Talk:Circumcision/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

To Dabljuh re: Cognitive Dissonance

Intactivists: You can't tell every circumcised male who will read this article that he's mutilated and less of a man or shit like that. People don't want to hear that, they will simply convince themselves that "Wikipedia spreads nothing but lies" or some shit, even though your argument is perfectly valid! Yes, circumcision is wrong. Every major medical organization will tell you so. But the way to convince people is to stress the risks, and not the long term adverse effects. The risks of the procedure of circumcision itself. Tell them, "Wow, you still got a penis, lucky you!" that will make them think twice about passing this stupid rite on to their children.

That's the problem, you see. It doesn't matter if you specifically say it or not. If you oppose circumcision, circumcised males are going to want to know why. And if you explain why (because it's wrong to permanently alter someone's body without their consent), then they will be able to infer for themselves that you are necessarily implying that they were abused. You don't need to tell them that at all, they will realize it themselves. Merely taking an anti-circ position inevitably means you are telling circumcised males they were abused, unless they are too stupid to follow the logic. Therefore no matter how lightly you try to pussyfoot around the issue, you will still have male ego force opposed to your efforts, unless you completely abandon an anti- viewpoint. Due to that ego force, cognitive dissonance will prejudice most circumcised men against giving you a fair hearing.

Here's how it works. Circumcised man "A", like all men, holds the cognition that his penis is normal, appropriate, and his personal property. You come along and oppose circumcision - even if you do not outright say it is a violation. "A" will either be told or infer the cognition, "men who were circumcised as children were victims of child abuse". This is not the same as him believing this, you realize - first it must pass muster. This cognition carries with it the cognitions, "my penis is less than it should be", and "my private property (my penis) was changed without my permission". This causes a cognitive dissonance with the cognitions that "A"'s penis is normal, appropriate, and private property. "A" will now select which set of cognitions to believe, and the majority will choose to hold the original set and ignore the latter. Why? Ego force - it is far more psychologically comfortable for "A" to believe he is unharmed and you are a liar, than for "A" to believe he is a victim and you are truthful. The cognitive dissonance will be resolved, usually, in favor of "A"'s personal comfort and self-worth, and since the cognition resulting from your appeal has been rejected, your appeal will be seen as untruthful and possibly even malicious.

There are a few ways around this. Circumcised men, for the most part, cannot be convinced that circumcision is a problem. Women, however, do not have their egos bound up in penises, and women are somewhat more capable of keeping an open mind over the issue of infant male circumcision. If the world's femininity could be convinced that uncircumsized men were preferable, then they would assert their maternal prerogatives against the circumcision of their baby boys. This, or simply getting circumcision outlawed through medical means, are the only two methods of opposing it that I can see. Unfortunately, the medical profession is also full of circumcised men who will suffer the problems described above in giving the issue a fair hearing.

-Kasreyn 23:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Haha, Kasreyn. A bold idea. Why do you think I am so fond of having pictures of penises in the page? ITS A MYSTERY! Dabljuh 23:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Or: maybe a lot of people, regardless of gender, are capable of assessing the evidence and realising that intactivist arguments are overstated and border on hysterical. Occam's razor seems appropriate here... Jakew 23:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't exactly consider myself an "intactivist", since that term is poorly defined and I don't even know what it means... as a circumcized male I'm of course incapable of knowing what I may or may not be missing. However, it seems clearly unethical to permanently modify someone else's body without their consent. The excuse of religion fails the test; no one's freedom of religion should include harming another. The excuse of parental custody also fails the test: parents are supposed to protect their children, not subject them to medically unindicated surgery. I fail to see the hysteria in my arguments; could you point it out? -Kasreyn 00:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You are, however, begging the question.Benami 01:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

And you're avoiding responding to any of my substantive points and seem to prefer hiding behind snappy one-liners. Apparently my hopes for engendering discussion of the issues were in vain. -Kasreyn 07:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, pointing out that you are begging the question is a direct response to your "more substantive" points. You are assuming that infant circumcision is an example of "harming another," and that parents who do so are failing to protect their children. Benami 08:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is my viewpoint. If it were any more than that, you would already be seeing it in the article. I suppose this means we have different definitions of "harm". Are you saying you would like me to define all my terms before I proceed? -Kasreyn 08:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No, just pointing out the difference between an argument and an assumption.Benami 08:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What difference? Neither of my arguments in this section (re: cognitive dissonance and re: maternal choice) were based on my opinion that circumcision is harmful. They were based on possible perceptions of its harmfulness or beneficience in others, and how this could be surmounted by anti-circ activists. That was my entire point: I was trying to point out to Dabljuh that even if anti-circ activists avoided calling circumcision harmful, it wouldn't help, because the perception would remain that that was their belief (after all, why oppose it if you don't think it's harmful?). Pussyfooting around the issue of harm would simply be seen as disingenuous. -Kasreyn 08:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm, wait a moment. I was mixed up and thought your comment was attached to my bit on cognitive dissonance. I see now that it wasn't. Must mean I need sleep. My mistake, Benami. -Kasreyn 09:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a razor! Ouch! :-) More seriously, I find arguments that only certain elites (in this case, circumcised men) have access to the truth or are able to appreciate it without bias repugnant. Benami 23:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thats not what I mean, with cognitive dissonance, at least. I'm just trying to point out that there are powerful psychological factors that can make someone deeply biased / prejudiced about the issue. It is certainly harder for circumcised males not to pass the rite on, than for uncut dudes. But far from impossible or anything like that, it all depends on the individual's self-esteem and psycho-babble stuff like that. Dabljuh 00:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You have it a bit wrong, Benami; I believe among males, only a man who was voluntarily circumcised as an adult can truly appreciate this issue without being subject to inherent biases and egoism. Uncircumcised men and men circumcised before ever having sex (ie., as children) cannot truly understand what it is like to be in each other's positions - they haven't the direct experience required. Consider it repugnant all you like, the self-serving bias and cognitive dissonance have been demonstrated time and time again in peer-reviewed experiments and are widely accepted models of human behavior. Just because you don't like the suggestion that a person's very physical nature may bias them for or against certain viewpoints doesn't make it less true. -Kasreyn 00:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did I say it was repugnant? I meant to say that I think it's malarkey. Benami 01:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the so called foreskin restorers would have an equal say in that case, and they seem pretty excited from what I read. --ZimZum 01:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Women who had their son(s) circumcised are oftenly the biggest circumcision advocates. So that complicates your theory. --ZimZum 23:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I've talked to women who had their sons circumcised. While they did feel bad for the small guy, it'd make them look like shitty parents if they admitted that was a rather dumb thing. Dabljuh 23:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This is also true, which is why I made sure to state that women are only "somewhat" more likely to be open-minded than men... the urge for social conformity, in this case exemplified by the desire for one's son's penis to be "normal", is a very potent motivator for a mother. She naturally wants her son to have every success in life, including procreation, and if she believes (as most mothers in America do), that being circumcised is "normal", she will consider that "normalcy" an advantage which she can bestow upon her son. In her own mind she is giving him an advantage later in life that will help him bring her grandchildren into the world. I read somewhere (no, I don't have the source), that when mothers were asked why they had their infant sons circumcised, the two most common reasons given were "to make it look normal" and "to make it look like his father's". This normative drive is why human traditions die hard - we are deeply suspicious of anything perceived as new or different. However, the rate of infant male circumcision has begun a gradual decline in America in recent years, which may indicate that American women are beginning to feel less certain that circumcision provides their sons with a benefit.

-Kasreyn 00:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It's been the latest fashion to be a 'perfect' parent as well, which adds some additional pressure. I remember a mother spamming a chat room with 'uncut dicks are ugly!' as a heated debate neared it's end. It nearly broke my heart to watch her break down like that. The traumatizing impact of a badly informed decision shouldn't be underestimated --ZimZum 00:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there's some misunderstanding though. Let me explain: There's the RISKS of the PROCEDURE. These are the chance that a kid dies to the procedure. Then there's the LONG TERM ADVERSE EFFECTS. And in addition to that, the ETHICAL ISSUES. At the same time, circumcision has LONG TERM BENEFITS. (Like, that ridiculous protection from cancer)

What I mean to say is: For all medical organizations, the LONG TERM BENEFITS do not outweight the RISKS OF THE PROCEDURE. Intactivists like to stress the LONG TERM ADVERSE EFFECTS, like, reduced sexual functionality and all that. We must here STRONGLY differ between the LONG TERM ADVERSE EFFECTS and the RISKS OF THE PROCEDURE.

What think the article should make clear, is that - There are LONG TERM BENEFITS (without ridiculing them too much) - The RISKS OF THE PROCEDURE however are greater (way too big) - Which is WHY circumcision is NOT recommended, NOT a good idea etc. medically This is *exactly* what ALL the mainstream medical organizations say. They don't talk about the LONG TERM ADVERSE EFFECTS much either.

This way, circ'd guys can soothe their egos in having the LONG TERM BENEFITS (which they will imagine to be huge and awesome, accordingly) and will back off from recommending circumcision to kids because the procedure is simply too dangerous, too risky.

So if someone asks "Yeah why do you oppose circumcision" then the answer is "The RISKS OF THE PROCEDURE outweight its LONG TERM BENEFITS". Unfortunately, you cannot stress the LONG TERM ADVERSE EFFECTS without damaging an insecure circ'd guys ego.

And as I said: This is exactly what all the mainstream medical organizations state.

Dabljuh 11:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Reminder: Wikipedia is not a propaganda vehicle. It's an NPOV encyclopaedia. Discussion of strategies for persuading people does not belong here. Jakew 12:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Right. Thats why the article shouldn't emphasize that all major medical organizations think that medically, RIC is bunk? You are the only one that disagrees with all major medical organizations, not me. Regardless, the article has to convey the NPOV, and the major medical organizations are the definition of the NPOV. What I'm suggesting here is how we can get a wonderfully NPOV article, that everyone can be happy with - insecure circ'd guys, intactivists etc... An article that does indeed satisfy the NPOV by making the medical mainstream opinion of the practice the central focus of itself. Dabljuh 12:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand, Dabljuh. We certainly must quote the position of the medical organisations, but those are themselves points of view. The fact that many of them hold an essentially neutral POV does not make them the neutral point of view. To quote WP:NPOV: "The prevailing Wikipedia understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all; according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct."

As an aside, I actually strongly agree with the AAP's and AAFP's policies. Jakew 13:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, my version of the article does not say any particular POV is correct. But according to WP:NPOVUW we do not need to give everyone the same attention in this general article.

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Now, with circumcision, the majority view would certainly be the position of the big associations. Dabljuh 15:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, let me quote some more:

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.

Dabljuh 15:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, Dabljuh. We don't seem to do that, and anyway, the AMA and especially the BMA's statements clearly point out that there is a significant amount of debate. Jakew 15:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There is always debate, obviously, inside the medical organizations, and that is good. Ultimately, what we have to take as the mainstream opinion is the opinion of the medical organizations, which clearly state that the procedure of RIC is not recommended, that it is a cultural practice, and that there are ethical issues involved with circumcising infants. The genital integrity movement's POV on the other hand absolutely corroborates with this majority POV, and has a number of namely adherents, such as the International Coalition for Genital Integrity, NOHARMM and Doctors Opposing Circumcision and various other organizations. The POV that routine, non-therapeutic infant circumcision is a medically beneficial practice on the other hand, is at the very best a fringe view, that directly opposes the mainstream, and, according to NPOV, shouldn't even be in the article.

What I am saying is that despite the policy of WP:NPOV is commanding us to describe in the article that basically everyone believes circumcision is total bunk, we should still allow for a disproportionate number of select circumcision-advocating arguments, because otherwise we're just being cruel as we make insecure, circumcised men feel bad.

If you think that makes me a POV pusher, then, if anything, I am a pro circumcision POV pusher, by the standard of WP:NPOV. Dabljuh 16:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again you're confusing your interpretation of these medical organisations with what they actually state. Their actual, stated position is somewhat different. Most do not recommend, but do not recommend against circumcision either. Most recognise benefits as well as risks. Many recommend that parents should decide. It's easy to see that both pro- and anti- circ positions differ from this (for example, antis recommending against circumcision, denying benefits, and proposing that parents should be legally prohibited from choosing). Certainly it's easy to name anti-circers, just as it's easy to name pro-circers (personally I would have chosen to name individuals, rather than individuals who have chosen to hide behind websites with pompous-sounding names, but still...). Thus both meet the criteria above. We certainly should not say that basically everyone believes circumcision is total bunk, because that would directly contradict the AMA and BMA.

I'm really not sure what you're so worried about, though. As far as I can tell, the only mention of pro-circ views in the article is "while circumcision advocates stress the medical benefits of the procedure." What's the big deal? Jakew 17:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

A few quotes, totally out of context:

• Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision (AMA)
• A majority of boys born in the United States still undergo nonritual circumcisions. This occurs in large measure because parental decision-making is based on social or cultural expectations, rather than medical concerns (AMA)
• Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. (AMA)
• The BMA cannot envisage a situation in which it is ethically acceptable to circumcise a competent, informed young person who consistently refuses the procedure (BMA)
• the interests of the child and those of the parents are not always synonymous. (BMA)
• The responsibility to demonstrate that non-therapeutic circumcision is in a particular child's best interests falls to his parents.(BMA)
• parental preference alone is not sufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure on a child. (BMA)
• The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it.(BMA)

Dabljuh 17:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Medical organization statements

What do professional medical organizations actually say about infant circumcision as a medical procedure?

• The Royal Australasian College of Physicians. Policy Statement On Circumcision. Sep 2004. http://www.racp.edu.au/hpu/paed/circumcision/summary.htm

"After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision." (emphasis in original document)

"The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit."

"Review of the literature in relation to risks and benefits shows there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure in the neonate."

• British Medical Association. The Law & Ethics of Male Circumcision - Guidance for Doctors. March 2003. http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/malecircumcision2003

"Unnecessarily invasive procedures should not be used where alternative, less invasive techniques, are equally efficient and available. It is important that doctors keep up to date and ensure that any decisions to undertake an invasive procedure are based on the best available evidence. Therefore, to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."

"Male circumcision in cases where there is a clear clinical need is not normally controversial. Nevertheless, normal anatomical and physiological characteristics of the infant foreskin have in the past been misinterpreted as being abnormal. The British Association of Paediatric Surgeons advises that there is rarely a clinical indication for circumcision. Doctors should be aware of this and reassure parents accordingly."

"Male circumcision that is performed for any reason other than physical clinical need is termed non-therapeutic (or sometimes 'ritual') circumcision."

• Canadian Paediatric Society. Neonatal Circumcision Revisited. http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/FN/fn96-01.htm

"Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."

"The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns. There is therefore no indication that the position taken by the CPS in 1982 should be changed."

Note - In 1982 the CPS took a stand against routine infant circumcision because "there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period." In March 2002 the CPS reaffirmed its 1996 position statement.

• American Academy of Pediatrics. Circumcision Policy Statement (RE9850). http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child."

• American Medical Association. Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (I-99), Neonatal Circumcision. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html

"This report is confined to circumcisions that are not performed for ritualistic or religious purposes. In this case, the term 'non-therapeutic' is synonymous with elective circumcisions that are still commonly performed on newborn males in the United States."

"The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics"

Note - The summary of the AMA report is very similar to the summary of the AAP policy statement with one important exception. The AMA report does not include the following sentence: "It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision."

• College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia. Infant Male Circumcision. Jun 2004. https://www.cpsbc.ca/cps/physician_resources/publications/resource_manual/malecircum

"Infant male circumcision was once considered a preventive health measure and was therefore adopted extensively in Western countries. Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure, however, no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention."

There is unanimous agreement among professional medical organizations in Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and the United States that circumcision of healthy boys is not medically necessary. They all say there is no medical indication for circumcision of a healthy boy. The professional medical organizations recognize that circumcision of healthy boys is a cultural and religious practice, not a medically indicated procedure. Only a handful of pro-circumcision advocates still try to present elective, non-therapeutic circumcision of healthy boys as a surgery with medical justification. -- DanBlackham 10:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Putting circumcision in context

In order to put non-therapeutic circumcision in context with other pediatric surgeries I think we need to ask one very important question. What other surgeries will doctors perform on children that have a ratio of medical benefits to risks similar to infant circumcision and that do not correct a congenital condition? -- DanBlackham 03:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Can I suggest rephrasing the question, Dan, since congenital phimosis is by definition a congenital condition? Jakew 12:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Currently, hopefully none. But my guess is, history of medicine is full of stories of fads that cut-happy doctors figured were a good idea to make a naturally born and healthy child "better". Dabljuh 11:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there's enough material to create an article on the history of circumcision that would fit nicely in the pseudo-science category. --ZimZum 12:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There is already a history of circumcision article, ZimZum, but adding such a category would violate WP:NPOV. Jakew 12:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you're confusing that with WP:JPOV, but I agree "Circumcision as pseudoscience" isn't appropriate. Dabljuh 12:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I keep reading and re-reading this phrase you have used, WP:JPOV, and don't understand. Could you elaborate on what you mean? Nandesuka 17:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Rephrasing the question... What other surgeries will doctors perform on children that have a ratio of medical benefits to risks similar to infant circumcision and that do not correct a congenital abnormality? -- DanBlackham 16:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

female genital mutilation ? At least when it is performed by doctors.... Dabljuh 16:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any medical benefits to that. Jakew 16:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, excision of the labia would for example reduce the chance that you get cancer of the vulva... destroying any form of pleasure in sex can reduce the rate that you get STDs.... but you know that already... Dabljuh 17:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm interested in studies that have actually found benefits, rather than speculative ones. Jakew 17:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There's also studies that have found benefits to homeopathy. What does that tell us? Dabljuh 17:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That it might be beneficial? (Toby Murcott suggests in 'The whole story' that any benefit is more likely through the caring person-centric way of working than the 'medications' themselves, but that's an aside) Jakew 17:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

To answer the original question: Check out this great video from foreskin. It draws a few comparisons with other organs that have been deemed "superfluous". http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/video/Circumcision_WM7NTSC_256k_D.wmv Dabljuh 14:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Martin Lawrence on Late Night with Conan O'Brien

In last night's episode of Conan, Martin Lawrence was the first guest, and by some bizarre turn of events, the conversation turned to the topic of circumcision. Lawrence described how he had been born in Germany and thus not circumcised at birth, but rather was circumcised in the US at the age of seven. Conan seemed shocked and commented that the reason that circumcision is usually performed at birth is so that the boy will have no memory of the procedure. Lawrence then made a vague comment that it's a "constant struggle" or something for those not circumcised, by which Conan seemed perplexed (perhaps he's intact himself).

Where am I going with this? Well, aside from the fact that it was a funny TV moment, I think there is an interesting phenomenon at work here. Being circumcised was a traumatic event (Lawrence himself described showing his wounded penis to one of the hospital nurses and complaining that it was hurt, then finished the somber anecdote with a punchline that the nurse then flirted with him) yet Lawrence struggled to describe the event in positive terms. He struggled even to frame non-circumcision as somehow a cause of difficulty, although he didn't explain how. Because he grew up in the US at a time when circumcision was the norm, as a child he must have felt different for being intact and felt some relief after being made "normal", and now feels threatened by non-circumcised dicks for some nebulous reason. He thinks natural cocks are inferior but he can't even begin to articulate why.

And right there is the crux of the issue on Wikipedia. Many of the editors here (Jakew, I'm looking in your direction) were mutilated as children and struggle to reconcile their feelings with the anti-circumcision information that others would like to keep in this article. Martin Lawrence is a perfect example of this ignorant, confused attitude. He shows why a large number of circumcised men simply cannot be relied upon for NPOV information on this emotionally charged issue.

Food for thought. Matt Gies 19:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course you are right, but in the case of Jakew, he decided to do it as an adult. I have tried to explain the psychological mechanisms to his obsession with convincing everyone that circumcision is awesome here.

Dabljuh 19:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, wow. That's even more disturbing. Matt Gies 19:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not normally a big fan of Jake's pov, but he's always been a level-headed and reasonable editor (as far as I've seen) and he doesn't deserve your condescencion. I wasn't aware he had voluntarily chosen circumcision, but now that I think about it, it fits with his attitudes towards the issue. In my opinion one man who's actually experienced life both ways has a direct experiential knowledge which can add a lot to our work here. I don't agree with him on the advisability of the procedure, of course, but he deserves better than that. -Kasreyn 23:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly where the fuck do either of you get off making armchair psychological diagnoses of anyone, much less someone you're supposed to be working with in a spirit of collegiality? Either one of you an expert in the field of psychology? Don't think so - and even if you were some sort of closet psychologist, this sort of long-distance diagnosis would clearly be unethical. As it is, there doesn't seem to be much difference between this crap and outright personal attack, except usually people doing personal attacks have the balls not to cloak it in icky, smug concern. Knock it off. Benami 21:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make any diagnosis. However I do find Dabljuh's arguments to have some merit. And I consider your attitude smug. I neither condone nor oppose people using their own minds and advancing whatever arguments they see fit, however ad hominem it may become. I'll never oppose somebody's right to say something, no matter how controversial or even stupid, especially when it's in the designated forum (talk pages). If people aren't free to speak their minds, then how do you ever expect the truth to come to the surface? Matt Gies 21:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

In the first place, your blather about us poor, circumcised (oops, I meant, "mutilated") men struggling to reconcile our feelings, unable to be be relied upon for NPOV info, is as close to an armchair psych diagnosis as you could wish for. You simply have no information about the state of our feelings or to what extent they need reconciling with anything, unless we tell you about them. A disinclination to wholeheartedly endorse your POV ≠ confusion, either mental or emotional. And how do I expect the truth to surface? Through a discussion of the facts at hand, and not the arrogant, condescending character analysis that seems to come so easily to you and Dabljuh. Benami 21:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, Benami. I have already told you, that I don't think you are particularly biased, or as such should keep away from Wikipedia. You appear to be able to arrange yourself with others and can cooperate, achieve a consensus and so on. You seem to feel the need to protect Jake from our "attacks" however, see, I just try to protect Wikipedia from him and his disturbing POV. I don't think it is particularly good for his mental health what he's doing either. That may be condescending to you, maybe I am just deeply in gay love with the guy. Maybe I do it all for the good of Wikipedia. Would you believe me if I told you either was the case? I guess not. Dabljuh 22:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I am tempted to say that if you think your actions in this matter are working for the good of WP, then you're the one who needs to get his head examined, but that wouldn't be helpful either. This sort of character analysis, where you address an editor's perceived character, or what you think are his problems, or the ways that he lives his own life that don't agree with your ideas about how to live - anything but his actual arguments - is poisonous to collegiality and consensus.Benami 22:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your presumption, Benami. Although I was actually circumcised as a child myself. I speak from experience. I have confronted my inner demons over this issue; have you? Matt Gies 22:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, fer cryin' out loud... Benami

Look, Matt, you have access to your own feelings. The fact that you were circumcised as a child does not give you some sort of telepathic link with other circumcised men. Again, you don't know about the feelings of anyone on WP unless they tell you about them.Benami 22:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I was just addressing your assumption that I couldn't possibly know the feelings of a circumcised man. And I further disagree with your present assumption that one's feelings cannot be known except to the extent that they are explicitly described by the experiencer of said feelings. Actions often speak louder than words. Matt Gies 23:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That is quite an assumption, Benami. I would say it is very well possible to guess someone's feelings, it's called empathy. And luckily, the fastest way to get to know someone is to have him/her fight with you. When someone uses everything he's got, you can soon learn how that individual thinks and acts, under pressure and without the ability to pay attention to secondary interests. It is not being circumcised or anything that gave me for example insight in how Jakew thinks, it was simply debating with him for a long time and observing his actions and reactions. Empathy is not limited to people with or without a foreskin. And nobody is saying you would have a bias because you lack a foreskin, but nevertheless, you are supporting and defending an individual that simply does not deserve that kind of support, sorry. Dabljuh 22:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't take Sigmund fucking Freud to figure out when someone isn't thinking straight on an issue. Look, there's various reasons why someone could be in favor of a certain issue, but when it comes down to it, and the POV of the particular individual isn't rationally legitimizable given the evidence, you talk of bias.

The question arises, where does bias come from? Most of the time, people are simply untrained in the principles of constructive debate, dispute and so forth and do not realize the necessity of achieving a consensus, and thus, never change their opinion. Sometimes people are just intellectually dishonest and have a POV because of external / conflicting interests. But rarely, or not so rarely, there are deep-rooted psychological reasons for a deep rooted bias. When an individual has spent the last couple years promoting circumcision on the internet, has registered at places like "igotpregnant.com" and "justmommies.com", telling everyone how fucking great circumcision is, it isn't unlogical to suppose that this individual does indeed have some psychological problems with the issue that cause the bias.

It isn't unciv or an npa to try to explain to an individual that it is biased, in fact, not recognizing bias (and subsequently trying to reduce it / factoring it in) would make it harder, or even impossible, to write a truly NPOV article. Observe WP:NPOV:

The idea behind NPOV is not to achieve an ideal state of objectivity but rather that where bias can be detected, it can also be eliminated.

Dabljuh 21:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Not only is it uncivil, it's sleazy. What it does not do, however, is disguise the fact that Jakew argues well and seems to be able to read English without torturing the text into a reflection of his own POV. All your smarmy, faux concern does not make your arguments stronger, or make you appear smarter. Benami 22:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately Jakew does seem to argue well, but his brain seems to totally block out all information that somehow make circumcision look bad. I feel exactly like Walabio here. You're hanging out with the wrong crowd, seriously. Dabljuh 22:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh. My. God. Reading that, um, eccentricly styled (um, argument? no... fair and reasoned presentation of an anti-circumcision POV? hell, no.... rant? Yes, that's it!) rant was supposed to convince me I'm hanging with the wrong crowd? ROTFLMMFAO. Good day, sir. Benami 22:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That's just... wow. That's just a freakish debate, from both sides. Fortunately, my primary beef with circumcision is ethical. I think my head would explode if I tried to learn that much about penises. -.O -Kasreyn 00:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I had never heard of igotpregnant.com before you mentioned it on your RfC. I certainly debate - by invitation - at justmommies and elsewhere, where I have never advocated circumcision, nor said how 'fucking great' it is, but instead have combated propaganda with cautious, well-referenced rebuttals. If that's bias or insanity, so be it, but since you've described the AAP as a biased propaganda organisation (or something like that), I'm disinclined to trust your judgement on the matter. Jakew 21:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I said the AAP are biased, because they have conflicting financial and legal obligation towards their members, that make quite a buck with RIC in the US, and would not only lose this, but also be potentially liable to damages if the public opinion of circumcision swept around too quickly. I didn't say anything about propaganda, though. Dabljuh 21:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, then. I was quoting from memory. Jakew 12:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess things have gotten out of hand when you go out of your way to advocate routine infant circumcision to pregnant mothers. The article is also lacking quite a bit of factual information that has been edited out, and getting anything done seems like a struggle which must discourage most people from touching this article. From that viewpoint I can understand Dabljuh's response, it's very annoying. --ZimZum 22:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you find it annoying, ZimZum, and I'm concerned that you feel factual information has been removed. If a reliable source is cited, information is much less likely to be removed. I don't think this is really so much to ask, as if some information is indeed valuable, it shouldn't be hard to find a reliable source. Jakew 12:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

How about you stop removing possibly valuable information unilaterally as a whole? I mean, if you really miss a source, then a) use the fucking google b) you know pretty much any study in the field c) ASK ON THE FUCKING TALK PAGE. Simply removing gratious amounts of text, because it isn't exactly strengthening your particular POV, is not the good way to do things. That's just POVandalism. I already have tried to explain to you that compromising the article entirely out of 1:1 quotes from any sources is not beneficial to neither NPOV nor an article's readability or flow. Dabljuh 12:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

As you've seen, Dabljuh, I've gone through the text and sourced many, many statements. Those which I can't source I've removed. As you comment, I know the subject well, and I am perhaps guilty of overconfidence in my knowledge at times, but in fairness, very few statements that I've removed have reappeared with sources, which makes me suspect that I'm mostly correct.

Look, I've edited small sections at a time, so why don't you pick a diff that you object to, and we can discuss it?

Incidentally, if you read recent postings to WikiEN-L, you'll see that there is a lot of support for making it official policy to remove unsourced additions. You may also wish to review the in-progress rewrite of WP:V at WP:V/temp. Jakew 12:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be a bit confused, why don't you lay down a bit? They don't mean that every single sentence needs to have a number right next to it. The references are already there. There is no point in posting sometimes the same URL a dozen times. If you have a problem: ASK. Dabljuh 13:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"Sometimes — for example, when the article treats an uncontroversial or simple topic, and draws on a few, widely accepted general sources — it is sufficient to provide a "References" section at the end of the article, containing an alphabetized list of general references and authoritative overviews of a subject (such as textbooks and review articles). In other cases this is not enough, and in addition you should use in-line citations such as the Harvard references or footnotes described below." WP:CITE

If you don't like it, raise the issue at that policy's talk page. Until then, it's policy. Jakew 13:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The policy is almost fine. Right next to that, it say with emphasis:

• the most important thing is to enter comprehensive reference information — that is, enough information so that a reader can find the original source with relative ease.

What I miss there is some clear policy that clearly forbids POVandalism under the guise of "citation needed", though. But that should be clear, since other policies cover that: WP:VAND, WP:NPOV, WP:EQ, WP:CON and WP:WROE Dabljuh 14:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I put it to you, Dabljuh, that if I, quite familiar with the topic, am not able to figure out an appropriate source for something, then how on earth is a casual reader going to manage it with 'relative ease'? Jakew 15:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

One good start would be to learn to use google. Like this. Then you search for a keyword, for example, Meissner's Corpuscles. Since you are familiar with the subject, you should have no problem searching an appropriate site, that is likely to confirm or corroberate the statement. If you do not feel capable of even spending the most minimal amount of time to search for a verification of a statement, then this even more strongly suggest you should abstain from removing unsourced material without first trying to request sources on the talk page. In fact, if you generally reject all information that you don't like, regardless of their reliability, source etc, purely based on the fact that your mind is incapable of receiving that particular bit of information, and can only resort to terrorizing productive contributors, then you should probably abstain from editing on Wikipedia at all. People who are interested in producing a good article, IMHO, aren't interested in selective mutilation of articles that try to provide reliable and neutral information. Dabljuh 15:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You're referring to this? "The controversial ridged band with its thousands of Meissner's corpuscles is always missing and can never be replaced. This possible loss of sensation due to the removal of nerves, on top of the loss of sensation from the permanent uncovering of the glans, may increase difficulty in reaching high levels of sexual pleasure for an adult male."

Ok, problem 1: you acknowledge that it's controversial, yet describe it as though it's unquestioned fact. Problem 2: nobody has ever counted the number of Meissner's corpuscles in the foreskin; Taylor just gave a subjective impression that there were more there than in what he called 'smooth mucosa'. Thousands is sheer speculation. Problem 3: Winkelmann described Meissner's corpuscles in several zones, but not in the prepuce - this further suggests that they should not be asserted as fact. Problem 4: The second sentence is purely speculative, and speculation really does not belong in an encyclopaedia. Problem 5: who has raised this as a consent/ethical issue? I'm more familiar with the scientific side of things.

If you want to try rewriting it so that it is sourced, neutral, factual, and fairly represents the sources, do it. But as it stands, it has too many problems to remain in the article. Jakew 15:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You're starting again with your nonsense. Do you know how you count Meissner's corpuscles? You take a microscope and start counting. A microscope is a device that magnifies things, for example, tissue, and lets one, for example, count the number of organelles in a cell or the number of Meissner's Corpuscles in a foreskin.

I know your sense of judgment is damaged, but do you realize that no authority rejects Taylor's findings? Do you realize that you're pretty much alone in your "fight" against the sensitivity of the foreskin? I don't think that the Meissner's corpuscles are in any way shape or form enough controversial to call them that way in the article, I simply added that a) as a compromise to satisfy you b) as a way to satisfy the concept of a sensitive NPOV-strategy that I have developed for this article, that intentionally under-emphasizes long term adverse sexual and health effects of circumcision, in order not to make circ'd men feel too bad. Dabljuh 15:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know precisely how to count them, Dabljuh, I just recognise that no one has done so. Notice that Taylor gives no quantitative data? Hence, saying 'thousands' is speculation.

Criticism of Taylor is cited in that article. As for the 'authorities', the AAP makes the cautious statement that: "One study suggests that there may be a concentration of specialized sensory cells in specific ridged areas of the foreskin but not in the skin of the penile shaft.17" and the AAFP state: "The AAFP state that "no valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction." That hardly looks like widespread acceptance, does it?

It would help if you would actually try to be neutral, rather than writing POV plus a peace offering. Jakew 16:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing "Sensuality of the foreskin" with "Loss of overall pleasure". The argument goes something like this: While the foreskin is highly sensitive etc, removing it can expose the glans and make the glans more sensitive to stimulation, which is good, or it makes the whole thing less sensitive, which leads to a reduced incidence of premature ejaculation, which therefore is good too. Given this questionable argumentation, whether circumcision produces a decreased sensation is very controversial, therefore.

That the foreskin itself is sensitive, however, is not disputed, (to my knowledge by anyone else but you) and corroberates very well with the historical perception of the foreskin. CIRP on the other hand, referred to and supported by the British Medical Journal as THE source for information on circumcision and the foreskin, attests and emphasizes that a strong loss of pleasure is necessarily to be associated with circumcision. I would say, the loss of sexual pleasure is controversial, but not the existence or number (within an order of magnitude or two) of Meissner's corpuscles in the ridged band/foreskin.

Personally, given the data I find it a matter of good judgment to decide whether circumcision has sensual benefits or adverse effects. But given the relative lack of acknowledgment in the broad medical community, (AAPS and the BMA at least state clearly that the infant or child that is to be circumcised may well want to retain his prepuce) and given the necessary NPOV policy that I have formulated for this article, I think it is necessary to underemphasize the (possible) long term adverse sexual effects of circumcision. Dabljuh 16:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that the foreskin is sensitive, but no research has demonstrated it.

You're mistaken if you think that the BMJ takes such a strong view of CIRP. In fact, a man named Mark Pallen had a column in the BMJ, in which he mentioned CIRP once in 1998. What he said was: "Circumcision is one of those subjects that crops up repeatedly in online medical discussion forums. For useful online information on the subject visit the circumcision information resource on http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/." Clearly, you misrepresent things in your description. Regardless, CIRP is not a reliable source (although I see no harm in linking to the articles they republish from elsewhere).

Finally, you're free to formulate whatever policies you like, but I fully expect the rest of us to apply WP:NPOV. Jakew 16:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

And WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but arguing about whether the largest part of the skin system of the penis is sensitive or not is completely ridiculous. Christopher 23:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, it's not. This whole section of the talk page is actually devoted to the self-denial of some circumcised guys (not all, of course), and naturally, these will deny any sort of information that points towards the foreskin being sensitive, no matter how logical or common sense that would appear. This was just a brief demonstration. Dabljuh 00:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Great. So should we just state that as a fact, citing Wikipedia editors User:Dabljuh and User:Christopherk? Or should we link it to a footnote stating "Everyone knows it's true. Duh!" Jayjg ^(talk) 17:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Or... we just mention Taylor's findings without pretending that they are unreliable or particularly disputed. I would argue against adding material about the psychological reasons for circumcision advocacy though, that's something that belongs, if anwywhere, on the circumcision advocacy site. Dabljuh 17:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, are you still harping on Taylor? He played around with the foreskins he got from 21 cadavers; that's a far cry from proving anything about the foreskin's "sensitivity". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Taylor was sensible enough to merely 'postulate' that it might be sensitive. His critics pointed out some of the many flaws. Jakew 17:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Circumcision for non-religious reasons

I moved the information in this section to the top of the section. I agree that former title wasn't terribly good, but it seems to me that this info needed to be consolidated with the body modification subsection, since that subsection was about non-religious circumcision, too. Benami 12:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the title to "Aesthetics" as it is probably more catchy. Dabljuh 15:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it was a happy choice. Benami 21:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Masturbation

What exactly is the purpose of including the masturbation section? No matter what your position on either masturbation or circumcision is, there's no causal link suggested; it would seem to be a case of post hoc, propter hoc.

No one today (afaik) truly believes there is an important link between the two (there may be a slight difference, but I doubt it's of importance). It's included for historical purposes, as one of the main "reasons" behind the push for widespread routine infant circumcision in America was the idea that circumcision would prevent or reduce masturbation, which was seen by those pushing this as dirty and/or sinful. You're of course right that today, the "masturbation is sinful" argument is almost never heard, but as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia owes it to the public to explain not only the situation as it is, but how it came to be this way. The "issue" of masturbation played a role in the original campaign to get the American public and medical establishment to see routine circumcision in a more favorable light. Therefore, the statistic showing that circumcised men actually masturbate slightly more often than uncircumcised men is interesting, because it would seem to be one point of evidence that the promoters of circumcision were mistaken. At least, that's how I read it. -Kasreyn 05:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this could be profitably moved to the section on history? Benami 20:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is relevant for this bit of information to be in the section about masturbation, but the redundancy with the historical section is certainly not optimal. Dabljuh 20:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that makes no sense. the Maturbation heading is under the larger section about Sexual effects of circumcision. And yet, there is simply no causal link given between circumcision and masturbation. This belongs in the history section. Benami 23:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

We unfortunately only have little medical data on the effect of masturbation. (e.g. the ridiculous survey with "masturbation once a month" rates below 50% for both) Unless we can get some really meaningful medical information in there, I think the only way to avoid rendering the section into a complete stub is to accept a tiny bit of redundancy with the history section. Dabljuh 00:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand my point. Keeping the information in a section dealing with the sexual effects of circumcision is stating that the supposed increase of masturbation is an effect of circumcision. But there is simply no evidence given that that is the case. Claiming that it is an effect in the absence of evidence supporting that, based solely on the fact that circumcised men are reported to masturbate more, is an example of the logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. If you can't show that it is an effect of circumcision, then it doesn't belong in this section. Benami 00:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

We don't know the effects of circumcision on masturbation. All we can do is collect a bit of relevant information and put it there. As it is absolutely unlikely that circumcision would have no effect on masturbation, and masturbation was one of the key reasons why circumcision was introduced into western medicine, we have to write something there - or just that. If you're not happy with the way it is right now, improve it! But I think a tiny bit of redundancy is better than missing a big part of the puzzle. Dabljuh 01:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

And, yes, I don't really understand what your problem is. Just go ahead and improve it, maybe I'll see what you meant then. Dabljuh 01:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Now the "Sexual effects" section lacks any mention of the possible effects of circumcision on masturbation. That is not good. Dabljuh 01:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You are correct: we don't know what effect, if any, circumcision has on masturbation. Since there is no evidence one way or the other, including information suggesting that there is a link would be a mistake. I've moved the masturbation study information to the history section. Benami 01:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggesting that there is no link would be a mistake as well. Even though there's no really competent study on the subject, there is at least some noteworthy trivia that can be added. The effects on intercourse are also poorly understood, still, we have to mention them, because the article wouldn't be complete without them. On a sidenote, the history section is basically just copy & paste from the main history article, and you know how bad this kind of redundancy is ;) Dabljuh 01:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

In order to posit a link, you would need some sort of evidence to support the idea that such a link exists. There is simply no evidence. Benami 01:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] [4] Dabljuh 02:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

A couple of those links don't seem to have anything to do with masturbation at all, but even the first two, that do, simply report that circumcised men masturbate more. They do not even get close to showing a causal link. Hell, the second one, a letter from DOC, points out that circumcised men report more oral sex than uncircumcise men; is it your position that circumcision is the direct cause of more blowjobs? Following the link to the study published in JAMA about increased variety of sexual practice in circumcised men, I found the following sentence in the abstract: "This pattern differs across ethnic groups, suggesting the influence of social factors." Yes, circumcised men report more masturbation. Who knows why? And frankly, who cares? What is the point? Benami 02:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

My personal theory is that circumcised men report more sexual activity of all kinds. Is that what you've asked for? Dabljuh 04:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It could be partially that. Or, since circumcision rates are not constant among all ethnic or social groups (African-Americans and Latinos, for example, have lower incidences of circumcision) it could reflect a lower incidence of reported masturbation (or oral sex, or anal sex, or homosexual experiences, etc.) in those groups, either because they are really having those types of experience less because of cultural reasons, or because they report them less because everything but "plain vanilla" is looked down on. Benami 12:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Scare mongering language

I have problems with language like the following: "The possible catastrophic complications of a poorly carried out circumcision, or of post-operative bleeding or infection, are not to be taken lightly." Besides being a bit of friendly, unsourced advice, it seems to fly in the face of descriptions of circumcison as "generally safe", like this article, which also says that the most common complications are "mild bleeding and local infection".

Postoperative bleeding should absolutely not be taken lightly. A small amount of bleeding that would be trivial to an adult is life threatening to a infant because of the reduced blood volume. Infants have died because of this. Christopher 02:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

(A) How many? Specifically, how many healthy, stable infants have died of post-circumcision bleeding? (B) The article I cited is talking about mild bleeding for infants - not amounts of bleeding that would be mild for an adult but life threatening for an infant. (C) The "catastrophic complications" are very, very rare. Their incidence does not seem to warrant the use of the language, which seems to be simple scaremongering. Circumcision is generally safe, but the article does not mention this fact anywhere. Instead, we get dire - but vague - warnings. Not NPOV. Benami 03:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest a compromise. From the article you linked, complications seem to occur at a maximum rate of 1 in 200 patients. How about we add language to the effect that the complication rate in the U.S.A. is "up to 0.5% of patients", while altering the line on "should not be taken lightly" to indicate that it is parents making the decision who should not take it lightly? 1 in 200 doesn't sound so bad, but if you were a parent being asked to make the decision, you would want to know the risk factor for your child. -Kasreyn 05:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

'Should' strikes me as inherently POV. Who are we to tell parents how to think? Our role is just to inform. Jakew 12:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. While most complications are minor, they have an occurence rate of realistically 2-10% (Assessment of canadian and australian organisations and all the genital integrity dudes). Even minor bleeding or infection can have long term adverse effect on the infant's mental, physical, social and emotional health. 0.2-0.6% is just the rate for serious complications. Any surgery carries risks, and if surgery is to be done on an newborn, even small complications can have catastrophic long term results.

Remember, it is the risks of the procedure that has made all the medical organizations not recommend circumcision on newborns - Not sexual or ethical issues - apart from the AAPS. An adult can sooner report a fever or a feeling of illness than an infant. You may want to give http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/ a long and exhaustive read. At no cost must the risks of the procedure be understated. Remember, in the old article, it was something like a two sentence affair. Now that was disgustingly JPOV. check Circumcision/Dabljuhs_version - I have added a "overall, the risks of the procedure are low" there.

The problem of the risks of infant circumcision is not that the individual risk is quite low, it is that it is so commonly done and usually for completely no reason. The result of this high incidence of infant circumcision is that a high number of children do have mild or serious complications. Cutting any part off an infant is definitely not a wise idea, just medically speaking, and it's good to see that the major health organizations in the US are realizing that as well.

I would be very careful with that section about the risks. People tend to have the idea that it is somewhat like a small snip, but of course that isn't the case. It can well end up life threatening. Remember that there have been a number of death cases been going around in the newspapers in the recent years. Chopping off a perfectly good part of a newborn kid is risky - calling it that is not scare-mongering, this is just objectively assessing the facts. In fact, I right now fail to see exactly why calling it 'goddamn lunacy' isn't objective. If you feel the language in the section is too emotional and not objective enough, go ahead and fix it. But you must be very, very clear about the fact that circumcision is not a harm- or riskless procedure. Because it simply isn't, and who tells you it is, is deceiving you. And the section about the risks will not, in any way, belittle those risks.

That is also why Gairdner's figure will go back into the article. I have strong doubts about the accuracy of the AAP figure. Gairdner's figure was 16/90000 or 1.8/10000 or 1:6000, and since what caused the majority of these deaths isn't known, the risk cannot be safely elimitated from the modern procedure. Dammit why do I have to explain this still? ;_; Dabljuh 04:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No, circumcision is not without risk. And those risks are very small. Anyone who tells you otherwise is deceiving you. Overstating the risks - which the current article does - is not NPOV. And honestly, the Gairdner figures are 56 years old, and the procedures in use then are simply not the ones in use today, especially in regards to anesthesia. The fact that you rely on them so heavily does not speak well for your argument. Benami 04:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, what exactly is JPOV supposed to stand for? Benami 04:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I asked earlier what "JPOV" stood for, but got no answer. I'd still like to know what it means. Nandesuka 13:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for an explanation of JPOV. Forgive me for not assuming good faith, but I'm wary about that first letter. Benami 12:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll look at rewriting that section to better reflect the assessment of the med orgs. Jakew 12:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well here's the problem: Assessing the facts, the medical organizations do not think the Benefits of the procedure outweight the risks - that's an objective fact. Currently, however, we have like 1 page full of risks, and 3-4 pages full of benefits. When you see it like that, this would be POV. I agree to stating even some of the more hilarious and less reasonable benefits of circumcision, because of the NPOV concept that I have developed for this article. But it would not just violate my NPOV concept, but also, Wikipedia's basic NPOV demands, if the risks aren't stated in explicit detail. Since you do have a hard time remaining neutral on the subject, I would suggest you forward the issues that you are having to someone else, and let him do the changes. Dabljuh 15:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No, only one or two medical organisations have stated that benefits do not outweigh risks. We don't know if the others agree or not.

Next, approximate ratios of paragraphs on risk:benefit, in order:

• AAP 2:53 (4%)
• CPS 7:57 (11%)
• AMA 3:11 (21%)
• Wikipedia 16:51 (24%)
• RACP 15:47 (24%)

As can be seen, by your bizarre means of assessing POV, Wikipedia is about as 'pro-circ' as the RACP, but not as much as the AMA, CPS, or AAP.

Finally, will you stop making personal attacks? I have no difficulty remaining neutral and conforming to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, which is the one that counts. Jakew 15:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I do doubt that latter notion very much. You are right however, not all organizations reason their lack of recommendation for circumcision directly with the risk. Others don't even seem to do the whole benefits vs risks calculation and instead raise ethical and legal issues that speak against circumcision. Remember, the british for example stopped circumcision mainly as a result of Gairdner's study which simply said its WAY too risky. But strictly medically speaking, there is no big organization even remotely disputing that the benefits do not outweight the risk. I would thus say, that they in fact do not, and that additionally there are ethical and legal issues involved with circumcision. I am aware that you think they all got it wrong, but sorry, just because you think so, we cannot let the article say so. Dabljuh 15:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The influence of Gairdner's article is questionable. The financial aspects of medicine were dramatically changing at the time due to the formation of the NHS. Anyway, you're attacking a strawman. I'm not proposing changing the article to state that benefits outweigh risks (and as I've said before, I agree with the AAP and AAFP). You're the one complaining that the article is 'POV', when in fact as I've shown several medical organisations actually give benefits more coverage, proportionally. Jakew 16:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That obviously does not mean that we have to do the same, of course. The problem is that laypeople who do not have as carefully investigated the benefits and risks may be mislead by the far greater number of benefits that the risk was comparably small. If the article as a whole conveyed that image, it'd fail in the NPOV department.

By the way, personally I think that the article is currently way more neutral than it was before. Not perfect, you still have the tendency to chop off anything that you think sort of opposes circumcision, including valuable information etc but absolutely not comparable to the old article. So I think I was quite successful in making the article more neutral, the only reason I'm hanging around here is to keep in check your bizarre drive to chop off and mutilate the article. Dabljuh 16:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there even the slightest possibility that you will adhere to WP:CIVIL, and use the Talk:pages for their intended purpose, or is that a lost cause? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Jake wrote, "No, only one or two medical organisations have stated that benefits do not outweigh risks. We don't know if the others agree or not." In my opinion that is a misrepresentation of the position of the professional medical organizations. Some medical organizations say the medical benefits of circumcision do not outweigh the risk, some say there is no medical indication for circumcision, and some say infant circumcision is not essential to a child's health. For example:

• The Royal Australasian College of Physicians -- "After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision." (emphasis in original document) "Review of the literature in relation to risks and benefits shows there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure in the neonate."
• British Medical Association -- "The British Association of Paediatric Surgeons advises that there is rarely a clinical indication for circumcision."
• Canadian Paediatric Society -- "The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns."
• American Academy of Pediatrics -- In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child." (emphasis added)
• College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia -- "Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure, however, no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention."

DanBlackham 02:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Good job on collecting the data. However, what's more important when finding what "the" medical consensus is, is to find corroborating statements or rebutting. We find e.g. not a single medical association that thinks that the benefits do outweight the risks. Or we find emphasis that the prepuce is useful and should not be removed lightly. The medical consensus could not be much clearer, ultimately. Dabljuh 07:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Medical Organizations and recommendations

I've read the claim on several anti-circ websites and in papers and speeches by anti-circ physicians that "no medical organization in the world recommends routine infant circumcision". A rather bold and eye-catching statement. Our article as it currently stands states that "most" do not recommend it. For it to be only "most" and not "all", this must mean there are some who do. Can anyone refer me to these organizations who do recommend it? I of course refer only to respected medical organizations that qualify as reliable sources. Failing such cites, wouldn't it be more appropriate and less like original research, for us to state only what we know, such as "no known medical organization recommends..." etc.? -Kasreyn 05:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The California Medical Association is one example, Kasreyn. I can't find it on their site, but here's a link to anti-circ activists reporting on attempts to change this.[5]

Even if they didn't exist, it would still be inappropriate to say 'no organisation', since that's practically impossible to verify, especially as most of those won't have English-language policies. 'No known' is original research, since it means 'to us, Wikipedian editors'. I still suggest citing the AMA's assessment that Canadian, Australian, and American associations do not recommend it. Jakew 11:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

From that viewpoint, even using a word like "most" is OR. "Most" is a term which implies "a majority but certainly not all", as in, there is a known minority quantity. This seems to be misrepresentational, though, since we don't have any citations of known minority (recommend) organizations. Therefore isn't "most" OR because the term by its nature implies that there is lopsided division rather than unanimity? I think you're placing too high a standard on the terminology here, Jakew. "No known" does, indeed mean, "no organization known to us, the wikipedia editors" - but that's just it: wikipedia is us, and we are it. Therefore, "no known" also means "no organization known to wikipedia". Is it OR to point out known gaps in our own knowledge? -Kasreyn 19:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the correct wording is "No national or international organisation recommends circumcision". Dabljuh 14:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

With 192 countries in the world, many of which will have several relevant medical organisations, that's going to be a lot of work to verify. Jakew 15:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The fun part is, only the english speaking ones make public policies like the one we observe. Also, that's what nocirc says. And given the assessment of the AMA. WHO and AI of course don't recommend circumcision either. In fact, nobody recommends routine circumcision except for a few, rather isolated looking doctors. Remember what I said about circumcision advocacy being a fringe view? Dabljuh 15:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If you make a claim, it needs to be verifiable. Since you obviously can't verify your own claims, policy insists that instead you state what you can verify; in this case, the AMA's assessment regarding the Canadian etc. associations. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)