That was pure original synthesis, and you were informed of that. For the record: Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Circumcision. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Avi 21:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made four + edits. Which have your objections?

Informed by whom?TipPt 21:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=83079067&oldid=83078554

• Informed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACircumcision&diff=83076401&oldid=83076007

Thanks. -- Avi 21:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip, you've made more than three (five, I think) partial reverts to circumcision in the past 24 hours. Please self-revert your most recent changes to hygiene. Jakew 21:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't quickly find the full 1975 text, but I found this reference (in the CPS most recent statement)

"In 1971 and 1975 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) took a stand against the routine circumcision of newborns on the basis that there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period.2,3 In 1975 the Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) reviewed the literature available at that time and reached the same conclusion.4 In 1983 this position was reiterated by the AAP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in their joint publication Guidelines for Perinatal Care.5 The CPS Fetus and Newborn Committee re-examined the issue in 1982, in response to an article on the benefits and risks of circumcision,6 and saw no reason to modify its 1975 statement.7

[1]

The current version does not accurately reflect their position.TipPt 22:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusions section of the most recent study is all that is necessary, and is 100% accurate. If you do not like the way the CPS sums up their policy, please take it up with the CPS. This is wikipedia. If you would like to publish your analyis in a peer-reviewed journal, then it too will be eligible for inclusion. But including your original synthesis in wikipedia is a violation, and must be reverted. Thank you. -- Avi 22:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the 1982 and 1975 statements ... [2]. The current (text in the Topic) version refers to the 1982 statement, which in turn refers to the 1975 statement. Without the 1975 information those reaffirmations are missed.TipPt 22:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you refuse to see their bottom line (and refuse to let the reader see the info). Their bottom line position is that there is no medical indication for neonatal circs. That position is lost in your current version.TipPt 22:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, original synthesis. We are quoting the current CPS; not what we think the CPS meant when it wrote what it did; not what logical syllogisms we can string together, but the source. The case is clear, we have quoted the entire section where they gave their conclusion (it is even titled Conclusions). What you are doing is a combination of cherry picking and original research and is a violation of official wiki policies. -- Avi 22:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's their most current statement with respect to their conclusion

"In 1971 and 1975 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) took a stand against the routine circumcision of newborns on the basis that there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period.2,3 In 1975 the Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) reviewed the literature available at that time and reached the same conclusion.4 In 1983 this position was reiterated by the AAP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in their joint publication Guidelines for Perinatal Care.5 The CPS Fetus and Newborn Committee re-examined the issue in 1982, in response to an article on the benefits and risks of circumcision,6 and saw no reason to modify its 1975 statement.7

Can you point me to where that paragraph in its entirety is located in the article? Or are you putting a few things together that the CPS did not?! Please see Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position -- Avi 22:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an unedited quote from the most current CPS statement. It reflects their position. Simply read the second paragraph of the text ... in the second section of the Abstract.[3]TipPt 22:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not reflect their position. It is a partial recap of the historical context in which the current statement is placed. Immediately subsequent paragraphs describe research and medical policy discussion that have taken place since 1982. Trying to tie the specific sentence at the end of that introductory paragraph to a specific statement in the conclusion of the document would be a violation of WP:NOR, as I believe has been pointed out once or twice (imagine "ironic intent" emoticon here). Dasondas 22:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to imply that you would lie. Unlike other editors whose paths I have had the fortune to cross, you do not prevaricate. I understand you have strong feelings about this topic, as do many of us. Part of what allows wikipedia to function is adherence to cerain policies and guidelines, which I believe, in your zeal, you have crossed/violated/ignored. I do not think you are an incorrigible liar, G-d forbid, but I do believe that many of your edits do not conform to the guidelines that allow wiki to function. If I have insulted you, I apologize. -- Avi 22:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]