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