Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:47, 19 October 2006

I need to incorporate Avi's new work ... the re-write won't be ready until next week. Also, try to bring in neutral administrators, past moderators, as well as anti-circ administrators.TipPt 19:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are you looking to bring "anti-circ administrators" into the discussion? Isn't the idea to avoid POV, not promote it? Also, I'm a bit apprehensive about a "re-write" of the article. I won't prejudge the effort, but I think it's fair to mention at this point that a lot of people have put a lot of time and energy into this article and have included much relevant and well-sourced material. I'm certain that any attempt to radically alter the structure and/or content of this article without first achieving a broad consensus would only serve to increase the controversy. Please forgive me if you had already planned to, but I suggest first placing any suggested rewrite on the Talk page for comment before making large-scale alterations to the article itself. Dasondas 19:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You thought is out of context, Daso. There's another editor who knows several such administrators who are willing to join when helpful. I wanted the broader neutral group. Time will come when there's a large true consensus.TipPt 23:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Burn out

I've been busy - i'm getting married next month. Lordkazan 19:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Congrats!TipPt 19:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Circ

First, please go back and properly sign your edit to the circ discussion page. Second, forgive me for being suspicious of your representation of Jakew's contibutions; I would prefer to let him speak for himself. Third, whatever tiny level of controversy may exist wrt to neo-natal circumcisions performed for religious or cultural reasons it is insignifcant compared to the hundreds of millions of people who have had these procedures performed for thousands of years without any complaints or regrets. You should be careful with your edits to make sure that any controversy you wish to discuss be limited so as to conform to WP:NPOV Undue Weight. If not, this will continue to be a source of conflict in the editing of this topic. Dasondas 16:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I signed the entry to the discussion page, right after Jakew's quote signature. It's a full, direct quote of Jakew's work, found here: We can't speculate about the distant past, though I've read that the Greeks and Romans thought circumcision was wrongful. In the current context, I find controversy in the Jewish and Muslim communities, between doctors, between doctors and parents, between editors in Wiki, between authors, and between researchers and practioners. Finally we have authoritative medical associations finding controversy in the current setting. We may be going back and forth on this sentence foreverTipPt 17:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you find controversy wherever you look for it, TipPt. I don't think we'll be going back and forth forever because at some point it will wind up in formal dispute resolution. If you want to state, suggest, or imply that religious and/or cultural male circumcision is controversial to the extent that it passes the "undue weight" constraint of WP:NPOV you need to start providing sources to back up your contention. Mentioning a few liberal rabbis in the 19th century isn't going to be enough. Dasondas 21:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Earle_Martin RfA

This is the RfA of user:Earle_Martin. I believe he would make a good and unconventional admin, so I'm running around right now, trying to encourage some of the more sensible people I know of to support him. Subversive 08:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, just take a look at that RfA's opposition and you will understand why I am so much in favour of Earle_Martin. We need to pull together on this one, and we should tell as many others as possible. Subversive 13:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg actually banned me for this. (user:Subversive element) 87.78.178.9 22:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)