Talk:Circumcision/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

---

Where would this hypothetical edit go in Wikipedia?

In the context of fieldwork among the Kenuz Nubians, El Guindi has argued for "the significance of the notion of the cultural equivalence of male and female circumcision," and further argues "that this cultural equivalence extends analytically as a structural equivalence: that is, the two gendered rituals play equivalent roles in the transition of male and female children to adulthood."[1]

Since this article inexplicably bans all discussion of the circumcision of females, and the female genital cutting article bans any comparison to male circumcision (but oddly, not contrasts), it seems that there is nowhere in Wikipedia a place for scholarship concerning any comparisons of any kind between the circumcision of males and females. It seems El Guindi's published views, like all views concerning any such comparisons, are suppressed by the imposed structures. Could the reason be POV? Blackworm (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

How does an article ban anything? And what exactly are "imposed structures"? Either a piece of information is referenced and relevant to the article subject, or it's not. That said, of course there are strong POVs involved on an immediately and unavoidably personalised hot button topic like this. The only advice I can offer you is to do what I did: look for other areas of interest and don't lose yourself in the same endless dispute over and over. Wikipedia offers an increasingly comprehensive bouquet of heat and noise to dive in; endless conflicts of interest, gaming the system, intellectual dishonesty, ownership, bullying, low-level long-term disruption. There are far more places where you can't do anything to improve the encyclopedia because of dirty tactics being shamelessly employed for the sake of a questionable status quo. Why try in vein here, when you can as well try in vein elsewhere for a change? Alternatively, create a niche for yourself and write about something completely different or find other ways to participate. If however your primary goal is to educate others, then I can only hope you are willing to be educated in turn. Otherwise, you're no better than the trolls who come here with a set agenda. User:Dorftrottel 08:13, January 28, 2008

Thank you for the comment. I'm not sure if it was intended as humour but I must say I found the part about trying in vain elsewhere for a change very amusing. One major point of Wikipedia is to assume good faith, and the day I give up on that, I might as well give up on Wikipedia entirely. My primary goal is not to educate others, it's to help make a encyclopedia worthy of being called a neutral reference work. I have indeed been educated on how to do that, mostly by reading WP policies. I believe that if they are put into practice, they will work. Unfortunately, WP is still edited by humans with points of view, and sometimes even by humans wishing to promote or oppose the presentation of specific, notable, verifiable points of view.

As for how an article bans an idea, the mechanism and effect are clear -- through a strongly enforced, narrow, and incomplete definition of a topic, this article and all related articles ban the idea that circumcision also includes the circumcision of females, thus implying that the topic refers strictly to procedures on males, and that any other usage is incorrect. Any reader of George Orwell knows how control of language gives rise to control of ideas. The groups who wish to control (i.e. eliminate) the idea that male and female circumcision are in any way comparable or related have an interest in separating the terminology. This isn't done in secret; organizations like the UN's specialized agency the WHO, openly admit to be promoting the introduction of new terminology to describe female circumcision (and thus effectively redefining the term "circumcision") so as to eliminate undesired associations between the practices of male circumcision and female circumcision. They simultaneously campaign for mass male circumcision (with alarming effects, IMO) and claim that female circumcision is a human rights violation. These two tasks would be much more difficult to justify if the term used was "circumcision" in both cases. I don't believe Wikipedia, as a supposedly neutral reference, should engage in or assist this advocacy, even if 99% of editors were convinced that the advocacy is otherwise something they would support. I believe the current organization of the articles does just that, and find it difficult not to conclude that it is either purposely done to support this advocacy, or, perhaps as a matter of greater concern, done unconsciously because the WHO and similar groups have already succeeded in eliminating ideas through their recent redefinition of words and phrases in the English language. Sorry if this is soapboxish, but you asked about my goals... WP:NPOV pretty much sums them up, along with the Five Pillars. Can WP:NPOV be followed here, or are we to give up on it? Blackworm (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe the article is currently as fair & balanced as it will get. Why not go to WP:FAC? If there are still issues that could and should be improved, the article can only benefit from the attention of multiple uninvolved users. User:Dorftrottel 11:48, January 28, 2008

Female genital cutting already contains a quote which comments on a comparison of male and female circumcision: "this procedure in whatever form it is practised is not at all analogous to male circumcision." I think right next to that quote would be a good place for the above quote, per WP:NPOV. (Is it a real quote, or just hypothetical?) Since the words for female circumcision are being changed, the page on that topic seems to me a good place to discuss related nomenclature. There's no particular reason why female circumcision can't be mentioned on this page, or male circumcision on that page, if it's somehow relevant to the topic. This page may also be a possible place for such a quote; or Circumcision in cultures and religions. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The above quote doesn't seem to be discussing terminology, and I wonder if perhaps a better approach might be to shorten the Cook quote, so that it stays closer to the topic within the 'terminology' section? In any case, Talk:Female genital cutting seems a more appropriate place to discuss changes to that article, so perhaps we should discuss it there.

I think that comparisons are sometimes useful in an encyclopaedia. For example, it might be helpful to describe a skyscraper as "about the height of the Eiffel Tower". However, where the comparison is itself controversial, the value can be diminished. For example, if we were to say that "according to author X, it is about the height of the Eiffel Tower, but according to author Y, X is a 'bloody idiot' and there is 'no comparison'", it doesn't seem to tell the reader very much about the skyscraper. Indeed, the subject no longer seems to be "the skyscraper", but instead "[the dispute over] the relationship between the height of the skyscraper and the Eiffel Tower".

I'm not saying that such material doesn't belong anywhere in Wikipedia, but I think that we need to think carefully about whether it belongs in a particular article. Since Wikipedia articles are of limited length, we can't include every piece of information that's remotely related to the subject; we must select information to summarise. "Because it's there" may be a good reason for climbing Everest, but I think we need something better for selecting material. If the dispute is itself notable, perhaps a case can be made for an article about 'the relationship between male circumcision and female genital cutting'. As an alternative, since this quote is about the cultural significance of practices "in the context of ... the Kenuz Nubians", perhaps Nubians is an appropriate place?

Similarly, there is some debate in the literature over whether circumcision may be compared to a vaccine (this often, but not always, seems to occur in the context of HIV). I'm not convinced that covering this debate would add value to the article, since it would convey little information about circumcision itself. Jakew (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig, I would argue that any information concerning the circumcision of females is directly related to the topic of circumcision. It seems... self-evident? As for your statement that the words for female circumcision are being changed, that seems to beg the question, Who are these benevolent masters working to change the words for female circumcision for us? And, how exactly are the words being changed? By decree? Finally, for what purpose do you believe the words are being changed? Note, I do not disagree that they are indeed being changed, in fact you seem to echo my very points above. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but I think the particular choice of words was bang on. Blackworm (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Female genital cutting is not "circumcision". It is amputation of the clitoris rather than the skin around it and often includes sewing up the labia. It is directly comparable to removing the entire glans of the penis and sewing the foreskin closed rather than amputating just the foreskin. Sure there are aspects of similarity, for example the social coming-of-age aspect and the fact that both procedures involve sharp implements and the genitals, but the differences are more fundamental than the similarities. Calling the amputation of a clitoris 'female circumcision' is an aspect of POV in action (I know that this is the 'traditional' term but I suspect that it originated from a misunderstanding and therefore changing the term to 'female genital cutting' or 'clitoral amputation' provides clarity rather than obscuring anything). This is not to get involved in the argument over whether the amputation of a foreskin is a good thing, but comparing the two procedures is not valid. It is like comparing electric shock treatment to using a crash cart to restart a heart... yeah, they both involve electricity but they are not really related otherwise.SimonHolzman (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your assertions are either debatable opinion, or patently false. Webster's gives one definition of "circumcision" as a cross-reference to "female genital mutilation." Also, your other assertions are contradicted by multiple reliable sources in the Female genital cutting article. Female genital cutting, a phrase redefined by the WHO, encompasses a range of procedures greatly varying in severity; from a piercing, a pinprick, or contact with herbs, to cutting (excision) of tiny amounts of tissue, to excision of larger amounts of tissue, to excision and infibuation (which is what you refer to). Since "female genital cutting" also encompasses procedures that do not involve any cutting, excision, or removal of any tissue, your assertion that the term provides clarity is also demonstrably false. Your other assertions are original research, unsupported by reliable sources, and are at best opinion. Luckily for you, your opinion seems to be reflected by the organization of this article. For the moment, anyhow, until a neutral party with authority reviews the multiple policy violations in this article, from the title, definition and lead on down. Blackworm (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So the term 'Female Circumcision' is more accurate in your opinion ? The point I was making was that female circumcision is minimally comparable with male circumcision and your list of the variety of procedures encompassed by 'female genital cutting' confirms my point. Thank you for your support. BTW, since when was opinion or original research forbidden on Talk pages ?SimonHolzman (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The above user, SimonHolzman, has likened me personally to Hitler, on my talk page, [with this edit]. I will not be responding to this user. Blackworm (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not liken Blackworm to Hitler, I said that Blackworm appeared to have nothing positive to say about circumcision and then commented that most topics have some positive aspects, for example, Hitler was supposedly fond of dogs. My comparison was between circumcision and Hitler, not between Blackworm and Hitler. I apologized immediately Blackworm made me aware that he felt offended. It was not my intention to offend or insult him and while I might perhaps have expressed myself better, I still do not think that my comment can be taken as abusive by anyone who is not hypersensitive. Please look at the message I left Blackworm in his comment above and judge for yourself. I had asked Blackworm a question on his personal talk page because of a genuine interest in the answer and aware that Blackworm might legitimately choose not to answer it. However, if Blackworm refuses to respond to my questions on THIS talk page, I think it reflects more on him than on me and harms the discussion rather than furthering it. As such, since Blackworm claims to have accepted my apology, I hope that he will reply to my message above.SimonHolzman (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I will not, because despite your apology, you continue to be incivil with comments such as "Thanks for your support" and your accusation of hypersensitivity. I too invite readers to judge for themselves whether an editor introducing themselves as Jewish, regarding a topic of high sensitivity and importance to Jews, appropriately told an editor he viewed as critical of the topic: I am curious because you seem to have no positive feelings about it, and so I wonder why this is. After all, Hitler was apparantly kind to dogs. At the very best, it was an extremely poorly chosen and ambiguous analogy. At worst, and reasonably interpreted as such, it was a gross accusation of antisemitism. Blackworm (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Including the sentence immediately before the excerpt you chose to quote I said, Overall, I have mixed feelings about [circumcision] and see some benefits and some dangers. I am curious because you seem to have no positive feelings about it, and so I wonder why this is. After all, Hitler was apparantly kind to dogs. As I have said, I intended it as comparison between circumcision and Hitler and did not intend any slur on you. The Thank you for your support above was prior to any misunderstanding on this issue. I do not think this dialogue between us serves any further purpose. Please feel free to reply to this as I do not want to be seen to be shutting down this by having the last word, but I will not reply unless you say anything inappropriate, which I am sure you would not do.SimonHolzman (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to concur with the observation that it's reasonable to compare the two practices, as long as legitimate sourcing is provided, because female genital cutting does indeed encompass a number of procedures, some of which can be considered milder and some harsher than male circumcision. Thus, I see nothing wrong with including neutrally worded comparisons in either of the articles. ~ Homologeo (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that any reasonable comparison will be meaningless since female genital cutting encompasses many procedures while male circumcision is basically a single procedure. It's like comparing cats with Bill Gates. You would need to specify which procedure you are comparing and the differences probably outweigh the similarities. If you can draft a fair comparison, by all means do so, but I would suggest that it would be better in a standalone 'Comparison of Male and Female Circumcision' article.SimonHolzman (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There are several authors who would agree with you, Simon, though of course there are others who would disagree. Similarly, there are several authors who believe it to be appropriate to compare circumcision to a vaccine, and others who would disagree with that. As I see it, though, this article is already quite long enough, and adding sufficient material to cover both sides of these sub-debates would make it far longer. Unfortunately, in spite of that added length, it would tell the reader relatively little about the subject of the article, but would instead discuss at great length whether certain analogies are appropriate or inappropriate. Looking at it another way, if we were to cut material from the article to make space for these analogies, I can't find anything suitable. I tend to agree that such material, if it belongs anywhere, should probably be in its own article. Jakew (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This article's title is "Circumcision". It does not specify a gender and therefore neither should we. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This has, of course, been discussed at some length previously (both in this section and in the archives), and I would encourage you to read through those discussions. It would be foolish to have multiple articles about "female circumcision", and as the hatnote at the start of the article notes, "This article is about male circumcision. For female circumcision, see Female genital cutting...." Jakew (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Male Genital Cutting?

In the interests of NPOV, perhaps this article should be moved to 'Male genital cutting' and redirected from here, in order to correspond with the page on female circumcision which is entitled 'female genital cutting'. Bagofants (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If and when "male genital cutting" becomes the commonly used term for circumcision, then we can move the article to reflect that. Until then, Wikipedia needs to reflect the language used in the real world. Jakew (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. It should reflect the *facts*. 'Male Genital Cutting' is a much more descriptive title for an article about the cutting of the male genitals. Perhaps upon renaming the article you could clarify with "Male Genital Cutting AKA circumcision". 'Male Genital Cutting' currently redirects to 'Genital modification and mutilation', which incidentally has a section on male circumcision. Perhaps the best solution would be to merge this article into that page, as circumcision is a form of genital modification, and some would argue a form of mutilation. Bagofants (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about the cutting of the male genitals. It is about the removal of the foreskin of the penis, a procedure known as circumcision. Per use common names, we therefore call it 'circumcision'. "Male genital cutting", if the term were in common usage, would presumably include vasectomy, castration, penectomy, subincision, and indeed any procedure in which the male genitals were cut.

Your proposal to merge this article into the page about GM&M makes no sense. Would you propose to merge every surgical procedure article into surgery on grounds that they are forms of surgery? Jakew (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The foreskin is an integral part of the penis and the section of the penis with the most nerve receptors. Do you also advocate considering the clitoral hood separate to the vagina? The clitoral hood of the vagina is analogous to the foreskin of the penis. In fact, they are the same thing until male genitals begin forming. Jookieapc (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

'Every surgical procedure' is not related to genital mutulation or modification. Similarly, whilst in the Western world circumcision is usually carried out as a surgical procedure, in some parts of the world it is carried out as a ritual and for non-medical purposes. Whilst, obviously, merging all forms of surgery into one article is ludicrous, circumcision and 'genital cutting' are closely enough linked to be merged, and the total length of the article would not be excessive, so my proposal makes perfect sense. Also, you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with male circumcision. Were you circumcised yourself or it it just a sexual fetish? Bagofants (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact remains that you are proposing to take an article that can be categorised in a certain way (a procedure that modifies the genitals), and to merge this into the article for that category. Logically, this is equivalent to arguing that an article that is a form of surgery should be merged into surgery. Indeed, one wonders what you propose to do with the other procedures I mentioned. Should they be merged into GM&M as well? Or perhaps they should be merged into surgery instead? Or maybe initiation rite? Actually, since most articles fall into several categories, should we get rid of separate articles and just have a single, giant article called 'Wikipedia'? Jakew (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Following your logic, then yes, Circumcision should exist as it's own article, in which case the few paragraphs about male circumcision should be removed from the 'Genital modification and mutilation' article. In fact, the article 'Genital modification and mutilation' should be split and a new article created for each type of genital modification and mutilation featured in the article (or content merged with existing articles if they already exist), namely: body modification, voluntary gender-reassignment, involuntary gender assignment, male circumcision, and female circumcision. As articles for these subjects seem to already exist, the content within the article 'Genital modification and mutilation' is superfluous. This is, of course, following your logic of having a separate article for every single aspect of something. Bagofants (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess Jakew is trying to come up with an answer, 6 days later. Funny how that works when they (him and his friends) are wrong about something. I can't wait for my comment to get reverted (as quickly as possible) or shot down by him and his pro-circ/admin/mod friends who try so hard to push their POV. I think, of all the edits ever done to the Circ page and this talk page over these years, this one suggesting the merge is the most intelligent of all. Of course Jakew and his friends would never allow their precious page to turn into a redirect and have their pro-circ agenda be smashed into a sub-category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.159.46 (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Circumcision is the commonly used term. It makes sense to keep it distinct. If there is future shift in word usage, then we can consider consolidation. I will add that I could not find online any dictionary that refers to circumcision as "Male genital cutting." To suggest that we ignore the conventional meaning of words is quite simply bad writing. So while Wikipedia is not a dictionary we should still use words and categories that are most broadly understood. Mattnad (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The problem is that circumcision is the commonly used term for the act of "[cutting] off the foreskin of (a male) or the clitoris of (a female)."[2] This article is strictly about male circumcision, and thus should be titled "Male circumcision," per WP:TITLE. That there is vehemently strong resistance to this idea from a core group of editors with the minority point of view that "female circumcision" does not exist as a valid term, suggests that WP:NPOV issues continue to run wild in this article. Blackworm (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm is unfortunately misrepresenting the position of those with whom he disagrees, and nobody has claimed that "female circumcision" is an invalid term. For previous discussions, please see the archives or Talk:Circumcision and law#Neutrality. Jakew (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I never said you claimed that female circumcision is an invalid term, I said you believe that female circumcision is an invalid term. You avoid it, you put it in quotes when you use it, and you define "circumcision" as exclusively applicable to males and you defend that definition vigorously. You want to separate the concept of circumcision from anything related to females. I don't blame you. I could support your advocacy. But Wikipedia isn't the place for your advocacy. Blackworm (talk) 08:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the title should not be changed to "male genital cutting" because circumcision is the term most commonly used. However this article should either be renamed to "Male Circumcision" or "Female Circumcision" should be merged into this article. This follows the reasoning about terms in common use. Female genital cutting, however, is a more accurate term for female circumcision types II and III as these procedures are more severe and analogous to the removal of the penis and scrotum. Jookieapc (talk) 09:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

POV?

Am I the only one who read this article and got a Circumcision propaganda pamphlet? I think it needs some serious revising, but I won't throw up a POV tag if I'm the only one who thinks so. 202.182.83.31 (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but there's not much point putting in a POV tag as it will get instantly removed by editors insisting to the people in the neutrality dispute that there is no neutrality dispute. And if you don't have six hours a day to engage in "discussion," I wouldn't bother trying to revise the article either. Blackworm (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes throw up a POV FLAG on circumcision. This is probaly THE MOST biased page on all of wikipedia (or at least that I have ever seen.) If anything it should be about the PRACTICE. There should be a separate page with equal length given to the pro and con side. But this is a ridiculous site. It's all about how this procedure can reduce HIV even tho circumcision INCREASES herpes and clamitia, no discussion about that. It's so biased. Everyone knows that there are PROS and CONS to practically everything. But with the penis, people get touchy and wants the "truth" to spin their way. This site is a pro-circumcision propaganda page. It should be neutral. Flag it.

Yes, this article is highly biased. Let us not forget the many past studies showing medical "benefits" to circumcision which have almost all been discredited due to original authors' high disregard for the scientific method. Authors of this page seem to have their own agenda, favoring opinions of American researchers (who are themselves mostly circumcised) over non-American investigators. POV is justified. Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, you can't just throw up a POV flag and then walk away. The non-neutral POV in this article, if any, has to be spelled out and challenged. I've attempted to do just that, as have others. In some cases, perhaps the challenge is unjustified; in others, perhaps it is, but we won't ever know, since all challenges seem to be intensely resisted by the same few editors, who in turn remove the POV flag without consensus. My advice would be to zero in on the content you believe violates policy, and make a case challenging it, or voice your support for others' arguments. There are plenty here and in the archives (restart archived discussions on the current page, not the archive). Do so neutrally, without attempting to simply shift the non-neutral POV to an opposing POV, and without injecting bias or losing good faith in the other editors. This is a lot of work. Is anyone up to the task? Blackworm (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that it seems slightly biased but not, imho, worth a POV flag. I hope people continue attempting to fix it though. English wikipedia isn't North American, it's international and should reflect international standards and practices. This article seems like it's written based pretty much entirely on North America when it comes to the parts detailing pro/cons and ethical ideas. It seems to represent people against circumcision as a minority group and/or "special" in some way, while it is, worldwide, the other way around. Like I said previously most of the article is fine but if most of the people contributing weren't North American I think it'd have quite a different wording even if it would contain most of the same studies/facts. Most Scandinavians I've talked with about this, and for that matter most Europeans, seem to pretty much equate circumcision with genital mutilation. This article in no way reflects this quite prevailing point of view. I'd have a hard time pointing out the specific parts that left me with the above impression, it's pretty much just the pro/con and very value-addled way the article is presented. I might give it a shot at a later date. Araziel (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, your argument seems to be that the prevailing point of view is anti-circumcision, and the article ought to reflect that. Unfortunately, there are two problems with this argument. First, you haven't provided any verifiable evidence to support your claim (suitable evidence might be, for example, a reliable study in which a representative sample of people of various nationalities were polled for their views on circumcision). Second, it is difficult to understand how one could "reflect" this point of view while adhering to the neutral point of view policy. Jakew (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would Araziel need evidence of that type, but you don't need evidence of that type to call those opposed to circumcision fringe or zealots or a tiny minority, running them out of this article, and throwing phrases like "undue weight" around based on your assumptions of relative prevalence of the views? Congrats, though, on your awards on your user page for keeping out anti-circumcision views. Blackworm (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You completely misunderstand me. I didn't mean to say that the article should read like an anti-circumcision pamphlet, and bringing up studies about how people feel about circumcision is way besides the point. The offhand comment I made about my friends was just that, an offhand comment, it has nothing to do on a wikipedia article. It was done to illustrate the fact that as of right now the wording of some parts is obviously done by someone who is pro-circumcision, as opposed to, if this was written by western Europeans, it would read more like the aforementioned anti-circumcision pamphlet. As the nice and neutral people we are we naturally want neither to be prevailing, but rather it all sound rather unbiased and plain.Araziel (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I can't see the pro-circumcision wording myself (evidently being western European is not enough!). But it might help if we could discuss a concrete example. Can you give me any examples of such material? Jakew (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The article appears to lean towards pro circumcision however it may simply be my natural aversion to genital mutilation clouding my judgment. What comes to mind after reading the entire article is the feel of it being weighted with more sources for circumcision. Sure I could add many more sources against to balence out but feel this is a hot topic and wish to throw in my 2 cents here. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

How is the attempt going so far? Blackworm (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Pretty gritty. Deeply estabished bias. Many players. I did get a chuckle over the circumcision is evil anon ;P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garycompugeek (talk • contribs) 03:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Dubious edits

I'm reverting these edits for the following reasons:

• The edit changed *"The act of cutting off the prepuce or foreskin of males, or the internal labia of females." Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [3] to *"The act of cutting off the prepuce or foreskin of males, or the labia of females." Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [4] -- why would we want to misquote a source?

• Addition of: "In 1997 the New York Times printed an article on circumcision increasing one's risk of contracting herpes, clamidia, and even HIV. Since then, doctors have debated these facts with different studies, showing different results. However, the UN's World Health Organization only backs one study. [5] [6]"

• Problem 1. This report is about Laumann's study (JAMA 1997;277(13):1052-7). As I've already noted in an edit summary, we should not give undue weight to a single observational study. Since there have been some 30 or so observational studies, we clearly haven't room to discuss every primary source. Instead, if we are to discuss non-HIV STD studies, it is most logical to cite a systematic review, such as that of Weiss et al.
• Problem 2. The cited article in the NY Times mentions herpes and chlamydia, but not HIV. We should not misrepresent sources.
• Problem 3. The sentence beginning "Since then" is unsupported by sources.
• Problem 4. The WHO do not "back one study", but explicitly refer in their recommendations to three randomised controlled trials and the earlier observational studies.
• Problem 5. The second link is apparently unrelated to the preceding text.

For these reasons, I'm reverting. Jakew (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the HIV. That was a totally different article. I'm trying to find it now but I can't remember where I found it. Anyway, yeah, just make it herpes and chlamydia or "STD's" But don't delete the entire sentence. That's mean. Please stop. The New York Times and many other well known papers have articles online about this stuff but the New York Times seems like the most well-known. They all said circumcision increases risks of many STD's other than HIV. The HIV article was a bit controversial. But thankfully, the New York Times has been around longer than the UN even. (: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.38.167 (talk • contribs)

The New York Times was simply reporting on a paper published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (arguably somewhat inaccurately: the paper reported that "We find no significant differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men in their likelihood of contracting sexually transmitted diseases."). But the problem is that Laumann's study was just one of many observational studies to assess the link between circumcision and STDs, and we need to present a representative picture. If we say "the procedure may potentially increase the risk of herpes and chlamydia", we're misleading the reader when systematic reviews indicate that the evidence overall suggests that it reduces the risk (herpes) or that there is no association (chlamydia). Jakew (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL. That's the most pathetic argument I've seen in a long time. The New York Times piece should stay. LPRABCMP (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to balance the article, discuss genital warts. It's not discussed at all in this article; I'll leave the reader to decide why that is. As for undue weight, the singular opinion in a letter to the editor that it is "more humane" not to give infants anaesthesia during circumcision shines as the best example -- but good luck getting that removed, too. Blackworm (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Great quote from a study we cite

This is from a source we use to claim that uncircumcised men are at greater risk of human papilloma virus (HPV) infection:

Circumcision was reported as being present by examination in only 14 (1.4%) participants. Self-reported and physical examination circumcision were discordant in 88 participants who classified themselves as circumcised and six who reported no circumcision but who were evaluated as circumcised by interviewers. We chose to report the findings of self-reported circumcision. The prevalence of circumcision in Mexico is very low and the interviewers who did the physical examination may not be accustomed to it and may have been unable to identify its presence.

These guys really seem like they know what they're doing, eh? The subjects could have been thinking, hmmm, I'll say I'm circumcised, and the results of my STD test will influence matter-of-fact statements about circumcision in Wikipedia, which is supposedly "more accurate than Britannica." Ha. Just goes to show how studies can show whatever they want to show. Like editors. Blackworm (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Another great quote from a source we cite, describing another amputated penis as a result of circumcision: Immediate re-suturing of the amputated glans led to a satisfactory outcome. Haha! I love that! "Satisfactory outcome." What a world. Blackworm (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Metzizah b’peh : isnt this where a rabbi sucks the blood off of a babies penis after he makes the incision? Should this be mentioned somewhere under the religion section? Or will the propoganda continue..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.242.84 (talk • contribs)

Hey people. I noticed female circumcision at the top says "also known as female genital mutilation (fgm)" well we have to be fair and make sure everyone knows where to find this page. So, let's say right after the first word, "also known as male genital mutilation (mgm)" After all, some people do call it that. That's what "also known as" means. Here is some proof. http://www.mgmbill.org/ http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/net-quot/ LPRABCMP (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just let me hear what you all think. (I already know what Jakew is going to think) Let me know what anybody else thinks about MGM. LPRABCMP (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Random websites can call it whatever they wish. We are concerned with terms used in reliable sources. Jakew (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh??? Also known as means... What some people may know it as...That's why you put it down. Seriously, dude. Retarded. 70.114.38.167 (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

new study

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22096758/

New study (US Center for disease control, CDC) finds that circumcision does not affect HIV in American men. This is HUGE, it's definately worth going up. 70.114.38.167 (talk) 07:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it will see the light of day in this article. Good luck. Blackworm (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Same problem as with Laumann - we can't give undue weight to a single observational study. Jakew (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Told ya. My reason was that we're not allowed to suggest that anyone believes circumcision doesn't cure AIDS. Blackworm (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Circumcision does not cure AIDS. I am not aware of anyone reputable that claims it does. There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the chance of being infected by AIDS but I suspect that this only applies to people who are not engaged in high-risk lifestyles.SimonHolzman (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR. Circumcision prevents AIDS and we will not allow any studies implying otherwise to be cited in this article. Wait, uhhh... Ask Jakew why again, I'm not sure. Blackworm (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, I know why. (: hehehehehehe it has to do with little jake 70.114.38.167 (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Um..why don't you actually read the article Jakew, it's not based off a single study, the CDC claims it is based off YEARS of studieS! Please stop edit warring. The CDC is reputable. Please, let's not have this again. Facts are facts jakew. 70.114.38.167 (talk) 06:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you re-read the article yourself. Jakew (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And please do not misrepresent things by claiming that "the U.S. Center for Disease Control officially states that circumcision does not affect HIV in American men". Their factsheet on circumcision (Feb '08) may be found here. Jakew (talk) 09:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A Centers for Disease Control study found that circumcision "does not appear to help American men of color" in the context of HIV prevention. Would that be an unacceptable rendering of this secondary source, Jakew? Blackworm (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In medical analysis of circumcision#Circumcision and HIV/AIDS, we describe Millett's study as follows:

'Millett et al in a study published in The Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes in 2007 found no association in three major US cities between circumcision and HIV infection among Latino and black men who have sex with men (MSM). They conclude as follows: [paragraph break] "In these cross-sectional data, there was no evidence that being circumcised was protective against HIV infection among black MSM or Latino MSM."'

Although the language could doubtless be improved, that seems a fairly accurate description. Furthermore, because it is in an appropriate article in which we can and do discuss observational studies at length, we can include such a description without giving undue weight to a single study. Jakew (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a rendering of the primary source. It is preferred to quote secondary sources where possible. This article dedicates a large amount of text to convincing the reader of the protective effect of male circumcision against HIV. How can one sentence presenting an opposing opinion, sourced by a major news source, be "undue weight?" I don't see anything in policy about the appropriateness of observational studies in the main circumcision article, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Your claim of undue weight seems, again, purely arbitrary; especially considering your vehement defense of the worst example of undue weight in this aticle, namely the singular opinion of two people, expressed in a letter to the editor, that it is somehow more humane not to provide anaesthesia to male infants before cutting off their foreskins. Blackworm (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The primary source is more reliable than the secondary source (see WP:MEDRS#In science, avoid citing the popular press), and so it is preferred. However, if you insist on a secondary source, we alter that article to cite the CDC factsheet, which briefly discusses Millett's study in the section entitled "HIV Infection and Male Circumcision in the United States" (Millett is their ref 27).

As for the appropriateness of observational studies, I refer you to WP:MEDRS#Assess the quality of evidence available. Observational studies are class III in the AHRQ scheme, whereas RCTs are 1b. Where space is limited, we should therefore prefer higher quality evidence.

If we were to discuss each and every observational study, there would be no undue weight problem. However, since that is unrealistic, we need to ensure that we're painting a representative picture. Since "most [observational] studies show an association between male circumcision and prevention of HIV"[7], we need to be careful that our coverage reflects that fact. If the only observational studies we discussed were exceptions to this rule, then we would be misrepresenting the majority of the literature by giving undue weight to the exceptions. Jakew (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Jake, your quote is disingenuous. Restoring the context of the quote: Study quality was very variable and no studies measured the same set of potential confounding variables. Therefore, conducting a meta-analysis was inappropriate. Detailed quality assessment of observational studies can provide a useful visual aid to interpreting findings. Although most studies show an association between male circumcision and prevention of HIV, these results may be limited by confounding, which is unlikely to be adjusted for. The people you quote seem to believe that the "representative picture" you wish to present as uncontested fact is actually quite blurry indeed. The problem is, of course, that what "most studies show" is presented as absolute, unopposed fact. Nowhere in this article is there any implication that it is possible that circumcision does not prevent HIV. Everywhere in this article there are implications that it does. That's JW:NPOV, not WP:NPOV. Blackworm (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, since I have already noted that observational studies are relatively low quality, I don't quite understand what you expect to achieve by including a long quote that basically says the same thing. Perhaps we can save time by agreeing that a) observational studies are inherently limited, and b) that most have nevertheless found similar results to the RCTs. The questions seem to be a) given the limited space, is it worth discussing observational studies, and b) if we do discuss them, how can we ensure that our discussion is representative?

As a result of a previous discussion, we added the following: "Before there were any results from randomized controlled trials, reviews of observational data differed as to whether there was sufficient evidence for an intervention effect of circumcision against HIV.[80][81]" Jakew (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I did re-read the article, several times. It says that the US CDC claims that circumcision really does not affect the rate of HIV in American men. It did talk in detail about Hispanic and African American men, but their point is..it is not a reasonable measure, at this time, to prevent HIV in the US. Will you, kind sir, please re-read the MSNBC CDC article. Thanks. 70.114.38.167 (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to quote the statements, attributed to the CDC, that led you to these conclusions? Also, please quote the statement supporting your assertion that "the CDC claims it is based off YEARS of studieS". Jakew (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay you just edited out the whole thing instead of just putting the blacks and latinos thing (which i think is controversial in there.) Okay, we'll do it your way putting race involced, lol, always with the race with this HIV stuff. When did the Circumcision article become an HIV article? We'll quote two sources. 70.114.38.167 (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You've now stated that: "However, the U.S. Center for Disease Control states that circumcision does not affect HIV rates among Hispanics and African Americans in the U.S."

Unfortunately, while a slight improvement, this is still problematic:

1. The claim is attributed to the CDC. However, if you look at the first slide on Millett's presentation, you'll see that "The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention". So we'd have to correct the attribution, which should be "Millett states that...". Alternatively, we could actually represent the CDC's views...
2. The claim is stronger than that made by the authors. Please examine slide 22 ("Discussion") of Millett's presentation. Their finding was that "Circumcision status was not associated with HIV infection [in Black or Latino men who have sex with men]" and there was a "Discrepanc[y] with 2 U.S.-based studies that found protective effect". On slide 28, they conclude that "Male circumcision may not provide benefit for MSM of color in the United States" (emph added), which is a weaker claim than yours.
3. The undue weight problem still exists. For example, why are we citing this study rather than the 3 others that Millett discusses in slide 5 of his presentation? Why are we not citing the 30-40 other observational studies? And what possible reason is there to cite an observational study in the lead? Jakew (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dubious changes

I have once again reverted a change to the lead, which added "[circumcision] is most uncommon in Canada, Europe, South America and Australasia."

Unfortunately, not only is this statement unsourced, but it contradicts the apparent source (ie., ref 8 at the end of the paragraph). In the map in ref 8, Canada and Australia are listed as '20-80%', the same as the USA which we list under "most common". The editor who inserted it may have been confused by the text of ref 8, which states "In contrast, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom have seen a decline in male circumcision"; this is of course a statement about trends, not absolute prevalence.

Most sources, I think, discuss where circumcision is common. If a source can be found that explicitly discusses where it is uncommon, it could be cited, but we need to take care to avoid original research (and, indeed, pointless original research - if we're going to discuss "most uncommon" then we should provide more information than all countries minus most common, which is redundant information). Jakew (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your changes, but not your reasoning. You appear to view the statement as one about prevalence in the existing population, not the incidence of new circumcision procedures. Since circumcision is the act of circumcising, and not the state of being circumcised, "circumcision is common/uncommon..." is better interpreted as a statement on incidence, not prevalence.

The reason I agree with your changes is that the statements are unsourced and vague. Blackworm (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my understanding, the term is used in both ways. So perhaps it should be specified which meaning is intended. DGG (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed Source

Jakew you reverted my edit and listed (rv. see WP:RS and WP:SPS.) for The Circumcision Resource Center states "Circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis.".

So you believe circumcision.org which has everything properly sourced is invalid? Please explain or it will go right back in. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The source is Sorrells et al, as published in BJU International. I restored the material with proper attribution. Jakew reverted it claiming undue weight -- we'll have to see what evidence he presents of this. Blackworm (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. To quote from WP:SPS:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable"

So, a self-published website (Ron Goldman's circumcision.org) is not a reliable source. Jakew (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I've been around long enough to know what a source is. You are not the judge and jury of what is a good or bad source. First of all who supposedly own's a site is a red herring and irrellevant. Circumcision.org has all or their documentation sourced. After all it is circumcision.org not Billy Bob's blog from billybobisgreat.com. Garycompugeek (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether you consider the owner of a site to be relevant or not, Wikipedia policy clearly states that "personal websites ... are largely not acceptable". WP:RS provide some guidance, too: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Note that it does not say "should rely on websites on the sole basis of whether they have impressive domain names." Jakew (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, you seem to be under the impression that Goldman's page is reliable because he cites sources. That isn't the case. Any page can cite sources and could misrepresent them (or could even cite nonexistent sources). Unfortunately, with self-published sources (especially highly partisan sources prone to bias), that can happen quite easily, and for that reason (among others) we can't rely on them. With a source published by a third-party with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (such as a peer-reviewed journal), that's much less likely to happen. Jakew (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No you simply are misunderstanding me if that's what you truly believe. My analogy is correct. If we were as stringent as you claim half of Wikipedia would qualify for speedy deletion. You seem to have some animosity towards this website because it doesn't support your POV. It is medically sourced and quite valid. The sources are not misrepresented or trying to mislead. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's true that much of Wikipedia's content fails to meet policy requirements, but that is no excuse. Wikipedia policy calls for high standards of sourcing, and with a topic such as this one that is, if anything, especially important. We can't include private, partisan websites, regardless of whether individual editors agree or disagree with the content. That means that we don't include "circumcision.org" (anti-circumcision) and we don't include "circinfo.net" (pro-circumcision), but we do include, for example, articles published in the Journal of Urology, whether pro- or anti-. Jakew (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I hear you Jake, but you seem to be taking a literal narrow view of the policy. Perhaps you need to confirm to Wikipedia norms, not the other way around. It's clear we disagree and should step back and let consensus decide. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have once again reverted the addition of some material that gives undue weight to one of the five studies to test the sensitivity of the penis with respect to circumcision. If we're going to cite Sorrells, then to avoid undue weight we must as a minimum cite Masters and Johnson, Bleustein 2003, Bleustein 2005, and Payne (2007 as I recall), and probably also other studies of sensation (Masood, etc). If we were to do so, however, we would add a considerable amount of material to the article, which would basically replicate the sub-article (sexual effects of circumcision), and this would be incompatible with summary style. Jakew (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Bah! Pure balderdash. You site undue weight when it isn't your POV. I've also noticed that Jakew and User:The way, the truth, and the light have reverted then quickly added something to article to prevent another revert. This is dirty pool in the extreme. Let's stop these silly games and work together. This article seems far from neutral. To make it neutral we need all viewpoints. I'll respect yours. Please respect mine. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There is already a better discussion of the evidence at the detailed article Sexual effects of circumcision. That's his point. Importing only some of the studies into this article, ones that support your desired conclusion, is undue weight and clear bias. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I could say the same exact thing to you thing to you. In fact that's exactly how I feel. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's please avoid labels and accusations and keep cool heads. If I understand correctly, at least some of the sources Jakew mentions make conclusions of the sensitivity of the glans of circumcised vs. uncircumcised men -- unlike Sorrells, which makes a conclusion about the sensitivity of the foreskin itself relative to other parts of the penis. Find other studies discussing the low- or non-sensitivity of the foreskin, if any exist, and we can summarize them and present a more balanced picture. Otherwise, for now, this soruce stands on its own. Including this source isn't undue weight. Undue weight is actually what we have now: citing three sources claiming no change due to circumcision, or an improvement, with no countering nor balancing views despite the existence of sources. Blackworm (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, if the section was about "the sensitivity of the foreskin relative to other parts of the penis", you might have a valid point. However, the section is about "sexual effects", and therefore the correct context for assessing questions of undue weight is "studies that have investigated the sexual effects of circumcision". One aspect of this is penile sensation. Some authors have chosen to address this by measuring the sensitivity of the foreskin, some by measuring the sensitivity of the glans, and others have addressed it by prospective questionnaire. There seems no reason to include only one of these categories, and to be neutral we ought to avoid doing so.

With this in mind, citing only Sorrells et al. is a clear example of undue weight. Jakew (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Not clear at all. You propose unless multiple sources support your view point it is undue weight which is not what the policy is about at all. Garycompugeek (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you read through this discussion again, Garycompugeek, because you seem to have misunderstood. As you'll see, I haven't even mentioned my viewpoint. Jakew (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

By that logic, the current edit, which discusses glans sensitivity for about half the section, specifically citing Masters and Johnson, would also be undue weight. There's no reason not to summarize the other categories you mention. Blackworm (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The current section does not cite Masters and Johnson, Blackworm. That's part of a quote. The present system is to cite highly reliable reviews from reputable medical organisations, and to rely on them to summarise for us. Jakew (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that the system also seems to be that you, Jakew, get to choose which organization, and which precise section of that organization's review we will present. Whether we cite M&J or not, the fact is that by your logic, we present undue weight given to analyses of glans sensitivity, ignoring the seemingly more relevant question of the sensitivity of the severed foreskin. As of "the way"'s edit, the section is now horribly unbalanced. It presents sexual effects as, simply, "none, or good effects." It's JW:NPOV. Blackworm (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Your claim is somewhat dubious, Blackworm, given that we actually quote all of the AAP's section entitled "SEXUAL PRACTICE, SENSATION, AND CIRCUMCISION STATUS" and the vast majority of the AAFP's section entitled "Sexual Functioning and Penile Problems". That's hardly evidence of selective quoting.

Personally, I would have said that prospective studies of adult circumcision patients were more relevant, but I respect the fact that you disagree. The fact that there are multiple viewpoints about what studies are most relevant is one of the things that make this issue so difficult to summarise. The question of which primary sources are "more relevant" is best left to reliable secondary sources, and we should not use a primary source to debunk the secondary (WP:MEDRS##Using_primary_sources_to_.22debunk.22_the_conclusions_of_secondary_sources). To date, as can be seen from the article, these secondary sources have focused mostly on glans sensitivity. Jakew (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean a secondary source like this]? Or does the secondary source have to be an organization of people who profit financially from circumcision? Blackworm (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not like that. Jakew (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The guideline you cite is irrelevant -- a secondary source specifically commented on this study, indeed wrote an article about it, making it appear quite relevant. We don't have to cite the press; having established its notability, we can cite the original source, as I did (and which was reverted by you). Medical organizations have one point of view about male circumcision -- and their opinions on this lucrative procedure are valid, but there is no reason to decree that they are the exclusive source of information on male circumcision, especially when other researchers are indeed studying it from several other angles. That would be like insisting the "oil" article be exclusively written by Exxon/Mobil, BP, or OPEC. In any case, this is tangential -- the material is sourced, relevant, presented neutrally, and not to be suppressed because of your opinion of how much weight material critical of circumcision should receive (zero). Blackworm (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You appear to forget, Blackworm, that Sorrells' article is cited in the full article, (sexual effects of circumcision). Nobody is suggesting that it should be excluded from Wikipedia altogether; the question is whether it should be included in a summary.

Since news articles are written about many studies (eg., [8] [9] [10] [11]), your proposed inclusion criteria (include studies which are mentioned in news articles) seems rather inadequate, since we would still end up adding an enormous amount of material, and replicating much of the content of sexual effects of circumcision. Jakew (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As I've told you many times, I'm not really interested in the subarticles (what you call "full articles") that no one reads, as I view them as POV-forks, or apparent dumping grounds for any material critical of circumcision, or suggesting any controversy, that editors attempt to add to this article.

"My" inclusion criteria follow from WP:V and WP:NPOV. I didn't "propose" anything; I was responding to your call for secondary sources. It is not clear to me what policy or policies your inclusion criteria follow from, that would outweigh these policies. It is also not clear why your inclusion criteria causes you to vigourously insist on presenting a single letter to the editor, never referenced elsewhere, that claims that it is more humane NOT to give anaesthesia to infant boys being circumcised, when that opinion is contrary to the published statements of all medical organizations. You appear to be arguing for the exact opposite approach here. This grave inconsistency adds to the difficulty in finding a common ground as to your editorial opinions. Blackworm (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, the detailed articles exist in accordance with a Wikipedia editing guideline known as WP:SUMMARY, and are necessary in order to prevent this article from becoming too long. I'm afraid that I don't understand why you're telling me whether or not you're personally interested in them, and how you view them.

Perhaps my request was unclear to you, but I was asking for reliable secondary sources (policy statements, systematic reviews, etc) that were suitable for inclusion, rather than to use as guidance for selection of primary sources. As I have noted many times (eg #Payne study above), there simply isn't room in this article to discuss all the primary sources, and so it is sensible to limit ourselves to citing secondary sources that can summarise and take stock of the primaries. Jakew (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY does not trump WP:NPOV. Further, the AAFP quote doesn't even properly reflect the source -- a part is omitted ("[...]"), making it read as if the AAFP disagrees with the belief of many that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. In fact the omitted part states (in the omitted text), Opinions differ about how this decreased sensitivity, which may result in prolonged time to orgasm, affects sexual satisfaction. But we don't seem interested in quoting that part, preferring to make it read as if the AAFP disagrees with "many" on the topic of decreased sensitivity. The AAFP saw fit to summarize sexual effects one way, and an editor here saw fit to pick and choose which parts of their summary to present, and paint a different picture. You now have editors familiar with the topic clamoring for balance and adherence to WP:NPOV, and you can seemingly only cite WP:SUMMARY to defend your reversion of their perfectly verified, neutral, and relevant edits. I don't see how you can realistically expect these editors to withdraw their objections under these circumstances. Blackworm (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please no more colons. These skinny paras hurt my head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garycompugeek (talk • contribs) 01:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(Replying to Blackworm/23:43, 11 April 2008.) Blackworm, nobody is claiming that WP:SUMMARY trumps WP:NPOV. Quite the opposite, in fact: summaries must conform to WP:NPOV. So it is very important to use the limited space carefully, and to be aware that there is insufficient space to discuss every primary source. And so instead of violating WP:NPOV by giving WP:UNDUE weight to selected primary sources, we need a better strategy. The obvious strategy, strongly encouraged by WP:V, is to rely upon secondary sources instead.

I've just checked the revision history, and as I thought we originally had the full AAFP quote, but it was shortened on 16:16, September 2, 2007. I don't agree that we're misrepresenting the AAFP, but I've no objections to restoring the full quote. Jakew (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The actual diff where the quote was shortened is here. I do not share your apparent opinion that it is "obvious" that we must suppress primary sources on sexual effects merely because their conclusions are not considered by or repeated by medical organizations profiting from circumcision. The primary source is referenced by a secondary source, which I cite above. Looking at the section as a whole, however, now that I've restored Boyle et al., it seems balanced, and I won't push any more for this source to be cited here. However, you set a precedent for reversion of cited, reliable material that I have trouble believing you would accept should it be used to remove any material casting circumcision positively. Indeed, your (and Avi's) vigourous defense of arguably fringe pro-circumcision material ("more humane not to use anaesthesia") seems incongruent with your present position. Blackworm (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Garycompugeek's post of 12:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC): If you consider a source reliable because they cite reliable sources, I suggest instead using directly the sources cited by that source (if they're in publications considered reliable). This doesn't address other points raised above. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig, I am glad you are following the discussion, but the issue of sourcing is seemingly moot. My edit citing and attributing the material to the original source was reverted by User:Jakew. Jakew now suppresses the material on alleged undue weight grounds, supported apparently by two other editors (including an uncommon appearance by Avi), grounds disputed by two editors, including myself. Blackworm (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It should perhaps also be noted that the article now stands with less material arguably critical of circumcision than before this new edit under dispute was made. Blackworm (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV = Balance

This article needs balance. This can be achieved in two ways. Either we start deleting some pro references (which I am against by the way), or we include more con references. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently User:The way, the truth, and the light does not agree although his voice is silent in discussion. That's 3 for you in 24. Your out of cards. I have one left but prefer to hold off and let others chime in. Your User Page suggest we have similar goals so your actions surprise me. Shine a little bit of that light in the mirror. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've said all I have to say. Jakew has made my case better than I could. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Penile cancer Myth

The curent vrsion is very Biased and misleading: "Studies have reported (what studies?) a rate of penile cancer from 3 to 22 times higher (where ?)in uncircumcised than circumcised men"

In "Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy," Edward Wallerstein writes: "If infant circumcision reduces penile cancer we could expect to see proportionately less penile cancer in circumcising nations as compared to noncircumcising ones. No such difference is found." Wallerstein reports that, for various years between 1966 and 1972, the annual rate of new cases of penile cancer was

0.8 for the United States (which circumcises), 0.5 for Finland, 0.9 for Denmark and 1.1 for both Norway and Sweden (all of which do not).

None of these differences is statistically significant. Further, within the same time frame, both France and the United States had the same rate, 0.3, of deaths due to penile cancer.

The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such [genital] cancers. Research suggesting a pattern in the circumcision status of partners of women with cervical cancer is methodologically flawed, outdated and has not been taken seriously in the medical community for decades.

Again, (a rate of penile cancer from 3 to 22 times higher ??? where?) Or, is this the American Version? Can we have some objectivity? Please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.103.153 (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If you read the article carefully, you'll see that after the statement ("Studies have reported a rate of penile cancer from 3 to 22 times higher in uncircumcised than circumcised men") there are footnote numbers. If you click on these, or scroll down to the references, you will find references to each study cited. For your convenience, the references are 94 and 95, which are:

1. Maden, C; et al (Jan 1993). "History of circumcision, medical conditions, and sexual activity and risk of penile cancer". J Natl Cancer Inst 85 (1): 19–24. PMID 8380060.
2. and Schoen, EJ; Oehrli, M; Colby, C; Machin, G (Mar 2000). "The highly protective effect of newborn circumcision against invasive penile cancer". Pediatrics 105 (3): e36.

As you'll note, we also cite in that section the policy statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, as well as the American Cancer Society. With the exception of the ACS, all of the cited sources are in peer-reviewed publications. Jakew (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not what the American Cancer Society states: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.103.153 (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Misleading Information (Penile Cancer Myth)

"Statements about circumcision preventing penile cancer and cervical cancer are cropping up on the Internet" American Cancer Society. http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Misleading_Information.asp

Yes, it is an exact quote. The webpage you cite is dated 1998. The webpage cited in the article is dated 2006, and can be found here. The quote is taken from the last sentence of the third paragraph. (Incidentally, there is also another recent page here.) Jakew (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Biased Version

"Bias is a term used to describe a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective" In our case the curent version is very biased by citing "a rate of penile cancer from 3 to 22 times higher" It is ridiculous! There are literally hundreds of contrary studies on the subject "The carcinogenicity of smegma: debunking a myth" 75 References. Yet someone chooses to disregard all the evidence to support his personal belief, based on sporadic quotes...

Whether or not prophylactic - circumcision rates are falling in the US... Paradoxically! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.103.153 (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! Add some recent sources. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, every epidemiological study has found higher risk of penile cancer in uncircumcised men. For references, see Medical analysis of circumcision#Penile cancer. Jakew (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

!!! Most info here comes from American Sources, International Sources are not present. No European studies confirm the American Circumcision Propaganda. The USA is the only Western Society promoting Genital Mutilation, a country with the highest number of Jewish doctors!!!

Be bold and add sources! Garycompugeek (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Penil Cancer Myth Promoted by the American Academy of Pediatrics “Pediatricians have a vested interest in encouraging you to circumcise your child. They make money by selling surgery. Their organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) provided a brochure for use by pediatricians. This brochure claimed that cancer may be prevented if you circumcise your child” http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/acs/

American Cancer Society “As representatives of the American Cancer Society, we would like to discourage the American Academy of Pediatrics from promoting routine circumcision as a preventive measure for penile or cervical cancer” http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/letters/1996-02_ACS/

“European medical association (27 Countries) loudly to condemn the North American medical community for participating in and profiting from what is by any standard a senseless and barbaric sexual mutilation of innocent children. [Paul M. Fleiss. Circumcision. Lancet 1995;345:927.”

BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL - NEONATAL CIRCUMCISION DOES NOT PROTECT AGAINST CANCER
l'Association Française d'Urologie – Circumcision not encouraged for Medical reasons.
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians “After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine male circumcision.” http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/policies/PD/2005/pdf/PD2005_330.pdf

Western Medical organizations around the world oppose infant circumcision (amputation of the foreskin) Institutions against circumcision: European Medical Association, Canadian Medical Association, Australasian College of Physicians, and most of the world.

The “penil cancer” issue invented by the American Pediatrics was already ridiculed by the American Cancer Society.

Lets keep Wikipedia unbiased! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.103.153 (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, can I encourage you to familiarise yourself with WP:RS and WP:MEDRS? You'll find that a dubious online magazine and unpublished personal communications do not qualify.

Second, can I ask you to stay on topic? You're mixing up two different topics here: a) whether circumcision protects against penile cancer, and b) whether it is recommended. The two are, of course, separate issues.

Third, can I ask you not to misrepresent sources? You misquoted Fleiss (Lancet 1995;345:927). He did not claim that a "European medical association" actually does condemn, but instead suggested that they should. The full sentence is: "It is now time for European medical associations loudly to condemn the North American medical community for participating in and profiting from what is by any standard a senseless and barbaric sexual mutilation of innocent children."

Fourth, you cite only one reliable source (in the Wikipedia sense) that's relevant to the issue. This is another letter by Fleiss, entitled "Neonatal circumcision does not protect against penile cancer" (BMJ 1996;312:779-780). You may care to read Stanton's reply, entitled "Authors ignored main conclusion of study that they cited" (BMJ 1996;313:47) [12] Jakew (talk) 11:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

To date, there are no (international) replication studies confirming this hypothesis. This subject remains a controversy in the USA. No European, Canadian, or Australian studies confirm the Penile Cancer risk... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.103.153 (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The ACS & the AAP's recommendations

Note: new subject heading inserted for clarity. Jakew (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You cannot cherry pick items out of a source Jake. To quote your above link "Neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the Canadian Academy of Pediatrics recommends routine circumcision of newborns. Ultimately, decisions about circumcision are highly personal and depend more on social and religious factors than on medical evidence. " Garycompugeek (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Garycompugeek, think for a moment. Given that the subject is the policy of the AAP, which is a more reliable source: the AAP's policy (as it appears in a peer-reviewed journal) or a webpage from the American Cancer Society? And what is actually verifiable? For the first source, one can verify that it says what it says. For the second, one can only verify that the ACS states that the AAP have this position. Jakew (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Jake here is a direct quote from American Academy of Pediatrics. "Scientific studies show some medical benefits of circumcision. However, these benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised. " on thier site [13] Garycompugeek (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I'm afraid that I don't understand what point you're making. Jakew (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Now your being obtuse on purpose. My point is that the American Academy of Pediatrics "does not recommend that all infant boys be circumcised". That clearly states they do not recommend circumcision. Let me clarify futher. Above you state my source from the American Cancer Society is trumped by a direct source from American Academy of Pediatrics yet I've pulled another source directly from American Academy of Pediatrics. Surely you understand my point now. Garycompugeek (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic. There's a huge difference between "circumcision of all infant boys" and "circumcision". Also, maybe I missed something, but I thought this discussion was about what the article should say about whether circumcision affects penile cancer rates. There's a big difference between on the one hand not recommending circumcision, and on the other hand stating that circumcision does not reduce cancer rates. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Lot's of discussons and that is one of them this is another. If you would follow some of the threads you would note that I have not made one post about penile cancer aside that I agreed it seemed bias. Furthurmore penile cancer rates are so rare the distiction between circumcision is irrelevant. Garycompugeek (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've inserted a subheading above to clarify matters. Jakew (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Coppertwig: there's a difference between what the AAP actually say and what you seem to interpret their words to mean. In their policy, they state that "these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision", and in their Q&A document, which you cite, they state that "these benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised". In both cases, there's a qualifier: "routine" or "[of] all infant boys", and if we omit that qualifier we change the meaning. In the article, which cites the policy, we also use the term "routine": "insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision". So what, exactly, is the problem? Jakew (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that the article be changed, Garycompugeek, please describe exactly what change you're advocating. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to be bold and simply make my change however I will give this shot. "The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) found both potential benefits and risks in infant circumcision. It felt that there was insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and recommended that parental decisions on circumcision should be made with as much accurate and unbiased information as possible, taking medical, cultural, ethnic, traditional, and religious factors into account." The first sentence seems misleading to me. It projects that the AAP is on the fence concerning circumcision. I propose "The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) felt that there was insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." plus this is unnecessary " recommended that parental decisions on circumcision should be made with as much accurate and unbiased information as possible, taking medical, cultural, ethnic, traditional, and religious factors into account." Garycompugeek (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Garycompugeek, that's what the source says: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision ... In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks". Or, in the document that you cite: "Scientific studies show some medical benefits of circumcision. ... parents should choose what is best for their child by looking at the benefits and risks." Jakew (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So far every source I've come across on the net mentioning the AAP stance on circumcision flatly states they do not recommend it. I'b be happy to list them or you may simply do what I have done and google circumcision and start reading the links. The studies show that medical benefits do not merit circumcision. Once again you are cherry picking parts of the source to support your POV and missing the general point. This seems to be on purpose and making it increasingly difficult to assume good faith. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is perhaps a problem with relying on third party websites. I recommend that instead you read the AAP policy itself. Some websites have an agenda, and are likely to select the parts to quote that best serve to promote that agenda. If their agenda is anti-circumcision, they might highlight "do not recommend routine circumcision", and ignore the rest. If their agenda is pro-circumcision, they might highlight "potential benefits" and ignore the rest. (It's interesting that you should mention cherry-picking, since this is a fair description of what many of these sites do, and of the edit you propose.) Since Wikipedia has a policy of WP:NPOV, we can't promote either agenda, and must fairly represent the AAP's conclusions, not just the parts that suit a particular POV. Jakew (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to go along with shortening the AAP summary as Garycompugeek describes (but please retain the sentence about analgesia and stable-and-healthy, which comes after that.) Having put a lot of work into shortening this article per WP:SUMMARY, and seeing that most disputes tend to be solved by lengthening the article, I tend to be in favour of shortening edits if they're reasonable. If what we're summarizing is their recommendations about circumcision, then Garycompugeek's suggested edit seems a reasonable summary to me; benefits and risks and informed choice are relatively inessential when what's wanted is just their recommendation. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that what's wanted is their recommendation, Coppertwig, but there are four recommendations in the following quote, and as far as I can tell Garycompugeek intends to omit mention of all but one.

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. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision.

1. That there are potential medical benefits, but that these are insufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.
2. That parents should determine what is in the best interests of the child.
3. That parents should be given accurate and unbiased information, and should be given the opportunity to discuss the decision.
4. That is it legitimate for parents to take cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, as well as medical factors, into account.

I can't see how that can be justified. Jakew (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

These are all self evident facts and not note worthy. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If they were self-evident then I am sure the AAP would not have felt the need to state them (and many anti-circumcision advocates would doubtless disagree that point 2 is self-evident). However, they did, and they form a part of the AAP's conclusions. Jakew (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

An additional problem is that the following paragraph is: "The American Medical Association supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics". If you turn to the AMA's policy, and scroll down to their recommendations, you'll see that they quote the above text in full (plus a sentence about pain relief). So not only did the AAP decide to state these "self-evident facts", but the AMA quoted them in full and supported them in their entirety, not just the part which you wish to quote. So your edit not only paints a misleading picture of the AAP's policy, but it also in effect paints a misleading picture of the AMA's policy as well. Jakew (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to be able to say that medical associations whole-heartedly recommend circumcision. Unfortunately, they don't (for political and other irrational reasons). Nonetheless I'd like the statement to be presented as it was actually made. You on the other hand are attempting to introduce bias by omitting the parts of the statement that might be considered to support circumcision, and implying that there are no valid reasons to circumcise. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason you may not say "medical associations whole-heartedly recommend circumcision" is because scientific fact does not justify it, however your bias is clear. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Jake you are showing disturbing signs of WP:OWNERSHIP. Perhaps you should consult others on the talk page before you revert anything not related to your POV? Garycompugeek (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Jakew, by your argument, we would have to include the AAP recommendations in full, no matter how lengthy they are. In fact, to write a Wikipedia article, we need to condense and select. It's not enough to argue that some words supply some important information; you have to argue that it's sufficiently important to be worth lengthening the article for; or to put it another way, you have to argue that it's more important than other groups of words of similar length elsewhere in the article. So far, your only argument seems to be that those are their recommendations. If they had 75 recommendations, that argument would ask that they all be included.

I'm OK with either the original wording, or Garycompugeek"s suggestion, and I have another suggestion: keep the first sentence but delete the second bit that Garycompugeek wants to delete. It can be shortened slightly to "The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) found both potential benefits and risks in infant circumcision, but insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."

The AAP are not family law experts, so whether they think parents should do what's in the best interests of their children is not very relevant. It may be important enough for the AAP to include in their statement, but we have much less room here for representing the AAP's views. (It can be expanded in a sub-article -- lots more room there.) I agree that this, and the idea that it's good for parents to have information, are more or less self-evident, therefore not of high information value for this article. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, that does seem unnecessary to me. It doesn't really make an argument for either side, and is essentially a cop out by the AAP to avoid admitting that circumcision is a good idea. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:SOAP. I thought admins were here to remind people of these? Blackworm (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig, I'm not saying that we have to include every recommendation, but we should include the important ones, as well as those that provide context for the first (compare "Fred does not recommend routine circumcision" with "Fred does not recommend routine circumcision, but recommends that parents should decide based upon benefits and risks" - the first could be interpreted as "recommends against parents choosing circumcision", while the second provides context to avoid that ambiguity). In particular, I think we need to include enough facts to be balanced in our treatment of the AAP's position.

I think it's reasonable enough to delete the text about information that should be given to parents, though.

Additionally, the underlying reason why they recommend that parents should decide is outlined in an Authors' Reply in Pediatrics by Dr Lannon on behalf of the Task Force. She indicates that this recommendation is based upon the AAP's assessment of the potential medical benefits, not of legal issues. To quote: "The critical distinction between female genital mutilation and male circumcision is the potential medical benefits of male circumcision. These potential benefits warrant a parental role in decision making about this procedure."[14] (emph. added) Jakew (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Still not note worthy. Very self evident that a parental role should always be assumed ie parents should be parents. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read the quote again. Lannon specifically contrasts circumcision with a situation in which a parental role in decision making is not warranted (in the AAP's view). She's saying, in effect, that because' of these potential benefits, a parental role in decision making is justified. So this recommendation (that parents should determine what is in the best interests of the child) is made on the basis of the AAP's determination of the potential medical benefits. Jakew (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, Jakew. If we just say they "do not recommend" routine circumcision, then that could be misinterpreted as meaning that they recommend against it; but if we also include some of the self-evident phrases, then their meaning becomes clear. So the self-evident stuff may be necessary to establish the meaning of the other stuff, even if it's not of much value on its own; unless there's a slight chance we could come up with shorter wording that carries the same meaning as understood by people from a variety of POV's. E.g. they "do not recommend for or against routine neonatal circumcision" or something. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) You sure they're not family lawyers? Do they really assert that there are situations where a parental role is not warranted? I don't think they go that far. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd go along with your suggestion, Coppertwig, but I think that it might be best to use language similar to that used by the AAP itself. How about something like "The American Academy of Pediatrics do not recommend that all infant boys be circumcised, and state that parents should choose what is best for their child by looking at the benefits and risks" (this is adapted from the AAP's Circumcision Information for Parents)? Jakew (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The CDC seems to think this "In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) changed from a neutral stance on circumcision to a position that the data then available were insufficient to recommend routine neonatal male circumcision." [15] Garycompugeek (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why that should be interpreted as an anti-circumcision statement. Perhaps there is more context? The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you see this as a circumcision endorsement? If you beleive I've taken out of context follow the link I've provided and read the entire paragraph. Your vague accusations ill become you. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't, as I already stated. However, I don't think we have any evidence to suggest that it is anti-circumcision; and I did read the link you provided. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

That sounds fine to me, Jakew.☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the CDC's statement at all. What do they mean by implying that that's non-neutral? In which direction do they think it's non-neutral? I can see arguing either way. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

First, good break. Come now, the CDC clearly states that they believe the APA is not neutral, therefore they must be for or against. Do you truly wish us to believe CDC wishes us believe the APA is pro circumcision? Garycompugeek (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

WHO ARE YOU

There are many sources stating WHO is incorrect or the data is inconclusive. I feel it should be removed on this basis. Thoughts? Garycompugeek (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please review the usage of the {{disputed}} template. It is only meant to be used to identify "…a Wikipedia article as having content whose truth or factual nature is in dispute." That the WHO made the statement is completely factually accurate. That others dispute it should be brought in the text. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to your initial statement, the proper WP:NPOV response would be to bring the WHO statement and representative notable disagreements. not to remove the WHO. There are many statements in the article that are disputed; perhaps every statement in this article is disputed, is it your intention to have it deleted? -- Avi (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Negative. The intention would be to remove if false (not sure why we wish to publish) or add the sourced disagreements (which wouldn't be necessary if we remove) confusing to the reader but I'll play along... Perhaps you can help me in my endeavors? Garycompugeek (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be helpful, Garycompugeek, if you were to cite some reliable sources that have criticised the WHO's statement. Jakew (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Are the peer-reviewed studies being contested? If so, which of them are suspect and who is questioning their validity? Or is it the WHO's interpretation of the findings that are in question? It's a little unclear exactly what the objection is without more details. Kindest regards, AlphaEta 21:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The CDC quotes "There are as yet no convincing data to help determine whether male circumcision will have any effect on HIV risk for men who engage in anal sex with either a female or male partner, as either the insertive or receptive partner." [16] sourcing Koblin BA, Chesney MA, Husnik MJ. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably this isn't an example of a source stating that the WHO is incorrect, since it is very similar to the WHO recommendation 3.5: "Clear messages should be developed to inform communities about what is known and what is not known about male circumcision, including lack of data on direct protection for women, or for either partner during anal sex with men or women."[17] Jakew (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

An Inconsistency between the summary and the body of the article

The article summary reads:"Male circumcision is a religious commandment in Judaism as well as in Islam." However, the article says:"Some Fiqh scholars state that circumcision is recommended (Sunnah); others that it is obligatory.[24] Some have quoted the hadith to argue that the requirement of circumcision is based on the covenant with Abraham.[25] While endorsing circumcision for males, scholars note that it is not a requirement for converting to Islam."

In view of this, it would be preferable for the summary to state: Male circumcision is a religious commandment in Judaism and is customary in Islam. Michael Glass (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How about "is a religious commandment in Judaism as well as sometimes in Islam." ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

How about is a religious commandment in Judaism and recommended or obligatory in Islam. It is also and customary in some Christian churches in Africa including some Oriental Orthodox Churches. This wording mirrors the wording later in the article and makes it clear that it is only some Christian churches in which circumcision is customary. Michael Glass (talk) 08:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very good. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag removed?

If you do not believe the neutrality of this article is in question then you are ignoring large swaths of this discussion. I suggest you put it back or explain yourself better than "silly tag". Garycompugeek (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you have refused discussion User:The way, the truth, and the light I have replaced the tag. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Intro

I oppose this edit which removes pro- and anti-circumcision info from the intro. While I think perhaps the intro could be balanced more between pro- and anti- by adding a tiny bit of info on risks and/or pain and/or by shortening the WHO/HIV bit, nevertheless taking almost all the really interesting information out of the intro is not the answer IMO. NPOV means presenting both sides, not sweeping both sides under the carpet. Garycompugeek, could I convince you to revert back to the original intro? What are your reasons for shortening it? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not opposed to putting both back into the article but feel the intro should be without controversy. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you feel the intro should be without controversy? There is controversy in the real world about this subject; the article should reflect that controversy, per NPOV; and the intro should be a summary of the article, per WP:LEAD, and therefore should also summarize the controversy IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coppertwig (talk • contribs) Jakew (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree - WP:LEAD is fairly clear that we should "briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any". This deletion has also messed up the references. Could you restore the material, Gary? Jakew (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure we can state the controversy but lets break down sources in thier respective sections. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean? It isn't at all clear. Jakew (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you believe there is no controversy concerning the benefit of circumcision. Please explain? Garycompugeek (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

To whom is that comment addressed? That doesn't represent my belief and I don't think it represents Jakew's. I don't see anything in what you've written, Garycompugeek, that looks to me as if it's intended to be an argument in support of your position that there should be no controversy in the lead. If I missed something, please mark it clearly as being such an argument. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to Jakes comment edit. Perhaps I misundertood it? Garycompugeek (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Jakew's comment of 22:23, 12 April seems to be not expressing Jakew's beliefs, but asking for clarification, which you haven't provided, of your message of 21:39, 12 April. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm refering to "restore properly sourced and NPOV material in lead, instead of one-sided claim of controversy. this should also fix broken refs" this comment of Jakes. I showed him my clarification when he asked with my edit. This was my clarification. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Gary, why are you removing properly sourced, relevant material from the lead, expressed in quite neutral ways, and replacing it with an unsourced opinion? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the discussion Jayjg. They are back now and I shall abide by consensus. Please assume good faith. Garycompugeek (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Garycompugeek, I'm not sure whether I understand what you're saying. I think you mean that this edit is your clarification of what you mean by this comment. I still don't see any arguments for removing controversy from the lead, but I gather you're now willing to keep the original material in the lead so perhaps that doesn't matter. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 03:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think JakewJayjg was assuming good faith. He was just asking for you to give a reason for your edit. Asking for a reason for an edit is a normal Wikipedian interaction. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Apologies to all concerned: I confused two familiar 5-letter usernames beginning with Ja. Of course, I think Jakew is also AGF. 13:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As you note, Coppertwig, this may be a moot point, but it seems that some explanation would be helpful, as there seems to be some confusion. I think that this confusion may be due in part to my edit summary when I restored the material in the article; evidently this was not sufficiently clear. I also think that it is partly due to Garycompugeek's comment above, which did not make it clear that it was in response to an article edit, and instead gave the impression that it was in reply to an earlier comment.

In my message above (of 22:33, 12 April 2008), I asked for clarification of Garycompugeek's earlier message. I understood Gary's edit to the article (of 23:44, April 12, 2008) to be a response; judging by Gary's message above (dated 23:32, 12 April 2008, but timestamped 00:32, April 13, 2008), this was his intent.

Gary, somehow my edit summary gave you the impression that I believe that there is "no controversy concerning the benefit of circumcision". I don't understand why this is, as I thought I had made it clear that the problems were sourcing and one-sidedness, and I didn't suggest that the statement was incorrect. The problem was that your summary ("There is great controversy concerning the benefit of circumcision") was entirely one-sided: it considered only the "pros" and presented them as controversial, in effect advancing an anti-circumcision point of view. A slight improvement would have been to say "There is controversy concerning the benefits and harms of circumcision", but of course this is still a fairly narrow view of the controversy that omits, for example, claims of violations of rights. And, of course, it is completely unsourced and hence unverifiable. Jakew (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Garycompugeek may have thought that by deleting the sentence "There is great controversy concerning the benefit of circumcision" you were expressing an opinion that the sentence was false, when actually you were stating that it was unsourced and that presenting only that sentence without others to balance it gives a misleading impression. Analogously but more extremely, a misleading impression could be given by stating only "Some people have died from circumcision", which is true (I believe) but ignores benefits and a low death rate. NPOV is more than just keeping only true statements.

Although it was clear to you that Garycompugeek's edit was a reply, nevertheless someone like me who may not be checking the page as frequently might not happen to notice the relative timing of edits and messages and might expect the discussion here to be readable on its own. When an edit or edit summary becomes part of a discussion, I think it's helpful for one of the participants to quote or link to it, to assist others who might be trying to follow the discussion either at that time or later on. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You do understand correctly now Coppertwig. I do apologize for the lack of clarity. I was being bold and showing Jake what I meant and and should have expounded better here. I have no problem with the revert and would not object to Jake's suggestion "There is controversy concerning the benefits and harms of circumcision". Surely we can source something to this degree if we wanted to. The point I am/was trying to make was more of an encapsulation of the intro stating the controversy in simpler terms. Garycompugeek (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you help me to understand what problem you're trying to solve here, Garycompugeek? Why do you think the lead needs to be simpler? Jakew (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats a great question Jake. Thank you for asking. You may have noticed I feel the article is out of balence. The Pro source of WHO endorsing circumcision to prevent AIDS is itself very controversal. Nothing wrong with controversy but a source like that should have other sources illustrating the controversy and that makes the intro too busy taking the focus away from simply what is circumcision. The fourth paragraph sums up both pro and con with sources. That I feel is perfect, more is WP:UNDUE. Summerizing I would like to move the WHO pro source to another location than the intro or a con source illustrating circumcision no HIV benefit. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Garycompugeek, in the above section you've been asked for some sources criticising the WHO's recommendations. Since you say that their endorsement is "very controversal", it seems to me that we really need to be able to examine some of these sources, in order to be able to determine the scope and extent of this controversy, and to evaluate questions of undue weight. For example, if it turns out that there is a relatively large amount of criticism in reliable sources (perhaps more so than agreement), then we would need to reflect that in terms of the weight given to each viewpoint. On the other hand, if there is relatively little (or no) criticism of the WHO's decision in reliable sources, then again we need to reflect that state of affairs. Jakew (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)