Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Garycompugeek (talk | contribs) at 22:02, 24 June 2009 (→Your concerns: replies). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Armitage wants to see you before you flatline.

Archives

Archive 1 Feb08-Jun09

Your concerns

You are concerned that since Jake has been published in peer-reviewed journals that he has a COI, but an SPA such as Blackworm (check his contribution) is not an issue? I'm not certain I understand you. -- Avi (talk) 06:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Avi. I appreciate your interest in my concerns for the project. Comparing both Jake's and Blackworm's contribs using Soxred93's tools yes they could both be construed as different SPAs. Being an SPA alone is really no big deal as long as the community is aware and the editor is reasonable however it may point to a COI. It appears that Jake is heavily involved in trying to convince others of circumcisions merits on website forums (and his own website Circs.org), letters to the editor and collaboration on papers with other notable pro circumcision scientist. To borrow a Navy term he appears to be flying under false colors.

On Jake user page "In 2003, I became aware of the deceptive activities of many activist groups opposed to neonatal circumcision. My research has continued and intensified since, and I now consider myself something of an expert on the subject. I've published several letters and articles on the subject in academic journals.

I am neither in favour of or against neonatal circumcision, but am opposed to misleading information. As the American Academy of Pediatrics states, "o make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision."

The beginning sounds like an admission of a COI however he goes on to say he is neutral on the matter. This is clearly not true and if you follow Jake's edit histories you will clearly see a pattern support for circumcision.

Considering he has the most edits to Circumcision and its related articles could be a serious COI NPOV issue for the project. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Gary. May I respectfully disagree? Jake may have a point of view regarding circumcision, but in my experience his edits have consistently been within wikipedia policy, both content related and conduct related. From what I see, he is not trying to convince people to circumcise; rather, he is engaged in preventing others from giving too much or too little undue weight to various studies, preventing inflammatory descriptions, and preventing the article from becoming a mouthpiece for EITHER side. In my experience, it has been people who are against circumcision, those who term it the "bloody mutilation of babies penises," or a barbaric ritual, who attempt to have the article lean towards a view that they agree with. The ultimate article for NPOV purposes should be one where the point-of-view of the editor cannot be determined from the text; not one where we have a clear bias against or towards the procedure. There are more blatant violations (the classic "mutilation" vandalism that gets reverted immediately) and there are more surreptitious violations, (for example highlighting particular studies above and beyond their respective merits). In my experience with the article, and I have been editing it for years -- AND I may be biased, it has been editors such as Tremollo, TipPt, Dabljuh, etc. who have tried to skew the article; not Jake, who does have an encyclopædic knowledge of the scientific literature on the subject. Here is another difference I perceive in this issue. I have never seen Jake make the points that children, or adults, should be circumcised; rather, I beleive his point, (and certainly my point of view) is that they, or their parents, especially as regards the religious sacrament, should be allowed to. The point of view of the other side is that parents should not be allowed to circumcise their children, even in cases of religious sacrament (although, to be honest, that is an antisemitic technique dating back to the Greeks, Romans, and early Christians, not anything new).

Another point (and please excuse the stream-of-conciousness) regarding your discussions with Blackworm, they may be construed as "since I cannot get the best of so-and-so in a content debate, let's try and disqualify him/her on the basis of some outside reason." Looking at Soxred's tool and the "Top" articles and talk pages, by my calculations, jake has over 6000 edits outside of Circumcision-related materials. Blackworm has less than 2000. On a percentage basis, Jake is <50% circumcision, BW is >50%. Of course, a better analysis could be done with the complete data dump, but this is reasonable.

In closing, I think you should take a step back and consider why you are following this train of thought, especially in light of how your arguments actually apply more to people with whom you are currently identifying in this discussion, as opposed to Jake, and whether or not you may be succumbing to the lure of argumentum ad hominem where proper arguments to content have not succeeded. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts on this Avi. First let me assure you I am not trying to get Jake out of the way. Yes Jake and I butt heads once in a while (seems all the pro and con circ editors do but that is natural) but I have no content dispute with him at the moment and this is nothing personal. If anything I would say that we have learned some respect for each other and work better together because of it. I also agree with you about the blatant NPOV that flavors many editors post and our words as editors should be as neutral as possible (Neutrality and working with issues that have pros and cons is a difficult process). I am more concerned with systematic bias of a subject over the long term. To restate a point made on talk:Circumcision advocacy, Blackworm and Tremello, to my knowledge, have never claimed to be neutral about circumcision. My perception of them is con circ editors against routine infant circumcision and circumcision that is not medically necessary. Jakes high edit count of circumcision and related articles could be considered the fox guarding the hen house. Myself and other have accused him in the past of gatekeeping and ownership issues and his editing style slips into tendentious editing on occasion. These are all warning signs of a COI. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

When a reliable source says "medical harms or benefits have not been unequivocally proven," and Jakew's edit to the article quotes "medical harms have not been unequivocally proven" instead, we have a case where the article indeed does not reveal the editor's point of view -- however, a reading of the SOURCE reveals the Misplaced Pages editor's point of view; in this case, omitting words that detract from the pro-circumcision agenda. Also, when User:Avraham equates opposition to circumcision with antisemitism above, as User:Jayjg and others did before him, and simultaneously defends Jayjg's outright accusation of antisemitism of Misplaced Pages editors by claiming it wasn't intended -- well, we now see that Avraham himself feels the same way. How sad that some cannot possibly imagine that others who believe in the "rights to bodily integrity and to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health," as written by UNICEF, must also bear some special, specific animosity toward Jews. It is that kind of means of attack that is so incredibly reprehensible in User:Avraham's case. Coming from a senior Misplaced Pages official, it is absolutely disgusting. Blackworm (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Seen as though we are not discussing Gary but Jakew, we should continue this discussion on the user in question's talkpage. It seems rude to talk about someone behind their back. I have copied the current discussion and added my 2 cents. Discussion: User_talk:Jakew#User:_Jakew:__Discussion_of_behaviour.2C_influence_on_circumcision-related_articles_and_possible_conflict_of_interest Tremello22 (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have brought the matter up to Jake (and I kinda assumed he was aware of this) and had planned on going to his talk page next and linking the discussions. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Tremollo, I am talking about Gary to Gary; I am not talking to Jake. Secondly, Gary, I hope you understood that I was not calling you, or anyone, antisemitic, but bringing up the fact that the ancient Greeks and Romans did prohibit circumcision specifically to attack the Jewish faith. Blackworm has made this misunderstanding before, and this time, I fear that it is deliberate; another method of argumentum ad hominem because regular discussions fail. Oh well. -- Avi (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Avi I do not believe you were calling me antisemitic. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)