User talk:Crimsoncorvid

Welcome!

Hello, Crimsoncorvid, 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
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

FGM

You asked a question at Talk:Female genital mutilation#Question about article perspective. I am providing my answer here to avoid setting a precedent whereby people assume it is ok to discuss male/female circumcision at the FGM talk page. If you would like to reply, you may want to do so here (on your talk page) as I am likely to see it without needing a prompt.

The problem at circumcision is that a lot of new editors turn up with a strong idea of what they want to do, but little idea of the procedures that apply at Wikipedia. They then wonder why their edits are reverted, and incorrectly conclude that it is because some kind of advocate edits that page. Anyone wanting to contribute to Wikipedia needs to start slowly and spend time working on minor and non-contentious issues first. Read the policies and guidelines (start at WP:5P). While various things could be said to answer your question, the result would not really address the fundamental issue that is likely to be on the mind of most new editors who arrive at the other article. Wikipedia is not a forum where we should discuss whether there is a fundamental difference between male and female circumcision, but anyone who thinks there is no such distinction should study File:Type IV circumcision.jpg (NSFW, and which refers to "Type IV" based on an old classification system, whereas the article uses the WHO system where it would be described at "Type III"). A glance at that image shows there is a fundamental difference between at least some forms of male and female circumcision. Regardless of whether one agrees with that point of view, the fact is that multiple reliable sources support the opinion. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Your response gives me the impression that what I did wasn't proper. Is there another avenue on Wikipedia for my query?

It is possible my original inquiry was not clear enough. My query was not to discuss the male/female issues themselves or to debate their merits. Certainly Type IV FGM is more extreme than male circumcision. There is no argument that both are genital cutting and both are generally done without consent. Surely, you wouldn't argue that Type II FGM (roughly equivalent to male circumcision) is OK while type IV isn't. All non-consensual genital cutting violates human rights.

What I am trying to understand is why the subjects are treated differently here on Wikipedia. This is a valid question. Although reliable secondary sources support the human rights treatment for both subjects, only FGM is written this way. What I detect is cultural bias. Egyptian men and women would call the FGM article biased as it puts their cultural tradition in a bad light. The male circumcision article, on the other hand, puts an similarly harmful cultural tradition in a good light. Your statements imply that you don't believe the circumcision article is biased---to which I strongly disagree. Crimsoncorvid (talk) 05:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You're fine, and I did not intend any suggestion that you did something improper. Wikipedia operates very pragmatically, without any central authority (except for extremes such legal issues) and there is essentially no page here where the general points you have raised can be explored. There has been a long history of disgruntled people arriving at one or both of the male/female circumcision pages and starting lengthy discussions that are not within the scope of what can be resolved at Wikipedia (our opinions on a comparison of the two cases are not relevant since we have to rely on reliable sources). I am not suggesting that you are disgruntled or out-of-scope—my reply was intended not just for you, but for any observers who may notice the issue later.

If you think through what responses might occur in a discussion comparing the two articles and the phenomena they describe, you may agree that such a discussion could not be expected to resolve anything because some people think that all forms of non-consenual genital cutting are in some sense equivalent, and some don't. Qualifications can be made about different forms of FGM, but there will never be an editorial committee that can rationally canvas the issues and arrive at some form of agreement (there are hundreds of articles on contentious issues where such committees also do not operate). Instead, what happens is that people discuss each article separately (or, they discuss a policy such as WP:NPOV which affects all articles).

The standard approach at Wikipedia is to quickly decide what actionable proposals are proposed: Is a significant change necessary in one or both of the articles? What change? What reliable sources would be used? When pondering these questions, each article must be considered separately (see WP:OTHERSTUFF which is generally applied to all issues surrounding an article, not just whether an article should be deleted). Regardless of what different people think, it remains the case that male circumcision is regarded by many as not a big deal or even as desirable, while others regard the practice with disinterest or horror (I am personally baffled as to why someone might think that routinely cutting bits off bodies was an improvement, but my opinion is not relevant). The situation with regard to FGM is substantially different: while there are advocates for the practice, they are in a significant minority and are opposed by authorities such as the WHO—that is why the FGM article is handled differently. If wanted, you could ask at WP:HELPDESK to see what the editors there think about my comments (that is, are my claims about standard procedures correct?). Johnuniq (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is important to remember that those who practice circumcision are also in the minority! 70% of the world is intact. There are copious reliable secondary sources that point to the human rights aspect of circumcision. The worldwide medical community does not support circumcision of infants. To consider the articles separately is to allow the circumcision article to become biased -- which it is. Crimsoncorvid (talk) 05:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you edited Wikipedia under another ID before?

Hi Crimsoncorvid, have you ever edited Wikipedia before under another username, or have you edited significantly before as an IP? Thanks. Zad68 12:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I switched accounts for privacy reasons as the old account used a handle that was clearly tied to my real-world identity. I no longer use the old account. Crimsoncorvid (talk) 06:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the candor. What you're doing should be allowed by Wikipedia rules, under Wikipedia:Multiple_Accounts#Legitimate_uses. To make sure nobody accuses you of doing anything tricky, you really should officially "close" your old account by retiring it: put a {{retired}} template on the old account's User and User Talk pages. You might also consider privately e-mailing a friendly admin and notify him of what you are doing. Take care... Zad68 13:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Will do, thanks Crimsoncorvid (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Watch out on the personal attacks

Hi, regarding this edit, be careful about personal attacks. WP:BLP applies to every edit on every Wikipedia page. Labeling certain living individuals as propagandists is very questionable. Zad68 00:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Conversely it can be argued pointing out a faulty source and saying why it is faulty has no connection with WP:BLP "Propagandist" is not a term constituting a personal attack but a cogent assessment of a dodgy source.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 04:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

See WP:RS and WP:MEDRS for Wikipedia's guidelines on how we assess source quality. Zad68 04:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain this inconsistency?

Crimsoncorvid, while we're on Boyle & Hill, can you explain something:

• In this edit you argue that the Morris & Waskett source that was in use at glans penis was unreliable because (in part) "Morris/Waskett have a conflict of interest as they run a pro-circumcision propaganda website."
• However, here you argue Boyle & Hill 2011 should be accepted as a reliable source.

This seems inconsistent because the Boyle & Hill article declares that Boyle and Hill are both principals at "Doctors Opposing Circumcision" and they have their own website that could equally be termed an "anti-circumcision propaganda website" (to use your own wording). And actually the same could be said for Sorrells et al. 2007 you offered in this edit, as that study's principals are involved in NOCIRC, another group that could equally be said to provide "anti-circumcision propaganda". Can you explain the apparent inconsistency in the application of your principle here? Zad68 18:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no inconsistency. Jakew and Morris have associations that, if I mention them here, I will get suspended for personal attacks. Furthermore, both of them have been discredited by their colleagues and they are not respected in the medical community. On the other hand, the worldwide medical community including medical associations of many European and other countries (e.g. Germany, Australia, Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, etc.) have soundly rejected the notion that routine infant circumcision is an ethical surgery. All of these medical organizations have issued public statements discussion the value of the foreskin, the lack of medical benefit to circumcision, and the ethical issues with prophylactic removal of healthy tissue without consent from the patient. The American point of view is the minority point of view. Wikipedia CONTINUES to push the MINORITY point of view on circumcision ignoring the countless sources that point to the ethical issues of non-consentual prophylactic removal of healthy tissue and circumcision harm. Wikipedia policy states quite clearly that the medical consensus (i.e. majority point of view) should be reflected in the article. The worldwide medical community says circumcision is harm. (Note that the WHO and AAP DO NOT represent "world opinion"; they are just two organizations dominated by mostly American doctors.) Many of the medical organizations I mentioned have criticized the AAP as ignoring evidence, ignoring ethics, and ignoring the functions of the foreskin. There is no such thing as "anti-circumcision propaganda". Babies are born with prepuce and doctors have no right to remove it without consent. It is sexism to decry cutting the female prepuce and then saying cutting the much larger male prepuce is "healthy and beneficial". I am tired of the American bias at Wikipedia. If the Wiki editors were intact, I guarantee you, this would all be a non-issue. This has NOTHING to do with MED:RS but, instead, has everything to do with editorial discretion and Wikipedia pushing a certain point of view. As I've mentioned before, look at the Wikipedia circumcision articles of languages where most of the citizens are intact. Crimsoncorvid (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPA and WP:TPYES

Crimsoncorvid, I want to draw your attention to an important policy and guideline on Wikipedia: WP:NPA and WP:TPYES. Both of them highlight this sentence:

Comment on content, not on the contributor.

Article Talk: pages should be used only for the purpose of discussing article content, not other editors. A number of your recent comments (for example, this one), have been focused to a great extent on contributors, not content. I believe you've been told this before, but I want to emphasize this quite strongly: do not use article Talk: page to discuss other editors. If you have an issue with another editor's behavior, there are places to bring that up; you can create a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, or if you have a specific incident you feel requires administrative attention, you can raise it at WP:AN/I. Going forward, I expect you to use these venues to discuss behavioral issues, and refrain from commenting about other editors on article Talk: pages. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of the guideline. You Wikipedians think "stating the truth" is a "personal attack". Sorry, but I'm not playing that game. You obviously have an agenda and I'm calling you out on it. If you were playing by the rules, I wouldn't have to call out your agenda. I wish I COULD stick to the content... I also made you aware of guidelines you haven't followed. Crimsoncorvid (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's more than just a "guideline", it's policy, and can be enforced. Comments like your latest again are simply about editors, not about article content.

Crimsoncorvid, I'm trying to assist you here. It's possible you are used to how things work on various internet bulletin boards and/or fora, and think Wikipedia is similar. Though it may appear that way to the unfamiliar eye, the similarities are superficial. Wikipedia actually has quite strict rules about many things, including its etiquette rules, and people who flout or defy them generally end up getting blocked. Wouldn't it be better to avoid that fate? It's not so difficult to stick to discussing content, if one wishes to. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Then why are some editors subject to rules and not others? COI is also a policy, but it's flouted with no consequence. You love to state "stick to the content", but it's clear there are biases and motivations of editors that make that impossible. It is as clear as day that the former steward of the Circumcision article had an agenda. If you are denying that then you are either naive or lying. It is IMPOSSIBLE to "stick to the content" when agendas and external motivations cause that editor to make improper decisions. It's a waste of everyone's time when folks have to restate sources time and time and time again because editors, CONVENIENTLY FORGET past discussions that then become archived. This is why it is impossible to stick to the content at times. I am also tired of you pro-circ folks playing dumb when we talk of bias, rejecting valid sources, etc. If you don't know that the Circumcision article significantly deviates from PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT, then you are not competent to edit it. But then again, you and other editors have made it clear to me that Wikipedia is not interested in facts. It is interested in "reliability" which seems to involve a lot of editorial discretion. Crimsoncorvid (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And in case it wasn't clear what I think of Wikipedia's policies, they seem to be inferior: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257482/The-war-Wikipedia-fooled-years-Bicholim-Conflict-article-elaborate-4-500-word-hoax.html#axzz2KhEq2j00 . I have said many times that secondary sources from the medical community are not reliable, in general, as peer review does not vet them for conflict of interest MOST OF THE TIME (http://www.cochrane.org/news/blog/how-well-do-meta-analyses-disclose-conflicts-interests-underlying-research-studies). Furthermore, editors are not allowed to call into question any aspect of these sources. So we're beholden to the special interests that fund these studies. Where as the primary studies, that contain actual facts (and ARE allowed to be used), are rejected by you and your cronies on the Circumcision article. I couldn't care less if you suspend me. I'm not going away and I will challenge you and your cronies who continue to bias the Circumcision article. You are acting like petulant children instead of adults. Grow up, accept the scientific facts as they are shown in the research and get over yourself. Crimsoncorvid (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

You've clearly misread that blog post. I've commented at wt:MEDRS.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

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

Indefinitely blocked

You are indefinitely, but not permanently, blocked, having reviewed your conduct over the last six months plus.

There is a rather severe conflict between your true-believer status on the circumcision question and Wikipedia's standards of behavior, which both prohibit attempts to use Wikipedia as a venue to fight external real-world political or social battles (Wikipedia exists to neutrally report, not advocate) and requires that editors work constructively together to find consensus on what neutral coverage and relevant reliable sources are for all sides. You have violated every core principle of the encyclopedia and community to some degree and announced your intention to continue doing so.

I am not condemning you to a permanent ban from Wikipedia, but you are blocked with no end date. I have used the block tag "disruptive editing" but several others might apply.

You may appeal this and any administrator can unblock you (without contacting me first, though I would appreciate a notification if anyone does and a noticeboard post if you do). However, please review our core values and relevant policy for whether you have any ability to work constructively within the Wikipedia framework or not. You appear to have declared that you cannot and will not. That is not acceptable.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.