Thank you for taking my suggestion by coming here to Talk instead of just reverting without explanation. I have indeed reverted some changes by Jayjg.  However, these changes were not actually improvements.  Briefly:
 act-now.org is brought up as an example of how "circumcision advocacy" is a term used by some advocates, whereas Jay's version makes it sound otherwise.  Regardless of the subjective quality of the web site, suppressing any mention of it would be POV, hence unacceptable.  WP:NPOV is not negotiable.
 The definition of circumcision advocacy is accurate and not OR.  If you have some sort of specific complaints, I suggest altering the text instead of removing it.
 The article already mentions masturbation, you would like to omit the relevant and cited fact that masturbation is harmless and NOT prevented by circumcision.  Omiting this would be POV and WP:NPOV is not negotiable.
 Actually, what's reintroduced is the history with regard to advocacy, which is entirely relevant.
In short, these deletions all serve to harm the neutrality and comprehensiveness of the article.  Therefore, I will be forced to continue restoring the text if you attempt to remove it without an acceptable explanation.  Your explanations thus far are not acceptable.  Thank you for understanding.