Objectivity of Circumcision article should be flagged due to Gilgal Fellows on salary who patrol & edit the article 

As a matter of curiosity

As a matter of curiosity, if a person with a Circumcision Fetish found his way to this article, would they be allowed to edit it as an authentic observer? By the way, the circumcision in front of the grass hut on page 5 of the WHO pamphlet, "Global Trends," would indicate that the purported HIV protection targets village people who live in primitive conditions. Would that also target the English-speaking readers of a wiki site like Wikipedia? ... Anyone ever hear of an educational foundation known as the Gilgal Fellows  perhaps an entry in this article could describe their work. Joe Circus (talk) 

    Unfortunately it appears anyone may edit the article regardless of a conflict of interest. I have also questioned the relevance and impact of third world African HIV studies on our modern audience to no avail. Garycompugeek (talk) 

        Thanks for the link to a conflict of interest. Since there are a number of fellows who edit this article, it would be helpful to know if any of them have information about the Gilgal Fellows described here It could be revelatory for Circumcision Wikipedia to include a section on the Gilgal Fellows, who apparently have quite a mission. It's my understanding that GILGAL is an obscure word for MOUNTAIN OF BURNING FORESKINS. Joe Circus (talk) 

            No one having objected to the proposed sections on Circumcision Fetish and the Gilgal Fellows, I will assume a consensus, delegate the research, and get back here with it ASAP. Joe Circus (talk) 

                It's impossible to assess such a vague proposal. If you provide some specific, sourced content, we can assess its suitability. Jakew (talk) 

                    "...we can assess..." Now would that be the Royal We or you claim to speak for other fellows? Joe Circus (talk) 

                        "We" refers to myself and others who may be interested in evaluating the proposal. Jakew (talk) 

                            All the same, I don't get why YOU in particular deigned to represent the other fellows without asking their permission. It'll take a lot of Human resources to put these sections together... and if the "consensus" is already fixed in advance, what's the point? Joe Circus (talk) 

                                Perhaps it's a little presumptuous, but it's realistic. It's usually a safe bet that more than one person will comment on a proposed change; take a look at the archives if you want to confirm that for yourself.
                                As for your proposals, previous discussions have found that there are no reliable sources discussing a "circumcision fetish"; searching Google Scholar for "Gilgal Society" indicates that there are no reliable, secondary sources regarding that subject either. So I would think it doubtful that content could be written in a way that conforms to our policies. Jakew (talk) 

                                    "Our" policies?... You mean the Gilgal Fellows? I'm not certain WHO you're representing here. Joe Circus (talk) 

                                        Wikipedia's policies, obviously. Jakew (talk) 

                                            Another reader deleted this interesting discussion for some reason. In trying to improve the Circumcision article, it's important that we discern between authentic readers and those who are paid a salary to patrol and manage this article. That's not a personal attack, nor a lack of presumption of good will. It's merely being realistic about who finds their way to this controversial article, and a healthy cynicism about some readers' intransigence. One reader has left a very rude & domineering comment on my user page. If personal attacks like that are the norm, I can only assume that a number of fellows are paid to patrol this article, and its objectivity should be flagged on the title page. Joe Circus (talk)