Lordkazan, I am currently looking for suitable citations. But still, I feel my original point was intentionally overlooked. You see, recently, I edited a German article concerning a Neonazi brand name (de:Consdaple). In that article, I inserted totally "biased" ridiculing phrases, because I felt that in Germany, it is always better to decidedly distance yourself from Nazism (and because I am rather convinced of my eloquence in German, although I am certainly not as godlike at it as Avi is with English). Now, with the circumcision article, I have a similar dilemma. But my POV here is, although not more biased than with the Nazi topic, not the Public POV. And that's what I meant in the circumcision discussion: My POV is that there is no NPOV besides the instantaneous total rejection of neonatal genital mutilation, be it in Jewish tradition or whatever. And all that pointing to the respective guidelines by Avi or Jakew won't change that. But the article does not even feature the word "intact", which in itself (the word and its rejection by the pro-biased lobby) is sufficient proof to me that they will never cease to bombard common sense. So alright, I'm Sancho Pansa, but do you really believe in playing the game like this? After all, Jakew doesn't have a problem with the Wikipedia guidelines, because his personal bias is similar to the American/community bias on the topic of circumcision.