17,106
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jayjg Jayjg] (whose symbol is a blue jay) is currently charged with maintaining the pro-circumcision bias. His page lists an extensive list of his accomplishments and awards, indicating that he is a high muck-a-muck at Wikipedia.
[[Category:Parental information]]
Add link in SEEALSO section.
* [[Jake H. Waskett]], a British circumcision enthusiast, made his first edit to the circumcision article at Wikipedia on 18 October 2004.<ref name="circhistory2001" /> Waskett, who appears to be driven by [[Jake_H._Waskett/Editorial| emotional issues]], seems to have considered his sacred duty to be to promote male circumcision by editing the various related articles at Wikipedia. Waskett seems to have wormed himself into a position of power at Wikipedia.
** His pseudonym [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jayjg Jayjg] (whose symbol is a blue jay) is currently charged with maintaining the pro-circumcision bias. His page lists an extensive list of his accomplishments and awards, indicating that he is a high muck-a-muck at Wikipedia.
: Male circumcision has a substantial list of harms, complications, disadvantages, and drawbacks, however Jake apparently wanted these to be minimized while the alleged advantages were emphasized. This put him into conflict with others who wanted the whole story to be told. As a result, there were a huge number of revisions to the articles associated with male circumcision until 18 June 2012,<ref name="circhistory2001" /> when Jake resigned from editing.
* Alex Brown appears to have taken over the duties of regulating the various circumcision related articles. He has not altered the bias found in the Wikipedia circumcision related articles.
When [[Ulf Dunkel]] added the [[Worldwide Day of Genital Autonomy]] to the English and German Wikipedia, he also experienced a lot of headwinds from administrators who, however, did not aim at the topic of the article, but tried to discredit the author as an anti-Semite. The article still exists as a stub on the Wikipedia.<ref>{{URLwikipedia|World_Wide_Day_of_Genital_Autonomy|World Wide Day of Genital Autonomy|2021-08-02}}</ref>
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[[intact]], because [[circumcision]] induces [[bias]] in men.<ref name="lebourdais1995">{{REFjournal
|last=LeBourdais
|first=Eleanor
{{SEEALSO}}
* [[Circumcision]]
* [[United States of America]]
{{LINKS}}
* {{REFweb
}}
* [https://imgur.com/a/wAFV7oO Wikipedia – the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, until running afoul of just one administrator]
{{SEEALSO}}* [[Google bias on circumcision]]
{{REF}}
[[Category:Bias]]
[[Category:Database]]
[[Category:Parental information]]
[[Category:USA]]
[[de:Wikipedia-Voreingenommenheit zur Beschneidung]]