User talk:MishMich/Archive 2

Talk:Homophobia
FYI, WP:DFTT. -- Banj e b oi   01:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

List of unlawfully killed transgender people
I notice in the hidden text to that article that it states ''A photograph has a place ONLY in an article about that person. Photographs placed here will be removed on sight by any editor without discussion'' - as an instruction I'm not sure it has any force ? - most of our rather complex rules around photos relate to copyright images, I can see no restriction in policy that provides the addition of public domain or creative commons images where appropriate to the article. I know some will make the "it turns the article into a tribute!" argument but surely that's created via prose? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, Tks. Maybe needs removing?  I will wait and see if there is any other response.  Mish (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The hidden text should be removed. We don't use images to decorate but to illustrate so Cameron Scott is spot on here that the primary issue is fair-use. Images should have a good description explaining why that image is meaningful. IMHO, I would only use commons images on most list articles unless none are available. -- Banj e  b oi   18:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Tks, Removed the comment, replaced with something more appropriate. Mish (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate template
Hi, why have you created Template:LGBT and Christianity when it is a duplicate of the already existing Template:Homosexuality and Christianity? - Epson291 (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It is different - this covers LGBT issues, not just homosexuality, so it includes transgender (and bisexuality). Mish (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For several reasons. First it was discussed in October of 2006 (see here) about adding Jewish organizations and possibly renmaing the page. Then, in March of this year, the Jewish references were removed (which had been there for several years, including the word synagogue in the lede) and the page was moved without any discussion. - Epson291 (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. OK, I have recreated the Christian one, and dropped the Jewish references.  The renamed one needs to reduce the detail about Christian churches, expand the detail about Synagogues (I believe that in the USA conservative as well as liberal and reformed are more affirming now - is that right?), include information about Muslim LGBT-organisations, and link to the church one, maybe?  I'd be OK about it staying as you have put it, but I'm be reluctant to put the Template:LGBT and Christianity on there.  What do you think?
 * I think it would be better to have it as one article, and just move the LGBT template on Christianity lower than the lead. I don't think, at this time, this is enough seperate information for multiple articles. That said, if you think they are better seperate I don't oppose it. - Epson291 (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I think you may be right, I'll revert the page back to a redirect and do that - just don't want to put anybody's nose out of joint by putting it on there. Mish (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK it looks good. - Epson291 (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will look at converting it to a proper nabox as you have done with the religion template - but no time right now. I have separated out into sections for Christianity, Judaism and Islam - but need to find more details on the latter (only know of one group in the UK).  Added more info as well. Mish (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find anything on Islam, such as a gay welcoming mosque, so add this organization that you know of. As for Christianity, I wrote a little bit, but I hesitated writing anything in depth since I am not incredibly familar with the topic, espcially in terms of how welcoming/affirming different churches are/ between different denominations (ex. UCC, Episcopal, etc...). - Epson291 (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks
Thanks for catching and correcting my lapse in attention on Homosexuality when applying MOS:IDENTITY. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 00:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK - well spotted on the rest, BTW. Mish (talk) 08:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you (I think)
"I find the use of 'romantic' problematic, in part because it is alien to me (I assumed it was something heterosexuals do)" Mish, I haven't laughed so hard in weeks. You've obviously never been serenaded from below your open bedroom window by a gorgeous homosexual person strumming a guitar with a rose in his or her teeth. Come to think of it, neither have I. And, man, am I glad!" Rivertorch (talk) 03:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, well, glad you appreciated it - it does sound like a bit odd, doesn't it? I don't think I have ever heard the word used by lesbians or gay men (other than critically). Mish (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I'm sure I've heard it used ironically by other LGBT people. I can't think offhand whether I've heard it used seriously, but I'm absolutely sure it's thought of seriously. It's a bit tricky up there in the lede because it's so subjective, but it is sourced. Besides, how dare str8 people have exclusive dibs on romance! Rivertorch (talk) 07:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, ironic use. I agree it is odd in the lead, but from a queer perspective it is an interesting insertion. Mish (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Circumcision links
Hi. The number of links in promotion and opposition needs to remain balanced. Please discuss which one of the existing you would like to remove and why the one you wish to add is superior, so that the balance may be maintained. Thank you for understandning the fine line we have to walk on very contentious articles such as this one. -- Avi (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a UK link, if somebody wants to insert a pro-circumision link from the UK, let them. Mish (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As the article is a powderkeg, I highly suggest that this be discussed at Talk:Circumcision. Per WP:EL, it is not prudent to have too many links in toto. Having a UK link makes sense, but it should come by removing one that is there, in my opinion, and I suggest we let others discuss as well. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand that, but given there are four international EL's that will not be relevant to people in countries like the UK, it would be advisable to break this down into international and national organisations. I have made a start on this by separating out USA (against), UK (against) and Israel (for) - which leaves the international section balanced with 4 for and against.  If somebody wishes to, they can add 1 for for both UK and USA, and 1 against for Israel.  I have outlined this on the talk page. Mish (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Circumcision external links
Specifically on sexasnatureintendedit, this was added quite recently, as discussed here: previous discussion. You might also like to read:Talk:Kristen_O'Hara. Why do you think NORM-UK would be better than sexasnatureintendedit? Don't people already get the same type of information from http://www.cirp.org/library/, http://nocirc.org/ and http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/. I think you have to see that some anti-circ sites offer certain information better than others. From my perspective the best of the anti-circ sites is probably cirp.org. Why do you think NORM-UK can offer something extra for the reader that isn't already being offered? Or is it that you just want a 'representative from the UK', as it were? If so, the solution might be to include both, and add a pro-circ site from the UK too, such as: http://www.gilgalsoc.org/. That way we could offer a wide variety of perspectives. Some of the editors at circumcision are insistent it be perfectly balanced. The article needs to reflect more the worldwide (including the UK) view of circumcision, but I don't think the external links are the main 'culprit' of this worldwide-view imbalance. Tremello22 (talk) 10:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried adding the EL, but this got reverted as some editors have set a five-a-side limit. I tried adding it as a UK-specific link, but those editors would not allow that either.  They suggested that the only way it could go in was to replace an existing link.  I looked at locating under the only UK section, but that is restricted to medical-bodies only (not groups such as those that are pro/anti circumcision.  The whole page is seriously flawed - it appears engineered in a way that fails to represent the extent of opposition to this practice in some countries, while accepting unquestioningly the normativity of certain religious approaches.  I am all for NPOV, but this article doesn't seem to come near it, and it appears that WP policies are being used to disallow legitimate material and links from being inserted. Mish (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Mish. Thanks for your help and concern relating to Circumcision.  I agree with your summation of said article's NPOV state.  Feel free to be bold and use WP:BRD to edit page.  Myself and others who share similar viewpoints will support you when available to try and correct these errors. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
For the record, you are close to, if not already over, wikipedia's restrictions on edit warring on Circumcision. -- Avi (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No I'm not, I have reverted one edit - yours - if you revert that, then you are violating WP:3RR. Mish (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (ed) Seconding Avi's comment. This is a controversial article, with the controversial template on its talk page.  I think it's reasonable to proceed something like this:  for changes that are unlikely to be controversial, you can just edit them in.  Other changes can be suggested on the talk page, and if there's no reply after 24 hours, I think it's reasonable to edit them in; but in any case as soon as an objection is expressed on the talk page or somebody reverts, then I think the article should be left reverted to its previous state until there is a consensus for change on the talk page.  You've done far more reverting than that.  Note that editors can be blocked for editwarring even if they don't exceed 3RR.  Avi has done 2 edits to the Circumcision article in the past 24 hours. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically, doing 4 reverts in a 24-hour period violates 3RR. However, it's taken in context.  Avi is reverting to the previous consensus version;  you're doing reverts of material which one to three editors have expresses opposition to, and before there's been a reasonable amount of time for discussion on the talk page. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (Although, for the David Reimer material, Garycompugeek has expressed support. Please wait until consensus is reached, though.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Re "stonewalling" : please assume good faith, and comment on content, not on contributor's alleged motives. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notice: WP:AN3


 * I have done two reverts in the past 24 hours. The only other edits have been to accommodate other editors' criticisms, or editing in the light of other editors comments. I shouldn't worry, it is plain to see that this article is hopelessly biased, where editors use policy to try and obstruct insertion of relevant material, and I see nothing constructive to be gained in trying to do anything with this article beyond what I have done. Remember, I came here because of an RfC due to the existing problems you have here, and my interest in this prior to that was negligible.  I often see this, where editors post RfCs hoping to gain support for things, but then get upset when coming from a neutral perspective reasonable edits are made that conflict with their sense of what they like in the article and what they don't like. Mish (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure you've added (re-added?) the David Reimer material 4 times in 24 hours. I'm going to add to Avi's 3RR report I think.  I suggest that you self-revert your last edit to avoid a possibility of being blocked (which could happen even with fewer than 4 reverts). ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It is my opinion, MishMich, that you are edit warring despite multiple attempts to discuss issues with you on the talk page of the article as well as this page (see above sections). The responding admin to the edit warring notice will make the decision; as an involved party, I cannot, of course. You are more than welcome to post any defense or explanation you may have at the notice. -- Avi (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion he isn't. This editor has been making discussion changes on talk and using the edit summary.  You and Jake have not liked some of his changes and have decided to edit war. Garycompugeek (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, the 1st addition of David Reimer material may not have been a revert, but 3 clear reverts of re-adding David Reimer plus one revert of re-adding norm-uk.org definitely violates 3RR in my opinion. Plus the fact that it's a controversial article, other editwarring yesterday etc. Adding to Avi's report. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

MishMich: In response to Garycompugeek's post at the noticeboard: I am certainly not trying to drive you away from the article! I meant it when I said I welcome your participation, and I still do. It's just that I'm accustomed to having things discussed and agreed on before being edited into the article. And that's what the "controversial" template suggests. I think it works better that way. A lot of time can be wasted on revert warring. Also, this is a highly polished article. It gets a lot of page views, and I don't like to see material going in with spelling mistakes and other problems. We want to work with you cooperatively. Let's focus on discussing the reasons for various proposed changes, and work towards consensus. Welcome. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not notice that the spelling on the image at commons was wrong, but when it was raised, I corrected it on the article (I cannot do much about the original image, that is down to whoever posted it there). I have addressed each point that has been raised, and accommodated them where appropriate.  I think that the way the article has been structured is poor - because it works to exclude certain perspectives in favour of others - so religion and medicine are in, but there is no place for circumcision in popular culture, the media, academic discourse, and so on.  This article has serious WP:OWN problems - although I don't see you as being part of that, as you have been civil.  I consider the accusation of edit warring so soon into my starting to contribute to this article as extreme bad faith, and I do not respond well to people who try to bully people.  I do not usually work on articles that operate in the way you describe, there is too little time and too much work to do - I doubt I will be hanging around, because I have seen that when one or two editors have WP:OWN issues, and concentrate on excluding material they do not like, using whatever policies they can to do so, what you find is a series of editors who attempt to improve the article, but get frustrated and give up and move on to articles they can contribute to without acrimony.  That leaves the problematic articles to stagnate.  It is unfortunate when that happens to an article as important as this one.  I disagree about the restriction on ELs, for example, by placing an arbitrary number of links that excludes countries like the United Kingdom, (I agree they should be balanced) as many people come to the encyclopedia looking for information, and ELs are one way they can find links to organisations that they can follow-up to find out more in ways that are specific to their situation.  Links to organisations mostly based in the USA (or Israel) may well be useful for people in the USA or who are Jewish, but not for most people. Mish (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's what I did when I wanted to change the article: I began by posting my proposed change on the talk page: Talk:Circumcision/Archive 55.  In that talk page post, I followed my "What, Why, Where" method.  Nobody objected to the change, one editor approved, and after about a day and a half I edited it into the article. Another editor expressed approval afterwards .  It helps to present the proposed change as clearly as possible, connecting it with reasons based on sources and arguments about due weight etc.
 * So you see, I didn't even do BRD; I didn't even edit once before discussing and getting consensus. The "controversial" template calls on us to be more careful on this type of article.
 * If you're not going to hang around long, I hope before you go you'll present the changes you want to see in a nice, organized way so that it will be easy to refer back to your messages in the talk page archives and discuss the proposed changes even after you've left.
 * I know, the first time I tried to edit a controversial article I felt similarly: as if they were excluding all changes. Now I'm on the other side of the fence.  I'm not excluding all changes.  However, the article has been edited a lot already so it's very high quality already (or seems so to those of us who have been editing it) so most changes are seen as not being improvements.  The article does change nevertheless, though, and I'm sure there's room for improvement.  You can help make it better: you're bringing in a fresh perspective and ideas we hadn't thought of.
 * It would be helpful if you could come up with arguments based on sources and due weight about how much information there should be about various subtopics. I admit that the sizes of the sections agreed on a couple of years ago was rather arbitrary. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if you would self-revert your last edit. It would be a show of good faith and cooperation, and help get us all into the spirit of working together. We can still continue to discuss the changes you propose. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll do that - and I'll see how the WP:AN3 goes, but TBH I am only peripherally interested in this aspect of genital surgery, and am more concerned with editing LGBT articles. Mish (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for self-reverting!! I struck out the last revert in my report here: ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; I have withdrawn the report. Hopefully we can work out a better article through dialog on the talk page. -- Avi (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Re the successful proposed change I described above re anesthesia: actually, it was more complicated than that.  There had been several discussions, I think, now and then spread out perhaps over a couple of years, about deleting the Glass quote.  Those discussions did not lead to change.  But when I put the work into doing a web search, reading the sources etc. and coming up with a well-organized argument and proposed specific new wording, then it was finally accepted as described above. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes well and good but not at all in the spirit of the wiki. This article needs to conform to the standards of the rest of the encyclopedia.  Anyone should be able to come and edit the article as long as are policies and guidelines are followed.  One of the reasons the articles POV has shifted so much are the gatekeeper/ownership methods have dominated it for so long.  Editors come and feel like they must have Jake or Avi's approval to do anything.  I think the article would be much better off if we all (regular editors) unwatched it for a year and simply let the wiki process correct the NPOV issues. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Gary: Besides unwatching the page for a year or otherwise reducing the amount of participation, is there anything else you can suggest that editors could change in their behaviour to improve the situation in your opinion? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes and thank you for your open minded interest and concern Coppertwig. I will reply on the Talk:Circumcision since this has more to do with us regular circumcision editors and less with Mish. Garycompugeek (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality
Hi, Mish. The new lead text in Homosexuality is being aggressively challenged by an editor who feels it is faulty. When you get a chance, could you swing by here and here and help build consensus? Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 21:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Unitarian Universalism
Hi Mish, Unitarian Universalism grew out of the Christian theological threads of universalism and unitarianism. However, modern UUs are not as a whole Christian (whether non-trinitarian or otherwise). Some are Christian, but others are atheist, Pagan, Buddhist, etc. Lady  of  Shalott  03:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, is this a problem? Thinking of Alan Watts and other Anglicans who are still Anglican and also Buddhist, Pagan, etc. Mish (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It means UU should not be listed under Christianity. Most UUs are not Christian. Lady  of  Shalott  12:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have relocated to the end, as it should appear after Baha'i, being a more recent offshoot of Christianity than Baha'i as an offshoot of Islam. Mish (talk) 12:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine; I have no druthers about the order, just the separation. :) Lady  of  Shalott  02:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

AN/I re Phoenix of9
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The discussion is here.—Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 23:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

RM at circumcision
Mish, I wonder if I could ask you to strike out one or other of your "supports" at circumcision. At the moment, it looks as though you're !voting twice, though I'm sure that isn't your intent. Thanks, Jakew (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yogyakarta
To User:Noergler, I removed your comments as these appear to be in retaliation for my original good faith notice that you were risking slipping into violating WP:3RR and edit-warring. Mish (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I gave you a courtesy notice that your reversion to edits which have no consensus were putting you at risk of WP:3RR, despite this, you reverted back to the edit without any attempt to discuss this on the talk page. I have placed a formal warning on the article talk page and notified you of this on your talk page, as you have now infringed WP:3RR by reverting/restoring the disputed edit three times within a 24 hour period without discussion and against consensus.  Further engagement with other editors via edit-warring will result in escalation to WP:ANI, which I am keen to avoid, as I would encourage you to discuss this in a way that builds consensus. Mish (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Mish, I am sorry but you yourself do not seem to act in very good faith. You are criticising what you have been doing yourself.

Anyway, it is good to see that you are now beginning to understand that you cannot simply remove the critical section. I have no problem with you editing that section as long as (a) the outcome is in proper English, which currently is not the case, and (b) you do not remove content for which there is a good reference. In that sense: try again, but with correct English. Or else I will improve your text.

Concerning the question who has not been invited: I imagine that prominent human rights experts like Mary Ann Glendon, Michel Schooyans, Georg Ress, Javier Borrego, etc. would not have given any support to the YP. Have they been invited? No.

If you have better information (e.g. on people who were invited but declined the invitation), you can of course add it. But please do not destroy an information just because you do not like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noergler (talk • contribs) 15:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Mish,

just to tell you that the way yo have redrafted the section seems acceptable now. --Noergler (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Norwegian adolescents
I don't have access to the full paper. I am sure you saw the abstract like I did:
 * Past and future suicide attempt rates among gay, lesbian, and bisexual (GLB) young people were compared with those of heterosexual young people. A sample of Norwegian students (N = 2.924; grades 7-12) was followed in 3 data collection waves. Risk factors included previous suicide attempt,depressed mood, eating problems, conduct problems, early sexual debut, number of sexual partners, pubertal timing, self-concept, alcohol and drug use, atypical gender roles, loneliness, peer relations, social support, parental attachment, parental monitoring, and suicidal behavior among family and friends. When homosexual attraction, homosexual identity, and same-sex sexual behavior were entered to predict suicide attempt, only same-sex sexual behavior was significantly predictive. The increased odds could not be attributed to GLB students' greater exposure to risk factors for suicide attempt.

I also saw some more specific statistics at this web site. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is the abstract, which I saw (and the other site), but I could not access the paper itself - I wanted to read the analysis about why engaging in same-sex-sex was seen as more significant. I thought the conclusion might give some explanation. Mish (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Intersex
Likely you've seen this already but if not,. -- Banj e b oi   10:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * p.s. Would you like some tweaks to archive your talkpage?


 * Yes, that would be nice, thanks. And yes, I have the book, but not read it yet (not many books on the subject I don't have). Mish (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, added auto-archiving of dated threads that are stale for at least 5 days leaving a minimum of five threads on the page. Within a day the bot should clear off the old stuff. Is there anything else that would bring you some sunshine? -- Banj e  b oi   03:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much. What else?  Figuring out how to get a decent photo of the moon, but that is beyond this place...


 * Maybe search at []? -- Banj e  b oi   09:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant take a decent photo myself... this was my latest attempt. Mish (talk) 10:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's fairly out of my control so I'll leave it to you! Lol. -- Banj e  b oi   10:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Gay Agenda
What can I do to help the GA/FA initative?  C T J F 8 3 Talk 01:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I've never tried to get an article to FA/GA standard. I guess there are rules.  We need to check through citations, make sure everything is cited, that they say what the source says, do not plagiarise, are not WP:SYNTH, that there is no WP:OR or WP:BLP issues.  Then we need to get more sources - see if the origin date is the best evidence - are there earlier sources, or is that just the earliest online source?  I am sure I have seen refernces to 'homosexualists' before Lively & Abrams, but I can't put my finger on it right now.  Then we need to work on the rebuttals - there must be more than GLADD.  There's also got to be stacks of humour as well.  How about some of the loonies?  Phelps, for example.  How about the conspiracy theory angle?  Can we actually say something that shows how some view it as conspiracy theory.  Besides Lively's work smearing queers with the Nazi brush (or is it smearing Nazis with the queer brush?), there is a whole stream around the institutionalised anti-homosexuality in the USA and UK in the 1950s, which sought to associate homosexuals with  the Communist agenda - again, homosexuality was used to smear the left, and the left were used to smear homosexual people.  Are there any links back to that?  This all has to be backed up with sources, and we can only put things in that are backed up in a way that it won't be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.  On the more technical side, User:Moni3 seems to have the experience, so I guess we need to consult her.  As well as Christian groups, neo-Nazi groups buy into this stuff, but I don't think Stormfront would pass as a WP:RS - however, groups like the BNP probably would, and I will check out what they have said.  We are a bit limited when it comes to Christian groups, as they all repeat the same thing; but there may be mileage in highlighting what is said amongst conservative Catholic and Protestant groups, as well as Orthodox, and political conservatives as well.  What do you think? Mish (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, umm...I'm good with specifics, like what do you specifically want me to do to help, lol  C T J F 8 3 Talk 01:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, check the sources to ensure they say what it says they say. Check if anything is said that doesn't have source.  Then check that what is said is actually relevant (i.e., make sure there is nothing about sex with sheep or sacrificing small children to the devil). Mish (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If I were to channel Moni3 a bit the key is reliable sources, find the most reliable sources - books and scholarly reports - to guide you. books leads, scholar leads. -- Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   01:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of it is carefully reading the WP:Manual of style and fixing stylistic things like punctuation. If you let me know what articles you're working on I may be able to help somewhat, although I may also miss things that need to be fixed. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, it is Homosexual agenda, thanks. Mish (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Circumcision page
Hi, Mish. Re this comment: could you be more specific about what you see as the problem, and what behaviours I or other editors could change in order to improve things? Are there changes to the article that you think ought to have been made but were not made? Please be specific about what the proposed changes were and give a link to the discussion about them. I don't just mean any changes that you yourself believe would be improvements but for which there wasn't enough support; I mean changes that you think would have gotten in if better consensus-building processes had been followed.

I would also like to ask you to make some changes in your behaviour that I think would improve the dynamics: Please accept that others might not necessarily agree with edits you propose, and that they may state reasons for opposing them and are free to express those opinions; and please assume good faith.

The Circumcision article differs from the average Wikipedia article in that it's one of the top articles (I think one of the top 100, I forget) in terms of number of page views; it's been edited a lot; and it's controversial and has the controversial template. I've also edited other articles that have the controversial template, and the pattern of editing is different from the average article: we're supposed to propose controversial edits on the talk page and discuss them before editing. This is particularly important for articles with high page view rates. While the article might not conform to your own idea of what a good NPOV article should be like, nevertheless it conforms very closely to what tends to be agreed on as compromise or consensus among many editors. Because the article has been edited a lot, it's in a highly polished state: there is room for improvement, but each sentence has already been gone over many times by many people, and many fine details and nuances have already been extensively discussed, so any proposed edit has a higher chance of being opposed for one reason or another as compared to edits to an average, less-edited article. This can be frustrating until you get used to it.

Again, welcome to editing the article, and I hope the dynamics can be improved to the point where we all feel comfortable working together. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: Since the article is a summary article per WP:SUMMARY, which we're trying to keep short and concise, you might want to spend time editing the other articles it links to, such as Medical analysis of circumcision, where addition of new material tends to be more easily accepted; you may find that less frustrating, and besides, those articles need work; and after adding material there, maybe try adding brief summaries of it to the Circumcision article; if there's extensive information in one of the subarticles, then an argument can be made that it should be summarized in the summary article. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, it is not like any other controversial article, in that it is overseen primarily by two editors, one with professional medical interest, the other with religious interest, both of whom appear concerned with maintaining a particular 'status quo'. This is done by finding excuses why anything that deviates from their perception of the 'status quo' - notably by implementing policies specific to the article that are not found elsewhere.  Thus, any proposed insertion is countered with some excuse - like limiting the numbers of ELs, ensuring sources are weighted in micro-detail when they run counter to the 'status quo' (which is only status quo in one country, in fact - in the UK, for e.g., circumcision is not widely practiced outside of two religious groups), and when sources are found to substantiate certain usages of words that have been excluded (such as the recent 'intact' example), despite being published by a prestigious UK medical journal, then some other excuse is found to continue the 'troublesome' material.  None of this suggests adherence to NPOV, and where I have seen this on other articles, it is not a way of dealing with controversy, it is a way of playing-down, or excluding, controversy.  Were this a single editor finding this, I would not be so concerned, but when there are a number of editors subjected to this practice, and when their concerns are repeatedly ignored and dismissed, it suggests systemic bias in the way the article is micro-managed.  The fact is, this is a controversial article because it is a controversial topic, and the best way we can manage that is to ensure the controversy is represented accurately for what it is - a controversy.  The article pays lip-service to this in a way that effectively waters down and renders the controversial aspects inert.  It would be a better and more dynamic article if it allowed the controversy to be made explicit, and then what would be at issue would be accurately representing it, and the article itself would cease to be controversial itself - by stifling the controversy, the article invites controversy itself, and plenty of articles deal with controversial topics which can be managed uncontroversially.    The fact that this one cannot manage that reflects on the editors who seem to WP:OWN the article more than the topic itself, because the way they are trying to control it does not work. Mish (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When you say "excuses", I have the impression that you mean that editors have some reason they're not stating for excluding material, and that the reasons they're stating are not their real reasons. I don't think that's the case.  Please try to work collaboratively with a positive attitude (see WP:AGF).  When an editor states their opinion about some proposed article content, let's take it at face value and assume that what they're stating is their real opinion, and work with that.
 * Can you suggest some specific changes to the article that would make controversies more apparent? (There's more than one controversy about circumcision.)  Currently, the article states explicitly in the lead that there is controversy.  In the Pain and pain relief section, various viewpoints are presented which differ dramatically from each other. There's an Ethical issues section with several subsections discussing various controversial aspects.  The HIV section presents opposing viewpoints on whether circumcision reduces the risk of transmission of HIV.  So, controversy is presented already.    You're welcome to suggest changes that would make controversy more apparent.  I suggest that you present specific proposed changes (per What, Why, Where), and if objections are raised to them, modify your suggestions to address the objections.  The article is the product of a tremendous amount of discussion that has happened already (see the talk archives), so it's natural to expect a large amount of discussion, on average, to make any particular change. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I must have mistaken what you call discussion as blocking. Mish (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mish. I was thinking it might be easier to sell a reconstructed layout structure if we made one on one of our user pages first. My time is limited and I was looking for help for this endevour. I could start a stub on mine or you on yours and we could work out the specifics if your interested. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, my time is limited too, and the topic is only of tangential interest to me, so if you want to create a sandbox, and lay down some kind of structure you are aiming at, I'll be happy to contribute, and if there are specific aspects/gaps I can help fill in I will. I think this is a better approach, however, I have found in other situations that the approach can end up getting nowhere if some editors are in entrenched positions. But then again, when this works, it can be a positive experience for all concerned. Mish (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wonderful. I have started a page and look foward to working with you.  I have invited others who have also shown interest. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, MishMich. I suggest one of the following courses as the next step in trying to move forward in resolving this dispute:
 * that you identify a specific edit that you think should have gotten into the article but which was rejected; or
 * that you identify specific behaviour of one or more editors that you think needs to be changed; or
 * that you describe the way you think normal editing procedures ought to work on this page; or if you consider that you've already done so above, then you discuss further with me replying to the points I raised in reply or you post a proposal for changed procedures on the article talk page for discussion with others; or
 * that you suggest some other way to proceed as the next step.
 * I think those were all the possibilities I could think of. I haven't (yet) thought of another next step I can take at this time to help resolve the dispute; since you see a problem and I don't, I think the ball is in your court.  I'm sorry I can't be more helpful at this time.
 * If you think you've already done one of those things (particularly one of the first two), it may be that you weren't specific enough for me to be able to work with it; or I may need to have another look at your proposal, so you could tell me where your comment is that you think does that. For example, you've mentioned increasing the mentions of the word "intact", but I don't think you've identified a specific edit (a specific sentence) that you think ought to have been edited in.  (Again, I don't just mean that you support it, but that you think that with proper procedures it would have gotten in.)
 * re " You object to terms and phrases you don't like" : please avoid posting comments which speculate about the motives of other editors. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)