:Talk:Circumcision/Archive 13

I noticed a revert back to (in part) "the clamp then cuts off the foreskin" but this isn't accurate, at least not so far as the link at the bottom of the article to the procedure of a GOMCO circumcision is concerned. What's up? According to that link (and as I understand the procedure) the clamp keeps everything in place so that the doctor can remove the foreskin with a scalpel. The clamp provides hemostasis (pressure frequently described as 'crushing') to minimize blood flow to the area) and in the case of GOMCO, a surface against which the docotr can cut (the bell that goes between the foreskin and the glans). I think this is an important difference, so I'm going to clarify the procedures part, unless someone else beats me to it or someone can provide a good justification for the phrase about the clamp cutting off the foreskin. I'd be more bold and just do it, but this is such a touchy page, I thought I'd talk it out first. Zandrous 09:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now it's been reverted back apparently because the reverter is in an arbitration that requested they refrain from editing this page. I guess I'll just wait and see what else happens at the hands of the more experienced wikipedians; I admit I'm a bit intimidated by all the action on this article, and am hesitant to get caught up in one of the frequent debates.Zandrous 16:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the revert of the revert complained that the changes were factually false. I'm only addressing the part that was in the procedures section: there the part that says that the clamp cuts off the foreskin is actually false (that's such a value laden word for this controversial topic; how about incorrect, or innacurate?) so that's what I'm going to edit. I'll leave the other stuff for others to hash out.Zandrous 17:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the information about using a dorsal slit with the Mogen clamp, because one doesn't, and added back details how it is actually used. I didn't think this would be controversial, as the techniques are quite standard among practitioners, but this time I added copious citations for the curious - sorry for not putting them in the first time. Dmr001 16:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks. Accurate medical details are important. Al 19:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think someone should write how jews and muslims circumcise, I am very curious and belive that there must be at least one jew and one muslim in wikipedia willing to write how it's done. I know that there is a "brit millah" article, but it has a lot of jewish customs and social things. Cuzandor 19:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And how the circumcisers in africa or australia or whatever do it too Cuzandor 19:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Comment edited by User:Nandesuka to remove insulting and inappropriate language.

I don't want to get into an edit war so will leave a comment here, and request that there at least be given some consideration to my request (even if others have put forth the same request in the past) - it is why can't we remove the image? It hardly contributes anything in my eyes and is disturbing. I am repeatedly told that wikipedia isn't censored but then why isn't there a picture of a murder on its article, or picture of a corpse on its page? The reason is that such pictures would be unacceptable - why isn't this? Chooserr 19:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

:How can you claim it hardly contributes anything? Many people have never seen an (un)circumcised penis, and it's not easy to imagine what it might look like. The pictures may be the most informative part of the article for many people. ^L_Wizard @ 19:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, and a diagram could never be implimented instead...Anyways you have yet to address wikipedia's policy of censorship, which I discussed above. Should a picture of a starving animal be added to animal cruelty to illustrate what it looks like? Chooserr 19:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

::: If you can find an encyclopedic image that illustrates the article in question: yes, absolutely. This issue was settled years ago. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors or for those with unreasonably delicate sensibilities. The article is about circumcision. There are, therefore, images of circumcised and uncircumcised penises. The photos are clear, simple, and not at all prurient. They are absolutely appropriate. Nandesuka 20:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Chooserr, if you haven't, you may find it useful to look through the archived talk on this page, as the issue of the images has been discussed at length at least a couple of times here. It also may help the discussion if you can be more specific about what you find disturbing about the images. (I personally think that an image of a retracted foreskin would be more illustrative than an erect uncircumcised penis, but I don't have such an image handy.).Zandrous 20:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

::::: I feel that having pictures is appropriate (to show differences). But I wonder if it matters that for uncircumcised a statistically large penis is shown and an average one for circumcised (albeit a "shower). Would having similar sized penises pictured be a fairer comparison?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.252.179.21 (talk • contribs) 10:53, June 29, 2006 (UTC{{{3|}}})

:::::: Those pictures are definitely important. I wouldn't be against good illustrations, but I don't think they'd be as useful. I live in a house with three circumsized family members, and I don't get the chance to examine the pertinent parts, so although I understood the difference in theory, I didn't understand it physically or visually until I came across this article. Kilyle 21:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don´t understand the discussion about those pictures at all. In continential Europe or better let's say in most european countries such a picture would´t matter because it shows something verry natural.

A rewrite, and parallel publish. Attract many editors to choose between two versions. Luckily, you pro-circ folk have left a clear choice!

That's where the Rfc will apply Nandesuka. Is Jakew still dominating? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TipTp (talk • contribs)

I favor making incremental changes, rather than a drastic rewrite. And to answer your question, it remains the case that JakeW, Nandesuka and Jayjg would prefer a more positive view of circumcision than some would. Al 05:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

: Alienus, I politely suggest that you try to avoid characterizing what other editors believe, since you don't seem to be able to do it accurately. Please focus on the article, and not the editors. Nandesuka 12:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

TipTp was on a wikibreak and asked about the current consensus. I think it was fair for me to answer. I don't think that this answer was in any way uncivil or constituted a personal attack or otherwise violated the rules. If you think there is a factual error, feel free to step in and correct it. Regardless, I ask that you assume good faith. Al 18:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

:I'm assuming good faith too, and I didn't characterize it as a personal attack. I said it was inaccurate. I want an article that maintains a neutral point of view, that is based on reliable sources, and that has no original research. None of those desires in any way boil down to wanting a "positive view of circumcision." Since you've made that characterization several times in several places, I think it's important to point out that it is false. The safest way to avoid making mistakes like the one you are making is to simply not comment on other editors at all — focus on the article instead. Nandesuka 18:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There are very few people, outside of obvious vandals, who would say (or even think) that they want articles that aren't neutral. Having said that, different people have differing notions of what constitutes neutrality. My view of a neutral page, for example, is that it should include mentions of CA-MRSA and coagulation defects, while your view is that it shouldn't. In this way, my view is anti-circ as compared to yours, yours is pro-circ as compared to mine. If we had a neutral page to compare it to, we could speak of where our views deviate from it, but no such page exists at this time, or at least we don't agree on its identity. From the point of view of TipTp, you're pro-circ. It's all relative, unless you have some fixed point to measure from. Personally, I don't consider myself anti-circ, but I do recognize that I am anti-circ relative to some other views.

Now, I realize that any generalization has the risk of overgeneralizing, but I do think we need to be able to speak of generalities as well as specifics if we are to understand the big picture. At no point did I intend to insult you by mischaracterizing your views, though, and I apologize if you took insult at anything I've said so far. Al 19:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

: The problem with your generalization is still there: it's false. I'm not taking insult. I'm just saying that what you are saying isn't true. The problem with generalizing "relative to" someone with a strong point of view that it suggests that that is an appropriate yardstick by which to measure. It ain't; it leads to absurd conclusions such as characterizing someone who really doesn't care about some topic as "pro-that-topic" or "anti-that-topic." That's why I continue to suggest to you that you'll be much more productive if you constrain yourself to talking about content rather than about editors. Nandesuka 20:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, this word isn't in the OED, and what references you can find to it on the web are confused, muddied, contradictory, and without any etymology. As near as I can tell it's just made up. Nandesuka 12:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

:Off-topic, I know, but I believe that it derives from the Latin "cucullus" (a cowl or covering, according to one source, and a funnel-shaped head covering according to another). The a- prefix gives 'without'. The Greek for 'fondness for' gives us -philia. This would explain acucullophilia. I've had no luck in tracing the 'phallia' suffix. I'd guess it was originally a misspelling. Jakew 13:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

::I'd guess the 'phallia' comes from phallus. Thus we have "without-covering-penis." ^L_Wizard @ 16:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

:::That would make a certain amount of sense. Jakew 18:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, that was my immediate conclusion. I got the impression that some editors were confusing "philia" with "phallia" and taking offense at mistaken notion that the latter involves viewing circumcision as a paraphilia. This would also explain the repeated reverts. Al 16:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

We've got a [http://www.sex-lexis.com/Sex-Dictionary/acucullophallic cite] that says:

:acucullophallic:

:Having or pertaining to a circumcised penis

Then we've got an editor who says otherwise, without explantion. Who should we believe? Al 12:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's an even more direct [http://public.diversity.org.uk/deviant/bodya-d.htm citation].

:acucullophallia, acucullophilia

:State of being circumcised (of men), attraction to men who are circumcised.

Note the distinction. Al 12:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

:Also note the unreliable nature of the sources. And the fact that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Nor is it a thesaurus.

:So, perhaps you could explain why it is so important that Wikipedia should document an incredibly obscure meaning of a term - and a usage apparently undocumented in reliable sources - in the introduction? Jakew 13:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What part of "I looked this up in the OED, and it wasn't there" is ambiguous? I can't cite something that doesn't exist. You won't find either acucullophallia or acucullophilia in any reference available at bartleby.com (which includes the full text of thousands upon thousands of English language documents, as well as, of course, a dictionary or thesaurus). It's not in Webster, either. Or PubMed. Nandesuka 13:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

:The part where OED was the final arbiter of what qualifies as a word. Please don't blame me for rejecting your choice of standards, especially as they do not apply.

:First, Google offers 1,470 hits, so I doubt the word is something that editor just made up. I noticed that it shows up quite consistently in specialized dictionaries of sexual terms, which is where we expect it to be. I doubt OED is ever going to have a comprehensive list of such terms, precisely because they don't readily show up in conventional media. And as for WP:RS, you've historically misinterpreted it, and it's not even a rule, so it doesn't matter either way.

:Finally, the reason the word belongs in the first paragraph is that this is where we'd mention synonyms. Look at other articles for examples. Also, we should probably set up a redirect to here. Al 16:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

::I would like to point out that there used to be a great deal of, in my opinion, very unnecessary fighting over terms such as "circumcised" vs "unmutilatedcastratedstabbedpenismurdered".

::Isn't it advisable, to at least be able to use a more scientific sounding vocabulary - as in, detached from everyday speech and associations to avoid emotions. Synonyms like that are an important part of an article when stuff is looked up primarily by text search - if relevant words are missing, the article fails as a whole. Dictionaries are never complete, and neither is Wikipedia. The advantage of Wikipedia being, that we can update her ourselves as new information becomes more widely available. IAR2TR. Dabljuh 18:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

::: A term is only "scientific" if scientists use it. Can you find one that's used this term? I bet not. Nandesuka 19:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe he said "scientific sounding", which is accurate. Al 20:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

: I was deliberately avoiding addressing the idea of putting "scientific sounding" terms in articles, regardless of whether they are common English usage or actually used by scientists, since it is so ridiculous on its face. But since you call it out: it seems like a really bad idea for an encyclopedia to choose what terminology to use based not on whether they are actually used in the real world, but instead based on "this sounds cool". But that's just my opinion.Nandesuka 22:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

::There was I thinking you people wouldn't care about "the real world" and preferred "reliable sources" (that you get to pick and judge) instead! Despite the term not being very widespread, it is used in the "real world" of people trying to sound scientific about the state of circumcision and the adoration thereof - see the links. "The real world" is thus exactly an argument why the synonym should be mentioned in the article. Spreading information is the purpose of wikipedia. Here we have a synonym for being circumcised belonging to an article that is in desperate need for a richer vocabulary about that state. Remember the "circumcised vs natural" wars? That problem would be reduced if there were actually more words - outside gym shower room talk - to describe the state of circumcision. Addition of the synonym (and subsequent, occasional use) would be without a doubt beneficial to the article as a whole. Dabljuh 23:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

:::He has a point, there. I for one remember the petty wars over "uncircumcised" vs "not circumcised" vs "uncut" vs "whole" ad nauseum. "Acullophallic" vs. "Cullophallic" isn't a pretty solution, and maybe not even the best solution, but it's certainly one way to get terminology partisans to quiet down. Kasreyn 00:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Of course I am right, dammit! Dabljuh 01:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

:It sure beats "turtleneck" vs. "vulture". Al 01:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Tell you what: find me ONE use of this OUTSIDE of a web site (sex-lexis? You're kidding) and i'll drop my opposition to it. Just one magazine article. One book. One newspaper article. (Nandesuka)

:Nandesuka, you gotta be shitting me - you aren't seriously asking us to find an unverifiable source for the term in favor of verifiable ones? (its, uh, mentioned in "Dick and Jane get sexually mutilated") Also, books and magazines kinda miss that handy "search plaintext" function. Dabljuh 10:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

:: Since when is a book, newspaper, or magazine an unverifiable source? Nandesuka 12:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

::: Well go verify it, "Dick and Jane get sexually mutilated" polish edition, page 18. Dabljuh 12:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

:::: Sure thing. What's the ISBN? Who is the author? What year was it published? Who published it? All of that information will be at the front of the book. Verifying this should be easy. Nandesuka 12:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

::::: Before we go deeper into that, may I remind you of the Circumcision fetish discussion? We had a high quality book source - "The Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices" by Brenda Love, {{ISBN|0349115354}}, where said circumcision fetish was described. Yet the source was dismissed as unverifiable since nobody appeared to have that book? What the hell?

::::: Now, lets assume for the sake of the argument I gave you the data for the book you seek. Wouldn't it simply take you to say "Sorry, can't find a copy of that book" to dismiss this source as well? Links to a number of online sex-encyclopedias are infinitely much more easy and faster to verify - and as a whole create a very good, reliable source, more than sufficient for Wikipedia to use.

::::: As for the "other book", it used to be hardcover but then the hardcover fell off, also, some other pages have gone missing... Dabljuh 13:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::: I remember that discussion, yes. Apparently, Ms Love did not discuss 'circumcision fetish', but 'circumcision', and discussed something totally different from that which the (desperately defended) article was about. It is true that nobody had the book, which made it completely impossible to base an article on it (hint: a source is more than someone using part of the term. It actually has content which should be used. As a minimum, this requires at least one editor to have a copy to work from). Furthermore, it's baffling that you raise the topic now, since as a result of the discussion, you stated: "I have changed my opinion. The arguments brought forward on this page have convinced me to wait for the arrival of the book, do some additional research, and then recreate the page, rather than to undelete the current article. I retract my motion."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&diff=prev&oldid=35255330#Circumcision_fetish]. Jakew 13:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

::As minor as t his issue is, it's a fine example of the usual problem here. Al 13:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

::: To some extent I agree: people constantly trying to insert unverifiable and unreliable information into an encyclopedia article is what I would characterize as "the usual problem." Nandesuka 13:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

::Part of the usual problem is that we disagree about what constitutes the usual problem. Al 14:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you think it's reasonable to demand a non-web usage. By definition, such sources are much less convenient to find, and just as inconvenient to verify. In short, your request has the net effect of raising the bar arbitrarily. Therefore, I must reject it. Al 13:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

:I'm sure that a web usage would be fine, if the site in question is a reliable source. Oed.com, for example, would be fine, though unfortunately it doesn't document the term at all. Jakew 13:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

: Actually, I think "find me one example of a reliable and verifiable source using this word" is not 'raising the bar', it's lowering it. I was addressing the suggestion that the space-age-a-go-go English language is changing so fast that it's just a temporary phenomenon that the only sites google has indexed that mention this are places like "sex-lexis.com". Obviously, if you find the word used in a reliable or verifiable place online, go for it. But you won't. Because it is a ridiculous made-up word that nobody actually uses.. Nandesuka 13:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

::That seems to be the fundamental problem. Jakew 13:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

:It's reasonable to ask for a print source, for one thing, because some Wikipedia contributors have access to online search tools like Lexis-Nexis, ISI Web of Science, and EBSCOHost, either through academic connections or through their public libraries. None of these sources, incidentally, turn up anything for "acucullophall*". (I only searched medical news on Lexis-Nexis; if someone else with access cares to search general news or whatever, feel free.) FreplySpang 16:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

:It is unreasonable to ask for a print source when a large number of online sex-lexicons mention acuckoowhatever. (Searching for the term I found more sex lexicas than I believed existed) making it very clear the term is not just the product of a wikipedian's fantasy. Also, wikipedians may well also write books or publish in print sources, which does nothing to prevent those print sources from being used as sources, should they satisfy WP:RS (given the claim). Extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources. That acuckoblah is a synonym of circumcised is far from extraordinary, and a mundane source therefore suffices. For finding a synonym to "Circumcised", and acu... yeah, you know, has the latin meaning of "uncovered penis", and it turns up in several sex lexicons, I'd say for all purposes those are reliable enough for a mere, less well known, synonym. For chrissake why are we even talking about this? We found a synonym, it may not be the most well known, but lets use it anyway. Now that I know "acusomething" is a synonym of "circumcised", I would feel cheated by any pseudo-encyclopedic article that failed to offer me that information. Just because YOU have never heard it doesn't mean nobody has ever used it. You live and learn, you know? Dabljuh 16:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Goodness, I didn't know I'd start up this hellstorm with just one innocent edit. I was looking at requested articles and acucullophallia was one of the medical articles that had been requested. I recently did an article on a rare congenital disorder, so I was feeling a science mood. When I did a Google search I saw that acu. wasn't anything more than dicdef material, so I made it a redirect to Circumcision. Then, I tried to find a place for it in the article, believe that an editor more experienced with it would move it to the correct place. If it was sitting in the list of requested articles and appears to be used enough on the net, why is this debate occurring? — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 22:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, I agree. There is no reason a huge big deal is being made out of this. It is a well-sourced synonym.

:Unfortunately, Scm83x, this is a very, very unhealthy article. Or, to be specific, the article is just text and can be fixed; it's the editors who are a problem. Al 01:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:: Alienus, please try to focus on the article and the issues at hand, rather than on the editors of the article. Last I checked, no one was badmouthing you. Why don't you extend the same courtesy to everyone else? Thanks. Nandesuka 02:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:Nan, I didn't mention anyone by name, nor did I even single out a particular faction. Clearly, you are reacting to something that's not actually there. Al 02:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:: So you think it's OK to badmouth the editors of an article generally, as long as you don't name them? Do go on. Nandesuka 03:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Do you think it's ok to insert your words in my mouth? What I've said all along and still say now is that this article is a mess because of the ongoing war among editors. Thank you for understanding. Al 04:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Please, everyone, be civil. There has been a 3RR violation on this article now and as an outside observer I would have to say that there are certainly WP:OWN issues here. Various forces (I have no idea what the sides are and what their arguments and issues are) seem to be pulling at this article and discussing on the talk page without actually listening to each other. If one sentence causes this much tumult, it is certainly a symptom of a larger problem in this article. —

Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 02:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, there was a recent RFM that failed to achieve any sort of agreement, so you can look there to see where the battle lines are drawn. Basically, the editors have polarized into pro and con circumcision factions, with the articles typically reflecting the bias of the former. Al 02:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Its getting to long again, someone archive it, dam you people talk to much, though it is funny to read… almost as funny as "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncyclopedia Uncyclopedia".--BerserkerBen 02:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Jakew and Nandesuka state it is a made-up word. All words are made up. Not a valid complaint.

Please state another objection. Dabljuh 10:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:Wikipedia is supposed to be credible. There is a difference between the following scenarios:

:# Bob makes up a word. People start using it, and it spreads. Soon, it is used in print. A reputable dictionary, such as the OED picks it up. Wikipedia mentions it.

:# Bob makes up a word. He decides that it's a 'cool word', and submits it to a couple of dubious user-submitted online sex "dictionaries". Wikipedia mentions it.

:The first is reporting on a (possibly) notable, credible, real-world usage. The second is failing to apply appropriate 'junk filters' to the net (which is a wonderful thing in that anyone can publish, but is also full of junk for exactly the same reason), failing to separate the wheat from the chaff.

:Maybe Bob's word will catch on. If so, sooner or later, it'll be used in newspapers or books, and in time, reputable dictionaries. Then it has established itself as a word with widespread usage, it will have reliable sources, and (perhaps) it'll be notable enough to be mentioned. Jakew 11:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jake. Now I understand completely: according to your original research, it's not a word. Thank you so much for sharing that. Your fame in linguistics exceeds you. Al 22:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Lets gather the facts and the conjectures here.

• Fact: It's a word, duh.
• Conjecture: It's not a widely used word.
• Fact: Its a constructed latin word that could be translated as "uncovered wang"
• Conjecture: It is a recently constructed word
• Fact: A google search finds about 1500 webpages using that word
• Conjecture: All those sites have a low standard over whether to include a word for a listing or not.
• Fact: Wikipedia has an article dedicated to the internet phenomenon of The Juggernaut Bitch
• Conjecture: We badly need more different words to describe the state of being circumcised.

I think this little listing speaks for itself. Dabljuh 00:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hah: [http://www.prodomina.com/resudict.cfm?startlt=A prodomina.com] Only allows user submissions to the dictionary by email, that means, they are not automatically added, and instead are first checked by TEH MISTRESS. Or the web mistress. Anyhow, do you dare to question the judgment of the WEB MISTRESS of PRODOMINA.COM regarding acucullophalia? Dabljuh 00:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:No offense intended, but: so? Just because some other editors have been lax in their attention to notability requirements does not mean we must also be so. You need a better argument for saying "acucullophallia is notable" than "Wikipedia article x includes equally non-notable things." In fact, all you've done is harm your case. Kasreyn 02:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think other editors have been lax when they included those things? That would imply that if, for example, the AAP started talking of "Acucullophallia" they would have been lax too. What makes you think The Juggernaut Bitch isn't notable? I laffed my ass off. It was referenced to in the latest X-Men Movie. By all standards, the policies, the usance on Wikipedia, the mentioning of this synonym belongs on Wikipedia. Dabljuh 03:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:What makes me think it, is that you used The Juggernaut Bitch in such a way that the only possible way to interpret your use of it was that you felt it did not meet Jake's high standard of notability, and that therefore acucullophallia need not, either (ie., that you felt Jake overestimates how high the bar of notability should be set, since something as frivolous as TJB has been included). If you didn't mean that, then what point was there in mentioning it?

:Look, I'm not against the use of terms like acucullophallia. It makes sense to me and, if settled on, would provide a sort of bomb shelter for use in case of a future "intact" vs "uncircumcised" edit war. But if you're going to make a logical argument for it, do it right.

:P.S. Oh yeah... I also do feel TJB is non notable. If there's ever a vote to merge, I'd certainly vote yes. Every wikipedian has their particular hangup; mine is organization of knowledge. Kasreyn 05:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

My logical argument could be reformulated something like this: "The Juggernaut Bitch" may not be considered notable to you, or to me. But, like "Acucullophallia", a number of people do find it indeed notable. Notability on a general repository of knowledge can not be decided on whether *everyone* finds that particular bit of knowledge notable, only if *some* do.

For example, I find String theory not notable, as it is not a verifiable science (with current technology), thus, it fails Karl Popper's definition of what constitutes a scientific theory. However, if anyone - anyone at all - wanted to take care of writing and maintaining the string theory article, keep it fair, neutral, verifiable and all that, then I say, good luck to you. Because I may not find it notable, but someone else does, and someone else is going to maintain it.

I wanted to illustrate to you how your aequivalency of 'notable' = 'inclusion in Wikipedia' is flawed. You, me, anyone can find anything and everything not notable enough to include it in Wikipedia. You can always find someone who considers something not notable. What you cannot find is someone who finds everything notable.

What I mean to say is, if one half of the editors find anything not notable enough to mention it in Wikipedia, and the other half does find it notable enough, then it should be mentioned. This could be described as inclusionist strategy or philosophy. Remember there is a difference between using a method (Anyone finds it notable enough for inclusion, and there are really no arguments other than "I do not find it notable myself") and describing "inclusionism" as a goal.

By comparison, the method that "if anyone finds a particular bit of information not notable, not wikipedia-worthy, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia", which is basically the exclusionist point of view, would lead to a completely empty Wikipedia, devoid of any information whatsoever.

The right strategy to work within Wikipedia, therefore, is to let other people have their way when they want to include something - that is a deeply inclusionist point of view. An exclusionist point of view only serves to harm the Wikipedia as a repository of knowledge in the long run. What I am criticising about you (you opposed inclusion of the word), Jakew and Nandesuka's philosophy is, that if the entirety of wikipedia editors followed this strategy, there would eventually not be anything to read or edit on Wikipedia at all. Therefore I ask you: Change your underlying strategy, otherwise you will harm Wikipedia in the long term.

That we argued for a WEEK over this tiny bullshit piece of information, makes it even more ridiculous. We could have written so many awesome articles in the meantime, instead of expending energy. Dabljuh 06:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:I disagree. There are other wikis out there, other websites out there. The information isn't going to be lost or something just because Wikipedia doesn't carry it. We're not the sole guardians of truth here. We're building an encyclopedia. I consider myself a limited inclusionist, but I do believe in standards of notability. I want to thank you for inspiring me to think about it, though, because you've led me to question myself and nail down exactly what I feel. I'd say that an item is "notable" if a.) it has been widely reported on and/or discussed by reputable sources (consensus determines what is reputable), or failing that, b.) a significant majority of editors of the article consider it notable. One editor should definitely not have the power to ipso facto declare an item notable or not notable.

:"We" have not argued over this term, you've argued with Jake and Nandesuka. I really don't care, honestly. Nor do I have anything against the inclusion of TJB; pared down a bit and merged with the article on the X-Men or the animated series, it would do fine. I feel Jake falls on the exclusionist side in this article, and you and Alienus fall on the inclusionist side. And that's fine by me; I've already said my piece. Best wishes, Kasreyn 08:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:Thank you for explaining your philosophy, Dabljuh. It explains a few things. I do not agree, however. If we include anything and everything, then what results is unreadable, incoherent junk. In fact, what we end up with is the sum total of all pages resulting from an internet search on 'circumcision'. If that happens, we've failed, because we haven't provided the reader with anything better than what's already out there. We haven't summarised existing facts, we've just made a scrapbook. Jakew 13:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

::Here's a challenge: Take all information that is found when googleing "Circumcision". Sum it up, removing redundancies and so forth. No copy & pasting either, since that's a copyrights violation. Make it so there's a bit of order in it. Impossibly huge amount of work that might actually result in an extremely good article? You got that right. The problem is not whether or not one should include a particular bit of information. The problem is how... Dabljuh 17:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:::No, it would result in an extremely bad article, because what is needed is filtering out the junk - non-notable information, crank theories, dubious data or 'facts', etc. Jakew 17:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

::::So, and, just for the sake of argument, how do you think does one filter out "the junk - non-notable information, crank theories, dubious data or 'facts', etc." ? Dabljuh 17:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::Subjective opinion. Welcome to Wikipedia. :P In the end, it all boils down to a certain aspect of subjectivity when determining notability and reliability. Kasreyn 17:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't ask you. And no. You don't remove junk by subjective opinion - Only censors do that. You filter out the junk with more information. Its a thing about information theory: The more information you have, the better are your "filters". Essentially, by adding information, you remove junk, and vice versa - the two seemingly seperate things end up being the same. Wonderful, isn't it? Or lets say you have "dubious facts". How do you remove them? Mind you, you want to remove the "dubious" part, not the "facts" part. You remove that by adding information. Eventually the "dubious facts" will turn out discredited or corroborated. The "value" of an information is again information with a value itself. Even when you have known, discredited things in the article, its still better than not having them in the article at all - Someone from Backwards County, Alabama might not yet know that this particular bit of information he clings on has been discredited, and an article that simply omits that discredited bit of information is not as useful to him than one that clearly tells him "Dude, that particular idea is bull". Dabljuh 17:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:Look, I wasn't advocating the way things are, just pointing out that, as Wikipedia currently stands, a certain amount of subjectivity prevails. If someone from Backwards County, Alabama tries to insert discredited information, he gets reverted because the consensus is for including it. If too many people editing an article are from Backwards County, someone can submit an RfC. Wikipedia is only as good as its people. Kasreyn 18:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

::The article should mention the discredited information, display its obsoleteness in a manner that accomodates WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. That way, people from Backwards County, Alabama will not waste their energies and be tempted to add their bit of false information. All information is judged subjectively. But ultimately, as reasonable people, given the same information we must come to the same conclusions. That is the whole point of dialectic debate - Exchange information (arguments) until a solution to the problem (different information <- value judgement <- subjective opinion) is found. Whether or not many people come from Backwards County, Alabama, is not relevant - If the information was not notable, that would mean there would never be a single person to which that bit of information was useful. That would further mean, that person from Backwater County, Alabama, could never have showed up in the first place. This is simple statistics: The probability of something happening is 1 (100%) when it actually happens. Purely since this bit of information is notable to someone, it may be notable to someone else as well.

::Only when people won't, don't or can't understand the basics of information exchange, dialectic, Wikipedia and all that, only then they must be removed from Wikipedia because they will harm the project and the community more than they could benefit. Dabljuh 18:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious to me that this article is biased toward males, does not fully capture the topic, and is lost in nit-picking. Where are the females represented in the non-sexually biased use of the term? King queermo 20:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:You'll be thrilled to know that Wikipedia finds female circumcision so notable it has its own article, attended by an equal panoply of hair-splitting POV-warring subpages like this one's. Happy? Kasreyn 21:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, except to truly create an unbiased circumcision article, it should include a non-gender biased entry in the 'circumcision' area, I re-added weasel because its still biased more toward males and penile circumcision. User:Johnny_Dangerously

:::I disagree. Common word usage should be relied upon at Wikipedia, where it is not structurally biased (as is claimed regarding terms such as MGM and FGM). "Circumcision" in English-speaking countries is, as far as I know, considered to default to male unless female circumcision is specifically indicated. Kasreyn 04:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

King queermo, you've added a {{weasel}} tag to the article. Please would you explain what words you object to. Jakew 20:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

: I say we RV that shit. He rv'd not only that stupid acuccullothing we're arguing for AGES about now, he also rv'd the skin bridge picture, mgmbill, and male genital mutilation, stuff which I believe we have worked out in consensus. A weasel words tags without explanation what is objected to is worthless. Vandalism or AGF: blunder? RV anyways. Dabljuh 00:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify King queermo, I believe he's referring to this line:

Except where specified, "circumcision" in this article should be understood as "male circumcision". Johnny Dangerously 01:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I added an NPOV as well. Johnny Dangerously 01:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I worked on the top paragraph, and truncatd part of the male-specific procedure, which is still contained in penile circumcision. Johnny Dangerously 01:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Dabljuh, a few things: 1 - if you're going to cite a source, you have to do it in the article, not in an edit summary. 2 - you "cited: acucullophallia - Found in: Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices, by Brenda Love, {{ISBN|0349115354}}, page 553". Finding it on that page was a neat trick, since that book is only 528 pages long.[http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?show=Trade%20Paper:Sale:0349115354:9.98] Jakew 10:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:Depending on the edition, books have different numbers of pages. For example, see [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/094263764X/102-6025866-8194520?v=glance&n=283155 this 1992 edition] as opposed to [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1569800111/102-6025866-8194520?v=glance&n=283155 this 1994 edition] as opposed to [http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?show=Trade%20Paper:Sale:0349115354:9.98 the 2002 edition] that Jake cited. It is not wholly unbelievable that this citation was found on page 553 of some edition. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 10:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:Well, my edition of the book has 608 pages, counting the not numbered 16 page preface. The alphabetically ordered part is p.1 - 552, p.553-579 the glossary, p.580-592 being the the bibliography. Must be an older revision you're looking at. Compare [http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/0349115354/ref=sib_rdr_next2_toc1/026-7494653-4638812?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S005&ns=1#reader-page to this] Dabljuh 10:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:Can we file this as a WP:AGF violation? Yes we can. By the way, I suppose on that / thelink jake cited, that the description is wrong (belonging to an outdated revision of the book) and the book offered is actually the same that I have. Dabljuh 10:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

::Sure, go ahead and file. As for the book, ISBN numbers are specific to a particular edition, and the number you gave corresponds to the 2002 edition. If you cited the wrong edition, that's hardly verifiable, is it?

::The other two mentioned above have 336 and 352 pages respectively.

::Incidentally, the amazon link you gave (also the 2002 edition) goes from 'acrotomophilia' to 'acupressure', so I'm not sure why you mention it. Jakew 10:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:::No, Jake. I quoted the right edition, the right ISBN. The figure on Powell's is simply wrong. So is the figure on Amazon's description - The very same place you can check out the table of contents and see that the Glossary starts at page 553.

:::Incidentally, the page I mentioned is the first one of the glossary. That is, very brief explanations of words for easier overview. There is no actual entry on "Acucullophallia" in the encyclopedic part - There is one about Circumcision, however, where "Acucullophallia" is mentioned as a synonym of circumcision, as well as "Apellous", "Peritomy", "Posthetomy". Dabljuh 11:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Perhaps you'd care to quote the relevant paragraph? Jakew 12:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::I plan to eventually reproduce the article in fulltext for easier reference. Trying to figure out whether that's permissible under fair use. Dabljuh 13:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There, I uploaded the respective pages. Almost as relevant however is another section on "genital modification" that I may upload at a different time, if requested. Check it out at User:Dabljuh/teusp. As for fair use: 3 of >600 pages is not usage that would anyhow hamper the copyright holder financially... Amazon makes a lot more available online. Dabljuh 19:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:Thank you, that's most interesting. Unfortunately, although it mentions acucullophallia, it doesn't define the term. Is the implication that it is synonymous with 'circumcision', or does it indeed mean 'the circumcised state'? Jakew 20:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the article does not mention they are synonyms at all. It just randomly puts words in parentheses there. They could mean anything! Also, I find the notion that the block of text below "Circumcision" refers to circumcision to be Original research as well. Who are you to say a block of text that has "Circumcision" all over it, would actually refer to "Circumcision"? In deed, the notion that this book's author is Brenda love is Original Research: It could actually be titled "Brenda Love" and written by "Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices". How would we know? Amazon.com is definitely not a reliable source on that matter!

Ahem. If you're not convinced of the meaning, let me translate the synonyms mentioned, hopefully correct:

• Acucullophallia. Latin. "Un-Covered Phallus-state", noun
• Apellous. Latin. "Un-Skin-ish", (skinned), adjective
• Peritomy. Greek. "Around-cut", noun
• Posthetomy. Greek. "Foreskin-cut", noun

Note how the -ia ending indicates it is actually referring to a state. If it was referring to a procedure, it would end in -ate, I suppose. [http://students.washington.edu/nwk/clas205/suffixes.html] Dabljuh 11:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks. If and when User:Dabljuh becomes a reliable source for the definitions of words, I'll be happy to include those. Jakew 11:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

::Boy, Jake, every time I think "He might stop being systematically wrong", every time I think "He might stop shooting himself in the foot", or when I think "Maybe he'll suddenly come to reason" you just top it off, seemingly without any effort. Are you trying to get mentioned in the Guinness Book of World Records or is this some sort of innate talent? Because I sure haven't seen anyone so stubborn about being wrong in a while. Since "Bioscientific Terminology Words From Latin and Greek Stems by Donald M. Ayers" certainly qualifies as a reliable source.

::Oh hey, and Jake: You're a reliable source. Of laughter. Dabljuh 12:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Does Ayers use the definition of acucullophallia as an example, or are you performing original synthesis/interpretation? Jakew 14:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

::::WP:NOR is no longer in effect. Didn't you get the memo? Dabljuh 14:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::No. Jakew 15:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR is irrelevant. We have print sources showing that the word is genuine, and we can google for its meaning trivially. If this is "synthesis" then we must delete all Wikipedia articles immediately. Al 16:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

:So find a reliable source giving its definition. Without one, it's OR. Jakew 17:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

::The various web dictionaries are reliable sources. Moreover, the definition is not at all controversial. As Dab points out, it is painfully obvious from even a layman's understanding of Greek and Latin roots. In short, there is no WP:OR here, and if you disagree, I recommend you file an RFM immediately, because I do not accept your interpretation. Instead, I will act on my best understanding. Al 17:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

:::No, Alienus, the dictionaries cited aren't reliable sources. They don't even come close. Yes, we have mention of the term in a print source, but that doesn't validate the unreliable sources any more than mention of 'moon' in a book validates some crank's moon landing hoax page on the net.

:::As for the probable roots, the analysis is pure OR, as I stated above (I obviously agree with it, since I offered 'a-cucullus' myself, but that doesn't stop it from being OR, as I noted at the time). As for an RfM, recent experience tells me that we'll go around in circles, with you refusing to accept policy, so I don't really see the point.

:::Currently, with what sources we have, all that can be said is 'the acucullophallia is in some way related to circumcision'. Jakew 17:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

:For the reasons stated above, I continue to disagree with you. With all due respect, your arguments are entirely unconvincing and irrelevant. Thank you for understanding. Al 17:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=58134014&oldid=58021171 change diff]

Essentially you've performed a move and merge without gaining any sort of consensus with other editors. I feel this sort of unilateral editing is disruptive to the project. Additionally, you've reintroduced terminology like "intact" which there is a consensus against using, and sources (such as CIRP) whose reliability is hotly contested. It's good that you retained the material deleted - moving it to penile circumcision - and I applaud your motives. But I'm reverting until there is a consensus to go ahead with this move. If I know the editors of this article, there is no consensus for such a move. Respectfully, Kasreyn 04:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

:While I disagree with Johnny's actions, I do find he raises an interesting point: penile circumcision looks like a mini version of medical analysis of circumcision - The latter being, despite the relatively ambigious name, about circumcision on males exclusively.

:I feel that while his motives are commendable, he is not familiarized enough with the article complex. I suspect he is not aware of the large number of articles involved with circumcision. Johnny, I suggest you take a look at Category:Circumcision as well as Category:Circumcision debate.

:As for male / female circumcision, the consensus has been like this for ages: Circumcision in the english language refers to male circumcision, but the article mentiones female circumcision soon, to resolve ambiguity. The female circumcision folks however decided to instead name their practice female genital cutting, which is all around a very dumb name, compared to the much more widespread and common female genital mutilation. Male genital mutilation redirects to circumcision. Despite the obvious redundance, but for organisatory reasons, we even have a gender-neutral Genital modification and mutilation article. We used to have a cool "body modification" box but I don't know where it's gone.

:Due to the sensitivity of the topic, adding or removing anything to any of these articles may cause a shitstorm of ridiculous proportions. Essentially, circumcised folks generally don't want to hear they're actually mutilated, jewish/muslim folks don't want to hear that their stupid practice should be outlawed, and the genital integrity dudes don't want to hear about "uncircumcised" when they call that "normal", "intact" or "not genitally mutilated", and want to make very clear in the article that Circumcision blows huge amounts of donkey cock. Welcome to WikiHELL! Dabljuh 05:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

::I would say at least one user agreed with this move. No consensus not to truncate and revitalize the article with less biased phrasing. User:Jakew is actually mostly responsible for the "female genital cutting" title, as he has been dominating this article with his biased homosexual male adult circumsized views for nearly a year now. I'd also like to add that he is probably behind the proposed merge with Circumcision advocacy, and I might also theorize that Jakew is the one who is attempting to increase the real estate offered on Wikipedia for close up shots of male genitalia, most likely to appease his own homosexual ego. Also, Kesreyn, in my own defense I've merged nothing. Johnny Dangerously 06:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

::::I've had some friction with Jakew, but it's never had anything at all to do with homosexuality, and I'm not particularly tolerant of people who gay-bash, so I'd suggest keeping that very much in mind from now on. Al 01:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

:::You know, I don't know anything about "homosexual ego" or anything. I don't personally agree with Jake's views, and I feel he raises the bar on notability higher than on any other Wikipedia article I've seen, perhaps unrealistically high. But he is also one of the best-educated and most intelligent and polite Wikipedia users I have ever encountered. He does not deserve your condescension and mockery simply because you do not agree with him. The sheer amount of insulting comments he has absorbed here, without ever lashing back in kind, cause me to have a lot more respect for him than for those who attack him.

:::As for "merging", you are right. I didn't realize there had never been an article on penile circumcision, and that you created it. I thought there already was such an article and you were just merging content into it. My mistake. Kasreyn 00:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

:::I wouldn't know how much Jake has actually to do with the title of "Female Genital Cutting", but I can assure you, regarding the wang pics, everybody here loves the cock. Dabljuh 07:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

::::You have to realize that referring to a man as a homosexual is not derogatory if the said person is a homosexual. Johnny Dangerously 01:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::That would be true, but you did not stop there. You also accused him of being biased by his homosexuality, and of being driven by his "homosexual ego", whatever that means. So, yes, you did make a personal attack, because you did not have the sense to stop at the facts known to you. Kasreyn 09:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

::::I'm not gay-bashing, I'm trying to reach an NPOV consensus. If you question my methods, find a better way to reach NPOV on the circumcision article. I don't feel its justified to make the circumcision article about males primarily. Johnny Dangerously 02:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::Why not? The vast majority of procedures are carried out on males. In the English language, the term's primary definition is the removal of the foreskin of the penis. From American Heritage:

:::::*''1. The surgical removal of part or all of the prepuce. Also called peritomy.

:::::*''2. The cutting around an anatomical part.

::::#1 being the primary definition, Circumcision is and should be taken to mean signifying primarily male circumcision, per Wikipedia naming conventions. Kasreyn 09:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Show me where it defines a) that the American Heritage Dictionary is not a male dominated piece of literature and b) that the numbered order in a definition is supposed to be taken as some sort of prioritized list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnny Dangerously (talk • contribs) {{{2|}}}.

::::Good grief man, it's American Heritage. It's the accepted standard of American dialect English. How about you show me some evidence that American Heritage is a "male dominated piece of literature" rather than merely reflecting popular usage of the language. And yes, since you do not appear to be familiar with how dictionaries work, the definitions are always ordered by descending priority. I can't believe I have to explain things on Wikipedia that I learned in High School. Kasreyn 22:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::So your ethnocentric bias is revealed, because you are citing only the American definition. Systematic Correction 23:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

::::::What are you talking about? Wikipedia's manual of style and naming conventions clearly indicate both American and British dialect usage are equally appropriate and acceptable. Specifically, the guidelines state that in an article especially relevant to America or to Britain, to use the associated dialect. The article uses American dialect, largely because routine neonatal infant circumcision, especially many of the cases under discussion, are American in origin. If the article's editors had a consensus of using British english, I would obviously have quoted the OED's definition of circumcision instead. I do not have an OED handy and they're too greedy to allow free access online, so I can't immediately provide the definition; I'll look it up next time I'm at the library. Seriously, the nonsense objections some people raise... Kasreyn 02:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::::I'll save you the trip to the library. The OED defines circumcision as "The act of circumcising; [. . .]" and circumcise as "To cut off the foreskin or prepuce of (males); chiefly as a religious rite of Jews and Muslims. Also in Surgery. (Also to perform an analogous operation on females). [de-emphasis original]" Those are the first definitions, at least. Make of it what you will. ^L_Wizard @ 02:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Thanks, Lizard. :) So we now see that "ethnocentrism" (whatever that means, considering "American" is not an ethnicity) has nothing to do with my definition of the term. Both American and British dialect forms agree on the proper definition of the term to be used on Wikipedia, based on their primary definitions: circumcision specifically and unambiguously refers, by default, to the procedure as performed on males. Are we done yet? Kasreyn 03:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

From the discussion regarding homosexual egos (to Jakew):

You are the evidence of your own homosexual, homoerotic tendency toward males. Since you are the "top editor" of the article, thus "owning" it, it is obvious to me from a lengthy trend in the bias of the article toward male genitals, that your underlying ulterior motive is to increase the number of penises present on wikipedia not for information, merely for your own personal amusement. Obviously this has also struck a chord with other editors of the article. I believe with statistical analysis tools not yet invented for Wiki's history features, we could determine how many times you have edited the article, versuses the other samplings, and would be able to make a judgement about that based on the fact that I am guessing (with some accuracy) that you are the "owner" or "hijacker" of the article. User: Johnny Dangerously 01:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

:Without such tools (or, I suppose, even with them) you are merely making personal attacks without substantiation. There is nothing wrong with an editor making the majority of edits to a page if he happens to be well-informed on the topic (which Jake is) and constructive in his editing (which seems to be the point under discussion). I'd suggest that merely pointing out that Jake is one of the most frequent editors to this article proves nothing relating to bias. Kasreyn 09:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

::*The tools to easily find sock puppets exist, but are limited to admin, and the admin won't bother with people that don't cause a certain threshhold of problems. This is why one person can have King_queermo, Johnny_Dangerously, Systematic_Correction and over a dozen other identities so easily and without any significant repercussions. It's not a lack of tools, it's a lack of enough admin to deal with minor arguments. Of course, like you said, frequent editing isn't a sign of bias, but for people who do and then try to hide it, I would say it probably is. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 02:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

::**Sounds to me like someone's been found out... No less than I expected. Kasreyn 02:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

::*A personal attack is "go fuck yourself, motherfucker" - calling someone an article hijacker is merely finding a term that is descriptive of his actions which are similar to "server hijacking" -- it does prove bias. By editing the article he is putting his own thoughts, and not the thoughts of the community, onto the page. He is the selection process behind the article, thus he is biasing the article toward his vision of what the article is supposed to contain. That is what bias is. In fact, it is specifically systematic bias. Johnny Dangerously 16:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

:::A personal attack is "you are unfit to edit this article because of your views", or, translated, "you are too immature to keep your personal views from being reflected in your editing". This is untrue. Furthermore, I don't know what you mean by "not the thoughts of the community". If you'll look at the page history before your arrival, you'll note that Jake was not waging a one-man war against the other editors here the way you are. His edits were supported by several other editors, such as Nandesuka. I've generally tried to stay neutral in this page's politics and wars, but I can certainly recognize when partisans of either side - specifically I'm thinking of TipPT and Jake - are overwhelmingly better-educated than I am on the subject. When I realize such a thing, my only options are to educate myself better in order to be able to cogently debate with them, or sit back and leave it to them. I've chosen the latter because I honestly have no wish to know that much about this primitive procedure. What disturbs me is your refusal to acknowledge the primacy of substantive debate and consensus over material, preferring instead to defend all your edits with the claim that Jake is the boogeyman. Kasreyn 23:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Man, if there was a {{User:Loves the cock}} userbox, I would add it in a heartbeat. ^L_Wizard @ 07:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::Hot damn, now that's an idea. Could you make one? Because I have no idea how to. Dabljuh 08:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)