User talk:Jakew/Archive 4

primary source

Sorry for top-posting, your talk page is a little confusing. Thank you for pointing out the policy on primary sources. I had assumed that actually citing what he said was better than citing someone else citing what he said. I was listening to a radio program with an expert analysis of the matter this morning on a way to a clients site. It seems that Ratzinger originally said "in the context of the time it was a fair trial" but the BBC article seemed to have skipped the part about the "in the context of the time". I would cite the radio program, though not sure how that works. So I suggest we keep the original quote for now.

Thank you for your concern, it's an important subject. Hendrixski (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jake.

Jake, I've done a lot of thinking related to our discussions this past year. I owe you a tribute. Despite us seemingly being constantly on opposing sides of edits, in multiple articles, I underestimated how much the number of times you have been dead on in presenting your objections has irked me, clouding my better judgment. I have been short sighted, rude, perhaps even somewhat offensive; and for the most part, you have been a model of a Wikipedia editor. I have not, and I still stumble. Thank you for teaching me most of what I know about Wikipedia, and helping me foster the courage to try to make Wikipedia work within its principles. Blackworm (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you for such a nice message, Blackworm. I think I'd go crazy if I didn't allow myself to stumble on occasion -- I certainly did so frequently when I was less familiar with Wikipedia, and still do on occasion. You and I both jumped in at the deep end of Wikipedia, editing very controversial articles, and I think that's very challenging, especially for new editors. It takes time to grasp the principles of Wikipedia, and longer to understand that the rules aren't just a nuisance but that they work to ensure a better article than any of our own individual POVs. Such time is something of a luxury while editors are trying to adhere to our standards of behaviour (not always easy in a heated environment) and avoid being blocked. Perhaps we're really asking for super-human editors. Anyway, thanks for your cordial message. Jakew (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about this edit, Jake. Thoughts?

[This] image caption change seem to cause the reader to beg the question, Jake. "Why does the first penis look so different flaccid than the second?" I happen to not ask that question, since I can reasonably assume the answer. What do you believe it is? Do you believe an uninformed reader might ask themselves that question? Put another way, since Wikipedia is written for the educated. Do you believe a significant minority are uninformed about circumcision? I'm not asking you whether a significant minority would not[-BW] recognize what has caused the difference in appearance, just to be clear. You said in your talk message that this was your preference. Can I suggest, uncircumcised penis and circumcised penis? This language seems to resolve the ambiguity.

My preference, would be penis and circumcised penis. I think of images in an encyclopedia as being like diagrams. You describe the unmodified case that best describes the subject: "penis." Then you specialize; you inject adjectives. Do you oppose the idea that the unmodified case of a subject corresponds closest with its general definition? I respectfully ask you to put your scientific mind to the task. To my knowledge, your letters have been published in scientific peer-reviewed journals. I have no doubt as to your ability.

To respond to your frequently heard pierced ear analogy, if we we talking about pierced ears, do you believe the image of the subject would be described in Wikipedia as an ear and later, as, another ear? I don't believe so. Blackworm (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not particularly keen on "a penis" and "another penis" (or "an ear" and "another ear"). It was simply an attempt to find a compromise solution when an editor seemed strongly opposed to my own preference, which was "an uncircumcised penis" and "a circumcised penis". I think it is better than "a penis" and "a circumcised penis".

I think that we can safely assume that a certain amount of information will be redundant. For example, the reader can probably figure out that both photos are of penes and not, say, hedgehogs. It is reasonable to state that the photo is of a penis, and it is reasonable to state that the penis in question is uncircumcised.

I'm not convinced by the idea that closeness to the "general definition" should require no adjective, and I'm not really sure that there is a "general definition" when it comes to the penis. If I were asked to describe two penes, I'd probably find myself focusing on the differences. For example, if both were uncircumcised, I might find myself referring to "the relatively hairy one" and "the less hairy one", whether or not one of the two fell within a normal distribution. I'd tend to avoid "the penis" and "the hairy penis" because the former is ambiguous. I might say "the penis" and "the other penis" if was only important to identify that there were two penes, and the differences were unimportant, but I'd personally prefer more clarity. Jakew (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You're comparing an adjective that either is or isn't with one that is generally a matter of degree, or alternately viewed, a judgment call. That's not classification. At least an ear is pierced or unpierced. Would you call a penis unhairy in an encyclopedia?

It may indeed be reasonable to state that the penis is uncircumcised, and I would support that, as I say above. I'm less convinced with a penis and another penis. It seems to read like Wikipedia is a picture book instead of an encyclopedia. I believe it is less descriptive, and therefore worse than a penis and a circumcised penis, but I agree with the compromise of describing circumcision status in both images. Blackworm (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I neglected to respond to hedgehogs. How about a human penis/a human uncircumcised penis and a human circumcised penis ? I agree, less ambiguity is much better.

You write: I'm not convinced by the idea that closeness to the "general definition" should require no adjective. Certainly the more general the definition, the fewer adjectives it requires. I don't see the word circumcised in any dictionary entries for penis. You may argue that "uncircumcised" isn't there either, but that's seems to be the point. Blackworm (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that a definition doesn't require adjectives. The definition of "penis" includes both "uncircumcised penis" and "circumcised penis". But you can't take a photograph of a definition. A photograph can only be of a specific penis, and that penis will always have its own attributes.

Of course, we don't have to remark upon every attribute, but when we draw attention to one attribute we need to be careful to be consistent. As an example, if we were to describe "a mechanic" and "a female mechanic", this creates the impression that there is something remarkable about the fact that a mechanic is female. We risk reinforcing prejudice and stereotypes.

Now, it may be the case that there is something remarkable about the fact that a mechanic is female. But is it remarkable because of experience within a given society? Is it, though I find the idea unpleasant, that men are genetically predisposed towards mechanical abilities? It probably depends on context - I'm sure that male mechanics are remarkable within the (hypothetical) Organisation of Female Mechanics! It seems to me that it's best to say "a male mechanic" and "a female mechanic" in the captions.

I'm happy with "an uncircumcised penis" and "a circumcised penis", and I'm also happy with "a human uncircumcised penis" and "a human circumcised penis". If you want to change the article to use either, I've no objection. Jakew (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter — Issue XXII (December 2007)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XXII (December 2007)
Project news The Intelligence task force has been created. The contest department has completed its ninth month of competition. The top scorer this month is Blnguyen, with 22 points, followed by Dreamafter, with 8 points, and Redmarkviolinist, with 6 points. Blnguyen also remains the overall leader, with 162 points in total. All project members are encouraged to submit the articles they're working on as entries. Help with converting deprecated infoboxes is needed; any assistance is welcome! {{WPMILHIST}} now supports an explicit tag (class=DAB) for marking disambiguation pages.	Articles of note New featured articles: Battle of Albuera Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081) Battle of the Gebora Constantine II of Scotland Francis Harvey Vasa (ship) Wulfhere of Mercia New A-Class articles: 1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing Evacuation of East Prussia
Current proposals and discussions A discussion about minimizing terminological ambiguity has begun.
Awards and honors Blnguyen has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his efforts in improving the quality of articles related to Vietnamese military history, including the creation of numerous A-Class articles. Woodym555 has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his outstanding work on topics related to the Victoria Cross, notably including the creation of featured articles, featured lists, and a featured topic. For their outstanding efforts as part of Tag & Assess 2007, Bedford, TomStar81, and Parsival74 have been awarded the gold, silver, and bronze Wikis, respectively.
Tag & Assess 2007 Tag & Assess 2007 is now officially over, with slightly under 68,000 articles processed. The top twenty scores are as follows: 1. Bedford — 7,600 2. TomStar81 — 5,500 3. Parsival74 — 5,200 4. FayssalF — 3,500 5. Roger Davies — 3,000 6. Ouro — 2600 7. Kateshortforbob — 2250 8. Cromdog — 2,200 9. BrokenSphere — 2000 9. Jacksinterweb — 2,000 9. Maralia — 2,000 12. MBK004 — 1,340 13. JKBrooks85 — 1,250 14. Sniperz11 — 1100 15. Burzmali — 1000 15. Cplakidas — 1000 15. Gimme danger — 1000 15. Raoulduke471000 15. TicketMan — 1000 15. Welsh — 1000 15. Blnguyen — 1000 Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes. We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-participants alike are very welcome and appreciated.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

Note: This newsletter was automatically delivered. Regards from the automated, Anibot (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally

I happened to mention one of your diffs at User talk:Phyesalis#An example of prose attribution. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It's interesting to read analysis of one's edits -- you've obviously given it more thought than I had! Jakew (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:Keep It Simple

Hi

Would you be interested in continuing helping to make labels? and in making the alternative labels more known to the community ? Your help was greatly appreciated and helped to advance the project, we miss you at WP:KIS Thanks ℒibrarian2 18:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't answer before, I have the hands full with an inventory at work :(

Your idea of the userbox for popularizing the labels is just Great! When and if you have the time please go ahead, it can be just what we are needing! On other subjects, I hope all is going good for you . Best regards ℒibrarian2 12:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello. You may have seen that some Wikipedia articles lack sources to given dates, timelines and chronologies.
If you feel that you could like to help in making all articles more reliable and well sourced in this regard, we would like to encourage you to use, as part of your daily editing and when {{fact}} is not enough for requesting clearly and specifically a citation or source for dates, timeline or chronology, the following inline tag:

{{Timefact}} displays ^{{chronology source needed}} for requesting timelines, dates and chronology sources. Click here for more information

At WP Timeline Tracer, we thank you for using these tools and for helping to make Wikipedia articles more accurate and reliable.

Daoken 10:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much!

Thanks for the barnstar! I really appreciate it.

By the way, I forget if I already mentioned this, but it's because of your influence that I've put a "self-revert" userbox on my userpage. I've also learned from you about the fine points of applying WP:NPOV policy. Cheers! --Coppertwig (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Labels

Hi Jake, sorry but there is something wrong with the label boxes, don't show. If when you have the time you can give a look, that will be great. Thanks ℒibrarian2 20:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

Well, not this time anyway it seems...my effort to regain my adminship was unsuccessful, but your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Universities

• Wikiproject Universities is drafting guidelines for application to worldwide higher education systems, and in my opinion ONLY favors the American collegiate system, making the British Universities system a potential target for deletionists. Your help would be much apreciated. TorstenGuise (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 03:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution?

Okay good idea. Thanks princess. LPRABCMP (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfB

I wanted to personally thank you, Jake, for your support in my recent RfB. I am thankful and appreciative that you feel that I am worthy of the trust the community requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I hope I can continue to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Circumcision

I'm wondering if we should include mention of female circumcision in this article - granted there are very different. I know this is all political and you have been in the midst of it a lot longer than I. Mattnad (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight into the history here. Also, have you ever read a book by Yosh Taguchi called "Private Parts". He's a well known urologist who comments on Circumcision. See http://www.amazon.com/Private-Parts-Doctors-Guide-Anatomy/dp/0385262000/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product

You can "search inside" on "circumcision". He notes that penile cancer is much lower (to non-existent) among circumcised men. He also comments that most objections to circumcision come from people (like pediatricians and gynecologists) who do not have do address problems related to foreskins. Bruno23 (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It looks very interesting. Jakew (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I read quickly through some recent discussion at Talk:Circumcision. I'm not sure if I have time to get involved, but I want to congratulate you, Jakew, for your calm, logical approach – as usual. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Coppertwig. Jakew (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Jakew are you from a organisation such as circlist.org or similar? I ask that honestly because of the many revisions you've made on the male circumcision article. That article is not balanced (yet) and shows clear bias to the brutal and unnecessary practice. At the very least it must be brought to the standard of showing the widely known and highly concerning side effects of the procedure. Unfortunately poor education persists on this issue. Particularly in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.42.150 (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I have little confidence in your ability to assess issues of balance and bias when you describe circumcision as a "brutal and unnecessary practice". This indicates to me that you fail to distinguish between your own feelings about the subject and neutral, objective discussion, and the "bias" you perceive may simply be the fact that the article is more neutral than you would wish it to be.

Additionally, I note that your other edit to this encyclopaedia consists of undoing my earlier revert of a problematic edit. The edit would have been problematic in the text (due to the dubious reliability of the source, as well as questions of appropriate weighting), but as I noted in the edit summary, it actually modified a direct quote attributed to the American Academy of Family Physicians. Thus, as a result of your edit, Wikipedia dishonestly misrepresents the words of the AAFP. Since you must have seen the edit summary in order to undo the edit, and you must therefore have been aware that the edit caused the source to be misquoted, it is difficult to see how this edit could have been made in good faith. Jakew (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Jakew you are confusing a neutral point of view with your opinion that there are no effects. Futhermore the US sources are biased because they generate studies to support their unchangeable opinion on the issue. Rather than following the scientific method of drawing conclusions from observations these studies are taylored to give support to their conclusions.

At the time I undid your edit I hadn't noticed that I edited a direct quote. I'll be sure not to do that again. However your undoing removed other information from verifiable sources. Also, I'm unsure about what the [...] in the article signfies. It looks amatuerish.

I can see your mission with this article is keep the numerous negative side effects out of the article for as long as you're able to. I won't speculate on your motives beyond the typical one -- your father had it done to you because it was done to him by his father and so on. I do suggest though that resign from your fight against the rising tide of real facts on the issue. The tide is indeed turning from ignorance to knowledge and within a few generations circumcision may well be non-existence for non-religious reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.42.150 (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can supply evidence that data in US studies are fabricated, I'll be interested to read it. Please bear in mind, however, that allegations of scientific misconduct are a very serious matter, and require a high standard of supporting evidence.

The ellipsis ("...") in the quote signifies a section of text that has been omitted for reasons of brevity. This is standard practise for quotations in academic works. Jakew (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As I'd rather spend my time doing something else, I'm no more inclined to prove these American studies on circumcision are fabricrated than to prove Japan fabricates studies to support 'whaling for scientific research'. Litigation alone is a significant enough motive for a cover up by American medical bodies on this matter. As I said these facts will come into general knowledge soon enough.

In the meantime, anybody willing to do the briefest of research will find these facts evident. Male circumcision undeniably reduces male penile sensitivity and mechanically speaking an uncircumcised penis undeniably needs more lubrication during penile-vaginal intercourse. The side effects of those two facts are clear.

If you don't mind I would still like to hear why you do no want any content related to the negative side effects of male circumcision included in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jookieapc (talk • contribs)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

3rr

I'm at 3 Jake. That's not a violation. We are both geeks. Let's build on our commonality and work together. In your user page you claim you are neutral to circumcision. My very first post I was honest stating my position being against. That doesn't mean I oppose pro viewpoints, on the contrary, I welcome them. If you truly wish to make this article better why not help me balance it out? Garycompugeek (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I missed the first one and was only looking at the reverts in my contribs. I've reverted to your edit. Look, I'm an amiable guy lets work together to balence this out. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is very well balanced already. I guess the problem is that I don't understand (or at least don't agree with your perception of) the problem that you're trying to solve. Jakew (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough Jake. However its clear from the POV section I'm not alone in my opinion. Am I to assume that you feel adding con sources would tip the article the other way and oppose? Garycompugeek (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, perhaps not. It would depend on the proposed edit. I'm sorry if that's unclear, but I don't think there's a simple answer to that question. I don't think it's as simple as counting the number of "pro" and "con" sources; I tend to look at things like quality of (and accurate reflection of) sources, awareness of and appropriate weight given to different viewpoints (in proportion to their prominence), avoidance of original research, and of course wider issues such as the quality of the writing, conciseness, avoidance of redundancy, and awareness of the structure of the encyclopaedia (summary style, etc). I think that an good edit will tend to further those goals, whether or not it increases or decreases the number of "pro" and "con" sources. Jakew (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you in principal Jake. The problem I see and feel as far as a well balanced article goes is that since 70% of the world is not circumcised and prevailing medical opinion is that necessary or recommeded and the article should reflect that. I don't get that at all when I read the article. I understand everyone may not have this opinion and will use sourced facts to prove the point. On the other hand we can strip out everything and simply state what circumcision is without pros and cons but I am not a deletionist. I think the information is valuable but can easily be tilted in different directions. There are also many myths that we should also debunk in the process futhering the readers knowledge about the subject. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Dinh et al.

Unfortunately, I only have HTML access to the article. The quoted text (in the citation) is literally the only sentence that addresses the issue in the entire article. The finding is not mentioned in the abstract or the discussion. Thanks, AlphaEta 15:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. The quoted text does not include the actual data (Table 1 in the article). The sample size for all men in the survey was 4176. The sample size for circumcised men was 2955. The sample size for uncircumcised men was 1155. For the percentage of each group with genital warts, 4.5% (95% CI, 3.6%–5.6%) versus 2.4% (95% CI, 1.5%–4.0%), respectively, P, calculated using Wald chi-square test to compare categories, was less than or equal to 0.05 in each case. Thanks, AlphaEta 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

prevalence discussion

Hi Jake. I've added some words to your draft on my talk page. Am still on a steep learning curve about how Wikipedia works and am finding this a rather fascinating exercise. Cheers, John

Johncoz (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've amended the text and added it to the noticeboard. Sleep well :-) Johncoz (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks

Hello, Jake.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Jakew; I wanted to say thank you for supporting my request for adminship, which passed with 100 supports, 0 opposes and 1 neutral. I wanted to get round everybody individually, even though it's considered by some to be spam (which... I suppose it is! but anyway. :)). It means a lot to me that the community has placed its trust in my ability to use the extra buttons, and I only hope I can live up to its expectations. If you need anything, or notice something that bothers you, don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks again, PeterSymonds | talk 22:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I had a long think about edit summaries and decided that I was wrong. I now limit them to typos and basic corrections. I never used them when I first started here, then used them for pretty much everything, and then still used them too much even after that! Thanks for pointing this out to me. Best, PeterSymonds | talk 22:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Primal therapy and reliable sources

Hello Jakew. I saw the message you posted to my talk page, and I'd like to respond to the points you made.

Suppose that we include Donald Knuth's opinion in an article about algorithmic analysis, quoting The Art of Computer Programming. Perfectly valid, I'm sure you'll agree. Now suppose, for the sake of argument, that Knuth is an editor on WP (for all I know, he may be), and that he edits that article. Does this mean that it's no longer valid to include this quotation, for the sole reason that he also edits WP's page? That doesn't make much sense to me: the article shouldn't suffer just because of who edits it.

I'm concerned that the editor is using wikipedia as a platform for advocacy. The editor wishes to convince people of his opinion that primal therapy is very bad. To that end, the editor has gone to tremendous lengths, including issuing advertisements soliciting negative opinions about it, inserting links to his unfavorable opinions into amazon book reviews of every book Janov has ever written, inserting messages into discussion groups of his opinions, and so on (I discovered those things during a google search). The editor's insertion of his own views into the encyclopedia article is clearly part of a larger pattern of advocacy, which constitutes POV-pushing and which may violate WP:SOAP.

You provided an analogy of Donald Knuth, but Knuth is not analagous here. If Knuth added quotations of himself to a page, his motive would not be to gain a wider circulation for his ideas. Knuth knows that his ideas are already widespread. Knuth would only quote himself because he knows that his opinions have influenced the field and are therefore relevant to the article.

In this case, however, the situation is just the opposite from Knuth. The editor knows that his opinions are not widespread, and that by adding them to the encyclopedia he is gaining a considerably wider circulation for them. Thus, the insertion of his quotations by himself represents POV-pushing.

When determining whether it represents POV-pushing to insert quotations of oneself into wikipedia, I think a reasonable criterion would be: whether or not a neutral, non-interested editor might have added the same quotations anyway. If so (as in the case of Knuth) then it doesn't represent POV-pushing, because the person inserting quotations of himself is acting like any other editor, and therefore his identity is irrelevant. If, however, the editor in question knows that his views would not normally be found in an encyclopedia, then he is not acting like any other editor would. He is acting as an advocate, and is trying to spread his views by copying them directly into the encyclopedia, which is a violation of WP:SOAP.

Anyway, all of this is not really my main point. My main point is that the quotation in dispute clearly violates wikipedia policies regarding reliable sources. The quotation is taken from a self-published website, and the wikipedia policy on reliable sources is quite explicit in forbidding self-published material.

Not only does the quotation violate wikipedia's standards for sources, it also violates more general standards for sources. The quotation is taken from a self-published website which is anonymous and which makes contentious allegations against 3rd parties. It's hard to see how a self-published website filled with anonymous accusations could be classified as a scholarly source.

One more thing. The opinion expressed in the quotation is not supported by the literature. There is no experimental evidence which shows that primal therapy is less effective than placebo. In fact, there is little experimental evidence one way or the other. Thus, the quotation is not derived from the evidence; instead, it represents the personal "judgment" (his wording) of the wikipedia editor. But the wikipedia article is not the place for someone to express his personal judgment.

Thanks for your attention on this matter, and sorry for the overlong response. Twerges (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Jakew, be sure to actually read the debunkingprimaltherapy.com website before agreeing with twereges. there is some verifying information on there, and some converging evidence from other sources. I was there at the primal center in the 1990s and I assure you that it is a destructive psychotherapy cult. Aussiewikilady (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that I am not saying that this website is erroneous, only that it does not conform to Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. I'm afraid that I don't know enough about primal therapy to form an opinion about it; however when browsing through the peer-reviewed literature I found a rather interesting abstract from a paper published in Zeitschrift für Psychosomatische Medizin und Psychoanalyse: "The authors examined the available literature and then came to the conclusion that primal therapy is not a valid therapeutic technique. [...] Most psychotherapists in the Federal Republic of Germany do not utilize so-called primal therapeutic processes, perceiving it as based on questionable theoretical premises and dangerous in practice."[1]

When reading the "criticism" section of the article, my impression as a reader is that this is an attempt to give an exhaustive list of every critical comment in existence, regardless of the nature of the criticism or the reliability of the source. There are many reliable sources in there, such as Bornstein and Cordon, but they get lost in the noise of podcasts and random websites. The result is less persuasive, I think, than it would be if it were more selective, more descriptive, and better organised. Jakew (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's another interesting one. This is particularly interesting, since it is not just the opinion of the author, but of a random sample of 300 professionals: "A random sample of 300 psychologists listed in the National Register of Health Service Providers in Psychology were surveyed about the soundness of forms of mental health treatment and use of these treatments in practice. [...] Approaches most in question as to soundness were primal therapy[...]" [2] Jakew (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Twerges, I agree that this material doesn't meet WP:RS and WP:V, but what I'm trying to say (perhaps poorly) is that I think these are the important issues. In my view, it's best to keep concerns about behavioural issues separate from those about content issues. Mixing them up makes it harder to solve either (and probably won't help to calm hostile feelings either). Jakew (talk) 11:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. These are definitely important issues. I should have separated my claims more carefully. I suppose I sort of threw all my claims together, and claimed them all at once: "the editor has posted unverifiable information from a self-published website of his own opinions...". But there are 3 separate issues here: WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:SOAP. The claim of WP:RS is serious by itself and should be treated separately.Twerges (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Jakew, after I added my notice to the reliable sources noticeboard, it appears that 2 independent editors responded with discussion there, and 2 more responded with discussion on the article talk. I should say that I was delighted with the calm rationality of all of them. It was a welcome relief from the vehement disagreement which often occurs there.

It appears that all 4 independent editors have agreed that the quotation violates WP:RS. Should I go ahead and remove the quotation? Thanks for your time and attention on this matter.Twerges (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please review Oscar Dahlene

You made an entry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Dahlene, and since that time the article in question has been improved to include significant facts. I ask you to review the page and determine if your have anything to add, remove, or modify.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

WT:FICT

I like your comments, and reminds me just how true this is in relation to non-linear plots such as Pulp Fiction (film), which I would guess has been written and rewritten dozens of times.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit War

Jake you are alone in your opinion. Perhaps you should gain WP:consensus before reverting. You are a very intelligent young man but play dumb when things don't match you POV. You must learn to compromise with other editors. As far as being uncivil, that's simply not true. We may disagree but I have never been mean to you. You must admit you do act like the gatekeeper of this article. Maybe you should take a step back and let others contribute or not... either way I implore you to remember we all have opinions and must work together. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply at your talk page, since this appears to be in response to the message I left there. Jakew (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the thoughtful response. It is easy to get worked up about things you believe in. I apologize if I came off as a jerk. Garycompugeek (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please gain consensus before removing protest image from Circumcision

Jake you are exhibiting most of the signs of WP:OWNERSHIP and must learn to work with other editors. It is OK to disagree with other editors. You must still abide by current consensus regardless of your position. Please gain consensus on Talk:Circumcision before removing circumcision protest image. Your actions could be construed as WP:Censorship and continuation on this course WP:VANDALISM. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Replying at your talk. Jakew (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your cool headed (as always) response. I understand your close to the article. I consider you something of an expert on the matter. Your POV flavors your contributions as it does for everyone. Sometimes I think we communicate better on these side conversations. Kinda like drawing someone over to a nice quite corner to talk. While I may have thrown a bit of the book at you (maybe I've learned from you?) I stand by what I said above and your actions could be construed to violate the above policies. Personally I do not feel you are trying to maliciously damage the encyclopedia but are instead fighting for your viewpoint. I respect that. I really think you should step back and show you can compromise.

Pictures do not have to be neutral and are excellent tools to illustrate. I would not object to pro circumcision pictures being added to the article. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Civility barnstar

		Civility Award
		I award you this Civility barnstar, for always remaining civil in the face of incessant and entirely unwarranted incivility. Jayjg (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I award you this Editor's barnstar for insisting on the highest quality sourcing and most neutral presentation of material for all articles. Jayjg (talk) 06:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Quill Barnstar

		The Quill Barnstar
		For demonstrating, with boundless patience and logic, that the pen is mightier than the sword; for basing arguments firmly on policies and reliable sources while consistently upholding Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy; and for some of the Wikipedianliest comments I've ever seen in policy talk page discussions, I, Coppertwig, hereby award thee, Jakew, this well-earned barnstar. ☺ 01:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The Anti-Flame Barnstar

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		By staying cool, calm and collected – and courteous – no matter how frumious or flainstering the situation, thou hast earned this Anti-Flame Barnstar, which I, Coppertwig hereby bestow upon thee. ☺ 01:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Chinese apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

infobox

I saw your name on the wikiproject for infoboxes saying you can help out where possible. I was about to create an infobox (got that stuff down) but I dont quite understand how and where to save the template for the infobox im about to make. Do you happen to know how to do this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Start_infobox_page thanks, Lihaas (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I might be able to answer that for you, if I understand the question correctly. You want to create a page with a name like "Template:Infobox Machinima", changing "Machinima" to some name relevant to what you're doing. I think you can put documentation in a page with a name like "Template:Infobox Machinima/doc". To create a page, see Help:Starting a new page, or maybe it will happen naturally when you follow the steps at the infobox instructions. You may be able to copy and paste text with your mouse if necessary: I'm not sure if you need to do that. I hope that helps. Feel free to ask me more questions – I might or might not be able to help. Welcome to Wikipedia! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, BCeagle0312 (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What's up?

You seem to be inactive. Hope you're doing well. Talk:Circumcision sure isn't the same without you. Hope to work again with you soon. Blackworm (talk) 06:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear all

Many thanks to those who've left kind words above. I've been on a wikibreak for some time, but I expect to start editing again shortly. Jakew (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Jake, welcome back. Where have you been? AlphaEta 22:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Diplomatic of you

I think the first paragraph of this comment of yours is very nicely and diplomatically written (in more than one sense of the word "nice"). Also, I recognized that it must be you saying it even though your signature was below the bottom of the screen at the time (to use an expression that reminds me of Alice in Wonderland wondering what a candle flame looks like after it's blown out). ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Coppertwig. Jakew (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Odd.

Given your past descriptions in edit summaries, why would you emphasize the largeness of the change, rather than its nature? Have you changed as an editor to an WP:NPOV ideal? Blackworm (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, the use of the word "drastic" was intended to convey both the size and nature of the changes. I'm sorry if this was unclear or if my edit summary didn't meet with your expectations in any way. Please rest assured that I'll try harder in future. Best wishes, Jakew (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if this message fails to meet with your expectations in any way, Jakew; but I just wanted to say that it's quite obvious that your message, above, is meant in a totally sincere way; there clearly isn't the slightest bit of sarcasm intended there. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps I asked for that. Jakew (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the lesson was for me to learn. Blackworm (talk) 06:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Anti-canvassing

I just posted something at WT:NOR which I think you might disagree with. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Compromise on smegma re-write

I have suggested a compromise. Tremello22 (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll comment on Talk:Smegma. Jakew (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of...

...engaging in "give 'em an inch, and they take a mile" behaviour, I was wondering if you'd mind if I added the three words "with no anaesthesia" to the end of the Kellogg sentence. It reads oddly to me currently, as it's unclear what the approach is, and the three words would make clear what the punitive approach means, in essence summarizing the deleted quote. Blackworm (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Circumcision

Hi, Jake. I replied on my talk page to the comment that you left there re: the article, circumcision. I've reproduced my response below, but please feel free to reply on either my talk page or your own.

--

I'd be happy to answer your question. I placed the tags there because the article is unmistakably slanted toward the view that circumcision is a negative procedure. For example, the section Sexually Transmitted Diseases begins with the sentence: "The origin of the theory that circumcision can lower the risk of a man contracting HIV is disputed." This sentence is clearly biased toward the idea that circumcision has no effect on the transmission of illnesses. However, there is plenty of research indicating that circumcision does have an effect in this area and in a number of other areas as well. You can find many articles whose conclusions support circumcision in the following medical journals: the British Medical Journal, Sexually Transmitted Infections, the Journal of Urology, the International Journal of Urology, the Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey, the American Journal of Pathology and many others. There is also material published by the American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (drawn from articles in accredited medical journals) on the subject that demonstrates, in no uncertain terms, the benefits of circumcision. Given that there are numerous accredited studies supporting this practice, the section on STDs should begin with a neutral sentence, not a biased one whose sole purpose is setting up an argument against the procedure.

To be honest with you, I found bias similiar to that present throughout the article, and it's quite intense, undue and consuming of the entire entry. The article doesn't so much describe circumcision as it sets out with the agenda of negating the potential benefits of it. And it does this despite the fact there is a lot of evidence to the contrary.

Now, please understand, I am not suggesting that there is a consensus among medical professionals that circumcision is something for all men. There is certainly some controversy over whether circumcision is an imperative procedure, one that should be recommended for all males or, alternatively, should be optional. Many doctors feel that it should be elective, the administration of which is determined by the child's primary or the adult patient. But this doesn't change the unmistakable POV of the writing contained in this entry.

I hope this sheds light on my edit for you. Please feel free to ask me any further questions you may have. I am happy to work with other editors. ask123 (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Routine Infant Circumcision

In this edit, you state that the word "routine" is misused in the phrase, "routine infant circumcision." How is it misused? Are these sources, along with the prominent sources cited in circumcision, also misusing the phrase? [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Thanks. Blackworm (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Blackworm. I don't mean to suggest that every imaginable use of the phrase "routine infant circumcision" misuses the word "routine". There are situations when the qualifier is necessary in order to make the meaning clear. For example, consider the following:

• "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." (AAP: Circumcision Policy Statement)
• "Scientific studies show some medical benefits of circumcision. However, these benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised." (AAP: Parenting Corner Q&A: Circumcision)

Clearly, both quotes are very similar, and are from the same source. But look at what (according to the quotes) the potential medical benefits are insufficient to recommend. In one case, "that all infant boys be circumcised", and in the other, "routine neonatal circumcision". But "neonatal circumcision" doesn't mean "circumcision of all infant boys" — it just means "circumcision of infant boys". The word "routine" acts as an important qualifier that helps make the meaning clear.

But unfortunately, there is an unfortunate tendency on WP, in talk pages mostly, to use "routine infant circumcision" when what is meant is "infant circumcision". For example, from the diff you provide above: "Routine infant circumcision has been abandoned in New Zealand and Britain, and is now much less common in Australia and in Canada (see table 1)". This is both misleading and nonsensical. First, to state "Routine infant circumcision has been abandoned in New Zealand and Britain" is misleading, because it implies that these countries once had a policy of routine infant circumcision. Statistics for the UK, however, indicate that rates peaked at about 40%. "Routine infant circumcision ... is now much less common"? The table indicates rates of less than 20%. How much less common does it have to be before it is no longer routine? Surely this is a clue that the circumcisions described are not routine, but instead are elective.

For literature refs and further comments regarding use of the term itself, I refer you to my previous comments on the subject. Jakew (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Jake. I think you are creating an equivalence between "routine" and "universal" that is not implied by any sources, despite your analysis of two statements from the AAP. Routine neonatal male circumcision exists in places (say, the U.S.) where universal male circumcision does not. The phrase "routine neonatal circumcision" is very common, and its existence recognized.

Routine neonatal male circumcision, to me, simply means the elective circumcision of healthy male infants as a matter of routine -- i.e., with facilities and willing practitioners widely available, a high rate of male circumcision, and a cultural expectation for males to be circumcised. For example, routine neonatal male circumcision is being promoted by the UN/WHO in Africa, it is still the case in the U.S., and it was the case in some other developed countries until recently. By changing this to "infant circumcision," you are changing the meaning to include therapeutic (medically indicated) circumcision, which I do not believe is what the sources are discussing. Perhaps the term is too vague for us, however, in which case perhaps "non-therapeutic" should be explained and used. Thoughts? Blackworm (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Blackworm. I'm afraid I'm slightly confused by your reference to "what the sources are discussing", and I'm wondering whether you are referring to specific sentences in the diff that you cited above, in another article, or to hypothetical future edits. I'm confused in large part because sources seem rather conspicuously absent in the sentences that I edited in the above diff.

I found your explanation of the term interesting, not least because of the differences from my own understanding of the term. I note with interest that you haven't defined what is meant by a "high rate of male circumcision". To my mind, it seems that there would have to be a magic value for the circumcision rate -- a threshold -- above which routine circumcision could exist, and below which it could not. I wonder where you put that value. This seems rather critical to me, and yet I suspect it would be rather difficult to answer objectively. I know this is straying even further into OR territory, but I hope you don't mind my asking anyway, as it seems an interesting concept.

I'd agree that the term is problematic, anyway, and clearly different people understand it differently, which makes it less than ideal for clearly communicating ideas. I can think of several terms that might be better. Depending on the circumstances, "elective", "non-therapeutic", "prophylactic", "discretionary", or "cultural" could be chosen. I'm reluctant to suggest a single word as a kind of rule for all cases, because I think we need to be thoughtful and flexible. Some words subtly suggest positive (eg., "prophylactic") or negative (eg., "non-therapeutic") qualities, and need to be used with care.

To try to codify my thinking further:

• If a source doesn't use the term "routine infant circumcision", then it's best to avoid using the term ourselves.
• If a source does use the term and defines it, then our task is straightforward. We can rephrase or quote as we deem appropriate.
• If a source uses the term but does not define it, then our task is more difficult:
  • If the usage of the term is (or could be) significant, then we ought to reproduce it without "translation". By "significant", I mean that the specific use of the term, in context, by this particular source has two or more interpretations that differ substantially in meaning, perhaps with NPOV implications.
  • If the usage of the term is insignificant, then we can translate, simplify or (if necessary) quote it.

The above is not intended as a concrete set of rules; it's just a few ideas on the subject. Jakew (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC) (edited 12:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

The term routine infant circumcision isn't describing the frequency with which the operation occurs, it is describing the type of operation. That is what over the years the non-therapeutic circumcision of newborns has come to be called. Do you agree with this? Tremello22 (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Phimosis

Why did you take away the cirp reference. It could be helpful to readers especially since it provides photos and information on balooning. If it provides references to back up what it is saying (references that are already contained in the wiki article) then it is perfectly usable Tremello22 (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:RS and WP:V, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". There are several reasons why content written by Falk and Hill and published on their personal website is unsuitable for use in Wikipedia, and it seems rather extraordinary to suggest otherwise. The most obvious of these reasons is that, with respect to their own original material, CIRP is a self-published source. Also, generally speaking, it's best to avoid citing websites in medicine-related articles; see WP:MEDRS#Websites.

Incidentally, Wikipedia's standards for WP:RS are somewhat higher than "does it provide references?". When you think about it, this is for the best, since anyone can cite references while misrepresenting or misinterpreting them (accidentally or otherwise). Similarly, it is easy to make mistakes (accidentially or otherwise) while synthesising data from several sources. So the fact that references are cited isn't enough: we need some assurance that the references are properly used. If an article has gone through peer-review in a respected scientific journal, then we know that several experts in the field (editors, reviewers, etc) have examined the work and regard it as suitable for publication. That isn't a guarantee, but it's better than nothing. If Random Person X writes something and publishes it on his website, then we have no such guarantee. Jakew (talk) 13:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

self-published source: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. "

It agrees with what the rest of the article is saying. There shouldn't be a problem. Tremello22 (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

On a contentious topic (which I think is what those guidelines refer to) then of course some random website should not be used to argue the case for a particular viewpoint. But when general consensus agrees with what is said on the page then again , there is no problem. Tremello22 (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Poor sourcing is inexcusable. If there is indeed general consensus that these claims are true, then it should be easy to find them in reliable, published sources, and hence it ought to be easy to cite these sources instead. Jakew (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What bit do you want the source for and what claims are so contentious we need extra sources than the ones alerady contained in the article? :

It is now advised that the foreskin should be left alone. The most common official recommendations and guidelines from medical societies, as well as infant care books written by experts, emphasize that no attempt should be made to retract the foreskin until the boy is able to do it himself. Full retractability of the foreskin may not be achieved until late childhood or early adulthood

Poor sourcing is inexcusable. Your premise that the source is poor renders your argument fallacious. Tremello22 (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like source(s) to support each claim, as required by WP:V. Currently no reliable sources are provided at all, and the unreliable source at the end of the paragraph is presumably intended to be sufficient for every claim. And because no reliable sources are cited, it is impossible to correct some of the following problems:

"It is now advised that the foreskin should be left alone." [in the absence of a source, it is impossible to correct the weasel wording (by whom is it advised?) in this sentence.]

"The most common official recommendations and guidelines from medical societies," [does this mean that that less common recommendations and guidelines state otherwise?] "as well as infant care books written by experts," [does this mean that infant care books written by non-experts state otherwise?] "emphasize that no attempt should be made to retract the foreskin until the boy is able to do it himself." [this statement seems rather overstated. Relatively few guidelines from medical societies actually state a position about retraction, and my understanding is that infant care books, when they mention the subject, are divided as to whether it should be performed or not. Hence a source is needed.]

"Full retractability of the foreskin may not be achieved until late childhood or early adulthood" [This would probably be one of the easier claims to source, but one is still needed.] Jakew (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

OK Jake. Thanks for clarification. Though it does take time to acquire sources. I know what the current consensus is because I have read all the material available. Maybe it is laziness on my part presuming that the sources weren't required. I see sources as more important when the topic is more contentious. From what I have seen the advice given on the CIRP page matches exactly the advice from the AAP for instance. I guess other sources would help too. Now I have to find them. Tremello22 (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Jake, I haven't finished yet by the way. There are others that say the same thing. Such as the Canadian Paediatric Society It seems you are picking a strange fight. Is it really necessary to name sources as if to say there is a differing consensus? Tremello22 (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Tremello22 (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Jake I think it is adequate as it stands. I may make minor edits to this article at a later date. There are still some other sections that could be improved and are not as accurate as they could be. Given that you named the AAP, there is probably no need to add the Canadian one or refs from other countries. Tremello22 (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It seems perfectly satisfactory to cite just the AAP. Indeed, if we were to exhaustively cite every organisation with a similar view it might come across as a little soapboxish.

There are, however, some problems with the paragraph that still need to be addressed:

• "It is now advised that the foreskin should be left alone." -- a source is still needed for this sentence. Alternatively, is it needed at all, given that the following sentence is sourced and is so much more precise?
• "Some recommend the boy should be the first one to do it." -- this sentence doesn't make much sense (partly as a result of my edit, I fear). Again, I wonder whether it is needed.

Finally, CIRP is still cited, in violation of WP:SPS. Jakew (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Picking out primary sources to judge which is the most common cause of phimosis and putting it in the lead is not good for the article and is a major violation on NPOV policies. I have discussed the CIRP reference above and it is perfectly OK to use in this circumstance. The point of an article Jake is to make it easy to understand for the general reader. Given there is a lot of confusion over the foreskin and the fact that some still are incorrectly told to pull the foreskin back, it is important this information is put across. The view that the foreskin should be left alone is unanimous. Tremello22 (talk) 05:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edits have highlighted one thing though. No mention is made of pathological phimosis. I will remedy this now. Tremello22 (talk) 05:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Jake, just reading this, your letter of reply to the Rickwood study on the BMJ website. It seems a lot of your views are adequately countered by George Hill. Tremello22 (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Jake, I don't see how your edit has improved the article. Maybe you could explain? You have just made it more confusing for the general reader. Tremello22 (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Phimosis#Another dubious revert. Jakew (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your kind comment. NOR seems to be an almost insurmountable issue for some editors. Perhaps you could make a comment to that effect on the article Talk: page too - ThuranX is still insisting that either his material goes in, or he's going to take everyone else's out, despite the fact that all the other sources do discuss the "Kosher tax". Jayjg ^(talk) 19:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit war?

Not at all. I was in the middle of incorporating all three sources but had to handle and emergency. Its perfectly logical to include the sources that CNN is talking about as the reader may be interested. I feel it was laid out in a neutral partisan manner. After I made all of my changes I was content to let matters take their natural course. On the other hand Jake, try not to be so prosaic with your objections. You still tend to gate keep any editing criticizing circumcision. It would look more plausible if you didn't repeat the same objections or wait and let others revert. Its hard for us to see eye to eye Jake. I find circumcision reprehensible while you applaud it. I think the matter would be easily settled if we let young adults elect for the procedure themselves at 18. This of course, is out of our hands. Anyway I'll stop ranting and bid you good day. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

RFC Thank you for fixing the template Jake. (I hate those damn things) I had to run and just now have had a chance to edit. Didn't realize I bothched it again. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Jakew (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For agreeing to the edit. [11] ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to say! I thought your proposed edits and rationale were reasonable, so I said so. :-) Jakew (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I could say something similar to Blackworm, then; but maybe that's what I meant by "You're welcome". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Circumcision

Your Edit was unjustified. Ramos & Boyles paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Furthermore, the addition in question does not give undue weight to a minority viewpoint (cf. wikipedida Germany, for instance). And: What on earth are NOCIRC books? (85.176.98.232 (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC))

It's possible that Ramos and Boyle published their paper in a peer-reviewed journal as well, but the source you cited is not a peer-reviewed article.

To remind you, you cited: "S. Ramos & G.J. Boyle: Ritual and Medical Circumcision among Filipino Boys. In: G.C. Denniston, F.M. Hodges & M.F. Milos: Understanding Circumcision. A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to a Multi-Dimensional Problem. 2001"

"Understanding circumcision" is a book containing the proceedings of NOCIRC's Sixth International Symposium on Genital Integrity (see here). It is not a reliable source, but is instead activist material, promotional in nature, that must be regarded as a questionable source. The same is true of the Menage source.

Finally, the addition does indeed give undue weight to a minority viewpoint, one that is already over-represented within the article. The idea that circumcision causes psychological harm is a distinctly fringe concept that very few reliable sources even mention, let alone pay significant attention to. Jakew (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The source I've cited is a peer-reviewed article. Sometimes, articles that are published in peer-reviewed journals are published in a collection of papers (books) as well. This is not unusual (and you should know that if you know how to do scientific research). Furthermore, the book itself does not contain the proceedings of anything. I have it right in front of me. Nevertheless, since you asked me to do so, I've changed the indication of source. Still, I do not understand why the articles that I've cited should be activist material. They contain rather solid psychological research. If the results of this research are used (or misused) by certain activist groups, then this does not diminish the significance or the validity of these results.

Again, the idea that circumcision causes psychological harm is obviously not "a fringe concept very few reliable sources even mention, let alone pay significant attention to". Or do you consider the BMA to be an insignificant and unreliable source? As the wikipedia article says itself: "The British Medical Association (2006) states that "it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks." This claim is substantiated by the results of Ramos & Boyle.(85.176.98.232 (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC))

First, if the source you've cited is a peer-reviewed article, then please provide a full citation for the peer-reviewed journal in which it may be found.

Second, your argument that "the book itself does not contain the proceedings of anything" is incompatible with the evidence. The book is subtitled "Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Genital Integrity, Sydney, Australia, December 7-9, 2000".

Third, I note that you have modified the citation, but the citation that you've provided is incomplete. I presume you intended to cite this, which is not a peer-reviewed paper either, and is identified as a pre-print of the NOCIRC source that we've been discussing.

Fourth, Wikipedia insists on a high standard of sources. This is particularly true of medical articles (see WP:MEDRS). There is a spectrum of reliability. At one end are articles published in peer-reviewed journals. At the other are materials published by activist groups.

Finally, there is an enormous difference between saying that a procedure has associated risks and saying that it causes PTSD in more than 50% of cases. Jakew (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ad 1: "Boyle, G; Goldman, R; Svoboda, JS; Fernandez E (2002), "Male Circumcision: Pain, Trauma and Psychosexual Sequelae", Journal of Health Psychology 7 (3): 329-343." was accepted by the Journal of Health Psychology (peer-reviewed) and contains the results of "S. Ramos & G.J. Boyle: Ritual and Medical Circumcision among Filipino Boys". The paper "S. Ramos & G.J. Boyle: Ritual and Medical Circumcision among Filipino Boys" was published by Bond University and is thus peer-reviewed as well. So, you can choose between the more detailed "S. Ramos & G.J. Boyle: Ritual and Medical Circumcision among Filipino Boys" or the rather concise "Boyle, G; Goldman, R; Svoboda, JS; Fernandez E (2002), "Male Circumcision: Pain, Trauma and Psychosexual Sequelae". You chose the latter, which is all right, if you don't want to know all the details about the study in question.

Ad 2: No, "Understanding Circumcision" is subtitled "a multi-disciplinary approach to a multi-dimensional problem".

Ad 3: No, I did cite both: "Boyle, G; Goldman, R; Svoboda, JS; Fernandez E (2002), "Male Circumcision: Pain, Trauma and Psychosexual Sequelae", Journal of Health Psychology 7 (3): 329-343." AND "S. Ramos & G.J. Boyle: Ritual and Medical Circumcision among Filipino Boys". Since you've already chosen the first source, we don't have to discuss this matter any further, I suppose.

Ad 4: Well, the peer-reviewed "Journal of Health Psychology" article it shall be then. I would not have cited "S. Ramos & G.J. Boyle: Ritual and Medical Circumcision among Filipino Boys" if I hadn't known that the results have been published in "Boyle, G; Goldman, R; Svoboda, JS; Fernandez E (2002), "Male Circumcision: Pain, Trauma and Psychosexual Sequelae", Journal of Health Psychology 7 (3): 329-343." as well. Boyle is a respectable and very successful psychologist who has even worked together with one of the most important psychologists ever: Eysenck. Boyle does have an excellent international reputation (he is even well know in Germany). You may not know this, as your area of competence is obviously not in the field of psychology. However, you should do some research before you discredit a source as unreliable or biased. Furthermore, you should read the studies before you say that they ought not to be cited.

Ad 5: Please read the two studies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.117.37 (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, the paper by Boyle et al is a reliable source, and appears in a peer-reviewed journal. However, although it cites Ramos & Boyle, it is not accurate to say that it "contains" the results of that paper. Regarding the Bond University paper, this is merely a pre-print of the paper that appeared in the NOCIRC book. I explained this in my third point above.

Regarding your second point, here is the publisher's information about the book. Please note that the full title is given as "Understanding Circumcision A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to a Multi-Dimensional Problem Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Genital Integrity: Safeguarding Fundamental Human Rights in the 21st Century, held December 7-9, 2000, in Sydney, Australia."

You seem to have misunderstood my third point but, as you say, it is perhaps unnecessary to discuss it further.

Regarding your fourth and fifth points, I have in fact read the two papers, and I'm puzzled that you should think otherwise. I haven't judged their content, as it would be inappropriate for any of us to do so on WP. I have only commented on their suitability as sources. The Boyle et al source is good enough. Jakew (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"The idea that circumcision causes psychological harm is a distinctly fringe concept..."

— Jake Waskett, User:Jakew, founder of Circs.org

"The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks."

— British Medical Association[12]

Two quotes above added by me, to show the glaring weakness of Jakew's commentary. Blackworm (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Jakew's comments do not seem to be very neutral. However, I think that it is a rather good thing that he questioned my additions. His questioning helped me make them "watertight". And, in a way, he was right about "S. Ramos & G.J. Boyle: Ritual and Medical Circumcision among Filipino Boys". This article was published by Bond University, which is not entirely the same as being published by the Journal of Health Psychology. Since Jakew obviously did not read either of the articles he could not know that the results of Ramos & Boyles' study were published by the Journal of Health Psychology in "Male Circumcision: Pain, Trauma and Psychosexual Sequelae" as well (which should solve the problem discussed above). And since he is no expert in the field of psychology (he does computer science, right?) he could not know that Boyle is a respected psychologist who has got a reputation to lose. So, in dubio pro reo; Jakew might not have been biased on purpose, I hope :-).

What has taken me a little aback, however, is that Jakew seems to believe that circumcision is something that can not credibly be associated with PTSD at all. Even for a layman it should be obvious that PTSD (even if he has only a vague idea of what an PTSD is) may plausibly associated with surgical procedures (especially if performed on children). Unfortunately, not much research has been done yet with regard to the question as to how exactly PTSD and surgical procedures are related (PTSD hasn't been in the ICD-10 classification for too long, I think it was taken up some time in the 1980s). Hence, it is not surprising at all that Moses et al. write in 1998 that "scientific evidence is lacking" for psychological and emotional harm of circumcision. I am quite sure that more information on the relation between surgical procedures (if performed on children as circumcision is) and PTSD will be available soon as decisively more and more research on PTSD will be done in the years to come.(85.176.117.37 (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC))

I wouldn't call it a "fringe" concept, Jake. For example, I think it's implicit in that Taddio study we were arguing about way back. Blackworm's quote above is also illustrative of its non-"fringe"-ness. Anyway, I'm not sure what you mean by "fringe". I don't think "fringe" is a black-and-white classification with a specific definition.

WP:SPS could be interpreted to mean that even non-peer-reviewed stuff by Boyle could be considered reliable sources, IMO, based on information given in this thread. So I think it's OK to give both refs, (if the information is included in the article), the peer-reviewed one first I guess, and the other too so that the reader has more detailed information. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Coppertwig, thank you for your comment. The Boyle & Ramos paper can hardly be considered SPS as it is published by Bond University. Furthermore, I strongly doubt that the Boyle & Ramos paper has not been (in some sense) peer-reviewed. It would be a bit like committing suicide if you put your name under a paper that underwent no reviewing at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.117.37 (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is indeed a fringe concept, Coppertwig. I actually addressed the issue in Blackworm's post before he made it; please see the last paragraph of my above post dated 17:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC). By "fringe" I mean that, rather than being accepted by mainstream researchers, this idea is discussed by a small minority of authors, and is accepted by even fewer. Most general literature reviews of risks and benefits don't even mention the subject; of the few that do, most seem to reject the idea.

I can see no good argument for including Ramos and Boyle. It's not a peer-reviewed source. It appears in an activist publication (note that Bond's preprint is of a paper that was written for NOCIRC, and so is effectively the same thing), and is hence questionable. It's a primary source. Finally, it's cited by Boyle et al, so it is accessible via a secondary source. Jakew (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

In the post you cite, you say "Finally, there is an enormous difference between saying that a procedure has associated risks and saying that it causes PTSD in more than 50% of cases." Certainly there is an enormous difference. I likely wouldn't object to a statement that the POV "it causes PTSD in more than 50% of cases" is a "fringe" POV. However, what you had said was not that, but "The idea that circumcision causes psychological harm is a distinctly fringe concept". I don't see quite such an enormous difference between "has psychological risks" and "causes psychological harm". Would you agree, at least, that based on the 2nd quote Blackworm provided, that a statement that it "has psychological risks" is not a fringe POV? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'd certainly agree that "has psychological risks" is not by itself a fringe POV. For that matter, it is a POV with which I would actually agree (not that this has any influence on whether it is fringe or not). Jakew (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Your undue weight argument is invalid and unscientific. Boyle et al. claim that circumcision procedures are associated with PTSD and substantiate this claim by citing the study in question. That Boyle et al. cite this study has been accepted by the referees of the Journal of Health Psychology. Hence, it can and ought to be mentioned that Boyle et al. refer to his study in order to substantiate their claim. Furthermore, an anologous thing is done with regard to Moses et al.'s claim that circumcision is not associated with psychological and emotional harm: "Moses et al.' (1998) state, however, that "scientific evidence is lacking" for psychological and emotional harm, citing a longitudinal study which did not find a difference in developmental and behavioural indices." You don't want to delete this passage as well, do you? Please, be fair and objective.

I accept the other changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.182.88.230 (talk • contribs)

"citing a longitudinal study which did not find a difference in developmental and behavioural indices" (15 words) is considerably more concise than "citing a study that shows an incidence rate of PTSD (measured according to DSM-IV) of almost 70% among Filipino boys subjected to ritual circumcision, and 51% among boys subjected to medical circumcision (with local anaesthetic)" (35 words). That's a problem, because by devoting more than twice the word count (and noticeably more detail) to one source than the other, we effectively give the former more emphasis or weight. I wouldn't be opposed to a shorter description of the study that they cite, though. How about "..., citing a study in which high rates of PTSD were documented among circumcised Filipino boys"? That's also 15 words, and seems to capture the important points. Jakew (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes accepted. In case you did not know: "Being subjected to" is just the way psychologists speak. Psychologists speak of "subjects" and of "subjecting someone to a test" and so forth. As psychology is not you area of competence, you may be forgiven in suspecting a biased choice of words. In the future, however, please do not prejudge scientific evidence as activist material, especially if the scientific evidence in question does not concern your area of competence.(85.176.102.5 (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC))

Your recent changes did improve the article "Medical analysis of circumcision". Thank you for that. Deleting the BMA statement is no option. Furthermore, it is important to note that it is unclear in how far circumcision may psychologically or physically harm a person (I can think of circumstances in which circumcision may be rather beneficial to a person, however, I can also think of circumstances in which circumcision may be rather harmful). So, your changes make clear to the reader that still a lot of research has to be done. The thing that was interesting for me in this whole debate was the PTSD issue. As this is settled, I am out of the discussion.(85.176.102.131 (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC))