: I did not notice that the spelling on the image at commons was wrong, but when it was raised, I corrected it on the article (I cannot do much about the original image, that is down to whoever posted it there).  I have addressed each point that has been raised, and accommodated them where appropriate.  I think that the way the article has been structured is poor - because it works to exclude certain perspectives in favour of others - so religion and medicine are in, but there is no place for circumcision in popular culture, the media, academic discourse, and so on.  This article has serious WP:OWN problems - although I don't see you as being part of that, as you have been civil.  I consider the accusation of edit warring so soon into my starting to contribute to this article as extreme bad faith, and I do not respond well to people who try to bully people.  I do not usually work on articles that operate in the way you describe, there is too little time and too much work to do - I doubt I will be hanging around, because I have seen that when one or two editors have WP:OWN issues, and concentrate on excluding material they do not like, using whatever policies they can to do so, what you find is a series of editors who attempt to improve the article, but get frustrated and give up and move on to articles they can contribute to without acrimony.  That leaves the problematic articles to stagnate.  It is unfortunate when that happens to an article as important as this one.  I disagree about the restriction on ELs, for example, by placing an arbitrary number of links that excludes countries like the United Kingdom, (I agree they should be balanced) as many people come to the encyclopedia looking for information, and ELs are one way they can find links to organisations that they can follow-up to find out more in ways that are specific to their situation.  Links to organisations mostly based in the USA (or Israel) may well be useful for people in the USA or who are Jewish, but not for most people.