User talk:Mikewest

Welcome!

Hello, Mikewest, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}}on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Scray (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits at Talk:Circumcision

Hello Mikewest, regarding your comments at Talk:Circumcision: It appears you have some misunderstandings about what kinds of comments are appropriate for Wikipedia, and what a Wikipedia article Talk page is for. To clear up these misunderstandings:

You must interact with your fellow Wikipedia editors in a civil manner. See WP:CIVIL. At Wikipedia, civility isn't just a guideline, it isn't even just policy, it's one of the five pillars upon which Wikipedia is built. Please consider this a warning to stop your uncivil treatment of your fellow editors. Repeated violations of Wikipedia's civility policy can result in restrictions of your editing privileges.
Wikipedia article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, and nothing else. You seem to be under the misunderstanding that they can be used for general discussion of a topic, or for advocacy of a certain position. This is not the case. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and please conform to what is written there.

As a favor to you, I have removed or hidden the parts of your edits that were grossly in violation of these Wikipedia rules. If you restore them, you can expect that your insistence on having such comments attributed to you and in violation of Wikipedia's rules can lead to editing restrictions. Zad68 00:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Circumcision, you may be blocked from editing. Zad68 13:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Disruptive editing? I'm not editing, I was in the "Talk" section. Basically, your claim is that conversation and the sharing of ideas is disruptive. I disagree and so does American neuroscientist Sam Harris.

"... we can either have a twenty-first-century conversation about ethics—availing ourselves of all the arguments and scientific insights that have accumulated in the last two thousand years of human discourse—or we can confine ourselves to a first-century conversation as it is preserved in the Bible." ―Sam Harris (http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/1229 OR http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/129700-we-can-either-have-a-twenty-first-century-conversation-about-morality-and)

“We have a choice. We have two options as human beings. We have a choice between conversation and war. That's it. Conversation and violence. And faith is a conversation stopper.” ―Sam Harris (http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/16593.Sam_Harris)

1) Disruptive editing? I'm not editing, I'm in the "Talk" section. I'm pointing out that A) religious belief is the only reason why people would perform male circumcision (and could easily switch sides and be abhorrent to female circumcision or accept [Muslims] female circumcision) and B) Only religious belief allows someone to think or act in immoral ways but think they are being immoral because they believe they have the permission of an invisible friend.

2) My entire main point is that genital mutilation is gentile mutilation is gentile mutilation. Yet simply by Wikipedia using the phrase "Female gentile mutilation" for the female circumcision Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation), this title subtly emphasizes that female circumcision is morally wrong.

Yet, for the male genital mutilation Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision), the title of the article is "Circumcision". And the very first sentence after the title of "Circumcision" reads: "This article is about male circumcision. For female circumcision, see Female genital mutilation." Using "Circumcision" is a subtle way to say that male genital mutilation is not morally wrong.

Please explain to me, by way of conversation, how I am being a "disruptive editor" that I consider the title of the male circumcision Wikipedia page to be an obvious editing problem? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.204.102.142 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 9 December 2012

A stark example of your disruptive editing is this comment - Wikipedia is not a place to work through your frustrations (unless in the most constructive way by contributing well-sourced information). You seem intent on making a point here, and that's not what we do as editors; rather, we paraphrase authoritative sources. Free speech is not guaranteed on Wikipedia - we must abide by the rules of the site, or take it somewhere else. I recommend this page on what Wikipedia is not - I think it really will help you understand this place. Note that Talk pages are governed by the prohibition of using WP as a soapbox - they are not a discussion forum for the topic; rather, they are for discussing the article. -- Scray (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you that my comments here are a "stark example of your disruptive editing". I am pointing out two facts: 1) That the religious hate it when they are confronted about the validity of their religious truth claims. 2) That Wikipedia editors are trying to camouflage the fact that male circumcision IS genital mutilation by using the title of "Circumcision" for the male genital mutilation Wikipedia page instead of using the title "Male genital mutilation." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision)

I'm simply the person who is stating the truth, "The king has no clothes" and I'm being raked over the coals for my intellectual honesty.

However, please don't take my word for it that male circumcision is genital mutilation. Why not take counsel from Christopher Hitchens? Christopher Hitchens who "in September 2005 he was named one of the 'Top 100 Public Intellectuals' by Foreign Policy and Prospect magazines." (This previous quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens)

Here is one quote by Christopher Hitchens on circumcision:

"If you want to saw off the end of your penis, you're welcome. You're not to do it to a child who hasn't asked for it. Same with the genitals of a little girl. If she thinks later on she'd be better off without them, let her take, or have taken to her, a sharp instrument.

If it proves that it's good for AIDS - it might well be, I've heard that it's said to be good for cervical cancer - let it be decided by the grown-up. It is not right, it is not moral, it is in fact wicked, to submit children to the mutilation of their genitalia, or to anyone without consent.

Do you understand that this elementary point only needs to be made because of wickedness enjoined by religion. The rabbi here's a fairly humane guy. He wouldn't - if he didn't think God was involved - ever consider mutilating the genitals of a child, but because it's a covenant with God, anything can be done."

-This Hitchens quote is from the Christopher Hitchens and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach Debate. This quote is at the 42 minute, 30 second mark of this is 1-1/2 hour YouTube video. (The video can be found by doing a YouTube search with this search phrase, "Full version of the Christopher Hitchens and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach Debate". It's the 1:33:56 long video.)

A completely different YouTube video with Christopher Hitchens on circumcision is found here online and it's only a short four minute video. (The video can be found by doing a YouTube search using the search phrase, "Christopher Hitchens: Circumcision - He destroys Rabbi Harold Kushner". It's the third video down with a 3:54 video length.)

Last notes. I have not read the Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy; however, I promise I will. Lastly, I think I'm doing my signature correctly; however, I am really not sure if I am writing my signature correctly. --63.204.102.142 (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression that you are not paying attention to the major message that multiple people have tried to communicate to you about WP policy: this is not a place to discuss or debate what we believe is "right" or "wrong" - we discuss content based on reliable sources. Without proper sourcing, your comments bear no weight here (even if I agree with some of them). I'm trying to help you understand how to edit WP effectively. Also, you might want to log in so that your IP address is not shown when you edit. I hope you understand that I'm trying to help. -- Scray (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mikewest, I agree with Scray. I am also continuing to have the impression that you are not listening to what we are trying to tell you about what the purpose of Wikipedia is and is not, and what rules about interacting with others Wikipedia editors are expected to abide by. You have certain opinions about religion and circumcision, and that's fine. What is puzzling is that you keep discussing your opinions about these topics even though nobody has engaged you on them. Can you point to a single bit of communication directed at you challenging you on these topics?

Regardless, once again: Wikipedia is not the place for this sort of general debate and discussion. There are plenty of forums on the Internet for that purpose, Wikipedia is not one of them. As Scray has pointed out to you, all we do here is write articles to accurately reflect what the best reliable secondary sources say. Our opinions do not matter, and Wikipedia does not publish original research.

Regarding neutral point of view: At Wikipedia, "neutral point of view" means that an article reflects the most notable views found in reliable secondary sources, with emphasis generally in proportion to what is found in the sources. For medical articles and biomedical topics, we use the WP:MEDRS guideline to identify acceptable medical reliable sources. On Wikipedia, our personal opinions about the subjects we write about do not matter. Zad68 04:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Signing posts on Talk pages

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. Scray (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew this. Now I know. I also never, ever, knew about the NPOV policy. A neutral point of view? Okay. --63.204.102.142 (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]