Wikipedia bias on circumcision: Difference between revisions
→Circumcision related articles: assigned Jayjg to Jake H. Wiskett |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) m →Biased source material: Amend and Wikify text. |
||
| Line 183: | Line 183: | ||
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. | 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 | 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 [[intact]], because [[circumcision]] induces [[bias]] in men.<ref name="lebourdais1995">{{REFjournal | ||
|last=LeBourdais | |last=LeBourdais | ||
|first=Eleanor | |first=Eleanor | ||