Wikipedia bias on circumcision: Difference between revisions

Line 210:

}}</ref>

While Wikipedia may profess to write from a neutral point of view (NPOV), the use of adamantly pro-circumcision editors ~~and~~ their selection of so many sources biased in favor of circumcision and their omission of most of the functions of the foreskin drags the neutral point over into a pro-circumcision position.

While Wikipedia may profess to write from a neutral point of view (NPOV), the use of adamantly pro-circumcision editors, their selection of so many sources biased in favor of circumcision, and their omission of most of the [[Foreskin#Physiological_functions| functions of the foreskin]] drags the neutral point over into a pro-circumcision biased position.

The Circumcision article has been amended more than 15,000 times<ref name="circhistory2001" /> so it is an unstable source of information. If Wikipedia truly hopes to have an unbiased article, then Wikipedia needs to start over with a blank page and writers who are non-circumcised, because [[circumcision]] induces [[bias]] in men.<ref name="lebourdais1995">{{REFjournal

@@ Line 210: / Line 210: @@
 }}</ref>
-While Wikipedia may profess to write from a neutral point of view (NPOV), the use of adamantly pro-circumcision editors and their selection of so many sources biased in favor of circumcision and their omission of most of the functions of the foreskin drags the neutral point over into a pro-circumcision position.
+While Wikipedia may profess to write from a neutral point of view (NPOV), the use of adamantly pro-circumcision editors, their selection of so many sources biased in favor of circumcision, and their omission of most of the [[Foreskin#Physiological_functions| functions of the foreskin]] drags the neutral point over into a pro-circumcision biased position.
 The Circumcision article has been amended more than 15,000 times<ref name="circhistory2001" /> so it is an unstable source of information. If Wikipedia truly hopes to have an unbiased article, then Wikipedia needs to start over with a blank page and writers who are non-circumcised, because [[circumcision]] induces [[bias]] in men.<ref name="lebourdais1995">{{REFjournal