Talk:Circumcision/Archive 63

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

→

Archive 70

Practiced by Followers of Herbert W.Armstrong?

Do the Christian churches that follow the teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong practice circumcision? I remember him advocating it in his writings. (The modern-day Worldwide Church of God would be excepted.) Eligius (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The date of a study cited by a secondary source

Studiodan has again inserted text (shown in italics) in the following sentence:

• They continued, referencing a study performed in 1966, "Masters and Johnson noted no difference in exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination on the ventral or dorsal surfaces of the glans penis between circumcised and uncircumcised men."

I see several problems with this:

1. I can't think of any examples in the article in which we note the date of a source cited by a secondary source. If we're going to do this in one place, shouldn't we do it everywhere? What impression does it give if we only do so selectively?
2. According to Studiodan's edit summary, 'Inclusion of a date is not "criticism"', but it certainly creates the impression of criticism. To paraphrase, "look how old their sources are."
3. If the purpose isn't to criticise, what, exactly, is the point of the edit anyway?
4. Given that the AAP did not see fit to highlight the date of their source, is it appropriate for us to do so? When we use a secondary source we rely upon that source to select the important points from their sources. Jakew (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Dates for sources are given in several places throughout the article. As for it being a "secondary source", I fail to see why that makes a difference... the source is cited, the date is important and relevant to the content of the article.--Studiodan (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe it is necessary, in fact the entire section is an unnecessary quotation that could easily be summarized. Including a date is sometimes done, but in this case seems unnecessary. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's amazing to me that the pro-circ owners of this article will insist on two contradictory courses of action: (1) including the date next to the 1999 AMA statement viewed as critical toward male circumcision (presumably to show that it is old and outdated, in fact they openly claim it is so outdated that its presence is a concession to anti-circ "activists" here at Wikipedia), and (2) removing the date next to the presentation of the 1966 Masters and Johnson finding supportive of circumcision (with no claim that it is outdated, in fact they claim it supremely relevant and its presence necessary). More plain evidence (as if any more were needed) of the ongoing contradictions used to promotional and propagandistic ends in all circumcision (male and female) articles in Wikipedia. Blackworm (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

There are two obvious differences. First, the AMA statement refers to "all current policy statements", so the question is, what is meant by current? The statement might have been published in 2010, in which case "current" would have one meaning. Or it might have been published in 1910, in which case it would have different implications. To enable the reader to properly understand the implications, (s)he needs to know when it was published.

Second, we do not cite Masters and Johnson at all — we cite the AAP, and we do (or did at the start of this discussion, prior to WLU's edit) in fact explicitly state the date of publication of the AAP's statement. So we already include the date of our sources. What Studiodan's edit would do is to go further than that — inappropriately so — and analyse the AAP's sources. They don't comment on the date of Masters and Johnson, so why should we? Should we also comment on M&J's methodology, in spite of the AAP not doing that either? No — we should respect secondary sources and summarise what they say about their own sources. That's fundamental to using secondary sources. Jakew (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Blackworm, a) Jakew is completely correct, and b) comment on content, not contributors. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Jake it still seems like a double standard to me. Has the AMA, a currently active organization, modified their position since 1999? I agree, the date is relevant there. It's also good information for the reader to cite the date of M&J. If the AAP had said, "Neanderthals have also found no difference in the aggressiveness of circumcised and non-circumcised males," no one except those who don't know Neanderthals were prehistoric would need some context in the form of a date. Does the average reader know that Masters and Johnson are not current publishers of medical information (unlike the AMA, for example)? You seem to want to apply extremely legalistic interpretations of policy in some cases, while making completely arbitrary rulings in others (notably your claim that the word "mutilation" is not to be used in this article, even if you acknowledge that it is used in reliable sources). You support the "user experience" (to paraphrase) in the form of your support for the "when the user types circumcision, they really want to read about circumcision of males" argument, but completely ignore and do a disservice to the reader when you want to obscure the epoch of a source. You, Jayjg, and Avraham need to recognize that two or more users who have contradictory positions on edits, and always having the result of biasing content toward one point of view, while never calling each other on their contradictions, are effectively pushing the content toward a point of view in a dishonest and non-Wikipedian way. It is against the stated interest of Wikipedia to present a neutral and consistent encyclopedia. Ultimately, it is your silence on each others' contradictory interpretations of policy, combined with your virtually unaninimous agreement on edits that is unacceptable. It mathematically does not jive with WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPOV. Virtually all these edits modify the article more toward (a) presenting male circumcision as "circumcision," separating the concepts of male and female genital mutilation with completely different words, (b) minimizing coverage of the controversy and indeed adopting exact language and tone of one side of the controversy, and (c) obsuring data relevant for the reader to form an unbiased opinion, that create a biased and unacceptable atmosphere leading to biased and unacceptable content. Blackworm (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

a) There is no "contradiction" here. Giving the date of a study or statement is standard practice, particularly when it is being used to support a statement about "current" views; on the other hand, analyzing the sources of those studies in order to refute/discredit etc. is WP:NOR. b) comment on content, not contributors. I am completely and deadly serious about this; we have reached the very end of this Talk: page being used to discuss editors rather than article content. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think threats are necessary Jayig. Blackworm has brought up some very relevant points regarding wiki policy that cannot be addressed without at least minimally addressing the editors.--Studiodan (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect, it must be done without discussing other editors, as that is policy. And these are not threats, these are the last of many, many warnings regarding this. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Your reading of Civility#Avoiding_incivility seems to reinterpret the word "avoid" as "must" where personal comments on editors is concerned. Personal comments should be avoided, but in certain circumstances, an issue cannot be discussed without minimal comment about editors, as long as it's done respectfully. For the record, I've always avoided commenting on editors, but I can see where there are times minimal comment would be required to explain an issue in discussion. Your comment did read as a threat, so you might want to be aware of that. --Studiodan (talk) 05:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Minimal and respectful comments may well be acceptable, but those are not the issue here. Long screeds about the perceived character failings of other editors are clearly inappropriate by any reading of policy. There are appropriate places for discussing the failings of other editors. Article talk pages are not among them. It seems a shame that we should get to the stage where policy reminders must become strong enough that they can be perceived as threats. Let's stop it now. Jakew (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, you imply that the AMA statement is "being used to support a statement about 'current' views" -- first, the word "current" is in the source, not in our prose, thus combined with the clear date given, the reader can assess the information accordingly and with proper context. The reader is given the context to determine for themselves if the statement is relevant. Again, I repeat that should you believe this statement misleading in light of new statements published by the major medical associations (and not your unsourced assertion that they certainly now recommend it), you should present your evidence and gain a consensus for a change here. Further, the counterexample after the AMA statement (the WHO, if you consider it a medical organization) is also cited, presenting a balanced, at best, and possibly even inappropriately overriding view. Similarly, re: Masters & Johnson, the clear indication of the date of the study the AAP references is of significant benefit to the article as it provides context; it is absolutely not, as Jakew calls it, an "apparent criticism of AAP"[1] any more than the date beside the AMA statement that Jayjg wishes to remove altogether from the article (with Jakew's disturbing, disruptive silent acceptance) is a criticism by Wikipedia editors of the AMA statement. Without the date, the reader is forbidden the context to determine for themselves if the statement is relevant. That is unacceptable. As for discussing other editors, when you talk about content being in Wikipedia as a concession to activists,[2] you are doing just that. Blackworm (talk) 05:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Further, Jayjg, I find it an untenable position that you believe that "Giving the date of a study or statement is standard practice, particularly when it is being used to support a statement about 'current' views", yet you encourage and support the removing of a date being used exactly in that manner by a third party (the AAP) that we present as a current (2007) view. (The AAP statement now seems to have gone missing from the article (from this edit -- it seems that the inclusion of the date has consensus, and now that the proper context exists, the entire statement has been obscured. I suspect that this will meet with approval from those supporting the initial change, i.e., removing the date of the M&J study. I am interested in arguments in support of removing that reference to M&J after the date was added.) Clearly the date of a study, whether referenced by us directly or by a third party (which is not bound to WP:NPOV rules) is relevant, useful, and neutral. Blackworm (talk) 05:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought the explanation of why we give the dates of studies we cite (WP:V), but we don't re-analyze the sources of those studies (WP:NOR), was pretty clear. Also, I have no idea what the rest of your comments are referring to. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the argument and analysis was flawed, as I point out, citing WP:NPOV. By your interpretation of WP:NOR, the following comments would seem to violate it: here ("[...] the AMA statement is over 11 years old, and doesn't even belong in the lead. It is only there as a concession to activists, not because it actually informs in any way") and regarding the same material over a year ago, here ("The AMA's position cannot take into account more recent studies, including the WHO studies. Outdated medical statements fail WP:RS.") The difference is that rather than want to address the issue with clarity in the form of the inclusion of a date (indeed, no one argued against marking the date of the source, as its inclusion is not an "analysis"), you went further and advocated the removal of the statement altogether, based on your singular and explicit analysis of that source. I find that to be a contradictory interpretation of policy. The rest of my comments explicitly refer to the AMA statement in the lead, and the AAP statement that references Masters&Johnson (1966) that was recently removed once the date of the referenced study was added. Blackworm (talk) 06:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand you think the analysis was flawed, but others (including me) think it is actually the opposite. Also, the comments you quote are not in the article, so I don't understand your point about WP:NOR. Wikipedia editors must make editorial decisions about which material is relevant and appropriate for the article, and the lede. The importance of a study/statement and its age are obviously relevant to that. Finally, if you're again insisting that we must analyze the sources used by the AAP statement, then it has been explained to you multiple times why this is inappropriate. Or were you referring to something else? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

At least one other editor agrees with me that the context is necessary for a non-misleading coverage. The comments I quote are in Talk. Where you fail, in my view, is in demonstrating that citing the date of a study referenced while quoting another source constitutes "analysis." The analysis occured when an editor realized that quoting the AAP on Masters&Johnson, without giving the date of M&J, was obscuring information necessary for the reader to properly evaluate the AAP statement. In my opinion, an average, reasonable reader would assume that we chose an AAP quote that referenced a modern study, not one performed 44 years ago. Perhaps the fact that the statement is incomplete and misleading without the date of the referenced M&J study points to the entire AAP quote being a weak choice for inclusion. I believe as you seem to that an editor's analysis of a source to determine its possible treatment in the article is correct and appropriate. However, for the inclusion of the M&J date, no original analysis of the source was injected into the article, and no material was removed as a result of the editor's analysis of the source. Thus I interpreted your comment about NOR and analysis to only apply to the editor's analysis of the correct way to treat the source, not as a claim that original analysis was being inserted into the article. I believe the latter claim to be unfounded, and believe that any harm done ("analysis") by specifying the date of a study referenced by a source we cite is dwarfed by the harm done when the origins and/or time frame of studies whose conclusions we present are obscured through such indirect statements. I do believe your statements I quote to constitute original research, in the strictest interpretation, but such original analysis does seem acceptable in Talk as part of the process of gaining consensus for an edit. In your case, your original analysis in Talk was challenged and sourced evidence demanded for your view, and you provided none, and thus not surprisingly the consensus was then and is now that the AMA statement remains relevant and appropriate, your objections notwithstanding. I may regard your analysis of the AMA statement in the lead as absurd, but not a violation of policy unless you actually change the article to conform to the conclusion you draw from your original analysis (in which case WP:CONSENSUS would be violated). I hope this clarifies my position. Blackworm (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Blackworm, I must admit that I haven't the patience to properly read through the above wall of text, and have only skimmed through it. Please correct me if I am wrong but it seems that you aren't actually proposing to make a change to the article, but instead you appear to be arguing with comments made in the distant past. Is that right? If not, would you be kind enough to summarise — briefly, if possible — any issues that actually need to be dealt with now? Thanks. Jakew (talk) 09:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do me the courtesy of reading my posts in full before replying to them, and please do not characterize my comments negatively, for example referring to them as a "wall of text." The issue is the the following content (reworded): They cited a study by Masters and Johnson (1966), stating that the latter researchers "noted no difference in exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination on the ventral or dorsal surfaces of the glans penis between circumcised and uncircumcised men." Alternately, the wording you reproduce at the top of this talk section is acceptable. There is no valid explanation nor consensus for the removal of this information. The information as previously presented without the M&J date obscures relevant context that is otherwise misleading to the reader, and thus requires the M&J date as a remedy for this non-neutral, selective presentation on our part. Blackworm (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

WLU's edit made significant changes to the section, Blackworm, such that the AAP are now summarised as follows: "The conclusion of the American Academy of Pediatrics is that a self-report of circumcised adult men had less sexual dysfunction and more varied sexual practices, with equivocal evidence regarding sensitivity and sexual satisfaction."

Since we no longer quote the sentence referring to Masters & Johnson, it is unclear what change you are proposing to make. Jakew (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Unindent. As discussed, dates in the article are being applied to further POV.

In the introduction, pro-circ editors force the unusual dates to cast dispersion on the AMA statement; the post 1999 UNAIDS/WHO and CDC publications are more recent and possibly not considered (by the AMA). It leads the reader to think the AMA statement isn't valid today. That's POV.

In fact almost all medical associations consider current HIV facts. That AMA information is implicitly quite current, including RACP;2009, CPS;2004, BMA 2006, AAP;2005, AAFP;2007, and the AMA;1999. All of the statements include consideration of HIV benefits. Sometimes, casting dispersion on a fact serves a practical purpose, but in this case it represents unfair bias.

Read again the UNAIDS/WHO publication to remind yourself the very very limited public health benefit to circ to Wiki's English speaking audience.

In sharp contrast, many good sources are critical of the case of Masters (1966) study. Lousy, poorly described science that tested the wrong part of the penis! The date is helpful to reduce the POV in the sentence.Zinbarg (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Zinbarg, we've discussed this many times before, but I will explain this one more time. The AMA stated in 1999 that "virtually all current policy statements ...". Since they didn't have a time machine, we can reasonably suppose that they meant current at the time of writing rather than current at the time of reading, however far off in the future that may be. So, in order to properly understand their statement, it is necessary to know when they made it.

Now, what you're saying is that current policy statements as of 2010 are similar. You might be right, you might be wrong, but in any case you're missing the point because the AMA aren't commenting on policy statements as of 2010. Their 1999 statement was, and always will be, about policy statements as of 1999. And WP:NOR prevents us from saying "User:Zinbarg states that this is still true as of today."

It may be that some sources criticise the Masters and Johnson study, but the source we cite (the AAP) are not among them, and they don't mention the date. If they thought it was important then I'm sure they would have done. Correct usage of a secondary source involves summarising what they state about their sources. It is not appropriate to include our own comments about their sources. Jakew (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not only appropriate but important and necessary, just as the date next to the AMA statement is important. You repeat the false claim that it is our own original commentary. It is merely contextual information, exactly as the AMA date is (and on the latter I strongly disagree with Zinbarg), and exactly as dozens or hundreds of other bits of factual or pseudo-factual contextual information in the article, chosen by editors because of a perception that the article would be misleading without it. If there are any other examples of sources being quoted citing other sources, where the date of the sources cited by the source is obscured, we should address those issues rather than mistakenly obscure relevant context useful for the reader and necessary to form an unbiased opinion. You state that the AAP don't mention the date because they don't feel it important; I'm actually quite sure they cite the M&J date properly in their references. That we choose to quote them without properly including the date of the study they are referencing in the quote means that the misleading error is created by us, Wikipedia, not the AAP. Zinbarg also seems to suggest that the M&J study we refer to has been criticized in reliable sources; if so, then the criticism should be presented, we should not simply shrug it off as you appear to by stating that we do not currently cite such sources. Blackworm (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, this seems a rather pointless discussion since we don't actually quote the reference to M & J any more. I disagree with you, but see little point in arguing unless it is necessary. Jakew (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Then please explain your support for the removal of the AAP quoting M&J, as I ask for above, since that edit was never discussed and does not have agreement from me, as I note above. Has our summary of the AAP's stance on sensitivity suddenly become irrelevant now that it is contextualized? I intend to restore it with the version I propose in my comment of 04:52, 14 May 2010. Blackworm (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to undo WLU's edit, if you wish, but if you do so please restore the previous wording. Insertion of the date would constitute original research, as explained above, and would therefore be reverted. Jakew (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Since we disagree on the main point here, would you support asking the question on WT:OR? Blackworm (talk) 06:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Avraham's question

• "What specifically are you referring to, and whom besides yourself and Blackworm agrees?"

There are many examples of POV in the article. Generally brought to discussion up by other editors, I find very recently an air brushed circ'd penis image dispute, an HIV in the introduction dispute (see new details below), the sensation graph dispute, and the FGM versus FGC versus human rights versus genital mutilation dispute (the underlying problem is Jakew insistance on an equal number of pro/con points, regardless of content). I personally find many facts obsured while others given undue weight, with the recent HIV dispute being a great example. The article is basically pro circ propaganda.

I can't speak for other editors. We did recently discuss the prior recent poll which did approve the single POV tagTalk:Circumcision/Archive 53#Straw poll: should tags be removed?.

Personally, based on their contributions, I bet recent editors Blackworm, Studiodan, Garycompugeek, myself, Frank Koehler, Trinu, and Johncoz agree on the need for the POV tag. I won't speculate on others.Zinbarg (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Circumcised Penis Image

The current image is quite obviously very graphically manipulated. Notice the washed out background (most obvious). You can also see softened/blurred skin, and very obvious image cutting. In addition to this, the fact that such editing is not seen for the not-circumcised penis creates a neutrality problem.File:Flaccid_and_erect_penis.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Studiodan (talk • contribs)

Yes, it would be nice if the pictures were more similar. At one stage we had a pair of images that were very similar indeed, but for some reason (I forget what) they were replaced with what we have now. Jakew (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I recall that as well. I'll take a look into the history and old talk pages and try to figure out what the reason was for replacement. If anyone here knows the reason, please jump in.--Studiodan (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Jake, this isn't about the photos being disimilar. It's that the circumcised image is obviously manipulated and blurred. The background is strangely washed out, and the circumcised penis has low contrast, making it hard to see. The uncircumcised image is clear and sharp. What we need is a photo of a circumcised penis that has this clarity, with about the same field of view.Wandooi (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you volunteering to take such a photo, Wandooi? Jakew (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I was offering. I am circumcised, and I have no problem with submitting a photograph parallel to the other, bamboo too, but how is that encyclopedic? I suppose somebody would say "it's not normal! Too much scar tissue. Not enough scar tissue. Too short. Too long. Etcetera". Wandooi (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent image changes

Recent changes by Studiodan seem rather questionable. In essence, the changes consisted of replacing Image:Flaccid and erect penis.jpg with Image:Flaccid-erect.jpg, and removal of Image:Erection Homme.jpg. Let me address the problems caused by this in turn:

First, changing the image is somewhat problematic, because Image:Flaccid-erect.jpg has a fairly obvious skin bridge. It is not optimal, from an NPOV standpoint, to illustrate circumcision with a complication. In this respect, the other image is preferred.

Second, removing the image of an uncircumcised penis is also problematic, because it is the presence of both images that demonstrates how circumcision changes the appearance of the penis. Consider a hypothetical person who had only ever seen a circumcised penis. If he sees the image, he will simply see what is to him a typical penis, and it will not be obvious that it illustrates circumcision at all. In contrast, if both are shown then he can see the differences between the two. Jakew (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have a problem then. The previous image was drastically graphically manipulated, and the current image has a skin bridge. Maybe it's best we find another alternative.

Regarding the removal of the not circumcised image, I figured it wasn't needed, and I seem to recall this (it's removal) was one of your suggestions some time back (though I could be mistaken). If it's important to have both, then we should put it back. I'd like to hear some opinions about this.

--Studiodan (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, we'd have professional pictures of two normal, healthy penes, taken with identical equipment and lighting. Sadly, however, we don't, and for the time being at least we have to work with the best images available to us. It seems to me that we should stick with the images over which we've had longstanding consensus, until we can reach a consensus that alternative images are an improvement. Jakew (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Which has had the longest standing consensus? It seems to me that File:Flaccid-erect.jpg was there longer. Several have complained about the obvious graphic manipulation of File:Flaccid_and_erect_penis.jpg. There is no possible way we can make everyone happy if choosing between these two images.--Studiodan (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you insist the previous photo was graphically manipulated? In any event, your current, non-consensus choice is clearly unacceptable. Please either restore the previous photos, or remove them all together. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised you are suggesting it's not obviously manipulated, as you are so far the first to suggest that isn't the case when this has been discussed. The most obvious editing is that the background was cut out and replaced with a soft white glow. Other visible manipulations include skin softening, further cutting (not cropping), and other possible manipulations.--Studiodan (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not seeing it. Do you have any actual evidence that the photo was manipulated? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Image Flaccid and erect penis.jpg has not had its background manipulated. That is a lighting effect called "backlighting" and the reason the front surfaces of the penis is in shadow. However, it is problematic since it does not show a lot of detail, just a silhouette. To me, image Flaccid-erect.jpg is preferred since it is well lit, exposed, and in focus, and has a neutral background. Frank Koehler (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Image Erection Homme.jpg is well lit, exposed, and in focus, but the background is not neutral, and a distraction, and the outdoor setting adds additional meaning to the photo which is out of context for this article. I suggest we keep it until such time a replacement is found since it is better than having no photo at all. I do object to the caption: "A penis that has not been circumcised" since that is in reality a normal, healthy, intact penis, and not one in need of surgical intervention. As a comparison, we would not caption a human arm photo as "unamputated," even if the article was about amputation. Frank Koehler (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of including the image is, in fact, to show a penis that hasn't been circumcised, so that the reader may compare with one that has. It is therefore entirely appropriate to describe it as such. Jakew (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing attempts to remove images

Regarding Studiodan's ongoing attempts to remove images from the article, the most recently given reason is (in an edit summary): "Circumcised image is GRAPHICALLY MANIPULATED, and thus NOT suited for the article". This is not a good reason for removal. Assuming the image is indeed manipulated (I have no comment on that matter), that is an extremely weak reason for removing the images. Nothing in Wikipedia policy prohibits the use of graphically manipulated images. A more important question is whether it illustrates the subject (a circumcised penis) properly, and I see no reason to believe that it fails to do so. It is clearly and recognisably a circumcised penis and, when placed next to an uncircumcised penis, clearly illustrates the differences. Jakew (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It illustrates the difference between a graphically manipulated image, and one that isn't manipulated.--Studiodan (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but as noted, that isn't the issue. Jakew (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Image:Flaccid-erect.jpg

1. Had a long standing consensus from September 1st 2007 to November 5th 2009.
2. Is not graphically manipulated.

Image:Flaccid and erect penis.jpg

1. Has only been up for 5 months.
2. Is graphically manipulated.

We can either use Image:Flaccid-erect.jpg, Image:Circumsised penis - Flacid and Erect - High Res.jpg, some other image, or nothing at all. We cannot use Image:Flaccid and erect penis.jpg--Studiodan (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no evidence that this photo was "graphically manipulated", nor that it would make any difference even if it were. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. Studiodan, if your intent is to build a consensus then I would advise saying something other than (to paraphrase) "we cannot do this", which is the argumentative equivalent of stamping your foot. Jakew (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Image Flaccid and erect penis.jpg has not had its background manipulated. That is a lighting effect called "backlighting" and the reason the front surfaces of the penis is in shadow. However, it is problematic since it does not show a lot of detail, just a silhouette. Frank Koehler (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with Image:Circumsised penis - Flacid and Erect - High Res.jpg? If that's lighting in the current image, he must have been standing behind a nuclear blast... hell, the nuclear radiation has nuked half of his body away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.214.77.252 (talk • contribs)

Yes, it does have a very peculiar colour cast. Jakew (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to Image:Circumsised penis - Flacid and Erect - High Res.jpg ? --Studiodan (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes — if you read the two comments immediately above yours, you'll see that we've been discussing the strange orange colour cast. Also, it is significantly shorter than Image:Erection Homme.jpg, which has certain non-neutral implications; while it's impossible to show an identical penis, I think we should try to use penes that are as similar as possible in all respects other than circumcision status. Jakew (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think User:75.214.77.252 was talking about the white glow in Image:Flaccid and erect penis.jpg, and not the orange tint in Image:Circumsised penis - Flacid and Erect - High Res.jpg.--Studiodan (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The orange tint and shorter size in Image:Circumsised penis - Flacid and Erect - High Res.jpg are natural human characteristics, unlike the graphically manipulated white glow in Image:Flaccid and erect penis.jpg. Back lighting cannot account for that glow. Like User:75.214.77.252 said, it looks like it has nuked half his body away. --Studiodan (talk) 10:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The current image is CLEARLY unacceptable, and needs to be removed ASAP. How many people have to comment on this before it's removed?--Studiodan (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest trying to build a consensus for an alternative image or pair of images. Pay attention to what has been said about your proposals to date, and try to find alternatives that do not suffer from the same problems. If necessary, consider uploading new photograph(s). Jakew (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

In the mean time, let's get rid of what is a false representation. The current image is worse than all the others... it needs to go until we find a replacement.--Studiodan (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to get consensus for that change, too. You haven't so far. Jakew (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any consensus to keep the image.--Studiodan (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If there's no consensus to make a change, the default is to preserve the status quo. I've grumbled about this in the past, but for better or worse that's the way things are done on Wikipedia. Jakew (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Legitimate reasons to include a graphically manipulated image needed

FOR THE RECORD: The lack of comments about the issues I've addressed above (in Talk:Circumcision#Ongoing_attempts_to_remove_images), and instead, attempts to falsely report me for more reverts than I have done speaks volumes. I have NEVER made more than 3 reverts on a single item in more than 24 hours (I keep a meticulous catalog to be sure of that). If you don't have a good reason to use the graphically manipulated image, don't use it. Bullying is not good Wikipedia policy.--Studiodan (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no evidence that this photo was "graphically manipulated", nor that it would make any difference even if it were. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This photo is quite clearly photoshopped to a degree that's far less than honest. I'm surprised anyone would argue with this critisizm, since it's so obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.215.74.104 (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not all that "clear", actually (I could be persuaded either way), but as noted above it's completely irrelevant. Jakew (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Image Poll

Of the following two images, which is a more honest and accurate image of a circumcised penis?

(Note: the question is not which is more visually attractive, but instead which is more honest and accurate)

IMAGE A: Image:Flaccid and erect penis.jpg

IMAGE B: Image:Circumsised penis - Flacid and Erect - High Res.jpg

--Studiodan (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

My vote is for Image B _{(Image:Circumsised penis - Flacid and Erect - High Res.jpg).} Image A has horrid resolution, and is lit (artificially) in a way that is very dishonest (I don't think a silhouette of a circumcised penis serves any educational purpose, only photographic art).--Studiodan (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I viewed the pictures before reading your comments, in the order B, A; and when I viewed Image A I could almost hear the chorus of angels singing, and was reminded of old war propaganda posters with rays of light coming out of whatever is being deified. It isn't dishonest, in my view, it's laughably propagandistic. So for that reason I would prefer Image B, although Image A would be more consistent with the remainder of this propagandistic brochure of an article. And I think you can safely ignore Jakew's comments below, which are inappropriate and a seeming attempt to derail discussion. Blackworm (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

First, the current circ'd image is air brushed thus totally dishonest. It does not belong in Wikipedia and must go. Second, I'd like to see a side and FRONT image of both circ'd and intact, because erogenous sensation is focused in the ventral plane mucosa. Also, please reconsider the Sorrell's image for sensation by location. Given what's offered, I vote for Image B Image:Circumsised penis - Flacid and Erect - High Res.jpg.Zinbarg (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

My vote is for Image B, with the caveat to keep looking for something better. Again, Image A is NOT airbrushed. You can consider me an airbrush expert. I took airbrushing lessons 30 yeas ago, I've bought and sold 8 airbrushes, and currently own 12. I am also adept at using the airbrush tool in Photoshop. I am also an accomplished studio photographer. What you are seeing here is a lighting technique, not airbrushing. My only complaint with this image is that the important detail is in shadow. If you like, I can remove the orange cast from Image A so the skin tones are more realistic. Frank Koehler (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Concern about the above poll

I'm rather concerned about the above poll, for several reasons. In no particular order:

1. The question posed is meaningless to those of us who do not perceive either image to be dishonest or inaccurate, but consider other issues to be more relevant.
2. As a consequence of (1), even if we agreed that one image was more "honest and accurate", we would still need to address these other issues, so I do not understand the function of the poll.
3. The purpose of the poll is unclear. Since voting is not a substitute for discussion, and even a majority favouring one or the other would not necessarily constitute a "win", what is its purpose? I think this ought to be stated.
4. In any case, there is evidence that Studiodan has attempted to stack the vote in a partisan manner by notifying editors who have expressed support for Studiodan's position in this or other discussions,[3][4][5][6] thus compromising the process.

Jakew (talk) 10:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

1. If you don't find either dishonest, you don't have to comment if you don't want to (you can also object).
2. The purpose is to see where people stand so we can further discuss the matter.
3. See above.
4. <sarcasm>How dare I notify others.</sarcasm> Why don't you notify others as well then? The purpose of notifying others is to get people to contribute. Why is that shocking or alarming?
5. This is a regular pattern... to make a list of erronious issues, in hopes that they stack up to something. Let's be honest and work towards an honest article instead of the b/s for once.--Studiodan (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Said user says I must seek consensus, then basically says "how dare I seek consensus"... These tactics are getting old. Let's stop the b/s and run a poll. The poll doesn't determine what is used, it's only part of the picture. Once we have a poll, then we can discuss it. If the poll is flawed, we can run another. Attempts to discredit a poll before it begins shows bias and prior intended deceit.--Studiodan (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Jakew, you're concern about Studiodan is unfounded. I supported his edits before finding out there was a poll. Regardless, there's no problem asking recently active editors to a poll.Zinbarg (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

2007 WHO/UNAIDS on Male Circumcision

Please read the 2007 WHO/UNAIDS summary in Male circumcision: global trends and determinants of prevalence, safety and acceptability[[7]].

2.6 Summary

Male circumcision is medically indicated for only a

few conditions. There is substantial evidence that circumcised

men have a lower risk of some reproductive

tract infections, as well as penile cancer, but some of

these conditions are rare while others are uncommon

or treatable, and routine neonatal circumcision is not

currently recommended on medical grounds.

Note that HIV isn't considered in the summary, but rather religated to a beneift of circumcision in sub-Saharan Africa. That tends to confirm my statement that the So Africa is only english speaking country where (see UNAIDS/WHO statement of public benefit) is relevant. Why does it belong in the English version of Wiki, in the Introduction, as the last sentence (relatively important position), as a seperate paragraph! Silly POV.

HIV does not belong in the introduction. It is a minor beneift, and it is well covered in the body. The dates are misleading, because the AMA statement is backed by more even more recent medical association statements as well as the WHO/UNAIDS statements. If needed, we could do away with some of the AMA quote, and emphasize the WHO/UNAIDS summary statement.Zinbarg (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see the previous discussion on the subject. Jakew (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion you point to was about a different WHO/UNAIDS publication, and is thus barely relevant.Zinbarg (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Besides, you point to a POV discussion, not the HIV in the introduction discussion. Again, not the exagerated references (it's ONE WHO/UNAIDS publication, not two as presented).Zinbarg (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I refer you to the discussion in that section underneath the horizontal line. It begins "Inclusion of HIV in the lead..." There you will find our last discussion of whether HIV should be discussed in the lead. Jakew (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want me to refer to a page, please provide the proper link. I see no "Inclusion of HIV...

I do remember other editors surprised and against your listing the single WHO/UNAIDS HIV publication as two, with two dates, as the end of the introduction as it's own paragraph. I think there was consensus for putting HIV in the pro-con paragraph. I more recently suggested using the 2007 WHO/UNAIDS publication on circumcision (not HIV) instead of the AMA. Dates are unusual, and I've shown they are not pertinent (with the WHO/UNAIDS circumcision publication).Zinbarg (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Follow the link I provided. Immediately below your comment dated 15:06, 23 April 2010, you'll find a horizontal line. Below this line is a note in italics, reading "Note: I'm changing the indentation...". Two lines below that you will find the bullet point beginning "Inclusion of HIV..."

If you scroll down further, you'll find a bullet point that begins "Mention of the authorship of the WHO/UNAIDS ref..." In that discussion, you'll see that I said I had no objection to rephrasing the description of the WHO/UNAIDS publication so that there was no risk of confusing it for two publications, and I invited you to suggest an alternative phrasing. You declined. If you wish to make a suggestion now, I'm still happy to discuss that.

We have discussed dates previously. They're appropriate. Jakew (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Unindent. No, dates are very unusual in the text in Wikipedia. You put them there to cast doubt on the AMA statement (being ~before HIV findings). That might be appropriate if relevant. They are not because HIV benefit is considered (in fact) in current (post HIV findings) medical assoc statements, as well as the 2007 WHO/UNAIDS Circumcision publication.

I did not see you invite. I think Coppertwig asked, and that editor you probably brought in offered but didn't provide. I did not decline, but considered the possibility stupid because HIV doesn't even belong in the introduction (evidently being a minor consideration in English speaking countries).

Does Jakew ever write nearly anything or just revert to maintain the status quo?Zinbarg (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The invitation was in my comment dated 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC), in which I said: "I've no objection in principle to re-phrasing the sentence. Please provide the text that you propose to use instead." Jakew (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, do you ever write anything? No wonder I didn't remember. We need to much more than "rephrase" that paragraph. It shouldn't be it's own paragraph. It shouldn't be at the end of the Introduction. Since HIV is evidently a relatively minor benefit to circ's in English speaking countries (see WHO/UNAIDS summary above), it doesn't belong in the Introduction. And guess what, it's well and properly covered in the body of the text. It's unconscionable, your reverting of improper text.Zinbarg (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Zinbarg, if you don't want to change the paragraph then why do you keep bringing up the issue of how it is worded? Jakew (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There are two issues. One: The current HIV paragraph is horribly wrong (which I point out in wording); Two: HIV doesn't belong in the Introduction. I point to the former because it's Jakew who enforces that version against the (wording) concensus.Zinbarg (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me put this another way: are you actually interested in fixing what you perceive to be faults in the paragraph? Jakew (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Unindent. I have made the appropriate edit to fix the faulty paragraph (by it's removal). I have offered to write a new second paragraph, which could include mention of HIV benefit. Given more important benefits (not covered like HIV), I want to make sure that editors previously insisting on HIV coverage still make that demand. I prefer using with a simple (like the WHO/UNAIDS summary) ~not recommended for medical reasons, but respectful of ritualistic or religious purposes.Zinbarg (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

So, if I may summarise, you're not interested in fixing it. If that's the case, I suggest that you don't bring it up again. Jakew (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I will edit in the fix.Zinbarg (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sexual Effects

Jakew, please explain why this graph is excluded from the sexual effects section of circumcision.

I vote for it's inclusion because it's double blind, objective, peer reviewed, recent, and all about sensitivity.Zinbarg (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see the previous discussion on the subject. Jakew (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Dismissed without just cause isn't exactly a discussion. Do not edit my prior entries without notice and reason.Zinbarg (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I should say dismissed by Jakew and Jayg, but supported by Johncoz, Blackworm, myself, and Studiodan. You loose.Zinbarg (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You asked for an explanation, and in the discussion I referenced you can find an explanation of why it would violate undue weight policy. Jakew (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, you lost that discussion. Besides, how can objective neutral fact can be considered undue weight?Zinbarg (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The answer to that question can be found in the earlier discussion, in my comment dated 10:56, 22 January 2010. Jakew (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You edited my entry without notice again. STOP defacing the text.Zinbarg (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not post full-size images to the talk page. Talk pages are for discussion; they are not image galleries. Links to images and thumbnails are okay, but full-size images take up too much space and make it more difficult to follow the discussion. Jakew (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Unindent. Silly argument, because it neither takes up too much space or makes discussion hard to follow. But, thanks for proper notice of changes (you shouldn't make in the first place) for once.Zinbarg (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's jakew's argument dated 10:56, 22 January 2010: "The main problem, though, is undue weight. Why, of all the fifty or so studies that have assessed sexual effects of circumcision, should we choose to illustrate this particular study? The impression that is given as a result is that the results of this particular study are far more important than the results of any of the others; that only Sorrells' results are worthy of illustration. As you acknowledge, this is basically the only study that has chosen this particular methodology — no doubt they believe that theirs is the "right" approach, but should Wikipedia endorse that viewpoint by displaying their data so prominently? By doing so, Wikipedia implies that measuring the ability to sense lightest touch at various points on the penis is much more relevant to the sexual effects of circumcision than, say, performing a prospective study of men's reported sexual pleasure before and after circumcision. Hence undue weight. Jakew (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)"

I refute the above based on the following: Sorrells is the 1. only double blind, objective, measure study of tissue sensitivity. There are no comperable studies for contrast. 2. Other circumcision/sexuality studies are generally subjective (patient questionare surveys). 3. Other circumcision/sexuality studies are generally post elective surgery to cure a penis ill (biasing the results). 4. Other circumcision/sexuality studies are generally much smaller, with a very low response participation rates (another source of potential bias). 5. Other circumcision/sexuality sensitivity studies commonly focus on the glans. 6. No other study analyzes the ventral tissue of the penis. 7. Most other studies have low t stats, and are acknowledged to be not statictically significant.

Editors should take a look at Jakew's Sexual Effects page[[8]], where he prominently presents statistically insignificant results as though they were a relevant findings.Zinbarg (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

To address the issues you raise:

1a) Sorrells' study was not double blinded. It wasn't singly-blinded either. Both the participants and the researchers knew the circumcision status.

The researchers doing the actual sensitivity test did not know if the participant was circ'd or uncirc'd, and the researchers crunching the numbers didn't know the circ status, thus it's double blind.Zinbarg (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Where on earth are you getting this information? To quote from p865 of Sorrells et al: "Because of the method of data collection, it was impossible for the physician measuring the fine-touch thresholds to be unaware of the circumcision status of the subject. Likewise, because of the number of locations sampled, it was also impossible for the statistician to be unaware of the circumcision status of the subject."

Also — and I've told you before about this — don't insert comments in the middle of other editor's posts. I'll let it pass this time, but if it happens again it will be reverted. Jakew (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

1b) nor is it the only objective measured study of tissue sensitivity. Other studies include Masters & Johnson, Bleustein 2003, Bleustein 2005, and Payne 2007.

Those reasearchers studied penile skin or the glans, not penile mucosa. None of those researchers measured the ventral plane of the penis. Payne studied "penile shaft, the glans penis, and the volar surface of the forearm." Bleustein "tested on the dorsal midline glans of the penis (foreskin retracted)." Masters doesn't really say what they did way back in 1966, but it was focused on the glans. If you think one those studies can present a relevant graph please show.Zinbarg (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the surface of the glans is mucosa. Second, Bleustein et al also tested the foreskin, as is quite clearly stated in the full paper: "In uncircumcised men, an additional measurement was taken at the dorsal midline "foreskin,"..." Would you please take the trouble to read sources rather than wasting my time with these incorrect claims? Jakew (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

1c) measuring sensitivity at certain sites is not the only method of assessing sexual sensation/sensitivity. Another, equally valid, method is to ask participants how much sensation they perceive. Several studies have used this approach instead (eg., Masood et al. and Krieger et al.).

There are many studies. Subjective questionare responses are NOT considered as valid as objective measurement.

Masood only got 55% to responded to their questionare! and from participants who generally got circ'd because their penis was diseased. You'd expect a dramatic increase in satisfaction from simple relief! Krieger participants benefited from social rewards and reduced risk of HIV (reduce fear should enhance pleasure), and results generally biased by cognitive dissonance (got myself circ'd so I must be better).Zinbarg (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You may not consider them to be valid, but I'm afraid that others disagree. The researchers evidently considered their approach to be valid, as did those who peer reviewed the papers, and so on. Your theories about possible biases are interesting but, again, just one point of view. Jakew (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

2) To some extent all studies have a subjective element, but yes, some methodologies rely more upon subjective assessments than others. As noted, however, we cannot give special preference to one approach over another.

In what way is Sorrell's graph subjective?Zinbarg (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorrells approach was, essentially, to apply stimulation and ask, "can you feel that?" Thus, a degree of judgment is needed from the participant to decide whether they can feel stimulation or not. Hence there is a degree of subjectivity. Jakew (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

3) Many studies are post elective surgery, though this does not necessarily bias the results.

Hogwash (easily supported statement).Zinbarg (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not an argument, so I shall not reply. Jakew (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

4) Some studies are smaller, others are larger (Krieger, for example, included >2,700 men).

5) Yes, some of the other studies of the "measure sensitivity at various sites" have focused on the glans.

6) This is true, as far as I know.

2-6) None of these statements constitute reasons to favour any particular study. The methodology chosen by certain teams of researchers are, we can reasonably assume, what those researchers believe to be most appropriate. We must be careful to be neutral with respect to methodologies, and should avoid imposing editors' own views about study design. Some of us may favour one approach, others may favour the other. As a neutral encyclopaedia, we cannot give special preference to either.

7) It is indeed true that many other studies (and, most if not all other measured-sensitivity studies) found no statistically significant differences (nor did Sorrells, for that matter, as analysed by Waskett & Morris).

Your analysis (Waskett & Morris) did not apply to the graph (only parts of the text possibly needed qualifying).Zinbarg (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It was an analysis of the data presented in Sorrells Table 2. The graph, I believe, depicts exactly the same data. Jakew (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The fundamental problem with this so-called "refutation" is that you haven't actually addressed the primary issue that I raised: it stands to reason that Sorrells et al. believe that their study design is the "right" way to assess sexual sensation/sensitivity, but that viewpoint is not universally held, and so we shouldn't give it preferential treatment.

Those who believe that testing sensitivity to artificial stimulation is the right approach might favour Sorrells or Bleustein; those who believe that sexual sensation is more complicated than that and can only be assessed by actually asking men might favour Krieger. Those who believe that it is better to test at more locations than to test different types of stimulation might think Sorrells is "best"; those who think it is better to test a wider variety of types of stimulation might prefer Bleustein.

Obviously you prefer studies in which a larger number of points are tested against one type of artificial stimulation. You're entitled to that viewpoint, and while I don't agree I'm not saying that you're wrong. But Wikipedia has a policy of WP:NPOV, and that includes neutrality with respect to which approach is best. Jakew (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC) (edited 21:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC))

It's not a question of "best," but what's objective fact. You agree that Sorrell's did a good job of testing without bias, given their methods. You simply point out there might be other graphs to consider. Please bring forth to consider.Zinbarg (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, no, I don't believe I did agree that Sorrells did a good job of testing without bias. I haven't commented on that issue here, so I'm not sure where you got that idea.

What I have said is that it's impractical and unrealistic to include graphs of every study of sexual aspects of circumcision. And since including graphs of some studies would effectively give undue weight to those studies, that wouldn't be a satisfactory solution. Jakew (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your comments and criticism to the BJU editors suggests otherwise. But here, please explain reasons, if any, you think their test was biased.Zinbarg (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What on earth would be the point? My opinions regarding the merits (or lack thereof) of this study are completely irrelevant to Wikipedia. Jakew (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Unindent. I guess you agree Sorrell's is factual. You use undue weight to maintain some sort of numerical equality. If there's a graph that seems anti-circ, you insist on including a graph that is pro-circ. Otherwise, you prevent inclusion of the (you think) anti graph because it's undue weight. Basically silly, and not based on factual relevance.Zinbarg (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm making no statement about the merits (or lack thereof) of Sorrells paper. Jakew (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Including one such graph from one study would seem to me to be undue weight in this article, which summarizes large amounts of published information on the large topic of cirucmcision. A map of prevalence of circumcision in countries of the world is reasonable to include; a graph of specific data points from a blind study is not. The facts presented by the graph would need to be established at least by a review study or equivalent before considering inclusion. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Concensus

I read prior discussion on the sensitivity graph Talk:Circumcision/Archive 61#Penile sensivity and the image dispute and vote (above). I find the majority of editors in favor or fixing the image (to B) and to include the sensitivity graph. I submit that Jakew is being a troll.Zinbarg (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, do not attack other editors. Secondly, I assume you must be joking in your claim of consensus. As WP:CONSENSUS clearly states, "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority." Jayjg and I gave clear, arguments explaining why the image violated applicable policy, and these arguments have not been refuted. Jakew (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Look up the Wikipedia definition of a troll. Your (Jakew and Jajg) arguments were to mostly to paste applicable policy as though it was pertinent. It is not. A majority of editors disagreed with your ~argument.Zinbarg (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, whether a majority agreed or disagreed is not the primary issue. Jakew (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Concensus referred to more that just the Sexual Effects graph, so leave it as a new discussion. Do not make edits to others entries without prior permission and approval.Zinbarg (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

A majority of qualified editors read your statements and disagreed with your "quality" arguments. I guess you claim to control absolute truth?Zinbarg (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Simple disagreement is little more than a vote. A more important test is whether the arguments were addressed and refuted, and I do not believe they were. Neither of us can claim to be impartial observers, of course, since we were both involved in that discussion, but I am fairly confident that a neutral third-party would agree with my assessment. Jakew (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Unindent. I am encyclopedic, neutral, and respectful. I do not think Jakew should promote circumcision for medical benefits. We could instead apply the WHO/UNAIDS summary, or the AMA statement of fact without bias (bias including adding the HIV paragraph in a critical position in the Introduction).

I did not find your arguments worthwhile. You're welcome to reintroduce those arguments as a new topic below, as it applies to the sensitivity graph and doctored penis image.

Again, I can't see how a clear un-doctored picture violated applicable policy, relative to a doctored unclear picture. L:ikewise, how can a double blind (neutral), clearly defined and constructed, peer reviewed and published, objective measure of sensitivity research that speaks to a primary aspect of sexuality (tactile sensitivity) be undue weight?Zinbarg (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've already explained how it constitutes undue weight, in Talk:Circumcision/Archive 61#Penile sensivity graph (see my comment dated 10:56, 22 January 2010). Jakew (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your comment from Talk:Circumcision/Archive 61#Penile sensivity graph is pasted above ending Sexual Effects. You confuse the sensitivity graph with the altered penis image. You frankly don't have a leg to stand on with respect to the doctored penis image. With respect to the sensitivity graph, please see my refute again below:

I refute the above based on the following: Sorrells is the 1. only double blind, objective, measure study of tissue sensitivity. There are no comperable studies for contrast. 2. Other circumcision/sexuality studies are generally subjective (patient questionare surveys). 3. Other circumcision/sexuality studies are generally post elective surgery to cure a penis ill (biasing the results). 4. Other circumcision/sexuality studies are generally much smaller, with a very low response participation rates (another source of potential bias). 5. Other circumcision/sexuality sensitivity studies commonly focus on the glans. 6. No other study analyzes the ventral tissue of the penis. 7. Most other studies have low t stats, and are acknowledged to be not statictically significant.Zinbarg (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not confusing anything. You asked (again) why the graph was undue weight, so (again) I told you where to find the answer. Regarding your "refutation", I decline to have the same discussion with you in two different sections, so please see my response above. Jakew (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Lets focus on the task at hand instead of you said he said. I actually missed my most important point re inclusion of the sensitivity graph. I invited you to present to discussion other graphs, where you can argue their relevance to the article. Facts are facts and relevant facts are all good for Wikipedia.

Putting yourself up as the judge of undue weight is silly for any editor, particularly when the concensus disagrees, and especially for an editor who is quite open about his personal pro-circ bias, and who professes devotion to that bias in Wikipedia.Zinbarg (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There are at least eight studies that relate to sensitivity or sexual sensation alone. When one considers other sexual aspects, such as erectile function, ejaculation, sexual drive, satisfaction, etc., there are more than 40. It would be completely unrealistic to include graphs of them all — it would be absurd. So I can't see how we could avoid a situation in which we'd be singling out specific studies for preferential treatment. Jakew (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Reading back I see other editors refuted your opinion, as I have above.Zinbarg (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Cull that list of studies for those with good t stats and you're left with just a few. They generally show loss of sensation (but frequently better satisfaction). Krieger stands out, but subjective survey reviews on adults who are later circ'd and surveyed should not be extrapolated to infant or childhood circ's.Zinbarg (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There are different views on that — some people believe that it is appropriate to extrapolate from adult circumcisions to those in infancy, whereas others disagree. Regardless, the fact remains that these findings exist. Also, in English, what do you mean by "good t stats"? Jakew (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Unindent. I don't speculate. I've read that ~adult results should not be considered comparable to infant circs~ statement in a medical association statement, and at the end of one of the studies you've cited. Logically, how can before/after questionare surveys in adults who underwent elective (usually to solve a debilitating foreskin related problem) circumcision be compared to routine infant circs? With the Krieger study, you'd think HIV benefits and social aspects biased the results (at least relative to infant circs)Zinbarg (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Zinbarg, you're asserting an opinion: that the results of adult studies cannot be extrapolated to infant circumcisions. Some people agree with that opinion, some don't. Since it isn't a testable hypothesis, neither position can ever be proven. My personal view is that the similarities between adult and infant circumcision vastly outweigh any differences, but I do not intend to argue the point with you because our opinions are not relevant. As I said, the fact remains that these findings exist, and whether they apply to infant circumcisions or not is an unresolvable question that is, at best, a side issue. Jakew (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I reflect expert opinions of others, peer reviewed published, which have all stated low relevance for comparison.

Point stands that Sorrell's was an objective double blind well defined test of sensory perception. You argued problems with their conclusion, but can't (didn't) refute the data as presented in the graph. It's concentrated, fully disclosed, information that is quite encyclopedic.Zinbarg (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Zinbarg, I haven't argued that the graph should be excluded because the data is somehow wrong, so why would I try to refute the data? I'm saying that the graph should be excluded because presenting it would give undue weight to one study, and that is forbidden by policy. Jakew (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've read and understand undue weight. Including an objective, factual graph does not violate undue weight. Please find more quality graphs and charts, because they are typically concentrated ways of getting valuable information to the Wiki audience.

I'm not interested in fixing the problems, but Jakew us guilty of violating undue weight by his insistance on an equal number of pro and con points regardless of the quality or validity of the point. Look at 11 External links 11.1 Circumcision opposition and 11.2 Circumcision promotion. Jakew had to dig way down to his own (bottom of the barrel) website to find enough pro circ representation. Jakew then prevents inclusion of additional higher quality (he views as con) websites as undue weight. Silly position trying to maintain numeric equality regardless of content quality.Zinbarg (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Including a graph can easily violate undue weight since it effectively gives much more attention to the results of one particular study. Since you've read WP:UNDUE, you're doubtless aware that it explicitly states: "This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well." And as I've explained several times, adding more graphs would not solve the problem.

I'm afraid your accusation of undue weight in external links makes no sense whatsoever. You have offered nothing more than your opinion as evidence of low quality among pro-circumcision sites. That's not exactly persuasive. To correct you on one point, I did not add circs.org to the article. It was added by Tremello22, last June. Jakew (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Unindent. Inclusion of junk (take a look at Jakew's website) is undue weight, and preventing quality sites from inclusion based on numerical equality is undue weight (which Jakew has done), and preventing presentation of any quality objective fact graph is undue weight. You see, undue is relative to reality.Zinbarg (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, you're just presenting your opinion. Jakew (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The consensus of experienced, non-WP:SPA editors is that the graph violates WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Vote HIV in the Introduction?

I tried to show (via the 2007 WHO/UNAIDS publication[[9]]) that HIV isn't really important. Certainly not important to English speaking residents of any country other than So Africa. Anyway, if we list HIV we'd have to list more important benefits. So, I think we should leave it to the body of the text. HIV gets lots of coverage in the body.

I invited Jakew to help write a new last paragraph (currently starts with AMA), but before we do I'd like to get a new vote.Zinbarg (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by discussion and consensus, not voting. Please see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Jakew (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, but why have you initiated and participated in so many votes? Anyway, who insists on HIV in the introduction (besides Jakew) and why.Zinbarg (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

On the rare occasions that I've created straw polls, the purpose of such a straw poll is usually to find out whether we have consensus or not. In this situation, though, it's completely obvious to even the most casual observer that there's no consensus to remove the paragraph: Spaully, myself, Coppertwig, Jayjg and myself have all spoken against removing the paragraph, and Avi and JoshuaZ (in addition to some of those already mentioned) have reverted its removal. The other things that sometimes look like votes are community processes such as articles for deletion or page move requests. These look a bit like votes, but that's just because it happens to be a convenient structure for the discussion. They aren't votes. Jakew (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Not rarely. Talks likes a duck, walks like a duck, Hmmmmm. Seems like a vote, but I must be wrong.

I am willing to write HIV into the AMA paragraph. Probably start out with something like the WHO/UNAIDS summary stating benefits but then include HIV as another benefit. WHO/UNAIDS then moderates those benefits by saying "these conditions are rare while others are uncommon or treatable, and routine neonatal circumcision is not currently recommended on medical grounds," so we can't quote HIV accurately using that cite. And there are too many of qualifications needed if we use[[10]].

That last ~vote came before Spaully, Jakew, Coppertwig, Jayjg, Avi, JoshuaZ were able to read and discuss the new WHO/UNAIDS summary.Zinbarg (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

My initial reaction is that the HIV paragraph and AMA paragraphs are separate and should probably remain so since presenting them together would have NOR implications. However, I'm willing to consider merging them — there may be a way of doing so that I haven't thought of. If you describe the precise changes you have in mind, I'll be happy to comment. Jakew (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Unindent. How about:

Circumcision is medically indicated for only a few conditions. While there is substantial evidence that circumcised men have a lower risk of urinary tract infections as well as penile cancer and HIV, these conditions are treatable or uncommon or rarely applicable.[[11]] The American Medical Association in a report which was "…confined to circumcisions that are not performed for ritualistic or religious purposes," states that "Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice."Zinbarg (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously not: it falls short of WP:NPOV. It's the kind of thing one might expect to find on an anti-circumcision website. Jakew (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing anti, simply there are only minor medical grounds to circ. Not enough to recommend. It's all nearly a quote from the sources. It very closely matched the sources, specifically the WHO/UNAIDS Circumcision summary[[12]] and existing Wiki text/sources.

Please suggest an alternative.Zinbarg (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Stating that there are only minor medical grounds to circ, and implying that these are insignificant, is asserting a point of view, and that's something that WP:NPOV prohibits. Do you think Morris, author of "Why circumcision is a biomedical imperative for the 21st century" would agree? Wikipedia can document points of view, but we do not assert them. Since I see nothing wrong with the present lead, I see no reason to propose an alternative. Jakew (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That's almost a quoting from[[13]] 2007 WHO/UNAIDS summary. I took out the line about alternatives to circ, making it totally reflective. You're silly thinking Morris is anything as reputable as the World Health Org., or UNAIDS, or the CDC, or the AMA. Again, I don't assert anything, but use the highest quality source (WHO and UNAIDS). Here's the exact quote:

• 2.6 Summary

"Male circumcision is medically indicated for only a few conditions. There is substantial evidence that circumcised men have a lower risk of some reproductive tract infections, as well as penile cancer, but some of these conditions are rare while others are uncommon or treatable, and routine neonatal circumcision is not currently recommended on medical grounds."

Your position is extreme and unreasonable. The current paragraph is gross POV, and quite misleading.Zinbarg (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Zinbarg, I haven't said that Morris is as reputable as the WHO. I used Morris as an illustrative example to show that not everybody would agree with the point of view asserted. I could just as easily cited anti-circumcision authors who would not have agreed with the "there is substantial evidence that circumcised men have a lower risk..." part. NPOV allows us to assert facts (roughly defined as "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute") but not opinions. And that's true, in general, however prominent the entity asserting may be: an opinion held by the WHO is still an opinion. We can assert that authors have made statements, since that is a fact — some examples from the article include "Schoen argues that ...", "Milos and Macris argue that ...", "the American Medical Association report of 1999 [...] states that ...", and "the World Health Organization [...] state that".

In terms of the CDC and UNAIDS, although you cite both of these documents, neither one actually supports the material in the preceding sentences. That's another problem.

In fact, you haven't even mentioned the CDC or WHO/UNAIDS source at all, which is astonishing given that this is a policy statement from the world's foremost international health organisation, one that includes recommendations about circumcision and HIV, which have since influenced subsequent national policies of many entire countries. In fact you've only mentioned HIV in passing, which is a problem because (as has been explained previously) Wikipedia needs to follow the weight given by reliable sources, and reliable sources give HIV a significant amount of attention.

Yet another problem is that, once again, you've removed the date of the AMA statement, though it has been explained to you many times why it is needed. Jakew (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You linked to the wrong WHO/UNAIDS publication. I linked correctly in talk. Again, please see [[14]], which is pertinent to the sentence content. We agree on the quality of the orginazations. Judging from the WHO/UNAIDS summary, and medical association statememts globally, circumcision to reduce the liklihood of infection from HIV isn't very significant (in English speaking countries, save So Africa). It is statistically less important than UTI benefits (now listed, previously not).Zinbarg (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I linked to the correct document. You cited three: this, this, and this. As I pointed out, two of these three do not support the sentence that they're cited in support of.

As Coppertwig pointed out in Talk:Circumcision/Archive 59#Circumcision much less relevant to HIV in the US an earlier discussion, Wikipedia is supposed to hold a global perspective, and should not be specific to English-speaking countries. Globally, circumcision to reduce the risk of HIV infection is indeed an important issue, hence the WHO's recommendations. Jakew (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Re current version of article: HIV is "treatable"???!! Outside the scope of this article, and misleading even if true in some sense. WP:V. Please don't add stuff like that to the article without discussion first.

If it could be established as a verifiable fact that circumcision is medically indicated for 5 conditions (for example), then we could state that circumcision is medically indicated for 5 conditions, but we could not state that circumcision is medically indicated for many conditions, nor that circumcision is medically indicated for only a few conditions, because those would be opinions: some people might see 5 as only a few, while others might think, "wow, that's a lot! I thought it was only medically indicated for one condition!". The WHO can assert opinions; Wikipedia doesn't in its articles. However, I don't think we would be able to pin down any specific number verifiably. I agree with Jakew think that the current version of part of the lead^{17:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)} reads like something from an anti-circumcision website. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You should read the discussion below regarding the obvious solution: attributing the statement to the WHO, using a direct quote. Incidentally, only the most fringe, fanatical male circumcision advocates would attempt to put forth the idea that male circumcision is medically indicated for more than only a few medical conditions; therefore, your claim that such a statement would read like an anti-circumcision website is incredibly worrisome. Please remember that Wikipedia must not advocate male circumcision, and the majority view must prevail, not fringe views. Blackworm (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your claim that "only the most fringe, fanatical male circumcision advocates would attempt to put forth the idea that male circumcision is medically indicated for more than only a few medical conditions", Blackworm. There's no logical reason why an advocate of circumcision should wish to suggest that circumcision is medically indicated for many conditions — even if it were indicated for a hundred conditions it would be a weak argument unless those conditions were actually common. On the other hand, circumcision could be medically indicated for only one condition, and if that condition were as common as, say, the common cold, it would be much stronger argument. (These are both hypothetical scenarios for the purpose of illustration only.) In fact, circumcision is sometimes used as treatment for conditions including phimosis, balanoposthitis, balanitis xerotica obliterans and some other skin conditions, paraphimosis, redundant prepuce, fraenulum breve, recurrent UTIs (in recent years), some forms of penile cancer, frostbite or other causes of gangrene of the foreskin, and severely torn foreskins, but with the exception of the first two of these most range from fairly to extremely rare. I don't think that the number of distinct conditions is really an issue that can be characterised as "pro vs anti".

I can't speak for Coppertwig, but my comments about anti-circumcision websites referred to Zinbarg's proposed changes in their entirety (removal of the HIV paragraph as well as addition of both sentences), and should not be misrepresented as a statement about that sentence alone. Jakew (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, Jake, for mixing up different changes, and have attempted to correct this by striking out some of my words.

Blackworm says the article implies that circumcision without anesthetic is painless. I think this is a problem (in the section about pain) and it would be good to address it. I did a Google Scholar search for sources but haven't yet found anything very helpful for that. It would help, for example, to mention that ongoing pain treatment needs to be used for days after the procedure. E.g. possibly using this source [15] Maybe other changes can be done too to help remove that implication. One source said something about reducing pain (i.e. they didn't claim pain was eliminated). I'm not sure what "pain relief" usually means: reduction or elimination of pain?

Re neutral wording: yes, Blackworm, NPOV policy requires a neutral tone and therefore some words in some contexts are inappropriate. Therefore we're not likely to use terms such as "harmless", "painless", "parental rights", "minor operation", "routine procedure", "cosmetic surgery", etc., except maybe in quotes, even if such terms are used in the sources, although no term is totally banned from the article. As I remember, though, (and I may be remembering only part of the discussion), "excruciating" was not deleted due to neutral tone, which didn't seem to me to be an issue in the specific context, but for other reasons, including your opposing a version which included the word within quotation marks.

While checking whether those phrases do already appear in the article, I found a problem I think: "again, most of the problems were minor." in the section "Hygiene, and infectious and chronic conditions". This looks like an opinion (did they ask the people experiencing the problems whether they considered them "minor"?) unless "minor" is a well-defined accepted medical classification or something. The previous sentence is OK since the "minor" categorization is prose-attributed. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologise, Coppertwig. However, I'm confused by many of your comments, which appear to be in response to a comment that I cannot see (and which I certainly can't find in this section). Did I miss something? Jakew (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

(Note: the following appears to have been copied by User:Zinbarg from his talk page.) Jakew (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Alleged "discussion concensus"

Regarding your edit summary here ("See discussion concensus for the tag"), would you be kind enough to point me towards the discussion in which consensus to retain the tag was reached? I've just looked over recent discussions, and I can't find any sign of it. Jakew (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's my reply in Talk addressed to Avriaham: [[16]]

If you read about tags, there is less of a concensus criteria for posting POV than for deciding on specific content problems. In other words, if just a couple editors have detailed and neutral objections to specific problems of POV, the tag belongs.Zinbarg (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect, I'm afraid. Since the "consensus" you claimed is nonexistent, I'll remove the tag. Please do not misrepresent consensus in future. Jakew (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read Wiki on the subject before making changes [[17]], and though its' evidently not necessary, we had this ~vote [[18]] which found for one the the three tags. I looked to see most of the complaints still present in the article. Remove the tag and you're simply edit warring.ZinbargZinbarg (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove the tag, as repeatedly explained. The tag points to a lack of consensus on the neutrality of several parts of the article, that lack of consensus being a fact not reasonably disputed by anyone. Editors disputing the current content do not editwar the content, thus please follow their civil example and refrain from editwarring through removing the disputed tag. To do so may be rightly viewed as incivil as it denies the very existence of a dispute in the face of editors disputing the content. Please see WP:NPOV dispute for further guidance in this area. Blackworm (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I refer you to the previous discussion on the subject, Blackworm. Jakew (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Some additional comments:

• {{POV}} reads "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page..." Where is this discussion? WP:NPOVD advises "Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article.", but there is no section with such a title on this talk page, and nowhere on this talk page is there a clear, previse explanation of which parts of the article fail NPOV and why. The closest approximation is #Avraham's question, but far from being a clear and exact explanation that is merely a vague reference to other discussions going on elsewhere.
• In addition to the above discussion, there is also a lengthy discussion about the tag in the archives; see here. I'll quote from Coppertwig's conclusion, since it seems to summarise the key points well: "Right: tags are supposed to be temporary and indicate problems that can actually be fixed, not differences of opinion between editors."
• In addition to myself, the tag has been reverted by multiple editors, including Spaully, Atomaton, Avraham, and Jayjg.
• Zinbarg has made it clear that he is trying to use the POV tag as a bargaining chip ("No HIV in it's own paragraph in the lead, or we need the POV tag").: to paraphrase, "either I get my way or I deface the article". That is not the intended use of POV tags.
• Although not strictly relevant, your claim that "editors disputing the current content do not editwar the content" is erroneous. See the page history.

However, I will suggest the following. If an appropriate section is written, containing a clear and exact description of each way in which each applicable part of the article violates NPOV policy, I will not remove the tag until that section is archived. In return, I would expect only normal, reasonable discussion in that section (in other words, no comments intended only to keep discussion alive for its own sake), and no opposition to the tag's removal once archived, nor reopening the same issues. Jakew (talk) 09:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion was opened months ago and no consensus has yet come out of it. Thus, the tag appropriately reflects that there is no consensus on the content in this article; specifically its title, treatment, undue medical focus, undue barring or minimization of language used in reliable sources but opposed by extreme circumcision advocates ("cut", "severed," "amputated", "intact", "excruciating"), tone, scope, minimization of controversy, erroneous and misleading implication that circumcision with anaesthesia is painless, etc., etc.. You can possibly endlessly flatly deny that these problems exist, until the discussion grinds to a stalemate, but you can't deny that there is a dispute about it. That is what the tag is there for. Should you have ideas on how we can arrive at a consensus and resolve these disputes, I would be glad to hear them and comment. If you want me to re-state the objections that several editors have with this non-neutral, non-NPOV article, I will be glad to do so.

Coppertwig's opinion is Coppertwig's opinion, not policy, and I do not believe it "summarizes" anything but rather simply presents one more editor's opinion, one you happen to agree with. There were and still are several other dissenting opinions. The last discussion about the tags clearly indicated no consensus to remove them; in fact more editors believed at least one tag was appropriate than believed no tag was appropriate. Thus your presentation of Coppertwig's "conclusion" seems chosen specifically because it reinforces your position, while you choose to neglect mention of the preceding fact. That is inappropriate, unacceptable, and inexcusable; an honest editor assessing consensus must examine all the facts and everyone's opinion. Similarly, archiving of a discussion does not indicate a consensus. Finally, as no issue has been closed, I do not recognize your labeling of discussion as a "reopening" of any issue. Therefore I do not accept your suggestion as to how to proceed.

Finally, in my statement "editors disputing the current content do not editwar the content" I was referring to the title, the words you and a few others have arbitrarily decided are "non-neutral," and the other issues I refer to two paragraphs up. On that, I can be quite sure that the statement is factual; and the fact that the current version reflects your position on all these issues rather than that of the opposing editors, even in absence of a consensus on these issues, speaks volumes as to who is actually doing more of the editwarring. Blackworm (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you do not accept my suggestion, Blackworm. I disagree with your rationale, but I shall not argue, since there seems little chance that we will ever agree.

I quoted Coppertwig's conclusion from Talk:Circumcision/Archive 62#POV Tag because that was the most recent archived discussion about the tag added by Zinbarg. The older discussion to which you refer (Talk:Circumcision/Archive_53#Straw poll: should tags be removed?) dates from Jan/Feb 2009, and was about different tags, added for different reasons, and by different editors. Jakew (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You say you will not argue, and yet you again removed the disputed tag. Thus, you appear to both perpetuate this argument (and incivil behaviour), while supposedly "not arguing" against those who oppose this incivil behaviour and non-consensus content. This is nothing but further incivilty, now compounded with editwarring against consensus. Please stop. Blackworm (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Blackworm? I said I wouldn't argue with you about your viewpoint, and consequently I said nothing more about the subject of the tag until you raise this issue now. Declining to argue is not the same as agreeing to do as you ask, and since you rejected my suggested compromise I can't see that you have a right to expect me to refrain from removing the tag.

However, what is most odd is that apparently you haven't taken the trouble to check the page history before making such an accusation. Had you done so, you would have found that I made two edits since 14:34, 23 May 2010, the first of which did not affect the tag, and the second actually restored it. The tags were actually removed as part of the reverts by 172.190.204.241.

I believe you owe me an apology. Jakew (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems the tag is merely an innocent victim of your editwarring with 172.190.204.241. You're right, the last time it was removed was this edit by 172.190.204.241. As the four (at least) last instances where it was removed previous to that were in your edits,[19] [20] [21] [22] some even after I had asked you to stop bypassing consensus, I had assumed that the lack of a tag after my most recent restoration was your doing. My remarks above are thus incorrect, and thus I have have stricken them and apologize for my mistake. As for reasonably expecting you not to remove it, that is a reasonable expectation given the lack of consensus to remove it. Blackworm (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If the the tag had been added in accordance with consensus, I would not disagree. Anyway, I accept your apology. Jakew (talk) 09:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Medical indication

The sentence "Circumcision is medically indicated for only a few conditions" doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia: it's an opinion not fact; it's vague (what's a "few"); and I think there are medical experts who disagree with it, therefore it's not NPOV. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. To say "a few" would be dishonest. Circumcision has been said to prevent nocturnal emissions, prevents masturbation, prevents syphilis, cures epilepsy, prevents spinal paralysis, cures bed wetting, cures curvature of the spine, cures paralysis of the bladder, cures clubfoot, cures nocturnal seminal emissions, cures abdominal neuralgia, cures eye problems, prevents crossed eyes, cures blindness, cures deafness, cures dumbness, cures difficulties of sexual continence, circumcising Blacks prevents them from raping White women, cures urinary incontinence, cures rectal incontinence, needed to desensitize the penis, prevents tuberculosis, prevents penile cancer, promotes chastity, blunts sexual sensitivity, prevents prostate cancer, prevents venereal disease, prevents cancer of the tongue, creates immunity to all mental illness, prevents cervical cancer in women, cures nervousness, prevents cancer of the bladder, prevents cancer of the rectum, prevents urinary tract infections, prevents AIDS, prevents strept throat. Circumcision also cures: alcoholism, arthritic hips, asthma, balanitis, bedwetting, boils, chicken pox, epididymitis, gallstones, gout, headaches, hernia, HIV, HPV, hydrocephaly, hydrocoele, hypertension, insanity, kidney disease, kleptomaina, leprosy, moral depravity, paraphimosis, plague, posthitis, rectal prolapse, rheumatism, schistosoma, spinal curvature, stomach infection, tuberculosis, and yeast infections —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.212.147.135 (talk • contribs)

I think you've missed Coppertwig's point, 75. Jakew (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Coppertwig, I completely agree with you. There's a related discussion in #Vote HIV in the Introduction?. Jakew (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You will find that factual statement ("Circumcision is medically indicated for only a few conditions") in the summary by the 2007 WHO and UNAIDS on Circumcision. You must not have read[[23]]. Is the World Health Org dishonest? Med assoc do not recommend routine circumcision. No doctor who is an "expert" recommends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.204.241 (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been asked to come and comment on this page, and recent revisions. TBH, and I mean no disrespect, last time I was involved in this page I found it a complete waste of my time, because it seemed to me that it was policed very strictly by people who may have had a medical bias towards unnecessary genital mutilation of minors, and would not allow dissent. I am quite clear about my interest - I belong to Genital Autonomy representing one of the three strands they lobby for (Female GM, Male GM, and Intersex GM). As such I can only regard any form of unnecessary non-consensual genital intervention (i.e. that is not necessary because of threats to life or health present at the time of surgery) as a human rights violation, and as such covered under several UN declarations and conventions. Given time, these rights will be enforced, and those responsible for violating them will be held to account (this is not WP:LEGAL, as it concerns the subject of the article, not the editing). In the meantime, I have no intention of contributing to this page apart from inserting well-sourced details about the pursuit and activation of those rights - because I do believe in policy and guidelines about neutrality, reliability and sourcing. One of the problems I see in this page is that the received consensus is mainly between a few individuals who persist in editing and seem to have some interest in maintaining a positive view of genital cutting of minors - meanwhile, those of us who have experienced the harm tend not to persevere, mainly because we have lives to live and other important things to do. Now, I fully expect somebody to contact me on my talk page, tell me I shouldn't have said this, that this is not a discussion page, I need to justify what I have said, and draw me into another going-nowehere discussion - the sort of harrassment that has made myself and other editors simply walk away from this article. Maybe we shouldn't, but some of us are here to edit articles, not engage in wasted hours of fruitless discussion on the talk page.Mish (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Obvious suggestion: The WHO states, "Male circumcision is medically indicated for only a few conditions."[24] Why anyone would remove the information rather than suggest it be attributed it is beyond me, unless... Unless what Mish says above is absolutely true and correct. Blackworm (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't do anymore edits until tomorrow, but I will make that change. In addition to your arguments, the current version needed quotations, and we're not really supposed to quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.234.191 (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Attribution would certainly help with the obvious NPOV violation, yes, though as Coppertwig points out, the sentence is still rather vague: what is "a few", and what are these conditions? Would it not be better to quote a source that better answers these questions? For example, how about Spilsbury et al., who stated "The most common medical indication for circumcision at all ages was phimosis, followed by balanoposthitis and balanitis xerotica obliterans."[25]

The following sentence is similarly problematic. It reads, "While there is substantial evidence that circumcised men have a lower risk of urinary tract infections as well as penile cancer and HIV, these conditions are treatable or uncommon or rarely applicable." As I pointed out above, three sources are cited in support of this, two of which say nothing even remotely like this! But it gets worse. In addition to asserting the viewpoint of the third source without attribution, it's misrepresented. The source states: "There is substantial evidence that circumcised men have a lower risk of some reproductive tract infections, as well as penile cancer, but some of these conditions are rare while others are uncommon or treatable". The first problem is that the article lists HIV while the source does not. The second problem is that the article states that all conditions are treatable (etc), whereas the source merely states that some/others are (which does not necessarily imply that every condition can be described in one of the two ways: compare "some of those birds are swallows while others are finches", which does not imply the absence of other species). Finally, the source doesn't say "rarely applicable"; that appears to be original research ("rare" does not have the same meaning).

Finally, in response to Blackworm's question, when a change is made that is problematic and lacks an easy solution, the best approach is often to revert it and discuss how it could be fixed (see WP:BRD). I'd like to remind everyone of the advice at the top of this page, "Please discuss substantial changes here before making them". Jakew (talk) 09:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The edit I suggest above is not problematic. Your original analysis of it, labelling it as "vague", and your wish to replace it with a statement that does not address the same issue at all, is problematic. The WHO states, "Male circumcision is medically indicated for only a few conditions."[26] No source has been brought disputing the WHO's claim. On what basis do you continue to object to its inclusion, other than your criticism that the WHO chose to state that obvious fact (the prevalence of medical indications) instead of focussing on which specific medical indications exist? You are, again, in violation of Wikipedia's policy on original research, apparently in furtherance of your continued support of the many violations of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy in this article and all male and female circumcision articles. Blackworm (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Blackworm, if it's not vague then what does it mean? How many is "a few"? I feel quite confident that you won't be able to answer that question: the only person who can actually answer it is the person who wrote that document, because "a few" can mean different things to different people (and can also depend on the context).

I'm not sure that it's necessary to discuss conditions for which circumcision is medically indicated, as I think that might be a little too much detail for the lead. However, if we do discuss that subject then we must try to find the most informative source. I suggested Spilsbury et al. because it is precise, listing the most common conditions for which circumcision is indicated. That's much more informative than saying "a few", because it gives the reader the ability to judge the magnitude for him/herself. Incidentally, your assertion that the WHO stated the prevalence of medical indications is incorrect: their sentence is not about how often conditions occur, but instead it is a (vague) statement about the number of distinct conditions. Maybe we should go back to the beginning and decide whether we wish to make a statement about the range of conditions or their collective frequency; once we've made that decision we can look for the best source.

Your assertion that this is original research is odd. Surely you must agree that Wikipedia editors must identify informative statements from sources (we can't quote them in their entirety, after all)? And so, given that we must select more informative statements from less informative ones, why should we not use vagueness as one way among many of distinguishing between them? It's not as though I'm saying that the statement is wrong; just that it's not particularly useful. Jakew (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not my place to interpret the WHO's statement for you. I prefer to let the reader decide. Nor would it be relevant for me to do so. The WHO is the better source, it is quoted liberally when it casts male circumcision in a positive light, and its presence in those cases is defended solely on the basis of their predominance and authority. This informative statement is just fine as quoted, contrary to your original criticism of the WHO's statement. The word "prevalence" means "the degree to which something is prevalent" -- the word "prevalent" means "widespread;" and my usage is absolutely correct given what the WHO says, i.e., "Male circumcision is medically indicated for only a few conditions."[27] The statement may not be useful to you here, but you have not convincingly shown why it is not useful to a reader of a neutral encyclopedia. In contrast, I believe it to be appropriate, relevant, sourced, and informative. Its inclusion is supported by editors here. Blackworm (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I note with interest that you haven't answered my question: how many is "a few". Nobody can. It doesn't actually mean any particular number, and what may be "a few" to one person can be "several" to another. That's why it's not a very good source in this particular context: it simply isn't very informative, and that's why it isn't useful. I don't understand your resistance to actually listing some conditions instead, which would indeed let the reader decide whether that's a "few" or "several" or whatever. Jakew (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Your comment is irrelevant, it's "a few" to the WHO. That's what the sentence is saying -- it's quoting the WHO's view. (Not, I note, in the current version, but in the attributed version we are discussing.) It doesn't matter how much it is to anyone else; no one else's view is being summarized. Nonetheless, with the slightest fragment of thought or analysis of the statement, the best answer to your question is, "few enough that it's not medically recommended as a matter of routine." If it isn't clear enough from the quote by itself (which it was to me, and I would imagine is to the average reader), then this is made clear by the sentence that follows the quote in the original source. Here is the full paragraph:

2.6 Summary. Male circumcision is medically indicated for only a few conditions. There is substantial evidence that circumcised men have a lower risk of some reproductive tract infections, as well as penile cancer, but some of these conditions are rare while others are uncommon or treatable, and routine neonatal circumcision is not currently recommended on medical grounds. - The World Health Organization

This is informative because rather than simply note that major health organizations do not recommend the practice of routine circumcision, we also give a short summary of the reasoning of one of the major organizations. I hope this satisfies you. By the way, as a comparison, I find the sentence "significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men" is a perfect parallel: An editor hoping to suppress this information due to a desire to shift the POV could ask, "Significant to whom? Over what period, a lifetime or one sexual encounter, or somewhere in between? What men in particular? How did they show this? How did they control for other variables? Who funded the study? Who profits from mass male circumcision in Africa? It's vague. It's too long." Etc., etc. We must draw the line somewhere. Blackworm (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

So, why is it so important that we quote the WHO's characterisation of the number of distinct conditions as "a few"? What is it about this piece of information that makes it so important that it must be included as one of the fifteen or so sentences in the lead? What makes it more important than, say, listing some of these conditions?

Moving on, you say 'the best answer to your question is, "few enough that it's not medically recommended as a matter of routine."'. That's erroneous logic, as I've already pointed out the number of distinct conditions has no bearing on whether it would be recommended or not. What might make a difference is the overall probability of those conditions, but since the sentence doesn't cover that issue, it's a moot point.

Moving on again, the following sentence in the WHO's paragraph is about a different issue. It is about conditions prevented (partially prevented, that is) by circumcision, while the previous sentence is about conditions for which circumcision is used as treatment. Neither sentence is presented as the reasoning of any of these organisations, so I am puzzled that you say this.

As for "significantly" in the WHO/HIV paragraph, this refers to the statistically significant reduction noted by all three RCTs. Statistical significance has a precise, well-defined meaning, so I am perplexed that you refer to it as "vague". Jakew (talk) 09:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't believe that's at all what "significant" means there. "Significant" in that context means "of a noticeably or measurably large amount." Something can be statistically significant without being particularly significant, and typically if an author only means "statistically significant" and not "significant (i.e. large)," they will say "statistically significant" in order to make the distinction clear. This is another case where your legalistic interpretations seem to get in the way of common sense. If the text said "statistically significant" and not "significant," then yes, you may have a point, but since it doesn't, and since I'm reasonably sure you would vehemently oppose rewording it a summary of their position and saying they thought it was "statistically significant," I must wonder why you would make such a bogus comparison. Further, contrary to your assertion I never referred to their HIV statement as vague; on the contrary I'm pointing to it as an example of what a misguided editor not well-versed in policy would argue in favour of removing the statement.

I also completely don't agree on your interpretation of the second sentence I quote above, and believe it's a huge stretch to make that interpretation. On the contrary, it goes directly to the probability you mention. Their point is that it's not something more than a very few males will need, and thus performing it pre-emptively isn't justified on medical grounds. I believe that's pretty obvious from the source. In any case, since our interpretations differ, we can just quote them and let the reader decide. Blackworm (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me, Blackworm, that your expectations are contrary to typical usage of the term "significant" in medical/scientific papers, which in the context of relative risk almost always means statistically significant.

Re "contrary to your assertion I never referred to their HIV statement as vague", you wrote: "I find the sentence "significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men" is a perfect parallel: ... It's vague." I apologise if I've misunderstood, but that looks awfully as though you're claiming that it's vague.

Regarding the second sentence, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you seriously contesting my remark that it's about prevention rather than treatment? I wouldn't have thought that there was any doubt, since the sentence itself clearly refers to the risk among men who have already been circumcised ("There is substantial evidence that circumcised men have a lower risk ..."). Jakew (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you just trying to upset me? Editing my statement, ignoring quote marks, and inserting ellipses to take out the context that clearly shows that I was not making the statement but rather an analogy to another argument I disagree with, then continuing to claim that I am making that argument, is extremely incivil behaviour. Who are you trying to fool? I believe you owe me a retraction and yet another apology. Please strike out the comment above.

Re: "significant," your continued argument begs the question: since this is NOT a medical scientific paper, but an encyclopedia article written to the layperson, who assumes "significant" just means "large" and not some precise mathematical inequality, then would you agree to a re-wording to present the WHO's claim re: HIV as them saying it was "statistically significant?" I am virtually certain that you would not, since it is obvious that they mean "significant" in the large sense, especially since they advocate the mass circumcision of males as a result of that finding. That it also casts circumcision in a much more positive light than "statistically significant," I'm sure also plays a role in your contradictory argument.

The first sentence is about treatment, yes. It's only used as treatment for a few rare conditions. It is also about prevention, in the context of mass routine circumcision of males, as the conditions would not arise had circumcision taken place beforehand. If someone gets skin cancer on a finger, one treatment is to cut off the finger. If the finger's ready been cut off, they cannot even develop that condition there. I'm very sorry that you wish to have the fact of the WHO making this very clear statement about treatment and prevention obscured from the article, but it is unacceptable for you to do so. Blackworm (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to upset you, Blackworm. If you believe that criticisms are valid, fine, make them. If you're deliberately making invalid criticisms then it's a complete waste of time to discuss them.

Regarding the word "significant", yes, I am in principle willing to consider re-wording the sentence. However, you seem to have weakened your argument for doing so. To paraphrase: it is obvious that by "significant" they mean "large", and the reader might think that "significant" means "large" (so therefore the problem is ...?)

Finally, I agree that prevention and treatment are related, and I further agree that one could reason from the WHO's statement to transform a statement about one into a statement about the other, but that would of course be OR. The two sentences, as presented, are clearly about treatment (in the first sentence) and prevention (in the second). Jakew (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You apparently fail to understand despite my repeating it that I am not making that argument; I'm pointing out that it's an invalid argument directly analogous to yours. To paraphrase: it is obvious that by "only a few" they mean "small," and that the reader might think that "only a few" means "small" is no problem. Do you agree or not that by "significant" they mean "large?" You appear to be flip-flopping on that position, but again are vague about the details. And no, I wouldn't support a change in the HIV to "statistically significant" precisely because I do not believe that that is what the WHO are saying. They say "significant," so we should quote "significant," even if it's not the most precise statement one could possibly make. They say "only a few," so we should quote "only a few," even if it's not the most precise statement one could possibly make. Blackworm (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Unindent. First, re Coppertwigs statement that "it's an opinion not fact; it's vague (what's a "few"). The sentence is almost a direct quote from a very high quality source (the WHO). To make that attribution more clear, in future edits, I agree with Blackworm's suggested wording.

Second, the problem with Jakew's suggestion "For example, how about Spilsbury et al., who stated "The most common medical indication for circumcision at all ages was phimosis, followed by balanoposthitis and balanitis xerotica obliterans" I find other treatments avail for those conditions, making circumcision an optional treatment. Those other treatment options besides circumsision make medical circumcision unnecessary and rare, supporting the WHO statement. Regardless, we should use the senior, more authoritative WHO, and not guess on other viewpoints.

Third, the first WHO citation [[28]] is source for most of the sentence. To save everyone time, here’s the summary:

2.6 Summary “Male circumcision is medically indicated for only a few conditions. There is substantial evidence that circumcised men have a lower risk of some reproductive tract infections, as well as penile cancer, but some of these conditions are rare while others are uncommon or treatable, and routine neonatal circumcision is not currently recommended on medical grounds.”

Fourth, to say HIV benefits are rarely applicable, we need the second citation [[29]], which states: Conclusion 7: Programmes should be targeted to maximize the public health benefit The population level impact of male circumcision will be greatest in settings (countries or districts) where the prevalence of heterosexually transmitted HIV infection is high, the levels of male circumcision are low, and populations at risk of HIV are large. A population level impact of male circumcision on HIV transmission in such settings is not likely until a large proportion of men are circumcised, although benefit to the individual is expected in the short term. Modelling studies suggest that universal male circumcision in sub-Saharan Africa could prevent 5.7 million new cases of HIV infection and 3 million deaths over 20 years. The greatest potential public health impact will be in settings where HIV is hyperendemic (HIV prevalence in the general population exceeds 15%), spread predominantly through heterosexual transmission, and where a substantial proportion of men (e.g. greater than 80%) are not circumcised. Other settings where public health impact will be considerable include those with generalized HIV epidemics where prevalence in the general population is between 3% and 15%, HIV is spread predominantly through heterosexual transmission and where relatively few men are circumcised. In settings with lower HIV prevalence in the general population, including where HIV infection is concentrated in specific populations at higher risk of HIV exposure, such as sex workers, injecting drug users or men who have sex with men, limited public health benefit would result from promoting male circumcision in the general population. However, there may be individual benefit for men at higher risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection such as men in sero-discordant partnerships and clients presenting at clinics for the management of sexually transmitted infections. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that circumcision reduces HIV transmission among men who have sex with men.

In context, Jakew, the sentence "limited public health benefit would result from promoting male circumcision in the general population." applies to all English speaking countries (save So Africa), so the statement of limited applicability is true to our Wiki audience. Again, that's the reason for the second citation.

The fourth (CDC) citation is not necessary, but also supports HIV/Circ limited applicability: "A number of important differences from sub- Saharan African settings where the three male circumcision trials were conducted must be considered in determining the possible role for male circumcision in HIV prevention in the United States. Notably, the overall risk of HIV infection is considerably lower in the United States, changing risk-benefit and cost-effectiveness considerations. Also, studies to date have demonstrated efficacy only for penile-vaginal sex, the predominant mode of HIV transmission in Africa, whereas the predominant mode of sexual HIV transmission in the United States is by penile-anal sex among MSM."

Jakew, I agree that rarely applicable could be somewhat better. What words would you suggest? How about negligible relevance?Zinbarg (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

To address these points in order:

• First, you haven't actually addressed Coppertwig's point. (S)he didn't suggest that it wasn't a direct quote, nor that the source was low quality. Instead, (s)he pointed out that it is an opinion, and that it is vague. You didn't address these points.
• Second, you don't really seem to have addressed my suggestion either. If the purpose is to inform the reader about when circumcision is medically indicated, then surely it is better to give the reader something concrete like this (a list of conditions for which it is indicated) rather than something vague like "only a few"?
• Third, I know that 9789241596169_eng.pdf is a source for much of the sentence. If you read my comment, you'll see that I quoted the same thing, and commented on how it fails to properly support the sentence you've written.
• Fourth, you cannot use two or more sources to make a claim that isn't made by either. That's explicitly prohibited by WP:SYN. Jakew (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Opinion of the WHO based on the facts as they presented in the publication. Not vague anyway.

2. This is the introduction, not the body. Let our audience look to the medical section to see what those few might be.

3. You took the section out of context, so I presented the whole text. The text fully supports the sentence.

4. I realize that, and we can place the three citations a little different.Zinbarg (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

First, the origin of the opinion is not in doubt. Nevertheless it is an opinion, and it is, as Coppertwig stated, vague, since there is no concrete definition of "a few".

Second, since it is so imprecise, saying "a few" is effectively meaningless. It only expresses an opinion, without giving any factual information. So what's the point of including it at all?

Third, no, it doesn't support the sentence, for reasons explained above. Feel free to address these reasons, if you wish, but please don't waste time by claiming that it supports the sentence without bothering to address my critique.

Fourth, I don't think the problem can be solved through placement of sources. What you're attempting to do — synthesising a sentence from several sources — is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia policy. Jakew (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I again invite Jakew to write something instead of simply reverting to text he acknowledges as bad text. We don't need the CDC citation. We can place the WHO/UNAIDS (re hiv limited applicability) citation with the ~word HIV, instead at the end of the sentence.Zinbarg (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You have yet to make a compelling case that either a) the HIV paragraph over which there has been longstanding consensus should be removed, or b) the AMA paragraph should be extended. Until you convince me that it is even a good idea, it seems rather extraordinary that you should expect me to try to facilitate doing this. Jakew (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The concensus was to include HIV in the Intro, not maintain that old existing disputed paragraph with exagerated references, unusual dates, and misleading emphasis. The current version includes HIV, as well as more important benefits to circ (which had been left our for some odd reason). The AMA paragraph was not extended. Your failure to contribute is noted.Zinbarg (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, no, that wasn't the consensus. Jakew (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Unindent. You rejected votes in favor of discussion. Now you disavow discussion. The consensus is this current discussion topic is to the current version using the WHO summary statement.Zinbarg (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't parse that sentence. Could you try again? Jakew (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest that you review your own edit history to read your recent entries on the subject of votes versus concensus and quality of discussion. What you ask of Zinbarg would be quite time consumming, and unnecessary for anyone with a normal memory. Those discussions are quite recent. I agree with 75.212.147.135 (talk • contribs), Mish (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC) especially with respect to his comment on wasting editors time, Blackworm (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC), and Zinbarg (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC). The current version is no longer POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.146.136 (talk)

I'm very familiar with recent edits, thank you. That's why I'm utterly perplexed by your claims that there is a "consensus" to remove the HIV paragraph. Jakew (talk) 09:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There was agreement that HIV be in the Intro, but also that the paragraph was inappropriate. It shouldn't be it's own paragraph, but rather be included in a list of known benefits (done), it shouldn't be at the end of the intro alone, it shouldn't exaggerate the references, it exaggerated the applicability, it served to negate the AMA statement as pre HIV findings (though the underlying Medical assoc. statements are frequently post HIV findings). [[30]] The consensus was that HIV be listed in the Introduction, even though it is universally considered a minor benefit (relative to UTI's, penile cancer, HPV) outside sub-Saharan Africa. The current version treats HIV better than the 2007 WHO summary, or most (more recent than the AMA and HIV findings) Medical Association statements (using your own "quality of arguments trumps consensus statement). Both quality of argument, and consensus has been met.Zinbarg (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there was rough consensus that HIV should be included, but looking at the discussion which you cite I don't see any consensus that the WHO paragraph was inappropriate. Nor do I see consensus that it should not be in its own paragraph, nor that it should not be at the end of the lead. Nor do I see consensus that it exaggerated applicability. I remain perplexed as to how you managed to find this "consensus", as it seems that neither raw numbers nor strength of arguments were in your favour; would you explain? There was, however, some agreement in the later discussion that the paragraph might be shortened, and that it might be adjusted so that it was clear that references to WHO and UNAIDS were in fact the same document, so it seems to me that it might be reasonable to claim consensus — or certainly scope for possible compromise — on these latter issues.

Your opinion that the current version is "better" is just a subjective preference, not an argument, and consequently it carries no real weight.

Incidentally, you appear to have misunderstood. I have not claimed that "quality of arguments trumps consensus". At Wikipedia, consensus has a very specific meaning, and part of that meaning is that good arguments are more important than raw numbers, or as policy puts it, "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority."

In any event, I have to wonder whether there's any point in arguing over whether there's a consensus. Is this getting us anywhere? Jakew (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you are right, no point at all - because you have clearly summed up the situation. And this is why I see it as pointless engaging with this process on this page. No point discussing anything when somebody is always right, even when there is a consensus that disagrees, because they regard their argument as being qualitatively superior, even if the consensus doesn't agree it is superior. Mish (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Saying "WHO says" improves NPOV, but it's still vague, and it's not clear to me whether or not an enumeration or quantification of the conditions is notable enough for the lead; as opposed to circumcision and HIV, for which there are numerous sources focussing on it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus to change the HIV paragraph here either, despite the various sockpuppet dialup IPs being used to edit-war the material out. As has been agreed before, if anything, there is not enough emphasis on the HIV benefits, relative to its importance in the literature. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No one has shown how a direct quote can be a vague statement on our part, without analyzing the WHO statement itself and determining the WHO to make vague statements in this instance -- which is a judgment call at best, but more likely original research since its vagueness is disputed by editors here. What you claim has been agreed upon hasn't been agreed upon at all. I've already shown for example that we devote many times more to the subject of HIV, relative to its importance in the literature, than we do to foreskin restoration, relative to the latter's importance in the literature. Discussion. But somehow, that is viewed as acceptable. Also, how do you know there is sock puppetry going on? I do not see any investigation on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, but admit I am unfamiliar with the process. I hope you are not making such a grave accusation without evidence. Blackworm (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There are actually two issues here. The first is whether to delete the WHO/UNAIDS/CDC paragraph. The second is whether to add some material to the AMA paragraph (or, hypothetically, elsewhere in the lead) about the conditions for which circumcision is medically indicated. Since your (Blackworm's) comments refer to the second issue, I'll address them, but I think Jayjg is addressing the latter issue.

Nobody has stated that a direct quote would be vague. The problem, as I've pointed out, is that quoting a vague statement isn't particularly informative or indeed useful to the reader.

As for Jayjg's remarks about sockpuppetry, I would have thought that the common characteristics between the IPs and a certain editor would be obvious even to the most casual observer. Jakew (talk) 09:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC) (edited 09:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

Instead of 'suggesting' unnamed editor are sockpuppets, you should be straight - who are the editors you accuse of sockpuppetry? Either come out and say who you think they are, and why, or instigate an investigation and then report back the results, or desist from impugning people this way, and focus on what they say. Mish (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, who is this editor Jakew is referring to? Injecting doubt about sock puppetry without actual evidence or even a formal request for an investigation is not a valid argument for an edit; it is a straw man argument, and violates WP:AGF to boot. Policy states, If you believe someone is using sock puppets, you should create a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. (WP:SOCK) Please follow policy instead of defending those making straw man arguments and failing to assume good faith.

I've already explained why the WHO statement is not vague, and why it is informative and useful. The World Health Organization isn't in the habit of summarizing documents with non-useful, vague information. Their position is clear on that matter, and besides which their statement isn't even disputed by anyone except perhaps the most fanatical male circumcision advocates. Since Jakew and Jayjg's original analysis of the statement remains just that, I don't believe either has a valid objection to its inclusion. Blackworm (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my comments. However, at the present time I decline to say anything further about it on-wiki. If you believe I've violated AGF or any other behavioural policies, you're free to pursue that in the appropriate ways.

To my eye, you've failed to make a convincing argument that the WHO statement is not vague, and I doubt you'll be able to do so, since "a few" is inherently imprecise. Appealing to their authority doesn't solve this fundamental problem. Jakew (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, you've failed to convince others that it's vague enough to be removed, or that there's even something in any Wikipedia policy or guideline against using quotes from major mainstream sources that some editors deem "vague" (but really more likely just disagree with them, hence original research). Blackworm (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

As noted previously, we can't quote every part of every source, so it is important to justify the inclusion of specific quotes. Jakew (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. The criteria should not be whether it puts circumcision in a positive or negative light, which seems to be your only criteria. Blackworm (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL, Blackworm. As you know perfectly well, I haven't mentioned this "criteria" (though certainly it is one of many issues to consider), but I have, in fact, mentioned several others, including whether material is precise, whether it is informative, and whether it is useful to the reader. Don't misrepresent my position again. Jakew (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Since I've already explained why the material is precise (it's an exact quote, it can't get more precise), informative, and useful, there do not seem to be any other possible explanations for your continued opposition. Blackworm (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you've overlooked the possibility that your explanation simply isn't convincing? Jakew (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

When an editor tenaciously defends their own repeated contradictory interpretations of policy and guideline, and always with both contradictory interpretations shifting the POV towards one favourable to male circumcision, the idea of "convincing" them becomes absurd. Blackworm (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Even if you find the idea of convincing me of your beliefs to be absurd, that does not excuse misrepresenting my arguments. I assure you that debating with you can be quite exasperating at times, but that doesn't permit me to be uncivil either. I do find it remarkable — startling, even — that you still hold your position after this discussion, but to imply that you don't really believe it and that you're just trying to advance a non-neutral POV would be rather insulting to you, I'm sure. This isn't one of the easiest articles to edit, and the atmosphere here can be rather poisonous at times. Let's not make it more gruelling than it has to be, okay? Jakew (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Blackworm, you are undoubtedly referring to yourself here, since you know using this Talk: page to discuss other editors is a violation of policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)