User:Tumadoireacht/sandbox


 * @75.1.54.56 The way that the information about both desensitization and about  effects on HIV transmission  are presented  at present in the article do seem skewed  in favour of circumcision.  However the way to address this is to locate good sources for the information  that contradicts that view rather than characterize other editors. The article could also usefully mention Philo the jewish philosopher saying  circumcision "signified figuratively the excision of all superfluous and excessive pleasure"  and Maimonides arguing that  "circumcision acts to repress sexual pleasure" .  as referenced  in the WP article  on Bri Milah or circumcision within Judaism.  These are early recognition of the reduction of pleasure caused by lopping  off the business end  of the rhythm stick. The ideas about circumcision being  a symbolic castration of slaves or the Talmud professor Daniel Boyarin's suggestion  that the act of bleeding represents a feminization of Jewish men are fascinating too. The marked difference between USA and other anglophone countries would bear further scrutiny -could it be down to Puritan origins, recent USA hygiene fetish  or the  large number of Jewish doctors in USA ? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 16:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Tumadoireacht, a number of your recent edits have not been in line with Wikipedia policy, and I hope that by pointing out the concerns here, such problems can be avoided in the future. First, please stop changing article content to make it say things that are not supported by the sources cited. You should not add or change article content that is cited to a source (or multiple sources) without first checking the sources cited to make sure they support your change. This is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia article content, please see WP:V, which says "The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article." Examples of where you have changed article content away from the sources cited say include: At 16:50, 19 May 2013, to Circumcision, you made the change: "surgical removal of all or part of the foreskin", but none of the three sources cited (all med-school or professional level textbooks) support "part of": Lissauer: does not discuss partial circumcision Rudolph does not discuss partial circumcision Sawyer: "In the male, circumcision refers to the surgical removal of this foreskin or prepuce" (this was a change to the lead only) At 21:16, 10 May 2013, to Circumcision, you made the change: "A 2009 Cochrane meta-analysis of studies done on sexually active men in Africa found that circumcision reduces reduced the infection rate of HIV among those heterosexual men", with edit summary "reduces changed to reduced - neither the study nor the results are ongoing nor extrapolatable", but the source says "There is strong evidence that medical male circumcision reduces the acquisition of HIV by heterosexual men" (this was a change to the lead only) At 01:45, 20 February 2013, to The Holocaust, you made the change: "the Roma and Sinti are traditionally a secretive private people", but the source says "Traditionally a secretive and largely nonliterate people" At 17:37, 18 February 2013, to Cantillon Brewery, you added "Cantillon is the only remaining brewery within the city of Brussels and the only kriek maker using whole fruit rather than fruit syrups." directly in front of the ref marker, but the source cited doesn't say that At 15:38, 1 February 2013, to Circumcision, you made the change: "It is a treatment option for adult phimosis..." with edit summary "adult phimosis - phimosis in infant is normal", but the sources cited, Lissauer and Hay, are both pediatric texts (this was a change to the lead only) At 00:42, 31 January 2013 and again at 15:35, 1 February 2013, to Circumcision, you changed the description of the procedure to be significantly different from what the source said, this was reverted with the appropriate edit summary "That is not what the sources say. You can't make up stuff and put it in front of an existing source." (this was a change to the lead only) At 13:51, 1 January 2013, to Circumcision, you made the change: "among heterosexual men who have sex with women" but the source says "male circumcision reduces the acquisition of HIV by heterosexual men" (this was a change to the lead only) Note that this is a separate problem from adding of completely unsourced content, like you did in these edits to the following articles: Gormgal of Ardoileán, Bray (addition of an unsourced BLP claim), Joan Baez, James Hornell, Jodie Foster (addition of unsourced BLP claim), 110 (number), French people. In those edits, the article shows the content added is clearly unsourced, and as such they're actually less problematic, excepting the unsourced BLP claims made. In the edits I am bringing up above, you made changes to an article to make it appear the changed content is supported by sources when it is not, which is misleading. If you feel the article should say something different from what it currently says, please provide sourcing that supports your content changes. Make sure the sourcing you bring complies with Wikipedia sourcing policy and guideline, including WP:RS, and (where appropriate) WP:MEDRS. Making changes unsupported by sources may be considered original resesarch. I see that you have already received a number of warnings over the past few years regarding edits you have made that had sourcing problems. This is another such warning, please take care that your future article edits are well-supported by reliable sourcing. Consider proposing changes to well-supported article content at the article's Talk page first. Second, please do not make changes to the lead of an article that are not supported by the article body. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should "summarize the body of the article" (emphasis added); the lead should not contain new or different information that isn't covered in the article body. If you're changing information in the lead, that information needs to be in the article body already, or if it's not, it needs to be developed in the article body before it's added to the lead. In the above list I've indicated five edits made that made a change to the lead that was not only unsupported by the source, but was also unsupported by the content in the article body. I appreciate your attention, thanks... Zad68 04:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Regarding: you made the change: "among heterosexual men who have sex with women" but the source says "male circumcision reduces the acquisition of HIV by heterosexual men" (this was a change to the lead only) We do rephrase sources to a limited degree, when it makes sense. Identifying behaviour (sex with women) rather than inclination (sexual orientation) makes a lot more sense here. Clearly heterosexual men who have sex with men would not be protected by a surgery, nor would homosexual men who have sex with women be excluded from any potential benefits. Ranze (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Yes, you're right, we do paraphrase or find synonyms to avoid flat-out plagiarism, but the change made in the edit you've identified didn't need to be made for that purpose, and as we all agree the word substituted wasn't a synonym, it changed "heterosexual", the sexual orientation (used by the source) to "men who have sex with women", the act, and "men who have sex with women" doesn't exclude men who might additionally have sex with men like "heterosexual" does. Sources indicate the HIV protective effect circumcision has on homosexual sex is very different from its effect on heterosexual sex so it's an important difference. Zad68 03:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC) moved here from my User Talk page to keep the conversation in one place: Zad68