Talk:Circumcision/Archive 20

message: Sorry for the off-topic discussion here.  I'm aware of the multitude of people here who argue and discuss NPOV issues and what is an NPOV approach to an article.  I am having difficulty on an article talk page Talk:Ménage à trois where a couple of people have one POV in mind, and revert or quash any other perspective. They claim that any other view made is someone else "pusing" their POV, and that no changes should be made to the article unless there is a consensus.  Now, I am not asking anyone to side with me on any of my opinions there, but if you have an opinion on what NPOV means in terms of alternative views in an article, and would care to comment, I'd appreciate it.  Regards, Atom 19:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off-topic assistance needed on NPOV 

message: Adding the following paragraph to the hygiene section.  Jakew, the AAP statement may be 30 years old but it's still quoted, and pertinent to the reader.
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics 1975 statement "A program of education leading to continuing good personal hygiene would offer all the advantages of circumcision without the attendant surgical risk."   Studies in Denmark indirectly suggest that "good hygiene with regular washing may be just as effective at preventing the diseases treated by circumcision.”.  One researcher concludes that access to clean water and regular washing “should all but eliminate the risk for foreskin-related medical problems that will require circumcision.” TipPt 19:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Archives 18 and 19 where Jake explains why those paragraphs may be both weasel wording as well as out of date. Just because the talk is archived, doesn't mean that it is forgotten  -- Avi 19:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Archives 18 and 19 where Jakew does nothing of the sort.  You show great bias AVI.TipPt 19:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the end of this section. You owe Avi and myself an apology. Jakew 20:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't believe Avi commented there. However, he did direct you to that page, where discussion can be found, just as he said. Your claim to the contrary, and subsequent accusation of bias, was highly inappropriate. Jakew 20:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, what I see at those links is two editors disagreeing with your positions Jakew, AVI is not present.  His reference to your judgements (to those other two editors) shows bias.  Note that the next discussion is about your poor attitude Jakew.TipPt 20:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempt to reduce pro-circ bias in Hygiene. 

message: The reader is not permited to see the current CPS position:
The CPS states: “There is therefore no indication that the position taken by the CPS in 1982 should be changed”, which in turn reaffirms the 1975 statement that “there is no medical indication for circumcision during the neonatal period.”
The reader is forced to read edited text in the BMA statement instead of the full text:
:The final summary should be all that was necessary, but I remeber some editors feeling that it was too Pro-circ, so we added the non-theraputic and theraputic parts to it. Dragging 31 year old material into it has only one purpose, Tip, to push your POV. There is no reason to quote anything other than the most recent text. Further “which in turn reaffirms the 1975 statement that ‘there is no medical indication for circumcision during the neonatal period.’” is WP:OR on your part (original synthesis), unless that is a direct quote from somewhere. Thanks. -- Avi 19:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, one issue at a time.  AVI ... I don't drag the "31 year old material" CPS into the statement, the CPS does by referring ... reaffirming ... the prior statements!  The recent text DOES refer to the prior statement, which in turn refers to again to the prior statement (explicitly).  Each statement thus refers to the prior statement and must be included to be honest and complete.  What I wrote is a direct quote (it's in quotations) from the CPS AVI.TipPt 20:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first quote is actually included in the article. Tip added it to the preceding paragraph, thus making it appear twice. But this has been discussed before, too... Jakew 20:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atttempt to reduce pro-circ bias in the Assoc quotes. 

message: As of June of 2006, the British Medical Association's position was as follows:
Just wait a few and I'll paste the pro-circ reversions for your review.TipPt 19:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: United Kingdom

message: ====Canada====
The Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society posted Circumcision: Information for Parents in 2004, and Neonatal circumcision revisited statements in 1996, undergoing revision as of 2004:
TipPt 21:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch, Tip. I updated the reference to a cite template. Secondly, I do not think there is a reason to set any one sentence out specially. I removed the excess line breaks so that there are two paragraphs: One for the Info for Parents, and the other for the official statement. -- Avi 21:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotations need to be separated, since they are from different documents. Jakew 21:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, and for fixing the BMA too.TipPt 21:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to use the CPS Nov 2004 "Information to Parents" statement ... it's more current 

message: The Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society posted Circumcision: Information for Parents in 2004, and Neonatal circumcision revisited statements in 1996, undergoing revision as of 2004:
TipPt 21:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch, Tip. I updated the reference to a cite template. Secondly, I do not think there is a reason to set any one sentence out specially. I removed the excess line breaks so that there are two paragraphs: One for the Info for Parents, and the other for the official statement. -- Avi 21:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotations need to be separated, since they are from different documents. Jakew 21:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, and for fixing the BMA too.TipPt 21:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Canada