Talk:Circumcision and law/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Test case in the UK

I recently came across a newspaper article which reported an upcomming case in which a young man who was circumcised for religeous reasons as a baby is sueing the doctor who did it. this is a test case (which means the there are no reported cases of anyone suing for this in england) and the claimant hopes that the court will rule in his favor and confirm that none-theraputic infant circumsision is illigal in the uk

however i cant find the article in question so i cannot quote it and can only give specific details from memory.

how is the best way to publish this information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.161.29 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Anti-circ groups and legislation

Truthbomber questioned the statement: "Anti-circumcision groups have attempted in various jurisdictions to persuade legislatures to ban circumcision..."

Please see: http://mgmbill.org/usmgmbill.htm and http://mgmbill.org/camgmbill.htm for examples of two attempts in two jurisdictions. There are others, which I will provide if requested (but it'll take a bit of work to find documentary evidence). - Jakew 11:48, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I find it bizarre that you state unequivocally that MGMbill.org is a clear example of an unreliable source (on Talk:Circumcision), yet cite it here to back up your claim. Can you reconcile this apparent contradiction? Blackworm 09:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. The above comment is dated December 2004, at which time I was relatively green and unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. Jakew 10:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Blackworm 01:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

bible as a historical source?

excuse me? that's horseshit. The bible is not a valid historical source - it doesn't meet verifiability Lordkazan 23:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, being one of the most popular books ever written, it's extremely easy to verify that the Bible says what is claimed. What we can't do is to verify that the events described in it actually happened, but that's ok because we don't have to (fortunately, really, since almost any source could theoretically be false). So as long as the wording doesn't imply authenticity (eg "Jesus walked on the water") or non-authenticity, but is neutral (eg "according to ..., Jesus walked on the water"), there is no policy problem. Jakew 08:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

On a similar note I take issue with "There are ancient religious laws about circumcision." While a religion might use the word 'law', it cannot be a true law since a religion is not a government. They have no jurisdiction. This wording might be fine in a popular article, but an entry in a law encyclopedia needs to speak clearly. (Dan Bollinger (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

Hadrian's ban on circumcision

i found a source which gave some information about Hadrian's ban on circumcision. However, it didn't confirm other statements in the article about this period, so I removed them. Michael Glass 02:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Speculation on the legality of male circumcision

The article read: "The passage of the Human Rights Act 1998 has caused some to speculate that the lawfulness of the circumcision of male children is unclear." This implies that concern about the legality of circumcision comes from the Human Rights Act, and that it is a concern of "some" which could be taken to imply that this is a concern of a radical minority.

This would be a distortion of the situation described in the link. According to the link provided, several interests are concerned about the lack of clarity in the law. Some human rights lawyers are concerned about the concept of proxy consent of parents, but doctors are also concerned about the unclear position because it leaves them vulnerable, and there has been a push to put the legality of religious circumcision beyond doubt.

I have therefore changed the wording so that it says: "The passage of the Human Rights Act 1998 has led to some speculation that the lawfulness of the circumcision of male children is unclear.[1]"

I believe that this wording describes the situation better.

Michael Glass 20:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Jakew 21:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Reliable source question

Jake has removed information on the ground that it did not come from a reliable source. Please explain. Michael Glass 13:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources discusses appropriate and inappropriate sources. A reliable source in this context (assuming that it is notable enough to deserve comment at all) might be a respected newspaper, for example. Doctorsopposingcircumcision.org is an activist web site, and is inappropriate for inclusion. Jakew 13:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Says the user who is including his own circumfetishist website as a reference in various articles. Those doctors opposing circumcision are physicians, it's safe to assume their expertise on the topic. 87.78.157.0 01:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you must have me confused with someone else. I suggest you read the policy. You'll find that the author being a physician (if indeed he is; DOC's membership form indicates that members need not be) is insufficient to qualify as a reliable source. Private websites can publish any nonsense, with no sanity checking from others. This is particularly true of activist sites, unfortunately. Consequently, Wikipedia requires the text should be published in a reliable source, such as a respected newspaper, peer-reviewed journal, or book from an academic publisher. Jakew 09:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sensationalism

Michael, from your prose, one would think you were writing for The National Enquirer or Star (magazine) ("frogmarched" - sheesh). This is encyclopedia. On your own personal website or blog you can make any story as dramatic or sensationalistic as you want. Here, please write in a style and tone becoming of encyclopedia. I know you feel passionately about the evils of circumcision; by all means, be as zealous as you wish on your own sites and webspace, but respect wikipedia's guidelines and policies here. Thank you. -- Avi 15:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding overly graphic stories for titillatory purposes in unencyclopædic. -- Avi 22:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Avi, If you find this titillating, so be it. That is your reaction, not mine. Please check the link I provided. It reads:

Man Forcibly Circumcised As Crowd Watches

A man was yesterday forcibly circumcised by traditional surgeons in Mumias-Butere District as police watched helplessly.

Mr John Otieko, an employee of Mumias Sugar Company, was cornered by a mob as he walked along the Mumias-Bungoma highway in the Western Province.

He was stripped naked, frog-marched to a nearby river and covered with clay in a ritual known as okhulonga among the local Luhya communities.

He was then brought to Mayoni trading centre in Matungu constituency to be circumcised as an excited crowd watched.

Efforts by four traffic police officers who were manning a roadblock on the highway a few metres away from the scene failed when the crowd started stoning them. The victim was then left bleeding at the scene.

He was rushed to the Mumias Sugar Company's dispensary, where he was treated and discharged.

Mr Otieko's wife Hawa Wesonga told the police to track down the culprits.

She said her husband is from Siaya District and has two wives and five children.

District Commissioner Ernest Munyi expressed shock at the incident and told police to crack down on traditional surgeons involved in forcible circumcision.

My first version of this read:

In August 2002, traditional surgeons stripped a man naked, frog-marched him to a nearby river, covered him with clay, and brought him to a local trading centre to be circumcised as an excited crowd watched. Efforts by four traffic police officers who were manning a roadblock on the highway a few metres away from the scene failed when the crowd started stoning them. The victim was then left bleeding at the scene. The District Commissioner, Ernest Munyi, expressed shock at the incident and told police to crack down on traditional surgeons involved in forcible circumcision.

Now if you regard this as sensationalism, so be it, but I think it is a fair summary of the incident. If you had taken the time to check the source you would have seen this for yourself. You object to the word frogmarched. I understand your distaste. This is how the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines frogmarch. Carrying of prisoner face downwards by four men holding a limb each. Please note that the source uses this word; it is not my invention. Please note that I used the phrasing of my source throughout.

My second version of this read:

In August 2002, traditional surgeons forcibly circumcised a man before a crowd of people. The District Commissioner, Ernest Munyi, expressed shock at the incident and told police to crack down on traditional surgeons involved in forcible circumcision.

Now you turn round and accuse me of titillating people. What does that say about your response to this information?

You repeatedly question my motives instead of sticking to the issues. You know that this is uncivil. You know that this does not assume good faith. One of your previous edits was headed in a way that I found personally offensive and abusive and this compounds the error. Instead of lecturing me on what is fitting for an encyclopedia, please look to your own behaviour.Michael Glass 23:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That forcible circumcisions take place is understood. That we need examples is obvious. However, we do not need to overload the article with every lurid and graphic example we can find. This is an encyclopdia, not a tabloid rag. Please keep that in mind. -- Avi 00:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Forcible circumcision is a violent business, by definition. Are you trying to suppress as much of the evidence as you can? Do you also want to denigrate the evidence that remains by the tags you have added to that section of the article? Is this the game you are playing? Michael Glass 04:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No, but I am trying to get the paragraph to sound more like an enxyclopædia and less like those paperback trash novels sold at airline terminals. This is neither CIRP nor CIRCS, Michael, but wikipedia. -- Avi 04:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Avi, you should be given an A for bowdlerisation. All the nasty bits have been carefully cut away, with the more respectable of the trimmings decorously arranged in the footnotes. And all in the name of writing an enxyclopædia'. You have succeeded in concealing the horror and the disgrace of this form of abuse, putting respectability ahead of telling the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michael Glass (talk • contribs) 13:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

No, I have succeeded in turning this from a trashy paperback tenpenny novellette into a dignified, respectable entry. Michael, you have made my point. You have just admitted that your intention was not to add information, but to do so in a "nasty" way. The truth is still there, Michael; the links are there, even quotes in the footnotes. BUT, the sensationlistic writing has been replaced with dignified prose. If you like creative writing, do so on your OWN webpage; but it does not belong here. EVERY SINGLE FACT remained, only the style has changed to protect the project (with apologies to Joe Friday). If anything Michael, you should step back and realize what you just admitted, where your motives lie, and whether or not you can continue to edit this project in good faith. -- Avi 13:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The trashy bits that you have concealed tell the horror of what happened. Frogmarching is unpleasant, but it is what happened in one case. Having a man forcibly circumcised before an excited crowd is disgusting, but it is what happened. What you have done is to turn the evidence into something that you describe as a dignified, respectable entry. You see, Avi, you can't turn an appalling human rights abuse into something dignified and respectable without doing some violence to the truth. That's the trouble with your approach. It puts respectability before telling it as it is. The only saving grace is that you have kept the footnotes and the links. Please spare me your self-righteous posturing. It doesn't impress me one bit. Michael Glass 15:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You confuse Wikipedia with Human Rights Watch. It is neither our responsibility nor our right to publicize "appalling human rights abuse". Volunteer for Amnesty International or HRW if the spirit so moves you; I am sure they do wonderful work. But their mandate and charter is not wikipedia's mandat and charter, and I think you need to revisit what wikipedia IS and what wikipedia is NOT. Once again, thank you for making my point for me; and I'll see a chiropracter about my posture -- Avi 15:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't get it. Making human rights abuses sound respectable is doing violence to the truth. Minimising the evidence is doing violence to the truth. Please read this link: [2] Michael Glass 15:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, but it is not sensationalistic either. The cases are in the article, Michael, only your hyperbolic dressing has been toned down to resemble a real encyclopedia and not a tabloid rag. -- Avi 15:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, if you are so moved Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and many other organizations are standing by for you to volunteer your money and your time. -- Avi 15:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You still don't get it, Avi. What you refer to as my hyperbolic dressing is evidence of the abuse that took place. Remove it and you are removing evidence from the text.Michael Glass 16:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, please spare me your sneering fantasies about my supposed preoccupations. This is not civil. Michael Glass 16:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Relevance?

Other than the Queensland incident, which directly deals with the legal ruling (a historic one at that, it seems) what do the Zhosa, Kenyan, Ugandan, Pakistani, Greek, etc. incidents have to do with the law? -- Avi 05:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The local police were involved in both the Kenyan and Ugandan incidents. Do I detect a hint that you want to conceal even more evidence of this form of abuse, Avi? Michael Glass 13:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Do I detect a hint thatyou do not have an answer? The local police are involved in traffic stops as well, do we bring every speeding violation in its article? Michael, see the above section, and also the one below. -- Avi 13:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Follow the links, Avi, and read for yourself that the police were involved in trying to stop the forced circumcisions in Kenya. In south Africa, they failed in their duty to protect the victim. Michael Glass 14:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Glass, what is it you want to accomplish in this article?

OK, simple enough question. What? -- Avi 13:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

To tell the truth, Avi.Michael Glass 14:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And where is the article not telling the truth? If you solely wish to tell the truth, you should rejoice; all the cases you brought, all seven or so, are still there (perhaps a bit of overkill, IMO, but that is not important). However, if your goal was to graphically portray various crimes in a lurid, garish, repugnant, overly dramatisized, tabloid-worthy, Geraldo Rivera-type fashion, I am afraid that needs to be done off-wiki. -- Avi 14:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Avi, the truth is sometimes lurid, garish and repugnant. Making things sound respectable is toning down, bowdlerising, sanitising and censoring the truth. Avi, remember, a half truth is a whole lie. Fortunately, in this case, the links remain, so the whole story is not completely concealed. Michael Glass 15:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael, sometimes too many peacock feathers and hyperbolic adjectives serve to diminish truth value as well. You may wish to read Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Information style and tone. -- Avi 15:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Frogmarched is a verb, Avi. Michael Glass 15:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Formal tone is a concatenation of an adjective and a noun. Your point being? -- Avi 15:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Avi, the point is that if you feel you can't describe something accurately because it would sound too lurid or whatever, you can't tell the whole truth. Michael Glass 15:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael, the point is that an article can be written for an encyclopedia one way, and for a TV special another way. -- Avi 16:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Avi, I understand your point about what you think is fitting for Wikipedia. You may even be right that lurid details will repel some readers. As the links to fuller accounts are preserved, I'll let that be. Of course, I still hold to my position that censoring what is said and how it is said is still censorship. Michael Glass 21:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Age limit on circumcision & more?

I'm wondering if there is an age limit, at least in the U.S., as to what is the oldest an underage male can be circumcised. For example, can a parent drag their 17 year old son to the doctor's office and demand that he be circumcised against the child's wishes? And if so, can the doctor face charges for performing the circumcision in such a case? I'm just trying to determine if there are age limits to this procedure where consent is not given by the patient. Thoughts, please?

Now, to take this a step into the absurd, what if some religious group adopted the concept of tatooing the words, "Property of Mr. & Mrs. Johnson" on an infants' rear-end? How acceptable would that be standing on the concept of religious rights? With great respect to Judaism and other faiths that stand on a religious footing for circumcision, I still look at this matter as as an issue of human rights. Is cutting away the healthy skin of another person respecting the human rights of that person? I don't pretend to be a Biblical scholar but there are many things in the Torah that are no longer being followed, including stoning people to death. I'm just looking for a reasonable explanation to this line of thinking in order to improve the article. Can someone please address this? Thank you. Jtpaladin 20:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This would obviously depend upon jurisdiction. Some international law may also apply. Article 6, s2 of one treaty provides: "Where, according to law, a minor does not have the capacity to consent to an intervention, the intervention may only be carried out with the authorisation of his or her representative or an authority or a person or body provided for by law. The opinion of the minor shall be taken into consideration as an increasingly determining factor in proportion to his or her age and degree of maturity." (emph added).

As for the US, I'm afraid I know of no explicit law or legal precedent. Sorry. Jakew 21:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Jakew, thanks for taking the time to address this issue. I appreciate the legal quote. Do you have any thoughts regarding the second paragraph issues I raised? Your knowledge in this area is well appreciated. Thank you. Jtpaladin 16:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I do have thoughts, yes, but Wikipedia generally frowns upon use of article talk pages for personal opinions or interpretations. You're welcome to email me via the 'email user' link on my user page if you wish. Jakew 18:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

More generally, it seems that the question is - under US (or any particular jurisdiction's) law, what is the special status of circumcision compared to other forms of cosmetic surgery, body art, or mutilation? Although some court precedents are discussed, I think some information about the legal basis for allowing such a severe mutilation is relevant. No laws are cited that allow for circumcision but disallow other forms of sexual abuse. The court decisions are generally based upon the assumption that parents have full rights to mutilate their children, and the disputes are along those lines (e.g. disagreement between parents, or a botched mutilation attempt). There's also a point at which the forced mutilation of adults is described as being "against their will", without the same consideration given to the mutilation of children. Jqrt (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

External links violate NPOV

Does anyone find it a bit odd that all the external links in this article are to anti-circumcision pages? BeIsKr 18:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that the external links are biased, find and add other appropriate links. Michael Glass 22:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Information about the USSR

I have cut back the information on the USSR because the source referred to ritual circumcision performed on Russian immigrants to the US in the US. All the article said was that bris milah was illegal in the USSR before Glasnost. This implies, but does not state, that ritual circumcision became legal thereafter. We are not in a position to state that it did become legal unless we can verify this from a reliable source. Michael Glass 13:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

copying info from Circumcision

... as part of a plan to shorten that page. See Talk:Circumcision#Article too long? --Coppertwig 16:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not copying this sentence: "Traditionally, circumcision has been presumed to be legal when performed by a trained operator. " because it's unsourced, doesn't say in what jurisdiction, and if it means British it may just be a repeat of something already said in this article. --Coppertwig 16:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Footnote 4 (re Egypt, clitorodectomy) seems to be a broken link, i.e. pointer to Yahoo news story that apparently no longer exists at that URL. --Coppertwig 18:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I checked that the reference list here does not contain duplicates. (At least the reflist part.) --Coppertwig 18:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Info on current national policies re circumcision

Some or all of the info deleted from History of male circumcision in this edit] may belong here. --Coppertwig 21:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Every bit of info deleted casts circumcision negatively. That is possibly why it was deleted. There is no chance the pro-circumcision owners of all the circumcision-related pages will allow that info to appear anywhere. Blackworm 01:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Data from Oregon court case

I disagree with this edit which removed a paragraph about an Oregon legal case. I disagree that it gives no information about circumcision and law. I think it gives very interesting information about circumcision and law. It demonstrates that there is controversy and uncertainty and that a Supreme Court can be expected to soon provide a ruling. It illustrates the type of case which is currently sufficiently controversial to require hearing by a Supreme Court. It demonstrates that issues related to circumcision are actually heard in court rooms, thus demonstrating that there is de facto application of law to circumcision situations (as opposed to a situation where the legal system takes no action on such matters, which may have been the case in the past.) I support re-instating the deleted material. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, we can't just include any news item about court cases that happen to involve circumcision in some way or other. Rather, we need to limit discussion to facts which are important to the legality of circumcision. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Court had ruled on the issues, and in doing so had created a specific precedent. There would probably be sources in which legal scholars had commented on the ruling, and its implications. Such information would be relevant to the article. At present, however, it is merely one court case of thousands. If there were a (reliable) source explaining the importance of the case, perhaps making some of the points you made above, then it might be reasonable to cite that source. Jakew (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a fact that is neutrally presented, not original research, verifiable, and directly related to "circumcision and law." I agree with Coppertwig and support its inclusion.

You don't need to wait for people to comment on the implications of a fact before the fact becomes notable. That's why, for example, the WHO's advocating mass circumcision based on studies published a short time earlier is notable, instantly, as soon as the WHO does it; not just when others comment on the implications of the WHO's decision. Blackworm (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Information about the Oregon court case has been in the article for months. I updated it from July to November 2007. The case is important because it is likely to be precedent-setting. For that reason I restored the passage to the article. If a passage about a significant court case is to be removed it should be discussed here. Michael Glass (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

What reliable source(s) support your statement that the case is likely to set a precedent, Michael? I wouldn't have a problem with citing such a source. Edited to add: Actually, if we were to cite such a source it would solve two problems at once. Firstly, it would establish the importance of the case, and place it in a wider context, and secondly we would have some suitable encyclopaedic content, rather than the amateurish mixture of news, trivia, and shameless plugs for appeals that we currently have. Jakew (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

If we're not planning to state in the article "this case is notable", but only to provide information on the case, then we don't need a source stating specifically that it's notable. Collectively forming consensus on the talk page as to whether something is notable enough to include in an article is a normal activity of Wikipedians. A Supreme Court case tends to be notable. One of the first few cases where circumcision is treated in a courtroom in this way is notable in my opinion. There's no reason to exclude information just because it's about recent events. I don't consider the case trivial. I don't understand what you mean by "shameless plugs for appeals". --Coppertwig (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, we don't need an explicit statement of notability in order for us to decide to include a fact. However, we normally try to form consensus by citing sources, and if a fact is important then it is likely that sources will have discussed its importance.

I agree that SC cases are often notable, but on the other hand they aren't necessarily notable in the context of a particular Wikipedia article. If we were writing about abortion, we could certainly cite Roe vs Wade. On the other hand, if we were writing about hammers (or even 'hammers and law'), then it would be inappropriate to cite every SC case featuring hammers as a murder weapon. It seems to me that there are three important questions. Firstly, is the case (and/or precedent) fundamentally about the subject (is a case in which a hammer was used as a murder weapon about hammers or about murder? Is the Boldt case fundamentally about circumcision or about parental decisions and custody?). Secondly, is the case actually important in the context of the article (will anyone remember it 5 years from now?). Thirdly, what do scholarly sources say about it? (Realistically, this is probably the only reasonable way to find answers to the first two questions.)

I'm not saying that the case itself is trivial, but our coverage certainly seems to be. The first few sentences are peppered with trivial details that do not aid the reader's understanding of the legality of circumcision, such as the names of the parties (and even that of the poor kid). This could be put more concisely as "The Oregon Supreme Court heard a case in which one divorcee wishes to have his 12-year old child circumcised, which the other parent opposes. The child's wishes are disputed/unknown." We have a plug for Doctors Opposing Circumcision's 'appeal' page (not even a WP:RS), and finally we have a quote from Richard Dawkins, who is not, so far as I know, a legal expert. The coverage, and unfortunately the case itself, comes across as trivia because there's lots of personal detail but no analysis of the importance, no indication that it is noteworthy. Without a "Prof A. Legal Expert says that the case is important because..." it's like an encyclopaedia equivalent of a "cat stuck in tree" news item. I don't think we even know if this is one of the first few cases - a sourced statement about that might be a start. Jakew (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Cases brought challenging the legality of circumcision are directly related to "Circumcision and law." I personally will remember this case five years from now. Scholarly sources? No. The question to be asked is, what do reliable sources say about it? As far as I know, Newsweek is a reliable source. Blackworm (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

News sources are reliable sources for this type of thing, i.e. reporting on a case currently before the courts. That's the type of thing they excel at, i.e. "news". --Coppertwig (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, nobody in this case is challenging the legality of circumcision. News sources may tell us the facts about the case, but what we need is analysis. News sources sometimes provide this in the form of interviews with experts. Jakew (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not "challenging the legality," but considering putting legal limits on the elective circumcision of children, even in the face of a parent's consent (and demand) for the procedure to be done. I'm reasonably sure this is directly related to "Circumcision and Law," despite your apparent disagreement, apparently based on the opinion that the case is not "fundamentally about circumcision" but on "parental decisions and custody." That is a valid POV. It's not WP:NPOV. Blackworm (talk) 08:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that once the Court rules they will indicate what the case is fundamentally about, in terms of the points of applicable law and, perhaps, creating a precedent. Until then, as you rightly say, it is POV to argue that it is fundamentally about "parental decisions and custody", and also POV (yet an equally valid POV) to argue that it is fundamentally about circumcision. The only known fact is that it is about this precise case, and without experts we can't extrapolate from that to other cases, or indeed to the law itself. Jakew (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think whether the case is "fundamentally about circumcision" is relevant anyhow -- someone might think it's "fundamentally an attack on the freedom of religious expression," but it wouldn't change anything. The question is, "is it directly related to circumcision?" Yes. Yes it is. We don't need experts to see that this case relates to circumcision. A certain child's potential circumcision is the central issue in the case. Roe v. Wade was about abortion even before the Court ruled on it; no one needed experts to see that. The verified fact that pro- and anti-circumcision groups have filed briefs in the case is another strong hint, is it not? Blackworm (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps I'm expressing myself poorly. Yes, this case does involve the potential circumcision of a specific child. We definitely agree on that. However, cases tend to be interesting and worthy of note in an encyclopaedia if they have consequences, such as clarifying existing law or establishing a precedent. In the case of Roe vs Wade, this was quite dramatic, because the Court's decision effectively overturned a bunch of laws. But in that case, the specific question brought to the Court was the constitutionality of those laws. In this case, to quote, the mother "seeks review of a Court of Appeals decision affirming without opinion a trial court judgment in a child custody proceeding, which provided that whom-ever is determined to be the custodial parent (pending the result of then-uncompleted appeals) would have the right to decide whether or not to authorize circumcision of the parties' child." Now, I don't know how the Court will resolve this. I don't even know whether Oregon or US law will apply. They could simply affirm the inferior Court's decision, or they may change it. But if they issue a reasoned decision, it is the reasoning that may create precedents, and the scope of those precedents. So when the Court distills the case down to abstract legal principles, which principles will those be, and what (if anything) will be different from previous decisions? That's what I mean by "fundamentally about X". Jakew (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Jake, I believe the potential significance of the case is shown by the fact that Jewish groups have submitted an amicus curiae brief [www.ouradio.org/images/uploads/Oregon_Circumcision.pdf]. The mere mention of Doctors Opposing Circumcision does not constitute a plug for the organisation. A link to the DOC webpage on this case verifies what the article says, even though it appeals for support. There are links to both DOC and to the Jewish magazine, Forward, so the paragraph is even-handed to that extent. I agree that Richard Dawkins is not a legal expert. However, he is a prominent commentator on matters to do with religion. This is not, of course, to discount what you have pointed out but to draw your attention to other points that need to be considered. There are, of course, other American cases that could be considered in this article. Michael Glass (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I agree that amicus briefs have been filed by organisations arguing in support of both sides, and this may mean that the case is potentially significant. On the other hand, it may be that briefs are filed in a significant number of cases (perhaps especially at this level), and we would be unwise to read too much into it. Interpreting potential significance is difficult, particularly since the Court hasn't yet ruled on the case, and this is exactly why we need to be able to quote a legal expert.

As I see it, this case may have significance only for this particular boy and his family, or it may have wider implications as well. Nobody can be sure until the Court rules. In the meantime, I am very concerned that we include a paragraph about the penis of a specific 12-year old boy on the sole grounds that some editors think it might be significant. I think that in such circumstances, our responsibility is to a) minimise personal details about the particular boy, and b) clearly show that the case is significant. Preferably, we should focus on the potential ramifications rather than the details of the case itself. Jakew (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jakew, I apologize -- I didn't see one of your messages above the last time I replied. You make some good points. In my opinion, the name of the child (and probably also the names of the parents) should not be mentioned -- I think WP:BLP requires leaving them out. striking out because re-read BLP; see below Coppertwig (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC) I didn't think of that earlier, and I'm glad you brought it up. More later. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree about removing the name of the family. Michael Glass (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

My reading of WP:BLP is that it doesn't require us to remove the names, but it strongly encourages it, and that if there is no reason to include the names they shouldn't be there. I also removed the name of a man from the previous paragraph. The name of someone who has actually been convicted of a crime (as in this case) may (or may not) be notable, but since it involves his son's privacy too I think it's better to leave it out. The name doesn't really add much.

Re Doctors Opposing Circumcision: I followed the link and I agree with Jakew that it's a bit much. Wikipedia readers want to be informed, not told what to do. I think it would be more dignified to replace it with the link of the homepage of that website (which also has similar info on this case but not quite as blatantly displayed) [3] and probably appropriate to put it in the External Links section rather than treat it as a reference. WP:EL says "External links should typically not be in the body of an article." It does verify the statement about campaigning, though, which is also somewhat supported by the news article refs.

Re notability and relevance: one of the references has title "Religious Rights on Trial as Circumcision Case Reaches Oregon’s High Court"; the other one states "The case has drawn nationwide attention". So that supports my intuitive feel that it is notable and relevant. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced both the DOC and forward links with an article in the NY Sun. I've also removed the reference to Dawkins, and have trimmed redundant and/or unnecessary detail from the text. In particular, I've removed the reference to the father's conversion to Judaism, which may cause confusion - the circumcision, if it occurs, is due to the fact that the child is converting.

While the case may be newsworthy, it is not necessarily relevant to an article on circumcision and law. Nor can we rely upon a journalist's choice of headline. To justify its inclusion, we need expert opinion on the ramifications of this case. Jakew (talk) 12:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think mention of the father's converting would cause any confusion. What the reasons for the child's circumcision (if it occurs) are are a matter of opinion -- the parents dispute the child's motives. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the sources, the child is converting to Judaism and this is why his father wants him to be circumcised (eg., "For an hour yesterday, the judges heard arguments in a child custody dispute between James Boldt, who wants his son circumcised as part of the son's conversion to Judaism, and the child's mother, Lia Boldt, who went to court to block the procedure."[4]). The sources do not indicate that the circumcision is due to the father's conversion, yet mentioning the father's conversion implies significance. Jakew (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I see the ref to a Jewish publication has been removed and wonder if it was intentional. The ref that I think Jakew added seems to be page 2 of a multipage story. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was intentional. I removed it because the ref I added made it and the DOC link redundant. To quote from the ref I added: "Four Jewish groups, the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Orthodox Union, filed an amicus brief backing Mr. Boldt. A physicians' group, Doctors Opposing Circumcision, filed a brief supporting Mrs. Boldt." Jakew (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As the text has a link to the Amicus Curiae brief of the Jewish groups, it should also have a link to the opposing brief. Otherwise the point is not documented and this is not an even-handed treatment of the dispute. Michael Glass (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I fear you're mistaken. The text notes that "A group opposed to circumcision has filed a brief in support of the mother's position, while some Jewish groups have filed a brief in support of the father", but doesn't link directly to either brief (as an aside, neither brief is technically part of the dispute). It contains links only to Gerstein's story in the NY Sun and Green's story in The Oregonian. Jakew (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Jake, you were right about the text. However, I do feel that a link to the court documents of both parties would be appropriate and I have added them. Michael Glass (talk) 11:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael, neither DOC nor the Jewish groups are parties in the case. They are merely amicus ("friend of the court") briefs, submitted in hope of influencing the Court. As such, I am concerned about this addition: we seem to be giving far more weight to third parties than to the Court or those directly involved. Jakew (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it as giving more weight to third parties, Jakew. There are four sentences about the court and the disputants, and there is one sentence about the two amici curiae. I think the amici curiae are relevant, (perhaps especially in a democratic system) as they give information about society's attitude about these legal matters, and that the links are useful to interested readers. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The sentence about the briefs (ie the one beginning "A group opposed") has four references, with just one for the rest of the paragraph. That seems disproportionate, especially as the claims in the sentence are already supported by a source. I also disagree with your assertion that they "give information about society's attitude about these legal matters" - they merely give information about the attitude of special interest lobby groups.

As noted, the claims in the article are already sourced, so the briefs seem redundant in terms of WP:V. We should remember that Wikipedia is not a web directory, and our purpose is not to collect every URL related to a topic - we cite sources in order to allow verification of article content. At best, these are perhaps suitable as "external links". Jakew (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have am content with the amicus curiae briefs being noted at the end of the article as external links. However, I think it should be noted that though a previous reference did document the involvement of the Jewish groups, this was not the case for the briefs submitted by DOC. Therefore as the article refers to all three briefs, links to them are appropriate as documentation. Michael Glass (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael, the NYSun article (currently ref 1) documents briefs filed by the Jewish groups and DOC. To quote: "Four Jewish groups, the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Orthodox Union, filed an amicus brief backing Mr. Boldt. A physicians' group, Doctors Opposing Circumcision, filed a brief supporting Mrs. Boldt." (emph. added) Jakew (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Jake, you're right about the reference. However, it's appropriate for the briefs to be available to readers who might want to read them. Michael Glass (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't entirely agree with you there, Michael, but fortunately it seems that we can both accept 'external links' as a compromise. Jakew (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I also think it's useful to have them available to readers. "External links" may be the appropriate place. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Re society's attitude: OK, it gives information about the attitude of special interest lobby groups, which are part of the structure of society and which, in my opinion, collectively shed considerable light on society's overall attitude by describing viewpoints which are relatively extreme in different directions, and the reasoning behind those viewpoints. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I can see your point, but am concerned that we should not "become the significance-validating source for non-significant theories" (as WP:FRINGE puts it). To briefly explain, the fact that the briefs have been submitted is verifiable from third-party reliable sources, but the content has not been discussed in such sources, and may constitute a "non-significant theory". Indeed, since anyone can (in theory) submit an amicus brief, they don't seem particularly 'reliable' in the Wikipedia sense (fact checking, reasonable expectations of quality, etc). To make an analogy with scientific publication, it is as though a manuscript was published as soon as it was submitted (analogy: filing a brief), and the peer-review process (analogy: Court issues decision) occurred later on. If such a journal existed, then surely we would want to defer citing its papers until the review process was complete?

Anyway, my preference is not to link to the briefs, but if we have a consensus to include them as external links then I can accept that. Jakew (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Kind of like a paper "criticized on technical grounds" by a letter to the editor of a journal? Blackworm (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. It's unlikely that any journal has a perfect peer-review process, and as such it's inevitable that errors will be present in some published papers. Journals usually provide a mechanism for feedback in the form of letters to the editor. But even though the peer-review process can't ensure perfection, it tends to mean that work published in such journals is of a relatively high standard. In contrast, with a self-published source, there is often no review process whatsoever. Jakew (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be missing my point. I'm not questioning the standard of peer-reviewed material. I'm asking if your objection above applies to other, possibly fringe theories published as soon as submitted (or nearly so, with little or no fact-checking, and certainly no peer-review mechanism) as in the case of letters to the editors of journals. I'm asking, specifically, whether a non-peer-reviewed letter to the editor, for example, one that asserts it is "more humane not to subject the infant to a local anesthetic" when circumcising him, is similarly an example of a "non-significant theory," and we should similarly not "become the significance-validating source for non-significant theories" (as WP:FRINGE puts it) by putting that information in Wikipedia articles.

In short, I am surprised to find you echoing my precise objections to the inclusion of material you supported and apparently continue to support, and would appreciate if you could clarify the apparent contradiction. Blackworm (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Blackworm, I misunderstood. I'm not aware of any journals in which letters are published without any kind of review. They are reviewed by the editorial team, and I understand that some (though not all) journals also send letters out for peer-review. There is certainly no guarantee that a letter submitted to a journal will be published. And if it is published, that seems to indicate that it qualifies as "published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals." (see WP:RS).

Imagine, if you will, that Fred Fringe Theorist wants to publish his theory. He could a) publish it on his own website, b) slap a certificate of service on the front and submit it as (part of) an amicus brief, c) submit it as a letter to a peer-reviewed journal and hope that it passes editorial review, or d) write it up as a full-length paper and hope that is passes peer-review. Certainly d) is the most reliable, but in the case of both c) and d) Fred's scholarship must be good enough to be approved for publication by others. Jakew (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in the case of (c) contradicts the possibility that Fred's theory may be published. Editorial review is not fact-checking, and it's not peer review. Letters to the NY Times undergo editorial review, but the editors of the journal make no representation that the claims represent any kind of truth. The same is true of academic journals. In a related dicussion on Wikipedia_talk:Reliable sources, a majority of others seem to agree with this view; especially that a published letter cannot be considered fact checked. Your apparent assertion that the (c) case precludes Fred's theory being WP:FRINGE, unworthy of repetition in Wikipedia, seems entirely unfounded. Blackworm (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't entirely agree with your interpretation of that discussion, but since your concern appears to relate to a different article it seems somewhat pointless to continue discussing it here. Jakew (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(<<<outdent) Wikipedia doesn't have to verify or check that all the facts on an "external links" website are true. The amici curiae are interesting as expressions of the views of special interest groups. They can be read critically. Similarly, Wikipedia can have external links to the "official website" of an organization that Wikipedia has a page about. This is not a claim that everything the organization says is true. It's merely a claim that that's the organization's official website. It's (presumably) a fact that those are the actual submitted documents for the amicus curiae briefs, so Wikipedia is in effect presenting (presumably) a true fact that such briefs were submitted exactly as written -- whether or not the statements in them are true. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right, the standard for external links is not the same as for sources, and I should have been more clear. I apologise for any confusion I may have caused. Despite reservations, I accept the external links for the sake of consensus. Jakew (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Names, claims removed

I have removed the name of the gentleman (O.A) who was charged in a case, since names do nothing to help the reader's understanding of the subject matter. I have also removed the claim that he "who passed himself off as a doctor". According to this BBC report, he was found not guilty on all counts, and so we cannot repeat the allegations as though they were true. Jakew (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The report also clearly says that the man led people to believe that he was a doctor. In this case the name of the man alerts people to possibility that there were cultural issues involved in the case. Removing the name removes the context and distorts the possible significance of the case. Michael Glass (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael, according to the report cited above, the man said: "I have never told anyone I'm a medical doctor, and I would not." And it seems that the Court agreed: "A man accused of circumcising two baby boys in their mothers' front rooms after leading them to believe he was a medical doctor has been cleared. ... was found not guilty at Woolwich Crown Court on 30 October of two charges of unlawful wounding and two deception charges."

So in this case, several accusations were made, and the Court found him not guilty. To quote from WP:BLP:

• Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".

This seems to indicate that we should not invade a person's privacy by including personally identifying information unless there is good reason. The fact that his name seems to indicate that he's a member of an ethnic minority is not a particularly compelling reason, especially since a court found him not guilty. Jakew (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If a reliable source states that he's a member of an ethnic minority, that might possibly be relevant, though not necessarily. Otherwise, including his name in order to imply that he's a member of such a minority would be OR. Jakew has good points re WP:BLP. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Jake, you have made some very good points, but on checking what you wrote above, the words, "I have never told anyone I'm a medical doctor, and I would not." were not included. The link you provided merely says that he denied the charges made against him. Michael Glass (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael, please read the article again. The quote is taken from the the last paragraph, which begins "Mr [name] said". Jakew (talk) 11:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have two additional concerns. Firstly, why are we noting that the charges against the man included an accusation of deception? I don't dispute that this charge was made (and that he was cleared), but I can't see the relevance to 'circumcision and law'. Secondly, the cited source does not seem to fully support "He successfully argued that the law did not require circumcisers to be medically qualified". Please can we either a) find another source, or b) edit this sentence to reflect the source. Jakew (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest replacing the sentence you quote with "The prosecutor stated that there were no formal rules governing circumcision and it was not regulated by the General Medical Council or anyone else.", based on the BBC News ref. I think the very brief (two-word?) mention of deception is relevant. I just think it's hard for a reader to grasp what's going on in the case without mentioning this. Also, it gives information about the chances of those who perform circumcisions without communicating clearly about whether they're a doctor or not getting in trouble with the legal enforcement system. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Jake, by googling the sentence you quoted I came up with an alternate version from the BBC. The version I think you are quoting can be found here: [5] whereas the version I got from your link was this one [6]. The version you get is the British one, which includes the extra information whereas I get the international version without the quotation. The low graphic versions appear to be identical with the UK version, which has this url: [7]. Why the BBC should have two versions of the story in the high graphics version, one with the man's denial and one without, is odd, but that at least explains why we are talking at cross purposes about the links. Now to the two questions that you posed.

• I think that it is important to note that he was charged with deception if only for completeness. To mention one charge and not the other would not be a fair representation of the source, especially as the two charges of unlawful wounding and deception are quite different.
• I agree with your concerns about the phrasing of the sentence you quoted. I will change it to reflect the source.
• I also agree with Coppertwig that the sentence about the laws of England is worth including.

Many thanks to both of you for your input. Michael Glass (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit re court cases

I like Michael Glass' edit, which adds more information, and I approve of removing "denied a mother's plea," which sounds a little too emotional. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Concern re GMC cases

I have some concerns about the GMC cases that have just been added.

The first of these I have attempted to correct here.

The initial version of the paragraph stated that the second doctor was "put on an 18 month period of review and retraining for making unnecessary referrals of young boys for circumcisions". This is not supported by the sources. The closest approximation is found in this source, which states that he was found guilty "for making unnecessary referrals of young boys for circumcisions to Doctor [name], who it emerged was not qualified to perform such operations." It is not clear whether the problem was making unnecessary referrals, or making these referrals to an unqualified practitioner.

The initial version of the paragraph also stated that he was allowed to continue practice "after he had told the committee that he had changed his approach to circumcision referrals", implying that there was a causal link. The source does state that he made such a statement, but doesn't indicate that he was required to do so, or even that he did so before being allowed to continue practicing. It states that "Dr [name] was given the all-clear by the GMC on Friday, after a professional conduct committee said it was satisfied he had complied with conditions it placed on him." These were: "The GMC placed Dr [name] under an 18-month period of review, restricting his ability to practice, while also requiring him to undergo retraining and at least two months secondment, followed by a further year of supervision, with a "mentor".

I have, as I said above, tried to correct these problems in my most recent edit.

Finally, I have an additional concern. These cases are not, strictly speaking, legal cases, and I am not convinced that they belong in this particular article. The GMC is not a court of law, but a professional body, and it seems a stretch to include their cases. Any thoughts? Jakew (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with two of the three points that Jake made. It is good to have one's contribution read with such detailed attention to its meaning. On the point that the GMC is not, strictly speaking, a legal body, the point is technically correct. However, the GMC committee does act as a quasi-judicial body, with the power to destroy a doctor's career. The second point is that the treatment of the two doctors is in stark contrast with the treatment of the unqualified man who operated on two boys with even worse results but was found not guilty in a court of law! As such, these two cases, with such starkly different outcomes, are an interesting comparison. Michael Glass (talk) 07:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Michael. We seem to have rather different views about this article. I see it as an overview of scholarly material about the legality of circumcision, and my perception is that others seem to view it as a place to put reports about legal or quasi-legal cases connected in some way to circumcision. As I've explained above, I would prefer to discuss cases only in the context of commentary by legal scholars, since that provides a means by which we can weave them into an focused, organised narrative, but evidently others disagree with this. I'm a little concerned that the 'inclusion criteria' for these cases seem to be more loosely defined as time goes on. It would really help if could you tell me the scope of this article, as you see it. What, in your opinion, is this article about, and how do you see it progressing? Jakew (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jake, for your further tweaking of the wording [8]. My belief is that "Circumcision and law" should be an overview of laws and legal rulings pertaining to circumcision. This would have to touch on actual cases as well as scholarly thinking, if only to put the scholarly thinking in context. For example, some legal thinkers might express their doubts about the legality of circumcision but if the judges are ruling that there are no laws regulating circumcision and juries refuses to convict, this must be pointed out. It would, of course, be good to write a focused, organised narrative, but when the law in practice is diffuse, unclear and even rather chaotic, the narrative must take account of this reality. I hope that you will not read this as a defence of chaotic writing; perhaps the ideal would be a focused, organised narrative on a diffuse and rather chaotic legal situation! Michael Glass (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Obscuring the fact that circumcisions are performed for "medical reasons" unnecessarily.

[This edit] obscures this fact. Blackworm (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I explained the reasons for that edit in the section immediately above. I understand that you think it important that this issue should be covered in Wikipedia. However, since the subject of this article is "circumcision and law" and not "circumcision and necessity", it may not be the best place to discuss the belief that some circumcisions performed for medical reasons are unnecessary. I remind you we do discuss this issue in Medical analysis of circumcision#Phimosis. Jakew (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not the point. The paragraph as it stands makes the specific case appear to be solely one of lack of surgical skill ("botched" circumcisions), when in fact the issue was also the incorrect selection of treatment by the practitioners. This is clear from a reading of the sources, and was correctly reflected in the WP article text until your edit. By the way, please do not state things like I understand that you think it important that this issue should be covered in Wikipedia, as this is irrelevant and could be interpreted as a personal attack. I could just as well say, "I understand that you think it important that this issue not be covered in Wikipedia," but then I would be commenting on the editor, rather than the edit -- thus, such a statement is inappropriate. Blackworm (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with and support most of Jake's revisions of what I added. However, I think it is important to note the assurance that the doctor gave to the committee of the GMC. Michael Glass (talk) 07:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

How on Earth could the "before" text in the [this edit] be interpreted as a direct quote from the practitioner himself, when it is referring to him in the third person? Why was this edit made? I note that it subtly changes the meaning of the practitioner's statements from "accepted [that most cases don't need surgery]" to merely "stated," with no indication that this new statement is a change of opinion from his previous stance. Blackworm (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Blackworm has a good point. The source says "He told the committee he has now changed his approach to circumcision referrals, accepting that most cases can be treated without the need for surgery." The word "accepted", in this context, implies that the doctor is (probably) changing the way he thinks about this as compared to before the conviction. "Stated" could mean that he always thought that; it sounds as if he could just be saying that we don't have to worry because this kind of case doesn't come up often anyway (and didn't before the conviction either). I think "accepted" is a better reflection of what the source says than "stated". --Coppertwig (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"Accepted" has some POV connotations that we ought to avoid (it suggests that what is "accepted" is true). "Stated" is more neutral, but how about "...he now believed..." or "...he now agreed..."? Jakew (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that following the exact words of the source would be the best basis for dealing with this dispute. This is what the source said: "told the committee he has now changed his approach to circumcision referrals, accepting that most cases can be treated without the need for surgery" This could go into the passage as a quotation, or if, as Jake said, it is open to misunderstanding as a quote from the doctor himself, the same information could go into the passage merely by tweaking the verbs: told the committee he had now changed his approach to circumcision referrals, accepting that most cases could be treated without the need for surgery. Michael Glass (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't use the same words as the source without raising some WP:NPOV issues. We can, of course, use a direct quote with proper attribution, but my preference is to paraphrase neutrally. Jakew (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Jake, I believe your latest edit [9] should be satisfactory. Michael Glass (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I congratulate everyone involved on excellent collaboration and compromise. I think this is one of those situations where the final result is better than any one of us would have written alone. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I can abide by the current edit, although it's completely unclear why the source's name must be mentioned in prose, rather than quoted and cited, unless we are questioning the reliability of the source in reporting on the practitioner's acceptance. The view expressed is clearly attributed to the source via the quote. Naming the source makes it appear as if the reliability of the source in reporting on the practitioner's acceptance is somehow to be called into question. Blackworm (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Normally, we paraphrase a source and include a citation to allow the reader to verify that it is correct. If the exact words used by a source are so important that we must include a literal quotation, then the nature of the source itself becomes important. Hence we need to explicitly state who we're quoting.

To quote (ahem) from Wikipedia's Manual of Style:

"The author of a quote of a full sentence or more is named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote. An exception is that attribution is unnecessary for well-known quotations (e.g., from Shakespeare) and those from the subject of the article or section." WP:MOSQUOTE Jakew (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

To me it's not a question of the exact words being important; it may simply be convenient to quote the source directly, or the quote may perfectly inform in a way difficult to emulate without appearing as plagiarism. Your reference to MOSQUOTE clearly doesn't apply since the quote was not "a full sentence or more."

I don't even see where the implication of truth of any view occurs, even if the material wasn't quoted at all. Perhaps the difference is that I interpret the words to mean that the practitioner accepted the review board's view that most cases do not require surgery (not that we are claiming an absolute truth of the view). I'll admit this isn't clear from the source, and so quoting the source directly is appropriate ("let the reader decide"). I don't believe attributing the quote to the source in the prose is necessary, unless one can show that there is reason not to believe them or that their presentation is disputed. But again, I abide by the current edit; IMO there are many much more egregious, longstanding policy and guideline violations in circumcision-related articles. Blackworm (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article bears two tags, one saying that it needs to be cleaned up, the other saying that the neutrality is disputed. The article isn't perfect, but does it really need two tags? I feel that the article could be more comprehensive in its overview of circumcision and law. What do others feel are the defects that need to be remedied? Michael Glass ([[User talk:Michael we don't have a lead section. We ought to rectify this, though I suspect summarising thiGlass|talk]]) 12:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The NPOV notice was added by BelsKr on July 18, '07. The associated discussion seems to be here. Since the issue related to a specific section, rather than the entire article, I'm changing it to a "POV-section" notice in the appropriate place. Jakew (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

While removing the notice, I realised that s text in a few sentences will be a challenge... Jakew (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

We need to decide whether this article relates to male circumcision and law, or both male and female circumcision and law. I assumed it was just male, but the "Egypt" section is about female circumcision. Left as it is, the article seems to imply that Egypt is the only place that bans female circumcision, which I don't think is correct. --Coppertwig (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we should remove the material in the Egypt section. I think the Egyptian FGC law is already in that article. Since most laws - and hence most sources - treat male circumcision differently from FGC, it would be unwise to try to synthesise the two. Jakew (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case I propose the article be renamed "Male circumcision and law," since circumcision is also done to females [[10]] and no treatment of the subject is given here. Blackworm (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I support the idea of a change in title. However, when it comes to forced circumcisions, both females and males can be subject to this human rights abuse. As Lindsay Murdoch reported in the Sydney Morning Herald in 2001, "Circumcision has been forced on hundreds of Christians, including children and pregnant women, in a campaign by extremists to spread Islam through the war-ravaged Maluku islands." [11] Michael Glass (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The change in title is OK with me. I think this page should redirect to the new title. I've put an "otheruses" template, which may need to be removed or modified if the page is moved. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think your addition makes it quite clear that this article is about the legality of male circumcision, Coppertwig, and directs readers interested in the legality of FGC to the appropriate page. I can't therefore see why a name change is needed, and would prefer to use common terms wherever possible. However, I would prefer "legality of circumcision" rather than the more awkward "circumcision and law". Jakew (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, your claim that WP:UCN somehow directs us to ignore the dictionary, ignore newspapers, ignore journals, and instead accept your unpublished theory that circumcision only means male circumcision, instead of the contrary, is unfounded, unreasonable, illogical, unsupportable, and violates WP:NPOV. Blackworm (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent my position, Blackworm. I haven't stated that "circumcision only means male circumcision". A common name isn't necessarily the only name for something. It's simply a name that's used frequently. My point here is that "circumcision" is used more often than "male circumcision". Jakew (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't imply that I am intentionally misrepresenting your position, Jake. If indeed "circumcision" is used more often than "male circumcision" to describe male circumcision, which you have not shown, that should be unsurprising since instances of male circumcision are many times more common, possibly a hundred, a thousand, or a hundred thousand times more so, than female circumcision in the English-speaking world. One would thus expect a usage of the term to reflect that. We must not turn common assumptions made for expediency into logical errors. We must not suppress discussion of the circumcision of females in articles about circumcision. Again, refer to my breast cancer analogy. Breast cancer most frequently occurs in women, but to use this fact as a basis to suppress information about breast cancer in men in an article on breast cancer is unsupportable. Blackworm (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Blackworm, I didn't mean to imply that it was intentional.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. Although articles use a word or term as a title, they aren't written about the definition of a word; they're written about a concept.

When we write mouse, we can write an entire article about the rodent, and there is no need for us to discuss the pointing device. Nor, for that matter, do we need to discuss "a quiet, timid person", or "a swelling under the eye, caused by a blow or blows". All of these are perfectly legitimate meanings of the word "mouse". But they are unrelated to the concept of mice, the rodents, which is the subject of the article.

So there are two questions: what is the article about, and what is the common name for that subject. In this case, the article is about the legality of removing the foreskin of the penis, and the common name for that procedure is simply "circumcision".

In the case of an article on breast cancer, it may be that the article is about breast cancer in general, or it may be that the article is about breast cancer in women (perhaps with a notice at the top saying "for discussion of the condition affecting men, see male breast cancer").

Please understand that we're not saying "circumcision means the removal of the foreskin of the penis and not FGC". Similarly, we're not saying "mouse means a small rodent and not a pointing device". Nor, in your example, are we saying "breast cancer means a disease affecting women and not men". We're saying "here is an article about X, and we've selected as a title a common term for X." Jakew (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the common name for what you are discussing is "male circumcision." If you look here or in some other dictionaries, you'll notice that there is no separate entry for the procedure done to males and females. It's not a separate concept. It's cutting off the prepuce. That's what circumcision is. Cutting off the prepuce. Repeat. Cutting off the prepuce. Your analogies above are strained, since obviously they are different concepts and would appear as separate entries in a dictionary. Further, when you say WP isn't a dictionary, I read policy as "it's MORE than a dictionary." It even states that articles should begin with a definition. Our definition here is WRONG, and has been since I started reading WP. Also, there is no way anyone would tolerate splitting up breast cancer in the way you describe -- it is pointless discrimination that serves no purpose (except in that case, possibly a fringe POV that men's breast cancer isn't "really" breast cancer, similar to a greater number of people's POV that female circumcision isn't "really" circumcision). The common word "circumcision" means "... of males and females." If we want to describe only the circumcision of males, and not the circumcision of females, we must not entitle the article "circumcision," but "male circumcision." Blackworm (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, you said above that you would find it unsurprising if "circumcision" is used more often than "male circumcision". Now, you say that the common name is "male circumcision. These two statements seem to contradict each other, since the common name is whatever name is used most commonly.

Unfortunately, while dictionaries allow us to determine whether a usage is correct, they are not terribly useful when determining how language is commonly used (I was mildly surprised to discover that a swelling under the eye is a "mouse", as I've never heard this usage in real life). It may be the case that (some) dictionaries define the term in this way, but usage in the real world isn't necessarily consistent with that (and indeed, usage of the term "female circumcision" often applies to any of the FGC procedures, whether or not the prepuce is excised). If you stop someone in the supermarket and ask them what "circumcision" means, how likely is it that they'll say "a gender-neutral term meaning removal of the prepuce"? If you stop someone and ask them the name of the procedure in which the foreskin of the penis is removed, do you think they'll say "circumcision" or "male circumcision"? Jakew (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. WP:UCN implores us to use common names for things, for example "apple tree" instead of "malus domestica," or "dog" instead of "canine." That does NOT mean we take a concept, identify that most instances of the concept correspond to one type (a classification we invent ourselves), and then redefine the entire concept as meaning only instances of that type. Nowhere in Wikipedia does this happen except in circumcision-related articles, to my knowledge. You were limiting the concept under discussion to circumcision of males, thus, as I said, the "common name" for the concept you were discussing is "male circumcision," not "circumcision."

You nailed it, Jake: the purpose of an encyclopedia is to tell us what usage is correct, NOT to tell us what usage is most common. Many if not most people think the 21st century began in 2000 instead of 2001. Do you think the 21st century article should be amended to reflect this "common usage?" I find the idea ridiculous. Your question examples are similarly off-point and misguided; ask the first question (what "circumcision" means) to a person you meet in Cairo, and yes, I think you'd be surprised at the answer, again because of the relative prevalence. Your second question argues backwards -- ask the same Egyptian what "removing the clitoris" is, and they'd likely say "circumcision," not "female circumcision." Even Western culture uses the term in this way; would you bet your life that if you walk up to a person in the supermarket and ask them, "is circumcision ever done to females?" that you would get an answer in the negative? I sincerely doubt it. Blackworm (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Blackworm, we haven't invented anything. In fact, this is how many sources define the term. Consider: "Circumcision: Surgery that removes the foreskin (the loose tissue) covering the glans of the penis."[12] "Circumcision What is it? surgical procedure to remove the skin covering the end of the penis, called the foreskin."[13] "circumcision The surgical removal of end of the prepuce of the penis."[14]

Now you appear to be saying that these sources are wrong, and that circumcision actually has a broader meaning. What I'm saying is that either definition may be correct, depending upon what the person using the term intends. But common usage tends to favour the "removal of the prepuce of the penis" meaning.

The purpose of a dictionary is to tell us about correct usage of a word. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to tell us about a concept. In Wiktionary, it would be entirely appropriate to document all meanings of a word. But in Wikipedia, we're writing about a concept, and picking the common name for a title.

Finally, the English Wikipedia reflects common usage in English. If one were to ask a typical person in Cairo, one would probably ask in Arabic, and so the answers would reflect common usage in that language (thus العربية is, I think, the Arabic article about apple trees). Jakew (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The concept you wish to discuss is male circumcision. Discussing male circumcision exclusively while labelling it "circumcision" from the start displays a lack of rigour which is common and possibly even acceptable in many sources. I don't believe it acceptable in Wikipedia. And by the way, there are plenty of English speakers in Egypt, including at least six English newspapers. Obviously my example refers to English speakers, the example having no meaning otherwise; to discount the example is simple ethnocentrism, discouraged by WP:NPOV. Blackworm (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, since many reliable sources define "circumcision" as (to paraphrase) "the removal of the foreskin of the penis", it is perfectly legitimate to use the term to mean precisely that. You may personally prefer to use a different definition (also perfectly legitimate), but that does not mean that yours is the "rigourous" definition. It's just different. Jakew (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is it illegitimate, then, to use the term otherwise in Wikipedia? Why is discussion of the circumcision of females banned from the circumcision article and related articles? Why is your desired usage common to ALL circumcision-related articles? Why is the narrower usage that excludes certain views preferable to the broader usage which includes all notable views? Blackworm (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles are about concepts. The circumcision article is about "the removal of the foreskin of the penis". The article about the procedures affecting females is female genital cutting. If the articles were called A123 and A321 respectively, they would have appalling names, but they'd still be about the same concepts. Neither article is about the words that form its title - both are about concepts, and are given a common name as a title in order to make it convenient for readers to find them.

If mouse were to include information about rodents and pointing devices, would the encyclopaedia be more or less useful? I suggest that any reader wishing to find information about either concept would find it a confusing mess. It would only be useful if (s)he were looking for information about the word itself, in which case Wiktionary would be a better bet, since that is about words. Jakew (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You are effectively denying that there exists a valid concept of circumcision that includes procedures performed on females. And you haven't explained the "whys" above to my satisfaction. Blackworm (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at the "in a nutshell" of WP:UCN: This page in a nutshell: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. [Emphasis mine.] CLEARLY you cannot take a concept (male circumcision) which is a subset of another concept (circumcision), and label the first concept according to the second. WP:UCN specifically prohibits what you are doing, Jake, it doesn't support it. Blackworm (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Conflicts do not arise because although "circumcision" is the common name for "the removal of the foreskin of the penis", it is not a common name for "procedures involving cutting the female genitals" (ie FGC). If a hypothetical article were written about the legality of female genital cutting, it couldn't be called "circumcision and law" or "legality of circumcision" without itself violating WP:UCN. Instead, it would likely be called "legality of female genital cutting" or "legality of female circumcision". Jakew (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree, and strongly dispute your assertions. The term circumcision is commonly used in reliable sources to refer to procedures on females. Blackworm (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

More from WP:UCN: Country music should be on a page called Country music because the word "country" has other referents besides the musical genre. If we ignore potential ambiguity, the ideal of simplicity can be at odds with the ideal of precision. [Emphasis mine.] ALSO: from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) If a word or phrase is ambiguous, and an article concerns only one of the meanings of that word or phrase, it should usually be titled with something more precise than just that word or phrase (unless it is unlikely that the related usages deserve their own article). The policies and guidelines of Wikipedia is overwhelmingly on my side on this, Jake, and I really am grasping to understand how you can possibly continue to argue the contrary. Blackworm (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) In this edit I removed Coppertwig's "otheruses" template, which created an inconsistency between what the hatnote said and the content of the article. It is now consistent again. If a case can be made to exclude material referencing the circumcision of females in this article, the article must be renamed as discussed above, as agreed to by three editors, with one opposed. Blackworm (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The article would be consistent with the hatnote if the material on FGC were removed.

Actually, there are two questions here:

1. Should the article be about legality of (male) circumcision, or the legality of (male and female) circumcision?
2. Should the article be named "circumcision and law" or "male circumcision and law"?

Your position, as I understand it, is that the article must be renamed if it is about the legality of male circumcision, and that otherwise it must be about the legality of both male circumcision and "female circumcision". Coppertwig and Michael have indicated that they would not be opposed to a change in title, but it is not clear (at least to me) that they would insist on it. C & M, could you clarify your views? Jakew (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If the article is exclusively about male circumcision and law, I prefer a name change, to avoid ambiguity. If the article is about both male and female, it must be extensively rewritten to include far more informaation about female circumcision. Note that articles are not required to be named with the most commonly-used name of a thing. For example, I expect that Valence, Drôme is most often referred to as simply "Valence", yet that is not the name of its Wikipedia article. I think that Elizabeth I of England is far more often referred to as "Queen Elizabeth" or just "the Queen" than "Elizabeth I of England". I think renaming the page would reduce confusion. Jakew, you may be accustomed to seeing "circumcision" meaning male circumcision; but I'm accustomed to hearing female circumcision referred to as female circumcision, and I've seen just "circumcision" used to refer to female circumcision. The name of the page may not be confusing to you, Jakew, but I found it confusing when I reached the Egypt section and realized that the whole rest of the page had been ambiguous in meaning, and other people may find it confusing too. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is any ambiguity, how does the 'otheruses' hatnote affect it, in your view? Jakew (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If the otheruses hatnote says "This article is about male circumcision," then that clarifies the ambiguity; however, some readers might not notice the hatnote so I think it's better if the word "male" appears in the title. However, it's much more important that the information be supplied to the reader at least once.

Jakew, I think you probably have considerable familiarity with the material. Would you please confirm whether each of the other sections of the article (besides Egypt) can reasonably be interpreted as applying to male circumcision specifically? That is, if we were to delete the Egypt section and state that the article is about male circumcision, would the material in the article still be true?

I've placed a hatnote stating "There is currently controversy over whether this article relates to male circumcision only or to both male and female circumcision. Discussion is at Talk:Circumcision and law. I think it's important to indicate to the reader what's going on in terms of whether it's about male or both male and female -- otherwise some of the information in the article might be interpreted as saying something that turns out to be false. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's possible that readers might not notice the hatnote, but equally there's no guarantee that they'll read the title. I do take your point that reducing ambiguity in the title is beneficial, but I am not convinced that significant ambiguity exists in a pragmatic sense. I don't think that we have to completely eliminate ambiguity, but I think that we need to consider what is a 'reasonable minimum' of ambiguity, bearing in mind the benefits of a common name (see WP:UCN#Rationale). Hence, mouse may be preferable to mouse (rodent), and Paris may be preferable to Paris, France, provided that the ambiguity is resolved through an appropriate hatnote.

As far as I'm aware, all the material except for 'Egypt' is about the circumcision of males. Jakew (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that the headline of this article uses the unadorned word "circumcision", and means female circumcision. Given the existence of material like this, people might jump to conclusions when they see the word "circumcision". If an article says, for example, "there is no law banning circumcision in country", they might think it means there is no law banning either male or female circumcision, and that might not be true -- so we have to be careful about our wording.

I've inserted the word "male" in the first sentence of each of Medical analysis of circumcision and Sexual effects of circumcision, and I've posted a question at Talk:Circumcision in cultures and religions asking whether the page is about male or about both male and female c. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that a disambiguation hatnote would supply the context for such statements, and as a practical matter, it would be very unwise for us to make such a statement in any circumstances. We should always attribute such a statement to a source, because of course a law could have been created immediately after that source was published, making the statement untrue.

Please understand that when I'm talking about 'circumcision' being the common name for the procedure affecting males, I don't mean to imply that 'circumcision' never refers to the procedure in females. I'm saying that the name most frequently used when referring to the procedure affecting males is "circumcision". "Male circumcision" is sometimes used, but less commonly. From an ambiguity point of view, I think that as a practical matter, usage of the unadorned word "circumcision" to mean the procedure affecting females is fairly uncommon. In common usage, it more often means the procedure affecting males. If people were to look for information about FGC, consider what they might search for. Is it likely that they would search for 'circumcision' rather than FC/FGC/FGM? Jakew (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

They would search for "circumcision". So I think "circumcision" should redirect to "male circumcision". --Coppertwig (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm slightly puzzled. I think you must be answering the question "if people were to look for information about (male) circumcision..." Is that correct? Jakew (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I was confused. I struck it out. However, people searching for FGC might type "female circumcision" or "circumcision" -- I don't know what they would type. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I don't know either, but let's try to make an educated guess. Here is the result of a Google search for "circumcision". (I'm using plain Google rather than Google Scholar in case general usage differs from scholarly usage.) Of the ten true search results I get on the first page (excluding the news results and paid links, etc), all of the results refer to the procedures affecting males. On the second page there is one result that appears to be about "female circumcision". On the third page there are two results that appears to be about "female circumcision". So of the thirty "most relevant" pages for "circumcision" (as judged by Google's algorithms), 27 (90%) are about the procedure affecting the male. Jakew (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(<<outdent) OK, most google hits for "circumcision" are for male circumcision. That doesn't tell us what someone would type if they were searching for female circumcision, or what someone might assume if they saw an article that talked about "circumcision" without specifying which it meant. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm making an assumption that I should have made explicit. Since Google have built their business on the quality of their information retrieval systems, and since their results have a reputation for being good, I'm assuming that these results are reasonably "good". That is, these results are roughly what people are looking to find when they type "circumcision". Do you think this is a reasonable assumption?

Regarding 'what someone might assume if they saw an article that talked about "circumcision" without specifying which it meant', the disambiguation hatnote does specify which is meant, so I don't think that's an issue. Jakew (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I consider the hatnote to be, in a sense, not part of the article. A hatnote saying "this page is about the rodent; for the computer mouse see..." would not be, in my opinion, a full excuse for beginning a "mouse" article with an ambiguous first sentence like "a mouse is a small thing, about 3 inches long, not counting a long, thin thing extending out of one end of it." It's possible that the articles could be taken out of context, without the hatnotes: for example, if someone were publishing a set of featured articles, and the present article were in the set but the article pointed to by the hatnote were not part of the set, they might leave off the hatnote. Also, I find that the hatnotes are easy to ignore when rapidly searching for information, but the article titles, which display for me in large, bold type, tend to be quite salient. The first sentence is also definitely salient. I consider having crucial information appearing only in the hatnote to be merely a compromise.

OK, I see your point that Google seems to think people searching for "circumcision" are mostly looking for male circumcision. How about if you type "male circumcision" into Google -- what does Google think those people are looking for? :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, what if we include the hatnote and ensure that the first sentence (in which we define the subject of the article) is unambiguous?

I would imagine that people typing "male circumcision" are looking for information about (male) circumcision. However, "male circumcision" seems to be used less frequently than "circumcision". Google returns 406,000 results for this exact phrase ("male circumcision"), whereas it returns 6,970,000 for "circumcision" (376,000 match the exact phrase "female circumcision"). Roughly speaking (and bearing in mind the fact that these are estimates based upon assumptions), "circumcision" seems to be used 17 times as often as "male circumcision", and in 90% of cases seems to have the same meaning.

So the question is, do we choose a title that people are 17 times less likely to use, in order to eliminate confusion in a small number of cases? If we can address ambiguity in other ways, that doesn't seem to be the best way to serve most readers. Jakew (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The reader is best served by being properly informed about what circumcision is. The current organization goes to extra effort to make WP claim that circumcision is male circumcision. Given the presence of circumcision advocacy, combined with documented international campaigns to redefine the circumcision of females as "female genital mutilation" in order to dissociate the practice along gender lines, this arrangement clearly violates WP:NPOV. Blackworm (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see how the organisation violates NPOV.

First, I'm not convinced that different definitions of a word constitute a POV about a subject. I'm not even sure that they constitute a POV about a word; they just document its usage.

Second, every definition of 'circumcision' that I've seen includes something like "to remove the foreskin of the penis", and correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't think any definition excludes this procedure. Consequently, "circumcision is male circumcision" (as you put it) does not seem to be non-neutral, as it is common to all definitions.

Third, it's true that some definitions also include "female circumcision", but then they may also include "spiritual purification", "a festival", and so on. I don't think we have to include every possible meaning, and if we did we'd become a dictionary, not an encyclopaedia.

Fourth, other than definitions I'm aware of a few sources discussing the term "female circumcision", and all argue that the term is inaccurate or in some way inappropriate. I haven't found any that argue for the term. (I'm not saying that this means that circumcision isn't female "circumcision", just that there may be some NPOV issues involved in saying that it is. It seems more neutral to say neither.) Jakew (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If you assert "'circumcision is male circumcision' [...] does not seem to be non-neutral,'" then I believe I can comfortably rest my case there. Also, clearly "discussion of the term" is recent scholarship, linked to both circumcision advocacy and the documented advocacy against female circumcision, recast as "female genital mutilation" for precisely the purpose of not offending male circumcision advocates. Obviously many sources use the term circumcision to describe the circumcision of females, non-euphemistically and neutrally, unlike the advocates. That there is little or no public opposition to this advocacy does not mean that WP engaging in the advocacy does not violate NPOV. Blackworm (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, I think you misunderstand. There doesn't seem to be any disagreement about whether circumcision is the removal of the foreskin of the penis; all definitions appear to include that. It's like saying "an apple is a fruit" - nobody disputes it. Hypothetically, an Apple Computer executive might say "it's also a kind of computer", but (s)he wouldn't be saying that it isn't a fruit.

As for the rest of your argument, I'm afraid that I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Nor do I understand what advocacy Wikipedia is supposedly engaging in. To use my analogy, you seem to be saying that if we say "an apple is a fruit", we're advocating the point of view that it's not a computer. Jakew (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Your analogies are incredibly strained. Comparing (the circumcision of males) and (the circumcision of females) to (an apple) and (Apple Computer) is just absurd. Point me to any example of any topic split along gender lines (i.e. "X" and "(fe)male X" in two separate articles), and you may have a point. I suspect no such example exists, and that this bizarre separation is motivated by, or influenced by, the advocacy I note above. Blackworm (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't the best analogy, but it seemed good enough for the purpose of illustrating my point. I think that in insisting on examples with a gender-based division you're missing the point, but you could look at menopause/male menopause, condom/female condom, and ejaculation/female ejaculation. Jakew (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's indeed look at those articles. "Menopause" means "pause of the menses." There isn't even a hatnote link in the article for "male menopause," (andropause) which is just a sexist, belittling term for an unrelated phenomenon, the very existence of which is disputed. Your analogy to (apple) and (Apple Computer) might apply there. Condom and female condom, as well as ejaculation and female ejaculation, suffer from exactly the same problem circumcision does. A female condom is a type of condom. Female ejaculation is a type of ejaculation. Female circumcision is a type of circumcision. Clitoral erection is a type of erection: Note that clitoral erection is properly treated in the erection article -- and I'm sure all your arguments about "common usage," supposedly proven by Google searches, would show (by the same invalid reasoning) that clitoral erection is to be excluded. I doubt anyone in Talk:Erection would accept that argument or take that view seriously. Male menopause is NOT a type of menopause, not even referenced or mentioned anywhere in menopause, and in fact the andropause article makes it clear it has nothing to do with menopause. It is a separate topic. The topic of "male menopause" is outside the topic of menopause. The topic of female circumcision is not indisputably outside the topic of circumcision, despite attempts by advocates of mass male circumcision and opponents of female circumcision to cast it thusly. Blackworm (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You asked me to "[p]oint me to any example of any topic split along gender lines ... and you may have a point", and I did. You said that you "suspect no such example exists, and that this bizarre separation is motivated by, or influenced by, the advocacy I note above". Clearly these examples do exist. Equally clearly, you disagree with their structure, which makes me wonder whether you were expecting me to provide examples with which you agree. I'm not sure what this exchange has achieved, and as I said earlier, I think that in insisting on examples with a gender-based division you're missing the point. Jakew (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you haven't convinced me (or, apparently the other two editors in this discussion) that you have one. Blackworm (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it: you reject some of the examples on the basis that the male and female counterparts are the same thing, and you reject the menopause example on the basis that they are not the same thing.

There is not just one correct way to divide material up into topics. Just as within an article, things can be divided into chronological sections, or conceptual sections each of which mentions things happening at different times, so also there are various ways to divide stuff up into articles. There could be one article about circumcision, both male and female -- but there doesn't have to be.

In a dictionary, an entry on "mouse" must list all the definitions, rodent, computer, etc. But an encyclopedia article named "mouse" is not like that. It's simply using the word "mouse" as part (or all) of the title -- not defining the word. It only has to mention one type of mouse. It can make it clear in the first sentence which type of mouse it's talking about, without necessarily mentioning any other type of mouse. Similarly with circumcision. An article can have male circumcision as its topic. The article doesn't have to be named "male circumcision" just because its topic is male circumcision, just as various articles talking about male circumcision don't have to say "male circumcision" every time they mention it: they can very well just say "circumcision," and so can we, provided there is no ambiguity, which there is not if the first sentence makes it clear what the article is about. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't reject the examples because they were the same thing, I reject them for the reasons I stated: A female condom is a (kind of, type of, subset of) condom, etc. "Male menopause" is not menopause. The view that it is, is simply nonexistent, in the same way that the view that "Apple Computer" is "an apple" is nonexistent. You will not find a medical text or other peer-reviewed source ever referring to a male as having undergone "menopause," or anything about "menopause in males," etc. The same is not true of condoms, erections, circumcision, and ejaculation.

I strongly disagree with: An article can have male circumcision as its topic. The article doesn't have to be named "male circumcision" just because its topic is male circumcision [...]." See the UCN guideline I quote above, about the title needing to be non-ambiguous. Again, by that logic, what is stopping anyone from selecting "breast cancer in women" as a topic for an article, titling the article "breast cancer," putting in a hatnote to convince ourselves we are absolved of supporting ambiguity, and then proceeding to define the term "breast cancer" as only occuring to women? There doesn't "have to be" one article on breast cancer, right? Look at Google searches on "breast cancer," obviously people want to read about women, not men, right? It's proof that's it's desirable, isn't it? Shall we go suggest that at Talk:Breast cancer?

Remember, the circumcision article used to define the term "male circumcision," but this was deemed unacceptable and changed so that it now defines "circumcision" (as the circumcision of males).

Also, I'm tired of hearing "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" in the context of this dispute. Jakew, Avi, and yourself are misusing the phrase -- the policy clearly indicates that it means (a) Wikipedia shouldn't (merely) define a word, but explain the concept' or topic behind a word, and (b) Wikipedia should not focus on etymology, pronunciation, synonyms, usage in a sentence, etc., in short the things we expect of dictionaries. It does not mean that we can't look to a dictionary to help determine what the concept associated with a word is. Here, allow me to quote that very policy (all emphasis mine):

"Articles are about the people, concepts, places, events, and things that their titles denote."

"A good stub encyclopedia article can and should begin with a relatively short but discrete explanation of what the subject of the article — the person, place, concept, event, or thing that its title denotes — is."

"A definition aims to describe or delimit the meaning of some term (a word or a phrase) by giving a statement of essential properties or distinguishing characteristics of the concept, entity, or kind of entity, denoted by that term.
A good definition is not circular, a one-word synonym or a near synonym, over broad or over narrow, ambiguous, figurative, or obscure."

— Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary

Note also what the page linked to from that policy, Fallacies of definition, says:

"A definition is too broad if it applies to things that are not part of the extension of the word defined."

"Definitions are too narrow if they exclude some things that they should apply to; they fail to describe some members of the word's extension."

— Wikipedia article on Fallacies of definition

A mouse and a computer mouse are not part of the same concept. Menopause and "male menopause" are not. One might argue that male circumcision and female circumcision are not, but Wikipedia cannot and should not argue this, by structure, omission, or definition -- reliable sources contradict this argument. The view may be presented; it cannot be asserted.

Read the first quote presented above and ask yourself, what concept, or thing, does the title, "Circumcision," denote? Now, looking at the second quotation, ask, is it "too broad" for us to claim that it denotes the circumcision of females as well as the circumcision of males? I say, no. Is it "too narrow" for us to only claim that it denotes the circumcision of males? I say, yes. Blackworm (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming an answer of "male circumcision only," to question 1, changing the title is the only possible way to justify the removal and subsequent banning of material on female circumcision. What the article is about, or potentially about, is determined by its title, not by its existing contents, nor by fiat. Blackworm (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about repeating the not-a-dictionary bit; I knew I was overdoing that.

In the "mouse" article, the title "mouse" denotes a certain animal, and the beginning of the article makes it clear that that is what is denoted. Similarly, with "London": the title denotes one particular city. In other contexts, it denotes a different city. The first sentence of an article clarifies what is denoted by the title.

Suppose there is more than one different definition of the city London: even though it's essentially the same city, some people might include certain suburbs and others exclude them when they use that term. In that case, Wikipedia should not take a stance as to which is the correct meaning of the word. Nevertheless, Wikipedia must make a decision as to what that particular article is about. The beginning of the article could clarify that the article is about the larger area sometimes called London and including certain suburbs, or that it's about a smaller area, etc. To state that the article is about one of those things or the other is not equivalent to asserting that the word "London" always means that area or that it's better for it to mean that; rather, it indicates that it was thought convenient to include certain subtopics in a single article. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. What basis do you have for your assertion? An article titled "mouse" could be about a computer mouse, and it would make that clear in its first sentence. Or, it could be about a rodent mouse. The title doesn't generally specify what exactly the article is about unless the preferred, common name has already been taken by another article about another topic with the same common name (or unless a disambiguation page is used). Examples: mouse and London. The names of these pages do not specify what the articles are about, yet they are well-named, using very common usages of those words. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The basis is [[policy: "Articles are about the people, concepts, places, events, and things that their titles denote." (Emph. mine). I don't think "mouse" and "computer mouse" (two different concepts which would always have separate dictionary entries as a result), nor different, niggling interpretations of the concept of "London," the city in England, are remotely comparable examples. Here we have a controversial subject, with a clearly overly narrow definition (violating one policy) that we are to believe "just happens, as a complete coincidence" to serve the interests of one side of the controversy (violating another policy). It's not defensible. Blackworm (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, you seem to have misunderstood Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. Regarding encyclopaedia articles, it states:

• Articles are about the people, concepts, places, events, and things that their titles denote. The article octopus is about the animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth.

This is contrasted with dictionary articles:

• Articles are about the actual words or idioms in their title. The article octopus is about the word "octopus": its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth.

Note that the example chosen is "octopus", a word that can mean an animal, or it can mean "Something, such as a multinational corporation, that has many powerful, centrally controlled branches."

Thus, even though the word 'mouse' denotes several concepts, and a dictionary would discuss all these meanings, an encyclopaedia article is about one of these concepts. And yes, mouse begins with a "relatively short but discrete explanation of what the subject of the article ... is." (ie., the rodent). In the case of mouse, this is "A mouse (plural mice) is a small mammal that belongs to one of numerous species of rodents." As a definition of the word 'mouse', that's overly narrow. But as a definition of the subject of the article mouse, it's quite accurate. Jakew (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that Blackworm understands that already, but that his point is that in the case of "mouse", for example, different meanings of the word are separate concepts: the rodent has nothing to do with the computer mouse. There is no simple, often-used concept that includes both the animal octopus and the tentacular corporation. However, in the case of "circumcision", as Blackworm sees it, there is one concept with that name which includes both male and female circumcision. As I see it, that concept exists and the separate concepts of male circumcision and female circumcision also each exist. (I don't know whether Blackworm also sees it that way.) Apparently Blackworm sees the concept which includes both male and female circumcision as a natural concept which is a reasonable scope for an article, and the division into separate articles for the sexes as an unnatural division, like having one article about white mice and a separate article about coloured mice. To me, the articles could be divided either way, but the separate-sex divisions seem appropriate primarily because the articles are (or will be) rather long anyway, and secondarily because there are a lot of differences both in the physical implementation of the procedures and in the way society uses or reacts to them, so that almost all the things one would say about the procedures is different for the two sexes.

Blackworm has a point that dividing the articles in a certain way can be seen as promoting a point of view that certain concepts are or are not naturally grouped in a certain way. The way Wikipedia groups material into articles should be done in a neutral fashion. However, the grouping of material into articles is done based partly on practical considerations such as the amount of material available and ideal length of an article etc., and is not in my opinion equivalent to an assertion that that is the only natural way to group the concepts. Also, a different grouping (putting male and female circumcision together in one article) would also support a (different) particular point of view -- perhaps one which is not so widely reflected in the literature. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Jakew, since I completely agree with everything in the above post, and always have, I'm mystified as to how you believe I have misunderstood that particular policy. You, on the other hand, have quoted the title of that policy repeatedly to dismiss dictionary definitions of circumcision as irrelevant. Clearly, policy disagrees with you, as the boxes quotes above prove. Read again the quote about definitions that are "too narrow." Isn't that what I've been saying all along?

Coppertwig, your phrasing, as always, is perfect: However, in the case of "circumcision", as Blackworm sees it, there is one concept with that name which includes both male and female circumcision. As I see it, that concept exists and the separate concepts of male circumcision and female circumcision also each exist. (I don't know whether Blackworm also sees it that way.) I completely agree, but the "separate concepts" of male circumcision and female circumcision must have articles with titles that properly and non-ambiguously denote the concept. Your phrasing makes my point; in order to non ambiguously denote the concept, you had to call them "male circumcision" and "female circumcision" -- two short, common phrases perfectly denoting the separate concepts under consideration. You write above about the grouping of articles, but the whole point of this debate is not that male and female circumcision must be discussed in one huge article, but that an article with male circumcision as its topic cannot properly be titled "circumcision" (and the concept defined and used as if it only means male circumcision) any more than an article on men's rights can be titled "rights." To respond to your last sentence, a grouping of the articles together may indeed support a different point of view -- but not to the extent naming the sub-concept according to the super-concept does -- but grouping the articles is not what I ever proposed. I proposed "circumcision" be a disambiguation page (vehemently opposed by Jakew and Avraham), or perhaps a short summary (vehemently opposed by Jakew and Avraham), or that the article on the topic currently addressed by the "circumcision" article (namely, male circumcision) be titled "male circumcision" (vehemently opposed by Jakew and Avraham). WHY is ambiguity, specifically prohibited by policy, and frequently used as a reason to revert material, not only ignored but insisted upon in this case? Blackworm (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, I don't believe I have ever claimed that dictionary definitions are irrelevant. I think that you must have misunderstood my arguments.

The reason why I refer to 'Wikipedia is not a dictionary' is to emphasise the fact that the relationship between title and content differs from that in a dictionary. If this were a dictionary, the content would be dictated by the title, and there would be a good case for including every possible meaning of a word. For example, an article about 'mouse' would need to state that it can mean a) a small rodent, but it can also mean b) a pointing device, or c) a timid person, etc. Similarly, an article about 'circumcision' would need to state that it can mean a) the removal of the foreskin of the penis, b) removal of the female prepuce, c) any of the procedures otherwise known as FGC, d) collectively a and b, e) a spiritual purification, f) a specific festival, etc.

On the other hand, an encyclopaedia article is written about a subject. The title should describe the subject. However, that doesn't mean that the subject should be every possible meaning of the word(s) in the title. If that were the case, mouse would be about rodents and pointing devices. For that matter, your proposed 'male circumcision' would be about the removal of the foreskin of the penis and spiritual purification of males (if you wanted to be absolutely free of ambiguity, you'd have to name the article 'the removal of the foreskin of the penis').

My point is that, in a dictionary, the article is about the word(s) in the title. In an encyclopaedia, the article is about a subject, which is simply described by the title. And we prefer common names for that title, provided that there is a reasonable minimum of ambiguity. Hence there is a small amount of ambiguity in the titles of mouse, octopus, Paris, and circumcision, which we resolve through disambiguation hatnotes and a careful definition of the subject of the article.

I actually commented on "overly narrow" definitions in my above post (12:52, 30 January 2008). Jakew (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles are about the people, concepts, places, events, and things that their titles denote. You are (again) arguing backwards, pointing to article content to determine the title, when policy calls for the reverse. Circumcision denotes a topic that goes beyond the circumcision of males. The topic you wish to discuss is simply, commonly, and precisely denoted as "male circumcision." The ambiguity is clearly unreasonable, and easily solvable (three simple solutions posted above), and yet you resist the change with huge effort. You argue that the current status is acceptable, avoiding the question posed: why is the proposed change unacceptable? Blackworm (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the policy uses it as an example, what concept does "octopus" denote? Is it the animal or the type of organisation? Both are legitimate meanings.

I think that the only possible answer is that "octopus" can denote an animal, and it can also denote a type of organisation. In the context of the article octopus, the term denotes the animal. I'd suggest that this corresponds to common usage of the term. Jakew (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, octopus (animal) and octopus (organization) are two distinct concepts, which would never both be presented as one single definition in a single dictionary entry, like a single concept is. Blackworm (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if you would answer my question. Of course, if any source were to present a single definition combining the two concepts, it would not invalidate the sources giving separate definitions. Thus, there would be a total of three legitimate meanings: a) an animal, b) a type of organisation, and c) a tentacular thing such as an Octopoda or an organisation. Jakew (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if you answered the three related questions in the last paragraph of my post dated 01:57, 30 January 2008. To answer your question, the best concept to choose for the article entitled "octopus" is clearly the water-dwelling animal. The concept of an octopus organization, I hadn't even heard of until you brought it up here, and I'm reasonably positive it is so-named due to an analogy with the animal. The concepts would appear to most to have a tenuous link. Perhaps one way of looking at it is, I believe someone could without logical contradiction nor need for further explanation say they are "opposed to circumcision performed on both males and females," and be fully and unambiguously understood by a vast majority of native English speakers. I do not believe one would expect one to say they are "opposed to octopus animals and organizations" without drawing the same confused look I obtain from reading the opposing arguments in this dispute. Blackworm (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(<<outdent) I think Blackworm is asserting that if a word can denote different things, then an article titled with that word can cover one of those topics, but only under certain circumcstances; that if one of the possible meanings is a larger category including other possible meanings, then the larger category is a possible topic but the any of the smaller, included categories are not valid topics for an article. I see no reason to make this assertion. I think an article title can be any common meaning, or the most common meaning, provided that disambiguation links are given. Sometimes a meaning which is a larger category is a less common use of a word or phrase. I see no particular reason to place a lot of weight on such less common usages. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not asserting that. I guess what it comes down to is -- I'm arguing the current organization implicitly promotes a non-neutral POV, in violation of a policy. I'm arguing the current organization defines the topic of "circumcision" too narrowly, in violation of another policy calling for definitions not to be too narrow. Definitions are too narrow if they exclude some things that they should apply to; they fail to describe some members of the word's extension (Fallacies of definition). I believe these policies trump all guidelines (i.e., WP:UCN). I believe I've made my case. You must be arguing either that that all of the alternatives (a disambiguation page, or a title change, etc.) would also violate policy, or that policy is not violated right now, and further the alternatives would counter guideline. Which is it, and why? Blackworm (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems fairly obvious to me that we're not violating WP:DICT. To explain why, let me restate the three meanings (one hypothetical) of 'octopus'. For the sake of argument, assume that definitions for all three may be found in reliable sources.

• a) an animal
• b) a type of organisation
• c) a tentacular thing such as an Octopoda or an organisation

If we assume that c is the only "correct" meaning, then both a and b are overly narrow. Similarly, if we assume that either a or b is the only "correct" meaning, then c is overly broad. But of course, we can't decide that one source is incorrect and another is correct, so we must assume that all three are correct.

Now, it's clear that we can choose a particular meaning for a given page (otherwise octopus would have to be about both meanings), and that meaning is thus "correct" within the context of that page. Consequently, if we choose the (established) meaning a) (an animal) for the article, then defining it as that meaning is not overly narrow.

So, since several reliable sources do define circumcision as the removal of the foreskin of the penis, this is an established meaning of the term, and consequently using this definition does not violate WP:DICT.

Nor are we promoting a POV, as I've explained above. Your argument seems to be that by dividing circumcision and FGC into separate articles we're asserting that they're unrelated. But by the same argument, we're also asserting that it's unrelated to surgery, initiation rite, penis and indeed every one of the other 2.1 million articles in Wikipedia. It doesn't seem logical to view it as an assertion of no relation; it's a non-assertion. If we consider three statements in prose: a) "circumcision and FGC are related", b) "circumcision and FGC are unrelated", and c) "", it seems closest to c. Jakew (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't buy it. You're talking about meanings, I'm talking about concepts. The concept of circumcision involves cutting off parts of human genitals. The "male" and "female" aspects of it are not analogous to the "animal" and "organization" aspects of the concept of "an octopus;" indeed the latter are two concepts related only by name. We are proud to assert here that male circumcision is the "real" circumcision, and circumcision of females is related only by name. That's POV. The POV at the source of this arrangement was more evident when the hatnote at circumcision said For the procedure sometimes referred to "female circumcision," see... and it only took me about 15 pages of "discussion" to convince Avi that it was best to change it. The POV is now better hidden, and more easily dismissed, but it's still quite evident. Blackworm (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, you've cited a dictionary definition on many occasions in these discussions, so I made the assumption that you wanted to talk about meanings. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your intentions.

As for concepts, I'm not sure that there is a "concept of circumcision". It's clear from the fact that you're talking about it that there is a concept that involves cutting off parts of human genitals. Similarly, there is another concept that involves removal of the foreskin of the penis. If we want to name either of those concepts, then I can't see how we can avoid talking about meanings. What is a definition (or meaning), after all, if not a link between a word and a concept?

You say 'We are proud to assert here that male circumcision is the "real" circumcision, and circumcision of females is related only by name', but actually we don't assert that. We simply use "circumcision" as the title of an article that's about the removal of the foreskin of the penis (which is a common and valid meaning). If that's asserting that "male circumcision is the real circumcision", then aren't we're also asserting that "the animal is the true octopus"? Jakew (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, the argument you are forwarding that the concept of "male circumcision" is to the concept of "female circumcision" like "octopus (animal)" is to "octopus (organization)" is patently absurd, as well as perfectly reflective of the non-neutral POV this arrangement upholds. Blackworm (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, Some people believe that the concepts of male and female "circumcision" are related. Some believe that they are not. Since we can't decide that one view is right and the other wrong, we can't answer that question. Instead, have to look at what we can verify, and we can verify that these different definitions exist. We can verify that "male circumcision" and "female circumcision" are both meanings of the word "circumcision" (and that a combined meaning exists). Similarly, "octopus (animal)" and "octopus (organisation)" are both meanings of the word "octopus". Jakew (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Some people believe that the concepts of male and female "circumcision" are related. I would say an overwhelming majority do -- regardless of the terms used. So much so that they are treated as one concept, one entry, one definition in at least one mainstream dictionary (unlike "octopus" or any of your other examples). Circumcision is the cutting off of parts of human genitals. We deny this here at Wikipedia, preferring to steal that meaning away and apply it only to males, redirecting any discussion of the circumcision of females to an article with a different title that discusses procedures that both are and are not female circumcision, making the name change and thus the separation of ideas perfect and complete, perfectly serving the stated aims of pro-male circumcision activists and anti-female circumcision activists. It's a tyranny of the supposed majority, the Western UN supporter's POV, vanquishing WP:NPOV, which never had a chance against it. Blackworm (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, saying that circumcision is "the cutting off of parts of human genitals" does not correspond with conventional usage - I've seen no definition of "circumcision" that would include castration or penectomy. Nor is it strictly true to say that the FGC article "discusses procedures that both are and are not female circumcision" - "female circumcision" has several definitions, with some sources defining the term as equivalent to FGC, some as removal of the prepuce, and some as removing the clitoris. This seems to illustrate the problem: your insistence that your definitions of words are right, and that any other usage of language is wrong.

Incidentally, what makes you so sure that this describes one concept: "to cut off the foreskin of (a male) or the clitoris of (a female)"[15] (emph added)? Jakew (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

When I said "circumcision is the cutting off of parts of human genitals," I was making a general statement about the concept, not defining it. More precisely, I could have said "all instances of circumcision are acts that cut off parts of human genitals."

To answer your second paragraph, it's because dictionaries don't put two completely separate, "unrelated" concepts under one definition. As this page explains, the line you quote is one "sense" of the word. Your emphasizing "or" doesn't make your point. "Female genital cutting" is defined as 18 different things -- "cutting" or "poking" or "pinpricking" or "excising" or "touching with herbs" or "staring at funny" etc. etc... Does that mean it's not a single concept? Blackworm (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're reading too much into the fact that these are presented as one "sense", rather than as "1: to cut off the foreskin of a male, 2: to cut off the clitoris of a female". I don't think that the intent is to declare indivisible concepts, but rather to concisely express the various meanings. The source you cite tells us that "The system of separating the various senses of a word by numerals and letters is a lexical convenience. It reflects something of their semantic relationship, but it does not evaluate senses or set up a hierarchy of importance among them." Jakew (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said the concept was indivisible. I'm claiming that it is valid and common to view it as one concept, necessitating or at the very least making desirable disambiguating language (i.e., "male circumcision," not "circumcision") should we choose to present the subconcepts in separate articles. The part you quote makes no point in your favour that I can see. Blackworm (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it may be valid, but you haven't convinced me that it's common. As I demonstrated above, when the term 'circumcision' is used, it means 'the removal of the foreskin of the penis' in the majority of cases. Jakew (talk) 11:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What you have demonstrated is that discussions of male circumcision are more common than discussions of female circumcision. As I've pointed out, this is both unsurprising (due to relative prevalence) and unrelated to whether circumcision as a concept commonly includes the circumcision of females. Blackworm (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I would submit that if "circumcision" commonly referred to the concept that you describe (the "circumcision" of males and females), then one would expect that searching for "circumcision" would identify many documents about that subject. Jakew (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? Why would that preclude that the circumcision of males is more commonly discussed than the circumcision of females, or indeed than circumcision of males and females? 99% of search results for "penis" will be about human penises; that doesn't mean a dog's penis isn't a penis, or that we could reasonably put This article is about human penes... at the top of the Penis article. Blackworm (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, these search results indicate that these pages are clearly using "circumcision" to mean "the removal of the foreskin of the penis", and in many cases they explicitly state this. Unless we have evidence that this author of a source regards this procedure as a specific instance of a wider concept, we have to take sources at face value: the concept they're discussing is the removal of the foreskin of the penis. Jakew (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I could just as well argue "These search results indicate that these pages are clearly using "penis" to mean 'the human male genital organ.'" No, Jake, all the results indicate is that they are speaking about male circumcision. Even the WHO explicitly states "male circumcision" in its documents, often repeating "male circumcision" throughout the document. Blackworm (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No Blackworm, your interpretation may be that they are speaking about "male circumcision", but if the sources use the term "circumcision", then "circumcision" is what they're discussing. It may not be your definition of circumcision, but it is a definition of circumcision. To you, as you've stated, the "concept of circumcision involves cutting off parts of human genitals", and "male circumcision" means the removal of the foreskin of the penis. However, not everybody uses those definitions. Since one definition of "circumcision" is "Surgery that removes the foreskin (the loose tissue) covering the glans of the penis", it seems extraordinary to insist that someone using the term to mean precisely that actually means something else. Jakew (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not insisting on that at all. See my "penis" example. I'm sure the overwhelming majority of sources using "penis" don't explicitly say "human penis;" it's just clear from the source that they are talking about human penes. That doesn't mean all those sources insist that a dog's penis is not a penis -- even if many sources say "The penis is a man's sexual organ." Blackworm (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if a legitimate meaning of "penis" is "that of the human", and if this usage is actually more common than "that of any animal", then what's so terrible about such an article beginning with "This article is about human penes...", and directing readers to information about non-human penes? To borrow adapt your words, it "doesn't mean that we're insisting that a dog's penis is not a penis", just that we're using the "human" meaning of the word in the context of that article. Jakew (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) It's not "terrible," it's just ambiguous, and it also implies that non-human penes aren't really penes, but are just miscontrued as being penes; especially if the article about non-human penes doesn't have the word "penis" in the title (cf. "Female genital cutting). "Articles are about the people, concepts, places, events, and things that their titles denote." What is so terrible about redirecting "penis" to an article called "human penis" in that case? It serves a common meaning, serves the reader seeking to read about human penes, and eliminates ambiguity. Blackworm (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments seem inconsistent, Blackworm. On one hand, you say that articles using "penis" to mean "human penis" do not mean that a dog's penis is not a penis, yet on the other, you say that using "penis" to mean "human penis" in an article would imply that "that non-human penes aren't really penes, but are just miscontrued as being penes".

As you note, articles are about the X that their titles denote, and so clearly one of the meanings of the title must correspond with the subject of the article (we couldn't call an article about penes "pineapple", for example).

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that to most people, "penis" means "human penis", and that they'd be likely to type "penis" when looking for this information, then there are advantages to using this common name. These are explained in WP:UCN#Rationale.

To quote from WP:DAB#Deciding to disambiguate, an important question is "When a reader enters a given term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result?" In the case of "circumcision", I think the answer's fairly clear that in most cases, the answer is the removal of the foreskin of the penis. There would be a few exceptions, though, and so a hatnote is appropriate. Jakew (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not say that -- I said that titling the human penis article "penis" and then defining "penis" as "the human male reproductive organ" in this encyclopedia would imply that non-human penes aren't really penes, but are just misconstrued as being penes. That is what we do with circumcision -- not just in circumcision but in every article discussing circumcision. The point of view that "female circumcision" isn't really circumcision, but is just misconstrued as being circumcision (or misnamed, or a euphemism, or incorrect) is just that -- a point of view pushed by circumcision activists wishing to separate the terms and thus the ideas. We should not wholeheartedly engage in that.

In the case of "circumcision", the answer is fairly clear that the reader wants to know what circumcision is. Rather than tell them that circumcision is (what the dictionary says), we tell them it is defined as "the removal of the foreskin of the penis." We are doing a disservice to the reader with the false implication that circumcision is only done to males. Blackworm (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the point is that sources play fast and loose with words, "defining" them to be whatever subset of the concept they wish to discuss. But this is an encyclopedia. Just as we must make clear a penis can be non-human, we must make make clear circumcision is not just done to males. Blackworm (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I see what you're saying. You're saying that:

• "To remove the foreskin of the penis, or the clitoris" is the definition of circumcision, and
• "To remove the foreskin of the penis" is a subset of the true definition of circumcision, and a source defining it as such is technically inaccurate.
• Therefore, you believe that we should use the first definition.

In contrast, I'm saying that:

• "To remove the foreskin of the penis, or the clitoris" is one definition of circumcision, and
• "To remove the foreskin of the penis" is another definition of circumcision, which is no less legitimate.
• Therefore, I believe that it is legitimate to use either definition, and that the decision should be based upon whichever is most common.

Do you think this is a fair summary? Jakew (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not, in fact your summary appears to ignore my response to previous attempts you have made to summarize this dispute in that way. Since we appear to be arguing in circles, perhaps we should let this rest until more neutral parties weigh in. Blackworm (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Overview

I support Jake's proposal that we add an overview to this article. There are three main sections of the text, history, modern law and forced circumcisions. The first two sections fit naturally together. However, the section on forced circumcisions deals mainly with quite lawless situations and other situations where the law has manifestly failed to protect people's human rights In some instances, law enforcement officials have been powerless to prevent such abuses Michael Glass (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That suggests to me that the 'forced circumcisions' section is beyond the scope of this article, and we should either a) find a source that brings it into context (such as a source arguing that the laws relating to circumcision are unenforceable in these situations, for example), or b) remove the section. Jakew (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Instances of failures to apply local or international law with respect to circumcision assaults are relevant to this article. Blackworm (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So if we had a source describing these instances as "failures to apply local or international law", then we would both agree on my suggestion a)? Jakew (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't need such a source. It's enough to additionally show that laws prohibiting these actions exist -- if indeed you believe common sense doesn't indicate that fact on its own. Blackworm (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that time constraints have made me express myself in a way that has opened a bit of a hornet's nest of controversy. Here are a few examples that may show that a failure of law and order is still an issue of law. When Antiochus conquered Judea and attempted to ban circumcision, the response of the Maccabeans included the forced circumcision of boys (1 Mac. 2:45). In a second example, an Australian man was compensated for a drunken attack which included a forced circumcision with a broken bottle and his assailants were convicted of assault [16]. Also in one of the Kenya examples, police arrested people involved in forcibly circumcising others. If this does not satisfy you, perhaps a better place for this section would be as part of the general article about circumcision. Michael Glass (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not a failure of law and order exists or is relevant to the article, nevertheless an awarding of damages after a forced circumcision is an action of a court, based on law and is relevant to this article; and police arresting people for forcibly circumcising others is also an action of a legal enforcement system and is relevant to this article. Perhaps most of the material, simply documenting that forced circumcisions have happened, could be moved to Circumcision or to Prevalence of circumcision or to Circumcision in cultures and religions. Or to History of circumcision. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In the case of the recent case that Michael mentions, I think we can just include it under the 'Australia' heading. Jakew (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Draft lead

There have been laws about male circumcision dating back to ancient times. In a number of modern states, circumcision is presumed to be legal, but under certain circumstances, more general laws, such as laws about assault or child custody, may sometimes be interpreted as applying to situations involving circumcision. Some states have passed laws restricting the circumstances under which circumcisions can be performed.

Comments

--Coppertwig (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent effort at a very difficult task, Coppertwig. It seems a reasonable summary of material that is, to borrow Michael's words, "diffuse, unclear and even rather chaotic".

One minor thing: I think laws about male circumcision should all be in bold, since it is the subject of the article (WP:LEAD states that "The article's subject should be mentioned at the earliest natural point in the prose in the first sentence, and should appear in boldface. Avoid links in the bold title words. The name of the subject is often identical to the page title, although it may appear in a slightly different form from that used as the title, and it may include variations."). Jakew (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This topic and article seem to go beyond "laws about male circumcision." A law doesn't have to be explicitly "about" something to prohibit it. Is it clear whether a law prohibiting non-therapeutic surgery on minors is a law about circumcision? It seems like it would be a matter of opinion. Would we have to wait until a court decided it was so in the case of circumcision to include mention of that law in this article? Perhaps "laws explicitly regarding or viewed as regarding male circumcision" is what this article is about. But I think "circumcision and law" sums up what this article is about -- laws that exist that specifically and explicitly relate to circumcision, as well as the relevant views and activities of those performing an analysis of existing laws and relating them to circumcision. Blackworm (talk) 10:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

External Links

The list of external links has a non-neutral tag on it. What is the problem and how could it be remedied? Michael Glass (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that, with a couple of exceptions, all of the links are to authors arguing that circumcision either is or should be illegal. This doesn't fit well with WP:EL#Avoid undue weight on particular points of view, which states: "On articles with multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views...". We've discussed this previously at #External links violate NPOV and #Neutrality, but (evidently) we haven't resolved the issue. I can think of two basic solutions that would achieve balance: in short, adding links or removing links. I've tidied up this section somewhat, but the problem remains.

(Actually, there's only one exception now that I've removed the inexplicable Remondino link, which as far as I can tell has nothing to do with the subject of this article.) Jakew (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Edited "History" regarding Genesis 17:12 reference

I edited the "History" section to clear up the translation of the Genesis 17:12 Bible scripture and its application to the law dictated by Antoninus Pius:

Antoninus Pius permitted Jews to circumcise their own sons. However, it forbade the circumcision of non-Jews that were either foreign-slaves or members of the household, which is contrary to Genesis 17:12 It also made it illegal for a man to convert to Judaism. Antoninus Pius exempted the Egyptian priesthood from the otherwise universal ban on circumcision. (the clarification is in bold).

Thank you. MattFoley Motivational Speaker (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible source

The following was added to the Circumcision article by 131.217.6.9 (talk · contribs) but was reverted; it might be useful here:

"In June 2009 the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute released an Issues Paper which investigated the legality of circumcision in Tasmania (Australia). The Issues Paper, which received national media coverage, concluded that the law relating to circumcision was uncertain. A copy of the paper is available at: [17]"

☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sweden's 2001 law

A recent addition of mine was reverted for being opinions about the practice, rather than opinions about the law and as such, off-topic. Fair enough. But the opinion of Swedish health care practitioners is intimately connected with the controversy over this law. The 2001 law prohibiting circumcision without a physician or anaesthesiologist present wouldn't have been as controversial if it weren't coupled with the fact that few physicians and anaesthesiologists are willing to perform non-therapeutic circumcision. Because of their stance, another law was recently mulled which would have prohibited physicians from refusing to perform circumcision, so that the 2001 law wouldn't constitute a de facto banning of circumcision. See [18] or [19] for example.

If Swedish physicians had been more favourably inclined toward circumcision I doubt the 2001 law would have been as controversial. If I expanded the section (explicitly citing sources regarding opinions, of course) to clarify this, would it still be off-topic? Gabbe (talk) 10:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In principle I've no objection, but it isn't entirely clear to me how this material can be added without performing original research. If any reliable sources explicitly make the same argument (that the stance of physicians led to or exacerbated the controversy over the law) then it would seem entirely reasonable to cite them. Jakew (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Since I do have sources explicitly connecting reluctance among medical personnel with criticism of the law, I'll re-add the content in line with what those sources say. Gabbe (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Jakew (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There. I've added an expanded version. Are more references required? Gabbe (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

proposed change

i propose the following changes to teh article in regard to UK law and want feedback, if i dont get any i will ask admin if i may make the changed anyway

1) the page says this "In 2005 a Muslim man had his son circumcised against the wishes of the child's mother who was the custodial parent. He was found not guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm by a majority verdict of the jury."

In the UK juries only decide matters of fact and never matters of law which makes this point irrelivant. In adition the source is a broken link which in effect means no source is given for these reasons i want to delete this point.

2) the page has a comment about the human rights act but this is within a paragraph talking about another point of law

I wish to move this to a seperate paragraph as it is a whole point of law in its own right because the human rights act is considered to be the equivilant to constitutional law in the UK

3) One of the paragrahs reads the following "circumcision in Britain required the consent of all those with parental responsibility, or.......(I do not dispute the rest)" this is incorrect because this comment is what is know as "obiter dicta" which in english means something said by the way. this means it is not legally binding.

I think this comment should remain in the article but I would like to add the fact that this comment is not binding law —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.163.100 (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me address these in order:

1) I sympathise with your desire to adopt a narrower scope for the article. I made a similar argument in #Data from Oregon court case; however, the apparent consensus was that this article can contain almost any material pertaining to laws or court cases relating to circumcision. I believe this to be a mistake, but a greater mistake would be to apply it inconsistently in only one part of the article. I see what you mean about the link: we can change it to CIRP's reprint here.

2) I don't object to moving it to a separate paragraph.

3) This seems like original research. Jakew (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

regarding your reply to point 3 I believe that it is not original reaserch, All of the information already posted has been extracted from the case, My point also come direct from the case because the judge clearly mentions it but then comes to a conclusion which goes against the comment (causing it to be "obiter"). original reaserch would be to read a journal article on the case and use that as a base for commenting on the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.163.100 (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This eventually led to the Maccabean Revolt

re: History Section -- King Antiochus IV, of Syria, the occupying power of Judea in 170 BC, outlawed circumcision on penalty of death. This eventually led to the Maccabean Revolt.[citation needed]

I would suggest a rewording of this claim -- see Elias J.Bickerman _Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees_ Schocken 1962 http://www.houseofdavid.ca/maccabee.htm “At the end of the year 167 B.C.E., approximately in December, by order of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, King of Syria and so ruler of the Jews, the Temple on Zion was desecrated and given over to the uses of idolatry. At the same time the Law of Moses was rescinded by a decree of the King. Observance of the commandments of the Torah, such as circumcision and the sanctification of Sabbath and New Moon, was made a capital offense. In addition, the Jews were required to worship the gods of the Gentiles. Altars were erected to these gods in every locality, and the populace was commanded to offer sacrifice to the new deities. It was the pig, precisely the animal regarded by the Jews as unclean, that was the most acceptable offering to these gods." Historys Docs (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

$\infty$ proposes that the two unsourced sentences -- "King Antiochus IV, of Syria, the occupying power of Judea in 170 BC, outlawed circumcision on penalty of death. This eventually led to the Maccabean Revolt." [citation needed]-- be taken out of the article because no Contributor has documented the claim with a citation during one year of citation request.

POV Detective (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• $\infty$ requests any User who would revert the elimination of the above sentences to weigh in on the issue at this point.

POV Detective (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• No one objecting, $\infty$ has changed the two unsupported sentences as follows: "Someone claims that King Antiochus IV, of Syria, the occupying power of Judea in 170 BC, outlawed circumcision on penalty of death, leading to the Maccabean Revolt." In time, if not supported by evidence, the statement should be deleted.

$\infty$ $\infty$ $\infty$ POV Detective (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added a citation to I Maccabees 16, where this issue is listed among various other grievances. Nandesuka (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

$\infty$ Citation does not support the broad claim. The relevant section of I Maccabees reads, "41 Then the king wrote to his whole kingdom that all should be one people, 42 each abandoning his particular customs. All the Gentiles conformed to the command of the king, 43 and many Israelites were in favor of his religion; they sacrificed to idols and profaned the sabbath. 44 The king sent messengers with letters to Jerusalem and to the cities of Judah, ordering them to follow customs foreign to their land; 45 to prohibit holocausts, sacrifices, and libations in the sanctuary, to profane the sabbaths and feast days, 46 to desecrate the sanctuary and the sacred ministers, 47 to build pagan altars and temples and shrines, to sacrifice swine and unclean animals, 48 to leave their sons uncircumcised, and to let themselves be defiled with every kind of impurity and abomination, 49 so that they might forget the law and change all their observances. 50 Whoever refused to act according to the command of the king should be put to death. 51 Such were the orders he published throughout his kingdom. He appointed inspectors over all the people, and he ordered the cities of Judah to offer sacrifices, each city in turn. 52 Many of the people, those who abandoned the law, joined them and committed evil in the land. 53 Israel was driven into hiding, wherever places of refuge could be found. 54 On the fifteenth day of the month Chislev, in the year one hundred and forty-five, the king erected the horrible abomination upon the altar of holocausts, and in the surrounding cities of Judah they built pagan altars. 55 They also burnt incense at the doors of houses and in the streets. 56 Any scrolls of the law which they found they tore up and burnt. 57 Whoever was found with a scroll of the covenant, and whoever observed the law, was condemned to death by royal decree. 58 So they used their power against Israel, against those who were caught, each month, in the cities. 59 On the twenty-fifth day of each month they sacrificed on the altar erected over the altar of holocausts. 60 Women who had had their children circumcised were put to death, in keeping with the decree, 61 with the babies hung from their necks; their families also and those who had circumcised them were killed. 62 But many in Israel were determined and resolved in their hearts not to eat anything unclean; 63 they preferred to die rather than to be defiled with unclean food or to profane the holy covenant; and they did die. Terrible affliction was upon Israel."

$\infty$ $\infty$ $\infty$ POV Detective (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

$\infty$ Accordingly, change made to point out an unverified & overbroad statement. $\infty$ $\infty$ $\infty$

POV Detective (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• $\infty$ notes that the Reverter & Co. on the Ethics article hold self to a lower citation integrity on this article.

$\infty$ $\infty$ $\infty$ POV Detective (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• $\infty$ The cited verses from the Holy Bible don't support the assertions of fact. $\infty$

POV Detective (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI Notice

The disruptive editing on this article has been raised at WP:ANI#User:POV Detective engaged in disruptive editing on circumcision-related topics. If you agree or disagree with the claims, your comments are welcome there. -- Avi (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• $\infty$ Good luck with your half-cocked accusations. $\infty$

POV Detective (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Two years later

It seems we still have a dispute, as the article remained with material about female circumcision over those two years before this edit precipitated the current round of edits in support of one view or another. Clearly this article is about the legal aspects of all circumcision, not just male circumcision. Or, maybe it's not clear. What clear is that a dispute exists, and apparently few neutral parties exist care to weigh in. Blackworm (talk) 08:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, 2½ years later, not a word on the topic since it was last discussed in March 2008 (see archives for details). Discussions aren't forever, nor are tags (particularly weird non-standard ones), and the recent proposed move discussions at Talk:Circumcision have made it quite clear that the topic "Circumcision" usually refers to circumcision of the penis. Back-door methods of trying impose a POV that the Wikipedia community has rejected are disruptive. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

$\infty$ requests documentation of the user's accusation about "back-door methods."

POV Detective (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, two and a half years of the article containing material on male and female circumcision with no one objecting nor removing the female circumcision material. Now you are trying to use the lack of consensus in one article as evidence of a consensus on this one, in order to edit this article as if a consensus exists. It's an easy fallacy to see through. Blackworm (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, you couldn't get the Circumcision article to be about both topics (Talk:Circumcision#Requested move), others couldn't get its sub-article Circumcision controversies to be about both topics (Talk:Circumcision controversies#Requested move), you tried out the same refuted arguments at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Genital integrity, now you're trying to get another sub-article, Circumcision and law to be about both topics. No, I don't think this back-door is open either. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I stopped reading at "you couldn't get the Circumcision article..." Blackworm (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that was a bit inaccurate. More accurately, you couldn't push the POV that "circumcision" commonly refers to circumcision of the penis and female genital cutting at the Circumcision article (Talk:Circumcision#Requested move), others couldn't push this POV at its sub-article Circumcision controversies (Talk:Circumcision controversies#Requested move), you tried out the same refuted arguments at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Genital integrity, now you're trying to get another sub-article, Circumcision and law, to push this POV. No, I don't think this back-door is open either. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This time, I stopped reading at "push the POV." Please see my further response below. Blackworm (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fine; my point will stand undisputed then. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You have no valid point I can see, your main argument being predicated on things not shown to be true by the diffs you provide (i.e., "[...] a POV that the Wikipedia community has rejected [...]"), and on incivil, unsupported accusations of POV pushing. Please accept that there is no consensus for this change to this article, despite what others have argued on another page, and despite what I argue on another page (drawing no apparent consensus for or against my arguments, as verified by the closing admin). Blackworm (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The consensus was that in common and academic usage "circumcision" alone signifies "circumcision of the penis"; you disagreed with that consensus, and obviously continue to do so, as is your right. However, you cannot attempt to implement your dissenting view unilaterally on this page. Feel free, however, to propose moving this sub-article of Circumcision to Male circumcision and law, though I doubt you'll get far with that. By the way, "incivil" isn't a word, the word is "uncivil". It's confusing, I know, because "incivility" is the proper form (not "uncivility"), but that's English for you. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No, there was no such consensus, as proven by the very statement from the closing admin you bring. I'm not proposing to move this article, I'm defending its current consensus, i.e. that it is about circumcision, which applies to males and females according to the most basic sources, against the recent edits that attempt to bypass the discussion and consensus, that latter based on highly contested interpretations of disputes in other articles. By the way thank you for the attempt at an English lesson. It turns out you're only partially correct on "incivil."[20] [21] I use obscure words! I confess. Blackworm (talk) 03:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, 11 editors with a combined total of over 358,000 live edits supported the view that "circumcision" commonly means "circumcision of the penis", while 5 editors with a combined total of over 63,000 live edits opposed that view, and 3 editors were neutral or unclear. So yeah, there was a consensus for that view, and the admin's closing statement in no way supported your contention. And I'm fully correct on "incivil" too; it's not "obscure", it's at best "archaic". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not know what a "live edit" is, nor do I endorse your !vote count as accurate or relevant.

My understanding is that if the closing admin had found those things to be true and relevant, and discussion indicative of a new consensus in that article, I believe they would have been instructed by policy to specifically say so in their closing statement. I will go as far as to say that should the closing admin in the circumcision WP:RM edit their closing statement in such a way as to claim the discussion indicated a specific consensus among editors that "circumcision" means the same thing as "male circumcision", then I will abide by the change in scope and related edits here in this article. I would be surprised, however, given the quality and quantity of supporting arguments and their cited sources. Blackworm (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

A "live edit" is an edit that has not been deleted. The count is both accurate and relevant; feel free to propose a different number. Closing admins only rule on whether or not there is a consensus for the proposal in front of them, which was to move the article, and for which there is no consensus. There is no obligation on their part to rule on other items. Nor was there a need to, given the overwhelming consensus, both in raw numbers and in the vastly superior quality of arguments, that "circumcision" commonly refers to "circumcision of the penis". Jayjg ^(talk) 12:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no wonder! Since most of my edits are in Talk, which get archives, and it contentious articles pitted against groups of editwarriors, I don't have much respect for that statistic. And you can repeat "overwhelming consensus" but that's not what the closing admin found, so it just makes you look rather disruptive. Your comment clearly contradicts WP:RM, which states, "If there is a clear consensus after this time, the request will be closed and acted upon. [Emphasis mine. -BW, late edit] If not, the closer may choose to re-list the request to allow time for consensus to develop, or close it as 'no consensus'." The third option is what happened. Blackworm (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

First, a "live edit" is any edit you've ever made, unless the page itself has been deleted. Not archived. The numbers are accurate. You currently have just under 4400 live edits, and a grand total of 14 deleted edits. Second, the admin was asked to move the article from "Circumcision" to "Male circumcision", and found there was no consensus for that move. He was not asked to rule on anything else, nor did he do so. Anything else you need to be corrected on? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not ask loaded questions. Again, please read the quoted text of WP:RM. Using that result of one failure to gain consensus to argue that a new consensus exists on a different question is plainly disingenuous. Blackworm (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As Jayjg explained, the admin closing a RM considers whether there is a consensus to perform the requested move. In other words, it is optional whether (s)he even considers whether there is a consensus not to move. Furthermore, it is unclear why you've emphasised "and acted upon" — the correct action in the case of a consensus not to move would be not moving the page. Jakew (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Quote policy in support of your interpretation. Quote where an uninvolved admin stated there was consensus on the entire issue of naming all circumcision-related articles with "circumcision" if male and "female genital cutting" if female? Blackworm (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And please explain how "not" taking action is an action. As it happens, it is the same "action" that occurred because of a lack of consensus to move the page, as directly explained by the closing editor in their closing comments. Hmmm. Talk about not analyzing a problem very well, and making clear logical jumps. Blackworm (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. That's why it is unclear why you've emphasised "and acted upon". Jakew (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I emphasized it to make clear that actions may only be taken following a dispute brought to a wider community if a consensus is found in that process. As no consensus was found, and as you are pointing to that discussion as a mandate to take action, it seems clear your well-acquainted group's actions violate policy. Blackworm (talk) 08:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again, as Jayjg has explained, there was no consensus to move. That doesn't mean that there wasn't any consensus. It's an important distinction. Jakew (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't mean there is, which is your argument and his. Provide evidence that an uninvolved admin found a consensus to edit the articles in the way you're defending here, or admit that no such consensus exists. It's as simple as that. Blackworm (talk) 11:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, if I understand you correctly, you are arguing that the material as it exists is against consensus, because issues of neutrality on a different, related article are disputed without a consensus on either position being reached. I disagree with that assessment. I invite you to follow dispute resolution should you continue to insist on yours and Jakew's recent disputed changes against long-standing material. Blackworm (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Blackworm. Whenever you try to make an argument on my behalf, it is inevitably an argument I haven't actually made, so please don't try to do so in the future. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't see any other interpretation of your position that is consistent with the facts as I view them, and so I asked for clarification. I was not attempting to make an argument on your behalf. Blackworm (talk) 00:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want to understand my position on something, ask what it is, without positing any arguments on my behalf. For example, if you find yourself typing "you are arguing" or similar phrases, realize at that point that you are positing an argument on my behalf. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I chose my words carefully in this instance and used the words "if I understand you correctly" to specifically clarify that I am attempting to understand your argument, not misrepresent it. If you have some issue with that, take it to whatever official forum suits you; but I'm sorry, I will continue to use such language and attempt to understand arguments I feel have no valid basis by attempting to summarize the arguments in light of facts, rather than the non-facts presented in others' actual arguments. Blackworm (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You will do what you like, of course, but please remember that whenever you try to make an argument on my behalf, it is inevitably an argument I haven't actually made. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. And whenever you drive a Ford Pinto to the moon, you will inevitably find cream cheese in your socks. Blackworm (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the infamous Chewbacca defense. Well, it's as good as your other arguments. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed you would infer that I was claiming your most recent second order logic argument to be flawed. You claim for all A (instances of me trying to make an argument on your behalf), B (the argument I'm making has not been made by you) is true. By stating that here, you imply that truth of that statement ("for all A, B") implies there exists an A, without actually ever showing any evidence that there exists an A, which is a separate statement requiring a separate argument, and one I maintain you have not made. I attempted to present this fallacy to you by replacing A with something highly improbable or never shown to have occurred (instances of you driving a Ford Pinto to the moon), and showing that even if it were true that in every such instance you would find cream cheese in your shoes, it wouldn't necessarily be true that any instances of you flying to the moon in a Pinto exist. Blackworm (talk) 05:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As has been discussed at Circumcision for years, the term overwhelmingly refers to the removal of the foreskin on males, outside of pockets of activists trying to conflate female genital cutting with circumcision in order to further a particular political viewpoint. Please do not use these articles as a proxy for political activism. -- Avi (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As not "discussed," but argued by some and incorrectly and repeatedly simply treated as consensus (inappropriately) in the face of opposition. In both cases, and in both articles, a consensus never reached, so the same material editors variously call "off-topic" or "non-neutral" remains in the article. Same old names, in all related articles, same old lack of consensus being mislabeled a concensus, and that mislabel used to justify personal attacks ("political activism"). Welcome back Avi I was wondering where you were. How's Coppertwig doing? By the way, I have been meaning to ask you, do you know how an editor would go about asking the Wikipedia Foundation whether they would consider verifying whether a given statement made by a Wikipedia administrator regarding the state of that administrator's account at a given time are true, based on technical means available to the Foundation? A kind of "checkuser" for highly suspicious statements, if you wish. If you wish, answer on my talk page, please. Blackworm (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Good to see you too, Blackworm . I have not spoken to Coppertwig in months, so I have no idea as to C-twig's status. C-twig's contribution report lists edits as of August 8, 2010 so, I presume all is well. -- Avi (talk) 02:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: the edit summary in your denial that a dispute exists on this issue[22], I wholeheartedly agree. I am involved in three disputes right now, with overlapping editors, and in every case others have repeated reverted to their non-consensus edit and I have left it alone pending dispute resolution. Editwarring is truly to be avoided. Thank you for the vote of confidence, though I am curious as to how that is related in any way to your edit, since the latter seems to further the editwarring in light of the facts in this dispute. Please explain how you believe that these edits are not disputed, despite my disputing them here. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't see the apparent irony in your words considering I had just self-reverted all of my edits related to this dispute? The article now stands with many, many new edits that do not have consensus, in every single case in the version you, Jayjg and Jakew prefer. Who is editwarring, again? Blackworm (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This article was originally about circumcision. In mid-2007 User:Falcanary expanded the article to include a small section on Female genital cutting in Egypt,[23] as part of a general re-structuring and addition of material to the article. The fact that this small section, at the very bottom of the article, was not noticed in all the changes, is unsurprising, but it's not something you can really cite as "consensus". Please also note that Falcanary has a total of 410 edits, and hasn't edited since August 2007. When editors decided to try to clarify what this article was actually and originally about, you stymied them. That you've single-handedly imposed your will on this article for over 2½ years, by edit-warring[24][25][26][27] is a testament to something, I suppose, but it's also not something you can really cite as "consensus". This article is a sub-article of Circumcision, and the consensus about the title and scope of the article have recently been clarified, again. A sub-article cannot have a scope outside that of its parent article. This sub-article is now being brought in line with its parent, and returned to its original purpose and meaning. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This article seems to be originally about male circumcision indeed (I will assume from now on that by "circumcision" you mean what I call "male circumcision). But that fact does not imply a consensus, neither here nor in circumcision, for any change in scope in any article. Editors did indeed change the scope of this article years ago. Now you want to change it back, and you don't apparently (yet) have a consensus. Since you seem to repeat that a new consensus was found, and I seem to repeat there there is no evidence a new consensus was found, it seems we are arguing in circles. Perhaps we could begin by asking the closing admin on the recent matter you link their opinion regarding whether a relevant new consensus here was found in that RM discussion? Would you support that effort? Blackworm (talk) 06:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

A summary: The fact that the first editor wrote the whole article that way doesn't mean its original organization currently has a consensus. Eventual silence in the discussion the last time this was disputed seems to have indicated consent, at least at that time and during those years, for the material about female circumcision in this article and thus the article's more inclusive scope. That discussion had a notice at the top of the article and was visible on this page for years. No one else seemed to object to the scope of this article (circumcision, both male and female). After this latest stirring of the dispute precipitated by the removal of the discussion tag, Jayjg editted the auto-archiving parameters to be much more restrictive[28], and after I returned to the discussion, moved my most recent comment out of it,[29] causing me to begin a new section and lack context for my statements, and causing the discussion to be archived. (How many times have you edited my Talk comments against my repeatedly stated wishes now, Jayjg? Four? Five?) No archive link or indeed any indication that prior discussion existed before it was archived was added by Jayjg. (I added one just now.[30]) The note at the top of the article before this started up again was clear about the dispute; anyone with an opinion was free to comment on the discussion before that discussion was essentially removed from this page by editors who failed to find a consensus for the changes last time, and apparently saw no reason for its further discussion.

Anyway, here is a summary of my objections to the recent reduction in scope in this article (for which I posted a "disputed" tag, but the tag was removed by Avraham (Avi)): One party failing to gain consensus for a WP:RM in a related article does not indicate the consensus claimed by some members of the opposing, more numerous party in that dispute to have the scope of this article changed in such a way as to restrict it (and consequently edit removing multiple sections in support of the new restricted scope). This, especially in the absence of a consensus against the view in circumcision that failed to gain consensus, and a longstanding prominent notice at the top of the article that its current scope (male and female) was in dispute. The consensus claimed is necessary to appropriately make these significant new changes, and reverting all contrary edits, as no other basis for the changes has been brought. Further, there is no consensus (nor is one explicitly claimed, except by reversion) for the removal of the more official tag indicating a lack of consensus on the disputed edits in this article. From reading policy, I get the impression this isn't how Wikipedia works, but I am willing to be shown wrong through more escalated dispute resolution. Let's indeed find consensus in related content disputes if we can't find it in the "main" article. Blackworm (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that I find this repeated reintroduction of the (resolved) circumcision RM issue to be disruptive. I suggest that it's time to drop it and move on. Jakew (talk) 09:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

So do I. Blackworm, consensus was against you at the RM, and is against you here too. The reason I didn't add an archive link and search box to this Talk: page was because one already existed at the top of the page; here is what the Talk: page looked like immediately before you redundantly added a second archive box and search box. And I didn't edit your comments, I moved the header of the new section to the bottom of the article where it belonged. Please stop trying to re-write history, and get on with discussing proposed changes to this article. Now, why is it that you think this sub-article, Circumcision and law, should have a much broader scope than its parent article, Circumcision? Jayjg ^(talk) 12:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Your facts are wrong (e.g., "consensus"), your invalid argument crumbles before its premise is even shown to be true. Blackworm (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my "facts are wrong"? So, you didn't insert a second archive link and search box to a page that already had one? How odd, the page history says otherwise. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You are correct about that (I am used to seeing the separate archive box, which is easier to notice). I stand corrected on that. But you are incorrect regarding the non-trivial matter of claiming a new consensus where none was certified. Blackworm (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus does not need to be formally "certified" for it to exist; there is no "Wikipedia Consensus Certification Board". Now, rather than wasting time continually arguing against the blindingly obvious consensus at a different article, please explain why is it that you think this sub-article of Circumcision should have a much broader scope than its parent? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, a loaded question, with an incorrect assumption. Take it to dispute resolution. Blackworm (talk) 06:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

As for your other claim regarding this article, made in Talk:Circumcision:[31] "As for that other article, someone has finally undone the changes non-consensual changes you've edit-warred for many months to keep in it." That seems a provably false statement. This most recent flare-up of this dispute (August 2010) (i.e. in this article, Circumcision and law, which is what presume you meant by "that other article" -- precision would be appreciated in the future), has three disputing the current version (you, Jakew, and Avraham). Before this recent flare-up, I had not edited the other article since October 2008, where I made this edit.[32] In that time, where I had been the last to attempt to continue the now "stale" discussion as clearly no consensus emerged, there were over 160 edits made to the article, including several by Jakew and Avraham. I don't accept that the version that reflects one disputed answer to a dispute that happens to be on display in one article, even a so-called "parent" article, can ever indicate a priori a "consensus" to edit another article a certain way, merely because one more formal attempt to resolve one aspect of the dispute resulted in no consensus.

Finally, "parent article" is an imprecise phrase. Is Law also a parent article of this article? What about the Genital modification and mutilation article? Is that the parent article of both circumcision and female circumcision? Is male circumcision/circumcision also the parent article of female circumcision? I'd appreciate precise answers to these questions, in the form "yes" or "no.") Blackworm (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I would advise you to drop it at this point, Blackworm. Jakew (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I would advise you to only respond if you have a point to make against the arguments made, not because you are pushing disputed edits that happen to stand current in articles and have run out of other arguments. Why don't you drop it? You're certainly ten times the POV fixture here than I am, unshakable despite support from other POV fixutres like Avraham and Jayjg, no matter your policy violations, harassment, and ownership of all articles related to the promotional website you ran until Wikipedia served its purpose better. Blackworm (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

A reminder here seems necessary: discuss content, not the contributor. Jakew (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you call, "I would advise you to drop it at this point, Blackworm." See the post above your attack, where content is discussed. Blackworm (talk) 08:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• $\infty$ notes that Blackworm's logical arguments appear to elicit very emotional reactions from his Interlocutors.

POV Detective (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"POV Detective," your commentary is not helpful. Blackworm (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

$\infty$ On the contrary, it's moving the conversation along like a stagecoach with old mules in the harness.

$\infty$ $\infty$ $\infty$ POV Detective (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are suggesting you are here to impede discussion, you should note that that is inappropriate in Wikipedia. Also, your non-conforming formatting of text and insertion of multiple redlinks makes pages difficult to read, and since you have been told about this already, continuing to do so can be viewed as disruption. Please attend to that matter. Thanks. Blackworm (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

$\infty$ Please don't put words in my mouth, such as "suggesting you are here to impede discussion." I'm here to hold these articles to the highest standards of academic scholarship. Some apparently are uncomfortable with that standard. The redlink problem had been resolved before you mentioned it. $\infty$ $\infty$ $\infty$

POV Detective (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it hadn't, as the version of this page at the time I wrote the above reflects. The current version also had redlinks you seem to have added. Since your misstatements now leads me to believe you're not discussing honestly, I choose not to address your other comments. Blackworm (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

$\infty$ It's an overstatement for a red eye oversight to be characterized as "not discussing honestly." $\infty$ btw, no strong case can be made for Female Circumcision to be a focus in this English language article or the Ethics article. $\infty$

POV Detective (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

A strong case is and has been made, trivially, for as long as this article is entitled, "circumcision." Blackworm (talk) 08:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)