User:Friends of Robert

Robert Brookes attempted to counter the anti-circumcision POV contained in the majority of circumcision and circumcision related articles in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, his style was aggressive and confrontational and this gave the excuse to silence his attempts to bring the content of the circumcision related articles closer to NPOV. In a disgraceful one sided parody of justice he was banned. Robert has moved on but


 * ...apparently his rhetoric has not. It's interesting how much Friends of Robert sounds like good ol' Robert Brookes.

it remains to be seen whether Wikipedians have learned from the experience. The "in your face" style of Robert's served only to provide the weak and timid with an excuse to silence his views. While few will miss Robert's style certainly there will be those who will miss his attempts to bring NPOV to the circumcision related articles in Wikipedia. We have subsequently decided to publicise the manner in which Wikipedia continues to tolerate and in some cases actively support the misuse of article content by anti-circumcision activists. We hope that those who may respond and give Wikipedia their attention in this regard will abide by the rules and not vandalise the articles no matter how POV they may be. - Friends of Robert 06:57, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The style of covering circumcision-related articles in Wikipedia has invariably turned into a fiasco of feigned neutrality, I hope you can agree. Rather than offering viewpoints in favor of or against circumcision (freely chosen circumcision or otherwise), the Wikipedia value of NPOV has been sacrificed to limit discussion and contribution as much as possible.  We have the selective breakup into medical analysis of circumcision, among other bifurcations.   According to NPOV philosophy, the goal is not to push an "intermediate" point of view as the correct one.  Yet that is what is happening, and we have folks who claim they have "no opinion one way or the other" trying to censor things and/or preserve some biased things than "seem" neutral enough when they are not.   At this point, we are actually better off with many pro-circumcision folks involved.  At least we know where they stand.  Although I, of course, think that side has little merit (my POV I am honest enough to admit).  I can at least say the pro-circumcision folks are intellectually honest in admitting which side they're on.  Obviously nearly everyone has an opinion one way or the other, that is the nature of the beast.  Any thoughts on mutual support of equally-worded (but far from "intermediate-viewpoint") pro-circumcision AND genital integrity "pros and cons" article?  The intermediate-prone Wikipedian will try to stifle both sides.  I can tolerate your words if you can tolerate mine, as long as neither side says they are "right".  Seems that mutual support is the only way to succeed without this bizarre theory that forced-intermediacy (now called NPOV) is possible in every article. DanP 23:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Well DanP what can one say. As far as Wikipedia seems to be concerned anti-circumcision POV is fine as long as the rough edges and lunatic extremist views are kept under control. So you guys are doing well enough I would say, yes? It goes like this, one of your regulars posts some real off-the-wall stuff and you get "free" editing from some sympathetic Wikipedian insider who takes it and rounds it off. The net result is that (working on the two steps forward one step back routine) you get to advance your cause one step at a time. Slowly but surely. You ought to thank people like Theresa for their support (but I do agree with you comment about "feigned neutrality" it is truly disgraceful) . DanP you are one of the people who should not get into a discussion about NPOV and POV. I would suggest that you realise that you are totally POV and as such could never get close to accepting NPOV. My further advice is that you should have patience. Keep going as you are, you are making great progress, after all Rome was not built in a day. The content of the Wikipedia circumcision related entries is the most "anti" found anywhere on the net other than on "anti-circumcision" web sites and certainly on sites which claim to be neutral. You should be content with this. The battle here is all but won, leave Theresa and the other "5th Columnists" to do the mopping up and move on. - Friends of Robert 05:05, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree with you that Wikipedia is "anti" or "pro" any procedure, circumcision or otherwise. The fundamental mission of NPOV is that both sides are stated.  NPOV is not to state a position that makes someone happy, or that "balances" equal numbers of people dissatisfied with the position.  Merely stating a viewpoint in favor of and against circumcision is not "POV".  It is only POV if it is deemed to be "right".  And the Wikipedian insiders, as you call them, have deemed their view as "right".  Do you have an interest in working together or not?  I don't want anti-circumcision POV to "win the battle".  I only want both sides to state their perspective.  DanP 16:35, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * DanP unfortunately you represent a view way out on the fringe. I personally don't believe your position deserves equal time. You need to temper you criticism of the Hobbits, however, as they are essentially providing your POV with a degree of exposure you would never expect from a reputable publication. I suspect however, that they are slowly getting wise to you, wallibio, Micheal Glass and George Hill. Maybe you are correct, your days of free reign may be numbered. Unfortunately you now turn to the wrong quarter for support. Sorry. - Friends of Robert 17:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I believe the vast majority is against needless surgery, circumcision included. But I can admit that fact is totally irrelevant and useless here.  That doesn't change its prevalence or rationale.  Please reconsider your opinion on working together.  We can call each other extremists or fringe or whatever, but that is not reality.  I have no problem supporting mere existance of explanations (what I would call on the fringe) that circumcision is nothing but good and beneficial.  NPOV should include both sides.  On the contrary, I am turning to your quarter for support under their advisement.  I am sure you also receive messages of feigned neutrality --  when fact is -- such Wikipedians clearly have their own agenda one way or the other. DanP 17:57, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * When you continue to attempt to insert garbage into articles (like you are attempting with the Divorce article) do you really expect to be taken seriously? What possible support can I give you when I truly believe you need to spend a lot of time on the couch of a professional? - Friends of Robert 16:06, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * While I might also explain my deep concerns about your mental health, I know there is no point. The truth is that we are both, by any real measure, completely sane and rational.  I am fully accepting of your goals of describing circumcision as beneficial, so long as the other perspective is also described.  Please consider this option, as I am not reaching out to you just to "win a battle" or whatever.  I think having pros and cons both explained thoughly in Wikipedia is the better option, compared to the feigned neutrality, random deletions, and accusations.  Both extremes (pro and con), including the so-called extreme I occupy, are pointless unless presented together.  DanP 17:03, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)