalis (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have repeatedly indicated the specific problematic additions you have made, on the appropriate Talk page, citing appropriate Wikipedia policy. You have not addressed these concerns to my satisfaction, as I have made clear. If you feel that a Request for Comment on my conduct in this matter is appropriate, that is your prerogative; although I would stress that it is a decision not to be taken lightly. Blackworm (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm, it's not clear to me at all. You refer to "my edits" in the general sense and then cite policy. You do not discuss any particular change specifically. And by specifically, I mean, quote what the original was, what I changed it to, the citation present in the material, how this is all lacking and then bring documentation to support your interpretation that my work is OR. This you have not done. If you would do this instead of summarily reverting a considerable chunk of work after merely stating that it is OR, POV, V or SYN, I think this would be a much more productive process. If you would just compromise and agree to stop reverting my contributions, I think we can move forward. Also, I think it would be useful if you discussed your objections one at a time, before you change things. I have provided considerable documentational support. You have provided none. I think the burden of proof is on you. Phyesalis (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What you say is plainly false, as a reading of recent Talk:Female Genital Cutting shows. Note in particular my edits of 0:34, 29 November 2007, and 19:35, 20 November 2007. Neither of your responses to those posts are valid reasons for retaining the material. There is no "compromise" in agreeing to not revert your contributions -- what violates policy is to be simply removed as quickly as possible. There remains a ton of unsourced material in that article; rather than adding more unsourced and unattributed material, I'd suggest a course of attempting to source what is there already. Of course, you are free to adopt whatever manner of editing you choose; however, you must adhere to WP:V and WP:NPOV, which you have repeatedly failed to do. Blackworm (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is tons of unsourced material - however I am not the one who put it there. I don't have to source every pre-existing contribution before I add sourced material or attempt to improve material with pre-existing sources. I might add that if you are so concerned about the unsourced material you might want to contribute something to the article by looking something up instead of constantly criticizing and reverting my constructive contributions. Phyesalis (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct that you are not responsible for the existing unsourced claims. On the Talk page I have apologized for misreading your diff; however I make clear there are many remaining issues with your edits. Finally, if you look at the revision history of the FGC page you will find that I have, in fact, been active in contributing to the article by verifying sources, adding material citing new sources, and removing other unsourced material. Blackworm (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. If I have miscategorized your contributions allow me to provide you with the opportunity to defend yourself. I missed the sources you have provided since we started this dispute, what were they? If you wouldn't mind posting the diff links, I'd really appreciate it.

Also, I have taken a good deal of time and effort to respond to your allegations. I would really appreciate you restating your points, instance by instance showing exactly how they violate the policies you say they do. You keep saying that yu've said it all before, but clearly I am not understanding what you are saying. Taking it slowly and in great detail, as I have done, would really help. As you pointed out, I am a relative newbie. Instance by instance crit will also help us move through this in an orderly fashion. Thank you. Phyesalis (talk) 02:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not going do the work you ask of me to help you find the changes I have made to the article. Go to the article, click on "history," go to the bottom and select "show 500 edits" or whatever it's called, and use your browser's page search function (usually Ctrl-F or Command-F) on the string "Blackworm" to find my edit summaries and edit diffs. Regardless, whether I have otherwise contributed to the article or not is completely irrelevant to our dispute. I only point it out to you in hopes of convincing you that my opposition to your edits is not personal as you claim it to be.

I have already explained why I believe the material you added is inappropriate, in detail, citing Wikipedia policy as appropriate. If you are not understanding what I am saying, perhaps you could obtain help from other editors; I feel I have already devoted adequate time and space to these specific issues. I again strongly encourage you to read, slowly and carefully, the text of WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Reading some of the essay pages linked to from those pages may also help your understanding of what Wikipedia policy means in practice. This will take a long time, but will be extremely useful to you both in understanding others' objections to your edits, and formulating convincing objections to others' edits. If, after doing so, you have specific responses to my objections, grounded in policy and guideline, I would be happy to hear them. Blackworm 20:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have read them, but thank you for the advice. I still don't see where your arguments are coming from. My edits have sources. Perhaps if you could explain how you feel a certain source isn't appropriate, and do this for all your objections, maybe we could move forward. I'm sorry that this has escalated to this point. The RfC comment was a bit hasty. I apologize. But repeatedly mentioning that you've already "gone over it" is not helping me understand your points, since you still haven't offered any. Better yet, since the info is sourced, why don't you contextualize them instead of reverting my edits. This would also help us move forward. Another option might be to post how you would rephrase it on the talk page. I don't understand why you are unwilling to put some time and detail into your objections. It isn't helping me get a better understanding and it doesn't seem to be moving the article forward. Phyesalis 21:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I will attempt to reinstate your changes with modifications to address my objections. I'm sorry that I don't have a lot of time to do this -- obviously doing so is much more time consuming than simply reverting, but I agree that it is the ideal. I know that it is frustrating to have your edits reverted, especially long, thoughtful edits like the ones you have made. I do believe that I have given objections in enough detail on the Talk: page. I will try to illustrate my objections by editing the article appropriately; hopefully things will become clear then. I'll try hard to devote time to this in the next couple of days. Blackworm 21:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Your contribution would be greatly appreciated. I've found more documentation on FGC that helps explain that while it is sometimes taken for a religious practice, it really is a cultural practice. I hope if you have a problem with the new material we can discuss it. As my efforts here hopefully show, I am willing to work together to find a workable solution. I look forward working with you on improving the article. Phyesalis 09:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Categorization

Please see WP:CAT#Some general guidelines, number 7. Thank you. -- Avi (talk)

This belongs on the Talk page for the article, not here. You should know better. Blackworm (talk) 07:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR violation

You have reverted Reproductive rights 5 times in a 24 hour period. This is a violation of Wikipedia policy.

• 1st revert: 3:27 12/08/2007
• 2nd revert: 8:02
• 3rd revert: 20:36
• 4th revert: 21:07
• 5th revert: 22:00 12/08/2007

When to revert

Do

• Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.
• Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
• If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
• If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.

Do not

• Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
• Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
• Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.
• There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ
• Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

Thank you. Phyesalis (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The "2nd revert" you mention above was not a reversion. I admit to having violated WP:3RR, having not understood that any reversion to any section of the page counts, not merely a reversion of the same material. These reversions, however, were required owing to your repeated violations of Wikipedia policy, and the seven reversions you made between Dec 7 21:23 and Dec 8 16:13:

[21:23, 7 December 2007] [23:14, 7 December 2007] [13:26, 8 December 2007] [13:52, 8 December 2007] [15:54, 8 December 2007] [16:08, 8 December 2007] [16:13, 8 December 2007]

Blackworm (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

First, mine weren't reverts, I continually made efforts to address your requests and your illicit reverts. You repeatedly used wholesale reverts to reverse multiple edits and removed inline citations from reliable sources, this is considered to be poor form. Second, fixed the incorrect link, it wasn't 5, it was 8:02. Phyesalis (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The edits I link to above, from you, were quite clearly reverts. I have no comment on your other allegations, comment already having been made at Talk: Reproductive rights. Blackworm (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed irrelevant info from the worst possible sources and reintroduced inline citations you repeatedly removed. Not reverts. Phyesalis (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing material another editor adds is a revert. Reintroducing material another editor deletes is a revert. Your defense of your reverts is irrelevant to the question of whether they are reverts. Blackworm (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Reproductive rights

I have moved this discussion from the talk page here because the discussion is about your behavior, not about the article. Let's continue the discussion here:

Secondly, you continue to misunderstand Wikipedia policy. The sentence which begins "Reproductive rights first became an internationally-recognized subset of human rights..." has for its cite a source which does not appear to contain the phrase "reproductive rights." Thus, the sentence seems not supported by the source. If you can quote material from the source which validates the article sentence, please do so. Otherwise, the phrase remains WP:OR. Blackworm (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this is ridiculous. You argue that my source does not contain the phrase "reproductive rights" and thus seems to not support the cited sentence. Oh really? Have you read the citation quote (that you reverted) that states "The first comprehensive statement of human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, failed to mention reproductive rights at all. It was not until 20 years later, at the international human rights conference held in Teheran in 1968, that human reproduction became a subject of international legal concern." I've tried to extend good faith, but even if you only read the first page, you would have noticed the phrase "reproductive rights" in the intro summary [21]. I think I can reasonably conclude that you have not read the cited sources and suggest you cease objecting to that which you cannot take the time to read. It appears as if you are baselessly persecuting my contributions. One might think it was personal.

As for your allegations, I did not revert your material. I made continued efforts to address your challenges. You asked for citations, I gave them. You reverted my citations claiming they were unsupported, I added citation quotes in support. You reverted those. I reintroduced them because of your revert abuse. Phyesalis (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I applaud your finally providing, after multiple requests, a quote from the source which you believe supports the Wikipedia article sentence. Your citation quote, however, does not support the article sentence. If the sentence said, "According to (author), human reproduction first became a subject of international legal concern in 1968," it would be much more defensible. Attention to detail in these matters is extremely important.

It is clear from the history that your edits were reverts, your defense of them being irrelevant to the question.

I'd also ask you again to please stop the incivility, and stop making personal attacks. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

To Blackworm and Phyesalis

Re comments such as "It is disruptive - for someone who refuses to read provided quotes, let alone whole articles, you really need to show a little more good faith." and "From the very beginning your attitude toward me has been unacceptable, ": If you must discuss such things, would you please move it to user talk pages or someplace so the article talk page can be kept focussed on article content discussion? It would really help. Thanks. I'm posting a similar message at User talk:Phyesalis. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm: I hope you don't find it condescending, (and I hope Phyesalis doesn't mind), but I'd like to commend you for the calmness and civility with which you've responded to Phyesalis' messages to/about you and about your edits. Well done. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Blackworm, this edit of yours is quite excellent. Not only does it correct weasel words and represent the source accurately, but it seems to me you're displaying considerable neutrality here by making this edit. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. Blackworm (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for steadfastly focussing on article content issues only at Talk:Reproductive rights recently. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

GM&M

Regarding your comment at GM&M, Blackworm, you may notice that my comment was dated 11:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC). The most recent version at the time was this. I'd be grateful if you would review your comments in light of this and, if you think it appropriate, strike out some comments referring to material added later. Jakew (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed appropriate, and I have struck out the entire comment and added my apology [here]. Sorry for the rudeness and thank you for politely pointing out my error in the face of it. Blackworm (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks! Jakew (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Admins noticeboard post

I was writing a long response to your first post on my talk page when you added your additional comments about my use of the term "boys" in reference to vandals of my userpage. After a long look at your talk page, I thought it might be a good idea to solicit more eyes on the situation at WP:AN here. If you have any information or opinions about this, please post them. Cheers, Pigman☿ 05:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[The following two posts were moved by me from User:Phyesalis where I had accidentally posted them:] Blackworm (talk) 08:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the notice, especially since it comes as a response to my post above from you seems pending. Blackworm (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, my post is not above, but here. Blackworm (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Gender Studies

Thanks for your help at WikiProject Gender Studies. I restored the following line to the Project overview:

Observation suggests that males are over-represented on Wikipedia, though there has not been a proper survey to back this up.

This is a reasonable estimate of the situation. It is worth keeping since it describes what the subsequently mentioned gender bias would probably be. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a publisher of estimates on the demographics of Wikipedia editors. Not to be curt, but do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please provide a reliable source stating the estimate. If you disagree and cannot provide a WP:RS, you must not revert my changes on this basis.

Basing a WikiProject's stated aims on things that "probably are" (to paraphrase), even if true, violates Wikipedia policy to my understanding. My reasoning is discussed on the Talk page here. I invite you to please read the discussion (yes, it is long, and for that I apologize) and respond there. Thank you for this comment on my Talk page. Blackworm (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You may also wish to read [this]. Blackworm (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)If you disagree with these estimates, you might want to take this up with WikiProject Countering systemic bias, which is the main WikiProject advancing these concerns. If you think a WikiProject in some fundamental way violates Wikipedia policy, you might want to start a discussion at The Village Pump. / edg ☺ ☭ 08:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I believe that if WikiProject Countering systemic bias is the parent project of WikiProject Gender Studies, this should be explicit on the latter's Project page. Ultimately, WP:BIAS was invoked as a defense of the contested material on that page, thus I suppose I must should ask the editors there to comment on the dispute.

Thank you for the excellent suggestion of posting at the Village Pump. I believe discussion on the Project's talk page is more appropriate as an initial approach, but this may indeed change as events unfold. Blackworm (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:User_survey#Survey_features: for the German wikipedia, Gender: 88 % male; 10 % female. Unless you can provide some better evidence, that's the best we have. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not read German, and therefore cannot read the source and confirm that the estimate is a reasonable interpretation of the source. Further, it is in my opinion moot, since the source seems to be the German Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not a publisher of scientific data, nor a reliable source. Blackworm (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've discovered that [this] seems to be the external source for your claim. I dispute this source, even if reliable (debatable), and even if it claims (not shown, and I can't read German) that the survey respondents (all on the German WP, not this English WP) are 88% male, verifies the claim made on WP:GS that Observation suggests that males are over-represented on Wikipedia. The statement is an interpretation of the source, specifically prohibited by WP:V. If you would like to propose a rewording, I invite discussion on Wikipedia_talk:GS. Blackworm (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS and the prohibition against interpretation would not apply here because the WikiProject is not an article page. Any number of decisions internal to Wikipedia rely to resources besides studies published in reliable secondary sources. Obviously it would be absurd and irresponsible to take the position that problems discovered by Wikipedia's own investigations cannot be addressed because only reports from outside sources will be accepted as evidence. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to accept that, if you can provide a link to official Wikipedia policy or guideline supporting the assertion that WP:RS and the prohibition against interpretation would not apply here because the WikiProject is not an article page. I do not agree with your comment apparently claiming that my position is obviously absurd and irresponsible, and would ask that you please consider avoiding such characterizations of my position in the future. Blackworm (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Great. Wikipedia:Verifiability repeatedly refers to "article" content. Nowhere does it state that this applies to other discussions on Wikipedia. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You have merely used the fact that WP:V often (but not always) discusses in the context of articles, as evidence that it does not apply to other Wikipedia content. This is a logical fallacy. In the first paragraph of WP:V, I read: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. This says nothing about the policy only applying to articles, and not applying in the case of claims made in material included in Wikipedia WikiProjects. Blackworm (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That WP:V discusses articles is all I need to prove this. Your proposal that Wikipedia cannot act on its own evidence seems weirdly extreme and would be impossible to implement consistently in non-article space. For example, your statement "I do not speak German" is not verifiable from a reliable source. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent.) No, that would be true if WP:V only discussed its policy in the context of articles. As I show above, that is not true. If WP:V discussed hats, you could not use that as evidence that it doesn't apply to umbrellas.

Do you challenge my statement, "I do not speak German?" The entire question here hinges on reasonable interpretation and reasonable challenges to that interpretation. Is it reasonable to question whether I speak German, despite my saying clearly that I do not, and in the absence of any source serving as evidence to the contrary? I believe not. Is it reasonable to question whether observation suggests that males are over-represented on Wikipedia based on a self-selected, non-scientific survey of German Wikipedia users? Perhaps not to some, but definitely to me. If the content and stated goals of this Project page really does come down to the judgment of the Project as a group (rather than individual member editors) about which group-specific biases are reasonable to assume and which are not, I see that as opening up a huge can of worms -- but I'm willing to accept that, if it is backed by official Wikipedia policy. In that case, I would have to look for another WikiProject that suits my desire to help remove gender bias (of ALL kinds) from Wikipedia, serving WP:NPOV. Blackworm (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Normally, users are free to post their relevant opinions on talk pages. It does not follow from that that a consensus statement at the top of a Wikiproject is necessarily free to state something as if it is verifiable fact. The two situations are not at all the same. Wikipedia policies, which are consensus statements but are not articles, usually avoid making any statements of fact (especially ones which might be disputed) but pretty much confine themselves to definitions and rules of behaviour. Presenting something as a consensus of Wikipedian editors gives it a credibility which unverified fact-like statements do not deserve. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong link?

I'm pretty sure you meant to include a different diff here, but I'm hesitant to fix it on your behalf because I'm not certain what you actually intended. Jakew (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Jake. Fixed. ([diff]) Blackworm (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not upset

No, I'm not upset with you. It's a very rare occasion that I get angry or upset on WP. I haven't been contributing to the discussion on WP:AN#The_tendentiousness_of_Blackworm because I said most of what I wanted to in my initial post. Although I did just leave a long post about you on Cailil's talk page if you're interested in reading it.

Mostly I'd like you to be aware that you should be a little more considerate and laidback in your interactions on Wikipedia. You haven't violated any policies that I know of but if you're not careful you could find yourself blocked. (Um, please don't take that as a threat from me in particular but a general observation.) Vigorous argument is to be expected, particularly on very controversial subjects. On any article, I highly recommend you stay focused on the article itself and find ways to collaborate and compromise with other editors rather than insisting on your way or the highway. And, yes, perhaps choosing highly controversial topics wasn't the best introduction to WP for you. There are huge swaths of WP where such contentious argument is very unusual and I suggest you look at some less polarizing subjects to get a sense of this.

A final word: WP operates by building consensus. While a strongly determined individual can often effect and impose their particular views on WP articles for a while, these views are unlikely to last because of the many editors who will follow them, changing and developing previous work. So work with consensus, not against it. In some ways, Wikipedia is a process, not an end result. Sorry if that's too zen or general for you but if you don't enjoy what you're doing here and the people you're doing it with, you will burn out and resent it. Cheers, Pigman☿ 00:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Female Genital Cutting

You edited the article to read (all emphasis mine):

Female genital cutting (FGC), female genital mutilation (FGM), female circumcision (FC), clitoridectomy, or clitorectomy[1], is the excision or tissue removal of any part of the female genitalia for religious, cultural or other non-medical reasons.

Your cited source says:

Clitorectomy: A surgical procedure in which all or part of the clitoris and sometimes also the labia are removed. Clitorectomy is a form of female circumcision (female genital mutilation).

Since FGC refers to removal of "any part," not the clitoris and maybe more, your edit introduces factual inaccuracy into the article. The terms you added are forms of FGC, they do not refer to all forms of FGC. Blackworm (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point. For the context in which the word is used here, it doesn't matter if clitorectomy or clitoridectomy is inaccturate as descriptive terminology. If you're unhappy with that inaccuracy, you can wage that battle with the makers of dictionaries and people who use the word. But because this is Wikipedia, what matters, in the context the word is used, is that these are names commonly used for this procedure. It is a fact that these are names used. On Wikipedia, you are not supposed to have original research or original ideas. That the word is problematic because of its inaccuracies is something I would agree with. But it's an opinion, while it's a fact that this word is used. What you can do is make a comment somewhere explaining why certain terminology is factually inaccurate--so female circumcision, clitorectomy and clitoridectomy all have problems with them--but for you to remove the term from usage on the page because you don't like it is a violation of Wikipedia neutral point of view policy.QuizzicalBee (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I miss your point too, QuizzicalBee. Maybe you could try to explain it more clearly.

"Clitorectomy" is a word that comes from two parts: "clitoris" and "ectomy". "ectomy", according to Wiktionary, means "to cut out". (It comes from Greek.) "Clitorectomy" means to cut out the clitoris, or perhaps to cut our part of it, or the clitoris plus something else, according to the dictionary definition above. "female genital cutting" is a broader term, which might mean a cut that doesn't remove any tissue, or it might mean removing tissue but none from the clitoris. "FGC" and "clitorectomy" do not mean the same thing. (I don't know if there's a distinction between "clitorectomy" and "clitoridectomy".) --Coppertwig (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what the word literally means, if you want to break it down into its root terms. However, it has come to be used to mean more than that which is just encompassed by those root words. In fact, it is used, repeatedly and conventionally, to refer to the same procedure that is also called female genital mutilation. By mentioning it in the entry in question, I make no claim that it adheres merely to its most narrow definition. I claim, as is demonstrated in the reference, that it is used to refer to many different kinds of female genital mutilation. Do you understand the difference between a semantic disagreement, and a factual disagreement? Ours is a semantic disagreement, but you are using a factual basis for your explanation.QuizzicalBee (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

AN

I was wondering if you would agree to stop editing Reproductive rights and Female genital cutting during this period of dispute resolution. I have disengaged in a GF attempt to de-escalate the situation. Would you be willing to do the same? I have made a similar request of Coppertwig. Phyesalis (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that appropriate at this time. I note that one of the editors you have directly contacted to comment on one of our disputes (User:QuizzicalBee) has just edited [[22]] the FGC article, making highly questionable edits, and, similar to you with your inappropriate edits on RR, labelling them "fact" and reverting my corrections (labelling them "opinion"), despite the edits being demonstrably incorrect, as I show here. Blackworm (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Did you not read what I wrote about those edits? Your example certainly does not show them to be correct. I suggest you reread my message to you above.QuizzicalBee (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'd just like to point out that I contacted Quizzical Bee in a neutral manner because QB had previously commented on the page. As our dispute is about to go to mediation, I don't see how her edits have anything to do with me (particularly since I contacted her weeks ago and I myself have not edited the page in days). For the record, after this contact, I am shunning you for the length of the dispute resolution process or until you show some good faith in your co-collaborators. Phyesalis (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)