MosheA

 

Moshe, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreskin&diff=577524367&oldid=576595400 this] edit was very disappointing to see. Several editors have made repeated attempts to have you read and understand [[WP:MEDRS]]. You seemed to start to get it, because after the discussions about [[WP:MEDRS]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision&diff=577045527&oldid=577037453 here] you suggested that content from 2002 should be removed per [[WP:MEDDATE]] (and it was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=577229179&oldid=576831158 removed] at your prompting), and also in the same comment you made note of [[WP:MEDRS]]'s emphasis on the use of reviews (secondary sources). That was great. So can you explain what happened in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreskin&diff=577524367&oldid=576595400 this] edit? That edit added new biomedical content based on a source from <u>1893</u> in addition to sources from 1924, 1932, 1996, 1999 and 2002, in addition to introducing other problems, like basing biomedical content on popular press magazine articles and old primary sources when secondary sources are available. You know that [[WP:MEDRS]]-compliant, up-to-date secondary sources from the WHO are available because we discussed them specifically. I have been trying to assume good faith that you were still simply getting up to speed on understanding and applying [[WP:MEDRS]], but after these events, what am I supposed to think? I'd like to give you the opportunity to self-revert your edit as a gesture of good faith. Would you please do that? <code>[[User:Zad68|<span style="color:#D2691E">'''Zad'''</span>]][[User_Talk:Zad68|<span style="color:#206060">''68''</span>]]</code> 13:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)